FAS42, you would find it hard to follow the data through the system as it would be carried in packets (ref your earlier post) plus it will be at different voltages levels throughout its journey, though these would still equate to either a 1 or a 0.
Second if noise is so dependant on how a file is played back, I would get my system repaired or at least get a power supply that is up to the job.
Second if noise is so dependant on how a file is played back, I would get my system repaired or at least get a power supply that is up to the job.
Yes, linking to irrelevant hand-waves seems to be the best that many can do. Hey, the sun may have changed position as well!
Now since you're making an extraordinary claim, let's see some actual evidence- play a file twice, record the bit outputs, and show how they're different. Now do the same with the analog output (which is the thing that actually counts).
Tastes like Ripple
Thanks for the link. As the post immediately after it says, no scientific basis without a double blind test. I gave a rough idea of what that would entail in a prior post. This was one man, preparing the samples, knowing how each one had been prepared, and then listening to the different samples. It's a perfect setup for expectation bias. When the poster says, "he was not fooling himself" the poster doth protest too much. At the very least a third party should have slipped a duplicate in with the samples. I bet that one would have had more or less air, detail, weight, precociousness with a sharp finish...I swear audio reviews borrow adjectives from wine tasting.
My setup is at the point that the biggest thing between me and the music is the sound engineer, what he thinks the public wants to hear: reverb, "presence", EQ, all kinds of toys in the booth I wish I could rip out. Next are the microphones. Delve into the physics of those and despair. Any time an energy changes form, including A-D and D-A. And of course speakers. Huge. Amps are actually down the list, but for some reason big waves from little waves is still a problem. With all these problems, at least movement of digitized music isn't.
Thanks for the link. As the post immediately after it says, no scientific basis without a double blind test. I gave a rough idea of what that would entail in a prior post. This was one man, preparing the samples, knowing how each one had been prepared, and then listening to the different samples. It's a perfect setup for expectation bias. When the poster says, "he was not fooling himself" the poster doth protest too much. At the very least a third party should have slipped a duplicate in with the samples. I bet that one would have had more or less air, detail, weight, precociousness with a sharp finish...I swear audio reviews borrow adjectives from wine tasting.
My setup is at the point that the biggest thing between me and the music is the sound engineer, what he thinks the public wants to hear: reverb, "presence", EQ, all kinds of toys in the booth I wish I could rip out. Next are the microphones. Delve into the physics of those and despair. Any time an energy changes form, including A-D and D-A. And of course speakers. Huge. Amps are actually down the list, but for some reason big waves from little waves is still a problem. With all these problems, at least movement of digitized music isn't.
You still have not understood my post . 2+2 is not 4 in the part of the world
you live because you are not at the same place "in spatial and temporal senses" ?
I really don´t get it. Idendentical files played on different hardware sound different, and the conclusion is the files are different ?
This is really a waste of time... Goodbye.
Agree! But I will use one last analogy before I too go away. If you have digital version of a book (say a pdf). You copy across the network, from your drive to your usb, whatever, are you saying that I could end up with a book that somehow is different from a previous copy of the digital book? If a binary comparison of the two book copies says the two are the same, you are implying that somehow when you compare the two books page by page, character by character that somehow one of the two copies is somehow "different"? That one copy will have more blanks between words, or more pages, or different letters in different places? If they do then they are not the same file.
I think what you are claiming is that two exact copies of the same book when read by two different readers may not come out the same (different inflection, emphasis, voice level, accent, whatever). This is 100% true, but it has nothing to do with the fact that the two copies of the book are exactly the same! It has to do with what you do with the book *after* you receive your exact copy.
It the above was not true Amazon, Barnes & Noble and the whole scientific publication business would have gone bankrupt a long time ago, not to mention the internet or computers would not exists because they proved to be too unreliable for everyday use...
palmito, they are impervious to analogies, their mind is made up, no amount of plain vanilla/elementary logic will change their mind, yet the only proof they have is some guy said so and they (some) carried out their own sighted and completely unscientific tests that agree (some agreed, not all) with the conclusion. or they are just trolls, which actually would be better for you IMO Frank. at the moment it just seems lunacy.
the whole 'audio bits are special' thing is completely weird, yet it seems to be the idea being put forward. systems that need to be bit-perfect to keep people alive are beamed around the planet without a care that the signal is being copied from atom to atom (at subatomic level) and constantly varying voltage levels are consistently interpreted correctly as 0's or 1's out in orbit amongst the extreme radio waves, solar winds and EMI
the whole 'audio bits are special' thing is completely weird, yet it seems to be the idea being put forward. systems that need to be bit-perfect to keep people alive are beamed around the planet without a care that the signal is being copied from atom to atom (at subatomic level) and constantly varying voltage levels are consistently interpreted correctly as 0's or 1's out in orbit amongst the extreme radio waves, solar winds and EMI
Last edited:
"I'll reread it and restore my faith in the cupidity of the high end audio press and the gullibility of their readers." ~Sy
This is really a waste of time... Goodbye." ~gk7
Yes, if your goal is to educate the stubborn, you'll be disappointed. Further in that HifiCritic forum they are democratizing the same test with file transfers to members. Once they're told the files are different, of course they'll hear them as different. This reminds me of a grad-level course experiment I performed. The professor said it almost always works perfectly and it did. Entice a dozen grad students with drink. Take one drink that stinks but has a big name, and one that is delicious but has a disrespected or no name. Without the labels the subjects rate to taste. With the labels the subjects rate to name. They disbelieve their own taste buds, inches from their brains, and believe the marketing they've seen somewhere, maybe TV, magazines, etc. They do this even though they catch on immediately that we're manipulating them. The graph is called the X graph. It is the triumph of marketing over reality. It sells brand name asprin, lager beer (don't start, blind tastes tests prove all pale lagers indistinguishable), all kinds of things that aren't really different.
The study of marketing research is like getting de-hypnotized. I'm glad I am. Those without the benefit keep the economy going and finance football games.
Scott
This is really a waste of time... Goodbye." ~gk7
Yes, if your goal is to educate the stubborn, you'll be disappointed. Further in that HifiCritic forum they are democratizing the same test with file transfers to members. Once they're told the files are different, of course they'll hear them as different. This reminds me of a grad-level course experiment I performed. The professor said it almost always works perfectly and it did. Entice a dozen grad students with drink. Take one drink that stinks but has a big name, and one that is delicious but has a disrespected or no name. Without the labels the subjects rate to taste. With the labels the subjects rate to name. They disbelieve their own taste buds, inches from their brains, and believe the marketing they've seen somewhere, maybe TV, magazines, etc. They do this even though they catch on immediately that we're manipulating them. The graph is called the X graph. It is the triumph of marketing over reality. It sells brand name asprin, lager beer (don't start, blind tastes tests prove all pale lagers indistinguishable), all kinds of things that aren't really different.
The study of marketing research is like getting de-hypnotized. I'm glad I am. Those without the benefit keep the economy going and finance football games.
Scott
No, it's not. There are people who sell this kind of thing (there's at least three participating in this thread). There are people who are relentlessly stupid (no comment). One can't make any headway with either. Instead, the goal is to leave enough bits of reality here so that other people who are reading this can get the implications of these ridiculous claims and not be sucked in by the vehemence of the former and the sincerity of the latter, but rather can apply simple common sense and daily experience (your computer works, CNC machines work, MRI imagers work, satellites work...).
Don't be silly. You know (or ought to know) that is not the issue. Same bits with same timing feeding the same playback equipment will sound the same. I omitted the underlined part because I assumed that we all assumed that would be true. This 'debate' is about digital storage, not digital playback. Play the same bits through a different system and of course it might sound different.fas42 said:
oh but no, thats the baffling thing, these guys are saying that they are not the same bits, because they are sent at a different time, from a different disk; thus metaphysically are different and contain different low level digital broadband noise (whatever the hell that is) which sounds different. confusing I know, mixing up different electrical conditions with different interpretations of the same code....
sounds like endless years of tweaking fun though right?
only the best, most transparent equipment is prone to these high end effects
sounds like endless years of tweaking fun though right?
only the best, most transparent equipment is prone to these high end effects
Last edited:
They have to drag in metaphysics in a vain attempt to divert attention from the weak state of their physics/maths/information theory. Do they not know how astonishingly silly they sound? We pay our taxes so people can have science lessons in school yet they turn out claiming that bit-identical data is not identical! Then we find, in the main, that their grasp of IT and electronics is such that they are in no position to pronounce an opinion at all.
It reminds me of a conversation I once had with a friend who was a dental technician. He assured me that quantum mechanics was all nonsense, presumably because it is rather counter-intuitive to someone with only a limited classical education in science. In which parallel universe do dental technicians know more about QM than physicists? Perhaps I should have told him how to go about making false teeth, as obviously a real-time software programmer (as I then was) knows much more about false teeth than a dental technician.
It reminds me of a conversation I once had with a friend who was a dental technician. He assured me that quantum mechanics was all nonsense, presumably because it is rather counter-intuitive to someone with only a limited classical education in science. In which parallel universe do dental technicians know more about QM than physicists? Perhaps I should have told him how to go about making false teeth, as obviously a real-time software programmer (as I then was) knows much more about false teeth than a dental technician.
a bit-identity crisis? in some quantum reality that zero actually wanted to be a one you think? Because we are all quantum machines in indeterminate time/space, how the hell can a bit be a certainty? Schrodinger's bit?
see the thing is, I gather most of these guys, the way they tell it, used to know things as we do, but over time with persistence, they were able to un-learn them...
funnily my physics teacher in highschool in 1990 was much the same as your Dentist tech friend, I was having some trouble with Maths B, not so much because I couldnt do it, but because nobody was able to show me how I was going to apply it to something that interested me, so solving for the sake of having the solution was losing its shine.
Quantum theory and chaos theory/math was just starting to be really explored. I could see this was the application I was looking for (one that appealed to a right brain creative thinker with a technical bent) but it was outside the curriculum and their knowledge, thus too much effort (and it/I and my questions clearly scared them a little) I had bought/borrowed some books on my own, but lets say this 16yr old had other things on his mind.
Anyway I didnt go on to study quantum theory, I went into digital imaging (starting/learning by myself on a mac at home, uni didnt really cater for such endeavor yet and the art community still didnt recognize it as 'real art' either)
but I digress, where were we? oh yeah bit schizophrenia
see the thing is, I gather most of these guys, the way they tell it, used to know things as we do, but over time with persistence, they were able to un-learn them...
funnily my physics teacher in highschool in 1990 was much the same as your Dentist tech friend, I was having some trouble with Maths B, not so much because I couldnt do it, but because nobody was able to show me how I was going to apply it to something that interested me, so solving for the sake of having the solution was losing its shine.
Quantum theory and chaos theory/math was just starting to be really explored. I could see this was the application I was looking for (one that appealed to a right brain creative thinker with a technical bent) but it was outside the curriculum and their knowledge, thus too much effort (and it/I and my questions clearly scared them a little) I had bought/borrowed some books on my own, but lets say this 16yr old had other things on his mind.
Anyway I didnt go on to study quantum theory, I went into digital imaging (starting/learning by myself on a mac at home, uni didnt really cater for such endeavor yet and the art community still didnt recognize it as 'real art' either)
but I digress, where were we? oh yeah bit schizophrenia
Last edited:
"They have to drag in metaphysics"
The word Metaphysics is misused here. Take it from a Philosophy major. The misuse is common. Guess we couldn't get them to call it pseudo science or illogic though.
"the goal is to leave enough bits of reality here so that other people who are reading this can get the implications of these ridiculous claims and not be sucked in"
I'm behind you 100% on that one. Yes, leaving claptrap unchallenged would be bad, so I can appreciate what you're trying to do, Sy.
Maybe all this got started because certain kinds of gear that test as equivalents do not sound like it. There are differences we don't have measurements for. I can buy the drivers used in a Salk Song Tower, but a DIY speaker I might make of the same ingredients? I'm not that good. Heck, a Taylor guitar made from Ovangkol or Sapele though made on the same jig sound different, and will diverge even more in a decade. Some say the same violin played by a master will sound better in a few years than one by a hack. YMMV
But really, transferring that kind of thinking to digital is inappropriate. The benefit of the translation is its enduring, replicable quality. The downside is that it IS a translation to and from analog, and so an approximation. We always try to get closer (you have to hear the Beatles remastered in 24bit flacs!), but perfection is elusive.
The word Metaphysics is misused here. Take it from a Philosophy major. The misuse is common. Guess we couldn't get them to call it pseudo science or illogic though.
"the goal is to leave enough bits of reality here so that other people who are reading this can get the implications of these ridiculous claims and not be sucked in"
I'm behind you 100% on that one. Yes, leaving claptrap unchallenged would be bad, so I can appreciate what you're trying to do, Sy.
Maybe all this got started because certain kinds of gear that test as equivalents do not sound like it. There are differences we don't have measurements for. I can buy the drivers used in a Salk Song Tower, but a DIY speaker I might make of the same ingredients? I'm not that good. Heck, a Taylor guitar made from Ovangkol or Sapele though made on the same jig sound different, and will diverge even more in a decade. Some say the same violin played by a master will sound better in a few years than one by a hack. YMMV
But really, transferring that kind of thinking to digital is inappropriate. The benefit of the translation is its enduring, replicable quality. The downside is that it IS a translation to and from analog, and so an approximation. We always try to get closer (you have to hear the Beatles remastered in 24bit flacs!), but perfection is elusive.
I am working on the Marcee Quantum Biterlizer at this very moment, this revolutionary device will clean the digital bits as they pass through it, removing any dross and other added noise from crappy PSU's, bad ripping etc, it does this at a quantum level leaving perfect bits of either a 0 or a 1.
Have fun
Oh still no reply to my question on how this noise could be recorded with the bit pattern...
Have fun
Oh still no reply to my question on how this noise could be recorded with the bit pattern...
I am working on the Marcee Quantum Biterlizer at this very moment, this revolutionary device will clean the digital bits as they pass through it, removing any dross and other added noise from crappy PSU's, bad ripping etc, it does this at a quantum level leaving perfect bits of either a 0 or a 1.
Have fun
Oh still no reply to my question on how this noise could be recorded with the bit pattern...
GB ??
the discussion will never ends because theory is theory, unknow part makes theory imperfect.
anybody could tell exactly:
1. what's the highest frequency human being could hear?
2. is human being's ear sensitive or AP?
3. what is the maxmium jitter that could be ignore by human being's ear?
......
anybody could tell exactly:
1. what's the highest frequency human being could hear?
2. is human being's ear sensitive or AP?
3. what is the maxmium jitter that could be ignore by human being's ear?
......
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.