The majority of errors happen during writes, especially when overwriting. Spending the majority of the time reading files shouldn't produce an error. In fact, equipment shouldn't ever produce an error.
Of course that is true.
But you are referring to equipment working properly.
That is certainly not not the same integrity as the equipment that's in use by whoever is noticing the difference in playback. You may expect that situation to worsen slowly, until data integrity and files are lost.
Last edited:
Of course, and ? The protocol usually used to send audio to usb receivers such as the TI pcm2*** (isochronous) is still sensitive to timing (to avoid overflow of the tiny buffer DAC side), while the protocol used for data transfer isn't (bulk). This article is a very good read, especially part 2: The Pitfalls of USB Isochronous Audio Data Transfer
The D/A diaries: A personal memoir of engineering heartache and triumph
You can have errors while moving files around, that happened to anyone I guess. Not too often to me in the last years I must say though. But how is that a similar problem to what is discussed ? That partially saved jpeg didn't have the same checksum as the original jpg, did it ? And usually, transfer errors don't subtly degrade files as it is claimed in this thread but rather in pretty obvious ways.
I stand by this: if a file is ripped to two different media, giving two files with identical cheksum, then those two files are perfectly identical and always will be such as long as there is no errors in transfer, errors that would be obvious with a single glance at the checksum.
You know I'm quite happy with my elitebook 6930p for now
Next computer will probably be the elitebook 8450p (if they keep the numbering system of course). I need the mobility of a laptop, can't afford a tower anymore.
Last edited:
That can depend on the file and file type.
For example:
If I change 1 bit in a text file, then I see a typo in the text.
Change one bit in a jpeg and it can cause a great gray bar to appear across the image. Not subtle.
Change 1 bit in a png file and you'll never see it.
Change 1 bit in a wave file and you may never hear it.
1 bad bit in a FLAC file can cause a pop or glitch.
But for the sort of continuous difference claimed from listening tests, quite a few bits would have to be changed, and all throughout the file.
Well, it depends. Years ago I ripped a CD with some rather unfortunate scratches and holes in the aluminum - I used EAC and it took at least a day or so to rip. The wave file was very playable, but I heard a few things in the first track that sounded like the ticks one often hears on LP's. I wondered if the track were actually a recording from an LP. I looked at it in a wave editor and zoomed in to what I heard - each tick was exactly ONE sample mispositioned - not at all what happens with an LP. These were apparently misreads and mis-recreations of the data on the CD.
There are editors that can edit one sample of a waveform, moving it up and down. Cool Edit 2000 is (was, it's now Adobe Audition) one - if you move a sample to the rail in a rather quiet passage, you can clearly hear it, though it's far from overwhelming (I just tried it). If the sample is only moved slightly, or is in the middle of a loud passage, it's harder to hear or pretty much inaudible.
But presuming random bits are altered, one out of 16 such alterations will be the most significant bit, and be as audible as I describe. Nothing I've heard in these descriptions of the altered sound is like thism like the small tick sounds on an LP.
If you altered a random bit out of EVERY SAMPLE, you'd get 44,100/16 or over 2,500 samples per second with the MSB wrong - the noise would surely be as loud as the music, and it would be unlistenable.
Also, they'd all have to be in the lower parts of each 16-bit word for it not to be, at least sometimes, obviously audible and obviously different from the original file. There's no reason to think (offhand, but I'm willing to be shown wrong on this by someone who knows how the CD coding standard) the errors would only happen in the lesser significant bits. When the bits aren't right, we damn well know it.
[QUOTEBut for the sort of continuous difference claimed from listening tests, quite a few bits would have to be changed, and all throughout the file.
***************
][/QUOTE]
Just like they were at the Computer Audiophile Symposium where there was virtually unanimous agreement that SSD sounded better than HDD ?
Remember that Sy contacted the Editor of C.A. and verified this.
Chris did agree that the tests were not scientifically conducted like so many hard nosed Objectivists here continually demand, but he did say he preferred SSD, and was truthful in saying that he could not give an explanation.
Chris has also posted the phrase "spinning HDDs muddy the waters" in his own forum.
Anyway, as Panomaniac has already said, this thread is going around in circles, and should be closed.There will NEVER be agreement between Subjectivists and Objectivists in this forum. It's just like the Valve vs. Solid State, and Vinyl vs. CD debates !
***************
][/QUOTE]
Just like they were at the Computer Audiophile Symposium where there was virtually unanimous agreement that SSD sounded better than HDD ?
Remember that Sy contacted the Editor of C.A. and verified this.
Chris did agree that the tests were not scientifically conducted like so many hard nosed Objectivists here continually demand, but he did say he preferred SSD, and was truthful in saying that he could not give an explanation.
Chris has also posted the phrase "spinning HDDs muddy the waters" in his own forum.
Anyway, as Panomaniac has already said, this thread is going around in circles, and should be closed.There will NEVER be agreement between Subjectivists and Objectivists in this forum. It's just like the Valve vs. Solid State, and Vinyl vs. CD debates !
Wrong Sandy - there could quite easily be concurrence - all it takes is a simple test. If I'm wrong on the evidence, I'm happy to agree.
THe valve vs ss and vinyl vs CD are not the same discussion - they RECOGNISE the inherent engineering and measurement differences between the media and the compromises in them. Those discussions are all about perception and its agreed that this is what they are about.
In this discussion, its about pure faith that DEMANDS no measurement (lest the faith be sullied) vs rational science that requires some verifiable proof of a claim of an effect.
Very different.
Last edited:
Unfortunately, "demands no measurement" is another way to say "undefined noise" (same as "undefined signal")
Problem:
Without a combination of both faith/art and science/measurement, you don't get hi-fi.
The problem in your above quote is the "vs" Versus, meaning that the ideals are in opposition, and that's really only a noise.
They are both valid, but the scope of the hi-fi task requires both. Alone, they don't make hi-fi. Together, they will.
If science and art don't meet, you could end up with science with no application or art with no direction, either of which is somewhat less useful than a paint spill.
hi panomaniac,
Just went back to the beginning and found your post. You hit the nail on the head way back in post #22. I have to agee 100%.
There are some many cross-topics, no wonder its going in circles.
My system streams .wav files over IP so I can't see how the noise can be transmitted from the PC to the DAC 20 metres away.
regards
I don't get it... your computer is constantly swapping virtual memory to and from a page file on your hard drive. If noise from a spinning hard drive changed a bit or two here and there every time a page of memory was swapped in and out to your HDD (and a checksum didn't detect if for some reason), every excutable binary your computer runs would be corrupted. Computers would crash within minutes, never mind typos in your text documents or improper playback of wav files.
Yep Greg, mine works pretty much the same way. Mostly FLAC files, and via Ethernet over about 15 meters. I don't see the HDD noise getting to the DAC. Maybe it could. I can run the dac off battery if desired, so that keeps out most mains borne noise, too.
And you're right, there is still confusion over playback vs files. Again I have to say that is due to a fundamental lack of understanding of what it actually going on. Now I sound like the broken record.
FWIW, I am a subjectivist. How it sounds is the most important and final step for me. No matter how cool the gear is I want to know "OK, but how does it sound?"
So I'm certainly a subjectivist. - but I'm not a fool.
Well, there isn't a different answer that works. For the question of ssd vs hard drive sound difference its the power noise of the hard drive during playback.
Man, that's such a common problem so its really amazing that anyone waited for December 2010 to notice it. For that question, they should have waited till April 1st. After realizing the actual question, it was like somebody played a trick on me.
But, yeah, your answer is right. So, feel free to repeat it as necessary.
Yes! Good illustrations guys!
Let's establish a network share on a hard drive, a nice, healthy, verified, hard drive.
And let's establish a network share on a solid state type of drive, also verified.
Next, lets put identical files (from our verified backup cd) into both of those network shares.
Now let's go to our networked and RMAA test-passing laptop and slip on some decent headphones.
In using the laptop to access both network shares to play back these files (that aren't inside the laptop), now, in this example, there cannot be any difference in playback between the remote hard drive or the remote solid state drive from across the network.
Therefore, one would just have to ask: What's the best sounding network card?
lolz! Cheers!
Let's establish a network share on a hard drive, a nice, healthy, verified, hard drive.
And let's establish a network share on a solid state type of drive, also verified.
Next, lets put identical files (from our verified backup cd) into both of those network shares.
Now let's go to our networked and RMAA test-passing laptop and slip on some decent headphones.
In using the laptop to access both network shares to play back these files (that aren't inside the laptop), now, in this example, there cannot be any difference in playback between the remote hard drive or the remote solid state drive from across the network.
Therefore, one would just have to ask: What's the best sounding network card?
lolz! Cheers!
Last edited:
Oh dear, I seem to have been found out! Yes, listening to music is for me an exercise in exploring transfer functions and their effect on Fourier components. Yes, I do not believe the multiverse model of quantum theory (but neither do I believe the Copenhagen interpretation). Yes, my stereo is so bad that instead of looking at it I am forced to merely listen to it. (It is push-pull, has global NFB, it doesn't contain an SRPP stage, there are no CCS, no DHTs, and it uses electrolytics as cathode bypasses - there is clearly no hope for me!)
At this point I should confess that my only reason for learning about physics, maths and electronics was to be able to poke fun at those whose thinking takes place on an altogether higher plane of consciousness, where knowledge is just a social construct and identical things can simultaneously be different.
I fear you may be right, or was this just the point when I realised that my brain was already broke? I was pleased when I first heard about the Sokal hoax; am I on the wrong side?
Unfortunately the Swedes have not seen fit to award a prize for poking pins into vastly over-inflated balloons.
The really funny part about the hoax was that some of its victims refused to believe that it was a hoax, even after they were told. Somehow, in their strange world, they managed to redefine "obvious ridicule" to mean something like "grudging admiration". It is a bit like coming across a silly piece of "installation art", kicking it to bits and putting it out with the trash, only to find that the "artist" then claims that by doing that you have "engaged" with the piece which was of course his intention all along.
The really funny part about the hoax was that some of its victims refused to believe that it was a hoax, even after they were told. Somehow, in their strange world, they managed to redefine "obvious ridicule" to mean something like "grudging admiration". It is a bit like coming across a silly piece of "installation art", kicking it to bits and putting it out with the trash, only to find that the "artist" then claims that by doing that you have "engaged" with the piece which was of course his intention all along.
Last edited:
Of local note to you SY.
Sokal's Hoax
Perhaps you should invite Mr. Weinberg over for pizza, wine and music.
Sokal's Hoax
Perhaps you should invite Mr. Weinberg over for pizza, wine and music.
On the one hand, I want a mutual friend who's a prof at UT to introduce me to Weinberg. On the other hand- what would I say? I'd be like the Chris Farley character who would ask a banal question like, "Remember in 'A Model of Leptons' where you talked about the breaking of gauge invariance? That was awesome!" then hit myself on the head, saying, "Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!"
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.