Hi everyone,
Does this require a thread of it's own? Not necessarily, but I wouldn't want to wreck another one, so here it is, on its own.
I fully expect to get disciplined for this. I guess my only hope is that the first moderator to read this post understands what I mean, and just bites me for posting flamebait rather than banning me for being disagreeable.
So, what annoys me so much that I'm trying to get myself banned for writing about it?
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1798599#post1798599
That does.
I'm sorry, SandyK. This isn't a personal attack on you, but this idea that digital audio is affected by some "twilight zone factor" is going too far.
Science is real. Information theory is real. If a digital file appears to be identical to another, it is. There's no question about it. A digital file simply doesn't hold the sort of "metadata" that's being attributed to it. There is no information stored about how the bits came to get into the file, only the bits. That's it.
It's not just this instance, of course, or I'd just ignore it. But it's becoming such a pervasive attitude on this forum, this notion that "I can hear it, and some-one else reckons they can hear it too, so it must be real". If that makes you happy? So be it. At least audiophile foolishness doesn't kill anyone, unlike, say, "alternative medicine". But it's the same idea, and that scares me no end.
Please, go and learn some science. Start with http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/something_a_few_of_our_comment.php . Learn how to test observations properly. Learn what expectation bias and the placebo effect are. Then, maybe, people will stop fearing immunisations, and I won't have to read about how the bits coming out of a bluray reader have been blessed with the ability to sound different to the same bits fed through the same reproduction chain.
But probably not. I'll probably just get banned.
Does this require a thread of it's own? Not necessarily, but I wouldn't want to wreck another one, so here it is, on its own.
I fully expect to get disciplined for this. I guess my only hope is that the first moderator to read this post understands what I mean, and just bites me for posting flamebait rather than banning me for being disagreeable.
So, what annoys me so much that I'm trying to get myself banned for writing about it?
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1798599#post1798599
That does.
I'm sorry, SandyK. This isn't a personal attack on you, but this idea that digital audio is affected by some "twilight zone factor" is going too far.
Science is real. Information theory is real. If a digital file appears to be identical to another, it is. There's no question about it. A digital file simply doesn't hold the sort of "metadata" that's being attributed to it. There is no information stored about how the bits came to get into the file, only the bits. That's it.
It's not just this instance, of course, or I'd just ignore it. But it's becoming such a pervasive attitude on this forum, this notion that "I can hear it, and some-one else reckons they can hear it too, so it must be real". If that makes you happy? So be it. At least audiophile foolishness doesn't kill anyone, unlike, say, "alternative medicine". But it's the same idea, and that scares me no end.
Please, go and learn some science. Start with http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/something_a_few_of_our_comment.php . Learn how to test observations properly. Learn what expectation bias and the placebo effect are. Then, maybe, people will stop fearing immunisations, and I won't have to read about how the bits coming out of a bluray reader have been blessed with the ability to sound different to the same bits fed through the same reproduction chain.
But probably not. I'll probably just get banned.
One vote for placebo effect.
Anyways a scratched cd can measure the same if you read it slowly with a computer but skip if you play with a cd-player at 1x. I don't belive that any buffered copy can keep anything of it.
But why do you fear getting banned and why didn't you chose a subject related to the topic?
Anyways a scratched cd can measure the same if you read it slowly with a computer but skip if you play with a cd-player at 1x. I don't belive that any buffered copy can keep anything of it.
But why do you fear getting banned and why didn't you chose a subject related to the topic?
TheSeekerr said:
Don't worry Claude Shannon was on your side too. This has been hashed and rehashed (so to speak) many times before. Take a deep breath and remember it will not go away.
Thanks folks - you've helped restore my trust that there's some sane people out there. I just couldn't believe the stubborn resistence I was met with over there when trying to introduce science. It also baffles me that it's accepted that there's a "chalk and cheese" difference between a "BR burned CD-R compared to a CD/DVD burned CD-R".
As to the subject line? I started the original post with the misguided idea of asking poeple to join the original thread to support scientific rationalism, but realised that I wasn't going to prove anything. Unfortunately, I forgot to change it.
Why fear the mods? Because it only takes one to interpret my post as an attack on their worldview, and they're as fallible as the rest of us.
Ah well. I've learnt not to post in anger, and no harm has come of it.
As to the subject line? I started the original post with the misguided idea of asking poeple to join the original thread to support scientific rationalism, but realised that I wasn't going to prove anything. Unfortunately, I forgot to change it.
Why fear the mods? Because it only takes one to interpret my post as an attack on their worldview, and they're as fallible as the rest of us.
Ah well. I've learnt not to post in anger, and no harm has come of it.
TheSeekerr said:
I don't know what is a BR burned cd-r but a powerful laser will induce a stronger effect on the dye and thus there are less chances to have reading errors. In dvd burners there are two lasers that must be aligned and i feel that probably the designers take more care with the dvd-beam that they do with the ir one that burns the cd, so there could be some misalignment that could introduce a (perhaps audible) error rate.
EDIT: The original point was: once the data has been read bit-identically to the original, it must sound like the original, but to be read bit-identically the pits must have a certain minimum quality (reflectivity, depth, etc).
Indeed, this is a growing problem, made worse by the growing popularity of computer audio.
I also am of the opinion that you basically have two choices:
1) endless unresolved arguments over what is essentially a 'belief system' (and hence not subject to logic)
2) ignore it and move on.
I've chosen 2. Unless someone exhibits a willingness to include some notion of the fallability of our auditory systems, fallibility of our judgement overall and a recognition of the powerful psychological mechanisms that can color our perceptions, I simply won't bother discussing audio since it's a lost cause - we're simply starting from largely incompatible views of the 'problem'.
It's disappointing, since I do believe (or at least strongly suspect) that there are some very interesting unanswered questions in the audio realm, but it's virtually impossible to get at the real substance due to all the noise.
I also am of the opinion that you basically have two choices:
1) endless unresolved arguments over what is essentially a 'belief system' (and hence not subject to logic)
2) ignore it and move on.
I've chosen 2. Unless someone exhibits a willingness to include some notion of the fallability of our auditory systems, fallibility of our judgement overall and a recognition of the powerful psychological mechanisms that can color our perceptions, I simply won't bother discussing audio since it's a lost cause - we're simply starting from largely incompatible views of the 'problem'.
It's disappointing, since I do believe (or at least strongly suspect) that there are some very interesting unanswered questions in the audio realm, but it's virtually impossible to get at the real substance due to all the noise.
Another vote for the OP. Hopefully, after some time, people discover that the differences between some parts of the audio chain (like speakers, rooms and recordings) totally dominate the quality of what we hear, while others are 'subtle' at best. For myself, I just try and not waste time on tweaks or arguments about these 'subtle' things. Worrying about wire, green ink, bit perfect, etc, just isn't productive, neither is spending time arguing them.
Don't get worked up about it. There are a lot of people who refuse to think rationally, and it's pretty much impossible to convince them otherwise. You'll only give yourself a headache if you try too hard.
For some reason there seems to be a lot of this in the field of audio, caused by people who believe that their senses tell them only what really exists. They won't acknowledge that human senses are very easily fooled because this implies that everything is uncertain, and humans hate uncertainty.
For some reason there seems to be a lot of this in the field of audio, caused by people who believe that their senses tell them only what really exists. They won't acknowledge that human senses are very easily fooled because this implies that everything is uncertain, and humans hate uncertainty.
You're not about to be banned or put in the sinbin for offering an opinion even when frustrated. We only ask that you offer yours with tact and discretion and that you do not resort to personal attacks or use coarse language.
This isn't a police state for goodness sakes, it's a worldwide forum full of learned individuals with most of whom willing to share their experiences. Like the others have said, it's time to relax a bit. This discussion really has no end nor 100% correct answers.
Cheers.
This isn't a police state for goodness sakes, it's a worldwide forum full of learned individuals with most of whom willing to share their experiences. Like the others have said, it's time to relax a bit. This discussion really has no end nor 100% correct answers.
Cheers.
+1 for the OP.
Don't worry, there are plenty of sane people here too! I myself am still trying to learn to ignore it properly.
Don't worry, there are plenty of sane people here too! I myself am still trying to learn to ignore it properly.
Just to be clear: the moderator crew has a wide range of worldviews ranging from coldly analytical (that would be me) to way far out there. NO ONE has ever been binned, banned, or bombed for expressing a technical opinion. OK? So, lighten up and enjoy.
(I'm a card-carrying member of the James Randi Educational Foundation)
(I'm a card-carrying member of the James Randi Educational Foundation)
Thanks Cal, SY,
You've clarified a few things for me as to the moderating team's policy. My concerns were based upon a misunderstanding of the so-called "housecleaning" bans, but I've read up on them and I think I understand now.
SY,
I'm a member in spirit, but I'm a poor skeptic - perhaps next time I have some spare change, I'll sign up properly and support their excellent work. Thanks for reminding me!
You've clarified a few things for me as to the moderating team's policy. My concerns were based upon a misunderstanding of the so-called "housecleaning" bans, but I've read up on them and I think I understand now.
SY,
I'm a member in spirit, but I'm a poor skeptic - perhaps next time I have some spare change, I'll sign up properly and support their excellent work. Thanks for reminding me!
Some still keep on thinking that some beliefs are more of a plague than actual richness.
Imagine a forum about thermophysics where a member asking why, after having had one hand in cold water and the other in hot water, feels a different temperature with each hand on the tempered water, was told that the solution is to increase "thermal fidelity" by the use of some (very explosive indeed) oxigen-free water?
I'm perhaps on my harsh side but what this does is making people spend more money and enjoy less the music. Some of those "buying bose" may actually feel the water "hotter", even if we all agree that it isn't. That's a reason not to keep on this? Of course not, but perhaps we should thing a bit about our senses before posting "facts". I would keep silent and "respect" if there wasn't real people spending money and time in it.
I hope nobody gets offended by my methaphor. BTW, this doesn't belong to the "Everything else" forum?
Imagine a forum about thermophysics where a member asking why, after having had one hand in cold water and the other in hot water, feels a different temperature with each hand on the tempered water, was told that the solution is to increase "thermal fidelity" by the use of some (very explosive indeed) oxigen-free water?
I'm perhaps on my harsh side but what this does is making people spend more money and enjoy less the music. Some of those "buying bose" may actually feel the water "hotter", even if we all agree that it isn't. That's a reason not to keep on this? Of course not, but perhaps we should thing a bit about our senses before posting "facts". I would keep silent and "respect" if there wasn't real people spending money and time in it.
I hope nobody gets offended by my methaphor. BTW, this doesn't belong to the "Everything else" forum?
TheSeekerr said:
The bits are the bits, but without the proper timing, you do not get out what they are trying to represent.
Without the same timing the playback of a set of bits are different.
Some are suggesting that this timing could need to be on the order of 10-20 ps to be inaudiable.
http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/jitter.htm
While looking for this reference i found this AES paper... "Physical and perceptual considerations for high-resolution audio" Wieslaw Woszczyk ... it has some interesting stuff, a sample...
dave
Re: Re: I need a hand - Rally the scientists
If they are stored on a small ram buffer like it is the case for a computer this does not apply, does it?
planet10 said:
If they are stored on a small ram buffer like it is the case for a computer this does not apply, does it?
Re: Re: Re: I need a hand - Rally the scientists
Sure it does... doesn't matter where it is stored, the timimg of their delivery is still critical... A RAM buffer does offer a physical medium which is (usually) fast enuff that many things that cause timinmg errors are eliminated.
dave
ionomolo said:
Sure it does... doesn't matter where it is stored, the timimg of their delivery is still critical... A RAM buffer does offer a physical medium which is (usually) fast enuff that many things that cause timinmg errors are eliminated.
dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.