OK frank, youve been repeatedly asked for a mechanism for how the information aside from the 2 states possible, can be included in the file, but nothing is forthcoming. perhaps you think you are improving your case by further reinforcing that you should know better?
its not impressive Frank, its embarrassing....
Down the rabbit hole we go
its not impressive Frank, its embarrassing....
Down the rabbit hole we go
Last edited:
One of the issues that I believe further contributes to the confused state of 'understanding' in audiophiles is not just the misunderstanding/pseudo science/expectation bias etc. But a simple misapplication of basic statistics. That is, correlation does not necessarily imply causation.
xkcd: Correlation
underline mine. its a recurring theme throughout all of this, nobody commented on Chris's post, funnily enough.
Fas42, when doing a lot of digital designs these days I and many others use software like this:
http://www.quadrasol.co.uk/useruploads/files/ds_cadstar_si-verify_en_20120228_web.pdf
The results of this are used to verify the layout, it is used for digital signal simulation and verification. You keep mentioning analoge effects, yet there have been numerous links put up regarding documentation and information on DIGITAL SIGNAL INTEGRITY, digital signals have there problems but they are combated by using digital design techniques, and engineering, but at least have a brief look at the information regarding digital design.
I also gave a link to another thread on this forum regarding PC motherboards and noise with todays very powerful systems. When a track is being played the computer is not accessing the hard drive all the time, it will read the data and assign it to a cache somewhere in the system. And compared to other things going on in the PC, playing music is minor. As to noise have you ever measured the bnoise vcreated by digital systems, do you know the scope of the problem, quite often most decent modern PC's are not as noisy as everyone seems to think, but we live in a forum where numerous unsupported audiophile decrees are absolut:
ALL SMPS's are noisy.
ALL PC's are noisy.
Digital is analogue.
RF is a big problem, yet we must only shield are cable at one end.
Engineers and engineering just fumble things through.
There are problems with any repreduction system, but these can only be solved by engineering, measurement to determine the degree of the problem, engineering a solution and re measurement to check the solution works. By measurement I include both using instruments and listening.
Not so much down the rabbit hole, but I feel I've landed on Bizarro World: I've repeatedly stated that the contents of the file aren't the problem, it's the process of accessing them in different locations that can be the problem - I don't know how many ways I can rephrase the same answer to get through here ... 😕,
, Frank
I agree entirely, I've progressed using nothing more than multimeters, and sound systems as measuring devices to playback the noise at nominally DC points. And a couple of other tricks, 😉. Having more comprehensive, more sophisticated tools can certainly help, no arguments from me there.
But otherwise, I can only repeat, when I've looked at a sound quality issue, and treated it as having been caused by various types of interference, noise, that I've been able to move forward in my quest for better sound. So, my experience to date tells me that this is a successful technique, it's achieving satisfying results, and in the end that's all that matters to me ...
Frank
Give us some metrics of the noise, the frequency spectrum of the noise the levels etc we have nothing to work with but vauge ideas no hard evidence...
And moving goalposts
And moving goalposts
No Frank, you have repeatedly made rambling, confused and unsupported (hand waving) assertions. these are fantastic presumptions, nothing more and you have made them in a very ineffective and inconsistent manner. I dont think you have any idea what you mean and you have no idea how to communicate it, as well as changing your position constantly, or rather stating 2 contradictory things. I can understand its frustrating, my god its frustrating!!
you are mixing cause and effect, you are assigning an effect that is related to the playback, to the transport medium. if there is a minute and utterly unpredictable, unrepeatable and undefeatable difference in the state of the playback devices makeup and its interaction with the 4 dimensional space it exists in; it has nothing at all to do with the properties of the file its playing back, you could play back the very same file and get the same effect, so it has naught to do with 'low level information' the digital data does not carry Chinese whispers with it.
that you say you can hear this, is a psychological effect and we have all been tip toeing around what might be the root cause of such a thing....
you are mixing cause and effect, you are assigning an effect that is related to the playback, to the transport medium. if there is a minute and utterly unpredictable, unrepeatable and undefeatable difference in the state of the playback devices makeup and its interaction with the 4 dimensional space it exists in; it has nothing at all to do with the properties of the file its playing back, you could play back the very same file and get the same effect, so it has naught to do with 'low level information' the digital data does not carry Chinese whispers with it.
that you say you can hear this, is a psychological effect and we have all been tip toeing around what might be the root cause of such a thing....
Again, I haven't the instrumentation to measure this; others that do don't believe in such phenomena, and therefore are not motivated to develop the methodology to isolate the differences. Most likely using as accurate an ADC as possible during playback of a music track, recording directly at the speaker terminals, then using Diffmaker or a more developed version of that type of analysis software will start giving answers ...
My guesstimate is that the "noise", in the audio playback, is around 60dB down, and favours the high frequency end of the audio spectrum, where the ear/brain is most senstive to distortion.
Frank
The level of the "discussions" made me remember a sitation from Einstein:
"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat."
erm, does such a statement need to be qualified? that square waves are an ideal, mathematical creation and can only be replicated in the 'real' world by the combination of lots of sine waves, is hardly new ground.
that does not make the signal analogue, the TX and RX deal in absolutes only
Last edited:
Yes. Connecting a battery to a circuit and turning it on an off does not involve a sine wave.
Last edited:
what? it doesnt involve a square wave either, well actually i'm not sure what you are getting at with your example. if you mean the output to be a square wave signal (if its regular) then yep, as SY says, its just a bunch of sine waves
Last edited:
you clearly have no idea what we are talking about. look it up, you might learn something.
as a hint, a square wave cannot exist in reality, the lumped resistance, impedance and inductance of the conductor and switch resistance means you cannot have a perfect on/off transient. sinewaves dont have to be the perfect picture you have in your mind, there is always a transition from one state or voltage to another if you look closely.
as a hint, a square wave cannot exist in reality, the lumped resistance, impedance and inductance of the conductor and switch resistance means you cannot have a perfect on/off transient. sinewaves dont have to be the perfect picture you have in your mind, there is always a transition from one state or voltage to another if you look closely.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.