I am afraid but I will never show anything in this space or other spaces like this. Last time I did it someone, as expected, felt so bad because it completely undermined his beliefs.....impossible to continue a serious and civil discussion!
It is possible to listen to it, anyway.
Yes there also is a huge number of articles on much "simpler" topics like harmonic distortion but none of them is able to arrive to any final conclusion because a lower THD doesn't mean automatically better....
The fact that an error correction system has a threshold of any type for intervention doens't mean what's coming out is not affected and at the end of the day the laser and pits are not dimensionally that different from grooves and stylus.
Can you demonstrate that a "1" or "0" is always the right one in case of no intervention and is not coming from a neighbouring pit with the same value, for example? I am afraid but this is not maths. It's about the real thing and even those Hi-End transports do NOT have any "weapon" to deal with vibrations effectively.
Common thinking is that the digital process is a mathematically perfect process but it is not when you put the listener in the system. Even in theory! With the listener in the system you cannot switch from frequency to time domain, or viceversa (as most do!), by means of the transform because he makes the system non-invariant (time invariance is the basic hypotesis to apply the transform). He makes it non-invariant because the listener makes an instantaneous elaboration of what he gets in that precise instant. If you change the input the reception and the elaboration is different. Music, unfortunately, just exists in the time-space domain and this is why it has been, it is and it'll always be impossibole to find exact correlation between what you measure and what you listen to.
The digital source without material support simply works better for me but still not as good as my analogue source.....
45
Last edited:
I hate to burst your bubble, but "directly downloading to USB pen" - if you're doing it from Internet Explorer for example, it will be downloaded to a temporary file and only then copied to your immotile media. Not that it matters at all, because we are talking files here in the digital domain. Computer doesn't care if your data is audio, random bits, or shakespeare's lost works. Since you are under the impression that a digital copy can degrade your precious downloaded WAV files, I hope I didn't implant an idea in your head now that will lessen your musical experience, as you now will think it's been copied - hence sounding worse.
And another thing... if you do believe that a digital copy is degrading your wav - every download you do from the net is potentially routed through other nodes on the net. Maybe some packets of it even went somewhere else on your first download than your second - wow they even could have come in unsequential order to your PC.
Anyway, underlying line is - your wav's are bit for bit exact, whether they are on SSD, HDD. How your perfect WAV is translated to the analog waveform coming out of your speakers - that's another story. But implying the .WAV file is in any way different, because of storage on different media, is 100% false.
I am working in astrophysic and we download and copy terabytes of data every week (!) from Hawaii (where the telescopes are observing) to France (where the data are beeing processed) and make checksums for each transfer.
I have heard and seen so far of only one file corrupted during the transfer. A part from this exception, no errors whatsoever. So I am not worried about tiny music files 🙂
I have heard and seen so far of only one file corrupted during the transfer. A part from this exception, no errors whatsoever. So I am not worried about tiny music files 🙂
Hey Werner, since your in Belgium, maybe you know the French Verdier turntable. Perfect? No. But near enough for me! 😉 Far too $$$ for me, tho. Platine Verdier
Back to digits.
So I must have taken a wrong turn somewhere. I thought the point of NOT running a spinning disc and it's motor was to lower noise in the system. No? Running off a solid state device would not incur as much noise. I thought we had already established that the files are the same. (They are, they really are).
Since my music server pulls its files from a remote location via ethernet, there isn't much chance of motor noise mucking things up. The local HDD spins down after 5 mins. Something like a Squeezebox should be as good or better, right?
I'll give you 1000:1 odds that those files are sitting on a spinning HD on that remote server right now 😀
And what about the trip from there to your local computer? The file is disassembled into workable chunks, packetized, converted to the correct waveform for the physical media (100 base T or what have you), sent over the physical media, error corrected, possible retransmitted, transformed into bits, re-assembled and written to your local media, much of that several times along the way (try running traceroute to the remote host and see how many hops that TCP/IP connection makes 😱).
And yet, amazingly, the file arrives at your place with nary a bit out of place.
I'll not take that bet, because you would win!
It is amazing and a rather wonderful process, I must say. Having now actually done checksums (and double checked those) on many ripped, transfered and downloaded files, I can not find 1 error, not one! I had not really worried about it before, but now that I have, I find it super-dooper. 🙂
In several files downloaded via Internet there is not even 1 tiny bit out of place in a file some 319 million bits long. That's pretty darn cool, when you think about it.
Merde du monstre sacré pute.
(me Swiss cheese platine with fibre de carbonne shines more)
Terabytes from Hawaii, not fair, everytime i download porn the file's corrupted.
Attachments
Validating copied files
The important thing to understand is that when a file is copied from one source to another, the only checksum verification performed is the one employed by the software doing the transfer. This will vary for different operating systems for local file transfers, and/or network protocols for network transfers. The copying software will not verify any checksums contained in the file itself. For example an internal wav checksum will not be verified during a copy. However the copying software will employ its own checksum validation.
Downloading music from the Internet uses the TCP network protocol. From the Wikipedia on TCP "The TCP checksum is a weak check by modern standards. Data Link Layers with high bit error rates may require additional link error correction/detection capabilities. The weak checksum is partially compensated for by the common use of a CRC or better integrity check at layer 2, below both TCP and IP, such as is used in PPP or the Ethernet frame. However, this does not mean that the 16-bit TCP checksum is redundant: remarkably, introduction of errors in packets between CRC-protected hops is common, but the end-to-end 16-bit TCP checksum catches most of these simple errors ". This implies that data errors are possible. If there is no post-processing of the downloaded file, for example verifying internal checksums, the errors may go undetected, especially in music files.
When playing a music file, it is also possible that errors will be introduced into the data stream as it moves from the source to the DAC. There is no validation performed on the transfer to the DAC.
The important thing to understand is that when a file is copied from one source to another, the only checksum verification performed is the one employed by the software doing the transfer. This will vary for different operating systems for local file transfers, and/or network protocols for network transfers. The copying software will not verify any checksums contained in the file itself. For example an internal wav checksum will not be verified during a copy. However the copying software will employ its own checksum validation.
Downloading music from the Internet uses the TCP network protocol. From the Wikipedia on TCP "The TCP checksum is a weak check by modern standards. Data Link Layers with high bit error rates may require additional link error correction/detection capabilities. The weak checksum is partially compensated for by the common use of a CRC or better integrity check at layer 2, below both TCP and IP, such as is used in PPP or the Ethernet frame. However, this does not mean that the 16-bit TCP checksum is redundant: remarkably, introduction of errors in packets between CRC-protected hops is common, but the end-to-end 16-bit TCP checksum catches most of these simple errors ". This implies that data errors are possible. If there is no post-processing of the downloaded file, for example verifying internal checksums, the errors may go undetected, especially in music files.
When playing a music file, it is also possible that errors will be introduced into the data stream as it moves from the source to the DAC. There is no validation performed on the transfer to the DAC.
fandersen, that's nice and all but I don't know how you download your files, but I'm sure most of the people here use torrents or usenet or similar, and both have extensive checking and repair built-in.
Concering "regular" downloads; honestly, how many times have you downloaded a file that ended up corrupt?
Audiophiles have the idea that data is something extremely fragile and that the slightest touch will introduce errors if not ruin it completely. This is patently false, the weakest link is much further along the line, near the DAC and after it. That's where most errors come in to play.
Concering "regular" downloads; honestly, how many times have you downloaded a file that ended up corrupt?
Audiophiles have the idea that data is something extremely fragile and that the slightest touch will introduce errors if not ruin it completely. This is patently false, the weakest link is much further along the line, near the DAC and after it. That's where most errors come in to play.
And combined with the network protocol checksum you should end up with a very low error rate, if any.
I'm in the software business and since we stopped using tapes and floppy disks many years ago, we very rarely get a corruption, but when it does happen it is probably because of a media fault, i.e. bad spot on the disk. There has been times when we have had to recopy a software installation as the original copy would crash. I have to admit this is becoming even more rare as the quality of disk drives continue to improve.
Yes. My point was that copying files is not 100% flawless but getting darn close. I also made the comment that errors can be introduced into the data stream as the music file is sent to the DAC and AFAIK there is no data validation done at the DAC level.
I understand it is not a realtime data correction or data checking but it would probably be quite easy to recover somehow the bits at the DAC level and get back to a file. Then one could compare the original files with this recovered file.
Bits are bits.That is well understood and accepted.
Transfer of bits from one place to another is flawless.Understood and accepted.
But the original post was if digital sounds better than analog.Right?
The question was and still is:
Are, the 16 bit/44100 Hz shampling,red book standards,enough to capture,the original analog waveform,as an all analog recording/playback,system ?
B.L
Transfer of bits from one place to another is flawless.Understood and accepted.
But the original post was if digital sounds better than analog.Right?
The question was and still is:
Are, the 16 bit/44100 Hz shampling,red book standards,enough to capture,the original analog waveform,as an all analog recording/playback,system ?
B.L
The original oist was CD player vrs turntable, a lot of other ground has been covered.
dave
Yes,I knew that ! ( Peter Sellers,all the way)🙂
Trying to know, what was the REAL question.
I believe,that it is Analogue versus Digital,as the thread suggests now..
B.L
- Status
- Not open for further replies.