MicroSD Memory Card Transport Project

This is true. But which side are the believers? Seems to me there is plenty of belief to go around. If you think measurements say it all you most assuredly are using a belief system, too.

And where have I said that measurements say it all?

I think the problem of this discussion hinges on you not understanding the fundamental difference between digital and analog, so maybe it would help if you would explain how, in your view,

1) how "normal", non-audio digital data (spreadsheets, programs, pictures, video, text documents) can be copied thousands of times back and forth between RAM and analog, mechanical media such as hard disks without any errors (not even a few characters here and there changing)?

2) how two copies of the same CD track, totally bit-wise identical, but ripped on different systems, can sound different when played back on the same system. Where in the audio file would the difference be? Stored in between the bits?
 
Julf, I understand what bit-perfect means. Rick remarked that he has heard a difference between bit-perfect rips performed differently. "Bits is bits" thinking spurred my question about possibly being able to "sterilize" the unsanitary rips. "Listen before dismissin' " thinking allows me to contemplate the phenomenon without assuming someone doesn't know something that I do.

This has been talked about in other forums with very smart guys guessing as to what could be going on besides Rick and his confederates' neurosis. Maybe someone with that kind of recall can chime in with a link.

I think about what Heisenberg said quite a bit in instances like this:

"We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning"
 
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2006
Paid Member
...guys, just two cents more.....if bits were just bits ...then jitter would not be a problem....would it ....;)

what rickmcinnis has brought to light is extreemly valuable....i noticed as i said before that the diferent SD cards i was using on first listen sounded diferent with the exact same tracks......now where can the diference be ?

That i think is the question we should ask ourselves....nobody had told me they would sound diferent...so it is not psycological effect....my ears don't decieve me.

This deserves an objective looking at.
 
Last edited:
The playback computers I am speaking about do not contain the dac.

I am talking about, say, comparing the playback computer to the SDTrans or the single purpose playback computer to the multi purpose playback computer.

AGAIN, the DAC is after the playback device.

There is a difference between the approaches that has nothing to do with the DAC. I see little difference between taking the information from the CD and placing it on a drive v. taking the music off of the drive and sending it to the DAC.

It seems to me getting the information from the CD to the disk would be a far more delicate operation than taking it from the disk and doing various amounts of manipulation, the more the worse for the sound, in my experience.

We were able to use cPLAY with an 18mB WINDOWS XP OS, including cPLAY. So far, and I do think I have reached the limit, my XP OS, including dBpoweramp which is a bit larger than cPLAY, requires 31 mB. So there is more complication based upon that.

The "scientific" listening test seems guaranteed to stifle real observation.

Musical system observation requires time not a blind fold. System distortions that might sound attractive initially will eventually annoy the ear/brain and their character becomes more obvious with exposure. When did science require a result in ten minutes? Only in audio science, I guess.

The thing is: the best sounding systems I have heard were based upon listening and not measurements. How can that be? The measurements are not measuring what matters. Measurements are made of what can be measured, simply that, unfortunately, nothing more.

Science begins with observation not assumptions. Well, that is how it USED to be ...
 
And where have I said that measurements say it all?

I think the problem of this discussion hinges on you not understanding the fundamental difference between digital and analog, so maybe it would help if you would explain how, in your view,



2) how two copies of the same CD track, totally bit-wise identical, but ripped on different systems, can sound different when played back on the same system. Where in the audio file would the difference be? Stored in between the bits?

1) I'm not sure how what Rick hears has to do with his understanding of analog and digital. If you're saying he has a bias based upon perceived cause and effect relationships in the analog world, then you are in a way belittling him. Such biases certainly exist, but to presume one here? You obviously care enough to engage in conversation with him. Did you consider asking him questions that exposed the process of his thinking/methodology, rather than make assumptions?

2) That seems like the question we are interested in.
 
Last edited:
Julf, I understand what bit-perfect means. Rick remarked that he has heard a difference between bit-perfect rips performed differently.

Indeed. And I explained why the reason is rather unlikely to be because actual physical differences in the sound waves described by the files.

"Bits is bits" thinking spurred my question about possibly being able to "sterilize" the unsanitary rips.
And there we unfortunately hit the "you can't recreate information that isn't there", at least if you don't understand the error mechanism exactly.

"Listen before dismissin' " thinking allows me to contemplate the phenomenon without assuming someone doesn't know something that I do.
I agree. I presented the "90 years of scientific consensus" view. Do what you will with it.

"We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning"
Absolutely. But often we actually end up observing ourselves and not nature. And we should also remember the quote attributed to Richard Feynman, ""Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out"
 
1) I'm not sure how what Rick hears has to do with his understanding of analog and digital.

It doesn't affect what he hears, but it affects what reasons he ascribes the differences he hears to.

You obviously care enough to engage in conversation with him. Did you consider asking him questions that exposed the process of his thinking/methodology, rather than make assumptions?
Wasn't that what I did?

maybe it would help if you would explain how, in your view,

1) how "normal", non-audio digital data (spreadsheets, programs, pictures, video, text documents) can be copied thousands of times back and forth between RAM and analog, mechanical media such as hard disks without any errors (not even a few characters here and there changing)?
 
Member
Joined 2006
Paid Member
Jitter is a problem in situations that affect the timing of the digital-to-analog (and analog-to-digital) conversion. It is not an issue when copying data (where timing doesn't matter).

...there i'm afraid you are not correct...jitter affects data transmission in the time domain in any scenario....although the end effect is indeed the conversion to analog.

So if i am to believe my own ears, unbiased by any other opinion....i ask again....where does the diference in sound come from when i use different SD cards.


I suspect that clock synchronisation is the key to true bit perfet ripping.....but here i am just guessing.
Although it would be ease to surmize that the digital data goes through various modules with different clocks there would be timming misalignements....and jitter.

Issue is that only audio data is subjected to our ears so this is the only data where we hear the time domain misalignements.
 
Last edited:
The playback computers I am speaking about do not contain the dac.

The fact that the DAC isn't physically in the same box doesn't change the fact that there is a fundamental difference between copying the data in digital form (where noise and jitter doesn't matter) and converting it to timing-critical audio (where noise and jitter in the playback chain affects the result).

I am talking about, say, comparing the playback computer to the SDTrans or the single purpose playback computer to the multi purpose playback computer.
Ah, then I must have misunderstood you. I thought you, in your original posting, were talking of the ripping process, not the playback process.

I see little difference between taking the information from the CD and placing it on a drive v. taking the music off of the drive and sending it to the DAC.
The fundamental difference is that the DAC you send the data to is sensitive to timing errors (jitter) and noise, because it operates partially in the analog domain and is timing-critical.

It seems to me getting the information from the CD to the disk would be a far more delicate operation than taking it from the disk and doing various amounts of manipulation, the more the worse for the sound, in my experience.
I agree with the first part - it is a very delicate operation. But because the computer can buffer the read operation to remove timing issues, and use checksums to allow re-reading in case of data errors, the original data can be recovered perfectly - just like the data in this message was perfectly recovered at the end of a transatlantic optic cable.

The "scientific" listening test seems guaranteed to stifle real observation.

Musical system observation requires time not a blind fold. System distortions that might sound attractive initially will eventually annoy the ear/brain and their character becomes more obvious with exposure. When did science require a result in ten minutes? Only in audio science, I guess.
Have you read the listening test standard documents I referred to?

The thing is: the best sounding systems I have heard were based upon listening and not measurements. How can that be? The measurements are not measuring what matters. Measurements are made of what can be measured, simply that, unfortunately, nothing more.
You are still fighting the measurement straw man. This is not about measurements. But I disagree about the first sentence - the best systems you have heard were based on measurements, not listening. The final packager ("designer") might have put together chips and components based on listening, but the chips and components he/she used were based on measurements and science - and so was all the circuit and signal processing theory the system is based on. It's like saying a car is only designed by driving tests.

Science begins with observation not assumptions. Well, that is how it USED to be ...
That is how it still is. Verifiable, replicated observations. Based on an understanding of what one is observing, and what factors might affect the observations.

I have asked you several questions that might help clarify the difference in our views. Maybe you answering them might move us forward?
 
"ninety years of scientific consensus"?

Huh?

When there is consensus there is not likely much science.

Not understanding the difference between analogue and digital? - not sure what that means - I learn from both formats - neither is ideal. Analogue is usually better in more ways but I am starting to think that getting the music from the CD is a big part of the difference. An ignored part of the difference.

One aspect remains: I have listened to what I am writing about. I am not opinionating about something I have never experienced.

Has digital audio been explored for ninety years? Time flies ...

And now I guess for the coup de gras we are told that crystals and txcos are uniformly accurate devices? That settles it! That inference is uniformly absurd. Timing errors are jitter and there are no, not even close, to perfect clocks so we cannot depend upon that, alone, for stream integrity.

Science, indeed!
 
...there i'm afraid you are not correct...jitter affects data transmission in the time domain in any scenario....

...

Issue is that only audio data is subjected to our ears so this is the only data where we hear the time domain misalignements.

Correct - jitter is, on a detail level, present in any data transmission, but because the data gets buffered/stored at the receiving end, the jitter does not affect the data being transmitted (unless the jitter gets bad enough to cause bit errors - and they tend to get detected by error correction systems). The only jitter that affects the audible result is jitter that directly affects the audio conversion at the DAC or ADC.
 
I find when people assume they are gifted with scientific absolutism and start giving pronouncements despite having no experience with what was originally brought up they never seem to realize their same pronouncements are just as valid for themselves as for the person they are pointing their wisdom towards.

If they realized this they would not make the comments? We wish ...

One thing that always gives it away is with the invocation of science. This is when you realize that religion HAS entered the discussion.

The best systems I have heard have kept the chips to a minimum.

Bare minimum.

I know I am asking for it but a system with too many chips within it is probably not going to resolve the differences I am speaking about. But those damned things sure do measure well!
 
What's wrong with reducing the noise with a barebone operating system?

http://i.imgur.com/FCG0zC2.jpg
FCG0zC2l.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/HBO31rN.jpg
HBO31rNl.jpg

If USB were affected by CPU activity, why would SATA be different?

http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2679645&postcount=639
http://www.tirnahifi.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3515

Yet another quick question - why would pressing CDs (transferring from one source to another destination digitally) be prone to errors while the process of ripping CDs (DAE that is) itself would somehow result in "perfect" copies? Maybe our computers could perform some kinda magic that's even more magical than what they're doing in those pressing plants?
Bits is bits?
Although CD manufacturing appears to be a straightforward process of stamping inviolate ones and zeros into a plastic disc, these manufacturing techniques introduce analog-like variations in the quality of the HF signal read from the disc.

Because the HF signal recovered from the finished CD is created by the tiny pit-and-land structures, it follows that any changes in pit shape will affect the HF signal. Well-formed pits produce a good-looking HF signal; poor pit geometry creates a poor-quality HF signal.

A clean HF signal is essential not only to low error rates and good tracking ability, but also to sound quality. Although the HF signal undergoes significant processing before the raw audio data and timing clock are recovered, many digital designers agree that the HF signal's shape and quality affect how the disc sounds. Some high-end transports even have circuits to clean up the HF signal before it's sent to the decoding electronics.

That the HF signal's quality affects the sound is suggested by many examples of audible differences where there should be none. In 1986, Doug Sax (footnote 4) first alerted me that CDs made from the same CD master tape, but pressed in different factories, sound different. Doug routinely buys CDs of records he's mastered and compares them to the original CD master tape from which the CD was made. He has found a huge variability in sound quality between different pressing plants—some plants produce discs that sound very similar to the original; others make discs that sound dreadful. The only difference is in the manufacturing process. Indeed, engineer Bob Katz's experience, described in the companion piece to this article, further suggests that, although the binary 1s and 0s on two CDs may be the same, it doesn't necessarily follow that the discs will sound the same.

Chesky Records supplied me with three sampler discs cut from the same master tape but manufactured using different techniques. The first disc was made conventionally—polycarbonate with aluminum metallization; the second disc was made from polycarbonate, but with gold metallization; the third disc was molded from a material called "Zeonex," and metallized with gold. Since all three discs were made from the same master tape, any sonic differences between them should be solely the result of the manufacturing process, disc material, and metallization.

All three discs sounded different, the Zeonex sounding the best. The standard disc had a drier, more forward sound, with less depth. The treble was more forward, yet the sound lacked the air, openness, and extension heard on the Zeonex disc. The Zeonex disc's bass was also better defined, and I heard an overall increase in resolution, with more musical information presented.
These sonic differences may be regarded as slight or even imperceptible to the casual listener through a low-quality stereo system. But to the audiophile with a keen ear, an open mind, and a high-resolution playback system, the differences are musically significant.

I can imagine a skeptic playing these discs casually for a few seconds through a low-quality, poorly set-up system and concluding that they all sound the same. It's easy to scoff at the possibility of sonic differences between CDs; after all, CD-ROMs work perfectly, no matter where they were manufactured. This argument—that computer data and audio data are identical—forgets that computer data are never converted into an analog signal and perceived with analog instruments (our ears). Computer data and audio data are identical and can be treated identically—if the data are never converted into music.

Another example of how two discs with identical data sound different is the strange case of copying (in the digital domain) a CD to a CD-R (a CD made on a CD recorder); the CD-R sounds better than the disc from which it was made. Although the data are identical, the CD-R's HF signal looks much better than that of the mass-manufactured CD (footnote 5).

Finally, CD tweaks such as disc stabilizers, CD Stoplight, and fluids applied to the CD surface don't affect the data integrity, meaning that other factors are at work in changing the sound of CD playback.

But if the data are the same on all these discs, why do they sound different?

Footnote 4: Doug Sax is a mastering engineer, co-founder of Sheffield Lab, and the father of modern direct-to-disc recording. See my interview with him in October 1989 (Vol.12 No.10).

Footnote 5: At the 1992 Winter CES, Meridian's Bob Stuart copied a CD to a CD-R of music that engineer and high-end retailer Peter McGrath had recorded. Bob played the original CD, then the CD-R. Seconds into the CD-R, Peter jumped from his chair and exclaimed, "That's impossible!"
The Analog Compact Disc Page 2 | Stereophile.com

BTW, I'm an extremely stupid and uneducated person who doesn't know anything whatsoever. Please kindly be gentle and don't be too harsh.

The Tomato Effect
http://youtu.be/_hAtPXHJ5mY
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-tomato-effect
http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/1984/pdf/1984-v13n03-p142.pdf
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=392749
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/hemila/birkhauser/Goodwin_1984.pdf
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-breakthrough-depression-solution/201209/the-tomato-effect

Evidence-Based Medicine or Evidence-Biased?
http://youtu.be/dSYjgOFQI3Q
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/evidence-based-medicine-or-evidence-biased

u6PmpWD.jpg
 
"ninety years of scientific consensus"?

Huh?

When there is consensus there is not likely much science.

In science, "consensus" doesn't mean "everyone agrees", it usually means "nobody has found it not to be true, despite trying".

Not understanding the difference between analogue and digital? - not sure what that means - I learn from both formats - neither is ideal.
Having heard (and heard of) something is not the same as understanding how it works and what properties it has.

One aspect remains: I have listened to what I am writing about. I am not opinionating about something I have never experienced.
You seem to be making assumptions about what I have or have not experienced.

Has digital audio been explored for ninety years? Time flies ...
Nothing new under the sun. The science underlying modern digital systems was developed for the first digital transmission systems. Harry Nyquist developed his famous sampling theorem in 1928. Alec Reeves invented pulse-code modulation somewhat later, in 1937.

And now I guess for the coup de gras we are told that crystals and txcos are uniformly accurate devices? That settles it! That inference is uniformly absurd. Timing errors are jitter and there are no, not even close, to perfect clocks so we cannot depend upon that, alone, for stream integrity.
Boy, you are on a war against straw men! Could you please address what I write, not something completely different?
 
One thing that always gives it away is with the invocation of science. This is when you realize that religion HAS entered the discussion.

Not all of us abhor science the way you do, but at least your belief system (including the "less chips is better") is consistent, so who am I to argue against it?

I have presented the engineering side, and you are not answering my questions, so continuing this discussion seems rather pointless. I wish you a good day and a lot of musical enjoyment!
 
One thing I did not say yesterday is the fact that I have SD cards written before the OS experiment and after and the differences are plainly audible. A very quick and easy way to see if one is deluding themselves.

Are there any willing to give this a try?

If so I will try to put some instructions together. Best if you have some experience with XP's innards.

Then one can experience the impossible!
 
One thing I did not say yesterday is the fact that I have SD cards written before the OS experiment and after and the differences are plainly audible. A very quick and easy way to see if one is deluding themselves.

Have you tried to copy one of the tracks written before the experiment with the machine as it is configured now? What if the difference is caused by the data blocks being written in a different layout? By trying re-writing the file in the new configuration, you can test for that possibility.