Linear Powered Rips & flash drives sound better - Alex was right !

[kumakuma]

Dumb question here. Did the participants know where the music being played from (HDD or Corsair)?

[sandyk]

That is not what David put in his post. Nor did you answer the question.

 

Are you unable to see that the actual quote below that, was taken directly from David's post 2 in the thread ?

Please excuse me for attempting to provide additional information for those that are genuinely interested, which most members here know that you aren't.

Obviously, the part in brackets was not written by David, but by me, as David is likely to have more important things to do due to being a busy Medical Specialist, than respond directly to every baited question from hostile members like yourself, or Trolls .

[thesurfingalien]

That has not been my experience. I find that the amount of degradation appears to stabilise at a level set by how electrically quiet the computer is. For example, I find the differences between flac and wav files much less obvious with my more recent i7 processor based W8/64 PC. This may also be as a result of further PSU improvements.

 

Alex,

 

Are you talking about direct playback of FLAC (on-the-fly conversion) versus direct playback of WAV? Because Zielig is referring to talking about files that are a result of a compress / decompress cycle...

 

Regards,

Peter

[sandyk]

Dumb question here. Did the participants know where the music being played from (HDD or Corsair)?

 

 

Normally, at least 3 out of 5 didn't know. Most of the time I didn't, as I was sitting down on the listening lounge due to severe Arthritis in my knees.

We sometimes needed 2 to assist with set up due to non familiarity with the host's system, as well as changing over from balanced mode to non balanced mode with my Class A preamp when used instead of the valve preamp.

Even if 1 person, or occasionally 2, knew which was which, the differences were so obvious when using the host's Bricasti M1 DAC and Revel Salon 2 speakers, that we were nowhere needing Blind or non sighted testing.

If you had been exposed to some of the gear that we regularly listen to at these sessions , including speakers worth around AU$30K like the B&W 800s , or an Au$30K transport such as at this session, perhaps you might understand a little better.

[thesurfingalien]

Prot

If you had been a member for a longer period of time , you would realise that Peter is firmly in the Objective camp, but does not have a closed mind to other possibilities, He does however ask for proof wherever possible.

I have worked behind the scenes with Peter on several occasions, and greatly appreciate the assistance he has given me , especially with a special tool he wrote to detect incorrect headers in.wav files ,and another to remove those chunks that caused these .wav files not to be playable with some software.( cPlay for example.) Sound Forge 9 also reported faulty header information with certain files that his S/W was able to correct.

 

Alex,

 

I think prot's message was more meant for himself (reference to religion) than it to be applicable to me

 

But thanks for the kind words!

 

Regards,

Peter

[kumakuma]

If you had been exposed to some of the gear that we regularly listen to at these sessions , including speakers worth around AU$30K like the B&W 800s , or an Au$30K transport such as at this session, perhaps you might understand a little better.

 

This actually makes me feel a little better as it suggests most of us don't to worry about any of this as we'll never own equipment like this.

[sandyk]

Alex,

 

Are you talking about direct playback of FLAC (on-the-fly conversion) versus direct playback of WAV? Because Zielig is referring to talking about files that are a result of a compress / decompress cycle...

 

Regards,

Peter

 

Hi Peter

It's around 40c in my room at present, and the A/C is in the other room nearby, so my posts may be a little too brief at times. I was at first referring to the identical scenario as published in TAS 220 and 221.

I didn't agree with that at the time, and I still don't. Either conversions as per the original TAS article, or on the fly playback of both .flac and .wav formats have less obvious differences with my present PC as described earlier, but there are still differences that I would almost certainly be still able to pick under non sighted conditions via headphones.

 

Regards

Alex

[jabbr]

Like the acerbic wgscott, you really are a sarcastic piece of work !

The only drinks consumed were cold glasses of water kindly provided by the host. Both audiophile neuroscience and a friend of his were also present at the previous session at his friend's house, (a different location) and no alcohol was consumed then either.

 

Peace out:-)

 

I've got no problem with people getting together, listening to music and consuming alcohol -- seriously. This is all a great hobby and should be fun.

 

I was implying that it isn't terribly scientific test, and with all due respect it isn't -- BUT -- this doesn't need to be scientific. Its a fun hobby. I'm just saying that, again with all due respect, your get together as described in the beginning of this long thread isn't designed to convince me nor should it.

[Paul R]

Are you unable to see that the actual quote below that, was taken directly from David's post 2 in the thread ?

Please excuse me for attempting to provide additional information for those that are genuinely interested, which most members here know that you aren't.

Obviously, the part in brackets was not written by David, but by me, as David is likely to have more important things to do due to being a busy Medical Specialist, than respond directly to every baited question from hostile members like yourself, or Trolls .

 

Nope, you do great disservice to people who are genuinely interested. There really is little or no excuse for your sloppy work, inane claims, poor science, or foul temper.

 

You may have really found an interesting phenomena with real potential, and your bad attitude keeps anyone from helping you to develop it into something with a ghost of a chance of being recognized and developed.

 

But given your constantly changing and inconsistent stories, and your bad attitude, you may just be lying. Or not lying and just befuddled. No one will ever really know will they?

 

That is the real shame here.

 

Ah well, what the hell? There is music to be listened to, and that sounds to me infinitely better than listening to equipment for mystical or fantastical nonsense that is impossible to verify. Either grow a set and put this to better testing, or please quit whining like a 4 year old.

[sandyk]

You may have really found an interesting phenomena with real potential, and your bad attitude keeps anyone from helping you to develop it into something with a ghost of a chance of being recognized and developed.

 

The bad attitude here is from you, simply because I refuse to go back to the start again and do things your way, especially when you have made it clear many times previously that you are certain that what I am reporting is impossible.

I don't need help from people like yourself, who even ignore email messages that I send to you on subjects that I know you have an interest in such as WW2 history.

The only interest you have in this area is trying to make me STFU , just as the ill tempered audiophool has also been trying to do for the last 5 years.

Neither of you are any closer to achieving that goal!

[esldude]

The bad attitude here is from you, simply because I refuse to go back to the start again and do things your way, especially when you have made it clear many times previously that you are certain that what I am reporting is impossible.

I don't need help from people like yourself, who even ignore email messages that I send to you on subjects that I know you have an interest in such as WW2 history.

The only interest you have in this area is trying to make me STFU , just as the ill tempered audiophool has also been trying to do for the last 5 years.

Neither of you are any closer to achieving that goal!

 

Plus one on Paul's commentary.

 

I have as well tried to suggest ways to be more convincing that the effect is real. You won't have any of it. Won't attempt to validate, won't let it go, just won't do anything other than shove it in any topic that comes up. Have tried to approach you a number of ways about it. Have said, as well as have others, you may have a real effect going on here. It seems impossible to be the effect you think it is. It still might be real. Yet you steadfastly refuse to unravel what might really be happening. (or to consider the idea it might not be real)

 

No one is surprised at this point that you are not going to change anything one bit as you are just being an intransigent person.

[sandyk]

My findings have been validated many times over by those who are professionals in their fields, but you refuse to accept the results. Who needs enemies with supposed friends like you and Paul offering advice ?

Just like Paul and wgscott. you have also been trying to make me STFU for some time now. .

 

In any case, my message is already out. The Genie is out of the bottle, and there is nothing you can do to put it back in !

 

I will never consider the idea it may not be real, because far too many people have already confirmed my findings and have faith in me. Further research by people like John Swenson will continue to shine new light on digital problem areas..

You on the other hand, keep regurgitating every old white paper that you can lay your hands on to support your views on high resolution audio etc. Fortunately, your rants are ignored by the many members who love 24/192, DSD and Double DSD.

You couldn't even get it right initially about height information being recordable until I linked to David Chesky's report where he used 2 side microphones to record height information. Then all of a sudden you uncovered a few more links to show how height can be recorded.

It's people like you that have resulted in making this thread a shambles, when I shouldn't have even needed to post.

David L made a request in his first post which you and a few others have blatantly ignored.

It was never intended by David to be another discussion thread. All you have succeeded in doing is attracting even more interest, judging by the reader viewing numbers. Just like the recording industry majors , you keep shooting yourself in the foot ! (Both feet ?)

The thread had around 200 views until a few of your mob joined in. It is now over 4,200 . Well done !

[alfe]

Oh sweetie... I don't pretend to be a master of anything. I read the information available, I think about it, and I learn. I am always happy to be proven wrong - I learn more that way. It's called the "scientific method". Please teach me something of value or shut up.

 

When I tried to point the behaviour of a laser diode you jumped on me talking about real time playback,in the other thread with JS we started a discussion about laser PUH and seismic effect but as a scientist you preferred to ignore it and when I tried to bring you back in the subject with holes and electrons you decided to put the hat of an IT guy.

This subject is my daily job but unfortunately lot of NDA's...

Anyhow sorry for attacking you and from now on I will shut up like you advised me scientifically ¨-)

[alfe]

Maybe it's funnier in French.

 

Reed-solomon algo is mainly for scratches and finger print not to correct pits and land.

But you are right even in French it's not funny.

[miguelito]

Anyhow sorry for attacking you and from now on I will shut up like you advised me scientifically ¨-)

I'm sorry you felt attacked, was not my intention at all. I tend to speak very directly.

 

As for Reed-Solomon, it is intended to correct any read errors. Sources of these errors can be multiple: scratches, fingerprints, lens wobble (from external vibrations for example) that distorts the pits/lands, etc, etc. It's just math. The design (as far as I understand it from what I've read over the years) is such that the information for correction is actually spread out over what you could call "long distances" (as opposed to CRC in one packet say). My understanding is also that CRC is also used, and it is possible that intra-packet pits/lands errors are mostly corrected by CRC rather than RS, I don't know that statistic.

[alfe]

I'm sorry you felt attacked, was not my intention at all. I tend to speak very directly.

 

As for Reed-Solomon, it is intended to correct any read errors. Sources of these errors can be multiple: scratches, fingerprints, lens wobble (from external vibrations for example) that distorts the pits/lands, etc, etc. It's just math. The design (as far as I understand it from what I've read over the years) is such that the information for correction is actually spread out over what you could call "long distances" (as opposed to CRC in one packet say). My understanding is also that CRC is also used, and it is possible that intra-packet pits/lands errors are mostly corrected by CRC rather than RS, I don't know that statistic.

 

This may help:

 

Reed-Solomon Codes and CD Encoding

[DarrenMc]

not sure if you are aware of this, but there are quite a few other (albeit related) claims made. For example the claim that that when a.wav is compressed to b.flac, b.flac then is uncompressed to c.wav, c.wav is degraded in quality (compared to a.wav). According to dr. Chuck zeilig (author of the infamous tas articles of some years back), this degrading effect is cumulative (as in: C.wav to d.flac to e.wav etc...), but only up to 5 cycles! then the degradation stops.

 

lol

[miguelito]

This may help:

 

Reed-Solomon Codes and CD Encoding

Cool stuff. Thx.

[prot]

...

In any case, my message is already out. The Genie is out of the bottle, and there is nothing you can do to put it back in !

 

... !

 

Here's a similar genie-out-of -he-bottle for you: "the earth is 6k years old".

Your "theory" is on the exact same level.. sometimes called "bible science" ... i.e. "science" done by people who are only capable to usetheirears/eyes.

And if someones tries to communicate a sensible and indisputable scientific *fact* to those people, they'll just usetheirears. Here's how that goes:

Scientist: there is no "up".

BibleScientist: omg, what kind of idiot are you? I can usemyeyes and see the "up". The sky is there for crissake. Stoopid scientist, lets linch this useless lifeform.

 

 

@thesurfingalien

that's why I included religion in my mock answer to your lol questions. It's interesting that you figured out there must be something special about religion in that msg. You missinterpreted it but now u know why: your Qs were all bible-science Qs.

Your desire to know and investigate is admirable but you are wasting precious time with bogus. Hopefully you at least have fun "investigating" that kind of "science".

[prot]

@sandyk

let me try to put the value of your sameripssounddiff theory in AudiophileScientist terms: "the probability that your theory is wrong lies in the 42N range"

Translated into daily chat terms that means "beyond ridiculous".

 

 

 

 

P.S.1

if 42N sounds too cryptic, think 7N purity copper.

 

P.S.2

astute forum readers will of course know why it's exactly 42 and not any other random big number

[alfe]

"beyond ridiculous"

 

If it's your target feel free to reach it.

[prot]

If it's your target feel free to reach it.

 

I am way past that . Since like..a long time ago. But lets hope that stays between u & me

[DarrenMc]

Not sure if you are aware of this, but there are quite a few other (albeit related) claims made. For example the claim that that when A.WAV is compressed to B.FLAC, B.FLAC then is uncompressed to C.WAV, C.WAV is degraded in quality (compared to A.WAV). According to Dr. Chuck Zeilig (author of the infamous TAS articles of some years back), this degrading effect is cumulative (as in: C.WAV to D.FLAC to E.WAV etc...), but only up to 5 cycles! Then the degradation stops.

 

What I've found is that if I append the words "AUDIOPHILE VERSION" to the filenames of all my music files, they sound better. True story. (or, that is, at least as likely to be true as the effect you're describing here).

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Why was Dennis not able to listen to and compare a Non Linear Rip +Corsair/JLH-LPSU/PC?

 

We simply ran out of time on the day. We were there primarily to showcase Dennis' new system and enjoy. We were not there primarily to prove or disprove anything. A preference for linear rips and playback simply came out that way over the two different listening sessions .

 

Nobody had any axe to grind except potentially Alex. To his credit, Alex never at any stage tried to influence anybody's opinions and stayed completely out of decisions about what should be played. When asked he repeatedly replied "Play whatever you want however you want to play it." Indeed Dennis, the host, commented to myself and Peter, "Alex doesn’t say much does he!". Peter, who had hosted the first session replied, "Yes but when he does its worth listening to". I concur.

 

Dennis had in fact heard a nonlinear rip of the same track on his macbook pro/HDD in days leading up to the session and was very familiar with the track .On the day, first up he heard a Linear Rip + HDD/Macbook Pro which he preferred suggesting it was the linear rip making the difference . We then fiddled with speaker placement and things improved across the board (but also changed the controlled environment) replaying the Linear Rip + HDD/Macbook Pro . He then heard a Non Linear Rip + HDD/JLH/LPSU/PC which he preferred so possibly attributable to either JLH-LPSU or PC but likely the JLH-LPSU. He then heard a Linear Rip + HDD/JLH/LPSU/PC and preferred that, suggesting it was the linear rip making the difference in that particular instance. He heard Linear Rip + Corsair/JLH-LPSU/PC which was the best sound.

 

Due to time constraints we moved on to other things including preamps and cables. The mac was not reintroduced nor was a Non Linear Rip +Corsair/JLH-LPSU/PC. When re-reading my post#2, the latter was implied, was planned , but in truth I don’t think we got around to it. We did however do this in the first session and 4 out of 4 preferred the linear rip.We also compared linear vs nonlinear rips on a CD played via an oppo 105. Same result.

 

We changed to Alex's DIY SS Preamp later in the second session to compare with the VTL tube preamp (around $10k) . This was played initially via HDD without the JLH/LPSU and there was a unanimous preference when the JLH/LPSU was added. Rips were not compared.

FWIW Alex's preamp acquitted itself very well. If we take Dennis as potentially the least biased in the room, he told me later in conversation " Im not sure how you guys describe it but it gave a brilliance to the sound which I really liked but didn’t have the same warmth". Dennis ' pre-requisite for a sound system is warmth and body. Play him a glassy sounding piano and he cringes and says wryly, "must be a Yamaha". He plays a Steinway. Alex's preamp did not sound glassy at all, it added more air, resolution and detail….."brilliance". [Alex, Dennis studied jazz piano at the Conservatorium and I made him promise to play something for us next time. Nothing like hearing the real thing to know just how poor ANY sound system really is]

 

I can also confirm as Alex pointed out that a

iFi USB, which performed even better when used in tandem with the external +5V JLH PSU when powering the external USB HDD]/quote]

 

It seems fairly clear to me there may be a preference for the Corsair , which would be explainable and could create exactly the same results?

 

The preference for [Linear Rip + HDD/JLH-LPSU/PC] over [Non Linear Rip + HDD/JLH/LPSU/PC] would seem to indicate linear rips as responsible for the difference in that particular instance. There was also the preference for linear over nonlinear rip on the mac/HDD albeit not heard side by side.

 

 

 

 

Dumb question here. Did the participants know where the music being played from (HDD or Corsair)?

 

This was not strictly controlled. In the second session usually Alex and Dennis didn’t know. The remainder may or may not have known depending on who was fiddling with the equipment. I can say that Alex was the most blinded to the process (not that he was being tested). To my recollection, over both sessions, he reversed his decision on only one occasion ( preferring a more expensive nordost $600 usb cable over a less expensive gemini usb cable .This reversal meant we all preferred the less expensive cable). IIRC he never failed to prefer linear rips over nonlinear rips and linear playback over nonlinear playback. Sometimes he would have known what was being played but definitely not all the time.

 

This [edit:- expensive equipment] actually makes me feel a little better as it suggests most of us don't to worry about any of this as we'll never own equipment like this.

 

The first session was on a system that cost under $10k in total, around 7k I think. By no means "cheap" but by no means expensive in audiophile circles.

 

Peace out:-)

 

I've got no problem with people getting together, listening to music and consuming alcohol -- seriously. This is all a great hobby and should be fun.

 

I was implying that it isn't terribly scientific test, and with all due respect it isn't -- BUT -- this doesn't need to be scientific. Its a fun hobby. I'm just saying that, again with all due respect, your get together as described in the beginning of this long thread isn't designed to convince me nor should it.

 

Exactly. It is however consistent with linear rips and linear playback sounding better and as just about every medical research study I have read in the past 40 years ends, it gives "cause for further research". For most of us it just comes down to we prefer to listen to what we prefer to listen to.

 

@sandyk

let me try to put the value of your sameripssounddiff theory in AudiophileScientist terms: "the probability that your theory is wrong lies in the 42N range"

Translated into daily chat terms that means "beyond ridiculous".

I believe you may be confusing science with pseudoscience.These matters where discussed in great depth in other threads including "Where is Audio Truth". Try and be more informed before mocking others. Alternatively, please take your own advice from above, move on and leave the "believers" alone.

 

What I've found is that if I append the words "AUDIOPHILE VERSION" to the filenames of all my music files, they sound better....

your ridicule,bullying and unsubstantiated claims are not welcome. Please take them and associated psychopathology to your own thread

[prot]

Sandyk

"Alternatively, please take your own advice from above, move on and leave the "believers" alone."

 

Dont get all defensive now... I am also a human being and therefore entitled to have fun, arent I?

 

Also keep in mind that I never said ur theory was impossible ...and that my NobelPrize comment was actually sincere. Anyone who proves a theory with 42N odds against is a primetime candidate for a Nobel. Not that I'm afraind anyone on CA is gonna do it

 

Peace.