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

[elcorso]

I do love the universe created by the Dune books (the original series written by Frank Herbert - never got into the subsequent ones).

 

I personally feel it is fair to say John Swenson did not know of a mechanism by which differences stored on a drive might be preserved when the file was transferred to another drive, stick, etc. But I did not understand him to go beyond that to definitively say it was impossible. I think the electrical engineers who've actually done audio design tend to shy away from such sweeping statements, in contrast to us dedicated amateurs.

 

Hi Jud,

 

Since I remember Miska wrote something about embedded jitter. I can't find the thread and I don't want to compromise him in this never ending discussion.

 

Personally I can't find some one in this thread who contradicted Alex to proof the contrary. If some body can't see the light, the light doesn't exist?

 

My God, this is not the way to find the way, if there is a way...!

 

Music and listening to music to me is an art, like creating Bonsai trees. You don't like how I perceive an create a Bonsai tree, you don't like Picasso paintings, or whatever...? Everything has to be perfect (or mathematically perfect), if not anathema? Even the Pope is accepting now Bing Bang theory doesn't contradice the Genesis...!

 

Good night and happy listening,

 

Roch

[kumakuma]

Since I remember Miska wrote something about embedded jitter. I can't find the thread and I don't want to compromise him in this never ending discussion.

 

I'm pretty sure Miska was talking about jitter embedded in the recording itself as part of the analog to digital conversion process. Alex is talking about something else entirely different in which noise is somehow embedded into some digital information in a way that science cannot yet explain. He may be correct here but I'm not buying it.

[esldude]

I do love the universe created by the Dune books (the original series written by Frank Herbert - never got into the subsequent ones).

 

 

Yes, I loved the Dune trilogy myself. Also like the Whipping Star and the Dosadi Experiment.

[elcorso]

I'm pretty sure Miska was talking about jitter embedded in the recording itself as part of the analog to digital conversion process. Alex is talking about something else entirely different in which noise is somehow embedded into some digital information in a way that science cannot yet explain. He may be correct here but I'm not buying it.

 

You have the right to believe or not...

 

I'm still amazed at the many things that "science" can not explain ... Please read Chopra, how about "Synchrodestiny: Harnessing the Infinite Power of Coincidence to Create Miracles". And it is not about Catholic Miracles, but worked to me...!

 

Best,

 

Roch

[jabbr]

Sorry about that. I just added a linear power supply to my keyboard and mouse to help reduce reply jitter.

 

Duh! That won't work. You need to use Lagavulin.

[kumakuma]

Duh! That won't work. You need to use Lagavulin.

 

Tried it but my packet resend rate went up.

[blownsi]

I just read over the John Swenson post that was linked earlier in the article and here's what I took from it: The linear power supplied rip is the same as the the one without but the storage of the data is more erratic (all over the place). The subsequent playback of this erratic data retrieval could influence the dac. That actually makes more sense to me than the concept of the data containing the noise itself.

Years ago we used to be obsessed with defragging our HDD to keep the head from slowing down (& making grinding noises) hunting all over the place. It would only make sense to me that this hunting would create noise whether audible or emi. If there is something to this then a good defragging of your audio storage drive could/should also yield an improvement.

[kumakuma]

Deleted

[jabbr]

 

Perhaps your interpretation of that sentence is very different to that of many others ?

Given John's recent research, I think you may find that he now has more questions than answers at present.

 

Alex

 

Important to point out that he doesn't claim to hear any differences, rather speculates on possible mechanisms by with noise in the hard drive system might conceivably be introduced into the (analog) output stage of the DAC.

 

Of course the problems of noise are well known to the folks making (and selling) 10Gbe switches and cards. Jitter and noise can trash the performance of networks. Similarly noise is known to adversely impact the performance of hard drive storage systems. So minimizing noise is a desirable activity and wholeheartedly deserves research. Indeed the Ethernet specs mandate (isolation) transformers for the explicit reason of minimizing the propagation of noise. Now I've also heard lots of folks claim that Ethernet switches adversely impact SQ but yet these isolate hard drive noise through at least two transformers ... so which is it? Similarly when emailing a digital file, there is a complete and unquestionable isolation of the power supply noise from one system to another -- the sending power supply might actually be turned off during reception. Power supply noise is subject to the same damping effects of capacitance and time that any other signal is.

 

Tell you what -- I'll offer to test this to you -- email me two copies (A & B) of the same file, which have the same checksum, but handled in the two different ways you are able to hear an audible difference between. I'll verify that they are bit identical on my system, and then set up a distribution scheme to multiple people can A/B test.

 

I am very experienced in scientific study design. Let's see if what you are hearing is an artifact of how you are doing your testing or else if there is a real yet unexplained phenomenon occurring.

[jabbr]

Tried it but my packet resend rate went up.

 

If you use too much Lagavulin, particularly late at night, you may find yourself transmitting your packets either to unintended addresses or prior to them becoming fully formed.

[sandyk]

I am very experienced in scientific study design. Let's see if what you are hearing is an artifact of how you are doing your testing or else if there is a real yet unexplained phenomenon occurring.

 

Sorry, but I don't feel the need for further validation. I have also made it clear in a reply to Dennis that my preferred comparison method is via files saved on either a USB memory stick, or a CD-R for direct play without further involvement from a PC, other than verifying that the pairs of tracks have identical checksums.

BTW, Marcin from jPlay has also verified my reports via extensive previous testing involving both him and John Kenny ( DAC supplier)

[kumakuma]

Sorry, but I don't feel the need for further validation. I have also made it clear in a reply to Dennis that my preferred comparison method is via files saved on either a USB memory stick, or a CD-R for direct play without further involvement from a PC, other than verifying that the pairs of tracks have identical checksums.

BTW, Marcin from jPlay has also verified my reports via extensive previous testing involving both him and John Kenny ( DAC supplier)

 

Predicted response. Someone offers a more scientific way to test your claims and you run for the hills.

[wgscott]

Yes, I loved the Dune trilogy myself. Also like the Whipping Star and the Dosadi Experiment.

 

I never got into reading science fiction much (apart from some of what is posted on this website).

[wgscott]

I just read over the John Swenson post that was linked earlier in the article and here's what I took from it: The linear power supplied rip is the same as the the one without but the storage of the data is more erratic (all over the place). The subsequent playback of this erratic data retrieval could influence the dac. That actually makes more sense to me than the concept of the data containing the noise itself.

Years ago we used to be obsessed with defragging our HDD to keep the head from slowing down (& making grinding noises) hunting all over the place. It would only make sense to me that this hunting would create noise whether audible or emi. If there is something to this then a good defragging of your audio storage drive could/should also yield an improvement.

 

You really take all the fun out of appeal to higher authority as proof of the palpably absurd.

[esldude]

I never got into reading science fiction much (apart from some of what is posted on this website).

 

So who is your favorite sci-fi author on CA?

 

Do prefer time distortion fantasy (aka jitter issues)?

 

Or data corruption tales?

 

How about the genre of previously unknown field distortions?

 

Or do you prefer so called hard sci-fi where genuine science principals are extrapolated beyond all reason?

 

Or maybe you go for the more romantic/fantasy styles?

[mayhem13]

A Reality Check........

 

Using the highest resolution equipment, one can find a measurable difference between two differently processed digital files in the time domain. This much is a given.

 

The 'Problem' is that we cannot derive from the above fact that those differences are in any way audible.

 

It's unfortunate that so many in the commercial side of audio use this fact for ill gotten gains. There's the ever elusive 'missing link' where these time domain measures equate to viable analog measures. In substitution for those measures, various accounts of credible listening accounts are touted as 'proof' that these small signal differences are in fact audible.

 

This and other audiophile sites tend to lend credence to these incredulous conclusions through personal accounts and referencing papers on speculative reasoning and postulation.

 

In the end, what we wind up with is BAD SCIENCE. The kind that in the past or other avenues of the human condition an and has resulted in mass hysteria, cult behaviors, war, genocide and economic collapse.

 

Please, reasonable people of CA, STOP helping to propogate this kind of nonsense here and elsewhere on the Internet by ignoring threads, posts, or content that promotes substituting speculative solutions for answers. It's irresponsible behavior on the part of those speculating in the first place and some who work in these fields should know better. Certainly those that are involved in credible research do, those that aren't tend to post here instead.

[thesurfingalien]

Using the highest resolution equipment, one can find a measurable difference between two differently processed digital files in the time domain. This much is a given.

 

Hi Anthony,

 

You completely lost me with the above... Can you explain what you are referring to?

 

Thanks!

Peter

[Jud]

You have the right to believe or not...

 

I'm still amazed at the many things that "science" can not explain ... Please read Chopra, how about "Synchrodestiny: Harnessing the Infinite Power of Coincidence to Create Miracles". And it is not about Catholic Miracles, but worked to me...!

 

Best,

 

Roch

 

I am glad it worked for you. Personally I would consider it miraculous if Mr. Chopra decided to enter a life of quiet contemplation, emphasis on the "quiet."

[Jud]

In the end, what we wind up with is BAD SCIENCE. The kind that in the past or other avenues of the human condition an and has resulted in mass hysteria, cult behaviors, war, genocide and economic collapse.

 

Please, reasonable people of CA, STOP helping to propogate this kind of nonsense here and elsewhere on the Internet by ignoring threads, posts, or content that promotes substituting speculative solutions for answers. It's irresponsible behavior on the part of those speculating in the first place and some who work in these fields should know better. Certainly those that are involved in credible research do, those that aren't tend to post here instead.

 

Every time someone starts talking about mass hysteria, etc., I get flashbacks to the part of "Ghostbusters" where Bill Murray is raving about "...dogs and cats living together...!" Or to put it another way, yep, plenty of more or (likely) less educated guesswork here that qualifies as bad science, rank speculation, etc., but I doubt any of it will result in Klingon puppies. (Old joke - Chris C's spell check once took his admonition that "no one is killing puppies around here" and turned it into a statement about Klingon puppies.)

 

So here's the deal from my point of view: Hanging around a lot of science blogs has taught me something (at least I hope it has) about the yawning gulf between those with up-to-date relevant experience and education in a scientific topic, and those who consider themselves to know something about said topic. This includes even very smart people with scientific experience and education in related subjects. (Google, e.g., Michael Behe.) I have tremendous scientific curiosity about audio and human hearing, and I read quite a bit about them, both in the usual places and academically. However, I try not to make the mistake of feeling this qualifies me to say what is or isn't possible in complex systems built of electronic circuits, in human perception, or in our ability to reliably and completely test various propositions in these areas. There's a lot I'm skeptical about, a lot I'm interested in, but I'm not nearly smart enough to confidently state "X is audible, Y is not, Z is complete scientific nonsense!", except for relatively simple areas like quantum mechanics. I see lots of flat statements about what has been proved based on blind testing, and what cannot be the case scientifically, but so far no one has pointed me to a single peer reviewed academic publication to either effect, which, failing published academic work of their own, is one way Real Scientists™ tend to try to settle these things. A little less heat and good doses of humility and basic friendliness as we enjoy our shared hobby would be helpful, it seems to me. (Except you, Bill - please never change, good intelligent acerbic wit is in short supply.)

 

Are we then lost in uncertainty? Heck no. We feel free to discount (or credit) comments by the various folks here right now, no matter how emphatically stated they are. In fact, the more vehement a comment is, the less I am instinctively inclined to start out believing it, since I generally find that for people who actually know something about a topic, especially one worthy of interest and discussion, information is complicated and tends not to come in sound bites. (This unfortunately hurts real scientists trying to make points about topics like climate change, vaccines, or evolution.)

 

For newbies trying to learn, I'd say: (1) Focus on the practical. No one is going to work out the equivalent to penicillin for high end audio through comments on these forums. The theoretical stuff is all very interesting, but in terms of the sound of your own system, it's really pretty easy - if it's cheap enough and not a lot of fuss, why not try it? As expense and hassle increase, it should take correspondingly more evidence to get you to try something. (2) Place more reliance on people who do this for a living or who have relevant academic credentials, especially if they are commenting about something outside their personal financial interests. There are only a handful of such people who comment in these forums.

[Jud]

Yes, I loved the Dune trilogy myself. Also like the Whipping Star and the Dosadi Experiment.

 

OT: For fans of the subgenre that used to be referred to as "cyberpunk," and specifically of William Gibson - I'm really enjoying his latest, Peripheral. (For non-fans of Gibson - I feel he never quite realized the insanely high promise of his first novel, Neuromancer [except, possibly, until now], so if you read something of his other than Neuromancer based on his reputation and didn't think it was any great shakes, this might be the time to try him again.)

[jabbr]

For newbies trying to learn, I'd say: (1) Focus on the practical. No one is going to work out the equivalent to penicillin for high end audio through comments on these forums. The theoretical stuff is all very interesting, but in terms of the sound of your own system, it's really pretty easy - if it's cheap enough and not a lot of fuss, why not try it? As expense and hassle increase, it should take correspondingly more evidence to get you to try something. (2) Place more reliance on people who do this for a living or who have relevant academic credentials, especially if they are commenting about something outside their personal financial interests. There are only a handful of such people who comment in these forums.

 

+1 Putting green magic marker on the outside of CDs or propping your speaker cables up on ping pong balls is cheap and harmless -- except that it led people astray from focusing on the real issue of CD error correction mode.

 

The place where I fall off that boat is where supposedly reputable companies are selling $1K ethernet cables.

e

[mayhem13]

Every time someone starts talking about mass hysteria, etc., I get flashbacks to the part of "Ghostbusters" where Bill Murray is raving about "...dogs and cats living together...!" Or to put it another way, yep, plenty of more or (likely) less educated guesswork here that qualifies as bad science, rank speculation, etc., but I doubt any of it will result in Klingon puppies. (Old joke - Chris C's spell check once took his admonition that "no one is killing puppies around here" and turned it into a statement about Klingon puppies.)

 

So here's the deal from my point of view: Hanging around a lot of science blogs has taught me something (at least I hope it has) about the yawning gulf between those with up-to-date relevant experience and education in a scientific topic, and those who consider themselves to know something about said topic. This includes even very smart people with scientific experience and education in related subjects. (Google, e.g., Michael Behe.) I have tremendous scientific curiosity about audio and human hearing, and I read quite a bit about them, both in the usual places and academically. However, I try not to make the mistake of feeling this qualifies me to say what is or isn't possible in complex systems built of electronic circuits, in human perception, or in our ability to reliably and completely test various propositions in these areas. There's a lot I'm skeptical about, a lot I'm interested in, but I'm not nearly smart enough to confidently state "X is audible, Y is not, Z is complete scientific nonsense!", except for relatively simple areas like quantum mechanics. I see lots of flat statements about what has been proved based on blind testing, and what cannot be the case scientifically, but so far no one has pointed me to a single peer reviewed academic publication to either effect, which, failing published academic work of their own, is one way Real Scientists™ tend to try to settle these things. A little less heat and good doses of humility and basic friendliness as we enjoy our shared hobby would be helpful, it seems to me. (Except you, Bill - please never change, good intelligent acerbic wit is in short supply.)

 

Are we then lost in uncertainty? Heck no. We feel free to discount (or credit) comments by the various folks here right now, no matter how emphatically stated they are. In fact, the more vehement a comment is, the less I am instinctively inclined to start out believing it, since I generally find that for people who actually know something about a topic, especially one worthy of interest and discussion, information is complicated and tends not to come in sound bites. (This unfortunately hurts real scientists trying to make points about topics like climate change, vaccines, or evolution.)

 

For newbies trying to learn, I'd say: (1) Focus on the practical. No one is going to work out the equivalent to penicillin for high end audio through comments on these forums. The theoretical stuff is all very interesting, but in terms of the sound of your own system, it's really pretty easy - if it's cheap enough and not a lot of fuss, why not try it? As expense and hassle increase, it should take correspondingly more evidence to get you to try something. (2) Place more reliance on people who do this for a living or who have relevant academic credentials, especially if they are commenting about something outside their personal financial interests. There are only a handful of such people who comment in these forums.

 

I used to do this and that for a living but never for retail sales........and very few here pay attention to me! Lol

 

The message was simply a reprise of something my first boss once said to me......" Just say' I don't know'". See how much easier that is? Lol

 

I genuinely feel for those that are new to computer audio that come here and get first bitten with small signal fever while ignoring the things that impart and much greater impact on the listening experience.

[Jud]

I used to do this and that for a living but never for retail sales........and very few here pay attention to me! Lol

 

Well, I do, but I'm not sure that's any consolation.

 

The message was simply a reprise of something my first boss once said to me......" Just say' I don't know'". See how much easier that is? Lol

 

+1

 

I genuinely feel for those that are new to computer audio that come here and get first bitten with small signal fever while ignoring the things that impart and much greater impact on the listening experience.

 

Yes, absolutely it can seem that way. On the other hand, many are asking questions about relatively small items because the bigger stuff would be cost prohibitive for them, or involve more changes/hassle/time than they want to invest right now, or require permission that may not be forthcoming from a spouse/partner/landlord, etc. So I try to avoid the temptation of "The change you *should* be looking at is X" mode.

[Jud]

+1 Putting green magic marker on the outside of CDs or propping your speaker cables up on ping pong balls is cheap and harmless -- except that it led people astray from focusing on the real issue of CD error correction mode.

 

 

Actually this is also an illustration of something I was talking about earlier, where since we are smart folks who have some scientific knowledge, we "know" green magic marker on the outside of a CD must be absolute bullcrap. (I thought the same thing.)

 

Keith Johnson, the lead designer for Spectral Audio, as well as for the very well thought of Pacific Microsonics A/D and D/A converters, as well as an award winning (and frequently nominated) producer, had sufficient humility not to assume certainty about this, and actually investigated it. He found there really was a sonic difference, produced (IIRC) by the negative impact of the green pen on the laser head's seek function, resulting in increased jitter. The effect was real, but it was in the direction of greater distortion. Preferring the sound of increased jitter is something that has since been verified, according to forum member barrows who worked for PS Audio, by their in house testing with simulated jitter levels. So there are valuable lessons regarding the green magic marker thing, but rather than the usual caveat emptor, I would say they are these: (1) As many people's preference for playback with increased distortion shows, when tweaking you will want to try to listen not just for changes but improvements; and (2) If you're sure a claim is absurd - don't be so sure. Of course that doesn't mean you can't be very skeptical, or have to try it.

[prot]

This is one of the funniest threads and just another proof that Idiocracy was not fiction

 

If your hypothesis does not survive a proper DBT, it's not there. It's that simple! And it works fine in every domain (notably medicine) except "audiophile land". Which most of the time is actually a sort of a cockoo-land-with-crooks.

 

Science is not easy. And 99,99% of the hypothesises actually don't verify. And even ppl like Einstein were wrong 99,99% of the time. And proper computer audio DBT is so complex that prolly only 1% of the most qualified scientists can do it...there are zillions variables: technical, physiological, psychological, environmental, etc...

But somehow every schmuck with a "highend" audio system thinks he can do it. Or even funnier, thinks he knows better that scientists, engineers & DBT experts. Because his ears are of course better than everything else...including sliced bread and blackjack with free hookers

 

Concrete to this case, I dont care who you are, pretending that the same 1&0 from the same hdd sound diff because the way they were ripped is beyond ridiculous. Yes, in theory it is possible that the two identical files sound diff, because they are stored on diff hdd sections...one of those sections may work worse and the extra error-correction may add jitter. Extremely slim chance and it's not even sure that such jitter exists or it's audible. Even so, assuming the effect is real&audible, it has absolutely nothing to do with the ripping methods and everything to do with the hdd and the way the files were saved. And of course the effect will most prolly not survive another file copy, net-transmission, etc..

 

Sry for feeding the audio trolls who can hear the bits between 1&0 but sometimes this awful "trust your ears" crowd is just too annoying.

Also sry for wasting everyone's time, it's not like my long rant is going to convince any magicears owner.