Bits, ghosts, and metaphysics...

[AnotherSpin]

I know some people will dismiss my words without even trying to understand what they mean, but there is nothing real beyond our idea about what is real. In other word, you can create any idea about this or that particular sound in your own mind accordingly to your choice or pre-preference.

[crenca]

....Do you have an easy way verify that your meaning is being properly rendered? Do you have a list of renderers which properly render your "meaning"?

 

On the other hand when you say that the "meaning" is always exactly rendered, that is to say that the bits in the file always exactly determine the sound which emanates from a DAC, you are sadly mistaken about the world we actually live in.

 

In one sense, I do have a way of verifying the remarkably consistent "rendering", at least in digital systems - and that is the remarkable consistency of our software, or the fact that a computer can run a long chain of algorithms over and over again, for days/weeks/years, and record the exact same results the entire time.

 

I admit ignorance to the analog side of a DAC and how it works, so there may be great variability - however, the claim is that the same input (two different bit identical files) renders different output. Now, if this output is truly variable, and this variability is based on a natural outcome of the analogue side, then ok. Again, that is not what is being claimed - the claim is that two identical bit files render different sound on a consistent and repeatable basis. The "cause" is not variability anywhere along the chain except in the bit identical files themselves...

[sdolezalek]

Rather than getting bogged down in the "metaphysical" back and forth, which hardly seems likely to lead to any conclusion accepted by both sides of the debate, might we focus on a slightly different question, namely:

 

If the information being provided by the bits is separate and different from other information that may be "along for the ride" in an electrical signal path (like noise and jitter), is it possible to "clean" these free riders from the essential signal in such a way as to provide the critical D/A conversion the best possible input data?

 

The UpTone Regen is obviously trying to do some of this to the USB signal. Those inserting fibre connections in an otherwise Ethernet path are doing another variation of same. In theory, such methods should be able to provide the DAC the same pristine signal as started the audio chain at the source UNLESS somehow the free rider stuff is getting permanently embedded in the signal in a way that is no longer separable.

 

That, to me, is the more interesting question: what might be getting irreversibly embedded and why can it not be filtered or corrected later in the signal path to return the original "bit perfect" information to a pristine state?

[ADCO]

perhaps this will help (?)

 

there is tons of info here that may or may not be relavent

 

 

 

[wgscott]

Rather than getting bogged down in the "metaphysical" back and forth, which hardly seems likely to lead to any conclusion accepted by both sides of the debate, might we focus on a slightly different question, namely:

 

If the information being provided by the bits is separate and different from other information that may be "along for the ride" in an electrical signal path (like noise and jitter), is it possible to "clean" these free riders from the essential signal in such a way as to provide the critical D/A conversion the best possible input data?

 

The UpTone Regen is obviously trying to do some of this to the USB signal. Those inserting fibre connections in an otherwise Ethernet path are doing another variation of same. In theory, such methods should be able to provide the DAC the same pristine signal as started the audio chain at the source UNLESS somehow the free rider stuff is getting permanently embedded in the signal in a way that is no longer separable.

 

That, to me, is the more interesting question: what might be getting irreversibly embedded and why can it not be filtered or corrected later in the signal path to return the original "bit perfect" information to a pristine state?

 

If you can't measure the presence of the contamination, how can you design something to remove it?

[sdolezalek]

If you can't measure the presence of the contamination, how can you design something to remove it?

 

Jitter and other noise levels can certainly be measured. You might argue whether they exist at levels our ears should not be able to hear and you might say that they "disappear" once you have recaptured the bits (i.e. on a disk or in a file), but as long as we are talking about an electrical signal being transmitted along a wire, they can come along for the ride and therefore have a chance to affect the equipment at the end of that wire.

[Jud]

If you can't measure the presence of the contamination, how can you design something to remove it?

 

A very fine and logical question.

 

Do you remember "disclosing tablets" that showed the presence of food on your teeth? They didn't show the presence of caries-causing bacteria, as there was no convenient test for that at the time. But the hypothesis was that if the food was there, the bacteria would follow.

 

Substitute tests for noise and jitter for the disclosing tablets, a hypothesis regarding effects on analog output for the hypothesis about caries-causing bacteria, and lack of a convenient sensitive test of analog output for lack of a convenient test for the presence of bacteria.

[Daudio]

The "meaning" is the bits, just like the meaning of words the alphabet is found in the characters.

 

Tsk, tsk The 'meaning' of a word is not found in its characters, or pheneons, or whatever, but only in the minds of the human readers (listeners) !

 

I also notice that you seem to have a lack of appreciation for the role of timing, along with the 'bits that are bits', in the conversion of digital data into analog audio, and the difference between digital storage/modification/transmission and the actual rendering of that data into analog.

 

Now add in your calls to 'metaphysics', which I consider total bullshit, and I cannot give any credence to your pronouncements here in this thread. I hope some others here can enlighten you, because I can't be bothered.

[Jud]

In my (granted limited) understanding "digital distortion" refers to the distortion of sound through encoding into digital and the decoding of same sound (in the DAC). There is no "digital distortion" per se from the file itself - at this level (referring to the "sound" of two identical bit files) the bits are really just bits.

 

To your second question, that is not what is being claimed - they are claiming two identical bit files have a different "sound" and that this difference is repeatable through the same audio chain. How can two bit identical files be the source of "distortion" - it's from somewhere else and is independent of the bit identical files yes?

 

Sorry, it was meant to be a simpler question than you took it for. The answer I was looking for was jitter, which causes distortion of the analog output without any bit flipping.

[jabbr]

If you can't measure the presence of the contamination, how can you design something to remove it?

 

Let's be very clear that I'm not ever writing about anything unmeasurable. Digital contamination is very readily measured. Digital systems work well in the setting of contamination for certain tasks. When either analog gets mixed in or when we try to push the performance envelope that reducing digital contamination becomes important

[jabbr]

In one sense, I do have a way of verifying the remarkably consistent "rendering", at least in digital systems - and that is the remarkable consistency of our software, or the fact that a computer can run a long chain of algorithms over and over again, for days/weeks/years, and record the exact same results the entire time.

 

 

Ah, the theory that since Microsoft Word seems to work, that all digital systems work ...

[crenca]

Ok, I see that jitter is a species of "digital distortion". Now, can jitter be the source of two identical bit files having their own sound characteristics (that are heard and repeatable through the same audio chain)? The "cause" of sound distorting/sound characterizing jitter would be a DAC with a clock imprecise enough to be heard, or a non-working buffer etc. right? The bit identical files could not be blamed right? Also, how would the DAC effect jitter in such a way that was consistent (i.e. repeatable) across with two identical bit files?

[4est]

There was made mention of the Upton Audio Regen in relation to this. The purpose of the Regen is to create cleaner USB signals in so that the PYH has less work deciphering the 1/0s. Presumably the extra work in the PYH creates noise which is in turn reduces sound quality. I do not know how solid state memory works, but if an improved power supply provided a cleaner signal that somehow became a stouter 1 or 0 when saved to disk, it would slip right into the Regen territory IMO. This is mere speculation on my part...

Ok, I see that jitter is a species of "digital distortion". Now, can jitter be the source of two identical bit files having their own sound characteristics (that are heard and repeatable through the same audio chain)? The "cause" of sound distorting/sound characterizing jitter would be a DAC with a clock imprecise enough to be heard, or a non-working buffer etc. right? The bit identical files could not be blamed right? Also, how would the DAC effect jitter in such a way that was consistent (i.e. repeatable) across with two identical bit files?

[jabbr]

Or maybe a faulty disc drive with a marginal sector that generates noise when being read...

 

 

I'm not suggesting that any of this becomes an intrinsic property of the file nor that it should be preserved across a copy or network transmission.

[Jud]

Ok, I see that jitter is a species of "digital distortion". Now, can jitter be the source of two identical bit files having their own sound characteristics (that are heard and repeatable through the same audio chain)? The "cause" of sound distorting/sound characterizing jitter would be a DAC with a clock imprecise enough to be heard, or a non-working buffer etc. right? The bit identical files could not be blamed right? Also, how would the DAC effect jitter in such a way that was consistent (i.e. repeatable) across with two identical bit files?

 

Possibly. Have a look back at one of my previous comments in the thread where I talked about variations in saturation at disc or flash storage locations. Notionally this might "freeze" jitter and perhaps noise (higher noise level = greater saturation). That *might* account for differences in bit-identical files on playback if one has more "stored" jitter and noise. (I am just throwing out hypotheticals here.) Note from that comment above that I lack even a speculative explanation for how such effects would last beyond playback from the initial storage medium.

[kumakuma]

Possibly. Have a look back at one of my previous comments in the thread where I talked about variations in saturation at disc or flash storage locations. Notionally this might "freeze" jitter and perhaps noise (higher noise level = greater saturation). That *might* account for differences in bit-identical files on playback if one has more "stored" jitter and noise. (I am just throwing out hypotheticals here.) Note from that comment above that I lack even a speculative explanation for how such effects would last beyond playback from the initial storage medium.

 

This seems to make some sense although I even have a hard standing understanding how such effects would even occur during computer playback considering that the digital data from the storage media needs to be copied into the memory of the computer in order to pass it along to the DAC.

[sdolezalek]

Possibly. Have a look back at one of my previous comments in the thread where I talked about variations in saturation at disc or flash storage locations. Notionally this might "freeze" jitter and perhaps noise (higher noise level = greater saturation). That *might* account for differences in bit-identical files on playback if one has more "stored" jitter and noise. (I am just throwing out hypotheticals here.) Note from that comment above that I lack even a speculative explanation for how such effects would last beyond playback from the initial storage medium.

 

Jud: It would be great to be able to come to a view that every "freezing" of a set of bits and bytes into a set of pure ones and zeros leaves behind the other stuff (noise & jitter) and that the only thing we have to worry about is how much noise and jitter is introduced (a) in the device outputting the digital stream, (b) the wires carrying that stream, and © the device converting that stream to analog.

 

The comment in one of the earlier posts that a power cord on the computer used to rip a disk could make a difference suggests otherwise. It implies that some of this stuff can, in fact, be frozen into the stored bits. It is beyond me to understand how that would occur or where it would be stored, but, if true, it makes all of this much more complicated.

[jabbr]

For example: a noisy drive might send noise down the ground plane and into the DAC

[crenca]

I don't believe the "frozen jitter" hypothesis can go very far. The nature of digital 1 and 0's is mathematical or "quantum" or "informational" (trying here to verbalize the nature of digital in divers ways) - one can not "introduce" or "freeze" jitter into a 1 or 0, unless one alters the information itself (changing the 1's to 0's, vice versa). Jitter is an "interpretive" problem, not a problem or characteristic "captured" in the bits themselves (unless of course the recording "captured" the sound of jitter from some piece of equipment upstream in the recording chain - not what is being asserted however by those who can "hear" differences in identical bit files)

[crenca]

For example: a noisy drive might send noise down the ground plane and into the DAC

 

This I believe is very possible - possibly even "common", and the possible cause of a two bit identical files sounding different when played in an otherwise identical chain excepting these two differing HD's. However, it is due to HD(s) introducing something over and above the bits themselves - the files are not responsible for the difference in SQ - they did not "capture" something in their 1's & 0's over and above their otherwise identical 1's & 0's as being asserted (by those whose assertions are being discussed - not yours)...

[sdolezalek]

Let me add one more variable into the mix -- the precision of timing in playback. This goes not to the accuracy of the ones and zeros, but to the precise moment that a pair of speakers pressure loads a room with the movement of its drivers.

 

I have wondered a lot why the single biggest audible improvement of my REGEN on the sound of my large Maggie 20.1's is a much clearer thump of the deepest bass notes; notes that previously didn't even seem to be there. Would it make sense that by regenerating my USB signal so close to the DAC the timing of sound information is improved (and perhaps this is as much about matching the timing of the right and left signal) such that the actual sound pressure levels in the room are meaningfully increased because the drivers are moving together at the exact right time? Obviously on a short but deep note, if one channel is just a bit behind the other then the sum of sound pressure in the room at the critical time will be much less -- to the point of that bass note fading into the background.

[crenca]

Let me add one more variable into the mix -- the precision of timing in playback. This goes not to the accuracy of the ones and zeros, but to the precise moment that a pair of speakers pressure loads a room with the movement of its drivers.

 

I have wondered a lot why the single biggest audible improvement of my REGEN on the sound of my large Maggie 20.1's is a much clearer thump of the deepest bass notes; notes that previously didn't even seem to be there. Would it make sense that by regenerating my USB signal so close to the DAC the timing of sound information is improved (and perhaps this is as much about matching the timing of the right and left signal) such that the actual sound pressure levels in the room are meaningfully increased because the drivers are moving together at the exact right time? Obviously on a short but deep note, if one channel is just a bit behind the other then the sum of sound pressure in the room at the critical time will be much less -- to the point of that bass note fading into the background.

 

Keeping it to timing (and not getting into rather a PCM/DSD bit stream over a USB path can be corrupted in such a way as to target only certain frequencies - something I believe to be very dubious), I would think that is done by the DAC, and not by any quality in the USB stream itself. IF the stream is arriving with distortion/incompleteness/etc., how does the DAC interpret said distortion in such a way to keep it to "timing" specifically? Since your DAC is in all likelihood asynchronous (i.e. it has a buffer and "regenerates" or "conditions" the stream anyways) it is even more perplexing...

[Jud]

I don't believe the "frozen jitter" hypothesis can go very far. The nature of digital 1 and 0's is mathematical or "quantum" or "informational" (trying here to verbalize the nature of digital in divers ways) - one can not "introduce" or "freeze" jitter into a 1 or 0, unless one alters the information itself (changing the 1's to 0's, vice versa). Jitter is an "interpretive" problem, not a problem or characteristic "captured" in the bits themselves (unless of course the recording "captured" the sound of jitter from some piece of equipment upstream in the recording chain - not what is being asserted however by those who can "hear" differences in identical bit files)

 

So you didn't understand what I was saying when I mentioned variations in saturation.

 

Tom (kumakuma) does, as he mentions the correct engineering question regarding whether the "frozen" jitter and noise in storage will make it through the playback process.

 

We'll go through this step by step so you understand the possibility. First, do you understand what variations in saturation at disc or flash memory storage locations are?

[crenca]

So you didn't understand what I was saying when I mentioned variations in saturation.

 

Tom (kumakuma) does, as he mentions the correct engineering question regarding whether the "frozen" jitter and noise in storage will make it through the playback process.

 

We'll go through this step by step so you understand the possibility. First, do you understand what variations in saturation at disc or flash memory storage locations are?

 

I will follow along, however if in the end you reach a point we end up changing the digital information (so that they no longer checksum as the same files) then you are talking about corruption - the files are no longer "bit identical" to each other, etc. This is of course not the assertion of folks being able to "hear" differences (in a repeatable manner) in bit identical files that are delivered as such to the DAC.

 

No, I don't have a working knowledge of "saturation" on disk or in ss memory.

[esldude]

Sneer all you want, but the Nobel Prize in physics next week will most likely be awarded to some audiophiles who, in the comfort of their own listening room, discovered new physical phenomena using a variety of expensive cables and interconnects. That is to me the most rewarding part of this hobby -- the chance to make an original scientific discovery.

 

I was disappointed to hear the award for the Nobel Prize in Medicine today. I expected those who developed devices which reduce jitter and its myriad health effects to be award the prize. Then again, mental health conditions always get short shrift don't they.