IS EVERYTHING DEBATABLE, REALLY?

[kumakuma]

6 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

I always find it odd when people reject science.

 

If you are what you say you are, then it is much worse.  I fear for your patients -- if you have any.

 

Please take another look at his name.

 

He doesn't practice regular neuroscience, he practices audiophile neuroscience. This is a unique branch of the science akin to the audiophile physics that the high-end cable manufacturers use when marketing their products. It's a lot easier the regular kind as there's no peer reviews on publications and you can issue your own degree.

[kumakuma]

57 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Yet once again, you are jumping to conclusions.

As a Medical Specialist of many years standing, David is well informed about Neuroscience and keeps in touch with recent developments. He also has many Specialist friends in other areas, such as an Ophthalmic Surgeon (who also has another Specialist Degree) that I have met personally, who also has a keen ear for music, and like David a system to dream about.

 Both are very unassuming, genuine people with a passion for Hi Fi.

 

So you are saying David is a neurologist?

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 NO !

I am saying that as a Medical Specialist, with a friend who is a Neurologist, that he has an interest in, and is very well informed in this area.

 

I'm confused. You've repeatedly said that engineers working in fields other than audio aren't qualified to comment on audio-related matters but yet you're saying we should consider David to be an expert in a field outside his speciality and training. 

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Yes you are confused.

I have asked for scientific evidence about a claim and in this regard it is irrelevant what my field of expertise is or is not.

 

The area of perception however is within my area of expertise, qualifications and training. I also do have training in statistics and research methodology, although I do not claim to be expert.

 

Regardless of how many classes in statistics you've taken, the fact that you believe Alex's claims regarding bit identical files disqualifies you from being a scientist.

[kumakuma]

28 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

great that you are here to adjudicate such things!...but, for the sake of others, maybe you should announce your expertise? Although, I don't actually believe that someone has to be credentialed in some way to have a valid perspective. I don't think you do either. Just the boys having a little fun as usual?

 

I have no interest in playing your word games, Monk Man.

[kumakuma]

13 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Obviously, as an example, you don't accept that a Mac Mini with the JS2 Linear PSU, Kelvin Sensing,fan controller etc. will be found to sound better when exporting bit identical data, to that from a bog standard, unmodified Mac Mini in a  Double Blind test ?

That's without even playing around with USB Regens, internal/external low noise +5V supplies and higher quality USB cables.

 

 It's a waste of time further discussing anything with somebody with such a blinkered outlook, who also rejects the results of 6 Blind DBTs, and numerous confirming reports in this very forum from several well respected members, as well as quite a few other members.

 

BYE !

 

 

 

This has nothing to do with blinkers or having an open mind.

 

If two files are bit identical, they are exactly the same and any difference between them during playback is due to causes external to the files. 

 

[kumakuma]

Just now, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 

Any difference between bit identical files is not due to being bit identical .

 

What do you mean?

[kumakuma]

18 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

More word games before the next insults.

 

Any difference between bit identical files is not due to being bit identical .What about that statement do you not understand?

 

I'm not trying to play word games here so let me list some of the things that Alex has claimed over the years.

 

1. Two songs from CDs ripped on different machines may sound different when played back in the same environment and these differences remain when the files are transferred to a different storage media or the files are sent over the Internet even though both files are bit for bit identical.  In other words, there is some intrinsic difference between identical digital data that is external to it's bits and bytes.

 

2. Transferring a file over the Internet causes a deterioration in sound quality even if the digital data at both ends is identical.

 

3. Simply opening a file in a program and closing it again with no changes to the file causes a deterioration in sound quality although no data has changed.

 

4. Converting a file between lossless formats (WAV to AIFF and back to WAV) causes a deterioration in sound quality although digital data before and after this conversion is identical.

 

5. Zipping a file before sending it over the Internet protects it from sound deterioration although there is no difference between a "naked" file and a file that has been zipped and unzipped.

 

Please note that I am not talking about what happens when digital data is converted to audio signals. I am talking about static digital data.

 

How does the above mesh with your explanation?

[kumakuma]

Just now, PeterSt said:

 

No. This implies the activity itself is doing things.

That does nothing.

 

 

This is Alex's claim, not mine.

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

 

Again :  change. But this is in general. This in itself is because digital data can not be the same before and after. The functional result can (no, will be). But this is something else.

We don't control where the bits are on the medium. And if we can it is the most hard and will be a lab environment.

 

I can certainly understand how bit played back from a contiguous section of HDD platter might sound different in some situations when compared with a file that is highly fragmented but this isn't what Alex is claiming.

 

At it's core, Alex's claim is that noise can be captured in digital data outside the bits that make up the data and that noise travels with this digital data when it copied, transferred over the Internet, or written to the CD.

[kumakuma]

24 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Presuming that is Alex's position (and I'm not saying it is) - is that impossible?

 

Yes, it is impossible if we are talking about the data itself and not the representation of that data on the storage media. 

 

All data is just a a string of bits. For example, the letter "a" is represented by the following bits:

 

01100001

 

That's it. There is no place for noise to hide in these bits and, if two files are bit-for-bit identical, it doesn't matter whether one was created on a machine with linear power supply or not, they are identical at the data level.

[kumakuma]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

LIAR !!! 

 

I would post a whole pile of links, and confirming material, but the original links in most cases no longer work due to forum upgrades.

 However, if I did this the whole thread would be likely to be shut down by Admin.

WTF are some of you doing here in an Audiophile forum when you have no interest in contributing anything positive towards improving Computer Audio ?

 

Many of you only participate in a narrow section of the forum, and only to try and piss off/intimidate anybody in the forum who dares to post anything remotely connected with Subjective reports.

 

 

 

You told Dennis that the simple act of opening a file in Audacity would cause it's sound quality to deterioriate, even if no changes were made to the file.

 

 

 

[kumakuma]

9 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Peter

 I had no desire to start this up in this thread, but Kumakuma dragged me into it yet once again.

Even wgs recently respected my position of not being dragged into it again.

 

Alex

 

You've keep mentioning your finding in other threads as if they were established facts. I didn't realize that they weren't allowed to dispute your crackpot theories.

[kumakuma]

 

15 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

You’re confused on this subject. Binary code is just an abstraction based on a low vs high voltage state. Did you know that the 1-0 binary system is simply arbitrary? You can count as many voltage states as you want. For example, in Ethernet processing, it’s 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s and 0s! It’s called PAM5.

 

All of this talk about voltage levels and analog representations of digital data is irrelevant and has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

 

Read what Alex quoted:

 

Quote

Files EAC checked , zipped , sent to the uk on the net , unzipped , HDD filed , EAC checked, copied to USB stick , replayed via Naim UnitiServe HDD into an MSB Platinum Signature /Diamond Power Base ARC REF 5 Krell Evo 402e Wilson

 

What travelled from Alex's computer to the UK? 

 

Was it voltage levels or digital data?

 

Did the voltage levels of the data on the USB drive in the UK match the voltage levels of the files on Alex's computer?

 

Both Alex and I ripped different copies of the same Julie London CD. Both rips are bit-for-bit identical. Do you think that the voltage levels are the same? 

[kumakuma]

8 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Yeh you stumbled into an attack on Alex, lets forget those unpleasant people.

 

 

I am not attacking Alex.

 

I am attacking his belief that he can create two identical files, hear differences between these files, send these files over the Internet, and have someone hear the same differences between these two files.

 

This is not personal. I have a great deal of respect for Alex and believe that he is extremely knowledgeable about most things related to our hobby. 

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, christopher3393 said:

 

That's a word game. You play them regularly. In fact, I was responding to yours.

 

Think of the tools in a tool-box: there is a hammer, pliers, a saw, a screw-driver, a rule, a glue-pot, glue, nails and screws.—The functions of words are as diverse as the functions of these objects. (And in both cases there are similarities.) Of course, what confuses us is the uniform appearance of words when we hear them spoken or meet them in script.

 

I'm sorry but reading your posts make my head hurt... and not in a good way.

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

I am not attacking Alex.

 

I am disputing his belief that he can create two identical files, hear differences between these files, send these files over the Internet, and have someone hear the same differences between these two files.

 

This is not personal. I have a great deal of respect for Alex and believe that he is extremely knowledgeable about most things related to our hobby. 

 

[kumakuma]

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

maybe he has a Type B tapeworm in his gut?

 

Not to be confused with a Class D tapeworm. I had one and it sucked.

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

you are going to send me a check for that setup, right?

 

kumakuma always treats his suppliers fairly. You'll get 50% of everything I get.

 

 

[kumakuma]

Just now, PeterSt said:

 

Third persons always are trolls these days. Or snowflakes of course.

Better don't to that ?

 

So you got kumakuma's joke. He likes it when that happens.

[kumakuma]

16 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

You brought up the subject IIRC and Alex asked for you to desist IIRC as it has been all discussed before. You bring it up as way of deflecting the current discussion back to an area where you feel comfortable ridiculing him IMO. Now if Alex brings it up it  fair game to "question his beliefs".

 

As Peter has already stated, he continues to bring it up in various threads yet gets angry when anyone questions him.

 

 Here's an example from a couple of days ago:

 

 

[kumakuma]

27 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

The claims are pretty far out there, and a key issue is that such claims need to be supported by strong evidence.

 

So far, they have not been.

 

There is also the phrase "different types of capacitance with digital files" - not clear what he means, as he didn't say different amounts.

 

Also, not clear if he means the container or what, or an effect at the decode level, or...??

 

His core claim is that he can create two identical files that sound different, send these files to someone over the Internet, and have the recipient hear the same differences between these two identical files.

 

The only possible way for this to be true is that Alex has discovered something that brings into question the very underpinnings of how digital communications and computers work.

[kumakuma]

54 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Yesterday IIRC you said his core claim was something else. Today what you are claiming is a misrepresentation. i believe the issue is about identical checksums, one way a file is identical and therefore if different it has to be due to something else.Now I'm guessing it will be said that if checksums are identical the file is identical in every possible way known to science. Whatever the case why bang on about it unless Alex brings it up?

 

Your memory fails you.

 

I listed five interrelated claims things yesterday, only one of which (#3) Alex disputed as a misrepresentation of his claims.

 

#2 was the same as what I am calling his "core claim" because this is the one that repeats most often. Note that this is my term, not his.

 

Identical checksums is not the core issue. 

 

Identical checksums simply means that two files are identical with a very degree of probability, depending on the algorithm used. Instead of calculating checksums you can also compare two files bit-by-bit to see if they are identical. The files that Alex has sent me in the past are bit identical and also, of course, have the same checksums.

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Your statement as "core" , 1."Alex's claim is that noise can be captured in digital data outside the bits that make up the data " IMO is different to your statement 2. as "core" "he can create two identical files that sound different"

 

Statement 2 is IMO, and as said, a misrepresentation.

 

Both of my statements refer to the same thing.

 

The only difference between them is that yesterday's statement included the mechanism (embedded noise) that Alex has repeatedly said is what he believes is the cause of the difference that he hears between the two identical files.

 

Statement 2 is not a misrepresentation of Alex's claims. He has said that ripping CDs on different computers with different power supplies will create identical files (rips) that sound different. In other words, he is creating these files by ripping CDs.

[kumakuma]

6 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

This is probably the crux of the issue. Logically, two identical anythings cannot by definition be different. They can be identical in some or most ways but not all ways. I get what you are saying and accept you were not misrepresenting Alex per se. I apologize.

 

I still think that leaving out the "cause of the difference" is misleading. Two truly "identical" files cannot sound differently (barring perturbations and anomalies of the playback system or listener).That is why I have understood that Alex has specified, or at least meant, checksums are the same with different ripping methods. He has also said he doesn't know why they sound different, speculates about possible reasons, and that is a perfectly scientific and rational stance. It may not be probable as believed by others but I don't think it is impossible from what has been said.

 

Yes, Alex did play me two different rips which had the same checksums and yes I did (think) I heard subtle differences on that occasion.This is hardly scientifc proof and I perhaps more than most would not entertain it as proof.

 

I'm glad we are finally on the same page.

 

I don't think that including a "cause of the difference" makes sense as none of the probable causes that Alex has come up with are technically possible based on the facts that he has laid out.