IS EVERYTHING DEBATABLE, REALLY?

[christopher3393]

54 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

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.

 

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?

[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.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

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.

 

Obviously, as an example, you don't even 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 using better than  average gear.

 

BYE !

 

[Ralf11]

the thing to do is to do a test sequence to find out

 

there is no mechanistic understanding that would make someone suspect that bit identical files would be degraded in purely digital transfers tho, is there?

 

Mansr has ruled out identical checksums sounding different, but if you disagree with his analysis I'd like to hear it

[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. 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

As predicted, can't come up with the goods when challenged.

 

Btw Ralph, since others have brought up the subject  what are your qualifications?

 

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

I'm a scientist.

 

and please quit lying like your 1st sentence

 

What type of scientist Ralph?

 

I find it curious when I previously talked about validity of scientific testing your response was:

" kin you break it down a mite fer us dumazzes?"

 

I'm curious what type of scientist would struggle this way?

 

Now you accuse me of lying. More insults when you cannot support your claims. I think you might be the one telling porky pies. So again, you can't come up with the evidence when challenged. What sort of scientist does that make you?

 

 

 

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

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.

 

Your logic is just so flawed here - try harder.

 

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Then perhaps you can educate us as to the proper way to conduct objective testing of audio components, since you  must know what tricks perception can play on reality.

 

 

I am not the one making the claim - Ralph11 is.

 

37 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

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

 

and yet that is what you do. Then when your words fail you mock.

[plissken]

On 11/4/2017 at 5:38 PM, trappy said:

Is this one of those threads where we mock anyone who spends more than we do?

 

No, it's one of those threads where we mock people that area clueless how computer audio actually works.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

17 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

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.

 

 

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

[pkane2001]

Just now, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I am not the one making the claim - Ralph11 is.

 

I’m not at all interested in who is making the claim, but if you have the training and the experience in conducting tests that take perception into account this would be an excellent thing to share with the CA community. Most of us wouldn’t know the first thing about constructing and performing tests that eliminate subjective biases and erroneous perceptions.

[kumakuma]

Just now, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 

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

 

What do you mean?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

4 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

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

 

What do you mean?

 

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?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I’m not at all interested in who is making the claim, but if you have the training and the experience in conducting tests that take perception into account this would be an excellent thing to share with the CA community. Most of us wouldn’t know the first thing about constructing and performing tests that eliminate subjective biases and erroneous perceptions.

 

 I have stated I am not an expert in statistics or research methodology despite having some formal training. I have stated that I know of no scientifically validated tests for solving the problem of hearing differences in complex musical perceptions - and if others do please provide references. One cannot just make it up as it suits them.

[PeterSt]

20 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

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

 

Sorry, wrong. And wrongly interpreted as well. You twisted words and that's your hint. 

Another hint is that it is not math.

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 I have stated I am not an expert in statistics or research methodology despite having some formal training. I have stated that I know of no scientifically validated tests for solving the problem of hearing differences in complex musical perceptions - and if others do please provide references. One cannot just make it up as it suits them.

 

That’s too bad. It would’ve made for a much more interesting discussion than how to compare bit identical files. 

[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?

[PeterSt]

16 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

What about that statement do you not understand?

 

David, try to write more accurately. You don't represent the truth here. Or are literally closed minded.

Btw, I am not part of the "I will get you" party as I am not like that.

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

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

 

No. This implies the activity itself is doing things.

That does nothing.

 

[kumakuma]

Just now, PeterSt said:

 

No. This implies the activity itself is doing things.

That does nothing.

 

 

This is Alex's claim, not mine.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Sorry, wrong. And wrongly interpreted as well. You twisted words and that's your hint. 

Another hint is that it is not math.

 

 

Sorry peter you are wrong IMO. Its a statement of logic.

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

That’s too bad. It would’ve made for a much more interesting discussion than how to compare bit identical files. 

 

Yes (sigh). Amen to that.

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

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.

 

Not when this is happening external to the playback machine. But in the environment of playback, yes.

And mind "deterioration" because it will be about change. Can thus also end up for the better.

Also notice that this is not about the file played itself per se. Opening and closing that file will alter the SQ of the other file (due) playing.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

David, try to write more accurately. You don't represent the truth here. Or are literally closed minded.

Btw, I am not part of the "I will get you" party as I am not like that.

 

It depends on what you are defining as the truth Peter. Let's take the controversial nature out of the equation. If two things are identical in some way, any differences cannot logically be in the way they are the same. It's just a statement of logic, as said.

 

[PeterSt]

4 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

This is Alex's claim, not mine.

 

It was not 100% clear but I tried to take that into account. So we're all in the third person. Should be good.

[PeterSt]

8 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

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.

 

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.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

12 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

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 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?

 

Alex is well able to explain his position on bit identical files sounding differently.

 

If two things are identical in some way, any differences cannot logically be in the way they are the same. It's just a statement of logic, as said.

 

So, if files with identical checksums sound differently the reason is not related to the identical checksums. There has to be another explanation, whether physical,psychological or both.

[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.