IS EVERYTHING DEBATABLE, REALLY?

[PeterSt]

11 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

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.

 

Not sure, but this seems wrongly written (say me and my English). Either :

 

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

Technically again, it will be different. This statement should not be Alex's.

 

or

 

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

It will be different. If this really ends up in deterioration than the base file has been formed in a technical well fashion for the receiver (playback machine / software) although it would be guessing what that would be. But an empty USB stick would do it, with orderly "writing" software. The ripper program would be crucial now.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

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.

 

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

[PeterSt]

10 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

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.

 

David, no. This is because there is a difference between statical data and a dynamic environment where this data is used.

Sadly this is in order with audio playback.

The easiest example is FLAC vs WAV. Both represent the same bit identical data, but FLAC needs processing to get there. The processing influences SQ because of electrical noise in the midst of a million worms in about as many cans.

And it is not even said that the processing implies worse SQ; It could be better.

The 2nd worm would be that the reading of the FLAC file implies 2 times less processing opposed to the WAV.

Add to this the 1st worm in the second can that the reading of the larger WAV file is more impeding than the processing of the smaller FLAC, at least that is my experience (the reading implies an enormous load, up to the system being busy with only that).

 

I can write for days until I an done with the first can.

But now you have the beginning of understanding how XXHighEnd tries to improve sound. All this sh*t is dealt with. Including the attempts for the elimination of Alex's claim, just because I don't like that to be true.

So it's there. But not for the reason(s) Alex thinks. He knows that but it is hard to put a finger behind.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

David, no. This is because there is a difference between statical data and a dynamic environment where this data is used.

Sadly this is in order with audio playback.

The easiest example is FLAC vs WAV. Both represent the same bit identical data, but FLAC needs processing to get there. The processing influences SQ because of electrical noise in the midst of a million worms in about as many cans.

And it is not even said that the processing implies worse SQ; It could be better.

The 2nd worm would be that the reading of the FLAC file implies 2 times less processing opposed to the WAV.

Add to this the 1st worm in the second can that the reading of the larger WAV file is more impeding than the processing of the smaller FLAC, at least that is my experience (the reading implies an enormous load, up to the system being busy with only that).

 

I can write for days until I an done with the first can.

But now you have the beginning of understanding how XXHighEnd tries to improve sound. All this sh*t is dealt with. Including the attempts for the elimination of Alex's claim, just because I don't like that to be true.

So it's there. But not for the reason(s) Alex thinks. He knows that but it is hard to put a finger behind.

 

Peter, for heavens sake forget about audio for a moment,okay, and follow:

 

There are two blue shirts.

The shirts are different.

The difference, whatever that may be, is not the color blue.

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

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

 

My take ? no, not impossible. 

 

3 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

At it's core, Alex's claim is that noise can be captured in digital data outside the bits that make up the data

 

But it would require "codec" to do so. Example : suppose we'd have parity checked bytes vs not parity checked. Now the bit data is different, but the functional data is equal when no errors occurs (it is just not error corrected). The parity checked data can be seen as carrying noise, while the noise itself is not played as such. But it implies processing again, and *that* will be audible. WILL be. It just works out like that.

N.b.: I just made this up because it is hopefully comprehendable. Putting the bytes in another sequence would also be an example (implying more electronic processing again, with the example of disk head movement (projected on to memory, which far sought implies the same)).

[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.

[sandyk]

28 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.

 

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.

 

 

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Peter, for heavens sake forget about audio for a moment,okay, and follow:

 

I understand what you want, David. But it *is* audio and the things I pose do happen.

 

1+1 = 1.99 when jitter is in order. And it is in order. Transformation error.

 

We have two blue shirts. They carry the exact same color. I send one to you after photographing them both. You receive your shirt and show me the color by means of a photo you make. We compare the both - you down under, I up here) and come to the conclusion they don't look the same. We can always see what my photo is, because I made the photo of two of them while you have only one of them.

 

You will virtually need brain surgery to see through this chain of all the errors which happen under way.

The shirts are still equal. But we can't even prove it to each other.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

6 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

  13 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

At it's core, Alex's claim is that noise can be captured in digital data outside the bits that make up the data

 

To clarify, that was Kumakuma summation not mine.

[sandyk]

14 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

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

Technically again, it will be different. This statement should not be Alex's.

 

The claim was made originally by Cookie Marenco, ( Blue Coast Records) and confirmed by elcorso ( Roch) after his tests with Cookie Marenco. Despite my scepticism and initial refusal to humour Roch by trying this out, when I eventually did months later, I did indeed hear an improvement with the UNCOMPRESSED Zips after decoding again.

AFAIK , Cookie still supplies her files as UNCOMPRESSED  Zips in order to help reduce SQ degradation.

[PeterSt]

5 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.

 

 

 

 

Hey Alex, can you stay out of this ? we were just having a civilized discussion. You disturb.

 

Shout on - I go elsewhere.

[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.

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

Just now, sandyk said:

The claim was made originally by Cookie Marenco,

 

I know and wanted to mention it. But it is irrelevant because you all make the same mistake.

Maybe you remember that already back then I right away told her that she did not understand much of this. But she is too nice to disagree with (know her personally as well) and I apologized.

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

AFAIK , Cookie still supplies her files as UNCOMPRESSED  Zips in order to help reduce SQ degradation.

 

She better avoids PCM processing when producing a DSD file.

Ah oh .. , ok, so you didn't know that.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

10 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I understand what you want, David. But it *is* audio and the things I pose do happen.

 

1+1 = 1.99 when jitter is in order. And it is in order. Transformation error.

 

We have two blue shirts. They carry the exact same color. I send one to you after photographing them both. You receive your shirt and show me the color by means of a photo you make. We compare the both - you down under, I up here) and come to the conclusion they don't look the same. We can always see what my photo is, because I made the photo of two of them while you have only one of them.

 

You will virtually need brain surgery to see through this chain of all the errors which happen under way.

The shirts are still equal. But we can't even prove it to each other.

 

 

Peter, you are overreaching what is a simple statement of logic. No need to go into photographing the shirts or anything else. I am not asking to prove the shirts are blue. I am conceding that blue shirts are indeed blue and bit identical files are indeed bit identical. How you can conflate this to something else is illogical.If I said your name was Peter would you rave on about audio principles ?

[sandyk]

Just now, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

At it's core, Alex's claim is that noise can be captured in digital data outside the bits that make up the data

 

Again, that is once again incorrect. It is Kumakuma's interpretation of what I said.

  I have NFI what the cause is,  but I have speculated that it has something to do with the Integrity of the Binary Data, including the symmetry, rise and fall times, even the voltage levels varying, which would still result in identical checksums, but different processing requirements. What I can say with certainty, is that the quality of the PSU area in the PC and DAC does have some bearing on this, which was also verified by Martin Colloms..

Quote

#1 Posted : 4 years ago Retweet 
Martin Colloms

 

Rank: Moderator

 

Joined: 15/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 2,481

 

Was thanked: 20 time(s) in 20 post(s)
 
Alex Kethel ripping, HIFICRITIC results second session

Private Investigations ripping from a ROM drive with various power supplies

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 Sophia 3, accessories , supports to match

We did it , about 8 repeats!

Rip 1: rather mid fi CD sound perfectly good if you did not know better , not very communicative or involving set at 50% approx score

Rip 2: makes 1 sound dulled , less detailed , less transparent , softer dynamics and bass definition

rip 2 has more musical expression better listener involvement and clarity, higher resolution without a doubt ( I have heard the master tapes)

75% approx , very natural, accurate effect, firmer clearer bass lines , greater depth and atmosphere , more extended instrumental decays

Rip 3 : The latest rip, ( with another power supply upgrade to the ripping drive ) better still in some respects, but not others, eg more convincing micro dynamic resolution in far depth plane, still more detail and focus, but

not quite so relaxed , flowing , musically involving, sounds slightly artificial and mannered , a 'spotlit' character

so a moderate loss of quality to 66%

and we really do value our rhythm and timing at HIFICRITIC!

..............................................

In research it does not always go the way you expect, we have long learned to take it as it comes and never expect too much, maintaining a spirit of open enquiry.

Many thanks to Alex for his painstaking perseverance in this work , No, he is not fooling himself ............

a fascinating conundrum .......... rip quality and ripping software ( all rip 100% error free of course!)

Martin Colloms 

 

Martin Colloms

Rank: Moderator

Joined: 15/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 2,481

 

Was thanked: 20 time(s) in 20 post(s)
 there is a nice twist to this story

Alex sent me at various points, three rips of his rips of Private Investigations

one , as it comes but not identified, with another, which later turned out to have the improved drive power supplies

We were able to easily distinguish double blind , ( we did not know which track was which until Alex told us later) the two rips, and describe the clear fidelity advantage of one , which turned out to be with the improved drive.

Alex then sent a third for auditioning , which we judged as improved, but not as convincing musically as the second.

The twist was that Alex had at first convinced himself that it was still better because he had done further work on the supplies.

His further listening then indicated on reflection that he had not got it right but he was still interested to see whether independent parties across the ocean via zip files could report the correct state of affairs. We could and we did , much to Alex's satisfaction, who has now corrected that phase of development.

The listening process is much like auditioning a series of review CD players.

As Ross Walker once said, more or less, 'all CD players are bit perfect and are thus perfect and all sound the same'.

An admirable and well respected site devoted to computer audio is simply in denial over the Kethel research.

We know better now

Martin C
Edited by user 4 years ago  | Reason: Not specified

 

[sandyk]

12 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Hey Alex, can you stay out of this ? we were just having a civilized discussion. You disturb.

 

Shout on - I go elsewhere.

Peter

 Are you here to help explain my position , or otherwise ?

 I am the one under attack here by the usual suspects.

 I did NOT initiate any of this regurgitated stuff.

Kumakuma did.

 

Alex

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Again, that is once again incorrect. It is Kumakuma's interpretation of what I said.

Exactly

[sandyk]

28 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

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.

 

 

 Rubbish. Dennis did MORE than just open and close the file in question.

What he did wasn't the same as just simply playing the file with a software player from it's original  location.

Back on IGNORE you go.

You have a habit of twisting everything I say.

 

 

[sandyk]

21 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

She better avoids PCM processing when producing a DSD file.

Ah oh .. , ok, so you didn't know that.

 

I am aware of what Cookie does.(unless she has changed her methodology recently)

Let's leave it at that.

[PeterSt]

Here comes the most wild scientific claim of the day :

 

Blue = Blue

 

Now what ?

Did we achieve something suddenly ?

 

 

 

 

[GUTB]

This is a very difficult concept for objectivists to accept — that there is no such thing as digital audio. Yes, there is a sort of logical data deciphered from square waves, but there isn’t even a hint of 1s and 0s going into your speakers, and speakers have no way to know if an electrical impulse should be there or not.

 

There is an imaginary pretend wall between "digital" and "analog" parts of a playback chain. You guys have to learn that this boundary does not exist.

[PeterSt]

28 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I am conceding that blue shirts are indeed blue and bit identical files are indeed bit identical.

 

Correct. And you go nowhere with it. Or otherwise you are hiding out but will suddenly come with a large surprise (it would be my tactic all right).

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Just now, PeterSt said:

Here comes the most wild scientific claim of the day :

 

Blue = Blue

 

Now what ?

Did we achieve something suddenly ?

 

 

 

 

 

Baby steps, peter, baby steps.

 

I'll work on difficult stuff like standing waves in rooms despite quality playback another time.

 

I'm just kidding okay. I need some space cake. Too bad we didnt bring any back with us and was too chicken to try it when we were in your beautiful country.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Correct. And you go nowhere with it. Or otherwise you are hiding out but will suddenly come with a large surprise (it would be my tactic all right).

 

hehe