Blue or red pill?

[Spacehound]

3 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Would you care to elaborate some more on this ?

I have the hunch that you're implicitly addressing matters which you take for granted, but which "we" do not at all.

 

I would agree with you that the file itself does not remain the same at all, however, it depends on the definition of "file". A file IMO is not a collection of physical disk sectors (as how I kind of introduced that yesterday) but a functional unit which oughts to be transparent to us for its physical lay out. Still for audio this is not true because of noise implications (how hard is it for the medium to collect those sectors etc.) and this is surely what I recognize and work with. But now you, because you seem to refer to something else.

 

And on another note, without wanting to be spooky, there *is* something else, but we can not see that ...

 

?

Noise isn't carried forward  with the signal so it doesn't matter where the signal comes from, there is no 'history'.  The noise output of a USB socket or an ethemet port is its own. What happened before has no effect.

 

It's the same at the receiving end, the DAC or whatever sees only the noise created by its own inputs, nothing else. And  if it read (not 'put into'  which never happens, the buffer generates its own bits)  to  a buffer that happens again. Brand new bits with every process.

[beerandmusic]

7 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 

Good question Beery. I recall when it was "bits" and "timing", as in jitter, and then noise and some of the solutions as offered by John Swenson et al.

i lump timing, jitter, and noise in same group....there are many things that cause "noise", and technology still hasn't figured a way to properly deal with it.... but I am sure some day we will.

[beerandmusic]

10 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

Noise isn't carried forward  with the signal so it doesn't matter where the signal comes from, there is no 'history'.  The noise output of a USB socket or an ethemet port is its own. What happened before has no effect.

 

It's the same at the receiving end, the DAC or whatever sees only the noise created by its own inputs, nothing else. And  if it read (not 'put into'  which never happens, the buffer generates its own bits)  to  a buffer that happens again. Brand new bits with every process.

I don't think it is that noise generates it's own bits, just that noise ultimately is harvested in, and affects different circuitry, but it may also affect accuracy, but i lean more towards just how noise affects other circuitry (e.g. conversion and output).

 

Ultimately, if we could read in the entire file into memory, couple that memory to the dacs input, and then process same file without need for intense internal processing, that would be ideal.

[adamdea]

22 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Would you care to elaborate some more on this ?

I have the hunch that you're implicitly addressing matters which you take for granted, but which "we" do not at all.

 

I would agree with you that the file itself does not remain the same at all, however, it depends on the definition of "file". A file IMO is not a collection of physical disk sectors (as how I kind of introduced that yesterday) but a functional unit which oughts to be transparent to us for its physical lay out. Still for audio this is not true because of noise implications (how hard is it for the medium to collect those sectors etc.) and this is surely what I recognize and work with. But now you, because you seem to refer to something else.

 

And on another note, without wanting to be spooky, there *is* something else, but we can not see that ...

 

?

Perhaps I was digressing in my old age. I was recalling the occasions on which

• it was claimed that two bit identical files sounded different depending on the psu which was powering the ripping drive.
• it was claimed by Cooky Marenco that emailing a file changed its sound

(sed quaere)

in those cases the file was apparently changed by something which did not change its bit values. I appreciate that this is slightly different than the question of whether noise and jitter upstream might affect the output of a dac in spite of being transmitted by ethernet, buffered etc. I spose my point is that if the former examples are true then it is hopeless to even consider digital files as having any meaningful continuity once passed into a computer.

[beerandmusic]

5 minutes ago, adamdea said:

• it was claimed by Cooky Marenco that emailing a file changed its sound

 

 

If that is a true quote, I would guess that Cooky no longer believes that insanity.

She has on more than one occasion said something that she later deviated from, and she is not someone i would ever quote.

[Spacehound]

Just now, beerandmusic said:

si lump timing, jitter, and noise in same group....

It's all done with imaginary magic.

 

There's no timing information  in a file so how can timing be 'wrong' when there isn't any?

So jitter in the computer  is imaginary. (There is  a rough clock inside to  keep its own  processes  marching inline but it doesn't go outside.)

Only the DAC does the timing so that is the only place jitter can exist.

Noise isn't  carried forward with the bits. Because  the bits in every  'next process' are brand new, they don't use the ones they receive.

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

It's all done with imaginary magic.

 

There's no timing information  in a file so how can timing be 'wrong' when there isn't any?

So jitter in the computer  is imaginary. (There is  a rough clock inside to  keep its own  processes  marching inline but it doesn't go outside.)

Only the DAC does the timing so that is the only place jitter can exist.

Noise isn't  carried forward with the bits. Because  the bits in every  'next process' are brand new, they don't use the ones they receive.

 

I never said there is timing in a file..what i said is all very basic..if you don't understand what i said, then i don't care to elaborate...

 

[adamdea]

21 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

i lump timing, jitter, and noise in same group....there are many things that cause "noise", and technology still hasn't figured a way to properly deal with it.... but I am sure some day we will.

How will we know when we have?

 Some small minded people consider that noise and jitter are dealt with by existing technology like ASRC. The problem is that in order to make an assessment you need to have some concept of a threshold below which things don;t matter. No two events are ever exactyl the same. Benchmark wre able to show with their dac 1 that 1000 ft long coax cable produced the same result as normal lengths and that so did 2000ns of jitter. But of course they could only show the output down to say -140dB. This looks very persuasive in the light of conventional thinking including models of hearing and thresholds of audibility even without considering masking.

 

But some people claim to be able to hear things way below that. They will always be able to point to the possibility of there being a measurable but tiny difference   or an immeasurable difference. I can guarantee to you that someone will always "hear" some difference even between identical files. Science has no difficulty explaining that. 

 

On the first model, the problem is solved. On the "but I can hear a difference" model it never will be.

[PeterSt]

29 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

If it is not noise, then why do "YOU" suspect there is a difference in sound...there really isn't anything besides bits and noise in the digital domain.

 

It looks like you read only half of the posts ? I never said it is not about noise. In each of my posts I claim explicitly it *is* about noise. So again but rephrased :

 

33 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

39 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

but one thing that is clear to me, is if one method requires more cpu resources than the other, then the one requiring less cpu resources will likely sound better because it will have a smaller noise signature.

 

Sadly this is wrong, or say not my experience.

 

Without sufficient words I there tried to say that it is about MORE cpu resources.

So I just disagreed with your pose and with the context that all *is* about noise, I could only imply it is the other way around, right ? So this one again too :

 

36 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Compare with analogue : what would be more audible ... 100uV of noise upon 100mV or the same 100uV upon 1V ?

 

Clear now ?

[mansr]

3 hours ago, PeterSt said:

You will be able to show a difference in SQ, but you both will fail on the explanation. You just won't know what is going on where and when.

Please drop the elitist attitude. If you think you know something, explain it or shut up.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

I never said there is timing in a file...if you don't understand what i said, then i don't care to elaborate. 

 

perhaps understanding isnt his 'thing". he is too busy creating the universe, or recreating in his image.

 

Btw I think there would be a few that would disagree with your lumping together of timing/ jitter and noise. I must say I was interested with this new idea of time "smearing" alleged by MQA but couldnt see how they explained why it was different to jitter

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

Please drop the elitist attitude. If you think you know something, explain it or shut up.

 

Elitist ? Please ?

You really can't behave ever, can you ?

[beerandmusic]

12 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

It looks like you read only half of the posts ? I never said it is not about noise. In each of my posts I claim explicitly it *is* about noise. So again but rephrased :

 

 

Without sufficient words I there tried to say that it is about MORE cpu resources.

So I just disagreed with your pose and with the context that all *is* about noise, I could only imply it is the other way around, right ? So this one again too :

Clear now ?

 

I am talking about any kind of noise.  If you need more cpu resources, then what happens with lack of cpu resources? 

 

In the digital domain, it is ONLY about the accurate transfer of bits with as little noise as possible. 

 

In the digital domain, the only "signal" that exists is the bits (reference levels), and noise.  assuming bits are accurate, noise is the only contention. 

 

I am not talking only about bus noise, but noise harvested by cpu, clocks, jitter on bus and signal, and airborn.

 

As to the second part, you seemed to be pointing to a specific type of noise.  I agree, clearly, that the lower % of noise will be better...but my thinking has more to do with timing and conversion.

 

[Spacehound]

48 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

So you are "sort of" an engineer and yet you claim to "design and create" what exactly?.. other than your self inflated ego? In fact you claim a hell of a lot but offer nothing but your self professed superiority.

Unlike you I readily acknowledge I don't have all the answers, just a respect for scientific inquiry. I do however recognize BS when I see it and perhaps if you stop piling it on, the "darkness" which you project on others might be lifted from your eyes.

 

Computers and operating systems and sometime languages. I don't do it all by myself, obviously..

 

Currently I'm a very small part of a totally new concept where time doesn't come into it and  operations are not 'sequential'. Everything is set up and then done in one instant (as far as we can tell) go,  no matter how complicated.

It has now  got to the point where it is under test by a number of 'Fortune 500' corporations and has already done stuff impossible before as it would have  taken longer than the predicted future existence of the universe,

 

https://www.research.ibm.com/ibm-q/

 

[mansr]

1 minute ago, Spacehound said:

Computers and operating systems and sometime languages. I don't do it all by myself, obviously..

 

Currently I'm a very small part of a totally new concept where time doesn't come into it and  operations are not 'sequential'. Everything is set up and then done in one instant (as far as we can tell) go,  no matter how complicated.

It has now  got to the point where it is under test by a number of 'Fortune 500' corporations and has already done stuff impossible before as it would have  taken longer than the predicted future existence of the universe. . 

If you're talking about quantum computing, why don't you just say so?

[PeterSt]

18 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

22 minutes ago, adamdea said:

• it was claimed by Cooky Marenco that emailing a file changed its sound

 

 

If that is a true quote, I would guess that Cooky no longer believes that insanity.

 

She does. But I don't.

So I observed correctly that @adamdea was on to a SandyK sort of thing. Well, I don't believe in that, were it about a consistently improved SQ. Different Yes. This is what I made that "sector thing" for. IOW, I sure will agree that the storage place or position matters. But claiming that FLAC etc. will distroy SQ ? ... No.

[adamdea]

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

 

She does. But I don't.

 

Now how does that Carly Simon song go?

[PeterSt]

7 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

If you need more cpu resources, then what happens with lack of cpu resources? 

 

"I" don't need more cpu resources. It can just be dialed in (believe it or not).

 

8 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

As to the second part, you seemed to be pointing to a specific type of noise.  I agree, clearly, that the lower % of noise will be better...but my thinking has more to do with timing and conversion.

 

Yes, so ? What would hammer on jitter more ? the large % of (relative) noise, or the small % ?

[Spacehound]

9 minutes ago, mansr said:

 .If you're talking about quantum computing, why don't you just say so?

He woudn't know what it  is.

[beerandmusic]

9 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

"I" don't need more cpu resources. It can just be dialed in (believe it or not).

 

 

Yes, so ? What would hammer on jitter more ? the large % of (relative) noise, or the small % ?

We both understand that more % noise is worse.  My point isn't how much noise, it is that if there is any difference in SQ, that it will be due to noise as nothing else exists in the digital domain besides the reference level bits and noise.  Hence clocks, power supplies, processing, bandwidth, vibration, chassis material, rfi, etc....are all to help cope with different kinds of noise.

 

Different methodologies and interfaces have different noise.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, Spacehound said:

He woudn't know what it  is.

 

Surprise, another incorrect assumption.I also studied physics. In fact I was chatting about it to a Professor of physics the other day, well she was chatting and I was learning.

 

 

1 minute ago, Spacehound said:

 

My part is very small, 

 

Yes we know but you compensate for it in other ways

 

1 minute ago, Spacehound said:

 

testing parts of an incomplete language, somtimes on an actual device remotely.

 

and yet you still remain evasive. It was Mansr who asked the question. Do you also assume he wouldn't know what quantum computing is?

[beerandmusic]

Everyone give spacehound a break....he is new...even though he has over 1000 posts, he only joined in january (grin).

 

I once thought i was very smart before i realized how little i knew (wink).

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

It was Mansr who asked the question.

 

No, it was me. And I know nothing much, Ask Mansr.

[Spacehound]

31 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

I never said there is timing in a file..what i said is all very basic..if you don't understand what i said, then i don't care to elaborate...

 

I was trying to cover everything I could think of that I thought relevant to your post.

 

BTW: I agree entirely on your 'USB stick' or whatever comment. You can do it  on several network players but rarely on a DAC.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

27 minutes ago, mansr said:

If you're talking about quantum computing, why don't you just say so?

8 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

  3 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

It was Mansr who asked the question.

8 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

No, it was me. And I know nothing much, Ask Mansr.

 

Mansr asked the question.

 

Re you: It appears mansr didnt liked how you stated he would not possibly be able to explain the results of the test. I doubt that anyone would imply you know nothing much