Blue or red pill?

[manisandher]

4 minutes ago, rando said:

@PeterSt It just occurred to me how much your English has improved since the early days of Mani's lovefest thread for the Lush cable.  

 

Haha... Go back to some of Peter's early posts here on CA, ~2009-2010 (edit: 2008 even). Good luck!

 

Mani.

[Spacehound]

16 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

This is silly.

Hey, you claimed to understand digital. And maybe I should refer to the process as a whole.

But do you really ?

I do understand 'digital'.  I just don't understand what you are doing. 

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, Spacehound said:

I just don't understand what you are doing. 

 

I just lost a post which ended with "end of lecture" and some smiley. Damnit. For the first time this "show first 2 posts" thing failed on me and the editor went blank and didn't come back. I will give it a retry, but this is always difficult.

[Spacehound]

33 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

We cross-posted over this, but ... aha.

That is, your rethinking is required. 

Everyone who works in 'computing'. 

 

We are doing it right now. I'm involved in a small way. It works 'technically' but as it isn't sequential and 'time' is not involved,    it  doesn't need loops, search trees, 'ifs'  speeds,  and so on,  writing a language for it  needs entirely different and totally non-intuitive thinking. But we are getting there slowly, with help and practical  testing  with  'Fortune 500' scientific and business outfits..

[beerandmusic]

17 hours ago, adamdea said:

Am I missing the point here, but are we agreed that in practical terms if two checksum-identical files aren't to be regarded as the same then, well no two audio events are going to be the same. After all the bits don't stay completely still even on your nas do they? ie the file keeps changing...

2 files can be checksum identical and still be different....although the odds are highly unlikely.

[Spacehound]

17 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I just lost a post which ended with "end of lecture" and some smiley. Damnit. For the first time this "show first 2 posts" thing failed on me and the editor went blank and didn't come back. I will give it a retry, but this is always difficult.

It's failed on  me several   times too.

 

Perhaps we should both try not to be so longwinded   

[PeterSt]

Re-attempt :

 

25 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

Which includes, I believe 'manipulating' the digital input, so all bets are off.

 

Nothing is changed to the digital input (to the DAC, as you must refer to). Of course the player can upsample/filter, but all players can do that these days. It is only that possibly XXHighEnd was the first with that as an explicit thought of not doing that on-board of the DAC but outside of it. But say that HQPlayer started with that at the same time (or earlier), it does not matter. But that is different or at least it was at first (among the other players).

However, obviously nobody is going to change filter settings at proposed testing, unless the filters are the subject itself. So when a file is played two times by different settings outside of filter settings, no digital data is changed anywhere. Sound is different, but bits and bytes and samples and all are the exact same and this is easily measurable (loop back a digital output to a digital input which is captured and next compare the two).

 

What XXHighEnd is special in, though, is that it manipulates the behavior of the DAC. Not only the Phasure NOS1a/G3 whatever DAC, but all of them. It does this from day one and it was born for that reason (once I found out it could be done). It is on page one of the Phasure forum, which is from 2006 or 2007. Thus, the various settings in XXHighEnd change the noise (which is current draw) signature. So where does the change begin ? not somewhere in the DAC as you think, but at the earliest in the chain you can think of. Like the Tidal server I referred to earlier on, and how its buffer settings imply a noise signature on our end. Say that it starts in Norway, with this as the example.

The only thing the NOS1a/G3 is special about, is it being the xth incarnation of my attempt to prohibit the influence. So I am in two camps at the same time. Nice eh ? Even galvanic isolation from several angles does not help - and actually makes it worse (which I can reason out in aftermath).

 

As I told in the earlier post from today, go through the Lush thread to find the basics of this, as how I think (OK, don't because it is too long). But what it comes down to is that current draw (no matter how small) will influence the DAC's jitter response and that is what we hear. But this is also what we can explicitly influence. Well, if you know how to do that all.

 

End of lecture. 

 

(PS: what a sh*tty post this now is - I can't do such things twice, losing the first one).

 

 

[Spacehound]

7 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

2 files can be checksum identical and still be different....although the odds are highly unlikely.

We know that.  It doesn't take long to do a bit for bit comparison.

[PeterSt]

16 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

But we are getting there slowly

 

If I may ask - what is the subject ?

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

We know that.  It doesn't take long to do a bit for bit comparison.

 

Yes. I personally never use checksums. Just compare the whole lot. 5 seconds for an average (length) audio file ?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, Spacehound said:

Not at all.

Unlike some I know how 'digital' actually works. We made it from scratch in about 1943 and it hasn't changed  significantly since.  (We didn't pick it off a tree and try to  figure it out.)

And I am aware of the exact point in the 'chain' where 'differences',  if  the inputs are identical,  might  begin to occur. And said so.

 

Yes I agree, you are full of yourself.

 

1 hour ago, Spacehound said:

 

They don't argue with their heart surgeon, or airline pilot, Why argue with us? We are equally qualified in our field.

 

Argue No, question always. Go to two medical specialists and they not uncommonly offer two different opinions.

 

...and who is "us"? Are you an engineer?

 

1 hour ago, Spacehound said:

 

Where a discipline overlaps  the lay public's 'experience' this often occurs. In fact their opinions  are  just 'noise'. They are like many 'do it yourselfers' who do not have the knowledge to realise how poor their efforts actually are.

 

Your condescending and ill informed attitude aside, the only "noise" I hear is from you.

 

 

 

 

[Spacehound]

14 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Re-attempt :

 

 

Nothing is changed to the digital input (to the DAC, as you must refer to). Of course the player can upsample/filter, but all players can do that these days. It is only that possibly XXHighEnd was the first with that as an explicit thought of not doing that on-board of the DAC but outside of it. But say that HQPlayer started with that at the same time (or earlier), it does not matter. But that is different or at least it was at first (among the other players).

However, obviously nobody is going to change filter settings at proposed testing, unless the filters are the subject itself. So when a file is played two times by different settings outside of filter settings, no digital data is changed anywhere. Sound is different, but bits and bytes and samples and all are the exact same and this is easily measurable (loop back a digital output to a digital input which is captured and next compare the two).

 

What XXHighEnd is special in, though, is that it manipulates the behavior of the DAC. Not only the Phasure NOS1a/G3 whatever DAC, but all of them. It does this from day one and it was born for that reason (once I found out it could be done). It is on page one of the Phasure forum, which is from 2006 or 2007. Thus, the various settings in XXHighEnd change the noise (which is current draw) signature. So where does the change begin ? not somewhere in the DAC as you think, but at the earliest in the chain you can think of. Like the Tidal server I referred to earlier on, and how its buffer settings imply a noise signature on our end. Say that it starts in Norway, with this as the example.

The only thing the NOS1a/G3 is special about, is it being the xth incarnation of my attempt to prohibit the influence. So I am in two camps at the same time. Nice eh ? Even galvanic isolation from several angles does not help - and actually makes it worse (which I can reason out in aftermath).

 

As I told in the earlier post from today, go through the Lush thread to find the basics of this, as how I think (OK, don't because it is too long). But what it comes down to is that current draw (no matter how small) will influence the DAC's jitter response and that is what we hear. But this is also what we can explicitly influence. Well, if you know how to do that all.

 

End of lecture. 

 

(PS: what a sh*tty post this now is - I can't do such things twice, losing the first one).

 

 

Thanks. I think I understand.

I see how   the jitter might change. And the only place jitter needs to be controlled is in the DAC. 

But there is no agreement on when the effects of jitter  on the analog output become audible.

And in the computer itself we don't use leading or trailing edges to detect the 'value' of a bit. Not that I am sure that's relevant.

[adamdea]

11 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

We know that.  It doesn't take long to do a bit for bit comparison.

True. It is a pointless diversion anyway if we restate the point as "if two bit-identical files aren't to be regarded as the same then, well no two audio events are going to be the same. After all the bits don't stay completely still even on your nas do they? ie the file keeps changing..." then the point remains. How other than by considering the identical information content of two files do we assess them as continuing to exist as the same file once they are moved around?

If two bit identical files are not identical then what is the relationship between this file on the nas at time t (when it is in this sector of the hard drive) and this file at time t+1 (when it is in that sector in the hard drive?). Perhaps the file changes if there is a tiny power surge even though the file appears to retain its bit identity.   Why do ghosts walk through walls but not fall through floors?

[beerandmusic]

PETER>>> but Mani tears this down to NAS vs Local inside the audio playback PC

====

 

I must admit, I am not familiar with peters hardware or software, but that should be irrelevant as long as the settings are not changed during the testing.

 

So, if i understand the test better now, it is really just NAS vs Local.

NAS assumes network interface will be used...

 

If this is ENET vs internal to PC, then i believe 99% that the sound will be different.  I would believe that playing from memory would sound better for many reasons.

 

Even on my ND8006, playing from flash drive, optical, enet, or pc usb all sound different, everything else being the same....my guess being that all interfaces have different "noise signatures".

[Spacehound]

6 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Yes I agree, you are full of yourself.

 

 

Argue No, question always. Go to two medical specialists and they not uncommonly offer two different opinions.

 

...and who is "us"? Are you an engineer?

 

 

Your condescending and ill informed attitude aside, the only "noise" I hear is from you.

 

 

 

 

I am an engineer (of sorts) My qualifications are  in physics though  after qualification I merely implemented it. My work is in high level computing. 

 

Your original post, though interesting, is  irrelevant. Medicine is neither science (though in some ways science dependent)    nor engineering.

And you didn't design  or create what you are working on.  So  to an extent you are 'working in the dark' .

We did both and aren't..

 

I shall ignore your insults as they impede communication.

[Spacehound]

16 minutes ago, adamdea said:

True. It is a pointless diversion anyway if we restate the point as "if two bit-identical files aren't to be regarded as the same then, well no two audio events are going to be the same. After all the bits don't stay completely still even on your nas do they? ie the file keeps changing..." then the point remains. How other than by considering the identical information content of two files do we assess them as continuing to exist as the same file once they are moved around?

If two bit identical files are not identical then what is the relationship between this file on the nas at time t (when it is in this sector of the hard drive) and this file at time t+1 (when it is in that sector in the hard drive?). Perhaps the file changes if there is a tiny power surge even though the file appears to retain its bit identity.   Why do ghosts walk through walls but not fall through floors?

That the bits move doesn't matter. We don't 'measure' them at their leading or trailing edges.

 

We aren't too picky about their electrical 'value' either .

 

And  there is no  'timing' data in the file so the timing can't be 'wrong'

 

Timing, which is created by the DAC's clock,  matters only in the DAC, nowhere else. 

 

Will that do? 

[adamdea]

Just now, Spacehound said:

That the bits move doesn't matter. We don't 'measure' them at their leading or trailing edges.

 

We aren't too picky about their electrical 'value' either

Well that's the problem. If the information content is irrelevant "we" are wrong. I'm just trying to point out the implications of that counterfactual. 

[Spacehound]

9 minutes ago, adamdea said:

Well that's the problem. If the information content is irrelevant "we" are wrong. I'm just trying to point out the implications of that counterfactual. 

Is it a one or a zero?  We don't care if it's ragged round the edges as we 'measure' it in the middle. Get it wrong you hear a click or pop.

 

What's hard  about that? . (And it was all figured out in 1943  before they even picked up a soldering iron.)

[beerandmusic]

I had to go back and read both Mani's and Peter's responses, and it is still not 100% clear to me what the test will be, 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.

[PeterSt]

39 minutes ago, adamdea said:

How other than by considering the identical information content of two files do we assess them as continuing to exist as the same file once they are moved around?

 

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 ...

 

?

[beerandmusic]

5 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 ...

 

?

 

agree... the "flat file" is the same, but how it is processed (e.g. clocking, buffering) is different.

When the hardware and software are more mature than they are today, this should not be an issue.  I don't believe technology is where it needs to be yet.

 

[PeterSt]

1 minute 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.

 

The small noise signature is not consistent because relatively spiky. Compare with analogue : what would be more audible ... 100uV of noise upon 100mV or the same 100uV upon 1V ?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

12 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

I am an engineer (of sorts) My qualifications are  in physics though  after qualification I merely implemented it. My work is in high level computing. 

 

Your original post, though interesting, is  irrelevant. Medicine is neither science (though in some ways science dependent)    nor engineering.

And you didn't design  or create what you are working on.  So  to an extent you are 'working in the dark' .

We did both and aren't..

 

I shall ignore your insults as they impede communication.

 

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.

 

[beerandmusic]

5 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Sadly this is wrong, or say not my experience.

 

The small noise signature is not consistent because relatively spiky. Compare with analogue : what would be more audible ... 100uV of noise upon 100mV or the same 100uV upon 1V ?

 

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.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

 

1 minute 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.

 

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.