Blue or red pill?

[Spacehound]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

Yep, that would be me......

No it isn't 

[Spacehound]

3 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Do you need to ask? Pretty much all subjectivist audiophiles will disagree with this.

They'd be wrong.

[Spacehound]

19 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

When doing objective testing it's important to eliminate all sources of error or bias. So yes, bits should be compared, but not at the file level, but before they enter the DAC. 

If there's  any difference between what's on the file and what arrives at the DAC something's broken. 

And you would either hear  it very clearly as clicks and pops or similar  or there wouldn't be any sound at all. 

[Spacehound]

56 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Not necessarily. For example, if the player software is using different filters, applying different SRC, applying volume compensation, etc., etc. depending on the source/path of the file. 

 

That's you telling the player to alter something. It won't alter it by itself. And the source doesn't matter - there is no 'history'. Noise is not transmitted from one section to the next either, unlike 'analog'. And it doesn't matter if the top of the bits look 'furry', or rounded off,  they are not detected at the top.

 

Nor do the paths , it's not like 'analog' where every 'process' degrades it by altering it slightly  or adding noise. That doesn't happen with 'digital'.

 

 

[Spacehound]

21 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I like to bet you a 1000 euros that all arrives the same but the sound is different. You go there too, right ? Or didn't Mani allow you in ?

 

Again more seriously (but any bet is on if you want), this is not about bits arriving differently at the DAC. They will be 100% the same.

Get it ?

 

The data doesn't have a   'sound'

 

And sure, DACs sound different from each other. And if they don't use the same one each time they are  crazy  

[Spacehound]

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

You have a limited imagination about what players can and cannot do. A player I'm using, for example, remembers the volume setting based on where the file was played from last time. This can easily produce a different output if I move the file to a different path.

 

Sure, you can often instruct a box to mess with stuff depending what input it's using.  Or if it 'volumes levels' automatically you can instruct it not to do that.

[Spacehound]

7 minutes ago, adamdea said:

I think pkane's pojnt was that for this test it was necessary to control against the possibility that the bits had in fact been changed en route. He wasn't saying that this would be a legitimate way of winning the bet.

If they've changed on route it will sound different. If they haven't it wont.  That's it. 

 

The bet is about rabbit holes. I got rather lost after that.

[Spacehound]

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

 

Yup, you qualify for sure. 

What as? 

[Spacehound]

37 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

As a real EE.

With smiley. 

I'm not really, I qualified in physics, but  but I've never done any since

 

Just a little guided missile stuff and a lot of 'big' computer stuff, hard and soft.  I designed and built a stereo amp once. It was fine, and didn't blow up, but it wouldn't get rave reviews. After many years it ended up inside a UK pub juke box as the original tube one had broken. AFAIK it's still there.

[Spacehound]

20 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

That's exactly the claim that is being tested. Unfortunately, you declaring that "That's it" will not prove anything to those who disagree with you. And there are a few here that do

 

 

I know it won't prove anything to them, and said so earlier.  So what? They can believe whatever they want.

 

Personally I worship the Sun, most other gods being invisible. It works too,  It comes up every morning. Whether of not  the Sun takes my views into consideration I don't know

[Spacehound]

2 hours ago, adamdea said:

/ theoretical Is there any reason why we aren't testings whether two identical files on the same nas sound different while we are at it? Some people may find this may seem less intuitively plausible than the nas/computer thing but I think they are narrow-minded.

Currently I'm working on something totally implausible/non-intuitive in every aspect. And    'theoretically'  impossible only a few years ago. 

 

"God doesn't play dice" - Einstein.  He does now.

[Spacehound]

6 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Nobody is pressuring Mani. He chose the format, he chose the venue and he chose the music. He can do whatever listening evaluations he wants, as long as he can't tell which source is playing.  I've done tests like that many times and found it no more stressful than doing them sighted.

 

If not knowing which component is playing induces so much stress that the 'not subtle' differences become too subtle to distinguish, then perhaps one should pick another hobby.

I said  'they' would attack the methodology.

 

That's exactly what sandyk is doing. He has now done it several times.

[Spacehound]

7 minutes ago, manisandher said:

The A/B/X will likely never prove conclusive:

- if I pass and the digital captures show no difference, the die-hard objectivists will likely say the captures must be flawed

- if I pass and the digital captures do show a difference, I will say the captures must be flawed

- if I fail, irrespective of what the captures show, the die-hard subjectivists will likely say the A/B/X must be the wrong tool

 

I'm happy to do the A/B/X nevertheless.

 

Mani.

Just go to the pub and make something up over a few beers. Mansr can sleep it off in the shed.

[Spacehound]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

.....and the kettle calling the pot black.I

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

 

[Spacehound]

30 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

And are incorrect about.

No.

I am aware of your DAC/player,  they are highly thought of, and you have a totally different approach than anyone else. Which includes, I believe 'manipulating' the digital input, so all bets are off.

 

And that approach may be superior. I would like to hear one.

 

But as I suspect I would not buy it, having a 'good enough' DAC already,  the chance of my buying it are extremely low. So unfortunately it would not be worth your while to provide one for me to try. I'm in the UK. Were I in your country I would jump at the chance. 

[Spacehound]

15 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

Luck for you - you can just sit back, enjoy, and not think about any of this stuff.

 

Mani.

I'm interested in what you are doing, and am not actually on a particular 'side'. But if I am wrong about this the entire 'digital' world will need  to be rethought (which is happening but which is not about audio, though there is no inherent reason why it shouldn't be). 

 

And I don't think you have any kind of 'duty' to 'prove' anything .

[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. 

[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..

[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   

[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.

[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.

[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? 

[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.)

[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.