Blue or red pill?

[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.

[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/

 

[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.

[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.

[Spacehound]

18 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

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.

 

Yes we know but you compensate for it in other ways

 

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?

Try reading it again. I said you wouldn't  know what it is - not your fault, I've never seen a 'straightforward' explanation and some of the words used in these explanations  are  gibberish.

 

Edward Teller said if you say you know what it is you are not telling the truth. But it can be made to work. 

 

However, you can experiment yourself quite easily.

[Spacehound]

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

But I do know what it is, just not claiming any expertise. Mansr nominated the subject.

Mansr simply said Why don't you say  it is quantum computing? He made no other comment.

[Spacehound]

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

 

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.

She can tell the difference between previously decoded FLAC and WAV too.

 

And do cartwheels.

[Spacehound]

14 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Not sure why Mansr would need to make a comment after the question but never mind.

As he had a go a Peter too I think he's  a touch scratchy this morning.

Or it could be that it's all irrelevant of course. But as it  appears to have changed from an invitation to 'all' to a two man show  who cares? It's not as if a difference of opinion between two people is unusual or a big deal, so we talk about something else instead, not having any popcorn.

 

[Spacehound]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

Peter loves telling everybody they are wrong, but he never offers anything but vagaries himself. Today he went a step further, insinuating that I wouldn't ever be able to understand how "it" works. I found that a tad insulting.

I started a reply,  but I don't want to take sides or even appear to. So this is an 'acknowledgement'.

[Spacehound]

12 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Yes "it". You put the quotes there. What are you talking about there ?

There is nothing such as "it" nor did I imply any it or whatever you call vague because you don't believe in any of this in the first place.

"This" what ? right, all of "it".

 

Are we getting somewhere now ?

If I explicitly tell (you) that no ADC is going to show any of this because two subsequent captures of analogue will be different no matter how hard you try to have them the same, you plainly don't believe me. Do I have that right ?

It is there where you start to call me vague. Where I am keen on telling everybody that they are wrong has to be between your ears.

 

 

 

I never said "Today he went a step further etc." it was mansr. Something about the heading is screwed up. I stopped trying to quote someone about 30 minutes ago on this thread for that reason.

[Spacehound]

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

 

Do you really believe that the usb toys, ground isolation, higher resolution recording, quieter power supplies, or that the schiit gen5 does nothing?

Not to any part before where the tiny DAC chip (most use a chip)  converts its binary input to its analogue  voltage output. There might be some noise on that, but it won't be because the input data has become 'inaccurate'  as it won't or 'furry round the edges', it's ok with that.

 

It's what 'digital' is for  - it works 'perfectly'   in an  increasingly  noisy environment, then it just stops. 

 

Thus my view on this test is there won't be any difference. If there is there will be lots to talk about, and it  won't be about their methods.

[Spacehound]

8 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

agree to disagree...if different interfaces, there will be a difference, and nothing to talk about..it has been known to me for many years.

 

 

If you say so.

 

 

 

 

 

[Spacehound]

22 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

ever since i compared native dsd via ethernet vs same file via usb over 5 years ago.

I added a picture. The RFI was so high it physically damaged the probe.

 

"Paradoxically, no matter how weak the transmitter is, how weak the receiver is, what the distance is, and how much noise there is, it's always possible to transmit information with  (any chosen) arbitrary precision"

Bartosz Milewski

Physicist (Ph. D. in quantum field theory), Mathematician, Programmer

[Spacehound]

7 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

The manufacturers of Auralica VEGA G2 advertise it is 20% quieter than the original VEGA.  Even if it was only 1% quieter, it shows progress is continued to be made.

The G2 introduces sophisticated galvanic isolation.

 

I think if anyone does any reading, by the manufacturers themselves, they can be educated.  Sure, maybe a lot of stuff from manufacturers is "fluff" and exaggerated, but I do believe they are making some advancements.

 

This may be slipping from the topic, but I absolutely believe, by means of my own listening tests, that there is a difference between different interfaces, and that i believe the differences are more pronounced on higher resolution files, as would be logical.

Look at what I posted four posts above this one.

 

Physics does not take your personal beliefs into consideration.

[Spacehound]

Just now, beerandmusic said:

 

I am probably one of the more objective types here, and very difficult sell, but I know what i know through my own listening experiences...you are just pretending you know the correct physics involved...but you are wrong in your thinking.

I don't know all the relevant physics, far from it. But I bet my reference knows more physic than you.  And physics still won't take your personal  beliefs into consideration no matter how many times you tell it to.

 

No more replies from me on this. Believe whatever you want.

[Spacehound]

26 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

I am probably one of the more objective types here, and very difficult to sell, but I know what i know through my own listening experiences...you are just pretending you know the correct physics involved...but you are wrong in your thinking.

 

You of all people are very surprising to me, for the simple fact that you also have the capability to switch between several different interfaces easily with same source and dac, and don't hear a difference.

 

Do this for me....get a copy of an 11.2mhz DSD256 file and play it via enet and play it via usb and tell me you do not hear any difference??

Done that. With a piece I'm familiar with, many different formats,   and the same master/supplier  in all cases (a Mozart concerto with a lot of solo violin and nothing else, which is good for this) and some others.

 

BTW - my many ways  to do it  are more accidental than deliberate. I use USB 90% of the time as I'm happy with it.. occasionally I have an attack of curiosity to find out if what some say is true. I don't have to physically alter anything. Not for me so far.

[Spacehound]

37 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

probably, but you don't know the right ones, if you don't know what would make one interface sound different than another.

I don't know any physicists (I did know an atomic  one  but he worked in personnel) except myself and I qualified a long time ago and have only applied stuff, not discovered any.

I did work out  some hard (took my specially made  computer 5 months 24/7) sums in 'quantum chromodynamics' once but I don't actually know what it is.

 

What sort of physicist is "the right one"?

[Spacehound]

3 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

I quoted you...you typo'd in your initial post...so laugh at yourself..lol

Initial post? Where? I'm not looking through 15 screensful. And the search function seems to use fuzzy logic. Too fuzzy by far 

[Spacehound]

3 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

I suspect this is all expectation bias-driven. Having gone through multiple tests of Wi-Fi -> USB -> DAC, Ethernet -> USB -> DAC, USB directly, and USB over Ethernet -> DAC, I can't tell the difference between them unless there's not enough bandwidth.

I said:

 

 

 

To clarify; my comment "So this is what this test with Mani and Mansr is all about IMO. " was aimed at you not being able to hear differences.

 

Expectation biases may or may not come in to it but either way should be controlled for.

Best to use a measuring device then.

 

Which takes us back to......

[Spacehound]

7 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

...are you measuring what you think you are measuring....and how accurate is your test.

I measure everything I can think of.  And every measurement will be far more accurate than any ear, human or otherwise.

 

So I miss something. But I won't do that as if I could hear it I would measure it. 

 

And all this stuff about humans being able to hear   'impulses' better than some other things is is nonsense.  If you can hear one you can her lots of them close together, which we perceive as a continuous sound. . Anyway, proper impulses  don't exist in 'reality' though things that are close to them do,  and can be measured much better by instreuments than by ears.

[Spacehound]

31 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

..and what of the things you can't think of

 

 

So, provided you can perceive it and provided your test is up to the task.Two possible failures right there.

 

If you say so we should believe you, because you say so

 

I have an impulse. it says you are wrong.

 

 

perhaps Einstein said it best.

<quote> Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one </quote>

Einstein was wrong. Reality will remain even if the human race (or any life)  never existed.

 

There's one I like. If the universe is infinite (which of course it may not be) everything possible will exist.

So:

The Americans land on Mars. They find a Nikon camera.

"The Russians must have got here before us"......"No, it's too expensive" 

[Spacehound]

11 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Frank, in order to be wrong or right, they must first be different. If you can't tell two playback methods apart, then they can't be audibly "wrong" or "right", whatever that means.

Correct. People often get confused about this.

 

And as you don't know how your imitation music is supposed to sound there is no right or wrong as there isn't a reference.

 

So 'improvement' is also pointless. .

[Spacehound]

8 hours ago, lmitche said:

Mansr, this could not be further from the truth. I hope you get a chance to listen to some better systems. Height and depth are always there. Plus one can hear naturally occuring room reflections from the room where the recording was made. This occurs in almost every recording.

It bounces off things in your room, exactly as mansr says.

You can't  get sound  any higher, lower, or wider  than the speakers frontal  dispersion at your ears distance,  unless it does.

And the 'depth' is a line between the front of the speakers. Anything else is bouncing off your back wall.

 

Recording room reflections? They go into the microphones just the same as the instruments/voices do.

The microphones have  no way of telling what is instruments (maybe with some incompetent guy slightly behind the rest) and what is reflections.  And so they  come out of your speakers  exactly as above. What you hear is your  room reflections, not  the recording room's. Sure, it may sound different from recording to recording, but that is because the rooms were different sizes so the delays were different, so it is more or less 'delayed' to start with. The above still applies in your room. Which is always a fixed plus or minus from what' s on the recording and applies equally to all  recordings.    

[Spacehound]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

I would like to know this too.

 

On a couple of occasions Dennis himself has come perilously close to agreeing that he heard differences between .wav files with identical checksums that I supplied, even admitting that he thought he heard differences initially , but at a later attempt was unable to hear any differences.

OMG. Here we go again.

[Spacehound]

8 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

It goes something like this.

psychiatrist says what do you see in zeeze ink blots/

Patient says" I see a man and a woman making love"

Hmmn interesting and now theze ink blots?

"easy two dogs screwing each other" says the patient.

"Aha", says the psychiatrist, " and this",

The patient replies salaciously, " Mmmnn nice piece of ass"

The psychiatrist says 'I have concluded you are obsessed with sex"
"Me", the patient recoils, " You are the one with the filthy pictures!"

 

 

 

Give the guy a blank card. He says  "You have handed it to me upside down"

 

How does your pretend  'science' deal with that?