Blue or red pill?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

6 minutes ago, adamdea said:

Lots of things. One would check the double blinding and whether there are tells in the switching , one might try on different dacs and different software. Lots of things aimed at working out what exactly was being detected. Leaping to conclusions is silly, even of one is parti pris

 

How is looking at the evidence leaping to conclusions? The experiment wasnt double blind as I understand it nor do i think it needs to be necessarily.Changing dacs and software complicates the design, it doesn't invalidate the present result.

 

5 minutes ago, adamdea said:

It's got to do with why the word delusional is  not particularly apt

 

Delusional was not my assertion, something claimed by others in the past. I agree it is not warranted.

[adamdea]

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

How is looking at the evidence leaping to conclusions? The experiment wasnt double blind as I understand it nor do i think it needs to be necessarily.Changing dacs and software complicates the design, it doesn't invalidate the present result.

 

 

Delusional was not my assertion, something claimed by others in the past. I agree it is not warranted.

Double blinding, or more specifically the possibility of tells which need to be controlled for, must always be an issue. Even the the ABX foobar plugin turned out to have a problem IIRC. 

The issue is -what is being detected, and it's a real issue. No prudent researcher would leap to the conclusions you want to draw without looking very carefully at the experiment. Why are we even going over this stuff?

[STC]

6 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I don't think this is related anywhere. Not explicitly and not implicitly.

 

Edit : maybe I quoted too much out of context. But I don't see the context ... 

 

Why? If you want to prove bit identical files can sound different than eliminate all other variables and make direct comparison to the files only.  

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 minutes ago, STC said:

 

An acceptable DBT to prove that bit-identical files can sound different is by using different bit identical files to prove the claim.

 

you only need a single example to reject the null hypothesis that all bit identical files sound the same.

 

9 minutes ago, STC said:

A difference heard by changing XXHE only proves that SFS can affect the sound. 

 

But if the files remain bit identical.......Peter St would need to answer this.

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, STC said:

Why? If you want to prove bit identical files can sound different than eliminate all other variables and make direct comparison to the files only.

 

But nobody here is trying to prove that 2 files can sound different. The file (used by Mans and Mani) is one and the same only.

And FYI : I have never attested that 2 the same files (with same CRC etc.) will or can sound different. If anything I would claim they sound the same. But I don't even attempt such thing ...

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, adamdea said:

Double blinding, or more specifically the possibility of tells which need to be controlled for, must always be an issue. Even the the ABX foobar plugin turned out to have a problem IIRC. 

The issue is -what is being detected, and it's a real issue. No prudent researcher would leap to the conclusions you want to draw without looking very carefully at the experiment.

 

 

What specific "tells" needed to be further controlled for and what are the supposed "conclusions" you claim I am leaping to?

 

2 minutes ago, adamdea said:

 

Why are we even going over this stuff?

 

You seem to want to

[PeterSt]

20 minutes ago, STC said:

A difference heard by changing XXHE only proves that SFS can affect the sound. 

 

Maybe it is not important, but "changing XXHE" is probably not what you wanted to say and besides that a few dozen more "parameters" change the sound in the same fashion (better : by the same transport means). It is only that this was not tested by Mans and Mani. However, Mani is using the "dials" for those just the same, like all XXHE users do.

Q3 for example. Haha.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

But nobody here is trying to prove that 2 files can sound different. The file (used by Mans and Mani) is one and the same only.

And FYI : I have never attested that 2 the same files (with same CRC etc.) will or can sound different. If anything I would claim they sound the same. But I don't even attempt such thing ...

 

Peter, are you saying or implying that the file used by Mani and Mans, as in A and B and X, was or was not bit identical?

[STC]

5 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

you only need a single example to reject the null hypothesis that all bit identical files sound the same.

 

 

But if the files remain bit identical.......Peter St would need to answer this.

 

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

 

But nobody here is trying to prove that 2 files can sound different. The file (used by Mans and Mani) is one and the same only.

And FYI : I have never attested that 2 the same files (with same CRC etc.) will or can sound different. If anything I would claim they sound the same. But I don't even attempt such thing ...

 

We are making two assumption here. I.e, 1)the files recorded by the Tascam were identical 2) the same but identical files were processed and sounded different. 

 

Tascam is only doing the recording  ding without going through the DAC. It was all in digital domain. But the files reaching the Altmann gone through one addition processes of converting them with the effect of the SFS changes. 

 

This is not a fool proof method to prove difference in bit identical files. 

[STC]

5 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Maybe it is not important, but "changing XXHE" is probably not what you wanted to say and besides that a few dozen more "parameters" change the sound in the same fashion (better : by the same transport means). It is only that this was not tested by Mans and Mani. However, Mani is using the "dials" for those just the same, like all XXHE users do.

Q3 for example. Haha.

 

I meant to say changing XXHE”s SFS setting. 

[PeterSt]

3 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

For the longest time we were assured that bit identical files could not possibly sound different. Jitter and timing issues were dismissed as we were told a decent DAC would buffer the signal and re-clock the timing.Similarly the issue of noise was dismissed as galvanic isolation should fix this and so long as the ones were ones and zeroes were zeroes it really didn't matter. After all bits were/are bits. If you heard differences you were assumed delusional and just didn't really understand how computer science or any science worked.

 

David, I am afraid you were delusional yourself. The mistake you seem to make is that you talk in the context of Alex K. while this is not about that at all. Maybe I am too speculative, but I think not and now nobody understands your implied thesis. Example :

 

Quote

were assumed delusional and just didn't really understand how computer science or any science worked.

 

Nothing changed there. So I would shout that out loud to anyone following Alex's causes. This is totally unrelated to computers or computer science.

So better this subject with the nice addition that so far Alex himself could too (and I praise him for it).

And if I am all over wrong with my speculations then I of course apologize.

Regards, Peter

[PeterSt]

6 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Peter, are you saying or implying that the file used by Mani and Mans, as in A and B and X, was or was not bit identical?

 

 

It was one and the same file, which thus is bit identical and which was played in two different "DAC Influencing" settings, the Split File Size (the two settings of this implying different noise signatures for the playback (PC) system). The two playback means (repeated 10x for ABX and blind to the listener (Mani)) were checked (by mansr) to be bit identical at the input of the DAC.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, STC said:

 

 

We are making two assumption here. I.e, 1)the files recorded by the Tascam were identical 2) the same but identical files were processed and sounded different. 

 

Mans is probably best to answer whether the file remained bit identical. There is no assumption that there was a difference in sound, the evidence supports it.

 

 

2 minutes ago, STC said:

 

This is not a fool proof method to prove difference in bit identical files. 

It is just evidence to support further inquiry for something up until now that has been assumed by others, impossible.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

6 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

David, I am afraid you were delusional yourself. The mistake you seem to make is that you talk in the context of Alex K. while this is not about that at all. Maybe I am too speculative, but I think not and now nobody understands your implied thesis. Example :

Nothing changed there. So I would shout that out loud to anyone following Alex's causes. This is totally unrelated to computers or computer science.

So better this subject with the nice addition that so far Alex himself could too (and I praise him for it).

And if I am all over wrong with my speculations then I of course apologize.

Regards, Peter

 

Peter, we can agree that you are being too speculative.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

16 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

It was one and the same file, which thus is bit identical

 

Okay, that was my understanding

Quote

 

and which was played in two different "DAC Influencing" settings, the Split File Size (the two settings of this implying different noise signatures for the playback (PC) system). The two playback means (repeated 10x for ABX and blind to the listener (Mani)) were checked (by mansr) to be bit identical at the input of the DAC.

 

In that case should anyone be surprised that A and B sounded different? Is it accepted then by most that split file sizes inducing different noise signatures is the reason for the observed difference? Should Mans be able to measure this effect?

 

Edit- I guess its also relevant to ask did the files remain bit identical right up to the time they were converted to analog. Does SFS count as changing the bits?

[PeterSt]

34 minutes ago, STC said:

Tascam is only doing the recording  ding without going through the DAC. It was all in digital domain. But the files reaching the Altmann gone through one addition processes of converting them with the effect of the SFS changes. 

 

This is not a fool proof method to prove difference in bit identical files.

 

Why not ?

 

And there is no difference IN bit identical files.

Two bit identical files CAUSE a difference further down stream by means of the way different processing is incurred for upstream.

[PeterSt]

Just now, PeterSt said:

And there is no difference IN bit identical files.

 

Even that is confusing. Better would be :

 

And there is no difference IN the two bit identical streams.

Because no two files exist anyway (yeah, the recorded files of the two identical streams by the Tascam, and they are equal again).

 

Confused ?

nah ... 

[PeterSt]

32 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

It is just evidence to support further inquiry for something up until now that has been assumed by others, impossible.

 

First public version of XXHighEnd was May 25, 2007. You know what's XXHE's purpose right from the start ?

This.

It is only that you never used XXHighEnd. 

 

[PeterSt]

28 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Is it accepted then by most that split file sizes inducing different noise signatures

 

OK, cool.

 

29 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Does SFS count as changing the bits?

 

Btw, what is SFS ?

[STC]

12 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Why not ?

 

And there is no difference IN bit identical files.

Two bit identical files CAUSE a difference further down stream by means of the way different processing is incurred for upstream.

 

You have previously admitted that the two bit identical files recorded by Tascam would not show any difference.

 

Tascam is digital in digital copied. 

 

Altmann is digital in comverted to analogue and some difference heard. 

 

What if the the recorded which is dealing sealing the incoming streams in digital only disregard the effects of the SFS but somehow the DAC couldn’t because the extra step of converting to analogue was involved?

 

If you are insisting this experiment is about bit identical files than the only valise test would be using two different but identical files without any changes. 

 

Here the DBT was conducted with same file but with changes. I accept there could be changes due to SFS but I am afraid it is a fallacy use this experiment/demo/DBT as a proof of anything to do with bit identical files because those which recorded the streams and those which converted the digital streams to analogue are two different equipment and two different processes. 

 

Can we accept playing two bit identical files in two different DAC and argue that bit identical files can indeed sound different?

 

 

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

8 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

what is SFS ?

 

Sound Fertilizing System? Super Frickin Sensational?

 

54 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

Split File Size

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

10 minutes ago, STC said:

If you are insisting this experiment is about bit identical files than the only valise test would be using two different but identical files without any changes. 

 

 

All that is required is that a *change* of some kind, that does not alter the bits, is shown to sound different. It doesnt have to have two files. Obviously there has to be a hypothesis formulated about whether or not said change will result in an audible difference and people can make predictions for or against. I doubt that there would be much purpose in playing identical files without any changes whatsoever. It is the change that is crucial to the test, the very reason for the test.

[marce]

The information stored in two bit identical files is exactly the same, therefore any change in sound is due to some outside influence on the DAC, such as noise.

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, STC said:

Can we accept playing two bit identical files in two different DAC and argue that bit identical files can indeed sound different?

 

I'm in.

 

But I really have better things to do than check that. You ?

[rando]

Peter, not trying to discredit your work or make trouble by asking this.

 

How is the software setting that was changed for this test any different than being able to tell the difference between two digital EQ settings?  

 

Actually I hope this does make trouble and you go off into your workshop and create something even better.