Blue or red pill?

[manisandher]

8 minutes ago, STC said:

As as I pointed out in my flowchart, the signal stream after the SPDIF BNC to RCA adapter is susceptible to noise and may introduce minor difference.

 

@STC, I applaud your efforts to really get on top of things (quoting something I wrote 8 years ago - wow!). But there's something fundamental that you really need to understand:

 

We are only interested in differences. If the S/PDIF-to-RCA adapter used at the DAC was indeed altering the digital signal entering the DAC, this alteration would have been identical for both cases of 'A' and 'B' used in the A/B/X.

 

We need to keep our focus on what was different between 'A' and 'B' reaching the DAC. And the only difference was a software setting that keeps everything bit-identical.

 

8 minutes ago, STC said:

Mani seemed to agree on this.

 

I do not believe for one second that well-designed digital cables and/or adaptors change bits.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

Both put out the same identical bit stream we are told.

 

By Mans. Why would he lie?

 

I'll upload* the digital captures taken in real-time during the A/B/X. You'll then be able to verify things for yourself and drop the "we are told".

 

2 hours ago, esldude said:

Yet sound different we are told.  

 

By A/B/X.

 

I'll upload* the analogue captures too. Do with them what you like.

 

*Won't be able to do this until the weekend.

 

Mani.

[adamdea]

8 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

A truly impartial mind would entertain the possibility that we're measuring the wrong thing. It seems to me that you're projecting your own determination to limit thinking

The first sentence is true: and of course one should consider all possibilities. The second is a  non sequitur; I haven’t told anyone what they shouldn’t be thinking about. 

[STC]

27 minutes ago, manisandher said:

If the S/PDIF-to-RCA adapter used at the DAC was indeed altering the digital signal entering the DAC, this alteration would have been identical for both cases of 'A' and 'B' used in the A/B/X.

 

We need to keep our focus on what was different between 'A' and 'B' reaching the DAC. And the only difference was a software setting that keeps everything bit-identical.

 

49 minutes ago, STC said:

Mani seemed to agree on this.

 

I do not believe for one second that well-designed digital cables and/or adaptors change bits.

 

Good point! But how do you know that the same amount of jitter and noise enter the DAC with the two different SFS settings?

 

What about impedance matching of the SPDIF splitter when you used BNC to RCA adapter? Is your  RCA cable 50 Ohm or 75 Ohm?

 

We still do not know how different noise and  jitter handled by the Altmann’s UPCI and JISCO. 

[manisandher]

30 minutes ago, adamdea said:

The...

 

The red pill can be bitter. I have no sugar coating for you.

[adamdea]

5 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

The red pill can be bitter. I have no sugar coating for you.

Ah the non sequitur machine has its button stuck 

[PeterSt]

24 minutes ago, STC said:

But how do you know that the same amount of jitter and noise enter the DAC with the two different SFS settings?

 

It does NOT. That is the whole point.

The concept it : bits stay the same but noise/jitter differs.

 

Try to remember his forever because it is crucial.

 

 

PS: It is NOT about noise leaving the PC (towards the DAC). It is noise impeded in-DAC in the receiver area.

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, adamdea said:

Ah the non sequitur machine has its button stuck 

 

Can you please tell what proof you would like to see ?

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

It does NOT. That is the whole point.

The concept it : bits stay the same but noise/jitter differs.

 

Try to remember his forever because it is crucial.

 

 

PS: It is NOT about noise leaving the PC (towards the DAC). It is noise impeded in-DAC in the receiver area.

 

And what if there is NO DAC involved ?

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

And what if there is NO DAC involved ?

 

Then you wouldn't know the difference. 

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Then you wouldn't know the difference. 

Hi Peter

 I will take this to a PM

Regards

Alex

[adamdea]

14 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Can you please tell what proof you would like to see ?

Do you mean- what would it take for you to be satisfied that the results of the test were based only on detection of sound pressure waves from the speakers of a hifi caused only by a difference in the output (via the hifi into those speakers) of two different pieces of software while playing the same music and outputting identical bit values? 

Or do you mean the red pill thing Manis keeps going on about? if it's the latter I can't help. 

[STC]

30 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

It does NOT. That is the whole point.

The concept it : bits stay the same but noise/jitter differs.

 

Try to remember his forever because it is crucial.

 

 

PS: It is NOT about noise leaving the PC (towards the DAC). It is noise impeded in-DAC in the receiver area.

 

True. I agree. That's what I thought. Something is happening in the DAC. I have not problem accepting the findings but the often repeated bit-identical data is misleading. Bit-identical to what.

 

Here is the chart again. Bit (checksum or whatever correct terminology) A cannot be Bit B or C. Even Though Bit B and C and D identical according to the files from the Tascam recording. However, a different signal is entering the DAC and whether it passes through the BNC to RCA without errors is not known. Bit-identical reference is a bit of red herring here since we are assuming the same data is coming out without additional errors from the BNC to RCA adapter.

 

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

 

• Report post
•  

Posted 12 hours ago

14 hours ago, manisandher said:

There were no switching tells.

@mansr said "You can't know that for sure."

 

If by "switching tells" you mean uncontrolled variables that influence the outcome then one would hope you gave this careful consideration. At any rate, to be of any practical value, the specific uncontrolled variable must be identified.Of course, *any* experimental protocol can be subject to variables as yet unknown and of course evey possibility should be *reasonably* explored.That said, on the face of it the A and B and X files were subjected to identical processing (including the BNC to RCA adapter) and these files were used for hearing differences. The only variable introduced therefore was a software setting (edit - removed  "in the DAC"). IF it is accepted that, again IF accepted, that the software setting does not change the bits then the observed difference in the bit identical files must be due to other reasons than changing the bits (noise,jitter whatever, yet to be determined) .The corollary is that bit identical files can sound different during playback, at least to a significance level of p= 0.01.

 

13 hours ago, adamdea said:

 

No. You don’t necessarily know what you heard.

 

Well, yes Mani does know what he heard and demonstrated it to a p=0.01. The reasons may be as yet unknown but he certainly identified what he heard as a difference, 9/10.

 

Quote

And whilst it is obvious what channel of thought you would like us to go down,  it just doesn’t work that way.

 

Huh?

 

 

10 hours ago, adamdea said:

It’s only “clear” because you are determined to try to limit thinking. Any sensible person looking at an odd result looks at all possibilities. And being able to hear immeasurable or measurably nugatory phenomena is not the obvious answer to an impartial mind. 

 

The first sentence is IMO is rubbish. Re the second sentence why do you assert that Mani is not interested in all possibilities? re the third sentence, Mani *has* demonstrated he can hear the difference so what exactly are you on about!

4 hours ago, esldude said:

Two software settings.   Both put out the same identical bit stream we are told.  Yet sound different we are told.  

Is there evidence to disbelieve this?

 

[PeterSt]

13 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

The only variable introduced therefore was a software setting in the DAC.

 

There are no software settings "in" a DAC (oh, they may exist somewhere, but not in this case).

 

IIRC (it was you of whom) I have seen you make similar "mistakes" in this realm. Like you think the DAC is the PC or something ...

Otherwise never mind this.

[PeterSt]

28 minutes ago, adamdea said:

Do you mean- what would it take for you to be satisfied that the results of the test were based only

 

Yes, you are funny.

And trolling, by now.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

 

There are no software settings "in" a DAC (oh, they may exist somewhere, but not in this case).

 

IIRC (it was you of whom) I have seen you make similar "mistakes" in this realm. Like you think the DAC is the PC or something ...

Otherwise never mind this.

 

Thanks for the correction

[PeterSt]

26 minutes ago, STC said:

Bit-identical reference is a bit of red herring here since we are assuming the same data is coming out without additional errors from the BNC to RCA adapter.

 

 

There is still a problem with your reasoning. 

With this statement from you, you suppose that the both playbacks of the same file, the same bits entering the DAC, change when passing some BNC to RCA bridge. Well, fine. There you have it.

Well done, right ? finished. Software with two times bit identical data can change the interpretation by a BNC adapter each occasion from the other.

haha

[adamdea]

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

The first sentence is IMO is rubbish. Re the second sentence why do you assert that Mani is not interested in all possibilities? re the third sentence, Mani *has* demonstrated he can hear the difference so what exactly are you on about!

Is there evidence to disbelieve this?

 

Just read the exchange sequence aqain from way back: you are getting confused. All I am saying is that someone who detects a difference does not necessarily know what difference they are detecting or what its cause is.  Look at the history of ESP tests. Even with audio the foobar ABX comparator had a problem IIRC

 

It may be that that difference comes from a glitch in software on switching (or for all I know, the computer humming when it plays different software, or  or  or or or or .)  This stuff happens. The reason I say that Mani is not interested in all possibilities is that he said so, explicitly saying that I should stop considering possibilities other than that he was listening to changes in the music caused by the software.

 

 

If the test were run again I would suggest checking for these possibilities. That is all.

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

I'll upload* the digital captures taken in real-time during the A/B/X. You'll then be able to verify things for yourself and drop the "we are told".

 

I'll upload* the analogue captures too. Do with them what you like.

 

*Won't be able to do this until the weekend.

 

Mani.

 

That would be great, Mani!

[adamdea]

6 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Yes, you are funny.

And trolling, by now.

Nope I was trying to understand your question. Really. You have misread what I wrote. 

I think I shall bow out here, as what passes for discourse is becoming more bad tempered and obtuse than usual.

[PeterSt]

6 minutes ago, adamdea said:

Nope I was trying to understand your question. Really. You have misread what I wrote. 

 

I don't think so. That is, if I understand the difference between YOU and ME correctly.

So reset.

What proof would YOU need ?

Seems easy ...

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

11 minutes ago, adamdea said:

Just read the exchange sequence aqain from way back: you are getting confused. All I am saying is that someone who detects a difference does not necessarily know what difference they are detecting or what its cause is.  Look at the history of ESP tests. Even with audio the foobar ABX comparator had a problem IIRC

 

It may be that that difference comes from a glitch in software on switching (or for all I know, the computer humming when it plays different software, or  or  or or or or .)  This stuff happens. The reason I say that Mani is not interested in all possibilities is that he said so, explicitly saying that I should stop considering possibilities other than that he was listening to changes in the music caused by the software.

 

Honestly, you are great at making platitudinous statements like "for all I know, the computer humming when it plays different software, or  or  or or or or", but not much by way of specifics.

 

Again, on the face of it the A and B and X files were subjected to identical processing (including the BNC to RCA adapter) and these files were used for hearing differences. The only variable introduced therefore was a software setting . IF it is accepted that, again IF accepted, that the software setting does not change the bits then the observed difference in the bit identical files must be due to other reasons than changing the bits (noise,jitter whatever, yet to be determined) .The corollary is that bit identical files can sound different during playback, at least to a significance level of p= 0.01.

 

 

Quote

 

If the test were run again I would suggest checking for these possibilities. That is all.

 

 

Please enlighten us with the correct methodology without referring to "or,or,or,or" and you know, 'all that sci-ency stuff.

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Please enlighten us with the correct methodology without referring to "or,or,or,or" and you know, 'all that sci-ency stuff.

 

He will next ask YOU. Watch him ...

[esldude]

44 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

•  

Is there evidence to disbelieve this?

 

Have I said I disbelieve this?  Someone asked a question, and I answered it based upon what we have been told in this thread.  I've no reason to disbelieve either of the people who were there nor do I.