Jump to content
IGNORED

USB audio transmission isn’t bit true


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, mansr said:

What on earth (or elsewhere) are you talking about?

 

Digital copying is no more perfect than you are. :P

In the cases that I mentioned it is more likely due to less than  perfect software, which also applies to A and V, as well as obscene amounts of RF/EMI generated inside your typical computer .

 

 What on earth are you talking about when you  make a defamatory and libellous statement accusing a well respected designer and " the father " of Async USB of being untrustworthy ?

 

You really need to re-examine your own behaviour and scurrilous remarks directed at others.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

perhaps only on transmission....but that occurs before leaving the pc...why do you think data is ever resent.

 

It isn't with Coax SPDIF which when properly implemented can still outperform USB  which hasn't had a heap more $ spent on it to improve the Signal Integrity of the Data sent to the DAC.

Unfortunately, if you need DSD you often have to rely on this flawed transmission medium which was never designed for A  and V.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

It isn't with Coax SPDIF which when properly implemented can still outperform USB  which hasn't had a heap more $ spent on it to improve the Signal Integrity of the Data sent to the DAC.

Unfortunately, if you need DSD you often have to rely on this flawed transmission medium which was never designed for A  and V.

 

You don't have to rely on usb for DSD, which is why i haven't for over 8+ years.

 

I am not going to even suggest that you can't have quality DSD with usb where everything is optimized properly....i would never say that.

 

I just know that I preferred native DSD over enet, compared to my noisy pc over usb....(again, i switched to enet 8 years ago before talk of usb noise and usb toys)

 

That isn't even the point of this thread...my only point is that the music bits do not always arrive at the dac without corruption, which is what most people have tried to sell.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

The only assumption you can make is that data is accurate as a flat file....or at least only as accurate as the digital recording placed the bits....all processing and internal noise and everything can and will corrupt the digital stream.

 

While you keep trying to have the digital corrupting as "the answer of everything" you will keep getting the wrong end of the stick - as people here are trying to tell you, it's trivially easy these days to guarantee perfect, digital transmission - why are you having such a hard time accepting that the end analogue representation is highly sensitive to all sorts of interfering effects, and that the design has to be very robust to prevent those effects being audible?

 

I have a personal example of incredibly corrupted digital - a NAD CDP which from new had great difficulty reading CDRs, and the data being fed to its internal DAC is a complete mess with many such disks. Listening to this can be much worse than an appallingly dirty LP - yet the tonality of the recorded sound is still there, accompanied by a racket of rude noises as the mechanism manfully tries to grind its way down the track.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

While you keep trying to have the digital corrupting as "the answer of everything"

 

I certainly know it is not the answer to everything, and in actuality is miniscule to the system on a whole.

I just had a problem accepting what people were trying to sell, and making sense of it in my own mind...the reason i couldn't make sense of it, was simple...it wasn't true.

 

After reading this, i understand a lot more that i had so much frustration with, because people kept suggesting that no matter what, that the DAC gets the DATA accurately....when in reality that is totally untrue...I am not saying what i learned will make even 1% difference in the end game...but the fact that I can accept some theories now, and reject other theories, got me past a hurdle in a more full understanding.  I now can accept why buffer settings matter, why enet makes a difference, and many MANY other issues I had, that now i see clearly things that bugged me the most.   Kind of like like when i came to the realization of why God wants praise...it was one of the biggest difficulties I had when i was a non-believer...once I found the answer to that one thing, everything became more clear....I am not sharing that for the purpose of sharing religion, I am sharing that so that you can understand what I am saying....that everything became more clear to me....btw, God doesn't want praise..that is a gift for us.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, mansr said:

He did. You provided the evidence. It's not interesting that he once observed an error. Only the error rate is meaningful.

not disputing the error rate....just that it is not always bit perfect.

Again, everything is relative..i am not going to argue what is audible or not either, or that upsampling software can make a larger difference.... just that there can be a difference.

If there can be even one bit difference in a pcm recording in an ideal environment...there are potentially larger differences in different environments..

 

For me, it changed the whole ballgame....for everyone else, maybe not so much.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, mansr said:

Of course there will be an error if you wait long enough. Nobody sane has ever claimed otherwise. What is claimed, and rightfully so, is that the error rate in practice is low enough as to be utterly irrelevant.

 

Yama Specs stated for Isosynchronous or bulk or both?

 

Most everyone agrees that killing processes makes a difference in SQ...what is theory?  Is it possible that if yyou have a ton of processes that in bulk you would resend, but not in Isosynchronous?

I don't really know, and don't really care to...I am not disputing error rate, just that it exists, which allows my theories to make sense....as long as it is fully accepted by everyone, that error rate does exist and can differ based on a number of factors.

 

Hell, it would be nice if both sides could meet on one thing ....after all, it is about harmony (grin)

 

 

 

Link to comment

Gordon Rankin: What we have here is an explanation with screenshot proof that USB audio transmission isn’t bit true

 

For the record, I believe both sides (usb or enet) are at or near a plateau inre digital front end, and if properly optimized, no one could tell one from the other in a DBT.....but then again, i believe we were there years ago.

 

The ONLY real OMG MASSIVE IMPROVEMENT observations that exist (inre digital front ends) are by the people that are finally getting where we have already been for many years....i don't even expect an OMG with optical, but i am going to do it anyway.

 

I still believe more gains can be realized in optimizing DSD...mainly because i think there are more things to pay attention to.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

Gordon Rankin: What we have here is an explanation with screenshot proof that USB audio transmission isn’t bit true

 

For the record, I believe both sides (usb or enet) are at or near a plateau inre digital front end, and if properly optimized, no one could tell one from the other in a DBT.....but then again, i believe we were there years ago.

 

The ONLY real OMG MASSIVE IMPROVEMENT observations that exist (inre digital front ends) are by the people that are finally getting where we have already been for many years....i don't even expect an OMG with optical, but i am going to do it anyway.

 

I still believe more gains can be realized in optimizing DSD...mainly because i think there are more things to pay attention to.

 

 

Bob Stuart would disagree with you about DSD. Bob and others have been writing about the significance of errors since the early nineties. I don't always disagree with him.

Link to comment

GORDON: What we have here is an explanation with screenshot proof that USB audio transmission isn’t bit true – enough evidence to reject any null hypothesis that assumes 1) all bits sent will all arrive intact and 2) re-transmission sorts out any detected errors. The Isosynchronous protocol used for audio data checks for errors but does not do any error correction (by way of retransmission).

Bringing it all back home, the iFi iPurifier 2 likely improves the sound of the Sonicorbiter SE because it minimises transmission errors by making lighter work for the Mytek Brooklyn’s USB receiver chip.

 

ME>>Probably why some usb toys had more effect on some dacs more than others and why some usb toys had no effect.

Guessing Noise "can" cause more errors.  Killiing processes "can" cause less errors.

Maybe most engineers don't see it, because they already have taken preventative measures in their environment.

Just because many people do not see any errors, they are not seeing everyone's enviornment....

 

Again, point is not how much, and now it seems even the most objective opinons acknowledge error rate exists, which at least satisfies me, even if everyone agreed that there is no difference in SQ regardless of noise, processing, etc...the simple fact that these things can change error rate, allows my logic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

This is what this thread - and most of the other threads you start - really is about: You've found information that you think confirms what you want to believe, and you've no interest in any new or additional information that would complicate or negate what you think you know - all you care bout is "piece in your own mind." That's fine - but it's got nothing to do with a discussion forum. Just say it into a mirror and you'll achieve the same effect as posting it here.

on the contrary, i have been told by people on both sides that "maybe what i say makes no sense, but it makes them think (wink)"....again, my philosophy is that everyone has different gifts....and i am ok that your philosophy is different than mine...i have advice for you, but I am not allowed to share it.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...