USB audio transmission isn’t bit true

[beerandmusic]

28 minutes ago, JohnSwenson said:

I have done same tests that Gordon did and get similar results. Under some conditions you can get lots of data errors (many per second) with USB audio, under other conditions you can get no errors for days.

 

The biggest correlation I got was with cable length. With a cable greater than 3m you have pretty good chance of getting a large number of errors. Under 2m errors are few and far between (days between errors).

 

Between 2m and 3m is where the fun happens, you can trade off cable length and cable quality. For example with Supra cables you can go with significantly longer cables than cheap cables. In this range hardware has significant impact. For example my SuperMicro motherboard is error free with longer cheap cables than my cheap laptop.

 

I also did a lot of listening to the audio with different error rates on the USB. At low error rates the sound is identical. As error rates increase you start hearing the infamous clicks and pops. If you are getting say a click per minute, the sound quality in between clicks doesn't change. As the clicks come more often they get so annoying its impossible to tell if the sound quality is changing or not. At some point the errors come so often the system just shuts down, it can't handle that many errors. (a 5m cheap cable has a high probability of doing this).

 

So my conclusion was that if you stay with cables less than 2m you can be pretty sure you are essentially error free.

 

These rare bit errors do not seem to cause any sound change (other than a possible click).

 

John S.

 

 

What in your belief causes things like more detail and soundstage using same dac?

What is your comment about Rankins statement:

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....that doesn't sound like "clicks" to me.  I think excessive errrors can cause clicks where others will affect in other ways...(non-engineer opinion-smile).

 

I mean if you only have 1 dropped bit that I highly doubt you would hear a click....i mean how many bits in quad dsd are being processed in one second?..clearly you would not hear that as a click?....

 

You aren't the first one to suggest dropped bits only make clicks, but i think everybody and their brother jump on that theory to disprove that dacs recieve music with 100% accuracy....it's easy to say, well i didnt hear a click so i got 100% accuracy, but i am not so convinced.....in your testing did you ever see dropped bits but not hear clicks

[beerandmusic]

52 minutes ago, JohnSwenson said:

The biggest correlation I got was with cable length. With a cable greater than 3m you have pretty good chance of getting a large number of errors....

.....For example my SuperMicro motherboard is error free with longer cheap cables than my cheap laptop.

 

Along the same lines as that bolded, in all likelihood, if you had a slow processor with very little memory, and lots of processes running on a cheap mb and noisy ps, it is feasible that you would see even more errors per second even with a 1 foot cable....just for example..not saying you would or would not, just that it is feasible in theory, and that other things such as os, software, interrupts etc, also could cause more errors.

[beerandmusic]

Relevant

 

someone shared this link on one of my other threads....interesting listen....

 

https://darko.audio/2018/11/why-isnt-digital-audio-just-ones-and-zeroes/

 

A main point which i made earlier...it is best to get the signal right first rather than to try and fix it. (about 10:15 into listen).

[beerandmusic]

Everything i am reading reinforces my belief that ideally you would have a "network player" (e.g. streamer dac in one box) so that you have single manufacturer that can measure from input to output and know the entire environment (within reason) with less unknowns.  i am sure this concept will be pushed back by boutique shops or those afiliated and ignorant followers...but it is the best design....again, think SACD player...it can exist in one box.

[beerandmusic]

14 minutes ago, esldude said:

Your random and rarely encountered bit errors, your killed processes, your OS differences, all of that aren't the explanation.  The human in the loop is the explanation.  

 

I agree to some degree, but it really is a lot of everything, including personal belief and bias.  Many things do make a difference...most people doing these so called tests, do not have perfect environment for switching between kits, so i do grant you that.... but i also know i have heard differences, so regardless whether i can say it is better or worse, or i like one more than the other, regardless which is more accurate, or if i can even articulate how they sound different....there are differences even just by switching inputs on my ND8006....i dont think anything is OMG worthy, that we "can" be relatively close to a plateau, provided we have applied known lessons no matter whether we go enet or usb...but in my humble opinion, a network player is the ideal design with an optional LPS dependent on budget.  I also would like to revisit SD-card players noise measurements...that also could be an option for the "ideal" network player....beware every boutique dealer will push hard against that concept along with all their followers, but that is where I will continue to put my focus.

[beerandmusic]

13 minutes ago, firedog said:

Yep. Just looking for "evidence" to confirm what he already thinks. Then even if it is irrelevant, he latches onto it as if it is significant. One error every million, or  one error in 12 hours - and suddenly he has "confirmed" his preconceived idea. The fact that he has actually proved the opposite doesn't ever occur to him, apparently. 

 

THe darko audio in link above is very close to my beliefs...but i wasn't trying to get anything out of this thread other than for people to stop saying the data is always received at the DAC with 100% accuracy....Never bought it, never will....you guys may not understand why it was important to me..it was just i had difficult time that everyone seemed to accept that as fact, when it wasn't true.  Not that these "bits" make a dramatic difference, but the fact that there is any difference whatsoever reinforces my other thoughts....example...if i have to accept that 2 pennies = 3 cents then i can't accept that 3 pennies = 3 cents....I don't care since it's only one penny, but it makes all other logic fail....too hard to explain, let's just say it was mind settling for me to come to truth.

[beerandmusic]

4 hours ago, esldude said:

You are not even aware of how much you are embarrassing yourself.  That makes it all the more embarrassing because you'll not understand this.  

 

My apologies.  

no need to apologize...you must of missed my post about how ignorant someone is to even respond to me because I will be first to admit I don't know crap.  Even in the Darko audio it is clear that engineer doesn't understand some things and suggest no one does fully understand it.  I will put you much further down the knowledge line than him, and we won't even discuss where in line you are in regards to human attributes that really matter in life.

 

For the record, i was flown to washington dc for a secret virtualization system, and i found system problems delaying rollout in areas where network engineers (which i am not one), couldn't find their own problems.  I am likely a lot more intelligent than you, so you and rolfl, tomtomm and other trolls on this site.  True, you all know more than me, but knowledge is not intelligence.  I can more accurately theorize in my mind, than you can resolve with your hands....in the mean time, i will just go on embarrassing myself. I grew up with lots of freckles, very skinny, couldn't pronounce my r's and other issues where I was teased most of my life, so I am used to it, so i certainly don't mind any nonsense you can throw my way....it's time for you to grow up little boy, before it's too late...you are the one embarrassing yourself....perhaps not to your troll buddies who will give +1 Likes to your ridiculing posts....but to everyone who really matters.

[beerandmusic]

21 minutes ago, mansr said:

That matches my own experience exactly.

try injecting all the different kinds of noise at different points

[beerandmusic]

1 hour ago, yamamoto2002 said:

 

I read the article

 

As Rankin-san said, it seems USB reliability becomes lower when many USB devices connected to one USB host controller. So maybe the error he experienced is caused by interference with other USB devices? (It should not be happened but in the real world, it happens)

 

You may have a interest to the following experiment, Challenge to connect theoretical max number of USB devices to one Windows 7 PC. This 3 page document is full of nightmare experience with unreliable computer. He has a great patience. From 80 USB devices, computer becomes really unstable.
 

http://ascii.jp/elem/000/000/720/720038/

 

This may be caused by CRC error (I don't have a equipment to confirm this so this is a guess)

 

I have similar experience to the document with my PC. When a USB hub with several USB devices is connected to the PC, often the hub and all the subsequent USB devices is not recognized and reconnecting cures the problem.

 

I am not going to read your link because it is not of interest to me (no disrespect to you)....is it about bulk or isochronis transmissions...either way, i don't really care.  The reason this topic was of interest to me, was because it was a stumbling block for me regardless of significance or whether it is relative or not.  I still will not decide if it can or cannot impact SQ and in which ways.  It is accepted it can cause clicks, but no one knows the depth which is possible.

I don't know actual numbers, but how many bits are processed in one second for quad dsd? 

[beerandmusic]

Off topic

 

How come we didn't need multi-thouusand dollar power supplies with SACD players and audiophiles didn't need such elaborate dacs and were content with a high end SACD player with its own internal dac back in those years?

 

Can't we do same with a sd card player today?  Want more storage, a NAS to a "network player" will be more than sufficient without USB...why require a poor audio transmission circuit or expensive cables for "optimal play"?

 

It also seems we could live without USB back then, why do we need it to day especially considering ISOCHRONus transmission....the boutique shops will push back til out of business or change their business.

 

Whatever...so much waste of life.

 

 

[beerandmusic]

7 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

So intelligent and yet so humble! 

 

yea, sorry i was pushed so much...i have to stand up once in awhile...once i stood up to a bully in elementary school and clocked him on the nose and he cried, and many cheered....one of the only times i threw a punch in my life...i think i do pretty well for exercising my patience with idiots.

[beerandmusic]

1 hour ago, tmtomh said:

It's not about philosophies - that's precisely the problem here. It's about facts and what facts mean. You start with the premise that you "have always had difficulty accepting the concept" that "DACs get their bits with 100% accuracy."

 

Now, any reasonable person who reads this will come to the same conclusion: This is not simply an idle thought on your part. Rather, you've had "difficulty accepting" the concept of bit-perfect transmission of binary data down a digital connection into a DAC because - like many of us - you hear differences in the playback of music with various DACs and various different associated equipment.

 

Fair enough. Where your line of reasoning runs off the rails, though, is that you clearly are intent on attributing the differences you hear to variation among USB ports and USB cables, as per the Gordon Rankin piece that you quoted when you started this thread.

 

And for substantiation of this claim, you repeatedly quote Rankin saying, "What  we have here is an explanation with screenshot proof that USB audio transmission isn’t bit true."

 

As @mansr and others have patiently tried to explain, this Rankin statement is what we might call "just close enough to the truth to be misleading." I say that because the frequency of USB/digital transmission errors - how often they occur and what the sonic consequences of them will be - must be taken into account. And this is something you have steadfastly refused to do. These errors occur extremely infrequently, on the order of a single transposed bit for approximately every 30 hours' worth of music listening (if I am recalling some of the prior comments correctly).

 

With that info in hand, the question then becomes, with one wrong bit every 30 hours, is it actually reasonable to claim that digital transmission of music data to DACs is "not bit-perfect"? And the clear answer is, No, it is not reasonable to claim that it isn't bit-perfect, because in digital music bit-perfect has a specific meaning: It means the data passed on down the line by the player/computer has the same bit depth, sample rate (and I would say also digital amplitude) as the original source file - and along with that that the jitter performance of the transmission line is sufficient to enable the DAC to lock on to the signal and reclock it without audible glitches.

 

The Rankin material you've cited does not have any bearing on that - and you know it. Your usual M.O. here is to find and then repeatedly restate what you think is either evidence or a broad concept showing that some core aspect of digital sampling and reproduction is inherently flawed in a way that creates analogue-like sonic problems (for example, soundstage imaging or frequency balance/EQ). This thread is simply another example.

 

When you write that people say to you, "maybe what i say makes no sense, but it makes them think." I think the problem is that while what you say might make some others think, it doesn't seem to make you think.

 

(And no, I am not trying to be mean by saying your statements are thoughtless - rather, I'm observing the irony that you seek to make people think while at the same time amply demonstrating that you yourself are unwilling to reconsider the propositions with which you start your threads.)

much is wrong here in your thinking in regards to my thought process...most of it is not worth my time to even respond.  but i will respond to the sentence you ended on.  I never said, nor do I seek, to make people think, nor have i demonstrated that i am unwilling to reconsider my own propositions....on the contrary, you seem intent on being unwilling to accept that enet may be a better medium.

 

To clarify those 2 points, I responded to you "in kind", that although you may suggest I may as well talk to a mirror....that people have stated that although I make no sense that it made them think....i never said that was my intention to make others think..(point being, the eye cannot say to the hand, I don't need you)....As far and being unwilling to reconsider my propositions, i have always stated that I am not an audio engineer, that i do not know the answers, and that I have not even decided what I believe or do not believe....some people have already decided what they believe, some people follow, and others like myself want to learn more....either way, my response is the same...put me on ignore, i promise you it won't hurt my feelings, and that goes for all the trolls, I mean really, why waste your time on someone that doesn't know anything and has nothing to say.

I post things to learn,  in my own way, for my sole purpose of discovering what i believe is important for me in my system...and it doesn't include USB (Isosynchronous transmission and unnecessary cables are just 2 of many reasons)....why not a network player?  are you unwilling to reconsider your propositions?

[beerandmusic]

1 hour ago, tmtomh said:

you yourself are unwilling to reconsider the propositions with which you start your threads.)

 

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

...and it doesn't include USB (Isosynchronous transmission and unnecessary cables are just 2 of many reasons)....why not a network player?  are you unwilling to reconsider your propositions?

 

PS...i do believe a near perfect USB solution is possible if properly designed...it's just not what i want...i don't see any benefit to include USB in my desired solution...but I am willing to consider it still... my ideal solution would be a network player (w/sd-card) void of usb, usb cables, unless it can be objectively proclaimed that USB is superior with logic that i can accept...which i personally don't see that happening, plus i don't like the idea that many usb cables can impact SQ, and in so many different ways....i say eliminate the cable.

[beerandmusic]

 

On 2/3/2018 at 8:34 AM, mansr said:

 A steady stream of errors results in buzzing or distorted sound. If the DAC simply ignores bad frames (i.e. doesn't pad or interpolate), too many errors in a short time can cause a buffer underrun which will be audible as a longer drop-out.

 

 

did you see/hear this "distorted sound" yourself or read about it?  Can you change it by injecting noise?

 

Also, as stated,  different dacs can interpolate, drop, etc.. so no matter what, no one can suggest one digital input is superior to another...it just depends on how the dac processes the errors (along with everything else) which ultimately matters...which goes to my point, about why worry about accuracy at all in the digital end, because DACs interpolate, use algorithms, etc...you can never achieve 100% accuracy. so why sweat it.  Why worry about fancy cables...any differences are subjective and are system dependent....might as well go the cheap route without usb cables...besides people wouldn't know accuracy compared to desired sound if it hit them in the face.

[beerandmusic]

5 minutes ago, esldude said:

Why worry about facts that don't fit the inaccurate ideas.  Why not go on without using the brain. Facts are too confusing.

what inaccurate ideas?  mansr stated as fact that errors can distort sound...that is what has my curiosity.

[beerandmusic]

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

[beerandmusic]

ok boys can have this thread..

point was made and troll buddies exposed.

 

nothing more to add that hasn't already been said.

[beerandmusic]

1 minute ago, diecaster said:

 

How am I trolling

I wasn't referring to you, and i am happy you have a nice usb setup.

 

[beerandmusic]

53 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

 like many people in audio, you're grimly determined to separate out the different areas of operation, and insist that each is 100% independent of the other.

actually i have made the same exact point many times...that it depends on the system as a whole, which is why no one can suggest one intfc is better than another, because "it depends"....and i think most everyone understands this.....I am convinced you can have a "solid" usb or enet front end...but usb is not for me personally for reasons stated, and i personally don't see a need for it at all.

 

Most people are on one side of the fence (enet -> usb->dac) or (pc->usb->dac), but i would prefer to leave usb out all together (e.g. enet->DAC)..i don't want to deal with sq differences in usb cables, usb toys,  or need for 3 external PS's or one PS with y adapters.  If they can design a decent SACD player, they can design a decent network player....unfortunately, boutique dac designers don't specialize in front ends, and visa versa......but you see some coming out....auralic, aurrender, psaudio, lumin,dcs, most all avr's these days ....more will come, eventually driving price down..

[beerandmusic]

4 hours ago, Superdad said:

 

Using a USB protocol analyzer.  John and I each have one from Teledyne Lecroy.

 

Of course this whole conversation of bit errors has little to do with transmitted USB signal integrity--and its effect on the PHY of a DAC's USB input (ground-plane noise/bounce and packet-data noise), which ultimately affects the DAC's master clock and is the real reason why  people hear differences with USB cables and regenerators.  

 

What is mansr saying here then?

 

On 2/3/2018 at 8:34 AM, mansr said:

 A steady stream of errors results in buzzing or distorted sound. If the DAC simply ignores bad frames (i.e. doesn't pad or interpolate), too many errors in a short time can cause a buffer underrun which will be audible as a longer drop-out.

 

 

It sounds like errors can cause more than just clicks by mansr's statement?

I would be curious if one could inject noise somehow and see the error rate go up?

 

 

[beerandmusic]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

Perhaps these threads may provide some enlightenment:

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/28494-a-most-horrid-usb-cable/

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/28590-86-metres-of-cheap-cable-what-could-possibly-go-wrong/
 

 

5 hours ago, Superdad said:

 

Using a USB protocol analyzer.  John and I each have one from Teledyne Lecroy.

 

 

Kuma, nothing in those links really applicable to my question, but i did find a link in one of the links you shared with some of archimago's findings, ...so thanks for the links.

 

Although not applicable to my question...Archimago states (and this was just about a bad usb cable, not purposely injecting noise into quad dsd:

 

The more data error, the less the amount of "normal sounding" music will be heard. Obviously if the data error occurs every few minutes, it might be difficult to detect, but if it happens frequently, it's not subtle.

 

I am still curious if you were to set up an environment which shows "typical" error rate playing quad dsd, if you could inject noise somehow and see if the error rate would increase.
 

[beerandmusic]

6 hours ago, Superdad said:

 

(ground-plane noise/bounce and packet-data noise), which ultimately affects the DAC's master clock and is the real reason why  people hear differences with USB cables and regenerators.  

 

Assuming noise could not increase error rate (which i am not convinced until someone actually tests and reports on injecting noise in a quad dsd signal), and noise could only affect DACs (not the error rate)...having a noisy computer doing heavy processing (e.g. quad dsd processing and if pc not optimized and have a noisy ps, etc..etc..), only 3' from your DAC does not sound like a good idea either....all the more reason to do fiber over ethernet....this also eliminate the need for a very expensive PS on your pc....and if you went enet directly into your dac without any usb intfc, you wouldn't need an expensive PS for your streamer either?  Just one LPS internal to your enet dac (e.g. altair comes with LPS and ultra low noise clock).

 

Sorry for crappy 5min diagram...but this is what i am thinking would be the most noise free environment.

 

No fancy usb cables, no fancy power supplies (perhaps one LPS included in an enet dac like altair includes an LPS).

 

Very simple design....if you have more money, but a better enet dac...less money buy something like TEAC NT505, ND8006, or even used NT503....the market should be flooded with enet dacs in coming years in all different price ranges.

 

No usb toys, no need for fancy ps for an expensive streamer...no isosynchronus transmission  errors,

[beerandmusic]

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

 

Assuming noise could not increase error rate (which i am not convinced until someone actually tests and reports on injecting noise in a quad dsd signal), and noise could only affect DACs (not the error rate)...having a noisy computer doing heavy processing (e.g. quad dsd processing and if pc not optimized and have a noisy ps, etc..etc..), only 3' from your DAC does not sound like a good idea either....all the more reason to do fiber over ethernet....this also eliminate the need for a very expensive PS on your pc....and if you went enet directly into your dac without any usb intfc, you wouldn't need an expensive PS for your streamer either?  Just one LPS internal to your enet dac (e.g. altair comes with LPS and ultra low noise clock).

 

Sorry for crappy 5min diagram...but this is what i am thinking would be the most noise free environment.

 

No fancy usb cables, no fancy power supplies (perhaps one LPS included in an enet dac like altair includes an LPS).

 

Very simple design....if you have more money, but a better enet dac...less money buy something like TEAC NT505, ND8006, or even used NT503....the market should be flooded with enet dacs in coming years in all different price ranges.

 

No usb toys, no need for fancy ps for an expensive streamer...no isosynchronus transmission  errors,

 

* music bits as perfect as can possibly be, all the way to the dac input.

* all processing is done away from listening room.

* the media converter is a VERY LOW power device and doesn't need any special power, but if make you feel better buy cheap $50 ifi power.

* Audio linux is $30 and has support for HQP or roon ... Volumio is $FREE if you want a web browser player, or you can use Jussi NAA image.

* Altair is ONLY DAC i know of under $2K that has (enet, LPS, and ultra low phase clocks)...hope to see a lot more of these devices to drive  down prices under $1K. (tell DAC mfrs to eliminate unnecessary USB circuitry to further reduce costs).

* The enet and dac in one unit so one trusted mfr and has been tested by mfr from input to output in one box, and you are providing as noiseless possible clean data with no transmission errors directly to it's input.

 

I bought CISCO 24 port GIGABIT switch with 4 SFP fiber connections used for $45, xceiver $11, cable $8, Fmc $25....solution is very cheap, very simple, and don't see how you can get it any quieter and no need for fancy PS or fancy USB cables.

 

 

 

[beerandmusic]

40 minutes ago, esldude said:

You'll intentionally not understand it of course.  Interference of noisy devices thru the air are not much of a problem.  Even a little distance helps tremendously, and that is assuming the noise is of a type picked up and harmful anyway.  If there is a noise issue the problems are magnitudes greater over wired connections. 

 

I've done this before, which you say doesn't apply to your exact situation.  Which is only an embarrassment to you which you won't understand.  I took a large PC supply out of its case, had the PC doing intensive power hungry video processing, and ran some RCA cables once around the supply.  You do get noise, noise you can hear.  I unwrap and move it 6 inches away, and you can measure some noise, but not hear it.  Move it two feet away and that noise is at such a low level it is swamped by thermal noise. 

 

Did the same thing with balanced XLR cable.  Nothing above the thermal noise floor even wrapped a few times right around the switching PC supply.  

 

With PS inside a metal case, and some distance you just aren't getting much irradiated noise that will effect something else several feet away.  Not from random OS actions and noise that isn't tuned to what anything else is doing.  Making a problem of something that is not one. Just because you can imagine it would be. 

 

Take a nice DAC, feed it from USB of 3 meters or less directly and you don't need anything else.  

 

It's funny the current digital fashion vs audiophile fashions of yesteryear.  Back then less was more and simplicity of high quality was sought after.  Like removing tone controls from preamps.  Now, more is more.  Instead of doing something of good quality everyone introduces fixes, and fixes for fixes and you get the idea the more widgets between A and B the better it will be. Rather bizarre.  

 

A good ethernet protocol would be fine too, but it is going to be the same story all over again.  You'll need a dozen boxes to condition things for that because  soon enough......somebody ........will hear.............. something.............

 

Just curious, do you use a fancy usb cable?

 

Either way, To be honest, I do believe you can have a "near perfect" usb solution provided dedicated, highly optimize, quality pc, and a standard usb cable...furthermore, I do not believe in any OMG MASSIVE Improvement enet solution over USB unless they had a crappy USB solution when they started.

 

I did have a crappy usb solution when i first started, and i jumped on enet within a month and noticed a good subtle difference, but easily notable.  I do believe usb toys work for noisy comptuers or older generation dacs, but it makes more sense to fix it before its broke imho.    I stuck with ENET but tried several usb solutions but always went back to enet.  Again most of this was even before advent of usb toys and fancy cables (or at least popularity of fancy usb cables)...i am talking 7-8 years ago...and after giving USB a chance several times, i have stuck with enet ever since (for my main system), i still use both USB and spdif for my office system.  I am not here to say that you can't have an optimal usb solution, because i believe you can....but on the other hand, i do not see any purpose in using an inferior transmission medium, and no reason to go back to it....you can build (as demonstrated) a very cheap enet solution, that no one can suggest will be weaker for any reason, or if they can, i would love their input. 

 

None of this was relative to why i started this thread though....I was just happy to learn the term Isochronous, and that the DAC does not get its data perfectly as many suggested....For me it was a stumbling block...regardless if it can or cannot affect SQ....I just kept hypothesizing different solutions and just couldn't accept that the dac always gets its data with 100% accuracy...and i was right.  I don't understand why people couldn't get that it was just a stumbling block for me and why people are so sensitive.  Regardless, i still think it can cause issues besides just clicks, and even MANSR and ARCHMAGO stated so as well (even if very unlikely with a PROPERLY tuned system).  To me,  it's irrelevant anymore, even if it couldnt' cause anyything more than clicks...I just don't need usb..it's unnecessary.

[beerandmusic]

21 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

You asked what mansr was saying and the first link answered your question, even providing recording of the distortion for you listening "pleasure".

Ok thanks...i went back and re-read...and i will even re-read again....

 

I downloaded one of the recordings and it was horrid...if high error rate can cause that, i do not want any error rate (grin)....

 

Most notably, he stated:

 

====

The first few seconds of the recording are fine. When errors start showing up, it's as an occasional skip which is clearly audible. The thing is, as soon as a single bit is wrong, an entire packet is discarded, and this causes a huge error in the recovered data stream.

====

 

So in conclusion, i do not want even a single bit wrong, right?

 

To me, if error rate can cause that which is not even listenable, there are many possibilities of what small error rates can do on different gear, even if just very subtle.