USB audio transmission isn’t bit true

[tmtomh]

13 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

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.

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.)

[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.

[Arpiben]

4 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

try injecting all the different kinds of noise at different points

If you need to "inject" more noise than the one you are creating I will direct you to places like the following picture.

 

[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.

[Blake]

4 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

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....

 

You have posted this many times.  Big deal, that was 50 years ago.  Get over it and man up.   You have also posted many times that you retired at 55 and as a result, you are on limited income until you reach 65.   That is your own fault.  Stop being lazy, get off your butt and get back to work.

 

You ask questions ad nauseum and debate people, like you are contemplating a purchase this week, yet, you then state you can't buy anything because you retired early and don't have money.  But wait, you then act like you do have money. You mention you own a house in San Diego that you are going to sell, you buy stuff at thrift stores and then sell it on Ebay, you are a genius, you get sent on secret missions to Washington DC, you have tested hundreds of speakers.

 

The question is, why on earth do I know all this about you?  What does it have to do with the topics at hand?  I don't want to know any of this stuff. 

 

The crazy part is, you seem shocked when members call you out.  I am frankly surprised at how much restraint is shown by the CA membership.   You are the one putting the target on your back and almost begging to be ridiculed.

 

With all due respect, my advice, quit this forum and go back to work.   

[esldude]

8 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

 

did you see/hear this happen or read about it?

 

Also, as stated,  different dac can interpolate, 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 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 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.

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

[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.

[crenca]

2 hours ago, tmtomh said:

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.

 

(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.)

 

Beerandmusic does not 'get'  frequency, rate, and similar realities.  It's not just that the math is hard, but the connection between math and physical reality is not there.  He is not alone of course and the Audiophile marketing machine uses this to their advantage.  Heck, even folks like John Atkinson appear to be fundamentally confused by frequency and the like when they opine about "transients", "leading edge arising out of blackness" and how they affect the rest of the signal, etc.

 

Now that I think about it, beerandmusic and John Atkinson are not that far apart in how they conceptualize signal...

[beerandmusic]

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

[diecaster]

20 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

 

The actual bits won't be accurate at the input pin(s) to the dac....that is what many/most people try to sell you here, but it is untrue. A lot of things are logical to me now in realizing this.

 

Really?? Whenever I use a special test file for my DAC that tests for bit perfect data delivery, it shows that I am indeed getting bit perfect data delivery. 

 

I think you you are trying to fit your ideas into a problem that does not really exist. USB audio data delivery is quite reliable. 

[esldude]

3 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

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

Continued quoting indicates you still don't get it. But you never intended to get it.

[mansr]

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

[beerandmusic]

ok boys can have this thread..

point was made and troll buddies exposed.

 

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

[diecaster]

5 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

ok boys can have this thread..

point was made and troll buddies exposed.

 

How am I trolling when I can prove my DAC is getting bit perfect data over USB which invalidates the premise of your thread?

[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.

 

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, diecaster said:

USB audio data delivery is quite reliable.

 

Yet it can still sound like crap unless a lot more attention to detail and expense is involved to get the best sound from it.

Thousands of C.A. members have already discovered that for themselves.

 There is a whole "Cottage Industry" set up to improve the performance of USB.

 Some of the solutions include USB cables with better isolation between D- and D+ and  VBus and  0volts, internal USB cards with improved power, Iso Rgens, USB Regens, USB to SPDIF converters etc. etc.

 Still, quite a few from the Objective side refuse to accept that this just MAY result in markedly improved sound on old purely theoretical grounds. Neither are they willing to try some of these solutions for themselves , and will insist that these members are gullible fools who deserve to be parted from their hard earned money. 

[diecaster]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 

Yet it can still sound like crap unless a lot more attention to detail and expense is involved to get the best sound from it.

Thousands of C.A. members have already discovered that for themselves.

 There is a whole "Cottage Industry" set up to improve the performance of USB.

 Some of the solutions include USB cables with better isolation between D- and D+ and  VBus and  0volts, internal USB cards with improved power, Iso Rgens, USB Regens, USB to SPDIF converters etc. etc.

 Still, quite a few from the Objective side refuse to accept that this just MAY result in markedly improved sound on old purely theoretical grounds. Neither are they willing to try some of these solutions for themselves , and will insist that these members are gullible fools who deserve to be parted from their hard earned money. 

 

That is a whole different topic........

[fas42]

4 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

 

 

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.

 

And this is where you do lose out - 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. Umm, no ... an audio rig is a system working in an environment, where any part can be somewhat sensitive, in a bad way, to the functioning of other parts of the system, or the environment. That "fancy cable" may in fact be a key factor in making the system robust - ditch that, and your SQ problems may go up many notches ...

 

Getting good sound is all about eliminating the weaknesses - people in other fields of endeavour understand this well, the need to strengthen vulnerable areas, to get competent operation. But audio is a bit of a bizarro world, where people believe the normal rules don't apply ... and our ears suffer ... .

[Teresa]

15 minutes ago, fas42 said:

...But audio is a bit of a bizarro world, where people believe the normal rules don't apply ... and our ears suffer ... .

 

Who says so but you? I have always know that an audio system is only as good as its weakest link. I believe most other listeners believe this as well. Except for internal mods that you do, must of us have sought the greatest symmetry between components and speakers to get as close to the sound of acoustic instruments and human voices we hear in good performance spaces. Some things work well together, some do not, it is a trial and error and the major reason I only purchase with a money-back satisfaction guarantee. YMMV. ?

 

The normal rules do apply to audio, you must be hanging out with the wrong crowd.

[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..

[fas42]

35 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

Who says so but you? I have always know that an audio system is only as good as its weakest link. I believe most other listeners believe this as well. Except for internal mods that you do, must of us have sought the greatest symmetry between components and speakers to get as close to the sound of acoustic instruments and human voices we hear in good performance spaces. Some things work well together, some do not, it is a trial and error and the major reason I only purchase with a money-back satisfaction guarantee. YMMV. ?

 

The normal rules do apply to audio, you must be hanging out with the wrong crowd.

 

Unfortunately, , you are indicating here the normal approach that people in the audio world use - worrying  about the "big stuff" ... yes, you can get a long way towards a better experience this way - but then you, for example, say how 'normal' CDs are not very pleasurable to listen to - which is giving the game away, you see .

 

It's the "devil's in the details" issues which prevent that type of material coming across well - the remaining weakest link is undermining the potential of that type of recording to show up well, and it will remain so until properly addressed.

 

Working with 'unpromising' gear as I do always reinforces this understanding - I worry about "silly things", and are then able to listen to "terrible" CDs at high volumes with complete pleasure - meaning, I have the full world of recorded music at my disposal, for my enjoyment .

 

The normal rules of audio are that only a tiny subset of recorded music is worthy - such a small hole to live in I would find very claustophobic, .

[kumakuma]

33 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The normal rules of audio are that only a tiny subset of recorded music is worthy - such a small hole to live in I would find very claustophobic, .

 

I have found the opposite to be true. I've got over 150,000 tracks in my library and perhaps 5% aren't recorded well.

[tmtomh]

On 11/27/2018 at 12:58 AM, 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).

 

[...]

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.

 

 

On 11/27/2018 at 8:28 AM, mansr said:

That matches my own experience exactly.

 

I believe Amir over at audiosciencereview did USB cable tests and found the same thing - length was the only fact that consistently correlated with signal quality. He got equal or better results with generic/cheapo cables compared with expensive/audiophile ones when comparing cables of the same, short or medium length.

[botrytis]

On ‎11‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 10:53 AM, beerandmusic said:

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?

 

 Digital data is digital data. What makes music different from ANY OTHER DIGITAL DATA STORAGE AND TRANSMISSION? I can tell you that my scientific instruments put out WAY more data in 1 min than any song has and there is no issues with data corruption, unless the HD goes or memory problems. 

 

You seem to think that music is special, it is not. Data is data. If USB was so bad for corruption it would not be used for data transfer in the scientific realm.

 

You obviously no not what you are talking about.