Bits is bits?

[jabbr]

12 hours ago, sandyk said:

In other words it becomes Censorship of those with differing points of view.

 

Presumably you continue to post your views to get a reaction?

 

You must understand by now that some of your ideas are way outside the norm, and presumably you enjoy tweaking everyone?

[jabbr]

7 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

Which is probably not so bad at all. People tell others what they hear and others may want or not want listen. There is no such thing as universal audio truth and wouldn't be.

 

Certainly. The objection should not be what sound someone prefers, rather when people proclaim technical reasons that are outside reality. These pseudo technical proclamations are often ill disguised marketing attempts. Sort of like selling American cheese as organic aged Parmesan — you are free to like your cheeseburger with American cheese, just be honest.

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, marce said:

If bits aren't bits what are they then?

Kibbles

[jabbr]

2 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

According to Scientists all cheeses taste the same.

Computer scientists will say anything in exchange for bathroom privileges 😂

[jabbr]

22 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Yes, I agree that they are outside the norm , but I also have quite a bit of confirmation including now 4 high profile members in the previous several months.

Alex, I appreciate your passion, honestly. If you want to avoid being dismissed then:

1) Clearly state what is being “confirmed”

2) Don’t use the term “confirmation” when you mean that there are 4 more anecdotes. Are they public?

 

Doesn’t matter. When the claims are so outside the norm, the evidence needed to move the bar requires more and more care & effort. 

 

That said this this is a hobby, and you understand why you prompt such reactions.  

[jabbr]

55 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 I have already provided that in the way of reports by Barry Diament and the results also of 6 separate DBTs.

 As far as I am concerned I have done just that.

 It's not my problem if you refuse to accept the validity of those reports along with those from quite a few respected members of this forum.

Nothing that anybody does will ever be enough for those with deeply ingrained beliefs, just like those that refuse to accept that Man has set foot on the Moon.

 

Ok you still haven’t answered: what exactly is your claim? Specifically: what do you feel you have “confirmed”?

 

Honestly, I can’t tell exactly what you are talking about. 

[jabbr]

17 minutes ago, sandyk said:

On several occasions I have offered to provide you proof of my main claim but you have made it very clear, as several other members have done, that you are not interested in any proof that I have offered to provide.

 My main claim has always been that Music files with identical checksums do not necessarily sound the same, even when stored in the same folder of the same storage media, or for that matter,  Video files with identical checksums look exactly the same either.

 

Oh ok. On my system they sound the same to me. I don’t doubt that you could construct a system where file copies sound different. Not an issue for me though:

 

Now that fact causes you to extrapolate to the moon about all sorts of unrelated stuff. A doesn’t mean B or C or D or E

[jabbr]

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

If you are interested I can provide further details, FYI ONLY via a PM.

 

Thats ok. I am confident that the conditions which apply to your system and cause you to hear what you hear don’t  apply to my system. 

[jabbr]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

  I am not just talking about HEARING.

You are also neglecting the fact that others have reported hearing the same differences through their own system via my provided files.

 

Alex, I understand you are very passionate about this topic. If you wish to document all the ways a noisy PC can affect the media output then go for it.

 

You might consider solving this problem using a good isolating network segment (I use fiber) and that way the details of the media whether it be audio, or imaging, will be effectively isolated from the noisy PC. In any case I’m all set.

[jabbr]

4 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Here we go again, the usual reply from the other side that their own system is totally immune from these effects, and the usual

unwillingness to even participate in such as exercise.

 

I did listen awhile ago. You know that. You are being irrational. Have you ever listened to my system? Why are you so presumptuous?

 

You really should get some properly working equipment that doesn’t screw up your files. Gosh.

 

And how many people fail to hear a difference? Who is this “other side”? Are you editing out negative reports? Are you saying that 4 people could hear a difference and 400 not? How is anyone supposed to evaluate what you say?

[jabbr]

12 hours ago, barrows said:

I do not see a whole lot wrong with that article, after perusing it.  But the part that is quoted at the beginning of this thread, which appears to suggest that bit errors are responsible for some sound quality issues with digital audio is entirely mistaken, and this fact really makes the entire article lose weight.

 

Really? Frankly I couldn’t make it through the whole article but the opening section about cables was really painful to read. It doesn’t limit itself to USB, so let’s look at Ethernet. Every CAT6a cable which can meet specification is necessarily reasonably well designed. Using UTP, the part about it being difficult to both properly shield and carry gigahz signals is utter nonsense. The part about it being expensive to do is further nonsense — just get a roll of Belden and call it a day. Seriously.

 

Now admittedly the USB work isn’t as simple. It seems as though 95% of DAC manufacturers get their USB interfaces from either XMOS or the $50 Amanero. I’d think that those of you who actually produce so-called audiophile USB transmitters would be able to identify & rectify deficiencies in the receivers that lead to ringing, ground bounce etc and not leave it to the cable to tame the rise time — of course the article mentions none of that, rather uses pseudo technobabble (obviously designed to sell “special” cables)

[jabbr]

31 minutes ago, Soothsayerman said:

But the whole notion that a bit is a bit in the grand scheme of essentially a very complex data bus is not true when it comes to streaming.   Now if you think that is snake oil, I personally do not care. 

How exactly is an Ethernet frame different in streaming than any other TCP/IP application? Exactly how could any teenie little audiophile company like audioquest have the resources to even come close to the Ethernet cable technology of Belden — including the REVConnect? 1Gbe is child’s play for the big boys, even 10Gbe is old school — now check out that encoding and those levels and jitter / eye patterns that need to be hit there. Just tell me how you are going to beat Belden ... no show me.

[jabbr]

22 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I want an an arrogant dickhead USB cable - I can use it for punk rock

 

Thats an ale actually 😂

[jabbr]

3 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Yes, I think that's right.

 

 

So the Arrogant Dickhead USB cable is an  AQ product?

 

If not, then troll-audio should snap up the trademark  

 

[jabbr]

BTW whomever was quoting 16 levels for Ethernet was thinking ot 10GBase-T:

https://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/absolute-eda/4441982/PAM---Ethernet--A-perfect-match

 

Crazy eye pattern there  ....

 

https://www.belden.com/blog/smart-building/how-cabling-parameters-impact-the-eye-of-the-digital-signal

 

 

 

[jabbr]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

Not really my style.

 

I'm tellin' ya, we will get you an outfit, some dancing girls and you can lip sync just like Mariah Carey  

[jabbr]

3 hours ago, alfe said:

 

Dickhead is for porn site, here the insult is Radiohead.

 

 

Paranoid Android USB cables aren’t designed for audio, just ok, computer

 

They come complete with jumpers that control the built in reverb

 

https://www.factmag.com/2017/05/21/radiohead-ok-computer-gear-effects-pedals/

[jabbr]

On 8/10/2019 at 2:16 PM, Ralf11 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_line

 

Fun Fact - dolphins use a blast of HF sound waves to stun fish, so they can easily scoop them up

 

Are you suggesting that @fas42 is trying to stun humans by high frequency posting? I think it’s a central post with spread spectrum clocking so some words are changed here and there. I believe the Israeli military developed this technology in the 1990s  

[jabbr]

7 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

one?

Bit?

[jabbr]

36 minutes ago, alfe said:

In french bite.

 

In German please.

[jabbr]

25 minutes ago, alfe said:

 Bitte. 😀

 

Bitte ist bitte!

[jabbr]

14 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

and if you did it would only think about oats and other horses

 

Bits for grits!

[jabbr]

On 8/15/2019 at 6:44 PM, Ralf11 said:

if your USB cable allows noise infestation you will wind up having nibbles with quibbles

 

Kibbles ‘n Bits?

[jabbr]

? Am I invading the offtopic discussion in this thread with paraphrasing the OP topic? Hmm...

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

You wouldn't have a clue what the current methodology is, and which 4 high profile qualified members have also verified my reports in the last 4 1/2 months or so !

So now you are claiming that Martin Colloms didn't perform the 6 DBT sessions in a reputable way ?

Unlike you, he is a well qualified E.E. and knows how to perform DBTs correctly..

 

The term “DBT” is thrown around often here but I suspect that most people do not know what it is.

 

Firstly E.E.s do not learn about nor perform DBTs. Not that they couldn’t, it’s just not part of the EE curriculum. 

 

DBT = “double blind test” This doesn’t mean that the listener is blinded, rather that both the listener (subject) and investigator are blinded.

 

What exactly is your methodology and why do you think you performed DBTs?