Bits is bits?

[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

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

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

 With the recent verifications I have deliberately not made public the names of the high profile members involved, so as to protect them from the inevitable personal attacks by the usual pack of suspects. 

Of course their reports are anecdotal, as it is not possible to organise DBT sessions etc. like I did originally.

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

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Oh ok. On my system they sound the same to me.

 Unless I am mistaken, you have not been supplied with any recent examples which are very different to the original samples provided

 

[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. 

[sandyk]

13 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

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. 

Virtually Everybody from the Objective side appears to believe that what others in this Forum report hearing  does NOT apply to their own system.

  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.

[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.

[sandyk]

6 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

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.

 

Here we go again, the usual claim 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.

[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?

[sandyk]

17 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

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 are the one being presumptuous.

 You are making an unverifiable claim that your system is totally immune to these effects, and can correct all deficiencies resulting from the front end, even the visual side from an attached monitor/TV  which does NOT go through your optical network along with the Audio.

 It's simply a waste of time discussing this further with you.

[fas42]

56 minutes ago, barrows said:

While I could be convinced by the idea that in a properly designed USB receiver the cable should not matter, I have never come across a DAC sporting such an interface, and I have experienced many, many USB DACs here.

 

Which is exactly why I have developed the attitude that USB is far too fragile to use in the audio world if you take SQ seriously  - far too much time will have to be devoted to "sorting out the mess ..."

[fas42]

20 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Here we go again, the usual claim 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.

 

Alex, every system is different ... some will be more sensitive to the precise way a sequence of files are played back, and others will be less. Things vary ... there's nothing particularly useful in knowing that, apart from experimenting to test how one's own rig responds.

[Ralf11]

37 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 You are the one being presumptuous.

 You are making an unverifiable claim that your system is totally immune to these effects, and can correct all deficiencies resulting from the front end, even the visual side from an attached monitor/TV  which does NOT go through your optical network along with the Audio.

 It's simply a waste of time discussing this further with you.

 

 

 

[AnotherSpin]

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

There is a universal audio truth ... any reasonable playback system can be evolved to a status, using knowledge and focused effort, where one is no longer aware of the playback chain in the listening; but only what's on the recording. This is something that I've have confirmed repeatedly - and what's on the recording is plenty enough to keep you mighty happy, .

 

The problem is "reasonable playback" for you would not necessarily be reasonable for someone else. Hence your truth can not be universal. In general sense, anything changeable couldn't be truth.

[marce]

4 hours ago, sandyk said:

Virtually Everybody from the Objective side appears to believe that what others in this Forum report hearing  does NOT apply to their own system.

  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.

It is well known that more objective based audiophiles are deaf (myself included) and have to cover our disability in the hearing department by hiding behind the shoulders of the likes of Maxwell, Heaviside, Tesla etc.

[sandyk]

43 minutes ago, marce said:

It is well known that more objective based audiophiles are deaf (myself included) and have to cover our disability in the hearing department by hiding behind the shoulders of the likes of Maxwell, Heaviside, Tesla etc.

 You can't possibly have as much hearing damage, as well as age related as I have, yet I am still able to hear things many others are unable to. 

Personally knowing a couple of E.Es. , I put some of this down to Expectation Bias due to your original training.

[mansr]

8 hours ago, barrows said:

I do not see a whole lot wrong with that article, after perusing it.

And that is how we separate the boys from the men.

[89reksal]

12 minutes ago, mansr said:

And that is how we separate the boys from the men.

Is that the place where men are men and sheep are nervous?

[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)

[Blackmorec]

15 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

There is a universal audio truth ... any reasonable playback system can be evolved to a status, using knowledge and focused effort, where one is no longer aware of the playback chain in the listening; but only what's on the recording. This is something that I've have confirmed repeatedly - and what's on the recording is plenty enough to keep you mighty happy, .

Hi Frank,

There’s another universal audio truth....this status; the point at which your brain no longer detects that the sound comes from 2 sources and instead processes the sounds like it would in nature, treating each instrument, voice etc as though it were a point source, is only the beginning of the road. Before you meet that road, you are essentially lost in an audio forest of distortion, noise and imprecision. On joining the road, the journey doesn’t end. It just becomes more enjoyable. The road can become wider, smoother, straighter, faster....oh yes, the 2nd audio truth.  Because your stereo signal is clean and undistorted enough for your brain to treat the singnal as natural doen’t in any way mean that you are recovering all the information on the recording.....it simply means that the accuracy of amplitude, phase and time are sufficient to fool your brain. That point is reached long before ALL the information on the recording is resolved. Its why you can join the road with sub-par gear....you don’t need the best gear to achieve the illusion. 

The third audio truth? Many audiophiles have already reached this  point, some probably years ago and are now striving for something more, because there’s a lot more to be had. 

[marce]

Whats this thread about?

[Samuel T Cogley]

From what I can tell:

 

• some people think the Audioquest marketing blurb masquerading as an "article" is just common sense
• others think it's something like grift

 

[marce]

Just lost track somewhere along the line whilst reading it...

Anyway for fun here is a shot of a square wave showing the current pulses, the bits (sic) we are interested in... Cos that's when all the exciting stuff happens on the rising and falling edge...

So a pretty picture of two bits for voltage and current...

[marce]

Now a 1ns rising edge is approx 150mm long (electrical length)...

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, marce said:

Just lost track somewhere along the line whilst reading it...

Anyway for fun here is a shot of a square wave showing the current pulses, the bits (sic) we are interested in... Cos that's when all the exciting stuff happens on the rising and falling edge...

So a pretty picture of two bits for voltage and current...

Current through what? Looks like there's a capacitor or transformer involved there.

[marce]

Nope its just a quick simulation with two LS00 gates and a few mm of 50R track between them, it was more to show the current pulses as we look at square waves as voltages but rarely as current pulses... The data is derived from the IBIS models of the driving circuitry, this sim is as basic as it gets two gates and a wire....