Can System Noise be saved to HDDs, SDs, etc. in digital audio files?

[Ralf11]

If so, how many dB below the signal is likely?

 

Or... will it be extracted at all?

[esldude]

Not exactly what you are asking, but in the same ballpark. 

[crenca]

No

 

If the answer is ever yes, then the device in question is broken

 

 

 

[Ralf11]

Barry D disagrees with [SandyK's assertions]. He says that a properly ripped CD sounds identical to what he provided for production.

 

@sandyk

 

Here are his exact words:

 

  Quote

On the other hand, when properly ripped to hard drive in a raw PCM format (such as .aif or .wav), the results *are* to my ears, indistinguishable from the master used to make the disc from which the files were ripped--even with that pit structure revealed by the AFMs.  I haven't found any exceptions to this yet in over 30 years of comparisons.

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/24129-how-to-get-the-best-sq-from-cd/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-432030

 

----

 

the above is copied here from a thread on a different subject that Mr. Ketel spammed

[sandyk]

37 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Barry D disagrees with [SandyK's assertions]. He says that a properly ripped CD sounds identical to what he provided for production.

 

@sandyk

 

Here are his exact words:

 

  Quote

On the other hand, when properly ripped to hard drive in a raw PCM format (such as .aif or .wav), the results *are* to my ears, indistinguishable from the master used to make the disc from which the files were ripped--even with that pit structure revealed by the AFMs.  I haven't found any exceptions to this yet in over 30 years of comparisons.

Read more  

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/24129-how-to-get-the-best-sq-from-cd/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-432030

 

----

 

the above is copied here from a thread on a different subject that Mr. Ketel spammed

 

 I have reported your post to Admin, as well as your reply telling me to fuck off, which is not acceptable in any thread by any poster..

 I have also previously made it perfectly clear that I have no interest in replying in  this thread either, yet both you and Ralf11  deliberately try to draw me into it.

[kumakuma]

6 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 your reply telling me to fuck off

 

That isn't what he said.

[sandyk]

18 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

That isn't what he said.

"then shut the fk up"    is sending exactly the same message.

It is not acceptable after I had already been warned by Admin.

Neither is it acceptable to post the actual identity of the poster, as well as deliberately spelling it incorrectly.

You wouldn't like it if I posted your Surname , given that we already know your Christian name.

[Teresa]

"Can System Noise be saved to HDDs, SDs, etc. in digital audio files?"

 

I sure hope not! That's a very scary thought. 😓

[Teresa]

6 minutes ago, sandyk said:

"then shut the fk up"    is sending exactly the same message.

 

I can't find anything even close to that phrase or the phrase you listed in Post #5 anywhere in this thread. Could it be in a different thread?

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

I can't find anything even close to that phrase or the phrase you listed in Post #5 anywhere in this thread. Could it be in a different thread?

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/57075-dc-power-cables-effects-on-sq/   #23

 

 

[wgscott]

No.  Otherwise we would have a situation where two bitwise-identical files (same  checksums) could sound different.

 

 

[Hugo9000]

Apologies to the OP for this OT post, I'm merely sharing the above to show that if this is sandy's real identity, it's been openly available on the site for several years now.  If he wishes it to be private, I recommend searching for other instances where it has been noted and asking Chris to delete them all or redact his name.

[sandyk]

6 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

 

 

Ralf11 and many others are well aware of my actual surname from private correspondence.

 

 Even if it was spelled correctly, there is no excuse for posting the real name of ANY member without their permission as their location is also often seen in their Profile as well.  It is a violation of their privacy.

[Hugo9000]

47 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Ralf11 and many others are well aware of my actual surname from private correspondence.

 

 Even if it was spelled correctly, there is no excuse for posting the real name of ANY member without their permission as their location is also often seen in their Profile as well.  It is a violation of their privacy.

 

57 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

Apologies to the OP for this OT post, I'm merely sharing the above to show that if this is sandy's real identity, it's been openly available on the site for several years now.  If he wishes it to be private, I recommend searching for other instances where it has been noted and asking Chris to delete them all or redact his name.

My post had nothing to do with whether or not the spelling was correct.  And I didn't dispute anything regarding a wish for privacy or good etiquette, I merely pointed out a post from years past that shared your identity in the open forum, and suggested a search and request for deletion of the posts or redaction of your name.

 

You often address certain members by their given names, which are not part of their usernames here, so it may not be fair to assume that Superdad or Ralf or anyone else had any malicious intent when they used your name in their posts.  I avoid it, myself, unless the person actually signs off posts with that name, or has it in their post signature.

 

And again, I'm off-topic, but that's my own fault for choosing to reply haha!  I certainly don't mind if the OP wants this deleted.

 

 

Edited to add:  I wonder which part you 'disagree' with.  The person below this post has a username that does not contain his first name in any way, yet you address him all the time with a first name.  And there are others.  Or is it that I'm now on the sh** list and will get gratuitous 'OT' and 'disagree' reactions just for existing?  A lot of people seem to do that, not sure if you do.  Sigh.

 

 

[esldude]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

If so, how many dB below the signal is likely?

 

Or... will it be extracted at all?

I suppose for clarification, rather than will it be extracted, did you mean can it be extracted?  I vaguely remember info about how noise can effect the cleanliness of the actual stored data on a hard drive.  Of course none of that effects the actual data values, and when that data is used elsewhere it bears no relation or hidden evidence of the environment in which the hard drive operated.  

 

So a very iffy qualified yes, with an addendum that when the data is moved the noise is not there in data nor can it be retrieved elsewhere nor can it accumulate further downstream.   It isn't in the data, it might be in the method the data is stored, and could only be retrieved by some method unrelated to the data itself.  So there would effectively be infinite db between data and this system noise.  

[Ralf11]

Sandman, your surname is indeed all over this site - and elsewhere

 

if you really want it to be a secret it is too late; but maybe you can be redacted

[Ralf11]

39 minutes ago, esldude said:

I suppose for clarification, rather than will it be extracted, did you mean can it be extracted?  I vaguely remember info about how noise can effect the cleanliness of the actual stored data on a hard drive.  Of course none of that effects the actual data values, and when that data is used elsewhere it bears no relation or hidden evidence of the environment in which the hard drive operated.  

 

So a very iffy qualified yes, with an addendum that when the data is moved the noise is not there in data nor can it be retrieved elsewhere nor can it accumulate further downstream.   It isn't in the data, it might be in the method the data is stored, and could only be retrieved by some method unrelated to the data itself.  So there would effectively be infinite db between data and this system noise.  

 

I meant is it likely to be extracted during normal use.

 

Of course if it is impossible then it won't happen during normal use.  (except in the upside-down world of audiophoolia, where if it is impossible, then it will happen a lot)

[One and a half]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

(except in the upside-down world of audiophoolia, where if it is impossible, then it will happen a lot)

 

Why are you here..........? To sh$tkick, mock and condescend, waste valuable disk space? You must take great perverse pleasure and need to post single sentence posts ad nauseam , that they will turn the world around. Joke, must be?

 

A relevant thread on Head-fi relates to many a post here from Ralfee Babeee can enjoy. That thread is currently 109 pages and it's entitled "How do I convince people that audio cables DO NOT make a difference". The thread started in 2010, and hey, it's still going nine years later, and believe it or not, there's no consensus. 

 

One post poses a great question from Strat1117

 

"I don’t understand the desperate ‘need’ to convince anyone of your personal point of view regarding audio equipment. Are you upset that someone might be having fun wrong?"

 

@Ralf11, what part of having fun wrong could you ever correct? 

[Blackmorec]

Ralf11 et al. There’s a lesson here. Look at the above thread. With respect to ALL posters,  just another stinking pile of acrimonious garbage. A shame because the original question was interesting, is not well documented or researched, yet can have tremendous impact on all our systems, where buffering is implemented as a means of preventing noise travelling through a system. 

You may have alternate views on things but your name (at least in my head) has become synonymous with flippant, glib, silly answers that contribute nothing but disrupt threads....just another form of noise.....Forum noise, if you will. 

So why not turn over a new leaf....if you do or don’t believe in something AND you have good solid reasons, facts, evidence and experience not to, then post your reasons and add to the value of discussions, rather than simply disrupting and polluting threads with worthless one- and two-liners. 😉

And its not Ralf11 alone...so et al, please take note....you know who you are. 

[esldude]

44 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Ralf11 et al. There’s a lesson here. Look at the above thread. With respect to ALL posters,  just another stinking pile of acrimonious garbage. A shame because the original question was interesting, is not well documented or researched, yet can have tremendous impact on all our systems, where buffering is implemented as a means of preventing noise travelling through a system. 

You may have alternate views on things but your name (at least in my head) has become synonymous with flippant, glib, silly answers that contribute nothing but disrupt threads....just another form of noise.....Forum noise, if you will. 

So why not turn over a new leaf....if you do or don’t believe in something AND you have good solid reasons, facts, evidence and experience not to, then post your reasons and add to the value of discussions, rather than simply disrupting and polluting threads with worthless one- and two-liners. 😉

And its not Ralf11 alone...so et al, please take note....you know who you are. 

Great,  Wonderful, we'll list some reasons for not believing. 

 

How about there is no possibility in a digital music file format to have bit identical files that in some way differ due to noise of the device in use for creating those files?  Let us just start with that bit of factual evidence. 

 

The digital values of the files could be written on a piece of paper and typed into a keyboard with nowhere in the file itself able to contain or transmit a difference in its origin.  

 

No one has any hypothetical idea how such a thing could happen so that power supply cleanliness at the point of origin could remain to have an audible to human sound difference upon playback at some remote location on some other device(s) or from some different physical record of the digital file so created.  

 

A shame because the original question was interesting, is not well documented or researched, yet can have tremendous impact on all our systems, where buffering is implemented as a means of preventing noise travelling through a system. 

 

The above is your stinking pile.  It is incredibly well documented, and researched.  It cannot have any impact on your playback system at all.  Note I am referring to noise being saved into a digital file. I am referring to the fact no buffering is needed or can be of benefit to hold back system noise that was saved into a digital file because no one has even conceived of a credible way that can occur.  Filtering what isn't there might make a difference, but not because of what is in the file. 

 

 

[marce]

10 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Ralf11 et al. There’s a lesson here. Look at the above thread. With respect to ALL posters,  just another stinking pile of acrimonious garbage. A shame because the original question was interesting, is not well documented or researched, yet can have tremendous impact on all our systems, where buffering is implemented as a means of preventing noise travelling through a system. 

You may have alternate views on things but your name (at least in my head) has become synonymous with flippant, glib, silly answers that contribute nothing but disrupt threads....just another form of noise.....Forum noise, if you will. 

So why not turn over a new leaf....if you do or don’t believe in something AND you have good solid reasons, facts, evidence and experience not to, then post your reasons and add to the value of discussions, rather than simply disrupting and polluting threads with worthless one- and two-liners. 😉

And its not Ralf11 alone...so et al, please take note....you know who you are. 

The facts of the matter are that system noise is not stored with a digital file...  Unlike recording an analogue file where superimposed noise on the signal is recorded as part of the signal.

As to researched, system noise and its effects are extremely well researched, I posted some links on the thread this has evolved from. Maybe some basic research on signal integrity/EMC would be enlightening. Of course to say this has no bearing on audio would be silly, Henry Ott (a respected expert on EMC) has done AES presentations and his book will be found in the reference section of many books on low noise design). Then there is the information all over the IC manufacturers sites covering low noise design. When people are using femto ampere op-amps noise can be a big issue, again what does have to do with audio, well the techniques learned doing the realy sensitive stuff feeds down to other electronics. And so as we push the boundary our knowledge expands.

Buffering is not implemented to prevent noise travelling through a system, isolation using opto isolator, isolation IC's or some other form of galvanic isolation to isolate two power domains completely and prevent noise currents flowing between the two domains. As a lot of this noise is high frequency care has to be taken to avoid capacitive coupling between the power domains. A non galvanic basic buffer has the same noise present at both input and output as they share the same GND, internally. 

[sandyk]

28 minutes ago, marce said:

Henry Ott (a respected expert on EMC) has done AES presentations and his book will be found in the reference section of many books on low noise design).

 

 An appeal to Authority that you don't like from others.

30 minutes ago, esldude said:

No one has any hypothetical idea how such a thing could happen so that power supply cleanliness at the point of origin could remain to have an audible to human sound difference upon playback at some remote location on some other device(s) or from some different physical record of the digital file so created.  

 

So what ?

6 correctly performed separate DBT sessions say otherwise, as do several more prominent and appropriately qualified members  in the last 4 1/2 months alone.

Two of them are also way more qualified in their respective areas than an amateur like yourself.

[FredericV]

I have an old HFX 12V power supply, which makes so much noise, it's irritating when placed on my desk. The noise fluctuates with what you are doing in Windows when using this PSU on a NUC.

The only reason I'm keeping it, is because of the high amperage, so it can power a whole lab of nucs, low power 12V based pc's and exernal hdd's from one PSU instead of using multiple 12V PSU's - but it's certainly not audiophile.

Also on low quality motherboards, there's leakage of noise into the analog 3.5mm audio out, which also fluctuates with what you are doing on the PC. In the 90's when I had my first soundblaster pro, it was even more terrible.

Sounds like modulated PWM whine.

[esldude]

6 minutes ago, FredericV said:

I have an old HFX 12V power supply, which makes so much noise, it's irritating when placed on my desk. The noise fluctuates with what you are doing in Windows when using this PSU on a NUC.

The only reason I'm keeping it, is because of the high amperage, so it can power a whole lab of nucs, low power 12V based pc's and exernal hdd's from one PSU instead of using multiple 12V PSU's - but it's certainly not audiophile.

Also on low quality motherboards, there's leakage of noise into the analog 3.5mm audio out, which also fluctuates with what you are doing on the PC. In the 90's when I had my first soundblaster pro, it was even more terrible.

Sounds like modulated PWM whine.

Does that noise get embedded in any files created or copied there?  Or does it sound clean when used on another machine?

[FredericV]

Just now, esldude said:

Does that noise get embedded in any files created or copied there? 

Off course not.
 

Just now, esldude said:

Or does it sound clean when used on another machine?

I did not measure the analog out of this NUC yet on a bad PSU vs a good PSU.