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

[Blackmorec]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

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. 

 

 

Let me summarise your post as a 1 liner:

We don’t know how it happens; so it doesn’t

 

That about right? 

 

Now, lets get to your example

 

“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.“ 

 

When digital was first released, it was pushed as “perfect sound forever”. That was because the ‘noise’ that had plagued analog from the get go was no longer transmitted and could be entirely excluded from digital recordings and replay. So job done. Noise excluded. Noise was no longer a problem

What we didn’t know at the time was anything about the deleterious effects HF noise had on all digital replay. We simply didn’t know.  It was there, it negatively impacted sound quality but we didn’t know about it. The first indication came when people heard it and couldn’t explain why digital had an edge, a hardness, harshness that became known to this day as “sounding digital”  

 

Years and years of research AND of trials by audiophiles and laypeople finally revealed that digital was highly susceptible to HF noise.

Now in your post, we’re back where we were 50 years ago. The HF noise is excluded so we don’t have a problem.  Yet audiophiles the World over clearly hear that making improvements at the front end of the chain brings SQ improvements from the speakers, despite bit perfect files along the whole chain.

So you can either put it down to imagination (like Doctors who diagnose virus when they actually have no clue) or you can admit that when a large cohort of people ‘imagine’ the exact same thing, its more likely to be real but simply not understood.  

With 60 plus years of experience in life I’m realising the effects of a higher, specialised education. In some people it opens up their minds to ‘what if’ and ‘what could be’ and ‘why’. And in others it simply defines the limits of their thinking. 

[sandyk]

23 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Let me summarise your post as a 1 liner:

We don’t know how it happens; so it doesn’t

 

That about right? 

 

 

 

Agreed.

However, if noise was embedded in the file we wouldn't be able to REGENERATE it to very close to that of the original, which very few of us are able to verify anyway, unless we have access to the original Master copy, whether  Digital Audio  or Digital Video.

  Many members use a USB Regen or ISO Regen to do this with USB audio.

 IOW, improved Signal Integrity.

[marce]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

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

 

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.

No a reference of information, why can't you discuss this like an adult...

 

[PeterSt]

Quote

Agreed.

 

Let's hop over to the next incarnation of whatever has been an audio forum.

 

B/S

 

We can predict what is next.

[marce]

45 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Let me summarise your post as a 1 liner:

We don’t know how it happens; so it doesn’t

 

That about right? 

 

No that is totally wrong, we know it doesn't happen, if you have any proof other than some anecdotal evidence or even some idea of mechanism that could cause noise to be recorded on 1 bit at a time please provide it.

49 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

 

When digital was first released, it was pushed as “perfect sound forever”. That was because the ‘noise’ that had plagued analog from the get go was no longer transmitted and could be entirely excluded from digital recordings and replay. So job done. Noise excluded. Noise was no longer a problem

What we didn’t know at the time was anything about the deleterious effects HF noise had on all digital replay. We simply didn’t know.  It was there, it negatively impacted sound quality but we didn’t know about it. The first indication came when people heard it and couldn’t explain why digital had an edge, a hardness, harshness that became known to this day as “sounding digital”  

 

 

Digital noise was known and understood then, so noise was still an issue in the design process.

 

53 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

 

 

Now in your post, we’re back where we were 50 years ago. The HF noise is excluded so we don’t have a problem.  Yet audiophiles the World over clearly hear that making improvements at the front end of the chain brings SQ improvements from the speakers, despite bit perfect files along the whole chain.

 

The thread is about noise being recorded with the digital data, nothing to do with system noise or any claim that noise is not an issue, it is dealt with during the design process. The issue of noise in systems is a different topic.

[marce]

33 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Agreed.

However, if noise was embedded in the file we wouldn't be able to REGENERATE it to very close to that of the original, which very few of us are able to verify anyway, unless we have access to the original Master copy, whether  Digital Audio  or Digital Video.

  Many members use a USB Regen or ISO Regen to do this with USB audio.

 IOW, improved Signal Integrity.

 

14 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Let's hop over to the next incarnation of whatever has been an audio forum.

 

B/S

 

We can predict what is next.

Excellent contribution to the thread.

It is a claim that has been made regarding audio files with the same check sum, so bit identical, therefore discussing it on an open audio website seams appropriate.

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, marce said:

 

Excellent contribution to the thread.

It is a claim that has been made regarding audio files with the same check sum, so bit identical, therefore discussing it on an open audio website seams appropriate.

 

 Simply giving a reference to a Textbook is NOT a discussion.

 Even the Textbooks used in Primary schools get regularly updated.

[PeterSt]

5 minutes ago, marce said:

Excellent contribution to the thread.

 

Thanks.

 

5 minutes ago, marce said:

It is a claim that has been made regarding audio files with the same check sum, so bit identical, therefore discussing it on an open audio website seams appropriate.

 

For one or one other maybe. But not for me.

Awaiting your contribution.

[PeterSt]

Quote

Simply quoting a Textbook is NOT a discussion.

 

Oops, I missed that plot.

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Oops, I missed that plot.

 

 Some can even make audio sound a little different by changing a  simple setting in the player S/W  while the output remains bit perfect.

[Blackmorec]

30 minutes ago, marce said:

The thread is about noise being recorded with the digital data, nothing to do with system noise or any claim that noise is not an issue, it is dealt with during the design process. The issue of noise in systems is a different topic.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of drawing parallels? 

The idea that 2 distinct things, while different are clearly very similar in many respects? 

 

[PeterSt]

7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Some can even make audio sound a little different by changing a  simple setting in the player S/W  while the output remains bit perfect.

 

Yup. And all very easily explainable.

But luckily that is something quite different from two audio files having the same checksum etc., playing with the same settings, those sounding different. As Alex will know, that is not my thang. Still, Alex will also know that Dennis's response early in the thread exactly *is* my thinking in such a situation. Alex will also know that this is even explicitly counter-attacked in XXHighEnd (we wouldn't want such a means of noise influence).

 

But here 99.999% of people fail to comprehend.

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Yup. And all very easily explainable.

But luckily that is something quite different from two audio files having the same checksum etc., playing with the same settings, those sounding different. As Alex will know, that is not my thang. Still, Alex will also know that Dennis's response early in the thread exactly *is* my thinking in such a situation. Alex will also know that this is even explicitly counter-attacked in XXHighEnd (we wouldn't want such a means of noise influence).

 

But here 99.999% of people fail to comprehend.

Hi Peter

 My point here is that what you are doing, and as demonstrated by Mani is also claimed to be impossible. 

Alex

[PeterSt]

Quote

But here 99.999% of people fail to comprehend.

 

Some more for those:

 

Ever back, in the Early Years, there was a customer named Andy (he later created Stealth Player).

 

14 minutes ago, sandyk said:

changing a  simple setting in the player S/W  while the output remains bit perfect.

 

He did that, as everybody did and still does, with the difference that at the same time he was burning music to CD for in his car.

 

Trust me, them change in settings come unequivocally across through normal loudspeakers or head phones - I mean during normal playback. You could pick the settings later 10 out of 10 (some do only 9 out of 10 and experience a bad day).

This guy was "capable" of playing back the burned CD during a setting of XXHighEnd, that playing in the background, and recognize the XXHighEnd setting;

Hey burned a handful of CD's, randomized them after identifying them with a number he never looked at, and always got a 10 out of 10 when playing back the CD's in the car.

 

Here too, the phenomenon is easily explainable. But for many it goes wrong in their head already because they are so stubborn that they won't give their brain cells a single chance to come up with more, after a clear "reject" on the change of settings influence in XXHighEnd they never even looked into.

 

 

[PeterSt]

4 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 My point here is that what you are doing, and as demonstrated by Mani is also claimed to be impossible. 

 

Yes that.

Just said it.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Here too, the phenomenon is easily explainable.

So explain it.

[alfe]

10 hours 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.

 

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

You are making fun of Alex and you are quoting as a reference somebody who says that pit structure have no influence on the sound, mamamia😂

[alfe]

18 minutes ago, mansr said:

So explain it.

DCD

[mansr]

15 minutes ago, alfe said:

DCD

Could you be a little less cryptic, just this one time.

[mansr]

17 minutes ago, alfe said:

You are making fun of Alex and you are quoting as a reference somebody who says that pit structure have no influence on the sound, mamamia😂

He's quoting one of Alex's idols disagreeing with Alex.

[jabbr]

21 minutes ago, alfe said:

You are making fun of Alex and you are quoting as a reference somebody who says that pit structure have no influence on the sound, mamamia😂

 

I may not remember correctly so correct me, but I believe that both Barry D and Cookie M do believe that CDs, copies of CDs can sound different from the master, but that when properly ripped to HD that these differences disappear. 

 

Let me try to expand on this (and please correct me because you are most certainly the expert here)

 

1) Electrical noise most certainly DOES get stored at a low level in a digital file.

2) This noise DOES NOT survive a file copy

3) This noise most certainly DOES NOT survive network transmission (particularly fiberoptic)

 

For CD this could be variation in the pit structure, for HD this could be variations in the magnetization. In both cases the readout electronics contain PLLs and other mechanisms to convert what is a low level analog signal into a digital voltage. Digital Gates & Flip Flops are designed to be highly nonlinear and flip the voltage up or down, hence rejecting noise.

[alfe]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

Could you be a little less cryptic, just this one time.

Duty cycle distortion.

[alfe]

6 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

I may not remember correctly so correct me, but I believe that both Barry D and Cookie M do believe that CDs, copies of CDs can sound different from the master, but that when properly ripped to HD that these differences disappear. 

 

 

Fully disagree, if what they call the master is the stamper yes, otherwise usual BS of the golden ears.

[alfe]

6 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

 

1) Electrical noise most certainly DOES get stored at a low level in a digital file.

2) This noise DOES NOT survive a file copy

3) This noise most certainly DOES NOT survive network transmission (particularly fiberoptic)

 

Fully agree.

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, alfe said:

Duty cycle distortion.

Of what signal, and to what effect?