Poll: Are perfect 1:1 copies possible in the digital domain?

WilliamM2

pitdogg2 wrote: »

Seems to me I was reading about a new CD player that cost north of 3-4g's. If the dac or whatever interprets that little loss of voltage as 180* opposite of what it should be then it is not bit perfect. 1 becomes 0 zero becomes 1. That player rips the CD until it gets a bit perfect word to send out to the speakers it needed 2 perfect copies before it will output the signal. So until it see the same ones and zeros in the same position it is not considered to be perfect....

http://www.parasound.com/pdfs/CD1Whitepaper.pdf

3 or 4 G's for a player that claims this?

This sophisticated process almost always results in error-free data.

Almost always? My $18 DVD-RW drive gives me error free-data every time with simple free software. Sounds like an overpriced solution to an almost non-existent problem.

OleBoot

OK, I already made a couple of joking (sarcastic?) replies to this thread, but now can't resist a serious answer. Of course perfect digital copies are possible - our world would not work without them.

My question is, why did the OP ask the question? I think I can reliably answer this: to wind up folks who think that computer music is lacking in terms of sound quality, but do not have the knowledge or, more importantly, the inclination, to figure out why. You don't have to understand the ins and outs of all this technical bollocks to know that one thing sounds better than something else.

I know that the detractors in this thread know a damn site more than they are saying when posting "Ignore the Troll" posts, but just in case there's some middle ground here, here's a perspective;

A computer can store digitally represented audio in bit perfect formats well as CD, SACD or DSD. (Let's leave aside whether it was digitally captured correctly or mastered in a way that that suits individual taste in the first place. I have always thought that it was the master, digital or analog, that makes the most difference, bit rate, bit depth, cleanliness of my LP's notwithstanding)

Everything is great until you get to the point where the computer has to pass data (it's not music at this stage, it's data) to the DAC. That's when timing enters the fray. If the timing of information sent between the computer and DAC gets f***ed up, then we've gone to **** sound quality wise. The variables begin at the computer slot that you plug your DAC into, the cable and the type of interface. The you get into the analog realm where, to me, there is mounting empirical, as well as anecdotal evidence that every link in the chain makes a difference.

My bottom line is that as a source, computer based audio is a as good as CD. DVD DSD etc., but the core and peripheral components are as important as playing anything else.

My kicker at the end is that, although I think that my computer based system sounds better than CD or DVD, and the high res downloads that I have are impressive, I still have a record deck, and records make me smile more, even if their ultimate fidelity/resolution is nowhere near high res digital. Then there's that mastering thing i referred to earlier...

headrott

villian wrote: »

Absolutely not.

Where you pulled that from I do not know, as I've consistently stated that there are perfect copies of digital files. I agree'd with you that there are voltage variations in the signal used to transfer digital content. But, that voltage variation is needed to produce a digital file, and it in no way effects the reproduction of digital content..as the voltage simply signals a "Zero" or a "One"..regardless of it's amplitude.

I must say that your logic and reasoning are very misguided. You kept stating that Ray's post in the other thread was demonstrating that imperfect voltage pulses can create perfect 0's and 1's. In fact, Ray was stating the opposite (as was I). Let me quote from the other thread to show how misguided your thoughts are beginning with your thoughts on the subject first:

You stated:

Originally Posted by villian

"Amplitude has no effect on volume, frequency, or anything else that it would normally have in an analog signal...it's simply a signaling method to determine 0's and 1's for perfect reproduction. If the MD5 hash matches the source MD5 hash then there is NO variance in the file being output that wasn't in the source file to begin with. They are 1:1 bit copies. Perfect copies. It's impossible to have additional "Data" within that signal that wasn't there at the get go."

Ray then stated:

Originally posted by Darqueknight:

"My example showed that multiple versions of the same file can result due to noise contamination. They were not perfect 1:1 bit copies, although each file maintained the proper relationship between logical high and logical low."

By Ray's response it is extremely clear that Ray (as an electrical engineer and one having patents in the ethernet cable field), is stating that the voltage pulses making up the bits (1's and 0's) when they are imperfect DO NOT make a bit perfect 1:1 copy of the original file despite meeting the proper highs and lows (1's and 0's). In fact, Ray is also (as I am) stating that nothing imperfect (imperfect voltage pulses) can create something perfect (bits, or 1's and 0's).

So, if you agree that voltage pulses are not perfect, you are in fact agreeing that that there are no perfect 1's and 0's (which are formed from the imperfect voltage pulses). You cannot logically disregard this. You cannot rationalize your way out of this, it is fact. You can attempt to disregard this fact (as you have been doing) but it still makes your thoughts on the subject incorrect. As I have stated previously, the reason your thoughts are incorrect is because you are not looking at the situation from a fine enough resolution (scale). You are simply assuming that the imperfect voltage pulses create perfect bits (1's and 0's). Again, it is incorrect.

villian wrote: »

What you're failing to realize is that nobody is claiming that the voltage pulses are perfect, become perfect, or are a digital file in themselves. They are simply used to move digital content and signal how to reproduce the digital file. It doesn't take an "Exact" voltage pulse, it takes a pulse with a peak and a bottom (Which is nearly any pulse..). In laymans terms the variation between the two peaks doesn't matter. A peak *Represents* either a zero or a one, and the bottom of that peak represents the opposite. They are not literally the digital signal, they only convey it..and indirectly so. That is why a reproduced digital signal is the same as the one originally transmitted. When something doesn't go right and that signal is not recreated perfectly (For whichever reason), the receiving device simply requests the missing or deformed part of the file again..and it's resent until it is correctly reassembled. This can happen millions of times faster than real time, until a perfect, matching copy is created.

I am not failing to realize anything. I completely understand your point-of-view; I simply disagree with it as it is incorrect.

You must understand that since these imperfect voltage pulses make up the digital file, they influence the digital file (which is again, what you are failing to realize). How can you say, that which forms something does not influence (have an effect on) what is being made? Again, that is completely illogical. I agree that it does not take an "exact" pulse to create a 1 or a 0. My point (hopefully you understand by now) is that since the voltage pulses cause the 1's and 0's to be formed in the digital file, the imperfect voltage pulses create imperfect 1's and 0's (when they are listened to (using high resolution equipment) or "seen" at a fine enough scale)).

This is why Ray (in the other thread) used the example of the two luber companies shipping cut up trees using two different meathods leading to higher and lower quality built houses by the same carpenter. Go back and read and understand.

You are incorrect in stating that the voltage pulses indirectly convery the digital signal. The voltage peaks and valleys directly cause a 1 or a 0 to be formed. So, they directly have an effect on the digital file as the amplitudes (imperfect voltage pulses) cause the digital file to be formed. That is also basic logic.

Another mistake that you are making is in stating that when "mistakes" are made the computer requests missing or deformed part of the file to create it correctly. Again, this is a too high of a resolution (or scale). At this scale, this is meeting the minimum level of what is needed to create a digial file. Once the computer (or other digtal transport) and D/A has designated that minimum level of accaptable error has been met, it is done. That (as demonstrated and explained above) does not mean that it is "perfect". It means it is (at worst) minimally acceptable and at best, still less than perfect (as shown and explained above).

headrott

Might I add, please correct me if I misinterpreted your thoughts in the quote above DarqueKnight.

tonyb

Just another extension of the other thread so he can continue his argument.

ZLTFUL

tonyb wrote: »

Just another extension of the other thread so he can continue his argument.

Exactly.

villian

OleBoot wrote: »

My question is, why did the OP ask the question? I think I can reliably answer this: to wind up folks who think that computer music is lacking in terms of sound quality, but do not have the knowledge or, more importantly, the inclination, to figure out why.

No, I created this thread to get a real idea of the amount of people here who believe that bit-perfect copies are not possible. So far I've been quite pleased with the participation, as it has been better than I expected. IF I were here to wind up some folks then I'd be posting a bunch of flame-bait every two seconds, instead of staying mum and on point with regards to my first post. Painting a picture of the demographics of this forum (As far as how many believe what) is all I'm doing.

villian

headrott wrote: »

I must say that your logic and reasoning are very misguided. You kept stating that Ray's post in the other thread was demonstrating that imperfect voltage pulses can create perfect 0's and 1's. In fact, Ray was stating the opposite (as was I). Let me quote from the other thread to show how misguided your thoughts are beginning with your thoughts on the subject first:

You stated:

Originally Posted by villian

"Amplitude has no effect on volume, frequency, or anything else that it would normally have in an analog signal...it's simply a signaling method to determine 0's and 1's for perfect reproduction. If the MD5 hash matches the source MD5 hash then there is NO variance in the file being output that wasn't in the source file to begin with. They are 1:1 bit copies. Perfect copies. It's impossible to have additional "Data" within that signal that wasn't there at the get go."

Ray then stated:

Originally posted by Darqueknight:

"My example showed that multiple versions of the same file can result due to noise contamination. They were not perfect 1:1 bit copies, although each file maintained the proper relationship between logical high and logical low."

My logic and reasoning are misguided? At least I know what I am talking about, and understand the technology. Ray dug himself a hole in the example you provide, while proving mine (And every other bit-perfect believer's point). He states that the proper relationship between logical high and logical low are maintained even though there were voltage variations during which the logical low and high were interpreted. What that means is this: A bit perfect copy was created, regardless of the voltage variation.

Go ahead, ask him now how he feels about that. He bit off more than he could chew in speaking about something he knew nothing about, and it eventually caught up to him. Hopefully he's now humbled himself and learned that his post, the one you quoted, proved his self wrong.

Correct logical interpretation of bits = Bit perfect. All the bits going out, matched all the bits coming in. I agree that there are voltage variations, but those fail to effect the final file if it's still a perfect logical copy. Ray said it himself. No need to chastise me.

villian

DSkip wrote: »

Anything is possible right? What's the point in asking about a possibility? I could possibly get laid tonight. Is it likely? Probably not.

This way we know how many misguided folks are still in the dark about digital and its benefits. You never know if you don't ask.

OleBoot

villian wrote: »

Painting a picture of the demographics of this forum (As far as how many believe what) is all I'm doing.

So when you've figured out the "demographics" of this forum, how will you use this information?

nooshinjohn

villian wrote: »

No, I created this thread to get a real idea of the amount of people here who believe that bit-perfect copies are not possible. So far I've been quite pleased with the participation, as it has been better than I expected. IF I were here to wind up some folks then I'd be posting a bunch of flame-bait every two seconds, instead of staying mum and on point with regards to my first post. Painting a picture of the demographics of this forum (As far as how many believe what) is all I'm doing.

Club Polk is not a social experiment. We don't need your "picture painted" either.

F1nut

(As far as how many believe what)

I believe you are a misguided troll and judging by others comments, I'm not alone. Although, you seem to be in the dark about that matter. If I start a poll would that help to enlighten you?

ZLTFUL

My favorite part is where he questions the published PhD over and over to "explain" himself. I am fairly certain the majority of the forum would prefer to take the ruminations of the known professor, PhD and general good guy over the inane babbling of a glorified chimpanzee who had to copy my background as his own. Sad and misguided really.

headrott

villian wrote: »

My logic and reasoning are misguided? At least I know what I am talking about, and understand the technology. Ray dug himself a hole in the example you provide, while proving mine (And every other bit-perfect believer's point). He states that the proper relationship between logical high and logical low are maintained even though there were voltage variations during which the logical low and high were interpreted. What that means is this: A bit perfect copy was created, regardless of the voltage variation.

Go ahead, ask him now how he feels about that. He bit off more than he could chew in speaking about something he knew nothing about, and it eventually caught up to him. Hopefully he's now humbled himself and learned that his post, the one you quoted, proved his self wrong.

Correct logical interpretation of bits = Bit perfect. All the bits going out, matched all the bits coming in. I agree that there are voltage variations, but those fail to effect the final file if it's still a perfect logical copy. Ray said it himself. No need to chastise me.

You know what you are talking about based upon what others have told you. What actual first hand experience in listening for differences to digital music do you have? How do you know that the voltage variations fail to affect the final file if it's a "perfect" logical copy? This thought is based upon other people telling you this, correct? At what level are you determining this? Each bit (1 and 0) can be affected (to some degree) by the voltage variation creating it. Each byte can be additively affected by this voltage variation. When you get to millions of affected bits and/or bytes the file can most definately be affected greatly, especially when the file is transferred many times (i.e. a copy of a copy of a copy). Just because something is transferred digitally, doens't make it impervious to the laws of physics does it? That is irrational and illogical.

Please explain why something (imperfect voltage sources) that directly creates another (bits or 1's and 0's) still creates it "perfectly". This can be a matter of symantics, but let's make it clear. To me, "perfectly" means that there is absolutely no change or alteration to the resulting sound quality of the music file (listening and/or viewing at any scale of the file) . How can you rationally and logically explain this to be true. And please be very specific as far as how this works. That is, how can something imperfect create something perfect? Or, how can imperfect (noise contaminated) voltage pulses create a "perfect" (noise free, unaltered) bit (1 or 0)? Also, with millions of bits how doea this additive effect of the induced noise not affect final output of the audio one hears?

Also, I find it interesting that you selectively answer the portion(s) of the post you choose to answer.

How about answering this portion. I'll keep it short and "simple" for you.

1)Specifically, how does Ray's post reinforce your (and every other bit-perfect believer's) point? And I do mean be specific. In my opinion, you are delusional on this point. But, please explain yourself.

Finally, Ray did not say that the final output in his example was not affected and/or changed. Again, he stated the opposite. It doesn't matter how many times you try to repeat that Ray was stating that he believes there are "bit perfect" (i.e. completely unaltered) digital transfers, the fact is he stated the opposite. You can try and change Ray's intended meaning but it is clear that you are delusional if you believe that.

That is, Ray clearly stated that while the file maintained the propoer logical high and logical low states (1's and 0's), the file was still not "perfect 1:1 bit copies" (i.e. completely unaltered) because the voltage pulses that make up the bits affected them. You cannot change the meaning to fit what Ray meant. That is a delusional act. You are again misguided and completely wrong.

polrbehr

villian wrote: »

No, I created this thread to get a real idea of the amount of people here who believe that bit-perfect copies are not possible. So far I've been quite pleased with the participation, as it has been better than I expected. IF I were here to wind up some folks then I'd be posting a bunch of flame-bait every two seconds, instead of staying mum and on point with regards to my first post. Painting a picture of the demographics of this forum (As far as how many believe what) is all I'm doing.

That's why I voted Not Sure. Paint that.

villian

ZLTFUL wrote: »

My favorite part is where he questions the published PhD over and over to "explain" himself. I am fairly certain the majority of the forum would prefer to take the ruminations of the known professor, PhD and general good guy over the inane babbling of a glorified chimpanzee who had to copy my background as his own. Sad and misguided really.

I'll question anyone who quotes themselves, and uses their own articles as a source when attempting to refute someone challenging their statements. Even more-so when it's such a cut and dry issue as this one. Last I checked his PhD had nothing to do with networking or anything else related to digital data itself. The fact that he has a PhD doesn't qualify him as an expert on everything..

villian

F1nut wrote: »

I believe you are a misguided troll and judging by others comments, I'm not alone. Although, you seem to be in the dark about that matter. If I start a poll would that help to enlighten you?

Have at it.

I base my opinion on facts, not popularity contests.

villian

headrott wrote: »

You know what you are talking about based upon what others have told you. What actual first hand experience in listening for differences to digital music do you have? How do you know that the voltage variations fail to affect the final file if it's a "perfect" logical copy? This thought is based upon other people telling you this, correct? At what level are you determining this? Each bit (1 and 0) can be affected (to some degree) by the voltage variation creating it. Each byte can be additively affected by this voltage variation. When you get to millions of affected bits and/or bytes the file can most definately be affected greatly, especially when the file is transferred many times (i.e. a copy of a copy of a copy). Just because something is transferred digitally, doens't make it impervious to the laws of physics does it? That is irrational and illogical.

Please explain why something (imperfect voltage sources) that directly creates another (bits or 1's and 0's) still creates it "perfectly". This can be a matter of symantics, but let's make it clear. To me, "perfectly" means that there is absolutely no change or alteration to the resulting sound quality of the music file (listening and/or viewing at any scale of the file) . How can you rationally and logically explain this to be true. And please be very specific as far as how this works. That is, how can something imperfect create something perfect? Or, how can imperfect (noise contaminated) voltage pulses create a "perfect" (noise free, unaltered) bit (1 or 0)? Also, with millions of bits how doea this additive effect of the induced noise not affect final output of the audio one hears?

Also, I find it interesting that you selectively answer the portion(s) of the post you choose to answer.

How about answering this portion. I'll keep it short and "simple" for you.

1)Specifically, how does Ray's post reinforce your (and every other bit-perfect believer's) point? And I do mean be specific. In my opinion, you are delusional on this point. But, please explain yourself.

Finally, Ray did not say that the final output in his example was not affected and/or changed. Again, he stated the opposite. It doesn't matter how many times you try to repeat that Ray was stating that he believes there are "bit perfect" (i.e. completely unaltered) digital transfers, the fact is he stated the opposite. You can try and change Ray's intended meaning but it is clear that you are delusional if you believe that.

That is, Ray clearly stated that while the file maintained the propoer logical high and logical low states (1's and 0's), the file was still not "perfect 1:1 bit copies" (i.e. completely unaltered) because the voltage pulses that make up the bits affected them. You cannot change the meaning to fit what Ray meant. That is a delusional act. You are again misguided and completely wrong.

You clearly don't understand how digital data is produced or transferred, and I have no desire to argue with you. I've been trying to inform and educate you, but you obviously have no desire to understand what so many others now do. There's a reason Ray has yet to comment in here, and quit commenting in the other thread after he learned that he was originally wrong in his reasoning. I suggest you do the same as he did and open your mind a little to outside possibilities. Especially when others are attempting to help you see the light in a fact based, unbiased way.

F1nut

troll wrote: »

I base my opinion on facts

What educational and/or occupational experience do you have in this field?

pyrocyborg

/popcorn

pitdogg2

Troll wrote: »

There's a reason Ray has yet to comment in here, and quit commenting in the other thread after he learned that he was originally wrong in his reasoning. I suggest you do the same as he did and open your mind a little to outside possibilities.

I'm willing to betting the reason Ray stopped...You can't argue with a know it all "insert something here" that refuses to understand ANYTHING except argumentative conjecture. Give it a rest all you have done is dig quite the hole here while you may be very intelligent and have more degrees than a thermometer you just keep proving that you need help with personal relationship interactions with others who are not as like minded as you. Now go think about what and who you want to argue with next case I vote that we just ignore all your posts. crickets anybody?

villian

pitdogg2 wrote: »

I'm willing to betting the reason Ray stopped...You can't argue with a know it all "insert something here" that refuses to understand ANYTHING except argumentative conjecture. Give it a rest all you have done is dig quite the hole here while you may be very intelligent and have more degrees than a thermometer you just keep proving that you need help with personal relationship interactions with others who are not as like minded as you. Now go think about what and who you want to argue with next case I vote that we just ignore all your posts. crickets anybody?

Ray only stopped after myself and Habanero proved him wrong, and asked a few easy Yes/No questions that he refused to answer and chose to ignore after being proven wrong. It's ironic how you are considering myself to be a "Know it all", while constantly referring to Ray's statements as proof of this and that, even though many of the claims he's made are well out of his field.

F1nut wrote: »

What educational and/or occupational experience do you have in this field?

We already went over this in the other thread..


Funny how the loudest folks here are the ones who voted "No". Everyone else is just enjoying the show, as I'm going to as well. So much for trying to debunk some myths. Just can't teach an old dog new tricks.

nooshinjohn

villian wrote: »

Funny how the loudest folks here are the ones who voted "No". Everyone else is just enjoying the show, as I'm going to as well. So much for trying to debunk some myths. Just can't teach an old dog new tricks.

The only myth being debunked here is that you somehow know what you are talking about.

ZLTFUL

villian wrote: »

I'll question anyone who quotes themselves, and uses their own articles as a source when attempting to refute someone challenging their statements. Even more-so when it's such a cut and dry issue as this one. Last I checked his PhD had nothing to do with networking or anything else related to digital data itself. The fact that he has a PhD doesn't qualify him as an expert on everything..

Yeah...his biography has nothing to do with networking... You truly are an idiot, aren't you?

Dr. Raife F. Smith II, Professor, Electrical Engineering
Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Tulane University

Dr. Smith's teaching and research interests are in the areas of Communications Signals and Systems, Broadband Telecommunications Network Design and Optimization, and Stochastic Modeling. Dr. Smith's consulting interests are in enterprise network and public switched network modeling, design and optimization.

Source: http://www.subr.edu/index.cfm/page/1326/n/1081

What exactly do you teach? I mean besides ignorance with a masters in cluelessness...

F1nut

We already went over this in the other thread..

In that case, you shouldn't have any problem telling us again, so let's hear it.

F1nut

troll wrote:

Just can't teach an old dog new tricks.

I don't consider myself to be old, but anyway you couldn't be more wrong about that. I strive to learn something new every day.

ZLTFUL

You'll have to wait for him to copy and paste my background again Jesse. He had to use some random institution outside of the US so that it couldn't be verified via public records.

F1nut

ZLTFUL wrote: »

You'll have to wait for him to copy and paste my background again Jesse. He had to use some random institution outside of the US so that it couldn't be verified via public records.

Seriously, he did that!?! It's good to know that my putz meter is still 100% accurate.

nooshinjohn

F1nut

Member Sales Rating: (13)
Join Date
Mar 2002
Location
The Mars Hotel
Posts
31,000

Congrats on 31k Jesse....

headrott

villian wrote: »

You clearly don't understand how digital data is produced or transferred, and I have no desire to argue with you. I've been trying to inform and educate you, but you obviously have no desire to understand what so many others now do. There's a reason Ray has yet to comment in here, and quit commenting in the other thread after he learned that he was originally wrong in his reasoning. I suggest you do the same as he did and open your mind a little to outside possibilities. Especially when others are attempting to help you see the light in a fact based, unbiased way.

Ok, you obviously think I have no idea how digital data is transferred. That's fine if you would like to think that. I will ask though, why did you ask the question in your poll?

If you have been trying to educate me, why are you not answering any of the questions I have asked you?

I believe this is the reason Ray stopped posting about cables in the other thread; that is, he would ask questions and you wouldn't answer them. It makes for a fruitless conversation, with no one learning anything.

As far as opening my mind to outside possibilities, I am the one presenting an idea that the "digital know-it-all's" don't agree with. the idea that there are no perfect transfers of energy (i.e. no perfect 1's and 0's) while still being 1's and 0's. It is you who is not opening your mind up to other possibilities than what you read on the internet written by another person. You are going with the "status quo", whether correct or incorrect. I will ask again, how do you know for 100% fact (based upon personal first hand experience and not what you read on the internet) that imperfect voltage pulses can create perfect bits (1's and 0's)?

Also, if you can answer the question about how Ray's example from the other thread proved your (and every other 1:1 bit perfect believer's) point. Here is yet another chance to show how much you know about the transfer of digital signals. Please take it.