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

Habanero Monk

headrott wrote: »

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.

Could you relate this to how NRZ-I (inverted) encoding works and where in the inversion, or transition state to voltage change, this could be an unrecoverable error given proper length and terminations that pass spec are concerned?

Thanks.

villian

headrott wrote: »

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

Just because I have time to peek at this forum doesn't mean I have time to instantly answer every question...especially the ones that will take a good bit of writing. I DO get around to it though (Trust me, I'm still going to answer your other long list of questions..especially if this post doesn't suffice to clear things up for you), and I expect the same in return. My issues with the other thread was exactly that. Myself and Habanero wasted countless hours answering questions and didn't get a single answer in return that we asked for. There's still 4 or 5 significant questions I asked BlueFox and DK that were never answered, and even worse...danced around. So please, don't say that they were fruitlessly wasting their time when it was actually myself, habanero, and the other pro-whatever you want to call this crowd. I can't even tell you how many times BF or DK skirted and danced around questions while posting things that had no bearing to the argument at hand, or simply tossing out more questions of their own and avoiding answering what was asked of them. I even made my questions simple yes or no questions, and I have yet to hear back a single yes or no, or otherwise.

headrott wrote: »

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.

First of all 1's and 0's have nothing to do with the transfer of energy. They are an *interpretation* of a sine wave. I think this is the key point and the biggest misconception that you (And possibly others) have with regards to how digital data is transferred. It is not like analog where the sine wave literally IS the data. It's simply a signaling method for a 0 or a 1. If the signal is unable to be properly interpreted then it is requested to be resent until correct. This can happen million, or even billions of times faster than real time. So while the sine wave may have imperfections, those imperfections don't cause a misinterpretation of the sine's peak and low point themselves (Which is where the digital 1 or 0 is derived).

headrott wrote: »

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)?

Because, as many other members have pointed out...everything in the digital domain is evidence of bit perfect transfers. We both see this same web page, hear the same music on Spotify, and watch the same movies on Netflix. Shoot, we probably even play the same games. None of that would be possible if perfect 1:1 copies weren't possible. Is my Netflix copy of "Die Hard" different than yours? Is every Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon Super Audio CD different? No, they're all the same. Habanero has linked and hosted a file that each and every single soul on this planet is free to download as many times as they like...A Billion times if desired...and free to check for errors with a program that will compare the file you've downloaded to the original hosted file. Not a single person stating that 1:1 digital copies are impossible has downloaded that file and checked their copy against the original. Why is that? I think you'd be pleasantly surprised by the results. I'll bet you $100 right now that the results would prove conclusively that the downloaded file is a perfect 1:1 copy of the hosted source file.

headrott wrote: »

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.

Ray stated that the logical results remain the same regardless of voltage variations and amplitude differences in the sine waves. By logical results he means that the right 1 or right 0 was interpreted. 1's and 0's are what comprise digital data. Nothing else. If the correct 1 and correct 0 was interpreted and the logical result matches the original file, then you have a 1:1 copy. There is no way for anything else (Voltage, noise, etc) to find a way into a 1 or a 0. It's a signaling method where nothing can effect it, unlike an analog signal in which that sine wave would literally be a sound, an actual sound that's being transported.

nooshinjohn

While you nerds continue to discuss the finer points of the superiority of one zero over another, I thing I will crap the top on my favorite adult beverage, grab a stack of vinyl and enjoy my rig. Play nice children...

Hermitism

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I thing I will crap the top on my favorite adult beverage

I think you've already had a couple!

nooshinjohn

Hermitism wrote: »

I think you've already had a couple!

Curse my dyslexic fingers!

tonyb

Yep, just like the other thread. Digital isn't about claiming the higher ground, none of audio is. It's all about what sounds good to you, period. If a digital cable sounds better than another....roll with it. If a file with all those 1's and 0's sounds better by another process....roll with it. This petty stuff is 3rd grade amateur hour.

When you feed a troll....you get more trolls. Isn't that internet audio forums 101 ?

Gatecrasher

villian wrote: »

Is a digital music file able to be copied perfectly (Resulting in a 1:1 copy)

I find it hard to believe that anyone would even argue about this.

Of course you can copy digital files perfectly resulting in a 1:1 copy. How do you think they can manufacture CDs and DVDs and other digital media? Does anyone actually think that each CD manufactured isn't an exact copy or "clone" of the master?

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I don't think there will ever be such ling as a perfect copy because of the digital language of 1's and 0's, unless they find a way to change the language, but I also believe it to be a mute point because things will inevitably advance to the point where the ear-brain will not be able to detect it.

That’s exactly why digital media can be copied “verbatim”.

Audio or any other form of digital media is just that. Finite values of 1’s and 0’s while analog audio is infinite.

A good comparison in mathematics is like comparing a decimal number vs a fraction. Or degrees vs radians with degrees being finite limited values and radians being infinitely limited.

If you look at the decimal .33 and try to copy it you can. It is exactly .33 no matter how many times you copy it.

If you look at the fraction 1/3 and try to copy is decimally you can get real close but can never express a decimal equivalent that is an exact 1:1 copy (.3333333333333333333333…infinity).

So the answer is indisputably …YES. You can copy anything digital to digital 1:1.

The real issue is when you try to copy analog to digital or digital back to analog. You can come close but it will never be exact 1:1.

If you are copying digital audio files from a CD and they do not sound the same as the original, you have a different issue altogether. The issue is in the conversion back from digital to analog when you play the music.

When you play the CD, your CD player converts the digital data to analog which is then amplified and sent to the speakers. The same is true if you are playing a digital copy from your PC except you are using a different DAC. There can also be a difference in the two resulting analog signals from other system variables. It should be expected that there will be a difference between the two resulting analog signals and there always will be. Of course the goal is to make the differences so subtle and indiscernable that the human ear cannot tell the difference.

Here's the challenge. Take a CD and burn a couple copies of it taking care to have whatever you are using to burn the copy make an exact clone with no digital to analog conversion or audio remastering involved. Burn an exact image and then make the two new CDs. Then blindfold yourself and have someone play all three CDs in the same CD player and see if you can tell which one is the master. There should be no way you can tell.

BlueFox

To me this thread is more of a red herring than anything resembling research. As someone mentioned, it is probably designed to continue the arguments in the locked digital cable thread.

Obviously, perfect digital copies are possible. I am not even going to waste time on that subject. I have been working in computer networking for the last 25 years, and in data communications since 1976. Where the other thread went astray was when Monk started challenging the idea that an Ethernet cable can influence the end sound. His answer is an unequivocal no, as with villian. Monk even developed a contrived test to prove that point.

To be honest, I agree with both him and villian 99% of the time on these subjects. One, of many, problems I have with these guys is I realize there are, for all practical purposes, an infinite number of gear, network topologies, and how that gear connects to the network combinations. At this point I feel that the possibility exists there can be some combination that meets all standards yet results in a different sonic performance with different Ethernet cables. As mentioned in the other thread, there is anecdotal data, or experience, that suggests this can occur. Why? I have no idea. I suggested jitter as a possibility, but who knows. The only thing I have learned over the years is that the more I learn, the more I realize how little I know. When it comes to sound reproduction it seems like anything can have an affect on it. From my perspective, it just does make any sense to not have an open mind and admit maybe there is still more to learn. Being an absolutist on this subject seems counter productive.

I won't go into the other problems I have with them, or at least the way they present themselves.

F1nut

How do you think they can manufacture CDs and DVDs and other digital media? Does anyone actually think that each CD manufactured isn't an exact copy or "clone" of the master?

http://www.duplication.ca/cd-process.htm

From another source,

Errors can be introduced at every step of production, but the molding process is the least subject to adjustment. Sources of errors are more readily identified and compensated for during mastering. If the errors are too severe then the stamper is rejected and a replacement installed.

BlueFox

F1nut wrote: »

http://www.duplication.ca/cd-process.htm

That is an argument against CDs.

Just download the file and skip all the other stuff with creating a CD.

F1nut

Eh, every format has issues, just a matter of picking your poison.

Gatecrasher

We're not talking about mechanical errors in the injection molding process.

No hanging chad arguments here.

lol

tonyb

We done measuring d$cks yet ?

When we say stuff like....."let your ears be the judge", or "try for yourself", that's not without reason. Audio is so subjective that we throw out those statements to avoid arguments such as this thread. If you can subscribe to keeping an open mind and to trying different stuff, your audio education will expand ten fold.

We all don't have to agree on everything audio related, in fact it's almost impossible we all ever will, but that's OK. The world would be dull if we only had one choice....one sound signature to chase....one ice cream flavor. Be the Captain Kirk of your own audio journey and explore new area's you may have had previous misconceptions about.

That's all we do here, share our journeys. Doesn't have to be right or wrong and doesn't have to nose dive into petty pissing matches at every turn.

cfrizz

tonyb wrote: »

...This petty stuff is 3rd grade amateur hour.

tonyb wrote: »

We done measuring d$cks yet ?

When we say stuff like....."let your ears be the judge", or "try for yourself", that's not without reason. Audio is so subjective that we throw out those statements to avoid arguments such as this thread. If you can subscribe to keeping an open mind and to trying different stuff, your audio education will expand ten fold.

We all don't have to agree on everything audio related, in fact it's almost impossible we all ever will, but that's OK. The world would be dull if we only had one choice....one sound signature to chase....one ice cream flavor. Be the Captain Kirk of your own audio journey and explore new area's you may have had previous misconceptions about.

That's all we do here, share our journeys. Doesn't have to be right or wrong and doesn't have to nose dive into petty pissing matches at every turn.

You are looking at this thread with a mature adult brain here Tony. Unfortunately a good chunk of the people on here tend to regress to third grade mentality with a dose of chest thumping me-man on top of that.

You all need to go chill out and go listen to your music in whatever format pleases you the most.

tonyb

cfrizz wrote: »

You are looking at this thread with a mature adult brain here Tony.

Thanks Cath, but my wife may take issue with that statement. lol

nooshinjohn

tonyb wrote: »

Be the Captain Kirk of your own audio journey and explore new area's you may have had previous misconceptions about.

Great analogy, but your conclusion is flawed. Statistically, Captain Pickard would have been the better example here.

Hermitism

Captain Picard would get his crew to put on a Shakespearian play, so at some point he would have an opportunity to "break into song" to help explain the subtle differences in audio in a diplomatic girly way. Captain Kirk would just kick the butt of anyone that disagreed with him.

nooshinjohn

Hermitism wrote: »

Captain Picard would get his crew to put on a Shakespearian play, so at some point he would have an opportunity to "break into song" to help explain the subtle differences in audio in a diplomatic girly way. Captain Kirk would just kick the butt of anyone that disagreed with him.

I will grant you that, but Kirk also used vacuum tubes and vinyl, this he would be completely useless in a thread about digital. I do wonder though.. would a holodeck performance of anything, Bach, Beethoven, or The Beatles still sound digital, or would they be considered a live performance?

Hermitism

The holodeck would not be a perfect 1:1 digital copy because the holodeck was constantly malfunctioning. The only thing that malfunctioned more than the holodeck was Data's brain.

cfrizz

Spock would come in and call all of you illogical. Worf would come in and just start taking heads off with his batleth! I don't know which method I prefer more. ROTFLOL!

Only on Club Polk.

Hermitism

Ha! You know, I actually own a 48" stainless steel Bat'leth, but I've never had an opportunity to use it.

Lord Vader

nbrowser wrote: »

May the For...erm...oh crap wrong star thingy... :cheesygrin:

I find your lack of faith disturbing.....

tonyb

See what I did there ?

LOL

nooshinjohn

For the analog crowd...

Our Google, who art in cyberspace,
Hallowed be thy domain.
Thy search to come,
Thy results be done,
On 127.0.0.1 as it is in the Googleplex.
Give us this day our daily searches,
And forgive us our spam,
As we forgive those who spam against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from Microsoft.
For thine is the search engine,
And the power,
And the glory,
Forever and ever.
Amen.

And for the 1's and 0's amongst us...

01010111 01100101 00100000 01101010 01101111 01101001 01101110 00100000 01110100 01101111 01100111 01100101 01110100 01101000 01100101 01110010 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01101110 01101011 00100000 01000111 01101111 01101111 01100111 01101100 01100101 00100000 01100110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01101011 01101110 01101111 01110111 01101100 01100001 01100111 01100101 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01110111 01101001 01110011 01100100 01101111 01101101 00100000 01110011 01101000 01100101 00100000 01100010 01110010 01101001 01101110 01100111 01110011

OleBoot

tonyb wrote: »

We done measuring d$cks yet ?

Certainly in my case - I can't see past my stomach to read the micrometer anyway.

I think I answered the question asked in this thread in a previous post and was going to expand on it, but this thread, if you ignore the butting of heads, seems to me to beg the question of how much you need to know how audio gear works to get the best out of it. Me, I love to know how stuff works. Computers, audio, cars, dishwashers, wheelbarrows, interossiters, positronic brains - whatever I come across. Why? I just get a kick out of when you understand something and the light bulb lights up. I'm not saying I understand things at expert levels of detail, or that I want to - I am very, very far away from being one of those genius people. But I can learn enough to understand if I am capable of fixing my car so as not to pay someone to do it, and enough about my audio hobby to satisfy my curiosity. Dear Abby, am I a geek?

So does knowing a bit about how audio gear works allow me to know how something will sound? Er, kinda, sorta, maybe sometimes, probably not. I'll start with a sort of backwards example. I picked up a CD some time ago when I went to listen to a band. You know, the sort they have in a rack out front that was probably produced by one of these web site copying services that copies them on CD burners than run faster than your average turbocharger. I basically bought it as the band were good, young and local to my area and I wanted to support them. It laid around a while before I gave it a listen, and it turned out to sound not bad. Not, good, but not as bad as one would expect. Sometime later I was in the process of putting all my CDs onto a computer , and this one was in the heap. When I tried to rip it, I got hundreds upon hundreds of read errors. I even tried another CD unit as I didn't believe the CD player could have even played it. So I told the computer to ignore the errors and played it on the computer system. Sounded pretty much the same as it did on the CD player. From what I thought I knew, this should have sounded like cr@p. If it's not bit perfect it will not sound good. jeez.

Have you gone to sleep yet? No? So here's another example for insomniacs. Some time in the last century (still feels strange to be able to say that) I decided to replace the Sony 5.1 channel receiver in my home theater system with separates. My knowledge told me that that a standalone processor would have a better DAC, separate power amps would have dedicated power supplies and be capable of higher current, etc., etc. ,etc. Of course I supplemented this by getting getting other people's opinions, and had friends that had better gear than me that I listened to, but what I thought I knew was a big factor. So I spent some weeks going to hi-fi stores auditioning gear, and finally managed to go back to the store I had selected to buy from on a weekday afternoon. I went in, and there was absolutely nobody around. I let out a "Hellooooo", and a guy appeared from one of the audition rooms. I said I had been in earlier and was looking to replace my home theater receiver. He obviously didn't remember me and that I had listened to separates before, and said that I should really come and listen to something that they had just got in. We went back to the room that he appeared from, where the rest of the shop staff were sitting. And two hours later I left with a 5.1 channel receiver. It's a Denon AVR 4800, which I have to this day.

So I guess my conclusion is that if you want to find out how things work like I do, in terms of audio gear, never ever let the knowledge you have get in the way of listening.

falconcry72

I feel stupid for responding to this thread genuinely, not knowing that the thread starter was a troll. My original response is thus retracted and replaced with a snide comment.

tonyb

OLEBOOT,

We all like to know how stuff works. I can relate to that, but that quest for knowledge in all things requires one to keep an open mind, take in others opinions, a little trial and error. Then you have a baseline for making good judgments on future purchases. Knowing how stuff works doesn't mean we need to know the micro details such as where the copper was sourced, pulled, or if it was carried from the mines on the backs of donkeys or in a rail car.

These micro details in audio is usually where the biggest arguments arise. Whether we can equate that to differences in sound is a subject one must experience for themselves. Audio manufactures definitely use these micro details to trump up selling points in their products, to set themselves up as different than a competitor. Some may be true, some not....it's all in the ear of the beholder. Kinda like walking down the street and your buddy says, " Man, did you catch that cutie walking down the strip ? " As you think to yourself, dude, you need to get your eyes checked. We all have preferences, how stuff works is one thing, how it sounds to each individual is another.

Audio is a lot like religion.....throw in science and your butting heads with everyone involved. Some profess science in audio is the Judge and Jury. IMHO....your ears are. Science has been proven wrong way too many times. Then again so has our ears but all this means little because in the end we all like what we like and damn the rest of the nonsense.

OleBoot

tonyb wrote: »

OLEBOOT,

We all like to know how stuff works. I can relate to that, but that quest for knowledge in all things requires one to keep an open mind, take in others opinions, a little trial and error. Then you have a baseline for making good judgments on future purchases. Knowing how stuff works doesn't mean we need to know the micro details such as where the copper was sourced, pulled, or if it was carried from the mines on the backs of donkeys or in a rail car.

These micro details in audio is usually where the biggest arguments arise. Whether we can equate that to differences in sound is a subject one must experience for themselves. Audio manufactures definitely use these micro details to trump up selling points in their products, to set themselves up as different than a competitor. Some may be true, some not....it's all in the ear of the beholder. Kinda like walking down the street and your buddy says, " Man, did you catch that cutie walking down the strip ? " As you think to yourself, dude, you need to get your eyes checked. We all have preferences, how stuff works is one thing, how it sounds to each individual is another.

Audio is a lot like religion.....throw in science and your butting heads with everyone involved. Some profess science in audio is the Judge and Jury. IMHO....your ears are. Science has been proven wrong way too many times. Then again so has our ears but all this means little because in the end we all like what we like and damn the rest of the nonsense.

I knew my post was too long! - what my two examples were meant to mean is pretty much what you've just said here.

Habanero Monk

So has anyone downloaded the Polk PDF and ran an MD5 hash against it yet? Be interesting to see if the hash is the same or different.

ZLTFUL

Translation: I have to be right at all costs so somebody needs to validate me! :rolleyes: