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

villian

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.

Right, because higher education only exists inside the United States...

So once again you ask a question, I give you an answer..and you don't like that answer. No surprise there. You just won't give it a rest, will you?

BlueFox wrote: »

To me this thread is more of a red herring than anything resembling research.

It's intended to be a simple poll, nothing more..nothing less. Don't look too far into it. Just getting a feel for the crowd here. Better to do this than to wrongly assuming things and accidently go off on someone that doesn't deserve it for something that I feel is a basic concept that everyone understands.

BlueFox wrote: »

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.

I like that post. Nice to hear your honest opinion, and I can respect that. We'll just have to agree to disagree..at least a little! I have no doubt that choice of cabling can effect sound, but I believe it's because of factors outside of the digital signal being carried within. Things like noise and jitter, ground loop hum, etc. All things that are introduced outside of the cable and things that some cables are better at reducing or eliminating than others.

BlueFox wrote: »

That is an argument against CDs.

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

Kinda like ethernet wires. Take the wire out of the equation, and what do you get? Hence my reasoning on the previous quote.

Gatecrasher wrote: »

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

Sounds like we're in the same boat. That's why it eventually hit me that it'd be better off just to se how widespread the disbelief of digital copies runs, rather than argue about it.

Gatecrasher wrote: »

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?

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

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

Bingo

Gatecrasher wrote: »

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.

I wish it were that simple (Believe me, I believe it is..). However, I've been informed that blind tests do not apply in the situation that you've referenced. Trust me, there's papers upon papers written by one man about it. He'll reference them all day long for you if you want to debate it!

falconcry72 wrote: »

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.

I can only imagine what it must be like when a real troll gets on the board. Lots of name calling and bashing for no reason if you ask me. It's not like any of what I've posted has been unsubstantiated or useless. Both of which I've seen in response to my posts. Bandwagons are the worst, especially when you realize you're part of the group jumping on one...don't you think?

ZLTFUL wrote: »

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

Translation: I refuse to try anything that may prove my previous posts wrong, because I cannot bear to change externally (Even though secretly I've already begun to change internally..)

Denial and ignornance are very powerful emotions, neither of which are specifically tied to age (Just to bust another myth..).

ZLTFUL

villian wrote: »

Denial and ignornance are very powerful emotions, neither of which are specifically tied to age (Just to bust another myth..).

The very definition of irony.

As for your assertion of me not trying anything...that's laughable. I have gone through more digital gear than probably anyone on this board over the last 2 years from DACs to routers to cables to storage devices. All have been steps either forwards or backwards. But I don't need some post on the internet or some paper to tell me what works best for me. I let my own ears make that determination. I am sorry that your own ignorance and your fear of trying something that may not fit in your tiny little misinformed box has held you back in this hobby. But don't try to impart your misguided ignorance on me or anyone else on this forum.
But keep trying cupcake. Funny when the majority thinks you are a troll but you keep insisting you aren't. You know who has to tell themselves they aren't trolls? Trolls.

F1nut

Denial and ignornance are very powerful emotions

You should know, your expertise in both is unmatched even if you can't spell one of them correctly.

tonyb

ZLTFUL wrote: »

But I don't need some post on the internet or some paper to tell me what works best for me. I let my own ears make that determination.

Now....here's a man who "gets it". Kudos bro, rock on.

DarqueKnight

ZLTFUL wrote: »

But I don't need some post on the internet or some paper to tell me what works best for me. I let my own ears make that determination.

But...your ears will only work properly when you are blindfolded.:sad:

DarqueKnight

DarqueKnight wrote: »

But...your ears will only work properly when you are blindfolded.:sad:

Uh oh...I take this back. Becoming blind seems to only improve hearing if the person becomes permanently blind at a very early age.

"The Blind Really Do Hear Better"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/07/040723093712.htm

"In the present study, researchers at McGill and at Universit

DarqueKnight

Deleted - Duplicate post.

Loud & Clear

OleBoot wrote: »

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.

Enjoyable read.

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

But...your ears will only work properly when you are blindfolded.:sad:

I thought we were talking about 1:1 perfect digital copies? Where you able to generate a MD5 hash on the PDF file?

DarqueKnight

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I thought we were talking about 1:1 perfect digital copies? Where you able to generate a MD5 hash on the PDF file?

PDF file? I thought we were talking about digital audio?

I have already established that there is no such thing as a perfect 1:1 digital audio copy because the transport medium will always introduce some level of noise into the digital signal, and that noise corruption will be stored in the digital file.

The amount of noise corruption can affect the quality of D/A conversion and produce audible differences.

One of the basic principles of communications theory is that an electronic signal will always suffer some type of noise corruption and distortion while passing through a transport medium. The relevant question is whether the noise and distortion obscures information and not whether the received signal is a perfect copy of the transmitted signal.

ZLTFUL

"Come on guys! VALIDATE ME!"

headrott

I am still trying to figure out why villian (and Habanero Monk) feel that using a computer to "validate" that a file is transferred "perfectly" as a 1:1 bit copy is an actual validation of this? First off, this is not a first person evaluation of the music file. this is using a computer program designed by someone else to evaluate a file, and the computer is doing the evaluating. Certainly not first person.

A computer and the program used to measure that there are no errors can only measure exaclty that. There are no "errors". No one is arguing that a "seemingly" error free digital audio (or any type of file) is passed through from a source to the D/A converter "succesfully". Of course it was transferred "succesfully", that is why you are listening to it and/or viewing it.

This fact does not make it a "perfect 1:1 bit copy" however, even if a computer program says there are no "errors". This simply means that the minimum level of passing the signal was met. The minimum error threashold is NOT a perfect 1:1 bit copy as there are noise and other "contaminants" introduced to the audio and/or video, etc. file(s). The program used to measure a "perfect 1:1 bit copy" that is error free is not/ cannot looking for a true noise free file (which would make it "perfect"), it is looking for the minimum amount of voltage pulse to successfully produce 1's and 0's (bits) and that is all.

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

PDF file? I thought we were talking about digital audio?

I have already established that there is no such thing as a perfect 1:1 digital audio copy because the transport medium will always introduce some level of noise into the digital signal, and that noise corruption will be stored in the digital file.

The amount of noise corruption can affect the quality of D/A conversion and produce audible differences.

One of the basic principles of communications theory is that an electronic signal will always suffer some type of noise corruption and distortion while passing through a transport medium. The relevant question is whether the noise and distortion obscures information and not whether the received signal is a perfect copy of the transmitted signal.

The title of the thread is: Are perfect 1:1 digital copies possible?

It's just an exercise in establishing if it's mathematically possible to, in the digital domain, to have a perfect copy of the source file.

It could be a PDF, it could be a .TIF, .WAV, .MP4. I used PDF just for the smaller size of the file would make it easier to implement.

Is a file with vector based data in it a problem?

I am interested in if, using your basic principals of communications theory, we see:

1. The PDF transferred downloaded and MD5 hash ran does the hash stay the same? If different does the file still open?

2. If different and still opens can there be a visual tell in the PDF?

No you haven't established that noise can be stored in the file. But it's a good question: Can we simulate that? I was interested in one of the papers I linked to about the CRC errors introduced and curious if that simple meant retry until complete? And if it completed I wonder if the hash would be the same?

So are you of the belief that two files can come out mathematically/computationally the same but sound, look, read, whatever different?

Habanero Monk

ZLTFUL wrote: »

"Come on guys! VALIDATE ME!"

It's easy enough to participate. I don't see why posting a file with an MD5 hash and having the equivocators give it a shot is problematic?

DarqueKnight

Habanero Monk wrote: »

It's just an exercise in establishing if it's mathematically possible to, in the digital domain, to have a perfect copy of the source file?

You first need to arrive at a good understanding of noise and distortion effects on signal integrity. Once you do that, it will become obvious to you that the concept of a "perfect" copy of any transported signal is pure fantasy.

headrott

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You first need to arrive at a good understanding of noise and distortion effects on signal integrity. Once you do that, it will become obvious to you that the concept of a "perfect" copy of any transported signal is pure fantasy.

I would say that villian and Habanero Monk need to start an even more basic level of realizing that digital signals are not impervious to the laws of physics.

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You first need to arrive at a good understanding of noise and distortion effects on signal integrity. Once you do that, it will become obvious to you that the concept of a "perfect" copy of any transported signal is pure fantasy.

I was reading up on some serial encoding schemes where it was +5- +12 and then -5 - -12. Anything in between constituted noise and therefore discarded. So that was a 10v sweep for noise or other error.

How do you reason with a file that has the same MD5 hash at both the source and destination?

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You first need to arrive at a good understanding of noise and distortion effects on signal integrity. Once you do that, it will become obvious to you that the concept of a "perfect" copy of any transported signal is pure fantasy.

We aren't transporting a signal as you imply. We are however using a signal to transport some data.

The thread title is "Are digital 1:1 copies possible". Not: "Are various signals always 100% pristine?"

The difference is not semantic.

headrott

Incorrect. The title is "Are perfect 1:1 digital copies possible?". That is symantics.

Edit: But you are changing the argument.

Habanero Monk

headrott wrote: »

Incorrect. The title is "Are perfect 1:1 digital copies possible?". That is symantics.

Edit: But you are changing the argument.

Perfect should have been included. Not changing the debate.

So when you have a file that is mathematically correct both at source and destination on a computer is that file a perfect 1:1 copy?

SCompRacer

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You first need to arrive at a good understanding of noise and distortion effects on signal integrity. Once you do that, it will become obvious to you that the concept of a "perfect" copy of any transported signal is pure fantasy.

Isn't the term for not achieving a perfect or 1:1 copy called Generation Loss? That is IF the equipment is not performing properly, you will not achieve a perfect copy? IF it is, you will?

villian

F1nut wrote: »

You should know, your expertise in both is unmatched even if you can't spell one of them correctly.

The keyboard I was using has a few sticky keys, and not the kind you get from pressing "Shift" repeatedly. Trust me, I know how to spell

DarqueKnight wrote: »

PDF file? I thought we were talking about digital audio?

Does it matter? Does an ethernet cable, computer, or decoder "See" the 1's and 0's of a PDF file differently than the 1's and 0's of a digital audio file?

Come on DK, this is elementary digital communications stuff we're talking about. You should know, you're the expert here..right?

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.

headrott wrote: »

I am still trying to figure out why villian (and Habanero Monk) feel that using a computer to "validate" that a file is transferred "perfectly" as a 1:1 bit copy is an actual validation of this? First off, this is not a first person evaluation of the music file. this is using a computer program designed by someone else to evaluate a file, and the computer is doing the evaluating. Certainly not first person.

Exactly, because the computer is validating the 1's and 0's, not the sound. There is NO sound in a file stored on a computer. It's just a bunch of 1's and 0's. A signaling method to represent "Data"..another non-tangible thing.."Stored" on a computer. The computer program evaluating and checking the integrity of the file thus has but one thing to evaluate: 1's and 0's. If the 1's and 0's are the same as the source, then it's impossible for the "Sound" to be different when output.

The "Sound" is not literally stored on the computer, it's a bunch of 1's and 0's that will later be decoded as a sound. I'm not really sure how else to put this, but you're the one who claims to understand how computers and digital storage works..so I'll let you figure that out.

headrott wrote: »

A computer and the program used to measure that there are no errors can only measure exaclty that. There are no "errors". No one is arguing that a "seemingly" error free digital audio (or any type of file) is passed through from a source to the D/A converter "succesfully". Of course it was transferred "succesfully", that is why you are listening to it and/or viewing it.

This fact does not make it a "perfect 1:1 bit copy" however, even if a computer program says there are no "errors". This simply means that the minimum level of passing the signal was met. The minimum error threashold is NOT a perfect 1:1 bit copy as there are noise and other "contaminants" introduced to the audio and/or video, etc. file(s). The program used to measure a "perfect 1:1 bit copy" that is error free is not/ cannot looking for a true noise free file (which would make it "perfect"), it is looking for the minimum amount of voltage pulse to successfully produce 1's and 0's (bits) and that is all.

Can you provide an example or explain to me how noise, or any of the other things you claim are introduced into copied files are stored within or alongside those 1's and 0's..let alone how they are reproduced? Computer's only see 1's and 0's, so where are the 1's and 0's of the noise and other abberations that you allude to?

The computer does the evaluating because the computer has the ability to see and interpret 1's and 0's. Can you see 1's and 0's? Furthermore the computer isn't just "Checking for errors.." it's checking each and every 1 and 0 against the source 1 and 0. If all those come back lined up in the exact same way that they were in the source file, then there is no error. That's how digital works. There's nothing else hidden in those 1's or 0's, and there's no real "Error" to look for. It has nothing to do with voltage pulses and what not. The computer could care less about any voltage variation in the cabling that got it the 1's and 0's. It's only language is 1's and 0's, not voltage, not noise, not fire, not dragon, not amperage, not phase loop linear dielectric dection chromolyium bendium polymer. 1 and 0. It's that simple. I promise.

You're clearly still stuck thinking about digital technology in an analog way when they are simply not comparable. They are two totally different technologies with completely different workings. It's like comparing a Hippo to a Skilcraft Pen. They just aren't the same, nor do they share a single thing.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

So are you of the belief that two files can come out mathematically/computationally the same but sound, look, read, whatever different?

I'll tell you one thing. Reading this thread today is a completely different experience than yesterday. The screen smells quite bad, whereas yesterday it had this nice flowery aroma. I also don't get the same smell when I load the page late at night, or at a friends. I'm definately with DK on this one. Just because the 1's and 0's are the same doesn't mean that the web page won't sound, look, read, or even smell differently than it did the last time it was loaded. My nose is the proof. I doubt it has anything to do with the coffee I spilled on the keyboard. It's the bits.

nooshinjohn

villian wrote: »

I'll tell you one thing. Reading this thread today is a completely different experience than yesterday. The screen smells quite bad, whereas yesterday it had this nice flowery aroma. I also don't get the same smell when I load the page late at night, or at a friends. I'm definately with DK on this one. Just because the 1's and 0's are the same doesn't mean that the web page won't sound, look, read, or even smell differently than it did the last time it was loaded. My nose is the proof. I doubt it has anything to do with the coffee I spilled on the keyboard. It's the bits.

Then perhaps it's time to flush this **** and make a new thread with some of your fresh BS...

Habanero Monk

ZLTFUL wrote: »

"Come on guys! VALIDATE ME!"

ZLTFUL wrote: »

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

Don't need anyone's validation. Just your $1600 :biggrin:

ZLTFUL

I don't need validation...I just need validation.

If you don't have validation disorder, why are you all freaked out because people aren't validating your "test"?

Habanero Monk

ZLTFUL wrote: »

I don't need validation...I just need validation.

If you don't have validation disorder, why are you all freaked out because people aren't validating your "test"?

It's an easy test. Why are people freaked out about not trying it and posting their result?

Habanero Monk

DSkip wrote: »

Because we don't care? Any weight this debate has was lost about 30 pages ago.

You can only lead a horse to water. You can't make it think.

tonyb

Isn't that the problem in a nutshell ?

Monk wants to "think", while everyone else wants to "listen" ?

F1nut

tonyb wrote: »

Isn't that the problem in a nutshell ?

Monk wants to "think", while everyone else wants to "listen" ?

You're so close.....Monk wants everyone to think and do as he does, like the bozo at 1600.

Habanero Monk

It took me a whopping 5 minutes to build an example that can be verified by any member here. May be DK can ask someone in the Math department how it's after all possible.

I find it strange that for all the people wanting to have their voice heard in this thread that they can't take the time, that a well formed posts takes, and verify independently the PDF file and see the MD5 hash matches up to others.

It's a perfect 1:1 digital copy.

Stupidity is ignorance willfully left uncorrected. The fundamental misunderstanding in something so trivial has left me wondering what other things you take for granted that you are also foundationally incorrect on.