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

Habanero Monk

ZLTFUL wrote: »

Straws...you're grasping at them.

The question is are perfect digital copies possible? Yes...they are possible. Any idiot knows that. Nobody is even really debating that. What is being debated and what you seem to think is that perfect digital copies are ALWAYS perfect. And to that, I fully disagree.

How exactly is my post FUD? My post simply points out that digital copies are not immune to extenuating circumstances. Explain how this is fear, uncertainty or doubt in any way shape or form?

I am seriously beginning to think that you have some strange delusion where you think that everything anyone says that doesn't agree with you 100% is somehow a giant alien spacecraft coming to suck out your brain (obvious, they won't need to bring more than the dust buster for this task). Put away your tin foil hat.

As for your RAID 5 example, the chance still exists, however minute, that you can lose data. But you can't accept that because you ALWAYS have to be right, even when you are so obviously wrong.

I am done with your delusions. Validate yourself elsewhere because I am done trying to have a logical discussion with an illogical being.

Delusional is you thinking I said digital copies are always perfect OR even that I thought they were always perfect. I even said bit rot is a possibility. RAID 5 would be worthless if it lost data when a drive failed in the array.

You voted in disagreement with the thread poll. The inverse is that 100% digital 1:1 copies are impossible.

Even using the papers you cited I took the un-corrected error in a billion and showed how even if that happened with full bit rate 16/44.1 streaming of files it would result in one undetected error in 224 CD's worth of music.

And even that was generous because the paper was talking about the global internet and not files being repeatedly streamed over a LAN. Not not mention the fact of up stream checking by other means as implemented by vendor.

F1nut

DSkip wrote: »

Bookshelf or Monitor?

Stand mount. :cheesygrin:

headrott

ZLTFUL wrote: »

Your problem is...well, yours and villains is that you posed a computer question to an audio forum.
And not only that, but a vague one at that.

Theoretically, yes, digital copies should be 1:1 bit perfect copies of each other. But that is assuming a perfect transfer to a perfect media from a perfect media.
But it is naive to think that everything in the chain is going to work perfectly.
Your example itself is flawed because the size of the file reduces the chance of an error occurring...a bit being "flipped" if you will.
The larger a file size gets, the more likely you are to encounter this.

A CD is a digital media correct? And the files stored on a CD are digital files correct? And the pits on a CD represent a 1 or a 0 based on their size correct? But yet, a 1 pit can be a range of sizes as can a 0 pit. These pits aren't perfectly sized exactly the same. Their size can be within a range that defines it as either a 1 or a 0. That alone shows an example of a digital copy *working* correctly but the possibility being there for a non-perfect copy of that digital file.
Data CDs do indeed have more rigorous error checking on them. However what's interesting is how audio CD error checking works - if the disc isn't being read properly it will obviously try and correct it, and if it fails to read the missing data properly it "bridges" the gap by interpolating what should be there (unless it's really missed a lot, in which case it jumps or whatever). So what happens is that the fine detail in the music is reduced. If your CD ROM drive is doing this when you read a CD before copying, the copy will obviously not be as good as the original, even though everything has been digital throughout. The difference will only be apparent when you play it on a better CD player of course, but still it knocks the "perfect digital copy" argument on the head.

We won't even get into the shortfalls of magnetic media like tape. It presents its own massive issues in possible degradation of the file.

And how about the law of thermodynamics? It's impossible for files not to degrade over time without intervention because of thermodynamics.

At best, with sufficient redundancy and error correction algorithms, and good equipment maintenance, you can drop the probability of error ludicrously low but still not absolute 100%.

The Computer Music Center at Columbia University did a great paper (trying to track it down) on Computers and Music. They state that while digital copies *should be* perfect, there are times when they simply weren't. That for some unexplainable reason (ghost in the machine stuff) the copy was audibly different even though, for all intents and purposes, it was a "perfect" digital copy of the original.

Phenominal example! I don't have time to post it right this second, but my brother came up with a visual example of noise introduced to music files. I will post when I have a chance.

tonyb

Good post ZLTFUL, kinda circles back to my assertions way earlier in this thread. Transfer of data on a computer has little error when we use sight to conclude that data. Sight between different people remains constant as an understanding of whats before you. However when the data is transferred into sound, 2 things come into play.

One being room for additional errors to be more readily heard.
Two...we all hear differently, unlike when we use our sight.

Small errors in the transfer of digital information will not be seen....but can possibly be heard. Two different animals. Some in this thread are equating the 2.

Also, our brains work in weird ways. If x information on paper tells us something is impossible, we then condition ourselves, and our ears, to believe what that information on paper says. This is where having an open mind, trying different stuff, and letting your ears judge whats right or wrong for you come into play. IMHO, that's the only way to move forward in Audio....assuming one wants to move forward that is.

Habanero Monk

tonyb wrote: »

Good post ZLTFUL,

Small errors in the transfer of digital information will not be seen....but can possibly be heard. Two different animals. Some in this thread are equating the 2.

ZLTFUL posted a good paper on recovered and undetected errors. And it trends with the concept video I made that shows music playing even with all network connections physically unplugged.

I'm able to go through the entire song with out any drop in audio. Dropping the connection certainly induces an error and since data transfer is non-realtime it has all the opportunity to re-transmit once connected.

CD's are different and so is USB and S/PDIF. These are real-time protocols. Their error handling is simply not going to be nearly as robust.

I have another thought for an experiment and is starts with asking you, Head Rott, ZLTFUL what your favorite track is and what CD it came on? Is the CD currently available for purchase?

villian

ZLTFUL wrote: »

Straws...you're grasping at them.

The question is are perfect digital copies possible? Yes...they are possible. Any idiot knows that. Nobody is even really debating that. What is being debated and what you seem to think is that perfect digital copies are ALWAYS perfect. And to that, I fully disagree.

Confused? We were never arguing that..

I'm pretty sure myself and Habanero made it pretty clear what the question was here, from post #1 on. Try and backtrack all you want, but you've stated time and again that perfect digital copies are NOT possible...in any form. Repeatedly. Be the bigger man and admit that you just learned something new for a change. We would all understand that, without a doubt. But digging deeper...no sense at all.

WilliamM2

tonyb wrote: »

Also, our brains work in weird ways. If x information on paper tells us something is impossible, we then condition ourselves, and our ears, to believe what that information on paper says. This is where having an open mind, trying different stuff, and letting your ears judge whats right or wrong for you come into play. IMHO, that's the only way to move forward in Audio....assuming one wants to move forward that is.

So ignoring all evidence contrary to your beliefs is "open minded". And believing in myths helps you "move forward" in audio. Got it.

No doubt that people do hear differently, but they still can't hear differences that are not there. They just think they do. People see quite differently as well.

villian

tonyb wrote: »

Also, our brains work in weird ways. If x information on paper tells us something is impossible, we then condition ourselves, and our ears, to believe what that information on paper says. This is where having an open mind, trying different stuff, and letting your ears judge whats right or wrong for you come into play. IMHO, that's the only way to move forward in Audio....assuming one wants to move forward that is.

And behind every paper is an Author..like Ray..IE: DarqueKnight
(No offense..just proving a point).

Is it wrong to question and doubt what is written on his paper? To test and validate that? To formulate an independent opinion of your own? You would think so with the heavy chastising on this forum that results from anyone who questions those papers..

polrbehr

villian wrote: »

And behind every paper is an Author..like Ray..IE: DarqueKnight
(No offense..just proving a point).

Is it wrong to question and doubt what is written on his paper? To test and validate that? To formulate an independent opinion of your own? You would think so with the heavy chastising on this forum that results from anyone who questions those papers..

Certainly not. Question and doubt whatever you want, whatever floats your boat. Test and validate to your hearts content.
But it seems like ideas and concepts are dismissed out of hand because you "know" that something can't possibly exist. Or MUST exist, depending on the flavor of the thread.

Start a thread doing a comparison of ICs, speaker cables, power cords, whatever. Listen. Post your findings. Simple. You will probably get a lot more responses and a lot less rancor, even though this isn't a beauty contest (paraphrasing something you posted in the closed thread).
Or just keep going the way you are, sooner or later you will tire of this place, or we will tire of you; the sound of inevitability...

Habanero Monk

polrbehr wrote: »

Start a thread doing a comparison of ICs, speaker cables, power cords, whatever. Listen. Post your findings. Simple.

In the spirit of learning something, spirit of experimentation, I've already tried this with the PDF and MD5 hash posted. In 100% earnest of it being a contribution to forming a wholly more foundational undemay rstanding.

It's a 5, may be 10 minute experiment but you can't get anyone entrenched in the mindset that 1:1 perfect digital copies are possible.

I'm asking for a particular CD and particular track off of that CD to perform yet another experiment that will hopefully in that context generate some informative data.

What I am thinking is this:

Burned CD's may be technically perfect in the computer rip to file realm since it's not a real time measure. But a burned CD in a CDP may present problems due to the nature of correcting error 'on the fly'. It's like trying to work on an engine while it's running. Pretty tricky.

When you are using something like EAC and it's Perfectrip feature the engine isn't running at that point and certainly could be a difference. Add to that that you aren't burning to another CD. You are writing to an HD that kills a CDP in its construction and tolerances and engineering behind it.

What I am thinking is to take a CD that members here are very familiar with. I would like to start with Ripping the CD and applying a checksum against the ripped file. Make sure that lines up.

Then I would like to master the .wav in redbook and burn a CD. RIP that CD again and see if the checksum changes or stays the same.

I thinking of going 5 CD's out. That is RIP the pressed CD, then author back to a burned CD. Then RIP the burned CD and repeat 4 more times. Each time comparing the checksum.

Additionally I would like to make a final rip off the 5th generation CD and take the same track off that CD and the Pressed CD originally ripped and make it available for A/B comparison. Just called Track 1 and Track 2 and see how everyone does (including me).

Load it up in Foobar's comparitor and give it a 15 round listen.

Habanero Monk

ZLTFUL wrote: »

Really? Find a post where I said that perfect digital copies are not possible.

I'm going to spitball here....

polrbehr

Habanero Monk wrote: »

In the spirit of learning something, spirit of experimentation, I've already tried this with the PDF and MD5 hash posted. In 100% earnest of it being a contribution to forming a wholly more foundational undemay rstanding.

It's a 5, may be 10 minute experiment but you can't get anyone entrenched in the mindset that 1:1 perfect digital copies are possible.

I'm asking for a particular CD and particular track off of that CD to perform yet another experiment that will hopefully in that context generate some informative data.

What I am thinking is this:

Burned CD's may be technically perfect in the computer rip to file realm since it's not a real time measure. But a burned CD in a CDP may present problems due to the nature of correcting error 'on the fly'. It's like trying to work on an engine while it's running. Pretty tricky.

When you are using something like EAC and it's Perfectrip feature the engine isn't running at that point and certainly could be a difference. Add to that that you aren't burning to another CD. You are writing to an HD that kills a CDP in its construction and tolerances and engineering behind it.

What I am thinking is to take a CD that members here are very familiar with. I would like to start with Ripping the CD and applying a checksum against the ripped file. Make sure that lines up.

Then I would like to master the .wav in redbook and burn a CD. RIP that CD again and see if the checksum changes or stays the same.

I thinking of going 5 CD's out. That is RIP the pressed CD, then author back to a burned CD. Then RIP the burned CD and repeat 4 more times. Each time comparing the checksum.

Additionally I would like to make a final rip off the 5th generation CD and take the same track off that CD and the Pressed CD originally ripped and make it available for A/B comparison. Just called Track 1 and Track 2 and see how everyone does (including me).

Load it up in Foobar's comparitor and give it a 15 round listen.

Honestly I was responding more to villians postings than yours, as this thread is basically turning into a continuation of the closed one. He tends to think/post in absolutes ( I am reminded again of his water filter comments), and this is more along the lines of personal preferences, and discovering, on your own gear, what sounds better.

Give it a try and post your findings. One thing I am curious about though, what does a .pdf have to do with music? I must be missing your point on that, sorry.

EDIT - Hey that's cool, can you show that I voted Not Sure too? (translation - Don't Really Care) :biggrin:

DarqueKnight

Here is a link to an experiment I did in 2007 where I observed that the sound quality of copied CDs could vary depending on the recording media:

Better Sound With Music CD-Rs

Summary:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

A forum member suggested I try Memorex Music CD-R's after I mentioned that my Sony DVP-S9000ES DVD player would not play CD-R's. I tried the Memorex blanks and they didn't work either. However, it was a worthwhile exercise because I discovered that the music CD-R sounded much better than the original CD when I put it in my CD players! The improvement in sound quality was evident even in my relatively low resolution vehicular sound systems.

I made copies of eight different CD's and the copies all sounded better than the original CD's in the following ways:

1. Much more bass definition and detail.
2. More depth in the recording.
3. More three dimensional soundstage.
4. More clarity throughout.
5. More high frequency detail (I do not mean more brightness).


It goes against intuition that a copy of something could sound much better than the original, but it all made sense once I did a little research.

I went to Memorex’s website to look for information on how their music CD-R’s were made and how they were different from data CD-R’s. The only difference the website mentioned was the inclusion of special coding (Serial Copy Code) on the music CD-R that enables the recording of music on consumer CD recorders.

I sent an email to Memorex’s technical support department asking about the difference between their regular CD-R discs and music CD-R discs. They responded a few hours later with this reply:

“The playback quality in a CD depends on the dye used on the recording layer. It also makes the difference between data and music CDs. Our music CD-R discs use a special Pthalocyanine dye for better audio quality.”

Apparently, the better dye formulation results in better microscopic pit formation in the dye layer, which results in less read errors, which results in better sound quality.

---

The CD-RW made from the music CD-R did not have the better sound quality of the CD-R, but did sound identical to the original commercial CD. Burning a copy of the music CD-R to another Memorex music CD-R produced an identical copy with the same superior sound quality.

BlueFox

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I'm going to spitball here....

I didn't know these polls aren't anonymous. That eliminates participating in any future poll.

headrott

Here is an idea of how to (visually) "see" that noise can affect 1's and 0's. In both examples, they are still 1's and 0's created by the (more "perfect", but still not "perfect") electric impulses (containing noise such as electric fast transient) but one contains more than another.

The darker set of bits on top contain more true data and less fast transient noise and therefore are less prone to audible differences. Yet they are still not "perfect".

The lower set is lighter colored, visually showing that the bits contain more electric fast transient noise, while still being bits created by (even less perfect) electric pulses. that is, they contain less "true" data and more fast transient noise, while still maintaining enough energy from the electric pulses to create the 1's and 0's. These 1's and 0's will give a much more audibly detectable distoted signal when listen to with high resolution equipment and a trained listener.

My argument is that it is absolutely possible for the more greatly affected set of bits (lighter colored) to produce audible distortions in the audio signal, while still not producing catastophic errors leading to total signal loss. I want to point out that neither example is a perfect transfer of the digital signal, however.

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Here is a link to an experiment I did in 2007 where I observed that the sound quality of copied CDs could vary depending on the recording media:

Better Sound With Music CD-Rs

Summary:

Interesting. FGTV linked to Scott Wilkonson's interview where the producer said all the burned CD's he listened too were poor. He additionally spoke about 500,000 CD's that were pressed incorrectly, or not long enough, enough pressure whatever being thrown away.

Habanero Monk

polrbehr wrote: »

One thing I am curious about though, what does a .pdf have to do with music? I must be missing your point on that, sorry.

a .WAV, .AIFF. .PDF is all just data to a computer. It truly is interchangeable for the demonstration purposes of perfect digital copies are possible and using a cryptographic hash (MD5 in this case) to show computationally it's possible.

That and Polk Forum software doesn't allow for any large attachments.

I'm totally willing to put up a FTP server and make larger files available.

WilliamM2

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Interesting. FGTV linked to Scott Wilkonson's interview where the producer said all the burned CD's he listened too were poor. He additionally spoke about 500,000 CD's that were pressed incorrectly, or not long enough, enough pressure whatever being thrown away.

Weird how you can get different results in completely uncontrolled listening tests, huh? More anecdotal claims...

Habanero Monk

headrott wrote: »

Here is an idea of how to (visually) "see" that noise can affect 1's and 0's. In both examples, they are still 1's and 0's created by the (more "perfect", but still not "perfect") electric impulses (containing noise such as electric fast transient) but one contains more than another.

The darker set of bits on top contain more true data and less fast transient noise and therefore are less prone to audible differences. Yet they are still not "perfect".

The lower set is lighter colored, visually showing that the bits contain more electric fast transient noise, while still being bits created by (even less perfect) electric pulses. that is, they contain less "true" data and more fast transient noise, while still maintaining enough energy from the electric pulses to create the 1's and 0's. These 1's and 0's will give a much more audibly detectable distoted signal when listen to with high resolution equipment and a trained listener.

My argument is that it is absolutely possible for the more greatly affected set of bits (lighter colored) to produce audible distortions in the audio signal, while still not producing catastophic errors leading to total signal loss. I want to point out that neither example is a perfect transfer of the digital signal, however.

There is not such thing as a 'lighter bit'.

You either have a hard 1 or 0, or a recoverable error that still results in a hard 1 or 0, or a undetected or unrecoverable error which means missing 1 or 0.

It's binary. Either on or off. There is no such thing as a light bulb partly on. Try it some time with a conventional light switch. Just try to get the bulb only half lit.

villian

polrbehr wrote: »

Honestly I was responding more to villians postings than yours, as this thread is basically turning into a continuation of the closed one. He tends to think/post in absolutes ( I am reminded again of his water filter comments), and this is more along the lines of personal preferences, and discovering, on your own gear, what sounds better.

Give it a try and post your findings. One thing I am curious about though, what does a .pdf have to do with music? I must be missing your point on that, sorry.

EDIT - Hey that's cool, can you show that I voted Not Sure too? (translation - Don't Really Care) :biggrin:

I get what you're saying polrbehr. I'm sure I do post in absolutes a good bit, but to be fair I don't post in many threads that aren't asking/commenting on something that I don't have direct knowledge about. I'm not one to foray into a bunch of opinions, because if I'm not 100% sure of it in the first place..why would I try and convince others? I stick with my facts and post accordingly. The only problem I've encountered is that many people don't seem to realize that when I post about something, it's because I know about it. If I don't know about it I don't post, or I ask a question about what I don't know..as was the case with some of my first threads seeking to clarify the differences in a few specific polk technologies and products.

If that makes me come across as self-proclaimed "Know it all", then have at it. I'm not going to debate what I've already used the scientific method to prove in my own research, but I'm more than willing to change my opinion if someone proves me wrong. This has yet to happen in either of the two digital related threads. The biggest reason is that I think a lot of the counter-bitperfect argument posts are based on a persons misunderstandings, and have no relationship to the actual facts at hand. The posters may or may not realize this, but for someone that does it's impossible to allow those to even dent your belief as they have absolutely no value to the discussion at hand. Not sure how to explain that further but to say this: Yes, I am deeply entrenched in my own proven beliefs. If you're going to sway me you better shoot a bullet towards the trench, and not a banana. Make it relevant, that's all I'm saying. Irrelevant information does nothing for an argument. (Like the picture of 1's and 0's headrott just posted, it's 100% irrelevant (He just doesn't realize it, because he doesn't yet understand the concept of 1's and 0's and how there is nothing else there for the computer to interpret into audio. Like I said earlier, computers talk in 1's and 0's..not noise, ground loops, or amp hum)).

PS - Water purification is an industry that I'm deeply involved with. Specifically Reverse Osmosis water purification, and water treatment. Hence the posts about RO

headrott

Habanero Monk wrote: »

There is not such thing as a 'lighter bit'.

You either have a hard 1 or 0, or a recoverable error that still results in a hard 1 or 0, or a undetected or unrecoverable error which means missing 1 or 0.

It's binary. Either on or off. There is no such thing as a light bulb partly on. Try it some time with a conventional light switch. Just try to get the bulb only half lit.

You obviously still did not understand the example.

villian

headrott wrote: »

Here is an idea of how to (visually) "see" that noise can affect 1's and 0's. In both examples, they are still 1's and 0's created by the (more "perfect", but still not "perfect") electric impulses (containing noise such as electric fast transient) but one contains more than another.

The darker set of bits on top contain more true data and less fast transient noise and therefore are less prone to audible differences. Yet they are still not "perfect".

The lower set is lighter colored, visually showing that the bits contain more electric fast transient noise, while still being bits created by (even less perfect) electric pulses. that is, they contain less "true" data and more fast transient noise, while still maintaining enough energy from the electric pulses to create the 1's and 0's. These 1's and 0's will give a much more audibly detectable distoted signal when listen to with high resolution equipment and a trained listener.

My argument is that it is absolutely possible for the more greatly affected set of bits (lighter colored) to produce audible distortions in the audio signal, while still not producing catastophic errors leading to total signal loss. I want to point out that neither example is a perfect transfer of the digital signal, however.

I actually think I understand the point you're attempting to make, and I can understand why to you that's the "point in case". However, the result of either line of what you wrote is still interpreted the same by the computer..and is thus still a perfect digital copy. If the right 0's and 1's are there, then it will always be interpreted the same..regardless of anything else (Voltage drop, etc). The sound (of music) is made by the interpretation of the 0's and 1's..the music isn't literally the 1's and 0's..thus nothing can effect the sound as it's not literally there. For all intensive purposes the sound is gone, poof..lost forever..until those 1's and 0's are interpreted as a "Sound" again.

Habanero Monk

headrott wrote: »

You obviously still did not understand the example.

I understand that you may not be whole in your understanding. Your example is incorrect.

Using a common serial signaling method of days past:

-12 through -5 yielded a 0 +5 through +12 yielded a 1.

-4.9.... through +4.9 was discarded.

A positive 5.0, 5.1, 7, 9, 11 all yield the same 1

A negative 5.0, 5.1, 7, 9, 11 all yield the same 0

Even if there is some analog noise on the line and we assume the equipment is properly designed there is no 'lighter' or noisier 1 or 0.

Understand that out of a full 24 Volt sweep this method used almost half of the sweep to reject errors.

Habanero Monk

polrbehr wrote: »

EDIT - Hey that's cool, can you show that I voted Not Sure too? (translation - Don't Really Care) :biggrin:

Here you go:

Attachment not found.

drselect

villian wrote: »

...I'm not going to debate what I've already used the scientific method to prove in my own research, ...

PS - Water purification is an industry that I'm deeply involved with. Specifically Reverse Osmosis water purification, and water treatment. Hence the posts about RO

If you don't mind sharing what scientific method did you use in your research on RO? Also could you provide what specific type of instrumentation you used to analyze the water after it was purified?

Habanero Monk

ZLTFUL wrote: »

Touche.
(Although, it isn't a post and I still stand by, while they are possible, it is not an absolute which is what the going theme seems to be.)

Point being, even a 1:1 copy is not perfect.

In the image above, you can see the pits that represent 1s and 0s. You can also see that the 1 pits and the 0 pits are not uniform size. And you can have a disc with literally millions of these pits and compare it to what is technically a 1:1 copy and still not have a perfectly identical copy.

I would have to see what the resultant output comes out to checksum wise. I'm certainly not going to disagree that there could be a problem. This is all testable with my other post about re-mastering a ripped CD, going 5 generations out and hosting the file.

Or getting 100 CD from the same pressing run, rip it and run MD5 hash against all 100.

I am 100% curious and would like some member participation.

In my example of the 24 volt sweep you had a margin of allowance for the - of 6 volts, + 6 volts for the 1 or 0 and 10 volts in between for just plain out and out noise. I don't know if or how that translates in regards to the pits of a CD but does the pit mean there is a break in the laser return and therefore a 1/0 indicated?

There is a reason I like using a computer for Audio: Non-realtime, better encoding standards, better recovery, better error detection and best of all error correction.

Nothing is going to save me from a poorly pressed, out of the wrap CD. You pretty much get what you are given.

I agree with the paper you presented. It just given the rate they cited as errors gone undetected / uncorrected (1999 no less) that it's so remote as to be a non issue.

polrbehr

villian wrote: »

I get what you're saying polrbehr. I'm sure I do post in absolutes a good bit, but to be fair I don't post in many threads that aren't asking/commenting on something that I don't have direct knowledge about. I'm not one to foray into a bunch of opinions, because if I'm not 100% sure of it in the first place..why would I try and convince others? I stick with my facts and post accordingly. The only problem I've encountered is that many people don't seem to realize that when I post about something, it's because I know about it. If I don't know about it I don't post, or I ask a question about what I don't know..as was the case with some of my first threads seeking to clarify the differences in a few specific polk technologies and products.

If that makes me come across as self-proclaimed "Know it all", then have at it. I'm not going to debate what I've already used the scientific method to prove in my own research, but I'm more than willing to change my opinion if someone proves me wrong. This has yet to happen in either of the two digital related threads. The biggest reason is that I think a lot of the counter-bitperfect argument posts are based on a persons misunderstandings, and have no relationship to the actual facts at hand. The posters may or may not realize this, but for someone that does it's impossible to allow those to even dent your belief as they have absolutely no value to the discussion at hand. Not sure how to explain that further but to say this: Yes, I am deeply entrenched in my own proven beliefs. If you're going to sway me you better shoot a bullet towards the trench, and not a banana. Make it relevant, that's all I'm saying. Irrelevant information does nothing for an argument. (Like the picture of 1's and 0's headrott just posted, it's 100% irrelevant (He just doesn't realize it, because he doesn't yet understand the concept of 1's and 0's and how there is nothing else there for the computer to interpret into audio. Like I said earlier, computers talk in 1's and 0's..not noise, ground loops, or amp hum)).

PS - Water purification is an industry that I'm deeply involved with. Specifically Reverse Osmosis water purification, and water treatment. Hence the posts about RO

Well, that's my point, why are you trying to convince others of anything that you *know* to be true? I can sit here and tell you I knew the Empire State Building was tall, but until I stood on the observation deck... well, let's just say you really need to be there yourself, that's all.

So, you know about reverse osmosis filtration systems? I am going to guess and say you are a hemodialysis tech... Close?

Habanero Monk

BlueFox wrote: »

I didn't know these polls aren't anonymous. That eliminates participating in any future poll.

Why?

villian

polrbehr wrote: »

So, you know about reverse osmosis filtration systems? I am going to guess and say you are a hemodialysis tech... Close?

Absolutely not, that is a creative guess though!

drselect wrote: »

If you don't mind sharing what scientific method did you use in your research on RO? Also could you provide what specific type of instrumentation you used to analyze the water after it was purified?

Pick up a copy of your local consumer confidence Report, read it, and then get back to me. That should answer all your questions. I'm not going to stray further off topic in response to a flame bait post.

Gatecrasher

BlueFox wrote: »

I didn't know these polls aren't anonymous. That eliminates participating in any future poll.

What?

lol

You will only participate in polls where your response is anonymous?

Why? Are you ashamed of your response?

C'mon man. It's not like you're voting in a presidential election or anything.