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

F1nut

^Need more proof that my comments in post #159 were spot on?^

Nah, didn't think so.

headrott

Habanero Monk wrote: »

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?

I've already explained multiple times that until you can "see" deeper than mathematically "accurate" 1's and 0's being transferred you will not undertand. Care to look deeper and actually learn something? OR you can continue believing that there are actually digital transfers that are completely impervious to the laws of physics. That's up to you.

headrott

villian wrote: »

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.


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.

It's already been explained multiple times and yet you refuse to accept and/or understand it. I cannot help you with that.

Why do you believe there is any transfer of anything (using the technology we posess) that is not subject to degredation? That is an irrational thought.

Habanero Monk

headrott wrote: »

I've already explained multiple times that until you can "see" deeper than mathematically "accurate" 1's and 0's being transferred

Deeper than mathematics? Are you serious? Mathematics is the language of our universe.

What laws of physics are changing a file that computationally, mathematically, equals?

You haven't explained anything. At least I have a provided a simple proof for verifying a file is indeed the same.

headrott

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Deeper than mathematics? Are you serious? Mathematics is the language of our universe.

What laws of physics are changing a file that computationally, mathematically, equals?

You haven't explained anything. At least I have a provided a simple proof for verifying a file is indeed the same.

If you stop twisting the meanings of what is said (to suit your agenda), you may understand.

villian

Will somebody please explain to headrott how digital data works? Specifically the absolute value of a 0 and a 1.

Habanero Monk

headrott wrote: »

If you stop twisting the meanings of what is said (to suit your agenda), you may understand.

So far there is zero evidence (yes proof) that a file that mathematically checks out the same at both source and destination is anything other than the same file.

So far, in this thread, I'm the only one to provide a proof.

ZLTFUL

For someone who doesn't need validation, you sure are seeking validation...
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/173-2-channel-audio/1586722-perfect-1-1-digital-copies-possible.html

Habanero Monk

ZLTFUL wrote: »

For someone who doesn't need validation, you sure are seeking validation...
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/173-2-channel-audio/1586722-perfect-1-1-digital-copies-possible.html

I started that over there to see how the percentages would differ. That's why I kept the poll responses the same. You're welcome to post over there also.

I have a feeling the response to the poll is going to be vastly different there.

You confused it for curiosity.

ZLTFUL

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.

Habanero Monk

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.

Before you posted such a lengthy reply did you consider that it doesn't preclude a perfect, mathematically, identical file?

It's the classic F.U.D tactic: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

I've never said you would always get a perfect copy. I never precluded exigent circumstances. I don't operate with a sky is falling approach.

Hard drives break. Tape deteriorates.

Now here is another question: How is it in a 3 drive RAID 5 you can lose 1/3 of your drives and still not miss a single byte or bit of data?

ZLTFUL

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.

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...

ZLTFUL

villian wrote: »

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.

Really? Find a post where I said that perfect digital copies are not possible. Feel free to link it here and I will happily eat crow. I already know I am the bigger man, cupcake. You're the one with compensation and validation issues that can't seem to get the hint when the moderator locks a thread because of your idiocy, that it is simply bad form to rehash the argument all over again in a new thread.

You know, you are right...I did learn something new from you...you are significantly dumber than I originally suspected.

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.