Poll: Are perfect 1:1 copies possible in the digital domain?
Comments
-
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... -
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. -
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
Too many good quotes to list..waiting for some fresh ammo. -
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.
Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
"I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion."![:\](https://forum.polkaudio.com/resources/emoji/confused.png ":\")
My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....
"Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson
"Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee -
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.Too many good quotes to list..waiting for some fresh ammo. -
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. -
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. -
...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 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."Some people find it easier to be conceited rather than correct."
"Unwad those panties and have a good time man. We're all here to help each other, no matter how it might appear." DSkip -
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. -
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?So, are you willing to put forth a little effort or are you happy sitting in your skeptical poo pile?
http://audiomilitia.proboards.com/ -
I didn't know these polls aren't anonymous. That eliminates participating in any future poll.
Why? -
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!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.Too many good quotes to list..waiting for some fresh ammo. -
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. -
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.
OK, fortunately I have a annual subscription to Consumer Reports so I have read up on water filtration and now getting back to you.
So based on your statement "I'm not going to debate what I've already used the scientific method to prove in my own research"
should it be surmised that you won't debate RO because you have used scientific methods (which involves reading Consumer Reports) to prove your own research but you have NOT done any research on "1:1 bit perfect copies" because you are engaging in a debate about if it is or is not possible?
Also was interested in why you phrased your question "Are perfect 1:1 digital copies possible?" instead of phrasing it "Are all digital copies perfect?" because it could be surmised that the first one is more of a "flame bait" question than the second. -
This thread makes me want to.....HT SYSTEM-
Sony 850c 4k
Pioneer elite vhx 21
Sony 4k BRP
SVS SB-2000
Polk Sig. 20's
Polk FX500 surrounds
Cables-
Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable
Kitchen
Sonos zp90
Grant Fidelity tube dac
B&k 1420
lsi 9's -
You clearly did not know, and have not read what I am referring to. The EPA mandates that every municipal water plant publishes a "Consumer Confidence Report" every year regarding water quality. This has nothing to do with the organization "Consumer Reports". I've run a laboratory that does those tests, among other things. What town and state are you located in? I'll grab a copy of your local water plants consumer confidence report for you if you want. They're genuinely interesting and insightful. I'll even explain any questions you have that I might be able to help withOK, fortunately I have a annual subscription to Consumer Reports so I have read up on water filtration and now getting back to you.
First of all, I didn't read "Consumer Reports" as research..I have first hand knowledge, training, and experience in the (Industrial) field of water purification. 2nd, "Consumer Reports" doesn't even report on what we are talking about. Brita home filters (Carbon filters), sure..but those aren't what we're talking about. 3rd...I won't debate RO (Reverse Osmosis) because there's nothing to debate. You push a substance through a membrane and whatever is too large to be pushed through, is too large to be pushed through. Choose as small a particle size as you want, but at some point you can't even push through water...though "small particle pharmaceuticals" (IE: Smaller particles than water) will still pass through since their particles are smaller than that of water. So, you can never get perfectly perfect just plain jane "Water" from any method of filtration..not even RO. There, you got me to go off on a tangent. Happy now?So based on your statement "I'm not going to debate what I've already used the scientific method to prove in my own research"
should it be surmised that you won't debate RO because you have used scientific methods (which involves reading Consumer Reports) to prove your own research..
The only research needed was an understand of how bits are derived from their stored, analog, tangible form. Well, that and a few other minor things. Some questions don't need much research for correct answers. Like "Can you bang your head on a wall". Quite a bit less research than asking "Can you bang your head on a wall if you are bound in shackles at the following latitude/longitude on this date at this time, with an acceleration of this and a mass of that attached to your back with a shotgun hanging on your pinky...etc, etc, etc.". It can be as simple, or as intricate as you want it...and skewed as such. Statistics 101...but you have NOT done any research on "1:1 bit perfect copies" because you are engaging in a debate about if it is or is not possible?
You know what though? I'll go ahead and do some real-time research, right now. Just for kicks. Let's see if Habanero is right. He posted the following..and I'll be posting my results right afterwards..Habanero Monk wrote: »Attached is a 1.4MB Polk product manual that I have hashed with MD5.
If you are on a Windows machine download and install checksum for Windows:
64bit: http://corz.org/engine?section=windows&download=checksum_x64.zip
32bit: http://corz.org/engine?section=windows&download=checksum.zip
Download the attached PDF and hash file. Normally the hash file name format is filename.hash. I renamed to filename.hash.txt to make upload easier.
After installation of the checksum utility you can right click on the PDF and run checksum. Upload the .hash file back to this thread and we can compare hashes.
Ok, I installed the 64bit version of Checksum. Downloaded the attached PDF. Am running the checksum. And these are my results. Waiting to see if Habanero had the same results. If he does it indicates a 1:1 bit perfect copy. If not, then we can try again and see if it's truly possible, or not possible to make a bit perfect copy!
Results...
# made with checksum.. point-and-click hashing for windows. (64-bit edition)
# from corz.org.. http://corz.org/windows/software/checksum/
#
#md5#VanishingInWall_MNPR.pdf#2014.07.07@11.59:03
bee66dfff4a0c27dfd6ebbff0fc2112f *VanishingInWall_MNPR.pdf
Because some people don't believe (Or before this thread at least thought so) that ANY perfect 1:1 digital copies are possible. I don't play semantics, and I don't look for things where they're not...so if someone wants to think that this was "Flame Bait" then have at it. There's no right or wrong way to ask that question so long as it's not leaving any room for a grey-area debate or answer..which it's not. Even the most PC person has to learn that there's simply times where there is NO politically correct form. Hello, welcome to Humanity, on Earth.Also was interested in why you phrased your question "Are perfect 1:1 digital copies possible?" instead of phrasing it "Are all digital copies perfect?" because it could be surmised that the first one is more of a "flame bait" question than the second.Too many good quotes to list..waiting for some fresh ammo. -
Ok, I installed the 64bit version of Checksum. Downloaded the attached PDF. Am running the checksum. And these are my results. Waiting to see if Habanero had the same results. If he does it indicates a 1:1 bit perfect copy. If not, then we can try again and see if it's truly possible, or not possible to make a bit perfect copy!
Results...
# made with checksum.. point-and-click hashing for windows. (64-bit edition)
# from corz.org.. http://corz.org/windows/software/checksum/
#
#md5#VanishingInWall_MNPR.pdf#2014.07.07@11.59:03
bee66dfff4a0c27dfd6ebbff0fc2112f *VanishingInWall_MNPR.pdf
My original hash is in the original post and your's matches. -
Wow, interesting thread. Lot's of opinions and schools of thought about this poll isn't there?
My degree is in computer engineering just to give you a background on where I am coming from with this post - this doesn't mean I'm the expert at all with regard to this topic. I'll have to say that with computers, there is a lot of error correction to ensure that 1's and 0's stay intact in the digital realm. If that weren't the case, there would be a whole lot of issues with computer programs running on your machines and even more in an industry like banking, where they keep your account information. A bit off and you may have more money in your account or less money. Banks would never gamble on things being right 99% of the time, or even 99.9999% of the time. So it is very important that bits are accurate. Computer programs like Windows still come on a CD or DVD and when you install that operating system it is important that you have bit for bit accuracy. Compute programs aren't forgiving if a bit is wrong on the read or write. They won't run and your computer may crash. Ok, Windows crashes for me every once in awhile, but I chalk that up to MicroSoft.
So my thought was of course... bit for bit copies are pretty much always the case right?
A little research about audio bit for bit copies brings about some interesting articles. While I would say that performing a rip of CD would yield a bit for bit copy on a computer, there are variables such as the accuracy of the CD/DVD drive, the power of the laser, jitter and other things that could affect the outcome of the final file that results from the rip. I would say more often than not, the copy should be the same - but some things could affect it. If a computer is reading the file of a program cannot get the data right it will slow down the speed until the error correction yields an exact copy. If it can't, you usually get an error reading the disc that shows up on the screen. If you are ripping a CD without error correction turned on (which most people do), then I would say you can potentially bring over a copy that is not exact if the disc is dirty, has scratches or there are issues with the drive itself. In this case, the computer or drive will interpolate what it cannot read accurately.
Another issue brought up is the burning of CDs as an exact audio match. I believe DK brought this up in a post he had about the difference in CD-Rs he tested and how the sound was different. This can be attributed to the substrate being used in the CD-R (how easily a drive can make a 1 or 0), the power of the laser in the drive, and the speed at which the recording is being made. And then you have the actual CD player you are using to play the CD-R. Not all CD players read these disks the same either, depending on the disc. Here are some interesting articles about audio CD recording that talk to what some here think about the non-accurate bit for bit copy. There is merit into what has been discussed in this thread.
http://www.hughsnews.ca/faqs/understanding-cd-r-cd-rw/audio-recording - Last paragraph.
http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq04.html#S4-18
http://www.prismsound.com/m_r_downloads/cdinvest.pdf
http://www.srtl.co.uk/srtl/report.html - While I'm sure some of this is sales, it does bring up some good points about the media used.
Do I believe bit by bit copies are possible? Sure do - or there would be a lot of issues out there in the computer world alone. But I can also point to evidence that hardware, recording speed, CD-R media, error correction turned off, the player/DAC being used and other variances can play a role in causing audio recordings to not be EXACT copies or sound different. I think the CD-R media has a big impact on a final copy used in a CD player. But if the computer was to read the disc as a data disc, it would be fine as we are in the data domain. In the audio domain, you are dealing with digital to analog conversions which can vary based on what has been talked about earlier.
I think everyone here has points that are reflective of some part of what is described above.
Just my 2 cents.Speakers
Energy RC-70 Mains, Energy RC-LRC Center, Energy RC-R (x4) Rear Channels, Energy RC-R (x2) Front Effects
Polk 5jr+
Polk SDA 2B
Polk SDS 3.1TL
Equipment
Panamax 5510 Re-generator Power Conditioner
Yamaha RX-V3800 Receiver
Digital Sources: Sony CDP-X339ES CD Player, HHB CDR830 BurnIt Professional CD Recorder, Sony PS3, Oppo DV-983H DVD Player
Analog Sources: Sony TC-K890ES Cassette, Nakamichi DR-1 Cassette, Technics SL-7 Turntable -
Habanero Monk wrote: »My original hash is in the original post and your's matches.
I've booked a room for you two, have fun.Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk -
I've booked a room for you two, have fun.
If all 3 of our hashes match then you've got to jump in the bed as well. How's that for a bet?Too many good quotes to list..waiting for some fresh ammo. -
Again thanks for the response but you do raise another interesting question. You wouldn't happen to know what the name is of the specific pharmaceutical that is smaller than water?.I won't debate RO (Reverse Osmosis) because there's nothing to debate. You push a substance through a membrane and whatever is too large to be pushed through, is too large to be pushed through. Choose as small a particle size as you want, but at some point you can't even push through water...though "small particle pharmaceuticals" (IE: Smaller particles than water) will still pass through since their particles are smaller than that of water. So, you can never get perfectly perfect just plain jane "Water" from any method of filtration..not even RO. There, you got me to go off on a tangent. Happy now?
Also If I recall correctly ethanol (CH3CH2OH) which is larger (both its molar mass and molecular size) has not been successfully completely removed from water using RO. And to be clear what I mean be completely lets say less than 1% If you have a reference to research that shows that ethanol can be removed from water using RO to less then 1% I would be interested in reading it.
And finally to be fair and try and answer your question about my happiness.... Well lets just say I have been searching for some time to understand what happiness is and in my journey I have made many interesting discoveries but there continues to be one question that I seem to linger maybe a little to long on and that is "Do I have the capability of being happy?" But to be more in the moment, right now I am NOT happy because I had to wake up way before I really wanted to. -
Interesting response in PM to me from Amirm at Madrona Digital (AVS Forum and WBF forum). Also former MS exec in charge of the WASAPI (from kmixer) in Vista/Win7:
What DK is saying is incorrect. There is no way for noise to get introduced in file copies.
He welcomes anyone that want's a more explanation to hit him up at either AVS or WBF.
BlueFox posted in this thread at WBF so probably a good place to ask:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?14980-Does-a-file-with-jitter-keep-the-jitter-when-saved-to-a-hard-drive&highlight=bluefox -
Habanero Monk wrote: »What DK is saying is incorrect. There is no way for noise to get introduced in file copies.
You do realize how rediculous this sounds, right? Are you suggesting that a digital file is transported in an impervious vaccum? Are you suggesting that nothing affects a a digital file? That is, nothing (i.e. fast transient noise) affects the electrical pulses that make up the digital file? We are going backwards in this thread. We have already been through this. I'm sorry that you and some others feel that digital data defies the laws of physics, but that is simply not the case.
Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
"I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion."
My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....
"Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson
"Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee -
I didn't say that. Amir said two things:
Darque Knights understanding is incorrect
and
Anyone is welcome to go to the thread that BlueFox has started, a thread that tracks to what I have been saying, and post there and take in the information presented. Amir is an EE that would be considered a topical expert more so than DK.
Your understanding of this is simply not complete. I can only lead a horse to water.
I don't think BlueFox would join back into this thread with the same position that he held prior months ago given what I have seen from the thread he started at WBF. -
Habanero Monk wrote: »I didn't say that. Amir said two things:
Darque Knights understanding is incorrect
I'm glad that you found someone to agree with you, and that you found a forum that offers a warm and inviting environment for your ideas. Remember, it is always possible to find others who will agree with anything you say. You can find people who believe the earth is flat and Elvis still lives:
The Flat Earth Society
Poll: For A Few True Believers, Elvis Lives
I on the other hand, prefer to look for scientifically valid justification rather than the opinions of others.
What is scientifically valid is the following:
1. Any unwanted signal component is noise.
2. An signal, whether analog or digital, transported through a medium will end up as an approximation of the transmitted signal at the receiving point.
3. Converting an analog signal to digital furthers the approximation process (introduces noise) and converting the digital signal back to analog furthers it even more (introduces more noise).
4. Transporting the same digital file through different media can result in the bit values of the received file having different significant variations from the ideal nominal high and low voltage values. If transient interference is involved, the variations can be extreme.
5. Transporting a digital file through different media and storing a digital file on different media can result in variations significant enough to affect playback and significant enough to be audibly perceived after D/A conversion.
A. A "perfect" bit-for-bit copy of a commercial CD on a CD-R disk may play fine in one player and not play in another player, even though both players play the original disk.
B. A "perfect" bit-for-bit copy of a commercial CD on different types of CD-R disks may sound different from each other and different from the original CD, depending on the resolution of the playback equipment and the resolution of the listener's hearing.Habanero Monk wrote: »Anyone is welcome to go to the thread that BlueFox has started, a thread that tracks to what I have been saying, and post there and take in the information presented. Amir is an EE that would be considered a topical expert more so than DK.
By whom and by what criteria?Habanero Monk wrote: »Your understanding of this is simply not complete. I can only lead a horse to water.
It seems that what you are trying to lead "horses" to is Kool Aid and not water.
You remind me of another member of this forum who thinks everything in electrical engineering can be explained with Ohm's law.Habanero Monk wrote: »I don't think BlueFox would join back into this thread with the same position that he held prior months ago given what I have seen from the thread he started at WBF.
If that turns out to be true, will you feel like you have "won"?Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »I'm glad that you found someone to agree with you, and that you found a forum that offers a warm and inviting environment for your ideas. Remember, it is always possible to find others who will agree with anything you say. You can find people who believe the earth is flat and Elvis still lives:
The Flat Earth Society
Poll: For A Few True Believers, Elvis Lives
I on the other hand, prefer to look for scientifically valid justification rather than the opinions of others.
This isn't an opinion search. You've made several posts that pointed out the obviousness of your misunderstanding. Up to and including that computer data (audio, video, whatever) was a real time construct.DarqueKnight wrote: »A. A "perfect" bit-for-bit copy of a commercial CD on a CD-R disk may play fine in one player and not play in another player, even though both players play the original disk.
B. A "perfect" bit-for-bit copy of a commercial CD on different types of CD-R disks may sound different from each other and different from the original CD, depending on the resolution of the playback equipment and the resolution of the listener's hearing.
I'm inclined to agree that burned CD's suck in a larger existential sense. Time and technology have moved on.DarqueKnight wrote: »By whom and by what criteria?
That is a good point. I can only assume that BlueFox started the thread at WBF forum to seek a venue that could better answer his question with a more signal and less noise environment.DarqueKnight wrote: »It seems that what you are trying to lead "horses" to is Kool Aid and not water
The pursuit of understanding and knowledge isn't Kool Aid.DarqueKnight wrote: »If that turns out to be true, will you feel like you have "won"?
When you have a student that has a fundamentally flawed attitude in class that you are able to correct did you 'win'? Or did the student.
Based on the WBF thread I believe BlueFox, may be with interactions with me here, may have had a moment of introspection. Something made him start a very particular thread over there and not here.
I think BlueFox won and in more than a few ways.
I would like to see you post over there. It would be informative to say the least but I think you have a house of cards built up in this particular regard. BlueFox needed to hear this from more than just me for it to begin to form up for him. You are not not your own island in that regard either. -
How quickly we forget. All this nonsense started because somebody mentioned an Ethernet cable could make an audible difference. I got involved in that thread by hypothesizing that maybe jitter introduced by the cable could be a possible cause.
Anyway, nothing has been posted on any site to make me change my mind one way or the other in regard to the Ethernet cable issue. There are too many variables in that equation to give a definitive answer one way or the other. Personally, I suspect only in very few specific set ups will the cable matter, but that is only a guess. I do know if I ever do have networked audio the cables will be CAT 7, even though CAT 5 specs are adequate for music data transfers.
I started the thread on WBF because I had forgotten how data was encoded to store on a hard drive. I was reading an IBM paper on drive technology that stated they could guarantee no errors after the data was stored, but would only store what was given to them. That started me wondering if the encoding method for storing the data could somehow retain any jitter in the data. The answer is no.
Now back to the regular scheduled programming.Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
Habanero Monk wrote: »This isn't an opinion search. You've made several posts that pointed out the obviousness of your misunderstanding. Up to and including that computer data (audio, video, whatever) was a real time construct.
For example? I want to make sure you are not imagining things again.Habanero Monk wrote: »I'm inclined to agree that burned CD's suck in a larger existential sense. Time and technology have moved on.
According to you, 1:1 digital copies should be perfect, so how can a 1:1 burned CD with no "errors" suck?Habanero Monk wrote: »When you have a student that has a fundamentally flawed attitude in class that you are able to correct did you 'win'? Or did the student.
I don't make the acquisition of knowledge a contest, so there is nothing for anyone to "win". I don't go to class making bets with my students and insisting that they prove something to me. You are projecting your hang-ups on me.Habanero Monk wrote: »Based on the WBF thread I believe BlueFox, may be with interactions with me here, may have had a moment of introspection. Something made him start a very particular thread over there and not here.
Bluefox has chimed in, and it appears that he is not as introspective as you had hoped.Habanero Monk wrote: »I would like to see you post over there.
If it's that important to you to see my comments over there, you, and others, are welcome to quote me if you like.Habanero Monk wrote: »It would be informative to say the least but I think you have a house of cards built up in this particular regard. BlueFox needed to hear this from more than just me for it to begin to form up for him. You are not not your own island in that regard either.
I am a senior member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and a published author of peer-reviewed publications in the field of digital communications, and a reviewer of articles submitted to peer-reviewed IEEE journals, and a patent holder in the field of digital communications. Those are not the attributes of someone on an "island".
With regard to Bluefox, why would hearing something he disagrees with from another person "form things up" for him?Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
Habanero Monk wrote: »I didn't say that.
Actually, you did.Habanero Monk wrote: »What DK is saying is incorrect. There is no way for noise to get introduced in file copies.
Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
"I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion."
My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....
"Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson
"Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee
This discussion has been closed.