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

drselect

villian wrote: »

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.

tonyb

This thread makes me want to.....

villian

drselect wrote: »

OK, fortunately I have a annual subscription to Consumer Reports so I have read up on water filtration and now getting back to you.

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 with

drselect wrote: »

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..

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?

drselect wrote: »

..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?

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.

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

drselect wrote: »

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.

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.

Habanero Monk

villian wrote: »

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.

GospelTruth

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.

F1nut

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.

villian

F1nut wrote: »

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?

drselect

villian wrote: »

.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?

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?
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.

Habanero Monk

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

headrott

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.

Habanero Monk

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.

DarqueKnight

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"?

Habanero Monk

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.

BlueFox

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.

DarqueKnight

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?

headrott

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.

headrott

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You are projecting your hang-ups on me.

Unfortuantely Ray, this psychological craft is the most used in todays society. It is used from the President of the United States of America "down" to your local grocery store.

F1nut

DarqueKnight wrote: »

According to you, 1:1 digital copies should be perfect, so how can a 1:1 burned CD with no "errors" suck?

Ya give 'em enough rope........

Habanero Monk

BlueFox wrote: »

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.

So when Amir tells you that:

It is *impossible* for it to be what you are saying, i.e. jitter being introduced in digital domain and accumulating.

The above is not like other matters in audio. If that fundamental aspect is not true, you are invalidating the entire field of digital design. It is not even subject to arguing let alone be true

I think it funny that you totally ignored this. There are multiple topical discussions going on. Posters there even made sure to fan you back from the plate, so to speak, because they were concerned you conflating the issues of data transmission over Ethernet and RLL encoding on a hard drive.

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

For example? I want to make sure you are not imagining things again.

Who's imagining things: You are the one that thought packet data that happened to carry audio was 'wide band' and 'real time'. Your words, not mine.

Are imagining never saying such?

DarqueKnight wrote: »

According to you, 1:1 digital copies should be perfect, so how can a 1:1 burned CD with no "errors" suck?

1:1 digital copies are perfect. If the copy is 1:1.2 then it's not. Burned CD's can be problematic when they don't burn 1:1.

You are the one that used burned CD's as an example.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

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.

You asked about winning. I find it odd that a student of yours that has a eureka moment and it can't be a win for them.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Bluefox has chimed in, and it appears that he is not as introspective as you had hoped.

His loss if all the information that he has been clearly given hasn't registered for him.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

If it's that important to you to see my comments over there, you, and others, are welcome to quote me if you like.

I understand the house of cards you have built up here. Even EE's can be incorrect.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

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

Trying to square your vast knowledge and experience with the fact that you thought computer packet data that contained audio was a real time phenomenon.

The closest you have come, and still fell short, is a paper citing a study of Ethernet and power cabling being ran together on maritime vessels. I honestly expected more from a veteran than grasping at straws.

I would like to see a few EE's go through a discussion about this as it will ultimately further understanding and provide more clearly defined points.

Habanero Monk

headrott wrote: »

Actually, you did.

Amir said that in a PM to me at AVS Forum. And the matter of the fact is: no one has presented a shred of evidence that noise is part of the file.

Habanero Monk

BlueFox wrote: »

I started the thread on WBF because I had forgotten how data was encoded to store on a hard drive.

Trying to square the above with what you posted in thread at WBF:

Thanks for the replies. What I am ultimately trying to determine is why some people hear a difference between Ethernet cables.

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?14980-Does-a-file-with-jitter-keep-the-jitter-when-saved-to-a-hard-drive&p=271329&viewfull=1#post271329

villian

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Amir said that in a PM to me at AVS Forum. And the matter of the fact is: no one has presented a shred of evidence that noise is part of the file.

The only hard evidence presented in this thread has proven that 1:1, perfect, digital copies DO exist...and that upon inspection noise is not a part of the file. At least it was not present in the file that I downloaded and checked. Just a PDF file.

Habanero Monk

ZLTFUL wrote: »

Amir is an EE. But you take his word as gospel.
Then you say even EEs can be incorrect.
Then you want more EEs involved in the discussion.

I'm not taking his word as gospel. What I am saying is he is somehow able to make a better 360 degree response to questions involving Ethernet (computer data) derived audio than DK. DK has been more of a Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt type respondent than any thing of real merit that I have seen up to this point.

May be Amir will have a different understanding, may be DK will afterwards. I would certainly be interested in the conversation.

The entire point of having a conversation there is to realize the benefits of moderation in that this isn't tolerated as it's a personal attack due to having no leg to stand on:

ZLTFUL wrote: »

Congratulations on your self defecating posts. (Yes...I meant to say that you have $#!+ on yourself.)

You're a really classy individual.

Let me know if you are backing out of the September 27th date. So far I've treated you with much more respect than you seem able to show.

F1nut

Habanero Monk wrote: »

1:1 digital copies are perfect. If the copy is 1:1.2 then it's not. Burned CD's can be problematic when they don't burn 1:1.

You should be a politician. :rolleyes:

steveinaz

I don't believe in unicorns, so I don't waste time searching for one, to prove myself right. Like I said earlier, some people can make tying a shoe a complicated task.

BlueFox

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Trying to square the above with what you posted in thread at WBF:

You won't. You continually demonstrate that your reading comprehension skills are non-existent. And then you wonder why you are called a troll. :rolleyes:

Habanero Monk

BlueFox wrote: »

You won't. You continually demonstrate that your reading comprehension skills are non-existent. And then you wonder why you are called a troll. :rolleyes:

You said two diametrically opposed things. I just pointed out what I thought to be a discrepancy.

If you were ultimately trying to determine is why some people hear a difference between Ethernet cables.

Then why not make the thread about that? I simply thought you went about determining why some people hear a difference in Ethernet cables in, I guess, and odd manner.

Anyways I am responding directly to you in thread at WBF now.

Habanero Monk

ZLTFUL wrote: »

Respect you've shown me? How many times have you said I am clueless or don't know what I am talking about?

You are welcome to the forum search function but I don't think I've resorted to ad-hom attacks. I may have responded in kind but sauce that is good on goose is equally good on gander.

I have certainly said to people that they have a fundamental misunderstanding. That isn't even in the same league as what you just posted.

Not only that: I've went on to post why. I even went so far as to shoot a screen cast with Music playing and no network connectivity as an example. I've been extremely cordial with you.

I can not change the way others act. I can only change how I respond. Why are you participating in a 'Contrived Test'? You contributed to it's design, the number of samples, etc... It's OUR contrived test at this point :biggrin:

GospelTruth

Interesting Q/A topical discussions from Bob Katz. Link below, navigate to J for Jitter and read what he has posted. In dealing with the CD medium, the clock has more to deal with the reasons some may hear differences rather than the actual data being "different".

http://www.digido.com/audio-faq.html#

See topics for Jitter on a CD and Jitter : A Clarification of my Article

Jitter : A Clarification of my Article

I've heard terms such as pit jitter and land jitter, are these what you're referring to?

Pit and land jitter on the CD may or may not be the cause of the differences we are hearing. Some other mechanism on the CD (size of pits, not necessarily the spacing of pits) may be causing the servo mechanism in the player to be more jittery. It is definitely not data errors. Research has shown that these CDs which we claim to sound different have identical data. But part of the problem may be due to error correction, with the error correction system causing problems, again by power supply coupling. Very far-fetched argument, yet to be proved. Same with the servo mechanism leaking into the power supply for the output crystal...engineers have found a 25 cent power-supply bypass capacitor in the digital section to do wonders on the audio quality, so this is pointing to the reasons.

...

Also remember that what I said in my article remains true: that you can copy from a CD that supposedly sounds "degraded" through a SCSI interface back to another CDR or to a hard drive, then cut another SCSI CDR, and the end result can sound better than the original if the new writer is better than the original writer! Jitter is NEVER transferred with the data to a new medium, if a clock is not involved. And SCSI does not involve a clock. Jitter is strictly an interface phenomenon, whenever a clock is involved.

Jitter on a CD

He also states that a 99th generation copy of CD is apparently identical to the original. But then talks about the degradation of making CDRs at 4x speed vs. 2x speed. Please help me reconcile this.

The data is identical... It's important to separate the message (the data) from the messenger (the clock).

It's all in the playback of the last disc in the chain, Paul! The "old" clock is NEVER transferred on each copy, only the data. No matter what speed you write at, there is a new writing master clock in the CD recorder that determines the spacing of the pits on the newly written CD.

But each time you copy, that clock is not transferred through the SCSI barrier of the next CD Recorder. I will have to write about this in more detail and diagram it for my readers, hopefully soon...

And each playback is a new... if the clock of the final playback is irregular, you will have jitter on the final playback of the last generation.

But you can clean that up yet again and start the whole cycle all over again.