Poll: Are perfect 1:1 copies possible in the digital domain?
Comments
-
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.
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 -
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........
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 -
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. -
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. -
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. -
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 -
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.Too many good quotes to list..waiting for some fresh ammo.
-
Habanero Monk wrote: »I understand the house of cards you have built up here. Even EE's can be incorrect.
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.
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.
Fortunately, I don't have to ask if anyone else sees this because I know they already do. Congratulations on your self defecating posts. (Yes...I meant to say that you have $#!+ on yourself.)"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 -
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: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. -
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: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 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.Source: Bluesound Node 2i - Preamp/DAC: Benchmark DAC2 DX - Amp: Parasound Halo A21 - Speakers: MartinLogan Motion 60XTi - Shop Rig: Yamaha A-S501 Integrated - Shop Spkrs: Elac Debut 2.0 B5.2
-
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: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. -
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 wrote: »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.
Thanks. I make my mom proud every time I show her these threads. My wife too.
Respect you've shown me? How many times have you said I am clueless or don't know what I am talking about?
The only time I call you out is when you blatantly contradict yourself, like above.
So because I call bulls#it on the bulls#itter, that makes me somehow disrespectful? Grow some thicker skin kid. I call 'em how I see 'em. And it would appear, that since you only have William2 and Villain backing you up...well, it just reinforces those points.
As for backing out, find a post where I even hinted at backing out of your contrived "test". I am sorry that I prefer to be a part of something bigger with my free time this summer than your "I have to be right at any costs" moronic pursuits. But backing out? Not at all. Once my obligations to real professionals is finished, I will be happy to deal with you."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 -
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: -
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 ArticleJitter : 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.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 -
Grow some thicker skin kid. I call 'em how I see 'em. And it would appear, that since you only have William2 and Villain backing you up...well, it just reinforces those points.
If we are going to be fair You could try some thicker skin and post in BlueFox's thread at WBF and look at things from a different perspective with some input from other veterans.
Amir BTW is the guy that brought WASAPI to fruition while at MicroSoft. He's a degreed EE and I believe even has written college texts on the Unix operating system. Certainly doesn't hurt to get another view point in.
I'm not saying he's right or wrong. But he does seem to make more salient and cogent points. Listening to what he has to say doesn't cost you a dime and it may change the way you approach the subject. -
GospelTruth wrote: »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
That has always been my understanding. The data is intact. What you have is a mechanism problem where it simply may have a problem with a pit that isn't clearly defined or how a particular mechanism punched the dye layer out.
And that all goes back to my statement about CD Writers and then CD's in general being a very old technology with inherent flaws.
I've yet to see anywhere near the arguments for same data transferred around via download or copied over the network. -
Habanero Monk wrote: »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?
If you want to have a discussion about this, you should quote my actual statement(s), not your interpretation.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 are the one that used burned CD's as an example.
Are you saying that burned CD's are not 1:1 copies? If no errors are detected, why wouldn't they be 1:1? Furthermore, why will a "perfect" 1:1 burned CD play fine in one player and not play in another? I mean, there are no differences between the original and the burned copy if they are 1:1 right? Bits are bits, right?Habanero Monk wrote: »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.
I was talking about conversations on an Internet forum and you tried to relate that to classroom discussions at a university. It is a pity that you cannot discern the vast difference between the two.Habanero Monk wrote: »Even EE's can be incorrect.
True. That is how I earned a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, buy proving that a prior widely-held concept in digital communications was incorrect.Habanero Monk wrote: »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.
You can't square it because you apparently don't have the required depth of understanding.Habanero Monk wrote: »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.
If an adult explains where babies come from to a two year old, the two year old would think the explanation "fell short". They wouldn't be able to grasp "how the baby got inside of mommie and why it has to stay in there for so long". Explaining the mechanisms of childbirth would appear to the two year old to be a made up story and grasping at straws. The two year old would much rather believe that babies came from a store, the hospital, or that the stork brought it.Habanero Monk wrote: »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.
The points you are struggling with were clearly defined some time ago. However, since they do not agree with your belief that there cannot possibly be any audible difference in Ethernet cables, you conveniently dismiss them.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
Habanero Monk wrote: »That has always been my understanding. The data is intact. What you have is a mechanism problem where it simply may have a problem with a pit that isn't clearly defined or how a particular mechanism punched the dye layer out.
As I've read this thread, I find there are two opinions here on what bit perfect means. From a data perspective (and how I tend to see things) is that the data (logical 1's and 0's) is perfect on a copy. However, the other view is that the data is no longer a perfect rendition of how the data actually physically appeared on the source disc. That thought is correct also. My point in putting those "articles" out there is that each person is right depending on their given perspective. I believe DK is right in that making a copy of a disc sounds different depending on the CD medium he used as well as the drives he used to burn the discs. However, I would also say the representation of those 1's and 0's (data) is the same, but as the articles point out, the clock used by the recorder is not the same clock that was used to master the original CD. So how a pit is burned and the distance between pits with the new clock will differ from the original. The data is still in tack however. Different players may read the new disc differently based on the clock of the player being used.
I did find it interesting that a CD that may sound terrible on a player can be extracted and burned to another disc and it could sound better depending on the clock of the burner. What may have been a poorly clocked master can be corrected and not have as much of an issue on the copy.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 -
DarqueKnight wrote: »If you want to have a discussion about this, you should quote my actual statement(s), not your interpretation.
My response nor what I wrote had anything to do with you. It's clear what my response was and whom it was to.DarqueKnight wrote: »Are you saying that burned CD's are not 1:1 copies? If no errors are detected, why wouldn't they be 1:1? Furthermore, why will a "perfect" 1:1 burned CD play fine in one player and not play in another? I mean, there are no differences between the original and the burned copy if they are 1:1 right? Bits are bits, right?
Not sure what this has to do with the price of tea in China. Perfect 1:1 copies are possible. In response to your insistence on narrowing scope to burned CD's I believe I offered to host a server where one could download two of the same file:
One ripped from a pressed original CD and the other 5 copies out and have someone use Foobar's comparitor feature and post back their response. Am I being somehow unfair? It's 100% offered in the spirit of contribution. It really is.DarqueKnight wrote: »I was talking about conversations on an Internet forum and you tried to relate that to classroom discussions at a university. It is a pity that you cannot discern the vast difference between the two.
You aren't 'talking about conversations that take place on an Internet forum'. You asked me if someone came away with another understanding or realization if I somehow 'won'. I think anyone in any learning medium, whether the traditional classroom, a library card, an internet forum, or internship, what have you, learns something worth of value is the person that won. Not the person that helped them.DarqueKnight wrote: »You can't square it because you apparently don't have the required depth of understanding.
So you are stating, for the record, that transmitting data across the network, and that play back of data at the speakers, that the DATA transmit portion is real-time? If you were correct you would have provided something to back it up with.DarqueKnight wrote: »If an adult explains where babies come from to a two year old, the two year old would think the explanation "fell short". They wouldn't be able to grasp "how the baby got inside of mommie and why it has to stay in there for so long". Explaining the mechanisms of childbirth would appear to the two year old to be a made up story and grasping at straws. The two year old would much rather believe that babies came from a store, the hospital, or that the stork brought it.
If you can take liberties with pointing out the difference between a University classroom and and Internet forum I'll avail myself of the same and point out the difference that you seem to believe you are Mommie with what you presented and as of yet failed to prove any point.
How about this: Go to WBF, present to the EE's there what you presented to me here (Fast Transient Noise, the article about error on Data Networks on Navy ships, Your shipping of car parts analogy). If you somehow manage to get your point across there and straight up get same agreement on the Data portion of Ethernet Data Networking then I will publicly bow out here.
Also the debate isn't straight up as you seem to think I am making it. I could certainly see in a odd situation where a properly installed switch and shielded CAT5/6 would bring the noise floor down. I have never said it couldn't. But it isn't the data portion that is the difference because you can at some point unplug the cable and be free of it. I've even made the point that STP cable is downright affordable and one should go ahead and avail themselves of it. -
Habanero Monk wrote: »If we are going to be fair You could try some thicker skin and post in BlueFox's thread at WBF and look at things from a different perspective with some input from other veterans.
Amir BTW is the guy that brought WASAPI to fruition while at MicroSoft. He's a degreed EE and I believe even has written college texts on the Unix operating system. Certainly doesn't hurt to get another view point in.
I'm not saying he's right or wrong. But he does seem to make more salient and cogent points. Listening to what he has to say doesn't cost you a dime and it may change the way you approach the subject.
Actually, I have read every single page and post of the thread you posted. And you know what? It hasn't changed the fact that I still know what I hear and I let my own ears decide for me.
I also acknowledge that viewpoints outside of my own exist but I don't take them as the gospel truth. Especially when we are discussing *THEORY*.
the·o·ry
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural the·o·ries.
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
3. Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.
Too many times are theories passed as fact because they show up in a book.
String theory versus loop quantum gravity...both found in physics texts and both well postulated but still theories.
Hell, if we want to, one could argue that based on the laws of thermodynamics, identical digital copies are impossible because at anything above zero degrees kelvin, entropy occurs, however minute.
I know who Amir is. I have read his work for years. But that doesn't change the fact that he doesn't know everything and his word isn't law. And using the argument of "he has written college texts on Unix" is like saying "If you have 4 pencils and I have 7 apples, how many pancakes will fit on the roof? Purple, because aliens don't wear hats.""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 -
Habanero Monk wrote: »How about this: Go to WBF, present to the EE's there what you presented to me here (Fast Transient Noise, the article about error on Data Networks on Navy ships, Your shipping of car parts analogy). If you somehow manage to get your point across there and straight up get same agreement on the Data portion of Ethernet Data Networking then I will publicly bow out here.
How about this: you stand on your own brain and research and stop deflecting by asking me to go to another forum to continue a discussion started here. If you have great confidence in the knowledge of WBF members, you should be spending your time there rather than here. It's a shame you don't realize how silly you look by saying "I will only agree with you if you can get other people somewhere else to agree with you". Either what I say makes sense to you or it does not. You keep asking others to "prove" their points, but the only proof you seem willing to accept is the opinions of another group of people on another forum.Habanero Monk wrote: »Also the debate isn't straight up as you seem to think I am making it. I could certainly see in a odd situation where a properly installed switch and shielded CAT5/6 would bring the noise floor down.
I'm glad you are able to grasp some portion of what I and others have said here. Good luck with your studies.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »How about this: you stand on your own brain and research and stop deflecting by asking me to go to another forum to continue a discussion started here. If you have great confidence in the knowledge of WBF members, you should be spending your time there rather than here. It's a shame you don't realize how silly you look by saying "I will only agree with you if you can get other people somewhere else to agree with you". Either what I say makes sense to you or it does not. You keep asking others to "prove" their points, but the only proof you seem willing to accept is the opinions of another group of people on another forum.
I'm glad you are able to grasp some portion of what I and others have said here. Good luck with your studies.
I've already provided more than a few papers on PAM/MLT-3 encoding. Papers from Texas Instruments etc...
I think it's interesting that I certainly bring up the references you provided. Did you read anything I provided or is it only a one way street with you? Can't say I didn't try.
As a matter of fact I've provided more material support in that form and up to and including a video showing audio playing back after the cable has been removed.
Now, correct me if I am wrong, have you ever come off the 'Ethernet Audio Transmit' is real time? There can only be one person correct and I don't think you have made your case here.
Point being your recalcitrant nature prevents you from trying to stand your position as the 'visiting team' as well as here. Here the normal adherents will rally to you but get into another place where you could experience some disequilibrium speaking with an authority on the matter pointing out the flaws in your thinking, well that just wouldn't do.
Don't worry I understand, based on what you have presented: Some Indian audio forum, some paper on a ship with network and power lines ran together, that your position is tenuous at best and the less exposure to your fundamentally flawed position the better you can look in this neck of the Internet. It's understandable. -
DarqueKnight wrote: »
I'm glad you are able to grasp some portion of what I and others have said here. Good luck with your studies.
It's certainly not any concession other than if those are the measures that need be taken to get good audio you have much bigger problems in the listening environment that need to be tended to.
You certainly don't need a $350 or even $89 Ethernet cable to fix those issues. They aren't even data issues. You would still have a bit perfect copy.
This discussion has been closed.