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

Habanero Monk

ZLTFUL wrote: »

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.

Habanero Monk

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.

DarqueKnight

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.

GospelTruth

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.

Habanero Monk

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.

DarqueKnight

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.

Habanero Monk

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.

Habanero Monk

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.