Does high quality digital cables matter?
Comments
-
Yeah right. You have clearly demonstrated your 'knowledge' over and over. :rolleyes:
You are dealing with people who understand the issues related to digital music files, while you obviously do not. Go back and actually read the link you posted about jitter. Read other links about jitter. Quit thinking you know everything because you have a 'Certificate'.
I'll let any points made on their own merit for any outsider. Quit thinking you know everything.
I'll await your answer on how jitter is 'part of the file'. I'll await your answer on how a file that passes CRC or MD5 HASH is different when transmitted over a BJC or AQ Ethernet cable. -
These packets will have no Ethernet errors, but will have musical errors. Yet you continue to ignore this. As DK said, a real scientist will have an open mind on these issues.
When an application is playing back audio, JRiver for instance, it's not playing data directly off the cable. It's playing it out of buffer. The default is 6 seconds of pre-buffer (up to 20).
This is an area set aside and roped off in RAM by the MMU. Once data is resident in RAM, the buffer is filled, the timing variance doesn't matter.
You are talking about audible jitter in a system were 6/10/20 seconds of playback is transferred in the millisecond and possibly quicker range. After the transfer has happened to fill the buffer regardless of jitter on a transfer that took place over a CAT5/6/7 cable that exceeds specs with out any signaling errors the only jitter that you no worry about is the RAM signalling.
Once the five gallon bucket is filled at a rate of 5 gallons a minute where you are taking out only 1 quart a minute to consume it doesn't matter if the rate of fill had some time variance. As long as that 5 gallon bucket doesn't go below 1 quart you aren't going to have issues.
Then it goes to the DAC over the USB (Jitter there) then it hits the re-clocking mechanism that attempts to get that last leg of jitter suppressed. In computer processing terms an Jitter on the network wire is way back in the rear view mirror. It's a non-starter in this Windows or Mac Client / Server scenario. -
That was a good read.Polk Fronts: RTi A7's
Polk Center: CSi A6
Polk Surrounds: FXi A6's
Polk Rear Surround: RTi4
Sub: HSU VTF-3 (MK1)
AVR: Yamaha RX-A2010
B&K Reference 200.7
TV: Sharp LC-70LE847U
Oppo BDP-103 -
Habanero Monk wrote: »Jitter is a REAL TIME phenomenon. Windows, Mac OSX, aren't real time. This stuff gets dumped to a buffer. It's just a type of storage medium. The next possible jitter is the signalling on a stick of RAM as it's read out.
Jitter isn't "part of the musical file".
Trust me, there's more jitter in music stored in 64k ReFS blocks than 4k NTFS blocks. I'm not sure why yet but you can hear the difference. I calculate it's 2db at 0 disk RPM, regardless of block size or file system. Night and day difference when I used my Kimber Kable Cat5e to transfer from the web to the disk. You should try it!
Jitter existing in tracks on a storage medium...at a standstill. Heck, that's even news to me!
Too many good quotes to list..waiting for some fresh ammo.
-
One of the things I continually stress is the importance of the noise performance of cables and components. With regard to Ethernet cables, which are UTP (unshielded twisted pair), one would think that environmental noise would be of concern...and it is.
A recent IEEE paper by Leersum et al, "Ethernet Susceptibility to Electric Fast Transients", which was published in the Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC Europe 2013), Brugge, Belgium, September 2-6, 2013, provided some insight:
Abstract
The effect of Electric Fast Transients (EFT) phenomena in an Ethernet interface set-up is investigated in order to get more insight in coupling and interference mechanisms, robustness and susceptibility levels of a typical Ethernet installation on board of a naval vessel. It is shown that already a small EFT pulse is capable of disturbing or disrupting Ethernet communication at protocol level, which makes this not just a matter of signal integrity. It seems that the protocol is not designed to handle EFT phenomena in an efficient way. We focused on the quality of the interface, i.e. cables, connectors and feed-thoughs. While affordable high quality cable
is readily available, it is more difficult to find low cost and robust connectors without a large variability in performance for EMC, but to decouple data handling electronics from disturbing transients is of paramount importance for interference free data communication. As expected, screened cables help to mitigate the interference, but only when the screens are properly connected on both sides.
Conclusion
It is shown that already a small EFT pulse is capable of disturbing or disrupting Ethernet communication at protocol level, which makes this not just a matter of signal integrity. It seems that the protocol is not designed to handle EFT phenomena in an efficient way. We focused on the quality of the interface, i.e. cables, connectors and feed-thoughs. While affordable high quality cable is readily available, it is more difficult to find low cost and robust connectors without a large variability in performance for EMC, but to decouple data handling electronics from disturbing transients is of paramount importance for interference free data communication. As expected, screened cables help to mitigate the interference, but only when the screens are properly connected on both sides. Further research will focus on the coexistence of power lines and Ethernet cables in the same conduits and on the use of low cost connectors.
A couple of important points from the paper:
An earlier study* that focused on crosstalk showed that EFT bursts on nearby power lines are very effective in causing interference and loss of data on Ethernet cables. The impact of these disturbances, referred to as EFT, on the performance of an Ethernet connection is further investigated.
and
It is expected that digital circuits are more likely to exhibit non-linear failure characteristics compared to the gradual degradation of analogue signals with increasing noise.
*T. Wijnands, “Analysis Report: Crosstalk in Cables", Thales Nederland B.V., Internship Report, July 2008.
Discussion
From what I have read so far, it appears that, as with analog signals, cable quality matters with Ethernet's digital signals. It seems that jitter is not the only gremlin that can affect the integrity of Ethernet signals.
More later...Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
Thanks Ray for the confirmation of what we are discussing from a credible source. Cable quality does matter in Ethernet cables. There is more to it than simply "meeting spec.". As I and some others have said in the past. "Meeting Spec." is the minimum level needed in a cable to have it work correctly. If you meet and far exceed "spec.", you will have further reduced EFT effects (and other negative effects including jitter) on the digital signal running through the Ethernet cable.
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 -
Madmax said it best, "Everything matters."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 -
Indeed Jesse. Madmax got it right......
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 -
increasing-the-sound-quality-of-your-music-by-switching-from-cat-5-networking-to-cat-7
"I have spent a good while thinking about this one, and I have a background in networking, but I cant work out why one Ethernet cable would sound different from another. In the case of speaker cables or HDMI, where the actual audio signal is transmitted, I can see how there might be a difference between cables. Likewise, I can see how the noisiness of the power source could play a big role. Packetized, error-checked digital data, though I just dont know.
Van Es really does seem adamant about a change in sound quality but as an audiophile, though, he must surely know that double-blind testing must be carried out if he wants his findings to be taken seriously. He needs to be blindfolded and then have someone else change the cables, to see if he can still hear the difference. Id also be very interested to see if Ethernet cables can affect the quality of compressed streams from Spotify, iTunes, or Rdio or whether its just super-high-quality 16/44, 24/96, and 24/192 recordings that are impacted."
Blindfolds?
I thought the "blind" in "blind tests" was just a figure of speech.:rolleyes:Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »I’d also be very interested to see if Ethernet cables can affect the quality of compressed streams from Spotify, iTunes, or Rdio — or whether it’s just super-high-quality 16/44, 24/96, and 24/192 recordings that are impacted."
Why was DSD (the highest resolution audio available today) not included in that list?DarqueKnight wrote: »Blindfolds?
I thought the "blind" in "blind tests" was just a figure of speech.:rolleyes:
They don't put "blind" in "blind tests" for nothing Ray!
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 -
DarqueKnight wrote: »Blindfolds?
I thought the "blind" in "blind tests" was just a figure of speech.:rolleyes:
So you found someone who doesn't understand blind testing...bravo!
If you were looking for people who don't understand blind testing, you really didn't need to leave this thread.They don't put "blind" in "blind tests" for nothing Ray!
See? Easy as that. -
DarqueKnight wrote: »From what I have read so far, it appears that, as with analog signals, cable quality matters with Ethernet's digital signals. It seems that jitter is not the only gremlin that can affect the integrity of Ethernet signals.
More later...
The difference is that while every bit of interferrence effects the output quality of an analog signal, interferrence and degradation within a certain range doesn't effect the final product of packetized data being transported on an ethernet cable. You'll either get the signal correctly, or you won't. There is no grey area. Like Habanero said, once the amplitude of the signal being carried on a digital line hit's the demarcation point for a solid 0 or 1 it's done. Amplitude has no effect on volume, frequency, or anything else that it would normally have in an analog signal...it's simply a signaling method to determine 0's and 1's for perfect reproduction. If the MD5 hash matches the source MD5 hash then there is NO variance in the file being output that wasn't in the source file to begin with. They are 1:1 bit copies. Perfect copies. It's impossible to have additional "Data" within that signal that wasn't there at the get go. IF there is anything there that wasn't in the source file it's being introduced along the way by means other than the computer system or network components, and to make matters more interesting it's not actually part of the signal nor is it within it..althought it can creep along with it..around/outside/within the actual cable being used to transport the digital signal but not actually reproduced within it. Things like electrical interferrence, ground interferrence, magnetic interfrrence, etc...and not things like routers, switches, or fibre. But regardless those are just using the cable for a carrier, and are not within the digital signal being decoded. They are creeping from cable to cable to your receiver to your tv, to whatever they can to cause interferrence where they can. Do not confuse those resulting specks in your tv's image as interferrence caused by the cable itself, or the digital stream that is being played back. That noise is an overlay, nothing within.Too many good quotes to list..waiting for some fresh ammo. -
Well, I see not much has changed around here. :P
-
So you found someone who doesn't understand blind testing...bravo!
If you were looking for people who don't understand blind testing, you really didn't need to leave this thread.
In your case, you wouldn't need to leave a mirror.
Audio is full of people who don't understand blind testing. I have written extensively on the misapplication of blind testing methods to stereo audio.
I am continually amused by the reactions I get when I point out the correct applications for certain blind tests and ask blind test cultists to scientifically justify their use for stereo audio.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »Audio is full of people who don't understand blind testing. I have written extensively on the misapplication of blind testing methods to stereo audio.
So what? You write a lot of things, doesn't make any of it true. -
DarqueKnight wrote: »Audio is full of people who don't understand blind testing. I have written extensively on the misapplication of blind testing methods to stereo audio.
Audio is also full of people who don't understand the digital domain, and the differences between digital and analog audio. Let me ask you something DQ...does a file on a hard drive contain Jitter?Too many good quotes to list..waiting for some fresh ammo. -
Audio is also full of people who don't understand the digital domain, and the differences between digital and analog audio. Let me ask you something DQ...does a file on a hard drive contain Jitter?
Not speaking for DK, but nobody ever said the stored file has jitter. Why would you ask that? Jitter can be added as the file is transfered from the drive to the device playing the file. Any link and/or circuitry between the drive and the DAC can add the jitter.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. -
Not speaking for DK, but nobody ever said the stored file has jitter.
Actually you did, in post 700 of this thread. -
Actually you did, in post 700 of this thread.
If I did then I was wrong. It is easy to make mistakes in these conversations.
Wait. I just reread that post, and I was specifically referring to the transfer of the data. So, at least in that post, I did not say that a file on a hard drive has jitter.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. -
Not speaking for DK, but nobody ever said the stored file has jitter. Why would you ask that?
Point in case ^Jitter can be added as the file is transfered from the drive to the device playing the file. Any link and/or circuitry between the drive and the DAC can add the jitter.
Exactly. But don't forget (And this is a fact) that every link or step along the way nullifies any jitter that was added by the previous step as jitter simply does not exist while outside of the real time domain. There is no jitter in a stored digital file. It can only be added *After* being "Unstored" and moved to a real time domain. But, the second it's stored again..poof..all jitter gone, erased, and reset to zero (Or technically to the same clocking as the master recording).
Here's a good article for everyone to read. Nice subjective look at the subject.
http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/02/jitter-does-it-matter.html
So to summarize something important to remember to is that Jitter only has meaning during the real-time ADC procedure. Physically Jitter can ONLY exist once there is some form of clock or timing device...so files on or in any storage medium (Hard disk, cloud storage, RAM memory/buffers) cannot have any jitter. Each time that the file is transferred and taken out of the real time domain, jitter that has been introduced is nullified. However, jitter that is recorded during the original Analog to Digital process (At the recording studio) cannot be fixed, corrected for, or removed. If jitter exists in the playback of an audio stream (Whether it's audible or not) it's either original recording jitter or jitter that was introduced in the very last step of digital/analog conversion before analog playback via the wires going to your speakers. Given that this is the case I would take a serious look at your DAC/AVR/Amps rather than playing the cable blame game...as the DAC/AVR/Amps are the only place that jitter heard during playback of audio could possibly be introduced. Every other step of the process effectively nullifies jitter since you are moving back and forth from the Real Time domain (Where jitter exists) to a domain where jitter doesn't (As a data file or digital data packets in a storage medium). Think about it..if this wasn't true then by the time any type of audio file was delivered to you it would be nothing but jitter. Especially after traveling through thousands of miles of fiber strands (Which are notorious for introducing jitter) in the digital domain before ever reaching you. Also consider that nearly every movie theater in the country now displays moving images and sound delivered via a cloud service. That is still true "Reference Level"...correct?Too many good quotes to list..waiting for some fresh ammo. -
Point in case ^
Well, I am not going to discuss semantics. If your reading comprehension skills are that weak then no wonder you are having such a hard time understanding why it is hypothetically possible for an Ethernet cable to affect the sound of a musical file.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. -
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 -
Let me ask you something DQ...does a file on a hard drive contain Jitter?
No, but a file on a hard drive can contain noise.The difference is that while every bit of interferrence effects the output quality of an analog signal, interferrence and degradation within a certain range doesn't effect the final product of packetized data being transported on an ethernet cable. You'll either get the signal correctly, or you won't. There is no grey area. Like Habanero said, once the amplitude of the signal being carried on a digital line hit's the demarcation point for a solid 0 or 1 it's done.
It's not quite that simple. "Ones" and "zeroes" are not being transmitted. Voltage pulses that correspond to logical high ("1") and logical low ("0") are being transmitted. The high and low voltage pulses have nominal values, for example low may be 2 V and high may be 12 V. In reality, high and low correspond to a range of values: low may be any value from 0-5 V and high may be any value 10-15 V.
Consider the sequence 1-0-0-1-1-0-1-1-0-1-1-1: Ideally this would be represented by the following pulse amplitudes according to the scheme given above:
12-2-2-12-12-2-12-12-2-12-12-12
A noise-affected version of the sequence is:
10-0-1-11-11-3-12-14-1-15-10-11
Here, the demarcation between logical high and logical low is preserved, but the signal looks a lot different than the ideal case.
What happens when a more seriously noise-affected version occurs?:
14.79-4.38-1.13-9.9-13.8-0.3-11.5-0.45-11.5-13.88-10.65
Here, the demarcation between logical high and logical low is preserved, but the signal now approaches the amplitude characteristics of random noise.
Each of these voltage pulse sequences are within spec with regard to amplitude:
A. 12-2-2-12-12-2-12-12-2-12-12-12
B. 10-0-1-11-11-3-12-14-1-15-10-11
C. 14.79-4.38-1.13-9.9-13.8-0.3-11.5-0.45-11.5-13.88-10.65
However, due to noise contamination, there are now three different versions of the pulse sequence. Consider that, in a typical stereo music file, you will be dealing with millions of bits, therefore, the grossly simplified cases represented by A, B, and C translate to three files with multiple millions of differences between them.
Questions:
1. Will all three files require the same processing effort?
2. When the D/A conversion is done, is one file going to be more prone to error than the others, or will they all convert to identical analog files?
Consider another case of the sequence contaminated by electric fast transient noise, so that the following sequence results:
16.79-4.38-5.13-9.9-15.8-6.3-11.5-0.45-11.5-10.88-15.65
The values in red are outside the ranges for high and low. What happens in this case?Amplitude has no effect on volume, frequency, or anything else that it would normally have in an analog signal...it's simply a signaling method to determine 0's and 1's for perfect reproduction. If the MD5 hash matches the source MD5 hash then there is NO variance in the file being output that wasn't in the source file to begin with. They are 1:1 bit copies. Perfect copies. It's impossible to have additional "Data" within that signal that wasn't there at the get go.
My example showed that multiple versions of the same file can result due to noise contamination. They were not perfect 1:1 bit copies, although each file maintained the proper relationship between logical high and logical low.IF there is anything there that wasn't in the source file it's being introduced along the way by means other than the computer system or network components, and to make matters more interesting it's not actually part of the signal nor is it within it..althought it can creep along with it..around/outside/within the actual cable being used to transport the digital signal but not actually reproduced within it. Things like electrical interferrence, ground interferrence, magnetic interfrrence, etc...and not things like routers, switches, or fibre. But regardless those are just using the cable for a carrier, and are not within the digital signal being decoded. They are creeping from cable to cable to your receiver to your tv, to whatever they can to cause interferrence where they can. Do not confuse those resulting specks in your tv's image as interferrence caused by the cable itself, or the digital stream that is being played back. That noise is an overlay, nothing within.
If there is a high degree of amplitude randomness in a digital signal, why wouldn't this affect processing efficiency, especially with regard to digital to analog conversion? If the randomness affects processing efficiency, why wouldn't this translate to audible differences?Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
I don't know about others, but I try to get information about a subject from a variety of sources. For example, jitter is a relatively common topic on audio forums. Here is an excellent post, and with good timing (ha ha) for this thread. Monk, I hope your write-up reaches this level of detail.
First paragraph:
"One of the common arguments made against jitter mattering is that: "the data is buffered and clock regenerated in the DAC so jitter won't be there." This makes all the sense in the world. Once we capture the data and then push it out at our will, there shouldn't be a problem. Well, there is a problem. A serious one. Buffering and clock regeneration do not deal with jitter by themselves. I have explained this in words many times but this time I am bringing in some specific data to hopefully put this myth to bed (yeh, wishful thinking )."
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?14957-Yet-another-look-at-Jitter-Clock-Extraction&p=270683&viewfull=1#post270683Lumin 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. -
DarqueKnight wrote: »No, but a file on a hard drive can contain noise.
Yes it can. Noise that is introduced to the file by everything from capacitors, resistors, transistors, etc. to ethernet cables.DarqueKnight wrote: »It's not quite that simple. "Ones" and "zeroes" are not being transmitted. Voltage pulses that correspond to logical high ("1") and logical low ("0") are being transmitted. The high and low voltage pulses have nominal values, for example low may be 2 V and high may be 12 V. In reality, high and low correspond to a range of values: low may be any value from 0-5 V and high may be any value 10-15 V.
Consider the sequence 1-0-0-1-1-0-1-1-0-1-1-1: Ideally this would be represented by the following pulse amplitudes according to the scheme given above:
12-2-2-12-12-2-12-12-2-12-12-12
A noise-affected version of the sequence is:
10-0-1-11-11-3-12-14-1-15-10-11
Here, the demarcation between logical high and logical low is preserved, but the signal looks a lot different than the ideal case.
What happens when a more seriously noise-affected version occurs?:
14.79-4.38-1.13-9.9-13.8-0.3-11.5-0.45-11.5-13.88-10.65
Here, the demarcation between logical high and logical low is preserved, but the signal now approaches the amplitude characteristics of random noise.
Each of these voltage pulse sequences are within spec with regard to amplitude:
A. 12-2-2-12-12-2-12-12-2-12-12-12
B. 10-0-1-11-11-3-12-14-1-15-10-11
C. 14.79-4.38-1.13-9.9-13.8-0.3-11.5-0.45-11.5-13.88-10.65
However, due to noise contamination, there are now three different versions of the pulse sequence. Consider that, in a typical stereo music file, you will be dealing with millions of bits, therefore, the grossly simplified cases represented by A, B, and C translate to three files with multiple millions of differences between them.
Questions:
1. Will all three files require the same processing effort?
2. When the D/A conversion is done, is one file going to be more prone to error than the others, or will they all convert to identical analog files?
Consider another case of the sequence contaminated by electric fast transient noise, so that the following sequence results:
16.79-4.38-5.13-9.9-15.8-6.3-11.5-0.45-11.5-10.88-15.65
The values in red are outside the ranges for high and low. What happens in this case?
Your example above does a phenominal job of demonstrating exactly why the ideas of "digital transfer is "bit perfect"" and "It's an exact copy of the original file" are falsehoods. There are absolutely no perfect, exact copies of electical signals. there is always degredation to higher or lower degrees.DarqueKnight wrote: »My example showed that multiple versions of the same file can result due to noise contamination. They were not perfect 1:1 bit copies, although each file maintained the proper relationship between logical high and logical low.
Exaclty Ray. Also, I wanted to point out that the more times a file is copied, the more error is introduced to the file (to varyingdegrees as in your example above). After the files is copied enough times (fewer for higher indroduction of error, and more times for lower introduction of error) the more audible the errors become when listening to the file.DarqueKnight wrote: »If there is a high degree of amplitude randomness in a digital signal, why wouldn't this affect processing efficiency, especially with regard to digital to analog conversion? If the randomness affects processing efficiency, why wouldn't this translate to audible differences?
I know it was rhetorical, but it would (translate to audible differences).
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 -
Jitter can be present in the original recording and this can never be mitigated. It's a permanent fixture to the recording unless they make a new digital master."Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Puritan Audio PSM136 Pwr Condtioner & Classic PC's | Legend L600 | Roon Nucleus 1 w/LPS - Tubes add soul!
-
Audio is also full of people who don't understand the digital domain, and the differences between digital and analog audio. Let me ask you something DQ...does a file on a hard drive contain Jitter?
Yes, it absolutely CAN.
H9
P.s. Villian and Habanero you guys have lots to learn about digital audio playback."Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Puritan Audio PSM136 Pwr Condtioner & Classic PC's | Legend L600 | Roon Nucleus 1 w/LPS - Tubes add soul! -
Yes, it absolutely CAN.
They were talking about packet jitter, which only arises in digital transmission. You are correct that sampling jitter, which is a possible artifact of A/D or D/A conversion, will become a noise characteristic of a digital file.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »They were talking about packet jitter, which only arises in digital transmission. You are correct that sampling jitter, which is a possible artifact of A/D or D/A conversion, will become a noise characteristic of a digital file.
To be fair he asked if jitter could be present in a file on hard drive. I answered as asked. Can't help if the person posing the question isn't articulate enough to narrow down a vague question. And yes, I have been following this thread (even though they are all over the board) to know what he might have been getting at. But I like to deal with the specific and not the general. His question was asked in a general way."Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Puritan Audio PSM136 Pwr Condtioner & Classic PC's | Legend L600 | Roon Nucleus 1 w/LPS - Tubes add soul! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »One of the things I continually stress is the importance of the noise performance of cables and components. With regard to Ethernet cables, which are UTP (unshielded twisted pair), one would think that environmental noise would be of concern...and it is.
You certainly need to apply the correct cable to the correct application.
A recent IEEE paper by Leersum et al, "Ethernet Susceptibility to Electric Fast Transients", which was published in the Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC Europe 2013), Brugge, Belgium, September 2-6, 2013, provided some insight:
Conclusion
It is shown that already a small EFT pulse is capable of disturbing or disrupting Ethernet communication at protocol level, which makes this not just a matter of signal integrity. It seems that the protocol is not designed to handle EFT phenomena in an efficient way. We focused on the quality of the interface, i.e. cables, connectors and feed-thoughs. While affordable high quality cable is readily available, it is more difficult to find low cost and robust connectors without a large variability in performance for EMC, but to decouple data handling electronics from disturbing transients is of paramount importance for interference free data communication. As expected, screened cables help to mitigate the interference, but only when the screens are properly connected on both sides. Further research will focus on the coexistence of power lines and Ethernet cables in the same conduits and on the use of low cost connectors.
A couple of important points from the paper:
An earlier study* that focused on crosstalk showed that EFT bursts on nearby power lines are very effective in causing interference and loss of data on Ethernet cables. The impact of these disturbances, referred to as EFT, on the performance of an Ethernet connection is further investigated.
and
It is expected that digital circuits are more likely to exhibit non-linear failure characteristics compared to the gradual degradation of analogue signals with increasing noise.
*T. Wijnands, Analysis Report: Crosstalk in Cables", Thales Nederland B.V., Internship Report, July 2008.
Discussion
From what I have read so far, it appears that, as with analog signals, cable quality matters with Ethernet's digital signals. It seems that jitter is not the only gremlin that can affect the integrity of Ethernet signals.
More later...[/QUOTE]
I'll get that paper from the research library in the next day or two. I'm curious as to what connector type they are using. The industry for CAT7 was primed for GG45 or Tera Connectors as a new standard but vendors dug heals in for the standard 8 pin that is common.
I'll also be curious how much UTP vs STP or STP wrapped FTP cabling is used in a Navy ship or those that insist on running your LV cabling next to power. Did all the interconnects pass certification? Did they find any brands or model of connectors that were consistent?
Are ships of such a nature that HV and LV cabling need to share the same conduit?
We don't run Ethernet parallel to any power. 3 foot minimum is our separation when it comes even close (common wall etc). If anyone is really worried then they should run certified STP.
So what does this all mean for audio enthusiast that either don't live on a Navy ship or run their Ethernet on top of their house wiring?
This discussion has been closed.