al7478:Interestingly, i believe creationsim is more or less disproved by the existence of simon cowell.
Though it would seem to his fans that he provides weekly proof of a higher being with the power over their fate not only existing, but being among us; Brucie, meanwhile, just proves there is such a thing as eternal life.
Though it would seem to his fans that he provides weekly proof of a higher being with the power over their fate not only existing, but being among us; Brucie, meanwhile, just proves there is such a thing as eternal life.
Yep, my post was a gentle wind-up.
Peeps can believe their ears when discussing jitter in ADC/DAC and anything in the analogue domain. In the digital domain there's only 1s and 0s, bits are bits (*)
(*) Except in Denon's parallel universe where they can sell the Denon AKDL1 Dedicated Link Cable for $500. Sweet!
Peeps can believe their ears when discussing jitter in ADC/DAC and anything in the analogue domain. In the digital domain there's only 1s and 0s, bits are bits (*)
(*) Except in Denon's parallel universe where they can sell the Denon AKDL1 Dedicated Link Cable for $500. Sweet!
idc
Well-known member
amcluesent:
Yep, my post was a gentle wind-up.
amcluesent:
Peeps can believe their ears when discussing jitter in ADC/DAC and anything in the analogue domain. In the digital domain there's only 1s and 0s, bits are bits.
The 1s and 0s argument is too simplistic, for example have a read through this;
http://www.qed.co.uk/1/news/hdmi_explained.htm
which to my mind shows that there is a lot more going on than just the transfer of 1s and 0s. Hence the numerous and credible reports that digital can and does sound different.
Yep, my post was a gentle wind-up.
amcluesent:
Peeps can believe their ears when discussing jitter in ADC/DAC and anything in the analogue domain. In the digital domain there's only 1s and 0s, bits are bits.
The 1s and 0s argument is too simplistic, for example have a read through this;
http://www.qed.co.uk/1/news/hdmi_explained.htm
which to my mind shows that there is a lot more going on than just the transfer of 1s and 0s. Hence the numerous and credible reports that digital can and does sound different.
>Hence the numerous and credible reports that digital can and does sound different.<
I think the cause of this is well known. Noobs burn-in their digital cables using a bi-directional protocol like TCP making the school-boy error that the return ACK packets cause premature burning-in of the return path. Audiophiles know that with a directional digital cable you should only use stateless protocols like ICMP to avoid over-burning the return path.
I think the cause of this is well known. Noobs burn-in their digital cables using a bi-directional protocol like TCP making the school-boy error that the return ACK packets cause premature burning-in of the return path. Audiophiles know that with a directional digital cable you should only use stateless protocols like ICMP to avoid over-burning the return path.
idc
Well-known member
amcluesent:
>Hence the numerous and credible reports that digital can and does sound different.<
I think the cause of this is well known. Noobs burn-in their digital cables using a bi-directional protocol like TCP making the school-boy error that the return ACK packets cause premature burning-in of the return path. Audiophiles know that with a directional digital cable you should only use stateless protocols like ICMP to avoid over-burning the return path.
Eh?
>Hence the numerous and credible reports that digital can and does sound different.<
I think the cause of this is well known. Noobs burn-in their digital cables using a bi-directional protocol like TCP making the school-boy error that the return ACK packets cause premature burning-in of the return path. Audiophiles know that with a directional digital cable you should only use stateless protocols like ICMP to avoid over-burning the return path.
Eh?
There is a bit of a problem here which is that there is a lot of ignorance regarding how digital music works, I certainly could not provide a coherent explanation.
There is also an industry with sizeable marketing budgets and loads of new technology.
I think that we should all be careful with our wallets.
There is also an industry with sizeable marketing budgets and loads of new technology.
I think that we should all be careful with our wallets.
amcluesent:
>Hence the numerous and credible reports that digital can and does sound different.<
I think the cause of this is well known. Noobs burn-in their digital cables using a bi-directional protocol like TCP making the school-boy error that the return ACK packets cause premature burning-in of the return path. Audiophiles know that with a directional digital cable you should only use stateless protocols like ICMP to avoid over-burning the return path.
excellet post of the year
>Hence the numerous and credible reports that digital can and does sound different.<
I think the cause of this is well known. Noobs burn-in their digital cables using a bi-directional protocol like TCP making the school-boy error that the return ACK packets cause premature burning-in of the return path. Audiophiles know that with a directional digital cable you should only use stateless protocols like ICMP to avoid over-burning the return path.
excellet post of the year
manicm
Well-known member
storsvante:manicm:
the_lhc:If that's the case then all I can say is Wadia and Linn haven't designed their products very well. If FLAC and ALAC require more processing power, give them faster processors! They cost enough for dog's sake.
I don't think faster processors will necessarily eliminate playback differences altogether - it's the decoding requirement itself that might introduce artefacts.
Can you explain what you mean by that? In what way, and what kind of artefacts?
Well there has to be jitter for starters - to repeat - these were just a few interesting threads I read on the Linn DS forums where a few owners claimed WAV sounded somewhat better than FLAC or ALAC on their DS systems - and a Linn engineer (they readily expose themselves by their signatures and have the Linn logo on the forums) claimed it might have to do with the fact that additional processor power (on the DS players themselves) would be required to decode lossless/compressed formats as opposed to uncompressed formats like WAV or AIFF.
The important bit is that the Linn engineer did not dismiss the customer outright.
the_lhc:If that's the case then all I can say is Wadia and Linn haven't designed their products very well. If FLAC and ALAC require more processing power, give them faster processors! They cost enough for dog's sake.
I don't think faster processors will necessarily eliminate playback differences altogether - it's the decoding requirement itself that might introduce artefacts.
Can you explain what you mean by that? In what way, and what kind of artefacts?
Well there has to be jitter for starters - to repeat - these were just a few interesting threads I read on the Linn DS forums where a few owners claimed WAV sounded somewhat better than FLAC or ALAC on their DS systems - and a Linn engineer (they readily expose themselves by their signatures and have the Linn logo on the forums) claimed it might have to do with the fact that additional processor power (on the DS players themselves) would be required to decode lossless/compressed formats as opposed to uncompressed formats like WAV or AIFF.
The important bit is that the Linn engineer did not dismiss the customer outright.
manicm:storsvante:manicm:
the_lhc:If that's the case then all I can say is Wadia and Linn haven't designed their products very well. If FLAC and ALAC require more processing power, give them faster processors! They cost enough for dog's sake.
I don't think faster processors will necessarily eliminate playback differences altogether - it's the decoding requirement itself that might introduce artefacts.
Can you explain what you mean by that? In what way, and what kind of artefacts?
Well there has to be jitter for starters - to repeat - these were just a few interesting threads I read on the Linn DS forums where a few owners claimed WAV sounded somewhat better than FLAC or ALAC on their DS systems - and a Linn engineer (they readily expose themselves by their signatures and have the Linn logo on the forums) claimed it might have to do with the fact that additional processor power (on the DS players themselves) would be required to decode lossless/compressed formats as opposed to uncompressed formats like WAV or AIFF.
With respect manicm, you a throwing around technical terminology that doesn't mean anything out of context. "There has to be jitter for starters" doesn't do it for me and "decoding artefacts" is a pretty specific term which shouldn't apply to FLAC unless the decoding software is doing something wrong. The_lhc is right - if there indeed are output differences between FLAC and WAV then the product is doing something strange and hasn't been designed right.
manicm:
The important bit is that the Linn engineer did not dismiss the customer outright.
Well that wouldn't be a very good thing to do would it. ;-)
the_lhc:If that's the case then all I can say is Wadia and Linn haven't designed their products very well. If FLAC and ALAC require more processing power, give them faster processors! They cost enough for dog's sake.
I don't think faster processors will necessarily eliminate playback differences altogether - it's the decoding requirement itself that might introduce artefacts.
Can you explain what you mean by that? In what way, and what kind of artefacts?
Well there has to be jitter for starters - to repeat - these were just a few interesting threads I read on the Linn DS forums where a few owners claimed WAV sounded somewhat better than FLAC or ALAC on their DS systems - and a Linn engineer (they readily expose themselves by their signatures and have the Linn logo on the forums) claimed it might have to do with the fact that additional processor power (on the DS players themselves) would be required to decode lossless/compressed formats as opposed to uncompressed formats like WAV or AIFF.
With respect manicm, you a throwing around technical terminology that doesn't mean anything out of context. "There has to be jitter for starters" doesn't do it for me and "decoding artefacts" is a pretty specific term which shouldn't apply to FLAC unless the decoding software is doing something wrong. The_lhc is right - if there indeed are output differences between FLAC and WAV then the product is doing something strange and hasn't been designed right.
manicm:
The important bit is that the Linn engineer did not dismiss the customer outright.
Well that wouldn't be a very good thing to do would it. ;-)
The_Lhc
Well-known member
manicm
Well-known member
storsvante:manicm:storsvante:manicm:
the_lhc:If that's the case then all I can say is Wadia and Linn haven't designed their products very well. If FLAC and ALAC require more processing power, give them faster processors! They cost enough for dog's sake.
I don't think faster processors will necessarily eliminate playback differences altogether - it's the decoding requirement itself that might introduce artefacts.
Can you explain what you mean by that? In what way, and what kind of artefacts?
Well there has to be jitter for starters - to repeat - these were just a few interesting threads I read on the Linn DS forums where a few owners claimed WAV sounded somewhat better than FLAC or ALAC on their DS systems - and a Linn engineer (they readily expose themselves by their signatures and have the Linn logo on the forums) claimed it might have to do with the fact that additional processor power (on the DS players themselves) would be required to decode lossless/compressed formats as opposed to uncompressed formats like WAV or AIFF.
With respect manicm, you a throwing around technical terminology that doesn't mean anything out of context. "There has to be jitter for starters" doesn't do it for me and "decoding artefacts" is a pretty specific term which shouldn't apply to FLAC unless the decoding software is doing something wrong. The_lhc is right - if there indeed are output differences between FLAC and WAV then the product is doing something strange and hasn't been designed right.
manicm:
The important bit is that the Linn engineer did not dismiss the customer outright.
Well that wouldn't be a very good thing to do would it. ;-)
True, have yet to find scientific proof, but for the umpteenth time I will also mention Wadia's obstinate stance that, despite bypassing the iPod's DAC, their first class choice of format is WAV for the iPod.
What's their proof? They still do not say...
the_lhc:If that's the case then all I can say is Wadia and Linn haven't designed their products very well. If FLAC and ALAC require more processing power, give them faster processors! They cost enough for dog's sake.
I don't think faster processors will necessarily eliminate playback differences altogether - it's the decoding requirement itself that might introduce artefacts.
Can you explain what you mean by that? In what way, and what kind of artefacts?
Well there has to be jitter for starters - to repeat - these were just a few interesting threads I read on the Linn DS forums where a few owners claimed WAV sounded somewhat better than FLAC or ALAC on their DS systems - and a Linn engineer (they readily expose themselves by their signatures and have the Linn logo on the forums) claimed it might have to do with the fact that additional processor power (on the DS players themselves) would be required to decode lossless/compressed formats as opposed to uncompressed formats like WAV or AIFF.
With respect manicm, you a throwing around technical terminology that doesn't mean anything out of context. "There has to be jitter for starters" doesn't do it for me and "decoding artefacts" is a pretty specific term which shouldn't apply to FLAC unless the decoding software is doing something wrong. The_lhc is right - if there indeed are output differences between FLAC and WAV then the product is doing something strange and hasn't been designed right.
manicm:
The important bit is that the Linn engineer did not dismiss the customer outright.
Well that wouldn't be a very good thing to do would it. ;-)
True, have yet to find scientific proof, but for the umpteenth time I will also mention Wadia's obstinate stance that, despite bypassing the iPod's DAC, their first class choice of format is WAV for the iPod.
What's their proof? They still do not say...
The_Lhc
Well-known member
PJPro:the_lhc:
storsvante:The_lhc is right
Wow! Twice in one lifetime...? etc etc...
When was the first time?
Do I detect a modicum of hostility?
1983, since you asked...
storsvante:The_lhc is right
Wow! Twice in one lifetime...? etc etc...
When was the first time?
Do I detect a modicum of hostility?
1983, since you asked...
the_lhc:
PJPro:the_lhc:
storsvante:The_lhc is right
Wow! Twice in one lifetime...? etc etc...
When was the first time?
Do I detect a modicum of hostility?
No, not in the slightest.
PJPro:the_lhc:
storsvante:The_lhc is right
Wow! Twice in one lifetime...? etc etc...
When was the first time?
Do I detect a modicum of hostility?
No, not in the slightest.
Tony_R
Well-known member
I have read through this thread with some interest.
It stands to reason that differences will be heard (although an explanation escapes me) between different sources, whether USB, hard disk or otherwise.
This surely must be for similar reasons that differences can be heard between different CD transports (into the same DAC).
My rather simplistic view is that ultimately these devices are "only" rendering 0's or 1's (aka bits) off their media (whether that media be hard disk, USB stick or CD) - and therefore the only reason that differences can be heard, are because these bits are not being accurately read from the media. I think this is the general consensus of opinion in the DIY audio forums and so on.
So, given that in the case of hard disks and USB media, the data should be bit perfect - but evidently it isn't judging by the fact that differences can be heard between various devices. This leaves us with the $20m question? Where are the missing bits being lost?
In my particular case - I have a Logitech Squeezebox duet - and I can readily hear the difference between various CD players and the Logitech (into the same DAC). I have experimented with various DACS and the differences can be heard clearly each time.
Incidentally, various file types have been tried, consisting of WAV, FLAC, lossless etc, etc and the CD (played the through the external DAC) always sounds better.
The CD players tried have been Marantz CD17, Cambridge Audio D500, Sony XA2ES, Sony CDP227ESD.
The DACS tried are; a heavily modified Musical Fidelity X-ACT, Cambridge Dacmagic MK1, Cambridge ISO Magic, "BIG DAC" (kit sourced off ebay) and another Crystal based DAC (also sourced off ebay).
I have not tried USB sources as none of these DACS have USB inputs.
Finally, I'm expecting the usual arguments about how data read from hard disks should be bit perfect etc, etc so acknowledging that this may be so - there must still be losses somewhere.
Incidentally - the Logitech has been tried on both WiFi and Ethernet - the music server is running a Raid 5 comprised of 4 Western Digital SATA II disks, the server CPU is a 4300 AMD, network card is 1g/bit and this is all connected via a quality managed HP switch.
No packet loss is ever observed across the LAN.
Apologies for the length of this post - that's just my contribution.
It stands to reason that differences will be heard (although an explanation escapes me) between different sources, whether USB, hard disk or otherwise.
This surely must be for similar reasons that differences can be heard between different CD transports (into the same DAC).
My rather simplistic view is that ultimately these devices are "only" rendering 0's or 1's (aka bits) off their media (whether that media be hard disk, USB stick or CD) - and therefore the only reason that differences can be heard, are because these bits are not being accurately read from the media. I think this is the general consensus of opinion in the DIY audio forums and so on.
So, given that in the case of hard disks and USB media, the data should be bit perfect - but evidently it isn't judging by the fact that differences can be heard between various devices. This leaves us with the $20m question? Where are the missing bits being lost?
In my particular case - I have a Logitech Squeezebox duet - and I can readily hear the difference between various CD players and the Logitech (into the same DAC). I have experimented with various DACS and the differences can be heard clearly each time.
Incidentally, various file types have been tried, consisting of WAV, FLAC, lossless etc, etc and the CD (played the through the external DAC) always sounds better.
The CD players tried have been Marantz CD17, Cambridge Audio D500, Sony XA2ES, Sony CDP227ESD.
The DACS tried are; a heavily modified Musical Fidelity X-ACT, Cambridge Dacmagic MK1, Cambridge ISO Magic, "BIG DAC" (kit sourced off ebay) and another Crystal based DAC (also sourced off ebay).
I have not tried USB sources as none of these DACS have USB inputs.
Finally, I'm expecting the usual arguments about how data read from hard disks should be bit perfect etc, etc so acknowledging that this may be so - there must still be losses somewhere.
Incidentally - the Logitech has been tried on both WiFi and Ethernet - the music server is running a Raid 5 comprised of 4 Western Digital SATA II disks, the server CPU is a 4300 AMD, network card is 1g/bit and this is all connected via a quality managed HP switch.
No packet loss is ever observed across the LAN.
Apologies for the length of this post - that's just my contribution.
The_Lhc
Well-known member
Tony_R: It stands to reason that differences will be heard (although an explanation escapes me) between different sources, whether USB, hard disk or otherwise.
No its doesn't, not if you know the first thing about mass storage.
This surely must be for similar reasons that differences can be heard between different CD transports (into the same DAC).
My rather simplistic view is that ultimately these devices are "only" rendering 0's or 1's (aka bits) off their media (whether that media be hard disk, USB stick or CD) - and therefore the only reason that differences can be heard, are because these bits are not being accurately read from the media. I think this is the general consensus of opinion in the DIY audio forums and so on.
Well then they're wrong, and so are you.
So, given that in the case of hard disks and USB media, the data should be bit perfect - but evidently it isn't judging by the fact that differences can be heard between various devices. This leaves us with the $20m question? Where are the missing bits being lost?
Okay, I'm really quite angry now, partly because nobody has bothered to counter this nonsense, so I apologise in advance for saying something you might regret.
Finally, I'm expecting the usual arguments about how data read from hard disks should be bit perfect etc, etc so acknowledging that this may be so - there must still be losses somewhere.
Right, let's get this straight, if you are reading data from a hard disk, or USB stick or any other kind of medium there are NO bits "lost" anywhere. How the hell do you think a computer would function if it couldn't accurately read data from its storage devices? Look what happens when one tiny piece of data get corrupted in RAM because of a flaw or failure in the chip, your computer crashes, with that lovely BSOD .
If PCs or any other kind of computer couldn't read data from storage reliably, your Word documents would never look the same twice, the pictures that you load from your digital camera to your PC would have visible flaws in them, Zip files couldn't be unpacked, because they wouldn't pass their CRC checks, and that's just for starters. The fact is if your PC couldn't read from the boot sector of its hard disk without "losing bits", it would never even manage to boot in the first place.
I work with tape media, for backup and recovery, which is just about the most unreliable storage medium there is, if there's any issues with reading or writing to the media the backup or restore fails completely. 99% of the time, this doesn't happen, it happens even less with solid state or HDD media and when it does the results are invariably destructive, at the very least.
Seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about, vague intuition about what you feel is going on just isn't good enough, can we please base our comments on facts?
No its doesn't, not if you know the first thing about mass storage.
This surely must be for similar reasons that differences can be heard between different CD transports (into the same DAC).
My rather simplistic view is that ultimately these devices are "only" rendering 0's or 1's (aka bits) off their media (whether that media be hard disk, USB stick or CD) - and therefore the only reason that differences can be heard, are because these bits are not being accurately read from the media. I think this is the general consensus of opinion in the DIY audio forums and so on.
Well then they're wrong, and so are you.
So, given that in the case of hard disks and USB media, the data should be bit perfect - but evidently it isn't judging by the fact that differences can be heard between various devices. This leaves us with the $20m question? Where are the missing bits being lost?
Okay, I'm really quite angry now, partly because nobody has bothered to counter this nonsense, so I apologise in advance for saying something you might regret.
Finally, I'm expecting the usual arguments about how data read from hard disks should be bit perfect etc, etc so acknowledging that this may be so - there must still be losses somewhere.
Right, let's get this straight, if you are reading data from a hard disk, or USB stick or any other kind of medium there are NO bits "lost" anywhere. How the hell do you think a computer would function if it couldn't accurately read data from its storage devices? Look what happens when one tiny piece of data get corrupted in RAM because of a flaw or failure in the chip, your computer crashes, with that lovely BSOD .
If PCs or any other kind of computer couldn't read data from storage reliably, your Word documents would never look the same twice, the pictures that you load from your digital camera to your PC would have visible flaws in them, Zip files couldn't be unpacked, because they wouldn't pass their CRC checks, and that's just for starters. The fact is if your PC couldn't read from the boot sector of its hard disk without "losing bits", it would never even manage to boot in the first place.
I work with tape media, for backup and recovery, which is just about the most unreliable storage medium there is, if there's any issues with reading or writing to the media the backup or restore fails completely. 99% of the time, this doesn't happen, it happens even less with solid state or HDD media and when it does the results are invariably destructive, at the very least.
Seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about, vague intuition about what you feel is going on just isn't good enough, can we please base our comments on facts?
Tony_R
Well-known member
the_lhc:
Seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about, vague intuition about what you feel is going on just isn't good enough, can we please base our comments on facts?
I did start working on an informed, pertinent response.
However as you're so clearly convinced I'm totally wrong, and appear to have superior knowledge;
the_lhc:
Well then they're wrong, and so are you.
I shall back away from this discussion and remain the inferior being you clearly think I am.
Tony.
Seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about, vague intuition about what you feel is going on just isn't good enough, can we please base our comments on facts?
I did start working on an informed, pertinent response.
However as you're so clearly convinced I'm totally wrong, and appear to have superior knowledge;
the_lhc:
Well then they're wrong, and so are you.
I shall back away from this discussion and remain the inferior being you clearly think I am.
Tony.
to be fair thelhc is right though there cant be differences readin from an hard disk or an usb if they sound different the difference is coming from some other equipment further down the chain
I have picked up on this thread this morning, as I often read through the What-Hi-Fi Forums with a lot of interest, however I thought I'd sign up for an account this morning to comment on this post.
I'd have to admit that I agree with Tony_R's opinions / observations he has stated in his post.
I myself, have conducted a lot of different experiements / tests, be it with varying different devices, different sound cards in my PC, professional audio interfaces (for music recording) - and external USB sound cards. I've also tried various different CD players with different DAC's.
One of the tests I did do, was rip an audio CD to 'lossless FLAC' - I then used a Creative Sound Blaster Audigy External Sound Card to output both an Optical Digital connection, and a Coaxial Digital connection to my hi-fi from my computer. I also installed an ASIO driver to eliminate any changes Windows might make to the sound on it's output or at an equalisation level, as I didn't want anything to get in the way of the sound so to speak.
My results were interesting, I found that even though I played music through both the optical and the coaxial outputs into a DAC plugged into my hi-fi, a CD player plugged into the same DAC playing the same CD I had ripped losslessly, still sounded better directly from a CD Transport.
I have in the past observed audible noise at high volumes from a computer sound card over Co-Ax into an external DAC. I've also observed audible differences between different sound card's Digital outputs. Excluding the cable, I personally put this down to the differences in circuitry, and the way in which the signal is sent out from the computer through the Coax output.
I'd also like to put forward an example of something still working despite missing information. Take a corrupt JPEG file for example on a hard drive. You'll often find that the JPEG file will indeed load, and display a large proportion of the picture, but there will indeed be parts missing due to corruption either on the hard disk itself, or the file itself. Whilst a simple example, the same can be said for music, obviously on a less detrimental scale, as you'd be missing out entire chunks of music. However, my point is, that as a hard disk may fail to fully render a JPEG file due to corruption, there can indeed be some information loss, in the stream through the coax output that a DAC will fill in for so to speak, with oversampling, and what not.
That's simply just my opinion, I could have made the post longer, as I have quite a few different views / experiments I'd like to talk about, but I feel it's unnecessary, as we all have our own opinions, and it's purely subjective anyway!
Yes digital is 1's and 0's so to speak, but I believe there can be loss, I also believe that there are audible differences between transports with the same DAC, as I've heard them myself, and I also know how DAC's make up for any lost information as a result of the transport failing to accurately pass through the data. (A simple explanation, but the idea is there nevertheless).
Sorry for the long post, but thank you for reading!
I'd have to admit that I agree with Tony_R's opinions / observations he has stated in his post.
I myself, have conducted a lot of different experiements / tests, be it with varying different devices, different sound cards in my PC, professional audio interfaces (for music recording) - and external USB sound cards. I've also tried various different CD players with different DAC's.
One of the tests I did do, was rip an audio CD to 'lossless FLAC' - I then used a Creative Sound Blaster Audigy External Sound Card to output both an Optical Digital connection, and a Coaxial Digital connection to my hi-fi from my computer. I also installed an ASIO driver to eliminate any changes Windows might make to the sound on it's output or at an equalisation level, as I didn't want anything to get in the way of the sound so to speak.
My results were interesting, I found that even though I played music through both the optical and the coaxial outputs into a DAC plugged into my hi-fi, a CD player plugged into the same DAC playing the same CD I had ripped losslessly, still sounded better directly from a CD Transport.
I have in the past observed audible noise at high volumes from a computer sound card over Co-Ax into an external DAC. I've also observed audible differences between different sound card's Digital outputs. Excluding the cable, I personally put this down to the differences in circuitry, and the way in which the signal is sent out from the computer through the Coax output.
I'd also like to put forward an example of something still working despite missing information. Take a corrupt JPEG file for example on a hard drive. You'll often find that the JPEG file will indeed load, and display a large proportion of the picture, but there will indeed be parts missing due to corruption either on the hard disk itself, or the file itself. Whilst a simple example, the same can be said for music, obviously on a less detrimental scale, as you'd be missing out entire chunks of music. However, my point is, that as a hard disk may fail to fully render a JPEG file due to corruption, there can indeed be some information loss, in the stream through the coax output that a DAC will fill in for so to speak, with oversampling, and what not.
That's simply just my opinion, I could have made the post longer, as I have quite a few different views / experiments I'd like to talk about, but I feel it's unnecessary, as we all have our own opinions, and it's purely subjective anyway!
Yes digital is 1's and 0's so to speak, but I believe there can be loss, I also believe that there are audible differences between transports with the same DAC, as I've heard them myself, and I also know how DAC's make up for any lost information as a result of the transport failing to accurately pass through the data. (A simple explanation, but the idea is there nevertheless).
Sorry for the long post, but thank you for reading!
Tony_R
Well-known member
one off:to be fair thelhc is right though there cant be differences readin from an hard disk or an usb if they sound different the difference is coming from some other equipment further down the chain
I was trying to suggest that perhaps something was happening to the bit stream after it had been read off the disk.
With disks, you also need to consider fragmentation. If a particular file is badly fragmented, will the allocated buffer be able to hold enough data to allow the disk to complete the read from the fragmented file?
What would happen if the buffer were too small? Would bits be lost, meaning that error correction would have to interpolate the missing bit(s), thereby affecting the sound?
Also - when any PC is reading data from media, whether it be USB / Hard disk / CDROM - if a read is unsuccessful it will be retried until it is either successful or fails (within limits set by the operating system).This is what gives the operating system the ability to cope with disk corruption.
Again - this would mean that any data buffer would need to be large enough to cache the datastream whilst these (re)reads are attempted. Please note: I am aware that this all takes place at a VERY high speed - however I'm playing 'devils advocate' here...
We also need to consider the PC motherboard bus itself - i.e. the memory bus, PCI bus and associated interface cards.
In the average PC, there will be a lot of data being moved about on the various buses - could potential interuptions in data flow give rise to the changes heard in music streams? After all, there are only a limited number of IRQs (interrupts) available on PC hardware - and in a PC with many peripherals - in some cases with shared IRQs - is it possible that the datastream is being interupted, even momentarily? This could most likely be measured with a suitable oscilloscope and knowledge of what to look for and where!
Tony.
I was trying to suggest that perhaps something was happening to the bit stream after it had been read off the disk.
With disks, you also need to consider fragmentation. If a particular file is badly fragmented, will the allocated buffer be able to hold enough data to allow the disk to complete the read from the fragmented file?
What would happen if the buffer were too small? Would bits be lost, meaning that error correction would have to interpolate the missing bit(s), thereby affecting the sound?
Also - when any PC is reading data from media, whether it be USB / Hard disk / CDROM - if a read is unsuccessful it will be retried until it is either successful or fails (within limits set by the operating system).This is what gives the operating system the ability to cope with disk corruption.
Again - this would mean that any data buffer would need to be large enough to cache the datastream whilst these (re)reads are attempted. Please note: I am aware that this all takes place at a VERY high speed - however I'm playing 'devils advocate' here...
We also need to consider the PC motherboard bus itself - i.e. the memory bus, PCI bus and associated interface cards.
In the average PC, there will be a lot of data being moved about on the various buses - could potential interuptions in data flow give rise to the changes heard in music streams? After all, there are only a limited number of IRQs (interrupts) available on PC hardware - and in a PC with many peripherals - in some cases with shared IRQs - is it possible that the datastream is being interupted, even momentarily? This could most likely be measured with a suitable oscilloscope and knowledge of what to look for and where!
Tony.
Tony_R
Well-known member
the_lhc:
Tony_R: It stands to reason that differences will be heard (although an explanation escapes me) between different sources, whether USB, hard disk or otherwise.
No its doesn't, not if you know the first thing about mass storage.
As it happens, I wrote:
"Finally, I'm expecting the usual arguments about how data read from
hard disks should be bit perfect etc, etc so acknowledging that this
may be so - there must still be losses somewhere."
Note in particular - the phrase "data read from
hard disks should be bit perfect etc, etc so acknowledging that this
may be so"
Having worked with computer hardware (both high end servers and workstations, including Silicon Graphics, HP, Dell etc.) for 15 years+, right from the days of MFM storage through SCSI and latterly SATA and SAS disks, and having been involved in data recovery processes on many occassions, I believe I can speak with some confidence about mass storage.
Did I mention the involvment with tape drives too? Must not have done.
I have also worked with various tape media, really old (can't even remember the format) tape cartridges of 80mb through DAT (both audio and DATA), DLT and latterly HP Ultrium media. So I have a fair amount of experience there too.
Tony.
Tony_R: It stands to reason that differences will be heard (although an explanation escapes me) between different sources, whether USB, hard disk or otherwise.
No its doesn't, not if you know the first thing about mass storage.
As it happens, I wrote:
"Finally, I'm expecting the usual arguments about how data read from
hard disks should be bit perfect etc, etc so acknowledging that this
may be so - there must still be losses somewhere."
Note in particular - the phrase "data read from
hard disks should be bit perfect etc, etc so acknowledging that this
may be so"
Having worked with computer hardware (both high end servers and workstations, including Silicon Graphics, HP, Dell etc.) for 15 years+, right from the days of MFM storage through SCSI and latterly SATA and SAS disks, and having been involved in data recovery processes on many occassions, I believe I can speak with some confidence about mass storage.
Did I mention the involvment with tape drives too? Must not have done.
I have also worked with various tape media, really old (can't even remember the format) tape cartridges of 80mb through DAT (both audio and DATA), DLT and latterly HP Ultrium media. So I have a fair amount of experience there too.
Tony.
cant believe im reading this thelc you are totally correct in everything you say
cant be bothered commenting any more yes the world is flat, the creationists are right and i believe everything the belt man says
cant be bothered commenting any more yes the world is flat, the creationists are right and i believe everything the belt man says
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
I test OLED TVs for a living – and trust me, different sizes perform differently- Started by What Hi-Fi?
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram