>unless you can detect them in a double blind test, they do not exist.
>this has been hashed to death in audiophile journals for ten years, with
>those claiming that double blind tests are not needed resorting to all
>kinds of completely bizarre and utterly dubious statistical theories.
Come on Paul - just admit it: you simply don't agree with the concept that
these differences exist, and think anyone who does is nuts.
That's your *opinion*, not an irrefutable fact.
If these 'scientific' theories, tests, and evidence are your religion and
scripture - fine.
I'm a strong believer in freedom of religion, and in the final analysis,
that is all science is - another dogma, and another religion.
I left a scientific career in academia because I found the dogma too
restricting.
>first, audio CD "copies" are not "digital file copies" at all. audio CD
>playback mechanisms have error correction built in, and it is certainly
>true that making a copy of an audio CD may not result in a
>"perfect" (ie. bit-level) copy.
I don't know if we are even talking about the same thing here.
I am talking about taking a .wav file on a hard-drive, and proceeding to
burn that exact same file onto audio CDs at different burn speeds.
The equalization sounds different at different speeds.
But as you say, this is something altogether different than copies of the
same .wav files on a hard-disk or different hard-disks.
>copying from one .wav to another .wav on a hard drive will never, ever
>produce any difference of any kind, and if you claim otherwise, you are
>either completely ignorant of how digital audio works or being
>deliberately ridiculous.
Your opinion - not fact.
I am describing exactly what I hear, and you are free to interpret that in
any fashion you choose.
>find me one person who can do this in a double blind situation, and we can
>take it seriously.
I submit that I can, but I don't think there will be an opportunity to test
that out.
I couldn't care less whether you 'take it seriously' or not - I am not
trying to convince you of anything whatsoever.
Believe what you wish.
(I don't believe for one minute that you would take it seriously in any
case.)
>your complaints are not specific to open source digital audio, but are
>about about digital audio in general.
I'm sorry if you interpreted my remarks as *complaining*.
My intention was to *discuss* the issue of digital fidelity and how it
might be improved.
>although we have a few wizards of the DSP here, you'd better off in a more
>general forum
Doubtless you would prefer that I leave - perhaps I will, perhaps not.
>(which i am sure will roast claims like
>"i can hear the difference between two digital copies" as vigorously as
>anyone here)
Roasting a claim does not constitute disproving it.
>Without wanting to question your sincerity, please note
>that any claims of 'I can hear xxxxx' are completely
>irrelevant in a scientific context until they have been
>confirmed by double-blind experiments in controlled and
>repeatable circumstances. And if you claim things that
>go logically against results that have been retested
>and verified time and time again, then the burden of
>proof is on you. That's how things work in science.
I am well aware of how things work in science.
(I have a degree in physics and biology, and did graduate work in
mathematical and theoretical physics.)
I am also aware of the severe limitations of how things work in science and
the many flaws both in scientific theories and scientific experimentation.
These flaws becoming increasingly obvious when you enter into realms
involving consciousness (such as perception). Observer participancy is just
one example.
"We live on an island surrounded by a sea of ignorance. As our island of
knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." - John A. Wheeler
>I Maluvia!
>
>I'm sorry I didn't mean to offend you. It's just that *I* happen to be
>heavily into *certain types* of hocus pocus, and I was hoping to
>exchange a little bit of subtle humor with you, since you made the
>impression you'd be at least halfway open to that type of thinking,
>which is rare!
Carlo :),
I am *more* than open - that seems to be my problem on this list.
And I do have a sense of humor - your comments just sounded more like
mockery than humor.
Sorry that I misinterpreted them.
I find your exuberance and irreverant humor extremely refreshing, and much
needed on what otherwise feels like a generally stodgy list.
I assumed that most people on this list would be musicians rather than
programmers or engineers, and I find musicians a lot easier to communicate
with and relate to - not to mention much more open-minded.
(I guess that's why I married one.)
>As for the subjectivity, the pages you quoted about the digital myth are
>based on three things, which are all scientific: 1. CD jitter errors, 2.
>different types of A/D converters, and 3. recalculation loss.
>
>None of these would explain properly why you can hear differences
>between different copies of files on HARD DRIVES.
>
>Now here's where it get's interesting (To me, at least :)
>
>You claimed you can hear a difference between two files that are stored
>on different hard drives. Now that's a completely different story. Hard
>drives usually store software. There is no automatic error correction
>with a subtle loss of quality for software. You change a single bit in
>an executable program, and the thing crashes. It could break your
>computer, physically, and ruin all your data which represents years of
>work. In many cases, a faulty program can KILL PEOPLE. Software depends
>on 1:1 numerical reproduction of data, at least for the lifetime of a
>computer, and when that's not given, there is no longer a computer,
>there is only a piece of scrap junk.
>
>And yet you claim you can hear the difference between different copies
>of data on different hard drives. To someone who has been working on
>computers for more than half of his lifetime, that statement in itself
>sounds esoteric. So don't be surprised if the man who believes you uses
>esoteric theories to explain it :)
>
>Of course, the phenomenon of subjectivity and energy relations is
>currently explained within contemporary science as simply a convenient
>way of discribing trances and other subjective psychological states,
>which are diverted and deluded and somehow diverted from a generally
>accepted way of experiencing things.
>
>To me, this is a very dogmatic, and also quite arrogant way of looking
>at things. I don't deny that thinking scientifically is USEFUL, because
>it enables us to create very sophisticated models of how the world
>works, which in turn lets us create neat things such as digital audio
>devices and airplanes and cars. I wouldn't want to make do without all
>that. But in all its usefulness, that doesn't make the theory TRUE.
>
>Newton's theory is useful. It helps explain things WITHIN CERTAIN
>BOUNDARIES. But then Einstein came along and created a different theory,
>which had the same results within Newton's range, but continued to be
>effective when Newton's theory failed. Then Einstein's theory failed,
>and quantum mechanics was introduced to better explain other and
>different phenomena. Great efforts are on the way right now simply to
>bring all those observations to common ground, and when they succeed, we
>can be certain that YET MORE unexplainable phenomena will occur, and
>that the theory will have to be placed in proper context yet again. The
>theory is never true, it is only useful within certain contexts. It's
>'true' because it's useful. But it can just as well be untrue where it
>stops being useful. That's simply the way science works.
It is how *any* thought system works.
>However, there is a tendency among the scientific community to cling to
>what already has been explained, simply because it makes things so
>comfortably predictable. However, that comes at the price of gaining new
>knowledge, at the price of the very way the current explanations have
>been found. That's why it is so very important to keep an open mind
>about things.
A thought system is merely a navigational mechanism - a vehicle if you
will.
It is meant to *move* you somewhere - to give you mobility, to be a
mechanism for growth and evolution of consciousness.
We all need a frame of reference - which is what a thought system is.
It consists of our current beliefs about the world and our relationship to
it, and provides us with a mechanism to interpret what we perceive and
experience.
And as those beliefs largely determine what we perceive, the experience
part is crucial to bringing in new information so that those beliefs can be
modified and the scope of awareness and understanding expanded.
In a healthy evolving being, when experience is found to be inconsistent
with a belief system, it is discarded for a new, more expansive or
inclusive set of beliefs, until it, in its own turn is also outgrown.
When a belief-system/reference-frame no longer serves - i.e., experience
contradicts those beliefs, forcing them to be modified or discarded - then
at a certain ineffable point, a phase transition occurs (often entailing a
major life-crisis) - the belief system is disintegrated and a new one is
created in its place - one which incorporates all the experiential learning
from the former - the beliefs which have held up to experience, along with
new ideas, beliefs and theories by which one then attempts to continue to
navigate through this mysterious thing we call 'reality' and 'life'.
This process is cosmic mobility through consciousness, and I believe, will
one day be the basis of physical mobility through the cosmos as well.
"Build thee more stately mansions, O my soul,
As the swift seasons roll!
Leave thy low-vaulted past!
Let each new temple, nobler than the last,
Shut thee from heaven with a dome more vast,
Till thou at length art free,
Leaving thine outgrown shell by life's unresting sea! "
~ Oliver Wendell Holmes
>I was ready to trash my theory that bits are always bits
>that has worked so well for me for over twelve years AT THE BLINK OF AN
>EYE, simply because of your unconfirmed subjective observation that you
>can hear a difference between the same files on different hard drives,
>even if it might mean making the way I work in the studio infinetly more
>complex, at least until I found a better theory.
It does make things more complicated - or simpler, depending on how you
look at it.
We no longer make intermediate copies of a piece of music in progress.
All the data about the ongoing state of editing/modification is kept as a
project file, while the original raw recorded data is left untouched.
In previous projects it was only at the very last stage that the changes
were incorporated into a mixed-down rendered stereo file, then used for
CD-Mastering.
(We don't even defrag the partitions with audio data, although this
introduces a different set of problems.)
In future projects we won't even export the project, we will simply output
it to another system and re-record at the desired final SR/bit-depth, so
dithering will be unnecessary.
Actually, I find this approach to be a simpler way of doing things - (but
then it has already been established that I am incredibly ignorant or quite
possibly insane). :)
>I have heard of people who could PHYSICALLY REPAIR CARS simply by
>thinking about them. If you think that's hocus pocus, remember that the
>'round earth theory' was considered hocus pocus by most only five
>hundred years ago. Five hundred years! On an earth scale, that's not
>even one acoustic sample. That's way below any D/A converter's noise
>margin. We need to stay open about things.
Yes indeed - the world would be a vastly improved place if more people
could do this.
>So in my book, no, I do not believe that you are deluding yourself. Bob
>Moog is said to have had EMOTIONAL CONNECTIONS with his synthesizers,
>and as far as I am concerned, they sure sound genuine. Maybe that's just
>the geek me, but I've seen people have really healthy relationships with
>technology and other 'inanimates'. And maybe that's just the nerd me,
>but I've seen some really unhealthy ways of people interacting with each
>other. So I like to joke a lot about technology and people being
>interchangable relationship-wise. It's a way of getting over a lot of
pain.
>
>The remark about your respected partner in the end, on the other hand,
>was deliberately formulated to be a little edgy, if not theoretically
>unsound. Please forgive me, I can write impressive essays very well, but
>I have a very cruel sense of humour that is constantly tempting me.
It's OK Carlo.
Whenever I mention my partner, it seems to evoke negative responses.
I prefer not to do so, but since it is his music that we are working to
produce, I cannot help mentioning him on occasion.
He prefers to speak through his guitar and his music, so the verbal
jousting is left to me.
>I do not believe you are deluding yourself. I believe you are using your
>yet unexplained physical properties to influence your environment that
>could be observed by other people in the same situation also, but maybe
>not by someone using the same brand but different device as you, or a
>different person. But that's just a theory. It could be wrong.
I know what I hear, and that is enough for me.
I act in accordance with that perception and it has served me well.
It was never my intention to convert anyone to my perspective, or accept my
perceptions as theirs.
> . . . . . .
>Now that doesn't mean I'm getting all hoozy shmoozy on you. If people
>come to me and tell me all I have to do is think about the pink flame in
>me and all is well, I tend to mentally put them right where they belong
>in my opinion, next to cult followers, opiate addicts and battered
>housewives. What do these three have in common? Unhealthy addictions.
>But, if new knowledge comes along that has the potential to genuinely
>improve my life (and that of others), and that knowledge happens to
>sound different, well. Let us investigate.
Indeed.
?Of all the strange features of the universe, none are stranger than
these: time is transcended, laws are mutable, and observer participancy
matters.?
~ John Wheeler, Professor of Physics, Princeton University
Namaste,
Maluvia
