Phil Leigh;693553 Wrote:
It is theoretically possible (but highly unlikely) for two identical
copies of a file to play back differently if AND ONLY IF:
1) the hard disk is INSIDE the computer, attached to the motherboard.
2) the soundcard with DAC is part of the PC.
and the electrical
darrenyeats;693557 Wrote:
Computers work through layered, dynamic processes which mean ANY
playback will be electrically different. In fact, replaying the same
file a second time is more likely to yield a difference because the
file is likely to be cached entirely in memory the second time.
Phil Leigh;693560 Wrote:
Which is why some of these Audio PC solutions cache the entire track
in RAM first before playback commences...
But I agree that EVERY event is electrically different froma noise
perspective.
Which as you imply makes a complete mockerey of the whole thing.
ncarver;693545 Wrote:
Just to clarify, are you saying that it is so clearly impossible for two
bit-identical copies of an audio/video file stored on a computer to play
differently on that computer, that absolutely no effort needs to be
wasted to refute such a claim, and those making the
Soulkeeper;693578 Wrote:
No. But I am saying that if you have two bit-identical files, it is
impossible for the history of the content of these files to cause them
to be play differently on any computer. And therefore absolutely no
effort needs to be wasted to refute such a claim, and those
Phil Leigh;693553 Wrote:
They will simply laugh.
ProTools anyone?
But ProTools is so expensive that they definitely have cared for the
problem that the files they record might sound differently based on the
position of the harddrive where the file is saved.
I think for the same reason
SBT --
-- DIY DAC (acc. forum) with CS4398, up-sampling to 192 kHZ, one stage
op-amp with 2x OPA-627BP (no resistors, no caps at all in analogue path)
-- coax (InAkustik, Germany)
-- PMA2000AE (Denon) QSC (PA-power amp)
-- Sonics Allegria S1 (Speakers; bi-amped) Subwoofers.
Works
bluegaspode;693594 Wrote:
But ProTools is so expensive that they definitely have cared for the
problem that the files they record might sound differently based on the
position of the harddrive where the file is saved.
I think for the same reason ProTools only records in WAV and not FLAC.
Soulkeeper;693578 Wrote:
No. But I am saying that if you have two bit-identical files, it is
impossible for the history of the content of these files to cause them
to be play differently on any computer. And therefore absolutely no
effort needs to be wasted to refute such a claim, and those
With HD playback is is not as you move bits from HD to the player like
S/PDIF during the whole song in a stream.
An average song with 50MB needs 2 seconds of HD access somewhere during
its lets say 4 minutes. Depending on the player this access happens in
the beginning to the buffer or
ncarver;693616 Wrote:
So let's be more precise and say we have two bit-identical audio/video
files stored within the same physical filesystem (i.e., same partition)
on some type of storage device on a computer. You really want to claim
that it is absolutely impossible for there to be any
ncarver;693616 Wrote:
I don't understand history of the content. By that you mean which one
came first, etc.?
So let's be more precise and say we have two bit-identical audio/video
files stored within the same physical filesystem (i.e., same partition)
on some type of storage device on a
TAS copying argument is actually even more silly, they basically imply
that you have to rerip a new WAV file after it has been transcoded to
FLAC and back to WAV and implies that this is an irrecoverable
generational loss which is completely impossible . That no moving
around or defrag or
ncarver;693616 Wrote:
So let's be more precise and say we have two bit-identical audio/video
files stored within the same physical filesystem (i.e., same partition)
on some type of storage device on a computer. You really want to claim
that it is absolutely impossible for there to be any
ncarver;693616 Wrote:
I don't understand history of the content. By that you mean which one
came first, etc.?
No. Not the history of the files. The history of the content of the
files. Let me illustrate with two hypothetical scenarios. I'll call
them A and B.
Scenario A:
1) You have an
ncarver;693616 Wrote:
I don't understand history of the content. By that you mean which one
came first, etc.?
So let's be more precise and say we have two bit-identical audio/video
files stored within the same physical filesystem (i.e., same partition)
on some type of storage device on a
It's easy for us computer folk to think everyone should understand this
when they don't.
A file on a computer, as Phil stated, is just numbers. This is the case
whether the file is a spreadsheet, an audio file or a picture.
Copying a file creates an exact copy. So you have another file with the
darrenyeats;693664 Wrote:
It's easy for us computer folk to think everyone should understand this
when they don't.
A file on a computer, as Phil stated, is just numbers. This is the case
whether the file is a spreadsheet, an audio file or a picture.
Copying a file creates an exact copy.
I just wonder if any of the people here who believe that computers
and/or storage can actually make a difference have any problems using
ATMs, credit cards or any form of banking that requires computers and
ethernet connections.
It's got me worried now! ;-)
--
paulster
Receiver stuck at blue
First off, let me say that I am not an audiophile. But I would
appreciate advice from those of you who are. I am looking to purchase
my first standalone DAC for use with my Squeezebox Classic. One that
also functions as a headphone amp would be nice (I currently have one
of those cheap Bravo
The best sub $300 DAC for you is a Squeezebox Touch.
The trick is, you're highly unlikely to improve your listening
experience with a $300 DAC. You already have an equal DAC in your
Classic.
It would help us out if you explained the rest of your system, and room
layout, treatments.
--
Yep, I believe a Logitech Touch is better as a DAC than you will find
for $300.
If you go a little higher, the new -Dac Magic 100- at $359 might be an
improvement. Uses a Wolfson DAC for a really nice mellow sound.
http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/summary.php?PID=951
A -Schiit Bifrost Dac- also
paulster;693704 Wrote:
I just wonder if any of the people here who believe that computers
and/or storage can actually make a difference have any problems using
ATMs, credit cards or any form of banking that requires computers and
ethernet connections.
It's got me worried now! ;-)
paul.raulerson;693713 Wrote:
Snort!!!
This whole thing is running rampant. I'm a very good software and
systems engineer, and I have more than a little electronics in my
background.
(1) I can change a dratted USB cable between my Mac and a high end
synch USB DAC (a Wavelength Proton)
totoro;693717 Wrote:
Not to belabour the point, but the issue of whether location on disc
affects sound or whether or not the disc is highly fragmented is NOT
germane to whether using program 1 or program 2 make the same identical
file sounds better. You know this as well as I do, I would
b. for all anyone here knows, I could really be a janitor at a car
fittings company
Some of those probably have better bs detectors than many professors .
Positive example as in the latest faster than light discovery at cern ,
the scientist solicited and wanted more eyes on the problem and
26 matches
Mail list logo
