[HotIce]

You guys are seriously contorting yourselves out of shape.

A square wave does not have infinitely fast rise and fall times. The difference between a 1 and a 0 is infinite, and can only exist in our imagination. We pretend that a voltage change across a given threshold inbetween slices of time is a 1 or a 0. It's a useful approximation. This just an educational statement I'm not trying to make point.

But if I was going to make a point -- it would be that we don't hear 1s and 0s. We also don't hear electrical currents. What we hear is air pressure hitting our audio reception system (ears), which includes tiny little hairs that fire signals into our brain when excited by even exceedingly minute amounts that are difficult to measure without purpose built lab equipment.

 
The difference between 1 and 0 is 1 in all the math books I have around here 

The derivative at the edge x, is not infinite either. Depending on which eyes you see it, can be either not existing (does not satisfy mathematical definition), or it's the Dirac function (when using "distribution" eyes).
What tends to infinite is the limit of the derivative of a function converging to the step function.
 
But I think you are utterly confused about what analog and digital signaling is. And you clearly showed this many times along your rather long post trail.
A signal is, well, a signal. A way from one entity to communicate some information to another entity.
The other entity takes the signal, and transforms it into some other kind of information.
Let's call s=s(t) the signal and F = F(s(t)) the other entity transfer function.
An analog transfer function/signal is a function F whose intent is to map F(x) != F(y) for every x != y (math nerds would prolly call it bijection

).
The line out from a DAC to an amp, is one of the many examples.
USB, no.
In USB all the possible values assumed by the D+ and D- lines, are mapped by the FUSB() transfer function into (for each D line, as USB is differential):
 
FUSB(x) = HI if x=s(t) >= Vhi
FUSB(x) = LO if x=s(t) <= Vlo
FUSB(x) = dont-care if x > Vlo && x < Vhi
 
So let's take x1=Vhi and x2=Vhi+eps with eps>0, we have x1 != x2 but FUSB(x1) == FUSB(x2) == HI.
Not analog.
 
Clearly, in nature, there is no instantaneous change, and the physical fields are continuous.
An electric field changing instantaneously would create an infinite magnetic field (just for example), which would make many things unhappy around there.
But a continuously changing physical field, does not make the signal analog.

 

[watchnerd]

Definitely doing much better than watchnerd

 

 

[U-3C]

They usually manage to do the opposite and make budding audiophiles feel crazy for NOT hearing the things they hear... Definitely doing much better than watchnerd

I'm noticing with people that just get into audio (me not being an exception) often claim to hear a difference when getting a "better" solution, especially those who want to bee an audiophile. And using something different automatically means it's better, and the fact that it may be a subtle difference is also seen as proof that one has more sensitive ears. Biases are often unknown to people who are not total number jerks like us so anything that affects one's perception of sound can be seen as a ticket to having the elitist label of being a proud audiophile with good ears. Those who don't hear a difference should therefore be happy and settle for what they can hear by saving some money (because they are inherently interior to us who can clearly hear a difference). First time buyers are also the most excitable and tend to post their impressions as reviews before they really get to know the device.

When I first bought a cheap pair of Xiaomi Pistons, I war going to write a full review. Heck, a month ago, I found that 2000+ worded draft and went on a witch hunt to ensure that I destroyed all evidence of such audiophoolery. :3

It's really hard to fight these impulses and impressions that may easily be coloured and can mislead other people. I guess I was lucky, because I just ended up spending an hour a day comparing my new headphones with what I had before...for 3 months. And I noticed things so wonderful in my new headphones, and everything does match so many impressions that other people have posted. Then I finally felt certain that I know the differences between the different headphones I have; that I can write full comparisons...and I open my eyes and What THEY WERE THE WRONG HEADPHONES WHAT AM I HEARING OMG THEY SUDDENLY SOUND DIFFERENT THE BASS ISN'T LIKE HOW I JUST DESCRIBED SO IS THE TREBLE SO ARE THE MIDS I SWEAR THEY JUST SOUNDED LIKE THE PISTONS AND NOT THE EARPODS A WHILE AGO BUT THEY DON'T NOW WHAT IS GOING ON???!!!!! And alas, I realised that almost all my impressions are false and I only hear what I think I hear (heavily influenced by reviews I read before purchasing). Mid forward on the Earpods and rolled off sub-bass and treble, vs the piston's v shaped signature. It's quite a shock to believe that you can mess it up, and sadly, people who seem to dig deep into these things haven't had this shock yet. Completely overthrows ones belief system, which is quite cruel.

Alas I discovered the unbelievaable flaws of sighted tests and I stopped showing off my new audio toys to my friends as if I am superior to them. And to this day, I still enjoy my Earpods. Sadly I lost them a few days ago and I'm so depressed now even though I have headphones costing twenty times more. People seem to look at me word when i say the Earpods are quite nice. But hey, I got Tyll from InnerFidelity to quote and he never openly claimed that cables and high res audio is BS so I'm always good. XD

*Mindless rant is over. Just moved and my new room is in a state of complete chaos. My ocd's ticking and is bleeding into my replies on Head-Fi. XD

 

[GuyUnder]

I don't think you were addled by sighted and expectation biases. More likely you suffered from audio memory smearing. 
 
Besides, I don't think anyone would have a severe expectation bias over $6 headphones.

 

[VNandor]

  I don't think you were addled by sighted and expectation biases. More likely you suffered from audio memory smearing. 
 
Besides, I don't think anyone would have a severe expectation bias over $6 headphones.

You do realize that doing tests sighted do not improve auditory memory, right?

 

[cel4145]

I'm noticing with people that just get into audio (me not being an exception) often claim to hear a difference when getting a "better" solution, especially those who want to bee an audiophile.

Yeah. I have also seen people new to audio rationalize their way to making generalizations about audio equipment or even audio principles, simply based on their limited individual experience.

This even happens before they get exposed to some of the subjectivist insanity. My point being that I don't think this is always learned by becoming part of a community like Head-Fi, although it can certainly be reinforced.

 

[U-3C]

I don't think you were addled by sighted and expectation biases. More likely you suffered from audio memory smearing. 

Besides, I don't think anyone would have a severe expectation bias over $6 headphones.

Except I was heavily affected by this bias. This happened multiple times and I tried really hard to prove it wrong before I finally admitted it. The changes were as fast and as slow as I wanted. I tried everything I can because it didn't make sense at first. ^_^ And to make sure I was sane, I grabbed 10 friends to test and same. The brain is so easily tricked, just based on the mood, and the effect far surpasses that of many refinements in audio gear.

Key to enjoying music: be happy and not worry about your stuff~ ^~^ Or be very very sad and listen to sad music, or be sad and listen to happy music. They all work and all over different flavours. :blink:

Still so sad my Earpods are missing (should listen to music now I guess???!!). ;_; I actually wear them over ear because it changes the sound significantly in a way I like. Completely subjective and everyone has different ears shapes so everyone will hear differently. Same thing with my SHE3590 and my Q701. Pressing them even a bit changes the sound in enjoyable or unbearable ways. My friend clearly didn't hear the same things I heard and it takes me a long time to find the position that I enjoy most. Amazing how little changes affect the sound, and sadly, these are things that you can't know about in reviews, especially with the quickly hyped up ones as everyone posting their impressions so quickly.

Where did the Earpods goooooooooooooo... ;~;

 

[GuyUnder]

   
The difference between 1 and 0 is 1 in all the math books I have around here 

The derivative at the edge x, is not infinite either. Depending on which eyes you see it, can be either not existing (does not satisfy mathematical definition), or it's the Dirac function (when using "distribution" eyes).
What tends to infinite is the limit of the derivative of a function converging to the step function.
 
But I think you are utterly confused about what analog and digital signaling is. And you clearly showed this many times along your rather long post trail.
A signal is, well, a signal. A way from one entity to communicate some information to another entity.
The other entity takes the signal, and transforms it into some other kind of information.
Let's call s=s(t) the signal and F = F(s(t)) the other entity transfer function.
An analog transfer function/signal is a function F whose intent is to map F(x) != F(y) for every x != y (math nerds would prolly call it bijection

).
The line out from a DAC to an amp, is one of the many examples.
USB, no.
In USB all the possible values assumed by the D+ and D- lines, are mapped by the FUSB() transfer function into (for each D line, as USB is differential):
 
FUSB(x) = HI if x=s(t) >= Vhi
FUSB(x) = LO if x=s(t) <= Vlo
FUSB(x) = dont-care if x > Vlo && x < Vhi
 
So let's take x1=Vhi and x2=Vhi+eps with eps>0, we have x1 != x2 but FUSB(x1) == FUSB(x2) == HI.
Not analog.
 
Clearly, in nature, there is no instantaneous change, and the physical fields are continuous.
An electric field changing instantaneously would create an infinite magnetic field (just for example), which would make many things unhappy around there.
But a continuously changing physical field, does not make the signal analog.

 
The mathematical formula are useful for engineering, but worthless in a context of understanding natural phenomena which is what we are discussing. The natural phenomena in question are electrical currents. Are square waves, in fact, electrical currents? Do they differ fundamentally from sine waves? No, square waves do not, in fact, differ fundamentally from sine waves; both are electrical currents being transmitted through conductive material.
 
Electrical currents are not information.
 
Electrical currents are not sound.
 
Electrical currents exist in the analog domain. Period.
 
The difference between analog sound and digital sound, which this thread seems so hung up over, isn't a difference between different but similar things -- it's the difference between mathematically-approximated sine waves and actual sine waves. The difference between a photograph and a painting, you could say.

 

[U-3C]

Yeah. I have also seen people new to audio rationalize their way to making generalizations about audio equipment or even audio principles, simply based on their limited individual experience.

This even happens before they get exposed to some of the subjectivist insanity. My point being that I don't think this is always learned by becoming part of a community like Head-Fi, although it can certainly be reinforced.

If it's the most simple and obvious reason that appears to make sense, why bother dig deeper?

One reason why pseudoscience is so poplar is because of that: it makes claims that are bold and obvious, and if one does not have a solid foundational understanding, one cannot distinguish right from wrong. Showing a glimpse of truth helps appeal, but does not show the whole story. Pseudoscience can easily integrate things that the average Joe accepts, and ignore things that are complex. A more scientific approach is difficult because you need to go deeper, which many simply do not have the interest or time to understand, and resort to common sense. Sadly, this common sense is heavily influenced by biases. How can the earth be round and spinning? If it is, we will be slidding off, and we need to grab on to trees so this giant spinning ball won't throw us off. Birds and things that we throw straight up in the air will magically move in one direction, just like how am apple will be left behind you if you throw it sideways when riding a horse! Water won't be smooth! And so on. A glimpse into what we don't know, although uncomfortable, can give us a greater understanding of things, and is often dinner by overthrowing previous beliefs.

You mentioned that these beliefs and rationalisations are common to people even before they arrive on Head-Fi. But Head-Fi is nothing. This is a common problem that people are aware of thousands of years ago. Prime example is the allegory of the cave. Our common sense is based on our world view, and we don't know that much as we only have so limited time to learn. If we get a glimpse of something else, it leads to a while new realm of discoveries, but everyone goes through different things. That's why everyone world view is different. And that's also why we were suppose to trust experts to handle things they specialise in, but because their understanding of a subject (in any field) is so different from people who did not spend years or decades to truly understand something, acting as an advisor often feels like this:

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg[/video]

:^D

*Currently posting between activities so I don't have time to double check or to refine. Typing on the top of my head so don't judge me words too literally. Just trying to convey a general idea but can't seem to shorten it into one sentence without time to think before posting.

 

[HotIce]

Oh boy ... 

 
 
Quote:

 
The mathematical formula are useful for engineering, but worthless in a context of understanding natural phenomena which is what we are discussing.

 
The "mathematical" formula was to try to make you understand what a USB transmission logic looks like, this you showed to be very confused about.
 

 The natural phenomena in question are electrical currents.

 
No, actually, when it comes to electrical signaling, in many protocols, the specification talks about voltages, not currents.
Since you seem to be strolling through this thread via Google searches, you may want to look up the difference between the two 

 
 

 Are square waves, in fact, electrical currents?

 
This is the same as saying "Are cars, in fact, Audis?" 

A wave is a physical field changing in time.
Provided the limitation in physics of creating perfect square waves, you can have electrical field, magnetic field, ... "square" waves.
 
 

 Do they differ fundamentally from sine waves?

 
Yes they are, but that is not the point. You keep confusing square vs sine vs all the things in the middle, with digital vs analog.
Despite many people in this thread tried to explain it to you in lame terms.
 
But at this point the Troll Level you brought upon this thread overflowed the limits, so I suggest you carry all the misinformation into a Cable thread of your choice.

 

[U-3C]

The mathematical formula are useful for engineering, but worthless in a context of understanding natural phenomena which is what we are discussing. The natural phenomena in question are electrical currents. Are square waves, in fact, electrical currents? Do they differ fundamentally from sine waves? No, square waves do not, in fact, differ fundamentally from sine waves; both are electrical currents being transmitted through conductive material.

Electrical currents are not information.

Electrical currents are not sound.

Electrical currents exist in the analog domain. Period.

The difference between analog sound and digital sound, which this thread seems so hung up over, isn't a difference between different but similar things -- it's the difference between mathematically-approximated sine waves and actual sine waves. The difference between a photograph and a painting, you could say.

But a painting can be made exactly like a photo!

: D

Sorry. Bad joke.

Anyways, I just have a hard time understanding why all this is necessary.

Yes there are all these things that claim to fix issues... But what are these issues and do these issues even exist in the first place?

 

[gregorio]

   
[1] The mathematical formula are useful for engineering,
[2] but worthless in a context of understanding natural phenomena which is what we are discussing.

 
1. Glad we can agree on this point. Because what we're discussing; the USB protocol, DACs, source components and USB cables, are ALL products of engineering! Unless your saying that DACs, etc., are natural phenomena which are mined or grow on trees?
 
2. It's been explained to you, using language a child can understand all the way up to language a university student can understand, that a square wave is not a natural phenomena and could not possibly be a natural phenomena. 
 
Even the forum mod has told you to stop with the nonsense and post some actual facts or not to post. What, do you think you're accomplishing?
 
G

 

[Brooko]

[Mod Comment]
 
Guy - unfortunately at this stage - and in this forum - your arguments are just becoming silly.  The DAC sees digital audio as either a 1 or 0 - and translates it to an analogue signal.  A square wave has no relevance until it becomes analogue.  There are not different degrees of 1 or 0.  There is only 1 or 0.
 
At this stage - if you keep up with your current posting - and at the request of several members of this thread - I will have no choice but to evict you from it.  I'd invite you to take these guys advice (many here are audio engineers with vast knowledge), and actually learn a little about the subjects they are talking about.  I can tell you that the points you are trying to make are clearly wrong. This thread, and others like it in Sound Science are an amazing resource - and most of these guys are very willing to help people understand the actual science behind audio if they are willing to open their minds.  Unfortunately constantly denying what is already known to be fact does not bode well for your future in this section.
 
So last chance - keep up with current MO, and I have to take it at face value (trolling) - which means an eviction.  Over to you. 

 

[limpidglitch]

  Despite many people in this thread tried to explain it to you in lame terms.

 
Hey, I take exception to this. We might be laymen and -women, but that doesn't make us (or our explanations) lame. 

 

[warrior1975]

1. Glad we can agree on this point. Because what we're discussing; the USB protocol, DACs, source components and USB cables, are ALL products of engineering! Unless your saying that DACs, etc., are natural phenomena which are mined or grow on trees?

2. It's been explained to you, using language a child can understand all the way up to language a university student can understand, that a square wave is not a natural phenomena and could not possibly be a natural phenomena.

Even the forum mod has told you to stop with the nonsense and post some actual facts or not to post. What, do you think you're accomplishing?

G

I normally consider myself a somewhat smart guy, but in light of the bolded sentence, I feel like a complete idiot. Lol. You guys lost me at sine wave.