7 ms·

Not saying that you could tell the difference, but as a random physical process I am sure there is some vague difference in stirring vs. not. So at least there

Not saying that you could tell the difference, but as a random physical process I am sure there is some vague difference in stirring vs. not. So at least there is no immediately obvious falsehood. Claiming that bits are not bits is on a flat earth level stupid.

c22 4y ago
Don't be silly, bits are ultimately conveyed via analog electrical impulses. Speakers consist of air compressors under electro-magnetic control. The analog emissions of a bit-carrier have as much impact on the acoustic element as an extra stir of the spoon does on the molecular flavour profile of the coffee.
- p_j_w 4y ago
  > bits are ultimately conveyed via analog electrical impulses Yes, but unless the analog error reaches some certain threshold, the 0 will still read as a 0 and the 1 will still read as a 1. The bit is still a bit. The bits only cease to be bits after they reach the DAC.
  - c22 4y ago
    The bit is still a bit, but if the bit is generated at the beginning of a cycle it might have more voltage than at the end of the cycle and this difference could be discernable in the electromagnetic environment around the processor, which might effect the actual movement of the electro-acoustical element after the decoding by the DAC! It's at least as likely as the coffee scenario.
    - e44858 4y ago
      In some cheap DACs with bad isolation you might even be able to hear those bits as a hissing noise.
    - p_j_w 4y ago
      >It's at least as likely as the coffee scenario. I would bet money on a blind taste test on a well pulled shot of espresso vs just dumping some water on some ground beans would show a substantially bigger difference than these people using an audiophile grade network switch or a different version of memcpy. The two aren't even in the same league and it requires some real magical thinking to come to any other conclusion.
      - c22 4y ago
        You're moving the goal posts. We were talking about 5 stirs of a "distribution tool"...
        p_j_w 4y ago
        I would still place that bet.
worksonmine 4y ago
> Claiming that bits are not bits is on a flat earth level stupid Not necessarily, just a statement from the starting end of Dunning-Kruger. Try 0.1 + 0.2 with enough decimals and you'll see what he's trying to say. It's not that stupid of a thought if you think about it. Something else that might seem equally stupid the first time you hear about is the fact that 1s have weight compared to 0s. Don't believe me? Look it up. You comparing him to a flat-earther despite domain knowledge is worse than him having enough outside-the-box thinking to entertain the thought.
- sebzim4500 4y ago
  Not to mention the fact that sometimes bits are not bits, for example see undefined values in optimizing compilers can act as if they have multiple bit representations at the same time. I can kind of see how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing here, I don't think that the guy who said that is necessarily stupid. Certainly not flat earth level.
- buildbot 4y ago
  Not sure if you are serious, but that is a flawed understanding of floating point. 0.1+0.2 being slightly off of 0.3 is a floating point issue, but will be exactly the same on any normal FPU. The bits are still just bits. I literally work on floating point stuff. Want to explain the 1 and 0 comment? Because depending on your silicon design and encoding either could be… Outside the box thinking is great, but being bounded a bit is essential.
  - worksonmine 4y ago
    Instead of repeating myself I just refer to my other reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35139162 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35139162
    - InitialLastName 4y ago
      When you think you're clarifying yourself, you're actually getting less coherent. I can't even parse what you're saying in your deeper replies (and I design mixed-signal audio systems for a living). You're doing the same kind of "affect wisdom by alluding to the elephant without mentioning the elephant" hand-waving that conspiracy theorists do, but as yet you haven't shown a meaningfully concrete example (other than your misapprehension that the same sort of implementation-specific inconsistencies that are found in floating point calculations exist in the fixed-point math used in most audio systems).

c22 4y ago

Don't be silly, bits are ultimately conveyed via analog electrical impulses. Speakers consist of air compressors under electro-magnetic control. The analog emissions of a bit-carrier have as much impact on the acoustic element as an extra stir of the spoon does on the molecular flavour profile of the coffee.

p_j_w 4y ago
> bits are ultimately conveyed via analog electrical impulses Yes, but unless the analog error reaches some certain threshold, the 0 will still read as a 0 and the 1 will still read as a 1. The bit is still a bit. The bits only cease to be bits after they reach the DAC.
- c22 4y ago
  The bit is still a bit, but if the bit is generated at the beginning of a cycle it might have more voltage than at the end of the cycle and this difference could be discernable in the electromagnetic environment around the processor, which might effect the actual movement of the electro-acoustical element after the decoding by the DAC! It's at least as likely as the coffee scenario.
  - e44858 4y ago
    In some cheap DACs with bad isolation you might even be able to hear those bits as a hissing noise.
  - p_j_w 4y ago
    >It's at least as likely as the coffee scenario. I would bet money on a blind taste test on a well pulled shot of espresso vs just dumping some water on some ground beans would show a substantially bigger difference than these people using an audiophile grade network switch or a different version of memcpy. The two aren't even in the same league and it requires some real magical thinking to come to any other conclusion.
    - c22 4y ago
      You're moving the goal posts. We were talking about 5 stirs of a "distribution tool"...
      - p_j_w 4y ago
        I would still place that bet.

worksonmine 4y ago

> Claiming that bits are not bits is on a flat earth level stupid Not necessarily, just a statement from the starting end of Dunning-Kruger. Try 0.1 + 0.2 with enough decimals and you'll see what he's trying to say. It's not that stupid of a thought if you think about it. Something else that might seem equally stupid the first time you hear about is the fact that 1s have weight compared to 0s. Don't believe me? Look it up. You comparing him to a flat-earther despite domain knowledge is worse than him having enough outside-the-box thinking to entertain the thought.

sebzim4500 4y ago
Not to mention the fact that sometimes bits are not bits, for example see undefined values in optimizing compilers can act as if they have multiple bit representations at the same time. I can kind of see how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing here, I don't think that the guy who said that is necessarily stupid. Certainly not flat earth level.
buildbot 4y ago
Not sure if you are serious, but that is a flawed understanding of floating point. 0.1+0.2 being slightly off of 0.3 is a floating point issue, but will be exactly the same on any normal FPU. The bits are still just bits. I literally work on floating point stuff. Want to explain the 1 and 0 comment? Because depending on your silicon design and encoding either could be… Outside the box thinking is great, but being bounded a bit is essential.
- worksonmine 4y ago
  Instead of repeating myself I just refer to my other reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35139162 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35139162
  - InitialLastName 4y ago
    When you think you're clarifying yourself, you're actually getting less coherent. I can't even parse what you're saying in your deeper replies (and I design mixed-signal audio systems for a living). You're doing the same kind of "affect wisdom by alluding to the elephant without mentioning the elephant" hand-waving that conspiracy theorists do, but as yet you haven't shown a meaningfully concrete example (other than your misapprehension that the same sort of implementation-specific inconsistencies that are found in floating point calculations exist in the fixed-point math used in most audio systems).