> 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.
Audio doesn't use floating-point, it's all fixed-point. So there's no rounding error, only quantization error, and that can be controlled to whatever degree of precision is needed.
1s don't have weight compared to 0s, electrical "high" has mass compared to 0V. Which is "1" and which is "0" (if any) depends on the particular electrical specification of the protocol. E.g. with Ethernet signals are differential, ±3V, with 0V only ever reached momentarily as the + and - switch. There are also lots of cases where the "active" (i.e. "1") is the 0V value, and the "passive" (i.e. 0) is the nonzero voltage. Most reset signals are active-low.
Haha, you're all making the same misunderstanding as the post I was replying to. The context of the "bits are not bits" is in relation to memcpy, and his lack of understanding that it's not comparing bits to bits, but the method used to transfer said bits.
Which is exactly my point with 0.1 + 0.2. Depending on the methods it will give different outcomes, some more precise than others. Guess it wasn't as obvious as I initially thought.
1s and 0s in the same order are the same, but some data may be lost in the transfer and I don't see why that has to be explained, here of all places. And that's where the Dunning-Kruger reference came from, he thinks it's the bits, when in-fact he would mention the transport had he had more domain knowledge.
I won't go into your description of why those may be lost in transfer, others have commented on that, but NO, data may not be lost in transfer. Send data whichever way you want, over Ethernet, fiber, pidgins (POaC, RFC 6214) - it doesn't matter, as long as it's TCP and it's transmitted faster than the audio output - the transport and bits and all that doesn't matter. It's all buffered at the endpoint before being slowly (relatively speaking) ending up in your audio speakers if it's audio, or if something else - in its final destination, every single bit in its correct place.
Please try to read it as I say it I don't know how to be clearer.
0001 == 0001. But 0001 + 0001 does not necessarily end up being 00001. Do you see my point now? You're missing the forest for the trees. 2 things are being discussed, not the outcome. Transport and bits, at the same time, but as separate things. Another analogy in another comment was analog wires, also good, break that and the resistance changes etc etc etc.
This many comments for something so simple. Breathe and stop going out of your way to misunderstand me. Ironically exactly how this thread even started. You clearly understand the subject since you already explained floating point arithmetic.
I'll give it one last shot: The person being referred to as flat-earth level stupid mentions bits, while he should've mentioned transport. And not taking into account his lack of domain knowledge and using the wrong lingo to misunderstand him and calling him stupid when he is right, just not wording it correctly is the problem.
If I understand you correctly, you're asserting that it's possible for transport-layer protocols to cause hiccups in the output because bits might get flipped.
Except all of the transport-layer protocols before the DAC are working in digital logic and have checksums applied to them. A bit flip is going to be detected and corrected or the packet will be dropped and resent. So the transport isn't going to have any impact on the bits whatsoever (barring effects like a packet arriving too late to emit the sound on time).
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.
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).
Look. If I just made the .1+.2 example in passing by as how code doesn't always behave like we expect, does that mean I'm claiming we even use addition to work with sound? If everyone misunderstands a claim I haven't made, and asks me to explain that claim, how exactly do I respond?
It was an example I don't know how audio works and don't claim I do. But I do know moving bits doesn't always end up the way we expect, and different functions has different outcomes.
I shouldn't have to explain sort and sort-reverse has different outcomes, it's implied and not my point. All I'm saying is don't call people without domain knowledge idiots when they're on the right track, kind of. The rest are strawman arguments I'm supposed to explain. I'll give you an example:
> ME: 1s and 0s in the same order are the same, but some data may be lost in the transfer
> Poster: Please explain? If the 1s and 0s are still in the same order, what data has been lost?
What I say: 2 files 1010 and 1010 are the same at start, but might be 0101 at the destination. How is irrelevant, there are a million ways.
What I'm asked to explain: If 1010 is 1010 at destination, how are they different.
Then I mentioned transfer, oh-oh. Now we're going into transport protocols and not just moving bits no matter the means. Incredibly frustrating and ironic given the context. I see the misunderstandings, I just can't seem to explain it. It's not hand-waving I just don't get why I have to explain things I never claimed.
This seems to boil down to a claim that when transfering data from A to B then B may be different from A. No, it won't, and that's the point. Data transfer via a reliable protocol, e.g. TCP (and when using UDP you simply apply a framework with its own error correction, as e.g. OpenVPN UDP does). I mean, in my job we transfer petabytes of data.. if B wasn't equal to A.. no. What can, and does, happen is that the data at A or the data at B could experience bit flips typically due to cosmic radiation - this does happen, which is one reason ECC RAM is better for some situations, but if this happens during transport then the protocol will handle that and you still get B = A.
> Then I mentioned transfer, oh-oh. Now we're going into transport protocols and not just moving bits no matter the means. Incredibly frustrating and ironic given the context.
How is it still happening. Did you read the post? Do you see the irony?
Could you please stop posting in the flamewar style and otherwise breaking the site guidelines? you've been doing it repeatedly, unfortunately, and we have to ban that sort of account.
> ... I don't know how audio works and don't claim I do
OK
> All I'm saying is don't call people without domain knowledge idiots when they're on the right track, kind of
What makes you think you're on the right track?
> But I do know moving bits doesn't always end up the way we expect
> What I say: 2 files 1010 and 1010 are the same at start, but might be 0101 at the destination.
Your assumption is wrong. Moving bits around is very well understood, and uses error checking where needed. 1010 does not turn into 0101 at the destination.
> How is irrelevant, there are a million ways.
Your explanation is inconsistent with the knowledge and experience of millions of engineers and users, so it's up to you to explain how.
I'm not claiming I am. Read the first comment I made. I'm simply stating the quote "bits are bits" is misunderstood because the one who made it doesn't have domain knowledge. I'm discussing in general terms but people expect details and proof of concepts.
I'm not arguing anything, everyone is reading me as if I was. Then I'm supposed to explain how TCP will fail and so on. Never even mentioned TCP, I said transfer.
People are too literal. But it's fine I've given up trying to explain it, this discussion has turned into the special olympics of misunderstandings. And you're all winning, congratulations.
> Your explanation is inconsistent with the knowledge and experience of millions of engineers and users, so it's up to you to explain how.
Since you insist, explain what, exactly? Quote the claim you want an explanation of.
> Since you insist, explain what, exactly? Quote the claim you want an explanation of.
Things you said:
> But I do know moving bits doesn't always end up the way we expect
> What I say: 2 files 1010 and 1010 are the same at start, but might be 0101 at the destination.
I'd like to know what makes you say these things. The reasoning behind it, or maybe experimental data.
When audio data is digital, it works in exactly the same way as all other digital data, something computer scientists, electrical engineers, network engineers, etc. happen to have a lot of knowledge about and experience with. We know how it behaves, we know bits don't just change. Therefore I say it's up to you to explain how bits can move in unexpected ways, and how they can be different at the destination than at the start.
You can't just say you're discussing in general terms as a defense for using unfounded assumptions.
That's my entire point. I never claimed anything. I'm told I did and asked to explain all these strawmans. I see the title attracted all the "actually" people in the world.
Look at my first post. I'm trying explain how I read "bits are bits" and that it doesn't necessarily mean that he's stupid. Are bits always bits?
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.
This is a simplistic view how memory and data transmission systems work.
Even in days of yore it took a schematic to figure out whether bits were being stored as "lots of electrons means a 1, few electrons means a zero", or the inverse.
Modern memory systems and fast serial buses often use whitening to reduce noise and improve clock recovery. A 1 is a 1 when the CPU decides it's a 1, and even then its physical representation is not necessarily static.
Doesn't make my claim wrong though. It's an interesting fact just to make a point that sometimes it's not as simple as we assume. Also why I asked him to look it up instead of explaining the how and in what circumstance. I'm sure he's able to find that out, it's not important to the point.
I saw that earlier claim that ones are heavier than zeroes.. could you explain what that even means? And what kind of effect that's supposed to have? I'm genuinely curious about where that comes from.
Technically flash memory storage would weigh more as a 1 (or maybe as a 0, depending), since it works by storing electrons. Apparently it stores something like 500 electrons [1]. My phone has 6 GB of storage, so if they are all ones that gives an extra weight of 2.50e-13 g, which is 0.0001 nanograms. Probably not measurable, though, especially since the large mass of the phone relative to the change in mass eliminates a lot of sensitive measurement techniques.
I'm not sure if RAM would have extra weight, as I know less about how it works.
I know you're being funny, but researchers in a lab got an encryption key by listening on the spinning discs if I remember the paper correctly. Was front-page few years ago.
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.