Hans Beekhuyzen shares scientific proof of ethernet switch effectiveness...

[Lee]

Very interesting video.

 

[RCanelas]

Very interesting video.

I would take this with a grain of salt. This is many worlds apart from scientific evidence. There are procedural and model questions that haven't been answered. From a quick glance:

- The picosecond 'variation' in jitter can be induced by 'everything'. From room temperature to background noise from a car in the street, to a variation on the contact on the cables, that were moved during the test. Hans mentioned that even holding the probe by hand influenced the results. Was a minus-K platform used?
- The 'variation' is not really given, as in, nothing was actually 'measured'. What are those values? Average? Over how many samples? Interweaved or all in series? What is the standard deviation? What is the outlier rejection criteria? What is the p?
- Why measure at the clock input? As in, the data hasn't been reclocked, right? Why not at the output?

Since we don't know about these major points, it is mostly noise on an already hot topic. Just do a controlled abx test and be done with it.

 

[Lee]

I would take this with a grain of salt. This is many worlds apart from scientific evidence. There are procedural and model questions that haven't been answered. From a quick glance:

- The picosecond 'variation' in jitter can be induced by 'everything'. From room temperature to background noise from a car in the street, to a variation on the contact on the cables, that were moved during the test. Hans mentioned that even holding the probe by hand influenced the results. Was a minus-K platform used?
- The 'variation' is not really given, as in, nothing was actually 'measured'. What are those values? Average? Over how many samples? Interweaved or all in series? What is the standard deviation? What is the outlier rejection criteria? What is the p?
- Why measure at the clock input? As in, the data hasn't been reclocked, right? Why not at the output?

Since we don't know about these major points, it is mostly noise on an already hot topic. Just do a controlled abx test and be done with it.

Jaap Veenstra is well respected audio professional. I would not dismiss this so lightly. I think it's important work that starts to get to why we hear sonic improvements from better switches.

Also, an ABX test shows what differences people here but the underlying factors could be valuable for making even better switches.

 

[Lee]

I have reached out to Jaap via LinkedIn. Maybe he can join here and share his process in detail.

 

[RCanelas]

Jaap Veenstra is well respected audio professional. I would not dismiss this so lightly. I think it's important work that starts to get to why we hear sonic improvements from better switches.

Please don't interpret me wrong. I design digital transports and DACs, I know there are differences lurking in the corners both in the hardware and software side. I'm sure many here can also hear them. That's besides the point.

I'm not dismissing anything except for the core content of the video. It's fun, but it doesn't carry more weight than me saying that 'I hear a difference' and you saying 'I don't'. It's anecdotal storytelling but with numbers, epistemologically speaking. Neither Jaap nor Hans have the obligation (or tried to, or characterized it as such) to rise up to the standard of science.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Just do a controlled abx test and be done with it.

Controlled ABX for high end audio? Do you think that these people have the desire, time or resources to do it?

 

[Folsom]

@davidavdavid

 

[Folsom]

Controlled ABX for high end audio? Do you think that these people have the desire, time or resources to do it?

Who gives a shit? Those test don't even give positive results when you can measure differences the size of the grand canyon. They are inherently completely flawed as we know them now with audio.

 

[Al M.]

Who gives a shit? Those test don't even give positive results when you can measure differences the size of the grand canyon. They are inherently completely flawed as we know them now with audio.

Indeed. Under the guise of being "scientific", these tests ignore the human psychology that makes them fail.

The naiveté underlying ABX tests is unbecoming of science.

 

[Solypsa]

I'm not dismissing anything except for the core content of the video. It's fun, but it doesn't carry more weight than me saying that 'I hear a difference' and you saying 'I don't'. It's anecdotal storytelling but with numbers, epistemologically speaking.

Thread title refers to "scientific proof" so your comments are welcome in response. ( and as usual, nicely written )

 

[davidavdavid]

@davidavdavid

I watched the video, and experienced the "mea culpa" There are folks who want to believe, those who believe, and those who choose to follow the impossible start, the impossible dream ... the traumatically dramatic.

Now, is there a reason why you have chosen to single ME out with the mere mention of my WBF username? Were you hoping for some over-the-top histrionics on my part? You do realize I get GOOD money to WIG OUT!!!

 

[Solypsa]

?You do realize I get GOOD money to WIG OUT!!!

Is there room for more in this playhouse?

 

[Folsom]

I watched the video, and experienced the "mea culpa" There are folks who want to believe, those who believe, and those who choose to follow the impossible start, the impossible dream ... the traumatically dramatic.

Now, is there a reason why you have chosen to single ME out with the mere mention of my WBF username? Were you hoping for some over-the-top histrionics on my part? You do realize I get GOOD money to WIG OUT!!!

Too lazy to send myself the link to text it to you for your amusement.