What objectivists and subjectivists can learn from each other

[Phelonious Ponk]

Here are some audible symptoms of jitter that allow us to determine that one source sounds "better" than another with a reasonable degree of scientific backing:

It is well known that jitter degrades stereo image, separation, depth, ambience, dynamic range.

Therefore, when during a listening comparison, comparing source A versus source B (and both have already been proved to be identical bitwise):

The source which exhibits greater stereo ambience and depth is the "better" one.

The source which exhibits more apparent dynamic range is the "better" one.

The source which is less edgy on the high end (most obvious sonic signature of signal correlated jitter) is the "better" one.

So...just image, separation, ambience, depth, dynamic range, distortion and tonality? Glad we narrowed that down. I was afraid it was going to get ambiguous.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

It is interesting to me that from various parts of the world, audio measurements (jitter and all that Jazz ...) are interpreted differently, and described with different words and meanings ....

Well to me that description of jitter is what I hear too. Here is a very cheap & easy experiment to perform on any SPDIF digital signal - I believe that it reduces reflections on SPDIF cables (due to impedance mismatches in the cable caused by any number of factors:
- manufacturing tolerance
- SPDIF connectors (a lot of them are RCA which is not the 75ohm standard stated for SPDIF specification)
- internal output circuitry or input circuitry not being 75 ohm
- others?

Anyway the device is an RF attenuator which will attenuate the SPDIF signal so you need to probably use a 6dB version - here's the product id you need HAT-6-75 http://www.minicircuits.com/MCLStore/ModelInfoDisplay?13343531379150.467813456768868

Anybody can try one of these (about $25) on a revealing system that doesn't use an upsampling DAC & report back what you hear! Is it jitter reduction or something else?

 

[jkeny]

So...just image, separation, ambience, depth, dynamic range, distortion and tonality? Glad we narrowed that down. I was afraid it was going to get ambiguous.

Tim

Ah, you're too cynical - he gives very precise descriptions on each of these which people can listen for precisely & yes, jitter has a multidimensional effect - it's the nature of the beast, why do you think it's been dogged with the digital boogey-man tag for so long?

 

[Gregadd]

You don't have to defeat Ethan to make a credible argument.

 

[jkeny]

You don't have to defeat Ethan to make a credible argument.

I take it that is meant for me. I will just quote another South Park aphorism which seems appropriate (& where I get all my philosophy from)

You see, I've learned something today. You can't win all the time. And if you don't win, you certainly can't hold it against the person who did, because that's the only way you ever really lose.

 

[Gregadd]

My memory is thatEthan argues digital is perfect, that jitter does not exist, if it does exist no one is able to give him an example of wha tit sounds like from say 60db down it would be masked by the the music. All of which if true would be perfectclty acceptable to me at least What is of course frustrating is the way Ethan floats between theese as any challenge requires. The more effective the challenge the more likely he is to abandon the argument and switch toanother. I agree I lack the tehcnical ability to pin him down.

 

[cjfrbw]

I sort of lost track of this thread. Are the objectivists now going after each other? The crypto objectivists going after the strict unitarian objectivists? The flat earth objectivists going after the luddite revisionist objectivists?

In high-end audio, you can't even fight an opinion with the facts. However, the facts are often a matter of opinion.

 

[jkeny]

My memory is thatEthan argues digital is perfect, that jitter does not exist, if it does exist no one is able to give him an example of wha tit sounds like from say 60db down it would be masked by the the music. All of which if true would be perfectclty acceptable to me at least What is of course frustrating is the way Ethan floats between theese as any challenge requires. The more effective the challenge the more likely he is to abandon the argument and switch toanother. I agree I lack the tehcnical ability to pin him down.

Until he shows that his mind is not closed, I'm not really interested in what he thinks - it's futile & a waste of energy.

 

[Ron Party]

My memory is thatEthan argues digital is perfect, that jitter does not exist, if it does exist no one is able to give him an example of wha tit sounds like from say 60db down it would be masked by the the music. All of which if true would be perfectclty acceptable to me at least What is of course frustrating is the way Ethan floats between theese as any challenge requires. The more effective the challenge the more likely he is to abandon the argument and switch toanother. I agree I lack the tehcnical ability to pin him down.

Greg, please. I would ask that you exercise self-restraint until you do have that ability so we can avoid your oft-repeated strawmen. "Digital is perfect"? Really?

 

[jkeny]

I sort of lost track of this thread. Are the objectivists now going after each other? The crypto objectivists going after the strict unitarian objectivists? The flat earth objectivists going after the luddite revisionist objectivists?

In high-end audio, you can't even fight an opinion with the facts. However, the facts are often a matter of opinion.

Haha, I like your turn of phrase I was wondering when anyone would notice that - an objectivist going after an objectivist - except, I'm not one - I'm a subobj. I use measurements but I'm not a slave to them & trust my ears when it's obvious.

Yes, I would have to agree with you about "facts" - somebody once told me "even the truth, in the mouth of a liar, is a lie" - makes you think

 

[Ron Party]

Jitter is the ultimate audiophile boogeyman. A bottomless well of doubt. A thing that goes bump -- "I thought I heard a bump. Did you hear a bump?" -- in the digital night. Can't tell you what it sounds like, can't tell you what the mesurements mean, can come from anywhere, can sound like anything. It's the ghost in the machine, and you'll never be quite sure if it's in your machine or not. So mitigate. Minimize. Drive it ever lower with each new miracle cure. Your system is galvanically isolated and re-clocked outside of your computer before conversion? That's good, very good, but it might not be enough. How can you be sure? You have an asynchronous DAC? That's good too, but you still can't be sure...did you hear a bump? Shut off the lights. Turn off the wireless devices, reduce a perfectly good computer to a dumb transport and use the most useless software possible...I'm almost certain I heard a bump. But you can never be sure....unless you buy this.

Jitter is a snake oil salesman's wet dream, and I'm not accusing anyone here of being that, but I have run into more than a couple of jitter reduction salesmen on the net that fit the moniker to a tee. If ever there was a distortion, an artifact that demanded blind listening varification by even the most subjectivist audiophiles, it is jitter. Everybody who sells anything that is claimed to reduce jitter (which is already exceedingly low in exceedingly modest devices) should be required by law to demonstrate, in blind listening tests, the audible reduction of distortion his little miracle creates.

Well, not really. The law has bigger fish to fry. But I will personally choose to dismiss anyone who makes such a claim and doesn't back it up with blind testing. The ground around jitter is just too fertile for fraud. It's cold and damp and deep in shadow and...did you hear that?

Tim

Well stated. And in light of the complete absence of reliable proof of its audibility by a manufacturer who mods DACs but offers nothing more than reviews by the likes of 6moons and enjoy the music - i.e., where's the blind testing? - well, as they say, there's one born every minute.

 

[jkeny]

Well stated. And in light of the complete absence of reliable proof of its audibility by a manufacturer who mods DACs but offers nothing more than reviews by the likes of 6moons and enjoy the music - i.e., where's the blind testing? - well, as they say, there's one born every minute.

HAha, the "commercial interests" card being played, yet again - couldn't resist it, I guess - ah well, it does show that you can't argue the technical details just resorting to ad-hominem attacks now!

As a moderator, I believe you are showing a distinctly inappropriate attitude! I have adopted my posts to be more conciliatory but you remain in your insulting remarks - can you not moderate yourself?

I have quoted Amirm & Bob Katz to you so your selective referencing above is transparent - btw, I have never referenced Enjoythemusic, AFAIR - you must have been looking at my website - thanks for the interest

I can show you jitter measurements but I'm afraid it will be useless to a closed mind as you will then argue that it's not audible, so why should I bother?

Just try the RF attenuators yourself!!

 

[Gregadd]

Greg, please. I would ask that you exercise self-restraint until you do have that ability so we can avoid your oft-repeated strawmen. "Digital is perfect"? Really?

Ron it is not a strawman argumentit, it is a repetition of what I recall Ethan arguing. I am sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong. As you may recall I have just stated in my Whats' Wrong with Stereo thread that nothing man makes is perfect.

I continue to be frustrated by those who attack any specific icriticism of digital while appearently conceding it is not perfect.

 

[Ron Party]

I did visit your website. You're welcome!

I've got no dog in this hunt, so your deflection towards me is neither here nor there. (As an aside, if you knew what DAC I have you would be removing your foot from your mouth.) The fact of the matter is that in this thread I'm not making any claims whatsoever.

OTOH, you've made several and have done so loudly from the roof tops, screaming down at Ethan. We've implored you to supply samples to prove that which you've been claiming, something I think a DAC modder such as yourself should have no problem providing. I mean, if you can't prove your mods provide an audible benefit, then what are you selling? A theoretical benefit?

Ethan also is a manufacturer, true that. But in the exercise of intellectual honesty do you mean to equate a DAC modder with a manufacturer of room treatment products, particularly in light of the specific topic under discussion? I would not be so quick to go there.

 

[Ron Party]

Greg, your frustration is duly noted. I share the same frustration when I read some of the tunnel visioned objectivists post over at AVS. But you need to get over it with Ethan and with the subject of digital audio, a subject about which you still are learning and, as such, causes you upon occasion to throw straw.

 

[jkeny]

I did visit your website. You're welcome!

I've got no dog in this hunt, so your deflection towards me is neither here nor there. (As an aside, if you knew what DAC I have you would be removing your foot from your mouth.) The fact of the matter is that in this thread I'm not making any claims whatsoever.

OTOH, you've made several and have done so loudly from the roof tops, screaming down at Ethan. We've implored you to supply samples to prove that which you've been claiming, something I think a DAC modder such as yourself should have no problem providing. I mean, if you can't prove your mods provide an audible benefit, then what are you selling? A theoretical benefit?

Ethan also is a manufacturer, true that. But in the exercise of intellectual honesty do you mean to equate a DAC modder with a manufacturer of room treatment products, particularly in light of the specific topic under discussion? I would not be so quick to go there.

Jesus, man, you really have a bad attitude towards me so your claim of having no dog in the hunt is again transparent for all to see - really, I ask you to desist this.
You try to demote me to a DAC modder & have no clue about my products - it's another attempt at a personal attack with a bit of an attempt to injure my business, I guess - you really should stop this.
You talk about intellectual honesty - you really should stop these attacks!
I really feel this is beyond what a moderator should be doing & feel like reporting your post

 

[jkeny]

I just read through a lot of the posts on the other thread started in 2010 & the two things that strike me are that I'm saying exactly the same thing as both Amirm & DonH - so why all the fuss, it's been said before. The other thing that strikes me is that Ethan agreed on that thread to the fact that he hears jitter (when the volume is turned up) so again, what's all the fuss about & why is he putting up exactly the same jitter arguments as he did with Amirm whom he admitted to that he heard the effects of jitter? I don't get what is going on?

 

[Ron Party]

Ethan, it is apparent we will get no samples. Regardless of the outcome of listening tests, it would have helped further the discussion.

jkeny, did you for a moment think YOU might be hurting Ethan's business?

I have no firsthand experience with any of that which you manufacture or mod. For the record I hope they do perform as you advertise them to do. I'm in favor of anything that raises the bar.

But please, bad attitude toward you? Nope. You might be the nicest person on the planet. I don't know.

My beef is your bulldog attack on Ethan without providing evidence. I am right and you are wrong is not evidence. I referred you to a thread where a healthy debate took place with Ethan as one of its participants. Please note the evidence put forth in that thread and contrast it with your participation here.

As a final note, I am not posting here as a moderator but as a forum member interested in a substantive discussion. Were I exercising my moderator powers I simply would have edited your posts. I hope you will appreciate the distinction.

I'm out. Peace.

 

[jkeny]

Ron, you participated in the other thread & read it I'm sure. You will have seen Amirm response to Ethan's similarly repeated requests for such a sample file - it is an impossible request to satisfy. I would have thought that both you & Ethan would know this so the constant calling for this impossibility is just trolling as it has already been asked & answered many times before.

Ron, I already told you that the Audiophileo has a Jitter simulation switch & gave

As was the same Random Vs Deterministic Jitter issue pointed out on that other thread many, many times already. I don't know what the point of these discussions are if people don't learn something from them & stop rehashing the exact same arguments as was done in that 2010 thread.

Ron, I understand you are posting not as a moderator & I thank you for the restraint you have exercised & shown as a moderator.

Just to set the record straight & to explain that I did not come here to target Ethan, I will summarise my posts & show my thoughts

This all started because Ethan said that all this had been sorted out 50+ years before which I found to be an appalling statement & asked him, politely at first, to provide evidence of this post 148

That's interesting - can you give some detail about this "complete nulling" of two music tracks & tell us something about the resolution that this operates at? A link or two would be useful too! I presume from your statement that the nulling available 50+ years ago was the equivalent of today's nulling efforts & hence your statement?

He replied that this was a complete Null which I queried & he talked about a Sine Wave & not music through a HP analyser - I asked

So you recognise the difference between playing a sine wave & playing a music file through a device? Can you still claim that a null test from 50+ years ago would uncover differences between devices or are you saying that the current method is more sensitive?

He then went on to say if they compare bit identical that they are perfectly nulled - I replied

So are you saying that the playback stage need not be considered & that if two files are bit identical they will sound exactly the same. What about playing back through different devices? Are two CDs from the same pressing bit identical - can they sound different when played back using different CD players or is this a placebo? What about the same file played back using two different playback software programs which outputs bit perfect streams - can they sound different?

When he replied thus in post 194, I felt that he was wrong & outlandish on all points & that he couldn't really believe what he was saying I felt that he was just repeating a mantra without any evidence & no attempt at being truthful:

I was talking about a total null, to zero volts. That's what I'd expect when nulling a Wave file against a lossless copy of itself, which was the context:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showth...l=1#post101452

So you recognise the difference between playing a sine wave & playing a music file through a device?

Not really. Music is nothing more than a bunch of sine waves of varying amplitude, frequency, duration, and phase.

Can you still claim that a null test from 50+ years ago would uncover differences between devices or are you saying that the current method is more sensitive?

The residual from a nulling distortion analyzer proves that there's nothing more to audio fidelity than is already known. But yes, modern nulling of Wave files lets us prove that two files are the same, even when people are convinced they sound different. If you believe otherwise, please explain how that's possible.

--Ethan

So forgive me if I over-reacted, I felt I was being played & still do seeing as all this was answered already in that other thread. I'm sorry but that is how I perceive it.

Edit: As I & others have said a perfect null to 0 volts is impossible & anybody who has done the test will know this that's why I'm surprised at this statement.
Using sine wave testing misses the whole (& probably most important) point of music - the impulsive signal response. FFTs do not reveal this & hence the attitude that sine waves suffice for testing.

 

[Steve Williams]

Hi guys

Happy Saturday to everyone. I know at the beginning of this thread the OP was trying to make a point however the last several days here have become personal between several of the members. I understand (I think) the points both parties are making however unless there is something substantive to add to the thread it might be only proper to close it, allow everyone to cool down and thus enjoy the weekend