ar-t;372438 Wrote: > And just what was the exact nature of the "artificially introduced > jitter"? Very important to know. Not just magnitude, but spectral > distribution and degree (if any) of data-correlation. Hard to know if > it should have made a significant difference without any of that data. In the case of the more recent experiment (2004), where jitter below 250nS could not be discriminated, this additional jitter was random, ie. uncorrelated. If you want to see a complete description of how the experiment was performed, you can get the original paper (from the Acoustical Society of Japan) here: http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ast/26/1/50/_pdf You are in a much better position than me (and probably most other people on this forum) to analyse their methodolgy and determine whether it is flawed.
The Benjamin and Gannon paper is an AES publication and is only available at cost. I do not have the paper, but its conclusions about jitter below 20nS being inaudible on music signals was referenced in a paper by Julian Dunn which you can get here: http://www.nanophon.com/audio/1394_sampling_jitter.pdf That paper says nothing about the nature of the jitter (other than its magnitude) in Benjamin and Gannon's experiment. -- cliveb Transporter -> ATC SCM100A ------------------------------------------------------------------------ cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=56425 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
