poing wrote:
> I wouldn't say a subjectivist point of view is necessarily
> unscientific.
>
May well speak to personal bias. You may not want subjectivism to be
known as antiscientific even though as commonly practiced, it is.
For that to be true, you'd have to define subjectivism as being
poing wrote:
> I wouldn't say a subjectivist point of view is necessarily unscientific.
We might be getting into semantics, but I would definitely not call them
scientific.
> I understand that some of the posters in this thread are engineering
> guys. It kind of makes sense that you take a
I wouldn't say a subjectivist point of view is necessarily
unscientific.
I understand that some of the posters in this thread are engineering
guys. It kind of makes sense that you take a more objectivist position.
In the natural sciences, you sometimes can have relatively tightly
controlled
Julf wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Indeed. But then we have to look at what we really are testing for.
i'm not testing. i'm listening, and enjoying the music.
--
4 TB Drobo-->FW 800-->mac mini-->Ethernet
Transporter--> Wireworld Eclipse 6 coax-->Meridian G61
G61--> Nordost Red Dawn-->Primare 30.3
cliveb wrote:
> Ralph, a more pertinent set of questions would be:
>
> a). how much jitter is required to actually cause an audible
> difference?
> b). what types of (non-broken) connection can causes that amount of
> jitter?
>
> The answers to these questions are:
>
> a). Surprisingly high.
cliveb wrote:
> Ralph, a more pertinent set of questions would be:
> I know you have a sense of humour, Arny, so I'm surprised that Ralph's
> earlier joke post seems to have gone over your head.
It appears that the fact that I correctly interpreted Ralph's post as
being a response to Mnyb's
arnyk wrote:
> It appears that the fact that I correctly interpreted Ralph's post as
> being a response to Mnyb's questionable post may have missed you. IOW I
> treated it like it was a humorous (sarcastic) response.
Arny I have no idea what you're talking about. I wrote my post about
tags
Ok ill be clearer ( english is not my first language ).
Jitter is not really a problem anymore . Others in here gave a much
better technical answer.
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
ralphpnj wrote:
> Arny I have no idea what you're talking about. I wrote my post about
> tags simply as a way to inject some humor into a thread
I find it interesting that I can tell people outright that I saw the
humor, and they still criticize me for not seeing it.
What is unclear about:
Archimago wrote:
> Excellent discussion guys!
>
> ...
>
> 4. The recent advent of the JitterBug and UpTone's USB Regen is more on
> the same theme... Neither have released any useful technical information
> to show they work. In fact, measurements for the JitterBug in
>
Julf wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Uh, but Ethan is a well-known "bits are bits" preacher - and what would
> he know, anyway, he's just an acoustics engineer and musician.
>
>
>
> But that is *analog* wow and flutter. It just makes the sound warmer and
> more musical, just like the 2% distortion from
netchord wrote:
> i'm not testing. i'm listening, and enjoying the music.
We weren't talking about you.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people" - Paul W
Archimago wrote:
> Here's Ethan Winer and discussion of jitter manifesting in the analogue
> output as FM modulated sidebands:
> http://ethanwiner.com/audibility.html
Uh, but Ethan is a well-known "bits are bits" preacher - and what would
he know, anyway, he's just an acoustics engineer and
ralphpnj wrote:
> Thank you Clive for that very clear and thorough answer and also for
> reminding Arny that I was, indeed, only joking about the audible effects
> of tagging.
>
> Based on what I've observing it would appear that jitter is now
> replacing "clean power" along with several other
arnyk wrote:
> It appears that the fact that I correctly interpreted Ralph's post as
> being a response to Mnyb's questionable post may have missed you. IOW I
> treated it like it was a humorous (sarcastic) response.
arnyk wrote:
> I find it interesting that I can tell people outright that I
ralphpnj wrote:
> You have to give Michael Lavorgna credit for going the extra mile and
> "taking one for the team" for his efforts in the comments section. He
> works hard for the money!
Good!
Everyone should work hard for the money... Especially professional
journalists who should be
Archimago wrote:
> Good!
>
> Everyone should work hard for the money... Especially professional
> journalists who should be striving for the basic ethical foundation of:
> "truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public
> accountability" as per Wiki. I'm sure these men
Archimago wrote:
> What does -**that**- guy know!? Although, I seem to recall 'he wrote a
> book'
> (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0240808371/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8=1789=390957=0240808371=as2=archsmusi-20=5HW2G5GGOHMC6FOX)...
So did Ethan, and Mark Waldrep is doing one too... :)
"To try to
netchord wrote:
> you misstate what I, and likely most other subjectivists believe: "If I
> hear it, I hear it." i can then decide whether to spend the time/money
> to address what i've heard. in the specific instance mentioned here,
> there's no time difference, and the money (in storage) is
ralphpnj wrote:
> And finally: Is some amount of jitter always present regardless of
> connection type?
There is always some jitter on the DAC output, because there are no
perfect clocks.
In some cases that jitter is affected by the connection, in others it
isn't.
In many systems/players/DACs
Ralph, a more pertinent set of questions would be:
a). how much jitter is required to actually cause an audible
difference?
b). what types of (non-broken) connection can causes that amount of
jitter?
The answers to these questions are:
a). Surprisingly high. Two well-known properly conducted
netchord wrote:
> you misstate what I, and likely most other subjectivists believe: "If I
> hear it, I hear it." i can then decide whether to spend the time/money
> to address what i've heard. in the specific instance mentioned here,
> there's no time difference, and the money (in storage) is
ralphpnj wrote:
> As I asked in the thread title: Is the amount of jitter a function of
> the type of connection?
>
> What I mean is does the amount of jitter vary for different types of
> connection?
>
> So is there more or less jitter present in a USB connection than in a
> coax connection?
Archimago wrote:
> You can add *Bob Katz* to that list:
> http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=5031
>
> See the comments section on "REGEN Nonsense".
>
> What does -**that**- guy know!? Although, I seem to recall 'he wrote a
> book'
>
Julf wrote:
> OK, so any good advice for removing red wine from the keyboard and
> screen?
Too bad it wasn't rosé since then you could read Lavorgna's comments
through a rose colored screen, which of course is just how he writes
them.
Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power
Julf wrote:
> OK, so any good advice for removing red wine from the keyboard and
> screen?
Julf. You should know better than to drink and type on an audiophile
forum. :-)
Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective'
audiophile blog.
Archimago thanks for mentioning the Zanden DAC and transport :) I forgot
its name .
It's a good example on why good reviewer actually must measure stuff .
This is some kind of cargo cult design , it performs worse than any
cheap Chinese DVD player . But somehow measurements only matters
ralphpnj wrote:
> Thanks Archimago for the entertaining links. As usual your knowledge and
> understanding of these issues is first rate.
>
> Here's my take on all those aftermarket jitter removal devices:
>
> First let's just assume for argument's sake that these devices actually
> do what
so what will you say when manufacturers start making their dacs with
regen type devices already included and people prefer the sq of those to
previous versions ? will that also be some form of mass delusion ?
Touch optimisations http://touchsgotrythm.blogspot.co.uk/
SBGK wrote:
> so what will you say when manufacturers start making their dacs with
> regen type devices already included and people prefer the sq of those to
> previous versions ? will that also be some form of mass delusion ?
What, USB DACs with a USB hub chip in front of the on-board
30 matches
Mail list logo
