Amir at ASR claims Uptone won't sell the ISO regen to him...

[Ralf11]

9 minutes ago, firedog said:

Yes. Several times I've read of tests showing higher jitter devices sounding better to some people than lower jitter versions. 

There can be euphonic jitter just like there can be euphonic analog distortion.

 

Is there an correlation of the type of jitter with whether it is euphonic or dys-phonic?

[AJ Soundfield]

9 minutes ago, firedog said:

Yes. Several times I've read of tests showing higher jitter devices sounding better to some people than lower jitter versions. 

Where jitter level was directly correlated to the results?

I'm an AES member but not aware of such studies. Could you please provide a link?

In the studies that I have seen, listeners have been able to tolerate levels of jitter beyond anything found in "audio" devices, playing actual music. I would be very interested in what both you and Jud posited, though I'm unclear if the purported benefit of this audiophile widget is "better" sound via lower jitter?

[mmerrill99]

1 hour ago, semente said:

 

I probably won't have a listen.

.......snip

I don't give a turd.

Ah, so it was all a ruse - you are not really interested in the device - just in arguing about it

Glad that's cleared up!

So, as I posted before - are you typical of many of the posters here - I suspect you are - no interest in the device, just another opportunity for trolling 

[rb2013]

19 minutes ago, firedog said:

Yes. Several times I've read of tests showing higher jitter devices sounding better to some people than lower jitter versions. 

There can be euphonic jitter just like there can be euphonic analog distortion.

Would surprise me - but of course logic would argue against that. But look at the new ES9038Pro DAC chip - it has 7 different filters.  Wouldn't you think the latest sota DAC should have only ONE optimal filter?  No different strokes for different strokes.

 

Been exploring IC opamps to update my Kenwood KT-5020 super tuner.  Amazing at the different audio traits of different IC opamps.  So if even digital filters and opamps have such differing audiophile preferences - what does a measurement mean?  Especially with a convoluted USB audio chain with a half dozen gizmos?

And trust I have had almost all of them - over a dozen - and my current sota chain uses 5.  I built a matrix to track the different ones and use in different positions close to 50 different combinations and variations - they all changed the sound.  Some better some worse, but after months (really yrs) of trial and error the SQ became better and better.  Now truly extraordinary and for not much money.

 

A recent weekend at a friends with a very high end system - we concurred.  Later a noted Stereophile reviewer dropped by and we did a blind ABX with his 'golden' ears and he agreed.  So it can be accomplished

[firedog]

24 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Is there an correlation of the type of jitter with whether it is euphonic or dys-phonic?

 

21 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Where jitter level was directly correlated to the results?

I'm an AES member but not aware of such studies. Could you please provide a link?

In the studies that I have seen, listeners have been able to tolerate levels of jitter beyond anything found in "audio" devices, playing actual music. I would be very interested in what both you and Jud posited, though I'm unclear if the purported benefit of this audiophile widget is "better" sound via lower jitter?

Yes, directly correlated, but they were just manufacturer reports of listening tests of devices, or less formal measurements - not AES papers- of some "better" sounding devices that turned out to have higher levels of jitter than other similar devices. Don't remember the details, but isn't it known that listeners respond positively to the sound of some types of jitter?

[Jud]

39 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Where jitter level was directly correlated to the results?

I'm an AES member but not aware of such studies. Could you please provide a link?

In the studies that I have seen, listeners have been able to tolerate levels of jitter beyond anything found in "audio" devices, playing actual music. I would be very interested in what both you and Jud posited, though I'm unclear if the purported benefit of this audiophile widget is "better" sound via lower jitter?

 

There's been a blind test in this forum where I, another member who is a working professional musician, and others selected tracks with more jitter as sounding more natural.  barrows, a forum member who worked at PS Audio, said in their in-house testing some people preferred designs with higher jitter measurements IIRC.

 

(I'll respond to your other question tomorrow morning as I don't have time just now.  But the listening test was nothing elaborate and done by only two people (I was one) so I am not trying to make greater claims for it than it deserves.)

[AJ Soundfield]

8 minutes ago, firedog said:

Don't remember the details, but isn't it known that listeners respond positively to the sound of some types of jitter?

I am not aware of any such study involving digital jitter.

Regarding timing based errors in analog systems like TT & tape wow & flutter, I am also unaware of any study showing more was preferred to less.

This is not the same as saying that analog media, with its inherently high timing based errors, is not enjoyable, or preferred over digital formats, with their inherently much lower errors. But this is not a case of isolated metric correlation, as there are many more factors involved.

I would still be quite interested in seeing the details of what Jud alluded to - controlled ears only tests of this widget, again, despite the fact that "lower jitter" may not be the purported benefit. The website seems to claim  less "noise".

 

cheers,

 

AJ

[AJ Soundfield]

9 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

There's been a blind test in this forum where I, another member who is a working professional musician, and others selected tracks with more jitter as sounding more natural.  barrows, a forum member who worked at PS Audio, said in their in-house testing some people preferred designs with higher jitter measurements IIRC.

 

(I'll respond to your other question tomorrow morning as I don't have time just now.  But the listening test was nothing elaborate and done by only two people (I was one) so I am not trying to make greater claims for it than it deserves.)

Thanks Jud, you responded while I was typing, look forward to details.

[jabbr]

16 minutes ago, Jud said:

There's been a blind test in this forum where I, another member who is a working professional musician, and others selected tracks with more jitter as sounding more natural.  barrows, a forum member who worked at PS Audio, said in their in-house testing some people preferred designs with higher jitter measurements IIRC.

Do you happen to know what type of jitter was involved? The problem with the term is that there are fundamentally different types, with different underlying mechanisms and which presumably have very different "sounds"

[Daudio]

re: the sound of jitter...

 

37 minutes ago, rb2013 said:

Would surprise me - but of course logic would argue against that

 

Logic ?!?!  Unless you have a logic diagram of all the connections and pathways of the audiophile hearing systems in the brain, I don't see how 'logic' has anything to do with it !

How folks respond to the sound of jitter can only be measured, not reasoned, or intuited.

 

But of course, you knew that, and it was only a slip of the tongue 

 

[Daudio]

3 minutes ago, jabbr said:

there are fundamentally different types, with different underlying mechanisms and which presumably have very different "sounds"

 

I would go along with the "different sounds", but not the "very". Why do you assume they would sound significantly different ?

 

[jabbr]

3 hours ago, esldude said:

Sorry, I should have been more specific in my question.  So if the peak to base level noise at say -140 db is the case you measure at -70 db?  Or are you referring to 50% signal strength which is the point where the side bands are - 6db from peak?  I would think the latter.

This doesn't seem to be exactly specified. I'd say that since measurements of SPL and phase error assume dB that it would be dB. It's most important that measurements & comparisons are consistent.

[jabbr]

14 minutes ago, Daudio said:

 

I would go along with the "different sounds", but not the "very". Why do you assume they would sound significantly different ?

 

Just because in my experience different waveforms have different sounds. White noise vs sine wave vs squarewave are each very different to me , for example

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, rb2013 said:

Been exploring IC opamps to update my Kenwood KT-5020 super tuner.  Amazing at the different audio traits of different IC opamps.

It's amazing that you can plug in different op amps and still have a working circuit! That's because they conform to a basic standard. What would be even more amazing would be if the op amps you wanted to use were themselves developed without measurements being made, and they always have an associated data sheet  so while measurements don't determine sound, they do provide guidance.

[AJ Soundfield]

Forgive me for being a bit dense, but I'm still trying to envision a configuration for having this device in and out of the signal path between source/DAC (per manufacturer site) to allow rapid switching (assuming same voltage output from DAC).

Ideas welcome.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Forgive me for being a bit dense, but I'm still trying to envision a configuration for having this device in and out of the signal path between source/DAC (per manufacturer site) to allow rapid switching (assuming same voltage output from DAC).

Ideas welcome.

 

The Bryston BDA3 has two USB inputs. It could be the perfect DAC for those seeking such rapid switching. 

[Daudio]

58 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Just because in my experience different waveforms have different sounds. White noise vs sine wave vs squarewave are each very different to me , for example

 

I see, but then those waveforms are quite different in character compared to statistical distributions of 'phase error'. I can see it more like noise through.

Hopefully we shall know one day, if someone can put together some relevant experiments.

 

But only ones that can stand up to the scrutiny of the tough crowd here at 'Amateur Scientist'

 

[pkane2001]

4 hours ago, jabbr said:

50% height is standard. With a Gaussian peak it the point of maximum slope. That means that slight errors in placing the exact vertical level will have the least effect in the measured horizontal.

This measure is called full width at half maximum (FWHM) and is a very convenient way to measure the width of a gaussian-like function that is independent of the peak value. For a gaussian, this measure is proportional to the standard deviation. There are some other functions that might be more applicable for this particular measurement, for example some with much longer tails.

[plissken]

51 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Forgive me for being a bit dense, but I'm still trying to envision a configuration for having this device in and out of the signal path between source/DAC (per manufacturer site) to allow rapid switching (assuming same voltage output from DAC).

Ideas welcome.

 

In Windows, with a lot of sound cards, you can enable 'Stereo Mix' and output the same stream to two sound cards simultaneously. Feed both cards outputs into A/B inputs on a preamp and switch from there. 

[rb2013]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

It's amazing that you can plug in different op amps and still have a working circuit! That's because they conform to a basic standard. What would be even more amazing would be if the op amps you wanted to use were themselves developed without measurements being made, and they always have an associated data sheet  so while measurements don't determine sound, they do provide guidance.

Well you could say the same for capacitors, resistors, LDO's, wire, cables, tubes (of the same equiv), etc...they are interchangeable yet most sound different - so in digital land we now have filters as 'tone controls'.   And USB gizmos?  Well of course - not to mention USB cables.  

 

But the fact that various audio components are interchangeable does not necessarily mean that their 'measurements' mean you can predict how they will sound in complex audio circuits.

 

But I grant you a LT3045 regulator is going to sound better then a LM317.  So in power circuits, measurements can be useful.  But a complex chain like USB from PC CPU to DAC it's going to be very hard to use pure measurements as any kind of meaningful guidepost.  

 

Probably the greatest surprise in my 30yr of tweeking audio gear - is the massive SQ gains achievable through the right combination of these USB devices. It's a fairly elaborate chain of devices and power supply regulation.  Testing one sole device like the ISO Regen is just not going to get to the heart of what's going on.

[rb2013]

2 hours ago, Daudio said:

re: the sound of jitter...

 

 

Logic ?!?!  Unless you have a logic diagram of all the connections and pathways of the audiophile hearing systems in the brain, I don't see how 'logic' has anything to do with it !

How folks respond to the sound of jitter can only be measured, not reasoned, or intuited.

 

But of course, you knew that, and it was only a slip of the tongue 

 

Yes actually a typo.  You are right there.

[rb2013]

5 hours ago, semente said:

 

I had seen the eye pattern before, in one of the previous topics about the Regen if I remember correctly, possibly originating from Pinkfishmedia.

I am curious about how the Regen can improve data transfer and consequently D/A performance.

Listening won't be of much use.

The eye pattern - iFi's favorite marketing gimmick from the Nano iUSB3.0:

 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

This measure is called full width at half maximum (FWHM) and is a very convenient way to measure the width of a gaussian-like function that is independent of the peak value. For a gaussian, this measure is proportional to the standard deviation. There are some other functions that might be more applicable for this particular measurement, for example some with much longer tails.

Ah, that term I recognize from astronomy.  You might use it to characterize 'seeing' conditions based up how jittery the atmosphere is making images. 

 

To use it similarly for timing jitter you would want the width at - 6db. 

 

I think jabbr would find it more useful in these cases to pick a standard offset like 5 hz or width at a standard level like -60 or -80 db from peak for his purposes. 

[Sal1950]

On 6/4/2017 at 2:34 PM, Jud said:

I plugged each ISO Regen into my system in place of the original Regen.  I only had to listen to each once to know that I very much preferred "G."  The whole thing took maybe five minutes because the difference was so apparent.  (I liked both G and M better than the original, but of course that comparison was non-blinded.)

Time to brush up on proper blind testing procedures.

http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/statistics-of-abx-testing.170/

A single trial gives us 50% chance that you heard a difference. If you did it again and got that one right, then it would give you 75%. To get to 95%, you need to get 8 of 10 trials right.

No wonder you always claim blind testing is without merit. 

[Sal1950]

7 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Forgive me for being a bit dense, but I'm still trying to envision a configuration for having this device in and out of the signal path between source/DAC (per manufacturer site) to allow rapid switching (assuming same voltage output from DAC).

Ideas welcome.

A J, good to see you here old friend!