Blue or red pill?

[STC]

18 minutes ago, jabbr said:

there are numerous ways a digital signal could be identical yet electrical differences affect the DAC receiver

+1

[PeterSt]

11 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

The receiver derives the timing for audio from the video signal, which often adds a ton of jitter to the process, so this plot is not surprising at all.

 

Undoubtedly (the latter). But the video speed is derived from the audio (as far as I recall ).

[jabbr]

11 minutes ago, mansr said:

I would have liked to examine the signals entering the DAC chip in order to see the jitter levels there. Unfortunately, I don't think Mani's scope is up to the task and I don't particularly like the idea of hauling mine around on trains.

Yeah that would be ideal but difficult. 

 

It could be many things: rise time differences, overshoot, phase error etc etc and you essentially need a lab to sort out: multi GHz scopes etc — not cheap ?

[PeterSt]

9 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

It could be many things: rise time differences, overshoot, phase error etc etc

 

Just (time) jitter in the digital domain.

[mansr]

14 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Yeah that would be ideal but difficult. 

 

It could be many things: rise time differences, overshoot, phase error etc etc and you essentially need a lab to sort out: multi GHz scopes etc — not cheap ?

Not prohibitively expensive either, just not very portable.

[jabbr]

10 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Just (time) jitter in the digital domain.

Ok then. May I summarize my impression after 77 pages?

 

There is a software setting that the developer says affects “jitter”.

 

A listener claims to be able to hear changes in this setting. The has been verified by a single A/B/X test. 

 

The fact thst this setting affects jitter (phase error) has not yet been independently verified.

 

At the moment we have evidence that digital phase error is audible. 

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, jabbr said:

Ok then. May I summarize my impression after 77 pages?

 

There is a software setting that the developer says affects “jitter”.

 

A listener claims to be able to hear changes in this setting. The has been verified by a single A/B/X test. 

 

The fact thst this setting affects jitter (phase error) has not yet been independently verified.

 

At the moment we have evidence that digital phase error is audible. 

 

Perfect summary.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, esldude said:

Have I said I disbelieve this?  Someone asked a question, and I answered it based upon what we have been told in this thread.  I've no reason to disbelieve either of the people who were there nor do I.  

 

I asked not accused.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, adamdea said:

I would have to have a good think about that. Obviously it would be necessary to inspect the set up and see whether there were any odd bits of behaviour. It's not rocket science, nor I think is it unusual when looking at an experiment. I don't know why you are making such a fuss about this; it's an obvious line of inquiry.

 

so without previously having a good think about it you were just objecting to the methodology on principle ?

 

If its not rocket science and an obvious line of inquiry then lets hear the way it should have been done.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

31 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Ok then. May I summarize my impression after 77 pages?

 

There is a software setting that the developer says affects “jitter”.

 

A listener claims to be able to hear changes in this setting. The has been verified by a single A/B/X test. 

 

The fact thst this setting affects jitter (phase error) has not yet been independently verified.

 

At the moment we have evidence that digital phase error is audible. 

 

That seems right, pending verification

[adamdea]

37 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

so without previously having a good think about it you were just objecting to the methodology on principle ?

 

If its not rocket science and an obvious line of inquiry then lets hear the way it should have been done.

Well, no. Because I didn't actually object to the methodology. 

I'm not saying how it should have been done. I'm saying that it would be sensible to look at the setup and see whether there might be anything about it which produced a problem/tell/ 

[mansr]

Some more minor differences:

 

 

 

 

Again, we can't tell whether this was caused by the change in the SFS setting or by some external influence.

[marce]

3 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Lots of hits on 400Hz (isolation) transformers ...

Standard aircraft AC frequency.

[PeterSt]

16 minutes ago, mansr said:

Some more minor differences:

 

What you can see here is that the noise (of your concern) is more distinct in the SFS=200 situation. This is quite what I would expect myself (there is less hammering influence but *when* it happens it is more severe).

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, marce said:

Standard aircraft AC frequency.

 

I know. But not much air planes around Mani's.

OK, maybe overhead at the time of the recordings. 

[rando]

9 hours ago, esldude said:

Two software settings.   Both put out the same identical bit stream we are told.  Yet sound different we are told.  

 

No no no, you are supposed to claim the English was too dense and shuffle the discussion yet further into the irreducible depths of pseudo-science and technobabble.  This response is coming dangerously close to opening a permissive examination into whether mansr walked into a loaded test. 

 

How far back do you suppose one has to step before this starts resembling a put on?  The innocuous out of the blue invitation resulting in multiple near total losses almost disqualifying the entire test.  Then a miraculous recovery when all the chips are down.  I'm absolutely dumbfounded how it would be possible for someone locked inside a room inside their own home connected to their complex network could possibly manage something this large.  I mean they would only have full access, privacy, time, means, motive, and every other component of skillful deception in their corner.  The hoax complete, proof would be anywhere but in mansr's hands.  Nigh on unprovable at this late stage no matter how much it stinks.  

 

I'm not saying, but I'm saying....    

 

[marce]

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I know. But not much air planes around Mani's.

OK, maybe overhead at the time of the recordings. 

That's why you get lots of hits for 400Hz iso. transformers...

[PeterSt]

14 minutes ago, mansr said:

 

 

If we look at the more "raspy" expression of the blue / SFS = 0.1 then this is what you can hear. Of course I like to placebo myself with this, but ask Mani ...

 

The lower SFS makes the sound more crisp (and these days the 0.1 or lower (up to 0.05 and then at 4 times the sampling rate, thus way more severe) doesn't cut it any more. It is snappy alright, but also not "friendly". Too much of digital (but we all lived "years" with the lower settings easily).

[PeterSt]

4 minutes ago, rando said:

No no no

 

haha

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Of course I like to placebo myself with this

 

Looking twice, I think this is some anomaly of an other kind. This spike is not to be there in either case (way too high).

 

[jabbr]

18 minutes ago, mansr said:

Again, we can't tell whether this was caused by the change in the SFS setting or by some external influence.

What I see is that the blue peak is wider than the orange indicating more close-in phase noise. 

 

The validity of this depends n the accuracy of the measurements etc

[PeterSt]

18 minutes ago, mansr said:

Some more minor differences:

 

Maybe good to know : this is not minor by far. So if it would be so easy to see spikes like these of a freaking 30dB and judge that they belong in thee first place, then it will also be easy to see them change by whatever means.

This would be close to an audible tone (I said close, not really).

 

Did you guys think of capturing noise only ? I mean, this can have been there even without the 10KHz test signal.

 

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, jabbr said:

What I see is that the blue peak is wider than the orange indicating more close-in phase noise.

 

It is noise already - not a test signal ...

[pkane2001]

 

6 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

It is noise already - not a test signal ...

 

Right. This is noise or some sort of interference, but at a very high level. What's more, these peaks are throughout the audible range of the recorded signal, resulting in significant distortion. There's something not right with either the playback or the recording part of the setup.

[PeterSt]

Maybe it is useless to look at these spikes because it is just a noisy DAC. We can try to explain those things, but we better don't ...