Digital Signal Transmission

[semente]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

 

No need to do that to detect the effects of jitter in digital transmission or the DAC clock -- these either are there and can be measured in the audible range, or they are irrelevant.

 

Which measurements do you use to detect jitter effects in the audible range?

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, semente said:

 

Which measurements do you use to detect jitter effects in the audible range?

 

Like the ones I posted earlier.

 

 

[TomJ]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Sadly, No. There is no such thing as noise to be measured in the context of audio data, as the HF protocol frequency data *is* noise to the audio domain. There's really nothing to measure there.

 

 

Another No; data integrity in this realm is nothing else but an eye sufficient open so no errors are produced.

Far away a more open eye could imply better sound, but it won't work out like that at all. Besides, you are still too early with these measurements because you need to be in the DAC, right at the input of the clock signal next to the D/A element (usually a chip). And again no noise is really to be measured there because it is about jitter. Of course, following my own explanation it *is* about noise super imposed on the clock signal, but where the clock signal is 22MHz already (or double that or more), the noise is a multitude and not anything easy to measure. So ... this is not how we measure noise ... we again measure/observe an eye diagram, which is not even in order at that (clock signal place) because ... that again is wrong and has to be about "data" (of the i2s protocol in this (general) case). That data contains the clock signal too.

 

Now Paul, come on. You say that all these things can easily be measured. Now teach me how (but bring some money please, if required).

;-)

 

OK - just pulled the trigger for this amazing new invention: Quantum Stickers.

Will stick them on all the parts of my switches, routers, servers, streamers and DAC and im done! 🤣

https://telos-audio.com.tw/sticker/

 

 

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, TomJ said:

 

OK - just pulled the trigger for these amazing new invention: Quantum Stickers.

Will stick them on all the parts of my switches, routers, servers, streamers and DAC and im done! 🤣

https://telos-audio.com.tw/sticker/

 

 

 

You're learning fast! ;)

 

[Miska]

11 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

No need to do that to detect the effects of jitter in digital transmission or the DAC clock -- these either are there and can be measured in the audible range, or they are irrelevant.

 

Sure, that's another thing. But for measuring DAC's performance in it's primary task as whole, in reconstructing the analog waveform as close as possible to the accuracy of source data is different. Jitter measurement is much more about looking into sub-Hz range around fundamental.

 

19 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

SINAD does work really well for saving $$$'s (and sanity, to some degree), even if it's not entirely accurate ;)

 

IMO, SINAD alone is as useless figure as any other number taken out of context. I don't think it helps saving $$$.

 

[TomJ]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

 

You're learning fast! ;)

 

And bought some audiophile stuff to prevent jitter during listening in my brain:

[pkane2001]

Just now, Miska said:

IMO, SINAD alone is as useless figure as any other number taken out of context. I don't think it helps saving $$$.

 

It helps save $$$ if you ignore the fact that it's not useful :)

 

[MarkusBarkus]

@TomJ if your are putting Quantum Stickers on internal components, I predict you will NEVER be done tweaking! 😉
 

Wish they had some stickers with quantum Smurfs or quantum dinosaurs...

 

 

[TomJ]

4 minutes ago, MarkusBarkus said:

@TomJ if your are putting Quantum Stickers on internal components, I predict you will NEVER be done tweaking! 😉
 

Wish they had some stickers with quantum Smurfs or quantum dinosaurs...

 

 

Would be a nice job to do A/B test witch these stickers. Once you are done with sticking, you will be so amazed to here your system again, even if the sound get worse, you cant remember how the sound was before.

[fas42]

8 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

If one is very careful to look for objective evidence, one can avoid the influence of beliefs, ideas, charlatans, or misleading advertising copy.  This is why science was invented. It would really help if instead of claiming lots of things that you "believe you hear" you'd spend at least some of the time trying to prove it. Prove it to yourself, not to me. Claiming that you "hear it, therefore it must be so" style of discovery has gone out of favor at about Renaissance time, and for a good reason.  As illustrated in the transcript of my conversation with Dr. Frank, that approach can result in a permanent loss of major body parts ;)

 

 

 

 

Paul, Paul, Paul ... you're deep in the objectivist's whirlpool, I'm afraid ... all science has to be ultimately based on observation, of the world as it is. Anything else is just another ride of self-delusion, which may be very difficult to get off ...

 

I learnt something 3 decades ago which has been absolutely consistent, to this day. Which is, that audio playback can be immensely involving and satisfying - but that status of performance is very, very fragile; the slightest impairment, somewhere, can collapse the illusion. I can prove to myself at any time that my ideas are sound, by going and listening to a nominally high performance, well measuring setup - which is, subjectively, awful. It stinks of a distortion signature; it's flawed as a mechanism for listening to recordings.

 

The absence of those distortions is all that matters. As is the absence of pain, as a human. Much of the world operates on the basis that "this has worked as a means of solving an issue; therefore, we'll keep using it" ... if everything that didn't have the highest level of rigorous proof as being effective was ditched tomorrow, by decree - the world would be in a very, very, very bad place, very fast ...

[fas42]

9 hours ago, TomJ said:

 

I also doubt, for example, that the noise level will be lowered that much compared to a standard switch with LPS. That would be easy to prove. But I always only get the answer, I have to believe it and trust my ears.

If the producer could prove something here, they would have more customers. Do they not want this?

 

 

 

Can a doctor prove to you that the medication that he prescribes for you will solve your pain issues, by quoting what the manufacturers test results were? I'm afraid in the murky world of audio there are so many variables, that feeding you with numbers might make you feel more comfortable - but has little to do with guaranteeing outcomes.

[pkane2001]

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Paul, Paul, Paul ... you're deep in the objectivist's whirlpool, I'm afraid ... all science has to be ultimately based on observation, of the world as it is. Anything else is just another ride of self-delusion, which may be very difficult to get off ...

 

I learnt something 3 decades ago which has been absolutely consistent, to this day. Which is, that audio playback can be immensely involving and satisfying - but that status of performance is very, very fragile; the slightest impairment, somewhere, can collapse the illusion. I can prove to myself at any time that my ideas are sound, by going and listening to a nominally high performance, well measuring setup - which is, subjectively, awful. It stinks of a distortion signature; it's flawed as a mechanism for listening to recordings.

 

The absence of those distortions is all that matters. As is the absence of pain, as a human. Much of the world operates on the basis that "this has worked as a means of solving an issue; therefore, we'll keep using it" ... if everything that didn't have the highest level of rigorous proof as being effective was ditched tomorrow, by decree - the world would be in a very, very, very bad place, very fast ...

 

There's observation and there's scientific observation, Frank. What you're describing is the kind that leads to self-delusion and amputated extremities. 

[fas42]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

 

There's observation and there's scientific observation, Frank. What you're describing is the kind that leads to self-delusion and amputated extremities. 

 

Right, there's observation by "normal" people - and then there's observation by "scientific" people ... the latter is obviously of a far higher standard, I can tell ... 🤪.

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Right, there's observation by "normal" people - and then there's observation by "scientific" people ... the latter is obviously of a far higher standard, I can tell ... 🤪.

 

Are you seriously doubting it? Give you an example:   

 

observation by "normal" people = Earth is flat (I can see this with my own eyes looking out the window)

observation by "scientific" people = Earth is a spheroid planet rotating around a star that's part of a galaxy that itself is part of a local galaxy group that's part of a universe containing billions of galaxies

 

Which one do you think is of a "higher" standard?

[fas42]

2 hours ago, semente said:

Wouldn’t life be a lot easier if we weren’t able to measure a lot of stuff? And cheaper?

 

Why complicate when there’s a simplistic measure for DAC performance called SINAD which tells us all we need to know (that all DACs sound the same)? With pink panther ratings.

 

Yeeah ... measurements are an aid in some of the development of devices - but as a means of evaluating whether some setup delivers, in the areas that matter, they are close to useless ...

[TomJ]

20 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Can a doctor prove to you that the medication that he prescribes for you will solve your pain issues, by quoting what the manufacturers test results were? I'm afraid in the murky world of audio there are so many variables, that feeding you with numbers might make you feel more comfortable - but has little to do with guaranteeing outcomes.

My hobby is not to look at numbers - I dont wont to spend my time in testing thousands of devices in thousands of combination. and when i am done to hear from someone else there is a 1001th device to test.

I want to hear music in the finest way.

Its like pkane2001 mentioned: its like in the middle age.

 

The whole thing reminds me of a story from my studies. I really wanted to use a radiosity program that was only available for linux. Since I wasn't a Linux user, I went to the Linux group at my university with the hope of getting help. But these guys weren't interested in helping me and sharing their knowledge. Instead, they felt cool to have a knowledge that others don't, so they made a big secret. I just thought "fuck you linux-nerds" and got myself a program for Windows at great expense.

However, there is still a difference here - I trust the Linux nerds to know what they are doing. Here with the audiophiles, I'm starting to doubt it. 

[fas42]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

 

Are you seriously doubting it? Give you an example:   

 

observation by "normal" people = Earth is flat (I can see this with my own eyes looking out the window)

observation by "scientific" people = Earth is a spheroid planet rotating around a star that's part of a galaxy that itself is part of a local galaxy group that's part of a universe containing billions of galaxies

 

Which one do you think is of a "higher" standard?

 

How about this ... go to a restaurant, everyone has the same meal - then it is evaluated. You have a food critic, an owner of a restaurant chain, a master chef, and a winner of the physics Nobel Prize as the group of 4 eating - whose evaluation has the greatest weight?

[TomJ]

-

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

How about this ... go to a restaurant, everyone has the same meal - then it is evaluated. You have a food critic, an owner of a restaurant chain, a master chef, and a winner of the physics Nobel Prize as the group of 4 eating - whose evaluation has the greatest weight?

 

Let's put it this way: I'd trust the scientist to determine if there's any poison in my meal much more than I would a master chef. 

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, TomJ said:

My hobby is not to look at numbers - I dont wont to spend my time in testing thousands of devices in thousands of combination. and when i am done to here from someone else there is a 1001th device to test.

I want to hear music in the finest way.

Its like pkane2001 mentioned: its like in the middle age.

 

The whole thing reminds me of a story from my studies. I really wanted to use a radiosity program that was only available for linux. Since I wasn't a Linux user, I went to the Linux group at my university with the hope of getting help. But these guys weren't interested in helping me and sharing their knowledge. Instead, they felt cool to have a knowledge that others don't, so they made a big secret. I just thought "fuck you linux-nerds" and got myself a program for Windows at great expense.

 

 

Yep. With you on that one. Can't think of the word that describes that attitude - but it is infuriating.

 

There are no easy answers. Full stop. Every rig that is put together is a gamble - in that it might deliver special sound straight away, or it might not. If I had the money, and I wanted someone else to do the work, I would contract someone to assemble a rig - and they wouldn't get paid a major chunk of the money until it performed to a standard I wanted.

 

 

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Let's put it this way: I'd trust the scientist to determine if there's any poison in my meal much more than I would a master chef. 

 

Right, and here's where the scientific approach does come in - if the majority agree that there is something not quite right about the food, which is not to do with how it was handled in the kitchen, but they can't put their finger on it - then the scientific methods climb on board, and sort things out.

 

So, there are two different types of evaluation coming into play - neither is superior; both serve a necessary function.

[pkane2001]

Just now, fas42 said:

 

Right, and here's where the scientific approach does come in - if the majority agree that there is something not quite right about the food, which is not to do with how it was handled in the kitchen, but they can't put their finger on it - then the scientific methods climb on board, and sort things out.

 

So, there are two different types of evaluation coming into play - neither is superior; both serve a necessary function.

 

No. Whether or not the majority agrees, the scientist can determine if the food is poisoned. Reality is not based on a majority vote of "normal" people and certainly couldn't care less what they think of the food. It's either poisoned or it's not.

[fas42]

7 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

No. Whether or not the majority agrees, the scientist can determine if the food is poisoned. Reality is not based on a majority vote of "normal" people and certainly couldn't care less what they think of the food. It's either poisoned or it's not.

 

Okay, losing you now ... 🙂. The important thing, with the meal, is whether it was of a high standard or not. That it was poisoned is an entirely different issue.

 

The reality that mattered at the time of the eating was the quality of the experience. The only people who might be obsessed about the poisoning issue would be those food testers that dictators, etc, carry around with them 😀.

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Okay, losing you now ... 🙂. The important thing, with the meal, is whether it was of a high standard or not. That it was poisoned is an entirely different issue.

 

The reality that mattered at the time of the eating was the quality of the experience. The only people who might be obsessed about the poisoning issue would be those food testers that dictators, etc, carry around with them 😀.

What do you think distortion is? Poison! :)

[RickyV]

What if the food wasn’t poisoned or not poisoned but it was slightly bitter. Would the scientists know what to do about it or wound the master chef know what to do?