Are we expecting a little too much from all this?

[daglesj]

"This is not true, one can hear jitter, try taking any early or late 90's jitter device such as by Monarchy Audio, Theta etc and add it to a system known to have high jitter levels. Back in those days people reported hearing differences when such items were in circuit, blind tests showed differences could be heard, and differences could be measured."

 

So in order to 'hear' jitter we have to introduce a piece of kit (jitter device???) that probably none of us have or would want to have.

 

So in reality Ash's statement of you cant hear jitter still stands really.

 

 

[sastusbulbas]

Hmmmm....

So in order to 'hear' jitter we have to introduce a piece of kit (jitter device???) that probably none of us have or would want to have.

So in reality Ash's statement of you cant hear jitter still stands really.

 

Interesting conclusion Daglesj, to hear the effect of jitter you have to remove the jitter, but you think adding a device to remove jitter to hear the difference is wrong?

So how can you conclude that you may not want such a device, or that Ashley's statement stands true?

 

You cannot. The FACT remains that devices that can remove jitter exist, that many CAN demonstrate and measure such a difference. The boxes above were released in the mid 90's because many had NOT looked at the affects of jitter, those companies demonstrated another area which affected digital performance, and as such many of today's DAC manufacturers address jitter.

 

In fact I am pretty sure errors jitter and all other detrimental digital artefacts are why people argue computer audio is better, well until jitter is mentioned and then jitter is dismissed as foo, even though it CAN be measured and the detrimental effect of high jitter can be demonstrated.

 

 

 

[tfarney]

Really, the question is not whether or not high levels of jitter can be heard and removed. That has been established. The question is whether or not the amount of jitter present in basic consumer audio/video equipment can still be heard, now that the technology has matured and all but very small amounts have been removed, even from very common consumer equipment.

 

The numbers tell us that jitter has been reduced to below the threshold of human hearing. Some audiophiles and designers of DACs and clocks measure the jitter that remains in common equipment, design, build and buy expensive equipment to remove more of it (and I don't doubt that it does) and claim that they heard it, and that it is improved.

 

They must have remarkably resolving systems (and ears) to hear what science says is below the threshold of the human ear, but I cannot judge what they do and do not hear (unless, of course, they begin telling me that it is effecting the rhythm of the performance ). All I can say is I don't hear it in my systems or the many quality systems I have access to, and I'm very confident that the overwhelming majority of audiophiles don't hear it in their systems either. The system of the Gods, currently being evaluated by the ghost of Julian Hirsch, may be an exception.

 

Tim

 

[tfarney]

"Tim,

 

You say a Double Blind Test would be revealing, but I'm not so sure.

 

How would it 'reveal' that it's not possible for jitter-related 'timing' issues to be heard by anyone?

Wouldn't you have the test the entire population of so-called 'golden ears'?

 

I'm no A/B/X expert, and I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, but can't DBT only prove that a difference can be heard, and not that a difference can NOT be heard?

 

just intellectually curious, and certainly not trying to fan flames here.

 

respectfully,

clay"

 

Clay -- double blind tests, like hundreds of well-accepted scientific testing methodologies, are based on statistical modeling. You run the tests long enough and gather enough data from enough samples until the exceptions are below the calculated margin for error (more statistical models). When they are, the logical and scientific assumption is that the scores that oppose the majority are, indeed, errors, regardless of the precious metal content of the opposing ears.

 

Similar statistical models, operating within margins for error, are used to develop and test drugs, auto safety, space travel, diagnostic medical equipment, multi-million dollar marketing campaigns and, well, just about everything important. The methodologies are widely accepted by scientists, statisticians, educators, researchers, marketers, physicians, physicists....

 

But not by many audiophiles. Which is fine. But I would caution you against spending money based on their conclusions.

 

Tim

 

[cfmsp]

 

Bless you, Tim.

 

With your simple explanation above, you have helped remind me of a couple of things which cause me to

view reliance on science in general (and DBT in particular) differently than most here it seems. I sincerely appreciate it.

 

"The methodologies are widely accepted by scientists, statisticians, educators, researchers, marketers, physicians, physicists....But not by many audiophiles. Which is fine."

 

It is precisely the (blind?) acceptance of 'science' as being an end-all-be-all source of 'truth' based on probabilities and 'statistical models' that gets my goat. These models wind up reducing the body of acceptable knowledge to that of the lowest common denominator - that which the majority can agree upon. Those models do NOT suddenly eliminate the actual instances/data that occur outside of (or contrary to) the model. They are just dismissed. It seems that many then believe that when science says such and such is true, then anything else must necessarily be false.

 

I can agree that it's perhaps unfortunate that some become easy prey to purveyors of modern day snake oil, but I view that as one's own personal responsibility (i.e., prevention of snake oil purchases) and accept as normal that some 'advances' will not be proven out in the long run.

 

In the end, I guess I'm just more interested in understanding and pursuing ideas that push the envelope of what we know than I am in protecting a fool from parting with his money. The latter seems like a hopeless cause, in any event.

 

thanks again, to you, and to all who participated in the thread.

 

clay

 

PS, Personally, I believe the marketing 'science' behind Gore-tex to be much more misleading to the public at large than all the audio charlatans put together, but that's just a personal opinion, based on my own 'experience', and I'm certain it is in disagreement with science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cfmsp]

ignore, double posting

 

not sure how to delete.

 

 

 

[tfarney]

Well, Clay, while those samples that rise above the margin for error technically speaking, "the majority," that is a simplistic, and statistically incorrect assessment, and a bad choice of words on my part. This is interesting:

 

"It is precisely the (blind?) acceptance of 'science' as being an end-all-be-all source of 'truth' based on probabilities and 'statistical models' that gets my goat. These models wind up reducing the body of acceptable knowledge to that of the lowest common denominator"

 

...and yet the planes fly, the airbags engage, the drugs treat, the scanners peer into the human body revealing maladies not yet grown to life-threatening proportions. I don't personally see that as the "lowest common denominator," and I don't see testing as the ultimate source of "truth." I just consider it somewhat more reliable than the ears of the most invested enthusiasts of a hobby fraught with wish-fulfillment and psychological bias. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

 

Tim

 

[daglesj]

.....its how your reply was written. I read it as you had to put a device in to add more jitter to hear it.

 

I thought you were mad or bonkers. Sorry old chap.

 

All I can say is I've been listening to digital audio sources for over 20 years and as far as I know I've never heard jitter (I have no idea or want to know what I'm supposed to be listening too as I'm enjoying the music) or havent a clue if I'm listening to 'bit perfect' output. For all I know it could be lousy output but it still sounds like Jumping Jack Flash and its great.

 

This goes back to my original post...I'm pretty good at knowing a good sound, I can tell a trully good system from one not so good but I still quantify them in terms of how much they cost, what they were designed for, what the person who put them together wants etc. so can appreciate what they do. But I have never ever felt the need to worry about these supposed digital 'effects'. I've never noticed them.

 

From the replies I've seen from folks who say they can I'm still not convinced they can. I feel they are just over critical or making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

I had a Ford Puma that was a great car but it had a minor flaw. If you opened the boot after rain the water would run down the edge and drip into the boot. It was a flaw. Did it stop me liking the car or make me feel bad about buying it? Nope I loved it all the more.

 

Nothing is perfect if its artificially made by man. You just have to learn to appreciate flaws and products for what they are and get on with it. There will be another along later......

 

[Ashley James]

Tim has covered all angles far better than I can, so I shan't try again, but I think there are misunderstandings and that jitter was hyped up by certain reviewers and this is what started everyone going on about it.

 

As I understand it from an engineer who's done the experiments, jitter does two things; a little bit raises the noise floor and you probably won't hear that and lot increases distortion and this you will hear. You can't hear jitter as such and you cannot say what is causing distortion, only that it exists.

 

Jitter was never an issue with CD players, unless they were really badly designed, but it can be with computers, so Chipset manufacturers have produced a variety of solutions that companies like us can choose from.

 

In the early days of CD players there were big differences between the sound of machines that all measured well and it puzzled some people, especially reviewers who decided Jitter was the cause. It wasn't, it was because the early filters didn't attenuate the ultra sonic artefacts well and because poorly implemented DACs radiated RF that played havoc with some amplifiers. You only have to have a cheap Scope switched on and nearby and you can see it! Some Amps hardly noticed and others sounded gritty harsh and dreadful. This is what caused certain companies to announce that CD wasn't ready yet and so on. It was they who weren't ready.

 

We made a stand alone DAC in the early nineties, it was based on a Philips 16 Bit Crown S1 DAC and it worked fine with our Amps, but sounded absolutely dire with a competitors, so I demonstrated the problem at various open days we did then.

 

I hope this clears the air.

 

Ash

 

[Mallette]

I've read a few posts and I believe Tim and Ashley have pretty well covered the issue.

 

I'd add one thing as a slight paraphrase of my signature line: To the extent that your system sounds good to you, it IS good. Don't worry over what you read or what anyone says.

 

I've been an audiophile and/or audio engineer since the late 1960's and you cannot imagine how many different bugaboos I've been exposed to about this or that medium, source, microphone, etc.

 

If you cannot hear it and you are happy, forget about it and enjoy the music.

 

Dave

 

[Ashley James]

Dave

Some years ago when I was younger and even more prone to putting my foot in it than now, I visited CTS Studios in Wembley because they'd decided to buy ATC Monitors who I was working for at the time. CTS were the second largest Studio in Europe and they'd recorded all the Music for the early James Bond Movies. They had Weslake Monitors, White Equalisers and BGW Amplifiers and the sound was dire. I explained why more accurate Monitors would make Dick Lewsey, the Head of Sound's job easier and the deal was done. Later on and by chance I heard the original Master tape of John Barry's Music for one of the Bond films and was utterly amazed at the quality of the production. It was extraordinarily good, yet made on distorted old equipment using enormous quantities of Mikes as they do for this type of Music. It was the work of a very (and extremely nice as it happened) clever man.

 

It took me time to realise that Dick could hear through the distortion and still make a good, artistic judgement, however when he tried to adapt to the big ATC's the poor bloke nearly had a nervous breakdown! The problem is, that having learnt to work with something that is very different to its replacement, it's very hard to adapt, even if ultimately there are benefits.

 

I think this explains why we're all confident of what we have, we've got used to it and we don't hear the problems. This is good and we shouldn't countenance change until something happens that persuades us that we need to. And I'm not referring to a Loudspeaker salesman!

 

IMO there is no pleasure in any of this if we become pre-occupied with upgrading, for how will we ever know when we've achieved a satisfactory result.

 

Ash

 

[Mallette]

...to that, Ashley. Early in my career I was Director of Sound Production for a company that made sound filmstrips for education (yep, that long ago!). My first act was to upgrade the entire production chain. My boss was reluctant, saying "We filter out everything below 150hz (due to the 50hz auto filmstrip advance tones) and there is nothing much in the players beyond 5k. Why do we care about quality?"

 

I explained to him that no matter the end playback, the better you start with the better it will sound. Once the new stuff was in they were amazed at how much better the end product sounded.

 

Whether cheezy boombox or multikilobuck system, quality of source material remains the most critical component. It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW.

 

Dave

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Dave - Two things.

 

"...We filter out everything below 150hz (due to the 50hz auto filmstrip advance tones)..."

 

Wow that brings up some elementary school memories I'd rather forget!

 

 

 

..."Whether cheezy boombox or multikilobuck system, quality of source material remains the most critical component..."

 

Agreed. This is one of the reasons I find the Reference Recordings material at 24/176.4 so enjoyable. Every link in the production chain was stellar.