Jitter - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 1Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 284 Old 05-27-2014, 04:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 1,891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Liked: 89
I spent $$ on parts to prevent me from buying a $$$ avamp to replace a perfectly good $$$$ receiver. smile.gif

I'm sure my unusual hdmi to multichannel spdiff setup did contributed to the jitter.

I doubt that in a normal hdmi setup jitter would be audible.
Frank Derks is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 284 Old 05-27-2014, 04:19 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,999
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 685 Post(s)
Liked: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post

As you may have noticed I keep a distance from this debate, but since you asked.

I think you are both wrong, and are both right.

Amirm: Your technical evidence is beyond question IMPO. The numbers don't lie. But I do question at the end of the day if the net sonic result is significant.

Arny: While I highly respect your background and views, I think you are too quick to discount the significance of jitter. Perhaps in a good system it might be audible if it was sonically isolated and an DBX was done with the segment. IOW, I am not 100% convinced it's not an issue with HDMI.

But as I have stated before, it is what it is. Obviously the mass market AV receiver manufactures don't care. The jitter performance is more than good enough for the mass market. For those who demand better there are alternate solutions such as AES modified BluRay players and HTPC's. It's also conceivable that the high end manufactures, Theta, ADA, Meridan, Levinson, pay more attention to this issue and work to minimize it. But as we know, they are probably limited by having to use the same chip sets as the lower cost AVRs.

That's my take.
Mine too smile.gif. A lot of wisdom in what you are saying. Thanks for posting.
Quote:
But all this does peak my interest in HDSDI embedded audio which is the same basic technology as embedded HDMI. A 1.5g HDSDI streamm can carry 16 48K channels (8 stereo AES streams). The broadcast side is mostly embedded audio technology. The production side is largely discrete AES distribution as we need much more discrete audio channel flexibility.

So does HDSDI have more jitter than baseband AES? I may look into that someday, not that it will make any difference to the industry.
I am happy to test the set up if you can find a way to get it to me and back.

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #183 of 284 Old 05-28-2014, 04:38 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,177
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 632 Post(s)
Liked: 1123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post


So does HDSDI have more jitter than baseband AES? I may look into that someday, not that it will make any difference to the industry.

You mean HD SDI? HD SDI uses the same general jitter stimulating data format as HDMI. SDI and HD SDI are a serial data interface with video, audio and control information interleaved in a fashion that is reminiscent of HDMI. To some degree HDMI is cheaped down, twisted pair based SDI. But that doesn't mean necessarily higher audio or video quality.

For the rest of the forum - SDI has been around forever and it is used to move video around TV stations and other places such as schools and churches where high quality video needs to be distributed over distances of 100s of feet. It is usually based on a single coax cable. One advantage was that it used the same video coax as its analog predecessor so the cost of upgrading an existing video production facility to digial (usually a TV station) was minimized.

HD SDI is a rethinking of SDI for HD. Pro video shares a lot of characteristics with pro audio in that the technical choices tend to be more pragmatic and more robust. For example the multichannel audio sub format ranges up to 8 stereo pairs of 24/48. There is a dual link (2 coax cables in parallel) flavor of HD SDI with double everything. There is a new standard with 32 channels of audio on one cable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_digital_interface

SDI's major advantage is its ability to run over longer cables, and the fact that most pro video production gear is based on it.

As is usual, the cost of SDI hardware is coming down. For example it is being used with mid- higher end PTZ security cameras so we can get those high quality color movies of the perps doing their things.
arnyk is online now  
post #184 of 284 Old 05-28-2014, 05:12 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,177
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 632 Post(s)
Liked: 1123
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post

I said: "might be audible", "not 100% convinced". What's wrong with leaving the door open a crack? I for one can't be 100% sure.

Because when you leave the door open a crack in audiophile-land, the crazy tends to come pouring in? wink.gif

There are truly audible things 'wrong' with most listening setups. They often have to do with loudspeakers and room acoustics. To fret over coulda sorta kinda maybe but who knows? audible jitter to the extent that the 'high end' does, is silly. When 'fretting' means abandoning HDMI, or spending $$$$ to 'solve' the hypothetical 'problem', it's grotesque.
Quote:
I do agree with the masking playing a big part - perhaps to the point of totally masking the jitter. But then that's highly content dependent too. A piano or other solo may be different? Just my speculation.

I would think solo piano music would still be subject to masking. Even a piano doesn't produce pure tones, nor usually is it producing a single, sustained tone. It's still making 'complex' sounds in audio terms.

Reality is that most HDMI equipment is so free of audible Jitter that we could probably cut to the chase and base our listening tests on 1 KHz pure sine waves with no other source of masking, and still get null results.

To put the masking issue into perspective, here is the masking caused by a 1 KHz sine wave:



Here is the Pioneer data scaled down to 1 KHz:



And this is where it would fit in a standard graph of masking by a 1 KHz tone (the Pioneer data would all fit in the black box)



IOW it would all be heavily masked.
UndersAVS likes this.
arnyk is online now  
post #185 of 284 Old 05-28-2014, 07:10 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,999
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 685 Post(s)
Liked: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Reality is that most HDMI equipment is so free of audible Jitter that we could probably cut to the chase and base our listening tests on 1 KHz pure sine waves with no other source of masking, and still get null results.
Good morning Arny. Would you please post the measurements of your AVR and perform the same analysis? And, can you make a representation that everyone's AVR jitter of HDMI is as I measured?

Thanks in advance.

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #186 of 284 Old 05-28-2014, 09:39 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Liked: 439
I appreciate, really I do, using cost effective approaches in reducing or mitigating jitter, whether it's audible or not. Amir has pointed out, as have other sources, that invariably, s/pdif trumps HDMI. Why none other than the condescending, sanctimonious prick Charles Hansen, the man who brought us the break-in disc and the rebadged OPPO, concurs. HDMI sits at the right hand of Satan and I don't mean the hockey player.

As a community that is serious about our compressed to sh!t music, we want to make sure we don't miss one single thing. We want to take every step possible, inexpensive or otherwise, paranormal or grounded in science, that we hear this sh!t as the recording artist and engineers intended.

So I have to wonder, does the music we listen to contain insidious levels of jitter? You know, stuff that comes from flaky clocks, poor isolation from both internal and external spuria that contaminates the music? Surely consoles that have multi and I do mean multi A/D converters all running shouldn't strike anyone that the music is immune from the artifacts they generate. Ought we not demand that these recording studios provide some level of assurance that they acknowledge and respect the deleterious offers that jitter can wreak?

Just sayin...

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is online now  
post #187 of 284 Old 05-28-2014, 11:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Will2007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,925
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

HDMI sits at the right hand of Satan and I don't mean the hockey player.

On this I suspect all of us can agree, but of course it's not because of jitter.
Will2007 is offline  
post #188 of 284 Old 05-28-2014, 12:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 7,911
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

You mean HD SDI? HD SDI uses the same general jitter stimulating data format as HDMI. SDI and HD SDI are a serial data interface with video, audio and control information interleaved in a fashion that is reminiscent of HDMI. To some degree HDMI is cheaped down, twisted pair based SDI. But that doesn't mean necessarily higher audio or video quality.

Yes HDSDI = HD SDI and SDI means standard definition 525/625 signals. I don't think the space between the HD and SDI is of any documented standard. In an electrical and low level encoding sense SDI is actually more similar to SPDIF than HDMI.

This is my niche in the industry. And there are some significant differences between (HD)SDI and HDMI. The most blatant issue is that SDI is a single coax. HDMI is in fact a parallel interface because it carries RGB or YpBpR as three LVDS streams and a seperate clock pair to boot. This invites timing skew and is one of the problems with long distance HDMI. Before SDI was invented in the late 1980s, we did use parallel digital video in the 1980s. This was 10 pairs of balanced ECL along a separate clock. 50 feet was the safe maximum for 27mhz clock rate. Not to mention building a routing switcher of any size, you needed 11 levels of switching. I actually installed a very rare 64x64 parallel digital video router in 1989! It almost filled up three 78inch racks! Note too the the earliest HDTV digital parallel interfaces were 20 pairs plus clock at 74mhz all in a DF50 connector! Talk about skew problems over 20 feet! Fortunately this standard died a quick death in favor of HDSDI in the late1990s.

Current standards are:

270mbs for SDTV and compressed HDTV
1.5gbs for HDTV up to 2048x1080@24P 422 (includes 50i and 60i)
2.97 (3gbs) for 1080P, but two 1.5 gig links can carry 1080P 444 as well
6gbs for 4K 24P (very rare) But two 3gbs streams can carry 4K as well as four 1.5gbs streams.
12gbs and 24gbs are in the standards stage.

Obsolete standards:

143mbs composite NTSC
177mbs composite PAL
360mbs 18mhz sampled 525/625 for 16x9
540mbs for early dual link HDSDI 1035i (never implemented to my knowledge)

Not well explained in the Wikipedia reference:
Since SDI has an embedded clock, jitter is even more of an issue than with HDMI. The video is scrambled to remove long strings of ones and zeros. This scrambling has nothing to do with copy protection, although when use for DCI links, the copy encryption algorithms employed are additionally complicated to maintain a DC free stream. Code values 0-3 and 1020-1023 are reserved for sync flags. HDSDI cannot carry full 0-1023 gray scale although nobody worries about the 4 missing values at the extreme ends and in television usage the range is 64-940 for 10 bit and 16-235 for 8bit anyway. We have a set of standard test signals called "pathalogical signals" that are designed to produce long strings of ones and zeros to stress the receiving PLL clock recovery. Serial jitter is well known by digital broadcast engineers

So in theory the audio packets that are encoded very similar to HDMI could have even worse jitter performance than HDMI. But I have never seen any study of this nor would it generate much interest I'm afraid. Embedded audio HDSDI and SDI is very wide spread and the general consensus is that it just works.

And I should note that most broadcast gear is locked to a plant reference signal which with today's technology is often GPS referenced. So the jitter is cleaned up in the receiving device long before it becomes an audio de-embedding issue. Consumer gear generally lacks this level of re-clocking facilities.
Quote:
One advantage was that it used the same video coax as its analog predecessor so the cost of upgrading an existing video production facility to digial (usually a TV station) was minimized.

Unfortunately this was an unfulfilled promise. The "good" precision analog video cable was Belden 8281/9231. But many stations still used plain old RG59 72-75ohms depending on who made it. Neither of these cables were good enough for SDI, 8281 with a practical max of 100 feet, RG59, less then 50 feet. And most analog video BNC connectors were 50ohm as well as the patch bays. This made no difference at 5mhz analog video but at 270mbs/143mhz, it started to matter. And at 1.5gbs HDSDI forget it. So much of the old analog infrastructure was all replaced for digital video, sometimes again for HDTV. The standard digital video cables these days are all foam dielectric with bonded foil shields for impedance control..
David Susilo likes this.

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!

Glimmie is online now  
post #189 of 284 Old 05-28-2014, 12:10 PM
Member
 
pennst48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
I would completely support any valid test that exposes HDMI for its fatal weaknesses, primarily to support the adoption of something better (perhaps HDBaseT). HDMI is a parallel form of communication which is DOA in today's world and not fixable until a serial form of communication is adopted.
pennst48 is offline  
post #190 of 284 Old 05-28-2014, 12:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 7,911
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by pennst48 View Post

I would completely support any valid test that exposes HDMI for its fatal weaknesses, primarily to support the adoption of something better (perhaps HDBaseT). HDMI is a parallel form of communication which is DOA in today's world and not fixable until a serial form of communication is adopted.

In all fairness though, when HDMI was developed, HDSDI technology was expensive, needed engineering level care and feeding, and had other limitations for the consumer market. The most glaring is that SDI is a one way path. It is not bi-directional. In broadcast we have other layers of signal distribution that take care of that, 38K baud duplex RS422 and now a lot of Ethernet. But the idea was to provide the consumer with a single cable solution.

Copy protection was another issue, all SDI is an open standard. Now you can encrypt the SDI data but the MPAA wanted more in that in addition to encryption, no data is even sent after a few seconds if the link is not certified by the receiver. To do that as we do with HDSDI in DCI projection applications, you need an Ethernet link in addition to the HDSDI cable. And due to the key exchange taking place, it's time sensitive. Can you imaging the consumer support problems if this was adopted for home use at that time?
David Susilo likes this.

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!

Glimmie is online now  
post #191 of 284 Old 05-28-2014, 02:08 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 14,383
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 271
I get more "jitters" reading this nonsense here than nitpicking (or getting ulcers) whether my audio is worse over HDMI than my S/PDIF interface. rolleyes.gif
krabapple and Will2007 like this.
Ratman is offline  
post #192 of 284 Old 05-28-2014, 02:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 1,891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Go read something else then smile.gif

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2600
David Susilo likes this.
Frank Derks is offline  
post #193 of 284 Old 05-28-2014, 03:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
David Susilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 9,478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 209 Post(s)
Liked: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratman View Post

I get more "jitters" reading this nonsense here than nitpicking (or getting ulcers) whether my audio is worse over HDMI than my S/PDIF interface. rolleyes.gif

And you're reading this thread because? rolleyes.gif

follow my A/V tweets @davidsusilo

ISF, THX, CEDIA, Control4 & HAA certified
Reviewer for TED, QAV, AUVI & DownUnder Audio Magazine

my (yet to be completed) BD list
my home theatre

David Susilo is offline  
post #194 of 284 Old 05-28-2014, 03:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 14,383
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

And you're reading this thread because? rolleyes.gif
I need a technical reason to remove all of my HDMI interconnects and replace with S/PDIF so I will not hear jitter. eek.gif
Ratman is offline  
post #195 of 284 Old 05-28-2014, 04:32 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,999
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 685 Post(s)
Liked: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

So I have to wonder, does the music we listen to contain insidious levels of jitter? You know, stuff that comes from flaky clocks, poor isolation from both internal and external spuria that contaminates the music? Surely consoles that have multi and I do mean multi A/D converters all running shouldn't strike anyone that the music is immune from the artifacts they generate. Ought we not demand that these recording studios provide some level of assurance that they acknowledge and respect the deleterious offers that jitter can wreak?
As it turns out, this is not a symmetrical problem. If you read my introductory post you see that much of our problem stems from trying to sync to the clock of the source device.

In an analog to digital converter, the input is analog so there is no clock to sync to. The ADC creates its own clock and digitizes samples accordingly. Digital data once stored and manipulated on a computer is not subject to any kind of jitter distortion.

Indeed the measurements you see from me are done using a (professional and calibrated) analog to digital converter. As you can tell, it is able to show extremely low levels of jitter while revealing none of its of its own.

Even if there were problems in recording, the definition of a high-fidelity system is one that plays whatever is on the source device. Its job is to achieve transparency. No fault of its own can be justified in the context of what music can be because we can always get music that is superbly recorded and doesn't have that supposed problem.
Quote:
Just sayin...
Didn't need to in this case smile.gif.

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #196 of 284 Old 05-28-2014, 05:24 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Liked: 439
Didn't say it was a symmetrical process. I was just hoping that some could appreciate the irony of talking about jitter and makin a strong case for something other than HDMI when what's been recorded may make HDMI look loke God's gift. You're serious about smoking meats. Heck you developed a computer program and many find it useful.part of your success is that you buy good cuts of meat and not grades below chice.

Just sayin...

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is online now  
post #197 of 284 Old 05-28-2014, 05:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Liked: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

And you're reading this thread because? rolleyes.gif
I need a technical reason to remove all of my HDMI interconnects and replace with S/PDIF so I will not hear jitter. eek.gif
No you don't anymore than a person needs a reason to climb a mountain. Just do it.

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is online now  
post #198 of 284 Old 05-28-2014, 07:01 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,999
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 685 Post(s)
Liked: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

Didn't say it was a symmetrical process. I was just hoping that some could appreciate the irony of talking about jitter and makin a strong case for something other than HDMI when what's been recorded may make HDMI look loke God's gift.
I got your argument the first time. It is like saying if the food doesn't taste good, it is OK to eat with a dirty spoon. smile.gif.
Quote:
You're serious about smoking meats. Heck you developed a computer program and many find it useful.part of your success is that you buy good cuts of meat and not grades below chice.
You might be surprised! The history of slow-cooked smoked meats in US dates back to pre-civil war and that of slavery. They would slaughter a pig and the master would get all the choice cuts ("high on the hog") while the slaves were given the undesirable, toughest and full of gristle cuts. Slaves were doing all the cooking and smoking for the master so used that knowledge to develop the slow, 12 to 20 hour process we use now to get delicious "cue" that we love so much.

My best dish on the smoker is "pork butt" or "Boston Butt" which is the cheapest meat you can buy. If you just cook it on the grill it will be so tough you can wear it the next day for shoes smile.gif. But let it sit there at low temp of 220 to 260 degrees overnight and the gristle converts to collagen become gelatinous and keeps the meat moist, tender and delicious. I feed 20 or so people at work for what it would you to get a couple of fast food meals!

It is the closest I can think of to taking rocks and turning them into gold.

Boy, you make me hungry thinking about it. biggrin.gif
Quote:
Just sayin...
You tell 'em Chu. smile.gif

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #199 of 284 Old 05-29-2014, 04:05 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,177
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 632 Post(s)
Liked: 1123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

Didn't say it was a symmetrical process. I was just hoping that some could appreciate the irony of talking about jitter and makin a strong case for something other than HDMI when what's been recorded may make HDMI look loke God's gift. You're serious about smoking meats. Heck you developed a computer program and many find it useful.part of your success is that you buy good cuts of meat and not grades below chice.

Just sayin...

That all fine and good, but we also need to consider the FM distortion in our speakers.

Here's the current box score based on Amir's own data:

Threshold of hearing for FM MI > 1.0 per Zwicker and Fastl (2007).

Observed distortion in HDMI AVR: FM MI = 0.0004

Offhand I don't have any numbers for FM distortion in modern loudspeakers but when you're talking ratios like 2,500:1 it has got to be higher. There is also inherent FM distortion in musical instruments.

Any place there something acoustical vibrating at two different frequencies, there is FM distortion.

Here's an old paper about FM distortion in loudspeakers:

Modulation Distortion in Loudspeakers· PAUL W. KLIPSCH JAES JAES Volume 20 Issue 10 pp. 827-828; December 1972

https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=82430



The modulating frequencies involved are potentially similar to what we've seen in HDMI. These results are particularly relevant to the vast number of modern speakers that generate high SPLs in the bass range with relatively small cone drivers. The not-so-hidden hidden agenda in the day was Bose 901 speakers. The industry response to the Klipsch paper came from Acoustic Research's staff (Klipsch's arch rivals of the day), and pointed out that at the time people were already tolerating fairly high amounts of similar kinds of FM distortion from analog tape machines. A fairly accurate popular account of the situation can be found here: http://www.stereophile.com/content/red-shift-doppler-distortion-loudspeakers-page-2 .


Here's the AR paper that counters some of the somewhat spectacular claims made by Klipsch:

"On the Magnitude and Audibility of FM Distortion in Loudspeakers"
by Roy Allison and Edgar Villchur
JAES Volume 30 Issue 10 pp. 694-700; October 1982

As has been pointed out recently on AVS this all agrees with work by Fastl going back to 1954, reiterated periodically by them, and current as of 2007.

(Fastl, ca. 1954)



(Zwicker and Fastle ca. 2007)



The remaining question in my mind is whether or not the block sizes and repetation rates chosen for HDMI and HD SDI audio were chosen to fit into the ear's blind spot for FM distortion that Zwicker and Fastl have been documenting for over 60 years. Or did they just come out that way because of the repetition rates that are inherent with video imaging, or does it all trace back to a common characteristic of the human brain?
arnyk is online now  
post #200 of 284 Old 05-29-2014, 05:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 1,891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Liked: 89
I think the reasons are more pragmatic. Fit the he audio data in the available space that is left over.

Frank Derks is offline  
post #201 of 284 Old 05-29-2014, 06:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
David Susilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 9,478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 209 Post(s)
Liked: 360
^^^ that picture looks cool everytime I see it.

follow my A/V tweets @davidsusilo

ISF, THX, CEDIA, Control4 & HAA certified
Reviewer for TED, QAV, AUVI & DownUnder Audio Magazine

my (yet to be completed) BD list
my home theatre

David Susilo is offline  
post #202 of 284 Old 05-29-2014, 10:27 AM
Senior Member
 
spkr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 236
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 70
One can imagine what a good set of speakers would sound like in a dedicated room like this.
spkr is offline  
post #203 of 284 Old 05-29-2014, 10:32 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,999
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 685 Post(s)
Liked: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by spkr View Post

One can imagine what a good set of speakers would sound like in a dedicated room like this.
You must be very clairvoyant to be able to guess what a speaker sounds like in room by just looking at the furnishings. But sure, let's hear you explain what it sounds like.

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #204 of 284 Old 05-29-2014, 11:16 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 14,383
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

You must be very clairvoyant...
Is there "very" clairvoyant? What differentiates "very" from "ordinary" clairvoyant?

Why not let David address the posting?
Ratman is offline  
post #205 of 284 Old 05-29-2014, 11:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jim19611961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,316
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Liked: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

You must be very clairvoyant to be able to guess what a speaker sounds like in room by just looking at the furnishings. But sure, let's hear you explain what it sounds like.

Actually, clairaudient (refers to hearing) is a better word than clairvoyant (refers to seeing). smile.gif

My Room
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/studio-building-acoustics/817205-my-listening-room.html

My Music
http://rateyourmusic.com/~jim1961

My Equipment

Rega - Apollo
Rega - DAC
Goldpoint Passive
(2) Classe CA-100 bridged power amps (350w)
Jenzen Next ( http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/Jenzen-NEXT.htm )
...
jim19611961 is offline  
post #206 of 284 Old 05-29-2014, 11:36 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,999
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 685 Post(s)
Liked: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratman View Post

Is there "very" clairvoyant? What differentiates "very" from "ordinary" clairvoyant?
As Jim just explained, clairvoyant means be able to see something that others don't. "Very clairvoyant" means to be able to hear what others can't from a picture. biggrin.gif
Quote:
Why not let David address the posting?
Same question to you. He asked a question and I am trying to get him to clarify what we are supposed to take away from that picture he linked. Or do you understand and want to answer on his behalf?

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #207 of 284 Old 05-29-2014, 01:23 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 14,383
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Or do you understand and want to answer on his behalf?
I would... but I already know. It's a gift that some of us share and don't have to argue about. smile.gif
Ratman is offline  
post #208 of 284 Old 05-29-2014, 01:57 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,999
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 685 Post(s)
Liked: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratman View Post

I would... but I already know. It's a gift that some of us share and don't have to argue about. smile.gif
No doubt you all are gifted that way and we are not. Because we are not, I asked what was meant by it. If you don't want to tell, then sure, we can all ignore what you two have post about it.

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #209 of 284 Old 05-29-2014, 02:06 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 14,383
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 271
Take your arguments and dislikes for certain individuals here:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/

Don't use AVS as your personal whipping post. I'm sure that this type of behavior would not be tolerated on "your" forum. wink.gif
Chu Gai and Tack like this.
Ratman is offline  
post #210 of 284 Old 05-30-2014, 11:49 AM
Senior Member
 
spkr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 236
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

As Jim just explained, clairvoyant means be able to see something that others don't. "Very clairvoyant" means to be able to hear what others can't from a picture.
Pardon me, how do you know whether others do / can or don't / can't in this particular case? Are you able to know this without taking a survey?
Quote:
He asked a question and I am trying to get him to clarify what we are supposed to take away from that picture he linked. Or do you understand and want to answer on his behalf?
I don't remember asking a question.




Oh, I get it. Your high distortion again... rolleyes.gif
spkr is offline  
Reply Audio theory, Setup and Chat

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off