Debate Thread: Scott's Hi-res Audio Test - Page 38 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 734Likes
 
Thread Tools
post #1111 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 08:06 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by koturban View Post
So you are saying that jitter detectability is inhibited by such a setup?
That was not the point of my post nor the topic of that discussion.

Answering anyway, that is what Arny is saying.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1112 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 08:11 AM
Senior Member
 
koturban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 385
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 155 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
That was not the point of my post nor the topic of that discussion.

Answering anyway, that is what Arny is saying.

What constitutes your version of a minimum standard?

Edit: if I interpret Arny correctly, he has been saying that the jitter at the levels you speak of is a proverbial gnat in a room full of elephants.
koturban is online now  
post #1113 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 09:37 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by koturban View Post
What constitutes your version of a minimum standard?
With respect to what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by koturban
Edit: if I interpret Arny correctly, he has been saying that the jitter at the levels you speak of is a proverbial gnat in a room full of elephants.
That is what he is saying and has said for 20 or more years. So not sure how the interpretation just happened now .

The problem here is not what someone says but rather, whether they can explain it technically in a correct manner. “Second order amplitude modulation” is not the same thing as “second order harmonics.” And second order amplitude modulation is not what Arny thinks it is.

But again, none of this is the current topic. The current topic is the speaker having so much distortion of the same type that it covers up the ills of the DAC. I am waiting for a reference to a paper on jitter that dismisses it on the same basis. And a listening test showing the same. None have been provided.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
post #1114 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 10:28 AM
Senior Member
 
koturban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 385
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 155 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
With respect to what?


That is what he is saying and has said for 20 or more years. So not sure how the interpretation just happened now .
With respect to the picture of the listening room for which you've critiqued. What minimum standards wrt to room acoustics and speakers must be met for a bias-controlled listening test to shed light on this scourge that is -80db jitter?

Quote:
The problem here is not what someone says but rather, whether they can explain it technically in a correct manner. “Second order amplitude modulation” is not the same thing as “second order harmonics.” And second order amplitude modulation is not what Arny thinks it is.

But again, none of this is the current topic. The current topic is the speaker having so much distortion of the same type that it covers up the ills of the DAC. I am waiting for a reference to a paper on jitter that dismisses it on the same basis. And a listening test showing the same. None have been provided
.
..

Just like the bias controlled listening tests that prove the audibility of jitter at the levels you speak of?

Last edited by koturban; 06-27-2014 at 10:32 AM.
koturban is online now  
post #1115 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 11:26 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 14,662
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 235 Post(s)
Liked: 315
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
As a courtesy to Scott Wilkinson, I thought any debate about hi-res vs CD should be here. As such, I am taking the posts from that thread and answering them here:
Over 1000 posts later...

Is this thread off topic?

Sorry Amir. I know that this is not a technical contribution. Just that this is your thread and it appears to have been sidetracked.
Ratman is offline  
post #1116 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 11:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,244
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 235 Post(s)
Liked: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by koturban View Post
With respect to the picture of the listening room for which you've critiqued. What minimum standards wrt to room acoustics and speakers must be met for a bias-controlled listening test to shed light on this scourge that is -80db jitter?

..

Just like the bias controlled listening tests that prove the audibility of jitter at the levels you speak of?
No one here should be holding his breath waiting for him to provide such things.
RobertR is offline  
post #1117 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 11:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by dB Cookster View Post

No gamesmanship here - just direct communications, straight across the bow.

I take it, then, that you consider sighted reports of audible difference to lack credibility as well? Surely they can't be any more credible, since they are even less rigorous. Please lay that card on the table, for all to see. Don't palm it.

Btw, your search for 'universal , repeatable ' truths is unscientific. All scientific truths are provisional.

And btw, positive ABX results certainly have been reported -- even by Arny. Audio DBTs have been published that even documented differences between *loudspeaker wires*. So your sweeping dismissal of audio ABX is producing merely 'null after null, even in a clearly biased setting' needs some explaining, on your part. Whoever you are.
krabapple is offline  
post #1118 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 12:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaJoJo View Post
on the dac thingy i can say a child has a better hearing then we old people have and the kid is most honest and has been teached to have his own opinion and not say what we like to hear. the kid says he smells smoke and it stinks according to him (i do smoke a lot) and this while i'm entering the room at approx 5meter distance. he tells me the sound is cleaner than it was with my older amp on the same speakers, listening to non-overdriven and non-distorted music. most of this is due to the dac's coz i have the same digital input via spdif on the avr and the new yamaha amplification section is the same sort of amp as the older one. it was noted some amps sound different but this can only be due to the components used. afaik yamaha didn't change any to a point of that it would be hearable as different sound. comparing a 24 bit to a 32 bit dac there is definatly hearable difference imho.
blind tested the kid can even hear when i move my front speakers about 5 degrees in angle. test 1 being a ask for change in sound and didn't move speakers. test 2 being move the angle 5 degrees and play the same music again. my little brother noted the same thing (he is 35 just in case one is thinking lol).

You do realize this is both 1) apples to oranges (dac differences vs speaker angle effects) and 2) rather 'uncontrolled' as tests go? And that your conclusion therefore involves a giant leap of faith?

Beyond that, it's nice to know some kids still care about audio.
DaJoJo likes this.
krabapple is offline  
post #1119 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 12:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
Meyers and Moran was about two different kinds of audible flaws which are lumped together as "High Resolution Audio":
FWIW that photo is *one* of *four* audio setups used in E. Brad Meyer's & David Moran's famous SACD-->Redbook tests. It was the 'principal system', but not the only one.


The 4 systems are described here. Two of the others were professional monitoring systems, and the remaining one was part of a custom-built home theater.


http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm
krabapple is offline  
post #1120 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 12:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by trans_lux View Post
I know this has been brought up before....
How many of the naysayers have actually listened to modern reference grade audio? I'm not talking about at a show in a hotel room. But really taking the time to listen with complimentary supporting gear in a known environment with music that you are intimately familiar with.
My guess is very little if any.
The more informative question is, how many blind comparisons have you done, of what devices/formats, and how many of them bore out your 'sighted' impressions?

Buying higher priced gear does not nullify subjective bias. If anything, it probably leads to more 'bias' to hear 'difference'. It's not like having expensive gear necessarily makes you a better listener, either. Ear training is cheaper and better for that, using tools like this. Nor does spending $$$ on hardware necessarily mean that the system is 'highly resolving'. If the room acoustics are poor, the highest-end amps and loudspeakers won't fix that.

Last edited by krabapple; 06-27-2014 at 12:17 PM.
krabapple is offline  
post #1121 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 01:56 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by koturban View Post
With respect to the picture of the listening room for which you've critiqued.
I didn't critique it. I asked if objectivists are all about speakers and rooms, whether that commonly cited paper shows that commitment in that setup. Do you have an answer for that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by koturban
What minimum standards wrt to room acoustics and speakers must be met for a bias-controlled listening test to shed light on this scourge that is -80db jitter?
Once again, that is for Arny to answer. I am waiting to see what listening test or references he has on how much the speaker masks such things. Do you have such data?

Quote:
Originally Posted by koturban
Just like the bias controlled listening tests that prove the audibility of jitter at the levels you speak of?
I think you are confused about my position. Perhaps you are disagreeing with Audio Engineering Society technical committee on high resolution audio which I have quoted before:

HDMI, the point-to-point connector required for BR and HD video, has excellent bandwidth and an Ethernet data link (HDMI 1.4), but lacks an audio clock. HDMI receivers must derive audio word clock from the video pixel clock, commonly resulting in very high jitter that affects quality and can be audible. Some high end receivers address the jitter and many companies are researching it but current solutions are expensive and uncommon.

Do you have a quote like this that backs your position to the contrary? Or listening test showing inaudibility?

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
post #1122 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 03:06 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post
No one here should be holding his breath waiting for him to provide such things.
You shouldn't hold your breath for anyone here. Arny would have suffocated a while back if he was holding his breath to see if anyone beside Frank and I would run his test. Did you run it? If not, why not?

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
post #1123 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 04:05 PM
Senior Member
 
koturban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 385
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 155 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Good morning Arny. Thank you so much for the thoughtful response overnight.

As to your comment, I don't know if it is "wisdom" or another case of trying to change the topic from electronics to something unrelated as the room.

But let's go with that. Yesterday I post the picture of the "critical" listening room of Meyer and Moran. Here it is again:



I see a carpet and hard surfaces elsewhere. Speakers also seem to be close to the rear wall. Seeing how objectivists believe in this test, and their paper was "peer reviewed," is this what people should be doing to be in our camp?

I don't recall what speaker brand or model they used. Do you?


Thank you for the kind advice. I am doing my best but I am not always able to be cogent in everything I write. I hope you forgive my failings in that regard.

I do believe there are specifics above though to follow. We have a great test case of whether we believe in what we say. As you say, we pepper every other post on this topic with the comment you mentioned about the room and speaker. I suspect that "high-end" customers care far more about these topics than the so called objectivists. But I am ready to be proven wrong .
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
I didn't critique it. I asked if objectivists are all about speakers and rooms, whether that commonly cited paper shows that commitment in that setup. Do you have an answer for that?


Once again, that is for Arny to answer. I am waiting to see what listening test or references he has on how much the speaker masks such things. Do you have such data?


I think you are confused about my position. Perhaps you are disagreeing with Audio Engineering Society technical committee on high resolution audio which I have quoted before:

HDMI, the point-to-point connector required for BR and HD video, has excellent bandwidth and an Ethernet data link (HDMI 1.4), but lacks an audio clock. HDMI receivers must derive audio word clock from the video pixel clock, commonly resulting in very high jitter that affects quality and can be audible. Some high end receivers address the jitter and many companies are researching it but current solutions are expensive and uncommon.

Do you have a quote like this that backs your position to the contrary? Or listening test showing inaudibility?
So when you say:

Quote:
I see a carpet and hard surfaces elsewhere. Speakers also seem to be close to the rear wall.
..

Is there something wrong with this, or are you just trying to misdirect as usual?
koturban is online now  
post #1124 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 04:08 PM
Senior Member
 
koturban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 385
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 155 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
You shouldn't hold your breath for anyone here. Arny would have suffocated a while back if he was holding his breath to see if anyone beside Frank and I would run his test. Did you run it? If not, why not?
I will ask again: Is the jitter that you repeatedly denounce as "poor engineering" audible?

Are there bias-controlled listening tests to support your assertion?
koturban is online now  
post #1125 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 04:25 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by koturban View Post
So when you say:

Is there something wrong with this, or are you just trying to misdirect as usual?
Misdirect? I asked a question and you are demanding that I answer it myself? I have low IQ but I am not dumb .

Do you know anything about these topics and can offer answers and insight? If not, then please move on and let us have a constructive discussion rather than these information free posts demonstrating angst with the person and topic.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
post #1126 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 04:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by trans_lux View Post
I know this has been brought up before....
How many of the naysayers have actually listened to modern reference grade audio? I'm not talking about at a show in a hotel room. But really taking the time to listen with complimentary supporting gear in a known environment with music that you are intimately familiar with.
My guess is very little if any.
Whose reference?
What does this have anything to do with anything here?

ps.
Have a look at a super setup in this thread and what good it did for the owner

Observations of a controlled Cable Test

Oh, yes, his setup

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Iss...avigneroom.htm
krabapple likes this.

Last edited by CharlesJ; 06-27-2014 at 04:47 PM.
CharlesJ is offline  
post #1127 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 04:36 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by koturban View Post
I will ask again: Is the jitter that you repeatedly denounce as "poor engineering" audible?
According to major authorities on the topic, "it can be." I will change the color hoping you read it .

HDMI, the point-to-point connector required for BR and HD video, has excellent bandwidth and an Ethernet data link (HDMI 1.4), but lacks an audio clock. HDMI receivers must derive audio word clock from the video pixel clock, commonly resulting in very high jitter that affects quality and can be audible. Some high end receivers address the jitter and many companies are researching it but current solutions are expensive and uncommon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by koturban
Are there bias-controlled listening tests to support your assertion?
Again, you are confusing me with the AES folks above. Feel free to start a letter-writing campaign to ask them for listening tests.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
post #1128 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 04:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post
FWIW that photo is *one* of *four* audio setups used in E. Brad Meyer's & David Moran's famous SACD-->Redbook tests. It was the 'principal system', but not the only one.


The 4 systems are described here. Two of the others were professional monitoring systems, and the remaining one was part of a custom-built home theater.


http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm
I just don't see how the other 3 systems could meet amirs standards
CharlesJ is offline  
post #1129 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 04:59 PM
Senior Member
 
koturban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 385
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 155 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
According to major authorities on the topic, "it can be." I will change the color hoping you read it .

HDMI, the point-to-point connector required for BR and HD video, has excellent bandwidth and an Ethernet data link (HDMI 1.4), but lacks an audio clock. HDMI receivers must derive audio word clock from the video pixel clock, commonly resulting in very high jitter that affects quality and can be audible. Some high end receivers address the jitter and many companies are researching it but current solutions are expensive and uncommon.


Again, you are confusing me with the AES folks above. Feel free to start a letter-writing campaign to ask them for listening tests.
Around we go...

"Can be" don't mean squat. All they said was that very high jitter levels can be audible. (If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.)

Are the jitter levels that you have measured for various components and posted in this thread audible? Please post a decible threshold for which this is audible.
koturban is online now  
post #1130 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 05:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post
I just don't see how the other 3 systems could meet amirs standards

All that matters is: can you dance to it?
krabapple is offline  
post #1131 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 05:02 PM
Senior Member
 
koturban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 385
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 155 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post
I just don't see how the other 3 systems could meet amirs standards
Can't do a blind test with a spectrum analyzer, so my guess is no.
koturban is online now  
post #1132 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 05:24 PM
Member
 
Riffmeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 198
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Well, you tell me. Here is Arny's amplifier test conclusions:


Unfortunately that comclusion is from a hobbyist with no professional experience and no industry credentials, so objectivists will dismiss it.
Riffmeister is offline  
post #1133 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 05:50 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 14,662
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 235 Post(s)
Liked: 315
All I can see is that the best way to back your claim(s) is to post and repeatedly repost the same quotes and attachments repeatedly. Yes... I repeated repeatedly. If that doesn't work, use colors for effect.

Also... a berber carpet is not acceptable for listening tests for jitter.
Ratman is offline  
post #1134 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 05:54 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by koturban View Post
Around we go...

"Can be" don't mean squat. All they said was that very high jitter levels can be audible. (If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.)
First of all, let's leave your aunt out of this as I am uncomfortable discussing her in front of you. .

That aside, they didn't say "very high jitter levels can be audible." What do you think they are, schmucks like us on these forums?

They are assessing HDMI performance in current devices. Not just any "high level of jitter." They then said it is common to find them from suffering from high levels of jitter which can be audible. As if that was not enough, the finish with: "Some high end receivers address the jitter and many companies are researching it but current solutions are expensive and uncommon."

You see the word "receiver?" That tells you that they are talking about products not some nebulous notion of "high jitter can be audible" as you claim. They also use that dirty word: "high end." That high-end receivers address the jitter. That other companies are "researching it" but current solutions are *expensive and uncommon.*

Print your post and that quote and ask one of your co-workers if you read it right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by koturban
Are the jitter levels that you have measured for various components and posted in this thread audible? Please post a decible threshold for which this is audible.
What do you think my answer is?

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
post #1135 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 06:05 PM
Senior Member
 
spkr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
They then said it is common to find them from suffering from high levels of jitter which can be audible.
Is that what they really said or is that the distorted version of what they said?
spkr is offline  
post #1136 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 06:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riffmeister View Post
Unfortunately that comclusion is from a hobbyist with no professional experience and no industry credentials, so objectivists will dismiss it.

How nice to see a fresh and unexamined point made here! This article that Arny cited says amps can sound different? I'm intrigued! I have never, ever heard any 'objectivist' make this claim. Please tell me more! I'm ready to hand in my own 'objectivist' card (which I already was embarrassed to use, given the possible Ayn Rand confusion).
krabapple is offline  
post #1137 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 06:59 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaJoJo View Post
on the dac thingy i can say a child has a better hearing then we old people have
Excluded middle argument. We have a wider selection of listeners than just 5 year olds and superannuated audiophiles.

Unless there are some as yet unrevealed details the kid was party to a sighted evaluation which is by definition invalid.
arnyk is online now  
post #1138 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 07:01 PM
Senior Member
 
koturban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 385
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 155 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
First of all, let's leave your aunt out of this as I am uncomfortable discussing her in front of you. .

That aside, they didn't say "very high jitter levels can be audible." What do you think they are, schmucks like us on these forums?

They are assessing HDMI performance in current devices. Not just any "high level of jitter." They then said it is common to find them from suffering from high levels of jitter which can be audible. As if that was not enough, the finish with: "Some high end receivers address the jitter and many companies are researching it but current solutions are expensive and uncommon."

You see the word "receiver?" That tells you that they are talking about products not some nebulous notion of "high jitter can be audible" as you claim. They also use that dirty word: "high end." That high-end receivers address the jitter. That other companies are "researching it" but current solutions are *expensive and uncommon.*

Print your post and that quote and ask one of your co-workers if you read it right.


What do you think my answer is?
As long a you continue posting that non-answer from the AES, I will continue to post my interpretation of it.

The first question is a yes or no. The second is a number. I'll repeat:

Are the jitter levels that you have measured for various components and posted in this thread audible? Please post a decible threshold for which this is audible.
koturban is online now  
post #1139 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 07:07 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riffmeister View Post
Unfortunately that conclusion is from a hobbyist with no professional experience and no industry credentials, so objectivists will dismiss it.
That is a false claim.

Dr. Larry Greenhill is a psychiatrist with a professional background in subjective testing. He was an oft published contributor of audio equipment reviews to several high end publications including Audio magazine, some of which involved ABX testing.

David Carlstrom has a degree in Mathematics and helped develop the ABX statistics package and later versions of the ABX Comparator. He is an experienced electronics technician and currently works as an audio engineer who develops high performance audio systems that are sold by the 10,000's.

Arny Krueger has a degree in electrical engineering, has worked as a development and maintenance engineer in a number of areas of electronics, primarily IT and audio. He is the inventor of the ABX Comparator and did the first ABX test that was ever done.

At least 2 out of the 3 of the persons above would probably be identified as being audio objectivists by most audio subjectivists.
arnyk is online now  
post #1140 of 2920 Old 06-27-2014, 07:08 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by koturban View Post
As long a you continue posting that non-answer from the AES, I will continue to post my interpretation of it.

The first question is a yes or no. The second is a number. I'll repeat:

Are the jitter levels that you have measured for various components and posted in this thread audible? Please post a decible threshold for which this is audible.
How about you posting a decibel number at which it is inaudible? Can you do that?

The only correct answer to your question by the way is what AES has given.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
Closed Thread Audio Theory, Setup, and Chat

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