Originally Posted by koturban
I have only objected to one thing: your careless categorizing of the components you "measured" as "poor" "better", etc.
You mean this one?
If so, I get your feeling. I honestly do. But this is how engineering works. We measure designs and characterize the performance of the system. In this case that is how we measure performance of clock regeneration (PLL) circuits. It is the same as measuring a car that goes from 0 to 60 in 12 seconds and saying that is "slow." Or a car doing the same under 3 seconds as exceptionally fast. To someone not into cars those numbers have no meaning and may feel insulted that their car is rate as "slow." But that is the normal characterization in that industry.
A device that does not reject incoming jitter can have jitter that is dependent on what source you use with it. I could do a hundred blind listening tests but if I don't test it with your source, the results will not apply to your situation.
On the other hand, a device which nicely filters incoming jitter has far better design and no dependency on the source device.
Originally Posted by kutarban
The reason I object is because you have not provided any sort of quantifiable threshold to which one can say that the measurements you have posted fall into the realm of audibility, nor have you made any effort to post results of a bias-controlled listening test that shows somebody can hear it.
The car reviewer above has not shown that I get to work any slower with the 0 to 60 time of 12 seconds versus 3. The data however is still very useful to an enthusiast looking for high performance cars.
This is just how we communicate with each other as engineers, separating performant devices from not. I can give you hundreds of examples. Here is a quick one from AES paper by Analog Devices which is one of the largest IC manufacturers in audio world: https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/co...15&rndx=878460
See? This is how we converse. We characterize a circuit as potentially having too much jitter and with it possibility of audible distortion. This is again how AES technical committee talked about the same issue with respect to HDMI:
Vicky Melchior and Josh Reiss, Chairs
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.
They were not trying to communicate with laymen but other engineers and researchers in audio. And the language they used is very much consistent with what I use in annotate that graph.
I know it creates angst for many of you but I can't bend to artificial rules created to defend a religion in audio using lay standards and tactics.
Originally Posted by kutarban
It matters not whether I take the test. I don't have to leap off of a building to know I'm going to fall. If, on the other hand, you believe you can fly, then show the world.
I didn't say I can fly but did take the test. Arny claimed I would be the last person to do that. Well, I took the test and was and is one of only two people who have done so.
This is beside the fact that I have made no claims based on my hearing ability. You keep confusing this discussion with some other people. I didn't show up here and say one power cord sounds better to my ears and therefore you must believe. I came here and showed published measurements that show HDMI implementations to be poor in mass market AVRs. The same position was stated independently by AES. So if this is not flying, it sure is "falling with style!"
Remember that I am in your camp. I know our tactics. I know our tricks. That trick of demanding listening tests or else we are going to dismiss science and engineering presented is misplaced at best, and completely intellectually dishonest at worst. The point is proven by the fact that none of you as a group want to post your results. Arny wouldn't. You wouldn't. Spkr Wouldn't. Robert wouldn't. Ratman wouldn't. And the list goes on and on.
Arny presented (nicely) a number of files. The worst case ones are obvious to anyone to detect. So if you are saying you are failing the test then you have not bothered to even play the files.
Edit: added Ratman to the list