I don't keep up with the "hot" subject in audiophile techno-babble as
much as I used to, but "jitter" was once a biggie.

Come on now: were are talking about phenomenon that occurs on a scale
of NANOSECONDS (billionths of second). Electricity (and therefore
electrical signals) moves at a rate of about 1 foot per nanosecond. From
all the graphs that claim to measure this phenomenon it appears that it's
not a cumulative thing; and even if it was how many billionths of a second
have to add up before you can hear the effect??

Perhaps it's time for the group to split into two:
rec.audio.high-end and rec.audio.high-end.haters.


Mike Prager
North Carolina, USA

"Mike Prager" wrote in message
...
Perhaps it's time for the group to split into two:
rec.audio.high-end and rec.audio.high-end.haters.


Mike Prager
North Carolina, USA

It has gotten ridiculous around here lately, hasn't it? I guess those of us
who like and get pleasure from the hobby are supposed to just go away and be
quiet and listen to our systems, rather than having anything to say,
but...........hey, that's not a bad idea, is it? Maybe some of the
"haters" would benefit from doing the same.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Mike Prager" wrote in message
...
Perhaps it's time for the group to split into two:
rec.audio.high-end and rec.audio.high-end.haters.


Mike Prager
North Carolina, USA

It has gotten ridiculous around here lately, hasn't it? I guess those of
us
who like and get pleasure from the hobby are supposed to just go away and
be
quiet and listen to our systems, rather than having anything to say,
but...........hey, that's not a bad idea, is it?

Not good at all. Sooner or later I am going to hear some type of "ugly" from
my speakers; you are familiar with everything that is likely to follow,
aren't you? A different pleasure part of the hobby will be set in motion.
One might even attempt to post a question on rec.audio.high-end. Or if you
are either a glutton for punishment, or want to lighten up by getting a few
laughs, there is always rec.audio.opinion.

"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Mike Prager" wrote in message
...
Perhaps it's time for the group to split into two:
rec.audio.high-end and rec.audio.high-end.haters.


Mike Prager
North Carolina, USA

It has gotten ridiculous around here lately, hasn't it? I guess those
of
us
who like and get pleasure from the hobby are supposed to just go away
and
be
quiet and listen to our systems, rather than having anything to say,
but...........hey, that's not a bad idea, is it?

Not good at all. Sooner or later I am going to hear some type of "ugly"
from
my speakers; you are familiar with everything that is likely to follow,
aren't you? A different pleasure part of the hobby will be set in motion.
One might even attempt to post a question on rec.audio.high-end. Or if you
are either a glutton for punishment, or want to lighten up by getting a
few
laughs, there is always rec.audio.opinion.

That's why I stay away from rec.audio.opinion. I hate nonsense and flaming.
Even at the expense of missing an occasional laugh. For my interests,
rec.audio.pro, rec.audio.tech, rec.audio.marketplace, and rec.audio.tube
serve as good alternatives (although two of these are going through extended
flame wars that may cause me to drop them). And Audio Asylum serves well
for SACD and DVD-A discussion.

Mike Prager wrote:
Perhaps it's time for the group to split into two:
rec.audio.high-end and rec.audio.high-end.haters.

Why? Because the guy asked how much jitter it takes to be audible, that
makes him a hater of high-end audio? Do "high-end lovers" think that
question is unimportant or irrelevant? Do you?

bob

wrote:

Mike Prager wrote:
Perhaps it's time for the group to split into two:
rec.audio.high-end and rec.audio.high-end.haters.

Why? Because the guy asked how much jitter it takes to be audible, that
makes him a hater of high-end audio? Do "high-end lovers" think that
question is unimportant or irrelevant? Do you?

Audibility of jitter is a question that has been studied
before. That message had no interesting factual content; it
was just a diatribe apparently based on some preconceived
notion. Unless I've missed previous posts, that individual has
contributed nothing to this group other than telling some
enthusiasts they are wrong, wrong, wrong. All I have seen is
disdain (or hate) for this hobby, nothing that indicates any
love for or pleasure in it.

That's right: high-end audio is a HOBBY. People do it for
FUN. I am always up for intelligent discussion, but I'd rather
have Carrie Nation meet in church with her fellow liquor
haters than come into the bar where I'm having a drink. I
don't want a PETA representative on my fishing trip. That's
why I suggested that I'd prefer those whose only purpose here
is to pick fights to find another place to vent their spleen.

Of course, it's their right to stay here and do nothing but
carp, pick fights, argue, and twist other people's words.
Usenet is just that kind free. But, those of us who ENJOY the
hobby might have more fun if those who HATE it find their own
spot. Who knows, they might enjoy it, too!

Now Bob, I don't think there are that many whose comment are
only, or mainly, that sort of tendentious griping, but it
seems there are more and more who can't let a discussion go
it's course without picking a fight. Too bad, I think.


Mike Prager
North Carolina, USA

Mike Prager wrote:
wrote:

Mike Prager wrote:
Perhaps it's time for the group to split into two:
rec.audio.high-end and rec.audio.high-end.haters.

Why? Because the guy asked how much jitter it takes to be audible,
that
makes him a hater of high-end audio? Do "high-end lovers" think
that
question is unimportant or irrelevant? Do you?

Audibility of jitter is a question that has been studied
before. That message had no interesting factual content;it
was just a diatribe apparently based on some preconceived
notion.

But it did elicit at least one substantive response. That's sometimes
how we move ahead here.

Unless I've missed previous posts, that individual has
contributed nothing to this group other than telling some
enthusiasts they are wrong, wrong, wrong. All I have seen is
disdain (or hate) for this hobby, nothing that indicates any
love for or pleasure in it.

That's right: high-end audio is a HOBBY. People do it for
FUN. I am always up for intelligent discussion, but I'd rather
have Carrie Nation meet in church with her fellow liquor
haters than come into the bar where I'm having a drink.

A flawed but revealing analogy. A guy who argues that jitter doesn't
matter is not arguing that high-end audio is an evil hobby, or even a
dumb one. He's only arguing that jitter doesn't matter.

Now why would someone think that "jitter doesn't matter" is a statement
of hatred? All right, I'll concede that his tone was disdainful. But
there is a difference between being critical of people who believe
things that are (or that you believe to be) demonstrably wrong and
being critical of people because they choose to pursue a particular
hobby. You've taken the first statement to imply the second.

I
don't want a PETA representative on my fishing trip. That's
why I suggested that I'd prefer those whose only purpose here
is to pick fights to find another place to vent their spleen.

Of course, it's their right to stay here and do nothing but
carp, pick fights, argue, and twist other people's words.
Usenet is just that kind free. But, those of us who ENJOY the
hobby might have more fun if those who HATE it find their own
spot. Who knows, they might enjoy it, too!

Now Bob, I don't think there are that many whose comment are
only, or mainly, that sort of tendentious griping, but it
seems there are more and more who can't let a discussion go
it's course without picking a fight. Too bad, I think.

Well, think of it as partially making up for the voluminous instances
on the non-moderated and thought-policed sites where people have
asserted that if you can't hear differences between such-and-such
either your system or your hearing must be defective.

bob

Mike Prager wrote:
wrote:

Mike Prager wrote:
Perhaps it's time for the group to split into two:
rec.audio.high-end and rec.audio.high-end.haters.

Why? Because the guy asked how much jitter it takes to be audible, that
makes him a hater of high-end audio? Do "high-end lovers" think that
question is unimportant or irrelevant? Do you?

Audibility of jitter is a question that has been studied
before. That message had no interesting factual content; it
was just a diatribe apparently based on some preconceived
notion. Unless I've missed previous posts, that individual has
contributed nothing to this group other than telling some
enthusiasts they are wrong, wrong, wrong. All I have seen is
disdain (or hate) for this hobby, nothing that indicates any
love for or pleasure in it.

Personally, I love getting new gear and reading what knowledgable
folks have to say about sound and sound reproduction.

I don't love the torrent of nonsense I've got to wade
through to find high signal/noise discussion,
whenever 'high end hobbyists' tend to congregate.


That's right: high-end audio is a HOBBY. People do it for
FUN.

So do butterfly collectors. Yet they manage to adhere
to scientific notions about the object of their hobby,
with little if any objection.

So maybe it's love the hobby, hate the *hobbyists*?



--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

wrote in message ...
Mike Prager wrote:
Perhaps it's time for the group to split into two:
rec.audio.high-end and rec.audio.high-end.haters.

Why? Because the guy asked how much jitter it takes to be audible, that
makes him a hater of high-end audio? Do "high-end lovers" think that
question is unimportant or irrelevant? Do you?

It's going to take a lot (whatever the electro-physico explanations). In the
early days of CD, when there were only 1 box units available to play discs,
golden eared high enders were endorsing 2 boxes; drives and D/A converters
to get superior sound. Isn't that where jitter entered the picture? One box
delivered better (jitter free) sound.

"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

wrote in message ...
Mike Prager wrote:
Perhaps it's time for the group to split into two:
rec.audio.high-end and rec.audio.high-end.haters.

Why? Because the guy asked how much jitter it takes to be audible, that
makes him a hater of high-end audio? Do "high-end lovers" think that
question is unimportant or irrelevant? Do you?

It's going to take a lot (whatever the electro-physico explanations). In the
early days of CD, when there were only 1 box units available to play discs,
golden eared high enders were endorsing 2 boxes; drives and D/A converters
to get superior sound. Isn't that where jitter entered the picture? One box
delivered better (jitter free) sound.

By basic principles ( lack of need for a clock recovery circuit ) the potential
for a 1 box solution to be superior in respect of jitter is indeed true.

Just depends how clean your system clock is.


Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

wrote in message
...
Mike Prager wrote:
Perhaps it's time for the group to split into two:
rec.audio.high-end and rec.audio.high-end.haters.

Why? Because the guy asked how much jitter it takes to be audible, that
makes him a hater of high-end audio? Do "high-end lovers" think that
question is unimportant or irrelevant? Do you?

It's going to take a lot (whatever the electro-physico explanations). In
the
early days of CD, when there were only 1 box units available to play
discs,
golden eared high enders were endorsing 2 boxes; drives and D/A
converters
to get superior sound. Isn't that where jitter entered the picture? One
box
delivered better (jitter free) sound.

By basic principles ( lack of need for a clock recovery circuit ) the
potential
for a 1 box solution to be superior in respect of jitter is indeed true.

Just depends how clean your system clock is.

OK, and my point was/is that the listener who wanted the best and latest
equipment for listening to CD was told (by insiders having good and trained
ears) to go out and replace their adequate single boxes with two boxes with
added jitter. So therefore "jitter" in *practicality* was/is a red herring,
and that they didn't hear the deleterious effect of jitter. Do you think
anyone can suffer by the presence of jitter today (please no DBTs )?

Jim wrote:

I don't keep up with the "hot" subject in audiophile techno-babble as
much as I used to, but "jitter" was once a biggie.

Come on now: were are talking about phenomenon that occurs on a scale
of NANOSECONDS (billionths of second). Electricity (and therefore
electrical signals) moves at a rate of about 1 foot per nanosecond. From
all the graphs that claim to measure this phenomenon it appears that it's
not a cumulative thing; and even if it was how many billionths of a second
have to add up before you can hear the effect??

If the receiving circuitry doesn't have a nice stable phase-locked loop that
rejects the input jitter, the timing error is analogous to an error in the
amplitude domain. If you're clever at information theory you can indeed prove
this fact.

SPDIF bit period is around 350 ns @ 44.1kHz samplking rate. So jitter of +/ 1
ns for example would be an error of 1 part in 350, or about -50dB ref full
signal.

That's a lot of error.


Graham