chung wrote in message ...
TChelvam wrote:

Dick Pierce wrote in message ...
TChelvam wrote:
Which "we" are "we" talking about?

Or, how about:

Manson, W., "Digital Sound Signals: Subjective Effect
of Timing Jitter," BBC Research Eng. Div, Great Britain,
Monograph 1974/11, 1974.

Gee, that's fully 11 years before some "we" discovered jitter.


The "we" I was refering to is people like me. Who is looking for great
sound at reasonable price.

Despite all the arguments for and against tweaks and High resolution
format, we are yet to see any one audio engineer who could throw a
challenge to whoever claim that their product improve sound. In the
name of science, has any of audio engineering society hauled up people
who sell Racing Diamond cones or green pen or snake oil? for
misleading the public?

Have you seen anyone from AMA hauled up people who advertize pills and
patches that extend certain parts of your anatomy?

Yes, not AMA but the US Attorney General.

"Penis enlargement" pills blasted. The Arizona Attorney General,
together with the U.S. Customs Service and the Arizona Department of
Public Safety, have seized over $30 million in luxury homes, cars,
cash, jewelry, and bank accounts throughout Arizona from Michael A.
Consoli, Vincent J. Passafiume; and Geraldine Consoli (Michael's
mother), who marketed bogus penis enlargement pills over the Internet.
Operating as C.P. Direct, Inc., the trio claimed that their product
"Longitude" would permanently enlarge the penis by 1-3 inches. A
one-month bottle cost $59.95 plus shipping and handling for the first
month and $39.95 per month thereafter, even though the company only
paid about $2.50 per bottle. [Attorney General, U.S. Customs Service,
Arizona Department of Public Safety seize more than $30 million in
assets from company selling bogus growth pills. Press release, Arizona
Attorney General, May 29, 2002]

see here www.ncahf.org/digest02/02-23.html




Or do you believe that those treatments work because the AMA really
hasn't hauled anybody up?

Have you seen any scientific society hauled up the flat-earthers? Or the
psychics? Does that lack of action lead you to believe that the earth
may be flat? Or that psychics really work?

I wasn't born then and most people were not that informative.

I used to work in audio instrumentation. I am pronouncing the green pen
as snake oil based on my technical expertise. Is that enough proof for you?

Yes, that what I am looking for because I can't hear the diffence. But
two others could. DBT? Did not really go into it because they are kept
coming up with excuses.

"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:rViAc.65273$HG.52673@attbi_s53...
(TChelvam) wrote:

Dick Pierce wrote in message
...
TChelvam wrote:
Which "we" are "we" talking about?


I've challenged manufacturers (refused to perform a promised test when I
visited) and retailers (traveled to Florida at my own expense to proctor a
challenge that said retailer would prove that he could easily "hear"
amplifiers
under bias-controlled conditions) and enthusiasts (assembled a
fully-tweaked
system and recruited subjects for a bias controlled listening test) yet
have
not found anyone (no single subject) who was able to reliably identify
amps/wires and outboard DACs under bias controlled listening conditions.

If not for people like you guys, I would have burned a big hole in my pocket
when I was shopping for my first SACD. Bought it and it outperformed my high
End CD transport and DAC.

But I expect you guys to be bold. For an example , name the manufacturer who
backed out . I will write to them and ask them what they got to hide. I have
done that to two manufacturers and got the answers I was looking for after
complaints to various consumer groups nad government organ. (I am not naming
them here and atleast one of them is here, because it would do them
injustice due to different issues involved.)



OK under bias controlled conditions a high-end retailer was unable to
reliably
identify his multi-kilobuck PASS Aleph monoblock amplifiers vs a used
Yamaha
integrated amplifier using in his personal reference system using his
personally selected program material.

Good, my audiophile friend (soon to be ex-friend) got Pass Lab amps and I
can access to yamaha receiver( not Amp) and see if it can be the same. I did
try with my Amp long time ago but it sounded weak.

A high-end salesman, under modest bias controlled conditions (cloth over
speaker terminals) was unable to reliably identify upscale speaker cables
from
zip cord using the very system where he claimed that "pretty amazing"
differences were audible.

I have already agreed on that issue but in a different context.


IMO measurement of jitter hasn't been a problem. But you can check some of
this
stuff for yourself. Just find 2 devices you think sound different and then
have
another person help you to test whether the differences can still be heard
when
you don't know which of the two devices is playing.

yes been doing that, but it not according to the DBT standard. So i am not
going to claim I will pass DBT with flying colors.

Uptown Audio wrote:

Ban,
You may be overlooking the effect of the acoustic output on the system
mechanically and the effect of room acoustics. There are some tweeks
such as a form of isolation that will have both audible and measurable
results. Obviously not all components would be effected the same way
and thus a given form of isolation may only work well on one portion
of the system, where it would not have an audible effect on another.
You do have to look at the system as a whole to get the acoustic
output, plus the loop feedback and room response. I see where you are
going with this, but it does limit the measurements to specific
components. A good example of a situation where a tweek could not be
measured at a cable termination would be an acoustic wall treatment,
which could be considered a tweek as it would also effect the sound,
but it could not be measured anywhere but in the room of course. It
would just be easier to measure what you hear in the room at that
point to compare it to what you are hearing for a 1:1. I like the 1:1
scenario best as it allows you to hear and read the results
simultaneously and you can be confident that you are actually
measuring what you are hearing (or not hearing)... Using a mic in
the room, you could verify graphically what was being done with a
tweek (a laptop would be easiest to read and have at the listening
position). It would also provide rather convincing evidence of the
effectiveness of a particular tweek as the original poster had
pondered. It would still not provide a "better or worse" evaluation
from a subjective standpoint, just a result. Hey, some people love
their tube amps and peculiar speakers...
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

I'm all for acoustic measurements but to measure the effect of a cable, for
example, there is no need to do so. If the signal reaching the speaker
terminals hasn't changed then the output of the speaker cannot have changed.

Occasionally I have also seen some pretty grim errors people have made in
interpreting acoustical measurements in a room. For example it's pretty easy to
break-down the test set-up (or to accidentally move the microphone or to fail
to record levels) and then not duplicate the measurement procedure precisely
and then draw bad conclusions. For example moving the microphone an inch can
"change" a single measurement trace (so can your furnace turning on; traffic,
etc) and make interpretation difficult.

IMO if one can measure the item being tested at its output the data is as good
as it can be. Of course, room acoustics and loudspeakers have to be evaluated
with acoustical measurements but upstream components need not necessarily be
done that way.


"Ban" wrote in message
...
Buster Mudd wrote:

Before & After "tweaks" would be to
measure the acoustic output of the complete sound system in the
room.
It does no good (other than to assure some smug
self-congratulatory
backpatting amongst the naysayers) to measure the electrical
signal at
the output of a $200 interconnect cable & show that it is
identical to
the electrical output of a $4 interconnect cable; the tweakophile
who
claims he heard a difference heard it connected to the rest of his
audio system in his listening room through his ears, *not* through
some direct electrical connection to the cable. Perhaps that $200
cable interacts bizarrely with the rest of his components, causing
them to perform differently? If so, one would be hard pressed to
argue
that difference is not a measurable difference. Time Domain
Spectrometry and FFT can map some fairly refined acoustic
phenomena,
so why not measure the sum total net difference in acoustic output
of
a sound system, both Before & After the application of a "tweak" &
compare the results?

Buster, you are wrong here, if there is any measurable difference at
the
output of the system, it will already show up at the output of the
interconnect. The whole system works at exactly the same operating
point and
the single components will multiply their transmission functions. It
is like
6x5= 5x6= identical. So no matter where you tweak, the difference
will be
there in the chain after the tweaked component and will go on being
there
exactly alike (as long as the system is linear) down the chain until
the
output.
If you have applied several different tweaks, the final output will
be
exactly the product of each individual one and will be measurable
after each
changed component.
Your argumentation is not valid, it is governed by your belief and
utterly
unscientific.

--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

chung wrote:
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
Date: 6/17/2004 3:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:


And, too, a measurable difference is not necessarily audible.


Never said it was. However if there is no measurable differences between
two
signals then there is nothing to discuss. They will make the same sound
with
the same associated equipment.


The problem, of course, is that usually there is a measureable
difference between two components, since our measuring instruments are
so sensitive.

It is not a problem for the instances in which there is no measurable
differrence.

My point is that there are very few instances where there is no
measureable difference, because of the sensitivity of our test instruments.

Care to provide examples where differences are not measureable?

I would offer as an example bit-identity of two .wav files....which
has not prevented listeners from claiming that they still sound different.

In fact, what has happened in that case is lots of time spent trying
to find a *differnt* measurement to validate the supposed difference (with
'jitter' usually named, but AFAIK never proved to be, the culprit).


--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy

Steven Sullivan wrote:
chung wrote:
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
Date: 6/17/2004 3:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:


And, too, a measurable difference is not necessarily audible.


Never said it was. However if there is no measurable differences between
two
signals then there is nothing to discuss. They will make the same sound
with
the same associated equipment.


The problem, of course, is that usually there is a measureable
difference between two components, since our measuring instruments are
so sensitive.

It is not a problem for the instances in which there is no measurable
differrence.

My point is that there are very few instances where there is no
measureable difference, because of the sensitivity of our test instruments.

Care to provide examples where differences are not measureable?

I would offer as an example bit-identity of two .wav files....which
has not prevented listeners from claiming that they still sound different.

In fact, what has happened in that case is lots of time spent trying
to find a *differnt* measurement to validate the supposed difference (with
'jitter' usually named, but AFAIK never proved to be, the culprit).



Yes, this is one of the few cases where you can measure no difference,
but that's between 2 CD's and probably not what audiophiles were
thinking of measuring. And there is speculation that bit-identical CD's
may still sound different due to jitter.

TChelvam wrote:

chung wrote in message ...
TChelvam wrote:

Dick Pierce wrote in message ...
TChelvam wrote:
Which "we" are "we" talking about?

Or, how about:

Manson, W., "Digital Sound Signals: Subjective Effect
of Timing Jitter," BBC Research Eng. Div, Great Britain,
Monograph 1974/11, 1974.

Gee, that's fully 11 years before some "we" discovered jitter.


The "we" I was refering to is people like me. Who is looking for great
sound at reasonable price.

Despite all the arguments for and against tweaks and High resolution
format, we are yet to see any one audio engineer who could throw a
challenge to whoever claim that their product improve sound. In the
name of science, has any of audio engineering society hauled up people
who sell Racing Diamond cones or green pen or snake oil? for
misleading the public?

Have you seen anyone from AMA hauled up people who advertize pills and
patches that extend certain parts of your anatomy?

Yes, not AMA but the US Attorney General.

Yes, the point is that it's not the scientists/engineers who hauled
people up.

And despite this action by the Arizona A.G., we're still bombarded with
these ads.


"Penis enlargement" pills blasted. The Arizona Attorney General,
together with the U.S. Customs Service and the Arizona Department of
Public Safety, have seized over $30 million in luxury homes, cars,
cash, jewelry, and bank accounts throughout Arizona from Michael A.
Consoli, Vincent J. Passafiume; and Geraldine Consoli (Michael's
mother), who marketed bogus penis enlargement pills over the Internet.
Operating as C.P. Direct, Inc., the trio claimed that their product
"Longitude" would permanently enlarge the penis by 1-3 inches. A
one-month bottle cost $59.95 plus shipping and handling for the first
month and $39.95 per month thereafter, even though the company only
paid about $2.50 per bottle. [Attorney General, U.S. Customs Service,
Arizona Department of Public Safety seize more than $30 million in
assets from company selling bogus growth pills. Press release, Arizona
Attorney General, May 29, 2002]

see here www.ncahf.org/digest02/02-23.html




Or do you believe that those treatments work because the AMA really
hasn't hauled anybody up?

Have you seen any scientific society hauled up the flat-earthers? Or the
psychics? Does that lack of action lead you to believe that the earth
may be flat? Or that psychics really work?

I wasn't born then and most people were not that informative.

The Flat Earth Society is still living and kicking, today:

http://www.flat-earth.org/

And psychics probably bring in more money than high-end audio does .


I used to work in audio instrumentation. I am pronouncing the green pen
as snake oil based on my technical expertise. Is that enough proof for you?

Yes, that what I am looking for because I can't hear the diffence.

So now you have at least one engineer publicly debunking such snake-oil
product .

But
two others could. DBT? Did not really go into it because they are kept
coming up with excuses.

They probably know in their hearts that they will not pass any rigorous
listening test.

On 6/18/04 9:42 PM, in article , "chung"
wrote:

I would offer as an example bit-identity of two .wav files....which
has not prevented listeners from claiming that they still sound different.

In fact, what has happened in that case is lots of time spent trying
to find a *differnt* measurement to validate the supposed difference (with
'jitter' usually named, but AFAIK never proved to be, the culprit).



Yes, this is one of the few cases where you can measure no difference,
but that's between 2 CD's and probably not what audiophiles were
thinking of measuring. And there is speculation that bit-identical CD's
may still sound different due to jitter.

If there is one transport that produces high jitter and one that produces
low jitter - they will sound different. But it is measurable.

Chelvam wrote:

"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:rViAc.65273$HG.52673@attbi_s53...
(TChelvam) wrote:

Dick Pierce wrote in message
...
TChelvam wrote:
Which "we" are "we" talking about?


I've challenged manufacturers (refused to perform a promised test when I
visited) and retailers (traveled to Florida at my own expense to proctor a
challenge that said retailer would prove that he could easily "hear"
amplifiers
under bias-controlled conditions) and enthusiasts (assembled a
fully-tweaked
system and recruited subjects for a bias controlled listening test) yet
have
not found anyone (no single subject) who was able to reliably identify
amps/wires and outboard DACs under bias controlled listening conditions.

If not for people like you guys, I would have burned a big hole in my pocket
when I was shopping for my first SACD. Bought it and it outperformed my high
End CD transport and DAC.

But I expect you guys to be bold. For an example , name the manufacturer who
backed out . I will write to them and ask them what they got to hide. I have
done that to two manufacturers and got the answers I was looking for after
complaints to various consumer groups nad government organ. (I am not naming
them here and atleast one of them is here, because it would do them
injustice due to different issues involved.)

For starters, ask any cable manufacturer who states that cables need
break-in, or that there is directivity to it (other than the extra
grounding lead on some interconnect cables) to provide measurements to
back up those claims.

If what you say is true, then who is to say that because you could
measure a difference that the difference is audible. It is much easier
to just do both at the same time and at the same place. If it
registers on the screen and you hear it, then you have your proof. Of
course you have evidence of an effect with the measurement, but to
really sell the idea of how effective it is, you need to hear it and
to measure it in the room. I don't think setting-up a system is all
about collecting data, but in getting it to sound right. That may not
necessarily make it measure as you would guess or hope. If all we had
to do was measure at the source, there would be no need to listen to
music, we could just all take your word that it sounds good? Boom
boxes all around anyone? Another problem with measuring in general and
it really does not matter where, is having the appropriate gear and
settings as well as knowing what to measure. Evaluating a cable can be
done in free space and with test gear only, no stereo is required.
That is not true with acoustics and with mechanical dampening or
coupling of the equipment. Sure you could measure output after the
device that was modified, but unless it was a board level component
that was changed, finding the right thing to measure the right way can
be difficult {and in my opinion a total bore and waste of time (sort
of like this thread...)}. It boils down to what you can hear and you
are, in the end, still better off just listening. If you can't trust
your ears, just get a boom box. You only have to satisfy yourself. You
are gonna love this one: I had a fellow come in the other day who is
looking to find a suitable amplifier to replace his old and unreliable
Pioneer receiver. He read on the net that Yamaha made a great
integrated amp and he bought one. He hooks it up to his system, the
only thing that he has changed, and he hates it. No bass, distorted
high frequencies or noise or something that bothers him in that range
and of course, a huge disappointment after all the "hype". Should I
suggest that he just measure it and shut-up with his belly-aching as
there is nothing wrong with that fine amp, but it that it is all in
his head? But I digress - just listen. God gave you those funny
looking ears - use them.
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
Uptown Audio wrote:

Ban,
You may be overlooking the effect of the acoustic output on the
system
mechanically and the effect of room acoustics. There are some
tweeks
such as a form of isolation that will have both audible and
measurable
results. Obviously not all components would be effected the same
way
and thus a given form of isolation may only work well on one
portion
of the system, where it would not have an audible effect on
another.
You do have to look at the system as a whole to get the acoustic
output, plus the loop feedback and room response. I see where you
are
going with this, but it does limit the measurements to specific
components. A good example of a situation where a tweek could not
be
measured at a cable termination would be an acoustic wall
treatment,
which could be considered a tweek as it would also effect the
sound,
but it could not be measured anywhere but in the room of course. It
would just be easier to measure what you hear in the room at that
point to compare it to what you are hearing for a 1:1. I like the
1:1
scenario best as it allows you to hear and read the results
simultaneously and you can be confident that you are actually
measuring what you are hearing (or not hearing)... Using a mic
in
the room, you could verify graphically what was being done with a
tweek (a laptop would be easiest to read and have at the listening
position). It would also provide rather convincing evidence of the
effectiveness of a particular tweek as the original poster had
pondered. It would still not provide a "better or worse" evaluation
from a subjective standpoint, just a result. Hey, some people love
their tube amps and peculiar speakers...
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

I'm all for acoustic measurements but to measure the effect of a
cable, for
example, there is no need to do so. If the signal reaching the
speaker
terminals hasn't changed then the output of the speaker cannot have
changed.

Occasionally I have also seen some pretty grim errors people have
made in
interpreting acoustical measurements in a room. For example it's
pretty easy to
break-down the test set-up (or to accidentally move the microphone
or to fail
to record levels) and then not duplicate the measurement procedure
precisely
and then draw bad conclusions. For example moving the microphone an
inch can
"change" a single measurement trace (so can your furnace turning on;
traffic,
etc) and make interpretation difficult.

IMO if one can measure the item being tested at its output the data
is as good
as it can be. Of course, room acoustics and loudspeakers have to be
evaluated
with acoustical measurements but upstream components need not
necessarily be
done that way.


"Ban" wrote in message
...
Buster Mudd wrote:

Before & After "tweaks" would be to
measure the acoustic output of the complete sound system in the
room.
It does no good (other than to assure some smug
self-congratulatory
backpatting amongst the naysayers) to measure the electrical
signal at
the output of a $200 interconnect cable & show that it is
identical to
the electrical output of a $4 interconnect cable; the
tweakophile
who
claims he heard a difference heard it connected to the rest of
his
audio system in his listening room through his ears, *not*
through
some direct electrical connection to the cable. Perhaps that
$200
cable interacts bizarrely with the rest of his components,
causing
them to perform differently? If so, one would be hard pressed
to
argue
that difference is not a measurable difference. Time Domain
Spectrometry and FFT can map some fairly refined acoustic
phenomena,
so why not measure the sum total net difference in acoustic
output
of
a sound system, both Before & After the application of a
"tweak" &
compare the results?

Buster, you are wrong here, if there is any measurable difference
at
the
output of the system, it will already show up at the output of
the
interconnect. The whole system works at exactly the same
operating
point and
the single components will multiply their transmission functions.
It
is like
6x5= 5x6= identical. So no matter where you tweak, the difference
will be
there in the chain after the tweaked component and will go on
being
there
exactly alike (as long as the system is linear) down the chain
until
the
output.
If you have applied several different tweaks, the final output
will
be
exactly the product of each individual one and will be measurable
after each
changed component.
Your argumentation is not valid, it is governed by your belief
and
utterly
unscientific.

--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

From: chung
Date: 6/18/2004 10:48 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
Date: 6/17/2004 3:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:


And, too, a measurable difference is not necessarily audible.


Never said it was. However if there is no measurable differences between
two
signals then there is nothing to discuss. They will make the same sound
with
the same associated equipment.


The problem, of course, is that usually there is a measureable
difference between two components, since our measuring instruments are
so sensitive.

It is not a problem for the instances in which there is no measurable
differrence.

My point is that there are very few instances where there is no
measureable difference, because of the sensitivity of our test instruments.

Care to provide examples where differences are not measureable?

Do you think green pens create a measurable difference in the output of a CD
player? Do you think anything Peter Belt ever invented created a measurable
difference in any audio signal?


One saves themselves the rigor of doing any further testing. So it
still makes sense to start there.

Only in principle. Not in practice.

Fine. If you want to do elaborate DBTs for audible differences with and without
green pen and Peter Belt tweaks knock yourself out. I still think a simpler
solution is to measure the effect those products have on the signal to see if
there is any reason to go forward with any further investigation. Your time
your dime.



Take two cables of the same make, one 3 ft long and one
3.1 ft long. There is a measureable difference. Heck, the lengths are
clearly different. And we can certainly resolve the 0.1 nanosecond or so
in delay.

A delay is not inherently a difference in the signal.

Why not?

Explained further down in my post.

What about a difference in phase shift?

That's different.

What about the 0.001dB
in level due to the difference in resistance?

That is different as well.

How about the differences
in resistance, capacitance and inductance?

All different than a simple time delay.


Heck you can measure
differnt components days apart and there is a substantial delay but the
signal
is what it is each time.

No, the analogy is incorrect.

No it's not.

One could measure those two cables at any
time, at any place, with any set of accurate instruments and get the
same difference in measurements. These differences are repeatable, and
objective.

That's fine, but if the only difference is the time delay than it is not a
difference in signal content.



It would take an extreme subjectivist, however, to claim that
there is a sonic difference between those two.

It would take a mistake in one's impression to say there is an audible
difference if the only measurable difference is a nano second delay.

There, you are beginning to make the point for me. You are providing a
juegment call that a nanosec. delay does not cause an *audible*
difference. Just like I may say that a difference in level of 0.1 dB is
not an audible difference, but would everyone agree?

No. Everyone rarely agrees on anything in audio.


Of course, I agree that that delay is not audible, but nonetheless there
is a *measureable* difference.

The difficulty is in agreeing what is an inaudible but measureable
difference.

As I have said so many times now. I suggested that one *start* with checking
for measurable differences. If none exist then there is no need to go further.
I *never* said that any measurable difference is proof of an audible
difference. It is proof at best of a *possibility* of an audible difference. A
possibility that may need further investigation.


Another example. Two preamps of the same make, model and specs. One has
an output impedance of 200 ohms. The other 202 ohms. Clearly there is a
measureable difference. Is it audible?


Even if
the comparisons are supposed to be syncronized. If they are not syncronized
there is no measurable difference is there since such delays are irrelevent
to
the content of the signal.

You are making a judgment call on what constitiutes an audible
difference. By the way, that is the kind of calls that a lot of the more
scientific-minded have tried to make (like one can't tell differences in
level finer than 0.1dB, or one can't hear above 20 KHz), and a lot of
so-called golden-ear audiphiles do not agree with.



The crux of the problem is in the disagreement on what differences are
detectible via listening only. Past research indicates that level
differences of less than 0.3 dB over the audio band are not detectible
by listeners. Let's be generous and tighten that to 0.2 dB. If we would
agree that this is the threshold of audibility, then we can prove fairly
easily that 99% of the cables and interconnects do sound the same.






I said never said measurable differences were the end, only the start. If
there
is no measurable difference it is the start and end. In some cases some
time
and effort can be saved.


Very, very few cases. It's better to go straight to controlled listening
tests, IMO.







Fine. Have fun with the Peter Belt tweaks. They'll waste about a week of your
time though.

On 6/18/04 9:43 PM, in article , "chung"
wrote:

I used to work in audio instrumentation. I am pronouncing the green pen
as snake oil based on my technical expertise. Is that enough proof for you?

Yes, that what I am looking for because I can't hear the diffence.

So now you have at least one engineer publicly debunking such snake-oil
product .

Put me in for the second! :-)

chung wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
chung wrote:
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
Date: 6/17/2004 3:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:


And, too, a measurable difference is not necessarily audible.


Never said it was. However if there is no measurable differences between
two
signals then there is nothing to discuss. They will make the same sound
with
the same associated equipment.


The problem, of course, is that usually there is a measureable
difference between two components, since our measuring instruments are
so sensitive.

It is not a problem for the instances in which there is no measurable
differrence.

My point is that there are very few instances where there is no
measureable difference, because of the sensitivity of our test instruments.

Care to provide examples where differences are not measureable?

I would offer as an example bit-identity of two .wav files....which
has not prevented listeners from claiming that they still sound different.

In fact, what has happened in that case is lots of time spent trying
to find a *differnt* measurement to validate the supposed difference (with
'jitter' usually named, but AFAIK never proved to be, the culprit).



Yes, this is one of the few cases where you can measure no difference,
but that's between 2 CD's and probably not what audiophiles were
thinking of measuring.

Audiophiles have played a significant part in driving the whole 'bit identical
CDs sound different' goose chase.

As a result we have pseudoscientific websites such as:

http://www.altmann.haan.de/jitter/en...ngc_navfr.html

where, after pages of technical discussion of jitter, interlaced with
qyestionable claims of audibility, we are presented with evidence....
from sighted comparison.


--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy

Uptown Audio wrote:
If what you say is true, then who is to say that because you could
measure a difference that the difference is audible. It is much easier
to just do both at the same time and at the same place. If it
registers on the screen and you hear it, then you have your proof. Of
course you have evidence of an effect with the measurement, but to
really sell the idea of how effective it is, you need to hear it and
to measure it in the room.

I agree

I don't think setting-up a system is all
about collecting data, but in getting it to sound right. That may not
necessarily make it measure as you would guess or hope. If all we had
to do was measure at the source, there would be no need to listen to
music, we could just all take your word that it sounds good? Boom
boxes all around anyone?

A boom-box can be already identified by the impedance plot because it has a
high Q-factor in the resonance point and/or bad damping, which shows up and
is easily identifyable without even hearing it. But just this is the worst
example you chose to make your point. I would rather mention distortion
measurements, pulse response measurements or bumps in the frequency
response. Here even big differences might not be audible.
At the low end we can reliably differentiate between Q= 0.7 or 0.8, a very
slight change actually. Anyone correct me please if I'm wrong, couldn't find
data about this in the net.

Another problem with measuring in general and
it really does not matter where, is having the appropriate gear and
settings as well as knowing what to measure.

I encourage every audio enthusiast to start going this way, it incredibly
enhances the listening experience when you have a scientific understanding
which you gain by measuring. Room acoustics is a complicated but rewarding
subject to study and with todays possibilities of the net you do not need to
go to an expensive university but can do it at home (or work).
Actually I try with my 2cents contributions here to influence my fellow
music-lovers start experimenting themselves instead of believing doubtful
"misinformation" by mags. Better to spend the money you pay for high-end
mags to get a decent measurement system(clio-lite for example) and some good
books.


--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

On 6/19/04 2:58 AM, in article euRAc.66191$eu.32407@attbi_s02, "Uptown
Audio" wrote:

He read on the net that Yamaha made a great
integrated amp and he bought one. He hooks it up to his system, the
only thing that he has changed, and he hates it. No bass, distorted
high frequencies or noise or something that bothers him in that range
and of course, a huge disappointment after all the "hype".

This is the basic issue I have with people who make these claims with
"challenges" and so on. It might verify a rather narrow claim, but be of
little use, and some detriment, to a consumer.

I have found that most reviews help narrow the field - but a good HiFi
dealer will be able to give you a system you like with components you hadn't
really considered, sometimes.

Should I
suggest that he just measure it and shut-up with his belly-aching as
there is nothing wrong with that fine amp, but it that it is all in
his head?

The group here, at least half of them, you give that advise, I am sure.

On 6/19/04 10:40 AM, in article , "Ban"
wrote:

Another problem with measuring in general and
it really does not matter where, is having the appropriate gear and
settings as well as knowing what to measure.

I encourage every audio enthusiast to start going this way,

I would rather get a system together that I like - and spend the extra money
I save by NOT buying thousands of dollars on complex test equipment on
music.

Dick Pierce wrote:
Despite all the arguments for and against tweaks and High resolution
format, we are yet to see any one audio engineer who could throw a
challenge to whoever claim that their product improve sound. In the
name of science, has any of audio engineering society hauled up
people who sell Racing Diamond cones or green pen or snake oil? for
misleading the public?

Why is it the job of science to disprove the outrageous claims and
technichal bunkum of a buch of johoshes from a backwater industry?
EVERYWHERE else in engineering and science, the obligation of proof
is on those making the claims to begin with, NOT on everyone else to
prove those claims wrong. Why are these people in the high-end audio
business getting off the hook? WHat did they do to deserve release
from their obligation? Why are THEY so privileged?


The fact is that the high-end audio biz is DECADES behind the leading
edge of technology. It hasn't got the background and knowledge of
human audio perception that was studied back in the 1930's, it
"discovered problems" that were described in the definitive peer-
reviewed technical literature decades earlier, it promotes incompetent
and defective designs.


"We" worry about jitter, because these idiots TOLD "us" to worry
about it. Because they haven't a clue what its all about. They sent
"us" out on a wild goose chanse, and generated whole generations of
expensive products, many of which made the problem WORSE, and got
praise for their amazing "transparency."


Dick Pierce

Well said Dick,
this is really a point why serious engineers avoid audio, because collegues
laugh about it and consider it childish. This way a lot of capable
personalities rather concentrate on Radar/Sonar weapon or "defense" industry
which is considered decent and thus get lost for audio. And we can see here
too, the educated and professional contributers are rather belonging to the
objective wing, and their arguments hold so much stronger that this can
"undo" a bit of stupid mags influence.
And the subjectivists do not even perceive their flaws in thinking but
rather believe in hallucinations and attribute it to their superiour golden
ears. It is a bit like the "esoteric" business. Placing some shakti stones,
magnets, crystals or other magic objects at certain strategic points will
neither improve your health nor sound. It might be helping with health when
we have a psychosomatic illness, but audio is not imaginary in the first
place and there it is useless.
I believe most of these preconceptions still come from the analog aera,
where turntables were so delicate that vibration isolation or using another
cable really could make a big difference, but alas that time is more than
20years past. Lets be a bit more modern and realistic.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

OK, let's summarize what's been discussed so far:-

1.Jitter was an old issue and was addressed a long time ago. In fact, my
previous post I did mention that Meridian addressed it in 1981, (message was
decline by moderator due to technical reason)

2. IF today's jitter measurement in CD Player is low enough, can I say
Superclock and XOclock be deemed as redundant.

3. I refer to High Sampling topic, can I say the 88khz sampling is good
enough.

So can I safely say that today's CD Players meet all the requirements. And
if there's going to be any improvement where should I look for?

Rgds.

Care to provide examples where differences are not measureable?

When you don't know what to measure - or are measuring the wrong things.

On 6/19/04 2:57 AM, in article OtRAc.114996$3x.61100@attbi_s54, "chung"
wrote:

If not for people like you guys, I would have burned a big hole in my pocket
when I was shopping for my first SACD. Bought it and it outperformed my high
End CD transport and DAC.

Which one did you buy - and which one did you switch from? I am
contemplating purchase of one, but my humble NAD C541i seems to be better
than the similarly priced Sony 222ES with a SACD disk - which pretty much is
as much as I am willing to spend at this time.

But I expect you guys to be bold. For an example , name the manufacturer who
backed out . I will write to them and ask them what they got to hide. I have
done that to two manufacturers and got the answers I was looking for after
complaints to various consumer groups nad government organ. (I am not naming
them here and atleast one of them is here, because it would do them
injustice due to different issues involved.)

For starters, ask any cable manufacturer who states that cables need
break-in, or that there is directivity to it (other than the extra
grounding lead on some interconnect cables) to provide measurements to
back up those claims.

I think in many cases it is understood that it is the end user that is
broken in rather than the cables.

I am not sure where this idea came from - though when making coaxial cables
to avoid teflon expansion the cable is cut to length, and heat cycled
several times, then the ends soldered on - since otherwise you risk the
teflon pushing the connector. I cannot imagine that speaker cable or other
wire would break in that way, though?

Bromo wrote:
On 6/18/04 9:42 PM, in article , "chung"
wrote:

I would offer as an example bit-identity of two .wav files....which
has not prevented listeners from claiming that they still sound different.

In fact, what has happened in that case is lots of time spent trying
to find a *differnt* measurement to validate the supposed difference (with
'jitter' usually named, but AFAIK never proved to be, the culprit).



Yes, this is one of the few cases where you can measure no difference,
but that's between 2 CD's and probably not what audiophiles were
thinking of measuring. And there is speculation that bit-identical CD's
may still sound different due to jitter.

If there is one transport that produces high jitter and one that produces
low jitter - they will sound different. But it is measurable.


No, I was talking about the same CD player/transport/DAC.

Uptown Audio wrote:
If what you say is true, then who is to say that because you could
measure a difference that the difference is audible. It is much easier
to just do both at the same time and at the same place. If it
registers on the screen and you hear it, then you have your proof.

You mean, if you hear it under blind conditions. Evidence on the
screen + sighted claim of audibility doesn't add up to proof.
In factm evidence on the screen *followed by* a sighted
comparison would be very prone to generate a report of audible
difference, regardless of the actual audibility.

If there is evidence ont he scren, and
Of
course you have evidence of an effect with the measurement, but to
really sell the idea of how effective it is, you need to hear it and
to measure it in the room. I don't think setting-up a system is all
about collecting data, but in getting it to sound right. That may not
necessarily make it measure as you would guess or hope. If all we had
to do was measure at the source, there would be no need to listen to
music, we could just all take your word that it sounds good? Boom
boxes all around anyone? Another problem with measuring in general and
it really does not matter where, is having the appropriate gear and
settings as well as knowing what to measure. Evaluating a cable can be
done in free space and with test gear only, no stereo is required.
That is not true with acoustics and with mechanical dampening or
coupling of the equipment. Sure you could measure output after the
device that was modified, but unless it was a board level component
that was changed, finding the right thing to measure the right way can
be difficult {and in my opinion a total bore and waste of time (sort
of like this thread...)}. It boils down to what you can hear and you
are, in the end, still better off just listening. If you can't trust
your ears, just get a boom box. You only have to satisfy yourself. You
are gonna love this one: I had a fellow come in the other day who is
looking to find a suitable amplifier to replace his old and unreliable
Pioneer receiver. He read on the net that Yamaha made a great
integrated amp and he bought one. He hooks it up to his system, the
only thing that he has changed, and he hates it. No bass, distorted
high frequencies or noise or something that bothers him in that range
and of course, a huge disappointment after all the "hype". Should I
suggest that he just measure it and shut-up with his belly-aching as
there is nothing wrong with that fine amp, but it that it is all in
his head?

YOu might siggest that he check his set-up (you can't just 'swap in'
a modern HT receiver out of the box -- there are numerous settings to make.)
It's impossible for a properly workign Yamaha to inherently
produce 'no bass' . You might also suggest he compare amps
under bias-controlled conditions., *especially* if he reports
vast differences between them.

Wow, they got total satisfaction policy, so I might give it a try. Not many
guys do that.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
chung wrote:

Audiophiles have played a significant part in driving the whole 'bit
identical
CDs sound different' goose chase.

As a result we have pseudoscientific websites such as:

http://www.altmann.haan.de/jitter/en...ngc_navfr.html

where, after pages of technical discussion of jitter, interlaced with
qyestionable claims of audibility, we are presented with evidence....
from sighted comparison.


--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy

Chelvam wrote:

OK, let's summarize what's been discussed so far:-

1.Jitter was an old issue and was addressed a long time ago. In fact, my
previous post I did mention that Meridian addressed it in 1981, (message was
decline by moderator due to technical reason)

The most definitive study of jitter to day was actually summarized in a
paper by two engineers, Benjamin and Gannon, from Dolby Labs in the late
'90's. This is available from AES as reprint 4826. What they found is
that jitter has to be much higher than is commonly found on CD players
for it to be audible.


2. IF today's jitter measurement in CD Player is low enough, can I say
Superclock and XOclock be deemed as redundant.

Yes.


3. I refer to High Sampling topic, can I say the 88khz sampling is good
enough.

Yes.


So can I safely say that today's CD Players meet all the requirements. And
if there's going to be any improvement where should I look for?

Speakers. Or get great CD's.


Rgds.

chung wrote:

Chelvam wrote:

So can I safely say that today's CD Players meet all the requirements.
And
if there's going to be any improvement where should I look for?

Speakers. Or get great CD's.

Or, if that seems too simple, take Ban's suggestion and learn a little about
acoustics, then work on optimal speaker placement and room treatments. This
can be a long-term preoccupation, and doesn't even require you to churn
through expensive equipment that you have to resell for 50 cents on the
dollar.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/...ave/direct/01/

"Bromo" wrote in message
news:7OZAc.141242$Ly.36881@attbi_s01...

Which one did you buy - and which one did you switch from? I am
contemplating purchase of one, but my humble NAD C541i seems to be better
than the similarly priced Sony 222ES with a SACD disk - which pretty much
is
as much as I am willing to spend at this time.

Sony 222ES is a fine player. Though you will find it a bit bright and
screeching. Instead of buying a new player try mod. For about $300, you can
mod the clock, caps and the output stage. That will tame the unit a bit.
Mine a QS series DVPNS915v about $400 and a mod almost that amount replace
Theta DAC and transport. Still keeping the DAC, Transport sold. To do DBT to
amuse myself.

I guess I just walked right into the firing squad.

Bromo wrote:
Care to provide examples where differences are not measureable?

When you don't know what to measure - or are measuring the wrong things.

And I predicted someone would retort in this fashion, several days ago.
Thanks for proving me right.


--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy

Bromo wrote:
On 6/19/04 2:57 AM, in article OtRAc.114996$3x.61100@attbi_s54, "chung"
wrote:

If not for people like you guys, I would have burned a big hole in my pocket
when I was shopping for my first SACD. Bought it and it outperformed my high
End CD transport and DAC.

Which one did you buy - and which one did you switch from? I am
contemplating purchase of one, but my humble NAD C541i seems to be better
than the similarly priced Sony 222ES with a SACD disk - which pretty much is
as much as I am willing to spend at this time.

But I expect you guys to be bold. For an example , name the manufacturer who
backed out . I will write to them and ask them what they got to hide. I have
done that to two manufacturers and got the answers I was looking for after
complaints to various consumer groups nad government organ. (I am not naming
them here and atleast one of them is here, because it would do them
injustice due to different issues involved.)

For starters, ask any cable manufacturer who states that cables need
break-in, or that there is directivity to it (other than the extra
grounding lead on some interconnect cables) to provide measurements to
back up those claims.

I think in many cases it is understood that it is the end user that is
broken in rather than the cables.

Have you been to the Audio Asylum cable forum?


I am not sure where this idea came from - though when making coaxial cables
to avoid teflon expansion the cable is cut to length, and heat cycled
several times, then the ends soldered on - since otherwise you risk the
teflon pushing the connector. I cannot imagine that speaker cable or other
wire would break in that way, though?


This idea came from boutique cable companies and golden-eared
audiophiles. Go to www.audioquest.com., click "Cable Theory", and read
page 5. Among the many gems of knowledge provided the

"Please be patient when first listening to any superior product."

"Several weeks of disuse will return a cable to nearly its original state."

"Since human perception is more aware of the existence of a distortion
than the quantity, the better the cable, the worse in some ways it will
sound when new, because the anemic forced two-dimensional effect
reulting from being new will not be ameliorated by other gentler
distortions."

"While cable directionality is not fully understood, it is clear that
the molecular structure of drawn metal is not symmetrical, providing a
physical explanation for the existence of directionality."

From: Bromo
Date: 6/19/2004 9:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: ZNZAc.141241$Ly.3292@attbi_s01

Care to provide examples where differences are not measureable?

When you don't know what to measure - or are measuring the wrong things.









Ah... but that does not make them unmeasurable, that just makes them
unmeasured.

S888Wheel wrote:

From: chung
Date: 6/18/2004 10:48 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
Date: 6/17/2004 3:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:


And, too, a measurable difference is not necessarily audible.


Never said it was. However if there is no measurable differences between
two
signals then there is nothing to discuss. They will make the same sound
with
the same associated equipment.


The problem, of course, is that usually there is a measureable
difference between two components, since our measuring instruments are
so sensitive.

It is not a problem for the instances in which there is no measurable
differrence.

My point is that there are very few instances where there is no
measureable difference, because of the sensitivity of our test instruments.

Care to provide examples where differences are not measureable?

Do you think green pens create a measurable difference in the output of a CD
player?

Fine, I agree that green pen effects are not mesaureable.

Do you think anything Peter Belt ever invented created a measurable
difference in any audio signal?

Don't know about his tweaks. Have not heard of them until now.



One saves themselves the rigor of doing any further testing. So it
still makes sense to start there.

Only in principle. Not in practice.

Fine. If you want to do elaborate DBTs for audible differences with and without
green pen and Peter Belt tweaks knock yourself out. I still think a simpler
solution is to measure the effect those products have on the signal to see if
there is any reason to go forward with any further investigation. Your time
your dime.

Now try to measure the difference between the output of a CD player,
playing two CD's that are otherwise equal except for the green pen
markings. You think that is easy to do? It seems like you under-estimate
the difficulty in making accurate technical measurements.




Take two cables of the same make, one 3 ft long and one
3.1 ft long. There is a measureable difference. Heck, the lengths are
clearly different. And we can certainly resolve the 0.1 nanosecond or so
in delay.

A delay is not inherently a difference in the signal.

Why not?

Explained further down in my post.

What about a difference in phase shift?

That's different.

Uh, a delay results in a phase shift. There is a difference in phase
shift between those cables.


What about the 0.001dB
in level due to the difference in resistance?

That is different as well.

That could easily be due to the one inch difference in cable.

How about the differences
in resistance, capacitance and inductance?

All different than a simple time delay.

But all caused by a one inch difference in cable. You see my point?



Heck you can measure
differnt components days apart and there is a substantial delay but the
signal
is what it is each time.

No, the analogy is incorrect.

No it's not.

One could measure those two cables at any
time, at any place, with any set of accurate instruments and get the
same difference in measurements. These differences are repeatable, and
objective.

That's fine, but if the only difference is the time delay than it is not a
difference in signal content.

Difference in time delay = difference in phase shift= measureable
difference.




It would take an extreme subjectivist, however, to claim that
there is a sonic difference between those two.

It would take a mistake in one's impression to say there is an audible
difference if the only measurable difference is a nano second delay.

There, you are beginning to make the point for me. You are providing a
juegment call that a nanosec. delay does not cause an *audible*
difference. Just like I may say that a difference in level of 0.1 dB is
not an audible difference, but would everyone agree?

No. Everyone rarely agrees on anything in audio.


Obviously, and that was why I said finding a measureable difference does
not mean much. And many tweaks, like changing resistors, capacitors,
different cables, result in measureable differences.


Of course, I agree that that delay is not audible, but nonetheless there
is a *measureable* difference.

The difficulty is in agreeing what is an inaudible but measureable
difference.

As I have said so many times now. I suggested that one *start* with checking
for measurable differences. If none exist then there is no need to go further.
I *never* said that any measurable difference is proof of an audible
difference. It is proof at best of a *possibility* of an audible difference. A
possibility that may need further investigation.


Another example. Two preamps of the same make, model and specs. One has
an output impedance of 200 ohms. The other 202 ohms. Clearly there is a
measureable difference. Is it audible?

Well?



Even if
the comparisons are supposed to be syncronized. If they are not syncronized
there is no measurable difference is there since such delays are irrelevent
to
the content of the signal.

You are making a judgment call on what constitiutes an audible
difference. By the way, that is the kind of calls that a lot of the more
scientific-minded have tried to make (like one can't tell differences in
level finer than 0.1dB, or one can't hear above 20 KHz), and a lot of
so-called golden-ear audiphiles do not agree with.



The crux of the problem is in the disagreement on what differences are
detectible via listening only. Past research indicates that level
differences of less than 0.3 dB over the audio band are not detectible
by listeners. Let's be generous and tighten that to 0.2 dB. If we would
agree that this is the threshold of audibility, then we can prove fairly
easily that 99% of the cables and interconnects do sound the same.






I said never said measurable differences were the end, only the start. If
there
is no measurable difference it is the start and end. In some cases some
time
and effort can be saved.


Very, very few cases. It's better to go straight to controlled listening
tests, IMO.







Fine. Have fun with the Peter Belt tweaks. They'll waste about a week of your
time though.

Actually I am not interested in personally measuring differences, or
doing DBT's, when it comes to debunk myths, if that has not been obvious
in my posts. I firmly believe that the proponents of those tweaks should
provide proof. But between making measaurements and doing DBT's, I
believe the latter to be much more effective, since there is so much
disagreement on what measureable differences mean.

Bromo wrote:
On 6/19/04 2:58 AM, in article euRAc.66191$eu.32407@attbi_s02, "Uptown
Audio" wrote:

He read on the net that Yamaha made a great
integrated amp and he bought one. He hooks it up to his system, the
only thing that he has changed, and he hates it. No bass, distorted
high frequencies or noise or something that bothers him in that range
and of course, a huge disappointment after all the "hype".

This is the basic issue I have with people who make these claims with
"challenges" and so on. It might verify a rather narrow claim, but be of
little use, and some detriment, to a consumer.

The basic issue is that sighted listening is prone to bias.

I have found that most reviews help narrow the field - but a good HiFi
dealer will be able to give you a system you like with components you hadn't
really considered, sometimes.

Or at least, ones he can make a good profit on.


Should I
suggest that he just measure it and shut-up with his belly-aching as
there is nothing wrong with that fine amp, but it that it is all in
his head?

The group here, at least half of them, you give that advise, I am sure.

Apparently both of you fail, even after all this time here, to realize the
distinction between objective measurements, and bias-controlled *listening*
as two sorts of evidence for difference.
Perhaps this explains why you repeatedly haul out this 'just measure it' straww
man.

Btw, a *gross* lack of bass, such as described would *have to* show up in both sorts
of evidence, if real.

And if it doesn't, what would be *your* conclusions?



--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy

"Chelvam" wrote in
news:rI_Ac.76602$0y.9306@attbi_s03:

Wow, they got total satisfaction policy, so I might give it a try. Not
many guys do that.


Satisfaction guarantees are not proof of anything. Here is a quote from
that particular website.

"There are several jitter attenuation or reclocking products on the
market. All of these products suffer from the fact, that you need a cable,
in order to connect to the digital receiver (f.e. DA converter). This will
introduce new jitter, the cleaned signal will be contaminated again,
before it reaches the receiving device."

How is jitter reintroduced with a short cable yet digitized telephone
signals travel over miles of copper without impact?

IOW, that site could be deconstructed quite easily, but isn't worth the
time, bandwidth, nor the effort.

r

--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

"Go to www.audioquest.com., click "Cable Theory", and read
page 5. Among the many gems of knowledge provided the

snip

"Since human perception is more aware of the existence of a distortion
than the quantity, the better the cable, the worse in some ways it will
sound when new, because the anemic forced two-dimensional effect
reulting from being new will not be ameliorated by other gentler
distortions."

"While cable directionality is not fully understood, it is clear that
the molecular structure of drawn metal is not symmetrical, providing a
physical explanation for the existence of directionality.""

A few years ago in speaker coil mag., belden wire reported a test where
wire whose directiondrawn was known to see if people could identify it
when two samples of the same wire were was used and one was reversed,
blinding was not required because there was no external sign of
"direction". No difference could be detected.

From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 6/19/2004 1:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Bromo wrote:
Care to provide examples where differences are not measureable?

When you don't know what to measure - or are measuring the wrong things.

And I predicted someone would retort in this fashion, several days ago.
Thanks for proving me right.


--





Are you suggesting we should not worry about people measuring everything that
matters or failing to measure everything that matters?

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Sean Fulop" wrote in message
...



And I repeat, we cannot be sure that everything can be measured.


Then you can't be sure it can't be either. Everything I've seen on the
subject says that we have the ability to measure everything hearable.
Unless youhave some proof that the right things or everything isn't being
measured, you're just making a blank assertion.


Yes, but it's an assertion taken for granted by scientists in every
field. It is very uncommon for any scientist to claim "we know
everything about subject X now, finally," or something unprovable like
"we can ascribe a measurable property to every difference we can hear."
There are numerous effects of audio on the person that may not be
captured by current theories about signals and their nature. Obviously
any two signals that sound different will actually be different to some
degree, but simply showing that two signals are different is not the
same as "measurement" of the difference.

In science it is common to err on the side of caution, to always presume
there may be more to any subject or field of inquiry, stuff that remains
undiscovered.

I agree with you that ABX can be useful, but since it is known that the
results can be affected by methodology, once again one can never be
certain that the "perfect" ABX-style methodology has been developed.
These tests were improved steadily over many decades, which yielded
increasing sensitivity to audible differences that could be detected by
the tests. We cannot be sure we now have the perfect audibility tests
for all domains of sonic difference.

-Sean

chung wrote:
Bromo wrote:
On 6/18/04 9:42 PM, in article , "chung"
wrote:

I would offer as an example bit-identity of two .wav files....which
has not prevented listeners from claiming that they still sound different.

In fact, what has happened in that case is lots of time spent trying
to find a *differnt* measurement to validate the supposed difference (with
'jitter' usually named, but AFAIK never proved to be, the culprit).



Yes, this is one of the few cases where you can measure no difference,
but that's between 2 CD's and probably not what audiophiles were
thinking of measuring. And there is speculation that bit-identical CD's
may still sound different due to jitter.

If there is one transport that produces high jitter and one that produces
low jitter - they will sound different. But it is measurable.


No, I was talking about the same CD player/transport/DAC.

If I understand correclty, the hypothesis inherent CD jitter (versus
playback path jitter), is that two bit-identical CDs can be different
because one was manufactured with more jitter than the other.

If so, one thing I'm not clear on is, why doesn't such jitter show up in
comparison of the 'bits'?

--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy

IF you got through other posts here, especailly the one on Vintage DAC-
jitter is a higher in separate DAC.

___
"Rich.Andrews" wrote in message
newsa7Bc.72457$eu.43358@attbi_s02...


How is jitter reintroduced with a short cable yet digitized telephone
signals travel over miles of copper without impact?

IOW, that site could be deconstructed quite easily, but isn't worth the
time, bandwidth, nor the effort.

r

--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

On 6/19/04 11:47 PM, in article aN7Bc.143806$Ly.57935@attbi_s01, "S888Wheel"
wrote:

From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 6/19/2004 1:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Bromo wrote:
Care to provide examples where differences are not measureable?

When you don't know what to measure - or are measuring the wrong things.

And I predicted someone would retort in this fashion, several days ago.
Thanks for proving me right.

Are you suggesting we should not worry about people measuring everything that
matters or failing to measure everything that matters?


You should be a bit worried that if you set up a test that shows something
that observation shows otherwise - rather than assume that people are
deluding themselves (which may be entertaining and somewhat possible in some
cases) - you should entertain the notion that the test itself may not be
measuring the right things.

For instance - there is a lot of faith (yes FAITH) placed in ABX tests.
What are you measuring in an ABX test, really? It is repeatable, but is it
measuring the right things in the right method? These are the things that
should be bothering a true scientist. It is a bit like measuring the speed
of gravity and saying that the people who observe a feather falling slower
than a bowling ball are deluding themselves. Perhaps you aren't measuring
the right things .....

chung wrote:
Bromo wrote:
On 6/19/04 2:57 AM, in article OtRAc.114996$3x.61100@attbi_s54, "chung"
wrote:

If not for people like you guys, I would have burned a big hole in my pocket
when I was shopping for my first SACD. Bought it and it outperformed my high
End CD transport and DAC.

Which one did you buy - and which one did you switch from? I am
contemplating purchase of one, but my humble NAD C541i seems to be better
than the similarly priced Sony 222ES with a SACD disk - which pretty much is
as much as I am willing to spend at this time.

But I expect you guys to be bold. For an example , name the manufacturer who
backed out . I will write to them and ask them what they got to hide. I have
done that to two manufacturers and got the answers I was looking for after
complaints to various consumer groups nad government organ. (I am not naming
them here and atleast one of them is here, because it would do them
injustice due to different issues involved.)

For starters, ask any cable manufacturer who states that cables need
break-in, or that there is directivity to it (other than the extra
grounding lead on some interconnect cables) to provide measurements to
back up those claims.

I think in many cases it is understood that it is the end user that is
broken in rather than the cables.

Have you been to the Audio Asylum cable forum?

Are almost any audio magazine article/review that mentions cable
break-in?


"Please be patient when first listening to any superior product."

"Several weeks of disuse will return a cable to nearly its original state."

"Since human perception is more aware of the existence of a distortion
than the quantity, the better the cable, the worse in some ways it will
sound when new, because the anemic forced two-dimensional effect
reulting from being new will not be ameliorated by other gentler
distortions."

"While cable directionality is not fully understood, it is clear that
the molecular structure of drawn metal is not symmetrical, providing a
physical explanation for the existence of directionality."

People wonder why engineers and scientists don't 'rise up' to counter the
ludicrous belief systems of audiophilia. I suspect it's because they're
laughing too hard.



--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy

Assuming the Benchmark company's claims about jitter are all bunk, it would
be interesting to challenge them to a DBT of their DAC1.
I f I recall correctly a recent posting by Stewart Pinkerton, who seems to
be as objective as they come had good things to say about it.

Their measurements are at:

http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/appnot...yultralock.asp


"We" worry about jitter, because these idiots TOLD "us" to worry
about it. Because they haven't a clue what its all about. They sent
"us" out on a wild goose chanse, and generated whole generations of
expensive products, many of which made the problem WORSE, and got
praise for their amazing "transparency."


+---------------------------------------+
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| (1) 781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |
+---------------------------------------+

On 6/20/04 10:37 AM, in article , "Steven
Sullivan" wrote:

People wonder why engineers and scientists don't 'rise up' to counter the
ludicrous belief systems of audiophilia. I suspect it's because they're
laughing too hard.

A professional wouldn't ridicule - just note the observation and trace it to
root cause. That is how the State of the Art advances, BTW. Ridicule of
things you disagree with or don't understand is as bad as the pseudoscience
that one condemns. Remember that the Earth was thought to have the sun
revolve around it. It was the observation and dogged pursuit of detail that
revealed the real truth. This is not the same in magnitude, but similar in
effect.