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