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

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

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. 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.


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.

I'm sure the one who did the test will give details as he has here before,
if measurement includes a listening alone test of a serially tweeked
system of good repute, as to it's gear, and one made as unlike it as is
practicable, then this notion can not be confirmed. The highly tweeked
system could not be distinguished from that set up to violate as many
tweek guidelines as possible.

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

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?

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

Only in principle. Not in practice.


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? What about a difference in phase shift? What about the 0.001dB
in level due to the difference in resistance? How about the differences
in resistance, capacitance and inductance?

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. 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.


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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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 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.

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.

Care to provide examples where differences are not measureable?

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

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

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?

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 .....

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?

Hardly. I am suggesting that a common subjectivist
reaction to measurement-based claims of 'no audible difference' is that
the wrong thing has been measured. Bromo was kind enough to also allude
to the *other* standby, namely, 'there are things science can't measure
(optional: yet)'.

The first could be true, but without some viable suggestion for
what the 'right thing' might be, it's hand-waving. The second is a
truism, but again, where's the independent evidence or argument-from-data
to believe it's true in *this* case?

--

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

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.