[SonicDawg]

I think I got this thought from the loooongg jitter thread a while ago here. It was brought up by some one but it was not properly addressed. So here it is:

If so many are so vehement about the detriments of digital jitter, why not consider analogjitter? What I mean is that, how can you sure that your turntable is running at the EXACT speed as that of the original pressing process, down to the picosecond of accuracy? If I understand the concept correctly, isn't digital jitter practically the same as analog jitter, being both time shift error?

This is just my thought. By no mean am I challenging the claims made by both sides. And please, let's keep this one short ...

 

[bigshot]

Wow and flutter are the analog ratings for time deviation. They're important specs and every turntable lists them.

See ya
Steve

 

[SonicDawg]

Yeah, that's more like a manifestation of a gross scale jitter error. But what about the supposedly microscopic time shift error that people have been harping about?

 

[bigshot]

I believe the audible threshold for wow and flutter is .1%.

See ya
Steve

 

[darkless]

In the same way that the audible threshold of digital jitter has been empirically determined to be around 20 ns worst-case?

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkless /img/forum/go_quote.gif In the same way that the audible threshold of digital jitter has been empirically determined to be around 2 ns worst-case?

I dont know of any study that has put it that low, Gannon and Benjamin of Dolby labs determined it to be 10 ns (pure tone) to 20 ns (music).

Most decent turntables will easily do better than 0.1% wow and flutter, though some big name entry level TTs struggle to get below 1%. I owned a TT that has ~ 1% wow and flutter to be honest it wasnt intrusive, my current TT has in the region of 0.04% and speedwise it is perceptually rock solid.

W and F is most noticeable on stuff like sustained piano notes.

 

[sejarzo]

As far as I know, there is no meaningful correlation between wow and flutter in the analog world and jitter in the digital.

Both involve "time shift" errors, but manifest themselves in different ways. It's not that there is "microscopic" wow and flutter in the analog output from "jittery" data fed to a DAC, it's more complex.

 

[SonicDawg]

But, why do we tolerate 0.1 % of wow and flutter rate, while bickering over 200ps of jitter?

 

[monolith]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SonicDawg /img/forum/go_quote.gif But, why do we tolerate 0.1 % of wow and flutter rate, while bickering over 200ps of jitter?

Well, there's a thread where this is discussed at length with lots of "You can't hear it!", "Sure I can!", "Prove it!", "Make me!" stuff happening.

I tend to side with reason on this one.

This reminds me, a physicist friend of mine brought up the interesting question of "bitrate" for vinyl. His theory was that there must be some finite time interval below which a given turntable simply cannot resolve audible changes, which conjures up a notion similar to bitrate. Interesting idea.

 

[00940]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SonicDawg /img/forum/go_quote.gif But, why do we tolerate 0.1 % of wow and flutter rate, while bickering over 200ps of jitter?

We're sentimentally more tolerant when it comes to turntables and tubes, compared to cd players and transistors

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SonicDawg /img/forum/go_quote.gif But, why do we tolerate 0.1 % of wow and flutter rate, while bickering over 200ps of jitter?

Analog is more natural sounding. Something like wow is recurring at regular intervals which makes it more acceptable.

As for jitter in digital audio, its effect is unnatural. It depends on your tolerance level and acclimation whether it matters or not and also whether you care or not. It's like organic food vs. processed/engineered/chemical laden food.

 

[darkless]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I dont know of any study that has put it that low, Gannon and Benjamin of Dolby labs determined it to be 10 ns (pure tone) to 20 ns (music).

Whoops, that was a typo. I meant 20 ns. I've now fixed my post, thanks.

 

[earwicker7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by monolith /img/forum/go_quote.gif This reminds me, a physicist friend of mine brought up the interesting question of "bitrate" for vinyl. His theory was that there must be some finite time interval below which a given turntable simply cannot resolve audible changes, which conjures up a notion similar to bitrate. Interesting idea.

So is he making this turntable specific, or is the theory about perception in general? I hope it's the latter, as it ends up being half-way between physics and philosophy, which is a really fun place to be

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Analog is more natural sounding. Something like wow is recurring at regular intervals which makes it more acceptable.

Holy Cow! There is absolutely NOTHING natural sounding about wow in music! If you want to get seasick and dive to rip the power plug out of the wall, put some Ashkenazy on your fluttery old Garrard changer. I would listen to jitter in its absolutely worst form in low end home audio equipment all da,y before I would listen to a minute of a record pressed off center.

The reason folks argue about jitter at inaudible levels is because it sells expensive audio equipment. There are whole websites devoted to trying to confuse you into spending WAY too much to fix problems that you can't hear anyway. Several of them are just one click away from the page you're reading right now!

The levels of jitter in home audio equipment is 100 times below the threshold of audibility. Jitter is a hoodoo.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by earwicker7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif So is he making this turntable specific, or is the theory about perception in general?

There is a limit to how much resolution you can pack into a tiny little groove on a record. If you try to make a sound that involves super highly modulated groove shapes, it's a) going to wear off and distort after a couple of playings and b) not track properly.

Thankfully, the thresholds of human hearing and the requirements of accurate musical reproduction are well within the specifications of either LP or CD playback. Anyone who tells you different is trying to sell you something you don't need. (or trying to reassure themselves for spending money themselves.) The format isn't the main problem when it comes to good sound in home stereos... and it isn't the wires... or the electronics.

See ya
Steve