[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SB /img/forum/go_quote.gif Really? Hahaha so much for the high end being better designed and performing better, mcintosh is such a joke.

Sorry it was almost 14ns not 11ns

Stereophile: McIntosh MS750 music server

$6000 RRP

 

[SB]

Wow, that is pathetic but the mcintosh music servers are just rebadged ESCIENT products. I will look later for a review but I wonder if the escient products performe that bad.

 

[bordins]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gbjerke /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well if you have to train your ears to hear jitter, why would you do so?

Technical Listening Training: Improvement of sound sensitivity for acoustic engineers and sound designers (pdf)

Iwamiya et al. Acoustical Science and Technology Vol. 24 (2003) , No. 1 pp.27-31

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bordins /img/forum/go_quote.gif Technical Listening Training: Improvement of sound sensitivity for acoustic engineers and sound designers (pdf) Iwamiya et al. Acoustical Science and Technology Vol. 24 (2003) , No. 1 pp.27-31

Wouldn't that mean it's more likely that the professionals tested were already "trained" to hear jitter as b0dhi put it?

 

[SB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wouldn't that mean it's more likely that the professionals tested were already "trained" to hear jitter as b0dhi put it?

Indeed and they could still not hear audible jitter.

 

[leeperry]

page 28 of this PDF discusses the audibility threshold of audio jitter: http://www.scalatech.co.uk/papers/aes93.pdf
 
it seems that the ancient study all the myth debunkers like to cite as being God's word was conducted w/ mono signals from tape recordings, hah! the whole point of a lower jitter is to improve the stereo phase coherence and low level details clarity.
 
They talk about 120ps in 16bit stereo S/PDIF, that sounds more like it.

 

[EthanWiner]

Quote:

page 28 of this PDF discusses the audibility threshold of audio jitter: http://www.scalatech.co.uk/papers/aes93.pdf

 
What's not clear is if they are guessing about jitter audibility, or if they actually did a proper blind test on a large group of people. Concluding that jitter is audible just because it's above the noise floor of the medium ignores masking and other considerations.
 
--Ethan

 

[nick_charles]

 
Quote:

page 28 of this PDF discusses the audibility threshold of audio jitter: http://www.scalatech.co.uk/papers/aes93.pdf
 
it seems that the ancient study all the myth debunkers like to cite as being God's word was conducted w/ mono signals from tape recordings, hah! the whole point of a lower jitter is to improve the stereo phase coherence and low level details clarity.
 
They talk about 120ps in 16bit stereo S/PDIF, that sounds more like it.

Lee, that AES paper predates Benjamin and Gannon by 5 years, you are referring to citations to the 1970s BBC studies, this is not the same thing I am afraid.

 
Quote:

 
What's not clear is if they are guessing about jitter audibility, or if they actually did a proper blind test on a large group of people. Concluding that jitter is audible just because it's above the noise floor of the medium ignores masking and other considerations.
 
--Ethan

It is a mathematical model, I have read everything Dunn and Hawksford have ever written on Jitter, they have never done empirical listening tests to determine audibility thresholds and Dunn's models are based on levels of 120db + room noise , so anywhere from 140db to 160db. So Dunn's extreme of 20ps at 20khz is a bit moot, what Dunn does contribute is a good enumeration of the precise level of "actual" signal degradation with jitter, viz even relatively small amounts do degrade performance below 16bits and 20bit audio is even more touchy about jitter. But the big question of whether this is in any way audible they do not address.

 

 

[leeperry]

 

Lee, that AES paper predates Benjamin and Gannon by 5 years, you are referring to citations to the 1970s BBC studies, this is not the same thing I am afraid.

OK, my bad! but even the newer studies seem/have to be flawed...and I shall add that each time I've compared low jitter gear, I was using single ended headphones....I don't believe this would make for an audible diff over dual ended headphones, just saying.
 
and a friend of mine who's got an ADUM4160/Fubar4/Supplier combo just bought a Bravo, he's pretty stunned by the SQ improvement over the CMI108 USB controller! Much clearer instruments separation thanks to WM8804, exactly what I noticed as well...he's using a single ended DT880/600Ω.

 

[silverxxx]

I don't understand, if you resample "jitter" aren't you just setting it back to the sampling rate anyway? Wouldn't it end up the same as adding noise to the signal?

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Any links to a jitter detection training school?
 
Sean Olive and Harman International have found no difference in using trained (audiophile) and untrained (general staff with the company) in their blind tests.

 

[lamode]

Happy to see the jitter nonsense debunked.
 
The original link no longer works but you can find the article here: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ast/26/1/26_1_50/_pdf

 

[castleofargh]

  Happy to see the jitter nonsense debunked.
 
The original link no longer works but you can find the article here: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ast/26/1/26_1_50/_pdf

thanks for the link

 

[sonitus mirus]

Good thing that MSB provides full refunds for their Femtosecond Galaxy Clock?

 

[bigshot]

Jitter is a hoodoo.