[WindowsX]

It's funny when people think they can learn about digital audio thoroughly from watching video clips, very very funny.

 

[gregorio]

  It's funny when people think they can learn about digital audio thoroughly from watching video clips, very very funny.

 
Which "people" here think they can learn about digital audio "thoroughly" from video clips? The suggestion here is that some fundamental basics and/or some of the incorrect myths of digital audio can be learned from video clips and the xiph videos are good.
 
What's really "very, very funny" is all those people who seem to think they've got a decent or even a thorough understanding of digital audio from reading marketing materials and BS presented by shills or by those already suckered by them! Actually, that's not really "very funny" at all, it's disappointing and rather sad.
 
G

 

[WindowsX]

Myth? Jitter isn't myth. It's impossible to manage jitter completely. gregorio, have you done DSD256 recording works with Merging, Sonoma or Playback Designs devices before?

 

[Brooko]

  It's funny when people think they can learn about digital audio thoroughly from watching video clips, very very funny.

 
What does this mean?  If its in reference to Monty's videos - they're actually as close as you'll get to a basics 101 on digital audio - which are both informative and factual.  I'd suggest if that's what you are casting doubt about - then its time to leave this thread - because you really are trolling.
 

  Myth? Jitter isn't myth. It's impossible to manage jitter completely. gregorio, have you done DSD256 recording works with Merging, Sonoma or Playback Designs devices before?

 
Please re-read Greg's email - he said nothing about jitter being myth.  It is real, and it is measurable.  However on my most modern well designed systems nowadays it is also completely inaudible.  And as far as managing it goes - beause it is inaudible - why do you need to bother.
 
I suggest you also watch this AES Damn Lies Workshop - start from 36:40 for jitter.  Its only a short section but talks about jitter audibility.
 
And Ethan's other video Audio Myths Workshop - watch /listen from the 32 minute mark.
 
But I really do suggest you watch both videos all the way through - as well as the ones from Monty.  These are real Audio professionals, recognised by their peers in the industry, and what they are talking about is real, provable, and repeatable.

 

[chaos215bar2]

  gregorio, have you done DSD256 recording works with Merging, Sonoma or Playback Designs devices before?

Rather than leading the thread on, why not explain what point you're trying to make and how DSD256 recording specifically on Merging, Sonoma, or Playback Designs devices (and, presumably, nothing else) pertains to that point? Even if gregorio does actually understand your point implicitly, those of us who don't regularly spend time in a recording studio might not.

 

[gregorio]

  Even if gregorio does actually understand your point implicitly, those of us who don't regularly spend time in a recording studio might not.

 
No, I don't understand the point he was trying to make. From past experience, I'd hazard a guess that it's some point with it's basis in marketing/PR materials rather than in the actual facts/science/engineering.
 
G

 

[WindowsX]

  The suggestion here is that some fundamental basics and/or some of the incorrect myths of digital audio can be learned from video clips and the xiph videos are good.

 
Watching video and you'll see about incorrect myth of digital audio. In this topic, we discussed about jitter so my point of discussion is about jitter that won't be easy to comprehend the correct understanding from watching some videos alone. Audible jitter is a load of misconceptions blinding many objectivists till this day. This concept was around when we were struggling to get 90db SNR and now we have over 120db SNR DAC chip.
 
All profound sound engineers who really worked with real highend grade equipment like Merging/Sonoma/Playback Designs all have the same understanding that they can't treat digital audio lightly regarding jitter which can't be completely eliminiated. They build high quality PSU, use audiograde shield USB cables for their recordings, apply additional software optimizations to improve audio performance.
 
After reading this topic, my conclusion is those who's skepticial about jitter are either lack experience from high level equipment or have not accustomed to higher complexity of sound yet. I worked with a few famous studios producing high quality records. The best way to prove is recommending music that is produced in such ways and we can listen and see if it's as good as it is claimed to be.

 

[spruce music]

Watching video and you'll see about incorrect myth of digital audio. In this topic, we discussed about jitter so my point of discussion is about jitter that won't be easy to comprehend the correct understanding from watching some videos alone. Audible jitter is a load of misconceptions blinding many objectivists till this day. This concept was around when we were struggling to get 90db SNR and now we have over 120db SNR DAC chip.

All profound sound engineers who really worked with real highend grade equipment like Merging/Sonoma/Playback Designs all have the same understanding that they can't treat digital audio lightly regarding jitter which can't be completely eliminiated. They build high quality PSU, use audiograde shield USB cables for their recordings, apply additional software optimizations to improve audio performance.

After reading this topic, my conclusion is those who's skepticial about jitter are either lack experience from high level equipment or have not accustomed to higher complexity of sound yet. I worked with a few famous studios producing high quality records. The best way to prove is recommending music that is produced in such ways and we can listen and see if it's as good as it is claimed to be.

Is it not time this troller be banned? The talk of lack of experience of those not hearing jitter. His reference guys have to hear it because it is nigh on unmeasurable. This game is wearing thin. Nothing gets thru the ardent faith in primacy of subjective sighted evaluation.

 

[WindowsX]

Is it not time this troller be banned? The talk of lack of experience of those not hearing jitter. His reference guys have to hear it because it is nigh on unmeasurable. This game is wearing thin. Nothing gets thru the ardent faith in primacy of subjective sighted evaluation.

 
Let me chew things in simply topics then since you don't seem to understand the point correctly:
 
1. Audible jitter is an old myth when digital audio was new when we were trying to build 90db SNR DAC chip. It should have died by now.
2. Merging/Sonoma/Playback Designs are very famous high quality audio interfaces. All people who used such gears take digital audio very seriously. They built dedicated DAW PC, high quality PSU, and use audiophile shield USB audio cable.
3. It all comes down to experience. It's like people who never eat or drink $1k dish or wine won't understand the taste of people who eat or drink them regularly. Instead of demanding data from common objectivist's rules (I remember those rules since 90s and it's already 20 years.), they should try hearing more on good stuff and learn what they miss.
 
I hope I made my point clear now and if you disagree, fine by me. Asking me to banned from raising such a point is ridiculous and I believe I adhere to the rules unless sound science forum forbid mixing subjective and opinion based discussion.
 
P.S. I once read a whitepaper about reducing digital audio interference from using high density chassis on audio equipment. Too bad it's confidential and most objectivists often made fun of the idea in this paper.

 

[Brooko]

  Watching video and you'll see about incorrect myth of digital audio. 

 
Yes - but you obviously didn't watch any of the videos that Greg or I posted.  Otherwise there is no possible way you could call them myths.  You know who you're talking about right - when you're suggesting these guys are wrong?
 
Suggest you read Monty's Bio - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Montgomery and suggest again that he is wrong.  Because it'll be funnier the 2nd time.
 

Audible jitter is a load of misconceptions blinding many objectivists till this day. This concept was around when we were struggling to get 90db SNR and now we have over 120db SNR DAC chip. 

 
This doesn't even make sense.  If its inaudible - it's inaudible.  I take it you didn't even watch Ethan's videos where he demonstrated what matters and what doesn't.  This is pretty funny also - because you expect us to go and read all your posts and links and won't do us the courtesy of doing the same.  Oh - and BTW, Ethan Winer - facts here : http://ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html. Poppy Crumm - https://music.stanford.edu/people/poppy-crum
 
Yep - real professionals and scientists
 
But this one takes the cake:
 

After reading this topic, my conclusion is those who's skepticial about jitter are either lack experience from high level equipment or have not accustomed to higher complexity of sound yet. I worked with a few famous studios producing high quality records. The best way to prove is recommending music that is produced in such ways and we can listen and see if it's as good as it is claimed to be.

You'll note that all of us have told you so far that jitter is real and measurable, but on virtually all well designed modern gear (much of it very cheap), it is not an issue because it is below the level of audibility.  Not only that - but I have demonstrated that as well in the videos
 
 

Is it not time this troller be banned? The talk of lack of experience of those not hearing jitter. His reference guys have to hear it because it is nigh on unmeasurable. This game is wearing thin. Nothing gets thru the ardent faith in primacy of subjective sighted evaluation.

 
I'm too close to this to do anything - it has to be someone else in the Moderation team (I already know I have a bias).  Please do what I did - flag his post.  I agree with you - enough is enough.

 

[gregorio]

   
[1] Watching video and you'll see about incorrect myth of digital audio. In this topic, we discussed about jitter so my point of discussion is about jitter that won't be easy to comprehend the correct understanding from watching some videos alone. Audible jitter is a load of misconceptions blinding many objectivists till this day.
 
[2] This concept was around when we were struggling to get 90db SNR and now we have over 120db SNR DAC chip.
 
[3] All profound sound engineers who really worked with real highend grade equipment like Merging/Sonoma/Playback Designs all have the same understanding that they can't treat digital audio lightly regarding jitter which can't be completely eliminiated. They build high quality PSU, use audiograde shield USB cables for their recordings, apply additional software optimizations to improve audio performance.
 
[4] After reading this topic, my conclusion is those who's skepticial about jitter are either lack experience from high level equipment or have not accustomed to higher complexity of sound yet. I worked with a few famous studios producing high quality records. The best way to prove is recommending music that is produced in such ways and we can listen and see if it's as good as it is claimed to be.

 
1. Thanks for confirming my guess was correct.
 
2. Why would anyone want even a 90dB SNR?
 
3. In addition to confirming my guess, now you're just completely making up "facts"!! You've obviously got no idea what "All" sound engineers use for playback, what their understanding is or what other equipment they use. Pretty much all of them would roll their eyes and laugh you out of the room if you even mentioned audiophile USB cables. Are you deliberately trying to get yourself banned?
 
4. A conclusion obviously based on ignorance and a lack of any real professional engineering experience which you've supported with a statement which is also apparently made-up nonsense. Yep, seems that you really are deliberately trying to get banned. Why though, why do you want to be banned rather than just leaving?
 
G

 

[castleofargh]

  Watching video and you'll see about incorrect myth of digital audio. In this topic, we discussed about jitter so my point of discussion is about jitter that won't be easy to comprehend the correct understanding from watching some videos alone. Audible jitter is a load of misconceptions blinding many objectivists till this day. This concept was around when we were struggling to get 90db SNR and now we have over 120db SNR DAC chip.
 
All profound sound engineers who really worked with real highend grade equipment like Merging/Sonoma/Playback Designs all have the same understanding that they can't treat digital audio lightly regarding jitter which can't be completely eliminiated. They build high quality PSU, use audiograde shield USB cables for their recordings, apply additional software optimizations to improve audio performance.
 
After reading this topic, my conclusion is those who's skepticial about jitter are either lack experience from high level equipment or have not accustomed to higher complexity of sound yet. I worked with a few famous studios producing high quality records. The best way to prove is recommending music that is produced in such ways and we can listen and see if it's as good as it is claimed to be.

 
 
skeptical about jitter... what does that even mean? we all know around here that jitter exists and can be measured. the same way we know that audibility of jitter is just a matter of how loud a change in the music it will generate(and at which frequencies). the debated point is usually about hearing threshold of jitter and nothing more.
 
having some people do their best to limit jitter does not at any point prove audibility outside of those efforts. the same way recording in 24/96 does not prove that 16/44 playback cannot be transparent. you think you're making a point but you're not.
most papers on jitter are pretty clear. many modern devices have been measured, so we have some ideas on what to expect in terms of magnitudes for most consumer products. and the few serious testings on audibility clearly mention levels while playing music that are way above what most playback systems should create nowadays. in the meantime, all I see is you saying how those guys are wrong, but you can't even seem to be able to explain about what they are wrong. and your statements seem based on... I'd say nothing, but it doesn't really matter as you're not actually making a point.
 
 if the generally accepted position is an incomplete or erroneous one, how do we show it? well not by bragging about stuff while venting your increasing hatred toward what you think is an objectivist. it's really getting annoying and will end soon, one way or another.
if we're talking measurement, at least provide some.
if we're talking audibility, show some blind tests making a big deal of jitter in music.
 
so far you're avoiding both angles like a magician.

 

[WindowsX]

   
1. Thanks for confirming my guess was correct.
 
2. Why would anyone want even a 90dB SNR?
 
3. In addition to confirming my guess, now you're just completely making up "facts"!! You've obviously got no idea what "All" sound engineers use for playback, what their understanding is or what other equipment they use. Pretty much all of them would roll their eyes and laugh you out of the room if you even mentioned audiophile USB cables. Are you deliberately trying to get yourself banned?
 
4. A conclusion obviously based on ignorance and a lack of any real professional engineering experience which you've supported with a statement which is also apparently made-up nonsense. Yep, seems that you really are deliberately trying to get banned. Why though, why do you want to be banned rather than just leaving?
 
G

 
1. Congratulations. If audible jitter is real, changing power cord shouldn't affect CD transport, right? Yet it does and it can't be measured through conventional means. Footer and leveling adjustment also affected CD transport too though it should be inaudible.
 
2. Because 90db SNR chip doesn't make 90db SNR on analog output.
 
3. Making up facts? I told from my experience. I know people who use Merging, Sonoma and Playback Designs. I have yet to see any sound engineer using such product claiming the same as any of you guys here. It's possible that they need to have mindset "Every little thing matters" in order to buy very expensive equipment and squeezing out the best from it.
 
4. So you admitted your lack of experience in such gears I mentioned before and accuse me for making things up instead. Brilliant move. And why can't you ignore my post if it's actually nonsense?
 
Please keep in mind that I just raised the point to show my disagreement in some jitter theories you mentioned here. But sadly, I lack proof and evidence that can change anyone opinion's from here. I tried in some posts before but it didn't work.
 
I used to be a guy who can't tell apart between cheap budget cables and better grade ones. And I used to think like you guys are thinking. At the end of the day, it's still "Hearing is believing" which is always true when it happens to you, whether you like it or not.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Hearing may be the end goal but if I believed everything my ears told me in my audio journey, I would have ended up in a much poorer place today sonically speaking. Strange but true.

In audiophilia, the things that your ears tell you to be true, but which are provably false, number more than stars in the sky.

Interestingly, the things that can truly make a difference as proven by objective measurements are often rejected by the ears at first, maybe because ears are so used to making up differences out of nothingness that REAL differences prove too much for them to bear.

But I have persevered with tweaking such proven factors and the results AT THE END are beyond the wildest dreams of those who just "trusted their ears" at every turn.

 

[gregorio]

   
1. Congratulations. If audible jitter is real, changing power cord shouldn't affect CD transport, right? Yet it does and it can't be measured through conventional means. ...
 
2. Because 90db SNR chip doesn't make 90db SNR on analog output.
 
3. Making up facts? I told from my experience. I know people who use Merging, Sonoma and Playback Designs. I have yet to see any sound engineer using such product claiming the same as any of you guys here. It's possible that they need to have mindset "Every little thing matters" in order to buy very expensive equipment and squeezing out the best from it.
 
4. So you admitted your lack of experience in such gears I mentioned before and accuse me for making things up instead. Brilliant move. ...
 
5. But sadly, I lack proof and evidence that can change anyone opinion's from here. I tried in some posts before but it didn't work.
 
6. At the end of the day, it's still "Hearing is believing" which is always true when it happens to you, whether you like it or not.

 
1. No, congratulations to you for so ably proving it! BTW, you've already proved and we're we're already convinced you're quoting marketing BS and audiophile myths rather than facts or science. So there's no need to oversell this fact by quoting even more audiophile myths/BS!!
 
2. Whether a DAC chip has a 90dB or 120dB SNR is irrelevant. What's relevant is the SNR of the recording! You're trying to convince us of your experience of sound engineers/engineering when you don't even appear to know one of the first, most basic facts of sound engineering! It's nonsensical, AGAIN!
 
3. Yep, making up facts. You stated "ALL" engineers, when you can't possibly know ALL sound engineers or what they know/understand, so OBVIOUSLY you made that false "fact" up!
 
4. I never admitted any such thing, just another of your made-up "facts"!
 
5. You've been told countless times that without evidence you cannot dispute science or science based claims here. Deliberately ignoring what you've been told demonstrates you are deliberately trying to get banned.
 
6. At the end of an ignorant, audiophile day maybe, but this is the science forum and science dictates your statement to be false. AGAIN, you already know this because it's been demonstrated to you!!
 
In light of the even more nonsense, deflection and made-up "facts" in your latest response, ALL of which you ALREADY know is unacceptable here, I ask AGAIN, why are you insulting this forum and thereby deliberately trying to get yourself banned, instead of just leaving? What are you gaining from your trolling?
 
G