That's like asking people to show you what "bacterial looks like." The moment you imply there is one such thing in that question, you lose credibility on any knowledge you claim to have.
Jitter is any and all things that interfere with the clock in a DAC. The source of disturbance determines what its spectrum and hence its impact on the sound is.
That last part of the sentence is important: jitter by itself has no sound. It modifies/modulates the sound in your music. Change the music and you change jitter even if you keep jitter itself constant.
This is why I asked you what "20 ns" of jitter was which you still have not answered. Do you know how to convert that to dB measurements shown in my measurements and that of stereophile?
How do you wear the cloth of science and carry a banner on Jitter when you don't know what it is, what causes it, and what it looks like in practice?
If you'd like to translate audibility to dB, then just use Ethan Winer's noise test under music. He puts a horrible upper mid buzz under music and it starts disappearing at normal listening volume at around -40dB or so. You can assume that modified sound will be even less audible than outright noise right in the middle of the ear's most sensitive spot,.. But lets be generous- so figure the threshold is somewhere around -45dB.
I don't wear the cloth of science. I wear a shirt and trousers!
How do I go about proving something doesn't exist? You want me to prove a negative? I am going to go out on a limb and say the sun will rise tomorrow in the East. Should I qualify that too? We won't know until tomorrow is today, and then we won't know about tomorrow again.
come on now, you've been on the both sides of that sort of arguments countless times. you can't practically prove this, and that's why you shouldn't make a claim about it. just like one shouldn't claim that all DACs sound the same , all cables sound the same, nobody can hear 21khz, and so on.
I completely understand that we can all happen to write something like this in a post without really bothering with the implications, I must do it all the time. but why try to hold on to it now that the issue has been clearly explained? it's not like we're expecting you to abandon everything you believe in, and announce that you were a jitter paranoid all along. I just offered to make a version of your statement that you can afford. one that isn't an empty claim with an unprovable finality that makes it self implode.
don't let your profound love for amirm be the only reason to fight over this.
I'm always on the side that you can't prove a negative. And I've always been more than willing to call a spade a spade if no one can come up with any examples that contradict it. You would be hard pressed to find a cable that alters the sound, and you are going to really have to dig deep to find a DAC that doesn't have a flat response. They're *supposed* to all sound the same. If they don't, it's a mistake. Send it back for a refund. Why would anyone want to make that kind of thing unless they're peddling first class sucker bait. The truth is that none of this should matter. Buy stuff aimed at regular people, not jewel encrusted audiophoolery and you'll never encounter a cable or DAC that sounds different.
It seems to me that qualifying things that really don't merit qualification just waters down the truth. People want to know if they should consider jitter ratings when they buy a DAC. People want to know if they should worry about buying a DAC or cable that doesn't sound as good as another DAC or cable. I think they should worry about those things about as much as they worry about cosmic rays. Broken stuff is irrelevant to the discussion because it's broken. Do we need to say that some light bulbs don't light up because some are burned out? No. If you buy a light bulb it's 75 watts and x number of lumens.
I am not fighting with Amirm. I really, really, really want someone to point me to a piece of home audio equipment that isn't audibly transparent. I think it would be very interesting to find this rare bird that everyone keeps mentioning in the wild. However, I think this particular Dodo has been extinct since oversampling was introduced in DACs in the late 80s. Obsolete is obsolete. It's been replaced. I honestly think that every DAC at Amazon sounds the same to human ears.
I'm always on the side that you can't prove a negative. And I've always been more than willing to call a spade a spade if no one can come up with any examples that contradict it. You would be hard pressed to find a cable that alters the sound, and you are going to really have to dig deep to find a DAC that doesn't have a flat response. They're *supposed* to all sound the same. If they don't, it's a mistake. Send it back for a refund. Why would anyone want to make that kind of thing unless they're peddling first class sucker bait. The truth is that none of this should matter. Buy stuff aimed at regular people, not jewel encrusted audiophoolery and you'll never encounter a cable or DAC that sounds different.
It seems to me that qualifying things that really don't merit qualification just waters down the truth. People want to know if they should consider jitter ratings when they buy a DAC. People want to know if they should worry about buying a DAC or cable that doesn't sound as good as another DAC or cable. I think they should worry about those things about as much as they worry about cosmic rays. Broken stuff is irrelevant to the discussion because it's broken. Do we need to say that some light bulbs don't light up because some are burned out? No. If you buy a light bulb it's 75 watts and x number of lumens.
I am not fighting with Amirm. I really, really, really want someone to point me to a piece of home audio equipment that isn't audibly transparent. I think it would be very interesting to find this rare bird that everyone keeps mentioning in the wild. However, I think this particular Dodo has been extinct since oversampling was introduced in DACs in the late 80s. Obsolete is obsolete. It's been replaced. I honestly think that every DAC at Amazon sounds the same to human ears.
There does seem to be a general concensus here that the digital part of the equation is pretty close to as good as it gets...why argue if thats true?The part of the equation that is up for debate would be the mechanical stuff,speakers mics ect?.or is this strictly a digital path forum?If it can improve the listening experience it should be on the table here.Stop arguing about microns and start discussing things that can improve stuff.
If this thread is truly about improving headphone sound....it has to be about imaging!Headphones in general have the frequency response thing down.Decent speakers kill them in the imaging department.Lets hear it...whatcha got?
If this thread is truly about improving headphone sound....it has to be about imaging!Headphones in general have the frequency response thing down.Decent speakers kill them in the imaging department.Lets hear it...whatcha got?
There does seem to be a general concensus here that the digital part of the equation is pretty close to as good as it gets...why argue if thats true?The part of the equation that is up for debate would be the mechanical stuff,speakers mics ect?.or is this strictly a digital path forum?If it can improve the listening experience it should be on the table here.Stop arguing about microns and start discussing things that can improve stuff.
all the "everything is the same" ideas are IMO why most of the forum thinks this section is a joke. we go "science this" and "blind test that" anytime we don't agree with a claim, but then we let things slide and argue that we don't need to be picky when we're preaching the good words? double standard aren't very convincing.
I'm not pointing fingers, I find myself doing just that way more often than I like. it's just natural to be less picky and skeptical about what we believe. but it's also just another bias, and we're supposed to be in here because we wish to minimize the impact of those biases. so when something becomes simplified to the point of becoming an unprovable claim, and most likely a false claim, shouldn't we point it out?
now why it ends up being 2 pages of arguments when the issue was clear from the start and really nothing much? well that's another story, and indeed we could have been spending that time discussing more relevant things than jitter.
Glmoneydawg, I tried my friend, but I think some people listen to the groove and others listen to the numbers. Each to their own, I guess. Peace and love, peace and love.
Well I think people who see differences where they don't exist are clueless. We get that wandering in here all the time. They grab on tight to cables making a difference and they refuse to acknowledge that wires are wires. When you hedge everything you say to the point of coming off as unsure, people are going to assume you're a joke.
If someone wants to disagree, feel free. Just show me an example of a DAC or player that has audible jitter. If you can't do that, at lest show me one that isn't audibly transparent. Is that too much to ask?
I didn't get a great sounding rig by working on theoretical problems. I did it by addressing *real* ones. I agree with you. Jitter isn't worth discussing. It's fake. The truth rarely lies halfway between two opposing viewpoints. Where the line falls on this one is blatantly obvious. It's an unprovable claim because audible jitter doesn't exist. If it did, it could be proven. Logic 101.
After getting the best headphone rig together, the final step is personal health.
If you study live music situations, the crowd is at an elevated mental state. This is the live music experience and has been for mankind in recorded history. Obviously the use of intoxicating substances increases this ultimately higher sound perception.
But for most Head-Fi hobbyists there is actually a greater path. Increasing personal health generates a profound increase in musical enjoyment. The altered perception from perfect health increases awareness of small details and musical magic.
This isn’t both the place to list the advances in getting to perfect physical health, but it is by far the greatest headphone endgame tweek.
I'd like to solidify this a bit to get back to the original question. What is the future in improving the listening experience with headphones?
I'll leave jitter as an open topic, but I am not ok with DACs not being able to resolve the 16 bits available to them in music recordings. 96 dbs is a lot, I know, but I want it there and I think it's a good standard.
Additionally, I agree that headphones with pads that don't morph as quickly (or have replaceable pads) would make a big difference.
For my part, I'd also like to see better digital EQs in our phones and computers. The EQ in my phone is terrible, not worth using.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
