[regal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif Some companies might regard this kind of R & D as an essential part of product development.

The test to be correct would be a hundred page document comparing to control (known agreed apon high end transports) and would cost thousands of dollars. And you still don't have ASTM, Gauge R&R, etc. Its pseudo-science at best. It comes down to you have to use your ears to know what sounds best.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by regal /img/forum/go_quote.gif Listening tests and reports are the best analytical tool we have for audio equipment.

Then, at the very least, where are the decent controlled listening tests and not audio rag waffle ?

 

[regal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif Then, at the very least, where are the decent controlled listening tests and not audio rag waffle ?

Yes audio is a subjective black art, that science hasn't unlocked. Thats why I find it so fascinating. Think about it it all comes down to testing perception, the interphase between the brain and the physical world, Descartes' singularity.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by regal /img/forum/go_quote.gif Again, if Steve were to publish Jitter measurements it would be meaningless, there is no standard. Look up ASTM. There are no calibration "CD"'s, its pseudoscience at this point or at the very least very complex and can't be put down to one number. Steve would have to publish graphs and spectra of his product vs his competition and 1 out of 100,000 people would be able to read/understand them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by regal /img/forum/go_quote.gif The test to be correct would be a hundred page document comparing to control (known agreed apon high end transports) and would cost thousands of dollars. And you still don't have ASTM, Gauge R&R, etc. Its pseudo-science at best. It comes down to you have to use your ears to know what sounds best.

So, if I can summarize. we cannot accurately or meaningfully measure it, we cannot quantify it or define it operationally and we cannot properly compare it and yet we know for a fact that it is a problem and that devices X and Y reduce it

 

[Happy Camper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, if I can summarize. we cannot accurately or meaningfully measure it, we cannot quantify it or define it operationally and we cannot properly compare it and yet we know for a fact that it is a problem and that devices X and Y reduce it

By George Nick, I think you have it.

 

[tosehee]

I guess he's using placebo as the 3rd tool on this graph. That definitely is a very strong tool.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Camper /img/forum/go_quote.gif By George Nick, I think you have it.

You must excuse me, I am off back to the rational Universe, be seeing you.

 

[audioengr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by regal /img/forum/go_quote.gif Again, if Steve were to publish Jitter measurements it would be meaningless, there is no standard. Look up ASTM. There are no calibration "CD"'s, its pseudoscience at this point or at the very least very complex and can't be put down to one number. Steve would have to publish graphs and spectra of his product vs his competition and 1 out of 100,000 people would be able to read/understand them. Listening tests and reports are the best analytical tool we have for audio equipment. Jitter can't be condensed to one number and I applaud Steve N and his company for not BSing us with specs that stand for nothing.

Thanks. Finally someone who understands.

Steve N.

 

[audioengr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif Then, at the very least, where are the decent controlled listening tests and not audio rag waffle ?

Even if I did go to the expense and time to do these listening tests properly, nooone would believe the results. They would spend all day taking potshots at them.

There are too many variables to reproduce such an experiment anyway. Each experiment is a unique one-off.

Steve N.

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audioengr /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks. Finally someone who understands. Steve N.

Regardless of whether or not people understand them or not, you shouldn't make a claim you can't back up. What's so hard to understand about that?

Can you back up your claim about your cables either? No, you cannot. So you should just say, "These are my IMPRESSIONS."

This is nothing personal, I'm sure your gear sounds great and I'm sure you are a very skilled engineer. But you are not being honorable.

 

[itsborken]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audioengr /img/forum/go_quote.gif There are too many variables to reproduce such an experiment anyway. Each experiment is a unique one-off.

Scientists set up their experiments to eliminate or mitigate variables and create results that can be repeated. That you apparently don't know this is disheartening and it's little wonder that people won't believe your results.

 

[tosehee]

If you can't scientifically proof that your gear is better than others, on what basis are you claiming that your product is better?

Your impression?

How persuasive do you think that argument is?

 

[doctorcilantro]

Does EA offer 30 day trial with no re-stocking fee?

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsborken /img/forum/go_quote.gif Scientists set up their experiments to eliminate or mitigate variables and create results that can be repeated. That you apparently don't know this is disheartening and it's little wonder that people won't believe your results.

It is worse than that. Steve N. was the lead designer for the Pentium II and holds several patents, is a well-lauded engineer and designer, credit where it is due.

He knows what you say **perfectly** well, he just chooses to not go by that route for his audio products. I'll bet he didnt say, hmm the architecture of this chip is a little bit complicated let's not bother testing it properly, let's just assume it works to spec

when creating what was then one of the most intricate pieces of ULSI.

Here is the irony. There is a really simple way to test this. A while back a chap on the HDD Audio forum posted several samples from CD rips with different amounts of jitter added to them. These ranged from 0 to 100ns. I took these samples and was able to correctly place them in ascending order of jitter. How did I manage this feat ? Do I have golden ears, hardly. I took the samples and ran them though audacity and plotted the frequency repsonses. Then I exported the data to text files and loaded it up in Excel from there it was trivial to calculate the differences at different frequency points and in the overall levels and place them in the right order. I had to make one assumption about the effect of jitter, but if that assumption had been wrong I would have gotten them in the exact wrong order. How much of an effect did say 100ns of jitter make ?

100ns of jitter made very little difference until you hit over 20K(0.2db) by which point the frequencies were at -76db or below and when the differences got really big (0.3db)(21K) you were at -94db. At lower frequencies the differences were literally miniscule. 100ns of jitter is almost 10 times worse than any commercially available digital audio device and most have well under 1ns.

 

[audioengr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tosehee /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you can't scientifically proof that your gear is better than others, on what basis are you claiming that your product is better?

My own ears, my customers ears and reviewers ears.

This is what really matters.

I could argue the same for lots of amplifiers and preamps as well as DACs that measure poorly and yet sound excellent. The measurements are not that useful. New measurement standards are needed IMO.

Again, I am not saying that I will not publish measurements, only that I cannot afford the expense right now.

It's the customers, you guys, that are pinching their pennies right now and making life difficult for the manufacturers.

Steve N.