[tosehee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audioengr /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

Isn't that what placebo is based on? Without the quantifiable measurements, I "think" this product is better than the other.. I am already telling my brain to think that way. When I listen, I would obviously hear that I never heard before.

I've done this simple ABX testing with my buddy here. He and I owned exactly same component except:

1. He owns Logitech Transport, and I owned M2tech hiface for transport
2. He also uses the Power Conditioner from PS Audio (P300) and I don't.

Everything else is same which includes:
1. Uses exactly same power cord.
2. Uses exactly same interconnect (CAST cable from Audio-gd)
3. Same DAC (Ref1)
4. Same amp (Phoenix)
5. Same headphone (HD800)

With him not looking at what I am doing, I changed the source, power cord, power outlet (conditioner vs. wall wart), transport, etc, etc..

Guess what.. His pick is less than 50% accurate.. Meaning, pretty much random.

Before this test, he swore that he hear so much better with a new PS power conditioner and clearer sound with Logitech Transport. After the test? He's puzzled.

I say the placebo is much stronger than that we like to admit.

Any impression/reviews that are based on pure 'user perception/early impression' is 90% placebo in effect, IMHO.

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audioengr /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's the customers, you guys, that are pinching their pennies right now and making life difficult for the manufacturers. Steve N.

Ah, when all else fails blame and insult the customer. You're a real piece of work.

How could life be difficult for you when you charge four figure prices for products you can't back up with scientific merit? Some of us have to actually do honest work to make a living and can't afford to throw away our money.

 

[Pars]

Kind of a fact of life in a recession, don't you think? I don't see any insult there. How many of these do you think sell per week?

Regarding measurements, if you have ever actually used any sophisticated test equipment, it usually isn't as simple as hook it up and push a button and there's your number.

 

[emmodad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

Nick,

as you almost invariably seem to have credible, researched backup for your postings, are you in a position to provide anything (links, docs, etc) that is independent confirmation (ie not Steve N's self-marketing) wrt Steve N having been "the lead designer for the Pentium II?"

knowing how large-project chip design teams are structured within Intel, there are/were many persons in an overall design team who go/went by the moniker "Lead Designer." some, ie, were leads on portions a/o subsystems of the design, ie VLSI, silicon backplane, system-level, architecture, clock/timing distribution and integrity, modelling, packaging, verification, etc.

links to patents potentially relevant to audio/jitter/clocking discussion?

to be lauded and respected is a person's experience and resultant knowledge base within their specific domain... credit where it is due, as it were.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by emmodad /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nick, as you almost invariably seem to have credible, researched backup for your postings, are you in a position to provide anything (links, docs, etc) that is independent confirmation (ie not Steve N's self-marketing) wrt Steve N having been "the lead designer for the Pentium II?" knowing how large-project chip design teams are structured within Intel, there are/were many persons in an overall design team who go/went by the moniker "Lead Designer." some, ie, were leads on portions a/o subsystems of the design, ie VLSI, silicon backplane, system-level, architecture, clock/timing distribution and integrity, modelling, packaging, verification, etc. links to patents potentially relevant to audio/jitter/clocking discussion? to be lauded and respected is a person's experience and resultant knowledge base within their specific domain... credit where it is due, as it were.

Patents: Audio-related only, there are others...

United States Patent 6653555 : Bare-wire interconnect
United States Patent 6066799 : Twisted-pair cable assembly
United States Patent 5880402 : High fidelity audio interconnect cable
United States Patent 5831210 : Balanced audio interconnect cable with helical geometry
United States Patent 5713765: High-current audio connector

Publications at Intel:

The iPSC/2 direct-connect communications technology, S. F. Nugent, January 1988 Proceedings of the third conference on Hypercube concurrent computers and applications: Architecture, software, computer systems, and general issues

Intel Patents:

Nugent Patent: 5,175,733 Dec. 29, 1992
[54] ADAPTIVE MESSAGE ROUTING FOR MULTI-DIMENSIONAL NETWORKS
[75] Inventor: Steven F. Nugent, Portland, Oreg.
[73] Assignee: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, Calif.

Nugent Patent: 5,347,450 Sep. 13, 1994
[54] MESSAGE ROUTING IN A MULTIPROCESSOR COMPUTER SYSTEM
[75] Inventor: Steven F. Nugent, Portland, Oreg.
[73] Assignee: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, Calif.

Nugent Patent: 5,398,317 Mar. 14, 1995
[54] SYNCHRONOUS MESSAGE ROUTING USING A RETRANSMITTED CLOCK SIGNAL IN A MULTIPROCESSOR COMPUTER SYSTEM
[75] Inventor: Steven F. Nugent, Portland, Oreg.
[73] Assignee: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, Calif.
(This looks quite relevant to clocking)

Nugent Patent: 5,278,902 Jan. 11, 1994
[54] METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TRANSITION DIRECTION CODING
[75] Inventor: Steven F. Nugent, Portland, Oreg.
[73] Assignee: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, Calif.

Nugent Patent: 5,594,866 Jan. 14, 1997
[54] MESSAGE ROUTING IN A MULTI-PROCESSOR COMPUTER SYSTEM WITH ALTERNATE EDGE STROBE REGENERATION
[75] Inventor: Steven F. Nugent, Portland, Oreg.
[73] Assignee: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, Calif.

Nugent: Patent: 5,317,564 May 31, 1994
Merging network for collection of data from multi-computers

Nugent Patent: 5,557,075 Sep. 17,1996
[54] PARALLEL FLEXIBLE TRANSMISSION CABLE
[75] Inventor: Steven F. Nugent, Portland, Oreg.
[73] Assignee: Intel Corporation, Sanat Clara, Calif.

Nugent Patent: 6,076,131 Jun. 13,2000
[54] ROUTING RESOURCE RESERVE/RELEASE PROTOCOL FOR MULTI-PROCESSOR COMPUTER SYSTEMS
[75] Inventor: Steven F. Nugent, Portland, Oreg. [73]
Assignee: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, Calil.

Nugent Patent: 5,418,934 May 23,1995
[54] SYNCHRONIZING CHAINED DISTRIBUTED DIGITAL CHRONOMETERS BY THE USE OF AN ECHO SIGNAL
[75] Inventor: Steven F. Nugent, Portland, Oreg.
[73] Assignee: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, Calif.
(This looks quite relevant to clocking)

A parallel flexible transmission cable accommodating three degrees of displacement and one degree of rotation.
Inventor: Steven F. Nugent
Assignee: Intel Corporation
The cable has two connectors attached to a flexible, planar cable. A plurality of conductors in the planar cable electrically connect corresponding pins of the two conductors. The cable...


I am unable to find independent verification of the actual "design lead" title, there are many web references but they can all be tied back to Empirical Audio by a few levels of indirection, though clearly Mr Nugent did have a long technical design career at Intel and it is certainly well within the bounds of possibility.

 

[itsborken]

Almost seems like we are talking about two different people--the Intel intellectual and the guy who can't design a repeatable experiment.

 

[tosehee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsborken /img/forum/go_quote.gif Almost seems like we are talking about two different people--the Intel intellectual and the guy who can't design a repeatable experiment.

I was about to say the same.. Seems little odd that with all these patents granted that he can't even get the measurement done...?

 

[regal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tosehee /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was about to say the same.. Seems little odd that with all these patents granted that he can't even get the measurement done...?

There is no ASTM (American Standard Testing Method) for measuring jitter in audio equipment. There are no calibration standards. Its like asking someone to check an engine rebuild without a set of calibrated calipers.

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by regal /img/forum/go_quote.gif There is no ASTM (American Standard Testing Method) for measuring jitter in audio equipment. There are no calibration standards. Its like asking someone to check an engine rebuild without a set of calibrated calipers.

That's perfectly fine. Just don't claim your product actually reduces jitter then if you can't prove it does. Simple enough. Just say it sounds great.

 

[regal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's perfectly fine. Just don't claim your product actually reduces jitter then if you can't prove it does. Simple enough. Just say it sounds great.

And ask all the other audio companies to do the same 'cause their jitter specs are pure BS, at least Steve is being honest with us. He is using inductive reasoning, you have to respect that if you have any engineering background at all. All scientific fields start with inductive resoning, the theory of relativity wasn't "proven" until several decades later. Right now the science of jitter in audio equipment just ain't an empirical science, but Steve N is a leader in the field for crying out loud.

 

[itsborken]

Quote:

Originally Posted by regal /img/forum/go_quote.gif And ask all the other audio companies to do the same 'cause their jitter specs are pure BS, at least Steve is being honest with us. He is using inductive reasoning, you have to respect that if you have any engineering background at all. All scientific fields start with inductive resoning, the theory of relativity wasn't "proven" until several decades later. Right now the science of jitter in audio equipment just ain't an empirical science, but Steve N is a leader in the field for crying out loud.

Inductive reasoning starts with an given beyond dispute. Apparently we don't even have that.

 

[AudioCats]

ok, I did more digital cable comparisons

I was using the Sony blueray as transport, and pipe the signal via both toslink and coax to the modded zhaolu D2C, which feeds my electrostatic setup. As I have mentioned before, the two optic cables I have somehow sound a bit different, so I only tested the coax cables this time.

the test method is: use the thick toslink as reference, and swap in different coax cables. I will do quick switch between optical (thick toslink) and coax (cable under test) and record the differences between coax and optical. Then I compare this coax/optical difference various cables make.

results:
somehow the coax cables have a lot less difference among them then the difference between the two optic cables. I tried 6 coax cables, range from commercial (Cinemaquest from Audioquest) and various DIY (DIY cost from $10 to $60) and I "think" I can pick out the Cinemaquest (looser bass with a bit more wooph, comparing to the optical) and the most expensive DIY cable (a little better dynamic, thicker sound than optical). the other four coax cables all sound the same to me

 

[audioengr]

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.

So, how do you define a "standard system?

A standard for room acoustics?

A standard for listeners skills?

Like I said, too many variables to duplicate such an experiment. This is the scientific analysis.

Steve N.

 

[audioengr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's perfectly fine. Just don't claim your product actually reduces jitter then if you can't prove it does. Simple enough. Just say it sounds great.

This is actually very easy to prove. All I have to do is input a high jitter source to my Pace-Car and out comes jitter so low I cannot measure it. What's the point?

You really want jitter numbers that you can compare to other products. Well these other products jitter numbers are meaningless and if I published a single number, this would be meaningless too.

There is no difference from this and amplifier specs. Would you purchase a $5K amplifier without ever listening to it? Based on the specs alone? I doubt it.

Even the professional reviews of amps demonstrate that the classical specs are only a starting point, and say very little about how good the amp will actually sound. It's the reviewers listening tests that are actually more important IMO.

Steve N.

 

[tosehee]

I say 99% today's DACs have a jitter reducing mechanism that it will reduce the jitter to a degree that it's not going to be measurable. Anything else, it's meaningless since there is no standard to compare. Is that about right? So, your product is not comparable to other product because there is, again, no way to compare. You can claim every day your product is superior to others, but they can do the same..

In the end, both are good enough, and hence no need to buy your four figure dejitter box.