Why pick on cables ?

[JamoBroGuy]

Show me a graph of stage, of decays, show me a graph of timbre, show me a graph of how pace is done with an IEM, then you may have something to talk about, because right now you have zero facts.

Stage and decay are properties of the music, not the IEM, although the perception of these qualities can be changed by frequency response (more treble gives the perception of faster decay, for example). Timbre is just frequency response, that’s literally by definition what timbre is. I have no idea what “pace” is supposed to mean, as far as I know an IEM can’t change the BPM of a track.

 

[Ryokan]

The more I learn about what makes something sound as it does, especially with iem's, it seems akin to 'sleight of hand' used in 'magic' tricks, where tuners manipulate frequencies to get certain effects.

 

[bigshot]

Jitter is a hoodoo. It’s a problem that is inaudible and completely irrelevant to the enjoyment of music playback in the home.

JamoBroGuy nailed the rest.

 

[castleofargh]

The more I learn about what makes something sound as it does, especially with iem's, it seems akin to 'sleight of hand' used in 'magic' tricks, where tuners manipulate frequencies to get certain effects.

It certainly is a magic trick if one claims to tune anything with a cable that isn't at least strictly dedicated to one IEM. And in general, that's simply not the job of a cable. Why would you want to tune something with a cable? Get an EQ, some fancier DSP box or a transducer with another tuning.

 

[Redcarmoose]

Stage and decay are properties of the music, not the IEM, although the perception of these qualities can be changed by frequency response (more treble gives the perception of faster decay, for example). Timbre is just frequency response, that’s literally by definition what timbre is. I have no idea what “pace” is supposed to mean, as far as I know an IEM can’t change the BPM of a track.

You’re new. The cable changes the perception of stage. Some metal mixtures make the stage bigger, and alloys of silver can be slightly softer, but often pure silver has an energetic stage where it not only energizes the tone, bringing about clarity but uses this energy to enlarge the sound stage.

I would say that cables mixed with IEM driver style and the file and source are the creator of decays. BA drivers are faster and DDs have better timbre, plus slower in changing movement, showing more decay, except the transient edge of the BA driver is clearer and faster. Think about it this way....the DD may be 10mm so it is big and slow, slow to to stop vibrating. The BA is a thin reed of steel that can stop and start on a dime. You are right in that a thinner tone of a driver will show faster decays. Though what your missing here is IEMs are actually very close to musical instruments. Some are even and complete, some are balanced and correct, and other IEMs are not as much. Timbre is the ability for the IEM to show character of instruments that are of the same exact frequency and tone, so maybe the listening is that of textures? So greater definition of tone/timbre could show how a bass and an organ note are different even though they are playing the same note. Cables can help in showcasing timbre through detail and changing tone, or better yet instrument and vocal separation with in the stage hence getting more separation from the same tone helps the listener define the music better and brings another dimension. Pace is simply, mostly how changes take place, it is rhythm in a way. But mostly this concerns how drums and bass are defined in the playback. That too much bass will look on a graphic representation like the mountain peaks are touching. Where slight stops (and start-ups) that are really there in the file get promoted to be adding pace by showing a better rhythmic detail. Blurry bass and unclear drums which run together due to a lack of edge crispness will do that. Examples of pace are found in the file, in the source, can be a result of tuning, in the cable and inside the IEM ability. Read my glossary to learn more about the audiophile definitions, those may be better than I could explain.

Perception and frequency response:
Yes the frequency response or tone character of an IEM can help or limit the perception, just like a brighter all BA IEM can help with the perception of both transients and pace. Though also remember an IEM can have deeper bass and still provide great transients. Transients hold small amounts of detail inside the momentary edge. So an example would be a violin or guitar string. With a guitar there is a pluck. Then an instant variation of frequency, then a mixture at times with surrounding strings, then a resonance that is the wood of the instrument vibrating, then a decay. So it is that edge of the pluck that can be well introduced into the IEM playback. Depending on the overall tone (yes) a thinner toned IEM can show with less confusion the guitar string personality. It is clearer, but still it depends on the quality of the IEM driver. Then it also depends on how the stage is set-up. Meaning we can have a great tuning that is even, balanced, complete and correct, but if it is not projected outward into making a big stage, it doesn’t matter as we can not perceive the instruments or vocals as clearly.

Stage and decay are properties of music, except what you are not realizing is the very same ideas that made the music in the first place have to be recreated again in the playback. Meaning sound from a musical instrument no matter what it is has basic fundamentals in creation. Meaning the hit of the drum stick, is the strum of the guitar. Speakers are musical instruments, just like the drum or guitar the coil vibrates and gets amplified by the speaker cone. An IEM is a lot like a small musical instrument, hence values like harmonic resonance from the IEM body are dependent on the character of materials. Different guitars made with different materials have a character just like IEMs that are made of different shell material.

 

[theveterans]

Jitter is a hoodoo. It’s a problem that is inaudible and completely irrelevant to the enjoyment of music playback in the home.

JamoBroGuy nailed the rest.

I wrote many times that not everyone perceives the same way as you. The perception that I hear can be loosely not definitive be caused by different phase noise out of a DAC clock immeasurable at the DAC analog output. I didn’t say it’s correlate = 100% causation. Could be one with combinations of other parameters too

And what evidence do they have that this changes much of anything audibly for music at the output of the DAC, or that it applies to most DACs? It's like the dude who did the false blind test while his buddy repeated throughout the listening that it wasn't a proper blind test and that it wasn't scientific, but he used it to argue whatever his belief was anyway. Or the same guy showing stuff measured in the MHz or whatever to "validate" audibility...
Can't you see on your own when an argumentation is full of holes and fails to follow the most basic rules of logic? For one thing to justify another, it would be nice if at least we had the concept of causality involved somewhere, instead of desperately fishing for possible correlations and then just jump to some conclusion that the "demonstration" did not in fact lead to.

It's the same crap with metals in the cable. All you guys care about is to be told it contains metal X and that you're feeling like something changed in the sound. If the color is different, then of course it's even more "audible". In fact, you're rarely really sure there was that audible change in sound(sometimes it did, sometimes not, your non test doesn't tell you which one it is you're feeling). And you just cherry-pick metal as a correlation to those feelings. That's it. Why even you feel like that's a reasonable argumentation is beyond me.

Establishing audibility? Nope. Establishing causality? Nope, correlation= causation. Feeling something = the sound did that. Those are the reasons why we "pick on cables". We don't, we just can't stop facepalming at all the flawed logic trying to justify what's clearly and factually proved to be flawed logic and flawed listening method. But who needs a demonstration or testing protocols, when we have pride and overconfidence to fill all the gaps? Well, I do.

You're not the one who brought this up, but clearly Ethernet router/switch/etc, aren't what this thread was discussing.

I merely provide an objective measurement that shows differences with Ethernet isolators, etc. affecting a DAC’s clock phase noise. I didn’t ever ever claim that it’s 100% correlated to the sound that I hear. You’re right there’s no 100% correlation to audibility but seeing a parameter (phase noise of a DAC clock) being influenced by audiophile Ethernet cables, Ethernet filtering, switches etc. rather than testing them with AP555B at analog output showing zero difference in SINAD then proclaiming Ethernet cables and switches ABSOLUTELY make zero difference in audibility IS INCORRECT. Audio Science is still far from figuring out human perception but as far as human behavior goes, they tend to stick with ABSOLUTES for sound they cannot correlate with measurements.

As far as MHz measurement, you should know that Ethernet packets are operating at those frequencies of course you measure the differences where they’re most sensitive at. However, like I wrote none of these can prove 100% causation to audibility differences. One can do a multiple statistical/empirical study that can loosely correlate and also reproduce the correlation on different events to truly prove correlation = causation

 

[Davesrose]

I merely provide an objective measurement that shows differences with Ethernet isolators, etc. affecting a DAC’s clock phase noise. I didn’t ever ever claim that it’s 100% correlated to the sound that I hear. You’re right there’s no 100% correlation to audibility but seeing a parameter (phase noise of a DAC clock) being influenced by audiophile Ethernet cables, Ethernet filtering, switches etc. rather than testing them with AP555B at analog output showing zero difference in SINAD then proclaiming Ethernet cables and switches ABSOLUTELY make zero difference in audibility IS INCORRECT. Audio Science is still far from figuring out human perception but as far as human behavior goes, they tend to stick with ABSOLUTES for sound they cannot correlate with measurements.

This doesn't make sense. You pick out whatever measurement and margin of error differences you can see in a scope, and then make your inferences about other components adding to the noise. Not the source of the data, not the noise picked up from inside the DAC or your measurement tools: but it must be the ethernet cable! And then you contradict about whether you can hear signal noise coming into the DAC that could affect its ability to process sound with 100% transparency.

 

[2leftears]

The perception that I hear can be loosely not definitive be caused by different phase noise out of a DAC clock immeasurable at the DAC analog output. I didn’t say it’s

You have repeated that a few times.

Why would clock phase noise be immeasurable at the DAC analog output? (you might not be able to isolate it from other noise sources there, but that's a different issue).

AFAIK, both phase noise and jitter are the same phenomenon; phase noise is the phenomenon quantified in the frequency domain, jitter is the same phenomenon quantified in the time domain. In the frequency domain this is measurable as a noise spectrum, usually buried amongst the other noise sources well below audible levels.

Am I missing something?

 

[theveterans]

You have repeated that a few times.

Why would clock phase noise be immeasurable at the DAC analog output? (you might not be able to isolate it from other noise sources there, but that's a different issue).

AFAIK, both phase noise and jitter are the same phenomenon; phase noise is the phenomenon quantified in the frequency domain, jitter is the same phenomenon quantified in the time domain. In the frequency domain this is measurable as a noise spectrum, usually buried amongst the other noise sources well below audible levels.

Am I missing something?

It can’t. Look at Amir’s measurements at the analog output of a DAC. It can never measure the jitter at the clock because you’re measuring DAC’s performance NOT the clock. Try to understand that Jitter measured at the analog output is NOT jitter at the DAC clock. The jitter being measured at the analog outputs of the DAC is NEVER ever the same as the jitter being measured at the clock itself.

And BTW, phase noise IS NOT jitter!!!! Jitter is TIME domain measured in TIME while phase noise is in frequency domain measured in dB/Hz. dB/Hz is NOT picoseconds is it not? The only relationship between them is the integration/transformation of phase noise across a specific frequency (usually 1KHz). Jitter does NOT tell anything about relationship across the whole frequencies because it is in TIME domain!

Then if you believe in the absolute measurement at the analog output ONLY and nothing else, then you’ll never ever ever see (I didn’t say hear since I’m not correlating 100% that difference in phase noise of DAC clock explains audibility between Ethernet cables) the difference between Ethernet cables, Ethernet switches whatsoever. Just stick with the Piggy Bank panther because there’s no change at all at the analog output of a DAC (I’m surmising that this is what manufacturers advertise their DAC as “immune to jitter from sources”) and QED

This doesn't make sense. You pick out whatever measurement and margin of error differences you can see in a scope, and then make your inferences about other components adding to the noise. Not the source of the data, not the noise picked up from inside the DAC or your measurement tools: but it must be the ethernet cable! And then you contradict about whether you can hear signal noise coming into the DAC that could affect its ability to process sound with 100% transparency.

I already repeated many times that you will NOT see any difference at the ANALOG OUTPUT of the DAC! As you already know, my subjective perception with Ethernet cables, switches, etc. are AUDIBLE to me and to others. However, the misuse of using measurements at the analog output inferring that there’s no objective differences between Ethernet switches and Ethernet cables is what my point is. I don’t care how it’s interpreted into audibility thresholds since we can never ever ever agree on that regard

 

[Davesrose]

You have repeated that a few times.

Why would clock phase noise be immeasurable at the DAC analog output? (you might not be able to isolate it from other noise sources there, but that's a different issue).

AFAIK, both phase noise and jitter are the same phenomenon; phase noise is the phenomenon quantified in the frequency domain, jitter is the same phenomenon quantified in the time domain. In the frequency domain this is measurable as a noise spectrum, usually buried amongst the other noise sources well below audible levels.

Am I missing something?

I’ve posted two videos: one explaining the correlation with jitter and phase noise. The other about methods of establishing noise measurements. I’ve brought up that the DAC and measurement tools introduce their own noise. It seems it all gets dismissed with: I see a difference in noise somewhere at the DAC….I feel there must be a difference in audio then. Do we continue with that circular reasoning or headphone cables make a huge difference in audio?

 

[theveterans]

I’ve posted two videos: one explaining the correlation with jitter and phase noise. The other about methods of establishing noise management. I’ve brought up that the DAC and measurement tools introduce their own noise. It seems it all gets dismissed with: I see a difference in noise somewhere at the DAC….I feel there must be a difference in audio then. Do we continue with that circular reasoning or headphone cables make a huge difference in audio?

Show me an AP55B phase noise plot of a DAC (not ADC) in the analog outputs then? It does NOT exist does it? Because it CAN'T. It can ONLY show jitter at a specific frequency of your choosing. It can also induce jitter at a specific frequency you want to test DAC's jitter rejection by plotting a SINAD to frequency graph.

Everything is documented here BTW: https://www.ap.com/analyzers-accessories/apx-overview/jitter

 

[2leftears]

And BTW, phase noise IS NOT jitter!!!! Jitter is TIME domain measured in TIME while phase noise is in frequency domain measured in dB/Hz. dB/Hz is NOT picoseconds is it not? The only relationship between them is the integration/transformation of phase noise across a specific frequency (usually 1KHz). Jitter does NOT tell anything about relationship across the whole frequencies because it is in TIME domain!

I never said they are the same; I said they represent the same underlying phenomenon, but quantified in two different domains. I.e. as far as clock instability is concerned, jitter and phase noise are simply two different ways to quantify the same underlying phenomenon.

clock instability -> can be observed in the time domain and quantified in the time domain as jitter
clock instability -> can be observed in the frequency domain and quantified in the frequency domain as phase noise power spectral density

dB/Hz is NOT picoseconds is it not?

1dB/Hz = 1.259 × 10¹² picoseconds You do know that the dB is a dimensionless ratio unit (power ratio here) and that the frequency unit is the reciprocal of the time unit: Hz^-1 = s (seconds) ?

 

[bigshot]

I wrote many times that not everyone perceives the same way as you.

And the way to prove that is to verify audibility with a double blind, level matched, direct A/B switched listening test with multiple trials. Controlled testing has shown that jitter at the level it occurs in even the worst performing home audio equipment is at least an order of magnitude below the threshold of audibility. Testing has determined that the JDD for time error is around 1 to 3 ms for the frequencies between 800kHz and 8 kHz. Picoseconds aren’t diddly squat here. Unquestionably inaudible.

You can’t argue that you hear something in sound science without proving it the way science does. A controlled listening test is the put up or shut up. We don’t care what you think you hear.

Prove it can be heard and we’ll use that level as the accepted JDD. Until then..,

NEXT!

 

[theveterans]

clock instability -> can be observed in the time domain and quantified in the time domain as jitter
clock instability -> can be observed in the frequency domain and quantified in the frequency domain as phase noise power spectral density

I value the phase noise plot more than jitter at a specific frequency in this case since I want to see how a DAC clock is being affected by noise and RFI/CMI. Frequency domain in the audio spectrum in this case is more valuable to me

1dB/Hz = 1.259 × 1012 picoseconds You do know that the dB is a dimensionless ratio unit (power ratio here) and that the frequency unit is the reciprocal of the time unit: Hz-1 = s (seconds) ?

where did you get that formula?

This is the current formula that I know of (WITHOUT using Calculus, just Riemann Summation):

 

[2leftears]

1dB/Hz = 1.259 × 10¹² picoseconds You do know that the dB is a dimensionless ratio unit (power ratio here) and that the frequency unit is the reciprocal of the time unit: Hz^-1 = s (seconds) ?

where did you get that formula?

I didn't get that anywhere. Just a basic comparison of units:

1dB = 1.259 power ratio.
1/Hz = 1 second (or 1 Hz = 1 cycle/second)
1 second = 10¹² picoseconds

I thought that interesting since you made the point that the two measures (jitter vs phase noise) are fundamentally different because they are expressed in different units (seconds vs. dB/Hz):

And BTW, phase noise IS NOT jitter!!!! Jitter is TIME domain measured in TIME while phase noise is in frequency domain measured in dB/Hz. dB/Hz is NOT picoseconds is it not?

(not sure why the superscript formatting gets lost in you quoting me by the way).