What objectivists and subjectivists can learn from each other

[Ron Party]

What part of don't shoot Kenny, did you not get? Yes I would love to read that thread - got a link?

Kenny needed to be shot. Or at least taken down a peg. You could and should have acted in the spirit in which this forum was created.

Here you go.

Did I ever say that there was a difference? You must be mixing me up with somebody else or I don't know why you are mis-representing my words?

Yes, unless you are just trolling, then your own questions of Ethan suggest you believe there are differences between bit-identical files. As Ethan has asked you, post some files for us to test.

 

[microstrip]

(...) ... .sounds hyperbolic and is certainly an affront to the subjectivist POV, it is a great example of an objectivist review -- "Good measurements indicate that this component is audibly neutral and has no sound of it's own; it is, essentially, a wire with gain. We're done here."

From the pure objectivist's POV, there really isn't anything more than that. What does it sound like? It doesn't.

Tim

No, Tim, it is not an affront to the subjectivist. It is the normal reaction of someone who can't or doesn't want to go beyond the measurements of an Audio Precision. Happily most modern designers can. And it is not the only the tube or SET people - read the words of Cyrill Hammer of Soulution :

Taking into consideration all aspects of amplification we are convinced that a properly done solid-state design is superior to its tube-based counterpart. We are deeply convinced that the technically better amplifier—this implies also better measurements results— does sound better. However, good measurement results, which are quite easy to achieve with solid-state amplifiers, do not in and of themselves automatically guarantee superior sonic results.

Many modern solid stage designers feel the same.

 

[Ron Party]

Bears repeating:

Again, all you have to do is show this is incorrect with some evidence. Not just your say so, but a graph or some such proving the point. <snip>

It's much easier than that. All you have to do is create a file containing music, then another copy of the same music with soft jitter (or other) artifacts mixed in showing they're audible at -120 or whatever. Use whatever music and artifacts you want, and post the files here for all to judge. You know, like what I did for my Audio Myths video except using an example that makes your point.

 

[jkeny]

Kenny needed to be shot. Or at least taken down a peg. You could and should have acted in the spirit in which this forum was created.

I'm sorry if my posts offend you - as I said I'm a different person now!

Here you go.

Thanks for the link - I'll have a read

Yes, unless you are just trolling, then your own questions of Ethan suggest you believe there are differences between bit-identical files. As Ethan has asked you, post some files for us to test.

Again you are trying to put wrong words in my mouth & making assumptions about it. At least accuse me of something I'm guilty of. I said that bit identical files can sound different, yes. When asked for a reason I gave a couple - common mode noise, RFI. I don't know if you missed this?

 

[Ron Party]

I thought Mike's post about crossover design in his new seemingly phenomenal speakers was very interesting:

We must also point out that all of our crossover engineering is performed through the use of very sophisticated computer-aided design applications. However, we do not rely entirely on computer generated optimizations for final circuitry, as some manufacturers do. We perform real time measurements as well to verify all computer-based suggestions. We do use our ears to also verify results, but unlike some manufactures that design by ear, we always insist that the design must be as perfect as possible from a measurement standpoint, and will always double check through measurements that any changes made by ear are truly valid. We do this to ensure that we are not imparting our own coloration preferences on the design to ensure as natural a presentation as possible.

 

[jkeny]

Bears repeating:

Again, I don't think you understand what I'm saying - characterising all jitter as -120dB is rubbish & at this point I will say that it is also meant to mislead. Why? because I have just started to read that thread you kindly linked me to & at post 4 in answer to Ethan's same claim & quoting a well known flawed paper, Amir makes exactly the same point as I make - random jitter is benign & program correlated jitter is much more intrusive. Go read the post http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...m-vs-Ethan-Winer&p=12249&viewfull=1#post12249

Now the reason I'm not responding to Ethan is that it is obvious that he is not interested in truth or the search or even a reasonable debate - as evidenced by what Amir pointed to (& I did also) but he obviously chooses to ignore it & quote again this ridiculous figure of -120dB as if this characterises all jitter.

Jeez, man give me a break - I would say that he is the troll, not me!

 

[Ethan Winer]

characterising all jitter as -120dB is rubbish & at this point I will say that it is also meant to mislead.

This shows the level of artifacts for 2 ns. of jitter, and most modern devices are less than 500 ps:

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

No, Tim, it is not an affront to the subjectivist. It is the normal reaction of someone who can't or doesn't want to go beyond the measurements of an Audio Precision. Happily most modern designers can. And it is not the only the tube or SET people - read the words of Cyrill Hammer of Soulution :

Taking into consideration all aspects of amplification we are convinced that a properly done solid-state design is superior to its tube-based counterpart. We are deeply convinced that the technically better amplifier—this implies also better measurements results— does sound better. However, good measurement results, which are quite easy to achieve with solid-state amplifiers, do not in and of themselves automatically guarantee superior sonic results.

Many modern solid stage designers feel the same.

Don't get me wrong, Micro, I haven't concluded that measurements are all we need to pick equipment, thoough I think it might be a challenge for something to measure that good and sound bad. But I've also heard the Benchmark. To my ears, it lives up to its numbers.

By the way, the pure numbers approach is what I thought would be an affront to subjectivists. What it is to a listener with objectivist tendencies such as myself is a great commercial that made me want to hear the Benchmark. The typical subjectivist review doesn't deliver enough information for me. A subjectivist as far to the left as Aczel is to the right - Fremer comes to mind - is, IMHO, perfectly useless. That was the point, and there are your "objectivist" reviews.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

For anyone interested in the "simulated" audibility of jitter & some useful references about this - have a look at http://www.stereophile.com/content/bits-bits-page-7
An example graph & the text associated with it

Fig.35 Simulated worst-case jitter errors for sinusoidal jitter: a) 22khz at 0dBFS, 20ps peak jitter at 18.5kHz (top); b) impulsive DAC, 100Hz at 0dBFS, 75ps peak jitter at 4kHz (bottom).

In all this discussion the focus is on the frequency domain i.e how audible is -85db, -120dB, etc. I have already stated that FFTs have a blind spot when it comes to impulsive signals & how frequencies develop over time. We seem to be far more sensitive to perturbations in this time domain than in the frequency domain. Who knows if this is one of the missing measurements that will bring us closer to a better understanding of what's audible & a better understanding of our audio devices performance? Something I was hinting at when I quoted from "The Video"

 

[Ethan Winer]

We seem to be far more sensitive to perturbations in this time domain than in the frequency domain. Who knows if this is one of the missing measurements that will bring us closer to a better understanding of what's audible & a better understanding of our audio devices performance? Something I was hinting at when I quoted from "The Video"

Then stop hinting and make some example files that prove your point! Please also post the source and noise files separately so others can duplicate your experiment.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

I think it might be a challenge for something to measure that good and sound bad.

Me too, I've never once seen that, nor can I even imagine it. Assuming the measurements are done properly. When this has come up in the past I've always asked for evidence, but of course nobody had any. The closest I've seen was when one wise guy mentioned Richard Heyser's parlor trick "black box" that measured perfect but sounded awful. But that was a gimmick, and not an actual piece of audio gear.

--Ethan

 

[jkeny]

For those wondering about the audibility of jitter, the Audiophileo has a Jitter Simulator switch - I'll let Amirm tell the rest

The Audiophilleo that I use, has a "jitter simulator." It has a "lower quality" clock that has a 1 to 1.5 ns jitter. We are talking one billionth of a second variability here. Yet, when you toggle the switch, the sound changes. It is a fun experiment as the muting time between the two on the DACs I tested was less than one second so you can do a quick A/B. As I started to say, I still cannot why the sound changes as much as it does.

I guess this must be below the -120dB as it is below 2nS - jeez I'm shocked Amirm has such good ears Or maybe something else is important not just FFT analysis of the freq domain??

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=20164105&postcount=558
Also for those wondering about bit-perfect & the differences in sound, let me again quote Amirm (I seem to attract collateral when I use these same words )

The engineer in me cannot explain why I and others hear the difference we do when going with USB async device we use. Sure, I can show you the graphs and such but at the end of the day, the impact to ambiance, warmness of the sound and depth of sound is hard to translate from them. Even more puzzling is that such a difference is audible even with the best processors and DACs. It is usually assumed that a good DAC is immune to such things but I find that even the best DACs seem to benefit from cleanest possible connection.

BTW, it's getting tedious that every post of mine is challenged with a "make some files to prove it" - if people can't discuss the technical points without this childish response then it's best to take their ball & play elsewhere!

 

[NorthStar]

I am enjoying your posts. Please continue.

Indeed John; if you have something to say that we can learn from, please do proceed.
Perhaps you can also add a touch of gentleness towards Ethan? :b
...And having your knowledgeable points coming across just fine.

Just a suggestion John.

Regards,
Bob

 

[microstrip]

Don't get me wrong, Micro, I haven't concluded that measurements are all we need to pick equipment, thoough I think it might be a challenge for something to measure that good and sound bad. But I've also heard the Benchmark. To my ears, it lives up to its numbers.

(...) That was the point, and there are your "objectivist" reviews.

Tim

Tim,
You are addressing a different point - "bad sounding". The original quote was However, good measurement results, which are quite easy to achieve with solid-state amplifiers, do not in and of themselves automatically guarantee superior sonic results.


I have now read the remaining "objectivist" review - the Sound on Sound review of the AVI ADM9 active monitor.
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb08/articles/aviadm9.htm

I can not understand how you call an objective review a review without a single measurement, and the sound quality is objectively (!) described as (my bold) :

A Sound Impression

The AVI ADM9s come across as extremely neutral-sounding, but they probably lack the low-end extension for serious monitoring unless you add the sub — which fills out those low octaves in a very natural and seamless way, right down to about 30Hz. Playing back some well-recorded acoustic instruments shows how accurate these speakers really are: everything seems properly focused, and the stereo imaging is astonishingly good. Centrally panned sounds are firmly nailed to an imaginary point between the speakers, while stereo and other panned sounds spread out clearly in a wide panorama that seems wider than the physical spacing of the speakers themselves. Those who are used to less sophisticated monitors may at first feel that the ADM9 system lacks punch at the low end or assertiveness at the top end, but that's only because some studio monitors tend to hype these areas: the ADM9s seem to tell it like it is. Once you've worked with them for a little while, you come to appreciate their smoothness and honesty, whether for mixing pop music, acoustic ensembles or even classical music .

IMHO, Fremer does much better in this (subjective) style.

 

[jkeny]

Indeed John; if you have something to say that we can learn from, please do proceed.
Perhaps you can also add a touch of gentleness towards Ethan? :b
...And having your knowledgeable points coming across just fine.

Just a suggestion John.

Regards,
Bob

Bob, I'm hoping that the last page or two of my posts have been more gentle? I had hoped that you sensed this, maybe I've failed but when I get attacked I have a tendency to react - I will try to curtail this for the sake of the discussion but I would hope a similar attitude would be shown to me?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I don't know if jitter is audible in competent, contemporary devices or not. I suspect it is, but only if you're trained to hear it. What I do know is that it seems to have many causes at almost all points in the digital signal chain. No one seems to be able to tell anyone what it "sounds like" because, evidently, it can sound like almost anything (which means what you think is jitter could be almost anything). And no one seems to be able to get a handle on where the measurable threshold of audibility lies.

Jitter is the ultimate audiophile boogeyman. A bottomless well of doubt. A thing that goes bump -- "I thought I heard a bump. Did you hear a bump?" -- in the digital night. Can't tell you what it sounds like, can't tell you what the mesurements mean, can come from anywhere, can sound like anything. It's the ghost in the machine, and you'll never be quite sure if it's in your machine or not. So mitigate. Minimize. Drive it ever lower with each new miracle cure. Your system is galvanically isolated and re-clocked outside of your computer before conversion? That's good, very good, but it might not be enough. How can you be sure? You have an asynchronous DAC? That's good too, but you still can't be sure...did you hear a bump? Shut off the lights. Turn off the wireless devices, reduce a perfectly good computer to a dumb transport and use the most useless software possible...I'm almost certain I heard a bump. But you can never be sure....unless you buy this.

Jitter is a snake oil salesman's wet dream, and I'm not accusing anyone here of being that, but I have run into more than a couple of jitter reduction salesmen on the net that fit the moniker to a tee. If ever there was a distortion, an artifact that demanded blind listening varification by even the most subjectivist audiophiles, it is jitter. Everybody who sells anything that is claimed to reduce jitter (which is already exceedingly low in exceedingly modest devices) should be required by law to demonstrate, in blind listening tests, the audible reduction of distortion his little miracle creates.

Well, not really. The law has bigger fish to fry. But I will personally choose to dismiss anyone who makes such a claim and doesn't back it up with blind testing. The ground around jitter is just too fertile for fraud. It's cold and damp and deep in shadow and...did you hear that?

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

Bob, I'm hoping that the last page or two of my posts have been more gentle? I had hoped that you sensed this, maybe I've failed but when I get attacked I have a tendency to react - I will try to curtail this for the sake of the discussion but I would hope a similar attitude would be shown to me?

Yes, you are right, I noticed a much gentler tone compared to few more pages back; thanx John!

And true, I was still stuck in the past; please, do forgive me. Mea culpa.

You're a good man John, I know that for a fact.

Bob

 

[jkeny]

I don't know if jitter is audible in competent, contemporary devices or not. I suspect it is, but only if you're trained to hear it. What I do know is that it seems to have many causes at almost all points in the digital signal chain, no one seems to be able to tell anyone what it "sounds like" because, evidently, it can sound like almost anything (which means what you think you hear could be almost anything). And no one seems to be able to get a handle on where the measurable threshold of audibility lies.

Have a read of Bob Katz, a well known recording engineer & what he says jitter sounds like.

This is a quotation from Bob Katz, well known recording & audio mastering engineer posted here

After an engineer learns to identify the sound of signal-correlated jitter, then you can move on to recognizing the more subtle forms of jitter and finally, can be more prepared to subjectively judge whether one source sounds better than another.

Here are some audible symptoms of jitter that allow us to determine that one source sounds "better" than another with a reasonable degree of scientific backing:

It is well known that jitter degrades stereo image, separation, depth, ambience, dynamic range.

Therefore, when during a listening comparison, comparing source A versus source B (and both have already been proved to be identical bitwise):

The source which exhibits greater stereo ambience and depth is the "better" one.

The source which exhibits more apparent dynamic range is the "better" one.

The source which is less edgy on the high end (most obvious sonic signature of signal correlated jitter) is the "better" one.

And a reply:

The better one, and it is better, is also easier to listen to. . . less fatiguing. I would also add to this that the low end just "feels" bigger and more solid. This is perhaps a psychoacoustic affect more than a measurable one. It may be that the combination of a less edgy high end and greater depth and width makes the bass seem better.
All of this makes sense if thought of in terms of timing (that is what we're talking about isn't it ;-]). With minimal jitter nothing is smeared, a note and all its harmonics line up, the sound is more liquid (a term probably from the "audiophile" crowd but one which accurately describes the sound none the less), and images within the soundstage are clearly defined.

I concur with all of the above but I would add a proviso - is it jitter or is it other factors such as the noise issues I mentioned already? The jury s still out on this, in my mind, anyway!

 

[Ethan Winer]

I know Bob Katz, and he's one of my customers. I'd be surprised if he has a box that lets you insert jitter in variable controlled amounts, in order to learn what jitter sounds like. This is the problem. The myth of "jitter is audibly damaging" has been repeated by so many people for so many years that its accepted as fact. The only way to know if jitter is a problem is to insert it in controlled amounts. Even as far back as 1998, when two engineers from Dolby labs tested it for their AES Paper, their conclusion was:

The influence of jitter in causing audible distortion was found to be less than anticipated by the authors, and less than that predicted by both the technical and consumer audio press. Jitter introduced by the digital audio interface was not found to be an audible problem for any of the program material auditioned.

I have another AES Journal paper that came to the same conclusion, but I'm too lazy to type in an excerpt. I will if needed though.

--Ethan

 

[NorthStar]

It is interesting to me that from various parts of the world, audio measurements (jitter and all that Jazz ...) are interpreted differently, and described with different words and meanings ....