Maybe it's just me but I find the colored text and liberal use of exclamation points condescending. Then there's the constant quoting of unspecified listening tests that "prove" (exclamation point) things like .001Hz jitter as the baddest kind.
Considering the speed of sound in air has a 2000ppm TC and has random currents of relative motion from the HVAC and people, I doubt you could get within orders of magnitude of those jitters after the sound actually propagates to the listener. Dave Greisinger made an attempt to quantify the effect using a Brownian motion model (ironically I assume that is your "Einsteinian noise").
.
... proves that we are listening.
I remember when "jitter" was outlawed by the AES and that "bits were bits" and those of us who heard it was mad (things worse than that was said) because we could hear it. Then Hawksford "proved" it was real. But people had already "proved" it was for real even before that. Is there not an object lesson there?
Don't think I have ever put it like that.
Last edited:
Yes, though perhaps not the one you intended.
So.... any data yet to validate your claims?
Now you're showing the green furry coat of a grouchy realist, haha.
Audio Schlieren anyone?
I still need a reference on the e-6 Hz, something about Heisenberg and deltaT/deltaf ? I assume you generated controlled amounts of jitter at e-3, e-4 ,e-5, e-6 Hz and conducted DBT's, talk about tedious.
Last edited:
A quick search of the thread will show that this has been explained to you.
I see the game going on here, you guys must have a lot of spare time when you are on one of your 'hunts' - but note I never actually said ".001Hz jitter" and I was right. I would have known if I had said that, but that has never been my language and I know I never put it like that. You guys inferred that I said that. Very naughty. This was actually a reference to a servo-controlled power supply that was indeed tuned that low and yes, it was audible. Simple as that. I never said there was jitter that low, only that tuning that low was having an effect - now of course that doesn't fit your world view - but that's not my problem, so I shan't be muzzled by orthodoxy.
Havagoodday.
Last edited:
"Numbers", but certainly not "just numbers". Numbers (with, where necessary, units) plus correct understanding leading to correct interpretation?Joe Rasmussen said:
Where did you find the people with enough stamina to carry out blind tests over a continuous period of 11-12 days? Such would be necessary as a minimum to establish a problem at the millionths of a Hertz region. Did you allow them meal and toilet breaks?
There are blind tests that are not DBT and don't have the same intent as DBT - to expose so-called charlatans. To many DBT has a bias towards 'sameness' and maybe because of boredom?
Me? I am an agnostic.
Can anybody explain what went spectacularly wrong with Swedish Radio DBT? One casual listener heard a constant tone as an artifact of a codec that 60 expert listeners in over 10.000 DBT listening tests missed and sunk the codec. The flaw only become obvious after DBT was set aside. That is pretty damning. What does DBT produce?
Sameness?
I would like to hear the... ahem... excuses. Sorry, but I can play that game too. You guys need to explain that.
BTW, I am Danish, my Dad worked for the Danish Broadcast Services known as "DR" - that Swedish Radio "SR" codec would have potentially been adopted Europe wide. So grateful that we were saved from a madness nearly caused by DBT.
Last edited:
Rewrite history much?
You say that you have a bench full of great test equipment, you bought an excellent soundcard, and you're selling mods (including these) for a not-insignificant amount of money. You claim that the differences are readily audible. Get some data to validate your claims. That's the difference between honest practitioners and charlatans. I prefer to believe that you're the former, but you're making it increasingly difficult.
You say that you have a bench full of great test equipment, you bought an excellent soundcard, and you're selling mods (including these) for a not-insignificant amount of money. You claim that the differences are readily audible. Get some data to validate your claims. That's the difference between honest practitioners and charlatans. I prefer to believe that you're the former, but you're making it increasingly difficult.
Bart Locanthi was hardly a casual listener. But you wouldn't let that get in the way of trying to move the discussion in a new direction to cover your tracks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_N._Locanthi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_N._Locanthi
This thread restarted well and then followed a technical on topic line/way, with a interesting developing, in a trial to find more out about the subject. Some ones worked quite hard and had a very thankfully contribution to the discussed subject. That it was the way how the things should goes on.
Now, thanks to (the moderator) SY, and his obsessive interventions (repeated so many times in this subject discussions) everything was disturbed and diverted into a personal struggle, obviously out of topic.
Can we please focus on the topic and let the personal things/messages/struggling go over the PM service of this forum? Or just stop this kind of behaviour?
Now, thanks to (the moderator) SY, and his obsessive interventions (repeated so many times in this subject discussions) everything was disturbed and diverted into a personal struggle, obviously out of topic.
Can we please focus on the topic and let the personal things/messages/struggling go over the PM service of this forum? Or just stop this kind of behaviour?
Last edited:
SY is not moderating this thread, he is like any other member, no special powers, no special rights. Da rules say that.
But on topic. Joe will not measure anything, poo poo'd what mooly did and now says listening tests are invalid unless you are on your own with the unit you have just modified. What are we to believe. That he wants this all done on faith?
remember he has the kit and has had the time...
But on topic. Joe will not measure anything, poo poo'd what mooly did and now says listening tests are invalid unless you are on your own with the unit you have just modified. What are we to believe. That he wants this all done on faith?
remember he has the kit and has had the time...
Yes, I say that it is readily audible and why should that be a problem? I have given you all the tools to validate it for yourself. You can do it, you can have all the data you want.
BTW, the money is not that great - way too much work. I suspect I make less than you - but why should that even be a topic here? Isn't that a bit off topic Mr Moderator?
If you bash somebody around the head, don't expect any cooperation. So from now on there won't be any. I was willing to give you the benefit of doubt, but now I can't.
So, you could do with a change of tone, you could use your people skills to get me to trust you again?
Up to you.
Go back to Post #1, pick a scenario, they are oh so easy, do your testing, write your article and get paid for it. I have put my cards on the table and I have put my head on the chopping block.
At least you cannot doubt my courage.
I am playing a long game. I won't be rushed by you. You need to develop patience and improve your people skills. Or maybe just try to be nice for a change.
A claim without evidence is not a good basis for something you sell though
SY cannot moderate this topic. When will you understand that and stop trying to use it as a defense?
But you haven't co-operated. You have done the opposite. twisting and turning and not actually firing up your expensive test equipment and 8 soldering irons.
That I cannot argue with 26 months and counting.
We shall continue like this: you have not measured anything, you need only validations, you do so, you do that, you have a business, and a personal website, where you write there so and so... YOU, YOU, YOU?
Is this all about "YOU", and the person back this thread it should discuss? Or is the subject here called: Practical Implementations of Alternative Post-DAC Filtering?
SY is not a moderator in this thread, but his quality granted by this forum it involve a minimum responsibility from his side, about the way he act even as an usual member.
SY`s all contribution to this thread is a never ending repeating of the same thing "you do not do measurements, you have to do measurements"...
His last intervention after a good way this thread was going on, disturbed the whole technical discussion. It is obvious that a personal agenda is going on here...
Is this all about "YOU", and the person back this thread it should discuss? Or is the subject here called: Practical Implementations of Alternative Post-DAC Filtering?
SY is not a moderator in this thread, but his quality granted by this forum it involve a minimum responsibility from his side, about the way he act even as an usual member.
SY`s all contribution to this thread is a never ending repeating of the same thing "you do not do measurements, you have to do measurements"...
His last intervention after a good way this thread was going on, disturbed the whole technical discussion. It is obvious that a personal agenda is going on here...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.