Oh for goodness sakes!
Do you have any idea how many golden eared people I have met that can't hear a tube TV, or the oscillator in my nixie clock (that I had to move)?
I'll say this very slowly so maybe people can pick up on this. It is not possible for human hearing or perception to detect levels of jitter that is being claimed. Its a nice thought that someone could be super-human, or better than everyone else, but this is not realistic.
Do me a favor. Dig up the limits of human detection for jitter in msec, or usec. Then, look at the level of jitter from the standard crystals used in audio equipment. After you have educated yourself, come talk to me.
I have heard so many claims over the many decades I have been in audio professionally that it is just sad. All of them can be easily proved or disproved on the bench. In every single case where a person has claimed superior hearing abilities, except for a very few, most have actual hearing problems that preclude their claims.
The criteria for a clock in an audio system is far more relaxed than it is for test equipment. Most of my equipment has high stability oscillators built in that are superior to what was claimed here. They were designed by paid engineers with decades of experience in the field and are far beyond what Andrea could possibly put together. And that is what is on my personal bench. I also have something called a Hewlett Packard 5372A on my bench, in service. Look it up. I use it to test oscillator systems in DACs, CD players and test equipment. To make jitter measurements, it is disconnected from the GPS receiver and allowed to run on its high stability oscillator to avoid frequency corrections during measurements.
The claims made in this thread are completely unsupported. At best, they can be explained by "expectation bias".
Anyway, enough of this. The physics and science do not support the claims made. The one and only way most of you will believe this would be to actually research and educate yourselves on the subject. I have, others have. I can pretty much guarantee that once you do some research, you will stop arguing and fall silent.
Do you have any idea how many golden eared people I have met that can't hear a tube TV, or the oscillator in my nixie clock (that I had to move)?
I'll say this very slowly so maybe people can pick up on this. It is not possible for human hearing or perception to detect levels of jitter that is being claimed. Its a nice thought that someone could be super-human, or better than everyone else, but this is not realistic.
Do me a favor. Dig up the limits of human detection for jitter in msec, or usec. Then, look at the level of jitter from the standard crystals used in audio equipment. After you have educated yourself, come talk to me.
I have heard so many claims over the many decades I have been in audio professionally that it is just sad. All of them can be easily proved or disproved on the bench. In every single case where a person has claimed superior hearing abilities, except for a very few, most have actual hearing problems that preclude their claims.
The criteria for a clock in an audio system is far more relaxed than it is for test equipment. Most of my equipment has high stability oscillators built in that are superior to what was claimed here. They were designed by paid engineers with decades of experience in the field and are far beyond what Andrea could possibly put together. And that is what is on my personal bench. I also have something called a Hewlett Packard 5372A on my bench, in service. Look it up. I use it to test oscillator systems in DACs, CD players and test equipment. To make jitter measurements, it is disconnected from the GPS receiver and allowed to run on its high stability oscillator to avoid frequency corrections during measurements.
The claims made in this thread are completely unsupported. At best, they can be explained by "expectation bias".
Anyway, enough of this. The physics and science do not support the claims made. The one and only way most of you will believe this would be to actually research and educate yourselves on the subject. I have, others have. I can pretty much guarantee that once you do some research, you will stop arguing and fall silent.
I don't know, but you can assume I am stone deaf. I have no problems with such an assumption.
This was already posted by myself, in this very thread. The claims herein are 3 to 5 orders of magnitude lower than the known hearing limits.
Hi Syn08.
Sorry, I missed them completely. I have been away for a bit.
Since you have done the work for these people already, why is there even a discussion?
Sorry, I missed them completely. I have been away for a bit.
Since you have done the work for these people already, why is there even a discussion?
Chris,
Your certainty on this issue reminds me of the certainty of Joe Rasmussen. Seriously. I think Joe is wrong about some things, and that he doesn't understand as much as he thinks he does. Its a problem when there is no way to get someone to understand how they could be wrong, especially when they are dead certain they are right.
In this case it has nothing to do with the nominal frequency of a clock oscillator. The effect of clock close-in phase noise in a dac produces a convolution result exactly in the audio band, frequencies humans can hear. You can filter out all the RF from a dac output, then take an FFT and evidence of clock close-in phase noise will still be there at audio frequencies.
Your certainty on this issue reminds me of the certainty of Joe Rasmussen. Seriously. I think Joe is wrong about some things, and that he doesn't understand as much as he thinks he does. Its a problem when there is no way to get someone to understand how they could be wrong, especially when they are dead certain they are right.
In this case it has nothing to do with the nominal frequency of a clock oscillator. The effect of clock close-in phase noise in a dac produces a convolution result exactly in the audio band, frequencies humans can hear. You can filter out all the RF from a dac output, then take an FFT and evidence of clock close-in phase noise will still be there at audio frequencies.
Last edited:
Chance would be a fine thing. It was clear from the start that Andrea and his followers were set on a path from which they would not deviate yet Syn08 has continued to shout into the wind.
clsidxxl,
I did not involve any supernatural entity. Read my post again without any assumptions.
Anyway, educate yourself. Syn08 has already given you the answers. Read, think, and research if anything is unclear.
I did not involve any supernatural entity. Read my post again without any assumptions.
Anyway, educate yourself. Syn08 has already given you the answers. Read, think, and research if anything is unclear.
Hi Mark,
Yes, jitter is reduced greatly with a superior clock design and it isn't the same thing as frequency. But it is stability - just taken over a different time period. Close in phase noise is extremely important in test and measurement. That's understood.
Yes, phase noise does translate into a different frequency range after conversion. That is one way to examine a clock source, I'm very familiar with it. However, from what I have read so far, that concept is well beyond many in this thread. I'm trying to keep things very simple.
Hi rfbrw,
Absolutely correct. This has been pretty clear. The entire thread was based on faith of a concept that had no proof and no attempt at defining anything. Attempts to have Andrea actually define anything, his target, current state of the industry or anything else was avoided. He did everything possible to distract from the pertinent questions being asked. The exact same tactics Joe used.
Yes, jitter is reduced greatly with a superior clock design and it isn't the same thing as frequency. But it is stability - just taken over a different time period. Close in phase noise is extremely important in test and measurement. That's understood.
Yes, phase noise does translate into a different frequency range after conversion. That is one way to examine a clock source, I'm very familiar with it. However, from what I have read so far, that concept is well beyond many in this thread. I'm trying to keep things very simple.
Hi rfbrw,
Absolutely correct. This has been pretty clear. The entire thread was based on faith of a concept that had no proof and no attempt at defining anything. Attempts to have Andrea actually define anything, his target, current state of the industry or anything else was avoided. He did everything possible to distract from the pertinent questions being asked. The exact same tactics Joe used.
The question is not about what phase (far out or close in) noise does, but what is audible. The moon phase has also an effect of the DAC output, I am waiting for the next shielding to get on sale.
LMAO!
Certainly. This is exactly what I was asking much earlier in the thread as well.
The shielding is for the people - right?
Certainly. This is exactly what I was asking much earlier in the thread as well.
The shielding is for the people - right?
Not to mention he constantly ignored any offer for an independent evaluation of his product performances (by myself and others). I offered my absolutely free service, even offered to pay myself for 2 way shipping, only to end this stupid debate. I have instrumentation with a -178dB phase noise floor, and measuring two of his oscillators against each other down to 0.1Hz offset (then subtracting 3dB) is as easy as it gets.
Yes, I remember that clearly.
Yet, his supporters vilified you at every opportunity.
This was clearly a commercial venture based on faith. Any type of verification was a direct threat to the operation and the response pretty much shows that.
Yet, his supporters vilified you at every opportunity.
This was clearly a commercial venture based on faith. Any type of verification was a direct threat to the operation and the response pretty much shows that.
I find you extremely disrespectful.That's why Andrea did not do business with you,You can understand
As we've learned if someone actually respects andrea they no longer count as independent but 'fan club member', it's unfortunate
I don't recall any business proposition to/from your idol being accepted or refused. That was a free help offer, to end this stupid debate, which was rejected.
If I would be a honest small merchant, I would be extremely happy to be able to add to my sales message an independent verification of my performance claims. It is interesting to look how's this going on ASR; small and agile competitors are happy to send their products for an objective evaluation, while those feeding the audio boutique ecosystem couldn't care less; they prefer to rely on the buzz created by the audio (printed and/or online) rags reviews, and the marketing talents of their distributors.
.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.