Actually, if there is anything enviable about Andreas contribution here is his capacity to develop and feed a group of devoted supporters, ready to do anything to defend and support their leader, against any infidel attack, and against any common sense or rational arguments. Other members failed miserably at this exercise, probably to their dismay.
Reminds me the anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, Qanon, etc…(scaled down) movements. There’s no small thing to start and feed such a movement, even at a hobby forum level.
Reminds me the anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, Qanon, etc…(scaled down) movements. There’s no small thing to start and feed such a movement, even at a hobby forum level.
Here in the States, such is referred to as "Drinking the Kool-Aid" as in Jonestown event, led by Jim Jones.
It goes on elsewhere too, as if they all belong to the same union.
But when someone who is 10 years into his retirement starts to brag / claim about his hearing ability, one has to take that with a grain of salt.Exception being Mk4 of course//
The arrogance in this thread is off the charts, from all sides quite frankly.
Mr Moderator, perhaps the saddest part of this thread: the sheer amount of uncivilized behaviour.
I wasn't going to write anything because it's pretty much useless, one way or another. But then again, perhaps if only one other person reading this pushes his/her critical thinking a little bit further (past the numbers, past the monetary aspect, pas the ego of fellow members), it would have been worth it. Or maybe I'm just naive. Oh, and that anti-vaxxer thing…
Some of you guys can discuss the math, physics, engineering behind these clocks and play with your number as much as you please. It could actually be quite interesting and educational. Not everyone reading this thread or trying different ______ (insert evil word here) is devoid of critical thinking/reading.
The problem is that you all disregard the most important 'fact' of it all: the last "machine" in the chain is actually a biological entity, with an infinitesimally complex processing unit (for you lab rats, those are the beings walking around and talking to each other on the other side of your door ).
That part is of the utmost importance and disregarding that makes one look/sound/read like an incomplete debater vis-à-vis what can be heard.
Unfortunately, it seems like none of you have ever had to "repair" or "maintain" one, much less hundreds, of these biological marvels. If you would have, you would certainly know that, despite having very precise and complex biochemical pathways that make everything work more or less correctly (most of the time) and having been studied for millennia, not one is alike. You would otherwise know that they never behave exactly like what's in our textbooks; not when they're running perfectly, and much less so when they "break" (wouldn’t medicine be easy otherwise?!).
Given that the last big component in the music chain has nothing to do with math/physics/engineering, some of the most vocal of you lot have absolutely no credibility on that part of the chain.
I've dumbed down things quite a bit. But simply put: Human beings are extremely complex as are their reactions and emotions. We (medical community) are nowhere near being able to correctly interpret and predict the human outcomes of all variables thrown at us. And that’s despite almost half of all the medical professionals being in school for much longer than an engineering PhD. Therefore, not one of you can claim to be a reference in what one should or shouldn’t “hear” or how one “listens” to music, no one can (see definition below).
So, what's it to you that I like a certain type of wine better than another? Should I be asking a colleague to lend me his spectrophotometer so that I can better measure what is procuring me joy/pleasure? It would be totally meaningless to me in that precise point in time and situation, despite the nice graphics and numbers it would give. So why should I prove to any of you that I’m truly enjoying that specific glass of wine? Is it because I’m trying to sell it to you (I’m not)? If my description of what I taste isn’t enough for you, I guess you can just avoid buying it or sample it yourself and make your own decision. That said, I would certainly like to know and learn more about how we can achieve those results and what profiles can be attributed to various types of wines/grapes/etc. I’ll do the tasting separately on my own, thanks. This concept also works for scotch, cognac, or any other type of beverage.
Note the Webster's definition of hearing: "the process, function, or power of perceiving sound. Specifically: the special sense by which noises and tones are received as stimuli. Pretty much like the sense of taste which I stimulate with my wine, minus the spectrophotometer.
None of this gets rid of the audio-foolery and snake oil peddlers, but neither will any of you, as long as humans are… humans! Stop convincing yourself otherwise; you’re just deluding yourself or have delusions of grandeur (you can read the Kaplan and the DSM 5 if you need more info). That one chooses to put in a different clock and hears something, or doesn’t, has no impact on the individual’s health, nor public health, nor the fabric of our civilized societies. The one certain impact is on the individual's wallet, which doesn't concern anyone else (except maybe the spouse?). Therefore, it's reprehensible and disingenuous or just uneducated to compare that to anti-vaxxers. Sorry, there’s no argument to be had here, it was just a knucklehead post.
And finally, to those that love to come in with the “study it” argument: once again, the outcome is dictated by a human. Therefore, this sort of study falls into the epidemiological science type with all the inherent bias. I can pull out quite a few big studies in medicine that ended up contradicting each other despite being originally published in the NEJM, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, etc. Some medications sold for millions after a study, just to be withdrawn by the company after another one showed no statistically significant difference in the outcome. Come to think of it, you could do that all by yourself, just use Medline or Pubmed with MeSH and have fun!
So really, just give it a rest, would you? Get back to discussing the technological and implementation aspects of it without agreeing or disagreeing on the sensory part.
Mr Moderator, perhaps the saddest part of this thread: the sheer amount of uncivilized behaviour.
I wasn't going to write anything because it's pretty much useless, one way or another. But then again, perhaps if only one other person reading this pushes his/her critical thinking a little bit further (past the numbers, past the monetary aspect, pas the ego of fellow members), it would have been worth it. Or maybe I'm just naive. Oh, and that anti-vaxxer thing…
Some of you guys can discuss the math, physics, engineering behind these clocks and play with your number as much as you please. It could actually be quite interesting and educational. Not everyone reading this thread or trying different ______ (insert evil word here) is devoid of critical thinking/reading.
The problem is that you all disregard the most important 'fact' of it all: the last "machine" in the chain is actually a biological entity, with an infinitesimally complex processing unit (for you lab rats, those are the beings walking around and talking to each other on the other side of your door
). That part is of the utmost importance and disregarding that makes one look/sound/read like an incomplete debater vis-à-vis what can be heard.
Unfortunately, it seems like none of you have ever had to "repair" or "maintain" one, much less hundreds, of these biological marvels. If you would have, you would certainly know that, despite having very precise and complex biochemical pathways that make everything work more or less correctly (most of the time) and having been studied for millennia, not one is alike. You would otherwise know that they never behave exactly like what's in our textbooks; not when they're running perfectly, and much less so when they "break" (wouldn’t medicine be easy otherwise?!).
Given that the last big component in the music chain has nothing to do with math/physics/engineering, some of the most vocal of you lot have absolutely no credibility on that part of the chain.
I've dumbed down things quite a bit. But simply put: Human beings are extremely complex as are their reactions and emotions. We (medical community) are nowhere near being able to correctly interpret and predict the human outcomes of all variables thrown at us. And that’s despite almost half of all the medical professionals being in school for much longer than an engineering PhD. Therefore, not one of you can claim to be a reference in what one should or shouldn’t “hear” or how one “listens” to music, no one can (see definition below).
So, what's it to you that I like a certain type of wine better than another? Should I be asking a colleague to lend me his spectrophotometer so that I can better measure what is procuring me joy/pleasure? It would be totally meaningless to me in that precise point in time and situation, despite the nice graphics and numbers it would give. So why should I prove to any of you that I’m truly enjoying that specific glass of wine? Is it because I’m trying to sell it to you (I’m not)? If my description of what I taste isn’t enough for you, I guess you can just avoid buying it or sample it yourself and make your own decision. That said, I would certainly like to know and learn more about how we can achieve those results and what profiles can be attributed to various types of wines/grapes/etc. I’ll do the tasting separately on my own, thanks. This concept also works for scotch, cognac, or any other type of beverage.
Note the Webster's definition of hearing: "the process, function, or power of perceiving sound. Specifically: the special sense by which noises and tones are received as stimuli. Pretty much like the sense of taste which I stimulate with my wine, minus the spectrophotometer.
None of this gets rid of the audio-foolery and snake oil peddlers, but neither will any of you, as long as humans are… humans! Stop convincing yourself otherwise; you’re just deluding yourself or have delusions of grandeur (you can read the Kaplan and the DSM 5 if you need more info). That one chooses to put in a different clock and hears something, or doesn’t, has no impact on the individual’s health, nor public health, nor the fabric of our civilized societies. The one certain impact is on the individual's wallet, which doesn't concern anyone else (except maybe the spouse?). Therefore, it's reprehensible and disingenuous or just uneducated to compare that to anti-vaxxers. Sorry, there’s no argument to be had here, it was just a knucklehead post.
And finally, to those that love to come in with the “study it” argument: once again, the outcome is dictated by a human. Therefore, this sort of study falls into the epidemiological science type with all the inherent bias. I can pull out quite a few big studies in medicine that ended up contradicting each other despite being originally published in the NEJM, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, etc. Some medications sold for millions after a study, just to be withdrawn by the company after another one showed no statistically significant difference in the outcome. Come to think of it, you could do that all by yourself, just use Medline or Pubmed with MeSH and have fun!
So really, just give it a rest, would you? Get back to discussing the technological and implementation aspects of it without agreeing or disagreeing on the sensory part.
That would hold true if this is about listening to musical performance as in live music. But the device/s in discussion is for replaying such performance which is a different domain.
Note the Webster's definition of "high fidelity" (hi-fi). It's a criteria applies to recreating something, in this case the sound. The equipment's job is to reproduce, higher the fidelity, the better quality it's marked. If you like cognac "x" and someone reproduced it and claims that it's very good, then it should taste very close to the actual cognac "x" otherwise it's not very good.
BTW, this aspect was already covered on this thread.
5 times distilled hubris. Do you really think that a time stamping counter can hold
the candle to a Timepod or a signal source analyzer with cross correlation?
I had one, it went to ebay. I kept the Stanford and the timepod.
And that's because I know what a timepod can do. And I know Andrea's references.
They come from a bulk purchase I did some time ago from ACIsouth in FLA. Lucent
Z3811A/Z3812A, built by Agilent for Lucent. Spare parts still shrink-wrapped and in
unopened boxes from Agilent. The Z3812A is a redundancy oven unit without the
GPS receiver card, so it did not sell well. Made it easy to get a good price.
They have not spent a lifetime on a Chinese telecom tower like most ovens on ebay,
and it shows.
I have made no gain from them, and Andrea has made no gain on the Minicircuit
parts for me that he included in his orders. DK and Mouser must not deliver MCL
to Germany because of older distributor rights.
My idea was to lock 16 ovens sloooowly to a common disciplined
source, wilkinson the outputs together and enjoying the improved phase noise
by averaging over 16 MTI-260 oscillators in real time.
The project is on the backburner, but there are still enough MTI-260 left.
Your proposal of education bounces completely. You have absolutely no
base to judge Andrea's oscillators. Never seen one, let alone measured one
or the gear for it.
That said I have also never seen one. But I know what is possible. I have
own designs, some in orbit, but none in DACs or CDplayers. That is
simply boring. There are more than enough REAL problems in that area.
The ankle biters here might just as well target the -160 dB harmonics bunch.
Oh, they might bite their own back side.
Gerhard
Last edited:
Of Andrea's clocks - I have seen them, not only one but several that I bought. Was curious how do they behave.
I had put here the test results.
This thread (before the massacre of the trolls) had been the most controlled and technically correct, maybe in this full site. Because of Andrea, who had maintained a high level of intellectual honesty. He had studied, dedicated a lot of efforts, contacted the right people (the real experts of this field, not the self appointed jackals) . Had conducted an enourmous amount of tests. Every statement had been supported by data.
It needs.. hm.. a certain type of dedicated blindness, to negate these facts.
I could not care less about the whining for proof of audibility. Go and demand that from the - 150dB THD guerillas. Go and attack MSB, EMMlabs, Chord who all propose the importance of the conversion clock.
I had put here the test results.
This thread (before the massacre of the trolls) had been the most controlled and technically correct, maybe in this full site. Because of Andrea, who had maintained a high level of intellectual honesty. He had studied, dedicated a lot of efforts, contacted the right people (the real experts of this field, not the self appointed jackals) . Had conducted an enourmous amount of tests. Every statement had been supported by data.
It needs.. hm.. a certain type of dedicated blindness, to negate these facts.
I could not care less about the whining for proof of audibility. Go and demand that from the - 150dB THD guerillas. Go and attack MSB, EMMlabs, Chord who all propose the importance of the conversion clock.
Now that the attacks are back in full swing, Andrea clearly was not the sole author of conflict on this thread.
While I did not appreciate the style of his criticism, his challenges did result in two significant product improvements on the other threads.
The community is technically reduced by his banishment.
So we can conclude that this was about style, not substance.
While I did not appreciate the style of his criticism, his challenges did result in two significant product improvements on the other threads.
The community is technically reduced by his banishment.
So we can conclude that this was about style, not substance.
What defines improvement in this context?
That's because he won't disclose substantive info as soon as he realizes that it will reveal the objective sound quality aspect.
Why not ?Are you afraid for our health if you reveal the prices to us ? Do you think our blood pressure could jump up ? It would be correct to post the numbers.I'm ready to be shocked. Come on, shoot !!
Please point where anybody in this thread debated what a Timepod can or cannot do (with one exception, when it comes to evaluating the sine to square phase noise, which I believe the doubts are correct, and I posted relevant references). Hint: nowhere.
As far as I recall, there were three claims under scrutiny here:
1. The claim that this clock (with alleged ultra low close in phase noise, but average phase noise floor) provides any SQ improvements over a standard decent clock. Such claims were made by both he perpetrator and his support team. I understand you find this topic boring, however when somebody claims effects that are 5 orders of magnitude under the known/proved/studied limits of audibility, that should raise red flag to anybody with a shred of professional probity. You don't care about, of course. But the perpetrator cared enough to start smearing his alleged competitors for their alleged inferior SQ because of the poor clock performance used in their designs. Strike one.
2. If the claimed performance of the clocks are truly delivered to his customers. I am sure you could read the data sheets of the SC cut Laptech crystals, and you could note the specified Q of 1M typical. At the same time, you could use a napkin on your table and scribble a few numbers (or even simpler, put a ruler on a diagram) and you would quickly realize that the claimed performance requires a Q of 2M or more. While I have no doubt such crystals can be selected from a reasonable amount of purchased units, I have not seen any guarantees or SPC on this performance metric. Strike two.
3. The claim that there is no impact on the phase noise of such a crystal dangling on a PCB, without any protection. This is ridiculous beyond any discussion, even less skilled members understood it and started building ovens, hanging the oscillator on rubber bands, etc... all stupid things to do when it comes to audio, of course. Strike three.
As previously mentioned, the practice you share with your protege to hunt down the slightest mistake of your proponents is disgusting and denotes either an over inflated ego, or some deep buried insecurities. As much as calling a good PhD thesis "sucking Dr. Rohde". The fact that Chris confused oscillator stability with phase noise is no ground to call his contributions and well documented criticism, per the above claims, "distilled hubris". I could call your low frequency noise experiments contribution the same, while observing how after years of criticizing others for their designs, implementation and results, you reached to the same principles and implementation, then relying on bogus explanations to save face, when called about.
I hope your future collaboration with Andrea in procuring parts has a bright future. BTW, you can get Oscilloquartz 8663 and Morion MV83's OCXOs, brand new bubble wrapped, for 30 buck, if there's anything left after I cleaned the store.
No, I don't want to feed the cheerleaders in believing I have any vested interest in this debate. Which they do believe, anyways, and are eagerly hunting for clues.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.