Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[ahofer]

As for these claims I have no proof but OTOH neither have you. So we will just have to disagree on these.

But one could demonstrate an audible difference, which would be a great place to start if one were really interested in finding out, rather than speculating to rationalize pre-existing beliefs.

 

[pkane]

As for these claims I have no proof but OTOH neither have you. So we will just have to disagree on these.

I don’t need a proof, since I was curious enough to test these claims years ago. I know the answer for me, I can’t answer for you.

 

[bok]

I don’t need a proof, since I was curious enough to test these claims years ago. I know the answer for me, I can’t answer for you.

I also don't need proof. But maybe you could explain your view on masking effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking:

In audio signal processing, auditory masking occurs when the perception of one sound is affected by the presence of another sound.

Since close-in phase noise causes smearing of the fundamental frequency what would be the other sound causing the masking?

 

[pkane]

I also don't need proof. But maybe you could explain your view on masking effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking:

In audio signal processing, auditory masking occurs when the perception of one sound is affected by the presence of another sound.

Since close-in phase noise causes smearing of the fundamental frequency what would be the other sound causing the masking?

Let me ask you: how is the fundamental, at 100dB+ higher level than the noise skirt you’re objecting to, that is only a few Hz away from the fundamental, not subject to auditory masking?

 

[danadam]

Jitter measurements based on J-test do not measure random jitter

Random jitter is not correlated to the data pattern or any other signal, but, as the name implies, is random.

Er... are you saying that the analyzer is somehow able to separate data-patterrn jitter from random-jitter, so that it can measure one and ignore the other?

 

[bok]

Let me ask you: how is the fundamental, at 100dB+ higher level than the noise skirt you’re objecting to, that is only a few Hz away from the fundamental, not subject to auditory masking?

As I said close-in phase noise causes smearing of the fundamental frequency. This is not about the noise skirt. Besides the noise skirt is continuous. It may be 100 dB down at the distance of 1Hz but much higher at half the distance.

 

[pkane]

As I said close-in phase noise causes smearing of the fundamental frequency. This is not about the noise skirt. Besides the noise skirt is continuous. It may be 100 dB down at the distance of 1Hz but much higher at half the distance.

What?

 

[bok]

If you want a clear answer you should be more specific. Regarding the noise skirt maybe this will help:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?attachments/pn_48-4m_mt_2-png.259482/

But as I said the impact of close-in phase noise is not the same as the noise skirt.

 

[bok]

Er... are you saying that the analyzer is somehow able to separate data-patterrn jitter from random-jitter, so that it can measure one and ignore the other?

No, I did not say that. I would expect random jitter to not show up in averaged FFT.

 

[presence]

How well do you understand these 'scientific results'?

I see the lack of evidence when industry people make claims as to what they hear in these comparisons as the bigger issue, because they convince others that they are much more special than they really are.

Their refusal to implement any controls to turn those claims into actual evidence tells me a lot. It's almost funny watching the contortions as they try to discredit the use of basic controls.

Everyone wants to feel special.

It is my job to undrerstand them, but I have come to coclusion that they are not enough. They are important and the current knowledge of some level of reality, but if you start thinking they are an absolute everything - you are the one who see something special in your mirror. I lay low front of research and look myself and all data from objective and critical point of you. Being sceptical is one important quality of scientist and drives future research.

 

[ahofer]

Doxastic voluntarism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[VQR]

It is my job to undrerstand them, but I have come to coclusion that they are not enough. They are important and the current knowledge of some level of reality, but if you start thinking they are an absolute everything - you are the one who see something special in your mirror. I lay low front of research and look myself and all data from objective and critical point of you. Being sceptical is one important quality of scientist and drives future research.

So you agree? We ought to be critical of manufacturers who don't substantiate their claims yet sell products for good money?

 

[DonR]

 

[pkane]

But as I said the impact of close-in phase noise is not the same as the noise skirt.

No, I did not say that. I would expect random jitter to not show up in averaged FFT.

You're just making things up now.

 

[ahofer]

I did a private experiment that demonstrated to my satisfaction that Ethernet cables sound different. I have no interest in exposing my methods or results, but I would like to brag about the results here. Everyone Ok with that? You can’t prove me wrong, after all.

UPDATE: In a sort of Poe's Law moment, a few people didn't realize this was a sarcastic/satirical comment. Apparently, I need to make even stupider posts to be recognized as satire. Yikes.

 

[VQR]

You're just making things up now.

We need a proper digital to analog processor paired with a sample rate scaler to retrieve all the soul of music lost in digitization. See, the even harmonics of my HPA help us in this goal in freeing us from the bits that plague us and penetrate our beings with 5G.

Did I make that seem plausible enough, or nah?

 

[pkane]

We need a proper digital to analog processor paired with a sample rate scaler to retrieve all the soul of music lost in digitization. See, the even harmonics of my HPA help us in this goal in freeing us from the bits that plague us and penetrate our beings with 5G.

Did I make that seem plausible enough, or nah?

Check with ChatGPT -- AI will have a better explanation

 

[bok]

You're just making things up now.

This discussion is hopeless since you seem to have a rather dogmatic view on measurements.
Regarding the impact of close-in phase noise maybe this will help (from the AD tutorial I have linked earlier):

Regarding random jitter as it is random by nature averaged FFT cannot measure it properly. But in practice averaged FFT may show a representation of random jitter. But even then J-test signal has nothing to do with it.

 

[pkane]

This discussion is hopeless since you seem to have a rather dogmatic view on measurements.
Regarding the impact of close-in phase noise maybe this will help (from the AD tutorial I have linked earlier):

View attachment 259562

Regarding random jitter as it is random by nature averaged FFT cannot measure it properly. But in practice averaged FFT may show a representation of random jitter. But even then J-test signal has nothing to do with it.

You're right. There's no point in continuing, since what you're presenting supports exactly what I've been saying, yet somehow you're interpreting this as something else.

Look, I've built jitter generators for all kinds of jitter, close-in, f/noise, correlated, and specific frequency. I've listened to all of these at various levels and frequencies with various test signals and music hundreds of times, including doing blind tests. I've built measurement tools that measure jitter, including random, correlated, etc. As I said, it's your move: provide real evidence for any of your claims, otherwise there's nothing to talk about.

 

[bok]

Just as you, I have no need to proove anything to you and will continue to disagree with what you are saying. I stand by my claims and you by yours.