AudioQuest JitterBug USB Filter Review

[Sal1950]

I'd rather die..

Oh oh, what's that, a super secret handshake needed to read things there.
I might even be banned anyway, oh well. LOL

 

[Dr Schweinsgruber]

Ask who?

Hi Amir,
I put the respective link in my signature. Now you can check anytime at your leisure what Stereophile's John Atkinson learnt from the Audio Precision CEO on optimizing measurement setups.

But John Atkinson also is of the "belief" that one should trust their ears. After all, listening is an integral part of audio .

And all I believe is that I need a beer soon.

 

[solderdude]

Believing ears is fine... you just have to take out the 'knowing' part and prove statistically that you can discern.

 

[Leporello]

But John Atkinson also is of the "belief" that one should trust their ears.

And that is a deliberately vague maxim. It sounds right but in itself does not mean much of anything. Another piece of audiophile wisdom is: "If it measures good and sounds bad, — it is bad. If it sounds good and measures bad, — you’ve measured the wrong thing.". This one is actually downright silly.

 

[amirm]

Copy-and-paste from a friend:

SBAF's atomicbob quotes Jonathan Novick, former Audio Precision guy, using it at AES meetings (paraphrasing Einstein, eg last line of this post):

So you were wrong when you said this:

Not everything that matters can be measured and not everything that can be measured matters - Former Audio Precision CEO

Jonathon was a sales person for Audio Precision. He was not the CEO. He is an electrical engineer but had nothing to do with the design of AP. He doesn't have any expertise in psychoacoustics. He simply had an epiphany one day that audibility of distortion can vary based on spectrum and make up of the distortion -- something everyone who knows anything about psychoacoustics understands. This is why every review I do starts with a full spectrum of distortion (and noise) in the dashboard. In this case, I totally focused on the spectrum with and without jitterbug:

There is no way Jonathon would remotely back you on any assertion of jitterbug having an audible effect given the analysis I provided in this review.

Him repeating an oft-quoted line attributed to Einstein doesn't at all elevate Jonathan to the messaging you were throwing at us.

Sadly this fish story is getting worse and worse. Darko did a 1+ hour podcast with Jonathon trying to bait him every which way to say that measurements are not useful and that we should just listen. Fortunately Jonathon by intention or not, did not give him what he wanted to run with. Please don't misuse and abuse stuff like this. We know better. Some of us did this work for a living and are not just opining here.

 

[amirm]

See also here: https://www.stereophile.com/rmaf2010/lies_damned_lies_and_specifications/index.html

I was in that talk. I was the one asking a question from Jonathon at the end telling him that their software makes it so easy to create erroneous results. And that if he cares about accuracy of measurements, they should improve the software so this doesn't happen.

As I just explained, while the novice thought the talk was good and informative, there was no information for the person schooled in sound perception. Of course the make up of the distortion matters and is required to determine audibility. Single digital values such as THD+N therefore are not direct predictors of audibility. They are good indications of quality of engineering however.

Of course people drowning in the lies of subjectivity, are hanging on to any life vest they can. Oh this guy at AP said "specs" are no good so let's throw out measurements and just listen. Yes, you can listen. We love listening more than measurements. Just don't include the rest of your bloody senses for haven's sake. Don't say you just listen when you know what you are playing, have read what people have said about a device, are relying on completely wrong technical knowledge of what a device does and doesn't do and then say, "oh my ears said this." No, your poor ears did not. It was the rest of your body that did that.

This device is a couple of tiny caps and coils that attempts to filter a bit of ultrasonic noise. Your DAC does this day in and day out. It is of no need or the designers would include the extra 10 cents worth of parts. Don't jettison common sense in the zeal to believe myths. It an insult to your brain to fill it with such misunderstandings....

 

[Dr Schweinsgruber]

I was in that talk. I was the one asking a question from Jonathon at the end telling him that their software makes it so easy to create erroneous results. And that if he cares about accuracy of measurements, they should improve the software so this doesn't happen.

As I just explained, while the novice thought the talk was good and informative, there was no information for the person schooled in sound perception. Of course the make up of the distortion matters and is required to determine audibility. Single digital values such as THD+N therefore are not direct predictors of audibility. They are good indications of quality of engineering however.

Of course people drowning in the lies of subjectivity, are hanging on to any life vest they can. Oh this guy at AP said "specs" are no good so let's throw out measurements and just listen. Yes, you can listen. We love listening more than measurements. Just don't include the rest of your bloody senses for haven's sake. Don't say you just listen when you know what you are playing, have read what people have said about a device, are relying on completely wrong technical knowledge of what a device does and doesn't do and then say, "oh my ears said this." No, your poor ears did not. It was the rest of your body that did that.

This device is a couple of tiny caps and coils that attempts to filter a bit of ultrasonic noise. Your DAC does this day in and day out. It is of no need or the designers would include the extra 10 cents worth of parts. Don't jettison common sense in the zeal to believe myths. It an insult to your brain to fill it with such misunderstandings....

I don't understand this black and white thinking. Of course are both needed, measurements (quantity) and listening (quality). Both have value and are complementary. The more information the merrier. But...

Example1: I recently purchased the Topping L30 amp. I was unaware of its positive measurements here at ASR, it had been recommended to me by other sources. It didn't do it for me, sonically. It had no bite and the midrange was overly lean with my HD 600s and the iems I had tried it with. I sold it.

Example 2: I measure earphone frequency responses all the time. A great early warning system in most cases. But I can present some ideal Harman graphs of earphones that sound dull and uninspiring to me....and earphones with very similar graphs that sound totally different. Again, (perceived) quality and quantity are not directly correlated. If measurements and FR were directly correlated, one should be able to distinguish premium/expensive earphones from the budget fare just by looking at the graph. Good luck with that.

 

[Dr Schweinsgruber]

I think this poem by Christian Morgenstern characterizes the situation:

The Impossible Fact (English)
Palmstroem, old, an aimless rover,
walking in the wrong direction
at a busy intersection
is run over.

"How," he says, his life restoring
and with pluck his death ignoring,
"can an accident like this
ever happen? What's amiss?

"Did the state administration
fail in motor transportation?
Did police ignore the need
for reducing driving speed?

"Isn't there a prohibition,
barring motorized transmission
of the living to the dead?
Was the driver right who sped…?"

Tightly swathed in dampened tissues
he explores the legal issues,
and it soon is clear as air:
Cars were not permitted there!

And he comes to the conclusion:
His mishap was an illusion,
for, he reasons pointedly,
that which must not, can not be.

 

[SIY]

I don't understand this black and white thinking. Of course are both needed, measurements (quantity) and listening (quality). Both have value and are complementary. The more information the merrier. But...

Example1: I recently purchased the Topping L30 amp. I was unaware of its positive measurements here at ASR, it had been recommended to me by other sources. It didn't do it for me, sonically. It had no bite and the midrange was overly lean with my HD 600s and the iems I had tried it with. I sold it.

Example 2: I measure earphone frequency responses all the time. A great early warning system in most cases. But I can present some ideal Harman graphs of earphones that sound dull and uninspiring to me....and earphones with very similar graphs that sound totally different. Again, (perceived) quality and quantity are not directly correlated. If measurements and FR were directly correlated, one should be able to distinguish premium/expensive earphones from the budget fare just by looking at the graph. Good luck with that.

No excuse for lack of controls in listening evaluations. Once that’s done, amazingly all audible phenomena are measurable.

 

[tmtomh]

I don't understand this black and white thinking. Of course are both needed, measurements (quantity) and listening (quality). Both have value and are complementary. The more information the merrier. But...

Example1: I recently purchased the Topping L30 amp. I was unaware of its positive measurements here at ASR, it had been recommended to me by other sources. It didn't do it for me, sonically. It had no bite and the midrange was overly lean with my HD 600s and the iems I had tried it with. I sold it.

Example 2: I measure earphone frequency responses all the time. A great early warning system in most cases. But I can present some ideal Harman graphs of earphones that sound dull and uninspiring to me. Again, (perceived) quality and quantity are not directly correlated. If measurements and FR were directly correlated, one should be able to distinguish premium/expensive earphones from the budget fare just by looking at the graph. Good luck with that.

I would partially agree and partially disagree with your points here.

Where I would agree: The frequency-response preference curves for speakers and headphones are pretty well established, but (a) they are based on mass preferences rather than an objective standard of fidelity (in contrast to the simple, objective standard of ruler-flat frequency response for DACs and amps); and (b) transducers generally have distortion levels and frequency-response variations that are orders of magnitude greater than properly designed DACs and amps. These two factors combine to produce a situation where speaker and headphone performance have an irreducible component of personal taste to them, and also have many degrees of variation that, unlike with small variations in many DACs' performance, are clearly audible in at least some normal listening circumstances.

So when it comes to speakers and headphones (and I would add turntables and cartridges), measurements are indeed only part of the equation.

Where I would disagree with you is on two points:

1. @amirm is not displaying black-and-white thinking. Rather, he's pushing back (quite rightly IMHO) on what I see as a false equivalence in the adage you've quoted, between listening and measurements. It's not 100% about measurements all the time, for sure - but when it comes to perceived sound quality for many types of component, and when it comes to the claims made for ethernet and USB "cleaning" products, it's not merely 50% about measurements either. Comprehensive, properly taken measurements can tell you pretty much everything you need to know about the sonic reproduction/impact of a DAC or a power amplifier... or a power cord, or an interconnect, or a USB decrappifier, or an "audiophile" ethernet switch.
2. I have no doubt you did not prefer the sound of the L30 with your HD600s - you say that's what you heard, so that's what you heard. Without detailed measurements, though, you'll never know why you didn't like the sound. Now, IMHO that's an important problem for you, as it hampers your ability to figure out what else to buy instead, since it's not clear what differences you need to look for. But of course, my opinion about what's a problem for you doesn't matter - you do what you want to do, and neither I nor anyone else should try to make you do otherwise. But I feel much more strongly that your inability to explain why you heard what you heard is definitely a problem for anyone you wish to communicate with about that experience, because it makes your listening experience literally meaningless to anyone else. And so when you post about your experience in a forum, it means nothing. That's not me trying to insult you; rather, it's a result of the fact that you are convinced there's something beyond measurements that accounts for what you heard. That conviction makes it impossible to create knowledge that is intelligible or of any use to others.

 

[Veri]

I recently purchased the Topping L30 amp. I was unaware of its positive measurements here at ASR, it had been recommended to me by other sources. It didn't do it for me, sonically. It had no bite and the midrange was overly lean with my HD 600s and the iems I had tried it with. I sold it.

"overly lean midrange" funny, none of my earphones or headphones show this with L30. Almost as if empirical impressions should be taken with a grain of salt...... sorry man but no way you would hear whatever you think is there in the midrange if you did a controlled listening test.

I, too, can plug in two devices and write some blurbs about what I think sounds different in a non-volume matched, non-blind A-B test. Is it repeatable, verifiable, true? I'd be hard pressed to hear the same thing the day after lol.

 

[Eetu]

Really admire how patiently folks are replying to the Dr. I'm wondering if everyone here is aware of this thread:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-your-ears-audioquest-dragonfly-cobalt.23081/

 

[Dr Schweinsgruber]

"overly lean midrange" funny, none of my earphones or headphones show this with L30. Almost as if empirical impressions should be taken with a grain of salt...... sorry man but no way you would hear whatever you think is there in the midrange if you did a controlled listening test.

I, too, can plug in two devices and write some blurbs about what I think sounds different in a non-volume matched, non-blind A-B test.

I had sold the L30 on Canuck Audio Mart...and asked the buyer for his feedback. He has some high-end gear.

"...
My initial reaction [of the L30] was less positive, but that seems to be largely from the Topping E30 DAC I was trying out as well. I was surprised at how subjectively poorly it acquitted itself, compared to a variety of other DACS that objectively should have been less impressive or equivalent.

I will likely not keep the Toppings, as they've not lived up to the fevered reaction from some camps and reviewers..."

Previously, I had used the EarMen TR-amp with my 600s...which sounded better to my ears. So I saw no need to buy another amp.

 

[tmtomh]

Really admire how patiently folks are replying to the Dr. I'm wondering if everyone here is aware of this thread:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-your-ears-audioquest-dragonfly-cobalt.23081/

Yikes.

 

[Dr Schweinsgruber]

Yikes.

Thanks to the thread originator for advertising this fine Facebook group here on ASR.

 

[MaxBuck]

No excuse for lack of controls in listening evaluations. Once that’s done, amazingly all audible phenomena are measurable.

Measurable, sure. But that doesn't mean that anyone currently knows precisely how to measure all of them in a way that is complete.

The degree to which some folks here believe that audio reproduction is a scientifically solved problem is remarkable. I just don't buy it. One need not be either a purveyor or buyer of nonsense products in order to believe subjective listening is still necessary and may still result in discernable (and preference-based) differences that defy precise measurement.

And by the way, I have no interest, as an audio consumer, in conducting "controlled experiments" relative to audio equipment before making purchase decisions. I can scarcely imagine that most consumers would. If I like the sound of a product, after carefully considering the measured performance and price, I'll buy it. Nothing wrong with that approach. With that said, I'll never tell anyone else their gear is substandard based on either my listening experiences, other people's experiences, "audiophile journalists" or even objective measurements.

Some of this disputation strikes me as unnecessarily combative.

 

[Dr Schweinsgruber]

Measurable, sure. But that doesn't mean that anyone currently knows precisely how to measure all of them in a way that is complete.

The degree to which some folks here believe that audio reproduction is a scientifically solved problem is remarkable. I just don't buy it. One need not be either a purveyor or buyer of nonsense products in order to believe subjective listening is still necessary and may still result in discernable (and preference-based) differences that defy precise measurement.

And by the way, I have no interest, as an audio consumer, in conducting "controlled experiments" relative to audio equipment before making purchase decisions. I can scarcely imagine that most consumers would. If I like the sound of a product, after carefully considering the measured performance and price, I'll buy it. Nothing wrong with that approach. With that said, I'll never tell anyone else their gear is substandard based on either my listening experiences, other people's experiences, "audiophile journalists" or even objective measurements.

Some of this disputation strikes me as unnecessarily combative.

I tell you what I base my purchasing decisions on: on the reports of people who I trust have similar preferences as me. And as many of them as possible. There are a few products that have been so well established this way, that it is hard to go wrong with them.

Examples: Sennheiser HD 600 series, Koss Porta Pro, Chord Mojo etc.

 

[tmtomh]

Measurable, sure. But that doesn't mean that anyone currently knows precisely how to measure all of them in a way that is complete.

The degree to which some folks here believe that audio reproduction is a scientifically solved problem is remarkable. I just don't buy it. One need not be either a purveyor or buyer of nonsense products in order to believe subjective listening is still necessary and may still result in discernable (and preference-based) differences that defy precise measurement.

And by the way, I have no interest, as an audio consumer, in conducting "controlled experiments" relative to audio equipment before making purchase decisions. I can scarcely imagine that most consumers would. If I like the sound of a product, after carefully considering the measured performance and price, I'll buy it. Nothing wrong with that approach. With that said, I'll never tell anyone else their gear is substandard based on either my listening experiences, other people's experiences, "audiophile journalists" or even objective measurements.

Some of this disputation strikes me as unnecessarily combative.

I share your view about controlled experiments - as an individual consumer I lack the time, equipment, patience, and expertise to conduct them (which is why I'm glad there are sites like this).

But what I don't get about the "If I like the sound of a product, after carefully considering the measured performance and price, I'll buy it" statement is, how do you listen to everything that falls within your budget and measured-performance parameters before you buy it?

 

[SIY]

Measurable, sure. But that doesn't mean that anyone currently knows precisely how to measure all of them in a way that is complete.

The degree to which some folks here believe that audio reproduction is a scientifically solved problem is remarkable. I just don't buy it. One need not be either a purveyor or buyer of nonsense products in order to believe subjective listening is still necessary and may still result in discernable (and preference-based) differences that defy precise measurement.

And by the way, I have no interest, as an audio consumer, in conducting "controlled experiments" relative to audio equipment before making purchase decisions. I can scarcely imagine that most consumers would. If I like the sound of a product, after carefully considering the measured performance and price, I'll buy it. Nothing wrong with that approach. With that said, I'll never tell anyone else their gear is substandard based on either my listening experiences, other people's experiences, "audiophile journalists" or even objective measurements.

Some of this disputation strikes me as unnecessarily combative.

Then I’d suggest you stay away from scientific discussions based on fact rather than fantasy.

No controls means you’re playing make- believe. And that has zero value in technical discussions. Less than zero, actually.

 

[tmtomh]

I tell you what I base my purchasing decisions on: on the reports of people who I trust have similar preferences as me. And as many of them as possible. There are a few products that have been so well established this way, that it is hard to go wrong with them.

Examples: Sennheiser HD 600 series, Koss Porta Pro, Chord Mojo etc.

So you don't go by measurements or your own ears when it comes to making purchasing decisions?