AudioQuest JitterBug USB Filter Review

[Killingbeans]

Our auditory system is far more complex than any measurement rig.

True. But it's also far crappier at doing what any measurement rig does. Otherwise measurement rigs would never have been invented in the first place. Humans like to think of themselves as superior creatures. Some parts of the ego makes it harder than necessary to see through all of the BS.

 

[mansr]

True. But it's also far crappier at doing what any measurement rig does. Otherwise measurement rigs would never have been invented in the first place. Humans like to think of themselves as superior creatures. Some parts of the ego makes it harder than necessary to see through all of the BS.

We are superior. Just look at all the nice measurement instruments we've constructed.

 

[rubley00]

trying to explain all with measurements, does not tell the whole story in my opionion

Your opinion is wrong. Sound is nothing but a pressure wave in air. There are no unmeasurable properties.

 

[rubley00]

We are superior. Just look at all the nice measurement instruments we've constructed.

Please describe the unmeasurable properties of a pressure wave in air

 

[Sal1950]

I understand that peoples here are integralist of "measurements only" approach to audio, but trying to explain all with measurements, does not tell the whole story in my opionion.

That's not correct, most people here believe in a "scientific only" approach. That includes measurements but also bias controled, repeatable, blind listening tests. If you can hear something with your eyes open but those differences disappear with your eyes closed, then the differences are most likely being caused by the very real and human failing of expectation bias, you will hear what you expect to hear. Also you must use some controls in these listening tests, levels must be matched within a a tenth of a db or less.
There is more but you need to first throw away these mistaken experiences of "I heard it so that is so", the reality of the situation can be very much different. Take some time and put in the effort to prove or disprove these scientific principles for yourself and see it you don't change your mind on your current belief system.

 

[Killingbeans]

Please describe the unmeasurable properties of a pressure wave in air

I think mansr was just responding to my pessimistic view of humans as slaves to their ego. I don't see him defending the statement crazywipe made.

 

[preload]

I understand that peoples here are integralist of "measurements only" approach to audio, but trying to explain all with measurements, does not tell the whole story in my opionion. Our auditory system is far more complex than any measurement rig.
Of course peoples can say that the improvements are placebo and it's just our imagination. I will still listen with the Jitterbug

Oh please. Yes, and...
Science has yet to fully understand how we perceive sound.
There are limits to what humans can truly comprehend.
Measurements cannot explain everything.
The universe works on mysterious ways.
... And so forth.

These types of unfalsifiable claims don't work on the people of ASR because we believe in (and understand) science. And to the good people of ASR, this is an unwinnable conversation. Don't waste your time.

 

[Sukie]

trying to explain all with measurements, does not tell the whole story in my opionion.

Nobody is using measurements to tell a story. Measurements measure audio properties. What we experience when we listen to music is the "whole story" and this involves so many additional factors.

None of this changes anything at all about the devices that we listen on. Don't transfer your experience (wonderful as it is, I'm sure) on to the Jitterbug or any other piece of audio equipment.

 

[richard_crl032]

I understand that peoples here are integralist of "measurements only" approach to audio, but trying to explain all with measurements, does not tell the whole story in my opionion. Our auditory system is far more complex than any measurement rig.
Of course peoples can say that the improvements are placebo and it's just our imagination. I will still listen with the Jitterbug

Hi Crazywide,

Indeed I am greedy and wants both ...

As such I am glad that well respected and learned Antipodes whose products I proudly own also think the same:

https://www.monoandstereo.com/2020/08/antipodes-audio-oladra-technology.html

Yes, they also do not offer measurement on how "musically expressive" are their products .. lol !

Cheers.

Richard

 

[preload]

I was trying the Jitterbug recently, with a simple setup like Beyer dt770-80 ohm + soundblaster play3! I have to say that subjectively I do hear a difference. Bass is more solid and the overall sound image is more 3d. I can push the volume up with less harshness.
On this setup there is an improvement IMHO. I can't speak if the result will be consistent with other dacs.

Yeah yeah. I can write that stuff too. "As soon as I connected my [insert product here], all of my recordings came to life. I felt like I was in the middle of the [orchestra/concert/studio] and it was like nothing I'd ever experienced before. I'd heard 3d imaging before but this could be best described as 4d. I found my self toe tapping to every recording and I heard nuances that I never knew existed. Blah blah blah."

What you're doing is a common psychologic tactic to try to influence other people by planting these subtle ideas. It doesn't work on me, it won't work on most people here, and I'm calling you out on it.

 

[GDK]

Yeah yeah. I can write that stuff too. "As soon as I connected my [insert product here], all of my recordings came to life. I felt like I was in the middle of the [orchestra/concert/studio] and it was like nothing I'd ever experienced before. I'd heard 3d imaging before but this could be best described as 4d. I found my self toe tapping to every recording and I heard nuances that I never knew existed. Blah blah blah."

What you're doing is a common psychologic tactic to try to influence other people by planting these subtle ideas. It doesn't work on me, it won't work on most people here, and I'm calling you out on it.

If your wife didn’t hear the difference, it didn’t happen.

 

[manueljenkin]

Then you are simply not interested in truth finding. All good as long as you are happy it doesn't matter if differences are real or of other origin.



It can be tested though... and be conclusive. Most just don't want to go there.

Then do it and publish the whole set of measurements that correlate to everything relating to real signal reproduction, and get it certified by an official committee like IEEE, or get this place certified. Otherwise all what you say are just superiority claims, in the air, by someone with a know-it-all attitude. The current set of measurements published here are not "conclusive" of music reproduction, even within audible parameters.

Also stop putting your interpretations at the end of a measurement. The measurement should be self explanatory. If you want to explain it, explain what each says in a separate page, along with all the threshold limits and weights as per audibility test, get that information certified (including weights and coverage metrics/limits) and let the viewer decide. Anyone who is about to base his decision on a squiggle should know what each squiggle means and how much is the threshold in each. You shouldn't have to dumb it down for them, often leaving out things and making a carefully biased description, that's not science. If you're going to add your personal interpretation, and personal recommendation, you should drop down the name "science" from this forum.

 

[solderdude]

I understand that peoples here are integralist of "measurements only" approach to audio, but trying to explain all with measurements, does not tell the whole story in my opionion. Our auditory system is far more complex than any measurement rig.
Of course peoples can say that the improvements are placebo and it's just our imagination. I will still listen with the Jitterbug

yes, the moment we go from sound waves to electric plane (mircrophone) everything there is can be measured and understood right up to the point where it goes into transducers and sound comes out.
Outside of the electrical realm it all becomes a LOT harder to understand, measure and correctly analyze.

You should not confuse the electrical part with the acoustic/brain/perception path. Yes, even in the acoustic/brain/perception part there are aspects that can be measured but is much more difficult to interpret because of acoustics & perception.

The funny bit here is the jitterbug is in the measurable part of this chain. The electronic realm. It is well understood. It can be tested using your ears quite well. Just not by listening to it KNOWING it is in the chain.

So IF you want to do truth finding (you really don't seem interested) there are ways to really find out what it does. This is not complicated and you don't even have to use special test equipment.

 

[preload]

Then do it and publish the whole set of measurements that correlate to everything relating to real signal reproduction, and get it certified by an official committee like IEEE, or get this place certified. Otherwise all what you say are just superiority claims, in the air, by someone with a know-it-all attitude. The current set of measurements published here are not "conclusive" of music reproduction, even within audible parameters.

Am I reading correctly that you believe the AQ Jitterbug could still result in large, easily audible improvements in sound quality, even though it was demonstrated to have an essentially negligible effect on FR, jitter, and SINAD? What electrical property, described in a peer-reviewed journal to be audibility, do you propose was likely improved by the AQ Jitterbug, but not measured by Amir? Or are you simply speculating that one such property exists but hasn't been discovered yet?

 

[solderdude]

Then do it and publish the whole set of measurements that correlate to everything relating to real signal reproduction, and get it certified by an official committee like IEEE, or get this place certified. Otherwise all what you say are just superiority claims, in the air, by someone with a know-it-all attitude. The current set of measurements published here are not "conclusive" of music reproduction, even within audible parameters.

Also stop putting your interpretations at the end of a measurement. The measurement should be self explanatory. If you want to explain it, explain what each says in a separate page, along with all the threshold limits and weights as per audibility test, get that information certified and let the viewer decide. Anyone who is about to base his decision on a squiggle should know what each squiggle means and how much is the threshold in each. You shouldn't have to dumb it down for them, often leaving out things and making a carefully biased description, that's not science.

You obviously never read my comments on measurements like from this device and other decrapifiers did you ?

A: They are not complete as NO EMC testing is done and only some specific tests are done on specific cases only.
Then you need knowledge to interpret that correctly which the vast majority of readers can't. A handful perhaps.

B: There can be situations it does something. Tightening of bass, smoother treble, better imaging is not one of them. These are descriptions everyone uses whatever is changed always leads to those conclusions.

C: If the guy is interested in HOW to test (most really are not) then I will gladly tell him. The fact that 'testing blind' is not saying anything explains enough to me.

You don't need ANYTHING to be certified at all in this particular case (someone making a claim). This is not something needed for a paper or scientific research. This is about testing something like the jitterbug at home in normal circumstances with the ONLY difference being the jitterbug is in or out of the circuit and the listener not knowing if it is in there or not.
It has nothing to do with thresholds, measurements, interpretations, perception, committees, certifications, calibrations etc.
It's not about science and the plots and which squiggle says what or not either.
You also cannot expect non initiated people in measurements to understand measurements and be conclusive for the majority of people NOR do I expect it to be. It is absolute BS to say measurements should be self explanatory and conclusive. They are and can be in the electrical plane to those who actually use measurements (on a daily basis or not)

The measurements done by Amir only show differences in the analog domain right before it is amplified in his lab conditions (which I don't know). It shows no audible difference on the used equipment. It does not mean it won't do 'something' in the digital waveform at all nor in all circumstances or test circumstances. In this case, in the end all that is important is whether or not the audio output of the (tested) DACs show (meaningful) differences. It is not about possible groundloops, common mode currents or other things in the case of the jitterbug. It is just a filter in the digital path that should affect the analog output of the DAC. The tested DACs clearly show it isn't of any influence in the tested DACs.

Just telling something 'works' for them and we should believe them on their blue eyes when it is quite easy to prove to THEM selves is NOT science... This is far less 'science' than the measurements itself is it not ?

It is more scientific to prove something TO YOURSELF using a better testing method than to just accept it. That's what my reply to you was all about. You can easily test for yourself IF something like this actually works by simply removing the 'knowing' part. This will be very conclusive in that case and is really easy to do but involves someone else and no peeking.

But since you made it personal...
This is not my website, nor is it my responsibility to explain measurements.
All I can do is comment and when someone asks for an explanation give one or suggest an alternative way of testing or post something I think is relevant.

Please tell me.... When you have moved your speaker do you measure it with certified equipment and do you need confirmation it is moved and how far away from the original point and have that certified by using tons of measurements using calibrated equipment ?

 

[mnemonix]

The current set of measurements published here are not "conclusive" of music reproduction, even within audible parameters..

Maybe, maybe not. Again, no one here ever claimed measurements tell the entire story (though they often do), but the single most importamt word in this forum's title is "science".

Science is not just the theories, measurements, results and conclusions, it is also a methodology, and whether or not you believe that the measurements and current scientific theory can or can't explain what you claim to hear, the scientific method can conclusively prove whether what you claim to hear exists or not.

Come back after a blind, level matched test that produces statistically significant results demonstrating what you claim is real and detectable and you will be taken seriously. This goes for cables, dacs, jitterbugs and anything else you care to make a claim for. The fact that no one has been able to, on this or any other forum rather suggests you are wrong.

 

[Jimbob54]

Maybe, maybe not. Again, no one here ever claimed measurements tell the entire story (though they often do), but the single most importamt word in this forum's title is "science".

Science is not just the theories, measurements, results and conclusions, it is also a methodology, and whether or not you believe that the measurements and current scientific theory can or can't explain what you claim to hear, the scientific method can conclusively prove whether what you claim to hear exists or not.

Come back after a blind, level matched test that produces statistically significant results demonstrating what you claim is real and detectable and you will be taken seriously. This goes for cables, dacs, jitterbugs and anything else you care to make a claim for. The fact that no one has been able to, on this or any other forum rather suggests you are wrong.

Ahhh yes that old chestnut. I heard something, the measurements don't indicate something. The measurements must be wrong or incomplete.

Why do these folks never properly question the most fallible part of any chain? I bought a jitterbug. In fact I bought 3! I would swear that it "sharpened things up" .

Now, this was in a car set up- phone to JB to Sony WM1A to aux of the car. So when I joined ASR and saw the review, and read more , I realised there was not a cat in hells chance I could possibly "hear" anything this device could (or more likely doesnt) do. The noise floor in my car without anything playing would obscure anything audible - then add what is obviously a sub par set of speakers (this is a Vauxhall Astra, not a Bentley) and probably a crap amp. Without even talking about the merits of the Sony or otherwise.

Did I try and DBT this ? Hell no, Ive got things to do. The fact is - there was clearly no issue to fix, I just imagined this device had magically changed "something".

Basically it was my conversion- my brain had slipped me a fast one.

Oh, and then when you read the JB blurb and it suggests that you can even plug spare JBs into unused USB ports on your PC and kit and it still has some benefits....................Hmmmmmm

 

[solderdude]

Oh, and then when you read the JB blurb and it suggests that you can even plug spare JBs into unused USB ports on your PC and kit and it still has some benefits

Actually this technically isn't incorrect. When you plug these filters in an open socket you actually change the digital waveform and V+ present on the bus and perhaps even lower EMC emissions.
The question is would this be audible as: tightened bass, more 'air, smoother treble, better imaging etc.
You know all the things that happen even when you put a plastic sticker in the meter cabinet of your home or on the water piping or use raisers under your speaker cables.

 

[crazywipe]

I just stepped in the discussion because my subjective findings about the Jitterbug are on the opposite side of this technical review. The review conclude that the Jitterbug is good only to filter 60 dollars on your bank account, my subjective findings are that I hear sound improvements using it. As a consumer, I am just partially interested in "how the product measure". I will not deny that I used this site many times to check reviews and measurements, as well as DIYAudioheaven, and I found a lot of interesting informations. But at the end, I let my ears decide how the product works for me in my system for audio listening pleasure. In the case of the Jitterbug, the product works for me as the manufacter advertised.
I can't comment on the Amirm graphs, they can be on point and his conclusions coerent with what he measured. Maybe there is another explation on why many peoples (included me) are hearing this sound improvements.
At this point, it will be nice if someone from Audioquest will chime in the conversation to comment about the technical side of the product and how it is supposed to deliver a better sound.
I am pretty sure they are a serious company and they will not put a 60$ snake oil product just the steal money to audio lovers.

 

[Jimbob54]

Actually this technically isn't incorrect. When you plug these filters in an open socket you actually change the digital waveform and V+ present on the bus and perhaps even lower EMC emissions.
The question is would this be audible as: tightened bass, more 'air, smoother treble, better imaging etc.
You know all the things that happen even when you put a plastic sticker in the meter cabinet of your home or on the water piping or use raisers under your speaker cables.

Good heavens. I'll stick all 3 back in the pc!