Message to golden-eared audiophiles posting at ASR for the first time...

[3dbinCanada]

Pardon me? What was measured for what?

The measurements for less jitter

 

[Raindog123]

The measurements for less jitter

Absolutely. Lookup “RTOS jitter measurements”.

 

[jtgofish]

A.S.R.-Aspergerese for Soulless Reproduction ?

 

[Ken1951]

A.S.R.-Aspergerese for Soulless Reproduction ?

Isn't this the second time you've posted this???

 

[3dbinCanada]

Absolutely. Lookup “RTOS jitter measurements”.

I glanced at the doc and what they call jitter, I call latency. So I'm not getting it.

 

[JSmith]

A.S.R.-Aspergerese for Soulless Reproduction ?

JSmith

 

[Rottmannash]

Well, to be a devil’s advocate. There is/was an RT-Linux… then WindRiver’s WR-Linux… and PREEMPT_RT kernel modes. Distributions to both make the kernel more real-time (more deterministic and less jittery) and to RT-enhance IO/device drivers and network stack…

Hence Audirvana's new "kernel" mode?

 

[Raindog123]

Hence Audirvana's new "kernel" mode?

I do not know. Maybe someone else here does..?

 

[Raindog123]

I glanced at the doc and what they call jitter, I call latency. So I'm not getting it.

Again, I do not know. All I wanted to point out was that there are 'specialized', 'real time optimized' Linux'es out there. I use them in control systems, but there might be audio applications/benefits as well:

Clearly, a software OS would have hard time helping reducing clock jitter of DAC's oscillator... Yet a deterministic, guaranteed-latency OS is extremely helpful, eg, for buffer management (to assure that the data is 'always there'). Or to manage overall processing pipeline with heavy processor utilizations and real-time constraints, the digital audio reproduction is (infamous 'clicks'). And especially on multi-cores...

 

[dc655321]

I glanced at the doc and what they call jitter, I call latency. So I'm not getting it.

Jitter is the variability of latency.

 

[jtgofish]

Isn't this the second time you've posted this???

Yes.The first time in the humour section but the moderators measured it with a humourometer and it barely measured above the Silent Snigger Threshold.

 

[rdenney]

Yes.The first time in the humour section but the moderators measured it with a humourometer and it barely measured above the Silent Snigger Threshold.

They were being generous.

Rick “music has soul—reproduction’s job is to stay the hell out of its way” Denney

 

[jst]

It's kinda like this

In audiophile's case changing anything in the system might cross the mind and ears into tricking and believing it sounds better while in actuality it's probably not better, the same, or just different, and at some point after changes made it will be the new normal and need new changes to again trick the mind and ears that it sounds, again, better.

 

[escksu]

In audiophile's case changing anything in the system might cross the mind and ears into tricking and believing it sounds better while in actuality it's probably not better, the same, or just different, and at some point after changes made it will be the new normal and need new changes to again trick the mind and ears that it sounds, again, better.

How about sounding worse? It does not meant that changing something, it must sound better. Sometimes, it can sound no different, sometimes even worse.

 

[Skeptischism]

Decent audio electronics have been so good for so long that the whole scene has degenerated into a numbers game. No one in the entire known universe is going to hear the difference between a 100dB S/N and 120dB S/N or between 0.003% and 0.0003% distortion. The background noise level of an anechoic chamber is typically 20 to 30dB, and it's more like 40 to 50dB in the average home listening environment. You don't need a PhD in mathematics to calculate how loud the musical peaks would need to be in order to make the noise floor in your electronics audible.

Transducers - mics, phono cartridges, and speakers, for example - are an entirely different matter. Transducers are always the limiting factors in any system, because their noise and distortion levels are thousands of times greater than the levels in their associated electronics. Improvement in transducer technology and performance represents the final frontier in the world of audio.

Many companies claim to have discovered the magic bullet in reducing transducer noise and distortion, but the truth of the matter is than none of them has. New designs, esoteric material choices, and novel manufacturing techniques over the last few decades have have not yielded significant improvements in fidelity. If they had, every manufacturer would be following suit, and speakers would begin to sound more and more alike as their costs increase. This is not the case. There is no convergence in the upper price range of transducers.

well, this WAS the case, until this incredible thing ... metamaterials may get us there with full size speakers yet.

 

[Anton S]

well, this WAS the case, until this incredible thing ... metamaterials may get us there with full size speakers yet.

Unfortunately, headphones, regardless of quality, are non-starters for me. I can't get past the musical stage tilting and panning with my head - completely ruins the illusion of a live performance as far as I'm concerned. I do own a couple pair that I wear at the office and on airplanes as a matter of necessity, but would never consider them for serious listening.

 

[JWAmerica]

In audiophile's case changing anything in the system might cross the mind and ears into tricking and believing it sounds better while in actuality it's probably not better, the same, or just different, and at some point after changes made it will be the new normal and need new changes to again trick the mind and ears that it sounds, again, better.

A similar phenomenon exists in society and politics, where all change is progress (implied superiority) regardless of end results. Psychology is a YUGE factor. Many such cases!

 

[JWAmerica]

A.S.R.-Aspergerese for Soulless Reproduction ?

Hey now, aspies have souls. You're thinking of gingers.

 

[JWAmerica]

Well, everyone, I just got the boot from the Computer Audiophile website. In fact, a special pile-on thread was created in my "honor" so everyone could join into insulting and name-calling. And why? Because I ridiculed the notion of spending huge amounts on "audiophile" USB cables and SSDs, reminding people that zeroes and ones don't change as a function of the media in which they reside and migrate.

Fun times. I had actually thought the head guy over there had more integrity than to condone that sort of nonsense. Sadly I was mistaken.

I thought I'd heard it all until you made me aware of audiophile SSDs. This is particularly disheartening because any PC enthusiast should understand the technology that is the focus of their hobby. They should be the biggest advocates of digital's inherent superiority, but instead they view their hardware like an audiofool does tube amps and vinyl. I never thought I'd see the day.

 

[BlackTalon]

I've been reading a stereo equipment thread on another forum (not an audio forum). One guy is rolling SSDs and mentioned very noticeable differences in sound coming out of his system. It must take a really, really, really transparent system to detect that... Really transparent. Really.

And I really doubt my system with ever achieve those levels of transparency.

Now maybe if someone gave me $2 mil to solely build a new system and dedicated listening room...

...I still would not achieve those levels.