In advance ?
It was people’s dissatisfaction with the experience of actually listening to this new format that led others to propose a mechanism (jitter) that could explain why our experience of something being wrong and undesirable with the digital music recording and reproduction process was in fact correct.
Now some are suggesting that jitter below some threshold has to be inaudible and if you hear a difference you must be deluded or lying. Is it not possible that there are still unknowns that are correlated to jitter but not involving the classical understanding of jitter and it’s effects?
I found the article by ESS linked a while back to be very enlightening in this regard. The article suggested there were individuals capable of statistically identifying differences in the sound of two prototype DAC’s that again caused them to search for a new mechanism to help explain what was being identified and expressed as a preference for one reproduction of the same sound over the other.
It reminds me of the false argument that sample rates higher than 44.1 are a waste because they are inaudible, no one can hear frequencies above 20 KHz. Music in stereo relies in part on our inter-aural dimension or the roughly 5 micro second distance between our ears. That works out to over 200 KHz when expressed as a frequency. I agree no one hears 200 KHz but I have verified being able to statistically identify the difference between 44.1 K sample rate and 88.2 K sample rate and yes also 176.4 KHz which was measured as just over 1 degree of phase shift at 20 KHz. Was I able to hear and identify such a small change in the relation of the timing of high frequencies and harmonics, or was it something else?
In short anyone so close minded as to dismiss even the possibility of our hearing potentially exposing failures or inadequacies in our ability to measure including even the assumptions of what we measure strikes me as insecure and narcissistic in that they must be right in advance or even in denial of actual listening.
I’m sure most of us remember the sales line “perfect sound forever” used to describe this once new thing called digital audio in the form of a cd. Listening to the first discman CD player was shocking. It sounded bright even harsh. It was fatiguing and made you feel tense if you listened too long. The argument arose that if the bit code was correct the music had to be perfect. An ignorant assumption based on not knowing even what we don’t know to be important to the process of digital audio reproduction.
It was people’s dissatisfaction with the experience of actually listening to this new format that led others to propose a mechanism (jitter) that could explain why our experience of something being wrong and undesirable with the digital music recording and reproduction process was in fact correct.
Now some are suggesting that jitter below some threshold has to be inaudible and if you hear a difference you must be deluded or lying. Is it not possible that there are still unknowns that are correlated to jitter but not involving the classical understanding of jitter and it’s effects?
I found the article by ESS linked a while back to be very enlightening in this regard. The article suggested there were individuals capable of statistically identifying differences in the sound of two prototype DAC’s that again caused them to search for a new mechanism to help explain what was being identified and expressed as a preference for one reproduction of the same sound over the other.
It reminds me of the false argument that sample rates higher than 44.1 are a waste because they are inaudible, no one can hear frequencies above 20 KHz. Music in stereo relies in part on our inter-aural dimension or the roughly 5 micro second distance between our ears. That works out to over 200 KHz when expressed as a frequency. I agree no one hears 200 KHz but I have verified being able to statistically identify the difference between 44.1 K sample rate and 88.2 K sample rate and yes also 176.4 KHz which was measured as just over 1 degree of phase shift at 20 KHz. Was I able to hear and identify such a small change in the relation of the timing of high frequencies and harmonics, or was it something else?
In short anyone so close minded as to dismiss even the possibility of our hearing potentially exposing failures or inadequacies in our ability to measure including even the assumptions of what we measure strikes me as insecure and narcissistic in that they must be right in advance or even in denial of actual listening.
At this point, I can only quote Carl Sagan:
“It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.”
There is a difference here and that is that THD is a property of the signal you are listening to but jitter/pn is not . Jitter is an aspect of an internal process not possible to listen to - in fact, jitter manifest itself as THD and not as a miss-timed struck of a cymbal - Andrea never understood this but if you analyse the time aspects of on one hand what can be dissolved by the hearing and the time faults wrt. jitter it is readily evident that these timings differ so much is ridiculous and anyone claiming to be fact based in ones thinking should consider this seriously - as has been said above a couple of times already.
Any "enormous improvement" is just a psychological self dilution effect - sorry. But by all means - keep doing it if it make you and your wallet happy. I'm all for placebo but I don't want to pay a lot for the sugar pills.
//
Harmonics are no phase noise. Harmonics may have phase noise of their own but
that has nothing to do with the fundamental. You cannot measure a two-sided phase
noise spectrum that is wider than the carrier frequency because that would require
the frequencies below DC.You can however measure the harmonics separately
and add all spectra up, but that says exactly nothing about the fundamental.
Be careful to count every frequency bin only once.
The correct way is to low pass filter.
Read the Collins paper if you want clean square waves.
What has that to do under "posted by Gerhard"? I have never ever written about
sound quality, and I won't. Strike one has hit your own knee. Think about SQ when
you pontificate about your AD-converters and if you can get a dB more or less.
The first SC crystal that I took from a defunct Morion oven delivered a Q of 2.3M at
5 MHz, measured with the vector network analyzer. And temperature does not matter,
other than center frequency.
Morion 5 MHz SC at room temperature, is slightly better at 86°C
F = 4999871.10629839
Q = 2292485.48487668
L = 5.42222068824692
C = 1.86872526101601E-16
R = 74.3035001404055
C0= 2.78789716246649E-12
The Product of frequency and Q is pretty constant for a given technology.
Our 100 MHz crystals from QT in Daun, Germany were consistently above 100K,
and that was not even SC. Price was < €15 in moderate quantities with all options
ordered. Vacuum, extra lapping, you tell it.
Strike 2 hit your other knee. You remind me at MPs Black Knight.
I can measure the phase noise of my oscillators laying quite nekkid on the table in
front of the signal source analyzer. Yes, you see it when you drum your fingers on the
table or when there is some uproar in the room. but hanging it on rubber bands makes
it probably worse. What one wants is a damped low pass behaviour. That requires mass
and mechanical losses.
Black Knight, what do you wanna do now, bleed on me?
You can put down the mirror now. That is your wording, not mine.
I have exchanged emails with Prof. Rohde and they were friendly, from both
sides.
There is nothing to be confused. Phase noise IS oscillator in/stability, it is just
a matter of time scale. And I said nothing about that at all, you are making up a straw man
argument again.
I have no axe to grind with him, BUT
- never having seen the circuit of these oscillators
- never having seen one of these oscillators
- never having measured one of these oscillators.
- never having measured any quality oscillator
- claiming that a time tagging counter is a replacement for a Xcorr signal source analyzer
is not really evidence enough to cast LiquiShit on Andrea's oscillators.
Ok. Maybe in your warped world.
My bipolar amplifiers are OK, both the 220pVrtHz one with 20 ADA4898 op amps
and the one with the 16 Zetex transistors at 70 pV/rtHz. The ideas are from the LT1028
data sheet from eons ago and from AOE3.
My FET preamp does not use any feedback around the input FETs, with no variations
over temperature and supply. And other than your HPS5.1 it has no negative real part
of the input impedance, so it is unconditionally stable.
Funny that you mention it, I got an email this weekend from someone who made
yours oscillate in LTspice by adding ~50uH to the input in transient analysis.
You try to make it look as if I was trying to copy your design. That is ridiculous.
Nothing could be more wrong. It wouldn't even make sense. I don't think that it's
me who has the need for face-saving explanations.
You cannot get brand new bubble wrapped 8663; they are out of production
since several years. And not for 30 bucks if they existed.
For me it is definitely EOD now. I have lost way too much time on you.
That was sales. The Engineering team didn't believe it as they were still trying to make a 16 bit DAC work.
Citation required or you are making it up!
Or more sales pitch... Open mind has to be open to the wool being pulled over your eyes...
Goes both ways. Anyone so desperate to believe they have special golden ears will hear things that don't exist. There is a common ground but no one has found it yet.
They are called New Old Stock, never used.
For the rest, you missed all your answers, assuming you wanted to hit one. And yes, you do have several axes to grind, unfortunately you are missing a grinding stone.
As you put it, perceived. Those descriptions are perceivable traits. Whether they were actually audible or not would need to be evaluated but none did.
In your own perception? OK.
One unfortunate thing about sharing one's own perception online is that no one on the other side of computer screen can experience it directly so it's useless.
So that is where we disagree. That's ok.
When I read someone's description of their perceived experience I can become interested in perusing it or not. Of course I know the difficulty in describing something. And you have to consider the source. Do you feel the person has some credibility. There are no guarantees, but in some cases you can have some great experiences that you otherwise might miss.
It's like reading an oenophile's description of a red wine. If you have found your tastes resonates with their experience you can be steered to some fine finds. Does not mean you are a sheep blindly following your leader. Just better informed to make your own decision and accept the consequences.
When I read someone's description of their perceived experience I can become interested in perusing it or not. Of course I know the difficulty in describing something. And you have to consider the source. Do you feel the person has some credibility. There are no guarantees, but in some cases you can have some great experiences that you otherwise might miss.
It's like reading an oenophile's description of a red wine. If you have found your tastes resonates with their experience you can be steered to some fine finds. Does not mean you are a sheep blindly following your leader. Just better informed to make your own decision and accept the consequences.
Adults should be able to. As for being better informed, do you think you can get that from someone who is advertising snake oil?
Back ON topic
I thought it might be good to show again what this post was about. The Andrea Clock and our nice hobby of creating something individual just for us to enjoy
The panels came back from Schaeffer and I constructed the base setup. Only thing left is the cabling and making an entry at my DAC…
With this, when playing for example 44.1 tracks, I would be able to tell if I hear the difference between straight 5,6MHz clock or with the doublers in series.
Just wanted to share this to make the thread again what it should be, talking about audio DIY
I thought it might be good to show again what this post was about. The Andrea Clock and our nice hobby of creating something individual just for us to enjoy
The panels came back from Schaeffer and I constructed the base setup. Only thing left is the cabling and making an entry at my DAC…
With this, when playing for example 44.1 tracks, I would be able to tell if I hear the difference between straight 5,6MHz clock or with the doublers in series.
Just wanted to share this to make the thread again what it should be, talking about audio DIY
Attachments
Hello,
True diy is also about deciding which things to be done by professionals like you have done for the '' metalwork ''. This not only for the looks but MAINLY for creating things that can be moved around without having to check if all the connections are still ok after doing so.
With coke can seized ultracaps you dont want a short circuit. Even the 300F ones are able to destroy some surrounding parts.
Usually when these things happen people wont tell us because they have been warned to pay attention to make a kind of '' sturdy '' construction .
Greetings, Eduard
P.s Your camera even did capture your belly.
True diy is also about deciding which things to be done by professionals like you have done for the '' metalwork ''. This not only for the looks but MAINLY for creating things that can be moved around without having to check if all the connections are still ok after doing so.
With coke can seized ultracaps you dont want a short circuit. Even the 300F ones are able to destroy some surrounding parts.
Usually when these things happen people wont tell us because they have been warned to pay attention to make a kind of '' sturdy '' construction .
Greetings, Eduard
P.s Your camera even did capture your belly.
I thought it might be good to show again what this post was about. The Andrea Clock and our nice hobby of creating something individual just for us to enjoy
The panels came back from Schaeffer and I constructed the base setup. Only thing left is the cabling and making an entry at my DAC…
With this, when playing for example 44.1 tracks, I would be able to tell if I hear the difference between straight 5,6MHz clock or with the doublers in series.
Just wanted to share this to make the thread again what it should be, talking about audio DIY
Nice work, looking forward to hearing more about this.
I have my clocks, doublers and switching board closed up in a case now with Supercaps supply and no going back.
Brought it to several Group meets here in Ireland and jaws drop as soon as it is heard when connected into an SD player switching over from NDK clocks.
Would be great to bring one of these units to HI END Munich next year and have a room where you could switch quickly from so called good clocks to Andrea's clocks while playing tracks from a stand alone SD Player.
The results of a button voting system on the door on the way out would be hard to argue against
Nice work @DDDAC! I think there is an added sense of accomplishment when you pack your DIY project into a nice case to become part of the main sound system. Nothing wrong with it looking as good as it sounds and you have achieved that in spades.
In 2019 I was enjoying the first gen WTMC in my system. I had the pleasure to attend Audiofest in Toronto. One of the rooms was a standout for sound quality to me. Massive Pass Labs monoblocs driving PCM speakers. It had a digital source that included an outboard clock with a phase noise graph that looked a lot like the WTMC. Of course it was in a nicely machined box and had a ridiculous price tag. The demonstrator asked if I'd like to hear the system without the clock, just the mega buck DAC. Removing the clock changed the system back to every other mediocre good but not great display. Sound stage, bass and dynamics all paled. Just as we all have heard in our own systems when we went from NDK to WTMC.
In 2019 I was enjoying the first gen WTMC in my system. I had the pleasure to attend Audiofest in Toronto. One of the rooms was a standout for sound quality to me. Massive Pass Labs monoblocs driving PCM speakers. It had a digital source that included an outboard clock with a phase noise graph that looked a lot like the WTMC. Of course it was in a nicely machined box and had a ridiculous price tag. The demonstrator asked if I'd like to hear the system without the clock, just the mega buck DAC. Removing the clock changed the system back to every other mediocre good but not great display. Sound stage, bass and dynamics all paled. Just as we all have heard in our own systems when we went from NDK to WTMC.
Last edited:
"Now listen when I switch in the super clock...." Flip.... Ohhh
Its called the "expectation effect"
How expectation influences perception | MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Still, the gear is sexy and I can see why one would want them
Or maybe it was a really crappy clock boardering faulty that was used in comparison?
//
Its called the "expectation effect"
How expectation influences perception | MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Still, the gear is sexy and I can see why one would want them
Or maybe it was a really crappy clock boardering faulty that was used in comparison?
//
Nice work, looking forward to hearing more about this.
I have my clocks, doublers and switching board closed up in a case now with Supercaps supply and no going back.
Brought it to several Group meets here in Ireland and jaws drop as soon as it is heard when connected into an SD player switching over from NDK clocks.
Would be great to bring one of these units to HI END Munich next year and have a room where you could switch quickly from so called good clocks to Andrea's clocks while playing tracks from a stand alone SD Player.
The results of a button voting system on the door on the way out would be hard to argue against
- Status
- Not open for further replies.