Probably a touchy subject, but WHY?? (1 Viewer)

[KeithH]

I think this thread should be closed. The discussion has moved off the topic and turned to members denigrating one another. I don't see this thread serving a purpose any longer. Furthermore, I think people should take their bickering offline by using the Private Message feature.
------------------
My:
HT Pics ; Equipment List ; DVD Collection ; LD Collection
KeithH: Saving the Home Theater World Before Bedtime

 

[John Morris]

RicP:
Since you feel that personally directed insensitive comments were acceptable here, and that you apparently had already developed a thick skin, I thought I’d finally reply to your previous comments that referenced me. I initially wanted to email you this response, but since you attacked me publicly on this forum, I though that my public response to your attacks were mandated.
Initially, I said: “Anyway, all I wanted to say is that for me so far... jitter has been a mythical figure spoken about mostly by high end dealers who wanted me to spend four times as much on their high end products. Even so, I've never really seen(or heard) that mythical figure demonstrated in person for me. I've listened to probably a hundred CD players in my life and many have sounded crappy. Still, I guess what you are saying is that they may have sounded crappy due to "jitter" and not to the fact that they were just crappy CD players with possibly crappy DACs or crappy transports. Unless someone can convince me, "Jitter" just seems like another word that supposed audiophile dealers use to scare us mid-audiophiles into spending way too much on price controlled inflated audio hardware...???
You Replied: "You know, sometimes I wonder why I bother. Does anybody actually read the links that are posted? All the information you need to understand was posted and is readily available. As a self-described "mid-audiophile", you are willing to admit that there are things that you do not fully understand right? Not everything that you don't understand is "mythical". You are free of course to believe what you wish, but when it flies in the face of scientific documents that have been posted, well...that's a little silly."
For someone who continually berated others for not reading the scientific literature, maybe you should have initially done something as simple as read the posts that you so freely quoted. Apparently, it was very easy for you to omit from your quotes of me something right there for you to read… the qualifier of “for me so far”. If you read my posts you also would have noticed that I spoke of CD players. Not transports, not PC based CD playback, only CD Players. And nowhere did I say that I didn’t understand Jitter. If you read my posts, what I said was that I never heard it displayed by any CD player, at any time. Regardless of whether these timing errors exist, it is not audible during CD playback on CD players and therefore, irrelevant TO ME. It befuddles me, why you would use partial, out of context, quotes of me to make some argumentative statements unless you have some sort of hidden agenda. Maybe we’ll find out what that agenda if you ever finish your web site. Of course, maybe you’re just a naturally nasty person?
Then in a later post you added: "What's honestly surprising to me is the "fact" that everyone thinks he/she has the same level of gear and the same hearing sensitivity. It's completely inane to state "If I can't hear it, it's mythical." Unless of course you deem yourself to be the be-all and end-all of audio listening sensitivity. But of course YOU can't tell a difference, so that means emphatically that none exists."
Now this statement, I took as a personal insult! Once again you took what I said about “mythical” and used it to sarcastically and publicly deride me. And, once again, you misquote and assume mistruths, based on what I said, and more importantly, on what I never said. I never said that Jitter didn’t exist. Refer to my statement above and to my previous posts for what I think about Jitter. And to your comment about my hearing and my level of gear… all I can say is “Maybe what you need is a little less time in your Hudson River Ivory Tower high above us common folk, and more time living in the real world”
Love and Kisses,
John

 

[Saurav]

Um...
John, In RicP's defense, I think there was ample scope for misunderstanding here, and it looks like some misunderstanding did occur. Here's what your post ended with:

Unless jitter in home CD players is one of those phantom problems that cannot be clearly identified or quantified and which may, or may not really exist.

Again, all I'm trying to say is, maybe this wasn't solely directed at you.

 

[John Morris]

Saurav:
First point, a valid one. Possibly I could have been clearer. Still, if it was unclear, why didn't RicP ask me for clarification before ripping into me.
Second Point, doubtful. I believe that I was the only one that ever used the word Myth or Mythical, to describe jitter in this thread. Any other mention of myth or mythical was in reference to my use of this word. Therefore, his using that reference pointed directly and to me, IMO. If I wasn't the only one he was insulting, then I guess more folks are gonna chime in defending themselves in future post...
------------------
Take Care,
merc
----------------
Link Removed
God Bless America!!!
[Edited last by John Morris on November 16, 2001 at 12:36 PM]

 

[Saurav]

Still, if it was unclear, why didn't RicP ask me for clarification before ripping into me.

IMO, not very different from someone else ripping into me when I said that CD players in computers play at 1x. So, I can feel your pain

 

[Larry B]

I hope I'm not too late to join the discussion.
I should state from the outset that my interest is primarily two-channel music. Assuming that at least a few of you kind folks are still with me, here's my story.
While I've always been a music lover, I became interested in "high-end" audio equipment about two years ago. (Still not sure if that's a blessing or a curse ). Since that time, I have been able to assemble what most would consider a better-than-average stereo system: Mark Levinson amp, pre-amp and processor, Thiel CS6 speakers. (It's amazing how much stuff you can buy with the money from a bank heist. Only kidding.) About 6 months ago I decided to trade in my Proceed PMDT due to the software problems some of you may have heard about. I was going to replace it with a Levinson 37 transport (fro music)and a Sony DVD player (for movies), when my dealer (Innovative Audio in NYC, for whom I can't possibly say enough good things) suggested that I demo the Ayre D1 transport, which they had just recently begun to carry.
It is worth mentioning that I went in to this test wanting to prefer the Levinson (if I could even detect a difference, which I wasn't confident of). I was familiar with the Levinson, I liked the Levinson, and I knew that it would integrate well in my system.
I should emphasize that the two units were compared ONLY for their transport functions (since the Ayre can be configured as a player). That is, we used the same processor, pre-amp, amp, and speakers. We even used the same digital interconnect, which we swapped back and forth. The test was not performed blinded.
To my utter amazement, after just a few minutes of listening, it became apparent that the Ayre had more detail, a bit more "wood" to the instruments, and was less "dark" than the Levinson.
That I liked the Ayre better is irrelevant; what is relevant is that each unit had its own sound. While certainly not as pronounced as the difference between speakers, I believe that almost anyone who is used to listening critically (which obviously includes everyone on this forum) would hear the difference.
I cannot tell you why the units sounded so different from one another, and I'm not sure that anyone can. I assume that it's due to "jitter" but I don't know if that's the entire answer.
I cannot address whether the differences would be detectable for Home Theater, nor with lower-resolution pure-stereo audio systems. But I can tell you that in the system I used, the difference was (to my ears) plain as day.
Naturally, this is just one man's observations.
Peace,
Larry

 

[RicP]

Well, why not let the immaturity continue...
quote: For someone who continually berated others for not reading the scientific literature, maybe you should have initially done something as simple as read the posts that you so freely quoted.[/quote] I did. I even read ones that I didn't quote, did you?
quote: And nowhere did I say that I didn’t understand Jitter.[/quote] Oh no? You said:quote: jitter has been a mythical figure ... "Jitter" just seems like another word that supposed audiophile dealers use to scare us mid-audiophiles into spending way too much on price controlled inflated audio hardware[/quote] That reads to me the same as saying, "I don't understand what Jitter is, so I'm going to call it mythical and claim that it's some sort of high-end audio dealer conspiracy."
quote: Regardless of whether these timing errors exist, it is not audible during CD playback on CD players and therefore, irrelevant TO ME.[/quote] Yet you asked "audiophiles" to convince you. Like Saurav said, your statement was ambiguous, and if it was read the wrong way, then I apologize, but more than one person read it that way. quote: It befuddles me, why you would use partial, out of context, quotes of me to make some argumentative statements unless you have some sort of hidden agenda. Maybe we’ll find out what that agenda if you ever finish your web site. Of course, maybe you’re just a naturally nasty person?[/quote]

I have no idea what my web site has to do with anything, nor the personal insult. It's good to see that you don't let yourself fall to the level of those you condemn. The fact that Jitter exists is not up for debate, it does, end of story. Whether or not it is audible to you is another story. But just because something is audible/inaudible to one person, does not in any way mean that it is a universal that can be applied to all.
Also, please show me where I misquoted you or used a "partial quote"? Unless one can only quote an entire post and not just the relevant sections lest they be accused of "misquoting out of context." I took the entire final paragraph of your post--verbatim--and replied to it. There was no misquoting.
quote: Now this statement, I took as a personal insult![/quote] Why? It wasn't intended as such, and wasn't directed at anyone in particular. If you took one word in my statement and linked it to a word that you used in your post to assume that I was directing it at you, well...
quote: Once again you took what I said about “mythical” and used it to sarcastically and publicly deride me.[/quote]

Ok, John. I "publically derided you". I'm glad that you don't fall prey to the same shortcomings I have. quote: I never said that Jitter didn’t exist. [/quote]
Yet in your last message:quote: Regardless of whether these timing errors exist[/quote]

[b]myth (mth)
n. [/b]
1. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology. 
2. A person or thing existing only in imagination, whose actual existence is not verifiable.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

quote: all I can say is “Maybe what you need is a little less time in your Hudson River Ivory Tower high above us common folk, and more time living in the real world”[/quote]
Like I said, it's good to know that you're above dropping to the level of those you castigate. For someone so irascible with regards to "personal insults", you sure have no problem tossing them out.
------------------

Ric Perrott - My DVD's
[Edited last by RicP on November 16, 2001 at 01:52 PM]

 

[Saurav]

I'm sorry Larry, your test wasn't double blind, so it doesn't count. While you thought you had a bias for Levinson, you actually had a sub-conscious bias against Levinson. Yes, that's correct, and I know you didn't realize it till now, but that's what happened, which is why you thought you heard a difference, but it was all in your head. You're just another audiophile whose experiences don't mean anything at all.

BTW, you have some pretty impressive equipment.

 

[KeithH]

John and Ric, please take this outside. On the surface, you two are debating a belief in or the existence of jitter. However, the level to which this debate has deteriorated leaves it at nothing more than a pissing contest rather than something intellectual that can benefit others. Regardless of who started this (I don't care), you both are responsible for thread crapping.
------------------
My:
HT Pics ; Equipment List ; DVD Collection ; LD Collection
KeithH: Saving the Home Theater World Before Bedtime

 

[Richard Burzynski]

Evan:
Before I answer your question directly, I just want to say that I have not read thru the responses, just your question.
I was involved in a heated debate on this very topic, in the past, on another board. A good friend and I conducted a test using a CD player & and a DVD player as transports hooked up to the same prepro. We heard a difference - with the CD player sounding better when playing red book (regular) CD's.
The technical crowd will say "Impossible, a bit of information is a bit of information." I can't argue with that statement, but I do have my own (semi-wacky technical)theory.
DVD players will read CD's as a DVD laser is compatible with the CD format. But, there is a difference between CDs and DVDs, their "pit" size, and the lasers found in both types of players. I think that a dedicated CD laser (found in a CD player) does a better job of reading info off a CD than a DVD laser (in a DVD player) can do.
Other than that, I have no other explanation as to why *I think* there *is* a difference. I believe in my ears.
Enjoy the sound!
Rich B.

 

[John Morris]

RicP:
When I got back to my office and read your post, I was at first, suprised that you didn't appologize and try to explain your scathing criticism of my opinions. Then I got angry and spent the next 10 minutes typing a dozen responses containing nothing but sarcastic, yet factual, counters to your statements. Imbedded of course, were multiple insults. Usually, I don't "drop to the level of those I castigate". Instead, I usually escalate the rhetoric, i.e., drop lower. Just as my imagination soared looking for another reference to your living conditions, I imagined what your view must have been like on September 11th. Oh my God, I thought! I should be ashamed.
Indeed I am!
My little ego and pride are insignificant enough for me to endure criticism and insults, especially if they seem to stem from misunderstanding, and especially in light of recent events. I should not have replied to your posts. PERIOD!
So, for my previous post directed to you, and for any others that may have offended you... I AM SORRY!
I am not asking nor expecting anything from you. In fact, you may feel free to continue to criticize me and insult me if you wish... I will not respond.
If you wish to continue this discussion, civilly via email, I would be glad to do so.
In the meantime...
Take Care(and I really mean it),
John

 

[John Morris]

Keith: BTW, I was not debating the existance of so called jitter. I was debating if in a CD player it is significant enough to be audible. And, finally, my point was that if it is inaudible, it is irrelevant... hmmm, if only I was that succinct in my original posts.

------------------
Take Care,
merc
----------------
Link Removed
God Bless America!!!

 

[Ted Lee]

i'm in agreement with keith...this was a really interesting read until the end.
i still enjoyed reading the technical aspects of this thread.
------------------
"The ship of death has a new captain." - nosferatu (1922)

 

[RicP]

John,
Water under the bridge.
I'd be more than happy to continue the debate (civilly) if you so desire.
I would like this very informative thread to get back on track as well so I apologize for contributing to the rhetoric, and will refrain from doing so any longer.

------------------

Ric Perrott - My DVD's

 

[John Morris]

I'm in agreement with you guys (Keith, Ted and RicP). I was wrong to give into the nastiness. Sorry, I'll try harder next time.
Take Care,
John
[Edited last by John Morris on November 16, 2001 at 04:10 PM]

 

[PaulKH]

OK jitter fans, riddle me this... why not just buy a shockproof (buffering) CD player? Since the data is ALWAYS buffered and output at a consistent clock rate (yes, a chip clock could vary, but by an insanely small amount), the signal would be very consistent. I suspect ALL modern CD players buffer the output internally anyway - it's not hard or expensive to do so.
I think this whole jitter deal might stem from very out of date data from early CD players which sent out the data RIGHT OFF the disc, meaning that if the motor speed even varied, then so would the data.
One thing I don't get though - for a digital output from a CD player, if the output rate can vary, does the digital link also include a clock signal somehow? How is a clock signal mixed with digital data over a SINGLE connection?

 

[Saurav]

quote: One thing I don't get though - for a digital output from a CD player, if the output rate can vary, does the digital link also include a clock signal somehow? How is a clock signal mixed with digital data over a SINGLE connection?[/quote]
Yes, the clock signal is embedded within the digital data. There are many ways to do this, and there are ways to extract that clock from an incoming bitstream too. And that's crucial to the whole jitter issue, that in most DACs the clock is recovered from the incoming bitstream, it's not generated by a free-running oscillator.
Anyway... no offense intended, but in future, it might be help if you brushed up your basics a little bit before you started telling other people how little they know. I find it pretty amusing that you jumped in and told me my statements were 'crock', when you apparently know very little about how digital audio works in the first place. The very fact that clock information is extracted from the data in PCM audio is crucial to why it is susceptible to jitter. If someone doesn't know this or understand how this works, it seems to me that they won't have much of a clue as to what we're talking about here.
quote: I suspect ALL modern CD players buffer the output internally anyway - it's not hard or expensive to do so.[/quote]
If you researched this, I think you would find that you are wrong. Yes, it is indeed very easy to do this, but no, most CD players do not buffer the data internally and then re-clock it out using an oscillator. The clock driving the data comes from the laser which is reading the data.
Ditto with most DACs - again, it would be very easy to buffer the data and re-clock it out using an accurate chip oscillator, but most DACs don't, they recover the clock information embedded in the incoming bitstream.
quote: I think this whole jitter deal might stem from very out of date data from early CD players which sent out the data RIGHT OFF the disc, meaning that if the motor speed even varied, then so would the data.[/quote]
I believe many, if not most, modern CD players behave similarly. At least, even if the data is stored in a buffer, it is not re-clocked, and the clock is still the one that's coming from the laser/motor assembly.
Edit: Here's a useful link that explains how clock recovery works. If you're interested, scroll down to the section entitled "Bi-phase mark encoding":
http://www.amek.com/oldsite/datashee/aesebu.htm
[Edited last by Saurav on November 16, 2001 at 07:50 PM]

 

[Larry B]

Saurav:
On the assumption that you were pulling my leg (it's kinda' hard to know without the benefit of facial cues, especially when one is a new comer), I'll respond by asking you to keep my equipment out of this!!
Larry
P.S. It's rather humbling to see how little interest there is in my keen insights.

 

[Saurav]

Oh, I was absolutely pulling your leg. And I'm sorry, I didn't notice your post count. Welcome to the forum, and all that jazz. And I did mean my comment on your equipment sincerely, you do have some very nice equipment.
However, there are people on this board (just like on any other) who will ridicule you for saying that you heard a difference between different digital transports, and my post was more an indirect dig at them than at you.

 

[Larry B]

Saurav:
I was pretty certain that was the case but with all the flaming that goes on here (I have been lurking for a while), I wanted to cover myself.
Getting back to the issue at hand, the difference between the two transports was considerable (in audio terms, that is) - - certainly more than I ever imagined. Perhaps some of the hostilties here could be quenched if everone would simply listen and test out the equipment, instead of arguing from incompletely understood principles. (And checking their egos at the door might help, too).
Thanks for the requisite welcoming.
Larry
P.S. If you're interested, I just posted my thoughts about wires (another flame topic) on HT Talk (am I allowed to say that here?? )