|
|
DAB MP2 bitrate question
|
DAB MP2 bitrate question
On Feb 15, 2:33*pm, tony sayer wrote:
You can rip a CD perfectly using a PC CD-ROM drive and the right software, which gives you an error-free wav copy of the signal. So you reckon you'd be able to reliably tell that apart from the same or another CD of that material from a CD player in a live A-B comparison?. With a good sound card in the PC, and against an average CD player, the difference is surprisingly stark. (but, of course, idiots on this group will claim otherwise.) |
DAB MP2 bitrate question
[Trimmed to just posting in one group.]
In article , wrote: On Feb 15, 2:33 pm, tony sayer wrote: You can rip a CD perfectly using a PC CD-ROM drive and the right software, which gives you an error-free wav copy of the signal. So you reckon you'd be able to reliably tell that apart from the same or another CD of that material from a CD player in a live A-B comparison?. With a good sound card in the PC, and against an average CD player, the difference is surprisingly stark. (but, of course, idiots on this group will claim otherwise.) Your assertion is rather ambiguous or vague for various reasons. Firstly, since your posting was in two groups it wasn't clear which group you were calling "idiots". :-) Secondly, your carefully preload your response by limiting it to comparing "good" sound cards with "average" CD players. Since you've not defined here the meaning of either qualifier you can simply choose to define "good" and "average" to mean "can be distinguished" - so making your assertion self-referentially "true" even if one category or the other were actually void of members. :-) Thirdly, you can also be self-referentially be defining "idiot" to mean "no one in reality". So maybe just playing word-games to use rhetoric in place of you having any actual checkable evidence. Forthly, you omit to give any assessible evidence of your claim. Making an assertion that you can do something is one thing. Providing evidence that others can check that you *can* do what you claim - when you only have the sound to go on - is something entirely different. Perhaps you could list the names of some of the "idiots" on the group you had in mind, and give references to postings where they claimed a "good" soundcard *couldn't* be distinguished from an "average" one. Note the inclusion of the qualifiers you used. BTW Tony, did you xpost this just to expose the sweeping assertion? I can't see the context for it having much to do with the thread title.... IIRC 'jamie' seems to have a history of making dubious claims on the digital-tv group... or am I confusing him with some "idiot"?... :-) Slainte, Jim -- Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
DAB MP2 bitrate question
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
[Trimmed to just posting in one group.] In article , wrote: On Feb 15, 2:33 pm, tony sayer wrote: You can rip a CD perfectly using a PC CD-ROM drive and the right software, which gives you an error-free wav copy of the signal. So you reckon you'd be able to reliably tell that apart from the same or another CD of that material from a CD player in a live A-B comparison?. With a good sound card in the PC, and against an average CD player, the difference is surprisingly stark. (but, of course, idiots on this group will claim otherwise.) Your assertion is rather ambiguous or vague for various reasons. Firstly, since your posting was in two groups it wasn't clear which group you were calling "idiots". :-) Secondly, your carefully preload your response by limiting it to comparing "good" sound cards with "average" CD players. Since you've not defined here the meaning of either qualifier you can simply choose to define "good" and "average" to mean "can be distinguished" - so making your assertion self-referentially "true" even if one category or the other were actually void of members. :-) Thirdly, you can also be self-referentially be defining "idiot" to mean "no one in reality". So maybe just playing word-games to use rhetoric in place of you having any actual checkable evidence. Forthly, you omit to give any assessible evidence of your claim. Making an assertion that you can do something is one thing. Providing evidence that others can check that you *can* do what you claim - when you only have the sound to go on - is something entirely different. Perhaps you could list the names of some of the "idiots" on the group you had in mind, and give references to postings where they claimed a "good" soundcard *couldn't* be distinguished from an "average" one. Note the inclusion of the qualifiers you used. BTW Tony, did you xpost this just to expose the sweeping assertion? I can't see the context for it having much to do with the thread title.... IIRC 'jamie' seems to have a history of making dubious claims on the digital-tv group... or am I confusing him with some "idiot"?... :-) I'll cross-post this back to alt.radio.digital, because I don't think Jamie would see your reply otherwise. -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
DAB MP2 bitrate question
On Feb 15, 6:35*pm, "BBC is biased towards DAB"
wrote: I'll cross-post this back to alt.radio.digital, because I don't think Jamie would see your reply otherwise. I didn't miss much, good grief. :-) It contains such a large pile of unfocused spluttering, I can't really find anything solid enough to respond to. To clarify the content of my last post though: - by "good sound card" I meant one which doesn't use resampling - the vast majority of them resample everything to 48 or 96KHz (whichever is their maximum rate) - by "average CD player" I meant one which doesn't read ahead, cache, check for errors, and then re-read where necessary (99.9% of them in other words). |
DAB MP2 bitrate question
wrote in message
To clarify the content of my last post though: - by "good sound card" I meant one which doesn't use resampling - the vast majority of them resample everything to 48 or 96KHz (whichever is their maximum rate) Which sound card have you got? -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
DAB MP2 bitrate question
On Feb 15, 7:51*pm, "BBC is biased towards DAB"
wrote: Which sound card have you got? For music playback, an Ensoniq SC600. and you? |
DAB MP2 bitrate question
I've always suspected the problem with why some computers playing wavs sound
different is more to do with the analogue parts than the digital ones, but it would be interesting to compare the actual readable bits on several players and computers. Lots of error checking etc, and other fiddling about has and still does go on inside digital to analogue hardware/software, so one might in fact be able to hear differences even if the analogue bits were the same. Its a sobering thought that even with all the amazing technology, there is no real way to predict whether a cheapo bit of hardware will be good or bad until you connect it up and listen. One thing I will say though is that in the main, the quality these days can be very good for not a huge outlay. Computers though have other problems, like rubbish getting into the data or noise on supplies and glitching due to the computer doing other things. Its amazing also just how unbad MP3s can sound giving the liberties taken in them! Brian -- Brian Gaff - Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. Blind user, so no pictures please! wrote in message ... On Feb 15, 2:33 pm, tony sayer wrote: You can rip a CD perfectly using a PC CD-ROM drive and the right software, which gives you an error-free wav copy of the signal. So you reckon you'd be able to reliably tell that apart from the same or another CD of that material from a CD player in a live A-B comparison?. With a good sound card in the PC, and against an average CD player, the difference is surprisingly stark. (but, of course, idiots on this group will claim otherwise.) |
DAB MP2 bitrate question
Brian Gaff wrote:
One thing I will say though is that in the main, the quality these days can be very good for not a huge outlay. Computers though have other problems, like rubbish getting into the data or noise on supplies and glitching due to the computer doing other things. I've just been converting some music from vinyl, and I always use my old desktop (which must be about 8 years old by now) rather than using my laptop (which is about 3-4 years old). The reason is that the audio input on my laptop it so sensitive that the electronics in the laptop actually interfere with the audio. Its amazing also just how unbad MP3s can sound giving the liberties taken in them! The other day I heard some 128k mp3 which sounded quite amazing. It probably depends a great deal on how hard the actual piece of music is to encode. I generally use higher bit rates than that, just to make sure. Richard E. |
DAB MP2 bitrate question
"Richard Evans" wrote in message
... I've just been converting some music from vinyl, and I always use my old desktop (which must be about 8 years old by now) rather than using my laptop (which is about 3-4 years old). The reason is that the audio input on my laptop it so sensitive that the electronics in the laptop actually interfere with the audio. Few laptops have any pretentions to high-quality audio. Often there is only a microphone input, and a headphone output. If you want to do some serious recording with a laptop you would need a good-quality external A-D converter (probably USB connected). David. |
DAB MP2 bitrate question
wrote in message
On Feb 15, 7:51 pm, "BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote: Which sound card have you got? For music playback, an Ensoniq SC600. and you? M-Audio Audiophile 2496. -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
DAB MP2 bitrate question
On 16 Feb, 02:01, "BBC is biased towards DAB"
wrote: wrote in message On Feb 15, 7:51 pm, "BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote: Which sound card have you got? For music playback, an Ensoniq SC600. and you? M-Audio Audiophile 2496. That's done it - Jamie will be convinced we're the same person now! Cheers, David. |
DAB MP2 bitrate question
wrote in message
On 16 Feb, 02:01, "BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote: wrote in message On Feb 15, 7:51 pm, "BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote: Which sound card have you got? For music playback, an Ensoniq SC600. and you? M-Audio Audiophile 2496. That's done it - Jamie will be convinced we're the same person now! Why, have you got an Audiophile 2496 card as well? -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
DAB MP2 bitrate question
wrote in message
On 16 Feb, 02:01, "BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote: wrote in message On Feb 15, 7:51 pm, "BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote: Which sound card have you got? For music playback, an Ensoniq SC600. and you? M-Audio Audiophile 2496. That's done it - Jamie will be convinced we're the same person now! Just seen your other post where you say you have got the same card - I really should stop talking to myself so much! -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
DAB MP2 bitrate question
BTW Tony, did you xpost this just to expose the sweeping assertion? I can't
see the context for it having much to do with the thread title.... IIRC 'jamie' seems to have a history of making dubious claims on the digital-tv group... or am I confusing him with some "idiot"?... :-) Slainte, Jim Actually my mistake for not making this that clear!.. Jamie over on alt.radio.digital has asserted that most all CD digital players sound ****e owing to all the jitter they have. He thinks that this could be eliminated by taking the audio off the CD as a datastream and putting that onto a hard drive and replaying that via a good sound card. This according to Jamie would then get rid of the jitter and thus make the CD audibly better.. Just interesting to see what the contents of uk.rec.audio think of that.. Is your assertion of that as I've described it above about right Jamie?.. -- Tony Sayer |
DAB MP2 bitrate question
"tony sayer" wrote in message
... Actually my mistake for not making this that clear!.. Jamie over on alt.radio.digital has asserted that most all CD digital players sound ****e owing to all the jitter they have. He thinks that this could be eliminated by taking the audio off the CD as a datastream and putting that onto a hard drive and replaying that via a good sound card. This according to Jamie would then get rid of the jitter and thus make the CD audibly better.. Just interesting to see what the contents of uk.rec.audio think of that.. Ah!, an explanation for this thread at last! Leaving aside, for the moment, the question of whether CD players sound "****e" because of jitter to one side for the moment, the mention of a hard-drive seems singularly inappropriate. Since data is written to, and recovered from, hard drives in blocks, a pretty substantial RAM buffer is needed between the drive and the sound card. The effects of jitter on the audio can be eliminated fairly easily by using an adequate buffer. What *could* be an issue is the effects of jitter on data recovery, against which reading of the audio as a datastream and putting it somewhere else for a while is utterly irrelevant. David. |
DAB MP2 bitrate question
In article , tony sayer
wrote: BTW Tony, did you xpost this just to expose the sweeping assertion? I can't see the context for it having much to do with the thread title.... IIRC 'jamie' seems to have a history of making dubious claims on the digital-tv group... or am I confusing him with some "idiot"?... :-) Slainte, Jim Actually my mistake for not making this that clear!.. Jamie over on alt.radio.digital has asserted that most all CD digital players sound ****e owing to all the jitter they have. Has he published the details of how he did any level-matched blind comparisons and how the stats of the results came out? Ditto for various other details? Has he attempted to give a useful definition to "most all digital players" beyond "those that would suit his assertion"? What fraction of all the CD players in use has he tried, etc? He thinks that this could be eliminated by taking the audio off the CD as a datastream and putting that onto a hard drive and replaying that via a good sound card. This according to Jamie would then get rid of the jitter and thus make the CD audibly better.. What comparision measurements are there for the jitter from the soundcards he uses, done so as they can be compared with published jitter measurements on CD players? Has he supplied any data on this to support his claims? Just interesting to see what the contents of uk.rec.audio think of that.. Up to them... although I would not normally call a collection of people, 'contents'. In uk.rec.audio 'discontents' might be more accurate. ;- Slainte, Jim -- Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
DAB MP2 bitrate question
On Feb 16, 2:01*am, "BBC is biased towards DAB"
Which sound card have you got? For music playback, an Ensoniq SC600. and you? M-Audio Audiophile 2496. Did you choose it because it said "Audiophile" on the box? :p |
DAB MP2 bitrate question
On Feb 16, 12:05*pm, "David Looser"
wrote: "tony sayer" wrote in message Actually my mistake for not making this that clear!.. Jamie over on alt.radio.digital has asserted that most all CD digital players sound ****e owing to all the jitter they have. He thinks that this could be eliminated by taking the audio off the CD as a datastream and putting that onto a hard drive and replaying that via a good sound card. This according to Jamie would then get rid of the jitter and thus make the CD audibly better.. Just interesting to see what the contents of uk.rec.audio think of that.. Ah!, an explanation for this thread at last! My apologies for Tony's actions, and for dumping this thread mid-way into another group (I cross-posted a response without noticing the first time). Tony is something of a semi-troll, and a person with limited intellect imho. I think he was trying to impress some of his pals from the Digital TV groups (they all pick on me because I'm gay) by cross-posting - presumably in the hope that my comments in this thread would attract a barrage of ridicule from the members of uk.rec.audio . |
DAB MP2 bitrate question
wrote in message
On Feb 16, 12:05 pm, "David Looser" wrote: "tony sayer" wrote in message Actually my mistake for not making this that clear!.. Jamie over on alt.radio.digital has asserted that most all CD digital players sound ****e owing to all the jitter they have. He thinks that this could be eliminated by taking the audio off the CD as a datastream and putting that onto a hard drive and replaying that via a good sound card. This according to Jamie would then get rid of the jitter and thus make the CD audibly better.. Just interesting to see what the contents of uk.rec.audio think of that.. Ah!, an explanation for this thread at last! My apologies for Tony's actions, and for dumping this thread mid-way into another group (I cross-posted a response without noticing the first time). Tony is something of a semi-troll, and a person with limited intellect imho. I think he was trying to impress some of his pals from the Digital TV groups (they all pick on me because I'm gay) Er, no. Judging by your behaviour on alt.radio.digital (I can't comment on the digital TV group), they all "pick on you" because you're very immature, and you think you know everything but in reality you're actually a 19 year old 2nd year undergrad student, so you obviously won't know everything at all. Take your description of Tony above. You do the same thing with everyone who has the audacity to disagree with you. -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
DAB MP2 bitrate question
wrote in message
On Feb 16, 2:01 am, "BBC is biased towards DAB" Which sound card have you got? For music playback, an Ensoniq SC600. and you? M-Audio Audiophile 2496. Did you choose it because it said "Audiophile" on the box? :p No. -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
DAB MP2 bitrate question
In article , BBC is biased towards DAB
wrote: wrote in message n My apologies for Tony's actions, and for dumping this thread mid-way into another group (I cross-posted a response without noticing the first time). Tony is something of a semi-troll, and a person with limited intellect imho. I think he was trying to impress some of his pals from the Digital TV groups (they all pick on me because I'm gay) Er, no. Judging by your behaviour on alt.radio.digital (I can't comment on the digital TV group), they all "pick on you" because you're very immature, and you think you know everything ... My impression from reading recent threads in the uk.tech.digital-tv group is that their opinions of 'jamie' would probably be similar to the above. If anyone on uk.rec.audio wishes to decide for themselves, then the obvious step would be to check on the uk.tech.digital-tv and/or digital radio groups. Look at recent threads where 'jamie' has been involved. Can't comment on any postings on the digital radio group as I don't normally read it, but from what Steve says the behaviour seems consistent. Snipped the bit about age and student status. Seemed unfair on young students to me. Most of the undergrads I know are fairly sensible... :-) FWIW one of the reasons I cut the xposting previously was because it made more sense to me to try and deal with 'jamie's 'audio' claims in isolation from the reception(s) he has had in other groups... Up to others to make their own decisions, but I can't say that as yet I've seen much reason to take 'jamie's assertions about audio seriously. As yet I've not seen him give any evidence that would back his assertion about what he can hear. Take your description of Tony above. You do the same thing with everyone who has the audacity to disagree with you. I suspect those reading the digital-tv group might have a similar view. But, again, if anyone wants to decide I'd suggest checking for yourself. Tony is certainly not a "semi troll" in my view - even though at times we may disagree. :-) Slainte, Jim -- Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
DAB MP2 bitrate question
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... In article , tony sayer wrote: BTW Tony, did you xpost this just to expose the sweeping assertion? I can't see the context for it having much to do with the thread title.... IIRC 'jamie' seems to have a history of making dubious claims on the digital-tv group... or am I confusing him with some "idiot"?... :-) Slainte, Jim Actually my mistake for not making this that clear!.. Jamie over on alt.radio.digital has asserted that most all CD digital players sound ****e owing to all the jitter they have. Has he published the details of how he did any level-matched blind comparisons and how the stats of the results came out? Ditto for various other details? Has he attempted to give a useful definition to "most all digital players" beyond "those that would suit his assertion"? What fraction of all the CD players in use has he tried, etc? He thinks that this could be eliminated by taking the audio off the CD as a datastream and putting that onto a hard drive and replaying that via a good sound card. This according to Jamie would then get rid of the jitter and thus make the CD audibly better.. What comparision measurements are there for the jitter from the soundcards he uses, done so as they can be compared with published jitter measurements on CD players? Has he supplied any data on this to support his claims? Just interesting to see what the contents of uk.rec.audio think of that.. Up to them... although I would not normally call a collection of people, 'contents'. In uk.rec.audio 'discontents' might be more accurate. ;- Slainte, Jim -- Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html It's also rather interesting to see how much jitter is audible. It's all very well to say digital is crap because of the jitter, but it takes a huge amount of jitter before it's audible. As a reference, see http://audiopages.googlepages.com/JitterAudibility.pdf Considering that turntables and tape machines have hundreds of time the jitter of CD players, nobody complains that they sound crap because of the jitter. Maybe because it's called wow and flutter, and that sound nice and analogue rather than nasty digital jitter. S. -- http://audiopages.googlepages.com |
DAB MP2 bitrate question
On Feb 16, 5:17*pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , BBC is biased towards DAB wrote: wrote in message n My apologies for Tony's actions, and for dumping this thread mid-way into another group (I cross-posted a response without noticing the first time). Tony is something of a semi-troll, and a person with limited intellect imho. I think he was trying to impress some of his pals from the Digital TV groups (they all pick on me because I'm gay) Er, no. Judging by your behaviour on alt.radio.digital (I can't comment on the digital TV group), they all "pick on you" because you're very immature, and you think you know everything ... My impression from reading recent threads in the uk.tech.digital-tv group is that their opinions of 'jamie' would probably be similar to the above. If anyone on uk.rec.audio wishes to decide for themselves, then the obvious step would be to check on the uk.tech.digital-tv and/or digital radio groups. Look at recent threads where 'jamie' has been involved. Can't comment on any postings on the digital radio group as I don't normally read it, but from what Steve says the behaviour seems consistent. Snipped the bit about age and student status. Seemed unfair on young students to me. Most of the undergrads I know are fairly sensible... *:-) FWIW one of the reasons I cut the xposting previously was because it made more sense to me to try and deal with 'jamie's 'audio' claims in isolation from the reception(s) he has had in other groups... Up to others to make their own decisions, but I can't say that as yet I've seen much reason to take 'jamie's assertions about audio seriously. As yet I've not seen him give any evidence that would back his assertion about what he can hear. Take your description of Tony above. You do the same thing with everyone who has the audacity to disagree with you. I suspect those reading the digital-tv group might have a similar view. But, again, if anyone wants to decide I'd suggest checking for yourself. Tony is certainly not a "semi troll" in my view - even though at times we may disagree. :-) Unfocussed spluttering really is a speciality of yours. This entire post could've been condensed to something like "I agree with the majority". As regards having to prove my claims, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove them wrong, which I suspect is well beyond your ability. |
DAB MP2 bitrate question
|
DAB MP2 bitrate question
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
In article , BBC is biased towards DAB wrote: wrote in message n My apologies for Tony's actions, and for dumping this thread mid-way into another group (I cross-posted a response without noticing the first time). Tony is something of a semi-troll, and a person with limited intellect imho. I think he was trying to impress some of his pals from the Digital TV groups (they all pick on me because I'm gay) Er, no. Judging by your behaviour on alt.radio.digital (I can't comment on the digital TV group), they all "pick on you" because you're very immature, and you think you know everything ... My impression from reading recent threads in the uk.tech.digital-tv group is that their opinions of 'jamie' would probably be similar to the above. If anyone on uk.rec.audio wishes to decide for themselves, then the obvious step would be to check on the uk.tech.digital-tv and/or digital radio groups. Look at recent threads where 'jamie' has been involved. Can't comment on any postings on the digital radio group as I don't normally read it, but from what Steve says the behaviour seems consistent. Snipped the bit about age and student status. Seemed unfair on young students to me. Most of the undergrads I know are fairly sensible... :-) FWIW one of the reasons I cut the xposting previously was because it made more sense to me to try and deal with 'jamie's 'audio' claims in isolation from the reception(s) he has had in other groups... Up to others to make their own decisions, but I can't say that as yet I've seen much reason to take 'jamie's assertions about audio seriously. As yet I've not seen him give any evidence that would back his assertion about what he can hear. Take your description of Tony above. You do the same thing with everyone who has the audacity to disagree with you. I suspect those reading the digital-tv group might have a similar view. But, again, if anyone wants to decide I'd suggest checking for yourself. Tony is certainly not a "semi troll" in my view - even though at times we may disagree. :-) I've just had a look at some of his posts on uk.tech.digital-tv, and to be honest I think we have him a bit worse on alt.radio.digital than he is on there, but his posting style is similar. -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
DAB MP2 bitrate question
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
... It's also rather interesting to see how much jitter is audible. It's all very well to say digital is crap because of the jitter, but it takes a huge amount of jitter before it's audible. As a reference, see http://audiopages.googlepages.com/JitterAudibility.pdf Considering that turntables and tape machines have hundreds of time the jitter of CD players, nobody complains that they sound crap because of the jitter. Maybe because it's called wow and flutter, and that sound nice and analogue rather than nasty digital jitter. The amount of jitter on the audio data entering the DAC of a CD player is absolutely negligible, because of all the buffering that the data goes through as it passes through the error checking/correcting system etc. As I suggested earlier, the real point about jitter is whether it produces problems with data recovery. If the jitter is so extreme that it interferes with that process then there is a problem. In that case no amount of buffering will make any difference. I'm not aware that CD players have any particular problem in this area, though if anyone has any hard evidence (as distinct from statements of the "sound cards sound better than CD players" variety) I'd be interested to hear it. David. |
DAB MP2 bitrate question
David Looser wrote:
Few laptops have any pretentions to high-quality audio. Often there is only a microphone input, and a headphone output. If you want to do some serious recording with a laptop you would need a good-quality external A-D converter (probably USB connected). David. OK. However since I only do this very occasionally, I'm quite happy to make do with my old Desktop. For me the weakest link in the chain is the vinyl it's self. The quality of my desktops sound card seems more than adequate to capture whatever I can get out of my old vinyl. Richard E. |
DAB MP2 bitrate question
On 2009-02-16, Serge Auckland wrote:
It's also rather interesting to see how much jitter is audible. It's all very well to say digital is crap because of the jitter, but it takes a huge amount of jitter before it's audible. As a reference, see http://audiopages.googlepages.com/JitterAudibility.pdf There are also several papers by Julian Dunn on the adibility of jitter. See for example http://www.nanophon.com/audio/jitter92.pdf. Considering that turntables and tape machines have hundreds of time the jitter of CD players, nobody complains that they sound crap because of the jitter. Maybe because it's called wow and flutter, and that sound nice and analogue rather than nasty digital jitter. Dunn's audibility curves (if I understand them) show that a lot of jitter can be inaudible at low jitter modulation frequencies (the "wow" end of the spectrum) but that at higher jitter modulation frequencies *much* less jitter is apparently tolerable. I have observed very wide differences in some of the jitter figures measured by the audio magazines. From a few tens of picoseconds to the one microsecond plus level. Unfortunately they do not qualify these with any reference to jitter modulation frequency. Audibility of jitter has been an interest of mine recently given that it has acquired "bete noire" status in some audio circles. However I still haven't acquired enough material and understanding to decide if this is a real problem or not. -- John Phillips |
DAB MP2 bitrate question
In article , David Looser
wrote: "Serge Auckland" wrote in message ... It's also rather interesting to see how much jitter is audible. It's all very well to say digital is crap because of the jitter, but it takes a huge amount of jitter before it's audible. As a reference, see http://audiopages.googlepages.com/JitterAudibility.pdf Considering that turntables and tape machines have hundreds of time the jitter of CD players, nobody complains that they sound crap because of the jitter. Maybe because it's called wow and flutter, and that sound nice and analogue rather than nasty digital jitter. The amount of jitter on the audio data entering the DAC of a CD player is absolutely negligible, because of all the buffering that the data goes through as it passes through the error checking/correcting system etc. It is worth bearing in mind that 'jitter' can come from a variety of forms of engineering limitation. Examples include inherent phase noise on the clocks, and the finite bandwidth and response time of the channel feeding the DAC. All depends on design details. Note the 'data dependent' jitter used for magazine measurements. But these points may be irrelevant in practice since so far as I know, no-one has shown in controlled blind tests that the levels of jitter that are typical can actually be heard. There are of course, many assertions. But as in some other areas where audibility claims are made, the 'evidence' generally seems to be on the basis that we have to take the word of the person making the claim. As I suggested earlier, the real point about jitter is whether it produces problems with data recovery. If the jitter is so extreme that it interferes with that process then there is a problem. In that case no amount of buffering will make any difference. I'm not aware that CD players have any particular problem in this area, though if anyone has any hard evidence (as distinct from statements of the "sound cards sound better than CD players" variety) I'd be interested to hear it. Me also. :-) Alas, there seems little sign that jamie will provide this. So I haven't yet seen any reason to take his assertions seriously. Since he has misunderstood and/or ignored the points I made there also seems little point in trying to discuss this with him. Given that jitter mechanisms might include things like rail noise, and channel problems, it isn't clear to me why computer systems as a class would inherently be superior, let alone audibly so. Although I am sure you can justify many claims by defining one class as "good" and the other as "not good" so preloading the claim to fit the selected classes - even if one happened to be void of members. :-) One usenet debating ploys like that do seem popular with those unable to employ the normal scientific and engineering methods to obtain evidence. Slainte, Jim -- Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
DAB MP2 bitrate question
Actually my mistake for not making this that clear!..
Jamie over on alt.radio.digital has asserted that most all CD digital players sound ****e owing to all the jitter they have. Has he published the details of how he did any level-matched blind comparisons and how the stats of the results came out? Ditto for various other details? Has he attempted to give a useful definition to "most all digital players" beyond "those that would suit his assertion"? What fraction of all the CD players in use has he tried, etc? Doesn't seem so.. -- Tony Sayer |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:03 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk