Jitter!!! please let me listen some!!!

[monomer]

Originally Posted by space2012

according to you, why sampling interval errors change with diferent clocks? and the change is constant
like clock jitter values.

Jitter is not constant, it is random.

You act as if jitter is the only possible flaw in digital audio.
It is not.

And please stop posting more screenshots and links.

[space2012]

Originally Posted by monomer

Jitter is not constant, it is random.
You act as if jitter is the only possible flaw in digital audio.
It is not.
And please stop posting more screenshots and links.

if you dont like to see the truth, take your eyes out.

Jitter has limits,
Jitter will not jump 800000 then 1. thats random.
Frequency probability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Randomness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by monomer

I guess that the internal clock is wired differently from word clock input.
Maybe there is a separate clock stabilizer cirquit for DA and AD.
I have no idea, i would have to see the schematics of the card.

then according to you why external clock gives more accurate sampling intervals?

[monomer]

Originally Posted by space2012

then according to you why external clock gives more accurate sampling intervals?

because it has less random time variations (= jitter)

And jitter is randim in TIME, not a random value.

Anyway, this is getting boring.

Don't expect any more from me on this topic.

[space2012]

Originally Posted by monomer

because it has less random time variations (= jitter)
And jitter is randim in TIME, not a random value.
Anyway, this is getting boring.
Don't expect any more from me on this topic.

then why you say screenshots of sampling intervals dont proove nothing.?
then this?

[monomer]

Originally Posted by space2012

then why you say screenshots of sampling intervals dont proove nothing.?
then this?

Because (for the 5th time) your screenshots show periodic differences.
When jitter is visible it would show non-periodic differences between cycles.

[space2012]

Originally Posted by monomer

Because (for the 5th time) your screenshots show periodic differences.
When jitter is visible it would show non-periodic differences between cycles.

sampling interval errors are the proof of jitter, any kind of jitter, clock jitter, cable jitter, etc..
why you cant understand it?

sampling accuracy is everything ...in Digita Audio.

[monomer]

Originally Posted by space2012

sampling interval errors are the proof of jitter,
why you cant understand it?

sampling accuracy is everything ...in Digita Audio.

Your screenshots of the re-sampled waveforms do not show sampling interval error ( = jitter).

[memphisindie]

monomer, I think the guy you are responding to has been banned before.

[space2012]

Originally Posted by monomer

Your screenshots of the re-sampled waveforms do not show sampling interval error ( = jitter).

and what is this according to you?


Same Signal, same cables, same converters, same drivers, same soundcard, same software, same AC power, DIFERENT CLOCKS!
__________ vs. __________
Clock A.(L) vs. Clock B.(R)
Ext.Clock.(L) vs. Internal Clock.(R)

[monomer]

Originally Posted by space2012

and what is this according to you?


Same Signal, same cables, same converters, same drivers, same soundcard, same software, same AC power, DIFERENT CLOCKS!
__________ vs. __________
Clock A.(L) vs. Clock B.(R)
Ext.Clock.(L) vs. Internal Clock.(R)

This looks like the AD and DA are clocked differently.
Maybe bad termination.
But i do not see jitter.

[space2012]

Originally Posted by monomer

This looks like the AD and DA are clocked differently.
Maybe bad termination.
But i do not see jitter.

all converters & soundcard with same clock,
s/pdif was used for all clocks, converters and soundcard.

s/pdif is terminated by default in every equipment.

read the test info before writing!

[HookedOnHardware]

This thread reminded me of the following:
YouTube - illusion of superiority

[monomer]

Originally Posted by memphisindie

monomer, I think the guy you are responding to has been banned before.

Thanks

[soundslikejoe]

Originally Posted by HookedOnHardware

This thread reminded me of the following:
YouTube - illusion of superiority

I find it amazing that this thread, which is indeed a huge pile of shit and waste of digital space, contains such a spark of brillance!

Thank you HookedO.H. for bringing something worth seeing to this, otherwise, completely ****ING STUPID conversation.

[HookedOnHardware]

Originally Posted by joenovice

I find it amazing that this thread, which is indeed a huge pile of shit and waste of digital space, contains such a spark of brillance!

Thank you HookedO.H. for bringing something worth seeing to this, otherwise, completely ****ING STUPID conversation.

You're welcome .

[space2012]

Originally Posted by joenovice

I find it amazing that this thread, which is indeed a huge pile of shit and waste of digital space, contains such a spark of brillance!

Thank you HookedO.H. for bringing something worth seeing to this, otherwise, completely ****ING STUPID conversation.

you think this is stupid? --> go away.

[HookedOnHardware]

Forcing a bunch of links and pictures down someone’s throat doesn't quite work.
After all those posts you still couldn't provide Monomer (which obviously knows his stuff) with anything showing actual jitter. Every post was countered by him with knowledge. All you did was continue to post a bunch of links. That's why (this thread, but I really mean) you reminded me of the YouTube video I posted. Not the guying presenting it.. No no, the people he was talking about.

Chill out man. Not everybody has to agree with you.

[space2012]

Originally Posted by HookedOnHardware

Forcing a bunch of links and pictures down someone’s throat doesn't quite work.
After all those posts you still couldn't provide Monomer (which obviously knows his stuff) with anything showing actual jitter. Every post was countered by him with knowledge. All you did was continue to post a bunch of links. That's why (this thread, but I really mean) you reminded me of the YouTube video I posted. Not the guying presenting it.. No no, the people he was talking about.

Chill out man. Not everybody has to agree with you.

you, monomer are crazy...
people that knows... has proof..., like links, photos, tests, is not my problem you or monomer cant understand or hear.
thats why there are bullets, guns and atomic weapons.

respectable links & valid tests vs. "i know all this... you are wrong, but i cant explain why"

wiki links are not knowledge?

.... once everybody thought earth was flat, that prooves no body has to agree with reality!
Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Flat Earth Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
True Christian Church of Christ
Conservatives decide not to trust the world's scientists | Atlanta | Bad Habits | This Modern World

[soundslikejoe]

LINKS - (noun) the greatest source of truthful information on planet earth because ALL Internet graphs are made by scientist and engineers who know WTF their talk'n 'bout.



Seriously.... I'm not on a side over this debate. I was only commenting because it's going way too deep on the tit-for-tat "who's right" bs.

Is there jitter? Yes
Can it be heard? Yes
What should I do about it?......
By the best converters on the market and get back to work. Forget the science unless you plan to build converters or write a paper.

[monomer]

Originally Posted by space2012

you, monomer are crazy...
people that knows... has proof..., like links, photos, tests, is not my problem you or monomer cant understand or hear.

LOL,.,. whaaaat???

Who said i cannot hear jitter?
I never said that!!
All i say is that the waveform screenshots you posted are not showing jitter.
I never said there is no jitter.
There is always jitter.

Now go do something productive.

[monomer]

Originally Posted by joenovice

It's the name of the O.P.'s poll!!!

Remember...... the ORIGINAL POST..... tutt. Not every response in every thread is about YOU! Please refer to the YouTube link in previous thread.

[once a roadie]

...so can someone post a clip that has jitter and the same clip that does not? It would be cool to hear as I'm not sure I know what to listen for.

[rogerbrain]

[QUOTE=monomer;4326990]That would be because of latency, not jitter.
Jitter would show randomness between cycles of the saw wave.
What you posted does not, the pattern repeats.
So it is not jitter.

It may be caused by the fact that by using different clocks there is a small difference between when the DA is triggered compared to the AD.


Actually, i just discovered that i was not talking about this screenshot.
You don't see repeating cycles on this.
I was refering to the pics here: test A/D D/A - without personal bias & without ears!

But the story seems the same.
In the DACTEST2.JPG he different waveforms are not the result of jitter.
There is one sample that looks like it might be (3rd track, 5th sample) but you cannot say that with certainty.

QUOTE]

I will assume that no DAC is 100% jitter free. and that mosts current issue DAC can be operated at several different sample rates

related question.. does jitter increase or decrease with sample rate? is a clock more stable or less stable at higher sample rates?

thanks

[space2012]

Originally Posted by rogerbrain

related question.. does jitter increase or decrease with sample rate? is a clock more stable or less stable at higher sample rates?

Thats called Aperture error.

higher sample rates need smaller clock pulses per second.
higher sample rate needs smaller jitter, becouse same jitter affects more the smaller clock pulses.

Analog-to-digital converter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

problem with x2 x4 sample rates its the DAC, some consumer level DACs sound much better at x2 x4 sample rates,
... recording at x2 or x4 sample rates needs a more accurate clock, but thats not a problem with Atomic Clocks like Teac Esoteric or Antelope 10M.

processing at double or quad sample rates also needs more DSP/CPU.
but the DSP is not a problem these days with new i7, Xite-1, FX Max Teleport, etc...

another problem is processing at 2x or 4x, some plugins are not well designed, and frequency range changes drastically when used at 2x or 4x.

take a listen in diferent DACS this test:
Otari vs. Studer vs. MCI using Bounced ITB Mix

http://src.infinitewave.ca/ SRC Comparisons

[TrueZebra]

Originally Posted by space2012

you, monomer are crazy...
people that knows... has proof..., like links, photos, tests, is not my problem you or monomer cant understand or hear.
thats why there are bullets, guns and atomic weapons.

respectable links & valid tests vs. "i know all this... you are wrong, but i cant explain why"

wiki links are not knowledge?

.... once everybody thought earth was flat, that prooves no body has to agree with reality!
Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Flat Earth Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
True Christian Church of Christ
Conservatives decide not to trust the world's scientists | Atlanta | Bad Habits | This Modern World

Is it that difficult when someone gives u a remark to just give a reply on that remark and state your observations. Your rambling shows you a person with personality jitter.

[rogerbrain]

[QUOTE=space2012;4375315]Thats called Aperture error.

higher sample rates need smaller clock pulses per second.
higher sample rate needs smaller jitter, becouse same jitter affects more the smaller clock pulses.

Analog-to-digital converter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

problem with x2 x4 sample rates its the DAC, some consumer level DACs sound much better at x2 x4 sample rates,
... recording at x2 or x4 sample rates needs a more accurate clock, but thats not a problem with Atomic Clocks like Teac Esoteric or Antelope 10M.

processing at double or quad sample rates also needs more DSP/CPU.
but the DSP is not a problem these days with new i7, Xite-1, FX Max Teleport, etc...

another problem is processing at 2x or 4x, some plugins are not well designed, and frequency range changes drastically when used at 2x or 4x.

QUOTE]

that makes sense but may actual question is: are clocks more accurate at higher sampling rates? OR - do stay the 'same' having the same size errors (in time) which would have a greater impact on a faster rate sample. OR - do they actually generate even larger errors.
OR??

as i understand it jitter is more of an issue when sync'ing units. I only go in the box once and out once.

I have moved up from an Maudio 1010 (using at 24/96) to a Motu hd192 (using at 24/192) ...the difference in the ability to mix the low end is VAST.. and the top end is more open.

I do not have means to do a measured A/B test at different sample rates on the Motu..does anyone have any real data out there concerning jitter on this unit?

I was going to get the Black Lion audio mod and the external clock ..after reading this and other threads here I have scrubbed the idea of the clock since I am not actually syncing any other units to this.

eh??

[space2012]

Originally Posted by rogerbrain

that makes sense but... are clocks more accurate at higher sampling rates? OR - do stay the 'same' having the same size errors (in time) which would have a greater impact on a faster rate sample. OR - do they actually generate even larger errors.
OR??

I have moved up from an Maudio 1010 (using at 24/96) to a Motu hd192 (using at 24/192) ...the difference in the ability to mix the low end is VAST.. and the top end is more open.

I do not have means to do a measured A/B test at different sample rates on the Motu..does anyone have any real data out there concerning jitter on this unit?

I was going to get the Black Lion audio mod and the external clock ..after reading this and other threads here I have scrubbed the idea of the clock since I am not actually syncing any other units to this.

eh??

the cables are verry important when usign external clock, they all make the same 010101 to sound diferent.
Neve 1073 DPD Clock vs. Lucid GENx192 Clock

also clean & stable power, makes external clocks to be more accurate and have less jitter.
you can do an easy test...

record some analog source... at 44.1Khz,
then record same at x2 , and again at x4.
use the best SRC you can to downsample x2 & x4 to 44.1khz
burn a CD, and listen in every converter you can.

[akai96]

There is an obvious difference to me in the pics and the audio files. I wrote about this in the "RME vs motu828" thread. I am still the only one who can hear the difference.

[Joram]

A guy called Onno Scholze explained me many years ago what happened with digital signals when the there is time variation in the signal. His explanation was not in words but in audio. He asked me to listen to a recording with and without a jitter reduction circuit. I immeditately recognized the difference. On the unjittered version you could hear the keys of some of the musicians making noise in his pocket. In the jittered version you couldn't. Is was very clear. Onno told me that even his housekeeper noticed the difference in a blind test.

[living sounds]

Originally Posted by akai96

There is an obvious difference to me in the pics and the audio files. I wrote about this in the "RME vs motu828" thread. I am still the only one who can hear the difference.

Just listened to those examples, the difference is very obvious. The RME in this example is a far better converter. Attacks sounds a lot more blurred on the Motu example. However, this might or might not be mostly because of the clock. In general it is consistent with my experiences with clocking.