ar-t wrote:
> pfarrell Wrote:
>> No, I believe in science and measurement. I was a PhD student for five
>> years. That is all about science. And I studied engineering for four
>> years as an undergraduate.
>
> Are we supposed to be impressed?
Not at all. I'm just trying to explain to you that I'm not against
science and engineering, that is where I come from, as you.
I am not claiming that my schooling makes my position better than yours.
I am saying that I have the background to understand science and
engineering. At least when I see explanations based on science and
engineering.
You are the one claiming, without proof, that you have the answer. Yet
you claim that its pointless to continue. Most strange. If you have
proof, lets see it.
I don't make any distinction between practical and book taught science
and engineering. I do make distinctions between engineering and
marketing smoke and mirrors.
> I have no intention of wasting my time trying to convince someone who
> has clearly made their mind up a long time ago.
Clearly not, since you've done nothing to present any science or
engineering to back up your claims.
Practical, theoretical, whatever.
No religion, no snake oil. Show me the science.
You continue to mis-characterize my position. I'm not saying that jitter
can't exist or can't matter in any absolute sense. I'm saying that no
one has shown science to show why it matters, what values matter, or why
their solution is better than marketing spin.
What metric of jitter is important?
What devices that we are likely to have are examples, good and bad, of
this measured thing?
Pat
--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/
_______________________________________________
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
