Golden Earring wrote: > Hi Julf. > > I think that your second sentence justifies my comment. > > Properly conducted scientific enquiry frequently produces unexpected > results: this is how we gradually increase our imperfect understanding. > How else could there be any progress? > >
That's false because the only experiments that reasonably produce unexpected results are those that have not been done before many times. In the case of jitter there have been a raft of experiments related to audibility that have gone before, and had consistent results. It turns out that listening tests involving jitter are particularly likely to have null results. When it is possible I provide musical samples that have overemphasized jitter of the kind being investigated because in fact almost nobody knows what jitter actually sounds like. They never actually heard digital gear with audible jitter because it is so rare. Ironically, they may have heard tons of jitter relatively speaking, because audible jitter is endemic with analog media, both magnetic tape and vinyl. How often have you heard people complain about hearing jitter there? So you have a conundrum - people obsessing over audible jitter where it is unlikely (digital), and not caring about it where it is likely (analog). Go figure. ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
