The "Bits Are Bits" Fallacy and Noise In Mixed Signal Systems

  • Thread starter Thread starter mauidan
  • Start date Start date
M

mauidan

Guest
"My job is to listen and report. The Schiit Wyrd, UpTone Audio REGEN, and the AudioQuest Jitterbug each improve the sound of my hi-fi. Thousands of these devices have been sold and many owners are reporting hearing improvements as well. We also have other reviews of the JitterBug by people like John Atkinson of Stereophile where he also reports hearing "...a significant improvement to sound quality." with the JitterBug in his system. If anyone thinks they can refute all of this by saying "bits are bits", you know you're talking to someone who thinks he knows more than he knows." - Michael Lavorgna

The "Bits Are Bits" Fallacy and Noise In Mixed Signal Systems | AudioStream
 
I think some people are starting to realize that we do not know everything, and eveything in audio cannot be adequately explained with current knowledge.
 
I've been using Empirical Audio Synchromesh reclocker between my BDP/AppleTV and the DAC with positive results.
 
BlueFox said:
I think some people are starting to realize that we do not know everything, and eveything in audio cannot be adequately explained with current knowledge.
Click to expand...

The problem is that not enough people realize that we don't know everything and we can't measure everything yet. These same people love to hang out on audio forums and participate in rabid MM while repeating their mantra:

"Everything in audio can be measured and has been measured." And it's usually people with no stereo systems or the worst stereo systems that perpetuate this nonsense. Unfortunately for an audio forum that shall go nameless, they have attracted a bunch of those types and the forum is now all but dead because of them. Pretty soon, all that will be left is the MM crowd until rigor mortis sets in and the corpse turns to dust.
 
Unfortunately, for me the statement that we don't know everything (undoubtedly true) is being used to push individual agendas in much the same way that those people that Mark describes use their argument to push their agenda (that everything can be measured). Many things in audio and elsewhere can be meaningfully measured; for example if 2 digital audio files have identical data (measurable in several ways) then they are identical in use. But that doesn't mean that the same file following different paths to the DAC will sound the same in both instances; despite that, some use that latter fact to say that (again for example) the 2 original files aren't identical.
 
rbbert said:
Unfortunately, for me the statement that we don't know everything (undoubtedly true) is being used to push individual agendas in much the same way that those people that Mark describes use their argument to push their agenda (that everything can be measured). Many things in audio and elsewhere can be meaningfully measured; for example if 2 digital audio files have identical data (measurable in several ways) then they are identical in use. But that doesn't mean that the same file following different paths to the DAC will sound the same in both instances; despite that, some use that latter fact to say that (again for example) the 2 original files aren't identical.
Click to expand...
Even that can be contested. The Memory Player fellow, Porzilli speaks of the concept of EMBEDDED jitter. Very controversial if discussed on forums, but his player is grrreaattt, so maybe he is on to something?
 
Someone would have to explain how jitter can be "embedded" when by definition it occurs only at an interface? Something ​detrimental to sound quality may be embedded, but it can't be jitter.
 
No clue Rob, just threw it out there to show wide divergences in views. As Geddes said, we can measure a lot, maybe most things, but we have a lot to learn about what is important and how to actually measure it with existing tech. The ears (and brain) are also the ultimate measuring tools.
 
Despite all the latest measuring tools and learned pontificating, we ultimately rely on our human sense of hearing to identify and quantify differences we discover and enjoy discussing. The ear is amazing.


gkourougk.jpg
 
Double-D said:
Despite all the latest measuring tools and learned pontificating, we ultimately rely on our human sense of hearing to identify and quantify differences we discover and enjoy discussing. The ear is amazing.


gkourougk.jpg
Click to expand...


Something I read recently " Scientists had long assumed that our ears were the same and that decoding sound took place entirely in the brain, with signals relayed to the appropriate side. But we now know that auditory processing starts at the ear. For example, the right ear is geared more toward speech, and the left ear is attuned more to music."
 
I have a question: has anyone actually measured the regen to determine if it's improvement can be measured? Just curious.
 
I don't see the problem being measurements per se, it is more that we have spent 50 years in many cases measuring the wrong things. Distortion, negative feedback and odd versus even order harmonics being one of the best examples. If we could clarify and quantify the appropriate parameters that drive psychoacoustic pleasures maybe we could get somewhere. I know the guys up in Canada at Tenor claim to have such a special sauce but when I pushed them on whether they where really just doing a good job at tube generated second harmonics they clammed up. (They do make some darn good gear though.)

To me it is all about not wasting time measuring things that don't make the brain happy and then ascribing value to them. That is what gets measurements in trouble. I put a fair amount of stock in simple measurements like flat response curves and frequency ranges cuz I (think) I can hear them and can correlate their existence to happiness.

Keeping absolute distortion really low with things like high negative feedback in the audible range versus allowing some high amounts of sweet second harmonic distortion has been IMO pretty widely accepted as something that makes a lot of peoples brains sad. On the other hand second harmonic distortion seems to be a brain pleaser for lots of folks. (Of course we all know people who represent exceptions to these concepts.)
 
Mike said:
I have a question: has anyone actually measured the regen to determine if it's improvement can be measured? Just curious.
Click to expand...


Hopefully, UpTone did when they designed it, but they don't show and measurements on their website.

I don't think there are any audio reviewers with the necessary test gear to do measurements.

I spoke to an RF guy this morning, and he said the only audio guy with the right test gear is Gordon Rankin, who worked on the AQ Jitterbug.

PS- Wasn't Computer Audio supposed to make things simpler?
 
I think it depends on what you mean by "simpler". One can't just ignore basic electrical engineering, like lower noise, impedance matching, galvanic isolation, etc.
 
mep said:
The problem is that not enough people realize that we don't know everything and we can't measure everything yet. These same people love to hang out on audio forums and participate in rabid MM while repeating their mantra:

"Everything in audio can be measured and has been measured." And it's usually people with no stereo systems or the worst stereo systems that perpetuate this nonsense.
Click to expand...

While I agree that the type of know it all you describe is annoying, to me, equally annoying is the smug audiophile that is supremely confident that his ability to assess sound quality differences is infallible. And not only infallible, but their ability extends to total sonic recall regardless of time gaps between hearing components. Additionally these types of individuals also regard placebo effect as a myth having never experienced it ever and yes, they can hear improvements from such things as crystals, magic beans, and my favorite totem beaks.

Personally I do agree that we cannot measure every sonic difference. I also agree that people legitimately hear differences in equipment that common sense suggests should not reap differences (like USB cables). However, I am positive that placebo affect exists and that many times sonic changes are imagined and not real.

Therefore I believe the smart ground lies in the middle.
 
I believe there are FAR MORE problems making a realistic sounding recording/master than playing it back.
 
Mike said:
I have a question: has anyone actually measured the regen to determine if it's improvement can be measured? Just curious.
Click to expand...
Not all aspects yet (up to a couple weeks ago...since then not sure), they just bought a $13K scope to do the last bit. JS and Alex havediscussed this repeatedly at CA, BUT there are at least 5 threads there on Regen and one is over 100 pages and 2 others over 50 pages. Difficult to find, but I recall reading this.

Even Cut+paste is a non-trivial job! LoL

Here is one quote about his LPSU development for the regen due out in Nov:

The biggest problem now is measuring the output, my $13K scope isn't good enough! I'm going to have to build some of my own test equipment to properly see it. (and some special faraday cages to put things in, testing in these realms is tough)

John S.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top