29 ms·
If I understand correctly, the audiophile review is claiming to recommend a network switch based on the difference of a few pico seconds of jitter!? Surely that
by TooKool4This 6y ago
If I understand correctly, the audiophile review is claiming to recommend a network switch based on the difference of a few pico seconds of jitter!? Surely that is outside the range of human perceptibly right?
The main issue here is mixing up a statistically significant effect and that effect being significant. With a very high powered experiment you can detect very small effects but that doesn’t mean they have a significant effect on the outcome.
I really think the simple hearing test is best but should incorporate common tools of measurement science such as repeated tests and multiple, varied listeners. Audio “quality” is very subjective and can come down to preferences driven by culture, age, experiences, etc. Some sort of consensus rating over all reviewers should be done.
Edit: also the rule of 3s! Never measure twice, always 1 or 3 times, is particularly relevant to this article :)
- analog31 6y agoIndeed, buffering the data by even just one or two sample periods and running the DAC from a local clock would be enough to eliminate any reasonable effect of network behavior. And it's probably already buffered by more than that, if data are sent as packets. There's always the possibility that the equipment under test is itself badly designed, e.g., that the DAC is unstable against tiny changes in network behavior. That might tend to magnify tiny errors that would be accommodated by better designed but less esoteric equipment. Subjectively choosing among badly designed components could explain a lot, including why laypeople don't perceive the same effects when listening to mainstream gear.