Dither - My Ears can't hear it

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, you can't just keep saying I'm wrong but without backing it up and saying why you think I'm wrong!

Ethan, re-read my posts. I have several times. It's you that's not backing up your opinion with any objective science or fact.

No, it doesn't work. I actually tested the Audyssey device the ARC is based on. Lookie here:

http://www.realtraps.com/art_audyssey.htm

This is an example of the sort of commentary I expect from you Ethan. This is in stark contrast with your objections to proper dithering and jitter removal. Nicely done.
 
Last edited:
Ethan, re-read my posts. I have several times. It's you that's not backing up your opinion with any objective science or fact.
Post numbers please? (For both you and me.) I've been careful to explain why dither, and now jitter, are inaudible in all my posts. The main reason being they're way too soft to hear, especially when you consider masking. I've tested this stuff many times, and I know for a fact that anything that lives 80 dB or more below the music can't be heard. Not itself or its affect on the music, which is really the same thing if you think about it. But I'll be glad to revisit any posts of yours that you believe are as compelling as my explanations, or my posts that you feel are not backed up by an adequate explanation.

This is an example of the sort of commentary I expect from you Ethan. This is in stark contrast with your objections to proper dithering and jitter removal. Nicely done.
Tanx.

Also, think about this - if my logic and science are good with that stuff, maybe, just maybe, I'm right about this other stuff too. :p

--Ethan
 
I've tested this stuff many times, and I know for a fact that anything that lives 80 dB or more below the music can't be heard.
--Ethan

Post objective facts about the above. What can and can't be heard at -80 is subjective and dependent on the material, not scientific fact!

We've already had several here that have guessed your dithered vs truncated examples (though at diminishing returns past a certain bit depth). Clients of mine hear it when presented samples, people here hear it, I hear it. Just because you don't doesn't mean that it's a fact.

That's enough of this already, this thread should have been over with many posts ago.
 
What can and can't be heard at -80 is subjective and dependent on the material, not scientific fact!
You are correct. If one records a sine wave at -80 and boosts it 60 dB or more, then it's audible. :D

Clients of mine hear it when presented samples, people here hear it, I hear it. Just because you don't doesn't mean that it's a fact.
People only think they hear it. Really. I still have $100 that says nobody can pick out any of this stuff in a blind test. Whether dither, jitter, or even sine wave tones at -80 dB that turn on and off while music plays. The problem trying to convince you and Glen is I'm here and you're there. If you were here that same $100 says you would walk away agreeing with me, as happened a few weeks ago with a fellow from Lynn Fuston's forum I may have mentioned. He was certain he'd be able to identify dither, and hear a difference between his $6,000 A/D/A converter and my $25 SoundBlaster. Since he happens to live 25 minutes away I invited him over, and after a few hours he agreed with me on all points.

To me this stuff is the same magical thinking as believing that backwards speech in a recording can incite teenagers to commit suicide, or that really soft subliminal messages in a movie theater makes people hungry and thirsty. If it's too soft to actually hear, then it's too soft to have any other effect either.

There's an interesting article in the current issue of Skeptic magazine that makes the point that all human perception is fragile, not just hearing. This is the real issue - the fragility of hearing. That, and comb filtering as explained HERE.

this thread should have been over with many posts ago.

But I have so much more to say! For example, outboard summing! :D

--Ethan
 
and hear a difference between his $6,000 A/D/A converter and my $25 SoundBlaster.[/url].

Explain how nearly every single person picked out the ART Converter as worst in this thread? https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=214642&highlight=converter (note - I picked them exactly as they were - two low end converters that were pretty close and one noticeable better - which is exactly what they turned out to be - what are the odds on that?) You cannot do a converter shootout when your comparing the files playing off a M-audio card, or a soundblaster. And, even if you disregard the digital part of the converter, the analog section in a soundblaster is not that great, and it's inside of a huge noise generating device. Furthermore, not only is the difference audible, but MShilarious has shown several times with a graph of the frequency response, that even on that basis they fall quite short.
 
Last edited:
Every day of the week there are scientists and science professors who get pages-long treatises and even would-be book drafts in the mail from well-intentioned folks who sincerely believe that they have come up with both theoretical and expirimental proof that Einstein was wrong and that General Relativity really is nothing more than the hooey that it sounds like to the average human being.

It doesn't take long before the person receiving these papers just stops replying to them (or has a secretary send out a congenial-sounding form letter with some kind of polite brush-off), because they realize thwo things: first that the person sending them really has no real education or clue as to how Relativity actually works and why it says the things that it says, and are really clueless as to how or why their "experiemntal proof" can't be interpreted they way they think it should be becaus ethy just don't have enough fundamental knowledge to understand where they are wrong, and second because of the first reason, they just cannot accept what Relativity says because it says some things doesn't fit the norms of everyday life, and seem so counter-intuitive that they *must* be untrue.

The scientists who receive these papers come to realize that no matter how hard they try, they might just as well beat their heads against a wall, because the senders lack the capacity both to understand where they are wrong and to be WILLING to understand that they are wrong. It's not that they are stupid, it's that they just don't have a fundamental understanding of the topic enough to understand that the seemingly undeniable logic of their argument actually has no fundamental foundation.

Guys, just give it up. This is exactly the kind of thing we're dealing with here. Ethan just DOES NOT GET IT, nor will he unless/until he is ready to let go of his Newtonian understanding of how things work and how they can be tested for.

Ethan, you can go on with your Goliath-attacking rants as much as you want. I think it's only neighborly to caution you, though, that the more you do so, the more of a shadow of doubt it casts upon your reasoning behind your commercial products. As solid as it may be, and as good as your products may be, when you get a reputation as a scientific goofball in other areas where you're in over your head, many people may not be able to see much past that to see the good stuff. I'd hate to see that happen; I am not a big fan of Auralex.

G.
 
Every day of the week there are scientists and science professors who get pages-long treatises and even would-be book drafts in the mail from well-intentioned folks who sincerely believe that they have come up with both theoretical and expirimental proof that Einstein was wrong and that General Relativity really is nothing more than the hooey that it sounds like to the average human being.

It doesn't take long before the person receiving these papers just stops replying to them (or has a secretary send out a congenial-sounding form letter with some kind of polite brush-off), because they realize thwo things: first that the person sending them really has no real education or clue as to how Relativity actually works and why it says the things that it says, and are really clueless as to how or why their "experiemntal proof" can't be interpreted they way they think it should be becaus ethy just don't have enough fundamental knowledge to understand where they are wrong, and second because of the first reason, they just cannot accept what Relativity says because it says some things doesn't fit the norms of everyday life, and seem so counter-intuitive that they *must* be untrue.

The scientists who receive these papers come to realize that no matter how hard they try, they might just as well beat their heads against a wall, because the senders lack the capacity both to understand where they are wrong and to be WILLING to understand that they are wrong. It's not that they are stupid, it's that they just don't have a fundamental understanding of the topic enough to understand that the seemingly undeniable logic of their argument actually has no fundamental foundation.

Guys, just give it up. This is exactly the kind of thing we're dealing with here. Ethan just DOES NOT GET IT, nor will he unless/until he is ready to let go of his Newtonian understanding of how things work and how they can be tested for.

Ethan, you can go on with your Goliath-attacking rants as much as you want. I think it's only neighborly to caution you, though, that the more you do so, the more of a shadow of doubt it casts upon your reasoning behind your commercial products. As solid as it may be, and as good as your products may be, when you get a reputation as a scientific goofball in other areas where you're in over your head, many people may not be able to see much past that to see the good stuff. I'd hate to see that happen; I am not a big fan of Auralex.

G.

Oh well, Einstien was absolutely lambasted by the physics community for years when he postulated that time was not a constant. History just forgets that and now, decades later, they accept his theories.

Just something to think about. I can't hear dither myself because I am not looking for it. Maybe someday I will try, but who knows what later findings may be out there? I have learned to keep an open mind because science has as many wrong answers as right, and there are as many incompetent "professionials" as competent. :D
 
Explain how nearly every single person picked out the ART Converter as worst in this thread?
Your own Post #3 in that thread summed it up nicely:

It's hard to tell from those examples as the air is pretty much non-existant, and the top end is pretty well hosed in all of them. Bad mp3 conversion maybe?
So it's acceptable to compare converters using MP3 files? :eek:

MShilarious has shown several times with a graph of the frequency response, that even on that basis they fall quite short.
Now you're talking my language! Where is that graph?

--Ethan
 
I think it's only neighborly to caution you, though, that the more you do so, the more of a shadow of doubt it casts upon your reasoning behind your commercial products.
So now that you (by default) concede you have no rebuttal for my technical points that dither and jitter 90+ dB below the music are inaudible, all you have left is threats? I'm really dissapointed to see this sort of post Glen, especially from you because I know you're smarter about audio than that.

I am hardly a goofball, and I have been careful to keep this discussion on track and avoid making it personal, even when you (and Tom and others) have ducked pretty much every point I've made. I said extreme jitter makes things wider and explained why, and all I got for my effort was your comment "I refused to believe it was a real quote from Ethan; it *had* to be a joke, it had to be actually stolen from The Onion, or at least have a datestamp on it of April 1st." Not one word addressing the actual issues, such as how jitter that's -120 dB could cause an image to narrow (or widen). And so forth throughout all these pages. Remember that the OP started this by admitting he heard no difference using dither! Which is my experience too. And would surely be yours too if you were here so I could prove it to you in person with a blind test.

I do understand that religious beliefs - and that's exactly what these are - have deep roots, and that it's difficult for people to accept someone disproving "truths" they've known for years. But I'm not willing to see my partner and employees harmed by those who can't discuss the facts calmly and rationally. So there you go, Glen. You win.

--Ethan
 
Your own Post #3 in that thread summed it up nicely:


So it's acceptable to compare converters using MP3 files? :eek:


Now you're talking my language! Where is that graph?

--Ethan

Ethan, it's nice that you hand picked quotes out of context to try and prove your point while NOT answering the question I asked. You don't happen to be a politician do you? :D

Yes, the first set of examples were not the greatest samples, but I also followed that up by saying it was still apparent which was which, and I guessed them correctly. And yes, the first ones were mp3's. He later put up a test with a ripped section from a Fiona Apple CD in WAV format and that was substantially more obvious to me. In both tests nearly everyone picked the ART converter out as the worst. If there is no difference how did that happen?
 
As a long time HR.com lurker with mad respect for the regular contributers, this thread depresses me.

Anyone in the same boat, I urge you to spend some time with PCABX. Learn how to listen for yourself, and the importance of double-blind tests. Then make up your own mind about what is and isn't audible.
 
So now that you (by default) concede you have no rebuttal for my technical points that dither and jitter 90+ dB below the music are inaudible
I don't know which thread you're in, Ethan, but I've only been rebutting you for some two weeks now, and concede nothing of the sort. The fact that you just can't understand that there is nothing *under* anything else here, the fundamental problem with your reasoning, is the core of your unability to understand the rest.

Just because dithering takes place in the last bit or two doesn't mean that it doesn't cause harmonic distortion to the structure of the entrire wave form. It in fact *does*. This is just one of the many litmus tests that have become apparent in this thread that indicates that you just don't have a fundamental understanding of just how digital representation of an analog signal actually works. Without that fundamental understanding, any further technical discussion on our part would only a one-way dialog, because it would be falling on, maybe not deaf ears, but ears wothout the ability to comprehend.
all you have left is threats?
What is it about text-based forums that cause such complete misconstructures about what people say? There are no threats involved here. My GOD.

I cautioned you that you're now entering an area where you are making statements that to anybody who has at least a somewhat correct technical grasp of the issue are indistinguiahable from complete nonsense, and that in your own interest you might want to condiser backing off. Hell, Ethan, if I had any ill will at all towards you, I'd let you continue spewing such muck wothout offering that caution, because you run the risk of digging your own grave if you do.

You simply have no idea how that one post you made about analog jitter and all that stuff sounds like it came straight from a loon, and I and anyone else are powerless to correct or help you without sending you back to school for some basics first. You are trying to do the equivalent of trying to offer some non-linerar algebraic proofs while getting the basic arithmetic wrong..
And would surely be yours too if you were here so I could prove it to you in person with a blind test.
Over and over and over and over again with the same misundertanding and misleading statements. Once again, if you actually read and understood what I and others have replied to you over and over and over again - with zero ducking - those tests are meaningless because you're testing for the wrong thing the wrong way.

The effects of dither are - at best - subtle, and not automatically audible all the time. We have stipulated to that from the biginning. The real answer is statistical in nature, not an all-or-nothing proposition, and not one which can even begin to be investigated by a non-blind (you keep erroneously calling it blind, it's not) A/B test. I feel you will never be able wrap your head around that concept. You really are looking at a 20th century issue from a classical 19th century perspective.
But I'm not willing to see my partner and employees harmed by those who can't discuss the facts calmly and rationally.
Which is exactly what I was cautioning you against, Ethan. That potential harm is exactly the kind of danger you are inadvertantly exposing them to because you are talking about stuff that you do not yet have the fundamental knowledge base to be able to rationally discuss yet.

Unfortunately, your fundamental knowledge of how digital actually *functions* is seriously flawed or lacking...or at least it certainly does not match your level of knowledge of things analog and acoustic. It would take weeks or months to get through enough of that just for us to be able to stipulate the basics together. I don't have the time for that. But without that, there is simply nothing to discuss, because you will continue to be talking about square pegs and I will continue to be talking about round holes, and we will never be able to get togther on anything related to the issue.

I know you don't want to hear that, that you think it's an attack on you - even though I guarantte you it's not - and that you are blaming the messenger for the message. I will have to simply bear with that.

The really sad part is that this whole thread is much ado about very little. My GOD, were talking about *dither* here for chrissakes. It's not like it's something that your avergae engineer loses any sleep over, one way or the other. It's such a minor variable in the entire equation to waste so much energy on.

I have to apologize for my part in making this minor thread so damn long. It's my fault that I have a real hard and serious dislike for pseudo-science and bad science that tries to pass itself off as anything even close to legitimate, and I was suckered back into this thread more than once after "leaving". I try to keep that unflattering part of my personality under control, but I ovbiously don't often do a very good job of it :(.

G.
 
Glen,

You have insulted me no less than ten times (snips below), yet you still failed to refute a single thing I've said! Your entire post basically calls me an idiot over and over, but you never said why you think I'm wrong. You didn't explain how jitter could make things sound small. Or how anything that's 80 to 90 dB or more below the music could possibly be heard. In fact, you made the exact same mistake you accused me of - not understanding the basics of digital audio. In your post above you wrote:

Just because dithering takes place in the last bit or two doesn't mean that it doesn't cause harmonic distortion to the structure of the entrire wave form.

It seems you're not aware that distortion is often expressed as being some number of dB below the signal. There's a reason for that. And it doesn't matter that the distortion signal rides up and down on the overall waveform! All that matters is the magnitude of the artifacts when compared to the desired parts of the signal. The same goes for jitter, which is expressed as artifacts that lie some number of dB below the signal. Now, I could accuse you of being incompetent to discuss jitter after showing an obvious lack of knowledge by your statement above. But that's not my style. I haven't insulted you before in this thread, even though you have insulted me repeatedly.

As it happens there's a relevant article in the current issue of Sound On Sound magazine. I don't know if you get SOS, but it's one of the few sane audio magazines. This issue has an article that claims to separate truth from myth about dither and jitter and other digital issues. Guess what? The writer (Hugh Robjohns, who knows his stuff) made a point of saying that jitter is a non-issue. He also put test files demonstrating dither on the SOS web site:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb08/articles/digitalaudiofiles.htm

In order to show what the effect of dither sounds like, he too had to reduce a sine wave to only 3 bits, though there are also piano files reduced to 8 bits.

Glen, I assume you don't fall for expensive audio cables and other such hi-fi tweaks, yet I'm sure you're aware how vehement the "wire believers" are about what they think they hear. I see no difference between those beliefs and yours. In both cases someone has convinced themselves they hear something that all logic and understanding of masking principles says cannot be heard.

--Ethan

the fundamental problem with your reasoning, is the core of your unability to understand the rest.
you just don't have a fundamental understanding
ears wothout the ability to comprehend.
that one post you made about analog jitter and all that stuff sounds like it came straight from a loon
sending you back to school for some basics first.
you will never be able wrap your head around that concept
you are talking about stuff that you do not yet have the fundamental knowledge
your fundamental knowledge of how digital actually *functions* is seriously flawed or lacking
you are blaming the messenger for the message.
I have a real hard and serious dislike for pseudo-science and bad science
 
the first ones were mp3's. He later put up a test with a ripped section from a Fiona Apple CD in WAV format
Where? All I saw were links to MP3 files followed by another round of MP3 files.

In both tests nearly everyone picked the ART converter out as the worst. If there is no difference how did that happen?
I don't own any ART gear and I'm certain I never said anything about that brand being good or bad. So maybe that device really is poor? It wouldn't be the first time a piece of gear sucked! :D

--Ethan
 
Glen,
It seems you're not aware that distortion is often expressed as being some number of dB below the signal. There's a reason for that. And it doesn't matter that the distortion signal rides up and down on the overall waveform! All that matters is the magnitude of the artifacts when compared to the desired parts of the signal.

From the following book:

Convergence in Broadcast and Communications Media By John Watkinson

"The importance of correctly dithering (a quantizer) cannot be emphasized enough, since failure to dither irrevocably distorts the converted signal"

Ethan, remember that an audio signal is not a DC current. A sine wave (as most audio waves) will go to it's peak level, but at some point it will go down to a level equivalent to 3 bits and less during it's cycle. The purpose of dither is to decorrelate this distortion from the signal. Our ears are more forgiving of noise at a constant level, than distortion that is signal dependent and variable.

Why is this thread like a car accident that we can't stop looking at? Anyway, Ethan I get that you're not into subtleties. Are you still using Mackie HR824 monitors? If so I understand, and I'm not being a smart ass either. You're talking to someone that can't listen to music with earbuds for more than 2 minutes at a time.
 
This thread is turning into the digital version of the "Why Did Jesus Have To Die?" thread - in other words a case of Dwayne not budging, Wayne begrudging and Twain not meeting. (And there's only so much Twain one can handle I know - after it become too, too twain we all need a break & a trip to Chantanooga!).
Interesting as it has been, at times this has become depressing only inasmuch as the residents of Olympus are seen to throw lightning bolts at each other & the resultant pressure drop in the atmosphere seems to be affecting the mortals.
There's been a lot of aggro across the BBS since the No Studio Stickies wars of Walk Away Rick.
Don't get me wrong: I LOVE robust argy bargy & believe that inaccurate ascertions made to the niave &/or innocent must be corrected. The problem is that the problem ceases to be the problem.
P.S.
I have learned much from following this, have enormous respect for the knowledgable posters & look forward to acquiring more practical & theoretical knowledge to help me on my way.
PSS
What did the digital pirate say when he felt jitter in the decking?
"Dither me timbers!" of course.
 
Last edited:
"Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has his first presidential campaign commercial. In the ad, which is now running, Romney says, 'This is not the time for talk and dithering in DC.' Making him the first candidate to come out against 'dithering.'" --Jay Leno

I believe that this is the major reason he lost the GOP race.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NL5
From the following book:
Ooh, then of course it must be true. :D

remember that an audio signal is not a DC current.
Groan! :rolleyes:

Are you still using Mackie HR824 monitors?
I never owned 824s though many of my friends do. The monitors in my studio are old-school JBL 4430s with a 15 inch woofer and bi-radial horn, bi-amped with just over 1 KW from two Crown power amps. Very loud and very clean.

--Ethan
 
Oh my GOD, would the OP please lock this thread?

Ethan, would you think I was threating you if I said "You had better look both ways first before crossing that street because there are a lot of speeding busses on that street and you could easily get hit by one"? Does that mean I am sending a speeding bus after you? No, that means I am trying to be NICE and warn you against an inherant danger over which I have no control.

Would you find it insulting if I said "you just don't know how to speak Russian"? And if I followed that up with "Until you can understand at least some fundamental Russian, you just aren't going to undersand what that Russian guy is saying", would that mean I was insulting you twice?

Put your ego away for a minute and understand this: unless or until you have a more formal fundamental understanding of the Cryllic of digital theory, we are talking two different languages and will never be able to debate the subject. There is nothing - at least there should not be - implicitly or explicitly insulting about that statement.

Please OP: Lock this thread. It has turned completly non-productive.

G.
 
Last edited:
Alright.

I never meant to start a monster of an argument anyhow.

This thread has even spilled over into other web sites, and blogs.

( http://www.hometracked.com )


Thank you Ethan, Matering House, Glen, NL5, and anyone else in the debate, but as Glen has requested, I will lock the thread.


Matt
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top