HDMI out vs. Optical out

[usually_quiet]

Some day, soon perhaps, you guys with the "golden ears" will have old age creep up on you and then everything will sound just great.....

No, it won't sound any better to them. They will still prefer what they like now, even if a much more accurate means of audio playback than anything we have now emerges.

When I got married years ago, we didn't need or have room for two stereos, so I gave my stereo to my parents. It quickly ended up collecting dust in their damp, musty basement. They thought that their old mono table radio sounded best playing the big band music and 1950's ballads that they liked to listen to because that is how they remembered "their music" sounding back in the day.

[pandy]

First of all, apologies for the long delay

Same from me.

btw
why antichristian? - perhaps antisomethingelse?

Because the "sheeple" who have blind faith in pseudo-skeptics like Sagan, Randi, Dawkins, Dennett and etc. seemingly don't know any other religion than Christianism. Also, the preferred/only target of their "activism" is the Christian faith. Just take a look at trolling sites like Yahoo! Answers.

Ouch, that's hurt (luckily not me ) - as i said previously - i respect right to personal believes but i just don't want to be involved in endless dispute what was first - Egg or chicken? Or what is more important - Christmas or Eastern etc...
For clear statement "I don't give a shit about bitrate as i care only about jitter" i make my point clear - discussion is end for me.

Besides, just like the revolutionary fanaticals from the 18th century, they also believe there exists a conflict between religious faith and scientific activity. Obviously such belief is groundless, not to say *fallacious* (a crystal-clear example of «false dilemma»).

Religion and science are inline only to point where science confirm what religion says and science is not personal believe but fact (at least this what Germans describe as Naturwissenschaft ) of course you can make religion based on some science elements i.e. doing pseudoscience but this is a point where science ends and religion begin...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_quia_absurdum

«
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
»

^ How good is that? As a proof that working with Science does NOT make anyone automagically become a champion of intellectual honesty, the quote above is very-good indeed.

Quote is good but this quote is philosophy statement - as You know - science is completely something else than believes, science don't even try to analyze DIVINITY - i mean science as Naturwissenschaft - this thread is clear example where Naturwissenschaft is irrelevant as jitter is seen as DIVINITY.

P.S.: Agnostic greetings ^_~

Same from my side.

[pandy]

I don't know how this got into specific religious "faith". I think it started with statements about science ("digital" specifically) being mythically faultless

All this digital science is in fact analog and it will imply HF analog knowledge - however you completely ignored information that i've said: HDMI have jitter but this jitter will not affect DAC as HDMI use packets of data that need to be collected in buffer (memory) and samples can be affected by DAC clock jitter which can be not related at all to HDMI clock.
And for ears DAC clock jitter is important not HDMI jitter - there is no magic there...

, or something like that, and the less-scientifically-faithful saying that they tried a piece of wire that seemed to sound "better" in some respects than another commonly accepted piece of wire. It's a worldwide occurrence, and certainly a subjective judgment; the difference in perception might have to do with some unknown but perhaps (I said "perhaps") measurable scientific criteria where some component or other did not comply strictly with scientific theory or implementation in some way. Science knows that 2.5769 and 2.5769 should equal 5.1538, but if some device makes it equal to 5.2634, then somebody screwed up on the device. If you have so much faith in science as to believe that it can't go wrong after humans have messed around with it, it doesn't negate science. There is often a guy named Murphy afoot.

However still perception of jitter is not so important as we can measure jitter i.e. we have tool than can measure quality of system in objective way. Jitter is one of many important parameters for digital audio - it is not discussion about jitter but about where it should be measured in HDMI audio system.
And you never provided any science information that HDMI PixCLK is used for DAC instead You've been quite clear to make a point that bitrate, bandwidth are irrelevant when jitter comes to play.

So let me conclude my poor English:

Jitter exist and can be measured in digital audio,
HDMI interface as all digital systems is not free from many flaws and one of those flaws is jitter which can be measured,
It is important to measure Jitter in correct place i.e. at the end of chain (at DAC clock input or in analog domain in DAC output)

Way how HDMI works make DAC isolated from HDMI clock (Jitter) influence,
S/PDIF can't be compared directly to HDMI except from user functionality perspective.

[sanlyn]

Well...As I said, there are those who don't distinguish one thing from another without using a machine to measure and validate every aspect of their experiences. And then there are those who "hear" that digital audio is inferior to many high-end analog sources and systems. Musicians, in fact, frequently would prefer to be able to avoid all use of CD/digital audio sources and playback, and prefer the wider spectrum of well executed analog-only systems. Perhaps what those listeners experience can be measured in some way. Many people trust what they see and hear. Others need more assurance.

[El Heggunte]

Religion and science are inline only to point where science confirm what religion says and science is not personal believe but fact

Not so fast, Junior . Religion and Science are (or should be) essentially unrelated fields of human activity Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Pasteur, Mendel, etc Etc ETC. certainly were not doing their scientific work "in order to" confirm their respective personal beliefs. Sadly I cannot say the same about, for example, the author of a book entitled "Intelligent Life in The Universe" and of a TV show named "Cosmos"

(at least this what Germans describe as Naturwissenschaft ) of course you can make religion based on some science elements i.e. doing pseudoscience but this is a point where science ends and religion begin...

Thanks for confirming that Psychiatry, Economics and the Darwinist delusion have always been nothing but pseudo-science
(I'm serious).

Quote is good but this quote is philosophy statement - as You know - science is completely something else than believes, science don't even try to analyze DIVINITY - i mean science as Naturwissenschaft - this thread is clear example where Naturwissenschaft is irrelevant as jitter is seen as DIVINITY.

FWIW: IF you really are not an antitheist "soldier", THEN you'd better stop using their typical "way of writing" and/or sharing their Weltanschauung. Defining Science as a «collection of "facts"» and revealing a poor knowledge of what is Philosophy are just two things which the modern puppets of Mephistopheles proudly do all the time.

http://homebrewedtheology.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/atheism11.jpg

[pandy]

Well...As I said, there are those who don't distinguish one thing from another without using a machine to measure and validate every aspect of their experiences. And then there are those who "hear" that digital audio is inferior to many high-end analog sources and systems. Musicians, in fact, frequently would prefer to be able to avoid all use of CD/digital audio sources and playback, and prefer the wider spectrum of well executed analog-only systems.

And this why musicians agree for high audio compression (loudness war), this why they use so many DSP and at the same time valve amplifiers for their "sweet, warm sound"

I'm told by various musicians and musical scholars that digital rounding and resampling ruins their listening experience. Frankly I often perceive most digital audio sources as sounding rather denuded. Perhaps what those listeners hear can be measured in some way. Many people trust what they see and hear. Many need more reassurance. The average listener doesn't listen very closely or deeply; the just sit passively, or accept whatever happens, or don't care, or are too busy talking, eating, walking, texting, driving, or chewing gum, and generally don't get very involved in any a/v experience unless it's too loud or too garish or too forcefully presented to ignore. Perhaps one could find a way to measure differences in listening and viewing preferences, and put numbers on all of it. Then again, there are those who just live with those differences as being unavoidable.

Funnest thing is that analog audio system imperfections are seen as subjectively better sound... but world is full of contradictory statements and people that need attention.

[pandy]

Religion and science are inline only to point where science confirm what religion says and science is not personal believe but fact

Not so fast, Junior . Religion and Science are (or should be) essentially unrelated fields of human activity Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Pasteur, Mendel, etc Etc ETC. certainly were not doing their scientific work "in order to" confirm their respective personal beliefs. Sadly I cannot say the same about, for example, the author of a book entitled "Intelligent Life in The Universe" and of a TV show named "Cosmos"

Yes i agree, my point was related to fact that religion (any) accept science only to the point where science confirm religious claims. In oposite direction this work different science dont care about religion unless there is science about religion(s) however bellow i've expressed my point - science about religiious calims is more curiosity to analyse min behaviour and related to this thought than confirming or denying DEITY. So still there is more like learning what humans thinks about DEITY than learning about DEITY per se.

(at least this what Germans describe as Naturwissenschaft ) of course you can make religion based on some science elements i.e. doing pseudoscience but this is a point where science ends and religion begin...

Thanks for confirming that Psychiatry, Economics and the Darwinist delusion have always been nothing but pseudo-science
(I'm serious).

And me to - it is different as "strong science" and "soft science" are different and this is why i've used this term.

Quote is good but this quote is philosophy statement - as You know - science is completely something else than believes, science don't even try to analyze DIVINITY - i mean science as Naturwissenschaft - this thread is clear example where Naturwissenschaft is irrelevant as jitter is seen as DIVINITY.

FWIW: IF you really are not an antitheist "soldier", THEN you'd better stop using their typical "way of writing" and/or sharing their Weltanschauung. Defining Science as a «collection of "facts"» and revealing a poor knowledge of what is Philosophy are just two things which the modern puppets of Mephistopheles proudly do all the time.

http://homebrewedtheology.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/atheism11.jpg

Perhaps I was in past "anti-theist" nowadays i prefer to ignore this area as not particularly interesting (at least it is not on my top priority list of personal interest), but this topic shows one thing - humans need some DIVINITY even without DEITY - for some people it can be mysterious "analog" where everything "analog" is good an sacred and all "digital" are bad and abominate. For me - digital electronics is special case of analog electronics and i always remember that electric current flow is "made" from electrons not from "aether". That's all. I like music but i prefer more CD (well processed) than vinyl, i prefer analytical audio than "sweet, warm, fuzzy and fluffy".

Philosophy perfectly fit in Naturwissenschaft (or rather opposite) even if i define science as "collecting facts" then i also define science as "all collected facts need to be processed in some thinking process" - and Philosophy cover all aspects of science where thinking meets facts. (im affraid that my English is not good enough to express tight relation between Philosophy and Naturwissenschaft)

[Baldrick]

Continue at www.offtopic.com