Power cable

[shadders]

They say this has nothing to do with jitter - firstly which you just quoted so why are you then using jitter as an example of noise?

You probably didnt watch it all just the first 2 minutes.

They go on to show how they mesured the output of players looked at it in a new way. Then created an algorithm to protray that data in a certain way.

No mention of a new discovery of noise just a way of looking at the above.

No new form of noise discovered ever mentioned.

So you are doing your usual.

Hi,

They stated a new form of distortion - distortion is noise.

The marketing paper DOES NOT REFERENCE THIS NEW DISTORTION mechanism. It does state :

"Once the two plots are overlaid it becomes clear that the player’s output differs quite significantly from the original signal, leading it at some points, lagging at others"

They are referring to jitter. This variation in points, some leading and some lagging, is jitter.

They also state in the paper "The errors we are measuring cannot be attributed to jitter, because they are not random and jitter is!"

They are redefining jitter - jitter can be randon, pseudorandom, or have a known non-random (includes pseudorandom) characteristic.

Just because they state it is not jitter because the clock timing noise they see is not gaussian, does NOT MEAN IT IS NOT JITTER.

YOU ARE BEING CONNED.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[ellisdj]

In fact all it is is a portrayal of what we good quality cable users hear and already know.

So to all of us its nothing new - but to you who has never experienced it I suppose it is new.

I didn't think of maybe I am wrong here.

 

[Vladimir]

In fact all it is is a portrayal of what we good quality cable users hear and already know.

So to all of us its nothing new - but to you who has never experienced it I suppose it is new.

I didn't think of maybe I am wrong here.

Spare the man. He is completely mad at this point. *biggrin*

 

[ellisdj]

They say this has nothing to do with jitter - firstly which you just quoted so why are you then using jitter as an example of noise?

You probably didnt watch it all just the first 2 minutes.

They go on to show how they mesured the output of players looked at it in a new way. Then created an algorithm to protray that data in a certain way.

No mention of a new discovery of noise just a way of looking at the above.

No new form of noise discovered ever mentioned.

So you are doing your usual.

Hi,

They stated a new form of distortion - distortion is noise. 

The marketing paper DOES NOT REFERENCE THIS NEW DISTORTION mechanism. It does state :

"Once the two plots are overlaid it becomes clear that the player’s output differs quite significantly from the original signal, leading it at some points, lagging at others"

They are referring to jitter. This variation in points, some leading and some lagging, is jitter. 

They also state in the paper "The errors we are measuring cannot be attributed to jitter, because they are not random and jitter is!"

They are redefining jitter - jitter can be randon, pseudorandom, or have a known non-random (includes pseudorandom) characteristic. 

Just because they state it is not jitter because the clock timing noise they see is not gaussian, does NOT MEAN IT IS NOT JITTER. 

YOU ARE BEING CONNED. 

Regards,

Shadders. 

Guess what if it is Jitter then its not the discovery of a new form of noise..

So Guess what - you were wrong... hahahahha

Now just admit it

 

[shadders]

They say this has nothing to do with jitter - firstly which you just quoted so why are you then using jitter as an example of noise?

You probably didnt watch it all just the first 2 minutes.

They go on to show how they mesured the output of players looked at it in a new way. Then created an algorithm to protray that data in a certain way.

No mention of a new discovery of noise just a way of looking at the above.

No new form of noise discovered ever mentioned.

So you are doing your usual.

Hi,

They stated a new form of distortion - distortion is noise.

The marketing paper DOES NOT REFERENCE THIS NEW DISTORTION mechanism. It does state :

"Once the two plots are overlaid it becomes clear that the player’s output differs quite significantly from the original signal, leading it at some points, lagging at others"

They are referring to jitter. This variation in points, some leading and some lagging, is jitter.

They also state in the paper "The errors we are measuring cannot be attributed to jitter, because they are not random and jitter is!"

They are redefining jitter - jitter can be randon, pseudorandom, or have a known non-random (includes pseudorandom) characteristic.

Just because they state it is not jitter because the clock timing noise they see is not gaussian, does NOT MEAN IT IS NOT JITTER.

YOU ARE BEING CONNED.

Regards,

Shadders.

Guess what if it is Jitter then its not the discovery of a new form of noise..

So Guess what - you were wrong... hahahahha

Now just admit it

Hi,

Jitter is noise - the wiki reference states it is noise - gaussian noise in the clock timing.

Jitter is just a form of noise - like shot, flicker, thermal etc,

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[shadders]

In fact all it is is a portrayal of what we good quality cable users hear and already know.

So to all of us its nothing new - but to you who has never experienced it I suppose it is new.

I didn't think of maybe I am wrong here.

Spare the man. He is completely mad at this point. *biggrin*

Hi,

My references are correct - can you explain why i am completely mad. Thanks.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[shadders]

They say this has nothing to do with jitter - firstly which you just quoted so why are you then using jitter as an example of noise?

You probably didnt watch it all just the first 2 minutes.

They go on to show how they mesured the output of players looked at it in a new way. Then created an algorithm to protray that data in a certain way.

No mention of a new discovery of noise just a way of looking at the above.

No new form of noise discovered ever mentioned.

So you are doing your usual.

Hi,

They stated a new form of distortion - distortion is noise.

The marketing paper DOES NOT REFERENCE THIS NEW DISTORTION mechanism. It does state :

"Once the two plots are overlaid it becomes clear that the player’s output differs quite significantly from the original signal, leading it at some points, lagging at others"

They are referring to jitter. This variation in points, some leading and some lagging, is jitter.

They also state in the paper "The errors we are measuring cannot be attributed to jitter, because they are not random and jitter is!"

They are redefining jitter - jitter can be randon, pseudorandom, or have a known non-random (includes pseudorandom) characteristic.

Just because they state it is not jitter because the clock timing noise they see is not gaussian, does NOT MEAN IT IS NOT JITTER.

YOU ARE BEING CONNED.

Regards,

Shadders.

Guess what if it is Jitter then its not the discovery of a new form of noise..

So Guess what - you were wrong... hahahahha

Now just admit it

Hi,

Exactly - it is not new, but they are conning you into believing it is new - as they state in the video at 01:46.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[CnoEvil]

Can we call it quits?...and move on......Pleeease.

 

[CnoEvil]

Something worrying about a man who cant admit he is wrong Shadders about something this small.

How often do blokes on a HiFi Forum admit they're wrong? This isn't worrying. It's normal! *biggrin*

 

[Vladimir]

In fact all it is is a portrayal of what we good quality cable users hear and already know.

So to all of us its nothing new - but to you who has never experienced it I suppose it is new.

I didn't think of maybe I am wrong here.

Spare the man. He is completely mad at this point. *biggrin*

Hi,

My references are correct - can you explain why i am completely mad. Thanks.

Regards,

Shadders.

He is triggering you and you are being effectively triggered.

 

[ellisdj]

If they are proving they are reducing jitter its not conning anyone.

But they didnt say that and theu didnt say they discovered a new form of noise just a way to look at what's there.

Something worrying about a man who cant admit he is wrong Shadders about something this small.

I think the new form of noisr they discovered was not jitter it is......
bitter ....

 

[Vladimir]

If they are proving they are reducing jitter its not conning anyone.

But they didnt say that and theu didnt say they discovered a new form of noise just a way to look at what's there.

Something worrying about a man who cant admit he is wrong Shadders about something this small.

I think the new form of noisr they discovered was not jitter it is...... bitter ....

Quit pushing his Daleks buttons. You'll void the warranty!

 

[shadders]

If they are proving they are reducing jitter its not conning anyone.

But they didnt say that and theu didnt say they discovered a new form of noise just a way to look at what's there.

Something worrying about a man who cant admit he is wrong Shadders about something this small.

Hi,

Jitter = noise. Distortion = noise.

In the video : They claim they have discovered a new distortion mechanism which is not jitter.

In the marketing paper : They claim that the errors are not jitter because the errors are not gaussian. They make no reference to the new distortion mechanism.

Therefore - they claim a new noise (distortion) not discovered before, but it is jitter (noise) which is known.

The con is - they are stating it is a new distortion mechanism, when in fact IT IS jitter and has always been known about.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[shadders]

In fact all it is is a portrayal of what we good quality cable users hear and already know.

So to all of us its nothing new - but to you who has never experienced it I suppose it is new.

I didn't think of maybe I am wrong here.

Spare the man. He is completely mad at this point. *biggrin*

Hi,

My references are correct - can you explain why i am completely mad. Thanks.

Regards,

Shadders.

He is triggering you and you are being effectively triggered.

Hi,

I am willing to assist anyone. I am aware.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[Vladimir]

In fact all it is is a portrayal of what we good quality cable users hear and already know.

So to all of us its nothing new - but to you who has never experienced it I suppose it is new.

I didn't think of maybe I am wrong here.

Spare the man. He is completely mad at this point. *biggrin*

Hi,

My references are correct - can you explain why i am completely mad. Thanks.

Regards,

Shadders.

He is triggering you and you are being effectively triggered.

Hi,

I am willing to assist anyone. I am aware.

Regards,

Shadders.

No you're not. Shut down and rest now.

 

[shadders]

In fact all it is is a portrayal of what we good quality cable users hear and already know.

So to all of us its nothing new - but to you who has never experienced it I suppose it is new.

I didn't think of maybe I am wrong here.

Spare the man. He is completely mad at this point. *biggrin*

Hi,

My references are correct - can you explain why i am completely mad. Thanks.

Regards,

Shadders.

He is triggering you and you are being effectively triggered.

Hi,

I am willing to assist anyone. I am aware.

Regards,

Shadders.

No you're not. Shut down and rest now.

Hi,

Don't worry - i am aware. With previous interaction i have been accused of being on drugs, or trying to cause him issues in a thread i never took part in. When challenged, he states he is testing my personality.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[ellisdj]

Just read the whole article again just to be sure.

Not once are the words used or written - we have discovered a new form of noise.

So to Shadders this may be what they are inferring so in Shadders Land maybe he is right.

To the rest of the world you are wrong and not prepared to admit it as they have not used those words or any variation of them that I can see.

I will watch the video tonight to be sure buy hey time to hold your hands up and say I am wrong.

 

[shadders]

Just read the whole article again just to be sure.

Not once are the words used or written - we have discovered a new form of noise.

So to Shadders this may be what they are inferring so in Shadders Land maybe he is right.

To the rest of the world you are wrong and not prepared to admit it as they have not used those words or any variation of them that I can see.

I will watch the video tonight to be sure buy hey time to hold your hands up and say I am wrong.

Hi,

As per my post 572 :

https://www.whathifi.com/comment/1031919#comment-1031919

In the video at 01:46 the person states "it is not jitter"

At 01:55 the person states "distortion mechanism no one has seen before".

In the marketing paper it states "Once the two plots are overlaid it becomes clear that the player’s output differs quite significantly from the original signal, leading it at some points, lagging at others"

The cause of this is jitter - variation in clock timing.

From wikipedia :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jitter

It states :

"Random Jitter, also called Gaussian jitter, is unpredictable electronic timing noise".

Jitter is timing noise - which is noise.

I have seen no scientific papers on this new noise as stated in the video or the marketing sheet. Since 2009 when this revelation was provided, i have not seen any mention of this new noise and how to correct, in any hifi press.

Scientific papers are published in journals of scientific bodies, and are peer reviewed. This new noise has not had this scrutiny.

Jitter is noise.

To add : distortion is also noise too.

Jitter is a type of noise. Distortion is a type of noise.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[CnoEvil]

 

[ellisdj]

They say its not jitter because its repeatable and not random.

Either way the words we have discovered a new form of noise are not written
So the rest is just your interpretation of it - so Shadders Land. Its not written so they have not stated it - sorry but if you was a judge people would be going to prison for a wirness inferring they are guilty.

 

[shadders]

Hi,

I am trying to explain it in different ways. What djellis is not doing is stating where he thinks i am going wrong, he seems to be rejecting what is written without understanding what is written.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[Vladimir]

 

[Vladimir]

Give It Up - KC & The Sunshine Band

 

[shadders]

Give It Up - KC & The Sunshine Band

Hi,

Actually, the repeats on BBC4 - 1983 - Top of the Pops - this single is currently No1.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[shadders]

They say its not jitter because its repeatable and not random.

Hi, that is the problem - jitter is either deterministic (not random, which includes pseudorandom) or non-deterministic (random). See the wiki page. This then indicates that they are not being accurate.

Either way the words we have discovered a new form of noise are not written

Correct. Again, jitter is noise, distortion is noise. So when they write jitter - noise is also a valid word for it. When they state distortion, noise is also a valid word for it. This is engineering. Jitter is a form of noise. Distortion is a form of noise.

So the rest is just your interpretation of it - so Shadders Land.

No - i am using standard engineering terms.

Its not written so they have not stated it - sorry but if you was a judge people would be going to prison for a wirness inferring they are guilty.

As above : noise = jitter = distortion. They are interchangeable. So when they write jitter - they also mean noise. When they state distortion, they are also stating noise. When they write errors - this is also heard as a form of noise - such as quantisation noise which is the error of the representation of the original waveform. These are interchangeable engineering terms.

I never judge people - i would never want to be on a jury. I have absolutely no interest in judging others or being involved in their lives or how they live their life.

Regards,

Shadders.