spot on,

however the usual measuring devices also will tell you very little, because they don't track voltage in relation to absolute time. this is why pcm is such a scam, and really the reason this thread exists in the first place. however, you can get some valuable info using eeg's and so forth, regarding the 'emotional impact' of music.

[Deleted by mod]
What has happened is people questioning Greg about his experience of his new gear, which is completely acceptable on a public forum, people like you trying to shut them down. Science is absolutely relevant to the sound of a $7k clock that people will consider buying (which is what's Greg's intention was in the first place), and both Greg & Marcel pulled through. This discussion is productive now, people are finding out things, interacting, there's no reason for anybody to be so dismissive and petty.

There has always been dialogue, but most people "asking questions" are still at least pedantic often even bordering on dismissive. It has been mentioned before, the answer is in hearing, not in watching spectral plots or null utilities.
Differences are heard, we can debate until the cows come home what are causing these. But the arguments from science here, are merely assumptions based upon screenshots.
We are not talking about audio, we are talking about "aligning/distributing" audio.

Here is an interesting test for you "scientists" create a dense arrangement with at least 20 tracks.
One of those tracks can be a piano, now quantize the piano dead on the 16th grid and mixdown
Now move the piano forward or backward in time 1 or 2 ticks, barely enough to hear something isn't tight.
Mixdown again. Go play with your tools and null the files and be amazed how the tools interpret the difference.
You can do the same by just detuning the piano 1ct and see what software makes of that.
Then come back to further discuss with blinkers off....

No, it's about audio data.
The sample stream contains no specific timing information about samples other than what is implicit from the sample rate and the sample position within the stream.
Any effect from clocking is in the effect it has on the sample levels. There is nowhere else for it to be propogated. The way it affects them is also actually known, it modulates them, in a well understood way. But even if that bit was wrong and it did something unexpected, it would still be an effect there in the actual samples.
Wow, really?
Thanks for telling me, I don't know how I could possible have missed that as an audio DSP developer.
... Oh, sorry, my mistake, I didn't.
YOU may not be able to, but I can, because to me it's not simply "a -50dB null", and it's not the only information available to me.

you don't listen to the audio data, you listen to the interpolation of the data, please stay on topic, guys. wasn't this thread about the antelope clock?

Get some mutual respect in this thread instead of batting around the sneering jibes....
Only warning humans.......

Well it's a semantically blurred area, but not in as much as how many people envision it.

It's an understandable misconception because it's completely unintuitive when you look at the sampled waveform, but then that makes it a nice example of how you can draw the wrong conclusions making uninformed extrapolations from visual data.

The interpolation is not necessary to recreate the original signal below the Nyquist frequency. That is already there. So if Nyquist is above your audible threshold, then if we could rely on the rest of the system being linear, you could simply omit the interpolation.

I don't like the term interpolation in this context because although it describes what you see visually, it doesn't describe what is going on in terms that actually matter for audio.

The "interpolation" is actually a REMOVAL of content ABOVE the Nyquist frequency when the stream of samples is converted to a series of voltages.

What is below, what we actually listen to, is untouched, it was there all the time.

When Nyquist is above the threshold of hearing, we don't remove the stuff above because it would directly be audible, but because it might cause distortions down the line which would create audible components.

That's why I much prefer the term "anti imaging filter" to either "interpolating filter" or "reconstruction filter".

(all of which is of course a further deviation from the main focus of this thread, but I think that if more people understood this, there would be less misunderstanding of sampling in general and digital in particular)

I'm not spending my day cleaning up your insults gents. I have a session to run.

It's pretty clear that for some people what is important is what they hear. For others, it's the science. Each to their own. Any more insults or obvious baiting will not be tolerated.

Anything below this post that is not absolutely on topic gets deleted and infracted at the least. Keep it away from insults and on topic.

Also did anyone here actually put the clock output on a scope? By just reading the pulses coming out of the BNC?
Compare those with other clocks. Haven't seen any pictures of scientists doing that either in this topic.
Though they claim it's all the same, instead we're rather doing a witchhunt on spectral plots.

Where did anybody say the clock was the same and would appear identical on a scope?

I think you'll find noone has.

As for the "witchhunt", people are looking at differences to see what they might be attributed to.

If there are differences which we could expect to be audible, but appear to have explanations other than clocking, then they make an assessment of the audible effects of clocking pretty much impossible with so few files, because it is impossible to determine whether the difference someone is perceiving is due to the clock.

You would either have to remove that variable, or change the testing to cancel it out statistically.

Since meaningful information got deleted in a cleanup frenzy: try above and be surprised how software will not plot these differences though they are clearly heard (both time and pitch) even more, nulling won't let you hear anything meaningful residue either, let alone show, though you can clearly hear, almost feel something wrong.

Seriously, test this for yourself, in a dense arangement, and be amazed. Then put those results into perspective to what some try to see here

[deleted by mod]

A null test will reveal the difference between the two mixes. Assuming everything else is identical, the difference file wil contain only the piano and the dither noise floor.

To go further, you could easily detune or shift the piano by such a small amount that it would be inaudible in the mix but the null test will reveal the difference easily.

What exactly do you expect to come out of the test?

Alistair

Sound is the result of the brain interpreting acoustic energy, so your "seemingly" qualifier was unnecessary: two 100% perfectly identical waveforms can indeed sound different, even to the same person at different times of the day. The reason we can't quantify sound -- or even specific aspects of it, such as loudness -- has nothing to do with any measurement limitations of the sound source; the difficulty is that sound occurs in the listener, where it is subject to his mood, hunger level, state of health, etc. And since all these complicated, personal state variables factor into the experience of sound, the best we can do is make statistical inferences.

However, when it comes to the sound source and analyzing the physical energy changes that comprise audio, we're well-equipped. Anything that an audio waveform can do, we can measure with sensitivity several orders of magnitude better than human hearing is capable of. There are no missing parameters. If two devices measure the same to well-below the thresholds of human hearing, then they are effectively the same. Should two things measure the same yet sound different, then the difference comes not from the sources, but from the listener himself. The critical point is that measurements are consistent, while the state variables of a human listener are not. This is why measurements are useful in audio: even though they tell us little about how something will sound, they give us a consistent reference without the wacky human state variables.

Speakers measure miserably but sound pretty good compared to what?

The real conversation is here now: 10MX comparison files vs. Pure2 only and 10M/Pure2

Where people are discussing their own results through ABX testing.

In a thread about digital clocking, on a forum for audio engineers, it seems perfectly reasonable for some to want to discuss the how and why. The "just use your ears" crowd may be perfectly happy to note that there is a difference between two clocks, but others prefer to analyze the situation. To bring back an analogy from this thread, imagine a group of chefs sitting around a table discussing a meal one of them had just prepared. If a chef were to start analyzing the meal and its preparation, do you think it'd be cool if another stopped him by saying, "Just shut up and enjoy the meal!"? Doubtful. Everyone loves things that taste good, but once you get deep into the art and science of cooking -- once you become a chef -- then the technical aspects become intriguing in their own right.

Why would this be interesting?

For starters there is a huge difference in what can be isolated between the piano solo or as part of an arrangement, but experiment yourself and you'll heat

In an effort to clarify one skeptics position... there's really only 2 things I still want to confirm:

1) The difference between clocking with the 10M and 10MX is audible via ABX. (The "copy" files Marcel provided in the other thread appear to be the best opportunity to do this, as they eliminate other variables). This can be done if / when their identity is revealed, provided point 2 below is also confirmed.

2) The "differences" between the original, and copy files as posted by Marcel (specifically, the frequency dependent anomaly as shown through spectral analysis of the nulls), is attributable to the clock alone. The differences are quite peculiar and perplexing for a clock to have introduced.

That's all. Many thanks.

That's beautiful, and it's true the emotion that happens in music is not measurable.

But the technical aspects of the recording are indeed measurable. Your argument is a red herring argument.

If clock makes an audible difference, it will show up in measurement somehow.

You must not be reading the same thread as I am.

I would love to see the files too, in the interest of learning.

As some people appear entirely incapable of moving beyond bickering, this thread is closed.