alcarp said Does Ted's recent comments mean that there is no technical reason why timing should be any different between 1.2.1 & Yale?On the contrary, it seems clear to me that PRaT comes from low dispersion of timing across the frequency band - i.e. having everything time aligned so that transients are reproduced faithfully. Jitter and noise can definitely mess with the timing of everything, filtering the low frequency noise in hardware isn't too hard so low frequency timing problems coming from noise are often a problem. But lowering jitter (and noise) everywhere gets you to a more faithful reproduction of the original release. To my mind Arnie's listening is looking for the best reproduction of the input and that's what lowering the jitter and noise should also produce. As I clean up the FPGA outputs his job should get harder.
So your job is to make Arnie’s job harder. Hmmm. Go Ted! (I think Arnie would agree with that sentiment.)
So Ted, just to make sure I understand you correctly, timing should improve the lower the jitter and noise.
So Yale should be more faithful to the recording that 1.2.1 as far as timing is concerned since you have lowered both jitter and noise.
Is this correct?
The implications are troubling if this is the case - at least for the way I’m responding to Yale. If Yale is performing better in these characteristics than 1.2.1, then what is it about 1.2.1 that (for me and a few others) makes it more musically engaging? How can (if this is what’s happening) 1.2.1 be less faithful in whatever this key area is, and yet at the same time make me respond much more along the lines of when I hear the same music live? (which I have)
tony22 said The implications are troubling if this is the case - at least for the way I'm responding to Yale. If Yale is performing better in these characteristics than 1.2.1, then what is it about 1.2.1 that (for me and a few others) makes it more musically engaging? How can (if this is what's happening) 1.2.1 be less faithful in whatever this key area is, and yet at the same time make me respond much more along the lines of when I hear the same music live? (which I have)+1
Again, though, I thought Ted was saying it’s far more complicated than that and that there are multiple areas where timing needs to be right. I suspect there is still an area in which Yale has a timing issue and that people like you and I continue to notice it (for reasons I can’t explain) and others are simply more interested and if I may say, distracted by, all the other great things Yale does. I can completely understand that, but I don’t think we’re wrong about the “lack of propulsion” we hear in Yale. I don’t want to sound like I’m bragging about my rig but the Thiels are time coherent and, as a consequence, allow me to hear these things perhaps more clearly than I would with a different set of speakers (Thiel haters feel free to pile on, I don’t care)
I, too, have a strong preference for speakers with first-order cross overs. There is simply something right about the sound.
tony22 said The implications are troubling if this is the case - at least for the way I'm responding to Yale. If Yale is performing better in these characteristics than 1.2.1, then what is it about 1.2.1 that (for me and a few others) makes it more musically engaging? How can (if this is what's happening) 1.2.1 be less faithful in whatever this key area is, and yet at the same time make me respond much more along the lines of when I hear the same music live? (which I have)[Edit: vhiner1 made some of these points while I was typing.]
Remember jitter and noise don’t always sound bad, in fact in the case of dither noise can be very good. Noise can be annoying on one system and actually make another system sound better. Even so I’m trying to reduce noise that’s correlated with the input signal (e.g. noise caused by the FPGA processing the source) and such noise should rarely sound good.
Tho my goal is to reduce noise and jitter, they are both complicated and aren’t just measurable by a single number. They have a spectrum and even if I am lowering them on average across the spectrum I may or may not be lowering them uniformly. In some releases, at some frequencies I may be actually raising the level.
Also there’s another possibility - perhaps one release or another has a phase distortion (or other artifact) that better balances the inverse distortion in some people’s systems.
So giving you and your system the benefit of the doubt, you and/or your system may be more sensitive to noise or jitter at some specific frequency(ies) and/or are getting hints about PRaT (which other people are missing) at some frequencies that Yale obscures.
Conversely giving Yale the benefit of the doubt you may find that over time and with experience with Yale you may hear things differently.
It’s been clear all along that different releases are a step backwards for some and forwards for others - I’m hoping that we can keep the balance tipped the right way.
Now that you mention it, Elk, I’m pretty sure my speakers also have first order crossovers.
Just saw your response, Ted. Intriguing thoughts.
Ted Smith said Also there's another possibility - perhaps one release or another has a phase distortion (or other artifact) that better balances the inverse distortion in some people's systems.A delicious hypothesis.
If your speakers do have first order crossovers, I find that pretty intriguing given how in sync we’ve been about what we hear from firmware to firmware.
@Ted,
I really appreciate the tutorials you’re giving us about all of this and how accessible you manage to make them. I absolutely plan on giving Yale more time. It’s already challenged a number of ways that I listen to certain recordings and that’s always good.
I have a buddy who is a professional musician and his instrument of specialty is trumpet. He wrote to me the other day that my changing view of this firmware reminds him of how difficult it is for trumpet players to select a new mouthpiece. Some pieces are rejected after an intitial “love affair” and other pieces that were intitially rejected out of hand wind up being the final selection.
I love the approach you are taking and have never had this much fun with a DAC. The future looks very bright. 
vhiner1 said . . . how difficult it is for trumpet players to select a new mouthpiece. Some pieces are rejected after an intitial "love affair" and other pieces that were intitially rejected out of hand wind up being the final selection.Yep.
Ted’s eloquent exposition, which I relate to a superposition of constructive and destructive, and deciding non-linear effects cascading through the frequency spectrum, even before one gets to the speakers and room effects is precisely why I have - an a complete and total amateur already have absolutely no time for the time of approach that suggests one particular golden ear attached to one particular isolated set of equipment possesses an eternal truth not available to others.
…
EDIT: alright, since I don’t want anyone to be responsible for their own arryhthmic heartbeat being set off by their re-action to a mild analogy characterising whether intermediaries should be allowed into our own (musical) interpretations, or not.
…
Wheres, intrinsic uncertainty, allow for an almost stochastic model of variability would nicely reconcile the various approaches. Thanks - yet again - Ted Smith.
Leaving aside the powder keg which is religion (please, please do not go there), you may find it enlightening to do a bit of research on how both religions actually work before attempting to compare them. In particular, relying on what claims about the other is exceedingly hazardous.
I am personally in no way offended, but others may be. My interest is purely intellectual, I am probably the least superstitious person you will ever meet.
To your larger point, in audio there is no discoverable single truth. Thus a catholic approach is appropriate.
I prefer the Socratic method.
I hope you caught my use of small “c” catholic, not big “C” Catholic. A bit of philosophy nerd humor.
I’m not sure the Socratic method applies; we are asking Ted questions, not vice versa. Then again, my system’s playback asks many questions . . .
I prefer the rhythm method! 