[sdiy] Moogey jitter

[elmacaco]

> >it might be good if everyone chiming in took a look at the report and the
> >claims, and maybe ignore the personal arguments in there.
>
> I looked at it.  It is bogus.  You cannot measure jitter that way.

Right, I liked that you added your experience in terms of measurement and
pointed out how that can be a false reading, however, without doing a proper
reading per your stipulations showing no jitter, we have yet to prove it.  I
actually do consider you are probably right, but there is a chance that with
proper measurement jitter is still present and measurable,


>
>
> >I'm interested in what makes the moog VCO sound like it does.  The times
> >I've encountered moog VCO's it was very clear that they had a sort of
> >animation that I hadn't heard before.
>
> Post a file that demonstrates this, please.

I did, a text file.  : )  You don't have to believe me, but it sure sounded
great.  I'd like to know why, it isn't just because it says moog on it.

>
>
> >A recording of something isn't the same as the actual unit producing the
> >sound.
>
> Well, you are totally off the deep end here.  You don't seem to have any
> significant understanding of digital audio or recording.  You seem to be
> suggestiong something that is literally magic  --  that some audible sonic
> effect can be clearly heard but not recorded.

Nice ad hominem there, not too scientific.  I love how you think you can
totally discredit someone because of how they seem to you.


Well forgive me for seeming someway to you,  I never mentioned magic, but
you try to put a nice easy to defeat argument in my mouth based on what
something seems to you, instead of looking at what your contention actually
is.

I am not a moog religous zealot, I merely want to see this explored. I
understand digital recording quite well, I don't think moogs have magic,but
I do suspect that you need to have the module to make measurements of it.
What sound card was used to record the mp3 of moog oscillators?  I've
recorded for days at 96kHz 24 bit audio, and it still sounds different than
the saxophone or singer that just sang, there is a change, and depending on
how fast the effect we are talking about is, it will be at least distorted
by recording.  You may be aware that jitter in digital clocks in soundcards
can also distort the recording, good enough for rock and roll, but you must
admit that a recording is not just as good as the real thing, it is one step
removed.  It would be considered a secondary source.


> I don't have any personal dislike here.  In fact, I have had some positive
> and pleasant discussions with him.  But as Kenneth's work clearly shows,
> there is no large jitter as Kevin claims.

No large jitter in the data Ken examined.  That is not in dispute.  Like
anything scientific, you need to look at the data collected, and how
representative it is to say that the tested sample is representative of all
moog oscillators, Kevin's sample may not be representative of all of them
either, but I'd like to find out.

Someone please lend Eldhart a moog and some oscilloscopes so we can do this
without fighting.


>I don't care what else Kevin
> says he measured.  His video shows the sawtooth only.  Where is your
> "actual animal" here?

True, the video only shows sawtooth, Kevin could be lying about the jitter
in the other waveforms, I take it at face value until we have other
measurements to confirm.  anything else is just speculation.  What would be
the best waveform to test for this in your opinion?  Seriously, like I said
I have learned a lot from this list and I want those contributions to the
discussion.

> How can we investigate something that doesn't exist?  If you don't think
> Kenneth's file is representative, then send us one of your own.

Starting with a conclusion there professor?  I want to investigate moog
oscillators, surely they exist?

A file is not an oscillator, digital recording is by definition a distortion
of the actual signal, dots then connected, there is information lost, it
might be valueable to this discussion, it might not be, but that information
is lost is undeniable.  If I had a moog 901-B I'd give you 192kHz 24bit
files, and information would still be lost, but wouldn't you rather have it
there to hook up to your scope?


> And what exactly do you consider "good test equipment"?  What laboratory
> experience do you have using scopes or any other test equipment?

Oh no it's a geek off!!!!  ; )

please, just anything that's capable of looking into the matter.

>I myself
> have decades of experience using scopes for scientific research and many
> other kind of test equipment as well.  So do several other people here.

Yup, that's why I like it here, and why I try to take this from ad hominem
to your areas of expertise re: making good measurements.

> >So Far Magnus is the only one besides Kevin to have the means and the
> >disposition to test this, and I am thankful that somebody has.
>
> Magnus will do a good job.  But why do you think is he the only one that
> has the "means and disposition" to do this?

I said 'so far',  as in he's the only one who has said I have a moog and
test gear and I'll have a look.  Jeez you're grumpy today.

I have some moog brochures so I think I'll compare woodgrains on the
different minis.


>
>
> >Again, the focus should be on testing and observation, not debunking this
> >claim or that claim, it just simply is there in a specific VCO, or it
isn't,
> >and you can't say that definitively based on a recording.
>
> This sounds like audiophile mumbo-jumbo.  If you hear a pronounced effect,
> then a recording will capture it.  Are you saying that this magical Moog
> warmth cannot be heard on recordings?  What good is it then?

Ad hominem again, I believe lots of mumbo jumbo, but not audio-file mumbo
jumbo. ; )

a recording may capture it, it might not.  To find out what it is in the
circuitry that is causing or even simply effecting the sound one needs to
examine the circuit.  I think the idea that the power supply can affect the
sound of an oscillator isn't such a daft idea.  How much and if it is
audible needs to be determined further since it is so controvercial now, but
I don;t think moog warmth is magical, it sounds good, and no one can explain
it satisfactorily.  I have nothing wagered on the outcome of the moog sound
being debunked, found out, replicated cheaply, I really just want to know
what is really going on inside.  I think we have enough great minds here to
really have a go at it and perhaps find new nuances in oscillator design. I
have nothing to lose, I own no moog gear so I have no fear of value drops or
some weird faith based worship of moog.

>
>
> >So if this is even going to remotely appear scientific ...
>
> Please tell us what your qualifications to judge whether something is
> scientific.  Do you have an advanced degree in a scientific field?  Do you
> have training and decades of experience in laboratory measurement
techniques?


Another geek off.  you should burn your degrees because you are resorting to
bullying and ad hominem attacks instead of your advanced scientifically
trained logic to actually address the matter.

Science is a methodology, not a position.  Insulting a person to discredit
their argument is not scientific practice, neither is starting with your
conclusion, neither is closing inquiry into something because one believes
he has a good enough guess as to what is going on.  If I am so incapable
then you should logically be able to fault my arguments without making
anything up like moog magic or attacking what kind of person I seem to be.
I still hold that an audio file is not as accurate as the actual unit
producing the sound, you seem to believe it is good enough, it very well
might be, but that is merely a belief on your part, there is no need to
dress it up as gospel and try to run down those who simply question it.  Is
that science?

I'll direct you to these nobel prize winners, who were ridiculed for
considering that ulcers may be an infectious disease that for 20 years they
were denied funding, it wasn't until one of the doctors infected himself to
prove it that they got any attention.  Now they have redefined the textbooks
the world over, and improved the lives of millions, no thanks to the
scientific community, which stifled their research because of established
dogma because their hypothesis was that the current understanding was wrong,
and that ruffles too many feathers.

http://nobelprize.org/medicine/laureates/2005/press.html

You science is only as good as your methods, not your degrees.

You've been convinced by one man's argument, and you defend it with personal
insults of those who wish further inquiry or who point out possible blind
spots in the methods.  When you point out the trigger issue, I want more
tests to verify or eliminate, I don't want to be right, I just want to know.

OK, I think that's it for me.  I'll offlist it from now on, sorry everybody.