Nika! When and how did you get so cynical?
Quote: |
Quite frankly I'm not disappointed at the fact that the industry, as of yet, doesn't have a jitter spec because adopting a spec suddenly adopts an opportunity to abuse it.
|
That's like saying we shouldn't have any laws because people are bound to break them.
Factually, I agree with you: All specs can be 'gamed', and there will always be gamers. But we can't cede the world to the barbarians.
Specs are a good thing provided they are (1) relevant, (2) easy-to-use, and (3) readily verifiable--whether it is for clocks, converters, or anything else. If the specifications for a devices such as clocks aren't relevant beyond some minimum performance bar, than all the industry needs is a quick pass/fail test, and no specs are necessary at all. They're irrelevant. If they're not easy to use, no one will know what to do with them. If it takes a $40K piece of equipment and 6 months training to validate the device, well that's too hard and unscrupulous manufacturers will cheat.
Every one of these three aspects has been raised in this thread, and the discussion can be applied to specs for any device.
Clocks and PLLs are either important or they're not. Even if they are important, clocks might be a binary category with little room for differentiation: either a device is 'good enough' or it is crap. If this is so, then there will be no opportunity for competitive performance differentiation in the 'good enough' group. One good-enough clock will be just like any other. They will become commodities prices will fall, and manufacturers will lose their margins. Devices in the crap group will be outed by the market and won't survive. You can see why manufacturers might not want specs. Don't give in.
It is sad that in general, specs for audio equipment have a bad rap. I have a pet theory about this. Some of it results from the gamesmanship of godless manufacturers. But I think that the majority of it, and the resulting cynicism, stems from consumer's inability to receive provided specs and translate those specs into a specific expectation of an audio experience.
When I see a THD+N curve for an amplifier, I have a pretty good feeling of how certain passages of my favorite recording of Madama Butterfly are going to sound through it. Over time, I've been less and less surprised. When I am surprised, I will take some time to figure out why. You'd be amazed at how often circuits in demo stations are improperly wired (usually both channels left or right) or speaker elements and channels are downright fried. Every now and then it is the actual amplifier. By being surprised time and again, my ability to 'hear the spec' has improved. The process isn't too distant from learning to read music: see the notes, hear 'em in your head, play 'em.
We should encourage this learning feedback loop by creating relevant, easy-to-use, readily verifiable specs. I think that it is important work that thoughtful folks like you, Zoesch, Ethan, and others here can contribute to. So don't be discouraged.
Sorry for the rant.
-Dennis
ps. Thanks, Zoesch, for the tip on NOT using quotes in Word. -D