Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

"Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vai..

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
February 18, 2005 10:47:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I don't keep up with the "hot" subject in audiophile techno-babble as
much as I used to, but "jitter" was once a biggie.

Come on now: were are talking about phenomenon that occurs on a scale
of NANOSECONDS (billionths of second). Electricity (and therefore
electrical signals) moves at a rate of about 1 foot per nanosecond. From
all the graphs that claim to measure this phenomenon it appears that it's
not a cumulative thing; and even if it was how many billionths of a second
have to add up before you can hear the effect??
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 3:52:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Perhaps it's time for the group to split into two:
rec.audio.high-end and rec.audio.high-end.haters.


Mike Prager
North Carolina, USA
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 6:46:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Mike Prager" <hifi@ec.rr.com> wrote in message
news:cv62kv0u2j@news2.newsguy.com...
> Perhaps it's time for the group to split into two:
> rec.audio.high-end and rec.audio.high-end.haters.
>
>
> Mike Prager
> North Carolina, USA

It has gotten ridiculous around here lately, hasn't it? I guess those of us
who like and get pleasure from the hobby are supposed to just go away and be
quiet and listen to our systems, rather than having anything to say,
but...........hey, that's not a bad idea, is it? Maybe some of the
"haters" would benefit from doing the same.
Related resources
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 9:52:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Mike Prager wrote:
> Perhaps it's time for the group to split into two:
> rec.audio.high-end and rec.audio.high-end.haters.
>
Why? Because the guy asked how much jitter it takes to be audible, that
makes him a hater of high-end audio? Do "high-end lovers" think that
question is unimportant or irrelevant? Do you?

bob
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 10:45:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Jim wrote:

> I don't keep up with the "hot" subject in audiophile techno-babble as
> much as I used to, but "jitter" was once a biggie.
>
> Come on now: were are talking about phenomenon that occurs on a scale
> of NANOSECONDS (billionths of second). Electricity (and therefore
> electrical signals) moves at a rate of about 1 foot per nanosecond. From
> all the graphs that claim to measure this phenomenon it appears that it's
> not a cumulative thing; and even if it was how many billionths of a second
> have to add up before you can hear the effect??

If the receiving circuitry doesn't have a nice stable phase-locked loop that
rejects the input jitter, the timing error is analogous to an error in the
amplitude domain. If you're clever at information theory you can indeed prove
this fact.

SPDIF bit period is around 350 ns @ 44.1kHz samplking rate. So jitter of +/ 1
ns for example would be an error of 1 part in 350, or about -50dB ref full
signal.

That's a lot of error.


Graham
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 5:15:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:

> Mike Prager wrote:
> > Perhaps it's time for the group to split into two:
> > rec.audio.high-end and rec.audio.high-end.haters.
> >
> Why? Because the guy asked how much jitter it takes to be audible, that
> makes him a hater of high-end audio? Do "high-end lovers" think that
> question is unimportant or irrelevant? Do you?

Audibility of jitter is a question that has been studied
before. That message had no interesting factual content; it
was just a diatribe apparently based on some preconceived
notion. Unless I've missed previous posts, that individual has
contributed nothing to this group other than telling some
enthusiasts they are wrong, wrong, wrong. All I have seen is
disdain (or hate) for this hobby, nothing that indicates any
love for or pleasure in it.

That's right: high-end audio is a HOBBY. People do it for
FUN. I am always up for intelligent discussion, but I'd rather
have Carrie Nation meet in church with her fellow liquor
haters than come into the bar where I'm having a drink. I
don't want a PETA representative on my fishing trip. That's
why I suggested that I'd prefer those whose only purpose here
is to pick fights to find another place to vent their spleen.

Of course, it's their right to stay here and do nothing but
carp, pick fights, argue, and twist other people's words.
Usenet is just that kind free. But, those of us who ENJOY the
hobby might have more fun if those who HATE it find their own
spot. Who knows, they might enjoy it, too!

Now Bob, I don't think there are that many whose comment are
only, or mainly, that sort of tendentious griping, but it
seems there are more and more who can't let a discussion go
it's course without picking a fight. Too bad, I think.


Mike Prager
North Carolina, USA
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 8:59:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:cv81u9018ib@news3.newsguy.com...
> Mike Prager wrote:
>> Perhaps it's time for the group to split into two:
>> rec.audio.high-end and rec.audio.high-end.haters.
>>
> Why? Because the guy asked how much jitter it takes to be audible, that
> makes him a hater of high-end audio? Do "high-end lovers" think that
> question is unimportant or irrelevant? Do you?
>
It's going to take a lot (whatever the electro-physico explanations). In the
early days of CD, when there were only 1 box units available to play discs,
golden eared high enders were endorsing 2 boxes; drives and D/A converters
to get superior sound. Isn't that where jitter entered the picture? One box
delivered better (jitter free) sound.
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 9:00:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:cv7n030rov@news3.newsguy.com...
> "Mike Prager" <hifi@ec.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:cv62kv0u2j@news2.newsguy.com...
>> Perhaps it's time for the group to split into two:
>> rec.audio.high-end and rec.audio.high-end.haters.
>>
>>
>> Mike Prager
>> North Carolina, USA
>
> It has gotten ridiculous around here lately, hasn't it? I guess those of
> us
> who like and get pleasure from the hobby are supposed to just go away and
> be
> quiet and listen to our systems, rather than having anything to say,
> but...........hey, that's not a bad idea, is it?

Not good at all. Sooner or later I am going to hear some type of "ugly" from
my speakers; you are familiar with everything that is likely to follow,
aren't you? A different pleasure part of the hobby will be set in motion.
One might even attempt to post a question on rec.audio.high-end. Or if you
are either a glutton for punishment, or want to lighten up by getting a few
laughs, there is always rec.audio.opinion.
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 9:03:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Mike Prager wrote:
> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Mike Prager wrote:
> > > Perhaps it's time for the group to split into two:
> > > rec.audio.high-end and rec.audio.high-end.haters.
> > >
> > Why? Because the guy asked how much jitter it takes to be audible,
that
> > makes him a hater of high-end audio? Do "high-end lovers" think
that
> > question is unimportant or irrelevant? Do you?
>
> Audibility of jitter is a question that has been studied
> before. That message had no interesting factual content;it
> was just a diatribe apparently based on some preconceived
> notion.

But it did elicit at least one substantive response. That's sometimes
how we move ahead here.

> Unless I've missed previous posts, that individual has
> contributed nothing to this group other than telling some
> enthusiasts they are wrong, wrong, wrong. All I have seen is
> disdain (or hate) for this hobby, nothing that indicates any
> love for or pleasure in it.
>
> That's right: high-end audio is a HOBBY. People do it for
> FUN. I am always up for intelligent discussion, but I'd rather
> have Carrie Nation meet in church with her fellow liquor
> haters than come into the bar where I'm having a drink.

A flawed but revealing analogy. A guy who argues that jitter doesn't
matter is not arguing that high-end audio is an evil hobby, or even a
dumb one. He's only arguing that jitter doesn't matter.

Now why would someone think that "jitter doesn't matter" is a statement
of hatred? All right, I'll concede that his tone was disdainful. But
there is a difference between being critical of people who believe
things that are (or that you believe to be) demonstrably wrong and
being critical of people because they choose to pursue a particular
hobby. You've taken the first statement to imply the second.

> I
> don't want a PETA representative on my fishing trip. That's
> why I suggested that I'd prefer those whose only purpose here
> is to pick fights to find another place to vent their spleen.
>
> Of course, it's their right to stay here and do nothing but
> carp, pick fights, argue, and twist other people's words.
> Usenet is just that kind free. But, those of us who ENJOY the
> hobby might have more fun if those who HATE it find their own
> spot. Who knows, they might enjoy it, too!
>
> Now Bob, I don't think there are that many whose comment are
> only, or mainly, that sort of tendentious griping, but it
> seems there are more and more who can't let a discussion go
> it's course without picking a fight. Too bad, I think.

Well, think of it as partially making up for the voluminous instances
on the non-moderated and thought-policed sites where people have
asserted that if you can't hear differences between such-and-such
either your system or your hearing must be defective.

bob
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 9:05:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Mike Prager <hifi@ec.rr.com> wrote:
> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:

> > Mike Prager wrote:
> > > Perhaps it's time for the group to split into two:
> > > rec.audio.high-end and rec.audio.high-end.haters.
> > >
> > Why? Because the guy asked how much jitter it takes to be audible, that
> > makes him a hater of high-end audio? Do "high-end lovers" think that
> > question is unimportant or irrelevant? Do you?

> Audibility of jitter is a question that has been studied
> before. That message had no interesting factual content; it
> was just a diatribe apparently based on some preconceived
> notion. Unless I've missed previous posts, that individual has
> contributed nothing to this group other than telling some
> enthusiasts they are wrong, wrong, wrong. All I have seen is
> disdain (or hate) for this hobby, nothing that indicates any
> love for or pleasure in it.

Personally, I love getting new gear and reading what knowledgable
folks have to say about sound and sound reproduction.

I don't love the torrent of nonsense I've got to wade
through to find high signal/noise discussion,
whenever 'high end hobbyists' tend to congregate.


> That's right: high-end audio is a HOBBY. People do it for
> FUN.

So do butterfly collectors. Yet they manage to adhere
to scientific notions about the object of their hobby,
with little if any objection.

So maybe it's love the hobby, hate the *hobbyists*?



--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 1:32:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Norman M. Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:cvaj8c02umv@news1.newsguy.com...
> "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:cv7n030rov@news3.newsguy.com...
> > "Mike Prager" <hifi@ec.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:cv62kv0u2j@news2.newsguy.com...
> >> Perhaps it's time for the group to split into two:
> >> rec.audio.high-end and rec.audio.high-end.haters.
> >>
> >>
> >> Mike Prager
> >> North Carolina, USA
> >
> > It has gotten ridiculous around here lately, hasn't it? I guess those
of
> > us
> > who like and get pleasure from the hobby are supposed to just go away
and
> > be
> > quiet and listen to our systems, rather than having anything to say,
> > but...........hey, that's not a bad idea, is it?
>
> Not good at all. Sooner or later I am going to hear some type of "ugly"
from
> my speakers; you are familiar with everything that is likely to follow,
> aren't you? A different pleasure part of the hobby will be set in motion.
> One might even attempt to post a question on rec.audio.high-end. Or if you
> are either a glutton for punishment, or want to lighten up by getting a
few
> laughs, there is always rec.audio.opinion.

That's why I stay away from rec.audio.opinion. I hate nonsense and flaming.
Even at the expense of missing an occasional laugh. For my interests,
rec.audio.pro, rec.audio.tech, rec.audio.marketplace, and rec.audio.tube
serve as good alternatives (although two of these are going through extended
flame wars that may cause me to drop them). And Audio Asylum serves well
for SACD and DVD-A discussion.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 5:55:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

> <nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:cv81u9018ib@news3.newsguy.com...
> > Mike Prager wrote:
> >> Perhaps it's time for the group to split into two:
> >> rec.audio.high-end and rec.audio.high-end.haters.
> >>
> > Why? Because the guy asked how much jitter it takes to be audible, that
> > makes him a hater of high-end audio? Do "high-end lovers" think that
> > question is unimportant or irrelevant? Do you?
> >
> It's going to take a lot (whatever the electro-physico explanations). In the
> early days of CD, when there were only 1 box units available to play discs,
> golden eared high enders were endorsing 2 boxes; drives and D/A converters
> to get superior sound. Isn't that where jitter entered the picture? One box
> delivered better (jitter free) sound.

By basic principles ( lack of need for a clock recovery circuit ) the potential
for a 1 box solution to be superior in respect of jitter is indeed true.

Just depends how clean your system clock is.


Graham
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 8:48:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cvcspp0702@news2.newsguy.com...
> "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:
>
>> <nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:cv81u9018ib@news3.newsguy.com...
>> > Mike Prager wrote:
>> >> Perhaps it's time for the group to split into two:
>> >> rec.audio.high-end and rec.audio.high-end.haters.
>> >>
>> > Why? Because the guy asked how much jitter it takes to be audible, that
>> > makes him a hater of high-end audio? Do "high-end lovers" think that
>> > question is unimportant or irrelevant? Do you?
>> >
>> It's going to take a lot (whatever the electro-physico explanations). In
>> the
>> early days of CD, when there were only 1 box units available to play
>> discs,
>> golden eared high enders were endorsing 2 boxes; drives and D/A
>> converters
>> to get superior sound. Isn't that where jitter entered the picture? One
>> box
>> delivered better (jitter free) sound.
>
> By basic principles ( lack of need for a clock recovery circuit ) the
> potential
> for a 1 box solution to be superior in respect of jitter is indeed true.
>
> Just depends how clean your system clock is.
>
OK, and my point was/is that the listener who wanted the best and latest
equipment for listening to CD was told (by insiders having good and trained
ears) to go out and replace their adequate single boxes with two boxes with
added jitter. So therefore "jitter" in *practicality* was/is a red herring,
and that they didn't hear the deleterious effect of jitter. Do you think
anyone can suffer by the presence of jitter today (please no DBTs )?
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 11:10:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
> "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> news:cvcspp0702@news2.newsguy.com...
> > "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:
> >
> >> <nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:cv81u9018ib@news3.newsguy.com...
> >> > Mike Prager wrote:
> >> >> Perhaps it's time for the group to split into two:
> >> >> rec.audio.high-end and rec.audio.high-end.haters.
> >> >>
> >> > Why? Because the guy asked how much jitter it takes to be
audible, that
> >> > makes him a hater of high-end audio? Do "high-end lovers" think
that
> >> > question is unimportant or irrelevant? Do you?
> >> >
> >> It's going to take a lot (whatever the electro-physico
explanations). In
> >> the
> >> early days of CD, when there were only 1 box units available to
play
> >> discs,
> >> golden eared high enders were endorsing 2 boxes; drives and D/A
> >> converters
> >> to get superior sound. Isn't that where jitter entered the
picture? One
> >> box
> >> delivered better (jitter free) sound.
> >
> > By basic principles ( lack of need for a clock recovery circuit )
the
> > potential
> > for a 1 box solution to be superior in respect of jitter is indeed
true.
> >
> > Just depends how clean your system clock is.
> >
> OK, and my point was/is that the listener who wanted the best and
latest
> equipment for listening to CD was told (by insiders having good and
trained
> ears) to go out and replace their adequate single boxes with two
boxes with
> added jitter. So therefore "jitter" in *practicality* was/is a red
herring,

But the jitter that resulted from going from one to two boxes then
necessitated a third box, plus very careful auditioning of the digital
cables (two, now!) connecting these all up. Instead of simply accepting
the low jitter inherent in decent one-box designs, this approach puts
greater control over the final product in the hands of the end user,
thus restoring to digital some of the appeal of analogue.

Thus does the high end progress.

bob
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 7:09:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:cvdf760lam@news1.newsguy.com...
> Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
> > "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > news:cvcspp0702@news2.newsguy.com...
> > > "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:
> > >
> > >> <nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:cv81u9018ib@news3.newsguy.com...
> > >> > Mike Prager wrote:
> > >> >> Perhaps it's time for the group to split into two:
> > >> >> rec.audio.high-end and rec.audio.high-end.haters.
> > >> >>
> > >> > Why? Because the guy asked how much jitter it takes to be
> audible, that
> > >> > makes him a hater of high-end audio? Do "high-end lovers" think
> that
> > >> > question is unimportant or irrelevant? Do you?
> > >> >
> > >> It's going to take a lot (whatever the electro-physico
> explanations). In
> > >> the
> > >> early days of CD, when there were only 1 box units available to
> play
> > >> discs,
> > >> golden eared high enders were endorsing 2 boxes; drives and D/A
> > >> converters
> > >> to get superior sound. Isn't that where jitter entered the
> picture? One
> > >> box
> > >> delivered better (jitter free) sound.
> > >
> > > By basic principles ( lack of need for a clock recovery circuit )
> the
> > > potential
> > > for a 1 box solution to be superior in respect of jitter is indeed
> true.
> > >
> > > Just depends how clean your system clock is.
> > >
> > OK, and my point was/is that the listener who wanted the best and
> latest
> > equipment for listening to CD was told (by insiders having good and
> trained
> > ears) to go out and replace their adequate single boxes with two
> boxes with
> > added jitter. So therefore "jitter" in *practicality* was/is a red
> herring,
>
> But the jitter that resulted from going from one to two boxes then
> necessitated a third box, plus very careful auditioning of the digital
> cables (two, now!) connecting these all up. Instead of simply accepting
> the low jitter inherent in decent one-box designs, this approach puts
> greater control over the final product in the hands of the end user,
> thus restoring to digital some of the appeal of analogue.
>
> Thus does the high end progress.

Well, it might surprise you that some of us stayed with a superior one box
(the Phillips 880) based on sound alone until a complex system came along
that was affordable and bettered it in sound (the coax digital -> DTI pro
dejitterer/noise-shapper -> AES/EBU ->Proceed PDP). This combo bested the
Phillips (whereas other highly rated and more expensive one-box units
didn't). To this day this non-state of the art combo delivers more
accurate, pleasing, and analog-like redbook sound than even my relatively
new Sony C222ES SACD machine, which in turn was better than the marantz 63SE
that drove the outboard de-jitterer/noise-shaper/DAC combo prior to its
arrival.
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 7:10:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cvcspp0702@news2.newsguy.com...
> > "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:
> >
> >> <nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:cv81u9018ib@news3.newsguy.com...
> >> > Mike Prager wrote:
> >> >> Perhaps it's time for the group to split into two:
> >> >> rec.audio.high-end and rec.audio.high-end.haters.
> >> >>
> >> > Why? Because the guy asked how much jitter it takes to be audible, that
> >> > makes him a hater of high-end audio? Do "high-end lovers" think that
> >> > question is unimportant or irrelevant? Do you?
> >> >
> >> It's going to take a lot (whatever the electro-physico explanations). In
> >> the
> >> early days of CD, when there were only 1 box units available to play
> >> discs,
> >> golden eared high enders were endorsing 2 boxes; drives and D/A
> >> converters
> >> to get superior sound. Isn't that where jitter entered the picture? One
> >> box
> >> delivered better (jitter free) sound.
> >
> > By basic principles ( lack of need for a clock recovery circuit ) the
> > potential
> > for a 1 box solution to be superior in respect of jitter is indeed true.
> >
> > Just depends how clean your system clock is.
>
> OK, and my point was/is that the listener who wanted the best and latest
> equipment for listening to CD was told (by insiders having good and trained
> ears) to go out and replace their adequate single boxes with two boxes with
> added jitter.

Clearly, said sources don't understand the basic engineering principles behind
the technology. Since it's not entirely obvious ( least of all to the man in the
street ) and there's a big market for said 'aftermarket' products I'm
unsurprised.

It is potentially conceivable however that a single unit CD player might have
poor inherent system clock jitter and an outboard converter has a great PLL with
very good jitter rejection that does indeed improve the result.

That's an extreme case - but I'm sure it happens ( most likely in the past ) .
And the converse could be true too.


> So therefore "jitter" in *practicality* was/is a red herring,
> and that they didn't hear the deleterious effect of jitter. Do you think
> anyone can suffer by the presence of jitter today (please no DBTs )?

Today ? I guess that cheap consumer gear may well suffer jitter induced defects.
There's no excuse for *well designed* high end gear to suffer.

Incidentally - the bit pattern used by SPDIF or AES/EBU is inherently subject to
signal dependent and cable length dependent jitter at the receiver even when
there is *no* jitter at the transmitter. It's down to the encoding method.


Graham
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 3:50:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 21 Feb 2005 17:48:56 GMT, "Norman M. Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline.net>
wrote:

>"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:cvcspp0702@news2.newsguy.com...

>> By basic principles ( lack of need for a clock recovery circuit ) the
>> potential
>> for a 1 box solution to be superior in respect of jitter is indeed true.
>>
>> Just depends how clean your system clock is.
>>
>OK, and my point was/is that the listener who wanted the best and latest
>equipment for listening to CD was told (by insiders having good and trained
>ears) to go out and replace their adequate single boxes with two boxes with
>added jitter. So therefore "jitter" in *practicality* was/is a red herring,
>and that they didn't hear the deleterious effect of jitter.

You're assuming that these 'insiders' could actually hear *any* kind
of difference, as opposed to assuming that 'more is better' in
typical ragazine reviewer style. How do you know that they had 'good
and trained ears'? Are these the same people who told you that you
needed $1,000 a foot speaker cables?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 5:20:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:

> But the jitter that resulted from going from one to two boxes then
> necessitated a third box, plus very careful auditioning of the digital
> cables (two, now!) connecting these all up. Instead of simply accepting
> the low jitter inherent in decent one-box designs, this approach puts
> greater control over the final product in the hands of the end user,
> thus restoring to digital some of the appeal of analogue.
>
> Thus does the high end progress.

I haven't seen it mentioned yet that when the two-box systems
were introduced, it was because they could provide substantial
sonic improvements over the players of the time. One still
hears reports of improved sound from adding, say, a Benchmark
DAC1 to a cheap player to replace its internal DAC.

After the external DACs were introduced, it began to be
reported that replacing the player with a well-designed
transport improved the sound again.

So one could say that by separating the parts of the problem,
the introduction of separate DACs and transports helped the
evolution of the better players we have today.

It should be noted that, with the advent of digital tone
controls and room-correction units, the two-box solution still
has its uses.


Mike Prager
North Carolina, USA
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 6:41:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Mike Prager <hifi@ec.rr.com> wrote:
> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:

> > But the jitter that resulted from going from one to two boxes then
> > necessitated a third box, plus very careful auditioning of the digital
> > cables (two, now!) connecting these all up. Instead of simply accepting
> > the low jitter inherent in decent one-box designs, this approach puts
> > greater control over the final product in the hands of the end user,
> > thus restoring to digital some of the appeal of analogue.
> >
> > Thus does the high end progress.

> I haven't seen it mentioned yet that when the two-box systems
> were introduced, it was because they could provide substantial
> sonic improvements over the players of the time. One still
> hears reports of improved sound from adding, say, a Benchmark
> DAC1 to a cheap player to replace its internal DAC.

Such claims are typical...but proof, ever-elusive.

> After the external DACs were introduced, it began to be
> reported that replacing the player with a well-designed
> transport improved the sound again.

See above. This one has even less *technical* foundation
than the first claim.


> So one could say that by separating the parts of the problem,
> the introduction of separate DACs and transports helped the
> evolution of the better players we have today.

Or, one could call it one of many examples of
the audiophile flywheel spinning away.


--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 3:56:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 23 Feb 2005 02:20:48 GMT, Mike Prager <hifi@ec.rr.com> wrote:

>nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> But the jitter that resulted from going from one to two boxes then
>> necessitated a third box, plus very careful auditioning of the digital
>> cables (two, now!) connecting these all up. Instead of simply accepting
>> the low jitter inherent in decent one-box designs, this approach puts
>> greater control over the final product in the hands of the end user,
>> thus restoring to digital some of the appeal of analogue.
>>
>> Thus does the high end progress.
>
>I haven't seen it mentioned yet that when the two-box systems
>were introduced, it was because they could provide substantial
>sonic improvements over the players of the time. One still
>hears reports of improved sound from adding, say, a Benchmark
>DAC1 to a cheap player to replace its internal DAC.

One does indeed, but one should note that the Benchmark is a product
which works in quite a different way from those 'high end' DACs of
yesteryear, and it is a *technically* superior product, which they
certainly were not.

>After the external DACs were introduced, it began to be
>reported that replacing the player with a well-designed
>transport improved the sound again.

It was indeed so *reported* in the audiphile press, but with little or
no evidential backup. The reality is that transports only make a
difference if you have a very *bad* DAC!

>So one could say that by separating the parts of the problem,
>the introduction of separate DACs and transports helped the
>evolution of the better players we have today.

One could, but it wouldn't be true! Most experienced digiphiles agree
that the best transport mechanisms ever built were the old TEACs, as
used by Wadia, and the Philips CDM9 PRO, as used by several high end
makers. However, it remains the case that the cheapest OEM mechanisms
and associated error-correction electronics do in fact produce
functionally perfect results at a total cost of some $20-30 - which is
why you found a cheap plastic CD-ROM drive in the ultra-high-end
Meridian 800 series when it was launched.

>It should be noted that, with the advent of digital tone
>controls and room-correction units, the two-box solution still
>has its uses.

Indeed, and fortunately we do have such excellent devices as the
Benchmark DAC-1 for the final conversion.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 4:06:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cvgjvp06f3@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> You're assuming that these 'insiders' could actually hear *any* kind
> of difference, as opposed to assuming that 'more is better' in
> typical ragazine reviewer style. How do you know that they had 'good
> and trained ears'? Are these the same people who told you that you
> needed $1,000 a foot speaker cables?
> --
Who said I assumed or done any of dat? I stayed with my Magnavox CDB 650 and
Odd-Job interconnect.
I still use a Magnavox CDB-650 and Technics SL-P370 players and never
bought a multi-box player system.
I do listen to them using Maggie Tympani IVa driven by Bryston 7B ST
monoblocks.
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 4:07:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cvgjvp06f3@news4.newsguy.com...
> On 21 Feb 2005 17:48:56 GMT, "Norman M. Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
>>"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:cvcspp0702@news2.newsguy.com...
>
>>> By basic principles ( lack of need for a clock recovery circuit ) the
>>> potential
>>> for a 1 box solution to be superior in respect of jitter is indeed true.
>>>
>>> Just depends how clean your system clock is.
>>>
>>OK, and my point was/is that the listener who wanted the best and latest
>>equipment for listening to CD was told (by insiders having good and
>>trained
>>ears) to go out and replace their adequate single boxes with two boxes
>>with
>>added jitter. So therefore "jitter" in *practicality* was/is a red
>>herring,
>>and that they didn't hear the deleterious effect of jitter.
>
> You're assuming that these 'insiders' could actually hear *any* kind
> of difference, as opposed to assuming that 'more is better' in
> typical ragazine reviewer style. How do you know that they had 'good
> and trained ears'? Are these the same people who told you that you
> needed $1,000 a foot speaker cables?
> --
It's you who are doing all the assuming. I am not unaware of the Food Chain
in High-End Audio.
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 4:54:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Norman M. Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:cvj9au090s@news4.newsguy.com...
> "Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cvgjvp06f3@news4.newsguy.com...
> >
> > You're assuming that these 'insiders' could actually hear *any* kind
> > of difference, as opposed to assuming that 'more is better' in
> > typical ragazine reviewer style. How do you know that they had 'good
> > and trained ears'? Are these the same people who told you that you
> > needed $1,000 a foot speaker cables?
> > --
> Who said I assumed or done any of dat? I stayed with my Magnavox CDB 650
and
> Odd-Job interconnect.
> I still use a Magnavox CDB-650 and Technics SL-P370 players and never
> bought a multi-box player system.
> I do listen to them using Maggie Tympani IVa driven by Bryston 7B ST
> monoblocks.

Actually, the Technics SL-P370 was a sweet honey of a moderately priced CD
player. I bought one for my girlfirend and later she gave it to my son when
I replaced it with a changer for her. He (a musician) still uses it as his
workhorse CD player.

When I auditioned it briefly in my main system, it sounded smooth and fine
and musical compared to most CD player in it's price range, but lacked
ultimate resolution in its electronics compared, say, to my Marantz SE/DTI
Pro/Proceed system. And it lacked that latter's dynamics. But as a
relatively inexpensive single box player it was hard to beat.
!