Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Jitter -- How low is low?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Jitter -- How low is low? - Page 5

post #61 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by regal View Post
I have built several DAC's, experiemented with different recievers like the DIR9001/CS8414, used reclocking. I am just asking a question, you are very defensive.
You are defensive, claiming that reclocking doesn't work, not the general experience, is it. Did you use a dedicated powersupply for the clock? It suppose to significantly raise the sound of reclocking.

Probably the reclocking works better on older cdplayers then newer ones, since they are likely to have worse jitter specs...
post #62 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by tourmaline View Post
Show me one person that doesn't say it makes a difference.
Several persons ....These chaps .....

Matrix-Hifi

take the red pill , go to Pruebas Ciegas, select

Lector Cambridge Audio CD6 vs Cambridge Audio CD6 (modificado con reloj maestro LClock XO2)

Conclusion

NO SE ENCONTRARON DIFERENCIAS DE SONIDO entre el CAMBRIDGE y CAMBRIDGE MODIFICADO
post #63 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by tourmaline View Post
You are defensive, claiming that reclocking doesn't work, not the general experience, is it. Did you use a dedicated powersupply for the clock? It suppose to significantly raise the sound of reclocking.
Yes, but I can admit that after building these DAC's that the biggest differences come from the analog stage. The clocking/recievers don't seem to correlate. In other words the best analog stage with the highest jitter reciever sounds much better than the worst analog stage with the lowest jitter reciever.

As I mentioned earlier my next build will combine a high quality synchronous reclocking with a high quality analog stage. I am curious by nature, but I have never seen any real jitter measurements that show a clock actually can reduce jitter. Not saying it doesn't just that measurements are suspiciously absent.
post #64 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_charles View Post
Sorry, do you mean it did make a difference but you just didn't like the result ?
haha!

I had the main power supply spruced up, new caps installed throughout and new op amps in the buffer circuit in addition to a Audiocom "Ultra Clock" with dedicated SC-4 Power supply driving the clock and the sum total was NO WHERE NEAR the sonic differences touted by Audiocom nor the modder.

A real audio tech told me that replacing old caps and the opamps were probably responsible for any percieved sonic changes gained...then he laughed and said next time I want to waste money just give it to him and he would wave a magic wand over the equipment and start spouting rubbish on how great it will sound with "MAGIC" now applied.

Where there sonic differences? I don't know...I'd need to have a second unit of equal age to use as a baseline in A/B testing to answer that truthfully but my impression is it would have been difficult to call out any distinct differences...and that's based on listening thru a X-Can V3 and HD600s

Total damage was just short of $2000 with the UltraClock alone costing $795 installed...

Selling the Arcam and investing the $2000 toward a Bryston BCD-1, Creek Destiny or Primare CD31 would have been a much wiser route using 20/20 hindsight vs. buying into the BS peddled about how much money you can save by modding a lesser priced unit and having it sound like a higher priced unit with modern architecture or an older unit with better circuit design from the drawing board.

Buyer beware
post #65 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Know Talent View Post
haha!

I had the main power supply spruced up, new caps installed throughout and new op amps in the buffer circuit in addition to a Audiocom "Ultra Clock" with dedicated SC-4 Power supply driving the clock and the sum total was NO WHERE NEAR the sonic differences touted by Audiocom nor the modder.

A real audio tech told me that replacing old caps and the opamps were probably responsible for any percieved sonic changes gained...then he laughed and said next time I want to waste money just give it to him and he would wave a magic wand over the equipment and start spouting rubbish on how great it will sound with "MAGIC" now applied.

Where there sonic differences? I don't know...I'd need to have a second unit of equal age to use as a baseline in A/B testing to answer that truthfully but my impression is it would have been difficult to call out any distinct differences...and that's based on listening thru a X-Can V3 and HD600s

Total damage was just short of $2000 with the UltraClock alone costing $795 installed...

Selling the Arcam and investing the $2000 toward a Bryston BCD-1, Creek Destiny or Primare CD31 would have been a much wiser route using 20/20 hindsight vs. buying into the BS peddled about how much money you can save by modding a lesser priced unit and having it sound like a higher priced unit with modern architecture or an older unit with better circuit design from the drawing board.

Buyer beware
Probably a technician that doesn't know how to mod. As i said earlier, the passive filter made a huge difference. changing components and not taking any weakness in the design taken into account doesn't go anywhere!

yes, some older, like mine or any other previous high end model can be modded to sound as good, or better then any modern cdplayer. As a matter affect, 1 bit players don't sound as good as multi bit players. It could be that the weakness of your arcam was the chipset itself.

Alot of people, and i really mean alot of people still like older chipsets much better then any new 1 bit chipset. All new sacd players use 1 bit and i heard em myself and were nowhere near as good as good old cdplayers, they lack in cdplayback. Sacd playback is nice but again, they lack in cdplayback.

I see alot of people hanging on to their expensive old teac's, denon's, accuphase, etc cdplayers because they simply sound better TO them.

The arcam is quite new, so the jitter might have been actually quite low. I am convinced that alot of older high end players will benefit from a better dedicated psu and reclock.

To be honest, my system is highly resolving and very sensative to any change. Not all systems show as good or are resolving that much of a difference when something was modded. Not all systems react the same to mods.
post #66 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_charles View Post
Several persons ....These chaps .....

Matrix-Hifi

take the red pill , go to Pruebas Ciegas, select

Lector Cambridge Audio CD6 vs Cambridge Audio CD6 (modificado con reloj maestro LClock XO2)

Conclusion

NO SE ENCONTRARON DIFERENCIAS DE SONIDO entre el CAMBRIDGE y CAMBRIDGE MODIFICADO
hahaha, i had a read on this site and they even didn't hear a difference between a cheap denon and and the dcs system.

As a matter afact, they don't hear any differences at all at any comparisson.

First, use a good headphone rig, i bet you'll hear much more...no accoustical problems.........

That cramped space wouldn't do good either for accoustics.
post #67 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by regal View Post
Yes, but I can admit that after building these DAC's that the biggest differences come from the analog stage. The clocking/recievers don't seem to correlate. In other words the best analog stage with the highest jitter reciever sounds much better than the worst analog stage with the lowest jitter reciever.

As I mentioned earlier my next build will combine a high quality synchronous reclocking with a high quality analog stage. I am curious by nature, but I have never seen any real jitter measurements that show a clock actually can reduce jitter. Not saying it doesn't just that measurements are suspiciously absent.
If the highest jitter is below 150, there wasn't a problem in the first place.

Older players of 10 years old that have, assumingly 250 or more jitter, will benefit from a reclock, a modern well below 50ps jitter 1 bit cdplayer woudn't gain as much or nothing at all.

But i agree that probably the smallest gains are in the digital section and the largest gains are in the analogue domain. No question about that.
post #68 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by tourmaline View Post
The arcam is quite new, so the jitter might have been actually quite low. I am convinced that alot of older high end players will benefit from a better dedicated psu and reclock.
Yes, I agree and they even mention that in the Audiocom ad (CYA?)...but then they go on to say what an amazing transformation takes place with their Superclock 4 installed... (I had the uber expensive UltraClock installed)

Here's the scoop directly from their website

The CD23 Comes of Age.

The CD23 is essentially made up of two PCB’s, the main power supply & digital PCB, then the audio circuitry PCB is fixed to an aluminium plate and held upside down on top of the main PCB. The Level-1 modification upgrades the main PCB digital & analogue power supplies, employing Black Gate NX for the analogue power supply. Regulator bypass & local digital de-coupling capacitors are also replaced for Rubycon ZA types.

The OEM master clock is a single transistor discrete design, evidently better than the poor quality CMOS inverter based clocks seen in other CD players regardless of price. We were keen to hear how the Superclock 4-S (SC4) would perform in the CD23 and made this upgrade in isolation and listened.

We were keen to hear how the Superclock 4-S (SC4) would perform in the CD23 and made this upgrade in isolation and listened. We can report that this new clock improves significantly upon OEM oscillator. Most notable is the increase in sound-stage depth and projection, a more flowing, organic, relaxing sense of the music. There's more detail, truth of pitch & timbre, bass delineation.

Tonally the CD23 looses that degree of hardness, leanness heard in the OEM player, with SC4-S the tonal balance has a natural warmth and organic flow which makes listening for longer periods fatigue free. Bass is more sure footed, with added energy and power to ensure that the lower registers are more convincing.


.: Audiocom International :. Modifications : Arcam FMJ CD23

Now after reading all that fluffery what would you expect to hear?

I see you also mention analog section mods and I agree they can have a noticeable effect but I am very leary in that area as well because I've had well advertized modders try to sell me on output transformers which up the ouput which to me "muddies the waters" regarding what constitutes "better" performance. Simply jacking up the output does not guarentee better detail, reduced distortion, etc...
post #69 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Know Talent View Post
I had the main power supply spruced up, new caps installed throughout and new op amps in the buffer circuit in addition to a Audiocom "Ultra Clock" with dedicated SC-4 Power supply driving the clock and the sum total was NO WHERE NEAR the sonic differences touted by Audiocom nor the modder.

A real audio tech told me that replacing old caps and the opamps were probably responsible for any percieved sonic changes gained...then he laughed and said next time I want to waste money just give it to him and he would wave a magic wand over the equipment and start spouting rubbish on how great it will sound with "MAGIC" now applied.
It's amazing how people automatically assume mods improve sound. Too many of the suggestions for improving sound quality around here involve expending large sums of money for things that don't make a lick of difference... while the things that DO make a difference and cost very little are rarely addressed (or worse yet, poo-pooed).

Thanks for the straight shooting post.

See ya
Steve
post #70 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by tourmaline View Post
hahaha, i had a read on this site and they even didn't hear a difference between a cheap denon and and the dcs system.
Your point being what exactly ?


Quote:
As a matter afact, they don't hear any differences at all at any comparisson.
Not true - they did find items that sounded different on two different tests.

Lector Sony SACD XA3000ES vs Discman Sony E-775

Discman Sony E-775 vs CEC TL 51Z MKII


Quote:
First, use a good headphone rig, i bet you'll hear much more...no accoustical problems.........
So a reclocking that supposedly lowers jitter to miniscule levels has an effect that is simply not audible at all using

$3500 speakers with a
$6500 preamp and
$9450 dual mono power amp.

and you wonder why some feel cynical about high price audio kit ?

Wouldnt a much more likely interpretation be that the reclocking made no discenible difference and by inference that either jitter just isnt an issue or the reclocking didnt actually lower jitter ?
post #71 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
It's amazing how people automatically assume mods improve sound. Too many of the suggestions for improving sound quality around here involve expending large sums of money for things that don't make a lick of difference... while the things that DO make a difference and cost very little are rarely addressed (or worse yet, poo-pooed).
Oooh so true. But you forget to mention the hike in price that is a MUST as part of any upgrade. Cheaper ones are not normally deemed of any significance. I have gotten tired of customers asking if I have a more expensive mod.
post #72 of 151
It appears that some modders aren't tired of being asked for more expensive mods... they are catering to the demand! There's one born every minute.

See ya
Steve
post #73 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_charles View Post
Your point being what exactly ?




Not true - they did find items that sounded different on two different tests.

Lector Sony SACD XA3000ES vs Discman Sony E-775

Discman Sony E-775 vs CEC TL 51Z MKII




So a reclocking that supposedly lowers jitter to miniscule levels has an effect that is simply not audible at all using

$3500 speakers with a
$6500 preamp and
$9450 dual mono power amp.

and you wonder why some feel cynical about high price audio kit ?

Wouldnt a much more likely interpretation be that the reclocking made no discenible difference and by inference that either jitter just isnt an issue or the reclocking didnt actually lower jitter ?
I am very cinical and i heard some very expensive rigs but my system is up there. Only the ultra high end is better. I don't wanna go even near that kind of money.

I can tell ya when the mod is done.
Are you gonna shoot me if i hear a clear difference?
post #74 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
It appears that some modders aren't tired of being asked for more expensive mods... they are catering to the demand! There's one born every minute.

See ya
Steve
ofcourse and my cdplayer sounds so much better now. At least i am glad i did the mod. Worth every penny. But that mod is something different then a reclocking module with dedicated psu, that IS the discussion here.

Older cdplayers will benefit probably more then new(er) cdplayers.

I also stated that probably the powersection mods and the analogue stages make the biggest difference. I know since i completely modded the analogue section of the amplifier, night and day difference.

You have to look closely into a cdplayer design, build on the strenths, take out the weaknesses. Replacing things doesnt have to make a difference, but taking out loads of unnecessarry things makes a hell of a difference, since every active parts obscures detail.

I have to agree with you guys that probably not a very carefully thought out mod would have a huge impact.

replacing 10 cent caps with 10 cent caps won't make any difference.

Bigshot, for the money of the total mods and the price of the cdplayer, i have a cdplayer that sounds much better then any player in that pricerange, i know since i heard em.

So, for the they are worth the price, for everybody? probably not, but a good professional modder should be able to tell you wich mods are worth while and make a difference.

I wouldn't put a new clock in a new players since most new players are allready wel under 50ps...and a dac in cplayer uses smaller signal path, hence the jitter is smaller as well as with an external dac.

At least, i understood that external dacs fed by a digital cable suffer more from jitter then internal dacs.
post #75 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by tourmaline View Post

"Older cdplayers will benefit probably more then new(er) cdplayers."

...."I wouldn't put a new clock in a new players since most new players are allready wel under 50ps...and a dac in cplayer uses smaller signal path, hence the jitter is smaller as well as with an external dac."
I agree with these statements 110% but there are still many biased reviewers and mod houses out there making bold claims as how even brand new players benefit from the latest Uber clock upgrade...revealing previously unheard soundstage depth (which is mostly recording dependent and room acoustics?) and give you a more analog sonic signature (does that mean higher distortion and reduced channel sep?), etc...

When I start hearing certain key words and phrases my BS meter gets pegged in the red and I feel the urge to turn the hounds loose.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Jitter -- How low is low?