Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › This can't be right - my CD's digital end seems to affect sound quality more than expected
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

This can't be right - my CD's digital end seems to affect sound quality more than expected - Page 2

post #16 of 64
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dura View Post

Very basic first indication: dull undetailed sound usually is jitter, a sharp unpleasant sound are feedback circuits, of course you can have both at the same time.  

 

Thanks overall, dura, but thanks in particular for this. It doesn't quite capture the depth-of-frequency aspect, but I suppose that could be described as lack of detailing also. 
 

 

post #17 of 64
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by haloxt View Post

Having read the first post in this thread in its entirety, I feel it is my duty to ask please for the love of God don't be so verbose!

The computer may be using software that alters the music before outputting it to spdif. http://www.head-fi.org/t/221237/asio4all-explanation

If that's not the culprit, I believe that it may be jitter differences. I think bass depth/impact is one of the best things to listen for when trying to hear jitter, since drums have a predictable impact and decay across a wide frequency range. Some measurements have been taken by someone who writes low jitter media players suggesting that measuring at the dac analog output shows jitter differences better than at the transport's digital output. I would venture to suggest that at the speaker cone is where the jitter differences become most measurable. A sound with a sharp attack in many frequencies may be particularly affected by the most common types of jitter, because telling the cone to incorrectly move even at an inaudible frequency may have a more notable effect on other simultaneous cone sounds than oscilloscope measurements may suggest.

The comparison of hdp and cd player should take into account the fact that the transfer of digital data from cd player to hdp is likely inferior to the direct digital inside the cd player.


Hehe - it's always tricky with verbose or not. Some want more information gradually, some want it all up front.

 

I should have pointed out that this is not an asio4all-related issue as I have verified that the computer does not alter the signal. Given what dura started to mention (post before yours) and what you develop in yours, I'm seriously suspecting there may be more to jitter than I had given credit to until now. Being an analogue guy, I've never seriously tested (or cared about) the intricate parts of digital components. As I've gradually drifted more and more towards using my computer for music, I'm paying the price now in terms of lack of in-depth personal experience (rather than hearsay and metrics that are difficult to tell the impact from on an individual basis). I'll have to test some USB-to-SPDIF converters that also help address jitter (as much as possible) to see if this clears things up so I can throw out my way-too-old CD player (or buy something new if I can't shake the sound difference between computer and an external transport).

 

Cheers.

 

post #18 of 64
I think transports and converters/reclockers will become much closer to ideal than they are today, and much cheaper too because the best transports should be simple except for psu. A few things that could easily and cheaply be implemented but aren't in most transports: ssd drives, linear or battery psu, separate psu for non-critical parts, and i2s or other direct connection. Unless such issues are reexamined it'd be like trying to make a cheap car a race car. Or make a monster truck a race car in the case of computer transports. I don't bother trying too hard to improve any of my transports because they are all unideal in some major way.
post #19 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by haloxt View Post

Some measurements have been taken by someone who writes low jitter media players suggesting that measuring at the dac analog output shows jitter differences better than at the transport's digital output. I would venture to suggest that at the speaker cone is where the jitter differences become most measurable. A sound with a sharp attack in many frequencies may be particularly affected by the most common types of jitter, because telling the cone to incorrectly move even at an inaudible frequency may have a more notable effect on other simultaneous cone sounds than oscilloscope measurements may suggest.

You are joking? Jitter is timing irregularities between sampling points, jitter can only therefore exist in digital audio data, there is no such thing as jitter in an analogue signal so it is utterly impossible to measure jitter at a DAC's analogue output, let alone "more measurable" at a speaker cone. The other point is that jitter is a complete non-issue, doesn't matter about the source, transport or interconnects, any half decent DAC should have jitter rejection circuitry which effectively removes any jitter.

G
post #20 of 64
Haven't seen you for a while gregorio, Good to see your unique logic is still intact. As always, you are right. Here is the lie that confused me. http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=692.0;all

Just to let others know, I don't think there's any way to get through to gregorio except to agree with him, so I will always be in agreement with whatever he says. But if you would like to talk with me about anything, ignore what I say between me and gregorio. Think of it as two different realities.
post #21 of 64
Thread Starter 

Between the replies I've received and the additional reading that I have done on the side, I'm on my way to start testing what it takes to remove as much of the difference as I can (or possibly sell my CD and add just a transport that's external to my computer - though this may not solve when I stream music). Thus, feel free to keep discussing, but I'm ok with getting direction in terms of what more I could test to see the impact myself.

post #22 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by haloxt View Post

Haven't seen you for a while gregorio, Good to see your unique logic is still intact. As always, you are right. Here is the lie that confused me. http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=692.0;all

Just to let others know, I don't think there's any way to get through to gregorio except to agree with him, so I will always be in agreement with whatever he says. But if you would like to talk with me about anything, ignore what I say between me and gregorio. Think of it as two different realities.

Good to see you still have zero understanding of digital audio and have to cover up the fact that you are spouting complete nonsense by insults, lies or quoting others with zero understanding of digital audio. The lie in your quote is that in fact, my logic is very far from unique, it represents known facts of science and digital audio professionals (of which I am one).

Thanks for the link, the poster has proven conclusively that NOS filterless DACs are hopelessly non-linear, something known to audio professionals and science for decades and even predicted by the Nyquist-Shannon Theorem over 60 years ago. Nevertheless, the poster seems to think that his DAC is bit perfect and therefore linear, when he discovers that it is not linear he blames jitter (without even measuring the jitter!) and completely ignores the obvious and simple fact, that his filterless DAC is not linear. One of the most impressive demonstrations of ignorance I've seen. Beaten only by haloxt who then actually quotes this nonsense as supporting evidence, the blind leading the blind! A seriously misguided attempt at justifying the fact that his post was complete BS because jitter does not exist in analog components, only in digital audio data. If that is not crazy enough, the link haloxt provided does not even mention, let alone support the whole basis of his post, that jitter can be measured in speakers and the analog output of a DAC.

I'm not sure if haloxt really is so ignorant about audio or if he has some ulterior motive in spreading misinformation but regardless, if you have any interest in the actual facts of how digital audio and sound really works I would advise you to ignore haloxt's posts.

G
Edited by gregorio - 8/31/11 at 5:54am
post #23 of 64
One major difference between cd players and computers is computers are usually a box of electrical noise and vibration. To bridge the difference, assuming jitter is audible (ha ha ha let's humor Gregorio), you'd be looking at shielding, damping, tweaking, replacing, and removing hardware and software until the computer is like a 10w cd player with a hard drive instead of cd changer. I hope you don't actually want to bridge the difference this way tongue.gif.

Here's some less extreme things to try. Try out cplay software if you are using windows. Many people say it is the best sounding media player. Read the manual or you will have trouble, it has a GUI meant for remote control, and only reads single lossless flac and wav files or playlists so you may need the very quick cuesheet creator also on their site. Generally speaking I think most cd players will be superior to most computers digital output if we don't do any serious tweaks, but a computer does have faster processing and more ram, which this software utilizes well. You'll need asio4all or the not free "usb-audio" software. http://www.cicsmemoryplayer.com/

Since it's cheap, you may want to try a bunch of 14awg power cables from monoprice. Ten would be like $25 shipped, and you won't have to worry about audiophile cables again, but imo I think the improvement is minor for most equipment. Monoprice sells fantastic bang for buck audio cables as well. http://www.monoprice.com/products/search.asp?keyword=14awg+power&x=0&y=0

You could also try a line conditioner for both cd player and computer, but most cheap conditioners will increase noise at certain frequencies. A few people say no line conditioner however expensive is better than straight from the wall, that the cons outweigh the pros. A good conditioner I like for cd players, lcd's and computers, but not speaker amps, is the furman ac-215, but only if you can find it for ~$75 shipped on ebay, not the $200 retail price. The circuitry is the same as their $300 retail conditioner, just less sockets so you may need a socket multiplier.
post #24 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by haloxt View Post

One major difference between cd players and computers is computers are usually a box of electrical noise and vibration. To bridge the difference, assuming jitter is audible (ha ha ha let's humor Gregorio), you'd be looking at shielding, damping, tweaking, replacing, and removing hardware and software until the computer is like a 10w cd player with a hard drive instead of cd changer. I hope you don't actually want to bridge the difference this way tongue.gif.

Here's some less extreme things to try. Try out cplay software if you are using windows. Many people say it is the best sounding media player. Read the manual or you will have trouble, it has a GUI meant for remote control, and only reads single lossless flac and wav files or playlists so you may need the very quick cuesheet creator also on their site. Generally speaking I think most cd players will be superior to most computers digital output if we don't do any serious tweaks, but a computer does have faster processing and more ram, which this software utilizes well. You'll need asio4all or the not free "usb-audio" software. http://www.cicsmemoryplayer.com/

Since it's cheap, you may want to try a bunch of 14awg power cables from monoprice. Ten would be like $25 shipped, and you won't have to worry about audiophile cables again, but imo I think the improvement is minor for most equipment. Monoprice sells fantastic bang for buck audio cables as well. http://www.monoprice.com/products/search.asp?keyword=14awg+power&x=0&y=0

You could also try a line conditioner for both cd player and computer, but most cheap conditioners will increase noise at certain frequencies. A few people say no line conditioner however expensive is better than straight from the wall, that the cons outweigh the pros. A good conditioner I like for cd players, lcd's and computers, but not speaker amps, is the furman ac-215, but only if you can find it for ~$75 shipped on ebay, not the $200 retail price. The circuitry is the same as their $300 retail conditioner, just less sockets so you may need a socket multiplier.

Yet again, all complete and utter rubbish! Will you never learn? It does not matter how much jitter is created by cables, bridges, transport, hard drive, cd changer, software, power supplies or anything else. Any decent DAC will remove this jitter!! How many times do you need to be told? Don't believe me, OK here is a quote from Bob Katz, one of the most famous mastering engineers in the world, who literally wrote the reference book for audio professionals: "A well-designed converter should contain internal phase locked loops whose performance reduces any incoming jitter artifacts to inaudibility." Bob Katz made this statement 7 years ago, so it's hardly new information or information which is not widely known or accepted (except by haloxt).

G
post #25 of 64
Gregorio, if only you were here to protect us from all the jitter lies before the market forced a sleuth of so-called jitter reduction devices down our collective throats. Now with battery powered asynchronous reclockers the false god of jitter has been inculcated into the psyche of audiophiles, like cables, and nothing can be done to save us. The jitterists won the war without firing a shot, because you didn't do enough to stop the cancer at its onset.
post #26 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by haloxt View Post

Gregorio, if only you were here to protect us from all the jitter lies before the market forced a sleuth of so-called jitter reduction devices down our collective throats. Now with battery powered asynchronous reclockers the false god of jitter has been inculcated into the psyche of audiophiles, like cables, and nothing can be done to save us. The jitterists won the war without firing a shot, because you didn't do enough to stop the cancer at its onset.

So you've been called out on your BS information given to others. When challenged, you insult, quote more nonsense and provide even more inaccurate information. And now, when finally faced with facts which you can't BS your way out of, instead of being a man, admitting you provided incorrect information and apologising for the insults, the best you can do is this last pathetic post containing nothing but weak sarcasm. At least you've made it clear where you're coming from, very telling ......

Let this be an end to it.

G
post #27 of 64
Hah, whatever you say boss.

To non-Gregorios, some food for thought. There are many products claiming to have low jitter, or to reduce jitter, including dac chips which all the manufacturers claim deal with jitter better than other dac chips. If so many people and so many companies are trying to tackle this obviously nonexistent issue as Gregorio's genius has shown, does it not mean there must be a massive conspiracy to make us believe in jitter?

Only Gregorio can save us from ourselves. And only Gregorio can finish Beethoven's unfinished symphonies.
post #28 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by haloxt View Post

Hah, whatever you say boss.

To non-Gregorios, some food for thought. There are many products claiming to have low jitter, or to reduce jitter, including dac chips which all the manufacturers claim deal with jitter better than other dac chips. If so many people and so many companies are trying to tackle this obviously nonexistent issue as Gregorio's genius has shown, does it not mean there must be a massive conspiracy to make us believe in jitter?

Only Gregorio can save us from ourselves. And only Gregorio can finish Beethoven's unfinished symphonies.


Why would there have to be a massive conspiracy when every audiophile already curls into a fetal ball at the sound of the word?

 

There are DACs and DAC chips which deal with jitter better. That doesn't mean that all other DACs produce audible jitter.

 

There's no need to insult others if you have evidence that backs up your statements. Could you post some?

post #29 of 64

There are various studies which investigated the audibility of jitter and concluded that there has to be absolutely tonnes of it for audible problems to be apparent. Jitter is useful to marketing departments (when prettymuch any half-decent digital transport is perfect, how do you stand out? Answer: Solve nonexistent problems and trust in the unconscious biases of reviewers/listeners to do the rest) but was solved as a serious problem with digital audio a very long time ago. Ironically, the devices with the worst jitter problems are generally audiophile products which have been designed solely to follow the latest trends - "NOS!" "No opamps!" "Insert arbitrary piece of audiophile mythology here!" with no regards to them actually performing competently on the test bench.

 

Solutions to nonexistent problems being widely sold and given credence!? This is disgusting! This is scandalous! This is...oh, wait, it's the high-end audio industry. Never mind...

post #30 of 64
Why should I be respectful when people think they are scientific to presume to know the limits of human sensory perception, when they don't have an inkling of the mechanisms involved? If we're testing the supposed limits of hearing, obviously you would be testing people with hyper-acuity, a famous one being Tesla. And acuity is always variable, which most tests don't really account for other than blind repetition.

Suffice it to say, we live in a world where medical doctors view placebo as an obstacle to overcome. They don't care to understand and utilize. Neither do people supposedly testing the limits of perception. The only people I would trust to actually take a scientific approach to any issue involving measuring perception would be people in military R&D, and they wouldn't do it out of love for knowledge either.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › This can't be right - my CD's digital end seems to affect sound quality more than expected