[HotIce]

The statement that USB audio has no connection to the clock is false. The clock reference is the square wave of a digital signal.

 
So it is suddenly a square wave and a digital signal? 

BTW, the USB level signaling clock, and the DAC internal clock, are two totally different things.

 

[castleofargh]

  All you need to do is buy a $50 Jitterbug. It can't be that hard...

this reminds me of anticheat systems in online games when I was a valiant low+ veteran

. some hacks weren't detected and we all had the obvious question "why don't you guys buy the hack and find how it works and how to stop it?" one of those was like 20$ surely they could afford it. and the answer was always the same. "we don't buy hacks because that would mean giving money to the very people making a living with cheats". it's a philosophical problem. a sort of "we don't negotiate with terrorists" kind of logic. I personally won't buy any magic box of any sort just for the sake of testing them on problems I know I don't have. I will never give money to A&K(I was very fine with iriver and sensible pricing), I will never buy a 300$ or more cable, I will not buy a DAC just to have MQA, I will not buy a pono just to check if there is non linearity into a given load or how much power I can actually use into a few loads....
 
I give my money for stuff I suspect to be great, not for stuff I suspect to have no or a negative impact and very little factual data on the effect. if a tech was to consistently improve stuff objectively, it would be so simple to demonstrate it objectively and get golden street creds for that. when a products spends too much on marketing talking about the technology and too little demonstrating the effect, you can often make your own conclusion.

 

[U-3C]

this reminds me of anticheat systems in online games when I was a valiant low+ veteran . some hacks weren't detected and we all had the obvious question "why don't you guys buy the hack and find how it works and how to stop it?" one of those was like 20$ surely they could afford it. and the answer was always the same. "we don't buy hacks because that would mean giving money to the very people making a living with cheats". it's a philosophical problem. a sort of "we don't negotiate with terrorists" kind of logic. I personally won't buy any magic box of any sort just for the sake of testing them on problems I know I don't have. I will never give money to A&K(I was very fine with iriver and sensible pricing), I will never buy a 300$ or more cable, I will not buy a DAC just to have MQA, I will not buy a pono just to check if there is non linearity into a given load or how much power I can actually use into a few loads....

I give my money for stuff I suspect to be great, not for stuff I suspect to have no or a negative impact and very little factual data on the effect. if a tech was to consistently improve stuff objectively, it would be so simple to demonstrate it objectively and get golden street creds for that. when a products spends too much on marketing talking about the technology and too little demonstrating the effect, you can often make your own conclusion.

50 dollars is a lot too for many people...

*Thinks of all the cheap food I can buy in Chinatown*

In this case, it's not even spending money to figure out the hack, which will result in some benefit. It's straight out telling one to sirens money on something they don't need, when they were asking a completely unrelated question: what settings should I put my computer on.

 

[GRUMPYOLDGUY]

  this reminds me of anticheat systems in online games when I was a valiant low+ veteran

. some hacks weren't detected and we all had the obvious question "why don't you guys buy the hack and find how it works and how to stop it?" one of those was like 20$ surely they could afford it. and the answer was always the same. "we don't buy hacks because that would mean giving money to the very people making a living with cheats". it's a philosophical problem. a sort of "we don't negotiate with terrorists" kind of logic. I personally won't buy any magic box of any sort just for the sake of testing them on problems I know I don't have. I will never give money to A&K(I was very fine with iriver and sensible pricing), I will never buy a 300$ or more cable, I will not buy a DAC just to have MQA, I will not buy a pono just to check if there is non linearity into a given load or how much power I can actually use into a few loads....
 
I give my money for stuff I suspect to be great, not for stuff I suspect to have no or a negative impact and very little factual data on the effect. if a tech was to consistently improve stuff objectively, it would be so simple to demonstrate it objectively and get golden street creds for that. when a products spends too much on marketing talking about the technology and too little demonstrating the effect, you can often make your own conclusion.

 
Exactly. It's the same problem I'm having in another thread...
 
The "you should just buy it to see if the claims are true" mentality is nonsense. It should be the burden of the person making the claims to substantiate them... Why should I pay X amount of dollars to do your job for you?

 

[watchnerd]

Why do I need a $20/$30/$50  Arglebargle 2000 Jitter B' Gone or similar device of any kind if all my jitter measures below what is audible?
 
I don't take meds for conditions I don't have.

 

[GuyUnder]

You can buy it from Amazon and return it no questions asked if it makes no difference?

The Jitterbug is a filter. It probably won't do much for a battery-operated device that has clean power to begin with. It also won't do a lot for systems that uses galvanic isolation on the input (the filtering is built into the gear in that case).

If you want step up to isolation / regeneration, the Schiit Wyrd is effective at $100, and will likely have a positive effect on a wider range of products but it's powered so not mobile.

In the realm of computer audio tweaks and upgrades these are cheap and effective.

 

[GRUMPYOLDGUY]

You can buy it from Amazon and return it no questions asked if it makes no difference?

The Jitterbug is a filter. It probably won't do much for a battery-operated device that has clean power to begin with. It also won't do a lot for systems that uses galvanic isolation on the input (the filtering is built into the gear in that case).

If you want step up to isolation / regeneration, the Schiit Wyrd is effective at $100, and will likely have a positive effect on a wider range of products but it's powered so not mobile.

In the realm of computer audio tweaks and upgrades these are cheap and effective.

 

 

[GRUMPYOLDGUY]

You can buy it from Amazon and return it no questions asked if it makes no difference?

The Jitterbug is a filter. It probably won't do much for a battery-operated device that has clean power to begin with. It also won't do a lot for systems that uses galvanic isolation on the input (the filtering is built into the gear in that case).

If you want step up to isolation / regeneration, the Schiit Wyrd is effective at $100, and will likely have a positive effect on a wider range of products but it's powered so not mobile.

In the realm of computer audio tweaks and upgrades these are cheap and effective.

 
Edit: Nah. I'm going to stick with the meme. 

 

[watchnerd]

You can buy it from Amazon and return it no questions asked if it makes no difference?
 

 
I don't take aspirin to try out to see if it "makes a difference" when I don't have a headache.
 
I don't have audible jitter.  How do I know this?
 
1. All my devices have jitter measurements below the audible threshold.
 
2. I know what jitter sounds like; I've done listening tests where you can increase the jitter to hear what it sounds like.
 
3. I don't hear the sounds of jitter when I play music.
 
Ergo, I don't need to buy random things that claim  to solve problems I don't have.

 

[U-3C]

You can buy it from Amazon and return it no questions asked if it makes no difference?

The Jitterbug is a filter. It probably won't do much for a battery-operated device that has clean power to begin with. It also won't do a lot for systems that uses galvanic isolation on the input (the filtering is built into the gear in that case).

If you want step up to isolation / regeneration, the Schiit Wyrd is effective at $100, and will likely have a positive effect on a wider range of products but it's powered so not mobile.

In the realm of computer audio tweaks and upgrades these are cheap and effective.

I thought in the realm of computer audio tweaks...cheap means free? :blink: I certainly found many free solutions that far surpassed amazing audio gear that cost s thousands, no matter how hard I try to compare, to a point that I actually upset the guys at local audio retailers.

50 dollars for many, including me, is a lot to spend, especially for such small things.

 

[Brooko]

The iDSD has an iPurifier built into it.

The NFB-12 I can't comment on. Audio-gd gear typically have very robust circuits and so may see less benefit from a filter. Likewise I can't comment on the other 2 products, except that there is a Head-Fi review that said he couldn't tell the difference with the X1S while he could with other DACs.

 
I'm a bit confused here.  Apparently the Wyrd or iPurifier2 or Jiitterbug would all increase my fidelity (your claim) when already I've measured the iPurifier2 and it introduces distortion, not reduces it. I've also run blind tests with the Jitterbug, and noticed no difference.
 
My question to you - have you run a volume matched blind test with any of this gear you've suggested, and been able to tell the difference to a statistically relevant level?  I'm guessing by your posts so far - the answer to that would be no.  If yes - and we could arrange it - would you be willing to take part in an experiment in controlled conditions (so it could actually be independently monitored)?
 
Now you're telling em if I have a decent DAC - then the results wouldn't be noticeable.  I pretty much knew that already - but thanks.  Most DACs are decently made now - even stuff that some people would turn their noses at because they are too cheap.  But I digress.
 
Furthermore - you've stated that the developers of Foobar are wrong with their statement regarding placebo and real music - but have not said why.  I'd suggest you demonstrate it - and show some empirical testing, as the personal tests I've run would indicate I can't tell the difference with upsampling or downsampling after volume matching (feel free to tell my I have tin-ears at this stage - that is the normal route after questioning my audio chain). 
 
Thirdly - can you explain this:

 The statement that USB audio has no connection to the clock is false. The clock reference is the square wave of a digital signal. You're trying to hard to make me "wrong" on something.

 
So you're saying a digital signal now has analogue components?  I am thoroughly confused.  Or maybe its you.  I'm trying to be really polite here - but the hole you're digging, in this particular thread, just gets deeper and deeper.  Perhaps you'd like to quit while you're behind?

 

[cel4145]

I wish this member would go post this observation from the Realtek discussion thread in the Chord Mojo thread so we could watch the uproar:

Just stumbled upon this post. There is some real truth here. I have owned several DACs. I just assumed my new 2016 Realtek DAC would suck. It managed to boot my Chord Mojo off my system.

:evil:

 

[watchnerd]

I wish this member would go post this observation from the Realtek discussion thread in the Chord Mojo thread so we could watch the uproar:

 
Live by the hype, die by the hype.
 
Now Realtek will be crowned a 'Mojo killer' and become FOTM for a while.

 

[nick_charles]

   
I don't have audible jitter.  How do I know this?
 
2. I know what jitter sounds like; I've done listening tests where you can increase the jitter to hear what it sounds like.
 

 
Interesting, how did you get such a wonderous jitter inducer and how much jitter was audible to you ? I've never owned even a cheap device where I suspected jitter to be an issue. But if you really want possibly audible jitter you need to spend a lot of money..McIntosh Jitter

 

[watchnerd]

   
Interesting, how did you get such a wonderous jitter inducer and how much jitter was audible to you ? I've never owned even a cheap device where I suspected jitter to be an issue. But if you really want possibly audible jitter you need to spend a lot of money..McIntosh Jitter

 
I've done it two ways:
 
1. Used a VST plugin for ProTools to add it to my own mixes to see what happens.  This allowed me to gradually increase the jitter.
 
2. There are several online tests.  Try this one: http://www.cranesong.com/jitter_1.html
 
Also, this one: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,106076.0.html