[bixby]

Nope

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/08/measurements-audiophile-sound-and.html#more

Yes, I am aware of this blog. Audible to me and many others, measurable, not so much.

Lots of things do not show up in measurements. Because we are still learning what to measure. Agree to disagree.

 

[dwinnert]

Yes, I am aware of this blog. Audible to me and many others, measurable, not so much.

Lots of things do not show up in measurements. Because we are still learning what to measure. Agree to disagree.

There is no audio inside the computer/OS, just bits. As long as the "bits" get to the DAC without jitter errors, then there will be zero audio differences. And most modern DAC's don't have issues with jitter and using ASIO or WASAPI bypass the Windows audio path and will send the data bit perfect to the DAC.

You can claim what you want, but tests prove you are incorrect.

 

[zalive]

There is no audio inside the computer/OS, just bits. As long as the "bits" get to the DAC without jitter errors, then there will be zero audio differences. And most modern DAC's don't have issues with jitter and using ASIO or WASAPI bypass the Windows audio path and will send the data bit perfect to the DAC.

You can claim what you want, but tests prove you are incorrect.

Trouble is, it gets jitter, as data streaming through USB is not perfect. USB communication is handled by the OS and USB processing/data transfer priority is not flawless. So it will be the OS which will affect the evenness of data stream. And, no, buffering plus regenerating&reclocking the data stream is not standard on the DAC side. Simple reclock won't and can't de-jitter major flaws in audio data stream synchronicity / evenness.

Besides, 'bit perfect' in terms of UAC2 or similar asynchronous USB transfer implementation is a false statement. No error correction, since no data resend is implemented. It's not a bulk mode transfer as used to transfer computer file data. Errors are detected by CRC...and then passed to the DAC

However, if someone uses in the digital chain after the USB transfer a device or a circuitry which will sufficiently buffer then regenerate the data stream, it's what can correct all the jitter crape that OS like Windows is capable of delivering through its poor USB comm handling.

So, there will be devices and chains which will be less sensitive to bad quality USB stream, and ones which will be pretty sensitive in this respect, since they basically don't correct major timing (jitter) flaws by any means.

 

[moriez]

Nope

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/08/measurements-audiophile-sound-and.html#more

With all due respect what meaning does one man's conclusion have? How does it represent anything?

then there will be zero audio differences

Because of the way you phrased that, can you honestly say you've tried this for yourself?

 

[dwinnert]

Trouble is, it gets jitter, as data streaming through USB is not perfect. USB communication is handled by the OS and USB processing/data transfer priority is not flawless. So it will be the OS which will affect the evenness of data stream. And, no, buffering plus regenerating&reclocking the data stream is not standard on the DAC side. Simple reclock won't and can't de-jitter major flaws in audio data stream synchronicity / evenness.

Besides, 'bit perfect' in terms of UAC2 or similar asynchronous USB transfer implementation is a false statement. No error correction, since no data resend is implemented. It's not a bulk mode transfer as used to transfer computer file data. Errors are detected by CRC...and then passed to the DAC

However, if someone uses in the digital chain after the USB transfer a device or a circuitry which will sufficiently buffer then regenerate the data stream, it's what can correct all the jitter crape that OS like Windows is capable of delivering through its poor USB comm handling.

So, there will be devices and chains which will be less sensitive to bad quality USB stream, and ones which will be pretty sensitive in this respect, since they basically don't correct major timing (jitter) flaws by any means.

JItter is not an issue in modern DACs unless there is a design flaw in the hardware. It is just not a problem these days.

 

[zalive]

JItter is not an issue in modern DACs unless there is a design flaw in the hardware. It is just not a problem these days.

Care to elaborate this statement bit in-depth?

 

[dwinnert]

Care to elaborate this statement bit in-depth?

http://archimago.blogspot.com/search?q=Jitter

 

[zalive]

http://archimago.blogspot.com/search?q=Jitter

I see nothing connected.

 

[dwinnert]

I see nothing connected.

So you read every article, post in 17 minutes.....?

 

[zalive]

Confused it with other article I have previously read, which had the same picture in its beginning. Just checking that one, will report.

 

[moriez]

JItter is not an issue in modern DACs unless there is a design flaw in the hardware. It is just not a problem these days.

http://archimago.blogspot.com/search?q=Jitter

So you read every article, post in 17 minutes.....?

I want to be respectfully critical and understand where you and some others are coming from. How can it be that after you read Archimago's article you now 100% believe in what one man is saying and at the same time you're not open for what appears to be even 1% of what zalive is saying? Furthermore I don't get the need for links. He's asking for your opinion on jitter that you by the way pass as fact.

I'm also most curious about your response to my previous questions.

 

[zalive]

Well there's discussion under about different tests measuring jitter. No one here tells whether used test (J-test) produces realistic results when it comes to the world of audible. In other words, test used may affect the results.

Here's what Archimago said: "As I've said before, I'm not sure if the usual J-Test results are audible either (into the low nanosecond range at least) even though they can be measured and compared quite easily..". So, if he can't tell whether what he reproduced with the test and methodology he used is audible or not, since it looks so little jitter distortion, and considering how similar THD, IMD and noise measurements are among varous devices...then how he explains the audible difference between various devices which measure so similarly?

Either someone is missing something in those tests and measurements, so some significant tests are not being performed...or the test and methodology used is flawed, when it comes to representing the audible.

 

[bfreedma]

Well there's discussion under about different tests measuring jitter. No one here tells whether used test (J-test) produces realistic results when it comes to the world of audible. In other words, test used may affect the results.

Here's what Archimago said: "As I've said before, I'm not sure if the usual J-Test results are audible either (into the low nanosecond range at least) even though they can be measured and compared quite easily..". So, if he can't tell whether what he reproduced with the test and methodology he used is audible or not, since it looks so little jitter distortion, and considering how similar THD, IMD and noise measurements are among varous devices...then how he explains the audible difference between various devices which measure so similarly?

Either someone is missing something in those tests and measurements, so some significant tests are not being performed...or the test and methodology used is flawed, when it comes to representing the audible.

Or the tests are correct, our current understanding of jitter in modern USB transition is correct, our current understanding of digital music processing is correct and our ability to measure beyond human hearing is correct. And jitter and other "Windows OS issues" are actually not problematic in 2018...

But if you can provide some counter evidence beyond subjective evaluation, we can certainly discuss it.

 

[dwinnert]

I want to be respectfully critical and understand where you and some others are coming from. How can it be that after you read Archimago's article you now 100% believe in what one man is saying and at the same time you're not open for what appears to be even 1% of what zalive is saying? Furthermore I don't get the need for links. He's asking for your opinion on jitter that you by the way pass as fact.

I'm also most curious about your response to my previous questions.

My opinion on jitter is that it is not an issue with modern DACs and supported by my link. I did not say that jitter does not exist. As for an OS. I believe there is zero audio difference is audio quality when you are running WASAPI or ASIO bit perfect to the DAC. Same with your audio player software. In my experience, running Audirvana (I own a copy), JRiver (same), MusicBee, and Foobar2000 all in bit perfect, that they sound the same. How the DAC handles those bits, and how the output section is designed will have an impact on audio quality.

 

[moriez]

Right. Well, I appreciate the reply, now with improved tonality :]

Leaves me wondering whether the article supported your already strong existing opinion or, that in a conversation like we're having it's easy and secure to throw in because of Archimago's reputation. I think that's how these things work, many times for many people myself not excluded. Guy with cloud clout said it, sort of makes sense so lets roll with that and say hell yeah three times.

The use of the word 'believe' is at least a more realistic way to describe your actual experience compared to your previous fact-like statements. So you did not actually test for OS differences.

Closer on topic, cool that you did try a few players. Of those I tried Foobar. Surprisingly adding JPLAY's output driver made a clear difference, to me. At the time I wasn't happy with the too thick sounding mids of my LCD3 which was substantially diminished by this minor change in software. Was cut and clear I was going to be their customer. Don't think about it but instead test out. Easy to do and free for 30 days.