[WrxSTI]

Quote:

Quote:

The level of jitter in tmost modern DACs ia 100 times below the threshold of audibility. It isn't anything worth worrying about. Better to focus on things you can actually hear.

Not a proven fact,  thousand of people hear differences in transports,  there is a multimillion dollar industry based on this.  I don't subscribe to believing in an epidemic of mass auditory hallucinations. 

There's a multimillion dollar industry in losing weight yet people are getting fatter by the year.

 

[Dynobot]

Quote:

There's a multimillion dollar industry in losing weight yet people are getting fatter by the year.

In the US we have a multi-billion dollar education system, yet well.....I guess thats going to same path as loosing weight.
 

 

[regal]

Quote:

If you believe people every time they claim to be able to see and hear things other people can't, you're going to end up believing in an awful lot of mythical stuff. The fact is, there was a study on jitter to determine a threshold of audibility. They couldn't find anyone (even experienced audiophiles) who could even come close to hearing it. The closest they could come is 100 times the rate of jitter in audio components.

 I think the myth is the study you speak of,  you are confusing it with studies of jitter affect on telephone converse.  Kindly post the study here,  we would love to read it.

 

[bigshot]

Here is a summary.

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/457858/to-what-degree-is-jitter-audible

Do the homework and you'll find out what I did. Jitter is a non issue.

 

[Dynobot]

Like anything else...you find exactly what you are looking for, ie evidence to support a preconceived notion.
 
Happens all the time esp with Religion and Science.
 
Myself for example have found tons of evidence that Aliens actually live amongst us and we are the result of their genetic experiments.
 

 
I believe this discussion on jitter is a non issue sort of a dead horse...

 

[bigshot]

Dead horses rise from the dead and pick people's pockets.

Someday, there'll be an audio forum where people discuss techniques for getting better sound, not angels dancing on the heads of pins. But until then, we just keep answering the same challenges over and over from the pin heads.

 

[Dynobot]

Quote:

Dead horses rise from the dead and pick people's pockets.

Someday, there'll be an audio forum where people discuss techniques for getting better sound, not angels dancing on the heads of pins. But until then, we just keep answering the same challenges over and over from the pin heads.

Well, what technique do you use to get better sound?  I listed mine....
 
 
Dac:
Quality parts
Quality design
Quality power supply and regulation
Features that You desire [coax in, XRL, RCA, toslink, etc]
Reviews keeping in mind associated gear when reviewed, Price / Value
What is being used to deal with jitter [a miracle wonder, DSP filter, clock]
 
Cables:
True 75ohm BNC min 1.5 meter or XLR 110ohm provide a better signal [disputable]
 
Computer Operating System:
Light weight low resource, small footprint operating system
Maximum RAM with Mac and Linux, Min RAM with Windows
Bios adjustments to reduce CPU power and emi
Real time, low latency
 
Clean Power

 

[bigshot]

I use really good speakers, well recorded music and careful equalization.

 

[Dynobot]

Quote:

I use really good speakers, well recorded music and careful equalization.

Ahhh, the magic word....Equalizer.  Nuff said.
 
If you rely on an EQ for good sound then surely nothing else matters....at least not jitter, cables, power cords, operating systems, software etc.
 
Kind of like using a really good artificial flavor to make paper taste like Bacon.  To each his own I guess.
 
Imagine you go to a forum where people discuss loosing weight.  They are debating whether or not if organic food contributes to weight loss and here you come along and say all this talk about organic food is nonsense.  I eat plenty of fruit and veggies and make regular visits to Doctor for Liposuction and I am in great shape.  Well Hmmmmmm

 

[bigshot]

Every room requires equalization because every room has different acoustics. This is probably one more area you might want to put a little more research into. I'd offer to fill you in on balancing frequency response curves, but you don't appear to be interested in learning.

 

[Dynobot]

Quote:

Every room requires equalization because every room has different acoustics. This might be an area you should do a little more research into.

Been there done that, made acoustic panels for my room which is based off the Live-End/Dead-End method.  I use absorption and reflection to achieve optimal acoustics.  But then if I wanted to cheat and go the easy way I guess I could have just bought an Eq.
 
Here are some links in case you want to read up on how to do room acoustics.
 
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue21/gordon_rives.htm
http://www.audioholics.com/education/acoustics-principles/introduction-to-acoustics

 

[bigshot]

Room treatment only gets you into the general ballpark. Flat response requires precise control of equalization, and you don't get good sound unless you have a flat response. (See masking)

 

[Dynobot]

So you mean that if I got an EQ my system can sound even better than it already does??
 
Please tell me that you at least got yourself into the ball park first before you decided to Eq your way to happiness.
 
And I hope that you are at least using a good EQ.

 

[regal]

Quote:

I use really good speakers, well recorded music and careful equalization.

 Then why post about jitter being nonsense on a headphone forum.  Kindly take that opinion to the speaker forums with thier 10nS jittery digital Eq's and digital xovers,  you will get a lot of agreement .  Misery love company

 

[bigshot]

Have you read the studies yet? Do you know the threshold of audibility of jitter now? What are the measured amounts of jitter in the average CD player? What does jitter sound like? I'd be interested in your answers to these question.