[kwkarth]

Quote:

Only as jitter.  A bad waveform can also cause jitter because the detection of the 1 or 0 may not occur at the right time.  It's all sources of jitter.  Again, re-clocking is the best solution.  A good USB receiver with an excellent clock and galvanic isolation is excellent (a la the Burson), alternatively a USB->coax adaptor like the HiFace.  I can hear no difference on either interface on my rig.

How can you throw that all in to the catch all bin of jitter?  That's crazy.  If the pulse train has a bad signal to noise ratio the receiver could misinterpret 1's and 0's.  That a data error resulting in all sorts of artifacts including drop outs.  What the rest of the system does with erroneous data depends upon the design of the system.  But to call any problem jitter?  Well, I guess if it works for you...  Bottom line is it's not bit perfect any more no matter what you call it.  Good transceivers can only go so far to recover a crappy signal. 

 

[mrspeakers]

If the system is having transmission errors then there are methods used to correct bad bits, but this only works within limits. If there is too much bad data you get dropouts or noise. If a system is so lame that you are getting transmission errors causing dropouts then the issue of player quality is moot, you should be fixing the system because the player can't fix transmission errors.

So if it's not an actual error, it is really manifested as jitter, whatever the cause (transmission line reflections, poor transmitter quality, a flaky cable, etc). And if it is an uncorrectable error there is a serious device or cable problem to fix.

And isn't that so obvious it doesn't need to have been said? Give me a break...

 

[V-DiV]

Quote:

PM does allow presets in AU for things like EQ
 
Pure Music menu > Audio Setup > Audio Plugins.
 

 
In Pure Music you can save an EQ setting, but you can't save several different NAMED settings for different headphones.
 
Pure Music and Fidelia are neck-and-neck for features and interface.  I will be picking one soon and plunking down my money.
Right now it seems Fidelia leads in the interface and in better control of resampling schemes/customizability of sound.
Pure Music leads in being able to play from memory.  What else am I leaving out?

 

[bixby]

correct.............. just one setting, sorry for the confusion on my part.
 
On a subject a bit further back, I stated that codecs might be the reason we hear differences in players.  After researching, I no longer think that is the reason.
 
I think Gordon Rankin's comments in this message make as much sense to me as anything.
 
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/428550/amarra-anyone-using-it/75#post_5777950
 
cheers

 

[grokit]

 
Quote:

How can you throw that all in to the catch all bin of jitter?  That's crazy.  If the pulse train has a bad signal to noise ratio the receiver could misinterpret 1's and 0's.  That a data error resulting in all sorts of artifacts including drop outs.  What the rest of the system does with erroneous data depends upon the design of the system.  But to call any problem jitter?  Well, I guess if it works for you...  Bottom line is it's not bit perfect any more no matter what you call it.  Good transceivers can only go so far to recover a crappy signal. 

 
Quote:

If the system is having transmission errors then there are methods used to correct bad bits, but this only works within limits. If there is too much bad data you get dropouts or noise. If a system is so lame that you are getting transmission errors causing dropouts then the issue of player quality is moot, you should be fixing the system because the player can't fix transmission errors.

So if it's not an actual error, it is really manifested as jitter, whatever the cause (transmission line reflections, poor transmitter quality, a flaky cable, etc). And if it is an uncorrectable error there is a serious device or cable problem to fix.

Both of these posts make sense to me, that actual data errors can cause dropouts, but that jitter truly is a catch-all for all other types of interference that manifest as timing errors. I read analogy quite a while ago that described dropouts as missing notes in the music (very obvious to the ears), while timing errors are just that; the musical notes are not in the right place (not as obvious but still quite noticeable to the ears).
 
And thanks for the link bixby, that was a good post. Here's the jitter-gist:
 
"There is no jitter inside a computer, heck not even on the USB link. Amarra does not change the jitter in the system.

I did the following test today with exactly the same results and you can do this also:

MacBook Pro----->Benchmark --------WCLK output TAS1020===>Wavecrest

iTunes, GarageBand, Amarra, it didn't matter the jitter was the same for all of them.

Look people software changes the character of sound. You should all realize this. Even if you get bit perfect output the difference in using say Foobar on a PC and iTunes or even Amarra on the MAC will make things sound different.

BUT THIS DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH JITTER!

Guys look... everything effects sound. Why is a mystery that will live forever."

 

[mrspeakers]

This is logically impossible...  There is no jitter in a system, AND the players are bit perfect, yet they sound different?  
 
First, ALL digital systems have jitter because every clock ever made for a digital system has jitter, so that statement is just wrong.  The question for a clock is how stable is the oscillator, and in a given system is will it materially affect the output.  Further, any transmission line, USB, or coax, has an electrical effect on waveforms that change the shape of the square waves, introduces ringing, etc. which can change when a bit transition from 1 to 0 occurs, which is also jitter.  No way around it.  And other sources of jitter exist.
 
The "test" only shows that the Benchmark DAC has it's own clock, which of course will be unperturbed by upstream gear (which is what I've been trying to say all along about re-clocking).   "When Benchmark unveiled UltraLock™, it caused quite a stir. Benchmark claimed that this proprietary clock-syncing system made their converters immune to jitter. UltraLock™ keeps jitter-induced distortion at or below -135 dB FS (well below audibility)."
 
Anything that's bit perfect sounds exactly the same on my system, and I've done everything possible to eliminate jitter.  And yes, I've listened quite carefully to VOX, Fidelia, Pure Music and iTunes.  
 
There's no mystery here except why people expect (or seem to want) bit-perfect audio to sound different, especially when jitter is eliminated.  If it sounds different, it's not bit perfect (upsampled, for example), you have a jitter issue and don't know it, or it's placebo/voodoo.  
 

 

[svertel]

I just downloaded the demo version of Pure Music and I'm blown away.  So much clearer and warmer than Amarra!  Best player I've heard yet.

 

[grokit]

Last two posts lol...

 

[limpidglitch]

 

 
Please Wait...
/img/barber_loading.gif

 

 

 

 

[attenuated 3db]

This is logically impossible...  There is no jitter in a system, AND the players are bit perfect, yet they sound different?  
 
First, ALL digital systems have jitter because every clock ever made for a digital system has jitter, so that statement is just wrong.  The question for a clock is how stable is the oscillator, and in a given system is will it materially affect the output.  Further, any transmission line, USB, or coax, has an electrical effect on waveforms that change the shape of the square waves, introduces ringing, etc. which can change when a bit transition from 1 to 0 occurs, which is also jitter.  No way around it.  And other sources of jitter exist.
 
The "test" only shows that the Benchmark DAC has it's own clock, which of course will be unperturbed by upstream gear (which is what I've been trying to say all along about re-clocking).   "When Benchmark unveiled UltraLock™, it caused quite a stir. Benchmark claimed that this proprietary clock-syncing system made their converters immune to jitter. UltraLock™ keeps jitter-induced distortion at or below -135 dB FS (well below audibility)."
 
Anything that's bit perfect sounds exactly the same on my system, and I've done everything possible to eliminate jitter.  And yes, I've listened quite carefully to VOX, Fidelia, Pure Music and iTunes.  
 
There's no mystery here except why people expect (or seem to want) bit-perfect audio to sound different, especially when jitter is eliminated.  If it sounds different, it's not bit perfect (upsampled, for example), you have a jitter issue and don't know it, or it's placebo/voodoo.  
 

You know, MrSpeakers (I won't do any John Boehner jokes, I promise) I can't operate (or afford, really) an Apple Macintosh computer. My 80-year-old mother has one (my wealthy younger sister, who also has an identical iMac, Lexus SUV, custom-built "McMansion" and similar gear) gave her one last Christmas and then left it to me to be the tech support, and I abdicated my position.

I love the fact that OS/X is built on the Darwin kernel and can trace its ancestry back to Steve Jobs' days in exile at Mach Computer before Apple brought him back after flirting with bankruptcy in the early 90s. Interesting trivia: Apple gained a major investor about the same time named Microsoft, who kept the "dare to be different" company from going under so they could use it as evidence that they really did have "competition" in their legal defense in the case of Reno v. Microsoft, where the Justice Department hired David Boies to depose Bill Gates for 20 hours after Netscape and Sun Microsystems screamed "murder" (almost literally) in the direction of Redmond, Washington. I will stick to Linux with Compiz Fusion eye-candy and muddle along with my minimal understanding of Windows 7 on this year-old Sony:

http://www.docs.sony.com/release/specs/VPCF115FMB_mksp.pdf

But reading this thread, I am reminded of my days selling high-end audio when there were a bunch of kids of a nice couple considering some Magneplanar MG-1b speakers with some Apt Corporation electronics designed by Tomlinson Holman (who went on to develop THX theater sound for George Lucas) running around in one of our carefully acoustically-designed listening rooms. This was very "mid-fi" equipment by the standards of the dealer I was working for at the time, but with those darned kids running around while I was playing the ever-popular "Jazz at the Pawnshop" vinyl demo record on a Rega Planar 2 turntable (also very mid-fi), I just gave up and said to the couple, "The signal-to-noise ratio is kind of low in here," and they smiled and said they would come back and listen to my efforts to explain audio (entirely analog in those days) later, without the kids.

The thing I love about editing Wikipedia, and I am a "big time" editor of it, as you can see by my lone comment at the bottom of this Head-Fi wiki:

http://www.head-fi.org/wiki/followers-and-following

...is that there is some element of classic academic "peer review" to it, kind of like why I like open-source software. I am not a Linux kernel hacker, but I like the fact that people who really know what they are doing from all over the world can pore over the source code and improve it, if their code has true merits in the eyes of a very large community of experienced coders.

In contrast, Head-Fi sometimes resembles a free-for-all where people have their own personal definitions of commonly used terms. It reminds me of the classic quote attributed to the late Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who when a colleague from the other side of the aisle said that they just had a difference of opinion, Moynihan shot back: "You are entitled to your own opinions, sir, but you are not entitled to your own facts." I love that quote.

Why don't some of the people in this discussion stop the debate on the floor of the Head-Fi Senate, and go back into committee and work on reading (and perhaps improving, if they are capable of doing so), these Wikipedia articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital-to-analog_converter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jitter

Obviously, there are others I could provide links to, but like the "signal to noise" analogy, I think right now more heat than light is being shed on some of these subjects.

Just IMHO, YMMV, as usual.

 

[KingStyles]

The thing I like about amarra is that it can bring out the clarity and detail in a understated way allowing the tone to stay smooth and warm while still bringing out the same amount of better qualities as the other players. A lot of the other players are yelling I am detailed when you listen to them. It allows some to hear the differences more easily making them think it is the better player. I prefer the more subtle approach of amarra. It maintains the original tone better while still delivering the goods. To each there own. I wish amarra was at a lower price point so people could consider its sound quality without having to worry about the price tag. I suppose its glitches dont help either.

 

[limpidglitch]

Quote:

You know, MrSpeakers (I won't do any John Boehner jokes, I promise) I can't operate (or afford, really) an Apple Macintosh computer. My 80-year-old mother has one (my wealthy younger sister, who also has an identical iMac, Lexus SUV, custom-built "McMansion" and similar gear) gave her one last Christmas and then left it to me to be the tech support, and I abdicated my position.

I love the fact that OS/X is built on the Darwin kernel and can trace its ancestry back to Steve Jobs' days in exile at Mach Computer before Apple brought him back after flirting with bankruptcy in the early 90s. Interesting trivia: Apple gained a major investor about the same time named Microsoft, who kept the "dare to be different" company from going under so they could use it as evidence that they really did have "competition" in their legal defense in the case of Reno v. Microsoft, where the Justice Department hired David Boies to depose Bill Gates for 20 hours after Netscape and Sun Microsystems screamed "murder" (almost literally) in the direction of Redmond, Washington. I will stick to Linux with Compiz Fusion eye-candy and muddle along with my minimal understanding of Windows 7 on this year-old Sony:

http://www.docs.sony.com/release/specs/VPCF115FMB_mksp.pdf

But reading this thread, I am reminded of my days selling high-end audio when there were a bunch of kids of a nice couple considering some Magneplanar MG-1b speakers with some Apt Corporation electronics designed by Tomlinson Holman (who went on to develop THX theater sound for George Lucas) running around in one of our carefully acoustically-designed listening rooms. This was very "mid-fi" equipment by the standards of the dealer I was working for at the time, but with those darned kids running around while I was playing the ever-popular "Jazz at the Pawnshop" vinyl demo record on a Rega Planar 2 turntable (also very mid-fi), I just gave up and said to the couple, "The signal-to-noise ratio is kind of low in here," and they smiled and said they would come back and listen to my efforts to explain audio (entirely analog in those days) later, without the kids.

The thing I love about editing Wikipedia, and I am a "big time" editor of it, as you can see by my lone comment at the bottom of this Head-Fi wiki:

http://www.head-fi.org/wiki/followers-and-following

...is that there is some element of classic academic "peer review" to it, kind of like why I like open-source software. I am not a Linux kernel hacker, but I like the fact that people who really know what they are doing from all over the world can pore over the source code and improve it, if their code has true merits in the eyes of a very large community of experienced coders.

In contrast, Head-Fi sometimes resembles a free-for-all where people have their own personal definitions of commonly used terms. It reminds me of the classic quote attributed to the late Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who when a colleague from the other side of the aisle said that they just had a difference of opinion, Moynihan shot back: "You are entitled to your own opinions, sir, but you are not entitled to your own facts." I love that quote.

Why don't some of the people in this discussion stop the debate on the floor of the Head-Fi Senate, and go back into committee and work on reading (and perhaps improving, if they are capable of doing so), these Wikipedia articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital-to-analog_converter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jitter

Obviously, there are others I could provide links to, but like the "signal to noise" analogy, I think right now more heat than light is being shed on some of these subjects.

Just IMHO, YMMV, as usual.

This is an internetforum. If you introduce reason here, where then can the ignorant masses flock to?
 
Seriously though, I appreciate your intention, but I doubt this is the sort of place where people go to find reliable real-world information. At least I hope it's not
It's more of an arena to compare inflated fantasies. I mean, no person with a modicum of attachment to the physical world do really believe a simple piece of wire tying two audio components together can magically make the sound coming out of speakers be full of soap bubbles and spring breeze. No more than a 40 year old woman really believe that a pot of $20 an ounce wonder cream really can make her look 10 years younger. But in both cases having hope in the impossible seems easier than to accepting the harsh reality: This is it. there is no cure for ageing (yet), and no magical piece of material will ever make your recorded music as large as life.
 
Do you see mr. 3db? You can't kill these fantasies, and god knows people have tried.
People fear the leopard too much.

 

[mrspeakers]

Thanks AT3DB.  There are lots of good things to be learned on Wikipedia, sometimes the math gets pretty tough, but there's lot's to learn about digital filters, anti-aliasing, and much more.  
 
And LIMPID, couldn't agree more.  People hear what they want and expect.  It's normal, everyone does it (myself included), as our perceptions and senses are all tied into the same "cpu," so how we think is bound to affect what we experience.
 
But what is interesting is there are sound engineering realities that do make the more sophisticated apps sound better, namely what algorithms are used to upsample, and what digital filters are applied to reduce aliasing artifacts.
 
I think Fidelia's filter customer is the bomb.  And Fidelia and Pure Music both sound great on my Burson oversampled via USB or coax, I'll also see if I can really detect a material difference in SQ, since they both user different 64-bit src.
 
I will also dally with Fidelia in a while and play with different filter types, and will share what I hear, if anyone is interested.  It's going to take a few weeks to do, though...

 

[limpidglitch]

No doubt that there are real differences between how you process a file, something Stereophile obviously is putting some pride into explaining: http://www.stereophile.com/content/ayre-acoustics-qb-9-usb-dac-measurements
 
I found that link in a refreshingly objective review in a different part of this forum. Tangentially relevant: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/540846/sansa-clip-review-with-detailed-measurements

 

[DavidMahler]

Are these differences in sound quality provable?  

I remember the big debate years ago was how much better WAV or AIIFF was over Lossless.  I never heard the difference and some people were convinced of its night and day comparison.  

I've used other programs besides iTunes and I don't recall hearing a difference.