audioengr
Member of the Trade: Empirical Audio
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2004
- Posts
- 1,092
- Likes
- 17
Quote:
That's bizarre. Hard to imagine anyone coming to this conclusion. There are those that have never heard jitter, or the lack thereof, so they probably have no concept.
On the other hand, there are certain nasty poorly recorded tracks, particularly rock, that may actually sound better with more jitter becuse it masks the harsh highs in the recording. Lower jitter causes better focus, so the harsh peaks would be higher in amplitude. It is realizing that it's the recording and not the jitter that is important.
Steve N.
| Originally Posted by thomaspf /img/forum/go_quote.gif I agree. In the PSW forum the discussion got really irrational with the vendors of external clocks in one corner and the Dan as a builder of DACs in the other corner. Clock generators make a lot of sense if you need to synchronize a larger number of devices but there was no rational argument why it would increase the quality of a single playback device that could not be achieved better by improvements in the DAC. It got completely esoteric when the claim came up that higher jitter from an external clock would actually improve the sound. Cheers Thomas |
That's bizarre. Hard to imagine anyone coming to this conclusion. There are those that have never heard jitter, or the lack thereof, so they probably have no concept.
On the other hand, there are certain nasty poorly recorded tracks, particularly rock, that may actually sound better with more jitter becuse it masks the harsh highs in the recording. Lower jitter causes better focus, so the harsh peaks would be higher in amplitude. It is realizing that it's the recording and not the jitter that is important.
Steve N.
