[ab initio]

 
In your mention of time differences, is that something that would be addressed by the femto-clock in the future LH XD128? I'm curious as to what real difference in sound quality a femto-clock would evince.

No audio output device will ever require femtosecond timing precision, ever.
 
Cheers

 

[nick_charles]

 
Okay, thanks, but what does jitter do to the quality of sound, if anything? If you are familiar with what LH Labs quoted about how incredibly accurate their femtoclock would be, it sounded like it would be a big deal, a lot bigger than what this jitter thing suggests to me.

 
 
To date we really do not have any solid evidence that jitter is even audible until it gets to utterly absurd levels. 
 
The three published studies we have (BBC, Dolby labs and NHK Japan)  place the limits at different points but all have it at remarkably high levels i.e above 20ns of correlated jitter for a single high frequency tone

 

[Head Injury]

 
Okay, thanks, but what does jitter do to the quality of sound, if anything? If you are familiar with what LH Labs quoted about how incredibly accurate their femtoclock would be, it sounded like it would be a big deal, a lot bigger than what this jitter thing suggests to me.

We have a jitter discussion here. Summary: Don't worry about it.
 
Of course they're going to brag about their fancy new clock. They're trying to sell it to you. Who sells a product but tells everyone it doesn't really do anything? Well, okay, Schiit sort of does in a roundabout way with their Wyrd and that still flies off the shelf, but you know what I mean.
 
Can you post or link to what they claim?

 

[Ripvanlink]

  We have a jitter discussion here. Summary: Don't worry about it.
 
Of course they're going to brag about their fancy new clock. They're trying to sell it to you. Who sells a product but tells everyone it doesn't really do anything? Well, okay, Schiit sort of does in a roundabout way with their Wyrd and that still flies off the shelf, but you know what I mean.
 
Can you post or link to what they claim?

I tried to find the origin of what I read about the femtoclock but it was during the campaign and I guess it must have been taken down.
Okay, doubtless I'm not quite knowledgeable enough to see through their selling scheme, but still, anyone with a little more knowledge than I, who would be interested in a device like this, would. Still, I did have my second thoughts, my doubts. I think, if I remember rightly, it was/is a perk for those who buy the XD128.

 

[castleofargh]

 

 
In your mention of time differences, is that something that would be addressed by the femto-clock in the future LH XD128? I'm curious as to what real difference in sound quality a femto-clock would evince.

 
No, a "femto-clock" would impact jitter.  My mention of time differences was merely that of a DAP's ability to play a smaller lossy file compared to a much larger lossless or uncompressed file.  If there is a half-second delay when playing a different file format, it might be noticed.

yup that's why my super "alan parsons project" to test DAPs also uses one format reencoded into the other one as a control ^_^.  it's a multipurpose routine I use on new daps, almost always a useless one, but hey, there is a burn in cable on ibasso's DX90, so I guess I don't wast my time alone.

 

[mslatr]

From what I have read on Pono they won't necessarily have a ton of 24/192 content off the bat, but the ultimate source for even cd quality downloads will be the record company's original flat master - meaning that unlike the physical cd you may own already the file you buy from them will not have been mastered for the shortcomings of a specific playback media. Also, from what Neil has said since the beginning, if you buy the file and a better version is made available by the label, you shouldn't have to pay for the better file.

 

[sonitus mirus]

While certainly some of the original mastered content will suffice, there is a lot of music out there that could be improved upon with a quality remaster for today's digital media formats.  And while Neil has good intentions, the major record labels would love to be able to simply encode existing music into a different format and resell their catalog to the same customers all over again.  This made sense before when the formats completely changed from one medium to another (albums/tapes/CDs), but this tactic doesn't seem applicable today when the existing digital format cannot be improved upon from an audible perspective.  Although, after stumbling across a recent discussion about how the sound quality can improve with certain headphone cables after burning them in for some arbitrary length of time, the record labels have absolutely nothing to lose by attempting to resell the same stuff in a prettier package. 

 

[Strangelove424]

  From what I have read on Pono they won't necessarily have a ton of 24/192 content off the bat, but the ultimate source for even cd quality downloads will be the record company's original flat master - meaning that unlike the physical cd you may own already the file you buy from them will not have been mastered for the shortcomings of a specific playback media. Also, from what Neil has said since the beginning, if you buy the file and a better version is made available by the label, you shouldn't have to pay for the better file.

 
If that is true, and Neil is getting some sort of special access to masters before they go through the dynamic compression garbage disposal (I am highly doubtful of this, but assuming it is indeed the case...) then this whole mastered-for-audiophiles thing is starting to feel like an extortion plot. Why should we need to buy all our music again just to have a copy of the song where producers decided not to ruin their own music? We're not paying for anything other than better decision making here, and we should have already paid for tasteful, professional decision making when we bought the CD. This is starting to get really frustrating. All I want is well mastered music and I shouldn't have to bribe the music industry or go to special online stores just to get an unmolested copy of my albums. 

 

[bigshot]

I buy music, not file formats.

 

[money4me247]

links to some information about whether higher sampling rates matter:
http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/2013/02/04/the-science-of-sample-rates-when-higher-is-better-and-when-it-isnt/
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
 
the conclusion is that higher sampling rates do not have an impact on sound quality.

 

[bigshot]

yup. higher bit rates don't matter either.

 

[Grave]

Of course bit rates matter. Any Lossless > any lossy. That is the only real difference there is.

 

[bigshot]

Not to human ears. Anything audibly transparent sounds the same. More file size above that is just packing peanuts in the box.

 

[Strangelove424]

They’re tackling the wrong problem. And fixing the real problem doesn’t require more bits or rates, it just requires a respect for standards. I was watching my clip meter on a modern remaster vs. an old CD release. The old CD release stayed below 0db the whole time. The remaster was constantly going above 0db. That remaster won’t sound good no matter format you put it in. And we shouldn’t have to endure a shakedown to get back to the quality of the original master. 

 

[Grave]

Yes, to many human ears. Lossy has never been audibly transparent for me. Saying that it is in all cases is idiotic. It is not the same as 16/44.1 lossless vs. overkill lossless which no one can consistently tell the difference between. You seem to make a lot of completely false generalizations based on incomplete information. e.g. frequency response is the only factor which determines sound signature. I suggest you stop doing so.