Guys, Gals,
I don't frequent all the audio forums in the world, and usually it is a PM which brings back my attention to one here or there, like happened today.
Besides, I don't wear headphones.
Let me tell you, it is good to observe people with some normal good sense instead of the by now well overdone thinkings as can be seen over at CA (which I probably started there myself).
It is not so much "jitter" that can be influenced (and although it can, I never write about that extensively), and it merely is the analogue sections of a DAC that can explicitly be influenced. So, it can and I know how to do it (how to "control" that) BUT the underlaying real cause doing that can only be jitter. So yes, jitter, but only as a "transport means" to influence quite some other stuff.
The how I indeed like to keep for myself, as long as "you" can proove all is in the bit perfect domain (which for me is the prerequisite, or "sport" if you like, all very very indirectly working, and therefore a tough job to begin with).
Please don't confuse this with the "filtering" you may have read about (and which was quoted in here), which just is a replacement for the in-DAC normal filtering, and actually created for my own (upcoming commercial) NOS1 Phasure DAC which is filterless. This filtering, obviously, is not bit perfect.
Also notice that while created for my own DAC, there seems to be no one around not liking this way better over the normaly in-DAC filtering (no matter what DAC you have), and which partly overrules that filtering. Completely unintentional, but it just works out like that.
All I want to say is, today people may like the sound of XXHE better than other players, but in the mean time do not use it in "bit perfect mode" anymore. So, be careful about not misjudgeing that.
Quote:
| XXHighend has produced a player with multiple "engines" (I keep putting this in quotes because it has so little real meaning) they claim are bit perfect yet sound different, and have not done and published any analysis themselves speaks volumes. |
At reading through the latest posts, my eye fell on this one. Funny ...
This looks like a typicle "he most probably didn't do that, as nobody does" statement. But I guess you missed a few things.
First off, I personally don't know about anyone on the planet who is able to measure what we want measured here. Also, the existing equipment can't do it. However, since most probably I was the first to claim software can make a difference (keep in mind, bit perfect), I thought to be the first to be able to measure it as well. And so I did. You may stroll a bit through this topic here and look at the pictures :
Measuring XXHighEnd
This measuring-means, actually part of XXHighEnd though not made public yet, can - no *will* measure the slightest difference between two situations, might it be players, player settings, cables, name it. If you can hear it, it can be measured. And, you don't want to know what I learned from it myself, where it comes down to "influencing the DAC".
Notice that this "relative" means of measuring will not tell you absolute qualities; just differences. However, as I explain in the topic I referred to, subsequent relative measuring can lead to absolute quality measures. It needs quite some learning though, and if one (say) player shows bumps over the other, you'd first have to know (or have done) a measurement not exhibiting the bumps, before drawing the conclusion "player X creates bumps".
Too fuzzy to understand ? well, never mind for now.
I hope to have cleared up things a bit, although I'll be vague allways.
Peter
