opaqueice;146431 Wrote: > So your point is, even if memory had been affordable 20 years ago there > would have been no reason for CD players to incorporate it - they are > already immune to jitter, or at least to jitter caused by variations in > the optical read rate of the CD. The only room for improvement might be > in the DAC chip and the analogue stage.
Clive is correct, in a CD player the transport speed is driven by the buffer being clocked out to the DAC, not the other way around. It is not a record player. Jitter happens on a timescale of _trillionths_ of a second and comes from noise in the clock source or the transmission thereof. The pickup speed varies on a much coarser scale, but this happens on the _other side_ of the buffer. I think the point of the original question was: why weren't CD players designed to use buffer memory as a means of re-reading data to avoid skips. The answer is it was a bad design (not random access), so that even as memory became cheaper this could not easily be implemented. They did eventually make portable players with quite a lot of anti-skip memory, but since the format inherently lacks a robust error recovery scheme, there is no way to recover from severe scratches, pits etc. > > So all this talk about solid state players (like the SB) being superior > because of a lack of moving parts is just so much marketing hype. > That's an interesting answer to the OP. Moving parts are bad - they are unreliable, slow, noisy, inconvenient, etc, but they are NOT a source of clock jitter in the way that people seem to think. -- seanadams ------------------------------------------------------------------------ seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28621 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
