Phil Leigh;185818 Wrote: > IMHO the idea that jitter can be eliminated purely by buffering is not > correct. It can be ameliorated to some extent but a wordclock link > between transport and DAC is the best method (as was used in the > studios that mixed and mastered the CD's in the first place). An > alternative method that works (but is not as good as wordclock) is to > inject a new clock right onto the DAC input and decorrelate the jitter > at the same time - see Altmann Technologies. > > One interesting example is the Chord DAC64. It is a well-respected DAC > with a switchable buffer size. Most people prefer the smallest > buffer...this is counter-intuitive. Why would the size of the buffer > make a difference - and why would a bigger one sound worse?
Well, you are right, and it goes beyond the depth I intended. I know Accuphase now uses a new interface between their top performing CD transport and DA combo, which several mags now declare their absolute reference. I read the Altmann stuff, it makes for interesting lecture. But like with everything else, it's a matter for how much is enough for the application at the end of the day. I would not be the least surprise if the great and so natural sounding turntable that several audiophles continue to declare their utter reference is far more afflicted by vairation in rpm speed, than the few nanoseconds or microseconds of jitter S/PDIF gets lambasted for introducing. The jitter discussion seems to be -like many things in high end audio- exaggerated beyond its application-specific significance courtesy of people who ultimately have an esoteric solution to sell. Nothing new in high end audio! -- pablolie ------------------------------------------------------------------------ pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32999 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
