ezkcdude;229635 Wrote: > David, I read the dCS paper, actually a long time ago.
Same here. Before it was made available on that web page and turned into "public relations" - seriously, I'm surprised anyone who's read it would call it that, its presence there alone proving what in particular? ezkcdude;229635 Wrote: > If you get time, Tomorrow. ezkcdude;229635 Wrote: > So, I gave you some evidence that jitter must be in the ns range to be > audible. We know that jitter in most consumer devices is well below the > ns level these days. If you have some evidence that jitter in the > picosecond range (three orders of magnitude lower) is audible, please > let us know. Take your time, and get a good night's sleep. Oh great, so you do know! Turns out that was a rethorical question from your point of view, then, eh? Precisely what I need at this time of night... But then, before I surrender and go to sleep, if that conclusion could be reached, what does that tell us on the sonic difference between modern audiophile CD-transports, all of which (I hope, at least the ones I know and have tried in recent years) are (said to be by the manufacturers) below 100 ns? Nothing - in other words, you proved my point: jitter alone won't explain sonic differences. Ball's back in your yard. Greetings from Switzerland, David. -- acousticsguru ------------------------------------------------------------------------ acousticsguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13298 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38637 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
