DeVerm;344537 Wrote: > > Next, you can generate your own clock with your own/local oscillator > and re-clock the data with that before sending it into the DAC chip. > This would eliminate the problem, won't it? I don't know what they do, > maybe they don't believe anyone can hear the jitter?
The problem is average clock speed mismatch. Suppose your local clock is 1% faster. Then you better wait a minute or so before you start playing on a gapless 100 minute series of tracks... Still, I agree - there are ways to handle this (adjustable clock rates are one). But the easiest one is to fetch the data asynchronously, like the squeezeboxen do. I find it ironic that many "audiophiles" insist on incorporating S/PDIF jitter by connecting them to external DACs. If they really believed jitter was such a problem, why introduce it again after you finally arrived at an architecture that was free of it? > I'm just trying to understand why jitter is still a problem. I know they > can measure it now, so it's really there, and I also believe that an > optical link introduces more jitter than coaxial, but I still do not > believe that the difference that people hear between the two is > -caused- by that difference in jitter. I see no prove of that and find > it much more plausible that the difference as experienced by those > people is from an analog cause like the electrical ground connection > that you have with coax but don't have with fiber. I'm not aware of any controlled listening tests that distinguish between a jittered and unjittered signal into a modern, jitter-rejecting DAC. So the whole issue may be moot, yes. -- opaqueice ------------------------------------------------------------------------ opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=52817 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
