krzys;439561 Wrote: > That's true but at the end, even with the presence of this noisy > environment, they manage to achieve very respectable low jitter numbers > using 150$ soundcard namely the j...@. As you know they slow the > processor, lover the supply tension, limit bus traffic, detune Windows, > do some other tricks and use this particular player (cpaly). Thus TCP/IP > or not they do it and therefore the transfer protocol seems irrelevant > to the result. That was my point. Some of them even pretend it sound > better than SD products ;-) All of this effort to reduce jitter to a minimum seems to ignore the discoveries that were made years ago by Benjamin and Gannon in a properly conducted test which concluded that on music signals, jitter below about 10nS (that's 10000pS) has no audible effect. Granted they were using uncorrelated jitter, but come on, this is *orders of magnitude* worse than the jitter levels that come out of typical consumer gear.
My personal feeling is that the reason we sometimes notice differences between transports is nothing to do with jitter, but down to the effects that the different EMI signatures and/or grounding arrangements those transports have on downstream analogue circuitry (eg. in the DAC, preamp, etc). -- cliveb Transporter -> ATC SCM100A ------------------------------------------------------------------------ cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=65422
_______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
