ralphpnj wrote: > Last night was I thinking (I know I shouldn't think because it only > causes trouble) about the above jitter measurements and I was wondering > what, if any, jitter is present when streaming audio, either via WiFi or > Ethernet, and using the Touch's or the Transporter's internal DAC? And > if jitter is the big, bad bogey man that the audiophile world is > presently all a-jitter about then why isn't the streaming method of > transmitting digital audio data to a DAC, as used in the Squeezebox > devices and the Linn DS series (I believe), being adapted as the state > of the art standard and not the asynchronous USB interface? > > I still maintain that the current anti-jitter craze stems from the lousy > jitter characteristics of the standard USB 2.0 interface when used to > transmit digital audio data and has now been expanded to encompass other > methods of digital audio transmission, e.g. SPDIF, Toslink, etc., which > in the past were never considered to be problematic with respect to > jitter.
NO problems with jitter WiFi at all. The jitter plot here: http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/measurements-logitech-squeezebox-touch.html for the Touch was done with WiFi. They've been harping on jitter for years - here's something from October 1993 when they started the scapegoating: http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1093jitter/ By November 1993, they started measuring transports and considers jitter as a SPDIF interface issue, along with speculations about cables, and even the Audio Alchemy "jitter reduction box". Obviously the industry clearly had its crosshairs on jitter already by that point. (Interesting that on Page 4, there was talk of cable DIRECTION and jitter worsening!) http://www.stereophile.com/features/368/index.html Here's Robert Harley's conclusion from the audibility discussion: "Clearly, jitter in the data stream driving a digital processor is audibleĀand a significant contributor to "digital sound." Because jitter adds artifacts we associate with digital audio in general, reducing jitter is an important step toward truly musical digital reproduction." Nice association of the ills of digital with jitter as a "significant contributor". I suspect the industry was running out of excuses, so something was needed to "seed" the public mindset; "jitter" was perfect because of its nature as a digital issue. To make it an even better candidate, it's difficult to measure requiring more esoteric gear back then. Of course the public did not have fast computers for detailed FFT analysis, Julian Dunn's J-Test methodology wasn't readily available, and 24-bit capable ADC's like today weren't available to verify any of that stuff... Over the years, this snowball has enlarged, using every opportunity. With the advent of USB (especially the "horrors" of adaptive USB), it provided another opportunity to drag out the jitter boogeyman. I'll have to look into my adaptive USB (the AUNE X1) again, but as I recall, it didn't look too bad... Async USB devices measure better but IMO adaptive USB jitter was inaudible already (at least something as pedestrian as my "Mark I" X1). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=97950
_______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
