ralphpnj wrote: > Well I for one enjoyed every bit of your wonderful post. You covered all > of the points about digital audio that are most often misrepresented and > backed up your statements with good solid scientific proof. > Unfortunately science in the Age of Trump is down on one knee and > hanging onto the ropes for dear life. > > One little thing that you missed is the inability of humans to hear nano > and pico second distortions, e.g. digital jitter.
I hadn't considered that but I will say that a networked transport is likely to fare very good compared to a disc transport in this regard. Any good DAC should be responsible for clocking accuracy in it's end these days making it a moot point. I do prefer jitter to be under 10ms though given a choice. I'm sure someone has done tests where they induce varying degrees of jitter while test subjects listen. It would be neat to test DACs buffering and re-clocking ability by throwing a heavily jittered stream into it. Some say only re-clocking on the DAC end is necessary without buffering first. If DACs aren't doing this they should be to put the notion to rest. It takes hours if not days of listening to something to know if fatigue sets in. This is especially true with speakers, at first comparison the one with more harmonic distortion will give the impression of more detail but this new found detail is not supposed to be there. Third harmonics are the most annoying. Some like the coloration of even harmonic distortion and you would have to wait for them to die before pulling the single ended triode amp for their hands. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Davesworld's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=63649 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=108499 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
