I didn't say that jitter doesn't exist. I could demonstrate what it sounds like in large amounts by writing some software to intentionally jitter PCM data. And I can certainly see some jitter on real signals with a scope that has its horizontal sweep rate turned all the way up.
But that's not the question here. The question is whether the level of jitter found in ordinary digital audio equipment is so large that it can *actually be detected by the human ear*. I've seen no proper scientific evidence that this is so; just a lot of laudatory anecdotal testimonials about a high priced gizmo that will solve this "problem". Given that similar glowing testimonials have been written about everything from magic speaker wire to to small passive devices you put near your speakers to rings that you place on your CDs, please forgive me if I don't find such testimonials very convincing.
I too am skeptical of most such claims. jitter is not one of them.
One thing I will say is that the effects of jitter can be very subtle, only noticeable in relatively high-end equipment, i.e. the inadequacies of run-of-the-mill hifi equipment will mask any jitter-induced problems.
Ah, another one of Langmuir's classic signs of pathological science: the "effect" in question is extremely small and always at the limits of detection no matter how many experiments are run. See http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~ken/Langmuir/langmuir.htm
That's not what I said.
I merely pointed out (explicitly, in fact, in a part of my post you chose not to include) that most folk won't ever be bothered by the effects of jitter because it is masked by other flaws in their systems.
The effects of jitter are clearly audible, and reproducible, on any sufficiently accurate, high-end audio system. This is not pathological science.
R. -- http://robinbowes.com
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
