Digital Facts and realities?

[Barry]

Dont hear anything from the bapture tweeters.

But didn't you report you could hear the effect of adding them?

[struth]

But didn't you report you could hear the effect of adding them?

Yup.

[struth]

Effect isn't sound..

[Barry]

Effect isn't sound..

That was my point - you couldn't hear anything coming from them directly, but their addition had an effect on bass perception and presentation.

I can't hear anything above 10kHz, yet I can hear the effect on a violin where everything above 20kHz is filtered out.

[NRG]

I agree. Nevertheless the number of times that a cd drops out or fails to read entirely is so few that it isn't worth worrying about. Otherwise the waveform is reproduced perfectly and as I said previously, and as the AES paper I linked to demonstrates, jitter in a cd player (or a DAC) is not sufficiently high to be audible. The ability to re-read a data block or buffer to reduce timing errors therefore confers no advantage over the disc in terms of sound quality. Although I accept that technically it is a superior way of doing things.


Problems that could theoretically cause poor sound as people describe - harsh, hard, lacking focus and soundstage - like distortion from power supply modulation never seem to get talked about and that could equally be a problem in a server-streamer-DAC set up as in a cd player.

That’s not what the AES paper states, it was found to be audible but at higher rates than expected and it was determined material dependant. Plus training the listeners improved identification of jitter. If the situation was as you describe all cd transports would sound the same, the effects of improving master clocks would have no effect and HDD playback is not better than that of a CD player. I’ll repeat one of Marcos questions have you actually experimented with improving power supplies and master clocks in CD players or HDD based streamers or are you just going by theory?

[Macca]

That’s not what the AES paper states, it was found to be audible but at higher rates than expected and it was determined material dependant. Plus training the listeners improved identification of jitter. If the situation was as you describe all cd transports would sound the same, the effects of improving master clocks would have no effect and HDD playback is not better than that of a CD player. I’ll repeat one of Marcos questions have you actually experimented with improving power supplies and master clocks in CD players or HDD based streamers or are you just going by theory?

The AES paper demonstrates that to make jitter audible, even with the trained listeners, the level had to be way above that generated by any cd player or DAC. I don't see how it can be argued otherwise.

As to your second point I'd consider experimenting with a clock upgrade as measuring the level of jitter then upgrading the clock, then measuring again to see if the jitter level has been reduced.


Then listen to the player against an unmodded version and swap between them blind to see if you can distinguish any difference to a degree of confidence.


If after the upgrade measured jitter was reduced and if you can pick a difference between the players blind to 90% confidence then you might credibly say that the reduction in jitter could be changing the sound. Although there is a possibility that depending on what the clock upgrade entailed other factors could be at play.

That would be experimenting with a clock upgrade. So no, I haven't done that although would be interesting to hear from anyone who has.

Just sending the player off to have it done, getting it back a week or so later and thinking it sounds better is not experimenting with a clock upgrade and isn't going to convince anyone but the person who does it.


Improving power supplies you won't get any argument from me, I agree that can make a difference

[Marco]

Just sending the player off to have it done, getting it back a week or so later and thinking it sounds better is not experimenting with a clock upgrade and isn't going to convince anyone but the person who does it.

It still acts as valid personal experience, from which to make an informed opinion on the matter, rather than simply worshiping at the altar of theory!

What would matter to you more, the contents of an AES paper, or the results of what your own ears told you with a clock upgrade, if they contradicted the AES paper? And yes, I'd like an answer to that one please...

And in terms of not convincing anyone but the person who does it, why so?

If I've got a mate who's system I know almost as well as mine, including the CD player, and he's had the clock in the player's DAC upgraded, with no other changes whatsoever carried out to his system, and next time I visit, CDs consistently sound better, with a variety of familiar music, then I'm going to think that the clock upgrade has effected a genuine sonic improvement.

Why wouldn't I?

Marco.

[Primalsea]

I posed a few questions related to sampling rates a while back and was sent in the direction of some good info. What I didn’t appreciate at that time was that while it was a new discussion for me for some it was an old reoccurring discussion that held some ancient pain and truma for others.

If I have understood what I have since read correctly sampling at a higher rate does reduce an effect due to filter pre and post ringing that smears an impulse transient signal over a longer period of time than the actual original signal. However, while this is important for some industries the actual benefits for audio are claimed to be inaudible, as they are way below the threashold of what we can discern.

IMO which I have admittedly just made up we are talking about very small errors that are completely masked by further filters anyway (d/a anti aliasing, mechanical and electrical filters in the speakers, the air, more mechanical filters - our ears - and then whatever our brain then does) that trying to reduce these arguably inaudible errors is the wrong battle to fight to the point where keeping our ears clean and healthy and learning skills like interval recognition would be far more effective upgrades.

[Gazjam]

Digital sound quality, all sounds the same and anythings as good as you’ll ever need...not.

The AES paper demonstrates that to make jitter audible, even with the trained listeners, the level had to be way above that generated by any cd player or DAC. I don't see how it can be argued otherwise.

As to your second point I'd consider experimenting with a clock upgrade as measuring the level of jitter then upgrading the clock, then measuring again to see if the jitter level has been reduced.


Then listen to the player against an unmodded version and swap between them blind to see if you can distinguish any difference to a degree of confidence.


If after the upgrade measured jitter was reduced and if you can pick a difference between the players blind to 90% confidence then you might credibly say that the reduction in jitter could be changing the sound. Although there is a possibility that depending on what the clock upgrade entailed other factors could be at play.

That would be experimenting with a clock upgrade. So no, I haven't done that although would be interesting to hear from anyone who has.

Just sending the player off to have it done, getting it back a week or so later and thinking it sounds better is not experimenting with a clock upgrade and isn't going to convince anyone but the person who does it.


Improving power supplies you won't get any argument from me, I agree that can make a difference

[NRG]

The AES paper demonstrates that to make jitter audible, even with the trained listeners, the level had to be way above that generated by any cd player or DAC. I don't see how it can be argued otherwise.

As to your second point I'd consider experimenting with a clock upgrade as measuring the level of jitter then upgrading the clock, then measuring again to see if the jitter level has been reduced.


Then listen to the player against an unmodded version and swap between them blind to see if you can distinguish any difference to a degree of confidence.


If after the upgrade measured jitter was reduced and if you can pick a difference between the players blind to 90% confidence then you might credibly say that the reduction in jitter could be changing the sound. Although there is a possibility that depending on what the clock upgrade entailed other factors could be at play.

That would be experimenting with a clock upgrade. So no, I haven't done that although would be interesting to hear from anyone who has.

Just sending the player off to have it done, getting it back a week or so later and thinking it sounds better is not experimenting with a clock upgrade and isn't going to convince anyone but the person who does it.


Improving power supplies you won't get any argument from me, I agree that can make a difference

I hope my last comment as I fear we are going to go around in circles. Firstly the AES paper makes no mention of jitter being fixed in CD players, in fact it talks about DVD players (semantics maybe) TV recievers etc. Again it does not state *way* above....it states higher than expected ....but still audible under certain conditions. So you’ve never experimented with clock upgrades and have no first hand experience of them and the benefit they can bring...and who said anything about sending your player off, it’s possible to fit an upgraded clock yourself if you have some soldering skill and if not I’m sure there’s somebody on the forum who would help. You are seemingly dismissing the practical experience of others who have tried this, myself on 4 occasions now, as irrelevant yet you are happy to base your argument on a 20 year old paper as gospel with no experience yourself. But you are happy with improvements to power supplies which, funnily enough, are known to influence periodic jitter and improve playback...