Does high quality digital cables matter?
Comments
-
Jitter can be present in the original recording and this can never be mitigated. It's a permanent fixture to the recording unless they make a new digital master.
Pretty sure I just said that like 5 posts ago...
Yep, still there.Jitter that is recorded during the original Analog to Digital process (At the recording studio) cannot be fixed, corrected for, or removed. If jitter exists in the playback of an audio stream (Whether it's audible or not) it's either original recording jitter or jitter that was introduced in the very last step of digital/analog conversion before analog playback via the wires going to your speakers. Given that this is the case I would take a serious look at your DAC/AVR/Amps rather than playing the cable blame game...as the DAC/AVR/Amps are the only place that jitter heard during playback of audio could possibly be introduced. Every other step of the process effectively nullifies jitter since you are moving back and forth from the Real Time domain (Where jitter exists) to a domain where jitter doesn't (As a data file or digital data packets in a storage medium). Think about it..if this wasn't true then by the time any type of audio file was delivered to you it would be nothing but jitter. Especially after traveling through thousands of miles of fiber strands (Which are notorious for introducing jitter) in the digital domain before ever reaching you. Also consider that nearly every movie theater in the country now displays moving images and sound delivered via fiber and a cloud service. That is still considered true "Reference Level"...correct?
Love how the majority commenting in this thread seem to only see what they want, and ignore what they don't want to see. Even when later posting the exact same **** that myself and Habanero say..Too many good quotes to list..waiting for some fresh ammo.
-
DarqueKnight wrote: »All you have done is reveal your deficiencies in reading comprehension. My example had nothing to do with bits being changed from high to low or vice versa.
Again, reading is fundamental.
Again, reading is fundamental.
I am the one who said I think it's possible that Ethernet cables might make an audible difference, but I have never heard a difference in any coax or optical digital cable I have used.
Wow, so you're going to openly play semantics then call out the users here who misunderstand the example you threw out there (That added nor subtraced nothing) in a volatile argument like this? Talk about baiting and switching. That was low, even for you.
Why don't you go ahead and clarify for everyone here, you did just openly provide an example as to how digital signals can and are bit perfect 1:1 matches, regardless of the effect noise has on them. Correct?Too many good quotes to list..waiting for some fresh ammo. -
Where to start?Habanero Monk wrote: »Again: Ask Amir, in that thread, if his jitter measurements would enable him to deduce of whether the data is retrieved from local HD or pulled over the network.
andThe file itself contains no jitter whatsoever. Nor does it simulate "subtle timing inaccuracies." Remember, a file sitting on your hard disk before being played is just a bunch of digital audio samples.
First of all, I, and others, are talking about the process of moving a file (a file containing musical data) from point A to point B, and how each link has the potential to introduce audible distortion into the data. For whatever reason, Monk and villain keep talking about files on a hard drive. I dont understand why they keep going there since it has no relevance to the discussion.If you read what he is writing about in PLL recovered clock sync inputted over SP/DIF you would see he is talking about the jitter induced error of the PLL and that of the DAC buffer (not computer buffer).
Yes, he started out mentioning the DAC buffer, however he later says;
Well, there is a problem. A serious one. Buffering and clock regeneration do not deal with jitter by themselves.
A buffer is a buffer regardless of where it is located; in a DAC, in a computer, or in a router. While the implementation might be different in each component, the technology is basically the same. The data is clocked into the buffer, and the data is clocked out of the buffer. Also, it is almost guaranteed that the parts used to implement these buffers in a generic computer, or a Cisco, Brocade, Juniper router will be the absolute least expensive part that barely meets the design spec.You are truly out of your depth here and the sad thing is you don't even realize it.
Possibly, but so far all the data points to you as being out of your depth. While you have occasionally cut and pasted accurate statements, you continue to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the subject matter. Which is, any link used in the transfer of a digital musical file has the potential to introduce audible distortion into that file, even while the CRC remains correct.
And that answers your quasi-question.Now I'll just have to wait and see how it can be tied back into a BJC vs some other high $$ Ethernet cable.
The rest of his three posts consists of rambling in an attempt to sound smart, but comes across as desperate. For example,It completely makes my point that there are some that don't understand what is going on here due to failure to launch in their understanding of what is being spoken about.
If one did understand they would never have attempted it's use in fortifying their already indefensible position.Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
They may appear to be the same when you look at them on a computer screen or they are analyzed with a scientific measuring device. When something more sensitive (as in the case of your ears, brain and consciousness) are used, it becomes much more apparent that what is received is not equivalent to the orignial source (to varying degrees of course). That's I believe the problem with "digital know-it-alls" is that they cannot use their brains and get to a fine enough detail (scale) to realise that when you get to a fine enough scale, there are electrical problems that show up in digital signals. Since their brains cannot get a hold of this, they think that digital transmissions are "perfect". Again, there are no perfect transfers of electrical signals, period.
Can you please explain to me what the differences are in the digital transmission outputs from the inputs that you hear when the hash is a 1:1 match? Can you also show me where that extra sound information is stored within the file? Where are the extra or malformed 0's and 1's? Do your 0's and 1's sound different than mine?
I think you're actually the one misunderstanding things here. Myself and Habanero aren't saying that signals don't get degraded or change. We're not debating that there are no perfect transfers of electric signals. What we're stating is that *digital* signals (Binary signals) are non-physically existant signals that are simply transported and decoded across traditional electrical signals. So while the electrical signal carrying a digital signal itself may vary, the final digital output that the variances in that electrical signal form remains the same..an exact 1:1 recreation of the original digital signal.Too many good quotes to list..waiting for some fresh ammo. -
First of all, I, and others, are talking about the process of moving a file (a file containing musical data) from point A to point B, and how each link has the potential to introduce audible distortion into the data. For whatever reason, Monk and villain keep talking about files on a hard drive. I don’t understand why they keep going there since it has no relevance to the discussion.
Because you first claimed that files have jitter?
That and because what you're failing to realize is that getting from A to B isn't such a straight, non-stop path. You get subsets of A to B within the larger A to B, and at each intersecting point, each stop and each time the digital signal reaches a new storage medium (Which includes any buffers..) any jitter that was acquired from the previous step is nullified. It's gone. Poof. Gone. Reset to zero. Jitter is a REAL TIME issue, therefore it cannot and does not exist outside of REAL TIME. Period.
Example. Xfer from NAS (A) to final output speakers (B) has hundreds of mini steps. File on Hard disk to buffer to RAM to NIC Card to Ethernet Cable to NIC Card to RAM to Buffer to etc, etc, etc. Each of those steps that aren't in Real time, eliminate any jitter that was acquired previously. I can't think of a way to explain this without frustrating my typing fingers, so I'm done. You probably wouldn't learn anyways, so there's your crappy example. It shouldn't be THAT hard to understand...seriously..Buffering and clock regeneration do not deal with jitter by themselves.”
Exactly, because they have no need to. As has been stated before each and every step along the way automatically resets jitter to Zero, not to mention that jitter can ONLY exist in real time. Therefore buffering and clock regeneration do not deal with jitter as it does not exist for them to deal with. Much as a softball pitcher doesn't deal with reverse osmosis purification of drinking water. He or She deals with throwing softballs, and catching them...any link used in the transfer of a digital musical file has the potential to introduce audible distortion into that file, even while the CRC remains correct.
And so we ask again...
Q: Where does this audible distortion exist in the digital music file, if the CRC remains correct?
Wait, did you just openly state that jitter exists in a file...AGAIN? Didn't you just get done denying that you had ever said that, after being called out for it once before? Jiminy Christmas! Talk about coming full circle...
Obviously we know where your true feelings belong this time, regardless of future excuses..Too many good quotes to list..waiting for some fresh ammo. -
Question for you BlueFox...Just to clarify does or does not jitter exist in a file? On a stored file? Yes or no to each one?Too many good quotes to list..waiting for some fresh ammo.
-
Here is a good link that pretty much explains in more detail what I, and others, have been saying.
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue43/jitter.htm
"Playback jitter originates from a large number of contributors, which are usually additive. These range from the master clock, which has its own jitter, to logic devices, to mechanical systems for spinning a CD. One digital cable can even add more jitter than another. Each contributor adds more jitter to the signal as it makes its way to the D/A converter. This summation of this jitter is the system jitter.
Here is a lengthy, but probably not complete list of jitter contributors, including how each of these can or might add jitter to a digital audio system:"
This part is almost verbatim to the theoretical troubleshooting hypothesis I proposed earlier on how an Ethernet cable could add jitter. Great minds think alike.
8. Digital Cables
Cables don't actively add jitter to the signal, however they can slow the signal transitions or "edges". When the edges are slowed, the receiver or buffer at the cable destination is less likely to detect the transition at the correct time with certainty, which results in jitter.
and in regard to computers and network equipment.
"The problem for audiophiles is that the majority of these end-point devices were designed with high-volume manufacturing and low-cost as requirements, with performance taking a lower priority. As a result, the jitter from these devices is higher than it could be. It should be the lowest of all the audio source devices available."Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
Question for you BlueFox...Just to clarify does or does not jitter exist in a file? On a stored file? Yes or no to each one?
^ That. Let's go ahead and add one more. Does jitter exist in a file in storage mediums?Too many good quotes to list..waiting for some fresh ammo. -
And so we ask again...
Q: Where does this audible distortion exist in the digital music file, if the CRC remains correct?
^ See aboveToo many good quotes to list..waiting for some fresh ammo. -
Does jitter exist in a file in storage mediums?
Here's one for you: Do you listen to files while they are in storage mediums or do you listen to files after they have been converted to analog signals that your ears can hear?
Consider the following scenario:
1. Trees grown in a forest.
2. A sawmill that converts trees into finished lumber.
3. Three trucking companies that transport the lumber (2" x 4" x 8' studs) to a construction company warehouse.
4. A carpenter that converts the finished warehoused lumber into houses.
Trucking company A transports the lumber in sealed trailers. The 2 x 4s arrive at the warehouse in the same size and condition as when they left the saw mill.
Trucking company B transports the lumber on a flatbed truck, where it is rained on and termites get to nibble on it a bit, but not enough to make the 2 x 4s unusable. Exposure to the elements also causes a slight amount of warping, but not enough warping to make the 2 x 4s go out of spec.
Trucking company C first takes the lumber to a wood chipping company where a little bits of wood are randomly sliced off. The 2 x 4 still meet spec size.
The carpenter goes to pick up a load of lumber to build a house and he is given an assortment of 2 x 4s from the perfect, rained on/termite eaten, and chipped off stocks. The carpenter complains that the inconsistency in lumber quality affects his workflow efficiency and causes fatigue due to having to work around the defects in some of the lumber. This translates to the fit and finish of the house not being up to his usual standards.
The warehouse manager tells the carpenter that his complaint is without merit because all the lumber in the warehouse meets spec.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
Where to start?
An understanding in how this actually works would be a good start for you.First of all, I, and others, are talking about the process of moving a file (a file containing musical data) from point A to point B, and how each link has the potential to introduce audible distortion into the data. For whatever reason, Monk and villain keep talking about files on a hard drive. I don’t understand why they keep going there since it has no relevance to the discussion.
Or a file stored, statically, in RAM. It has complete relevance.Yes, he started out mentioning the DAC buffer, however he later says;
“Well, there is a problem. A serious one. Buffering and clock regeneration do not deal with jitter by themselves.”
You have not a clue as to what Amir is referencing do you? I'll help you out:
Of course the problem can be solved using skilled designers and budgets that are measured in tens of dollars as opposed to single digit.
So what is Amir saying is being solved with skilled designers and budgets that are measured in the tens of dollars? He certainly goes on to show some other DAC's with lower jitter noise floor. Are they not using a buffer? Are they not using some form of clock recovery scheme?
He's talking about poorly implemented clock recovery schemes. He doesn't even mention what the SOURCE of the file is. Only that the input is SP/DIF and not even if it is optical or co-axial.
It's even mentioned in same thread about you should be using A-Sync USB:
"So, you want a perfect clock to drive your DAC, but you must provide buffering and/or some type of synchronization so you do not lose data in an asynchronous system. It's complicated."
And
"This is why async USB is a Good Thing."
They are mentioning this because Amir picked a delivery mechanism (SP/DIF) that can be problematic due to it's very nature.
The issue is that the PLL mechanism is creating it's own Jitter as it reads out of buffer. Even adding up to 2dB! Why don't you ask Amir how he knows it's ADDING 2dB. It's not there in the buffer, it's added in the re-clocking.
How on this earth are you even remotely tying this to the computer buffer? He's making the point that nothing can help out a cheap, poorly designed, clock recovery circuit.
You are trying to round the square with his thread and you are so off the mark you don't even understand the point he is trying to make.
Again: Ask Amir if he can deduce by the jitter measurement over SP/DIF the source: Ethernet Cable A or Ethernet Cable B.A buffer is a buffer regardless of where it is located; in a DAC, in a computer, or in a router. While the implementation might be different in each component, the technology is basically the same. The data is clocked into the buffer, and the data is clocked out of the buffer. Also, it is almost guaranteed that the parts used to implement these buffers in a generic computer, or a Cisco, Brocade, Juniper router will be the absolute least expensive part that barely meets the design spec.
Wrong again. There is NO audio clocking in and out of RAM or HD. It's a fetch after that point. It's still DATA. Static. Only when it's bitstreamed to the DAC and decoded at the DAC is clocking data extracted. -
Here is a good link that pretty much explains in more detail what I, and others, have been saying.
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue43/jitter.htm
Blue you must not be reading what you are posting, but thanks for another slow ball right over home plate. From the article you linked to:
Jitter and Networked audio
Networked audio (Ethernet), both wired and WiFi is a unique case. Because the data is transmitted in packets with flow-control, re-try for errors and buffering at the end-point device, it is not as much of a real-time transfer as USB, S/PDIF or Firewire. The computer transmitting the data packets must still keep-up" the pace to prevent dropouts from occurring, but the real-time nature of the transfer is looser. Unlike with other protocols, there can be dead-times when no data is being transferred. Networking also avoids the use of the audio stack of the computer audio system since it treats all data essentially the same. This avoids kmixer on XP systems and the audio stacks on Mac and PC Vista. Because of the packet-transfer protocol of Ethernet and data buffering at the end-point, the jitter of the clock in the computer is a non-issue. The only clock that is important is the one in the end-point device. Examples of end-point devices are: Squeezebox, Duet and Sonos. This would seem to be the ideal situation, which it certainly is. The only problem that can occur is overloading the network with traffic or WiFi interference, which may cause occasional dropouts. The problem for audiophiles is that the majority of these end-point devices were designed with high-volume manufacturing and low-cost as requirements, with performance taking a lower priority. As a result, the jitter from these devices is higher than it could be. It should be the lowest of all the audio source devices available.
it is not as much of a real-time transfer = it's not real time. There is no such thing as partially pregnant. Now lets see what I said about Networking and Computers not being real time.
Unlike with other protocols, there can be dead-times when no data is being transferred. Networking also avoids the use of the audio stack of the computer audio system since it treats all data essentially the same.
Another one knocked out of the park. Wow, dead times while audio is playing but no data is transfered. And drum roll please: Data is DATA.
This would seem to be the ideal situation, which it certainly is
The only problem that can occur is overloading the network with traffic or WiFi interference, which may cause occasional dropouts.
Total agreement with him there.
The problem for audiophiles is that the majority of these end-point devices were designed with high-volume manufacturing and low-cost as requirements, with performance taking a lower priority. As a result, the jitter from these devices is higher than it could be. It should be the lowest of all the audio source devices available.
So to finish this up he is talking about cheap end point devices like the Squeeze Box etc.... -
“8. Digital Cables
Cables don't actively add jitter to the signal, however they can slow the signal transitions or "edges". When the edges are slowed, the receiver or buffer at the cable destination is less likely to detect the transition at the correct time with certainty, which results in jitter.”
He's not talking about Ethernet at this point. He's talking about SP/DIF and Toslink.
He addresses Ethernet in it's own paragraph. -
LOL. Once again, The Monk shows his reading comprehension skills are nil, zero, none, and to think he has a Certificate in networking. :rolleyes:
In so far as the troll, he can make up his own answers, as he has done so far.Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
LOL. Once again, The Monk shows his reading comprehension skills are nil, zero, none, and to think he has a Certificate in networking. :rolleyes:
In so far as the troll, he can make up his own answers, as he has done so far.
At least I'm not the idiot.
From the article YOU linked:
Because of the packet-transfer protocol of Ethernet and data buffering at the end-point, the jitter of the clock in the computer is a non-issue.
Feel free to point out my error as to the article that you linked to about jitter. -
Don't go all villain, Monk. You're better than that.
I don't have a dog in this portion of the fight. So I will bow out until we can return to the crux of the thread."Some people find it easier to be conceited rather than correct."
"Unwad those panties and have a good time man. We're all here to help each other, no matter how it might appear." DSkip -
Habanero Monk wrote: »At least I'm not the idiot.
You sure are doing a good job of fooling everyone else.From the article YOU linked:
Because of the packet-transfer protocol of Ethernet and data buffering at the end-point, the jitter of the clock in the computer is a non-issue.
What did I say when I posted that link. Oh yes.Here is a good link that pretty much explains in more detail what I, and others, have been saying.
And that is basically everything in the link as a file is transferred from A to B has the potential to add jitter, which I believe is all I have ever said.
So, to answer your question, from the link, some relevent passages.
Jitter has been with us since the inception of the CD format by Sony and Philips in 1982. It is a pervasive problem with all digital audio. It has prevented digital audio, both CD's and computer-driven-audio from competing with good vinyl and tape for decades. It is only recently that manufacturers have become aware of the problem and developed improved chips and systems to deal with jitter.
The jitter associated with digital streaming audio is usually a mix of non-correlated and correlated jitter, correlated being that jitter that is somehow related to the music data or waveform and uncorrelated usually being random jitter.
The audio data transfer must include both 1) accurate data and 2) accurate timing, whereas non-real-time transfers only require accurate data.
Playback jitter originates from a large number of contributors, which are usually additive. These range from the master clock, which has its own jitter, to logic devices, to mechanical systems for spinning a CD. One digital cable can even add more jitter than another. Each contributor adds more jitter to the signal as it makes its way to the D/A converter. This summation of this jitter is the system jitter.
The digital audio data must make its way through the system over wires/traces and sometimes through buffers, such as the buffer to drive the S/PDIF cable. Each of these buffers has finite reaction times and imprecise detection of changing signal levels. What this means is that even though the signal may not have much jitter coming into the buffer, it may exit with additional jitter. This jitter is a result of the speed of the device, thermal effects on the silicon die, power delivery on the die and even transmission-line effects.
The DC power applied to each of the devices that must process or transmit the digital audio signal is critical. If this power varies in voltage, the devices will react differently to the applied digital signals. Power "noise" as it is referred to is probably one of the largest contributors to jitter. Voltage changes or "voltage droop" can happen anywhere on a circuit board, power cabling, or even on the silicon itself. Changes in power voltage will change the speed and reaction times of digital logic that is transmitting the digital signals resulting in jitter.
Cables don't actively add jitter to the signal, however they can slow the signal transitions or "edges". When the edges are slowed, the receiver or buffer at the cable destination is less likely to detect the transition at the correct time with certainty, which results in jitter.Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
Question for you BlueFox...Just to clarify does or does not jitter exist in a file? On a stored file? Yes or no to each one?
Depends where the "stored" file comes from. Jitter can be present in the mastering process, which then will be present in every single copy made from that Master. You need to be more specific with your question.
H9"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Pangea AC14SE MKII | Legend L600 | BlueSound Node 3 - Tubes add soul! -
You sure are doing a good job of fooling everyone else.
What did I say when I posted that link. Oh yes.
And that is basically everything in the link as a file is transferred from A to B has the potential to add jitter, which I believe is all I have ever said.
So, to answer your question, from the link, some relevent passages.
Jitter has been with us since the inception of the CD format by Sony and Philips in 1982. It is a pervasive problem with all digital audio. It has prevented digital audio, both CD's and computer-driven-audio from competing with good vinyl and tape for decades. It is only recently that manufacturers have become aware of the problem and developed improved chips and systems to deal with jitter.
Jitter in all it's forms isn't a 'digital phenomenon'. It has existed with purely analog formats in the form of WOW and Flutter.The jitter associated with digital streaming audio is usually a mix of non-correlated and correlated jitter, correlated being that jitter that is somehow related to the music data or waveform and uncorrelated usually being random jitter.
The audio data transfer must include both 1) accurate data and 2) accurate timing, whereas non-real-time transfers only require accurate data.
My take away from this sentence of his is that he is talking about digital audio data, not digital packet data.
Pay attention specifically to: whereas non-real-time transfers only require accurate data Now tie this back to where he speaks about non-realtime transfers:
it is not as much of a real-time transfer and this ties into:
Because of the packet-transfer protocol of Ethernet and data buffering at the end-point, the jitter of the clock in the computer is a non-issue.Playback jitter originates from a large number of contributors, which are usually additive. These range from the master clock, which has its own jitter, to logic devices, to mechanical systems for spinning a CD. One digital cable can even add more jitter than another. Each contributor adds more jitter to the signal as it makes its way to the D/A converter. This summation of this jitter is the system jitter.
The digital audio data must make its way through the system over wires/traces and sometimes through buffers, such as the buffer to drive the S/PDIF cable. Each of these buffers has finite reaction times and imprecise detection of changing signal levels. What this means is that even though the signal may not have much jitter coming into the buffer, it may exit with additional jitter. This jitter is a result of the speed of the device, thermal effects on the silicon die, power delivery on the die and even transmission-line effects.
Again pay attention to his words since he has made a point to choose them wisely:
The digital audio data buffer to drive the S/PDIF cable Each of these buffers has finite reaction times and imprecise detection of changing signal levels
He's speaking to S/PDIF. Just as Amir is doing. He is speaking to a specific topology implementation.
And we have this:
large number of contributors, which are usually additive. These range from the master clock, which has its own jitter, to logic devices, to mechanical systems for spinning a CD and One digital cable can even add more jitter than another. Each contributor adds more jitter to the signal as it makes its way to the D/A converter. This summation of this jitter is the system jitter
Then in another section we have this where he's made another distinction:
Because of the packet-transfer protocol of Ethernet and data buffering at the end-point, the jitter of the clock in the computer is a non-issue.
He is drawing distinct conclusions as it pertains to computer based :
The only clock that is important is the one in the end-point device
He is making clear distinctions.The DC power applied to each of the devices that must process or transmit the digital audio signal is critical. If this power varies in voltage, the devices will react differently to the applied digital signals. Power "noise" as it is referred to is probably one of the largest contributors to jitter. Voltage changes or "voltage droop" can happen anywhere on a circuit board, power cabling, or even on the silicon itself. Changes in power voltage will change the speed and reaction times of digital logic that is transmitting the digital signals resulting in jitter.
Cables don't actively add jitter to the signal, however they can slow the signal transitions or "edges". When the edges are slowed, the receiver or buffer at the cable destination is less likely to detect the transition at the correct time with certainty, which results in jitter.
So an outgoing tide lowers all ships. Sauce that is equally good on BJC Ethernet Cables is also good on AudioQuest, Chord, Etc...
Get a really nice battery backup with AVR function. -
Depends where the "stored" file comes from. Jitter can be present in the mastering process, which then will be present in every single copy made from that Master. You need to be more specific with your question.
H9
He did in Post 727
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?160401-Does-high-quality-digital-cables-matter&p=2054628&viewfull=1#post2054628 -
.......nm"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Pangea AC14SE MKII | Legend L600 | BlueSound Node 3 - Tubes add soul!
-
Lots of BS in post 727, atleast how it relates to real audio. Jitter can be cumulative and that BS about it being reduced at every stage until it's null is the farthest thing from the truth as it relates to audio. It might be true in the world of digital data files relating to computers and that type of data transfer.
Apples and oranges
H9
So what exactly does this have to do with the conversation at hand of a BJC certified CAT6 cable and an AudioQuest Vodka RJ/E cable?
We are talking about computer audio. There is still going to be jitter. It's just not coming from the Ethernet cable. The Ethernet cable is not an accumulator in this instance.
Using Amir's CS chip and the PLL recovery mechanism, if the computer is feeding via it's S/PDIF output you still have a problem at the S/PDIF output. There is no Ethernet jitter to worry about. -
Meh.
-
You're better than that.
I don't like it better than anyone else to be called a troll when clearly making cogent points using someone else's supporting references.
I'm certainly not always going to be above it even though I would like to be.
I believe all the detail out of the WBF and Empirical Audio write ups have been teased out and the proper differentiation's made.
I didn't even know about Mr Nugents write up but his findings if not exactly mirror come very close to matching the points about computer based audio I was making pages ago. It's a really good read and I am saving that to pdf in case the link dies at some point.
Sometimes all that is needed for people to realize a factual point being made is for some 3rd party to corroborate it. -
And to think, this "test" will likely not take place until September?! (if at all, IMO)
Wonder how many pages this thread will be by then...So, are you willing to put forth a little effort or are you happy sitting in your skeptical poo pile?
http://audiomilitia.proboards.com/ -
And to think, this "test" will likely not take place until September?! (if at all, IMO)
Wonder how many pages this thread will be by then...
Remember that both ZLTFUL and myself have agreed to terms. I have publicly asked for technical comments as it pertains to the testing structure, the testing apparatus, and the testing protocol.
Keep in mind the testing has actually been changed per ZLTFUL's request that it include an A/B/C choice.
FYI the domain in your sig isn't resolving. -
Wire is an electrical "component" and like any electrical component, can potentially impart it's own character to the signal. To what degree is highly arguable. Since I lack lab equipment to "explore" the virtues of a given cable/topology, I'll trust my ears---it's free; afterall, that IS all that matters, right?
There's science, then there's reality--since I live in reality, I'll play by its rules.Source: Bluesound Node 2i - Preamp/DAC: Benchmark DAC2 DX - Amp: Parasound Halo A21 - Speakers: MartinLogan Motion 60XTi - Shop Rig: Yamaha A-S501 Integrated - Shop Spkrs: Elac Debut 2.0 B5.2 -
Monk... is your take on this on ethernet only or does it also apply to USB cables? I can tell you I heard a noticeable difference going from standard printer cable > AQ Forest > AQ Cinnamon. If it applies to all digital cables, do you have a reason why I heard a difference? Like I said earlier, I'm ignorant on most things digital, but I do know what I heard and continue to hear.
I'm only speaking to Ethernet. There is no standards body that is in charge of USB measurements like there is for Ethernet that I am aware of.
Ethernet is simply delivering packet data, at GB speeds, at a rough ratio of 1:428 given a 50 minute album worth of playback. -
Wire is an electrical "component" and like any electrical component, can potentially impart it's own character to the signal. To what degree is highly arguable. Since I lack lab equipment to "explore" the virtues of a given cable/topology, I'll trust my ears---it's free; afterall, that IS all that matters, right?
There's science, then there's reality--since I live in reality, I'll play by its rules.
You could always send your Ethernet cables to Kurt at BJC. If a $10K fluke meter can't tell you what is going on with your cable.... -
Does the USB not do the same thing when connected to the DAC? Both are supplying digital information (however you want to call it) that is then decoded by the same chip.
There are a lot of different types of digital signaling. I'm not sure of the mechanism for USB as it pertains to audio so I can't speak to that. What I have more than solid fundamental grasp on, as corroborated by that most excellent article that BlueFox provided, is how data networking works.
USB is a peripheral interconnect. Ethernet is a systems interconnect. Both based on digital signaling that get the respective job done.I'm sure the Forest, the lowest cable AQ produces, meets the standard that AQ sees as a minimum to achieve proper performance. Yet I get better results when I move up the line, expecting the standards to be higher for each cable I move up to. Are ethernet cable standards so high that it really is a moot point once you hit it?
Much of this thread gives me tired head as it really appears to be mostly semantics. I'm trying to bring it back down to something the rest of us won't beat our heads up against the wall trying to read.
It's not semantics it's a failure for some to understand what it is, misinterpret data that they go out and find and link to as a basis for their position. It's just been a task to tease out all the details and in a few soundbite length quotes tie it all together.
Read the write up that BlueFox linked to. Mr Nugent did a killer job laying it all out and explaining the in's and outs. It was written 5 years ago so I would love to see an update as it pertains to his section on USB audio.
I wonder if he would write up an addendum if asked.
This discussion has been closed.