Jitter article

[steveinaz]

Interesting:
http://www.audiocraftersguild.com/AandE/cd-jitter.pdf#search='jitter%20on%20cd%20players'

it's in *.pdf format, cool read.

[heiney9]

Another reason outboard DAC's sound so much better. Somewhere in my favorites I have another link to an excellent jitter article. If I find it I'll post it. For those not familiar jitter has nothing to do with a shaky transport....many associate the two.

FWIW

H9

[Tour2ma]

http://www.altmann.haan.de/jitter/english/engc_navfr.html

[TheReaper]

I just don't understand the audio world's problem with jitter. In the computer world data has been serially transmitted jitter free for years using independant transmit and receive clocks (16x receive to eliminate jitter). For audio, the only timing that is really needed off the input signal, is the average bit rate for drift adjustment.

What am I missing?

[heiney9]

I just don't understand the audio world's problem with jitter. In the computer world data has been serially transmitted jitter free for years using independant transmit and receive clocks (16x receive to eliminate jitter). For audio, the only timing that is really needed off the input signal, is the average bit rate for drift adjustment.

What am I missing?

Anyone who is seriously into audio knows a bit about jitter. This area of digital playback can be/is just as contested as the cable/interconnect debate. I understand the princples of jitter, but am not sure if I can detect it or if my efforts to reduce it have been successful.

Here's the article I was speaking of in my earlier post. It's an excellent in-depth view of jitter.

http://www.jitter.de/english/engc_navfr.html

H9

EDIT: Sorry, just realized my link is the same as Tour2ma.

[mldennison]

I just don't understand the audio world's problem with jitter. In the computer world data has been serially transmitted jitter free for years using independant transmit and receive clocks (16x receive to eliminate jitter). For audio, the only timing that is really needed off the input signal, is the average bit rate for drift adjustment.

What am I missing?

well the problem i see with this statement is that i dont see where in the computer world you are going digital to analog. if you are just doing a purely digital serial transfer then using the oversampling clock on both sides allows you to get rid of any jitter problems. when you are going d to a though, you have alot less room for error and hence the problems with jitter.

[TheReaper]

For audio, the only timing that is really needed off the input signal, is the average bit rate for drift adjustment.
In those articles, what they are claiming is causing the jitter. Is the lock-stepping of the output clocking for the dac, to the input bits.

When there could be a separate clock for the ouput dac, regulated by the average input bit rate, eliminating the input bit jitter. As long as the average output meets the average input, the stream flows.

[Sami]

well the problem i see with this statement is that i dont see where in the computer world you are going digital to analog.
If that's the only problem then I don't see the point for expensive CDP's connected digitally. A digital output to a DAC is a digital output to a DAC, bit for bit. My $17 computer soundcard with optical out should be identical in sound when playing ape-files from HD.

[mldennison]

sami, i agree with you 100% i really dont see the need for an expensive transport. if you are using an outboard dac then the only thing that i can see that a nicer transport is doing is reducing the bit error rate which i cant see being a very big deal unless you are dealing with a really scratched disc.

of course i have not used an external dac so i really cant comment from experience but that is the way i see it. here is a thread of someone else who seemed to come to the same conclusion though:
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35100

[steveinaz]

If that's the only problem then I don't see the point for expensive CDP's connected digitally. A digital output to a DAC is a digital output to a DAC, bit for bit. My $17 computer soundcard with optical out should be identical in sound when playing ape-files from HD.

While true that the output is bit-for-bit, even from a $19 CD walkman (if it had a digital output); where jitter comes in is from imperfect clock timing, not bit errors. There is no such thing as a 100% accurate crystal clock, therefore we have jitter. However, the better the transport design and power supply section, the more jitter is reduced.

The claims as to why different transports can sound different is based on this premise. As always, you get what you pay for; more accurate clock circuit=more expensive; beefed-up, clean power supply=more expensive.

This is how I understand it from the reading.

[Sami]

While true that the output is bit-for-bit, even from a $19 CD walkman (if it had a digital output); where jitter comes in is from imperfect clock timing, not bit errors.
The question is in the design then, is the information transferred to the DAC as it is in the disc? If it is then there is no difference at all. If the transfer isn't identical then it's a different story. If jitter is a major problem to hi-fi crowd then I'm sure someone would have already developed equipment that would get rid of it, at least until it reaches DAC.

[steveinaz]

There are expensive add-on products out there to reduce jitter, but jitter will always be there (well, at least until the perfect crystal is made). They way I understand it, jitter is what causes alot of the complaints with digital reproduction, flat sound stage, glare, harshness, etc.

[Sami]

There are expensive add-on products out there to reduce jitter, but jitter will always be there (well, at least until the perfect crystal is made). They way I understand it, jitter is what causes alot of the complaints with digital reproduction, flat sound stage, glare, harshness, etc.
But how does it affect the transport stage from the disc to the DAC? To make that exactly the same should not be a problem (but are there any equipment that do it is the real question).

[heiney9]

If you read the link from my earlier post. You'll realize that jitter can be introduced during the recording process if this is the case it can never be corrected. Jitter is a real quantifiable issue. It can be reduced but never eliminated. Jitter has to do with the sending and receiving clocks, during conversion, not syncing up correctly. There are many other area of design in an audio playback system that need attention before jitter suppression becomes an issue. The overall design and quality of the unit are much more important factors than just managing jitter al by itself.

Simply...a cheap poorly designed unit will not benefit from reduced jitter. The rest of the pieces of the puzzle have to be in place to benefit.

H9

[Sami]

If you read the link from my earlier post. You'll realize that jitter can be introduced during the recording process if this is the case it can never be corrected. Jitter is a real quantifiable issue. It can be reduced but never eliminated.
For what I read in that article is that while a digital transport could be identical, in todays designs it isn't. That is why I always posted my remarks with conditions as I suspected this was the case.

[heiney9]

For what I read in that article is that while a digital transport could be identical, in todays designs it isn't. That is why I always posted my remarks with conditions as I suspected this was the case.

Why do you keep referencing transport? Jitter is incorrect syncing between the sending and receiving clocks during conversion. The transport really has very little effect on jitter. Pleas explain what you mean. :) (perhaps reference parts of the article)

H9

[Sami]

Why do you keep referencing transport? Jitter is incorrect syncing between the sending and receiving clocks during conversion. The transport really has very little effect on jitter. Pleas explain what you mean. :) (perhaps reference parts of the article)

H9
Because some people are saying that the transport matters from the disc to the DAC. It shouldn't unless the hardware specs are designed in a way that introduces jitter. You should be able to design hardware where it isn't an issue.

http://www.jitter.de/english/engc_navfr.html
"Some digital transmission formats like S/PDIF(by Tomi Engdahl) or AES/EBU(crystal an22.pdf) carry clock and data in one signal."

No jitter there I assume so transporting the signal through digital connection should have no effect on the sound. But it doesn't explain why there is this mentioned as it shouldn't matter at all if it truely was identical transport:

http://www.jitter.de/english/engc_navfr.html

"Use the best digital interconnects:

Use SToptical instead of Toslink.
Use AES3 interconnects (XLR) instead of S/PDIF (RCA). "

[heiney9]

Ok I see where the confussion lies. I think of transport as the part of the unit where you put the disc to be read. You use the word transport as a verb as in transporting info from one place to another.

Your assumption is incorrect. Just by using the "best" digital interconnects or using the S/PDIF or AES/EBU connection will not supress jitter. Again jitter is a byproduct of incorrect syncing between the sending and receiving clock during the conversion from digital to analog or visa/versa. You could have the "best" interconnects made and if the clocks are poor and out of sync then it still will suffer from jitter.

I'm going to try this analogy, it might make sense or completely miss the point.

A photograph is a representation of an image the same way a digital "bit" is a representation of part of an analog waveform (in audio). When you take a picture the quality (sharpness, color accuracy etc.) is dependant on the quality of the camera. All cameras do the same thing some just do it better (more correctly)The same goes for components used in the audio conversion process. The better the clock, dac's, power supply, input stage, output stage the better the analog waveform we hear. All these components help reduce jitter, but the main factor are the sending and receiving clocks.

Reduction of jitter eliminates glare, hardness and fatigue.

Comparing a computer which always operates in the digital domain is unfair because it never has to switch/convert to analog.

Hope this helps...because beyond this simple explanation it all gets very complicated very quickly. :) I'm not prepared to take the time to go much beyond this. However, there are 1000's of articles out there if you do a Google search.

H9

[Sami]

Your assumption is incorrect. Just by using the "best" digital interconnects or using the S/PDIF or AES/EBU connection will not supress jitter.

It was not my assumption, it was in the website you posted. I was wondering why it was there as I don't think it should matter.

Comparing a computer which always operates in the digital domain is unfair because it never has to switch/convert to analog.

I was just wondering the digital part of the equation, whether it introduces jitter or not. This because I have read multiple comments how a $10 computer sound card isn't the same as a $1000 CDP when both are connected to a DAC (external or in receiver/prepro). There is no DA conversion so both should produce identical sound (read my original post).

[heiney9]

I was just wondering the digital part of the equation, whether it introduces jitter or not. This because I have read multiple comments how a $10 computer sound card isn't the same as a $1000 CDP when both are connected to a DAC (external or in receiver/prepro). There is no DA conversion so both should produce identical sound (read my original post).

I'm confused :confused: . You say there is no DA conversion. In order to hear audio it has to be an analog waveform. So there HAS to be DA conversion. A $10 computer card will NEVER sound as good as $1000 CDP. On that little soundcard all the processes have to take place just the same as in an expensive CDP or DAC. Poor quality components are used and a computer is a very hostile environment for an audio signal. Poor power supply regulation, lots of EMI interference, ribbon cable connections are not friendly to audio signals. Noisy fans can dirty up the signal because of poor isolation, etc.

Yes, the digital stream from a sound card into to an external DAC will sound much better than the stand alone soundcard. With my 2nd system which is hooked to my computer I can switch between my external DAC and the sound card and the difference is VERY apparent.

Again....Jitter is a byproduct of the conversion process from Digital to Analog or visa/versa and it's created by poor syncing of the sending and receiving clocks. If there is no conversion then there is no associated jitter.

[Sami]

I'm confused :confused: . You say there is no DA conversion. In order to hear audio it has to be an analog waveform.
No DA conversion before it reaches the DAC (logical), in reference to a cheap soundcard and expensive CDP both connected via digital connection sounding the same (connected to the same device/DAC).

[heiney9]

No DA conversion before it reaches the DAC (logical), in reference to a cheap soundcard and expensive CDP both connected via digital connection sounding the same (connected to the same device/DAC).

Problem is all things aren't equal. The computer is a hostile environment. So I'd have to say NO they won't sound the same. But that's a subjective question as well as a subjective answer.

I will say my computer system sounds much better than I expected using relatively inexpensive components. Comparing the internal soundcard to the outboard DAC is a night and day difference. I hope this helps answer your question.

H9

[Sami]

Problem is all things aren't equal. The computer is a hostile environment. So I'd have to say NO they won't sound the same. But that's a subjective question as well as a subjective answer.
And the question really is why not? Is it by design of the CD format? Is it by design of the connection and data package? If there is no DA conversion happening then without a specific reason they should sound the same. What introduces the difference between the two in digital format?

[heiney9]

And the question really is why not? Is it by design of the CD format? Is it by design of the connection and data package? If there is no DA conversion happening then without a specific reason they should sound the same. What introduces the difference between the two in digital format?

Sorry Sami, I've tried to stay with you....but at this point, and really several points before, I'm not sure where you are coming from or trying to go. Things are not equal because of the quality of parts and the intended design to get to the end result (which in this case is analog sound). It seems you want to discuss just the digital side of the equation, but want an answer for both sides (digital and analog). For audio purposes if there is no conversion to analog then it's a moot point. The analog side is primarily where the problems occur (audibly) anyways. Beyond that I have no idea what you want to know. 1 bit of info is 1 bit of info....but 1 bit on its own is nothing. In audio several bits have to be converted back to analog and depending on the quality of the components and design it can make or break the sound (output).

So strictly bits are bits, but it's the process and the environment that determine accuracy, quality, etc.

H9

[heiney9]

If there is no DA conversion happening then without a specific reason they should sound the same. What introduces the difference between the two in digital format?

If there is no DA conversion happening then there is no sound. What does a bunch of 1's and 0's sound like? There is no difference in the digital format. But we don't listen to digits. The digits are a representation of part of the original analog waveform that have to be converted back to analog.

H9

[Sami]

Sorry Sami, I've tried to stay with you....but at this point, and really several points before, I'm not sure where you are coming from or trying to go.
You have already stated that the problem of jitter occurs in the conversion to analog, but you also say that you don't think a cheap soundcard sounds the same as an expensive CDP when both are connected digitally to external DAC. Why do you feel they won't sound the same if bits are bits and there is no analog conversion (between the two devices and external DAC)?

If there is no DA conversion happening then there is no sound.

Of course there is DA conversion before the sound comes out but only after both sources have delivered the digital information to the DAC. If the information is the same and the DAC does the conversion, why would it sound different?

I am only interested in the path to the DAC, not the analog conversion itself. Does the information change somehow in digital domain before reaching DAC depending on the device delivering it?

[heiney9]

Do you know what a DAC does? Digital to Analog converter. By definition it take the digital info via a cable and converts the digital bits to analog which is how our ears hear sound. You can't stay 100% in the digital domain and still hear sound. A computer sound card can 1 of 2 things. It can convert the digital bits to analog and you hear them thru your speakers or it can be set up to output a digital stream which cna them be hooked to an external DAC to be converted to analog and heard thru speakers hooked ot an amplifier. So in BOTH instances conversion takes place. It HAS to or there is no sound (audio).

[heiney9]

I am only interested in the path to the DAC, not the analog conversion itself. Does the information change somehow in digital domain before reaching DAC depending on the device delivering it?

Theoretically no. But again there are people who feel Coaxial cables are better than Optical cables. Again if you are using a cheap cable other interference can occur which has nothing to do with the digits but is still there. Same in the computer environment, it noisy and unstable and full of EMI/RF noise as well as fan noise and poor power supply isolation which could interfer with the signal, even though the digits are all the same.

H9

[Sami]

Do you know what a DAC does? Digital to Analog converter.
That's very obvious, and that's not the issue here. What you haven't explained to me is why would two devices sound different if they are both connected to the same DAC, delivering the same information? You said this earlier:

So I'd have to say NO they won't sound the same.

[heiney9]

That's very obvious, and that's not the issue here. What you haven't explained to me is why would two devices sound different if they are both connected to the same DAC, delivering the same information? You said this earlier:

Sorry I wasn't trying to sound flippant with that question. Two players hooked to the same DAC via the same cable should sound the same. Let's take the computer out of the equation for reasons I explained before. I have a very cheap DVD player and a relatively expensive CDP hooked to the DAC in my main system and I can't tell the difference other than the scraping sound the DVD player's transport makes. I think I've finally answered the right question. We've both been a bit confused on each other's posts.

H9

[Sami]

I think I've finally answered the right question.
Yes you have. :)

Your post before about the signal interference, while possible, could be avoided by error correction. Whether the design of the transfer protocol takes care of it or not is something I was wondering. If we can transfer bit-perfect data over the air with error correction it certainly would be possible with the computer via a cable. But that all depends on the specifications on how the data is transmitted to the DAC.

[steveinaz]

That's very obvious, and that's not the issue here. What you haven't explained to me is why would two devices sound different if they are both connected to the same DAC, delivering the same information?

Answer: Higher jitter in the cheaper component due to cost constraints.

Error correction has 2 effects, either you hear it (a "pop" "click" or skip) or you don't. Error correction does not degrade the signal if it is successful (inaudible). In other words, either the error correction is succesful, and you hear nothing adverse; OR it's unsuccessful and there will be no doubt when it happens (very audible).

[Sami]

Answer: Higher jitter in the cheaper component due to cost constraints.
Not the answer if jitter only occurs in DA conversion.
there will be no doubt when it happens (very audible)
Then there is no noise added by the computer environment so that really isn't an issue either.

[heiney9]

Yes you have. :)

Your post before about the signal interference, while possible, could be avoided by error correction. Whether the design of the transfer protocol takes care of it or not is something I was wondering. If we can transfer bit-perfect data over the air with error correction it certainly would be possible with the computer via a cable. But that all depends on the specifications on how the data is transmitted to the DAC.

Error correction CIRC (Cross Interleave Reed-Solomon Circuit) which is the standard has nothing to do with signal inteference via the cable or noisy fans or poor power regulation. Error correction either interpolates or extrapolates (or both) bits of info to replace damaged or missing info (at the time of extraction). As Steveinaz said, it's either very obvious as in pops and clicks when too much info is missing or damaged or it's completely transparent and you won't know when the circuit is correcting.

Your statement about there being no noise in a computer environment is simply not true. Maybe you don't hear it or notice it or care about it, but it's there. A computer is not the ideal environment to reproduce audiophile sound compared to a seperate stand alone rig.

H9

[Sami]

Your statement about there being no noise in a computer environment is simply not true. Maybe you don't hear it or notice it or care about it, but it's there. A computer is not the ideal environment to reproduce audiophile sound compared to a seperate stand alone rig.
Ok, if the information is transferred error free to the DAC then what possible signal interference could there be that effects sound? If the transmitted data somehow changes on its way then it is not error free, if it doesn't then it won't matter who delivers the data. What is it then that makes computer not ideal to be part of the reproduction of sound (just doing the data delivery to DAC)?

[steveinaz]

Not the answer if jitter only occurs in DA conversion.


It doesn't. Jitter occurs from the transports clocking crystal (inaccuracies) and is transferred via your digital cable TO the DAC. Remember, no crystal clock is 100% accurate, hence timing errors (aka: jitter).

[steveinaz]

Unless you have an extremely well built, very high quality computer, chances are you'll be introducing additional jitter because of internal noise, rf interference, etc.

Try this, turn your computer speakers all the way up....hear any buzzing, humming, erroneous sounds?

[Sami]

Try this, turn your computer speakers all the way up....hear any buzzing, humming, erroneous sounds?
No. I have both a CDP and a computer connected with digital outputs to my receiver and they both sound the same.

[Sami]

It doesn't. Jitter occurs from the transports clocking crystal (inaccuracies)
Now that must be then a fault in the design of the path to the DAC then, or the CD format. If inaccuracies can be fixed in the transport of data, why not in this case?

[steveinaz]

That's probably why you're not hearing a difference. Could be that your card and CDP are fairly close in relation to measured jitter.

What is the rest of your audio system?

[steveinaz]

Now that must be then a fault in the design of the path to the DAC then, or the CD format. If inaccuracies can be fixed in the transport of data, why not in this case?

That's the problem, no one has come up with a way to eliminate jitter (timing errors), though your more expensive transports minimize it quite a bit. Also alot of external DAC's implement "jitter reducing" circuits to help minimize the problem. This is why your better external DAC's are expensive and work very well for most.

[Sami]

That's the problem, no one has come up with a way to eliminate jitter (timing errors), though your more expensive transports minimize it quite a bit. Also alot of external DAC's implement "jitter reducing" circuits to help minimize the problem. This is why your better external DAC's are expensive and work very well for most.
The only thing I can think of timing being a problem is that the information is read and transfered realtime, not buffered. If it was buffered then the only jitter would be in the recording phase and in the DAC phase. That's why I left the backdoor open about the technology used.

[heiney9]

Sami, no dis-respect intended but you need to do a Google search as the scope of your inquiry is way too large. Sounds as if you are trying to equate digital audio concepts to computer digital concepts and they are very different environments with two very different results. I don't pretend to know in depth info about either, just what I've read/researched over the years. You have some good insights, but I'm not sure anyone here is completely qualified to answer all your questions.

Also FYI, there is no buffering stage in the DAC audio chain and and some of your concepts, though logical, just aren't applicable.

FWIW

H9

[jmierzur]

Here are a couple of articles that might help:

Audio Compact Disk - An Introduction (http://www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/CE/kuhn/cdaudio/95x6.htm). Use the 'Next' link at the bottom of the page.

CD Jitter (http://www.audiocraftersguild.com/AandE/cd-jitter.pdf)

[heiney9]

Here are a couple of articles that might help:

Audio Compact Disk - An Introduction (http://www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/CE/kuhn/cdaudio/95x6.htm). Use the 'Next' link at the bottom of the page.

CD Jitter (http://www.audiocraftersguild.com/AandE/cd-jitter.pdf)

So far the Jitter article is a good read. I'd say mandatory for those interested. :)

H9

[heiney9]

Also keep in mind the Jitter article points out some faults that are specific to the Phillips unit they are discussing and may not affect other 1-box systems or 2-box systems in the same way.

H9

[PolkThug]

On the computer side, there are programs that have jitter correction.

[Sami]

Sami, no dis-respect intended but you need to do a Google search as the scope of your inquiry is way too large. Sounds as if you are trying to equate digital audio concepts to computer digital concepts and they are very different environments with two very different results.
Well, I thought reading between the lines was pretty obvious but I guess I left too much open. Notice how I said IF many times. The realtime transfer was something in my head, I just said that it would be possible to do the transfer bit-perfect, just that the technology doesn't exist. If jitter was a major problem then the technology would already be here. I just think that jitter is one of those things that aren't important, just like expensive cables. Irrelevant to audio quality.

[TheReaper]

... I just said that it would be possible to do the transfer bit-perfect, just that the technology doesn't exist. If jitter was a major problem then the technology would already be here...
The technology has existed for 15 years. I doubt there is a current mainstream surround receiver that still uses a PLL between the digital input and DAC.

[heiney9]

Well, I thought reading between the lines was pretty obvious but I guess I left too much open. Notice how I said IF many times. The realtime transfer was something in my head, I just said that it would be possible to do the transfer bit-perfect, just that the technology doesn't exist. If jitter was a major problem then the technology would already be here. I just think that jitter is one of those things that aren't important, just like expensive cables. Irrelevant to audio quality.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. There are certainly many components responsible for digital to analog conversion. Using top notch parts and a good design is really the key and don't kid yourself this approach is very costly. Jitter just by itself is not an issue if the rest of the components/design is poor and uses inferior parts to be cost effective. Decreasing jitter in that case is a complete waste of time as there are many other issues that would contribute to inferior sound reproduction. As you move up the audio chain jitter suppression IS an issue and any good designer of a CDP or stand alone DAC has to take nec steps to reduce jitter as much as possible. High levels of jitter are always going to be present in inexpensive CDP's/DVDP's and inside an AVR that has digital input/output.

This is my final word/opinion on the subject. To simply say jitter is nothing to be concerned with is very short sighted. But we are all in different places on our audio journey and experience/listening is the best tool.

Happy Holidays

H9

P.s. Let's not even go down the "expensive cable" path. Did you participate in the cable swap program?

[Sami]

The technology has existed for 15 years. I doubt there is a current mainstream surround receiver that still uses a PLL between the digital input and DAC.
So you're saying there is no jitter (introduced) in the digital signal from source to DAC?

[Sami]

As you move up the audio chain
People high enough up in the chain aren't likely to be in CP. :D

[tugboat]

OMG! I don't care about the flames I'm gonna get for this one. I can't stand reading the Qs and (sometimes helpfull) As over this subject (not just jitter here, but digital signals in general)......

First off, if your source is DTS or DD, then the data is sent in packets and any loss of data will hopefully be not noticed by the listener. If it's PCM, then any loss of data will only be noticed if the error correction used couldn't correctly recreated the missing data enough. So under conditions with no errors, it doesn't matter if you're using coax or fiber, jitter or not you will get what was intended to be heard. Under conditions that generate errors in DD or DTS, you might experience a drop out of sound for a moment as the packets with errors are discarded and the decoder gets back in sync with current packets. If the source is PCM, then errors in transmission can be more noticable. The decoder will try to use previous data to fill in the missing data. You don't get the benefit of a drop out in sound as with DD or DTS. Instead you will either get a decent correction from the decoder or a not so decent correction that will be quite audible (pop, click, etc.). Jitter is not as much an issue as some would have you believe. Think back to when some of the same individuals sang the praises of marking your CDs with a green marker.

Now to touch on the subject of coax over fiber. I have come to the conclusion that no matter what, or from who the reply comes from, the facts will never be realized. How someone can hear a difference between coax and fiber to the same decoder still confuses me. I don't care if one can prove that the fiber connection is top quality or middle of the road.... If the digital stream makes it from point A to point B intact, then the decoder will create the exact same analog signal for the amp circuits. If it can't, then you'll sure and hell know it. For argument sake, I had a friend that sings opera professionally listen to a recording played over both coax and fiber and they couldn't tell the difference. I then placed a mark on the disc to create an error and both the coax and fiber created the same sound reproduction error. They were able to tell and also state that there was no difference in the sound reproduction error between coax or fiber.

I think before anyone comments on, tries to explain or explain the digital transmission process they stop and think about whether they actually are qualified to do so. The limit of discussion about coax and fiber should be in regards to run length, cost or quality of construction. Remarking about how the coax sounded better than the fiber is BS if it's based on error free audio. There will not be a difference other than what the listener is using as a bias.

Okay, flame away. I'm ready. My 20+ years working with digital transmissions and receiving/decoding can take it. :D

[steveinaz]

Well, there it is. The audio industry can quit trying to solve this non-existant problem, and the rest of us can stop worrying about it because it doesn't really exist. Finally, those of us who are not experts can stop our futile attempts of educating ourselves through discussion, because we really don't know what we're talking about in the first place. It's doubtful we'd learn anything anyway. Whew, ignorance is bliss, thanks.

[heiney9]

Well, there it is. The audio industry can quit trying to solve this non-existant problem, and the rest of us can stop worrying about it because it doesn't really exist. Finally, those of us who are not experts can stop our futile attempts of educating ourselves through discussion, because we really don't know what we're talking about in the first place. It's doubtful we'd learn anything anyway. Whew, ignorance is bliss, thanks.

I was going to be done with this thread, as I've said as much as I can. I still think Sami and I are going down 2 entirely different paths in the discussion, but.............

+1 to Steveinaz

Tugboat, I think you missed the boat ;) ...so to speak. I wasn't nec challenging the notion of digital transfer being all that different in like situations. My big point is when analog conversion is involved. I never said moving digital bits from 1 place to the other caused/incurred all the problems discussed in this thread. I still feel, however, a computer environment is not the best place to extract audio data because of what I've referenced in earlier posts.

Jitter is an issue and reducing it is worthwhile in the analog world!

Happy Christmas & Merry New Year

H9

[tugboat]

Damn, too many martinis when I wrote that. Ooops. That'll teach me to reply to something I haven't read and understood. My fault. Sorry for that. My GF got me to drink too much and then let me on the computer. Please ignore my post and hope I didn't upset anyone too much.

Thanks

[heiney9]

Damn, too many martinis when I wrote that. Ooops. That'll teach me to reply to something I haven't read and understood. My fault. Sorry for that. My GF got me to drink too much and then let me on the computer. Please ignore my post and hope I didn't upset anyone too much.

Thanks

I'm hoping those were Vodka martini's and I really hope the GF took advantage of you. :D :) Just got back from a family x-mas eve and I likes my martini's (Vodka that is). Gotta do the other side of the family tomorrow so that means more Vodka and my Uncle love Black Russians (the drink) so I must sleep now to prepare for tomorrows festivities.

Good night too all

H9

[HBombToo]

I drink and surf all the time...!!! Its legal ya know;>)

[tugboat]

Sahara dry Belvedere martinis. GF can only take advantage of me with Jack Daniels or Jim Beam. Not well equiped to handle whiskey for some reason. Doesn't take much of that to blackout. :)) Vodka is so kind to me. :)

I drink and surf as well (as it's plain to see from my previous ill prepared reply). I should put one of those breath interlocks on my PC. If I blow over the legal limit, it will only start up and let me play Doom.