Computer Audio Asylum

Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies.

Return to Computer Audio Asylum

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Audiostream AQ Jitterbug review

66.85.148.53
Posted on July 30, 2015 at 19:17:52
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
 Audiostream Jitterbug review:

Interesting note from the review:

"The design of Jitterbug involved a number of people including Gordon Rankin (who also designed the AudioQuest DragonFly DAC), and Steve Silberman, Garth Powell, Bill Low, and Joe Harley all from AudioQuest. Here's a bit more from AQ:

Gordon had been discussing ways to reduce the noise that plagues computing devices and it seemed clear to him that two distinct filters were needed: one to address the noise over the data line and a second to address the noise over the 5V power line. Additionally, Gordon had explored where such a device might be most effective and decided it should be at the host (computer), rather than at the client (DAC). Later, we learned that placing the filter at the host offered the additional benefit of using two filters (one in series and one in parallel) per bus, or of using USB filters on the unused ports of streaming devices."



The folks at UpTone have taken a totally different view in that they designed the REGEN to work exclusively at the DAC end, where they claim there are the most deficiencies.

I enjoyed the review but I am tiring of this notion of the more XYZ Thinga Magigies you buy and employ the more effective they are. If USB audio is this flawed that you need ten add on devices to make sound its best, one could argue it was never intended for audio.


 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: Audiostream AQ Jitterbug review, posted on July 30, 2015 at 19:30:51
ahendler
Audiophile

Posts: 5151
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Joined: January 24, 2003
 I ordered one from Music Direct on June 10th. They are advertising 2-3 week delivery. It is now 7 weeks and I still don't have mine.
Alan

 

RE: "one could argue it was never intended for audio", posted on July 30, 2015 at 19:31:59
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001
 Yeah, I think that's pretty much a fact.

But as a fellow audiophile continues to remind me:

CD/SACD players are optimized for playing music, PC's for viewing porn!




First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

RE: Audiostream AQ Jitterbug review, posted on July 30, 2015 at 19:45:31
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
 Here is an interesting question..Why didn't Gordon Rankin, who it seems mostly designed this product, include this filter/jitter reducer IN his DACS.

I think the REGEN vs the Jittebug clearly shows the biases of the designers..Rankin being a purveyor of DACS, thinking his design is flawless, and the source is the issue, and UpTone being more from the source end, thinking the flaws are at the DAC.

 

And they could both be right..., posted on July 30, 2015 at 20:17:19
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001
 to one degree or another.

Streaming from a laptop I'd be willing to bet my 'source' has more than a few 'problems'.

If I understand correctly, the Regen is correcting some problems that the DAC might fix but at the expense of cresting more problems inside the DAC?

I'm not above trying both.




First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

RE: Audiostream AQ Jitterbug review, posted on July 30, 2015 at 20:32:20
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46307
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 If USB audio is this flawed that you need ten add on devices to make sound its best, one could argue it was never intended for audio.

Don't worry, Ethernet is next. There are already a few Thinga Magigies available and the audio manufacturers will soon catch up with more stuff to sell you.



 

RE: Audiostream AQ Jitterbug review, posted on July 30, 2015 at 20:44:31
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
 There is an enormous difference. No one claimed or is claiming Ethernet is perfect, like certain DAC makers were doing with USB.

Secondly, filters are widely and commonly used in the telecom industry. There are numerous products on the market geared towards professional installations.

No one uses "USB filters" in any application outside of audio.

So far aside from the famous "audiophile grade" ethernet cables and the SOtM LAN filter I don't know too many other add ons.. but you are probably right, they are coming.

 

RE: Audiostream AQ Jitterbug review, posted on July 31, 2015 at 07:41:52
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46307
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 If USB audio is this flawed that you need ten add on devices to make sound its best, one could argue it was never intended for audio.

USB was indeed intended for audio nearly two decades ago through the "USB Audio Class 1" standard and has been actively improved upon over the years in "USB Audio Class 2" and beyond. It can be argued that Ethernet was never intended for audio more so than USB. But there's hope for Ethernet via the AVB/TSN standard and AVnu Alliance.

USB is flawed mostly in the minds of audiophiles and high-end audio manufacturers as there is no perfect interface, computer source, USB cable, etc. So long as this is the case doodads and thinga magigies will continue to be developed, DIY and by trend opportunistic manufacturers. Mark my words, more audiophile Ethernet doodads and add on thinga magigies are on their way, too!

Was computer audio bad to horrible before all of these 'add on devices' hit the market? Of course not. Did we not enjoy computer audio say 5 or 10 years ago? I did. But as these devices started to appear, audiophiles embraced them as some did in fact provide minor, sometimes nearly imperceptible but incremental improvements.

IMHO the most significant leap or "low hanging fruit" for improved computer audio came with the introduction of the Asynchronous USB interface for DACs a few years ago. That was a huge leap. The current crop of 'add on devices' in comparison are mostly baby steps and very system dependent, but little steps none the less.



 

A "Noise Harvester" for your USB ports ??, posted on July 31, 2015 at 08:29:58
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46307
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 Reminds me of those AC outlet plug-in devices from PS Audio and others to 'harvest' noise off the AC mains. But in the case of "noise harvesters" I think they weren't so concerned with noise being 'sucked into' an open AC outlet. ;-)

"The reason for this, the company [AudioQuest] explains, is because these unused USB ports act as tiny antennas sucking in radiated EMI and RFI which can then hop a ride on your network-attached data cables causing the aforementioned unwanted noise currents, etc. The company adds, "...the bus itself is generating all of this noise, thus polluting the device."

OK.

And this relatively weak airborne radiated EMI/RFI being sucked into the open USB ports is greater than the internal EMI/RFI generated by device itself and being spewed out into the world? I would think the problem is more about computer/device generated noise than the noise the computer or device 'sucks in' from an open USB port, but I could be wrong. When everyone zigs, you zag (differentiate yourself in a crowded market). Nice move AQ! You want to insert one into every open USB port on your computer, NAS, router, etc! Kind of like placing fancy caps on all open RCA jacks.

"The [Jitter]'Bug-less Kind of Blue sounded comparatively splashy and spatially a bit wild and wooly. Adding back the two 'Bugs brought things into sharper focus, the overall image felt more coherent and natural, and it was simply easier to relax and enjoy Kind of Blue."

Reviews like this make me wonder, how bad did the reviewer's system sound before the little add-on doodad? Out of focus, incoherent, synthetic, splashy, wild and wooly? In other words, inadequate for the task of reviewing any other products PRIOR TO the addition of this latest new doodad? Hmm. And the tweak beat goes on.



 

RE: "cleaving more space around bass notes that now go deeper."..., posted on July 31, 2015 at 08:57:14
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001
 So not only does it improve the sound, it lowers the pitch of notes being played?

Where can I get one of those?




First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

RE: A "Noise Harvester" for your USB ports ??, posted on July 31, 2015 at 10:12:11
Michael Lavorgna
 "Reviews like this make me wonder, how bad did the reviewer's system sound before the little add-on doodad? Out of focus, incoherent, synthetic, splashy, wild and wooly? In other words, inadequate for the task of reviewing any other products PRIOR TO the addition of this latest new doodad?"

That's an interesting comment Abe. Have you ever made a change to your system and heard an improvement? Like adding a linear power supply or some other "tweak"? If so, would you say your system sounded "bad" before the change?

 

RE: A "Noise Harvester" for your USB ports ??, posted on July 31, 2015 at 11:18:55
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46307
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 OK, fair enough. I have added a few little tweaks here and there but none of them made a huge difference, barely nudging the needle maybe.


 

RE: A "Noise Harvester" for your USB ports ??, posted on July 31, 2015 at 11:32:16
Michael Lavorgna
 The degree to which we hear and describe an improvement is certainly tricky business.

I recognize that some/many people feel reviewers overstate these types of improvements. However, it is the nature of the job to provide more info than, "yup sounds better." So while the level of detail we provide in describing differences may sound over-the-top, my hope is I'm describing to the best of my ability what I'm actually hearing.

In the end, I feel the recommendation is where we can sort this out. Of course there's always room for improvement in this process which is why I value the input.

 

RE: A "Noise Harvester" for your USB ports ??, posted on July 31, 2015 at 11:35:08
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
 Very good post Abe. Good food for thought.

 

RE: Audiostream AQ Jitterbug review, posted on July 31, 2015 at 11:40:57
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
 another good, sensible post.

here is what I can add..we were told by the typical gurus that async USB was the wholly savior of digital audio..beat out $10,000 transports.

Just make it async, and you are gold.

Of course, as I stated earlier too, there is no perfect interface, heck vinyl and tape playback are far from perfect.

But now that transports are getting better and better designers and other folks were starting to hear the flaws that were ALWAYS there.

I still laugh, hard, I might add, at some of the reviews form 5-7 years ago that proclaimed USB audio perfect with DACS and a tweaked MAC or PC.
Those same reviewers are going nuts over all the fixits, filters, and expensive cables.

I think one has to be their own reviewer, and an independent thinker otherwise you are screwed.

I had one computer audio guru tell me to never clean my CDs when ripping. I tried that for a few weeks and I was getting tons of read errors, and bad rips. As soon as I started cleaning them i was getting perfect, fast error free rips. I realized what idiots some of these folks are.

 

RE: Audiostream AQ Jitterbug review, posted on July 31, 2015 at 12:34:27
Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000
 ""I still laugh, hard, I might add, at some of the reviews form 5-7 years ago that proclaimed USB audio perfect with DACS and a tweaked MAC or PC.
Those same reviewers are going nuts over all the fixits, filters, and expensive cables.""

Don't you think it is reasonable that as we go forward we learn more. Does you doctor still use leaches?


""I think one has to be their own reviewer, and an independent thinker otherwise you are screwed.""

I hope so. Reviews are interesting, they are entertainment, but ultimately we have to make the final decision, and wise value judgement.

""I had one computer audio guru tell me to never clean my CDs when ripping. I tried that for a few weeks and I was getting tons of read errors, and bad rips. As soon as I started cleaning them i was getting perfect, fast error free rips. I realized what idiots some of these folks are.""

So one stupid person told you a stupid thing... And you did it. ok... What was the rational behind it? Makes little sense not to clean a CD if it needs it.

 

RE: Audiostream AQ Jitterbug review, posted on July 31, 2015 at 12:49:16
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
 What angle you may not get is the enthusiasm many in the press greet new formats, playback devices, etc is absolutely over the top and serves their own interest..which is to create new market sectors which help the companies that send them review samples which in turn allows them to purchase advertising.

Just look at the pathetic way the press cheerleaded DSD and what a debacle that is. Look how they have glorified so many DOA products. I laugh so hard I tear up when i think of the Stereophile review of the $25,000 boulder CD player that impressed because it displayed metadata on a screen and could play 24 bit files form a DVD-R. LOL.

Yeh, i tried something a very highly respected guru with a following suggested..there was no risk..it woke me up to the fact that many of these people are false gods.

 

RE: Audiostream AQ Jitterbug review, posted on July 31, 2015 at 13:31:37
Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000
 ""What angle you may not get is the enthusiasm many in the press greet new formats, playback devices, etc is absolutely over the top and serves their own interest..which is to create new market sectors which help the companies that send them review samples which in turn allows them to purchase advertising.""

I understand that it is a form of advertizing, but we are surrounded with advertizing about anything and everything. We should be immune by now.


 

RE: A "Noise Harvester" for your USB ports ??, posted on July 31, 2015 at 17:26:39
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001
 "The degree to which we hear and describe an improvement is certainly tricky business."

Yep, especially if you do it for a living.

"I recognize that some/many people feel reviewers overstate these types of improvements."

See above.

"However, it is the nature of the job to provide more info than, "yup sounds better." "

Which is not as bad as "yup, sounds a BIT better." Again, especially if you do it for a living.

But then most of the on-line reviews are free and we are NOT obliged to purchase a product just because we read a review about it so we shouldn't complain.

Plus the little dofinkus is only $75 and my MacBook air only has two USB ports. :-)



First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

RE: A "Noise Harvester" for your USB ports ??, posted on July 31, 2015 at 17:29:54
Michael Lavorgna
 There must be some subtext to "especially if you do it for a living" that I'm missing. Care to explain?

If by dofinkus you mean the AQ JitterBug, that dofinkus is $49.

 

RE: "AQ JitterBug, that dofinkus is $49."..., posted on July 31, 2015 at 18:58:58
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001
 So much the better.

RE: "especially if you do it for a living"

I assumed you were a professional reviewer.

My bad.




First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

RE: "AQ JitterBug, that dofinkus is $49."..., posted on July 31, 2015 at 19:03:43
Michael Lavorgna
 If by professional reviewer you mean I get paid to do this for a living, I am a professional reviewer.

But this does not answer my question. What relevance does "especially if you do it for a living" have?

 

RE: "AQ JitterBug, that dofinkus is $49."..., posted on July 31, 2015 at 20:27:57
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001
 "The degree to which we hear and describe an improvement is certainly tricky business."

Yep, especially if you do it for a living.

Assuming that you are paid to 'hear and describe', then I argue that it is indeed a tricky business.

Certainly more so than in the case of the casual observation of a passing audiophile, but that's just MNSHO and YMMV.





First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

RE: "AQ JitterBug, that dofinkus is $49."..., posted on July 31, 2015 at 21:15:19
Michael Lavorgna
 While it may seem like an inconsequential clarification, my job is to listen and communicate what I hear. Saying that I'm "paid to hear and describe" suggests to me that that I will make up hearing something that isn't there in MNSHO.

Based on the amount of time the passing audiophile spends on forums like this describing hearing differences I'd say "especially if you do this for a living" is irrelevant.

 

RE: "AQ JitterBug, that dofinkus is $49."..., posted on July 31, 2015 at 21:22:44
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
 I would not let him spin your wheels.

 

RE: "AQ JitterBug, that dofinkus is $49."..., posted on July 31, 2015 at 21:25:41
Michael Lavorgna
 It's a test drive.

 

RE: A "Noise Harvester" for your USB ports ??, posted on July 31, 2015 at 22:37:05
Old Listener
Audiophile

Posts: 2090
Location: SF Bay area
Joined: February 6, 2005
 Many audiophiles want there to be room to buy more stuff. More boxes is a good thing. The rhetoric about terrible USB audio supports the quest for new tweeks.


my blog: http://carsmusicandnature.blogspot.com/

 

RE: A "Noise Harvester" for your USB ports ??, posted on August 1, 2015 at 04:20:32
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 he doesn't hear differences with his front end except with changes of dacs. this can be gleamed from his posts and he is only now talking about usb 5V 3-4 years after others here.

 

RE: "AQ JitterBug, that dofinkus is $49."..., posted on August 1, 2015 at 09:17:06
Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000
 "It's a test drive. "

Yes... And he is an Edsel...

 

RE: A "Noise Harvester" for your USB ports ??, posted on August 1, 2015 at 09:32:00
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46307
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 Fred I can pretty much guarantee you that injecting clean +5VBUS into my DAC will have no effect as my DAC incorporates it's own clean separately generated +5V for it's USB receiver. It doesn't even 'see' the +5V from the computer via the USB cable.

- In other words, it does not NEED an add-on thinga magigie to 'fix' this shortcoming that others feel the need to deal with.

- In other words this particular 'tweak' that you've been playing with over the years has ALREADY been incorporated within certain quality DACs.



 

RE: "AQ JitterBug, that dofinkus is $49."..., posted on August 1, 2015 at 18:23:46
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. ;-)





First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

His hearing is not getting any better, obviously., posted on August 1, 2015 at 18:28:28
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 Apparently, he tries to compensate that with increasing stubbornness and nastiness.

Funny thing though - he can "guarantee"... well, everyone here can guarantee he will not hear any difference, even if it's obvious like a night and day, or if it hits him right between the eyes.

 

Are you sure it's not this one?, posted on August 1, 2015 at 18:32:58
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006



N/T

 

Page processed in 0.030 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]