In Reply to: It's the fault of the DAC designers. They haven't done their job. posted by Tony Lauck on January 6, 2011 at 19:07:11:
Howdy
The world isn't perfect, everything is a compromise. Even a component's power cord. Every manufacturer has to pick a compromise they can live with.
You can't get rid of jitter, you can only filter it. There are some methods of dealing with data which are more jitter prone than others, but even with the best (read "really expensive and well designed") methods jitter is still an issue, but hopefully less of an issue than the other (unavoidable) faults in a DAC (or any piece of equipment.)
Things are better now, I remember when most hardware designers/engineers didn't understand that you couldn't avoid metastability issues when more than one clock was involved. Once people understood the problem they realized that they just had to make a decision about the cost comprises (both in engineering and in the resultant product) of narrowing the metastability window. Unlike, say a decade ago, I think most audiophile DAC designers understand that jitter is an issue and there are a lot of creative approaches to lessening it's effects and corresponding trade offs.
-Ted
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Baloney - Ted Smith 19:45:07 01/06/11 (16)
- RE: Baloney - Tony Lauck 21:06:39 01/06/11 (15)
- RE: Baloney - Ted Smith 11:26:16 01/09/11 (11)
- RE: Baloney - Tony Lauck 11:38:49 01/09/11 (10)
- Thanks for the good wishes. - Ted Smith 12:46:12 01/09/11 (9)
- RE: Thanks for the good wishes. - Tony Lauck 09:04:46 01/12/11 (3)
- RE: Thanks for the good wishes. - Ted Smith 22:56:26 01/15/11 (2)
- RE: Thanks for the good wishes. - Tony Lauck 07:12:26 01/16/11 (1)
- RE: Thanks for the good wishes. - Ted Smith 14:06:21 01/16/11 (0)
- Nice post... - rick_m 14:47:49 01/09/11 (4)
- Thanks - Ted Smith 16:06:33 01/09/11 (3)
- RE: Thanks - rick_m 17:36:11 01/09/11 (2)
- RE: Thanks - Ted Smith 19:41:51 01/09/11 (1)
- RE: Thanks - rick_m 09:42:09 01/10/11 (0)
- RE: Baloney- a lot - fmak 22:02:37 01/06/11 (2)
- RE: Baloney- a lot - Tony Lauck 10:02:33 01/07/11 (1)
- RE: Baloney- a lot - fmak 22:13:44 01/07/11 (0)