In Reply to: Re: Your player already has fairly low jitter measurements posted by Charles Hansen on March 16, 2007 at 07:34:43:
*** I can assure you that there are certainly examples of universal players tested by Stereophile where this was *not* true ***Any examples? :-)
*** I believe that this is a flaw with the test (or its implementation), and not the result of faulty analysis. ***
At the end of the day, what the Miller unit measures is a player's response to a specific test signal. Whether or not this is indicative of underlying "jitter" is debatable.
It's easy to downplay or dismiss these measurements and say they are not relevant. However, the presence of artefacts in any test signal indicate that something is wrong (whether or not that something is "jitter" or not), and if a player does not perform well on this (or any other measurement) I would be worried. If it was my design, I would try and find out why. The answer may be jitter. But even if it is not, it's worthwhile addressing.
*** We already have one data point that shows 100% variation in the results of the Stereophile test on the exact same machine. ***
There are also examples where players give wildly different results depending on whether upsampling is turned on or off, or optical vs coaxial, etc. I would also be concerned if a player exhibited variations in response to a fairly simple test signal. It indicates something somewhere is not quite right. Rather than blaming the "test" as faulty, I would be interested in understanding why this variation occurs.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Your player already has fairly low jitter measurements - Christine Tham 15:17:00 03/16/07 (10)
- Re: Your player already has fairly low jitter measurements - Charles Hansen 19:59:53 03/16/07 (9)
- Re: Your player already has fairly low jitter measurements - Christine Tham 21:33:57 03/16/07 (8)
- Re: Your player already has fairly low jitter measurements - Charles Hansen 13:29:50 03/17/07 (7)
- Thanks for the explanation - Christine Tham 15:07:35 03/17/07 (6)
- Re: Thanks for the explanation - Charles Hansen 20:53:45 03/17/07 (5)
- Thanks again - Christine Tham 01:56:27 03/18/07 (4)
- Re: Thanks again - Charles Hansen 19:09:27 03/18/07 (3)
- Re: Thanks again - Christine Tham 20:28:24 03/18/07 (2)
- Re: Thanks again - Charles Hansen 08:21:17 03/19/07 (1)
- I would be interested in looking at your results, thanks (nt) - Christine Tham 13:17:32 03/19/07 (0)