In Reply to: Re: Thanks again posted by Charles Hansen on March 18, 2007 at 19:09:27:
*** No, the very idea of changing the data like that gives me the creeps. It just seems like an inherently bad idea. YMMV. ***Well, the data gets changed in the digital filter anyway. I don't really like it myself, but only because typical ASRC implementations generate a fair amount of artefacts and have non perfect passbands. If there was a "perfect" ASRC implementation, then I would consider it. Practically though, I don't think we'll see one soon (and it will require so much computational power it will actually *generate* jitter hence defeating it's purpose)
PS - the reason I was asking whether you were using an upsampling filter was because it *could* account for your slightly high Miller results, so the unit is actually measuring artefacts generated by the upsampler rather than the underlying jitter.
PPS - Did you see the Stereophile review of the Transporter? The jitter numbers aren't that great - I think 293ps peak to peak in 16-bit mode. So much for Slim Devices claiming the peak to peak would be single digit ps. I have a feeling most of it is probably caused by logic induced modulation.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- 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)