In Reply to: not to mention... posted by Tom Schuman on December 22, 2009 at 07:47:16:
That Jim has lots of studio experience. Which is why he is a "bits is bits" believer and thinks he can process a digital signal with 10 different hardware boxes and have something BETTER come out the other end.
The fact he is altering the original signal and hearing differences is not questioned here. What is questionable is if the change all that hardware is imparting is a good change. Sounds to me like the word "creamier" implies "smoothed out" or "dummed down".
There is no mention of any concern for which box is clocking what, and what the sources for jitter are in that chain. The sheer number of digital cables involved (alone) and Toslink conversions makes one go "Hmmmm..."
I dunno. Sounds "neat" and everything but it leaves me wondering:
1) Is every process and SRC really needed?
2) Are so many boxes needed for the desired processes?
3) Is all the sample rate conversion required? Or just a necessary evil of getting so many different boxes to talk to eachother in the prescibed order?
4) Is Jim just "box happy" and trying to hook up everything in his collection at once to suggest that to play digital back properly you need a 4-foot tall road-rack full of digital processing gear?
Of course, we don't know what Jim is hearing, but how he is managing to get a low jitter signal out of that lalapalooza of gear is contray to my own experience anyways. I find less is more with digital transmission and conversion. But YMMV, of course.
You sure got some nice gear there Jim. The number of iterations for a digital front end you have there are limitless - and somewhat baffling! I'd never get any sleep if I had that much gear to play with.
I do agree with the other posters though. Compare your meag-stack to a "less is more" approach and see if you're really doing your "bits" a favor or not.
I think Todd is on the right track here, and I don't always agree with Todd!
Cheers,
Presto
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- It's apparent - Presto 10:13:56 12/22/09 (8)
- RE: It's apparent - Jim F. 10:47:58 12/22/09 (7)
- Oh I'm sorry - Presto 14:26:06 12/22/09 (6)
- RE: Oh I'm sorry - Jim F. 15:19:42 12/22/09 (5)
- So you DID have... - Presto 17:25:55 12/22/09 (4)
- RE: So you DID have... - Jim F. 21:53:45 12/22/09 (3)
- Sorry that should have read - Presto 09:46:08 12/23/09 (2)
- RE: Sorry that should have read - Jim F. 15:52:04 12/23/09 (1)
- Fluff, redux - Jim F. 12:21:25 12/24/09 (0)