In Reply to: Both you and Tony speak in terms of "ideal". posted by carcass93 on February 2, 2011 at 12:15:19:
Right at this moment my biggest hardware issue is a big hole in the foam around my left woofer. I can see the solder terminals, the wires from the crossover and the voice coil wire. The bass drum in the RR Rite of Spring was the final straw that finished off my left woofer. The driver now audibly buzzes on bass notes near its resonance. When this happens the sound stage suddenly collapses. (In most cases this soundstage collapse is the audible indication of the problem. It appears before any obvious buzz.) I ordered two speaker refoaming kits last night.
Computer audiophiles who tweak their software to address jitter issues do so because they have software skills. Other computer audiophiles tweak the power supplies in their computers because they have hardware skills. But this is not ultimately the way to deal with this problem, if only because a 100% pristine signal at the computer end will be less than perfect after traveling down a cable to a DAC. The DAC has to have jitter rejection capability and in the end it is going to be much easier to provide this by careful circuit design, layout, power and packaging. It should be obvious that a DAC is a much simpler device than a computer system. The problem is that the high end DAC designers have yet to step up to this plate, which makes sense because their efforts were spent on getting a good clock architecture first. However, having invested their efforts to eliminate the theoretical transport jitter coupling they should be taking the next step and realizing this isolation in practice.
I have no doubt that it is possible to build a transport jitter proof DAC. The first step is to build a measurement scheme that works on the analog output of the DAC to detect the effects of jitter and other input corruption. The second step is to build a test transport with jitter injection capability. The third step is to use these two tools to address and solve the problem.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Both you and Tony speak in terms of "ideal". - Tony Lauck 13:33:51 02/02/11 (9)
- RE: Both you and Tony speak in terms of "ideal". - soundchekk 07:29:52 02/03/11 (0)
- RE: Both you and Tony speak in terms of "ideal". - fmak 00:12:57 02/03/11 (0)
- RE: Both you and Tony speak in terms of "ideal". - rick_m 16:20:19 02/02/11 (3)
- RE: Both you and Tony speak in terms of "ideal". - Tony Lauck 08:06:16 02/03/11 (2)
- RE: Both you and Tony speak in terms of "ideal". - rick_m 11:05:26 02/03/11 (1)
- RE: Both you and Tony speak in terms of "ideal". - Tony Lauck 11:20:47 02/03/11 (0)
- No argument from me - you seem to agree that it DOES NOT EXIST. - carcass93 13:52:36 02/02/11 (2)
- "I don't think further conversation is going to be productive." - RussD 17:35:09 02/02/11 (0)
- RE: No argument from me - you seem to agree that it DOES NOT EXIST. - russell d 15:10:17 02/02/11 (0)