Until the preceding electronics send a bunch of SID,TIM, Jitter, trr noise bursts....through it.
By all means, I suggest picking up a used Adcom/Parasound -level amp from the late-80's early 90's and the linked DAC that Demian just mentioned. If you're cheap, you can probably get away with an ES9023-level DAC for $20-30.
There, with $150-$300, depending on one's ebay skills, we've solved that problem.
Maybe it's just me not understanding that science stuff, but it seems that before anyone starts proposing mechanisms for a phenomenon, the existence of the phenomenon needs to be demonstrated. Apparently, that's not scientific and we should start trying to examine hand-waved claims. So maybe you're in the same boat as I am, just not really cut out to do science.
AFAIK, professional astronomers aren't spending time hypothesizing about the atmospheric compositions of the alien planets which are the source of the creatures doing the abductions and anal probes. Now, get some evidence that those abductions and probes happen and astronomers will be tripping all over themselves to figure out those answers.
They came in the nite and analy probed me - the aliens. Honest. Any good Astronomers you could recommend to me?
More L8r
Over simplifying the temperature change effect and isolating it from the real transmission issues still doesn't relate to how jitter can cause bit errors. Low level signals don't use the full number of bits available so errors that are 99 dB below full scale can become much worse.
Kindy
I did one system that made it to 12,000 hertz. Only comment came from a consultant who called it an excess of high frequencies. His systems never get past 8,000 hertz.
I don't do digital any more. I just threw in "jitter" so I couldn't be accused of microagression.
Yes, that has been patent for some time.
Bit errors are exceedingly rare on digital audio. And a 1 bit error could be the MSB as much as the LSB. SPDIF doesn't have error checking or correction but all the standards "above" it (CD, Blu-Ray, HDMI, streaming protocols) do have error checking since errors in the audio stream are catastrophic (where pixel issue are subtle flickers when the do happen).
If you have jitter issues high enough to cause data dropouts the digital receiver will be in serious distress trying to follow the clock. SPDIF even at 192KHz over optical shows none of that even though its not supposed to work.
The jitter issues I have seen in DAC's and digital devices usually come from things like hum modulating the supply or ground bounce from the USB packet rate bumping thresholds on clock inputs. Dumb, straightforward, good engineering issues to solve. Not fundamental "standards don't work" issues. I deal with HDMI when I need a dose of that.
I will have to jump back into digital to a degree because I will be getting a Bluray player to watch all those restored old movies that have been coming out. I'm really busy with phono preamps so the Bluray won't be happening for me 'till next year. I'll see what I want to do about it then.Yes, that has been patent for some time.
Restoring really damaged media; THAT is where digital is a must.
Exactly. And, it's a rather unlikely scenario that they used to illustrate the article too.
Frankly, I've never said this before... but this fellow has me on block and can't see my posts anyway. These sorts of continuing posts are simply combative and negative (to be polite). Adding very very little of benefit to the discussion(s). Could we just not respond to him for a bit?
It's a major topic where I agree with Earl Geddes. The top octave just isn't that important to most of us. Roll off below that and strings start to loose their warmth, among other things. But above 10K? Most tweeters sound fake to me, up there. Less these days, as I don't hear much above 13K anymore.
I have heard some tweeters that sounded natural to me. Some electrostatic tweeters, a couple of ribbons, the RAAL things. But those were also brought down a bit in amplitude, which helped them blend. I agree with you that most drivers just don't do a great job up top. For me, that's anything north of 8 kHz.
Other people seem to love all that top end sparkle and air. I don't like it.
Imho, it's not "extension" out to or beyond 20kHz that is 'the problem'.
Rather it is "extra energy" due to the excitation of the electromechanical reproducer (aka the speaker), often in the form of overshoot, ringing and resonances.
(the amplifier - speaker interaction plays a role in this too)
Sort of like the issue that the Gibbs Phenomena may be responsible for WRT digital reproduction...
Last edited:
Tish, Boom, Awwk! Loudspeakers at the 1985 CES | Stereophile.com
Back in 1985 JGH was saying he liked a 'soft' top end.
Back in 1985 JGH was saying he liked a 'soft' top end.
nicoch,
that tweeter looks much better than the Revelator and that is a new device so it is strange that the made something with lower audio quality from the simple comparisons of the measurements. Getting a clean decay is more important in my eyes than a flat response curve that can easily be corrected, the decay is something you just can't fix.
Simon,
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you could get up to 16Khz with some of the 1" compression drivers, now how much distance before air absorption kills that is another question. In a smaller club system I'll assume you can get higher than 12Khz with a bit of eq but most people as you say wouldn't even notice the difference.
that tweeter looks much better than the Revelator and that is a new device so it is strange that the made something with lower audio quality from the simple comparisons of the measurements. Getting a clean decay is more important in my eyes than a flat response curve that can easily be corrected, the decay is something you just can't fix.
Simon,
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you could get up to 16Khz with some of the 1" compression drivers, now how much distance before air absorption kills that is another question. In a smaller club system I'll assume you can get higher than 12Khz with a bit of eq but most people as you say wouldn't even notice the difference.
The full quote:
"Those of you who have been reading my loudspeaker reports in Stereophile will have noticed that I prefer
a "soft" or "sweet" high end. I have, in fact, earned a reputation in some quarters for liking a "dull" top.
This is not exactly the case. I like a natural high end, which sounds dull to many audiophiles. (The average audiophile
still feels that live, unamplified acoustical instruments also sound dull, which is tantamount to a TV viewer declaring
that the colors of real-world objects are "washed-out.") But that "dullness" of live musical sound also goes along with
an incredible amount of detail and delicacy at the extreme high end, something completely lacking from the sound
of most dull or excessively sweet loudspeakers.
To date, only the best electrostatics playing the best signal sources have been able to approach that live-music
combination of sweetness, delicacy, and detail."
For those worried about jitter, I have posted this link before but it's worth a repeat
Marantz CD5004 CD player Marantz CD5004 CD player Measurements | Stereophile.com
Currently £200 in UK and measures really rather well. To my eyes can't see anything that can be improved on for playing red book. It doesn't do hirez, but what it does do is right on the money.
Marantz CD5004 CD player Marantz CD5004 CD player Measurements | Stereophile.com
Currently £200 in UK and measures really rather well. To my eyes can't see anything that can be improved on for playing red book. It doesn't do hirez, but what it does do is right on the money.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.