Doh,
well I am just as guilty for adding to that confusion
Thanks for the clarification.
Cheers
Orb
AQ Jitterbug Measurements
- Thread starter dallasjustice
- Start date
Doh,
well I am just as guilty for adding to that confusion
Thanks for the clarification.
Cheers
Orb
No worries. Just to set context, we have moved and I am having ton of fun setting up my system in the new home. And listening to a ton of new music courtesy of all the great suggestions from our fellow members/audiophiles. Sitting there and measuring this device takes far lower priority . That said, Michael has sent me the Regen so when it arrives, it will become a high priority to listen to it and measure it so that I can send it back to him.
. That said, Michael has sent me the Regen so when it arrives, it will become a high priority to listen to it and measure it so that I can send it back to him.Can I ask who are the "we" of "we thought there was no audible difference"? Considering all I have read, If I had to "think" my opinion on what I read about the device I would have to "think" there is an audible difference. It is why I want to get one of these devices to listen for myself.
Most probably the audible effects of the jitterbug will show in a normal high-end electronic audio chain. But I will not expect them to show in the measurement you are considering with your ML360s DAC (I think it is the one you own) connected the Audio Precision. Your Berkeley USB /AES converter plus DAC system is optimized for the audio reproduction with good measurements, but in the humble opinion of many members of this forum is not their preferred DAC in therms of sound quality. Otherwise eBay prices of it will climb!
IMHO the effects of the jitterbug will show mainly in the RFI and EMC domains, something much more difficult to measure. But I would appreciate if you could carry your measurement with the Devialet 200!
Who is buried in Grant's tomb?
When did you listen to that combo last?Most probably the audible effects of the jitterbug will show in a normal high-end electronic audio chain. But I will not expect them to show in the measurement you are considering with your ML360s DAC (I think it is the one you own) connected the Audio Precision. Your Berkeley USB /AES converter plus DAC system is optimized for the audio reproduction with good measurements, but in the humble opinion of many members of this forum is not their preferred DAC in therms of sound quality. Otherwise eBay prices of it will climb!
Such things are coming out of a DAC and are important to hearing music?
You state that as certainty but there is no data to back that in high quality systems. Here is what my DAC outputs when driven over USB using a USB to S/PDIF bridge:
Look at that noise floor and explain what about that is coming from USB bus and why I should care even if it does.
That's not the data one should be looking for: the only data that could be important is whatever measurable difference you find in these charts between two different setups once you've heard the difference (if you hear it since no one claimed it will work in 100% of cases).
Judging what an appliance does by looking at a single chart and without listening is near useless.
There's no need to go too far in finding odd analogies to try and explain what these devices do here. For a closer one, just remember why we wanted the DAC to be outside the computer in the first place.
You said it reduces noise so I showed you the noise measurement. How is that useless relative to the statement you made of what it did?
Puzzling statement. What happens in the digital domain DIRECTLY affects the analog output.
Hi-fi News measurements.
But as I have mentioned in the past the setup (including all components including those in and connected to the laptop-PC) and environment is critical for such a test.
Same could be seen when they reviewed and measured the Melco N1A for its USB, in its case ethernet though was marginal at best, but what made that review interesting is how the reviewer noted only marginal improvements via ethernet that could be done cheaper with other equipment while noting good improvements with USB that could be deemed to loosely correlate to the improved measurements for that interface Paul Miller did.
Cheers
Orb
I like coffee. I use a machine which heats the water to exactly 200 degrees before the water passes through a chemex filter filled with Java. If I fill the coffee machine with water measuring 35 degrees Fahrenheit, will the coffee be any different than if I fill the machine with the same water but measuring 70 degrees Fahrenheit?
So no, that's not how modern DACs work. Your rhetoric suffers from the fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc.
So no, that's not how modern DACs work. Your rhetoric suffers from the fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Puzzling statement. Does that apply to each and every DAC in the same way for any change whatsoever to the USB noise spectrum, which is what we are discussing? Yes, digital SIGNAL directly affects the analog output. But, the question of accompanying analog noise riding on the digital signal is much murkier and may be very DAC specific as to degree of audibility.
Amir's USB noise spectrum measurement is so low it would not seem to allow much room for audible improvements by lowering any part of that spectrum's energy. Yes, I know the "I heard the improvement with my own ears in the sighted comparison I did" argument. That is not a very compelling argument, even if it could be shown that the measured noise spectrum was reduduced in some way. Yes, I know, "trust your ears". But, as has been discussed elsewhere in a different thread, sighted listening comparisons involve more than just the ears by definition.
Do you believe that warm water can freeze faster than cold water? Then IMHO you should be able to accept that our knowledge about interfacing digital data sources, DAC's and stereo systems is not perfect.
Context, and test specifics-focus is important Keith, again look at the review and measurements for Jitterbug,Melco N1A,etc in Hi-fi News.
You are right in some ways, such as trying to correlate eye pattern to SQ; but interestingly it can be shown that here this can influence the PC-to-DAC in terms of operation; such as the Audiostream review and a superb DAC that when using a specific USB cable could only work in precision mode (something like that) when using the Jitterbug - due to I am sure behaviour of the eye mask-pattern that was compromised by the USB cable and a little bit maybe by the PC with the Jitterbug improving this.
Cheers
Orb
Context is important.
My point is not about subjective improvement in this case but actual notable operational performance; it works or it does not and that is the situation I am mentioning Lavorgna experienced with a well acknowledged DAC that has a loose and precision clock related mode, with that Lightspeed USB cable (which is less than optimum it seems).
Cheers
Orb
Was the noise measurement you showed the measurement of the PHY noise when the Regen is in use as compared to the measurement of the PHY noise when the Regen isn't in the chain?
Similar threads
