Jitter is corruption of the signal (or degradation if you will), and the music still plays with it present.
Event at Goodwin's High End: Computer Audio and dCS Rossini DAC
- Thread starter Al M.
- Start date
Jitter is corruption of the signal (or degradation if you will), and the music still plays with it present.
Thanks Microstrip.
Is it possible therefore that that is why those of us who use Entreq and Tripoint find that they improve the sound quality of our systems?
Entreq and I think Tripoint say that their ground boxes do address the issue of RFI
Corruption means something is lost. Jitter until such time that it causes the bits to not be captured correctly, is a performance issue.
Turn on that spectrum analyzer and it will should you ton of spectrum all around you from TV and radio transmitters to your wifi, noise from all manner of equipment, etc. As I said, I have a Tektronix 3 Ghz spectrum analyzer and can show you pretty plots but it will not at all be useful in this context. Nor would a little filter put at the start of the chain do anything in the manner you mention.
I don't think so. The differing experiences are due to differing testing. You want to test these, close your eyes, play your favorite music and plug and unplug the Jitterbug. I have done this and it makes absolutely no audible difference. The jitterbug is easy to test because it does not interrupt the music flow (when you plug it into the other ports than the one with DAC).
Well, we are told to worry about it. That our USB bits need attention with cables, stuff to plug into the port, regenerators and such. That the DAC designer did not think through and deal with this transport feeding it data in an asynchronous manner. Let's get some high-end DAC designers tell us in technical terms why they can't encapsulate what these devices do externally.
Hi, as a Vivaldi owner, I'd put the Transport 1st (both redbook & SACD via AES/EBU or AES/EBU dual), then the ethernet next. The USB key input isn't far behind if you're using FAST USB keys ( I spent last weekend listening to 3 different keys...the fastest was better...along the lines of what a clock cable does...focus and foundation). USB from my macbook via Audinirvana is next...and it's pretty far behind the other options. That being said, before I bought my upsampler, I loved my macbook/audinirvana direct to Vivaldi dac... so all this is a matter of perspective. Each option is good until you hear a better dCS input...
My guess on the Rossini is the transport option is still best...rest in the same order...
Does what you say imply that on the Vivaldi system even Redbook CD still sounds better than hi-res files from a computer?
***
I am wondering how good the Rossini player with built-in CD transport, a unit that also John Quick mentioned to me, would be for CD playback (the only thing that interests me), and if it could be combined with the external Rossini clock for that purpose.
If they are frank they will tell you something like the DCS people say about their upsampler: (quoted from a Mono&Stereo interview with DCS)
"We make sure the science is right, test and then listen. We try to keep an open mind when we discover an effect that improves the sound, even if we cannot rationalise it scientifically. For example, the dCS Upsampler provides sonic improvements that are obvious to most listeners, but conventional sampling theory indicates it should not make any difference."
I have asked about the CD disk and the equivalent redbook flac file - most of the music I listen only exists in CD - to several Vivaldi owners. All told me that it sounds significantly better using the CD transport. I asked the DCS distributor, and he knows that it is the high price of the transport that definitively excludes the Vivaldi from my system, and he he told me clearly and firmly that the CD transport gets a better sound.
Whenever there is a conflict between the science and casual listening results, the arrow of fault needs to point to the latter at least as equally if not a lot more than the other way around. The former after all, has mathematical and measured proof. The other, casual listening results, is anecdotal and lacks verification. All else being equal, the science has much higher chance of being true. Yet the opposite odds are assigned to it in that quote.
We have to agree that good number of people will think they are hearing something when nothing is changed. I have been caught thinking I heard clear differences in two sets of files, just to be shown that the two files were identical, bit for bit. And with that knowledge, I then heard no difference. But if I let go of that knowledge, I could re-imagine the original difference and it would come back! I went astray because I thought the files were different (that is how they were positioned by the person giving me the files). I screwed up in a domain that was my expertise.
So the next time you try out one of these devices, make sure the deck is not stacked against a valid comparison. Try instant switching. Don't let the scenario be playing one file, then playing the other when all memory of the nuances is lost. If there were noticeable differences yet don't show when you instantly switch, don't look for fault in the test first. The odds of that are lower than there not being a difference.
Give fairness in your audio evaluations a chance. Know that the person doing a demo is doing their best to make the opposite happen!
This is a great example of what I just explained. Two possibilities exist:I have asked about the CD disk and the equivalent redbook flac file - most of the music I listen only exists in CD - to several Vivaldi owners. All told me that it sounds significantly better using the CD transport. I asked the DCS distributor, and he knows that it is the high price of the transport that definitively excludes the Vivaldi from my system, and he he told me clearly and firmly that the CD transport gets a better sound.
1. The group of Vivaldi owners are right about their transport being better.
2. the group of Vivaldi owners are wrong and are biased to think that due to their ownership of said device and lacking any proper way of evaluation of the two.
You just give 100% odds of #1 being right with a confirmation coming from a person wanting to sell you such a device or at least promoting it such. Logic would say, if we were comparing toasters, that we put bias as a big factor there and give #1 lower odds of being true than #2. Yet the exact opposite happened.
I hear the argument already. You trust those people. Well, trust doesn't mean anything. The transports don't operate on human factors like trust. They are objects and do what they do. Humans on the other hand are heavily influenced by extraneous factors and we need to keep that in mind at all times.
A. A few of these people have assembled great systems and have large experience with high-end components - btw one of them did not own the transport but tried it. I have followed their systems and experiences for some time. My own experiences with my Metronome Calypso Transport C2A DAC is similar.
B. A few guys with no known public experience and detailed opinion in similar systems tell us it is all a great conspiration.
I did not give any odds to any # being right, but I know who I should listen in order to help creating a system I could enjoy. Surely the number of Vivaldi owners I know is so small that these are just a set of individual opinions, not a statistical proof of anything.
I have asked about the CD disk and the equivalent redbook flac file - most of the music I listen only exists in CD - to several Vivaldi owners. All told me that it sounds significantly better using the CD transport. I asked the DCS distributor, and he knows that it is the high price of the transport that definitively excludes the Vivaldi from my system, and he he told me clearly and firmly that the CD transport gets a better sound.
I think the transport does sound better for redbook. But via the upsampler is pretty darn good to off a fast USB key or a NAS. I think this is one of those things that if you never heard the Transport you'd be happy as a clam...
Why should I use a methodology that systematically fails and no one else uses and publicizes to do anything positive in the high-end?
This really depends on the recording. I have some Chesky redbook cd's and then bought the 24/96 file from HD Tracks. I like the CD better...it's not night and day and they both sound good. If this is a choice of getting the Rossini with/with out transport...the transport is likely clearly worth the extra $$'s. The Vivaldi Trans is a LOT more $$'s...and looking back on it all, I'd get things in the this order for Vivaldi dac, then clock, then upsampler, (could flip the clock/ups order) then transport last.
Last edited:
Thanks for the feedback, that helps.
I also just read in Alan Sircom's review of the Rossini player how excellent he thinks the CD transport is and that it sounds more organic than playing the equivalent file. He says as an early adopter of file-based replay this came to him as a shock. Definitely worth checking out for me. And to answer my own question, the review states that, yes, also the player can be combined with the external clock. Perhaps no Baetis server after all for me
Listening will tell.
I'm sorry. Yes indeed.
All of my friends that have tried the Rossini DAC so far report it sounds better via its Ethernet input.
Thanks for the feedback, that helps.
I also just read in Alan Sircom's review of the Rossini player how excellent he thinks the CD transport is and that it sounds more organic than playing the equivalent file. He says as an early adopter of file-based replay this came to him as a shock. Definitely worth checking out for me. And to answer my own question, the review states that, yes, also the player can be combined with the external clock. Perhaps no Baetis server after all for me
Yes, you should listen. Don't rely on measurements because they might not tell you what the unit is likely to sound like or even indicate a difference between the various scenarios which you describe. If measurements could indicate differences, that would be a fascinating topic for the science/measurement forum.
Of course measurements can indicate differences. The trick is to know what to measure, how to measure it, and how to correlate measurement with human aural perception. Since all these things are -- more or less -- in their infancy, listening is required.
Nobody disputes that measurements can be useful and are desirable. Yet as the aural evidence indicates, the usual measurements, with their usual interpretation, cannot tell us everything that is needed to know, i.e. the full extent of how it really sounds.
Certainly. I agree. I was asking IF measurements could indicate a difference. That they do in this case is not clear to me. In the case of the recent Jitterbug and Regen digital products, I thought Amir was pretty clear that measurements did not indicate a difference. In the case of a transport versus server, or which interface to use, if you have measurements that do indicate a difference in performance, you should learn something from those measurements and see if you can correlate the differences with what you are hearing. That would be a fascinating topic for the science/measurements forum. If you don't have such measurements, then only listening will tell. If you have both, that would be ideal, but I would still want to listen when making a decision about buying a component. It seems we agree on this.
Similar threads
