No, once more this thread is about *architecture* of digital audio. It is not about $2,000 CD players, tape or LP.Amir, so you suggest that people shouldn't have a $9 part in their DAC to improve jitter performance, but it makes perfect sense to invest in $2,000 CD transport to do the same thing?
Even more off-topic.Also, electrically, a clock is a clock: it has nothing to do with S/PDIF, it has to do with fixing the signal pulse just prior to being fed into the D/A circuitry. A device has no knowledge of what purpose the designer had for it, if it does the job correctly then that is all that matters. We'd better throw all those tube amps using glassware designed to be used in Russian military equipment in the bin then, they can't possibly work as audio amplifiers, I guess ...
I have already answered that. And recording industry can and has used external master/house clocks for decades.I've already pointed out why relying on the target device for the clock was never an option as an industry standard: once two devices are linked to a source then it becomes a problem; recording studies would have had a meltdown for a start.
Frank
Sorry, last call. Somehow missed that response, but what you said is not a solution. The master or house clock is nothing more than being equivalent to the first clock, the one in the CD transport or player. Just because it's inside a particular device doesn't make it any less a master clock, and just because its pulses are turned into data of the S/PDIF stream shouldn't make its transitions any less precise, assuming decent engineering. Plus, once outside the case of an external master clock we're back to the same old ball game of worrying about cables, connectors, interference pickup introducing jitter into our beautiful, expensive master clock ...What is multiple targets? In an AVR? Then there can be one master clock driving all the DACs. If it is in separate devices, then a house clock is used as in pro equipment. Or else, you don't care like playing music in different rooms.
I explained above. As another example, I can have 1000 DAC playing the same identical file on a NAS shared over Ethernet. Nothing breaks. No complexity either.
Why? Are they not able to play audio? If they are, then you can't say the system breaks. That is of course putting aside the fact what you describe is not a useful scenario for home playback of music.Sorry, last call. Somehow missed that response, but what you said is not a solution.
What are you going to do again?Regarding that visual playing with the waveform, I guarantee that I'll be able to play with it and the AP analyser won't pick the difference in spectrum and THD ...
Frank
Good point on Don's articles, which I did mention the primer is excellent to read and combine with posts from both you and Don.Frank, if you are going to feed us Google snippets without understanding and reading them I won't be wasting time with you. I have no interest in answering tidbits produced by Google.
The Si5317 is a $9 part *without* the external parts it needs. It is in no way designed to be used for audio applications. This is what Si says about the part: "Highly Integrated Si5317 Jitter Attenuating Clock Filters Unwanted Noise from High-Speed Networking and Telecommunications Systems". The app notes are about SONET, not S/PDIF. So clearly you don't appreciate what these parts do and the nature of the problem.
No one has said that you can't clean up jitter. You can. But it costs you complexity and part cost. The entire point of the thread has been that we would not be worrying about jitter nearly as much if it didn't rely on source input so much. To the extent you keep throwing these expensive parts out there as solutions, then you have helped prove the case.
I highly suggest you read Don's articles instead of Googling jitter.
Frank, as I mentioned the differences are quite noticable for a measurement tool in terms of distortion when looking at -60dbfs (and this is still a relevent level), I know this as some reviews analyse digital gear at -20 -60 -80, while another magazine shows the whole distortion-noise against dbfs (0 to -120dbfs).Sorry, last call. Somehow missed that response, but what you said is not a solution. The master or house clock is nothing more than being equivalent to the first clock, the one in the CD transport or player. Just because it's inside a particular device doesn't make it any less a master clock, and just because its pulses are turned into data of the S/PDIF stream shouldn't make its transitions any less precise, assuming decent engineering. Plus, once outside the case of an external master clock we're back to the same old ball game of worrying about cables, connectors, interference pickup introducing jitter into our beautiful, expensive master clock ...
Regarding that visual playing with the waveform, I guarantee that I'll be able to play with it and the AP analyser won't pick the difference in spectrum and THD ...
Frank
The groove of an LP
Don't think I will go back to analog
Oh gosh. For months I have been thinking about writing a tutorial on what the stereophile measurements of digital audio means and I keep forgetting . I actually wanted to recruit Don to help me write it. Don, are you game?Amir,
Do you want to educate us on how jitter is usually measured in DACs? I was looking at the jitter measurements of the Simaudio Moon Evolution-650d cd player but I must say I can not understand them .
http://www.stereophile.com/content/simaudio-moon-evolution-650d-cd-player-measurementsthe
Orb, the only thing that matters is the effective, absolute distortion level: if a -60dB signal has 1% distortion that sounds terrible to say, but 1% is -40db, add that to to -60dB signal, gives you -100dB actual sound level: inaudible.Frank, as I mentioned the differences are quite noticable for a measurement tool in terms of distortion when looking at -60dbfs (and this is still a relevent level), I know this as some reviews analyse digital gear at -20 -60 -80, while another magazine shows the whole distortion-noise against dbfs (0 to -120dbfs).
Cheers
Orb
Move data points on the waveform in various, random ways to mimic exactly what quite severe jiter would do to alter the signal, say equivalent to 100 nsecs of peak to peak, random jitter.Why? Are they not able to play audio? If they are, then you can't say the system breaks. That is of course putting aside the fact what you describe is not a useful scenario for home playback of music.
What are you going to do again?
You can't do that. Jitter impacts the entire waveform. Not one or two data points. And we are not worried about random jitter because it simply manifests itself as noise. Have you read the jitter tutorials yet? It doesn't seem like you have Frank.Move data points on the waveform in various, random ways to mimic exactly what quite severe jiter would do to alter the signal, say equivalent to 100 nsecs of peak to peak, random jitter.
Frank