pfarrell Wrote: > P Floding wrote: > > ezkcdude Wrote: > > > >>Really? I didn't know this was a proven fact. My bad. > > > > > Perhaps I overstated the case, but the fact remains that it is hard > to > > believe that more jitter will sound better. > > Just a little, perhaps. > > There are thresholds of inaudibility for any of a number of criteria. > > The question is neither 'is less jitter better?' nor 'Systems have to > be > X good to see the obvious difference, is your that good?'. > > The question is engineering. What level is bad? or perhaps > "what level is bad enough to be important and audible > and in need of correction, in an otherwise well matched system of price > > about X?" > > If you are playing on a boombox, a lot of jitter can be hidden > (along with THD, and other evils) without being important. > Played on a $5K system, what is important changes. And it > changes a little more on a $10K system and probably on a $50K > system. (I don't have much experience on the latter). > > It is very easy "to believe" that numerically different amounts of > jitter are irrelevant in listening to music. It is not easy to know > what > levels are relevant in the real world. > > Its about the music. > > -- > Pat > http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html Good post.
-- Patrick Dixon www.at-tunes.co.uk ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Patrick Dixon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=90 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=26332 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
