Archimago wrote: > I don't think anyone disagrees with this Chrobrego; what you say is > logical and plausible. Firstly, of course the same CD doesn't sound the > same in all hardware - but that has to do with different analogue output > qualities more than the underlying digital section mostly - a NOS DAC CD > player will sound and measure differently compared to a Sabre DAC CD > player. > > The core debate around the importance of jitter is all about the minute > timing differences. However, we need to be reminded of 2 important > observations/ideas: > > > Archimago wrote: > > 1. Nowhere in audio science has there been proof that real human > > subjects have ever been able to differentiate data-correlated jitter of > > the magnitude present in consumer grade audio (we're talking reasonable > > mid-fi gear here, not the super-expensive stuff) when listening to *real > > music* (not test tones).> > > > you're sure of this, that no tests exist? i know some very talented > audio engineers, not wild-eyed audiophiles, who come from decidedly > different disciplines, working with simple tube circuits, or exotic > highpowered DSP based systems, who would not agree with you. > > > Archimago wrote: > > 2. If we strive for the IDEAL - then good equipment that is bit-perfect > > *should* sound inaudible even with this small amount of processing to > > convert ALAC --> WAV or FLAC --> WAV or whatever given the same > > DAC/analogue output system! Like I said before, hearing a difference for > > real (not just psychological bias) is NOT good and is an indicator of > > something wrong.> > so, your conclusion is based on the assumption that > > bit-perfect audio > sounding identical is an IDEAL toward which we must strive. isn't > good sound (a subjective term) the IDEAL for listeners? good > MEASUREMENTS, while perhaps desirable, are not necessarily THE goal. > > > Archimago wrote: > > One observation - don't you think it's ironic that the DSD audiophiles > > don't complain of DST --> DFF lossless processing in their SACD players > > or computers!? In fact, DST processing appears to be less optimized and > > takes more processing power than FLAC based on what I have seen! How > > come there are no cries of audible difference between say the 1st press > > "Kind Of Blue" (single layer stereo only with no DST compression) > > compared to the second pressing with multichannel (DST compressed) with > > claims that it's the compression algorithm? > > > > you're sure noone is asking this question? i know several people who > have noted differences between single-layer SACDs and Hybrid SACDs of > the same title. i haven't listened extensively enough to have an > opinion, but to say that "no one is complaining" is simply not true.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ netchord's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21002 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98630 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
