jeffmeh;238373 Wrote:
> Newtonian physics is also inferior to Einsteinian physics. While that
> is an important distinction when trying to precisely calculate the
> paths of celestial bodies, it is not a consideration when playing
> billiards.
>
Finally, something that an engineer of the mecha
AndyC_772;238637 Wrote:
>
> On the technical side: typical accuracy for a quartz crystal is around
> +/- 50 parts per million, with higher precision available at
> exponentially increasing cost. So, if the source and DAC were
> mismatched by that amount, the DAC would have to interpolate or drop
I'd be interested to know if you can quantify the random and
data-dependent jitter that's inherent in a TOSLINK connection. The
receiver I'm using, for example, specifies a pulse width distortion of
up to +/- 20ns, and a random jitter that's typically 1ns but with a max
of another 20ns.
At 44.1kH
Many (all?) studios would now use a house clock to lock everything.
However, this wasn't always the case.
The "myth" I was referring to was the assertion that optical always
sounds worse than coax. IMHO that is simply not true. I have found
either no discernible difference or a very slight differ
AndyC_772;238566 Wrote:
> I think you're over-analysing the behaviour of the TOSLINK connection,
> and making comparisons that don't really apply.
>
> Of course if you're considering long-distance high speed
> communications, then pulse spreading due to optical line width and
> multiple propagat
Phil Leigh;238540 Wrote:
> Welcome to the forum - and thanks for the gratuituous comment. I was
> under the impression that "being informed" was the converse of "being
> uninformed" and thus represents a binary state. Therefore, being
> "grossly uninformed" makes no sense, since one cannot be les
AndyC_772;238637 Wrote:
>
>
> On the technical side: typical accuracy for a quartz crystal is around
> +/- 50 parts per million, with higher precision available at
> exponentially increasing cost. So, if the source and DAC were
> mismatched by that amount, the DAC would have to interpolate or d
Despite coming from an engineering background and being firmly of the
opinion that it couldn't possibly matter, my opinion on the audible
impact of clock jitter was changed forever when I sold my early,
expensive DVD player and replaced it with a cheap recorder.
I figured that 'bits is bits', and
Phil Leigh;238608 Wrote:
> I must be missing something...the ORIGINAL sampling frequency is a
> given...let's say it's 44.1 kHz.
> So all you need to do is read those frames out at that frequency. Why
> exactly is that so hard? Assuming you never run out of frames to read.
> As far as I can under
opaqueice;238603 Wrote:
>
>
> The problem is that the frequency of the input is -not- given, because
> each oscillator has a slightly different average frequency. So your
> local clock will never match the one that generated the input exactly,
> which means the buffer will eventually overflow
I must be missing something...the ORIGINAL sampling frequency is a
given...let's say it's 44.1 kHz.
So all you need to do is read those frames out at that frequency. Why
exactly is that so hard? Assuming you never run out of frames to read.
As far as I can understand things, the whole "clocking" p
Andy, that's fine - of course you don't have to discuss it.
Phil Leigh;238596 Wrote:
>
> I always imagined that by dumping the bits frame by frame into a buffer
> and then reading them out aysnchronously but with a very high-rez/low
> jitter clock, the end result would be good. Provided that th
Thanks Phil :)
I have a prototype and it works very well indeed.
--
AndyC_772
AndyC_772's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10472
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=331
Andy
I always imagined that by dumping the bits frame by frame into a buffer
and then reading them out aysnchronously but with a very high-rez/low
jitter clock, the end result would be good. Provided that the buffer
never underruns then I see no reason why this wouldn't work. Since the
sampling
Actually you'd be amazed just how hard it is to hear when a sample is
dropped or duplicated - not that the final design ever actually does
that, of course.
I hope you'll forgive me for not disclosing all the inner workings of
the design right now - it does seem to be a peculiar characteristic of
AndyC_772;238566 Wrote:
>
> What I do find surprising is that anybody designs a DAC that uses the
> SPDIF input as a timing reference rather that merely a source of bits.
> I've spent some of my spare time this year designing a DAC - based
> around the AK4396 as it happens - which makes no attem
ar-t;238344 Wrote:
> It is inferior, and it is not a myth. You are grossly uninformed.
>
> Galvanic isolation can be achieved by using transformers, althoough
> doing so requires some skill on the part of the designer.
>
> Of all the optical methods, TOSLINK is the worst. Single-mode fibre
> co
ar-t;238344 Wrote:
> It is inferior, and it is not a myth. You are grossly uninformed.
>
> Galvanic isolation can be achieved by using transformers, althoough
> doing so requires some skill on the part of the designer.
>
> Of all the optical methods, TOSLINK is the worst. Single-mode fibre
> co
Patrick Dixon;238470 Wrote:
> Yeah, but you can't hear the difference between a SB3 and a Transporter!
Robin Bowes;238489 Wrote:
>
> Heh, I had exactly the same thought!
>
Can you, blind?
--
opaqueice
opaqueice's Pro
Patrick Dixon wrote:
> opaqueice;238369 Wrote:
>> Going into a Benchmark DAC1 I can't hear any change; same with a NOS
>> DAC I experimented with.
> Yeah, but you can't hear the difference between a SB3 and a
> Transporter!
Heh, I had exactly the same thought!
R.
___
opaqueice;238369 Wrote:
>
> Going into a Benchmark DAC1 I can't hear any change; same with a NOS
> DAC I experimented with.
Yeah, but you can't hear the difference between a SB3 and a
Transporter!
--
Patrick Dixon
www.at-tunes.co.uk
---
opaqueice;238369 Wrote:
> Pat, do you think it makes an audible difference?
>
> Going into a Benchmark DAC1 I can't hear any change; same with a NOS
> DAC I experimented with.
That is actually a darn good question. A DAC that has all sorts of
fancy reclocking and stuff may not sound much diff
Newtonian physics is also inferior to Einsteinian physics. While that
is an important distinction when trying to precisely calculate the
paths of celestial bodies, it is not a consideration when playing
billiards.
I have no doubt that in some audio applications Toslink's technical
deficiencies m
ar-t;238344 Wrote:
> It is inferior, and it is not a myth. You are grossly uninformed.
Pat, do you think it makes an audible difference?
Going into a Benchmark DAC1 I can't hear any change; same with a NOS
DAC I experimented with.
--
opaqueice
--
Phil Leigh;184095 Wrote:
> No optical is NOT inferior and is used extensively in certain
> professional circumstances. At the frequencies and distances involved
> in domestic digital applications this is a non-issue. In fact I would
> go as far as to say that optical is preferable in many circums
325xi;238057 Wrote:
> Getting back to the original question, last Stereophile, review of Bel
> Canto DAC3, measurements section: JA names Toslink "inherently
> jittery". So, there's nothing wrong with Toslink, huh?
True, but in the same article he also said using a 20 FOOT length of
generic plast
Getting back to the original question, last Stereophile, review of Bel
Canto DAC3, measurements section: JA names Toslink "inherently
jittery". So, there's nothing wrong with Toslink, huh?
--
325xi
sb3 || simaudio nova cdp >> simaudio moon i-5 >> revel performa m20 on
*skylan* stands via acous
pablolie;184223 Wrote:
> Unless there's a good bottle of red wine involved, really. Try it out.
> You have to be chilled out to qualify for subjectively valid listening
> tests. Heaven knows what they hand out in audiophile mags. :-)
Okay... I second that one to!
--
kphinney
SB3
CIAudio DVA-
Eric Carroll;184206 Wrote:
> Wire them both up to the destination device.
> Cover your eyes and do something like the following (coopt the SO as an
> assistant):
> - have the assistabnt ..
>
Did the same and was going to suggest that al do the same. I can't
hear _any_ differen
325xi;186718 Wrote:
> Andy, I would be thrilled to know your findings. It's especially
> interesting because nearly all posters on the previous 10 pages
> declined the very possibility of Toslink connection to be more jittery
> then coax.
Right, as promised! I've just finally got round to spendi
pablolie wrote:
> jeffmeh;186851 Wrote:
>> Of course they can, but I will stand by my point. It is negligible
>> without a highly revealing combination of system, room, speakers, and
>> ears. It is probably negligible in most cases even where such a
>> combination exists.
>
> Not sure it has to
jeffmeh;186851 Wrote:
> Of course they can, but I will stand by my point. It is negligible
> without a highly revealing combination of system, room, speakers, and
> ears. It is probably negligible in most cases even where such a
> combination exists.
Not sure it has to be a very accurate syste
P Floding;186832 Wrote:
> Two different connection methods are comparable to two different
> sources. If one of the cases can sound different, so can the other.
Of course they can, but I will stand by my point. It is negligible
without a highly revealing combination of system, room, speakers, a
jeffmeh;186773 Wrote:
> Actually, I was not referring to the differences between different
> sources, but between the same source connected via coax vs. toslink.
Two different connection methods are comparable to two different
sources. If one of the cases can sound different, so can the other.
AndyC_772;186765 Wrote:
> Funnily enough, that's exactly what I thought about a year ago, when I
> confidently ditched my (early, and rather expensive) DVD player in
> favour of a cheap DVD recorder. I figured that all digitally connected
> sources should sound the same, and therefore, that I cou
pablolie;186759 Wrote:
> First of all, I was clearly kidding.
Please accept my sincere apologies then. :)
pablolie;186759 Wrote:
> Second of all, you must confuse me with someone else when it comes to
> the "so beloved empirical methods". I actually have a very pragmatic
> approach when it com
jeffmeh;186751 Wrote:
> Whichever is subject to more jitter, unless you have an extremely
> revealing system, very good speakers, a room with good acoustics, and
> some very keen ears, it is likely to be negligible.
>
> If you possess all of the above, I'm envious, lol.
Funnily enough, that's e
325xi;186755 Wrote:
> The original question was purely technical, as stated in one of the much
> earlier posts, I'm interested to know jitter difference regardless of
> it's audible or not.
No problem. I'm curious myself, but in my situation (mainly WAF
constraints) it is merely intellectual cu
325xi;186709 Wrote:
> Dude, may I say you drive me crazy? Do you really see only blacks and
> whites? I just say your so beloved empirical methods ARE necessary as a
> part of the whole, but not when used alone. A mere audition when taken
> out of context proves nothing. But add it to other ways
jeffmeh;186751 Wrote:
> Whichever is subject to more jitter, unless you have an extremely
> revealing system, very good speakers, a room with good acoustics, and
> some very keen ears, it is likely to be negligible.
>
> If you possess all of the above, I'm envious, lol.
The original question wa
Whichever is subject to more jitter, unless you have an extremely
revealing system, very good speakers, a room with good acoustics, and
some very keen ears, it is likely to be negligible.
If you possess all of the above, I'm envious, lol.
--
jeffmeh
Having followed this thread, I am definitely more jittery than when I
started. A purely subjective observation, YMMV.
--
konut
konut's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1596
View this thread: http://
AndyC_772;186717 Wrote:
> ... an opto-isolator designed to pass data at a couple of Mbits
> typically has rather slow rising edges on its output, because of the
> passive pull-up used to bring the output to a logic '1' in the absence
> of light from the LED. This would inherently tend to increase
325xi;186710 Wrote:
> Oops, here we go again! So, Andy, what's your conclusion here - Toslink
> is more prone to jitter related problems then coax?
Forgive me for side-stepping the question, but I think it would be
pointless to guess without making some quantitative measurements on the
electrica
AndyC_772;186654 Wrote:
> Therefore, it is not unlikely that jitter at the input to the clock
> recovery circuit will be worse, and that in turn may mean that jitter
> at the DAC chip (where it matters) is also worse.
Oops, here we go again! So, Andy, what's your conclusion here - Toslink
is more
pablolie;186611 Wrote:
> So don't even drive the car, just stick to brand dogma?? :-)
Dude, may I say you drive me crazy? Do you really see only blacks and
whites? I just say your so beloved empirical methods ARE necessary as a
part of the whole, but not when used alone. A mere audition what tak
AndyC_772;186694 Wrote:
> The ability of consumer electronics manufacturers to shave a penny or
> two off a product never ceases to amaze me.
>
Yeah it kind of makes one wonder what's been shaved inside the box.
Thanks for the info, looks like I should try a different cheap one.
--
Skunk
-
The free one that came with my PlayStation 2 clicks very positively into
place - I assumed that would represent about the cheapest component
available. The ability of consumer electronics manufacturers to shave a
penny or two off a product never ceases to amaze me.
Let me revise my assertion: pro
AndyC_772;186654 Wrote:
>
> The connector in an optical cable doesn't really make any difference -
> it's just a mechanical thing designed to hold the fibre in place so
> that the light coming out of the end shines onto the phototransistor.
With all due respect.. The cheap one that came with m
325xi;186512 Wrote:
> To summarise the overwhelming response - Toslink works according to
> specification, which no inherent production flaws, so there's no reason
> to avoid it, or even better, use coax only when Toslink isn't available.
> I didn't miss anything, right?
Toslink works by shining
Phil Leigh;186516 Wrote:
> You could try listening to it...
Phil, cable with flimsy connectors is to-be-defected cable, and not
every defect can be revealed from the very first test. It may work OK
first day, a week, a month... and then show me an intermittent problem,
for which I won't know who
325xi;186512 Wrote:
> OK, people - now, after everybody finally believed in jitter existence,
> can we return to the original subject? :)
>
> To summarise the overwhelming response - Toslink works according to
> specification, which no inherent production flaws, so there's no reason
> to avoid i
OK, people - now, after everybody finally believed in jitter existence,
can we return to the original subject? :)
To summarise the overwhelming response - Toslink works according to
specification, which no inherent production flaws, so there's no reason
to avoid it, or even better, use coax only
You should read what I write when I'm sober :)
--
AndyC_772
AndyC_772's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10472
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33146
___
Thank you Andy! I've been reading about jitter for years and your post
was the best explanation ever.
--
ebrandon
ebrandon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10414
View this thread: http://forums.s
opaqueice;184856 Wrote:
> Interesting. S/PDIF really is flawed...
>
> A question for those interested in getting as close as possible to
> audio perfection: it seems (for reasons discussed in this thread and
> many times before on this forum) that a SB or Transporter using its own
> DAC has a
opaqueice;184856 Wrote:
> Interesting. S/PDIF really is flawed...
>
> A question for those interested in getting as close as possible to
> audio perfection: it seems (for reasons discussed in this thread and
> many times before on this forum) that a SB or Transporter using its own
> DAC has a
opaqueice;184856 Wrote:
> ... it seems (for reasons discussed in this thread and many times before
> on this forum) that a SB or Transporter using its own DAC has a huge
> advantage over nearly any external DAC. Why do so few people here use
> it that way?
I think most have tested things out,
seanadams;184848 Wrote:
> Not to go too far off the deep end here, but even if the transitions
> were infinitely steep and perfectly timed, it would be difficult to
> extract a clean clock. Due to zeroes having one fewer transition than
> ones, the receiving PLL will generate data-correlated ji
Robin Bowes;184814 Wrote:
>
> Now, in an ideal world, this wouldn't be a problem - the signal
> received would have nice square edges and it would be easy to determine
> precisely when each sample occurs and, hence, construct the clock
> signal.
Not to go too far off the deep end here, but even
Robin Bowes;184814 Wrote:
>
> However, because SPDIF is transmitted over an analogue path, the
> signal
> received does *not* have square edges so it is possible that the clock
> signal extracted from the stream is not 100% accurate.
> R.
i have not claimed the extracted signal is always accura
pablolie wrote:
> opaqueice;184700 Wrote:
>
> # I suggest you do some research before posting again
>
> Thanks. I suggest you provide useful information instead of just going
> ad hominem, because I haven't seen you make a point.
Let me make a point: you don't know what you're talking about.
pablolie;184727 Wrote:
> Basic voice communication codecs from 10 years ago did, so I am pretty
> sure DAC designers would take starvation issues into account.
>
How old do you think the CD system is?
Getting close to 30 years now, I believe.
I know the problem at hand is EASILY solved, but yo
opaqueice;184798 Wrote:
> I agree with your first statement, but an input buffer (which all DACs -
> including those in CD players - must have in order to function) does
> nothing in itself to resolve this problem. You still need to generate
> a clock from somewhere, and if you use the transitio
pablolie;184727 Wrote:
>
> It can. With a well implemented design it shouldn't. Someone else out
> there can tell us whether the good DAC chipes have an input buffer or
> not to avoid starvation. Basic voice communication codecs from 10 years
> ago did, so I am pretty sure DAC designers would ta
AndyC_772;184754 Wrote:
> That's not entirely correct, though. That little gadget may attenuate
> jitter at the S/PDIF socket, but that's not the same as reducing jitter
> at the DAC where it matters. It's reducing jitter at the entry to the
> box that contains the DAC, which is not the same thin
Phil Leigh;184748 Wrote:
> Yes but...it is entirely possible to "remodel" the clock at the DAC
> input (ie right on the SPDIF socket) - see here
> http://www.altmann.haan.de/jitter/english/engc_navfr.html
A lot of things are possible.
But those claiming that SPDIF is a non-issue are not talking
Phil Leigh;184748 Wrote:
> Yes but...it is entirely possible to "remodel" the clock at the DAC
> input (ie right on the SPDIF socket) - see here
> http://www.altmann.haan.de/jitter/english/engc_navfr.html
That's not entirely correct, though. That little gadget may attenuate
jitter at the S/PDIF
Thanks :)
TCP/IP is a higher level protocol anyway - it really couldn't have less
to do with S/PDIF and its limitations. You could run TCP/IP over a pair
of S/PDIF links (one Tx, one Rx) if you really wanted.
--
AndyC_772
P Floding;184744 Wrote:
> Did you read AndyC_772's postings?
> He explains that the way SPDIF works makes it impossible to have the
> master clock at the DAC, and hence the amount of interface jitter
> rejection is implementation dependent. Which is how it is.
>
> I'd ask all engineering types w
opaqueice;184709 Wrote:
> Could you be more specific about what you don´t understand? If it´s how
> an S/PDIF stream with no bit errors can produce a distorted signal, read
> any article about jitter in digital audio. Possibly you´re used to
> asynchronous digital protocols like TCP/IP (which a
P Floding;184737 Wrote:
> Your last point is not quite true nowdays, with ASRC and other
> asynchrounous digital domain processing going on.
Yes - true - which is exactly why I found that there was a big
improvement when I stuck the Altmann JISCO+UPCI after my TACT, just
before the input of the
pablolie;184686 Wrote:
> Biphase Mark Coding is encoding for *digital* data, plus the frequency
> of the clock is twice the frequency of the original signal. The result
> is that at the physical level it's not about 0 and 1, but about even
> simpler polarity changes, which makes data *and* clock
pablolie;184348 Wrote:
> He stated what *really* matters: The identical framing protocol (S/PDIF)
> runs on top of both optical and coax, meaning you'll get identically
> timed data out of the two - whatever jitter there is at a physical
> layer is immaterial. The clock is embedded into the signa
Phil Leigh;184345 Wrote:
> Sorry Eric - I didn't mean to steal your thunder!
>
> I use to believe that toslink was "bad" too - until I realised what I
> had in my studio was piles of the stuff! (ADAT lightpipe
> anyone?)...that started me thinking...and testing...and now I don't
> care - both wo
Eric Carroll;184313 Wrote:
>
> And, by the way, its not an assumption, I said there are papers on this
> issue. For example, 'here is a paper on this issue.'
> (http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ast/26/1/50/_pdf). There are
> others I don't have handy right now.
>
Unfortunately studies of th
P Floding wrote:
> Isn't the Benchmark DAC1 supposed to reject all jitter due to
> propritary (correct!?) use of its ASRC?
The Benchmarks folks do claim that it is immune to jitter.
I don't know if it is real, or just marketing.
I do know it sounds great to me.
As does my Transporter
--
Pat
htt
opaqueice;184700 Wrote:
> Yes of course they do, and it has everything to do with the S/PDIF
> protocol. That´s a basic fact about synchronous digital transmission;
> it´s called jitter.
Yeah, and SPDIF carries the data to overcome it. It is not a matter of
the protocol, it's a matter of imple
Pat Farrell;184288 Wrote:
> 325xi wrote:
> > Eric mentioned that
> > consumer Toslink does have higher jitter,
> [snip]
>
> > I've already said what I think about inaudibility assumptions. I'm
> > somewhat concerned with that massive feedbacks that people don't
> like
> > Toslink, we may define
D'uh! I'm easily confused, especially after a hard day at work and a
beer or two... thanks guys :)
--
AndyC_772
AndyC_772's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10472
View this thread: http://forums.sli
seanadams;184699 Wrote:
> ... do not make the phenomenon cease to exist. ...
what phenomenon? i can't recall anyone talking about a phenomenon.
other than possible you carrying a grudge over being caught making too
generic a claim about memories. which would be disappointing.
--
pablolie
AndyC_772;184698 Wrote:
> :)
>
> (disclaimer: I'm a professional electronic engineer specialising in
> communications systems... so I -ought- to know what I'm talking about!)
I am an electrical engineer myself, but went off into the marketing
side of things. So I am paid to make overzealous cla
Guys,
I think your postings all crossed in mid-write and we are having a
clock slip here ;-)
I think sean was responding to pablolie not Andy.
I think Andy's response to sean was because he thought it was to him
not pablolie (sean's posts overlapped a couple).
And opaqueice did you mistake And
AndyC_772;184705 Wrote:
> I'm sorry - if everyone understands all this already and I'm the
> ignorant one for not realising it, then I humbly apologise. But, as an
> outsider looking in, I sometimes read stuff on hi-fi forums that (to
> me!) seems to illustrate a lack of understanding of the fund
AndyC_772;184705 Wrote:
> I'm sorry - if everyone understands all this already and I'm the
> ignorant one for not realising it, then I humbly apologise. But, as an
> outsider looking in, I sometimes read stuff on hi-fi forums that (to
> me!) seems to illustrate a lack of understanding of the fund
seanadams;184699 Wrote:
> It's as if you're pointing at the sky screaming "it's red" and
> expecting a meaningful argument. I wonder if you're just trolling, and
> the joke is on me.
I'm sorry - if everyone understands all this already and I'm the
ignorant one for not realising it, then I humbl
pablolie;184694 Wrote:
>
> have you truly claimed analog transmission elements that do *not*
> affect SPDIF bit integrity still have an effect? i could imagine
> reasons why that´s that case in a real world implementation, but that
> has little to do with the SPDIF protocols...
Yes of course th
This is so well understood and so easily observed that I just don't know
what to say. It's as if you're pointing at the sky screaming "it's red"
and expecting a meaningful argument. I wonder if you're just trolling,
and the joke is on me.
Also, my comments in the other thread about the audibility
ps. I can tell the difference between a poor digital transport connected
via an optical lead, and a good one connected by coax. Last year I
replaced my high quality (but early and buggy) DVD player with a cheap
recorder. I was convinced that they'd sound identical played through
the same external
AndyC_772;184693 Wrote:
> ...
> Hope that helps a bit :)
>
> Andy
This thread is over. You put it perfectly.
--
pablolie
pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816
View this thread: http://
What a lovely thread - it has passion, enthusiasm and complete BS all
rolled into one :) Let me try to clear some of it up; apologies to
those of you for whom this is all basic stuff, but I've yet to see a
good explanation of signal integrity in an audiophile forum, and
there's an awful lot of vag
since this is where this subthread originated, just step by step...
# It's digital data, but it's sent over an analogue transmission
# path. The
# 1s and 0s are converted to different voltages and the
# resulting signal
# sent down the cable.
es, agreed. bmc is not about 0 and 1, it´s about p
seanadams;184669 Wrote:
> Absolutely 100% wrong.
>
> The _TIMING_ information which is carried by s/pdif is an analog signal
> in the truest sense, not just "on the wire" but from end to end. Are you
> really questioning that?
Biphase Mark Coding is encoding for *digital* data. Frequency of the
> SPDIF is BMC encoded, and therefore *digital*.
Absolutely 100% wrong.
The _TIMING_ information which is carried by s/pdif is an analog signal
in the truest sense, not just "on the wire" but from end to end. Are you
really questioning that?
--
seanadams
--
Robin Bowes;184562 Wrote:
> pablolie wrote:
>
> > It's *data*. Data integrity is the key. It does not matter of the
> > signal gets somewhat distorted. That's actually one of the key
> > advantages of digital interfaces: you don't have to worry as much
> over
> > signal integrity. It's no miscon
pablolie wrote:
> It's *data*. Data integrity is the key. It does not matter of the
> signal gets somewhat distorted. That's actually one of the key
> advantages of digital interfaces: you don't have to worry as much over
> signal integrity. It's no misconception at all. An ugly bit is still a
> b
pablolie;184524 Wrote:
> It's *data*. Data integrity is the key. It does not matter of the signal
> gets somewhat distorted. That's actually one of the key advantages of
> digital interfaces: you don't have to worry as much over signal
> integrity. It's no misconception at all. An ugly bit is sti
Robin Bowes;184379 Wrote:
> pablolie wrote:[color=blue]
> It's digital data, but it's sent over an analogue transmission path.
> The
> 1s and 0s are converted to different voltages and the resulting signal
> sent down the cable. At the other end, the receiver reads the signal
> and
> converts the
Eric Carroll;184105 Wrote:
> To paraphrase Jean Luc Picard in First Contact, "The physics of the
> audiophile world are somewhat different".
>
> Here are some of the principles I have perceived since my recent
> introduction to the audiophile world (and all I thought I was doing was
> ripping my
regalma1;184097 Wrote:
>
> There is optical cable out there that is immune to bending.
There is a coaxial one too! Thanks to anne for pointing it out:
http://www.lessloss.com/cable.html (see digital tubes).
Joking aside, there is a rigid coax as well called hard line*, but like
rigid optical,
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
