I'll admit it, I'm new around here, but have spent several days reading
through hundreds if not thousands of posts here and on other boards,
and come to the conclusion that many, if not most (!) audiophiles are
looking for exactly the same product as I am: an easy-to-use streaming
client to feed
darrenyeats;229442 Wrote:
So IMO the SB3 is a very good transport already.
Good to hear! But then my guess is you would have no use for
synchronised symmetrical wiring with your Sony anyhow, correct? That's
what bugs me: no other choice than to pay 1700 USD more to get AES/EBU
and a word clock
acousticsguru;229451 Wrote:
But then my guess is you would have no use for synchronised symmetrical
wiring with your Sony anyhow, correct?
Yes, the Sony only accepts coaxial S/PDIF in. FWIW my CDT has a
balanced AES/EBU out (unused) ;-)
acousticsguru;229451 Wrote:
Every CD-transport I've
Sean has posted jitter tests results here before for the SB3. It has
very little jitter. I think some audiophiles will always want
*something* more, but that desire alone does not justify building such
a product IMHO.
--
ezkcdude
There are 10 kind of people in the world - those who
acousticsguru;229516 Wrote:
S/PDIF versus AES/EBU?
Yes, I meant that. But using a modern DAC like a Benchmark and a decent
modern transport. I do think a lot of engineering problems are solved
now that weren't earlier. For example, reading data off a CD is now
effectively entirely error-free
ezkcdude;229575 Wrote:
If not, if you cannot give me an actual source, then *your assertion is
just a weak assumption, not a statement of fact*.
Excuse me, but are you always arguing with this kind of aggressivity?
Note I'm from a cultural background where we're not used to attacking
others
David, you said jitter has been proven to be detrimental. This claim
comes up quite a bit here and on other audiophile forums, but there is
rarely any concrete evidence to back this statement up. That paper from
dCS (a commercial audio company) is little more than public relations.
The burden of
ezkcdude;229630 Wrote:
David, you said jitter has been proven to be detrimental.
1) That paper, although made available on dCS's web page, is actually
not public relations. Have you read it at all?
2) I could have a look for more research papers, as you could yourself
if you're really
David, I read the dCS paper, actually a long time ago. If you get time,
here is a paper by Ashihara et al. (in AES, 2005) that shows *random
jitter is not detected unless greater than several hundred nanoseconds
(ns)*:
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ast/26/1/26_50/_article
So, I gave you
ezkcdude;229635 Wrote:
David, I read the dCS paper, actually a long time ago.
Same here. Before it was made available on that web page and turned
into public relations - seriously, I'm surprised anyone who's read it
would call it that, its presence there alone proving what in particular?
acousticsguru;229637 Wrote:
But then, before I surrender and go to sleep, if that conclusion could
be reached, what does that tell us on the sonic difference between
modern audiophile CD-transports, all of which (I hope, at least the
ones I know and have tried in recent years) are (said
Phil Leigh;229542 Wrote:
Even then, it's not a audio quality degradation so much as the fact that
the clock recovery CAN get flaky.
That would go under what I called all else being equal before: few
CD-transports I've auditioned over the years offered WC inputs at all,
so who can say if what
Ok, I think I understand now. I brought up jitter, because isn't jitter
the only variable between different transports, if the signal is being
sent to an external DAC? If you are not concerned with jitter generated
by the transport, then why do you want a Squeezebox with word clock,
etc? What
101 - 113 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
