Digital Signal Transmission

[semente]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

As you know, I really don't care what happens in the middle of a DAC or before it. These are irrelevant to me, as I don't listen to the 22MHz clock or to USB packets or to TCP/IP frames. I listen to analog output of a DAC. Regardless of the original source of distortions, be it jitter, noise, RFI, EMI, cheap fuse or power cord, etc., if I can't detect it at the output below, say 24KHz, I don't really care if it's there (and for me, personally, under 18KHz is plenty good enough.)

 

And yes, below 24KHz, I can measure pretty well without the need for $150K in equipment 😜

Wouldn’t life be a lot easier if we weren’t able to measure a lot of stuff? And cheaper?

 

Why complicate when there’s a simplistic measure for DAC performance called SINAD which tells us all we need to know (that all DACs sound the same)? With pink panther ratings.

[semente]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

 

No need to do that to detect the effects of jitter in digital transmission or the DAC clock -- these either are there and can be measured in the audible range, or they are irrelevant.

 

Which measurements do you use to detect jitter effects in the audible range?

[semente]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

Moral: It all starts with having a pile of "best" tools for music reproduction in your chain. And this could be more than imaginable for an outsider. 100s of people explicitly worked on it. I myself was the main tool (providing the commercial products coming from all the thinking).

Mani is one of those people.

 

The typical alt-objectivist response would be "there you go, telling us that iur systems are not resolving enough"...

[semente]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Riccardo, yes, I suppose that could be the message. But if that really would have been my thing to bring across, you can imagine that I would have said this in my first post in this thread, to Tom. But I didn't, did I ?

Btw, in the context of the last posts, that's obviously no message at all. This message is though:

 

- I can easily hear the processing of an isolator (if it processes);

- What is not audible yesterday, tomorrow will be (or may be);

- a. I can't do this alone, b. it is quite rare for the occurrence itself that so many people contributed, which is why it happened.

 

So no cruel messages at all. I am not like that.

 

Btw, I am suddenly thinking ... if you are in London (I recall this is so ?) then you could visit one of the people with such a complete system. I say this because I know how eager you actually are (mainly on speakers I think).

 

Hi Peter,

 

It's Oxford actually, not that far.

I would realy enjoy listening to one of your systems.

 

I suppose that both you and @manisandher are right here, that it's not unlikely some of "their" systems are not resolving enough, and it is also not unlikely that some of "them" don't want to listen to differences that are not verifiable by the set of measurements they abide to.

 

Best,

Ricardo

 

[semente]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Could you please rephrase that ?

Sorry, I unintentionally made it overly complicated.

 

What I meant to say is that there’s a group of narrow-minded alt-objectivists to whom the possibility of perception of a particular “event” is dictated exclusively by a simplistic set of measurements and current superficial knowledge of audibility thresholds. And Toole’s book (perhaps misunderstood).