Jump to content

jabbr

  • Content Count

    7797
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United States

3 Followers

About jabbr

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Cincinnati

Recent Profile Visitors

12837 profile views
  1. Signal recovery amidst noise is another topic.
  2. It’s one thing to remove compression and another to remove sounds. Like Photoshop, it’s one thing to remove noise and another to remove wrinkles. Every actual sound b the recording must be preserved.
  3. VJCP-68096-097 "Japanese Paper Sleeve Remasters" I find that at 3 layers the HF detail is stripped out. I am not sure I have the post decode equalization perfect yet.
  4. Phase noise obviously exists. I know of no “John” who defined it. I have provided a multitude of links that show anyone how to measure phase noise. I didn’t invent any of these methods. There are many threads which discuss the theory of phase noise. Are we talking about the phase noise in a specific product?
  5. I just play “Spirits in the Material World” by the Police, and that settles them down. Pink Floyd on extended loop is best for burning in the fiber.
  6. --fcs="2,-46,fcx=G+*" --pif9k=-2 is also really really good The "tinkles" in "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway" come in at 13 seconds The vocals in "Carpet Crawlers" are clearer and more immediate The background tape hiss in "The Waiting Room" is gone, and the HF percussion is very clean
  7. Let me expand on this: there is a large contingent of people to believe that electrical characteristics of the server affect the SQ and that noise on the server can cross a network and ultimately affect the DAC hence SQ. Let's break down the types of noise that exist: 1) differential mode voltage/current noise 2) common mode voltage/current noise 3) phase noise This isn't exhaustive nor comprehensive but obviously fiberoptic transmission provides strong common mode noise isolation. Hitting a tight eye pattern assures that differential mode and phase noise
  8. I'm not "promoting" anything, I have zero financial interest. The discussion of ethernet jitter having any SQ effect is pure speculation. I *am* saying that if network jitter is important (that itself hasn't been demonstrated) that 10Gbe switches don't pass upstream jitter downstream. If there are SQ differences between specific SFP(+) modules then let's hear people's impressions.
  9. The measurement tools exist. Believe me. It is absurd to think they don't. Ok I'm not asserting that everything regarding SQ is related to jitter, quite the contrary, but the measurement tools regarding jitter exist. Which is why we have an endless speculation, because folks throw out speculations but they aren't supported. In this thread, I want to keep the discussion away from speculation about metaphysical jitter, rather focus on specific products and how they interact with each other. I am not saying that 10Gbe fiber is necessary or even sounds better, s
  10. Kicking what should be a dead horse: the fact that accumulating jitter would corrupt the internet is exactly the reason the Ethernet specifications require the "stressed receiver test" or "stressed eye pattern test": Jitter must not accumulate from upstream to downstream. Actually the clocks are probably very low jitter because 100Gbe has taken over and even 10Gbe is considered legacy. Linear power supplies: ha! my Mellanox 100Gbe NICs and switch *are* fed by SMPS. That said, Analog Devices did not develop the LT3045 for the home audio market 😂 and the design pattern of
  11. With "Lamb" I am hearing "tinkles" at 13 seconds using fcs="2,-50,fcx=G+*" --pif9k=-1 but not with fcs="3,-50,fcx=G+*" --pif9k=-1 However with all the version changes I need to re-run and be sure., The decode is a bit bright right now but at least I can hear the upper HF details
  12. Modern network switches are tested under load ie stressed receiver/stressed eye pattern, and by specification do not exceed the very very low levels of jitter and noise required to meet this spec. These levels are less than is measurable by, or at least has ever been published to have been measured by anyone here, except @marce who is no longer here. So no, not "less better" by any "less" that is real.
  13. VLANs or subnets, sure, we have talked about trying to use IPV6 as much as possible to reduce network chattiness. I find most of the network chatter is on the wifi devices, and I do have a separate Wifi router. But on a 10Gbe switch a few broadcasts won't slow down the music unless the endpoint is responding to them.
  14. If you have a good switch, which can support real switched bandwidth between ports, you don't need, nor would benefit from QoS in most home settings. If you have too many different widgets it won't make the network better, rather more complicated. More places for weird things to happen. There seems to be this concept around here that a network device "adds" something to the sound, it doesn't If the last leg is fiber, there is no common mode noise transmission from the switch: none. If you have a good switch like the ones we have discussed, there is no measurable "jitte
×
×
  • Create New...