Lapaix, having worked for several years trying to get the ultimate jitter-free sound from a computer source, I can say that it remains better, audibly better, to play files from USB RAM rather than from hard drives. Yes, hard drives are read in packets, and yes, they are buffered extensively throughout a computer system's busses and operating system and playback software and hardware drivers, but the sound remains better from a USB RAM. And this remains worse than the sound achieved when slaving a CD player to a master dac synchronously. The ultimate point in buffering is not the size of the buffer, but the quality of the clock signal. And the quality of the clock signal depends ultimately on all of the surrounding factors including: its own power supply, the radiating ambient high frequency EM signals from other quartzes and other busses, vibrations (hard disks vibrate), and many other things knowns and possibly unknown. THere are several forums on the internet where people have been discussing computer audio for years and some have reached a very high end sound this way. However, once you put all the solutions up to the line and really compare, it remains improbable that merely enlarging a buffer will take away all the digital nasties. Another way of looking at it is that a CD already is a buffer. It is the buffer that is holding the DATA which was recorded at the finite moments of A/D sampling (during the recording). Whether CD, DVD, hard disk, ram, or anything else, the playback depends on the quality of clocking it.
Implications of Esoteric G-0Rb atomic clock
The latest TAS (March 2008) has an excellent piece by Robert Harley: a review of the Esoteric G-0Rb Master Clock Generator, with sidebars on the history and significance of jitter. This Esoteric unit employs an atomic clock (using rubidium) to take timing precision to a new level, at least for consumer gear. It's a good read, I recommend it.
If I am reading all of this correctly, I reach the following conclusions:
(1) Jitter is more important sonically than we might have thought
(2) Better jitter reduction at the A-D side of things will yield significant benefits, which means we can look forward to another of round remasters (of analog tapes) once atomic clock solutions make it into mastering labs
(3) All of the Superclocks, claims of vanishingly low jitter, reclocking DACs -- all of this stuff that's out there now, while probably heading in the right direction, still falls fall short of what's possible and needed if we are to get the best out of digital and fully realize its promise.
(4) We can expect to see atomic clocks in our future DACs and CDPs. Really?
Am I drawing the right conclusions?
If I am reading all of this correctly, I reach the following conclusions:
(1) Jitter is more important sonically than we might have thought
(2) Better jitter reduction at the A-D side of things will yield significant benefits, which means we can look forward to another of round remasters (of analog tapes) once atomic clock solutions make it into mastering labs
(3) All of the Superclocks, claims of vanishingly low jitter, reclocking DACs -- all of this stuff that's out there now, while probably heading in the right direction, still falls fall short of what's possible and needed if we are to get the best out of digital and fully realize its promise.
(4) We can expect to see atomic clocks in our future DACs and CDPs. Really?
Am I drawing the right conclusions?
- ...
- 73 posts total
- 73 posts total