Perhaps a re-iteration of my explanation is in order. All SPDIF digital connections (read "traditional") cannot sonically compete with a properly designed USB Dac (being driven by a hardrive). Even if the traditional digital connection is being "buffered" or "re-clocking" the data, etc. The traditional digital connection scheme was seriously flawed from the get-go. UBER designed "re-clockers" or "buffering" schemes are only band-aids. They work to a point, but still don't quite give us the true analog purity we were all hoping to achieve. Closer yes. Perfection, not by a country mile! Too many of these "band-aids" are damn expensive at that. Of course the proof is in the pudding. The recent USB Dac I heard comes so close to sounding like analog that I was shocked that ANY digital could sound this good. No other digital scheme I've heard comes nearly as close (and I've heard way too many to count).
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