regarding jitter, i have an interesting experience to report.
several years ago, a friend of mind and i compared commercial cds with the same titles mastered by bmg.
we both heard differences between the two masterings.
the bmg version was less dynamic, less focused, softer, but more listenable, as a slight veil, mitigated the nastiness of some poorly recorded cds.
i preferred the bmg version.
we sent the bmg discs, to chesky, to be analyzed by dick katz, who was, at the time, the recording engineer.
he sent back the discs with a note suggesting that the bmg discs had more jitter.
this experience led to conjecture that more jitter is not always more unpleasant than less jitter.
in addition, when using the term more analogue, it doesn't necessarily mean more tube-like, softer in the treble and less focused.
the term, "digital" may refer to frequency response aberrations, especially in the treble.
in additiopn, as i have said, having followed the evolution of the products of ps audio, they tend to make improvements in the direction of greater resolution and transparency.
an example will illustrate my thesis.
my friend purchased ps audio's first, top-of-the line digital cable (coax), while i purchased the second version, also, top-of-the-line.
when comparing the digital cables, both of us preferred the earlier version, as it was more full bodied and balanced.
while many appreciate such an approach, i am concerned that if i am accurate in my prediction, the upgrade may improve the sound of well-recorded cds but reveal the flaws in poor quality discs.
thus, a trade-off will be created giving the listener some improvements, but perhaps, also including some degradation in sound, depending upon sound quality.
in any case, i have received good advise to wait for reports from those who have acquired and listened to the affects of the upgrade, before considering purchasing thee upgrade.
several years ago, a friend of mind and i compared commercial cds with the same titles mastered by bmg.
we both heard differences between the two masterings.
the bmg version was less dynamic, less focused, softer, but more listenable, as a slight veil, mitigated the nastiness of some poorly recorded cds.
i preferred the bmg version.
we sent the bmg discs, to chesky, to be analyzed by dick katz, who was, at the time, the recording engineer.
he sent back the discs with a note suggesting that the bmg discs had more jitter.
this experience led to conjecture that more jitter is not always more unpleasant than less jitter.
in addition, when using the term more analogue, it doesn't necessarily mean more tube-like, softer in the treble and less focused.
the term, "digital" may refer to frequency response aberrations, especially in the treble.
in additiopn, as i have said, having followed the evolution of the products of ps audio, they tend to make improvements in the direction of greater resolution and transparency.
an example will illustrate my thesis.
my friend purchased ps audio's first, top-of-the line digital cable (coax), while i purchased the second version, also, top-of-the-line.
when comparing the digital cables, both of us preferred the earlier version, as it was more full bodied and balanced.
while many appreciate such an approach, i am concerned that if i am accurate in my prediction, the upgrade may improve the sound of well-recorded cds but reveal the flaws in poor quality discs.
thus, a trade-off will be created giving the listener some improvements, but perhaps, also including some degradation in sound, depending upon sound quality.
in any case, i have received good advise to wait for reports from those who have acquired and listened to the affects of the upgrade, before considering purchasing thee upgrade.