On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:56:08 +0000 (UTC)
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

No, you ARE wrong.

No, I'm right - you appear not to understand how domestic digital
audio works.

No, you are WRONG and trying to worm out of it byu changing the argument
and trying to insult my intelligence.

Scenario 2:
The two clocks are not a prefect match, the DAC clock is either
slower or faster than the data sources clock.

in this case, if its faster, it will (periodically) drain all its
buffering, no matter how much there is, and will end up stretching
bits to fill the gap (or playing silence, whatever)

Not relevant to CD, which has a defined 74 minute maximum, and there
do exist fully buffered true reclocking systems such as the Meridian
800 series, which certainly does *not* drop bits.

I didnt specify a CD source, did I?

if its slower, it will, periodically end up with the buffer
over-filling and bits will be lost.

See above.

Yep, adds up to what I said.

jitter is simply noise above, and will average out to nothing.

This however will not help the FM distortion which it causes in the
analogue output of the DAC.................

a few seconds of buffer on any DAC ought to make that 99.999999999%
inaudible.

If it DIDNT cancel out, it'd
effectvely be a frequency drift of the data sources clock, which is
no longer called jitter (duh).

such a 'drift' would imply a loss of data

There will however be *no* loss of data in a domestic audio situation,
so you are flat-out *wrong*.

In the case of CD Im still *correct* its just irrelevant.

in the case of a source capable of more than 74 minutes output, Im 100%
right.

full reclocking systems are as pointless as they are expensive.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.