Hard Disc Player Sound Quality
 

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:44:23 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:40:37 +0000 (UTC)
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

The point being, of course, that any *WELL* designed system will use
a good PLL and thus eliminate the problem.

Unfortunately, these are thin on the ground in high-end audio........

Heck, some of those clowns don't even put in the reconstruction
filter! No, really, check out AudioNote.....................

LOL ;-)

Risible indeed - but I wasn't joking!

BTW, a PLL *reduces* the jitter problem, only a synchronous master
clock can *eliminate* jitter.

nah. as long as we're talking about jitter and not gross long-timebase
clock frequency drifts, a good PLL will eliminate it.

Clearly, you have no clue how digital audio works.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Hard Disc Player Sound Quality
 

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:37:12 +0000, Chris Isbell
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:40:37 +0000 (UTC),
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:


BTW, a PLL *reduces* the jitter problem, only a synchronous master
clock can *eliminate* jitter.

What about sample rate conversion?

That uses a synchronous master clock after the sample rate conversion.
OK, that was a bit of a dodge, you're quite right that a
well-implemented sample-rate converter can indeed eliminate jitter.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Hard Disc Player Sound Quality
 

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:26:10 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:37:12 +0000
Chris Isbell wrote:

BTW, a PLL *reduces* the jitter problem, only a synchronous master
clock can *eliminate* jitter.

What about sample rate conversion?

pointless, as without MASSIVE buffers its not possible to do without errors or aliasing.

Rubbish.

better to use a PLL as any quartz clock will give adequate frequency stability within the
few-kilohertz range used in audio. with a PLL jitter is irrelevant (with a good design) and
you end up with the DAC locked to an adequately stable clock anyway, without the
issues involved in reclocking.

Absolute ********! The quartz clock isn't the issue - the bandwidth of
the PLL is........

There are uses for reclocking system (ie. mixing and production uses) but playback isnt one of them.

Sure it is. Clearly, you have no clue how digital audio works.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Hard Disc Player Sound Quality
 

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 18:29:54 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:41:55 +0000 (UTC)
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

**** man, I'll just bin my Arcam DBB3 right now ;-)

Well, that'd be a start - then you could buy a top-class one-box
player, such as an Arcam 9 or 23. Problem solved.

What exactly is not 'top class' about the DBB3 ?

The S/PDIF link principally, although the DAC itself is certainly not
state of the art.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Hard Disc Player Sound Quality
 

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:06:54 +0000 (UTC)
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

OTOH, he's correct.

fx: shakes head

You really dont believe I play something other than mp3s then?

--
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.

Hard Disc Player Sound Quality
 

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:13:57 +0000 (UTC)
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

**** man, I'll just bin my Arcam DBB3 right now ;-)

Well, that'd be a start - then you could buy a top-class one-box
player, such as an Arcam 9 or 23. Problem solved.

What exactly is not 'top class' about the DBB3 ?

The S/PDIF link principally,

What link do you propose I use?

although the DAC itself is certainly not state of the art.

Certainly not crap either though. The meridian 203 is not exactly state
of the art either...

--
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.

Hard Disc Player Sound Quality
 

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:08:10 +0000 (UTC)
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

BTW, a PLL *reduces* the jitter problem, only a synchronous master
clock can *eliminate* jitter.

nah. as long as we're talking about jitter and not gross long-timebase
clock frequency drifts, a good PLL will eliminate it.

Clearly, you have no clue how digital audio works.

Yeah, ok. whatever

Perhaps you would like to explain how a system with a good PLL will be affected by jitter?

--
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.

Hard Disc Player Sound Quality
 

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:13:02 +0000 (UTC)
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

pointless, as without MASSIVE buffers its not possible to do without
errors or aliasing.

Rubbish.

If you want to reclock without a backchannel, you need large buffers on
your device such that it is capable of buffering all data that arrives
if the data rate is higher than the reclocking clock. conversely, if the
transmitting clock is too slow you need to wait until the buffer has
enough data not to drain before the end of the listening session.

If you dont you *will* get buffer overruns and underruns.

This is pretty ****ing basic stuff.

better to use a PLL as any quartz clock will give adequate frequency
stability within the few-kilohertz range used in audio. with a PLL
jitter is irrelevant (with a good design) and you end up with the DAC
locked to an adequately stable clock anyway, without the issues
involved in reclocking.

Absolute ********! The quartz clock isn't the issue - the bandwidth of
the PLL is........

No, the long term frequency stability of the hosts clock is what
determins the stability of the PLL output. the purpose of the PLL is
twofold, to help reconstruct the SP/DIF clock, and to eliminate jitter.

the PLL bandwidth is relevant to jitter elimination, but the whole point
of a PLL is that long-term it tracks the host clock.

There are uses for reclocking system (ie. mixing and production uses)
but playback isnt one of them.

Sure it is. Clearly, you have no clue how digital audio works.

I think that would be *you* not me.

--
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.

Hard Disc Player Sound Quality
 

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:09:55 +0000 (UTC)
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

That uses a synchronous master clock after the sample rate conversion.
OK, that was a bit of a dodge, you're quite right that a
well-implemented sample-rate converter can indeed eliminate jitter.

Although its a total waste of money because any decent DAC will eliminate jitter.

There is only one use for reclocking, and thats if you require a synchronous output for things like mixing / recording.

if you only want playback, the DAC is enough, as you wont need a synchronous output.

--
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.

Hard Disc Player Sound Quality
 

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:52:53 +0000
Kurt Hamster wrote:

You really dont believe I play something other than mp3s then?

CDs created from MP3s?

dickhead.

--
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.