• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Can you review a Synchro-Mesh S/PDIF re-clocker?

Status
Not open for further replies.

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
18,322
Likes
17,153
Location
Seattle Area
24 pages and no timetable for the bench test? I want a plan! :p
It is shipped so once it is here, will get scheduled for testing.
 

MZKM

Active Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
212
Likes
122
Because the brain should be able to identify it more easily.
The brain is more easily able to identify distortion/harmonics that are further away from the main tone (-40dB 6^th harmonics are more audible than -40dB 2^nd harmonics). Are you saying that for real-world use, jitter following say a guitar chord or piano key is going to hug the main tones?

Again, jitter represents itself as a raised noise floor if random, or a combo of that along with distortion spikes. As you should know about dithering, you should know that a raised noise floor is less audible than distortion spikes to a degree (unless heavily hugging the main tone).
 

Empirical Audio

Active Member
Manufacturer
Joined
Mar 10, 2019
Messages
224
Likes
61
Location
Great Northwest, USA
The brain is more easily able to identify distortion/harmonics that are further away from the main tone (-40dB 6^th harmonics are more audible than -40dB 2^nd harmonics). Are you saying that for real-world use, jitter following say a guitar chord or piano key is going to hug the main tones?
Yes, this is my experience with most jitter. It creates halos around the instruments or echoes or widens the images, taking them out of focus if you will. This is all evidence of correlation to the music track.

Steve N.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
18,322
Likes
17,153
Location
Seattle Area
Yes, this is my experience with most jitter. It creates halos around the instruments or echoes or widens the images, taking them out of focus if you will.
It does not Steve. That is what people imagine because they think it is a timing issue as far as perception. It is not at all. Our peak detection in time domain is something like 1/4 second. Past that nothing about timing errors comes as such. It is for this reason the IEC curve for Wow and Flutter looks like this:

1552612059243.png


As you see, the highest sensitivity is around 4 Hz. After that, sensitivity drops rapidly.

The actual effect is spectrum sensitive and will be a non-linear change in the sound, not anything to do with haloes, smearing, etc. It is FM modulation which is a way we create new sounds. Not echo boxes.

Heck, we don't hear echoes when sound reflects from walls in our typical listening room. Why on earth do people think jitter that is far, far, smaller in digital audio creates echoes? Have folks not heard of Haas effect?

There is not one piece of research on jitter that says anything about it sounding like echo, smearing, or changing soundstage.
 

Blumlein 88

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
5,448
Likes
4,224
I believe so. It's been many years. There were four digital files made available with different offsets. I was one of the few that could identify the differences and which track appeared to be most "normal". I can make the tracks available here. The problem is I never marked the tracks as to which ones were altered, so that info is lost. I suppose one can look at them with a DSP system, but that may not answer the question either....
Couldn't you listen to them and grade them again? And yes, make them available by all means.
 

Frank Dernie

Major Contributor
Patreon Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
1,313
Likes
1,401
Location
Oxfordshire
I wonder if a better DAC with lower noise floor will enable one to see lower levels of jitter and if using an inexpensive DAC will ultimately limit this.
One thing I have learned over the last 20-30 years or so that there is very poor correlation between expensive and good engineering in the hifi marketplace since before then.
The idea that more that expensive = better, however, persists even though it really isn't necessarily the case. I suppose if somebody hears a difference between products the assumption tends to be the more expensive must be the more "right".
A well engineered inexpensive DAC may well not need your clever device at all to deliver a good output whereas a very expensive but poorly engineered one may well benefit from it.
This could, and probably would, lead to the false conclusion that the more expensive DAC was more resolving and allowed the improvement to shine through when the facts were that it was actually rubbish that needed help.
 

Blumlein 88

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
5,448
Likes
4,224
I'm loving this brand new science, I'm so enthused I think I might spend some time making schiit up as it just seems so much fun.
Maybe it is virtual science. We have reality 1.0 and virtual reality 2.0 so surely we will need virtual science in that virtual reality. In the past it might have been labeled meta-science as part of meta-reality the metaphysics. So now we'll re-brand it as virtual physics.

In virtual reality, science can be empirical since humans can virtually hear about 3 femto-seconds of virtual jitter. Just wait until we get some virtual instrumentation that out strips human virtual senses. Boy will we go places then at least virtually. At most too.
 

Frank Dernie

Major Contributor
Patreon Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
1,313
Likes
1,401
Location
Oxfordshire
I can't caution you enough to not defend this line of reasoning here and now.

I have offered thousands of dollars to high-end audiophiles if they can pass blind tests of cables. This is that sure of a thing.
Back when I was working I was time poor and financially OK so when I upgraded my kit I went for a whole system approach, so having chosen Goldmund speakers after 2 years of listening to everything I could, and using a Goldmund reference turntable and Mimesis 36+ CD transport I changed my Spectral DAC/preamp/power amp for Goldmund too, with its own cables.
From an engineering standpoint I had always thought it strange that cables could make a difference other than the quality of thge connection at each end. When I retired and had much more time and much less income. The big thing about the Goldmund system is the huge superiority of the speaker connections they use, though they also have the ordinary type binding posts too.
I bought some ordinary speaker cable with 4mm connectors and compared to the huge Goldmund cables with their big screwed connectors and could hear no difference.
The Goldmund stuff is beautifully made and conceptually sound, it just isn't any better than a £30 ebay purchase, sound wise.
In my cable comparisons over the years the only ones sounding different are the ones with in line filters which are, of course, components not cables.
 

watchnerd

Major Contributor
Beer Hero
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
4,392
Likes
1,469
Location
Seattle Area
I'm loving this brand new science, I'm so enthused I think I might spend some time making schiit up as it just seems so much fun.
You need to get some of that new MQA vinyl because it combines all the attributes of the best in high resolution digital with analog's infinite sampling rate in a way that you'll be able to peel veils out of your system you never thought possible and discover blacks so black they can only be none more black.

It's so realistic my wife thought I was having an affair with Diana Krall from the other room and my dog barked at the unknown intruder.
 
Last edited:

Blumlein 88

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
5,448
Likes
4,224
Back when I was working I was time poor and financially OK so when I upgraded my kit I went for a whole system approach, so having chosen Goldmund speakers after 2 years of listening to everything I could, and using a Goldmund reference turntable and Mimesis 36+ CD transport I changed my Spectral DAC/preamp/power amp for Goldmund too, with its own cables.
From an engineering standpoint I had always thought it strange that cables could make a difference other than the quality of thge connection at each end. When I retired and had much more time and much less income. The big thing about the Goldmund system is the huge superiority of the speaker connections they use, though they also have the ordinary type binding posts too.
I bought some ordinary speaker cable with 4mm connectors and compared to the huge Goldmund cables with their big screwed connectors and could hear no difference.
The Goldmund stuff is beautifully made and conceptually sound, it just isn't any better than a £30 ebay purchase, sound wise.
In my cable comparisons over the years the only ones sounding different are the ones with in line filters which are, of course, components not cables.
One of my inflection points as an audiophile was retiring. I decided with more time to find out just why speaker cables and interconnects sound different. Quite funny. My ideas were to determine how they were different, figure out the broad outlines of what made better ones better, and make some designs that would be fantastic. Measuring, then listening critically, and then blind and so on and so forth prevented my success and personal enrichment. If it weren't for that morality thing I could be richer now. I know what it takes to make cables sound better.

And that damned series connected amplifier experiment. Killed my vacuum tube dreams it did.
 

watchnerd

Major Contributor
Beer Hero
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
4,392
Likes
1,469
Location
Seattle Area
One of my inflection points as an audiophile was retiring. I decided with more time to find out just why speaker cables and interconnects sound different. Quite funny. My ideas were to determine how they were different, figure out the broad outlines of what made better ones better, and make some designs that would be fantastic. Measuring, then listening critically, and then blind and so on and so forth prevented my success and personal enrichment. If it weren't for that morality thing I could be richer now. I know what it takes to make cables sound better.

And that damned series connected amplifier experiment. Killed my vacuum tube dreams it did.
Reel to reel, my friend.

There's gold in them thar hills.
 

Krunok

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
2,637
Likes
1,209
Location
Zg, Cro
You guys are only feeding the troll by posting in this thread. OF course measurement won't show any imapct on analog audio outputs but he will anyhow keep trolling rejecting any technical facts you present to him.
 

March Audio

Major Contributor
Manufacturer
Patreon Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
3,376
Likes
2,720
Location
Perth Western Australia
For these files, we are not talking about reading from a disk or any correction.
No offset. What effect does it have?

If I rip a file with out offset correction and the with offset correction what difference will I see?

I will do this later and compare sample to sample in audition.
 

Sir Sanders Zingmore

Active Member
Patreon Donor
Joined
May 20, 2018
Messages
143
Likes
144
Location
Melbourne, Australia
You guys are only feeding the troll by posting in this thread. OF course measurement won't show any imapct on analog audio outputs but he will anyhow keep trolling rejecting any technical facts you present to him.
As much as you may disagree with him, I am as certain as I can be that Empirical Audio is not trolling. If that's who you were referring to I think that you are being unfair
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom