USB or SPDIF to DAC Questions - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 54 Old 06-19-2012, 04:40 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg121986 View Post

Maybe they used some kind of scientific double-blind wizardry?
What would you have done, Wise Professor of Precision Audio Measurements? rolleyes.gifrolleyes.gif

Roll your eyes if you will, but it will cost you in your pocketbook. So if wasting money on the latest-greatest DAC is what you want to do, be my guest but use your money.

If one uses the "scientific double-blind wizardry" that has been around for over 30 years, one quickly finds that threads like this one that has become littered with all sorts of double-talk about the inadequacy of SP/DIF and the latest-greatest asynchronous whatsis is all about people's illusions that they are hearing differences that are actually inaudible.

It's like this: You can improve the sound quality of your system for minimal cost but encounter some amount of hassle and even possibly negotiations with the dreaded WAF, or you can blow your money on unnecessary DACs and jittter busters, keep the wife happier with a succession of relatively small but vastly overpriced signal processors and golden digital players, and make zero actual progress on improving the sound quality of your audio system. It is really as easy as that!
arnyk is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 54 Old 06-19-2012, 08:48 AM
Member
 
Greg121986's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Metro Detroit, MI
Posts: 192
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Is this your choice for record players? I've heard great things about it. It takes a very basic approach with no excessive engineering or silly, overpriced circuitry. I wish DACs would take the same approach. There is too much evolution of technology. We need to bring it way back to when things were simple!

349
Greg121986 is offline  
post #33 of 54 Old 06-19-2012, 08:55 AM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg121986 View Post

Is this your choice for record players? I've heard great things about it. It takes a very basic approach with no excessive engineering or silly, overpriced circuitry. I wish DACs would take the same approach. There is too much evolution of technology. We need to bring it way back to when things were simple!
349
Name calling wasn't enough so now you resort to trolling. That's sad considering how much learning you could have gotten by digesting what's been replied to you. frown.gif
diomania is offline  
post #34 of 54 Old 06-19-2012, 09:12 AM
Member
 
Greg121986's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Metro Detroit, MI
Posts: 192
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

Name calling wasn't enough so now you resort to trolling. That's sad considering how much learning you could have gotten by digesting what's been replied to you. frown.gif

I've learned plenty from my own experience and research into the subject of DAC design and more so USB transport implementation. I hope to learn much more because I certainly am not an authority on the subject. Unfortunately, the "experience" of others that I've found posting on this forum weighs closer to stubborn ideologies based on technology of the past, and an unwillingness to entertain new technology and design at the very least. This approach seems to label anything that may be new to some of AVSForum posters as "inferior" or unnecessary because it doesn't incorporate something familiar. For example, USB Class 2 audio. If Sony/Philips didn't put their label on it, it must not be good, right? I don't believe that to be accurate.
Greg121986 is offline  
post #35 of 54 Old 06-19-2012, 09:17 AM
Newbie
 
storrgie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
First time poster here. Registered just to be able to say this.

The presentation of information by Arnyk is typically condescending and aggressive. I think that its important to critically evaluate proposed technologies in a way that can get around some of our human limitations on detection, but make sure that you communicate that to people in a way that doesn't make them not want to share their experiences with you.

Forums like this are a good place for people to talk about their experiences with different technologies. Typically even the most wealthy and diligent of individuals can only do limited testing of capability equivalence between units. Most of our homes are not laboratories, we should however try to provide our feedback in a way that isn't biased based on what we've decided to purchase with our own money. I believe that Hydrogenaudio does a good job of communicating an A/B testing standard, is there an article or thread for AVS that talks about how you should test and then communicate back results?

I do feel that Arnyk has made a considerable investment in this community in terms of his sheer amount of participation. So I don't critique him to be destructive, I just feel that you guys could do a better job of welcoming the presentation of new data. Put all your testing/bias/decision stuff in a single article and link new users to it... don't flame new people because of their lack of experience with SDT or testing.

I also think the Fischer price photo was pretty funny, not necessarily inflammatory.
Qaq likes this.
storrgie is offline  
post #36 of 54 Old 06-19-2012, 09:49 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg121986 View Post

Is this your choice for record players? I've heard great things about it. It takes a very basic approach with no excessive engineering or silly, overpriced circuitry. I wish DACs would take the same approach. There is too much evolution of technology. We need to bring it way back to when things were simple!
349

Actually, back in the day when vinyl was all we had, the below is exactly what I used while you were possibly using the above:

400

What you can't see is the V15 III, IV or V depending on when the picture was taken.
arnyk is offline  
post #37 of 54 Old 06-19-2012, 10:02 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg121986 View Post

I've learned plenty from my own experience and research into the subject of DAC design and more so USB transport implementation.

Apparently, you didn't' do any proper listening tests because if you did, you'd most likely sing a violently different tune.
Quote:
I hope to learn much more because I certainly am not an authority on the subject.

You could do something weird like listen to people who have done their homework. ;-)
Quote:
Unfortunately, the "experience" of others that I've found posting on this forum weighs closer to stubborn ideologies based on technology of the past, and an unwillingness to entertain new technology and design at the very least.

That is true, only in your mind.

You clearly disrespect people who have actually done their homework in this regard. I don't know why I bother to point this out. You are clearly enjoying your blindered view of reality.
Quote:
This approach seems to label anything that may be new to some of AVSForum posters as "inferior" or unnecessary because it doesn't incorporate something familiar.

No, it is all about what would happen if you had to distinguish a Behringer UCA 202 from your choice of more modern products in a proper listening test.
Quote:
For example, USB Class 2 audio. If Sony/Philips didn't put their label on it, it must not be good, right? I don't believe that to be accurate.

What you don't seem to understand is that when the price of an adequate solution gets too low for high margin suppliers to make any money on it, some of the more unscrupulous of them simply resort to "The Big Lie" school of advertising and other forms of promotion. That's how you sell $4000 Martin-Logan speakers when most listeners prefer the $400 Infinity Primus in a blind preference test. They just do what worked the last time they sold the Emperor's new Clothes. ;-)
arnyk is offline  
post #38 of 54 Old 06-19-2012, 10:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
OtherSongs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 1,663
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

Name calling wasn't enough so now you resort to trolling. That's sad considering how much learning you could have gotten by digesting what's been replied to you. frown.gif

What I find disappointing is that both you and arny are the ones off base.

Some useful info was mentioned by several others on asynchronous USB.

Has it gotten that one has to be so politically correct on AVS in order to not ruffle any feathers?

I liked it better when arny actually posted meaningful refs, and didn't act like an old broken record. smile.gif

The best is the enemy of the good. Voltaire (1694-1778)

OtherSongs is offline  
post #39 of 54 Old 06-19-2012, 02:30 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by OtherSongs View Post

What I find disappointing is that both you and arny are the ones off base.

Really?

My point has been that you don't need to spend a bunch of money on fancy DACs anymore, That often equipment that is relatively simple and inexpensive performs in a way that is audibly indistinguishable from far more expensive and complex solutions.
I've personally done dozens of DBTs involving these issues with a variety of systems and audiophile listeners, and the results support this kind of thinking.
Quote:
Some useful info was mentioned by several others on asynchronous USB.

Got any reliable evidence that shows that Asynchronous DACs sound different at all, let alone better in real world situations?
Quote:
Has it gotten that one has to be so politically correct on AVS in order to not ruffle any feathers?

I don't think so because you are the one who seems to have the ruffled feathers.
Quote:
I liked it better when arny actually posted meaningful refs, and didn't act like an old broken record. smile.gif

Let's talk about the "Every DAC sounds different in my non-level-matched, non-time-synched, sighted evaluations" broken record....

I'd like to hear something different from that, something that shows a little sophistication when it comes to doing listening tests.

Lots of people around here seem to think that it is still reasonable to do listening tests like they were done in the 1950s, back in the days when pretty much everything did sound different because most of it was so crappy.You know, the days of tubes, vinyl, and analog tape.
arnyk is offline  
post #40 of 54 Old 06-19-2012, 02:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
OtherSongs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 1,663
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Got any reliable evidence that shows that Asynchronous DACs sound different at all, let alone better in real world situations?

Still too expensive for my blood. smile.gif

But the hot Chicago weather did get me to start this new "2 Channel Audio" thread: Yes you CAN hear jitter!

The best is the enemy of the good. Voltaire (1694-1778)

OtherSongs is offline  
post #41 of 54 Old 06-19-2012, 02:46 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by OtherSongs View Post

Still too expensive for my blood. smile.gif
But the hot Chicago weather did get me to start this new "2 Channel Audio" thread: Yes you CAN hear jitter!

There's no doubt that some jitter is audible. But only some of it. How do you know that you are hearing jitter?
arnyk is offline  
post #42 of 54 Old 06-19-2012, 03:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
OtherSongs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 1,663
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

There's no doubt that some jitter is audible.

Wow! smile.gif

The best is the enemy of the good. Voltaire (1694-1778)

OtherSongs is offline  
post #43 of 54 Old 06-19-2012, 04:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MarkHotchkiss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Long Beach, California
Posts: 1,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 82
Hi Arny,
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Got any reliable evidence that shows that Asynchronous DACs sound different at all, let alone better in real world situations?
I don't think Asynchronous USB is about doing it better, it's about doing it differently. The goal would be to make it cheaper to do it well. So it's ironic that Async USB is more expensive right now.

The problem with the old isochronous USB protocol was the the DAC timing was a slave to the host's USB timing. Besides the issue that the host's timing might not be the most accurate, the main problem was that USB's 1-millisecond "tick" is too course to lock a good 1.4 mHz (minimum, 12 mHz typical) DAC clock to. It is especially difficult if the USB tick has jitter.

The Asynchronous USB solution was simple: Allow the DAC to define the clock, and have it request the audio-data from the host as needed. It's a simple change to the software protocol (actually, it is adding a fifth protocol to USB's existing four protocols).

As for the cost, the current high price is simply exploitation. The added software protocol allows for a reduction in hardware, so async-USB should and will be cheaper.


As an aside: a complaint against S/PDIF is also that it contains the timing, and a DAC needs to slave to the clock of the source. But at least S/PDIF's embedded clock is at the same bit-rate as the data, and not over a thousand-times courser, as it is with iso-USB.
MarkHotchkiss is offline  
post #44 of 54 Old 06-19-2012, 07:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkHotchkiss View Post

Hi Arny,
I don't think Asynchronous USB is about doing it better, it's about doing it differently. The goal would be to make it cheaper to do it well. So it's ironic that Async USB is more expensive right now.

My review of the technology says that Asynch USB is:

(1) More complex
(2) Different

Either is a sufficient excuse for higher prices, at least in the short term.
Quote:
The problem with the old isochronous USB protocol was the the DAC timing was a slave to the host's USB timing. Besides the issue that the host's timing might not be the most accurate, the main problem was that USB's 1-millisecond "tick" is too course to lock a good 1.4 mHz (minimum, 12 mHz typical) DAC clock to. It is especially difficult if the USB tick has jitter.

I see a lot of if's. Where the rubber hits the road relates to the presence or non-presence of something audible. This forum has a well-known poster who has hyped aysnch USB as some kind of major sonic advantage. Many people myself included have asked him about listening tests to support his claims. Not so much. Its not like this guy doesn't know better. He's an EE and an ex Microsoft vice president who at one point retained the services of one of the best names in audio listening test technology. To me, his lack of productivity in this matter is just another example of the actual lack of faith that he has iin aysnch USB technology.
Quote:
The Asynchronous USB solution was simple: Allow the DAC to define the clock, and have it request the audio-data from the host as needed. It's a simple change to the software protocol (actually, it is adding a fifth protocol to USB's existing four protocols).

As for the cost, the current high price is simply exploitation. The added software protocol allows for a reduction in hardware, so async-USB should and will be cheaper.

It appears to be solution looking for a real-world problem.

Quote:
As an aside: a complaint against S/PDIF is also that it contains the timing, and a DAC needs to slave to the clock of the source. But at least S/PDIF's embedded clock is at the same bit-rate as the data, and not over a thousand-times courser, as it is with iso-USB.

Where's the beef? The above discussion is not about any results in terms of acutal audible sound quality, but rather it is a proposed means to an end that is not known to be an audible problem.
arnyk is offline  
post #45 of 54 Old 06-19-2012, 08:50 PM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by OtherSongs View Post

Wow! smile.gif
As I suspected, just another troll. rolleyes.gif
diomania is offline  
post #46 of 54 Old 06-19-2012, 09:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MarkHotchkiss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Long Beach, California
Posts: 1,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

My review of the technology says that Asynch USB is:

(1) More complex
(2) Different
Both true. However, the added complexity is in the software/firmware, where it belongs. In exchange for the additional handshaking required, the hardware is greatly simplified.
Quote:
I see a lot of if's. Where the rubber hits the road relates to the presence or non-presence of something audible.
The engineer needs to consider each of those "if"s, and address them correctly to get a well-performing DAC. But if (another one) the time-base coming from the host USB is not solid, then there is little that the DAC can do to get a low-jitter clock and also stay synchronized with the data-stream. So a normally excellent isochronous DAC can be compromised by a poor source.

Can be compromised, but usually not. So normally an Asynchronous-USB DAC would offer no audible advantage over an Isochronous-USB DAC. There can be those situations where the Async DAC will perform better than an Isoch DAC, but it is not that one is sonically better, it's just that the other is broken. Asynch adds a level "source-immunity".
Quote:
It appears to be solution looking for a real-world problem.
The real-world problem is clock-recovery, an engineering issue. Async-USB replaces the complex PLL requirement within the DAC with a simple oscillator. The end-user won't see a benefit until the price comes down to where it should be, which is cheaper than current DACs.

As I said, the current high prices are simply exploiting the hype. If I had invested in Async this early, I probably would do the same.
MarkHotchkiss is offline  
post #47 of 54 Old 06-20-2012, 01:31 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkHotchkiss View Post

The real-world problem is clock-recovery, an engineering issue. Async-USB replaces the complex PLL requirement within the DAC with a simple oscillator. The end-user won't see a benefit until the price comes down to where it should be, which is cheaper than current DACs.

You and I seem to have different ideas about what constitutes a problem, which is in its way, fine.

I think that a real world problem in audio is something that affects sound quality. Whether or not some engineer is happy with how something relatively esoteric like clock recovery works does not strike me as being real world when it has no audible consequences.

As far as ragging on SPDIF works goes, this is very old news. The world is full of people who are using SPDIF, and perceive no problems. I have personally done many straight-wire bypass tests of computer systems that were tied together with SPDIF and Toslink, and there is no audible difference between them and ideal data transmission.

I have a number of modestly-priced DACs that do a near-perfect job of turning questionable SPDIF and Toslink bit streams into very low jitter audio signals. This is part of the promise of digital, and IME it works out in the real world.

My challenge remains - I'd like to see someone do a good DBT of a Behringer UCA 202 USB converter, with positive results. It's about as non-Asynch as they come. Until someone shows that there is an audible problem, what have they fixed?
arnyk is offline  
post #48 of 54 Old 06-20-2012, 05:42 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkHotchkiss View Post

The real-world problem is clock-recovery, an engineering issue. Async-USB replaces the complex PLL requirement within the DAC with a simple oscillator. The end-user won't see a benefit until the price comes down to where it should be, which is cheaper than current DACs.

I have become aware that there is a clique of people around here who say that I'm against progress and favor technical mediocrity. Of course those are their self-serving perceptions. I don't have a problem with change as long as the costs and benefits are in line.
Quote:
As I said, the current high prices are simply exploiting the hype. If I had invested in Async this early, I probably would do the same.

One of the goals of product development is to be able to claim that your product is different and better. As long as people base these decisions on sighted evaluations, they are exposed to a very strong possibility that they are hearing what they want to hear, regardless of whether there is any difference that can actually be heard.

I look at the millions of dollars that were wasted, and management careers that were hurt or ended by the rush to so-called high definition audio distribution formats and wonder when people will learn?
arnyk is offline  
post #49 of 54 Old 06-20-2012, 05:08 PM
Senior Member
 
leeperry's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 379
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14

yeah yeah, 0's are 0's and 1's are 1's, we know that song rolleyes.gif

 

you wanna hear jitter induced THD? Listen to CS8416, I posted a PDF earlier about its sluggish performance.

leeperry is offline  
post #50 of 54 Old 06-20-2012, 08:23 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post

yeah yeah, 0's are 0's and 1's are 1's, we know that song rolleyes.gif

Who said that? Oh, you said that!

So that's how it works - you make stuff up and then try to create the impression that other people said it?
Quote:
you wanna hear jitter induced THD? Listen to CS8416, I posted a PDF earlier about its sluggish performance.

Do you really think that the levels of THD shown there are audible? At worst its 80 dB down, which is well below what can be heard under even the most ideal conditions (ca. -60 dB).

Please come back with the results of DBTs showing an audible difference. ;-)

For your review: a paper pointing out the well known problems with the use of THD as a means for characterizing the audibility of nonlinear distortion:

http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/The%20Perception%20of%20Distortion.pdf

Note that it shows real world examples of situations where nonlinear distortion that is far higher than you seem to be crating alram over, even in the -10 to -20 dB range, was not audible.
arnyk is offline  
post #51 of 54 Old 06-20-2012, 08:25 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post

yeah yeah, 0's are 0's and 1's are 1's, we know that song rolleyes.gif

you wanna hear jitter induced THD? Listen to CS8416, I posted a PDF earlier about its sluggish performance.

BTW, if there is an audible problem due to this, where are the positive results from a DBT relating to it?
arnyk is offline  
post #52 of 54 Old 06-20-2012, 08:41 PM
Senior Member
 
leeperry's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 379
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14

hehe, did AVS get hydrogenized overnight or something? I like my forums w/ ppl who try stuff IRL w/ their own ears, the day you'll be able measure SQ won't be anytime soon.

 

Yes, jitter is audible and yes, the XMOS solution sounds better than anything else. Now listen to it if you dare, and stop wasting your time trolling on internet forums for a change cool.gif

leeperry is offline  
post #53 of 54 Old 06-20-2012, 09:23 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,387
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 1178
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post

hehe, did AVS get hydrogenized overnight or something? I like my forums w/ ppl who try stuff IRL w/ their own ears, the day you'll be able measure SQ won't be anytime soon.

Yes, jitter is audible and yes, the XMOS solution sounds better than anything else.

Where is your listening test evidence of this claim?
Quote:
Now listen to it if you dare,

How can something sound better than products that already are indistinguishable from the original signal source?
arnyk is offline  
post #54 of 54 Old 06-20-2012, 09:47 PM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post

hehe, did AVS get hydrogenized overnight or something? I like my forums w/ ppl who try stuff IRL w/ their own ears, the day you'll be able measure SQ won't be anytime soon.

Yes, jitter is audible and yes, the XMOS solution sounds better than anything else. Now listen to it if you dare, and stop wasting your time trolling on internet forums for a change cool.gif
Another troll jumps in. rolleyes.gif
diomania is offline  
Reply 2-Channel Audio



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off