Weakest Link(s) in the Audio Chain?

[Ittaku]

The beauty of discussion like this is you can always do your own tests. I have what I consider a fairly high resolution system and have tried different power cords. I did not do a blind test but I could not hear a difference whatsoever so the choice was clear - why would I bother buying a "better" power cable? Regardless of what the reason is that in someone else's system and someone else's ears they heard a difference, if I can't, then the point is moot; it ain't worth it.

[davewantsmoore]

On 15/11/2017 at 5:22 PM, A9X said:

Simple summary: speakers/room. All else is orders of magnitude less important.

 

THIS.  Unless the source/DAC electronics are particularly poor quality.

[A9X]

1 hour ago, davewantsmoore said:

 

THIS.  Unless the source/DAC electronics are particularly poor quality.

Even a CDP101 DAC measures far better than any speaker.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

4 minutes ago, A9X said:

Even a CDP101 DAC measures far better than any speaker.

Ah, the CDP-101 was an utter joy when compared to the sonic disaster that was the Yamaha CD-X1. I never measured one, but I listened extensively to the damned thing. It was horrible. High frequencies were severely attenuated. I suspect it was done deliberately by Yamaha. That said, the Sony CDP-101 was not a nice sounding player at all. 

[MLXXX]

On 11/15/2017 at 9:04 PM, Tassie Devil said:

And in a headphone system that does eliminate that speaker/room problem, I feel it is much easier to detect that the DAC is the vital "brain" that controls how awful or how good digital sources can sound.

I think it's important to distinguish between red book CD digital which is at a 44.1kHz sample rate and other sources of digital audio. The uncompressed stereo PCM track on a DVD will be at 48kHz [or 96kHz]. Blu-rays will use 48kHz (or higher) for lossless audio [and for lossy audio]. 

 

The 44.1kHz rate is almost becoming a legacy rate but it is the format for CDs so will persist for as long as CDs persist. It was a challenging rate for DAC designers as the Nyquist limit of 22.05kHz is close to the upper nominal limit of human hearing of 20kHz.  Designers of DACs adopted different approaches as to how they would handle the filtering of the highest audio frequencies on a CD.

 

I don't think one should experience too much difficulty with 48kHz and higher sample rate digital sources with today's DACs, as regards filtering.

 

44.1kHz sources will still present the possibility of different choices of filter aggressiveness. Personally I don't find it an issue concern with today's DACs, but then my hearing at 15kHz and above is not what it used to be.

 

 

 

Regarding use of headphones, I will use by Sennheiser HD 800s if I really need to hear detail, or of course if listening late at night, but for general listening I find loudspeakers more satisfying, despite the poorer clarity, the distortion, the colouration, and the confounding effects of room acoustics.  (For general listening I use psb Imagine T speakers as mains, supplemented with a subwoofer.)

 

Particularly with CDs based on recordings of classical music made in the 1970s or early 1980s I find I can hear tape hiss, occasional tape splices, and often a fairly high level of apparent distortion. For my ears, the distortion far outweighs any slight variations I hear between different DACs of today. Even my Galaxy Note mobile phones do a very creditable job. I can plug in my HD800 headphones and get extremely low distortion sound (well no distortion I can hear attributable to the phone). In these circumstances it is the source that can become the weak link.  

[Al.M]

First is the human factors - persons listening skills and experience, audio prejudices, physocology, biase, state of mind alertness varies throughout the day, for some hearing health and loss of high freq

 

Second is the physical environment and equipment in order of - speakers, room, source quality, preamps and amps, all others are much less (CD players, DACs, network players, cables)

[JSmith]

When it all comes down to it...

 

 

... humans are the weakest link, goodbye!

 

JSmith

 

 

[Guest Muon N']

44 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

The 44.1kHz rate is almost becoming a legacy rate

Yet if done well redbook will astound those that think it is inferior.

 

It's just that It's often not done well.

[stevoz]

I'm late to this thread and haven't read all of it but here's my two cents. Any component could be the weakest link, depends on what equipment one has.....there is no definitive general weakest link. Every individual system may have a weakest link including the room it's in. In my system and although I love them, it may be my speakers....or maybe my TT but I have no intention of changing anything soon.....I do not intentionally seek out 'slippery slopes'. I enjoy my sanity too much!

Edited November 19, 2017 by stevoz

[davewantsmoore]

6 hours ago, A9X said:

Even a CDP101 DAC measures far better than any speaker.

Yes, but it can be distortion of a type not seen in a speaker....   a dynamically rising noise-floor (aka jitter)... which can make the music sound flat and harsh.   We've all heard it I suspect, it ain't pretty when it's bad.

 

Otherwise, speakers, and what you do with them  :thumbup:

[A9X]

8 hours ago, davewantsmoore said:

Yes, but it can be distortion of a type not seen in a speaker....   a dynamically rising noise-floor (aka jitter)... which can make the music sound flat and harsh.

Jitter hasn't been an issue for a long time so it's irrelevant. You can thank wifi for that.

 

The only other example I can see of a dynamically rising noise floor is in a SET amp with complex music; all that amusical IMD brought about by a shocking non linear transfer function.

[Satanica]

13 hours ago, davewantsmoore said:

Yes, but it can be distortion of a type not seen in a speaker....   a dynamically rising noise-floor (aka jitter)... which can make the music sound flat and harsh.   We've all heard it I suspect, it ain't pretty when it's bad.

Yes jitter induced distortion can be audible. But if I'm not mistaken, there's not one shred of evidence either measured or demonstrated that consumer grade products create audible levels.

[davewantsmoore]

6 hours ago, A9X said:

Jitter hasn't been an issue for a long time so it's irrelevant.

 

Not so convinced about that .... but for most competent designs, it is certainly buried below all the other issues.

[Ittaku]

A lot of modern DACs implement reclocking so jitter from upstream sources becomes largely irrelevant.

[kukynas]

14 hours ago, Ittaku said:

A lot of modern DACs implement reclocking so jitter from upstream sources becomes largely irrelevant.

really? can you please point out to "A lot" please?

 

I think I will be OT but lets have another shot even if it might be pointless

first read and watch below:

 

Studies by the AES (analysis, not human testing) conclude that these are the thresholds of audibility:

[1] 120psec P-P jitter audibility threshold for 16-bit DAC and 8psec P-P jitter audibility threshold for 20-bit DAC

[2] 20psec P-P of data-correlated jitter audibility threshold at certain frequencies and "A simple model of jitter error audibility has shown that white jitter noise of up to 180psec P-P can be tolerated in a DAC, but that even lower levels of sinusoidal jitter may be audible"

 

Since many measurements (that don't specify any particular frequency content) performed by Stereophile in [3] are above 150psec or close to this, I do not believe that we have reached the limits of jitter audibility yet. I suspect that P-P jitter needs to be almost an order of magnitude smaller, or around 15psec to be inaudible in all systems. My experience with my own products seems to bear this out.

 

taken from below article, you can find another ton of jitter articles via google

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/manufacture/0509/

 

 

 

few additional points

• DAC chipsets: Some DACs, especially delta sigma designs, may be more sensitive to clock jitter.
• Hearing acuity: With a little training, the effects of jitter are easy to spot. Some people will notice them more than others.
• The overall system: Jitter may be masked by the playback gear or by listening room acoustics.
• The recording. Jitter is found everywhere in the digital music production chain.

if you've read first article you have seen it's dated back to 2009, currently (can't find the article) audible threshold of jitter should be <1ps RMS, please show us 1 DAC capable of such jitter with it's internal clocking mechanism, the best I'm aware of is capable of ~2.5 and it's FPGA based, now do you know how many DAC producers will implement FPGA based re-clock solution in their products? not many and the main reason is cost, just to give you some example of what you can find in mainstream DACs/CDs as clocking solution, Tenor, Cmedia, Xmos and couple of others, all of them with Jitter >100ps

 

I got Delta Sigma DAC with 2 re-clocking boards, 1 with Xmos and 1 with FPGA, I can clearly hear what Ted's describing in his above video, screwed up soundstage and harsh trebles and I believe I'm not the only one...

I wish I could provide measurements but digital spectrum analyzer capable of measuring such levels of jitter cost >$20K ...

 

if you still believe jitter is largely irrelevant please let me know why as I would be more than happy to learn new things     

 

[Ittaku]

6 hours ago, kukynas said:

really? can you please point out to "A lot" please?

Okay I stand corrected. A lot of expensive DACs then. My dspeaker dual core does and I wouldn't consider it that expensive but more expensive ones certainly do.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Ittaku

[Satanica]

11 hours ago, kukynas said:

tudies by the AES (analysis, not human testing) conclude that these are the thresholds of audibility:

[1] 120psec P-P jitter audibility threshold for 16-bit DAC and 8psec P-P jitter audibility threshold for 20-bit DAC

[2] 20psec P-P of data-correlated jitter audibility threshold at certain frequencies and "A simple model of jitter error audibility has shown that white jitter noise of up to 180psec P-P can be tolerated in a DAC, but that even lower levels of sinusoidal jitter may be audible"

 

Since many measurements (that don't specify any particular frequency content) performed by Stereophile in [3] are above 150psec or close to this, I do not believe that we have reached the limits of jitter audibility yet. I suspect that P-P jitter needs to be almost an order of magnitude smaller, or around 15psec to be inaudible in all systems. My experience with my own products seems to bear this out.

 

taken from below article, you can find another ton of jitter articles via google

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/manufacture/0509/

This article appears to be an opinion of one person, and an opinion that is not backed up with solid theoretical facts and human testing.

[audio_file]

14 hours ago, kukynas said:

really? can you please point out to "A lot" please?

The Naim ND5 XS, NDX, and DAC all have RAM buffers to attempt to minimize jitter.

 

My Chord 2Qute sounds less distorted than my Naim ND5 XS DAC, but can't say whether that is because of jitter or something else.

 

The ND5 has a good power supply and filters but uses third party DAC chips, whereas the 2Qute uses their own software on a FPGA chip instead.

[kukynas]

6 hours ago, Satanica said:

This article appears to be an opinion of one person, and an opinion that is not backed up with solid theoretical facts and human testing.

 

read again

 

18 hours ago, kukynas said:

I think I will be OT but lets have another shot even if it might be pointless

 

 

taken from below article, you can find another ton of jitter articles via google

are you just lazy to use search button via google or what?

 

I will continue in another thread because we are again OT here...

[Guest Eggcup The Daft]

7 hours ago, Satanica said:

This article appears to be an opinion of one person, and an opinion that is not backed up with solid theoretical facts and human testing.

There are three references and right now I can only follow up the first - it's a paper presented to the AES about an what appears to be an upcoming product from the late 1980s, which conveniently puts audible jitter just above the levels expected for the product. Not "studies by the AES" at all.

 

Lax.

[Satanica]

1 hour ago, kukynas said:

 

read again

 

are you just lazy to use search button via google or what?

 

I will continue in another thread because we are again OT here...

I have the AES paper by Dolby Laboratories regarding jitter. Although I have not read it for a while, my memory of the conclusion is you need jitter in the order of Nanoseconds not Picseconds to be audible.

[Guest Eggcup The Daft]

12 minutes ago, Satanica said:

I have the AES paper by Dolby Laboratories regarding jitter. Although I have not read it for a while, my memory of the conclusion is you need jitter in the order of Nanoseconds not Picseconds to be audible.

Well, the stuff I've been reading on the subject suggests that the effect of jitter equates to artifacts below the signal. By the time you get to 2ns jitter those artefacts are 100db below a 0dB signal, which would agree with that conclusion. I'm not sure that the stuff I'm reading is the whole story, but surely one of the proponents of low picosecond jitter being audible has actually tested it? Surely? SURELY?

 

[kukynas]

following here...