In reply to:
Now, the preamp sucks up the bits (which cannot have bit-skipping like you said) and puts them into its
DSPs and then on the DAC which all run of its internal clock which is very high quality (maybe your companies ;-).
Not likely. When I say the best, I'm talking about 12GHz clock distribution chips with jitter below 200 femto-seconds... I doubt they have a need for anything remotely that precise.
In reply to:
Now, if the DAC has jitter, I see clearly how that can screw up the resulting wave.
The clock merely tells the DAC at what pace to perform its activity. The DAC is not operating very fast so you'd have to have jitter at such a proportion to matter to that device as to make the chip misstep. A high bit rate 24bit 96kHz DAC is representing a piece of data in steps of 1 point per 10 micro seconds. Your everyday standard, and very cheap Silicon based clock generator has jitter in the nano-second scale.
You're at least 1000 significant figures away from a timing problem...
Incidentally, this is also why jitter isn't much of a concern to digitial designers until they get into the >500MHz range at the very least and really not more than 1GHz.
In reply to:
But lots
of people with a sound clue say that clock-syncing the TacT
and the CD transport improves the sound significantly (including the guys that developed tact ;-). And funny enough, I _believe_ to hear the effect they describe as digital jitter effect. So why should that be if not digital clock jitter from the CD transport somehow affecting the DAC or DSPs in the preamp ?
Lots of people who are considered experts claim you can improve your sound with $2000 digital interconnects. That doesn't mean its true. Our brain is FAR more complicated than we give it credit for. It's ability to affect our perception of the world is phenomenal and shoudl always be taken into consideration when discussing such things.
That said, if you're happy with the results and are perceiving an improvement, that sounds good to me. All that really matters in the end is whether you enjoy the results. It seems clear to me that you do.
In reply to:
And last, in all respect, It would hurt my ears tad less if you didn't try to go into offensive that quickly on your posts.
I'm sure I know much stuff you don't know and vice versa. This forum is to have some fun, learn and discuss, not to prove who's bigger ?
This is brought to my attention fairly often on this site. I really don't understand the nature of it. I'm not intending to be abrasive and I've actually been trying to pad my posts with hugs and kisses in order to temper the problem some here have with them. I certainly don't mean for you to interpret what I say as offensive or hurtful. Can you point out specifically what gave you this impression? By my eye, I'm just direct and perhaps lack a little warmth in computer correspondence due largely to the fact that I'm staring at a cold piece of machinery.
Regards,
Semi
