-=> Quoting Bonnie Goodwin to John Allen <=-
 BG>  Hardly nothing is mastered to analog any longer, and it's
        Hardly /nothing?/  Egad!  My old english professor would be
having a cow! 8^)
 BG> saturation compression effects, etc. What can be a problem is
 BG> needless conversions to and from digital to analog. Ideally, once
        Yes!  It's *awful* when that's done.  The worst is when you
*know* it's been done ("DAD" discs come to mind....)
 BG> transfered from analog to digital, it will remain that way until
 BG> getting to your DAC on your stereo. 
        Yes, that's the way it should be.  Record in analog, if you
want to, but once it's digital, any further processing should be done
*digitally*.  And the less processing the better.  I'd much rather
see physical solutions than processing, though.  (e.g. if the response
isn't right, instead of EQ'ing it, move the microphones, switch the
microphones, move the band even...whatever, but make EQ a last
resort.)
 
 BG>  Assuming that the ADC was done cleanly without digital clipping
 BG> and that your equipment is clean then all should be well. I'm
 BG> still trying to figure out though what an Ant-jitter unit is
 BG> going to be able to accomplish!! Tell you that it is happening?
        Ah, jitter.  The debate rages on on rec.audio.high.end.
Fortunately, there are some really knowledgable guys on there.  I'll
try to relate what I've learned.  So what good is a jitter buster?
None, unless you bought a piece of garbage.  No, really!  Your
instincts are correct!  Jitter, or timing errors in the bitstream, are
irrelevant in the incoming bitstream from the cd transport (the place
where you'd put a jitter buster) because the timing of the bitstream
beyond gross errors is not important.  The clock signal should not be
derived from the bitstream, although many incompetant designers do
just that.  As one guy put it, some of them are just plain stupid.
        Incoming data should be clocked out by a master clock.  The
proper rate is stored on the disc.  Therefore timing errors are
irrelevant at that stage since they're reclocked by the master clock.
A simple and cheap ram buffer is all that's needed to make sure the
data rate doesn't fall behind.  Likewise, it's been proven that green
pens do not change the data on a CD (direct comparisons have been done
before and after application by storing the digital data on a
computer).  If the data is not changed, then the sound is not changed
in a proper player.  There are no other elements to deal with in the
transport with a normal disc.  This *is* digital we're talking about,
after all.  There's one guy on there who teaches philosophy and he
wants to argue about "infinite" characteristics that do not apply.
It's pretty funny, really.  I've taken my share of philosophy courses
and I know how these guys think....UGH.
        
        This does not mean that jitter is not important.  It *is*
important at the clock and DAC, but no jitter buster is going to
affect that since those are after the point where a jitter buster is
located.  The key is to find a well designed cd player or
transport/DAC that has low jitter circuits.  According to what I've
read, this method is not expensive or hard to implement.  It is the
proper way of doing things, yet crappy designs exist at all price
ranges.  Buyer beware.  I've got a list of the "best" players to buy
at the current time from one of the guys on there that I trust.  The
most expensive one is from Sony at $2400.  (forget those $20,000 Mark
Levenisons, they're not worth it)  Even so, I was assured it would
take one 'ell of a system and very demanding ears to really tell even
a slight difference between that model and a couple that are under
$1000.  (don't have exact prices, sorry).  I'm sure I could pass the
list on if anyone's interested.
      
-> not my life). Although I have read several reviews of all in one CD
-> units under $400 that were given equal status with Mondo-multi-piece
-> CD units running many times their price. Nothing would make me
-> happier as I price the different units!
        Believe it!  There are mondo expensive models that are poorly
designed and there are some that are very well designed but have a lot
of needlessly expensive parts in areas that aren't really important to
digital sound.  Price points don't make life idiot proof.
        What of those "golden ears" that claim to hear so-called
"huge" differences?  Well, properly performed double blind tests
always do a lot to sway my ear, but there are two other possibilities.
One, they're comparing a lot of poorly designed players that don't
follow the rules (I've been assured there are many out there like this
that do try to get a clock from the bitstream and all sorts of goofy
things I can't remember offhand).  
        Two, the *Placebo* effect.  No one should discount how
powerful this effect is.  Even the "best" listeners can be duped.  One
example I read about is how two guys were given a  blind listening
test where they were supposed to tell which amplifier was solid state
and which one was a tube amp.  After many hours of debate, the two
guys proudly announced their conclusion.  They were then led behind
the curtain and shown that the A/B switch wasn't even connected and
that one solid state amp had been connected the entire time.... 8^)
        But like I said, real blind listening tests are very
persuasive to me.  Needless to say, I don't see anyone claiming to
have scientifically proven with a blind test that green pens work
among other things.  There are plenty of "believers," however.  It's
sorta like how many people believe in "Grey" aliens and all sorts of
conspiracies, but have never seen one, have never seen real proof of
any, but base their belief on others' comments and any unexplained
light they might see.
 BG>  I use both independent seperate units and integrated converters
 BG> within a piece of equipment, so far the only results that have
 BG> been shaky have been out of a cheap portable CD player. The ones
 BG> in my TEAC portable DAT machine seem to be clean, transparent,
 BG> fairly flat in response. Difficult to tell any difference between
 BG> that and the converter on my Spectral DAW which is far more
 BG> expensive than the entire DAT deck (18bit, 64X oversampling).
 BG> This not to say that a DAC is a DAC, but perhaps that the
 BG> differences may be much less noticable per dollar spent than
 BG> somewhere else in the audio chain (speaker quality is usually a
 BG> good one to focus on, whereas an amp is more or less JUST an amp,
 BG> if you follow what I mean here).
        I agree completely.  I hear 1000x more difference between
individual CDs than I do the average player.
 * AmyBW v2.14 *
... "Please do not read this tagline again."
--- FLAME v1.1
---------------