Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message

...
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

wrote in message
...
Mike Prager wrote:
Perhaps it's time for the group to split into two:
rec.audio.high-end and rec.audio.high-end.haters.

Why? Because the guy asked how much jitter it takes to be
audible, that
makes him a hater of high-end audio? Do "high-end lovers" think
that
question is unimportant or irrelevant? Do you?

It's going to take a lot (whatever the electro-physico
explanations). In
the
early days of CD, when there were only 1 box units available to
play
discs,
golden eared high enders were endorsing 2 boxes; drives and D/A
converters
to get superior sound. Isn't that where jitter entered the
picture? One
box
delivered better (jitter free) sound.

By basic principles ( lack of need for a clock recovery circuit )
the
potential
for a 1 box solution to be superior in respect of jitter is indeed
true.

Just depends how clean your system clock is.

OK, and my point was/is that the listener who wanted the best and
latest
equipment for listening to CD was told (by insiders having good and
trained
ears) to go out and replace their adequate single boxes with two
boxes with
added jitter. So therefore "jitter" in *practicality* was/is a red
herring,

But the jitter that resulted from going from one to two boxes then
necessitated a third box, plus very careful auditioning of the digital
cables (two, now!) connecting these all up. Instead of simply accepting
the low jitter inherent in decent one-box designs, this approach puts
greater control over the final product in the hands of the end user,
thus restoring to digital some of the appeal of analogue.

Thus does the high end progress.

bob