Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
CD RW for audio
I am wanting to obtain the best possible quality when burning audio CD's.
I have been advised to burn at the slowest speed possible but under XP, I cannot get Roxio or Nero to go lower than 16x on either of my burners. Is this the software? if so is there an ideal burning software suite? Many thanks AlunP |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Alun P" alun.priddle@NOSPAMblueyonderDOTcoDOTuk wrote in
. uk: I have been advised to burn at the slowest speed possible but under XP, I cannot get Roxio or Nero to go lower than 16x on either of my burners. New burners can burn at full speed with no problem. -- Lucas Tam ) Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying. http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Alun P alun.priddle@nospamblueyonderdotcodotuk wrote:
I am wanting to obtain the best possible quality when burning audio CD's. I have been advised to burn at the slowest speed possible but under XP, I cannot get Roxio or Nero to go lower than 16x on either of my burners. That advice is esssentially superstition, unless you have objective evidence to show that the slowest burning speed on your setup yields better performance than other speeds. consider this: http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq03.html#S3-31 -- -S Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sullivan wrote in
: I am wanting to obtain the best possible quality when burning audio CD's. I have been advised to burn at the slowest speed possible but under XP, I cannot get Roxio or Nero to go lower than 16x on either of my burners. That advice is esssentially superstition, unless you have objective evidence to show that the slowest burning speed on your setup yields better performance than other speeds. I believe this "supertition" stemmed from the days when highspeed media was not available. When 4x drives came out on the market, the vast majority of CDRs were only 2X. Whenever you tried to burn a 2X rated CDR at 4X speeds, it would yield unreliable discs. Anyhow, it got stuck in people's mind that you need to burn at a lower speed for reliable burns... but it's not true anymore. As long as you don't burn faster than the media's rated speed (the speed of the media is listed on the disc or Nero can detect the maximum speed for you), you'll be fine. -- Lucas Tam ) Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying. http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Bits are bits. If your burner reliably burns 1s and 0s at it's highest
speed (and it damn well should!) then burn away. I defy _anyone_ who thinks they can hear the difference between a disc burned at 1x and 50x to prove in a double-blind ABX text. It can't be done. This is the beauty of digital. On 2004-10-28 01:36:20 +1000, "Alun P" alun.priddle@NOSPAMblueyonderDOTcoDOTuk said: I am wanting to obtain the best possible quality when burning audio CD's. I have been advised to burn at the slowest speed possible but under XP, I cannot get Roxio or Nero to go lower than 16x on either of my burners. Is this the software? if so is there an ideal burning software suite? Many thanks AlunP |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Bits are bits. If your burner reliably burns 1s and 0s at it's highest
speed (and it damn well should!) then burn away. I defy _anyone_ who thinks they can hear the difference between a disc burned at 1x and 50x to prove in a double-blind ABX text. It can't be done. This is the beauty of digital. Largely true, but there are some interesting boundary situations: - If a disc burned at 50x has a higher low-level-media bit-error rate than one burned at a lower speed, then it may be more prone to exhibit the symptoms of error-correction-algorithm failure (brief muting, pops and ticks) during playback. This might be a significant problem in some cases, especially as discs intended for high-speed burning seem to tend to have thinner, somewhat-less- reflective dye layers, and it may be harder for some older CD players to get a strong-enough RF signal off of the disc to decode properly. - Similarly, a disc burned with a low level of contrast between pits and lands may be harder for the CD player's focusing and tracking servos to read accurately, leading to mistracking, a reluctance to play, increased vulnerability to shock and vibration during playback, and so forth. - Burning at 50x results in a *fast* rotation of the disc... I've heard burners which sounded a lot like small vacuum cleaners at these speeds. If the disc's physical balance is off, or if the spindle hole isn't properly centered or has some plastic residue on its edge, the disc can wobble while being burned, and the writer may not be able to track the pregroove accurately enough to give a good burn. - There have been some reports (largely anecdodal) which suggest that there are some (poorly-designed) CD players which can allow digital circuitry noise, and motor (tracking-servo) noise to feed back through the power supply rails into the analog electronics. Discs which are harder to track may result in different amounts of this digital-and-motor noise ending up contaminating the analog audio signal. Digital's a neat thing, and the use of sophisticated error-correction codes on CD give it a lot of resistance to reasonable numbers of bit errors, RF signal dropouts, etc. due to burning problems. However, one cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear... if the physical quality of the burn is bad enough, either the tracking system or the Reed-Solomon error correction coding system will eventually be overwhelmed, and the CD will tend to mistrack or will suffer from audible noise. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Platt" wrote in message ... Bits are bits. If your burner reliably burns 1s and 0s at it's highest speed (and it damn well should!) then burn away. I defy _anyone_ who thinks they can hear the difference between a disc burned at 1x and 50x to prove in a double-blind ABX text. It can't be done. This is the beauty of digital. Largely true, but there are some interesting boundary situations: - If a disc burned at 50x has a higher low-level-media bit-error rate than one burned at a lower speed, then it may be more prone to exhibit the symptoms of error-correction-algorithm failure (brief muting, pops and ticks) during playback. This might be a significant problem in some cases, especially as discs intended for high-speed burning seem to tend to have thinner, somewhat-less- reflective dye layers, and it may be harder for some older CD players to get a strong-enough RF signal off of the disc to decode properly. - Similarly, a disc burned with a low level of contrast between pits and lands may be harder for the CD player's focusing and tracking servos to read accurately, leading to mistracking, a reluctance to play, increased vulnerability to shock and vibration during playback, and so forth. - Burning at 50x results in a *fast* rotation of the disc... I've heard burners which sounded a lot like small vacuum cleaners at these speeds. If the disc's physical balance is off, or if the spindle hole isn't properly centered or has some plastic residue on its edge, the disc can wobble while being burned, and the writer may not be able to track the pregroove accurately enough to give a good burn. - There have been some reports (largely anecdodal) which suggest that there are some (poorly-designed) CD players which can allow digital circuitry noise, and motor (tracking-servo) noise to feed back through the power supply rails into the analog electronics. Discs which are harder to track may result in different amounts of this digital-and-motor noise ending up contaminating the analog audio signal. Digital's a neat thing, and the use of sophisticated error-correction codes on CD give it a lot of resistance to reasonable numbers of bit errors, RF signal dropouts, etc. due to burning problems. However, one cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear... if the physical quality of the burn is bad enough, either the tracking system or the Reed-Solomon error correction coding system will eventually be overwhelmed, and the CD will tend to mistrack or will suffer from audible noise. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! There are borderline issues which can cause varying results. I use a Yamaha 16X burner. It produces oustanding discs - I have examined the HF patterns produced on a variety of consumer decks using an oscilloscope. The quality of the HF pattern is excellent for a burned disc. Nevertheless, I have seen the occasional player (usually Philips based) which has problems playing a 16X burned disc, but re-burning another at 12X fixed the problem. Acts like a grating issue. YMMV. Mark Z. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Lucas Tam wrote in message ...
Steven Sullivan wrote in : I am wanting to obtain the best possible quality when burning audio CD's. I have been advised to burn at the slowest speed possible but under XP, I cannot get Roxio or Nero to go lower than 16x on either of my burners. That advice is esssentially superstition, unless you have objective evidence to show that the slowest burning speed on your setup yields better performance than other speeds. I believe this "supertition" stemmed from the days when highspeed media was not available. When 4x drives came out on the market, the vast majority of CDRs were only 2X. Whenever you tried to burn a 2X rated CDR at 4X speeds, it would yield unreliable discs. Anyhow, it got stuck in people's mind that you need to burn at a lower speed for reliable burns... but it's not true anymore. As long as you don't burn faster than the media's rated speed (the speed of the media is listed on the disc or Nero can detect the maximum speed for you), you'll be fine. For that matter, there was a time when a computer couldn't handle the data fast enough, and so for the faster drive speeds the data wasn't getting to it fast enough to keep the buffer full. You needed to keep the record speed down in order to burn the CD properly, otherwise it would be unreadable. I just got my first CDRW drive back in December, in this 1GHz hand me down. The books I had around were old enough where this was an issue, and it made it sound like there could be serious problems if one wasn't careful. But none of it was relevant once computers got to a certain point. Michael |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Many thanks for the overwhelming information, The reason for the post,
initially, was that my car cd player, an Alpine, does not like a lot of CD-R discs (yes it is compatible!!) however, branded cd-r audio media burned at slow speeds play perfectly. The people at Alpine suggested birning at 1x or 2 x to overcome the problem, as I said, neither of the two burning suites I have will go that low, maybe its windows XP, I dont know? AlunP |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Lucas Tam" wrote in message Anyhow, it got stuck in people's mind that you need to burn at a lower speed for reliable burns... but it's not true anymore. As long as you don't burn faster than the media's rated speed (the speed of the media is listed on the disc or Nero can detect the maximum speed for you), you'll be fine. I do CD duplication for a business , and I find the highest speeds may WRITE OK, but are less likely to READ OK on a range of players. Yes, using the appropriate high speed media. I find 8x best on my bank of 14 12x Plexwriters, and 16x on Plextor Premium (which can successfully write up to 52x) , over a variety of media brands. With the Plextor Premium PlexTools software you can do BLER tests on the resultant discs, but you can't do a BLER test that necessarily reflects *exactly* what will happen with that media in an audio CD player. geoff |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Lucas Tam" wrote in message ... (Michael Black) wrote in news:6447bcd3.0410271915.30d91cc8 @posting.google.com: I just got my first CDRW drive back in December, in this 1GHz hand me down. The books I had around were old enough where this was an issue, and it made it sound like there could be serious problems if one wasn't careful. But none of it was relevant once computers got to a certain point. These days almost all CDRW and DVDRW drives incorporate "burn proof" technology. It basically stops the burning processes if the buffer drops below an acceptable level. ..... and does not restart 'perfectly', but well enough. When burn-proof came out... I thought it was a wonderfu invention. It sure saved me a whole bunch of bad discs! If you were/are having constant buffer under-runs, then you have a problem that should or could be addressed specifically. Treat the cause and not the symptom... geoff |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Kai Howells" wrote in message u... Bits are bits. If your burner reliably burns 1s and 0s at it's highest speed (and it damn well should!) then burn away. I defy _anyone_ who thinks they can hear the difference between a disc burned at 1x and 50x to prove in a double-blind ABX text. It can't be done. This is the beauty of digital. Try taking a digital photo while a-creeping , and b- sprinting. See which comes out sharper. geoff |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Alun P" alun.priddle@NOSPAMblueyonderDOTcoDOTuk wrote in message o.uk... Many thanks for the overwhelming information, The reason for the post, initially, was that my car cd player, an Alpine, does not like a lot of CD-R discs (yes it is compatible!!) however, branded cd-r audio media burned at slow speeds play perfectly. many car players (and ghetto-blasters, and carousels) do not like CD-Rs. The people at Alpine suggested birning at 1x or 2 x to overcome the problem, Their best possible advice in the circumstances, other than getting a new-generation player than doesn't have problems with CD-Rs. geoff |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in
: These days almost all CDRW and DVDRW drives incorporate "burn proof" technology. It basically stops the burning processes if the buffer drops below an acceptable level. .... and does not restart 'perfectly', but well enough. My drives always restarted perfectly. When burn-proof came out... I thought it was a wonderfu invention. It sure saved me a whole bunch of bad discs! If you were/are having constant buffer under-runs, then you have a problem that should or could be addressed specifically. Treat the cause and not the symptom... This was back when I had a Pentium III 450 - I was running other applications while burning, so the buffer would drop due to disk activity. Not much I could have done but maybe purchase a new hard drive. -- Lucas Tam ) Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying. http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/ |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Alun P alun.priddle@nospamblueyonderdotcodotuk wrote:
Many thanks for the overwhelming information, The reason for the post, initially, was that my car cd player, an Alpine, does not like a lot of CD-R discs (yes it is compatible!!) however, branded cd-r audio media burned at slow speeds play perfectly. Well, what you wrote was that you wanted the 'best possible quality' CDRs. I'd say your problem has to do with the quality of the *player*, not the CDRs. -- -S Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Lucas Tam" wrote in message .. . "Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in : These days almost all CDRW and DVDRW drives incorporate "burn proof" technology. It basically stops the burning processes if the buffer drops below an acceptable level. .... and does not restart 'perfectly', but well enough. My drives always restarted perfectly. So you have an electron microscope. OK. When burn-proof came out... I thought it was a wonderfu invention. It sure saved me a whole bunch of bad discs! If you were/are having constant buffer under-runs, then you have a problem that should or could be addressed specifically. Treat the cause and not the symptom... This was back when I had a Pentium III 450 - I was running other applications while burning, so the buffer would drop due to disk activity. Not much I could have done but maybe purchase a new hard drive. .... or not write while running other applications like I'm sure 90% of us don't. geoff. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Kai Howells" wrote in message u... Bits are bits. If your burner reliably burns 1s and 0s at it's highest speed (and it damn well should!) then burn away. I defy _anyone_ who thinks they can hear the difference between a disc burned at 1x and 50x to prove in a double-blind ABX text. It can't be done. This is the beauty of digital. What a load of crap. You don't need double blind tests with bits, just use the appropriate measurement tools and see how many C1 errors there are. You will find lots! Now of course you will say, who cares, the error correction fixes that. But errors usually increase rather than decrease over time, so having lower errors to start with is always a good thing IMO. And caters better for marginal players. Those of us who have actually looked at these things have found a quality difference at varying speeds even with the same disk and drive. Of course it is not necessary for you to care, some people do though TonyP. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
What I should have clarified was that as long as the bit-level error
rate is below the threshold that the Reed-Solomon codes can deal with, then you will not hear any difference... Errors may increase over time, although newer equipment may read it better, so errors may decrease, but that is beside the point... As long as the errors are corrected by the ECC coding, then you will not hear anything different. There are those that will claim they can hear the difference between different media, some brands are better than others because they sound clearer or warmer - digital is just not like that, either it is OK or it's not, a single-bit error in the audio bitstream in the least-significant bit will probably not be audible, but it's just as likely to be there as it is in the MSB, and you sure as hell will hear that - it's not subtle =) As I said, I defy _anyone_ who thinks they can hear the difference between a disc burned at 1x and 50x to prove in a double-blind ABX text. It can't be done. (provided that the disc is actually playable) =) Cheers, Kai On 2004-10-29 19:51:54 +1000, "TonyP" said: "Kai Howells" wrote in message u... Bits are bits. If your burner reliably burns 1s and 0s at it's highest speed (and it damn well should!) then burn away. I defy _anyone_ who thinks they can hear the difference between a disc burned at 1x and 50x to prove in a double-blind ABX text. It can't be done. This is the beauty of digital. What a load of crap. You don't need double blind tests with bits, just use the appropriate measurement tools and see how many C1 errors there are. You will find lots! Now of course you will say, who cares, the error correction fixes that. But errors usually increase rather than decrease over time, so having lower errors to start with is always a good thing IMO. And caters better for marginal players. Those of us who have actually looked at these things have found a quality difference at varying speeds even with the same disk and drive. Of course it is not necessary for you to care, some people do though TonyP. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 06:02:56 GMT, "Alun P"
alun.priddle@NOSPAMblueyonderDOTcoDOTuk wrote: Many thanks for the overwhelming information, The reason for the post, initially, was that my car cd player, an Alpine, does not like a lot of CD-R discs (yes it is compatible!!) however, branded cd-r audio media burned at slow speeds play perfectly. The people at Alpine suggested birning at 1x or 2 x to overcome the problem, as I said, neither of the two burning suites I have will go that low, maybe its windows XP, I dont know? The old advice (backed up with experimental data) was that 2X was the optimal burn speed. (Better than 1X, strangely). You can't blame Windows XP. Today's media is optimised for faster speeds. A good burner/software will test a disk when inserted and only offer appropriate burn speeds. Too SLOW a speed can be bad. Somehow, you're never told the very highest speeds are risky - I guess the Marketing department would object :-) Some musicians jealously hoard remaining stocks of "slow" media. I find speeds between 10X and 20X reliable. Some players are fussy. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:55:25 +1300, "Geoff Wood"
-nospam wrote: These days almost all CDRW and DVDRW drives incorporate "burn proof" technology. It basically stops the burning processes if the buffer drops below an acceptable level. .... and does not restart 'perfectly', but well enough. I've turned burnproof off for audio disks. I suspect that, on the rare occasions that it's required, the burn continues but you get an audio glitch. I'd rather the burn failed. I haven't got time to listen right through checking every audio CD I send out :-) |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:59:02 +1300, "Geoff Wood"
-nospam wrote: The people at Alpine suggested birning at 1x or 2 x to overcome the problem, Their best possible advice in the circumstances, other than getting a new-generation player than doesn't have problems with CD-Rs. But, with modern media, advice impossible to follow, even if it would help. Which it wouldn't, WITH MODERN MEDIA. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 16:15:44 GMT, Lucas Tam
wrote: If you were/are having constant buffer under-runs, then you have a problem that should or could be addressed specifically. Treat the cause and not the symptom... This was back when I had a Pentium III 450 - I was running other applications while burning, so the buffer would drop due to disk activity. Not much I could have done but maybe purchase a new hard drive. You could have not run other applications while burning. Still good advice, unless you're quite confident your computer is well over-powered. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:43:08 +1000, Kai Howells
wrote: As I said, I defy _anyone_ who thinks they can hear the difference between a disc burned at 1x and 50x to prove in a double-blind ABX text. It can't be done. (provided that the disc is actually playable) Jitter? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Jitter *should* not be a problem in any well-designed digital circuit.
Most DACs (SACD aside, as that's a raw, 1-bit bitstream) process data in words - which is a group of (usually) 16 bits. The DAC will need to have a buffer on it, to hold the incoming bits until it's been handed 16 of them, and then it should look at the value it holds and output the appropriate analogue voltage. The DAC should run off it's own clock, or have it's clock synchronised with the rest of the system, so it should be reading entire words on a regular basis. Now, all these assumptions I've been making may not be valid with SACD, as that's a whole different kettle of fish, but then you can't (yet) burn SACD discs so the point it moot =) For this same reason, I can't see how different optical cables can sound different - there are many who will swear black & blue that co-ax is the supreme digital interconnect, whereas glass optical cables sound too bright and plastic sounds too dull. Effects, such as jitter, and single-bit errors *CAN'T* have this kind of effect on the sound - it is digital, you need all kinds of DSP equipment to change the tone of a digital signal, and this equipment has to inherently understand the meaning of the bits that it's processing. a "dumb" wire just can't do this. If anyone can explain how different digital cables can make different sounds, then I'd love to hear it =) Cheers, Kai On 2004-10-30 06:53:42 +1000, Laurence Payne said: On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:43:08 +1000, Kai Howells wrote: As I said, I defy _anyone_ who thinks they can hear the difference between a disc burned at 1x and 50x to prove in a double-blind ABX text. It can't be done. (provided that the disc is actually playable) Jitter? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Kai Howells wrote: Jitter *should* not be a problem in any well-designed digital circuit. Agreed. Most DACs (SACD aside, as that's a raw, 1-bit bitstream) process data in words - which is a group of (usually) 16 bits. The DAC will need to have a buffer on it, to hold the incoming bits until it's been handed 16 of them, and then it should look at the value it holds and output the appropriate analogue voltage. The DAC should run off it's own clock, or have it's clock synchronised with the rest of the system, so it should be reading entire words on a regular basis. Well, it's the clock synchronization which can be the tricky part, and from what I've heard there are a fair number of DACs which get it wrong. It's usually not a problem for single-box CD players, since in these players the DAC-chip is being clocked by the player's rather stable, low-jitter quartz crystal oscillator, and the timing of the conversions from analog to digital don't have significant timing jitter. The task is harder for two-box transport/DAC systems. The data read by the transport is being clocked out of the transport box (onto the optical or coax cable) with stable, quartz-driving timing in most cases. However, the DAC-box doesn't have direct access to this clock signal. The DAC-box must "recover" (reconstruct) the clock signal from the edge transitions embedded in the S/PDIF or other digital-audio data stream. This is usually done via a voltage- controlled-oscillator / phase-locked-loop arrangement. Unfortunately, the VCO/PLL arrangement is vulnerable to some amount of wandering... the clock signal it outputs contains significantly more timing jitter than the original quartz-oscillator clock in the DAC. This jitter can be made worse if the digital-audio signal is "contaminated" by the effects of signal reflections (due e.g. to improper termination of the 75-ohm line), or if there's electrical noise inside the DAC-box due to poor power supply bypassing or PC-board layout, or etc. A poor DAC-box (and there have apparently been quite a few) may take the reconstructed signal right out of the S/PDIF receiver chip's VCO/PLL, and feed it right into the DAC chip. This can result in significant jitter in the timing conversions. Jitter in time has results similar to error in amplitude, and it's been shown that it _can_ be audible if the jitter is severe enough (audibility seems to depend both on jitter amplitude, and on the frequency spectrum of the jitter itself). A really good DAC-box will run the reconstructed clock signal through several levels of cleanup and stabilization logic (filtering), and will often buffer multiple audio samples through a RAM FIFO of some sort. Whether the jitter in consumer-grade DAC-boxes (or A/V receivers) is severe enough to be audible under typical listening conditions is another matter. I've heard plenty of anecdotal reports that certain DAC-boxes are widely believed to "reveal" differences between different CD transports, and they're often lauded for this. In my opinion, DAC-boxes should be *criticized* for making transport differences audible, for just the reasons you allude to... a properly designed DAC-box should simply not *care* about small timing variations in the incoming signal, as these differences are irrelevant to proper conversion of the digital signal to analog. For this same reason, I can't see how different optical cables can sound different - there are many who will swear black & blue that co-ax is the supreme digital interconnect, whereas glass optical cables sound too bright and plastic sounds too dull. Yeah, I agree, that's excessive. In most cases I view this as being due to human suggestibility. Effects, such as jitter, and single-bit errors *CAN'T* have this kind of effect on the sound - it is digital, you need all kinds of DSP equipment to change the tone of a digital signal, and this equipment has to inherently understand the meaning of the bits that it's processing. a "dumb" wire just can't do this. Not strictly true, I think. Any problems in the conversion equipment which alter the _timing_ of the sample conversions can have an effect on the reconstructed waveform which is essentially equivalent to an error in the _amplitude_ of the sample conversions. It's distortion, and (if severe enough) it can be audible. If anyone can explain how different digital cables can make different sounds, then I'd love to hear it =) Use a DAC-box which has poor clock-reconstruction circuitry. Compare a high-quality 75-ohm digital-audio interconnect, with another cable whose impedance is poorly controlled and is significantly different than 75 ohms. You may find that you can hear a difference (even if the DAC-box is not reporting gross errors with the bitstream), and if you put an RF spectrum analyzer or jitter-analyzer on the clock signal being fed to the DAC-chip you may be able to measure the effects of jitter caused by signal reflections on the digital interconnect cable. Remember, only the data's digital. The signal flowing over the S/PDIF cable isn't digital - it's bandlimited RF, which just plays digital on television (i.e. its edge transitions are far from instantaneous, and it may have detectable signal reflections due to impedance variations and mistermination). -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 08:30:34 +1000, Kai Howells
wrote: Jitter *should* not be a problem in any well-designed digital circuit. Most DACs (SACD aside, as that's a raw, 1-bit bitstream) process data in words - which is a group of (usually) 16 bits. Unfortunately, some "audiophiles" think it's clever to separate CD player and DAC. An integrated system, I believe, has fewer problems. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:22:12 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote: Thankyou David, that's a fantastic writeup. I've saved it for re-reading - there's a lot of information there. Indeed there is - all of which can be negated by using an asynchronous re-sampling DAC such as the 'gold standard' Benchmark DAC-1. This device totally reclocks the incoming data, thereby *removing* (not attenuating) any incoming datastream jitter. So it creates a problem by not being fully integrated, then cleverly solves it? :-) |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message ... On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:22:12 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Thankyou David, that's a fantastic writeup. I've saved it for re-reading - there's a lot of information there. Indeed there is - all of which can be negated by using an asynchronous re-sampling DAC such as the 'gold standard' Benchmark DAC-1. This device totally reclocks the incoming data, thereby *removing* (not attenuating) any incoming datastream jitter. So it creates a problem by not being fully integrated, then cleverly solves it? :-) Nothing like "golden ears" audio types who don't understand the fundamentals of how digital logic works (whether digital audio or just plain binary gates, latches, etc.) |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:21:11 +0100, Laurence Payne
wrote: On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:22:12 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Thankyou David, that's a fantastic writeup. I've saved it for re-reading - there's a lot of information there. Indeed there is - all of which can be negated by using an asynchronous re-sampling DAC such as the 'gold standard' Benchmark DAC-1. This device totally reclocks the incoming data, thereby *removing* (not attenuating) any incoming datastream jitter. So it creates a problem by not being fully integrated, then cleverly solves it? :-) It creates no problem in and of itself, it simply offers a solution to a problem created by others, viz the existence of multiple digital signal sources, all of which may be fed through this DAC. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Kai Howells" wrote in message u... As I said, I defy _anyone_ who thinks they can hear the difference between a disc burned at 1x and 50x to prove in a double-blind ABX text. It can't be done. (provided that the disc is actually playable) Which is kind of the point in keeping errors as low as possible. However I do have disks that are "playable", and the errors are quite audible in many CD players. TonyP. |