R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Down

Author Topic: An impossible request??? Jitter removal.  (Read 4700 times)

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: An impossible request??? Jitter removal.
« Reply #15 on: September 10, 2010, 09:06:58 pm »

Oh, maybe I wasn't clear...

I wasn't suggesting that you were presenting it as your view, or that you were claiming to have heard it doing so; I hope you didn't take that impression!

I heeded the "[at least advertise]", which I took to mean that you were relaying the claims of others, not making the claim yourself.

But certainly; as has been agreed by others, once the damage at A/D is done, it's done for good. You can't un-bake that cookie.

Not to say that playback jitter can't compound the problem yet further, so a stable sample timing interval at D/A is also equally important, but that's to prevent fathering a SECOND bastard... it doesn't remove the first.

Keith
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

tom eaton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3640
Re: An impossible request??? Jitter removal.
« Reply #16 on: September 11, 2010, 07:51:51 am »

Fletcher wrote on Fri, 10 September 2010 03:46

there are some D/A's that [at least advertise] that they remove the printed clock information and have their own independent clock system for playback


I'm not sure what you mean by "printed clock information" here, but every D/A clocks the output stream with no regard to the clock used at the A/D stage (unless the processes are simultaneous, as in a digital processor used analog i/o).

Just to clarify, there is no "printed" clock information other than the manipulation of intersample timing caused by the clock at the a/d.  There is no clock (positional reference) information that "travels" with a digital audio stream.


tom

breathe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
Re: An impossible request??? Jitter removal.
« Reply #17 on: September 11, 2010, 06:36:58 pm »

Okay, I OFFICIALLY ADMIT to not knowing everything.  With that established, the clock of a converter determines the timing of the samples, and with a bad clock the spacing between the samples is irregular?  And therefore it is impossible to restore a digital recording made with bad clock because there's no way to determine the original spacing of the samples?

Many thanks,
Nicholas



Logged

tom eaton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3640
Re: An impossible request??? Jitter removal.
« Reply #18 on: September 11, 2010, 08:54:31 pm »

Precisely!

Otitis Media

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 564
Re: An impossible request??? Jitter removal.
« Reply #19 on: September 11, 2010, 10:23:24 pm »

Yes on the clocking explanation. BUT - seriously here, because I own one and have plenty of experience with it - the 002's clock isn't the source of something sounding bad. Really. The preamps aren't anything exceptional, though they boost mic level signals up to line level quite nicely, and there are the Black Lion mods that are purported to make a big difference, and therefore, one must conclude that whatever inferior sound you're getting is due to both inexpensive analog-side componentry and less-experienced users. Likely the latter more than the former.
Logged
Dan Roth
Hired Gun

Tomas Danko

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4733
Re: An impossible request??? Jitter removal.
« Reply #20 on: September 13, 2010, 03:54:34 am »

ssltech wrote on Fri, 10 September 2010 22:13

Jitter doesn't sound like it's "vibrating".

It's probably the music/recording just plain sucking.

(nobody EVER wants to consider this seriously, for some reason, yet it's almost ALWAYS the case...)

I use a 002 from time to time... matter of fact, I'm using one tomorrow on a location classical gig. I've never had unlistenable results.

I have to disagree with Jim on that... but then Jim wrote that the 9098 was an 'unlistenable piece of plastic', so either I have tin ears (quite possible) or we just don't think the same way.

Keith


FWIW, my perception of "high jitter" is that the depth and reverberation tails diminishes, the "3D" quality (even if it's a mono recording) will also decrease. Sometimes, but not necessarily, the stereo width may get a bit more narrow.

In other words, I don't find high jitter to be nauseating as described by the in- and exhaling dude.

YMMV, as always.

Cheers,

Danko
Logged
http://www.danko.se/site-design/dankologo4s.gif
"T(Z)= (n1+n2*Z^-1+n2*Z^-2)/(1+d1*z^-1+d2*z^-2)" - Mr. Dan Lavry
"Shaw baa laa raaw, sidle' yaa doot in dee splaa" . Mr Shooby Taylor

breathe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
Re: An impossible request??? Jitter removal.
« Reply #21 on: September 19, 2010, 01:37:59 am »

Really, you don't get a queasy feeling in your belly when you hear a really jittery digital recording?

Nicholas


Logged

Fletcher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3016
Re: An impossible request??? Jitter removal.
« Reply #22 on: September 20, 2010, 06:54:48 am »

I think what you're probably hearing is something other than "jitter".  There are elements of "jitter" that can make a recording some "thin", and add some rather unmusical distortions, but at the same time, nothing that would be quite a overtly noticeable as what you seem to be trying to describe.

Peace.
Logged
CN Fletcher

mwagener wrote on Sat, 11 September 2004 14:33
We are selling emotions, there are no emotions in a grid


"Recording engineers are an arrogant bunch.  
If you've spent most of your life with a few thousand dollars worth of musicians in the studio, making a decision every second and a half... and you and  they are going to have to live with it for the rest of your lives, you'll get pretty arrogant too.  It takes a certain amount of balls to do that... something around three"
Malcolm Chisholm

Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Up