- Thread Starter
- #21
My Khadas unfortunately has been loaned out so can't test that.Please do it with a Khadas. I bet it does nothing.
My Khadas unfortunately has been loaned out so can't test that.Please do it with a Khadas. I bet it does nothing.
Unlucky. I'm really curious how the Syncromesh would improve this graph .My Khadas unfortunately has been loaned out so can't test that.
you need to recalibrate out to Alpha Centauri.
Is this what you are asking about? This is digital end to end with jitter amount changed:I'd like to see what the S-M does to the digital data. The residual jitter from its PLL ought to be visible there.
Huh. I just assumed you didn't see the point of shouting in a vacuum.I already had, but hadn't yet seen the point of posting that which hadn't been mentioned...
I am not sure Steve will be in a mood to send me more gear after this review. Maybe one of you can send in yours....
+1 Even I am in danger of understanding.Thank you very much, @amirm , for this review and most especially for the fantastic clarity with which you explained the concepts involved, your process, and how to interpret the results. Like the best professors, I always feel that you elevate those you are teaching or sharing your expertise with, with no arrogance or talking down to your audience! Much appreciated!
Huh. I just assumed you didn't see the point of shouting in a vacuum.
Sound has negative gravity particles you know. Might speed it up some leaving here, but might slow it down some getting there. I guess round about 3 million years it doesn't matter. It will have one year jitter embedded in it anyway. But 31 billionths of a hertz jitter is what I would call pretty close in, so likely masked by the main tones.I was more concerned with the 3.4 million years it would take the distant shout to reach the listener...
I'd like to see a digital capture of a J-test with added jitter. It would also be interesting to see the behaviour (frequency response and such) of the resampler with inputs at some other sample rates, both lower and higher than its native 96 kHz.
Don't know if it is what you proposed.I have more of a problem that this resamples everything to 96 khz. Most music I listen to is at 44.1 khz. What impact does this have on timing and a bit perfect signal when it is resampled to 96 khz?
It also depends on what is being said. "May I lend you $1K" when spoken travels faster than "May I borrow $1K"Sound has negative gravity particles you know. Might speed it up some leaving here, but might slow it down some getting there.
A poor design decision was made at the time to make the source the master and embed the sample timing within the data stream.