The current issue of TAS (June/July, Issue 182) includes a letter from reader David Sanford questioning whether slight timing errors in digital-to-analog conversion (jitter) is really audible. The letter was sent in reponse to my review of the Esoteric G-0Rb rubidium clock that improves the timing accuracy of D/A conversion. Mr. Sanford found it hard to believe that a shifting of the sample timing (jitter) by several picoseconds would be audible. In my reply, I mentioned that Keith Johnson once told me he could hear the difference between 8 and 15 picoseconds of jitter. (Keith Johnson is the co-inventor of HDCD, recording engineer of all the Reference Recordings projects, designer for Spectral, and has perhaps the most insightful audio mind of anyone working today.)
Keith read the letter and my reply, and sent me this analysis:
David referred to perception of arrival times of sound and to distortion from jitter in a digital system. These are different things not best compared on a pico-second time scale My comments were about perceptual consequences when timing errors are introduced to digital conversion. Sigma delta methods, particularly one bit, introduce much more destructive artifacts. We hear the consequence of jitter rather than jitter by itself.
The time scale argument is interesting:
We can move forward one loudspeaker of a stereo pair 6 inches – an action creating roughly one half millisecond difference in arrival times to create audible consequence.
When delay or arrival times modulate as fast audio range jitter, one finds reasonable perceptual limits require at least one hundred fold smaller moving displacements. Early magnetic recorders demonstrate this disturbance as their unsupported tape paths were long and produced high-speed irregular motion that imparted a sliding paper character to string instrument sound. Manufacturers introduced idler wheels and loop drives to remove sub micro-inches of this scrape flutter and microseconds of modulation noise. We hear the improved clarity along with reduced coloration in the historic development of phonograph records.
At a million times smaller, pico-second changes to sound paths would pose nano-inch listener and speaker constraints – clearly well beyond reasonable contemplation of audibility.
We tend to think of digital processing as on – off and nothing in between. However, modern sigma delta DACs are configured with analog comparators and filters that operate with an environment of continuously changing voltages or currents. When jitter is introduced to clocks or the internal timing of the DAC is not good, the outputs and decision states from these analog functions become cast in stone before or after the time when responses would have been correct. Now a tally or sampling command produces an artifact or error. The jitter not only propagates as itself to cause some distortion but also produces conversion error and both are memorialized in filters involved with ongoing samples. This compound degradation increases at very high sampling rates a factor where larger performance specification numbers may not always provide better performance. We observe spurious signals, cross modulation, pulse response widening and signal coherent noise modulation – things that have unpleasant names and unpleasant sonic consequence.
I think the example of “audible 8 to 15 pico-second jitter” comes from describing a transport evaluation platform at Spectral. Like many digital playback devices, the fixture has multi-bit sigma delta DACs that require very low jitter to work properly. Hence, we provide direct crystal clocking and other technological supports that one should find in any serious product. We can degrade a synchronization and re-clock circuit intended to isolate optical tracking and servo activity of a CD transport. Then, an RF analyzer shows presence of new jitter related to CD condition and oscilloscope traces reveal moving peaks and spikes riding on clock waveforms. An audio analyzer will display upper band noises as well as widened base lines for continuous sine wave spectra. These artifacts might appear inconsequential except that we must consider the averaging nature of analyzer measurements. We have unsteady nasty waveforms that require experimentation and interpretation to reveal the full damage from the tracking interference. A slight increase of noise is observed and careful manipulation of test signals reveals rapidly changing spurious error in the parts per million – the possibly perceptual category. Similar examination methods reveal peak jitter to be well over 5 times the RMS or specification sheet type values produced from the analyzer. Consequences are audible though more so to others at Spectral than to me.
Keith O. Johnson
Reference Recordings
RH:
Thanks for opening my eyes to some of the murkier nuances of digital sound reproduction. For the past several years I have been using a lovely CEC Belt-Drive Transport wed to a Musical Fidelity 24 bit/192 khz V3 DAC as my reference "red book" playback system. On the strength of CM's favorable review and my subsequent audition, I recently replaced the CEC/MF combo with the NAD M55 universal player.
What a revelation!!! In its reproduction of instrumental timbres, bass articulation, and soundstage openess and accuracy, the NAD mops the floor with my older digital combo when playing conventional CDs.
All of which leads me to suspect that it isn't enough simply to plop a great DAC on the end of a fine transport and expect great results. After all, on paper, the MF DAC is every bit as good as the NAD's. I think that the key lies in how well integrated the NAD player functions as a system, from its excellent power supply regulation, to its isolated DACs, to its lovely vibration-free chassis. Is the NAD better perhaps in suppressing jitter-born colorations than my previous reference as well?
By the way, where exactly do jitter-induced distortions enter the picture: at the transport side of the equation or with the DAC? Are transport/DAC combos consisting of components from different manufacturers more prone to jitter-induced distortions?
Thanks for your thoughts and on a great job as editor-in-chief. TAS has never looked as nice, nor read as well. (BTW: one of the senior librarians at the Oak Park, Illinois library told me some time ago that TAS is the only High End Journal they carry because it is so well written and so bloody literate.)
Great work!
Amandela
Amandela77
First, thanks fo rthe comments about TAS.
The NAD might sound better than your separtes system because a CD player doesn't employ the SPDIF interface between a transport and processor. In a conventional digital interface, the transport is the timing reference, sending the clock and audio data in the same signal down the SPDIF interface. The transport must "recover" the clock (with a phase lock loop). This recovered clock then serves as the timing reference for the critical digital-to-analog conversion stage. It's in the D/A conversion that jitter matters, specifically the clock that tells the DAC when to convert the digital word to an analog signal. Variations in the spacing of the clock pulses are jitter, and lead to the sonic problems that are by now well documented.
In a CD player, the transport mechanism can be slaved to the D/A clock. You then have a very clean and precise clock next to the DAC, and then force the transport to sync to this clock. It's a big advantage to a one-box CD player.
Many manufacturers have tried to overcome the limitation of separate transports and processing by employing a second connection, one that carries the clock so that the processor can be the master timing reference.
Jitter is introduced by the transport, the SPDIF interface, and the processor's input receiver that recovers the clock. The clock is affected by all kinds of factors, including radiated noise, power-supply ripple, and even circuit-board traces.
Using transports and processors from the same company doesn't help. Note that processors vary greatly in how much jitter at the input ends up in the D/A clock. Some processors are relatively immune to transport quality, while others sound radically different depending on which transport you use.
It's interesting to note that when Spectral decided to spend five years developing the absolute best CD-playback system they could envision, they went with a one-box player (the SDR-4000 Pro).
I hope this sheds some light on the question.