Re: Nonsense! - Mel - Digital Drive

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - A simple jitter test? - that's, my name 11:35:10 07/31/06 (110)

Re: A simple jitter test? - Bertie_Livingston 00:25:24 08/02/06 (0)

Original Question - Scrith 11:01:02 08/01/06 (53)

Here's another bit of interesting reading - Christine Tham 15:35:55 08/01/06 (7)

thx for the interesting paper from 1992 - that's, my name 05:57:04 08/02/06 (6)

I think I'm finally starting to understand what you are proposing ... - Christine Tham 15:32:30 08/02/06 (2)

800M was a joke - that's, my name 01:36:14 08/04/06 (0)

Re: I think I'm finally starting to understand what you are proposing ... - Dawnrazor 20:45:27 08/02/06 (0)

Re: thx for the interesting paper from 1992 - Dave Kingsland 14:02:18 08/02/06 (2)

Re: thx for the interesting paper from 1992 - andy_c 17:53:05 08/02/06 (1)

Thanks (nt) - Dave Kingsland 18:17:11 08/02/06 (0)

P.S. Re S/PDIF - Ted Smith 13:15:49 08/01/06 (43)

Re: P.S. Re S/PDIF - JLivermore 16:57:19 08/07/06 (0)

Re: P.S. Re S/PDIF - Scrith 13:40:08 08/01/06 (41)

Well, let me try... - andy_c 15:02:55 08/01/06 (34)

Thanks! - Scrith 15:58:23 08/01/06 (33)

CrystalLock is a PLL - Dave Kingsland 09:20:25 08/02/06 (0)

Lavry's CrystalLock - that's, my name 05:22:53 08/02/06 (8)

Re: Lavry's CrystalLock - Link - andy_c 08:35:52 08/02/06 (7)

Re: Lavry's CrystalLock - Link - Dave Kingsland 10:34:04 08/02/06 (6)

Lavry's CrystalLock - DAC style #5 - that's, my name 02:01:32 08/04/06 (1)

Re: Lavry's CrystalLock - DAC style #5 - Dave Kingsland 11:10:58 08/06/06 (0)

Appears to be a frequency-locked loop... - andy_c 11:02:19 08/02/06 (3)

Yes and no - Dave Kingsland 18:13:55 08/02/06 (0)

Re: Appears to be a frequency-locked loop... - Ted Smith 13:37:35 08/02/06 (1)

The huge buffer approach in action - that's, my name 01:47:28 08/04/06 (0)

Details, details. Jitter IS a problem. - Jon Risch 21:36:03 08/01/06 (2)

we're not talking about conversion problems - that's, my name 05:03:20 08/02/06 (1)

Unavoidable - Jon Risch 17:27:30 08/02/06 (0)

Re: Thanks! - Ted Smith 16:42:18 08/01/06 (0)

Re: Thanks! - andy_c 16:40:09 08/01/06 (18)

DAC1 here too - Scrith 17:11:46 08/01/06 (17)

Re: DAC1 here too - Mel 11:14:23 08/02/06 (0)

Re: DAC1 here too - Bertie_Livingston 00:30:20 08/02/06 (12)

Re: Nonsense! - Mel 11:24:57 08/02/06 (8)

My foot... - Bertie_Livingston 13:28:14 08/02/06 (7)

Re: Your foot... - Mel 20:20:20 08/02/06 (1)

Re: Your foot... - Bertie_Livingston 06:25:40 08/03/06 (0)

We'll see... - Scrith 16:05:44 08/02/06 (4)

Great, keep us posted! (nt) - Bertie_Livingston 16:39:51 08/04/06 (0)

Re: We'll see... - slwiser 14:51:23 08/03/06 (0)

Re: We'll see... - Squonk 16:40:16 08/02/06 (0)

Very cool! Keep us posted on the results! :-) (nt) - andy_c 16:13:16 08/02/06 (0)

What? - Ted Smith 07:04:51 08/02/06 (2)

Re: What? - Bertie_Livingston 13:32:43 08/02/06 (1)

Yep, music is good :) [nt] - Ted Smith 13:39:53 08/02/06 (0)

Re: DAC1 here too - Ted Smith 17:36:20 08/01/06 (2)

Re: DAC1 here too - Scrith 18:47:29 08/01/06 (1)

Cool idea - Ted Smith 20:08:51 08/01/06 (0)

Re: P.S. Re S/PDIF - Ted Smith 14:21:41 08/01/06 (5)

Re: P.S. Re S/PDIF - Scrith 16:17:12 08/01/06 (4)

Ahh - Ted Smith 16:39:48 08/01/06 (3)

firewire, HDMI, USB all fulfil your "pull" requirement - that's, my name 04:25:35 08/02/06 (2)

Re: firewire, HDMI, USB all fulfil your "pull" requirement - Ted Smith 07:15:22 08/02/06 (0)

(oops) - that's, my name 04:27:13 08/02/06 (0)

Original Answer :) - Ted Smith 12:42:00 08/01/06 (0)

You may find the following link interesting ... - Christine Tham 20:33:05 07/31/06 (11)

Re: You may find the following link interesting ... - that's, my name 00:14:40 08/01/06 (10)

Re: You may find the following link interesting ... - Dawnrazor 00:27:41 08/01/06 (9)

Re: You may find the following link interesting ... - Pinco Pallino 07:40:08 08/01/06 (3)

Hmm, creative reading. - Ted Smith 08:48:46 08/01/06 (2)

error correction is history - that's, my name 01:48:34 08/02/06 (1)

Re: error correction is history - Ted Smith 07:19:59 08/02/06 (0)

jitter is old-fashioned ;) - that's, my name 01:29:29 08/01/06 (3)

Are you paying attention? - Ted Smith 09:04:59 08/01/06 (2)

Re: Are you paying attention? - that's, my name 01:31:08 08/02/06 (1)

See my response below - Ted Smith 07:28:59 08/02/06 (0)

data extraction errors do not happen - that's, my name 00:37:30 08/01/06 (0)

Try these references - Atexanathome 18:08:46 07/31/06 (4)

Re: Try these references - that's, my name 00:16:53 08/01/06 (3)

OK, here's what your quoted wiki says about your "solution" - Ted Smith 09:14:03 08/01/06 (2)

Re: OK, here's what your quoted wiki says about your "solution" - that's, my name 01:27:54 08/02/06 (1)

#5? Ahh, if you are so smart why aren't you rich? - Ted Smith 07:26:38 08/02/06 (0)

Here's a nice post from Dave Kingsland on the subject - Ted Smith 12:14:22 07/31/06 (12)

jitter is a phenomenon, not a noise! - that's, my name 13:08:18 07/31/06 (11)

You're really not getting this - Dave Kingsland 19:32:31 07/31/06 (9)

Thanks - that was a pretty good summary - Christine Tham 15:45:32 08/01/06 (4)

Isn't that the same as what I listed as #2? - Dave Kingsland 17:40:55 08/02/06 (2)

Actually you are right - Christine Tham 19:21:25 08/02/06 (1)

Just starting to read it - Dave Kingsland 10:56:20 08/06/06 (0)

approach (5) ? - that's, my name 01:15:55 08/02/06 (0)

the microprocessor in this - that's, my name 00:46:14 08/01/06 (2)

I don't know what you mean by "full-blown microprocessor-based" - Dave Kingsland 19:03:22 08/02/06 (1)

it's the large buffer approach - that's, my name 01:45:53 08/03/06 (0)

Re: You're really not getting this - that's, my name 00:35:55 08/01/06 (0)

Read my response below it answers all of your points. [nt] - Ted Smith 13:11:06 07/31/06 (0)

Jitter doesn't change data. - Ted Smith 12:04:08 07/31/06 (24)

So you say the data gets to other side safely? - that's, my name 12:48:59 07/31/06 (23)

Read more carefully - Ted Smith 13:07:05 07/31/06 (22)

Read more carefully (me or you?) - that's, my name 13:29:20 07/31/06 (3)

Re: Read more carefully (me or you?) - Ted Smith 13:44:07 07/31/06 (2)

Re: Read more carefully (me or you?) - Dave Kingsland 20:25:43 07/31/06 (1)

Re: Read more carefully (me or you?) - that's, my name 00:52:08 08/01/06 (0)

Re: Read more carefully - that's, my name 13:25:31 07/31/06 (17)

You are getting closer - Ted Smith 13:37:14 07/31/06 (16)

Yes, you are starting to get my point - that's, my name 13:53:55 07/31/06 (15)

Nope, I thought you were getting mine :) - Ted Smith 14:37:03 07/31/06 (14)

the jitter myth unveiled (it doesn't exist if treated properly) - that's, my name 14:59:41 07/31/06 (13)

What makes sense - Bertie_Livingston 00:37:35 08/02/06 (5)

digital mastering and bla - that's, my name 00:55:59 08/02/06 (4)

Re: digital mastering and bla - ehlarson 13:31:44 08/05/06 (1)

Re: digital mastering and bla - Squonk 16:06:04 08/05/06 (0)

Re: digital mastering and bla - Bertie_Livingston 14:03:55 08/02/06 (0)

Some do use atomic clocks - Ted Smith 07:51:42 08/02/06 (0)

Right ;) - Ted Smith 15:17:31 07/31/06 (6)

Re: Right ;) - ehlarson 19:13:55 08/06/06 (1)

Re: Right ;) - Ted Smith 20:41:16 08/06/06 (0)

it's the microprocessor - that's, my name 00:58:28 08/01/06 (3)

Get real. - Ted Smith 08:21:40 08/01/06 (2)

the bit perfect DAC - that's, my name 01:12:26 08/02/06 (1)

Good luck. We've been over this ground [nt] - Ted Smith 06:59:55 08/02/06 (0)

Follow Ups

Re: Nonsense! - Mel 11:24:57 08/02/06 (8)

My foot... - Bertie_Livingston 13:28:14 08/02/06 (7)

Re: Your foot... - Mel 20:20:20 08/02/06 (1)

Re: Your foot... - Bertie_Livingston 06:25:40 08/03/06 (0)

We'll see... - Scrith 16:05:44 08/02/06 (4)

Great, keep us posted! (nt) - Bertie_Livingston 16:39:51 08/04/06 (0)

Re: We'll see... - slwiser 14:51:23 08/03/06 (0)

Re: We'll see... - Squonk 16:40:16 08/02/06 (0)

Very cool! Keep us posted on the results! :-) (nt) - andy_c 16:13:16 08/02/06 (0)