In Reply to: Please help me figure out how to get from point A to point B in PC sourcing! posted by solbergg on March 31, 2006 at 20:27:00:
Regarding your question about jitter, there's a pretty good article on it in (surprise, surprise) Stereophile. It can be seen here.Regarding DACs and their perceived sound quality, there doesn't seem to be any consensus whatsoever about which type (non-oversampling vs oversampling) sounds better.
There is also the distinction between what the audio industry calls "upsampling" vs "oversampling". Oversampling has been around for a while, and the most common form is 8x oversampling. With this technique, for each data sample, 7 additional samples with value 0 are inserted into the data stream, and the clock is multiplied by 8. This data stream with 0 padding is the input to a digital filter, which smooths the data in the digital domain, reducing the requirements on the analog filter at the DAC output. What's come to be called "upsampling" is another name for the technical term "asynchronous sample rate conversion". This form can have the final sampling frequency be a non-integer multiple of the original. In objective terms, the chips that perform this function do spec a very tiny amount of distortion, even though they operate entirely in the digital domain. On the plus side, good implementations of circuits that use them can have improved jitter rejection over other designs. That is, they act to reject jitter on their digital input to some extent. The Benchmark DAC1 is one such design. I believe the "upsampling" is sometimes combined with integer-ratio "oversampling" to get the final sampling frequency.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Article about jitter - andy_c 19:36:56 04/01/06 (3)
- Re: Article about jitter - ThomasPf 11:38:38 04/02/06 (2)
- Re: Article about jitter - fmak 04:07:13 04/03/06 (1)
- Re: Article about jitter - ThomasPf 10:49:41 04/03/06 (0)