The most common form of digital distortion I've read about is what's referred to as "jitter." I've seen an excellent graphic representation of a sine wave distorted by this phenomenon, but I'm still looking for the definitive description of the question, "What does Jitter sound like?"

In Monster's advertising hyperbole, jitter is blamed for phase distortion and lack of clarity. I wonder if someone can actually hear "phase distortion" unless the material containing it is played back through some other medium that hasn't got any.

So, to all you digital fans out there (and those of you who hate the medium),
What does jitter sound like?"

I'm anxious to hear from you, and thank you in advance.

Ooooohh.... good question!


I wonder if one could actually pinpoint phase distortion/jitter, or if the absence of it just makes overall listening more enjoyable, less fatiguing?

I do know I've become a big fan of Thiels and Dahlquists and Vandersteens, all of which are time-aligned and use first-order crossovers.

This supposedly reduces phase distortion. I'll buy it.

The sound? Not different in the fact it's noticeable in tonal quality, or easily picked out, but, if anything, the lack of "junk" in the signal presents a sound that is less fatiguing, and possibly closer to a naturalness that speakers can only strive to reproduce.

So maybe jitter isn't as much heard on a conscious level, as much as it is heard sub-conscious?

Hmmmm.....

As I understand it, jitter is a sort of time related error in the digital domain prior to the signal´s conversion to analog. These errors smear the little nuances of micro dynamics in music, so, as audiophiles love to say, the sound becomes less "focused".

Being kinda stupid I could never relate to image adjectives applied to sound.

I call it several different things depending on what I hear. For instance, on lesser CD players, acoustic guitar plucked strings can sound ill-defined in the sense that the initial transients are missing, or the decay in cymbals or piano notes end abruptly.

Some years ago, I owned an Audio-Alchemy anti-jitter device ( Clint E. still owns and runs a similar one ). I used it with different outboard DACs and Transports. Sometimes I "tought" I heard a difference, some others I didn´t.

A funny thing, which has been discussed here before, is that I noticed jitter´s effect much less on very good sounding CDs. My Telarc and Chesky CDs seem to suffer a lot less from jitter than most of the others, so I´m left wondering whether jitter actually starts in the recording process, after all.

Jorge

The easiest form of jitter to recognize is signal-correlated jitter. Signal-correlated jitter adds a high-frequency (intermodulation) edge to musical sounds when monitored on a susceptible D/A Converter.
Obviously, a theoretically perfect D/A would not be susceptible to jitter. We must not blame the message directly...just that the message is contaminated with jitter.

There is a lot of subjectivity involved in this area, after all like almost everything audio related...Even though, it is well known that jitter degrades stereo image, separation, depth, ambience and dynamic range.

Therefore, when during a listening comparison, comparing source A versus source B (and both have already been proved to be identical bitwise):
The source which exhibits greater stereo ambience and depth is the "better" one.
The source which exhibits more apparent dynamic range is the "better" one.
The source which is less edgy on the high end (most obvious sonic signature of signal correlated jitter) is the "better" one.

In resume maybe one of the signs of "the sound of jitter" is an "audible" degradation in the high end frequency spectrum.

To be honest, i don't give a#### about it...of course i do my best to correct and avoid vibrations and room reverberations in all my audio gear just because i know that kind of things emphasis that little devil, but nothing more.

Well, so far, all anyone's been able to offer really is that a signal without jitter sounds better than one with, but just why is open to speculation. no?

Damn right, Ed.

Very much like cables, I would say. Some people are more sensitive to it than others, and when taken to the extreme, it usually becomes "Nonsense".

Jorge

I liked what Clint had to say about the subject.

Maybe jitter manifests itself as a harshness to the upper end. Seems plausible to me.

Elsewhere I've posted how satisfied I am with the Monster Cable Z-Series Z200d digital coax cable, and how immensely it has improved the sound of my system. In Monster's claims for the item, it states "low jitter," and "reduces jitter" and so on. Perhaps it is now the lack of jitter that has made everything sound so much better. Still, I'd love to hear someone state categorically just what jitter itself sounds like, not just what its effects are.

When the term first arose, it did so from anti-digital analog enthusiasts looking for something to hang their hats on to condemn the then new digital medium. Perhaps they landed on something very real, considering the improvement this "low jitter" cable has made for me, but I wonder if they knew at the time the term was coined just what the effects of this newfound item (jitter) would be.