Is this snake oil?
http://www.amazon.com/Audioquest-AU-Jitterbug-AudioQuest-Jitterbug-Filter/dp/B00YTA78FW
>>51935377
>A second JitterBug can also be used in parallel with the first
>in parallel
>>51935377
>using a dac
>using an usb-powered dac
>buying a filter to reduce the noise of your usb-powered dac when you could have just gotten a linear power supply with zero noise for the same price
it's triple retarded
>>51935419
I just bought an Audioengine D1, was that a big mistake? Keep in mind that I'm in the EU, there aren't a lot of DACs availible.
>>51935452
It seems ok but you still could have gotten a sound card with better output a lot cheaper
>>51935377
>Audio
>Not a speaker or headphones or a mic.
Yes.
>there are people who actually believe that this improves the audio
>there are people who actually believe that plugging a second one into an adjacent port will improve it further
>>51935590
* I just saw it also has a headphone amp
That makes it more acceptable for the price
http://www.stereophile.com/content/audioquest-jitterbug-usb-noise-filter
I've only skimmed through this review so far but it looks like it will be a doozy.
>You can see from the "Measurements" sidebar that I could find no significant effect that the JitterBug had on the analog signals output by three of the DACs I had to hand. Yet with those DACs and others, I heard an improvement in sound quality that I can attribute only to the JitterBug. I hate when that happens!
>Last June, Michael Lavorgna wrote that "measurements obviously have no direct correlation to enjoyment." I have no hesitation in declaring, loudly and longly, that I can think of no way to spend $49 that would make me more enjoy my computer-based audio than the AudioQuest JitterBug. Try one—or two—for yourself.
While this does seem to improve vocal clarity a bit, I also noticed it slightly decreased overall dynamics and bass impact. If you don't have any issues with your current USB audio, or have another device already such as the Schiit Wyrd which is cleaning up your USB as I did, I would skip this.
On the plus side, if you don't have anything cleaning your USB yet, the cost of entry of this is low so you can see if it makes any improvement for you without too much risk.
Overall, it just made the sound a bit unnatural and not necessarily as musical with some types of music such as heavy metal/hard rock. The vocals were almost a bit too clear/loud which seemed to detract from some of the overall naturalness of the music itself in my system YMMV.
>>51935709
My Audioengine D1 arrives tommorrow, so I'll have to wait. Will 'cleaning' the USB power or using a different cable really help? I always thought digital ment it would be either no signal or good signal, with nothing inbetween.
>>51936088
You're pretty much right.
Think about it for a second, these people at talking about improvements/changes to specific areas audio ranges, mids/bass/highs whatever.
In an analog signal these would actually reflect interference at different frequencies, in a digital signal they are just different combinations of 0s and 1s.
How could this device specifically improve certain combinations of 0s and 1s?
Secondly, packets sent over USB have error control so the received packet MUST contain the same data or else it will be resent.
Strong electromagnetic interference can cause increased error rates but if this was occurring at a rate that would cause an audible effect you'd be getting skipping/clipping or buffering type shit.
So the only possible place it could be improving things would be on the power line where uneven power could actually affect your analog output. Except that you will find your DAC is already cleaning it (the end point is the best place to clean it after all).
>>51935650
I think you plug one into the other.
>>51935377
It's not snake oil in the sense that it does -something-, however it actually makes the signal worse than it was before.
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?18580-Science-Thread-Review-of-Audioquest-Jitterbug-and-Uptone-Regen-USB-Conditioners
>>51937164
That would be in series technically.
>>51935654
>D1
>acceptable for the price
fuck no.
>>51937352
That actually worked IIRC, only 4kb/s though.
>>51935709
>>51936088
>>51936237
>>51936452
I love you guys.
>>51937598
>parallel to serial
no.
>>51937352
with the surge of mental illness in recent times, i wonder if audiophilia will make it into the international classification of diseases.
>>51937164
No, on their site that is literally how they show to plug them in.
>>51937629
The first post you quoted was quoting a bunch of reviews from the Amazon page, if you didn't realize.
>>51937635
It could work since all you would have to do is ensure that the data and voltage are moving on the right pins. It would probably need a custom driver though.
>>51935702
What the absoloute, every living fuck.
They can see there is no difference, they KNOW there is no difference, but even a $50 price tag makes them throw away hard data; solid results that can be measured and compared, and believe there is a significant change that can only be attributed to magic.
>>51938087
>While measuring the effect of the AudioQuest JitterBug didn't prove to be a complete snipe hunt, it also didn't reveal why using the JitterBug improved the sound—which it most certainly did.
kek
>>51935702
>>51938087
>>51938145
> Overall, I would say that the JitterBug eliminated what I described as the "ethereal" character of computer audio, bringing it very close to what I experience from spinning CDs.
>"ethereal" character of computer audio
>"ethereal"
My sides, holy shit
>>51935377
>$48.75
>This is when things got weird. Every disc I played sounded more solid, more corporeal than I remembered from the many times I'd played the same tracks from the Mac mini. The low frequencies sounded more authoritative, much as they had when I bought a Mark Levinson No.31 CD transport (now long since retired with mechanical problems). In hindsight, the system's sound with the computer-audio source now seemed consistently more ethereal.
>solid
>corporeal
authoritative
>ethereal
What?
In the comments:
>Today's measurements devices are more precise than our ears.
>A big red SNAKE OIL ALERT should be shown if the gear's measurements clearly indicates no audible (positive) effect.
>Regards,
>your ears' and economy's best friend.
Reply:
>It didn't take long for the measurement Talibans to show up.
>It would seem that the editor of Stereophile, who has listened to thousands of different components over a career spanning decades, and who is also a musician; is fooling himself into believing he hears an improvement with the Jitterbug.
>My ears have also been deceived by the Jitterbug. I guess I am better off believing some guy on the Internet...
What the fuck.
Is it time for another audiophile shaming thread?
>A surprisingly significant improvement in audio quality for a very reasonable price. I have auditioned a number of USB to DAC options from $50.00 to $3,500.00. The Jitterbug USB filter took the harshness out of the sound and made it possible to listen at higher volume levels without being aurally painful. I am using the Jitterbug in combination with a Schiit Audio Pyst USB cable (which I also highly recommend) and a V-Link II. This affordable combination has turned listening to FLAC files from an earsplitting pain into a sonic pleasure. This sets a more than acceptable minimal listening experience level for a very modest investment. I would likely use the Jitterbug and the Pyst cable even with an Auralic (which I have auditioned).
>>51935377
Yes
It's a fucking digital signal
>>51938298
they'll never blind test it though. they can only """hear""" it when they know it's in the audio chain.
>>51938317
Are those extra thick cables?
>>51938338
It's merely the effect the quantum entanglement electron diffusion. You can only collapse the waveforms when the device is observed.
>>51938365
Alright, I laughed.
>>51938365
>>51938380
The planets need to be at the right angle too.
>>51938338
Dumb fag probably thinks placebo is just a band name
>Solid recommend. The better your equipment, the more you will be able to notice. I noticed a bigger difference streaming from my Pandora One
service than from flac rips through jriver. You will still notice something, however from just about anything I imagine. The qualities I can detect are
1) Clarity (low background noise)
2) Smoothness
3) Reduced listener fatigue
4) Detail retrieval improved
For $50 it is well worth it. I am using with AQ Dragonfly, into Little Dot Mkii with Senn HD 600's. All purchased through Amazon. I have no affiliations with any of these manufacturers.
>4) Detail retrieval improved
That's a new one.
>>51938080
>It would probably need a custom driver though.
That's not even arguable. And how much power does the parallel port on the back give? Probably enough to fry the USB. Also, most of the pins on the parallel port would be unused because you cannot go from parallel to serial with only passive adapters.
Now, if we're actually serious about this for a second, you'd probably need a custom connector that just plugs into 4 pins ( read,write,power,ground) on the parallel port and write a driver that simply makes the computer see that as a virtual USB port.
It's been done on Windows, but I have no idea how.
>>51938362
for extra thick audiophiles
>>51939796
Whoa look at all of that supersonic material I totally can hear now with my superhuman bat ears.
>>51935377
If your dac is powered by the usb 5 volts then perhaps there is a difference. Can you hear it with your plebe rig? Maybe not.
Isolating your headphone rig from common mode interference can make a huge difference. I run my rig off batteries and use a bakoon amp. Sounds great.
>Insert into the USB input of any [...] car, or smartphone [...]
Since when do cars and smartphones come with usb ports?
>>51939796
>Sound above 20kHz
>Sound above 18kHz if you're old enough to post on this board legally
What a waste of filespace.
http://www.amazon.com/AudioQuest-RCA-Noise-Stopper-Caps-pack/dp/B00447ZOCE/ref=pd_sim_147_4/181-1161384-2568803?ie=UTF8&dpID=21-n%2Bblh%2BGL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR150%2C160_&refRID=02PF21SNWWENNRA5TWS1
This is worse imo
>>51939796
>95kHz
>95fuckingkHz
Wat
>>51935377
I built something like that once to try and improve a ghetto USB software radio that was super sensitive to any noise. It worked, even though the caps probably violated USB specs when charging.
A decent DAC should really have good enough filtering on its own though.
>>51939978
http://www.amazon.com/AudioQuest-RCA-Noise-Stopper-Caps-pack/dp/B00447ZOCE
>>51939843
Underrated post of the year.
>>51939796
>artificial shit
