Unlike Amir, who states that the only advantage of using a more direct path for the signal in a PC & avoid processing layers is to avoid possible bugs which may exist in those layers, I subscribe to the view that extra processing can add noise (as per the definition I gave) or allow noise to intrude into the signal - the KISS principal has a lot going for it.
Now, I know that this signal stops at many junction points along the way & some would say that it is totally recreated along the way so how could any of this really work. Don't know EXACTLY how it works - as I said before. But when you treat the PC system as a whole then it might be reducing or removing some correlated noise modulation on the outputs that is not showing up in the stock measurements. Look at jitter as an example of this, it's well known that random jitter (RJ) up to about 2nS value has little effect on our perception of sound, whereas deterministic jitter (DJ) is much more detrimental to the sonics. DJ can come from a number of sources, the worst detrimental sonically is correlated jitter. The point being that very low values (in pico seconds) of correlated jitter are noticeable. Does correlated jitter reside within & could be masked by gross measurement techniques for jitter - yes! But the engineering community have developed measuring techniques to evaluate/measure these forms of jitter. Has the same attention been paid to noise measurements? Until such tests are developed & proven then it seems to me that there is a possibility the mechanism of operation will remain unclear.
What I know is that I have a measuring device which can give me the data I need to evaluate these differences - it's my hearing. People demanding measurements to validate this, I really don't understand. Yes, I would like to be able to know the mechanism but I'm also not going to deny what my hearing tells me simply because I don't know the mechanism of operation. All science starts with observation & this is a valid observation, repeated by many. The next step is finding out how it works.
One thing that confirms all of this is that the areas where Jplay shows differences is in dynamics & sound stage. These areas are also the ones that are improved when PS issues with PCs are addressed. The sound stage illusion relies on temporal & low level cues (the lower the level the more solid the sound stage, in my experience) - the same effects that are noticeable using Jplay & improving PS.
Edit: So in direct answer to your question - Jplay seems to provide a more stable, direct pathway for the signal delivery to the soundcard. By doing so, it benefits the final sound produced.
Last edited:
