Mία απάντηση από forum αφιερωμένο στην 1212m, (στην διάθεσή σας η URL όποτε το ζητήσετε):
Between the two specs shown, the E-MU obviously is the winner, with the other one only managing to come to a near tie with the E-MU in those few cases where the E-MU does not exceed it. And those are so close as to be statistically arguable in favor of the E-MU because of the other, more important specs, where E-MU wins hands down.
As for the "Subjective" paragraph written about the E-MU, well, it is indeed subjective, using terms like the author "feels" such and such is so doesn't move this old engineer in the slightest. The whole blurb sounds like Audiophile Jibber-Jabber of the type we should be quite familiar with, sound and fury signifying nothing. Or ad copy.
For those who may not have the experience at the Test Bench, let me say that Clock Jitter sounds like "smearing" of the audio, whereas the more stable clock circuit imparts more "clarity" overall. (But even that description must yield to language problems in defining what we hear versus the fact that we must keep in mind that all of these kind of terminologies place us squarely in the land of the subjective. I would say that the better method would be to perform the same experiment with a proven high quality external clock for yourself, which may be too expensive for the average user but can prove to be an enlightening and learning curve situation for those certain geeky types like myself. For example, the same clock, when used on an AP2496 card, improved the overall sonic quality of playback in a very noticeable manner, imparting that "clarity and depth" in no uncertain terms when compared to the same file playback using the card's internal clock. Still, I would not ever use the result from one datapoint to arrive at ANY conclusion pro or con concerning the entire model line... )
The cold hard facts of the matter are that none of us users have access to enough product sample to declare anything statistically valid about anyone's entire model line. All we can do is report what we find for the sample or few samples even that we have on hand to evaluate. Assumptions get made all the time about such things, unfortunately -- and writers of articles and "shootouts" etc. typically sidestep such important issues the vast majority of the time. On the other hand, we really can't expect them or the mfr to be able to test a statistically correct samplebase, either, and *some* data can be better than none at all, IF we all understand that the whole thing should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt and a good healthy amount of common sense.
The E-MU clock circuit is really remarkable considering the low price of the E-MU devices. I once A-B compared playback results using a 1616M and a very expensive external clock and though it was not a complete blindfold test, me being by myself and all, I really couldn't discern enough difference between the known external and provable jitter-free clock device clocking that 1616M and the 1616M when using its internal clock. Was rather impressive IMO.
We should beware of comparing any two (or three, etc.) devices based on only one specification, though. ALL specs must be taken together using the marvelous ability of the human mind to evaluate reports and decide first upon which device touts the overall majority of better quantitative measurements. That is usually considered to be the better sounding device. Or at least is the device that should have the capability of producing the better result for you.
--Mac
:smile:
