Page1

EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT JITTER BUT WERE AFRAID TO
ASK

by Bob Katz

When I began this article, I naively believed that I could write everything you might need to know
about jitter, but it's proved to be the most difficult subject to clarify that I've ever written about. This
article has become a constant work in progress. Some questions that this article has raised have been
clarified in our letter s section.

--------

Jitter is so misunderstood among recording engineers and audiophiles that we have decided to devote
a Section to the topic. All digital devices that have an input and an output can add jitter to the signal
path. For example, Digital Domain's FCN-1 Format Converter adds a small amount of jitter (around
200 ps RMS) to the digital audio signal path. Is this good? Is it bad? What sonic difference does it
make? We will attempt to answer these--and other important--questions in this Section.

What is J itter ?
Jitter is time-base error. It is caused by varying time delays in the circuit paths from component to
component in the signal path. The two most common causes of jitter are poorly-designed Phase
Locked Loops (PLL's) and waveform distortion due to mismatched impedances and/or reflections in
the signal path.

Here is how waveform distortion can cause time-base distortion:

The top waveform represents a theoretically perfect digital signal. Its value is 101010, occuring at
equal slices of time, represented by the equally-spaced dashed vertical lines. When the first waveform
passes through long cables of incorrect impedance, or when a source impedance is incorrectly
matched at the load, the square wave can become rounded, fast risetimes become slow, also
reflections in the cable can cause misinterpretation of the actual zero crossing point of the waveform.
The second waveform shows some of the ways the first might change; depending on the severity of the
mismatch you might see a triangle wave, a squarewave with ringing, or simply rounded edges. Note
that the new transitions (measured at the Zero Line) in the second waveform occur at unequal slices of

http://www.digido.com/jitteressay.html 6:23:58 ìì 7/11/2001

 Page2

time. Even so, the numeric interpretation of the second waveform is still 101010! There would have to
be very severe waveform distortion for the value of the new waveform to be misinterpreted, which
usually shows up as audible errors--clicks or tics in the sound. If you hear tics, then you really have
something to worry about.

If the numeric value of the waveform is unchanged, why should we be concerned? Let's rephrase the
question: "when (not why) should we become concerned?" The answer is "hardly ever". The only effect
of timebase distortion is in the listening; as far as it can be proved, it has no effect on the dubbing of
tapes or any digital to digital transfer (as long as the jitter is low enough to permit the data to be
read. High jitter may result in clicks or glitches as the circuit cuts in and out). A typical D to A
converter derives its system clock (the clock that controls the sample and hold circuit) from the
incoming digital signal. If that clock is not stable, then the conversions from digital to analog will not
occur at the correct moments in time. The audible effect of this jitter is a possible loss of low level
resolution caused by added noise, spurious (phantom) tones, or distortion added to the signal.

A properly dithered 16-bit recording can have over 120 dB of dynamic range; a D to A converter with
a jittery clock can deteriorate the audible dynamic range to 100 dB or less, depending on the severity
of the jitter. I have performed listening experiments on purist, audiophile-quality musical source
material recorded with a 20-bit accurate A/D converter (dithered to 16 bits within the A/D). The sonic
results of passing this signal through processors that truncate the signal at -110, -105, or -96 dB are:
increased "grain" in the image, instruments losing their sharp edges and focus; reduced soundstage
width; apparent loss of level causing the listener to want to turn up the monitor level, even though
high level signals are reproduced at unity gain. Contrary to intuition, you can hear these effects
without having to turn up the listening volume beyond normal (illustrating that low-level ambience
cues are very important to the quality of reproduction). Similar degradation has been observed when
jitter is present. Nevertheless, the loss due to jitter is subtle, and primarily audible with the
highest-grade audiophile D/A converters.

J itter And the AES/EBU Inter face

The AES/EBU (and S/PDIF) interface carries an embedded clock signal. The designers of the interface
did not anticipate that it could cause a subtle amount of jitter due to the nature of the preamble in the
AES/EBU signal. The result is a small amount of program-dependent jitter which often sounds like an
intermodulation, a high-frequency edge added to the music. To minimize this effect in the listening,
use a D/A converter with a high degree of internal jitter reduction. An external jitter reduction device
that removes the subcode signal (containing time of day, start IDs, etc.) also helps.

The SDIF-2 (Sony Digital Interface-2) uses a separate cable for the clock signal, and thus is not
susceptible to program-dependent jitter. However, the quality of the PLL used to detect an SDIF-2
wordclock is still important to low jitter. It is much easier to build a low-jitter PLL for a wordclock
signal than for an AES/EBU signal.

Is J itter Cumulative? What About My Dubs?

Consider a recording chain consisting of an A to D Converter, followed by the FCN-1, feeding a DAT
machine, and finally a D to A Converter. During the recording, the jitter you will hear is dependent on
the ability of the last PLL in the chain (in the D to A) to reduce the cumulative jitter of the preceding
elements in the chain. The time-base error in the D to A is a complex aggregate of the timebase errors

http://www.digido.com/jitteressay.html 6:23:58 ìì 7/11/2001

 Page3

of all the preceding devices, including their ability to reject incoming jitter, plus the D to A's ability to
reject any jitter coming into it. During the recording, there are 3 Phase Locked Loops in the chain: in
the FCN-1, the recorder, and the D to A converter. Each PLL has its own characteristics; many good
PLLs actually reduce incoming jitter; others have a high residual jitter. It is likely that during
playback, you will hear far less jitter (better low level resolution, clearer highs) because there is only
one PLL in the digital chain, between the playback deck and the D to A. In other words, the playback
will sound better than the sound monitored while recording!

J itter and A to D Conver ter s

The A to D Converter is one of the most critical digital audio components susceptible to jitter,
particularly converters putting out long word lengths (e.g. 20-bits). The master clock that drives an
A/D converter must be very stable. A jittery master clock in an A/D converter can cause irrevocable
distortion and/or noise which cannot be cancelled out or eliminated at further stages in the chain.
A/D's can run on internal or external sync. On internal sync, the A/D is running from a master crystal
oscillator. On external sync, the A/D's master clock is driven by a PLL, which is likely to have higher
remnant jitter than the crystal clock. That is why I recommend running an A/D converter on internal
clock wherever possible, unless you are synchronizing an A/D to video or to another A/D (in a
multichannel setup). If you must use external sync, use the most stable external source possible
(preferably video or wordclock over AES/EBU), and try to ensure that the A/D's designer used an
ultra-stable PLL.

J itter and DSP-based Pr ocessor s

Most DSP-based software acts as a "state machine". In other words, the output result on a sample by
sample basis is entirely predictable based on a table of values of the incoming samples. The regularity
(or irregularity) of the incoming clock has no effect on the output data. If the system's phase locked
loops can follow the changes, you can vary the clock rapidly or slowly, and store the data on a DAT,
and the net result will be the same data.

Exceptions to "state-based" DSP processes include Asynchronous Sample Rate Converters, which are
able to follow variations in incoming sample rate, and produce a new outgoing sample rate. Such
devices are not "state-machines", and jitter on the input may affect the value of the data on the output.
I can imagine other DSP processes that use "time" as a variable, but these are so rare that most normal
DSP processes (gain changing, equalization, limiting, compression, etcetera) can be considered
entirely to be state machines.

Therefore, as far as the integrity of the data is concerned, I have no problems using a chain of jittery
(or non-jittery) digital devices to process digital audio, as long as the digital device has a high
integrity of DSP coding (passes the "audio transparency" test).

Why ar e plug-in computer car ds so jitter y? Does this affect my wor k with the car ds?
Most computer-based digital audio cards have quite high jitter, which makes listening through them a
variable experience. It is very difficult to design a computer-based card with a clean clock---due to
ground and power contamination and the proximity of other clocks on the computer's motherboard.
The listener may leap to a conclusion that a certain DSP-based processor reduces soundstage width
and depth, low level resolution, and other symptoms, when in reality the problem is related to a jittery
phase-locked loop in the processor input, not to the DSP process itself. Therefore, always make
delicate sonic judgments of DSP processors under low jitter conditions, which means placing

http://www.digido.com/jitteressay.html 6:23:58 ìì 7/11/2001

 Page4

high-quality jitter reduction units throughout the signal chain, particularly in front of (and within) the
D/A converter. Sonic Solutions's new USP system has very low jitter because its clocks are created in
isolated and well-designed external I/O boxes.

J itter and Digital Copies...The Key is in the Playback...not in the

tr ansfer .
Many well-known devices have high jitter on their outputs, especially DAT machines. However , for
most digital to digital transfers, jitter is most likely irrelevant to the final result. I said "most likely"
because a good scientist always leaves a little room for doubt in the face of empirical (listening)
evidence, and I have discovered certain audible exceptions (see below). Until we are able to measure
jitter with widely-available high-resolution measuring equipment, and until we can correlate jitter
measurements adequately against sonic results, I will leave some room for doubt.

Playback from a DAT recorder usually sounds better than the recording , because there is less jitter.
Remember, a DAT machine on playback puts out numbers from an internal RAM buffer memory,
locked to its internal crystal clock. A DAT machine that is recording (from its digital input) is locked
to the source via its (relatively jittery) Phase Locked Loop. As the figure above illustrates, the
numbers still get recorded correctly on tape, although their timebase was jittery while going in.
Nevertheless, on playback, that time base error becomes irrelevant, for the numbers are reclocked by
the DAT machine! I have not seen evidence that jitter is cumulative on multiple digital dubs. In fact, a
Compact Disc made from a DAT master usually sounds better than the DAT...because a CD usually
plays back more stably than a DAT machine. The fact that a dub can sound better than the original is
certainly a tough concept to believe, but it is one key to understanding the strange phenomenom called
Digital Audio.

It's unnerving to hear a dub that sounds sound different from the original, so I've performed some tests
to try to see if jitter is accumulated. I think I've proved with reasonable satisfaction, that under most
conditions jitter is not accumulated on multiple dubs, and that passing jittery sources through a
storage medium (such as hard disk) results in a very non-jittery result (e.g., recorded CDR).

Here are two tests I have made (this is far from a complete list):

Test #1. I produced a 99th-generation versus 1st-generation audio test on Chesky Records' first Test
CD. If jitter were accumulated on subsequent dubs, then the 99th generation would sound pretty bad,
right? Well, most people listening to this CD can't tell the difference and there is room for doubt that
there is a difference. It's pretty hard to refute a 99th generation listening test!

Test #2. I built a custom clock generator and put it in a DAT machine. On purpose, I increased the
jitter of that clock generator to the point that a dubbing DAT machine almost could not lock to the
signal from the jittery souce DAT. The sound coming out of the D/A converter of the dubbing DAT
was entirely distorted, completely unlistenable. However, when played back, the dub had no audible
distortion at all!

These are two scientifically-created proofs of an already well-understood digital "axiom", that the
process of loading and storing digital data onto a storage medium effectively (or virtually) cancels the
audible jitter coming in.

Does copying to har d disk deter ior ate the sound of the sour ce?

http://www.digido.com/jitteressay.html 6:23:58 ìì 7/11/2001

 Page5

If you copy from a jittery source to a hard disk-recorder and later create a CDR from that hard disk,
will this result in a jittery CDR? I cannot reach this conclusion based on personal listening experience.
In most cases, the final CDR sounds better than the source, as auditioned direct off the hard disk! I
must admit it is frustrating to listen to "degraded" sources and not really know how it is going to
sound until you play back the final CDR.

Please note that I perform all my listening tests at Digital Domain through the same D/A converter,
and that converter is preceded by an extremely powerful jitter-reduction device. Surprisingly, I can
still hear some variation in source quality, depending on whether I am listening to hard disk, CDR,
20-bit tape, or DAT. The ear is an incredibly powerful "jitter detector"!

Quiz: Is it all right to make a digital chain of two or more DAT machines in record? The answer:
During record you may hear a subtle loss of resolution due to increased jitter. However, the
cumulative jitter in the chain will be reduced on playback. But we advise against chaining machines; it
is safer to use a distribution amplifier (like the FCN-1) to feed multiple machines, because if one
machine or a cable fails, the failure will not be passed on to another machine in line.

Can Compact Discs contain jitter ?

When I started in this business, I was skeptical that there could be sonic differences between CDs that
demonstrably contained the same data. But over time, I have learned to hear the subtle (but important)
sonic differences between jittery (and less jittery) CDs. What started me on this quest was that CD
pressings often sounded deteriorated (soundstage width, depth, resolution, purity of tone, other
symptoms) compared to the CDR master from which they were made. Clients were coming to me,
musicians with systems ranging from $1000 to $50,000, complaining about sonic differences that by
traditional scientific theory should not exist. But the closer you look at the phenomenon of jitter, the
more you realize that even minute amounts of jitter are audible, even through the FIFO (First in, First
Out) buffer built into every CD player.

CDRs recorded on different types of machines sound different to my ears. An AES-EBU (stand-alone)
CD recorder produces inferior-sounding CDs compared to a SCSI-based (computer) CD recorder. This
is understandable when you realize that a SCSI-based recorder uses a crystal oscillator master clock.
Whenever its buffer gets low, this type of recorder requests data on the SCSI buss from the source
computer and thus is not dependent on the stability of the computer's clock. In contrast, a stand-alone
CD recorder works exactly like a DAT machine; it slaves its master clock to the jittery incoming clock
imbedded in the AES/EBU signal. No matter how effective the recorder's PLL at removing incoming
jitter, it can never be as effective as a well-designed crystal clock.

I've also observed that a 4X-speed SCSI-based CDR copy sounds inferior to a double-speed copy and
yet again inferior to a 1X speed copy.

Does a CD copy made from a jittery source sound inferior to one made from a clean source? I don't
think so; I think the quality of the copy is solely dependent on clocking and mechanics involved during
the transfer. Further research should be done on this question.

David Smith (of Sony Music) was the first to point out to me that power supply design is very
important to jitter in a CD player, a CD recorder, or a glass mastering machine. Although the FIFO is
supposed to eliminate all the jitter coming in, it doesn't seem to be doing an adequate job. One theory
put forth by David is that the crystal oscillator at the output of the FIFO is powered by the same power

http://www.digido.com/jitteressay.html 6:23:58 ìì 7/11/2001

 Page6

supply that powers the input of the FIFO. Thus, the variations in loading at the input to the FIFO are
microcosmically transmitted to the output of the FIFO through the power supply. Considering the
minute amounts of jitter that are detectable by the ear, it is very difficult to design a power
supply/grounding system that effectively blocks jitter from critical components. Crystal oscillators
and phase locked loops should be powered from independent supplies, perhaps even battery supplies.
A lot of research is left to be done; one of the difficulties is finding measurement instruments capable
of quantifying very low amounts of jitter. Until we are able to correlate jitter measurements against
audibility, the ear remains the final judge. Yet another obstacle to good "anti-jitter" engineering
design is engineers who don't (or won't) listen. The proof is there before your ears!

David Smith also discovered that inserting a reclocking device during glass mastering definitely
improves the sound of the CD pressing. Correlary question: If you use a good reclocking device on the
final transfer to Glass Master , does this cancel out any jitter of previous source or source(s) that were
used in the pre-production of the 1630? Answer: We're not sure yet!

Listening tests: I have participated in a number of blind (and double-blind) listening tests that clearly
indicate that a CD which is pressed from a "jittery" source sounds worse than one made from a less
jittery source? In one test, a CD plant pressed a number of test CDs, simply marked "A" or "B". No one
outside of the plant knew which was "A" and which "B". All listeners preferred the pressing marked
"A", as closer to the master, and sonically superior to "B". Not to prolong the suspense, disc "A" was
glass mastered from PCM-1630, disc "B" from a CDR.

Attention CD Plants---a New Solution to the J itter Pr oblem fr om Sony: In response to pressure
from its musical clients, and recognizing that jitter really is a problem, Sony Corporation has decided
to improve on the quality of glass mastering. The result is a new system called (appropriately) The
Ultimate Cutter . The system can be retrofitted to any CD plant's Glass Mastering system for
approximately $100,000. The Ultimate Cutter contains 2 gigabytes of flash RAM, and a very stable
clock. It is designed to eliminate the multiple interfering clocks and mechanical irregularities of
traditional systems using 1630, Exabyte, or CD ROM sources. First the data is transferred to the
cutter's RAM from the CD Master; then all interfering sources may be shut down, and a glass master
cut with the stable clock directly from RAM. This system is currently under test, and I look forward to
hearing the sonic results.

Can J itter in a Chain be Er ased or Reduced?

The answer, thankfully, is "yes". Several of the advanced D to A converters now available to
consumers contain jitter reduction circuits. Some of them use a frequency-controlled crystal oscillator
to average the moment to moment variations in the source. In essence, the clock driving the D/A
becomes a stable crystal, immune to the pico- or nano-second time-base variations of jittery sources.
This is especially important to professionals, who have to evaluate the digital audio during recording,
perhaps at the end of a chain of several Phase Locked Loops. Someday all D to A converters will
incorporate very effective jitter-reduction circuits.

Good J itter vs. Bad J itter

The amount of jitter is defined by how far the time is drifting. Original estimates of acceptable jitter
in A/D and D/A converters were around 100 to 200 picoseconds (pS). However, research into
oversampling converters revealed that jitter below 10 pS is highly desirable. For D/A converters, the
amount of jitter is actually less important than the type of jitter, for some types of jitter are audibly

http://www.digido.com/jitteressay.html 6:23:58 ìì 7/11/2001

 Page7

more benign than others (I repeat: jitter does not affect D-D dubs, it only affects the D to A
conver ter in the listening chain ).

There are three different "types" of jitter:

1. The variations in the time base which are defined as jitter are regular and periodic (possibly
sinusoidal)
2. The variations are random (incoherent, white noise)
3. The variations are related to the digital audio signal

Jitter can also be a combination of the above three.

Periodic fluctuations in the time base (#1 above) can cause spurious tones to appear at low levels,
blocking our ability to hear critical ambient decay and thus truncating the dynamic range of the
reproduction. Often this type of jitter is caused by clock leakage. It is analogous to scrape flutter in
analog recorders.

On the other hand, Gaussian, or random jitter (#2 above, usually caused by a well-behaved Phase
Locked Loop wandering randomly around the nominal clock frequency) is the least audible type. In
addition to adding some additional noise at high frequencies, gaussian jitter adds a small perfume of
hiss at the lowest levels, which may or may not be audible, and may or may not mask low level
musical material. Sometimes, this type of jitter puts a "veil" on the sound. This veiling is not
permanent (unlike the effects of dither, which are generally permanent), and will go away with a
proper reclocking circuit into the D/A converter.

Finally, timing variations related to the digital audio signal (#3 above) add a kind of intermodulation
distortion that can sound quite ugly.

Mor e to Come: Jitter bibliography and credits. Clarifications of some apparent contradictions in the
above essay.

Our letters section currently covers reader letters and some answers to these questions:

Digital Patchbays, Good or Bad?

What does "better sound"mean in the context of jitter?

Why do CDRs show jitter differences while DATs do not?

While you're waiting for "The Jitter Bible", I urge you to listen, listen, listen, and see if you hear the
problems of jitter in your audio systems, where and when they seem to occur.

Return to

Copyr ight Notice and Linking per mission: These HTML documents are Copyright 1995, 1996,
1997, Digital Domain, Inc. The following are trademarks of Digital Domain, Inc.: Digital Domain,
Digi-nar y. These documents may not be reproduced in any manner without the permission of the

http://www.digido.com/jitteressay.html 6:23:58 ìì 7/11/2001

 Page8

copyright owner. We invite the audio and music community to link to this web site, which will be
periodically revised.

This document has been significantly revised and updated January 28, 1996.

http://www.digido.com/jitteressay.html 6:23:58 ìì 7/11/2001