In the web the word jitter appears in several places, but I can't find where is the Jitter <1ns statement present in internal cards:

http://www.rme-audio.de/en_products_fireface_800.php

Yes it is in the manual.

? Low Jitter Design: < 1 ns in PLL mode, all inputs
? Internal clock: 800 ps Jitter, Random Spread Spectrum

Interesting the different Jitter specifications:

HDSPe AIO and HDSP 9632:
Super low jitter design: < 1 ns in all clock modes

DIGI96/8 PAD:
Super low jitter design: < 1 ns in PLL mode (44.1 kHz, optical in)

Do all have the same jitter when playing audio (without any input used)?

Regards.

Ok. So all that jitter specifications in all cards (<1ns) refers to jitter that can come from input but not to the "hypothetical jitter" that could come from playing from hard disk.

Is that correct?

Thanks.

Sorry for the confusion, I though the "Jitter <1ns" was a specification for playing as well.

Well I believe that professionals use RME for DSP, mixing and recording, not reproduction.

So SteadyClock takes care of that needs, with active supression of jitter form an external clock. But jitter is present everywhere, as well in reproduction.

I don't know if they don't hear to it, don't care about it or don't know how to remove it to a point nobody hear it.

I use RME DIGI96/8 PAD only to play audio cause its low hardware jitter and I was interested to know if a new PCIe HDSP AIO or Fireface 800 could improve that aspect cause still there is a lot of jitter somewhere. But I believe RME sound engineers do the best they can do strictly adhering to the current interfaces and platforms they must develop for.

Regards.
Carlos

And what are you using to measure the jitter?  (Besides your ears)?

I don't use latencies above 1.5ms (64 samples), but what exactly would you say you are hearing at these high buffers in the 2048 and 4096 sample range?  And are you running buffers this high because you need the extra CPU power for mixing?  Do you hear the same issues using WDM - or only ASIO?  Just curious...

There is neither any difference in audio quality between different latency settings or drivers, nor does this have anything to do with "jitter". And higher buffer settings don't "reach lower frequencies playing audio"...

Maybe you could tell us what exactly ou mean when you say "jitter"...

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Jitter takes place between samples, not buffers. And it does not result in "compressed" sound...
I'm afraid I'm out of the discussion at this point, and I would like to delete it eventually, because it is OT here...

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

"With 23ms the sound is not as deep as with 46ms."

This, I can relate to, I have heard this complaint a few times before.
As I see it, it has to do with small glitches, the lower the latency, the higher the risk it can happen.
It can happen on some systems, and not on others, standard daw optimization, IRQs etc apply.

Ok. The fact is that WaveLab reports no dropouts, and I recorded the output to confirm that the data was identical as reported by WaveLab.

It is reported across the globe that there is something going on, but still it is not clear at what stage of the chain it is produced.

Could it be possible that the source power (5V) of the sound card could be interfered by other means, and then affecting the output sample timing?

The thing is that I know of a Fireface 800 powered by a DC to AC battery converter that has a similar behaviour.

> If its's the internal clock, I assume, that the jitter is added in DA-conversion as well?

We do not add 'jitter' to the DA conversion. Anyway, the statement says exactly what it says, you got it right, and I don't see where it needs clarification then. Further technical details are not disclosed, sorry.

No such user here...

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME