Dear Srajan,
I have been made aware that an excerpt from a document of mine is reprinted in a 6moons review written by you:
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/esoteric2/g25u_3.html
Normally I would just see it as a compliment to have my writings republished and thus acknowledged by a hifi magazine such as yours, however in this case one of the reprinted statements is erroneous.
The statement of concern is the following: "CD discs even have physical jitter, often referred to as landscape-jitter and pit-jitter. All these are secondary distortion sources; they can lead to sampling jitter, which will again lead to distortion."
This statement is factually wrong, as there is no link between a CD's physical landscape-/pit-jitter and clock-jitter whatsoever. These are two terms descibing completely different effects; the landscape- and pit-jitter on a CD only affects its yield, it has no relation to sampling jitter as the (sampling) clock is not something that is stored on the disc, but rather a signal generated during conversion. Thus, the above sentence should probably be removed from the site.
The document, that you also link to, was written as a report in a PhD-course and it contants a few errors like this one, since it was never peer-reviewed or intended to be a scientific publication. You should probably note this when linking to the document. If you want to, you are also free to provide a link to my final thesis found here.
Thanks and regards,
Ivar Løkken.
