AudioQuest JitterBug – a review

AudioQuest has been on a personal audio tear lately – from the DragonFly (USB DAC) to the NightHawk (headphones) and now the Beetle (optical / Bluetooth / USB DAC) and JitterBug (USB power / signal filter), the last of which is the focus of this review. AudioQuest’s entry is not the first – Schiit offers the Wyrd USB decrapifier and UpTone Audio has their USB REGEN signal regenerator. However, the JitterBug has the distinction of being both the cheapest and the most portable of the three. Not a bad spot to find yourself in.

Description

The JitterBug is simple enough. It’s about the size of your garden variety flash drive, though probably approaching twice the thickness. The shell is a hard black plastic which seems to be fairly sturdy. One end has the ubiquitous USB type A male connector. The other end sports the female version. It’s strictly plug and play.

Note that AudioQuest claims that placing two JitterBugs in parallel on the same USB bus will enhance the filtering capabilities even further. If one’s good, two must be that much better, right? Well, the proof is in the listening…

Listening

I’ve found that the effects that power-related tweaks can be subtle and vary from equipment to equipment. Sometimes it’s easier to listen to the system with the tweak in place for a while and then remove it to see what changes, if anything. For this review, I used two portable DACs – AudioQuest’s own DragonFly v1.2 and the Meridian Explorer 2. Both draw power from the USB bus which makes them prime candidates for the JitterBug. I started with the Meridian.

I have to admit, it was a challenge at first to nail down just what the JitterBug was doing to the sound. After listening to a few of my usual test tracks, I finally hit on one that really spotlighted the differences. Leslie Feist’s performance on “1234” from The Reminder (Cherrytree/Interscope Records, B0008819-02), especially the introduction, can take on new dimensions depending on the DAC in use. The Explorer 2 sans JitterBug had a relaxed presentation – Leslie Feist’s voice sounding airy and delicate and the backing band portrayed with a British politeness that some might find too reserved. Injecting the JitterBug into the chain brought a warmth to the midrange that fleshed out Feist’s voice, and brought her a bit forward in the soundstage. The strummed guitar now had equal parts tone and attack. Bass firmed up, lending more rhythmic drive to the track. Yet all this didn’t come at the expense of the details. The little smacking sounds as Feist’s lips moved and the dynamic shading she imparted within each verse as well as the brassiness of the trumpet solo and spatial resolution were all preserved.

Now onto the DragonFly. Here it was a bit easier listening with the JitterBug connected first and then removing it from the playback chain. The effect the JitterBug had was somewhat muted, probably by the DragonFly’s already warmer tonal balance. Feist’s vocals again had more body but what the non-JitterBug setup lacked most was the rhythmic drive and bass impact that came with ostensibly cleaner power. Detail and clarity remained largely unchanged – a testament to Gordon Rankin’s circuit design prowess.

In both instances I also noted that the JitterBug seemed to remove a tiny degree of edginess or grain from the treble, perhaps as a result of the warmer midrange and dynamic bass, resulting in a more natural presentation.

Fortunately, a co-worker of mine also had a JitterBug so we were able to double-up on the USB bus to find out if more really is better. In this case, neither of us could really hear a difference. I tried listening to a track while it was playing and inserting / removing the JitterBug – no changes were detected. I also A/B’d entire tracks much to the same result.

Finally, I tried the JitterBug with the Aune X1S desktop headphone amp / DAC while it was in residence on its North American tour, but I couldn’t detect whether or not there was a real sonic benefit. The X1S has an outboard power supply so perhaps the power filtering capabilities of the JitterBug are more important than the data line filters.

Conclusions

In the end, the best kind of tweak is the one that works and in this regard, the AudioQuest JitterBug fulfills its promise, at least for USB-powered DACs. At it’s current price of about $50, it’s a phenomenal value to boot and easy to recommend. If you have a USB-powered DAC, you owe it to yourself to try the JitterBug in your system. If your experience is anywhere near the same as mine, you’ll soon find it indispensable.

Associated Equipment

Headphones – Etymotic ER-4S, NAD Viso HP50, Sennheiser HD 600

Amps / Sources – AudioQuest DragonFly v1.2, Meridian Explorer 2

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “AudioQuest JitterBug – a review

  1. Thank you for properly reviewing the JItterbug. I have read numerous audiophile argument threads where the nay-sayers are calling it “snake oil.” The large majority haven’t even tested/tried the product and the remaining bought it and used it improperly, then returned it. Those in the latter group had added the Jitterbug to a DAC that was getting its power from the wall. Therefore, it cannot clean up the signal and thus just passes through.

    This product “shines out like a shaft of gold when all around is dark” when connected to a device that pulls the 5v power from USB. Some might argue that their USB ports don’t/can’t stink because reasons and argue that they couldn’t possibly benefit, then shut the argument down with, “bits is bits.”

    Well yes, “bits are bits” if you are transporting only digital data like movies, video, files, and data packets. So long as the information will remain digital, then bits are bits. However, audio has the very important distinction in that in order to hear the sound it has to be converted to analog. As far as I know there is no such thing as a digital speaker. Even the most rudimentary speakers are voice coils on a concave cone/disk. Thus need a Digital to Analog Converter. A DAC isn’t as prejudiced as to what is and isn’t signal data. It takes the bits and whatever signal is present and sends it on down the line. Hence why there can be audio improvement on a digital audio source….but not a digital video source (in other words, you won’t get richer, non-bleeding reds from a better digital video cable.)

    What the Jitterbug did for my setup was to relax the harshness of the sound so I could listen longer. With the Audioquest Carbon cable and the Dragonfly Red, I could hear the clarity, but it was forced. I could only listen for about 30 minutes and then I would either have ear fatigue or a headache (or both.) With the Jitterbug, I can listen for hours without noticing. Also, the clarity is present even at low volume levels, which is awesome.

    Like

  2. DACs convert digital signals to analog. They normalize any variation out of necessity, they wouldn’t be able to pass through line noise even if they wanted to. What happens during and/or after the conversion process is another thing altogether. but that comes after the signal is passed though the jitterbug.

    Like

    1. > What happens during and/or after the conversion process is another thing altogether. but that comes after the signal is passed though the jitterbug.

      Not necessarily – the output section in the DragonFly also draws power from the USB port, so there’s a case to be made that the JitterBug can affect sound quality in that respect.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s