24.46.165.177
In Reply to: RE: Different DAC chip in the Dac 2.1 to Run I2s? posted by jmlpartners on February 27, 2009 at 13:37:46
USB to I2S is superior sounding and has lower jitter. The AN1865N DAC can not have a Is2 input.
Follow Ups:
USB to I2S is superior sounding and has lower jitter.
As to sounding superior, that's a matter of opinion: I doubt anyone making such a claim has used an AD1865 for evaluation. As to lower jitter, that depends on which clock you measure. Most S/PDIF jitter measurements look at MCLK jitter because most modern DACs update their output on a particular BCLK edge and BCLK is derived from MCLK. MCLK is very susceptible to data-correlated jitter, especially in older DIRs, such as the CS8412/14. On the other hand, the AD1865 updates its output on an edge of WCLK and is mostly immune from data-correlated jitter. Going from USB=> S/PDIF=> AD1865 will have about the same amount of sample clock jitter as USB=> I2S=> AD1865.
The AN1865N DAC can not have a Is2 input.
Duh. That’s why I suggested modifying a USB=> I2S board to output the kind of signal the AD1865 wants to see. That’s what you should do if you are convinced eliminating S/PDIF from the USB input chain will improve things. But before you do that, I suggest you read the USB-Audio spec regarding jitter and decide if anything you do downstream will really help.
are you sure about this?
Why do you doubt it?
I checked with an expert who designs and builds serious gear including USB dacs. I am told it can work yet it will not be optimal.
I will want to switch out the Dac board in favor of a more current DAC chip. SPDIF Receiver and USB board so I can run USB > > > I2S.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: