In Reply to: RE: flawed many of todays USB Audio interfaces posted by Mercman on August 30, 2015 at 12:12:50:
You seem to understand "No Nothin'".
You walk on thin ice (I know you wouldn't know how to do it down in San Diego) by trying to become a technical expert. Better leave it.
You just repeat what Gordon and the other commercials are trying to make you and these others non-teccies believe to hide their own deficiencies.
The basic logic is: As long as bits ( the bit-value = 1/0 ) arrive at the DAC as being send, we as users should be fine. Why? """We've got asynchronous USB.""" -- Just kidding. That's -- ah - no - it used to be -- Gordons story.
Because the DAC - and only the DAC - should take care on making the best out of what's coming in. No matter how unstable and polluted voltages - VBUS or D+D- or ground are, if the frames and bits stay in tact it should be OK to the DAC.
All isolation, reclocking/refreshing, filtering, rebuffering should then be done properly inside the DAC. Why?
Because an external filter can make a positive difference, can be neutral, can make things worse. The behaviour will change with every DAC, every transport, every cable, every system, every user. The users are forced to gamble for good sound. That's where we're still at.
And... The industry enjoys it. Just buy 10-20 USB-filters for all your USB ports in the house and you'll be fine.
Enjoy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
blog latest >> The Audio Streaming Series - tuning kit pCP
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: flawed many of todays USB Audio interfaces - soundchekk 00:00:02 08/31/15 (3)
- RE: flawed many of todays USB Audio interfaces - Mercman 03:24:40 08/31/15 (2)
- RE: flawed many of todays USB Audio interfaces - soundchekk 03:55:29 08/31/15 (1)
- RE: flawed many of todays USB Audio interfaces - Mercman 05:32:42 08/31/15 (0)