In Reply to: RE: Thanks for the review, & postings: question posted by fmak on September 22, 2015 at 12:06:37:
""Remember my posts about the SUSB for audio ie sometimes universal serial bus with its charge pump power supplie""
I am sorry, I do not remember that post.
I am not trying to say SPDIF is better than USB. I am trying to understand why SQ or "signal integrity" issues are the "fault" of the DAC's PHY processor when these devices clearly "re-generate" and manipulate the USB signal. And, some playback devices clearly, (and most everyone admits), produce a "better" USB signal, that renders the USB Regen a "less effective"
Certainly a DAC can and SHOULD much better if the signal coming into it is improved. But a good reason to re-generate it is because of the quality of the variances in transport USB output. A Squeezebox USB output upgrade will be different than the Bryston BDP-2, and different again from a MAC Mini, and different again from a Razberry Pi. I don't think that a DAC manufacturer, can and should "isolate" his/her PHY processor to mitigate, enhance, and repair, issues with the USB on the transport.
Another analogy, we do not "blame the DAC" of an all-in-one CD player when we upgrade a standard Denon drive with a VRDS NEO. There are many factors that go into making the VRDS NEO "better" and the DAC still works great, but the overall sound of the CD Player is significantly better with VRDS NEO transport.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Thanks for the review, & postings: question - Sordidman 14:24:38 09/22/15 (7)
- RE: Thanks for the review, & postings: question - fmak 22:00:01 09/22/15 (0)
- RE: Thanks for the review, & postings: question - Mercman 15:13:31 09/22/15 (5)
- RE: Thanks for the review, & postings: question - Sordidman 15:33:12 09/22/15 (4)
- RE: Thanks for the review, & postings: question - Mercman 16:07:28 09/22/15 (3)
- RE: Thanks for the review, & postings: question - fmak 05:24:28 09/23/15 (1)
- RE: Thanks for the review, & postings: question - Mercman 06:30:03 09/23/15 (0)
- I'm sorry.... i may not have been clear - Sordidman 18:21:09 09/22/15 (0)