mswlogo;558361 Wrote: > Yes it is. > > Two way systems allow buffering and reclockling. For example a > squeezebox has no added jitter from lan or wifi. > > As soon as you switch to systems that are one way, they have to > synchronized. For example SPDIF. If you broadcast the clock from dac > back to the source. You solve a lot of jitter problems. But that is > basically twoway. Another way is to buffer incoming signal, but unless > it can communicate with source it has problems.
The cross product between jitter and communications channel duplex type is exactly equal to 0. I can just as well make an extrememly low jitter simplex comms channel as I can make a highly jittered full duplex channel. Also, simplex channels need not be synchronized. The world is chock full of chips called asynchronous source rate converters that perform exactly the function of destroying or creating output data to adjust the input data rate. There is nothing which compels the output of such devices to have high amounts of jitter. And... I know all about sending source clocks from a DAC to a transport in order to reduce jitter. Much, much better than most. In fact, I believe I'm still the only person on this board who has designed his own DAC to do exactly this. However, I reiterate that sending the clock in this manner to the transport does NOTHING to reduce jitter inherent in the system. All it does is get rid of the SRC. The jitter is up to the DAC designer. That is, I can just as well make a high jitter clock-looped system as I can a low-jitter SRC-type system. -- wayne325 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ wayne325's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=29916 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=79677 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
