jh901 wrote: > The Transporter's clock is vastly inferior to those found in today's > best DACs. Vastly. > > Anyhow, is asynchronous USB superior to S/PDIF? In any way? I've > pointed out that slaving the Transporter, for example, to a master is > not possible. If the Transporter had asynchronous outputs then it would > be desirable to use the USB inputs on many uber-DACs on the market > today. Mr. Harley is a much better source of advice than anyone on this > forum, btw. He literally wrote the book on hi-end audio. > > http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Guide-High-End-Acoustic-Engineering/dp/0978649311/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354912394&sr=1-1&keywords=robert+harley
But you CAN slave a Transporter to a DAC, it has a wordclock input which can be used to slave its S/PDIF output to a wordclock from a DAC. You just need a DAC with a very good internal clock which outputs a wordclock and reclocks the data from the S/PDIF receiver with its internal clock. With such a setup the clock in the Transporter is ignored, the clock in the DAC is in complete control. It doesn't use USB, but the data from the Transporter is still slaved to the DAC. Admittedly there are not a lot of DACs that can do this, but that doesn't mean the Transporter is incapable of it. John S. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ JohnSwenson's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5974 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=97489 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
