jkeny wrote: > You mean how using a local clean clock in the USB receiving device to > time the USB signl is better than timing it with a derived clock running > in a computer powered by electrical noisy PS & sharing a an environment > bathed in emi & RFI? Why a stable clock would be better at timing than a > clock which is subjected to current fluctuations occuring from the > computer's moment-to-moment activity. >
If those fluctuations are reliably perceived by the listener, doesn't that mean that a listener using an Asynch DAC would hear a difference? I'll nominate a $50 FIIO E7 as my reference non-asynch DAC, and all you need to show that your Asynch DAC measures enough like the FIIO E7 that any differences heard will be due to jitter and not for example poor frequency response in your asynch DAC, and furthermore that your Asynch DAC actually outperforms the FIIO as regards to jitter. Where is your reliable evidence that there actually is a reliably audible difference? Use any listening methodology you will, just prove that the methodology you use is reasonably free of false positives and false negatives. This is only fair given the many discussions we have had about false positives and false negatives. And BTW jkeny, who OEMs your DACs? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103684 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
