Julf wrote: > Bzzz. Wrong. "Asynch" in USB has nothing to do with the bit clock - it > has to do with the timing of higher-level data blocks.Where did I say it had > anything to do with the bit clock? Jeez, yo do make things up
> And you would be well advised to read that 101. Most modern commercial > DAC chips use an ASRC that isolates the incoming bit clock from the > audio clock - independent of the asynchronous or isochronous nature of > the actual USB interface.You are confusing ASRC with asynch USB - two totally > different animals. What are you on about bit clock again for - we are talking about USB, jeez > And no ASRC?No, ASRC's, are detrimental to most low jitter sources. They > improve jittery sources up to a certain level but are detrimental to the sound unless you have such a jittery source. In my first experiments the ES9023 DAC chip, which has the same internal ASRC as all the ESS DACs, sounded better when the DAC chip was fed a synchronous clock (which turns off the internal ASRC) rather than an asynchronous clock. This has nothing to do with asynchronous USB however - that is a totally different thing as I said above - it only shares the word "asynchronous" - that's the only similarity ------------------------------------------------------------------------ jkeny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35192 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103684 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
