wayne325;419527 Wrote: > I expose the DAC could detect the clock F, but why not do it as > intended > with the encoding in the bitstream - it's a LOT easier.
Huh? No you couldn't. The whole point of the DAC being in word clock mode is that the source is going to give you the bits at whatever rate the _DAC_ is running. > > If one was going to build the best audio music system they possibly > could, > what Sean has advised, and what I am building, is the way one would go > about doing it. Well, actually I'd consider it optimal to not deal with s/pdif and word clocking at all... this is what Transporter does by itself. > About the only thing I'm missing is paralleling, say, 4 DAC > chips and offsetting time samples to the DACs by 90 degrees. THat's > for > another day and involves more work. I don't understand this at all. > Having the source clock driving the CD platter is in fact the worst > possible > way to make a digital music system and it is the most common method. > Why? > Simple - its the cheapest. Driving the platter isn't the problem, and it doesn't work the way people might imagine from their experience with turntables or tapes. In a CD player, the clock drives the PCM output and this _pulls_ data from the platter via a buffer. The distinction being that the mechanical parts are NOT part of the timing path (as they are with analog media). So it's not nearly as bad as a lot of people think - jitter is nothing at all like wow/flutter - it happens on a time scale a billion times smaller. -- seanadams ------------------------------------------------------------------------ seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=62747 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
