USB to I2S conversion and reclocking quality doubt

[mansr]

The output can only be as good as the last clock, in this case that of the D/D converter. Whether or not prior clocks in the chain matter is a hotly debated topic in audio circles. Digital design principles say they shouldn't, and the rest of the world agrees with this. That said, it is probably possible to design a device so horribly that it really is significantly influenced by upstream clocks. If you suspect something to fall in this category, don't buy it.

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, doraymon said:

So the question is: am I wasting my money in placing $2.2k worth of "USB signal cleaning" devices before the SU-1?

Almost certainly.

[mansr]

52 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

A picture of a USB signal. It may help to clarify some points  I made.

 

USB actually encodes 0 as change and 1 as no change, the opposite of this figure. The principle is the same, though.

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Why do you care what someone spends money on?

Who said he cares? The OP specifically asked if he was wasting money. Some of us have answered with our opinion on that matter.

[mansr]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

They are not in scientific or engineering disciplines relating to SQ, but do usually have lots of $$ to throw down various rabbit holes, which is easier than doing some hard work to determine what really makes a difference.  You forgot to add lawyers also.

Those professions are distinctly different from science and engineering in an important way. Physicians deal with something, the human body, that is still far from fully understood. A lot of drugs are used even though nobody knows quite how or why they work. Lawyers and accountants deal exclusively with arbitrary human constructs, often ill-defined. In both cases, there is a lot of room for arguing one position or another. A lawyer need only convince twelve angry men for his version to become the actual truth. Steeped in this kind of thinking, it is natural for them to start applying it in situations where it doesn't work, such as audio engineering. Thus is born the idea that if it sounds better, the tweak works (compare, if the patient feels better, the drugs work). Explanations, let alone understanding, are not required. The notion that some things, no matter how unintuitive, are not debatable goes against everything these people know. Compound this with a tendency to equate success in one's field with general infallibility, and you have a recipe for disaster. Furthermore, the idea that one can be wrong, without even the prospect of compromise, is anathema to the mindset of these people. This makes them susceptible to the siren song of the snake oil peddlers. If they are wealthy, separating them from a piece of their wealth can be all too easy.

 

Of course, not all people with non-scientific backgrounds behave in this manner. Some put in the effort to gain at least a basic understanding of how things actually work. These efforts are generally rewarded.

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

except:  by definition scientists always things that are still far from fully understood.  One key to being an effective scientist is knowing what is not yet known, yet could become known with the right study using the right instruments.

Scientists strive to discover new knowledge, not to argue with it when they find it.

 

7 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Not all lawyers do trial work.  For some lawyers, the key is to convince one angry person (a judge) or 3 of them (appeals panel)... or xx or 9 (USSC).  Others just need to convince a single client to pay them for advice or to set things up (a will).

Not a fan of classic films?