I had some thoughts regarding the 'bits are bits' debate.
Take two highly regarded 'network end point' devices, the microRendu and the sMS-200. These take an Ethernet feed and output via USB, we seem to be agreed these are 'bit perfect' devices, bit are bits. Then take the updated versions that appeared on the market last year, the sMS-200 became the sMS-200Ultra and the microRendu was offered a '1.4' upgrade. Both of these upgrades related to improved internal clocking, and not much else. This is Sonore's description of the change to the microRendu with the 1.4 upgrade:
This update is a revision to the original microRendu's main board updating it from from version 1.3 to version 1.4. The new version 1.4 main board shares among other thing one of the key components in the upcoming ultraRendu. The update changes the oscillator utilized for the CPU and the USB regenerative circuit while the remaining circuit design remains unchanged.
So basically the only change is to the clock for the CPU and the USB circuit. Much the same is true of the sMS-200Ultra, which is basically the original sMS-200 with the addition of SOtM's sCLK-EX clock board.
http://www.sotm-audio.com/sotmwp/english...m/sclk-ex/
OK, now we have to go 'subjective', but almost universally the sMS-200Ultra and microRendu 1.4 have been found to offer better sound quality than their predecessors. There is no difference is leakage loops, grounding or noise here. The only difference is in CPU and data clocking. So maybe the better clocks reduce noise? Maybe better clocking in whatever feeds an asynchronous USB system reduces the workload on the control clock in the DAC, and helps improve the accuracy there. OK, lots of "maybes" here, I do not claim to know definitive answers. Just something to think about. If anyone does have the definitive answer, I would love to know!
Take two highly regarded 'network end point' devices, the microRendu and the sMS-200. These take an Ethernet feed and output via USB, we seem to be agreed these are 'bit perfect' devices, bit are bits. Then take the updated versions that appeared on the market last year, the sMS-200 became the sMS-200Ultra and the microRendu was offered a '1.4' upgrade. Both of these upgrades related to improved internal clocking, and not much else. This is Sonore's description of the change to the microRendu with the 1.4 upgrade:
This update is a revision to the original microRendu's main board updating it from from version 1.3 to version 1.4. The new version 1.4 main board shares among other thing one of the key components in the upcoming ultraRendu. The update changes the oscillator utilized for the CPU and the USB regenerative circuit while the remaining circuit design remains unchanged.
So basically the only change is to the clock for the CPU and the USB circuit. Much the same is true of the sMS-200Ultra, which is basically the original sMS-200 with the addition of SOtM's sCLK-EX clock board.
http://www.sotm-audio.com/sotmwp/english...m/sclk-ex/
OK, now we have to go 'subjective', but almost universally the sMS-200Ultra and microRendu 1.4 have been found to offer better sound quality than their predecessors. There is no difference is leakage loops, grounding or noise here. The only difference is in CPU and data clocking. So maybe the better clocks reduce noise? Maybe better clocking in whatever feeds an asynchronous USB system reduces the workload on the control clock in the DAC, and helps improve the accuracy there. OK, lots of "maybes" here, I do not claim to know definitive answers. Just something to think about. If anyone does have the definitive answer, I would love to know!
1000 Pro - KEF Blade - iFi Zen Stream - Mutec REF10 - MC3+USB - Pro-Ject Signature 12
