@djones51 +1
With asynchronous USB DAC's clock is not based on rate of incoming data (as it is with S/Pdif). Data is delivered in frames (each frame containing multiple samples) at constant frequency, for instance 1kHz. DAC receives frames and places samples in the buffer signaling back buffer's over or underflow. Upon this signal computer adjusts the size of next frame. That way DAC will never loose samples while its clock is independent and constant. As djones51 said - reclocking data that will be reclocked anyway doesn't make much sense. The only useful thing of USB reclocker could be isolation (if any) to avoid injecting electrical noise from computer into DAC. It is very likely that good DAC has already optical isolation and USB reclocker won't help much. Minimizing electrical noise (good power supplies etc.) seems more important.
Which USB reclocker is as good as the Innuos Phoenix USB?
I read a lot about the Innuos Phoenix USB and everyone sings its praises even owners of expensive gear. The problem is that it is expensive.
There are other reclockers like iPurifier3, the Ideon Audio USB Re-clocker 3R, or the SOtM tX-USBultra USB Audio Reclocker. In forums the feedback is that the Phoenix beats a lot of the reclockers.
Does anyone have experience with a USB reclocker that does as good job as the Phoenix USB?
- ...
- 130 posts total
@kijanki I totally agree I am not disagreeing at all. But.. how can you explain all the positive reviews about the Phoenix. I can make a long list of positive reviews on Audiogon and on the net. Anyone found a negative review yet? Can someone explain this mystery please :) |
@tjag It is likely that Phoenix reclocker helped users who had outdated synchronous USB or provided some electrical isolation. Since reclocking of the signal that doesn't come in real time doesn't make any sense, I'm just saying - be sure you can return it if it doesn't help. On the other hand if you strongly believe that it will bring improvement - it will and, as Seinfeld said, "There is nothing wrong with it" :) |
I surmise these reclockers derive most of their improvements by lowering the noise floor rather than the reclocking. Servers are likely the noisiest component in streaming system, the Phoenix should be providing lower noise floor.
I too am skeptical of adding multiple clocks, clock in renderer and usb board in dacs should do the job. At one point I added audiophile switch to my streaming setup, the OXCO clock in that far superior to the relative crap one in my router. Result was by far the worst addition to my streaming in five or six years of experimenting with various streaming components.
Ed Meitner of EMM scoffs at these various add on clocks, claims they do nothing or screw up timing. He states clocks should be internal, placed closest to circuit their providing timing for. He hears lower jitter mostly as affecting sound stage at this point, most of the jitter that we hear as digititus has been decreased to the point this only impacts lower level digital. Funny thing was, the audiophile switch I added decreased sound stage size, etched image outlines, I did hear more detail. This tells me something about adding another clock in that switch, I presume mismatched or excessive clocking.
Again, optimize the usb rendering and input in dac, good to go, this best implementation of clocks. |
@kijanki Yes I get it. I am definitely buying a Phoenix when I find one on the secondhand market or if someone recommends an equally good USB reclocker. Look at all these positive review on the net. I didn’t list those on Audiogon:
"USB reclockers are an important element of a highly optimized digital audio chain. If your budget allows it, forget the spaghetti, and get yourself a Phoenix. Its addition in your USB chain will bring a huge grin on your face!" |
- 130 posts total