Does this qualify, 'cause that's the best I can do.
I guess I haven't heard why my DACs are not appropriate.
I'm certainly willing to spend my weekend at concerts instead of in my cramped lab doing you a favor.
do you really own this or are you just taking the ****?
I own it. It was the first piece of (commercial) gear that I sat down with that really sounded better than any DIY (DAC) I threw at it. I suppose there's a cost of entry to get to this level, but it has deftly slain any and all competition.
If the DACs in your list have this intrinsic "problem" that is solved by this gizmo, then doesn't it stand to reason that they are poor implementations? Wouldn't a DAC that isn't affected by the addition of this gizmo be "better" by some definition of better, even if that definition is "better engineered"?
What I said was that some DACs mask low level jitter sources & so the sonic benefits of such sources will not be heard i.e will not be seen on the anlogue output waveform. So testing & listening will reveal nothing. Nothing to do with my gizmo solving a DACs problem!
Who said that?The idea broached that a unit which is incompetently designed so that spdif jitter upsets its operation is somehow better astounds me.
"Is the CS8420 really that bad"
YES - Just Terrible! Completely destroys the audio performance / sound stage.
Also the PLL on the integral SPDIF Rx has a Bi-Modal phase noise distribution. This means instead of having a single clean narrow clock carrier (single frequency). There are two carriers (two frequencies) close together – poor PLL design.
On a spectrum analyzer sweep, the profile of this distribution depicts the wrong kind silicon……. (At least in this instants)
Given the spectra I've shown, there's no "intrinsic jitter" problem with either of the DACs. If there were, you'd see sidebands and line broadening. You don't.
Who said that?
wrong kind silicon