Newbie question re: USB quality

Always preferable to avoid converting/adapting protocols

It is very desirable to convert in order to remove timing. Sending music as data and recreating timing on the other side of converter/bridge removes all the noise and timing on computer side. Playback program as well as computer speed don't matter with data transfers. Better yet, slower computer might be better producing less of electrical noise (computer power usage is proportional to speed).

Here is comparison of many USB to S/Pdif converters:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/15-universal-serial-bus-industry-standard-cables-connectors-and-communications-protocols-between-computers-and-electronic-devices-spdif-converters-shootout-15327/

Some of converters (tested on DCs Scarlatti and Metrum Octave DACs) matched performance of DCs Scarlatti transport, suggesting that USB bus has nothing to do with it!

Kijanki,
If I wanted to translate something from French to English I would not translate French to German to English. Unless I had no choice. As far as all the "grunge" they speak of, if you have a properly set up USB silent music server going into a dac that is PROPERLY SET UP FOR USB, there is no "grunge". If you don't have a properly set up server and you have "grunge" well maybe, except, instead, I would suggest you take those funds and do it right the first time eliminating the obvious extra step. To me simpler (less steps) is always better. Less to brake, less to connect and less clutter. Unless you are one of these audiophiles who likes a real long list of components on their virtual system. Another thing to consider is many companies make their living by solving problems that do not need solving when properly implemented. I will say, it made an interesting read.

Pkoegz, External converter is one of possible solutions. It is capable to
deliver results similar to asynch USB while providing more flexibility, since
only few DACs have asynch USB while all have S/Pdif input.

Also this solution is much better than synchronous USB where computer
with its jittery clock controls timing. Computer controlled clock will always
be jittery - no matter how "USB silent music server" you will
make.

In addition you don't seem to understand benefits that clock separation
(timing removal) brings - you can use any computer, any playback
program etc and it won't affect sound quality.

As for the language analogy - Audio is a little bit more complicated than
that and require some understanding. For instance - the fact that I have
reclocker built into my DAC does not mean that it is the best solution.
Reclocker outside of the DAC most likely will give better performance and
will allow future upgrade at the lower cost.

You must be one of those audiophiles that have TV, Radio, Amplifier,
Speakers and Turntable built into big credenza - like in 70s. :)

Kijanki,

I see your point in this specific case and cannot disagree. Non asynchronous USB in general would be the last approach I would bank on.

Actually while I can not speak in tech terms, I have spoken to a few designers of dac's, including emm labs and dcs, they would strongly disagree with your view. (I recently in my last system I owned the Paganini Master Clock and Debussy dac. I only bring this up because you mentioned I know nothing about clocking). In fact I spoke with an engineer from emm labs today and ask about your point. He laughed. Now since your brought up my system as way of criticizing my knowledge, I have temporally listed it. I will tell you that my digital front end, in my view, is unrivaled. I have had much more expensive systems but none I have enjoyed more. Now if you take that money, that in my view would have been thrown away and add it to your dac money, problem solved. Now I find these posts entertaining because I know better. Others may not. So if your going to attempt a take down of someone make sure you know what you know.