I have to say, the idea of this being a mistake seems rather strange. How can any competent manufacturer not realise what USB implementation they are using in a product they are designing? The alternative to Burson knowing about this and deciding to let the misinformation stand (the correspondence with one head-fi reviewer suggests this) is that they did not understand the USB implementation in their own product, in which case it seems doubtful their products are worth much IMO - however, that is obviously ridiculous, right? Leaving one other possibility.
heh, that's certainly concerning, with the Burson argument being "we specialize in analog/don't concern ourselves with the USB implementation". I do think they should've verified it (USBProber or USBView would've shown them the lack of async endpoints). I do find it strange that they paid the 'OEM people' the money without double-checking what they got (provided they didn't just take the reference TE7022L implementation and the whole OEM thing is...And the mac 48k problem seems to point to that, since other TE7022 implementations seem to have the same issue namely, Yulong U100). I do question why their 160D product page never publicized the usb implementation, despite it being a major feature (in red) in the 6moons ad and Burson making a small inset/separate page for everything else. And I personally find the alternative speculative explanation more appealing.
What's more, I find the lack of a public statement from Burson curious... (indirectly they have a position via the 6moons feedback section, but clearly both 6moons and burson are aware of this thread, yet ...Why not turn up and clear their good name by addressing all the concerns raised? This is an open forum after all, so no one is bashing either, they just don't seem to want to come here and explain)
What I have an issue with is that they knew about the DAC not having an async transfer mode usb since late march (at least), and have made no attempt to correct the review until this poo-storm thread was started. (at the very least they're obliged to make an effort by law re: misleading and deceptive advertising). I also find it concerning that 6moons can't manage to edit all of the review pages and in such a way to reflect the actual USB implementation after being prompted by this thread. (leaving page 5/conclusion of the burson review and page 4 of the $4000 sabre dac review unedited.) The other thing is, 6moons editing page 2 of the burson review, removing async, but leaving the residual points about the clock from the claimed async implementation suggests to me they don't quite grasp how adaptive vs async works, despite using it as a marketing point and a major attraction in many reviews.
Edited by svyr - 6/2/11 at 9:45am