No, it will not break the power delivery
No, there’s actually two digital signals. The digital data signal from your computer to your DAC and then the digital signal from your DACs input to the input of your DAC’s DAC chip. The timing of the former is controlled by the computer and the timing of the latter is controlled by your DAC. In the case of asynchronous USB transfer, the timing of the former is completely independent and unrelated to the timing of the latter. In the case of synchronous USB transfer, the timing of the former is not independent or unrelated to the latter but is modified by your DAC’s clock recovery circuitry (typically involving some sort of PLL) after the signal is received, before the data is then passed to the input of the DAC chip.
As above, the USB digital signal is “timed” by the computer. The DDC then re-clocks it to the timing of the digital protocol its outputting. Your DAC then re-clocks it again in the case of an asynchronous protocol or modifies it with its clock recovery circuitry in the case of a synchronous protocol. This is the same as above, which is obvious if you think about it, as your DAC obviously doesn’t know (or care) whether it’s input signal has come from a computer, DDC or any other digital audio device.
Very interesting, first time I read about this distinction, this duality of the data audio signal within a DAC.
That‘s probably not really the case, just that you didn’t realise it. USB 2.0 for example has fixed data rates up to 480Mbps, obviously that’s very different from the 1.4Mbps of say 16/44 digital audio, so a different clock is required for those two very different data rates.
That very much depends on the DAC. Some DAC’s have very good clock recovery circuitry and there’s no difference between generating the clock itself or modifying (recovering) an embedded or external clock. In many cases though, your assumption would be correct, performance would be better when the DAC generates the clock from scratch. However, unless there’s something pretty seriously wrong with the DAC, this “better performance“ would be on paper only, it would not be audibly different/better.
Thanks for taking the time to elaborate. Sure, there are different quality DACs on the market. I'm trying to determine numerous things implicating clock/signal timing, including:
True, but then “different quality” can mean almost anything. For example, a high quality, very expensive DAC does not necessarily mean it has better clock recovery circuitry than a far cheaper DAC. It may just have a far more expensive case and/or attempt a non-conventional topology, that may actually have no better or even poorer performance.
Computer timing accuracy with synchronous transfer is irrelevant, as it will be modified/corrected by the DAC’s clock recovery circuitry. The difference between that and asynchronous transfer will be inaudible unless you happen to have a DAC with particularly horrendous clock recovery circuitry. Not carrying electrical noise/interference should also be irrelevant as inherently digital audio is immune to it, the only exception would be a need for cables longer than the protocol recommends or again, an incompetently designed DAC that doesn’t prevent electrical noise/interference on the digital input from somehow seeping into the analogue side of the DAC.
It doesn’t control the timing though. It only controls the timing from its output to the input of the DAC. The timing up to the input of the DDC (or other device) is controlled by the computer and the timing of the signal entering the DAC chip is controlled/modified by the DAC.
True, but again, the clock recovery circuitry would have to be really horrendous for that degradation to be audible. Eg. Significantly worse than the clock recovery circuitry found in relatively cheap consumer devices from around 30 years ago.
There are be many (knowledgeable) people who would disagree on that statement.
As this is an audiophile forum, you can be pretty much assured some/many people would disagree, even amongst those claiming to be knowledgeable. However, their agreement or disagreement doesn’t change the actual facts of why digital audio was invented.There are be many (knowledgeable) people who would disagree on that statement.
The iFi iGalvanic3.0 uses a USB 3.0 cable to connect to the source via which it receives both data and power (for its operation). Just use a USB 3.0 cable, does not have to be high-end (e.g. Amazon Basics would be fine).
I already answered, you just chose to focus on a non-salient part of my reply.
