Isn't AES/EBU segregated? Coax, BNC and Optical are prone to Jitter where as the AES is not because it skips the whole clocking process??!! Someone correct me if I am wrong but this is my understanding, hence most people consider it as superior connection. And so is i2S, it skips the whole clocking process just like AES. i2S is not proprietary but its less used these days, Audio Alchemy really elaborated this connection. Double wide can also be used with BNC, although COAX and BNC hold a 75 Ohm Value BNC is considered a Superior connection. Feel free to correct me.
Double Wide AES/EBU
Has anyone connected in Double Wide AES/EBU configuration? (2 x AES-EBU on XLR). Is there an improvement over the Single wide connection? (Regular AES-EBU Digital XLR input). I see most high end devices use the double wide configuration (Left and right Digital Signals, eg: Musical Fidelity kW DM25 Transport/DAC combo, dCS, etc..).
A (single) regular AES/EBU cable is capable of transmitting up to 192k signal rates and double wide is usually used to transmit higher rates like 192k, this is my understanding.
If a Single cable is capable why use double to achieve the same output? Does it sonically enhance the musical experience? Its very hard to imagine a double run performing any better, given the number are still the same, but IS IT any better? Any input or any first hand experience would be very much appreciated.
A (single) regular AES/EBU cable is capable of transmitting up to 192k signal rates and double wide is usually used to transmit higher rates like 192k, this is my understanding.
If a Single cable is capable why use double to achieve the same output? Does it sonically enhance the musical experience? Its very hard to imagine a double run performing any better, given the number are still the same, but IS IT any better? Any input or any first hand experience would be very much appreciated.