Six DAC Comparison

Hi everyone.

This is Benjamin from Mojo Audio, the designer of the Mystique line of DACs.

I just wanted to give you a bit of a perspective on our DACs and I wanted to offer Mitch one of our new entry-level Mystique Y Fe DACs ($3,999) to add to the comparison. Our new Mystique Y is almost identical in circuit, power supply, component parts, and chassis to our award-winning Mystique X, but sells for about half the price. Certainly more in line with the cost of other DACs in his comparison.

First thing I wanted to say is that we don't use any "voicing" to make our DACs sound a certain way. Our main design criteria is harmonic coherency: if the harmonic structure of the notes align from the lowest lows to the highest highs then it simply has to be correct. This is what gives the music proper time, tune, texture, timbre, musical flow, emotional content, and all of those other adjectives music lovers are looking for.

The unique thing about all of our DACs is that we use LC choke input power supplies which are the largest, heaviest, least efficient, and most expensive power supply typology. The LC choke input power supply was developed by Western Electric and Bell Labs about 100 years ago, and unless the laws of physics have changed in the past 100 years, it is still the only power supply typology to provide instantaneous effortless power.

The capacitive power supplies used in most DACs don't store current the way a choke/capacitor power supply does resulting in the music being off time and tune and corrupting the harmonic structure. The more energy a note requires, such as a belting vocal or a booming bass note, the more off time and tune that note is from the rest of the music.

When people talk about how organic and natural our DACs sound what they are actually hearing is the coherent harmonic structure and harmonic alignment we get from our LC choke input power supplies.

Also don't be confused: those tiny high-frequency filter chokes that are about the size of a jellybean companies like LTA use to filter out HF noise from their switch-mode power supplies are nothing like the massive Lundahl chokes with exotic core materials we use in the linear power supplies in our DACs.

The shrimp and steak served off the steam tables in those all-you-can-eat restaurants are not the same shrimp and steak you get at a 5-star restaurant. 

Another thing I wanted to touch on are bench test specifications such as the ones done by Stereophile magazine. Those tests are not incorrect, but they are incomplete, and they are often inaudible. Stereophile has named our Mystique X SE a "B" class recommended component for the past two years. Our "B" rating was due to our bench test measurements not being up with many of their favorites like the Benchmark DACs.

Of course the "less than" specifications are all inaudible. For example, John Atkins criticized our Mystique X SE for only resolving 18-bits of resolution yet he has also stated that he's never measured any recording with more than 18-bits of resolution. And despite claiming 24-bits most good recordings actually have less than 10-bits of resolution. 

The important take away is that the Reviewer from Stereophile found that our DAC sounded better than anything he compared it to. How is that possible if the bench test measurements were audible?

My favorite analogy in regards to bench test measurements being incomplete is this: picture a sphere, a cylinder, and a cone. All could look identical when measured in two-dimensions but all look quite different when measured in three-dimensions.

In any event, I would like to invite all of you to take advantage of our 45-day no-risk audition and hear one of our DACs in your system. I can honestly say that I can count on one hand with fingers left over the number of DACs we get returned for refund in any given year.

And I can honestly say that literally half the reviewers or editors from the magazines who reviewed our DACs ended up purchasing the demo unit as their digital reference. I think that says it all. 

@ Mitch2

The Mystique EVO Pro (2018-2020) originally sold for $11,999 and with the Z chip upgrade it would have been $12,999.

Originally we sold the Mystique X SE for $9,999 and the NC nano crystal core choke and Z chip upgrades are $2,500 making that DAC $12,499.

But due to higher sales volumes our manufacturing costs have gone down so we lowered our prices. 

Our new Mystique X AM (2024) with amorphous core chokes is identical to our Mystique X SE (2021-2023) and sells for only $8,499. And our new Mystique X NC with nano crystal core chokes sells for only $9,999.

@ gavin1977

CLC is an excellent power supply and also stores energy similar to an LC power supply but the LC is still slightly better. 

With an LC power supply the rectification multiplier from AC to DC is only .9 vs 1.414 with a capacitive or CLC power supply. That means the power transformer has to be 50% larger and heavier. Some would call this "electrical torque."

The size of the choke can be significantly smaller in a CLC power supply to achieve the same inductive reactance which is also a cost, size, and weight saving. 

The crest factor in an LC power supply, meaning the peaks and valleys of the DC after rectification, is literally 50% that of a capacitive or CLC power supply. That means the capacitors have literally half as much work to do. 

The heat in an LC power supply is 50% of a capacitive or CLC power supply making them last significantly longer.

And an LC power supply has the highest impedance to AC and lowest impedance to DC of any power supply typology making it the most tolerant of AC noise and providing the most effortless power to DC. 

Because a CLC power supply is considerably smaller, lighter weight, and less expensive to manufacture, they are significantly more popular than the LC.

Of course because a capacitive power supplies are even smaller, lighter, and less expensive to manufacture, they are the most popular.

The funny thing is that since nearly all high-end audio electronics use capacitive power supplies everyone is used to hearing the time and tune distortion so very few people notice it.

You should see people's jaws drop at audio shows when I play them 1940's and 1950's recordings that were made with LC choke input power supplies in the recording studios. When played on one of our DACs the difference between them and modern recordings made with capacitive power supplies is unmistakable. 

Very few companies aside from those who manufacture the best-of-the-best of tube amps use LC or CLC power supplies. 

Recently a few companies, such as Schiit and Musical Fidelity, are making solid-state power amps with LC choke input power supplies (kudos!).

The ridiculous thing is that the laws of physics are identical with micro amps and mega amps so it always makes me wonder why these same companies who apparently know the benefits of chokes in a power supply are not putting them in the preamps and DACs they manufacture. 

@ brbrock

Sorry it took me so long to respond...I don't go on forums every day.

LC = choke + capacitor

CLC = capacitor + choke + capacitor

In a CLC they use smaller chokes than in an LC power supply.

Most power supplies in audio gear are just C (only capacitors) and have no chokes at all.

LC is better than CLC and CLC is better than just C power supplies. 

As for tube DACs...

Let me start by saying that the DACs I designed up until 2013 were all tube DACs.

I found that tube stages are inherently noisy (usually <95dB SNR) and putting a tube stage inside of a DAC chassis tends to lower the performance. 

Keep in mind that DAC chips all contain solid-state op amps inside of them making DACs inherently a solid-state component.

If you were to reproduce a DAC chip with 100% tubes the DAC would likely be the size of a microwave oven and would have to cost several times as much. 

Don't get me wrong: I love tubes.

Tubes add what I like to call "attractive distortion." 

I just prefer to add a little "attractive distortion" to my system with a tube preamp and/or amplifier because I can always upgrade my preamp or amp as opposed to the often less than optimal noisy colored tube stage built into most DACs. 

Why am I saying that tube stages inherently have coloration and distortion?

Aside from the individual sonic characteristics of each specific brand and type of tube, all tube stages require an output transformer or capacitor between the tube and the output. Yes, even the so-called LTA Aero with their "ZOTL" output stage has circuitry between the tube and the output jack...it is in no way "direct-coupled."

OK...yes...there are actual OTL tube stages (such as Atma Sphere Audio) but they require BANKS of tubes.  

Transformers, capacitors, and exotic output stages all add a character and color to the music as well as degrade the purity of the music. 

Less is more.

That's why the DACs I've designed since 2013 are direct-coupled with nothing but a single Vishay "Nude" resistor between the amplification stage and the output.

On the positive side, a significant percentage of the better tube DACs do have LC or CLC power supplies which is likely why people find they have better timing and timbre than solid-state DACs most of which don't have chokes in their power supplies.  

@ brbrock

Yes.

I'm working on a Mystique Z that will be built around the PCM58 DAC chip and will have an external power supply. 

The power supply upgrades will be plug-and-play so customers won't have to send their DAC in to us for upgrades. 

The entry-level power supply will have Hammond chokes (like our Mystique v3) and the top-of-the-line power supply will be dual-mono with LCLC dual stage nano crystal core chokes and will have no electrolytic capacitors.

We're hoping we can sell the entry-level model for as low as $7,500 and we're expecting the top-of-the-line model will have to sell for over $15,000.

But don't expect to see anything sooner than the end of 2025.

We just purchased some new software and testing equipment that will be used in the R&D which I would expect to be a rather lengthy process.  

Benjamin from Mojo Audio again.

I very much appreciate Mitch as a customer as well as Mitch's efforts in this incredibly detailed review.

That being said, I wanted to offer a bit different perspective.

When our Mystique X just was originally released we sent them out to dozens of our customers who owned Mystique EVO B4Bs and EVO Pros. 

After comparing the two DACs side-by-side in their own systems all but one of those people preferred the sound of our new Mystique X and paid thousands of dollars to upgrade their EVOs to our new X.

And a few of those people were professional reviewers who owned our EVO Pro.

You may want to check out the many raving reviews and awards our Mystique X received on our website. 

Everyone hears things a bit differently and every system has a bit different synergy with certain components. 

But I think it should be taken into account that Mitch is one of only two of our customers out of the several dozen who compared our Mystique EVO and our Mystique X side-by-side in their own systems who preferred the sound of our EVO.

As for my personal opinion... 

We get a few Mystique EVOs sent in each year for upgrades and I get a chance to hear them on our test bench. To my ear they sound a bit slower, softer, and a bit vague when compared to our Mystique X. A large part of this has to do with our Mystique X having a notably lower noise floor than our EVO. 

Technically speaking the reason for this is that our Mystique EVO has a series of power and signal cables that run beneath the digital and analog circuit boards as well as wires between the circuit boards and the connectors on the rear panel.

In addition, we upgraded a few parts in the power supplies, such as going from the fast recovery diodes used in our Mystique v3 and EVO to zero-recovery ultra-fast SiC Silcon Carbide Schottky diodes used in our newer X and Y series.

We also went from using three off-the-shelf unshielded PCB mounted power transformers that were used in our Mystique v3 and EVO to a 100% custom multi-voltage fully shielded Toroidal power transformer mounted on a Sorbothane pad that is both electrically and mechanically isolated from all circuit boards in our newer Mystique X and Y DACs.  

And unlike our Mystique v3 and EVO DACs all of the input and output connectors in our newer X and Y series mount directly to the circuit boards without any wires. 

The result is a notably lower noise floor which translates to more transparency between notes, a more open soundstage, a darker background, more micro-details, and more micro-dynamics. 

Which explains why literally dozens of our customers upgraded their Mystique EVO to our newer Mystique X.

Of course being the designer, I am obviously prejudice :^P

Benjamin from Mojo Audio again.

I hadn't read this thread in a while so I'm playing catch up a bit.

I've been seeing things about USB input issue, I2S, and clocking, that I thought I should address.

First of all, we've never had any problems with customers connecting to our JL Sounds USB input module who were using any form of Windows, Apple OS X, or Linux.

The Rose 150B streamer uses an odd-ball Android OS which is the problem. 

Most of the modern streamer manufactures us Linux which we find to not only be 100% compatible without any need to download a driver, but we also find to be the best sounding. There's a reason why nearly all the major streamer manufacturers have switched to Linux in recent years. 

As for clocking, to say that OCXO is better than femto clocking is like saying that all-wheel-drive is better than front-wheel-drive or rear-wheel-drive. The applications of each can vary considerably and each has its advantages and disadvantages in certain situations. Do they use all-wheel-drive in NASCAR, F1, or Drag Racing?

We've compared every popular and many less well-known USB input modules on the market and have consistently found the JL Sounds modules sounded the best.

And I'm not talking about sounding better by a small factor.

We did blind A/B tests of several different brands of USB input modules. We build a DAC that we could plug in and out different USB input modules like you could roll tubes. We did extensive listening tests with a number of local audiophiles playing through their own systems.  The results were quite consistent: 100% of them picked the JL Sounds module as #1 and the M2-Tech module as #2. All commented on how close those two sounded to each other. There were a number of different responses as to which was #3, #4, and #5, but 100% of the people who made the comparison selected the same as two USB input modules as #1 and #2.

One of the most unexpected things we experienced and heard comments about was how blown away these audiophiles were as to how much of a difference in sound quality the USB input module actually made. One person even commented that if he didn't know better he would have thought that we had switched speakers. 

So clocking is certainly important, but it is one of many factors to consider.

As for I2S...

I'm sorry to burst some of your bubbles, but I2S is one of the stupidest things to come to digital audio in as long as I can remember.

First of all, the technical specification for I2S is "less than 4" from the DAC chip" which means it was engineered as a protocol to only be used inside of a DAC.

All component-to-component digital music transmission protocols are data embedded with clocking: USB...S/PDIF...AES...optical...Ethernet...all of them. 

The flawed logic the promoters of I2S give is "the clocking gets corrupted" which is why in I2S they have three channels: data with embedded clocking, bit clock, and word clock. 

OK...see if this makes any sense to you: if clocking gets corrupted with a single channel traveling on one wire then how would it make any sense to attempt to coordinate three separate clocks on three separate wires?

It makes no sense.

If I2S was actually better they would be using it in recording studios and they most certainly do not.

If I2S was actually better then nearly every company in the audiophile industry would be promoting it and they most certainly do not.

There are a small group of Chi-Fi manufactures who started promoting I2S and the audio-fools bought into it hook-line-and-sinker.

If I2S sounds better in a specific DAC it is only because the other digital inputs on that DAC are lacking, not because I2S is inherently better.

And I've lost count of the number of customers who owned and loved one of those Chi-Fi I2S DACs who upgraded to one of our Mystique DACs and are now back to using the USB input. 

I think that says it all. 

BTW, I never bought into all that MQA hype either.

Benjamin from Mojo Audio again...

I did want to mention a few things about our Mystique Y.

First of all, Mitch has the middle-priced Mystique Y AM with amorphous core chokes. If he had our Mystique Y NC with nano crystal core chokes the sound quality would have been even closer to his Mystique X NC Z.

The reason is that aside from the single USB input and the AD1865 vs AD1862 DAC chips, the two DACs are nearly identical: identical USB input...identical power supplies...identical direct-coupled class A output stage...identical component parts quality...nearly identical chassis. 

MSRP on the Mystique Y AM that Mitch has is $5,499 whereas retail on the Mystique X NC Z he has was $12,499. So the Mystique Y AM is less than 45% the price. Our entry-level Mystique Y Fe with ferrous core chokes is only $3,999 which would be less than 1/3 the price of Mitch's Mystique X NC Z.

Quite an exceptional value if like most of our customers all you use is the USB input.

WOW!

That's quite a review :^P

To put my 2 cents in...

I've had both our X and Y DACs in a variety of systems playing a variety of music.

Depending on the specific system and the specific recording would depend on which one I prefer. 

And given the same chokes (ferrous, amorphous, or nano crystal core), depending on what cables you use, you could make each sound quite similar to the other.

That only makes sense considering they are almost identical in circuit, power supplies, and parts quality, aside from the DAC chips.

For those of you who are interested, we hope to release our new Mystique Z DAC sometime this summer. 

It will use the same 3" high chassis as our Mystique Y and will have 3 inputs (USB, coaxial, and optical). The Z will be built around the famous PCM58 DAC chip.

Aside from the DAC chips, nearly all of the parts in our new Z will be identical to our X and Y DACs.

But since we've made quite a few upgrades to all of the power supplies, expect an even lower noise floor, even darker background, even more transparency, and even more micro-details and micro-dynamics.

Prices will range from $7,000-$11,000 depending on what options you get. 

Because we've had so many requests for pre-orders, we've decided to offer the first production run exclusively to existing Mojo customers who are trading in and upgrading their current DACs. 

If you're considering upgrading before the fall let us know ASAP so we can put you on the waiting list.

Tim is going to get one of the first Mystique Z DACs to review...around the same time Tim gets a Z DAC to review we'll be shipping our first back orders. 

With our current number of back orders new customers may want to get on a waiting list if they are hoping to have delivery in early fall. 

One more thing...

Single-ended vs balanced outputs is quite system dependent. 

Our balanced output is an additional stage following the single-ended output, so all things being equal, the single-ended output should sound better.

But when are all things ever equal?!?!?!?

As it states in our user manual, we suggest that you try both outputs in your system and decide for yourself. 

Generally speaking, our single-ended output will sound sweeter, will have better musical flow, better harmonic coherency, and have more emotional content. 

Generally speaking, our balanced output will have more intensity, dynamics, and gestalt.  

But as I mentioned, that is VERY system dependent. 

We have quite a few customers with fully balanced amplification who prefer our single-ended output and others who tell us our single-ended output sounds too soft and vague. 

In my personal experience some balanced amps don't do single-ended as well as balanced.

@brbrock 

We're never switching from R-2R to Delta Sigma.

(I think I threw up a little in my mouth).

The PCM58 is a 40-year-old Burr-Brown 18-bit R-2R DAC chip that was marketed as a direct competitor to the Analog Devices AD1865.

It sounds and looks almost identical to the famous 20-bit PCM63.

Both the PCM58 and PCM63 are about 4X the size of the AD1862 which I assume accounts for their higher level of performance. 

Not only are they significantly larger and sound slightly better than the Analog Devices DAC chips, the PCM58 potentially has 4X the number of linearity/distortion fine-tune adjustments. 

Where as the AD1862 and AD1865 each have one adjustment for the MSB (most significant bit) to optimize linearity and minimize distortion for each channel, the PCM58 has an adjustment for MSB, 2nd bit, 3rd bit, and 4th bit.

No small difference. 

We've had quite a number of PCM58 and PCM63 DAC chips stashed away for over a decade.

The reason we haven't designed a DAC with them is that in order to fine-tune linearity and minimize distortion you need to use a very sensitive and very expensive distortion analyzer which we didn't have at the time. 

We've even had our friend Brial Lowe, the genius behind Belleson regulators, design a custom low-noise amplifier and notch filter for us to assure that even the most subtle noise that could get through to the distortion analyzer from AC mains and RF would be eliminated allowing us to truly optimize these DAC chips to 20-bits of resolution.

Here's the kicker..

Among other differences, the entry-level Mystique Z DAC will have only the fine-tune adjustment for the MSB, the middle-level Mystique Z will have the MSB and 2nd bit fine-tuned, and our top-of-the-line Mystique Z will have MSB, 2nd bit, 3rd bit, and 4th bit all fine-tuned.

So rather than expecting that Mojo Audio is switching from R-2R to Delta-Sigma expect a level of R-2R performance from our Mystique Z unlike any company has ever offered.

And expect a new version of our famous EVO DAC for around $17,000 to be released in 2027 built around Burr-Brown's famous PCM63 DAC chip.

I certainly would not want to offend anyone with my comments.

But I'm reading a lot of opinions about I2S, OCXO clocking, and master clocks.

I have no doubt that those of you who have heard this or that component with OCXO clocking or I2S inputs or master clocks and preferred the way they sounded are 100% correct. But that doesn't mean that all components with those inputs, outputs, or clocking sound better. There are too many other factors.

I2S was never intended for component-to-component data transfer. If you don't believe me, why don't you look up the Audio Engineering Society's specification on I2S which clearly states that it should not be used for distances over 4" and that it is only intended for inside of a DAC chassis.

Personally I would trust the Audio Engineering Society over any audiophile fad. 

Show me any equipment used in recording studios that uses I2S between components: last I checked it doesn't exist. The preferred data transfer between components in recording studios is still balanced AES. 

Consider what I2S actually is doing and decide for yourself if it is even logical.

The proponents of I2S claim that clocking which is embedded into the data stream can become corrupted during data transfer. So how would it make sense that by having data embedded with clocking along with a bit clock and a word clock could synchronize better?!?!?!?

If the clocking embedded in the data gets corrupted, then the data would be corrupted, and the data could not synchronize with the other two I2S clocks.

Think about it.

Not to mention the fact that all Audio Engineering Society standard digital music transfer protocols have the clocking embedded into the data stream. Yes, USB, S/PDIF, AES, Ethernet, etc., all have clocking embedded into the data stream. 

That would mean that the internet music streaming services that most people are using have clocking embedded into the data stream and the data stream is traveling cross-country.

Do you really think that after the clocking embedded in the data stream has traveled for miles and miles and miles over the internet that isolating clocking for 1 meter by doing I2S from your streamer to your DAC is going to correct something?

LOL!

As for OCXO clocking or master clocks that's another common misconception. 

OCXO clocks were never originally engineered for high-end audio. They were engineered for electronics that are subject to extreme weather conditions such as those used in submarines, aircraft, missiles, rockets, and polar expedition vehicles.

Some audio engineers discovered that OCXO clocks had lower hash noise in the audible spectrum and started to use them.

But OCXO clocks are generally less accurate than femto and other clocks engineered for high-end audio. So using OCXO clocks is generally a tradeoff. 

Consider the problem with clocking noise is that it pollutes the other power supplies inside of the DAC. This is one of the main reasons why external master clocks are used: they completely isolate the clocks power supply from the power supplies inside of the DAC and other digital components.

At Mojo Audio we take a different approach: the LC choke input power supplies we use in our analog power supplies are so much better isolated than those other companies use that clocking hash noise from our femto clocking can't corrupt it.

This way we get the best of all worlds: the increased accuracy of femto clocking, less clocking noise in our analog power supplies, and less clocking corruption than happens with external master clocks connected by long cables. 

Also note that our AES and coaxial inputs have no internal clocking or reclocking.

That way you can hear the full benefit of whatever the clocking is in your CD transport or streamer.

That's why customers and reviewers who have used our DACs with uber CD transports like the Jay's CDT-3 MkIII tell us the sound rivals or beats their vinyl rig. 

We even have a unique USB lift switch that eliminates 100% of the clocking inside of our DAC chassis when using the AES or coaxial inputs.

Bottom line: I recommend that you trust your ears.

Customer after customer and reviewer after reviewer have compared the sound of Mojo Audio DACs using our USB, AES, or coaxial inputs to most of the popular DACs who use I2S or Ethernet inputs or OCXO or master clocks and they have consistently preferred the sound of our DACs. 

I think that says it all. 

@ debjit_g

You are 100% correct, which is my point:

You have to look at ALL the factors in order to evaluate what is potentially better.

But there are some hard and fast facts...

One of these facts is that the problem or advantage with this or that clock has to do with the noise they generate that can be heard in the audible spectrum.

No one can hear the accuracy difference between a .005% and .000005% clock.

There are many approaches to resolving this noise issue: 

One is using the lowest noise clock like an OCXO.

Another is using an external master clock.

Another is using well isolated power supplies and shielding to prevent the noise from the clock from effecting the sensitive analog circuitry. 

Some companies use all of the above. 

Something to note that most companies don't have equal sound quality on all of their inputs.

Some DACs sound better with USB...some sound better with AES balanced/coaxial...some sound better with Ethernet...some sound better with I2S.

Those are not criticisms of the specific input formats but rather a specific company's implementation.

Another thing that is a FACT is that I2S is not approved by the Audio Engineering Society (AES) as an external data transfer protocol.

That alone should make any rational person question what these companies are doing and why they are doing it. 

Have you considered that those companies who are promoting I2S are putting less $$$ into their other inputs so that their I2S input sounds relatively better?

As with most companies, Mojo Audio is attempting to build a high-performance product to meet a price point.

As with most companies, in doing so we have to make certain compromises. 

Of course if you looked at the cost of parts inside of all of the other DACs you named and compared their DACs with our DACs that sell for around the same price point you would find that we spend SEVERAL TIMES the amount on the parts that go into our chassis when compared to those other companies.

And that's not to mention the cost of the chassis or packaging. 

Mostly what we compromise on at Mojo Audio is how fancy looking our chassis and packaging are. We also compromise on the number of inputs we have since each of our inputs is engineered to potentially have the highest level of performance. 

Did I mention that we also compromise on advertising?

Don't think that you're not paying for those fancy ads in audio magazines!

Going back to compromising on our chassis...

That's not to say we skimp at all on our chassis: every piece of hardware we use is non-magnetic stainless steel, we use laser etching vs screen printing for the lettering on our chassis, we use an EMI shielding Alodine primer, we use extensive anti-resonance treatments, and we use an extremely durable polymerized finish.

All things that add to durability and performance as opposed to aesthetics. 

As for internal vs external + internal clocking...

If your internal clock is of a lower performance than your external clock it will degrade performance.

Plus any internal clock will create noise that has to be dealt with. 

By having no internal clocking on AES balanced and coaxial inputs Mojo Audio is eliminating any potential clocking noise inside of our DACs as well as allowing the best-of-the-best of external clocks to meet their full potential. 

And yes, it is a compromise to save manufacturing cost and allow us to sell our DACs for under $10,000. 

We certainly could add $1,000 to our MSRP and create an internal clock that will rival (I said "rival" not "beat") the ones in a Jay's CDT-3 MkIII or the dCS network bridge...but why would we do that when those products already have exceptional clocks inside of them which in effect act like a master clock with our DACs? 

And we could add $1,000 to our MSRP to include an I2S input that would perform as close as possible to our existing inputs.

But since over 80% of the streamers and servers on the market exclusively use USB or consider USB to be equal to or better than their other outputs.

And since 100% of the CD transports and many servers and streamers have an AES approved balanced and/or coaxial output.

Why would we want to raise the price of our products so that we could interface with some fringe technology like I2S that less than 10% of our customers are actually using?

@ Soix

Clocking is just one of the many factors.

Re-clocking doesn’t fix corrupted data. 

And as I stated, it is not the accuracy of the clock that matters, but rather how little clocking noise it produces that pollutes sensitive analog components in the audible spectrum. 

So you can have the ultimate low-noise clocking in any number of components in your digital signal chain and then have your digital data corrupted or your analog signal polluted because of the clocking inside of your DAC.

Every link in the chain matters.

Think of the analogy of taking a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy.

How much of a difference would it make if you used all high res scanners and printers in the chain but one was low res?

All you would end up with is a very accurate reproduction of the worst scanner and printer in the chain. 

Or what would happen if you had all high res scanners and printers in your chain but then your last scanner and printer was low res?

@ SNS

Your DAC can have a very advanced USB input.

But if the output from your digital source and your digital cables are not equal then you cannot make a fair comparison between USB and I2S. 

All the inputs and outputs on any component are not equal. 

Companies who are promoting I2S are making sure that their I2S inputs and outputs sound better than the other inputs or outputs.

USB may not have been created for music but it was created for component-to-component data transfer. 

I2S was not created for component-to-component data transfer.

Can anyone name a pro audio component that is used in professional recording studios that uses an I2S input?

On the other hand, USB is used in professional recording studios.

What does that tell you?