USB Audio Marketing A Scam?

Regular readers will be aware of my rantings about isochronous v. asynchronous USB audio streaming.

Because of a technique where isochronous uses a S/PDIF-like phase locked loop, any isochronous device using it is classed as adaptive isochronous or simply just adaptive.

I had been pondering on just how to get USB to do the higher rates of 96 kHz and 192 kHz as a minority of people had spurned my USB offerings (Bitzie USB DAC and Majestic DAC USB input).

I think I now know how it is done!

This is only my theory and I may be way out of order, but...

By the looks of things, instead of having a driver such as foobar2000 (or MAC equivalent) use its own drivers to convert 96k or 192k "in the computer" suitable to drive an adaptive 48k USB chip, you either make your adaptive 48k chip only work with your own drivers, and those drivers do the same as the music player drivers of foobar2000 etc, or...

You put the software outboard into the device itself so that it does the same thing in driving an adaptive 48k USB chip... conveniently having been all put on a wafer at a fab plant (naming no names) and ensure you don't put anything like timing diagrams on your data-sheets (or the game would be over).

Then what seems to happen is you market the chip to companies who make "audiophile" USB audio streaming devices, and they tell you they're asynchronous and superior to adaptive.

I am only deducing the above theory from work done over on the head-fi community (of all places) and here is the link...

http://www.head-fi.org/t/546092/confirming-whether-your-dac-is-asynchronous-as-claimed-or-not

WARNING: the topic linked is of a highly technical nature and difficult to understand.

Graham Slee wrote: Did you hear the one about the chap who thought denial was a river in Egypt?

"Denial is not just a big river in Africa."