Mr. Leeds, I specifically made no such claim. I did claim that there are
readily available, inexpensive devices for digital transmission which make
it extremely easy for a designer to use them and, having done so, to acheive
nearly flawless transmission (and, of course, detection) of digital data
much more demanding than S/PDIF.

That claim could not be made as recently as 10 or so years ago.

I will go further to argue: ONLY an incompetent designer would fail to use
these off-the-shelf components. They are completely debugged and the
MILLIONS of them in daily use attest to their efficacy. The designers of
these devices would be dismayed over the "low level" use to which they are
put in such a low speed, low accuracy* applications such as S/PDIF. After
all, most things are relative and they have designed and manufactured to a
vastly more stringent requirement.

*Not even those people blessed with the most Golden of ears could detect one
errant sample in 10,000, let alone one or fewer in a million.

Steve

"C. Leeds" wrote in message
news:VSU4b.249693$Oz4.67134@rwcrnsc54...
Steve Behman wrote:

The result of the above is that all observable colorations are a
product
of the analog components and none of them are introduced while the
signal
is in the digital domain...
Colin, until you see a rational refutation of my argument: save your
money.

To suggest that digital is inherently perfect and analog inherently
flawed is - in itself - not rational in my view. The success of the
technology is always in the implementation, not the principle.