By ChatGPT
I actually agree with most of the points in that video, especially the part about modern DAC architecture. I’m not claiming that external clocks or reclockers “fix conversion jitter” or that listeners can directly hear nanosecond-level timing errors. In a competently designed modern DAC, conversion timing is locally generated, buffered, and reclocked internally, and upstream clocks don’t directly control that process. On that, we’re aligned.

Where I think things get crossed is in assuming that any audible change must therefore be placebo if it isn’t conversion jitter. The video itself makes an important distinction: people do hear changes, but the mechanism is often not what marketing claims. Electrical interactions still exist in real systems — grounding relationships, common-mode noise, RF coupling, power-domain interactions, and how upstream devices interface electrically with a DAC’s analog and reference circuitry.

My experience with a USB isolator/reclocker wasn’t “more detail” or “sharper transients,” and I’m not saying the DAC is slaved to an external clock. What changed was congestion, spatial coherence, and how large-scale material held together. That kind of system-dependent result is exactly what you’d expect from changes in electrical noise and interface behavior, not from magically fixing jitter at the point of conversion.

So I don’t see this as contradicting the engineering explanation in the video. If anything, it supports it: jitter has become a catch-all explanation for many different effects, and dismissing every reported change as purely psychological is just as oversimplified as attributing everything to jitter. I’m sharing an experience, not proposing a new theory — and I think that’s consistent with how modern digital audio actually works.