Has anyone compared any ? Are we barking up the wrong tree as audio guys ?
If using a USB connection which is not the optimized connection losing anything to a sound card ?
Just makes sense to me to use a sound card instead of the DAC of the month. Check out the Asus Xonar Essence ST at $200.
charles
Quote from: rollo on May 26, 2013, 08:37:32 AM
If using a USB connection which is not the optimized connection...
What?? In what way are USB connections not optimal? :shock:
--Jerome
Analog signal inside a computer box is a bad idea. I don't think there are any audiophile quality internal sound cards made now. Card-D was good, but now defunct. Lynx22 is good for the money, but it is intended as pro audio card built to a price, with opamps and surface mount caps galore, not to mention D-sub output connectors.
On the other hand many high end audio companies have developed USB DACs which offer extreme performance and refinement. Ayre QB-9, Wadia 121, Antelope Zodiac, Sim Neo380, exaSound E20, these are among the best digital conversion available, all use USB to connect to a computer.
There is still plenty of crap for sale in USB "audiophile" DACs. Older USB 1.1 and some 2.0 DACs were/are still limited in bitrate and jitter rejection, but the newer batch in the last couple years has solved those issues, and they cover a wide price and performance range. Look for "asynchronous" to describe the newer variety, or look for sample rate via USB over 24/96.
I agree that an audio card in the computer is not the best solution, too many ways noise can get to the analog signal.
Asynchronous USB OTOH is probably the most ideal solution right now. The protocol is mostly immune to all but the most extreme noise, has error checking as well as, most importantly it allows the computer to send the audio as data packets. This is pretty important for audio as it allows a bunch of things to happen. Noise from the PC and on the line becomes much less important than in the past, the data is now sitting in packets that are controlled by a clock on the USB device not the PC, this allows the packets to be pulled by the USB device according to it's ability to process it based on it's buffer. Each packet has an CRC bit that allows the USB device to check the integrity of each packet. These two aspects combined allow a much better chance of perfect audio than we have ever had before.
To keep this brief, what AsycUSB does is make the computer largely irrelevant, a $200 PC should perform the same as a tricked put $5000, PC. Everything inside the computer doesn't matter as long as it can send uncorrupted packets via USB. This is the same kind of transmission that network cards (routers and switches) have been doping perfectly for decades, and even the cheapest devices can now send jitter free packets over the network.
Now all this has happened very quickly (say the last year or so) for audio. Look for USB devices that support USB Audio Class 2. That spec supports up to and over 24/192, using native drivers on most versions of Linux, including MAC. Windows 7/8 shipped without Audio Class 2 certification so most times you need to install a driver.
I've been doing computer audio for over 10 years at this point. IMO it is a much easier now to get fantastic sound using PC audio than at any other point in time.
Quote from: jsaliga on May 26, 2013, 09:55:39 AM
Quote from: rollo on May 26, 2013, 08:37:32 AM
If using a USB connection which is not the optimized connection...
What?? In what way are USB connections not optimal? :shock:
--Jerome
www.buzzle.com (http://www.buzzle.com). go to USB vs Firewire article. Go to topics. fund "F" and go to USB 2.0 vs Firewire. Hope this helps. I'm no expert.
charles
In an ideal world, FireWire is probably more ideal than USB. But USB is widely supported, and the features it has are more than what USB audio needs. USB 2.0 is more than fast enough for even 24/192 digital Audio streaming. USB might have a shared bus, but for computer audio that just means the computer needs to be involved with the handling of USB resources, most people put the USB DAC on a dedicated port so the kind of USB allocation issues that might happen using a hub don't really apply.
Quote from: rollo on May 28, 2013, 08:41:43 AM
Quote from: jsaliga on May 26, 2013, 09:55:39 AM
Quote from: rollo on May 26, 2013, 08:37:32 AM
If using a USB connection which is not the optimized connection...
What?? In what way are USB connections not optimal? :shock:
--Jerome
www.buzzle.com (http://www.buzzle.com). go to USB vs Firewire article. Go to topics. fund "F" and go to USB 2.0 vs Firewire. Hope this helps. I'm no expert.
charles
Thanks Charles but I won't bother reading it. I'm quite secure in the knowledge that I am getting excellent sound quality from my USB DAC. I was also quite happy with the coaxial digitial connection that I used with the last DAC I owned. With my new Teac DAC there is slightly lower measured jitter using asynchronous USB than there is with coaxial or TOSLINK, but I cannot detect any audible differences between them. The reason I use a asynchronous USB connection is because it is required to stream DSD to my DAC.
Good luck with your search for audio perfection.
--Jerome
The PCI bus can be very noisy (most of my sound cards were PCI based) RF wise... There can be quite a bit of RF inside a case...
Arguments of USB vs Firewire vs Thunderbolt could certainly be made... However USB based DACs will certainly have a large advantage due to the lack of noise.
My 2 cents...
Dave
I use a firewire 8 ch audio interface, Presonus Firepod for recording, speaker and room measuring, and active speaker experiments. It sounds very good. Firewire was SOTA for pro audio back in 2005 when USB was still just for data transfer, mice and printers. I've made some sweet recordings with the Firepod. I think it is better at ADC than DAC, due to the discreet class A mic preamps, but it's still very good sound for a multichannel DAC too. You had to go firewire back then to get hi-rez audio.
Thanks for the details Joe.
USB is the solution of choice for almost every DAC these days, now that asynch w/ hi res is pretty much the standard it seems like that's the way to go.
I hear you about DAC of the month, but it's a rapidly changing technology so that's unavoidable. I can see it settling down over time though, soon every DAC is going to be able to handle 24/192 and DSD.
Jerome, it's the DAC that is asynch or not... you don't really have a choice in the matter.
Quote from: DaveC on May 28, 2013, 07:05:34 PM
Jerome, it's the DAC that is asynch or not... you don't really have a choice in the matter.
Care to cite an authoritative technical reference?
--Jerome
I have an ESI Juli@ PCI sound card, it will manage 24/192 and has single ended and balanced outputs. It's pretty good but either of my USB fed DAC's (Lindemann and AURALiC) are more pleasing to listen to. The Juli@ of course offers A/D capability, which is nice for measurements and in fact that is why I originally bought the card, it was for measuring in the shop but has since been phased out and moved to my work desktop where it works quite well.
I also have a TC Electronic Impact Twin Firewire 24/192 AD/DA and like Rich I use it for measurements and recording. I've captured a few LP's at 24/192 and they sound quite good but I think the A/D is better than the D/A. Both the Lindemann and AURALiC sound better for playback. I don't know if the Juli@ is any better than the TC, I suspect it may be on playback.
I think the implementation inside the device is far more important than the interface to the computer in terms of USB vs Firewire. Sticking the card inside the box is fraught with opportunity for noise though the Juli@ is very quiet.
Quote from: jsaliga on May 28, 2013, 07:19:52 PM
Quote from: DaveC on May 28, 2013, 07:05:34 PM
Jerome, it's the DAC that is asynch or not... you don't really have a choice in the matter.
Care to cite an authoritative technical reference?
--Jerome
No. This is pretty basic stuff, you can do your own research... and I highly recommend you do a lot more research based on your posts. Asynch clocking in a DAC is based on the design of the hardware inside the DAC.
At this point I think if you have a DAC you are happy with, your best bet is to get a USB to SPDIF converter that is asynchronous as well as has galvanic isolation, I would look for USB converters that are based on XMOS USB chips, they seem to be the best right now for USB support. The world of DACs seems to move slower than the interface to the PC. You can get USB converters, real good ones, under $500 with the sweat spot around $250. Then in a few years when this stuff is old hat, plunk down the cash for a nice all in one unit.
Why convert to SPDIF? If you already have it in a format where you can trust the impedance, then stay there, or swap to i2s.
Bryan
He lives! :thumb: Hope you're feeling well Bry
Quote from: richidoo on May 29, 2013, 08:10:01 AM
He lives! :thumb: Hope you're feeling well Bry
+1 on that! Glad to see you are up and around enough to post Bryan.
I agree with jbny. The usb spdif interface, ex. Ressonessence Concero, reduces jitter significantly and will make an older DAC perform phenomenally.
Quote from: bpape on May 29, 2013, 07:50:37 AM
Why convert to SPDIF? If you already have it in a format where you can trust the impedance, then stay there, or swap to i2s.
Bryan
If your USB is also in your DAC you would think converting is not worth the effort, but in many older DACs with a USB connector, the USB implementation was not the best. Some of the newer USB-SPDIF converters are really much much better, that even though you are adding an additional step, the sound ends up being better than if you just went USB straight to the DAC on an older unit.
I have a a W4S DAC1 that, a few months ago, had to be sent back for warranty repair on a bad RCA jack. While it was there I asked them to upgrade the USB module to 24/192, they told me not to bother and buy their µlink USB to SPDIF converter, it is cheaper, sounds better, has more features, and has better hardware support. I did, and it does sound better than using the USB on the DAC, and that DAC is only a year and a half old.
Yup, I just upgraded my Schiit Bifrost to the latest USB board, the old one was asynch 24/192 and even so, the new one is MUCH better, like getting a new DAC. I really like the idea of modular, upgradeable DACs, better to do a $100 upgrade then sell the old one to buy a new one.
Esoteric apparently purchased the HiFace product, or maybe the whole M2Tech company? I don't know. But they are now selling the improved HiFace2, which is USB Audio 2.0 compliant and some other major improvements over the original. I thought the original HiFace adapter sounded excellent. The new one is $259 at Amazon. It has it's own clocks which make it "asynchronous" from the PC.
Understand - just saying that the SPDIF interface is inherently flawed so possibly even a less than optimal USB is better than an 'optimized' (yet still flawed) SPDIF?
Bryan
I originally thought the same thing. I can only use my experience, the USB on board doesn't sound as good as the newer USB converter. Same company the only real difference is a few years of technology advancements. I don't think that a good USB on board is not as good as a USB converter (new DACs with onboard USB are probably better), rather that the technology seems to be advancing with USB quick enough that the on board USB might be outdated quickly. Buying a USB converter can make it a little easier on the wallet if you want to upgrade without having to buy a new DAC, that's all.
Hope that makes sense.
Brian glad to see you back. Joe and the rest thanks for all the input, learned a lot here.
Maybe it is time to check out the computer thing. Joe feel like doing a demo ?
charles
Quote from: rollo on June 02, 2013, 06:31:03 AM
Maybe it is time to check out the computer thing. Joe feel like doing a demo ?
Sure thing Charles, I'm out in Port Jeff, PM or email me if you want to come over some time. To say I have a little bit of computer gear hooked into the main system would be not quite accurate, I have a lot. :D
I have mucked around with computer audio a lot.
In my experience using internal cards is BAD - inside the computer is inherently noisy and that causes problems. Even external converters has issues with hash and other stuff travelling down cables but internal is HORRID.
Forget Firewire - technically it is good and maybe a bit better than USB in principle but the Wiess Firewire converter I heard was soundly trounced by my Off-Ramp. In practice USB is the way to go because of the very large number of converters available and Firewire does not show USB a clean pair of heels by any stretch of the imagination.
I2S is better but you need short connections to really make that sing, which means it should be internally mounted if possible. I did an experiment with my Off-Ramp fed via an I2S cable and an internal battery powered M2Tech board directly feeding the DAC chip. Now at a technical level the Off-Ramp is better in every way than the M2Tech and we expected it to easily best the M2Tech. Not so - it was about the same - the Off-Ramp was slightly smoother, but the M2Tech seemed to reveal more detail. Of course to get to the bottom of it for sure a lot more work would need to be done but it seems likely the short paths were lifting the M2Tech.
OK - whats the bottom line here? If you can find a DAC that does I2S internally that's the way to go. Just because its internal don't assume its I2S - most arent - most in fact use SPDIF. I only know two that do and both those DAC's are pretty pricey. In fact most internal USB implementations are BAD - an external unit via SPDIF usually easily bests them. If you can find an I2S DAC and it has a connector that matches a USB converter - then use that. But they are few and far between as well - I only know of a couple as well.
In practice you are limited to an external unit using SPDIF. I have heard quite a few of those and the two best are the Audiophellio or Off-Ramp. Value for money its the Audiophellio - but if you want the best its the Off-Ramp. Although I have not heard it a Berkeley Alpha converter when fed using direct and integer mode from a player that supports it (most don't - Only Audirvana on a Mac to the best of my knowledge does this) has the edge over the Off-Ramp. Without that I have compared the two (ie not using this special mode of Audirvana which is only a recent thing) and the Off-Ramp is better.
Thanks
Bill
I'm not advocating doing the D/A conversion in the PC on a card by any stretch. I'm actually saying to NOT do any conversion in the PC. If you leave it as USB, then use something like the Empirical products to tame that USB conncection outside the box, THEN do the conversion step, you can have the best of both worlds, never incur an impedance mismatch, etc.
Bryan
Quote from: JBNY on June 03, 2013, 06:21:40 AM
Quote from: rollo on June 02, 2013, 06:31:03 AM
Maybe it is time to check out the computer thing. Joe feel like doing a demo ?
Sure thing Charles, I'm out in Port Jeff, PM or email me if you want to come over some time. To say I have a little bit of computer gear hooked into the main system would be not quite accurate, I have a lot. :D
You have a deal. Thanks. I am very curious as to how the computer/DAC combo works. A tutorial is exactly what I need. Maybe after the demo we could compare a reference quality CDP to the computer set up.
charles
Quote from: rollo on June 05, 2013, 07:57:11 AM
Quote from: JBNY on June 03, 2013, 06:21:40 AM
Quote from: rollo on June 02, 2013, 06:31:03 AM
Maybe it is time to check out the computer thing. Joe feel like doing a demo ?
Sure thing Charles, I'm out in Port Jeff, PM or email me if you want to come over some time. To say I have a little bit of computer gear hooked into the main system would be not quite accurate, I have a lot. :D
You have a deal. Thanks. I am very curious as to how the computer/DAC combo works. A tutorial is exactly what I need. Maybe after the demo we could compare a reference quality CDP to the computer set up.
Absolutely, I've got a pretty good vinyl rig too. So it's always nice to compare vinyl to digital as well. More is always better!