Best USB to SPDIF converter

[Lowlands]

Please note that this is not because the unit is "cheap", but in an attempt to create less jitter as the auto sense/switch circuitry often does just that.

 

Thanks. I had that same question on auto sample rate switching vs. manual. So it's manual. That is a serious dis-qualifier for me (personally) I'm afraid. I stopped caring for sample rate switching ages ago (in moving for iTunes to PM). Don't want to go back....

Respect for those who do not want to sacrifice that last ounce though...

[Music Matters]

Thanks...

[Boris75]

Thanks. I had that same question on auto sample rate switching vs. manual. So it's manual. That is a serious dis-qualifier for me (personally) I'm afraid. I stopped caring for sample rate switching ages ago (in moving for iTunes to PM). Don't want to go back....

Respect for those who do not want to sacrifice that last ounce though...

 

Same for me. After moving from iTunes to A+, I would not contemplate buying a converter that would require manual sample rate switching. Sound quality is important, but I also want a minimum degree of convenience, and I have a lot of 96kHz and 192kHz files, so it would be quite annoying to me if I had to move a switch everytime I move from a redbook rip to a 96kHz file for instance.

[Musicophile]

Same for me. After moving from iTunes to A+, I would not contemplate buying a converter that would require manual sample rate switching. Sound quality is important, but I also want a minimum degree of convenience, and I have a lot of 96kHz and 192kHz files, so it would be quite annoying to me if I had to move a switch everytime I move from a redbook rip to a 96kHz file for instance.

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

One more thing that would stop me from even considering the EVO is that you have 3 boxes (SPDIF, clock, power), not one, on top of your DAC, to further clutter your hifi system.

[4est]

Couldn't agree more.

 

One more thing that would stop me from even considering the EVO is that you have 3 boxes (SPDIF, clock, power), not one, on top of your DAC, to further clutter your hifi system.

 

Yes, but I bet the single box would give yours a run for the money- and it does do auto rate switching. Remember, previously in this thread the 3 box Evo set was compared favorably to kit that was well over 10x its price. I am not suggesting that it is, as I do not have a comparison myself. As for the clutter, good hifi often is sadly as it is function over form until you start to pay serious money, and the Evo is a relatively inexpensive item as far as audiophilia goes. I do know that my Evo trounced a Weiss DAC2 used as a spdif converter once I added the clock.

[Musicophile]

I don't doubt that the Evo is a good product.

 

But personally, I was even a bit annoyed I had to add another box (although it's really small) when I recently bought my Belcanto mlink as I really liked the simplicity of my simple 2 box DAC and integrated amp chain.

[4est]

I don't doubt that the Evo is a good product.

 

But personally, I was even a bit annoyed I had to add another box (although it's really small) when I recently bought my Belcanto mlink as I really liked the simplicity of my simple 2 box DAC and integrated amp chain.

 

Annoyed? Well, life is all about trade offs unfortunately.

[Musicophile]

Annoyed? Well, life is all about trade offs unfortunately.

 

You're right.

 

The moment I heard it in my system, I knew I had to keep it, the sound quality improvement was really significant.

 

And the little black box is actually quite cute on its own.

[barrows]

Sounds like arguments in favor of NOT using an external converter at all...

I too prefer less boxes, hence I implement a high quality converter (async USB-I2S) internally in my DAC, powered by a nice Salas shunt regulator fed from its own transformer secondary) with very low phase noise clocks, and no SPDIF conversions to introduce additional jitter.

[Jud]

Sounds like arguments in favor of NOT using an external converter at all...

I too prefer less boxes, hence I implement a high quality converter (async USB-I2S) internally in my DAC, powered by a nice Salas shunt regulator fed from its own transformer secondary) with very low phase noise clocks, and no SPDIF conversions to introduce additional jitter.

 

Yes, USB-to-SPDIF converters seem to have got themselves a cachet out of proportion to what they actually do. As you point out, somewhat better jitter reduction can be done in the DAC itself. Galvanic isolation is also possible within the DAC. One thing that may be possible to do a bit better in a two-box setup is isolation from EM fields, which I'm guessing is one reason the Berkeley folks decided on a two-box configuration for USB input.

[4est]

Sounds like arguments in favor of NOT using an external converter at all...

I too prefer less boxes, hence I implement a high quality converter (async USB-I2S) internally in my DAC, powered by a nice Salas shunt regulator fed from its own transformer secondary) with very low phase noise clocks, and no SPDIF conversions to introduce additional jitter.

 

This is a USB>SPDIF thread is it not? I am not positive, but I do not recall anyone in this thread claiming it is the best path ultimately. There are plenty of people that are looking to feed their legacy DACs though.

 

FWIW, I am running my (i2s) feed all in the same box as my DAC, but there may be some truth to Jud's post in that proximity does effect things.

[Blake]

Yes, USB-to-SPDIF converters seem to have got themselves a cachet out of proportion to what they actually do.

 

Jud/Barrows/4est you all have far more technical expertise than I have or will ever hope to have. All I can say is that the inclusion of a separate USB-SPDIF converter made a dramatic improvement in the sound of my system.

 

Earlier this year, I had a Wadia 121 Asynch DAC and my Bel Canto DAC2.5 and engaged in a head-to-head long term comparison to see which unit I would keep. Sonically, these units had some minor differences, but the differences were more subtle and I honestly thought it was pretty much a toss-up for me in terms of which DAC I preferred.

 

Adding the uLink to the DAC2.5, then comparing that combo to the Wadia 121 by itself, well, that combo was sonically superior in every regard and by a very wide margin.

 

I realize that one reason for the increase in performance could have been that the DAC2.5 SPDIF input is sonically superior to the USB input, however, in Chris' review of the DAC1.5 which is the little brother to the 2.5, he said the sound of the various inputs was pretty much the same. So I suspect that the input is not the reason for the improvement.

 

Perhaps the ultimate would be to have everything in one box (and I much prefer fewer and smaller boxes over racks of large boxes and clutter), but just in terms of my small experiment, the uLink is doing much more than just a conversion, as the sound is much better with it in place.

 

Having said that, you may have other thoughts and I am all ears.

[Jud]

Jud/Barrows/4est you all have far more technical expertise than I have or will ever hope to have.

 

This is the only thing I wanted to comment about: I actually have no technical expertise whatever. I just try to understand as well as I can information from folks who do have such expertise. As Yogi Berra said, "You can observe a lot by just watching."

[Jud]

As Yogi Berra said, "You can observe a lot by just watching."

 

Pardon me this digression. Lawrence Peter "Yogi" Berra, who played catcher for the New York Yankees from the mid-1940s to the 1960s, is a peerless source of quotes that are a sort of Zen-with-a-twist. I even used one of his quotes to begin the eulogy at my father's funeral. After telling friends and family in attendance how much I appreciated their coming, I said: "As Yogi Berra once said, 'You should always go to other people's funerals. Otherwise, they won't come to yours.'"

[SteveS1]

Blake,

 

You are not alone, I much prefer my Weiss 202 with the Stello U3. I intend to try a linear PS when it arrives just to see if the Mini's USB power supply limits potential but it doesn't sound like it.

 

Comparing the Firewire/Internal Sync to the Stello/RCA Sync was surprising to say the least. But there we are.

[4est]

Blake,

 

You are not alone, I much prefer my Weiss 202 with the Stello U3. I intend to try a linear PS when it arrives just to see if the Mini's USB power supply limits potential but it doesn't sound like it.

 

Comparing the Firewire/Internal Sync to the Stello/RCA Sync was surprising to say the least. But there we are.

 

SteveS1: Have you tried a clock in on your Weiss? I wish I had tried at the time, but alas the unit is gone now. A case has been made just for getting the clock away from the harsh internal environment of a DAC. Just curious is all.

[barrows]

For the record: there is no reason that an internal USB interface cannot be every bit as good as an external one; shielding, isolation, power supply design, can all be implemented perfectly in a single box with the DAC. Not only that, but, there is reason to believe that an internal USB solution can outperform an external one (no SPDIF conversion necessary).

But, some DACs will perform better with an external converter; if you have a DAC which performs better with an external converter, all this demonstrates is that the internal converter in your DAC is not "perfect" in its implementation.

 

I would submit though, that if the goal is extraordinary sound quality, and less boxes, choosing a DAC with a well implemented internal converter is a good solution, as is going amp direct from the DAC.

[SteveS1]

SteveS1: Have you tried a clock in on your Weiss? I wish I had tried at the time, but alas the unit is gone now. A case has been made just for getting the clock away from the harsh internal environment of a DAC. Just curious is all.

 

Hi, no I haven't. It's a possibility after the PS experiment. I am enjoying it so much with the U3 in place that it's dulling my urges to meddle. I did read the Positive Feedback review where a clock was used with benefit but it didn't look cheap. The improvement per outlay for the U3 was significant as these things go. I'm still trying to work out why, whether it's the clocking sync or some other aspect of the external isolation of the conversion.

[4est]

Hi, no I haven't. It's a possibility after the PS experiment. I am enjoying it so much with the U3 in place that it's dulling my urges to meddle. I did read the Positive Feedback review where a clock was used with benefit but it didn't look cheap. The improvement per outlay for the U3 was significant as these things go. I'm still trying to work out why, whether it's the clocking sync or some other aspect of the external isolation of the conversion.

 

Hmm, you might want to try something simple like a Black Lion maybe. Good clocks are not cheap, a lot of it is in the power supplies and they are typically the most expensive part of gear. Possibly rent one from a studio supply rental place or something.

[4est]

For the record: there is no reason that an internal USB interface cannot be every bit as good as an external one; shielding, isolation, power supply design, can all be implemented perfectly in a single box with the DAC. Not only that, but, there is reason to believe that an internal USB solution can outperform an external one (no SPDIF conversion necessary).

But, some DACs will perform better with an external converter; if you have a DAC which performs better with an external converter, all this demonstrates is that the internal converter in your DAC is not "perfect" in its implementation.

 

I would submit though, that if the goal is extraordinary sound quality, and less boxes, choosing a DAC with a well implemented internal converter is a good solution, as is going amp direct from the DAC.

 

It is my opinion that although there is merit to what you say, it is an over simplification. It would be my guess that there are reasons why a company such as dCS or Esoteric use separates- beyond their wanting an additional 20k. As to the "amp direct" I am with Aurthur Salvatore on this one- it is about impedance matching. Even our fearless leader uses one, and recently stated that some manufactures whom recommend amp direct actually prefer using a preamp.

 

Oh, and I am not attempting to be a proponent of SPDIF btw. Good riddance IMO.

 

As you say, "everything matters".

[Audio_ELF]

As Yogi Berra said, "You can observe a lot by just watching."

...and I thought he said "listen to this Booboo; it's sounds so much better with the HiFace. Now let's munch through this pic-a-nic basket" :-)

 

Eloise

[Elberoth]

M2Tech full Evo stack will not get any awards for user friendlines. Three boxes, a lot of extra cables, manual sample rate switching necessary. On top of that - the battery depletes in just under 3.5h, which means that most users will need a separate power supply for the clock and the converter for any extended listening sesions, which further adds for the system cost and complexity.

 

That beeing said, I have not heard anything better yet. This is the ultimate SPDIF converter to me. It is even better than Scarlatti CD/SACD transport in terms of resolution, articulation and lack of grain. It lacks a bit in terms of tonal color and texture, but in general, they are both on the same level. Of course, the Scarlatti transport can be further improved by adding a clock link to the DAC or an external clock, but that only shows how flawed SPDIF interface is at the first place.

[Quest]

Hate for this thread to follow the same old path of discussing direct vs converter, rather than comparing merits of different converters. We have too many posts/threads on the aforementioned already. My emm labs dac2x performance is improved by having one in the chain, that's all I know.

 

The unfortunate fact is many of us would not be able to hear all the usb/spdif converters at one place. I'm taking my time to assess my options after the legato 2 beat some of the more common options.

 

Might be able to get my hands on a m2tech stack, but still curious about sonicweld diverter HR (I did try the older one though) and offramp 5.

[bhobba]

For the record: there is no reason that an internal USB interface cannot be every bit as good as an external one; shielding, isolation, power supply design, can all be implemented perfectly in a single box with the DAC.

 

I have a PDX specifically designed so I could compare its internal USB, which is a battery powered Hiface, to my fully optioned Off-Ramp. It was a dead tie - the internal converter had perhaps a bit more pronounced detail but the Off-Ramp was perhaps a bit smoother. We tried a blind test and couldn't pick it blind.

 

The USB in my Playback Designs is also very good - the Off-Ramp into that is maybe just a smidgen better - not the quantum leap it usually is.

 

Usually however, such as with the WFS, the Off-Ramp makes a huge difference.

 

Thanks

Bill

[tubesound]

I have a PDX specifically designed so I could compare its internal USB, which is a battery powered Hiface, to my fully optioned Off-Ramp. It was a dead tie - the internal converter had perhaps a bit more pronounced detail but the Off-Ramp was perhaps a bit smoother. We tried a blind test and couldn't pick it blind.

 

The USB in my Playback Designs is also very good - the Off-Ramp into that is maybe just a smidgen better - not the quantum leap it usually is.

 

Usually however, such as with the WFS, the Off-Ramp makes a huge difference.

 

Thanks

Bill

 

Bill: are you planning to try out the Bel Canto REFLink? I'm very curious how it fares against the Off-Ramp.