Best USB to SPDIF converter

[Melvin]

SPDIF has a couple of extra strikes against it from the multiplexing of the clock and the data and the issues in attempting to separate the two, but that does not mean that a well sorted SPDIF circuit is inferior to a async one.

 

As an example, HiFi News did a rather thorough review of the Chord QuteHD and from that review:

 

"Jitter is exquisitely low at <10psec for all sample rates from 44.1kHz-192kHz via S/PDIF and only slightly higher at 135psec via USB thanks to a series of ±750Hz sidebands."

 

Here's a link to the review if anyone cares to read it. http://www.chordelectronics.co.uk/files/HiFiNews_QuteHD_review_Sep2012.pdf

[wisnon]

MP-D1's retail price is $550. It's made by a friend of mine. I like tube stuff. I bought Stahl~Tek second hand at a very very good price. People say if you have a fabulous DDC in the front, the DACs become less different (this is probably true). I'm asking my friend to modify the MP-D1 to have an HDMI I2S input and I expect the performance of this DAC can be further improved (Vs. DIR9001 coaxial in).

 

Oh no,

 

I changed from a Level 3 Gen 3 Lampi Dac to a L4 Gen 4 Lampi recently and sold the old one to a local pal. In return, he lent me his old MDHT Havana Dac for like 2 weeks. No contest. Both the old and the new Lampi are in different leagues to the very pleasant and capable Havana Dac. Just last weekend he texted me to say how amazing the L3 is and he is still in heaven. I have to take over the L4 soon to do a side by side test.

 

I have a USB Hynes dual turboclock OffRamp 4 and a Lindemann 24/192 DDC to feed the Lampi and let me tell you they still cant make the Havana or the capable Dac in my DSPeaker unit equal to the Lampi. I use a MB Air with SSD and A+ with integer mode, a SB Duet with Linear Power supply built into the Dac and a Spdif modded Denon DVD player (equal to a Quality transport with a Genesis digital lens) to feed the Dac.

 

 

Now, I cant swear for other Dacs I have not heard, but I can tell you that even my old Lampi easily bested a TOP McIntosh CD player at my local dealer shop. The Lampi has a distinct sound and blends well with my Rowen modded NAD integrated (c375BEE with a negative output impedance) and Heil AMT speakers.

[tubesound]

I have a USB Hynes dual turboclock OffRamp 4 and a Lindemann 24/192 DDC to feed the Lampi and let me tell you they still cant make the Havana or the capable Dac in my DSPeaker unit equal to the Lampi.

 

My only experience is Stahl~Tek + MP-D1 vs. 47 Labs Shigaraki NOS DAC. Shigaraki used to sound a bit cleaner and more natural in the mid-range compared to MP-D1 but was less dynamic and detailed (both without Stahl~Tek). I'll do a bit more comparison with the addition of Stahl~Tek and report back later.

[wisnon]

Thanks Tube, a report of your experience will be interesting.

 

Cheers

[barrows]

Gentlemen. There are some problems here, with comparing different USB-SPDIF converters. I do not think that one will get the same results, or even very similar results, unless the same system is in play. There are many reasons for this, but let us just consider one, the SPDIF interface itself. Unfortunately, SPDIF was designed for convenience and not performance, as such, it is lacking in specific parameters. OK, I am not a digital engineer, and some of what I am going to say is a simplification, and may not be 100% accurate, but I do believe the gist is correct: AFAI undeerstand, the SPDIF interface is lacking in specific protocols. I believe it specifies only the proper impedance (75 ohms) and a relatively wide range of peak to peak voltages. There is no specification for the acceptable range of rise times, and also no exact specification for where on that rising (or falling) edge the receiver is supposed to trigger. Hence, we have SPDIF receivers and transmitters which vary considerably, then we throw into the mix an unknown cable, of unknown speed, and often innaccurate impedance, as well as the insistance of some manufacturers to use RCA connectors for unbalanced SPDIF (never 75 ohms), or XLRs for balanced SPDIF (also never 110 ohms), and we end up with an interface which is often broken from the start.

Hence, one DACs SPDIF receiver may match really well with one companies SPDIF transmitter, and provide great sound, while the same converter may be terrible when feeding a different DAC with a different SPDIF receiver.

Hence, we are going to have different observations with different DACs. Once we get into the realm of decent async USB converters, the only option is too listen in your system with your DAC, and try the best SPDIF cable you can get your hands on. And for heavens sake, be suspicious of any high end component which uses RCA connectors for SPDIF...

[Quest]

OK to your last wish, but just let me get a word in here first if that's all right.

 

- Absolutely a usb/spdif converter will make a difference. But a couple of things:

 

-- Will a converter make a difference versus pretty much the same circuitry (for jitter reduction and electrical isolation) in the DAC?

 

-- If yes, what sort of difference?

Just a quick wrap up:

 

1. I agree with some things you say but we are talking about high end usb/spdif converters in this thread, not a simple $200 box that does the same, is run off usb bus power with lack of care of its impact. There are usb/spdif converters that do not require an external power source (e.g. sonicweld diverter) but it doesn't mean they don't deal with the issues.

 

2. To me the whole "same circuitry inside/outside the DAC" reminds me of pre/power vs integrated arguments.. I think there are benefits to both and it depends much on the implementation. Talking on this would just be based on pure theory and derail the thread.

 

3. When you mention 'what are the differences', I can assure you the performance elements are not subjective (at least to my ears). To me, the main difference is timing which reflects especially on the tail end of notes, placement and proportion of instruments and sounds are also clearer defined.

 

4. I guess on listening tests, we just have to take on faith that the people know what they are hearing. My aim with this thread is just to solicit feedback from everyone's listening tests in various parts of the world.. if someone is buying a $3k converter, I think we have to give their ears some credit. As converters are hard to audition (they are not a well stocked item I believe), this may help us narrow down our choices.

 

For your example - there are so many variables - for instance last night I played a youtube video of a song vs a CD rip of the same song, and listeners preferred the youtube. I can tell you they all know that the fidelity from youtube was crap (they all noted this immediately), but there are other things that attracted them and made them enjoy the music more. Just saying that pinning the results of your example solely on 'higher jitter' which may be one piece contributing to the sound they like, may not be right.

 

What I would agree slightly to is barrow's mention that each converter may sound different to each DAC, but accept that every equipment and cable has their own sound. I also find it curious high end brands use RCA, but sometimes I feel this could be to make sure the best sounding match is also to their own matching equipment.. just my own thoughts though.

[DanRubin]

If the conversion is at the DAC, it's USB to I2S usually, isn't it? Is there a clock involved in addition to the DAC's master clock? Showing my tech ignorance here, but I wonder if the additional clock and jitter reduction offered by the separate converters, or perhaps just the physical separation they afford, has a positive impact that's not being achieved by most of the USB DACs, even the best of them. Sounds like BS to me, but I am struck by the very positive comments people have made about the best of these converters and what I perceive as a lack of equivalent enthusiasm for the USB inputs on the best DACs. I mean, shouldn't the USB on something like the PS Audio PW DAC II be much better than its S/PDIF input? I don't recall anyone saying that.

[barrows]

If the conversion is at the DAC, it's USB to I2S usually, isn't it? Is there a clock involved in addition to the DAC's master clock? Showing my tech ignorance here, but I wonder if the additional clock and jitter reduction offered by the separate converters, or perhaps just the physical separation they afford, has a positive impact that's not being achieved by most of the USB DACs, even the best of them. Sounds like BS to me, but I am struck by the very positive comments people have made about the best of these converters and what I perceive as a lack of equivalent enthusiasm for the USB inputs on the best DACs. I mean, shouldn't the USB on something like the PS Audio PW DAC II be much better than its S/PDIF input? I don't recall anyone saying that.

 

The problem with all these evaluations is that it is really hard to generalize, because the devil is in the details. Ultimately, if we could assume "perfect implementation" then a USB receiver internal to the DAC, without an SPDIF stage is going to be superior, as the SPDIF stage will always add some jitter. But, we use products in the real world, and none of them have "perfect implementation".

[erin]

Good review of Audiophilleo vs Yellowtec PUC 2 here

Who wants to be an Audiophile?: USB SPDIF WARS - Audiophileo VS Yellowtec PUC 2 review.

[dallasjustice]

Good review of Audiophilleo vs Yellowtec PUC 2 here

Who wants to be an Audiophile?: USB SPDIF WARS - Audiophileo VS Yellowtec PUC 2 review.

Yellow journalism or Yellowtec?

[Boris75]

Yellow journalism or Yellowtec?

 

+1 on your question

[erin]

Yellow journalism or Yellowtec?

 

I wonder why you say that?

Is it too good for you to believe?

Or you don't want to believe that something could be better than the beloved Audiophilleo? LOL

[progression]

This Yellowtec device came out in 2010...it's been around for a LONG time. At the time, it was met with some exceptional reviews on various European forums. Of course, the original Hiface out around the same time? also received incredible feedback and we know it is not exactly much of anything up against better solutions that have come out since then. This does not mean this device is not good as the build quality in photos that I saw look very good. What's strange to me is that while everything I found dates to 2010, Yellowtec's website shows the unit as "new", as in, it's new to the market??? I do know on the Swede forum, they were hands on with what I believe to be a prototype so it could be that only a few were produced then and it was never truly in "production" until now, but I can only make guesses.

[erin]

The Yellowtec is reviewed to be better than the Audiophilleo but its only one review. But the device is real and in production.

Yellowtec PUC2 Mic - Thomann UK Cyberstore

[erin]

@ dallasjustice, since you have a really impressive DAC, it would be interesting if you could borrow a PUC 2 to listen to it and then post your comments. I always wanted to hear a totaldac, but its way out of my price range. I think if your DAC couldn't say what a transport sounded like then nothing would.

[progression]

Oh no,

 

 

I have a USB Hynes dual turboclock OffRamp 4 and a Lindemann 24/192 DDC to feed the Lampi and let me tell you they still cant make the Havana or the capable Dac in my DSPeaker unit equal to the Lampi. I use a MB Air with SSD and A+ with integer mode, a SB Duet with Linear Power supply built into the Dac and a Spdif modded Denon DVD player (equal to a Quality transport with a Genesis digital lens) to feed the Dac.

 

 

Now, I cant swear for other Dacs I have not heard, but I can tell you that even my old Lampi easily bested a TOP McIntosh CD player at my local dealer shop. The Lampi has a distinct sound and blends well with my Rowen modded NAD integrated (c375BEE with a negative output impedance) and Heil AMT speakers.

 

Some questions for you:

 

1) What was the result of the Off-Ramp 4 in use as a transport to your Lampi Dac?

 

2) I see you use both traditional and ripped files. What do you hear differences wise between ripped files and hard disks spinning on the Denon platter?

[mav52]

Gentlemen. There are some problems here, with comparing different USB-SPDIF converters. I do not think that one will get the same results, or even very similar results, unless the same system is in play. There are many reasons for this, but let us just consider one, the SPDIF interface itself. Unfortunately, SPDIF was designed for convenience and not performance, as such, it is lacking in specific parameters. OK, I am not a digital engineer, and some of what I am going to say is a simplification, and may not be 100% accurate, but I do believe the gist is correct: AFAI undeerstand, the SPDIF interface is lacking in specific protocols. I believe it specifies only the proper impedance (75 ohms) and a relatively wide range of peak to peak voltages. There is no specification for the acceptable range of rise times, and also no exact specification for where on that rising (or falling) edge the receiver is supposed to trigger. Hence, we have SPDIF receivers and transmitters which vary considerably, then we throw into the mix an unknown cable, of unknown speed, and often innaccurate impedance, as well as the insistance of some manufacturers to use RCA connectors for unbalanced SPDIF (never 75 ohms), or XLRs for balanced SPDIF (also never 110 ohms), and we end up with an interface which is often broken from the start.

Hence, one DACs SPDIF receiver may match really well with one companies SPDIF transmitter, and provide great sound, while the same converter may be terrible when feeding a different DAC with a different SPDIF receiver.

Hence, we are going to have different observations with different DACs. Once we get into the realm of decent async USB converters, the only option is too listen in your system with your DAC, and try the best SPDIF cable you can get your hands on. And for heavens sake, be suspicious of any high end component which uses RCA connectors for SPDIF...

 

SPDIF does have a standard to follow (S/PDIF is standardised in IEC 60958 ) which I assume it means protocols ( S/PDIF - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) was based on the AES3 standard. AES3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[tubesound]

Thanks Tube, a report of your experience will be interesting.

 

Cheers

 

Stahl~Tek made more improvement on MP-D1 than on Shigaraki. Shigaraki still excels in mid-range and probably less hi-fi in all the other aspects. A possible explanation is that a NOS DAC is less sensitive to jitter. Stereophile in Shigaraki's review says "you can have up to 173ps of jitter in the digital domain before it (Shigaraki) distorts the analog waveform. However, if you apply that same mathematical distribution to an 8x-oversampling scheme with its 20-bit word length, you'll see the timing-error threshold drop to 1.35ps."

 

I wished I had more modern chip DACs to compare so that a more conclusive assertion can be made. But I'm already more leaning towards that the best USB converter can narrow the gap between two quality DACs but not in a decisive way.

[barrows]

SPDIF does have a standard to follow (S/PDIF is standardised in IEC 60958 ) which I assume it means protocols ( S/PDIF - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) was based on the AES3 standard. AES3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Of course there is a standard, without some standardisation how would it work at all. The point is that there can be a lot of variances, as I specifically described, while meeting the standard. These variances can make for very poor matches between a SPDIF transmitter and receiver, and additional jitter.

[Linh Ngo]

Hi everybody.. im new here. Recently i purchased bel canto ulink to pair with my old bel canto dac3. Its a big improvement when compare with usb stock of dac3. Huge openness and detail. Im really happy with it. And its surprisingly me when open to see inside..

Here is the inside detail of ulink . I guess its using the same Xmos chipset and Crystek Clock like Berkley Alpha usb as previous posted of Elberoth

 

 

[Musicophile]

Hi everybody.. im new here. Recently i purchased bel canto ulink to pair with my old bel canto dac3. Its a big improvement when compare with usb stock of dac3. Huge openness and detail. Im really happy with it. And its surprisingly me when open to see inside..

Here is the inside detail of ulink . I guess its using the same Xmos chipset and Crystek Clock like Berkley Alpha usb as previous posted of Elberoth

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3807[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3808[/ATTACH]

 

Thanks for sharing. I assume my mLink (haven't opened it yet) would look pretty much the same, with the exception of a different set of clocks and the lacking Optical out.

[Blake]

Welcome to Computer Audiophile Linh Ngo! Thanks for posting the picture of your uLink.

 

I agree with your findings with respect to the sonic improvements of the uLink. I am quite happy with mine.

 

Chris (owner of Computer Audiophile) has a uLink in for review that he is currently evaluating and I will be curious to read his thoughts. Also, Audiostream.com has a uLink in for an upcoming review as well.

[Blake]

Well, it looks like Audiostream's uLink review is up now, and even more interesting to me, the reviewer tried it with the iUSB:

 

Bel Canto uLink USB-S/PDIF Converter | AudioStream

 

 

Glad to hear I am not completely crazy, my comments from 2 months ago about the uLink combined with iUSB (post #22):

 

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/bel-canto-mlink-ulink-and-reflink-13244/

[tubesound]

Hi everybody.. im new here. Recently i purchased bel canto ulink to pair with my old bel canto dac3. Its a big improvement when compare with usb stock of dac3. Huge openness and detail. Im really happy with it. And its surprisingly me when open to see inside..

 

I'm wondering what's underneath the USB receiver board ...

 

[Blake]

I'm wondering what's underneath the USB receiver board ...

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3837[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

Two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onion. I suppose the case would be the sesame seed bun.