The State of USB Audio by Alan Taffel

[rlodad]

Glad you're finally on board. Till now, I had ignored you because you didn't seem to have read or understood the threads. If you hadn't read them, I can now understand why. Jitter is important, but it is only one of many important issues in digital interfaces.

 

[Wavelength]

Gang,

 

Just a few corrections...

 

First Windows 2000 is not 100% Class 1 USB Compliant. Windows 2000 did not include Asynchronous protocol (and other things as well) and one of the reason's why I was demanding of TAS about the Computer Hardware not being up to the capabilities of some of the dacs.

 

TAS1020: This device is a USB controller with a 8052 processor. You have to write the entire methodology for this part using the KEIL Compiler and the linked in ROM code. This part has both input and output Audio Serial ports. I don't like the generic word Codec because people get confused as to what it is... is it a software driver, specification, DAC & ADC combo chip what is it??? That being said the TAS1020 is a Full Speed device and therefore is limited to a maximum I/O in 24 bit stereo land of about 88.2K (mainly due to USB memory) or 96K in one direction.

 

I still think a lot of you are looking to deeply into the jitter factor without really understanding how to interpret the results.

 

Also go to the dealer and listen... it's important.

 

Thanks

Gordon

 

 

 

[johniboy]

Peter, you just write which dacs you do NOT regard as audiophile. Which ones DO you regard good enough to classify?

 

[barrows]

Peter,

 

I am afraid you are jumping to conclusions here. Just because a company produces "pro" gear does not mean it is incapable of producing "audiophile" gear (although I know where you are coming from, more on that in a moment). dcs is a pro company, and they definately produce audiophile gear (this does not mean that every audiophile is required to like the sound of dcs gear). Weiss is a pro company, that also produces audiophile gear-I have heard the Weiss Medea DAC on a few occasions, in good systems, and it sounds very, very good to my ears-I have also looked under the hood of the Medea, and can attest that its internal design is definately "audiophile" in nature with great attention placed on power supply and output stage design: a "pro" piece would never be designed the way the Medea is.

I own an RME Fireface 400, which I got to experiment with Firewire, and I totally agree that it does not produce good sound on its own, and is even quite compromised when used as an Firewire to SPDIF converter. RME specifies the jitter level of the Fireface series as below 1 nS, which is laughable compared to what an audiophile should expect.

Additionally: the TAS1020 chip can be configured to output I2S natively, as Gordon suggests above this is the configuration used in Wavelength products, I know that PS Audio has I2S output from the TAS1020 in the PerfectWave DAC, and I believe Ayre also runs it this way in the QB-9.

As far as I can tell, the ASYNC USB is only compromised in that it cannot handle data rates of over 24/96, otherwise it should provide an excellent interface between computer and DAC, slaving the computer to the DAC clock, and taking the data directly to I2S to feed the filter/DAC. I am looking forward to hearing Chris' observations on the sound of the QB-9 and dcs, I am planning to get a QB-9 into my system for evaluation in the next few weeks, and will be happy to post my observations, as theory can only go so far...

 

[satkinsn]

Gordon -

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

Question: do the parts of USB compliance that are missing apply only to asynchronous use?

 

That's my backdoor way of asking - within the bounds of the listening/testing that actually took place, did 2000 comply?

 

I'm belaboring the issue of OS and computer (and I'm way over my head here) because I don't see the hard evidence for why, say, a new dual core machine running Leopard is necessarily more competent than a three or four year old XP box.

 

best,

 

Scott A.

 

[cfmsp]

 

"new dual core machine running Leopard is necessarily more competent than a three or four year old XP box."

 

The differences between the OSes are more noticeable than the hardware differences, in your example above. I recently re-read the dozen or so interviews with industry computer audio luminaries (pubslihed by Positive Feedback), and the consensus among them was that the Mac OS is much less impacted negatively (by other tasks) when not being used as a dedicated machine. I also believe there is consensus that Mac OS X makes it much easier to achieve good sounding bit perfect playback than with XP.

 

[manisandher]

The problem I have is that most 'modern' DACs are delta-sigma types, and not multi-bit... (yes, I know dCS use 5-bit DACs)

 

I've never heard a delta-sigma that I've liked the sound of.

 

Mani.

 

[PeterSt]

All,

 

I have been typing on a longer piece of my rubbish english, but didn't post it because it was jumping around the bush. What bush ?

Well I just sat down to write about that, while I now see that Mani just is ahead of me. Indeed (and apparently) it is so that once you feel what this is all about, you can just "dare" state what Mani just did, but how to explain it other than the one sentence from Mani ?

 

On this globe a few people hang around, ever seeking for the best sounding DAC. With this, try to imagine a process of many years, and not something like "I now have the money, let's see what I will spend it on". No, this is a process that actually takes "ages", and I can recognize that -all going through that process- end up with the same : no sigma-delta please !

 

Anno 2009 this has become the most difficult, because this is the era of 96KHz and more, and actually the solutions can be counted on a finger or 2 (and 192KHz by now maybe 1). So what to get ?

 

If you ask me about audiophile DACs of today (meaning being able to do 24/192) I would say "none". If you downgrade a bit to 96KHz I would come up with MSB, but I'm not sure whether they are on the same track as they ever were, and besides their website makes you mad (try to find out what they sell today, and what the specs are)

 

Anyway, the references we have in mind about not sigma-delta are numerous, but this will be end of life stuff because nobody dares to sell a 16 bit only DAC anymore. Ah, maybe Zanden does, maybe Audio Note does, but their public will be those still using a CD player. That won't last forever.

 

And so indeed, it is easy to say that no Pro unit will be an audiophile thing, because sigma-delta just cannot be that. And please try to see that this is not subjective, and it only needs comparison to get it in a minute or two. But where to compare and to what ?

 

We can well say that within the sigma-delta area there's still "a best" etc. DAC. Also, DAC A still sounds better to you than DAC B no matter it's your taste. And indeed, I guess I don't need to listen to "know" that a Weiss will be better than a Fireface, but I just the same don't need to listen to a Weiss to know that the MSB sounds better ... which I also don't need to listen to. It's the character of sigma-delta plus the known technology (which jsut is BAD) that makes me know this.

 

While you can better stick to the one line from Mani, I can add to it all that I explicitly sat down to prove the merits of the multi bit DAC, in today's 24/192 era, and which by now is proven to be a 100% success.

Mind you, at the first prototype I created (cost no object) it already was clear how nobody would prefer any sigma-delta over a multi-bit AKA NOS when implemented so. I even had listeners over from abroad bringing their own ultimately tweaked ESS Sabre (being the best measuring sigma-delta around), listening with great satisfaction to that on my system, but after replacing it with my prototype coming to the conclusion that the sigma-delta must be severely broken. Yeah, I knew. No single doubt about it and audible within one second.

 

But this was then, and I went further and created an "NOS" with outboard filter that measures as good as a sigma-delta. Now THAT makes a difference, you don't want to know. The sound now is "as easy" as I dare say a Weiss, but with transients and detail never heard before just because the transients and detail are not killed by the heavy oversampling, a sigma-delta inherently does. Nothing to do about that.

I don't need to listen to a Weiss or anything to know this, and -excuse me- it is enough to look at the data (scope etc.) to see how transienst become soft nothings while it should have stayed transients.

 

Summarized : before, those working with measurements to know "NOS" could never be right -despite they even might find it better sounding- have no argument anymore.

 

Lastly, and in order to take out a misunderstanding, the fact that I say Firewire is the best interface is unrelated to the DACs using Firewire for interface. So, the interface is allright, but the DAC is not. Combine this with all Firewire DACs being sigma-delta at least partly (dCS), and I can say (to myself anyway) that any Firewire DAC does not cut it.

 

Wow, how to make a short story long.

 

[Purite Audio]

Peter i am afraid you are talking complete tosh, I used to import MSB I know their products extremely well, I have used DCS Scarlatti lavry 924, Audio Note ( UK ) and a whole host of other dacs, a dacs performance has to be seen ( heard ) within the context of the whole design, the type of chip used is just a part of the equation.

 

[PeterSt]

I am sorry for that. But of course all is about the whole design (would I not know ?). I can't help it that you never saw the basic "character" of sigma-delta vs. non. This invalidates the whole of my story, but it's not my fault.

 

Now, please tell me which of that host of DACs sounds best to you (or otherwise I don't get the merits of your post). Try to leave out moods and anything else that smells like subjectivity, because it really doesn't exist. If you think it does, something is wrong IMHO. If you say "DAC A is better for such and so, but DAC B is better for this and that", again something is wrong unless you chose nothing. A DAC is good all the way, and if only half, it failed completely.

 

the type of chip used is just a part of the equation.

 

Yes. But how difficult is it to make clear that all the rounding which occurs because of heavy oversampling NEVER will get back to orignal transients ? This is sigma-delta.

And don't confuse yourself with good measurements, because they are done (as how it is done officially) with sines. Not much more to round there, except for the higher frequencies which is exactly where heavy OS will gain over NOS theoretically.

 

To be hopefully clear : for the two main topologies (sigma-delta vs. multi bit) the chip determines the character of the sound, and this character is the most obvious. Within these two topologies there are various other parameters (slew rate, settling time, LSB precision, blahblah) which all matter, but in the end result in harmonic distortion (more or less) and they all could well be one "distortion" parameter. It really doesn't matter much, but the less the distortion, the better the sound. Don't say "hehe", because up till now no NOS believer agreed with that.

 

Today this has changed, and might you recall the HD peaks I showed elsewhere ... they showed because of a wrong S/N setting in the analyser. Now they don't show *at all*, meaning that HD is as non-present as with sigma-delta. Ha, good. So they sound the same ! NO. Certainly not, and this is because in sines are no transients, and while sines are used for measurements, no transients are there in the first place. Might OS destroy them or not. They are just not there.

 

Maybe I can setup some kind of THD test with squares, and compare with my Audio Note.

;-)

 

Now, I better stop posting here, because it is clear that whatever I say (like Firewire DACs not being audiophile) ends up in the same story. If readers are not fed up by now, I am.

It has nothing to do with the topic of this thread anyway !

 

Thanks,

Peter

 

 

[johniboy]

sorry peter but i still have my doubts. i did not have a chance to listen to multi-bit vs. delta sigma - i just don´t have access to that many different dacs - but the industry is telling me: delta sigma is the way to go. sure, the industry is not always telling truth but the audiophile consumers should, at least in part.

so there is a small german company producing and selling dacs with the PCM1704 chip. here is a link to their site why they are doing so: http://www.hoer-wege.de/Multi-DACs.html. I know its in german... ;-o google can help translate!

these guys are building pretty impressively looking dacs for a reasonable price: http://www.hoer-wege.de/preise_geraete.htm for 2,000-3,000 EUR you get a dac with battery supply and knickknack audiophiles are always talking about (optionally even with usb port!). so they have the dream-come-though products but not many people are buying them. they are buying LINN akurates or majiks with sigma-delta chips. ok, i know, linn can afford much better marketing, bla, bla. BUT if the hörwege dacs would be THAT good there would be a maybe small but very strong community using and promoting these products. similar to asr-audio or symphonic line for amplifiers. those users SWEAR they bought the best amps in the whole world. i can´t see that for the hoer-wege dacs. nada.

so how come there is (almost) no established high-end hifi company using multi-bit chips? are they all non-audiophile?? or am i wrong here?

 

[CG]

"FYI... for the second time.. CG is probably the person anywhere that I asked about jitter measurements. He does this for a living."

 

I pay Gordon a small retainer to keep saying things like this.

 

It's actually embarrassing when he does it, but more so that I pay him...

 

 

[barrows]

Peter,

 

Now I understand your POV. Unfortunately, it is very difficult (if not impossible by your own admission) for most to test your hypothesis. This is an interesting take on things though, perhaps we should start a separate thread in DACs on Delta Sigma vs. multi bit & NOS. An Audio Note is certainly not good for comparison, considering the colorations that will be introduced by the tubes and transfomrers. What we need is a multi bit DAC and a delta sigma DAC for comparison running the sames power supplies, I to V, and analog output stages.

Multi Bit DACs are not available, because in their haste to produce chips that are easier to manufacture, and have better measurement specs, TI, Wolfson, AD, etc. have all decided to only manufacture Delta Sigma devices, and very few audio companies have the expertise and development budget to design their own DAC. BTW I believe that while the BB1704 is a multi bit design, it still oversamples, and as such would be flawed in Peter's analysis.

 

[Wavelength]

Scott,

 

Windows 2000 had more problems with USB than just not supporting async. It had a bunch of holes and for that reason we don't suggest it for any USB Audio Work.

 

OS: Believe me from someone writes drivers and low level stuff. OSX is much better at handling all this stuff as compared to XP. For that matter Vista is so much better than XP that I suggest Vista even though it is annoying and still not really as good as OSX from an Audio perspective.

 

Thanks

Gordon

 

[Tom A.]

I got into building a music server after reading Robert Harley's article in the Jan. Absolute Sound. So I am NOT going to cancel my subscription. So now I have the system he described. I love the sound.

 

But being an audiophile, (and a tweeky one, at that), I am always looking for the best sound (at my limited price point). Aren't we all?

 

I can't build all the systems commonly used (MAC, PC/Vista, PC/XT), but will migrate to whatever has the currently the best sound.

 

My point: I use an AES/EBU format/cable with PC and Lynx AES16. I have read this way is recommended for best sound. Does any other system/interface better that. Particularly using USB?

 

-Tom

 

[cfmsp]

 

Tom,

 

Apparently you've invested in a particular protocol, or rather in hardware that will allow a particular protocol (AES/EBU) to deliver near its best. This is commonly recommended for use with traditional audiophile DACs that feature AES/EBU inputs, but not for USB or Firewire DACs, which use direct computer output.

 

You can choose to remain with your current choice of AES/EBU as interface, which has an upgrade path with the Berkeley Alpha DAC as a commonly accepted top choice in the $5k range.

 

Async USB and Firewire DACs don't need a precision computer soundcard to transmit the data, due to their use of the local (i.e. DAC) clock as the master.

 

There are more DACs to choose from using the AES/EBU protocol than with Async USB or Firewire.

 

You didn't specify your DAC, but assuming it's a high quality one, I wouldn't recommend that you consider non Async USB Dacs, given your investment in the Lynx.

 

That means you probably want to listen to the Wavelength (mostly tubes) or Ayre (solid-state) USB DACs, if you want to experiment with USB that might improve upon the possibilities available with your current interface.

 

There's also Firewire, if you don't find Async USB to be an improvement on your existing. The Weiss DACS are the leaders in the multi-kilobuck category.

 

cheers,

clay

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Tom - Ah yes, the audiophile urge for something better :~) Clay listed some great options if you want to try something different. In fact I am listening to the Wavelength Audio Proton as I type this.

 

The Lynx card you have is wonderful. My current reference uses a Lynx AES16 card. I don't see any reason to switch unless you are unhappy with the sound. At the Computer Audiophile Symposium all the computers in the reference system used either a Lynx AES16 or AES16e card.

 

[omahapianist]

I think you are having an Audiophilia Nervosa attack. While it's OK to read about what audiophiles like and dislike, they are simply giving you their opinions about the resulting sounds of a particular item or system, not fact. Everyone has his or her own 'absolute sound' and to (mostly) rely on what others say about a good system/part/component/connector/ad nauseam, blah, blah, blah, as a means to justify what would be good to you is a path to total audiophile breakdown.

 

Here's the biggest problem with those who ask such questions about "What is best?".....no one ever talks about the MUSIC! What do you consider important in the reproduction of recorded music? Think about that carefully before tossing out audiophile-approved lexicon. Don't tell me what others want to hear. Tell me what YOU think. You might find that your current set-up is perfectly suitable. Or did you take the time to analyze the musical characteristics that appeal to you and purchase the equipment best suited for these preferences? I believe a majority of audiophiles don't do this.

 

You can't ask for "better" when you don't what "better" is for you! :-)

 

Check this out:

 

http://www.audiophilia.com/features/aptest.htm

 

Randall

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

...is that AT's comments in the magazine do not equate to the findings from Stephen Stone IN THE SAME ISSUE. SS reviews the HRT Streamer Plus and loves the thing. Harley too has gone to bat in the past with positive comments about USB audio.

 

I reckon this is an example of Just In Time publishing:

 

RH commissions a feature from AT about USB audio, knowing that AT has got 'form' with computers

 

RH receives copy from AT too late in the day to do anything significant about it

 

I would imagine no amount of rewriting by AT would have revised his position, a mighty rewrite at TAS would have ended up with AT shouting on the forums about TAS putting words in his mouth and getting someone with more up-to-date info to write the feature would be difficult at short notice.

 

It's still inexcusable, though... RH should have killed off the feature, or should have managed it better in the earlier stages. If companies like Wavelength pulled their products on the basis of the author's partnering equipment and level of understanding, alarm bells should have been ringing in RH's ears. Did RH know the back story early enough to help, though? Did he know the Wavelength had been withdrawn, or did AT simply neglect to mention Wavelength to RH?

 

If AT's dislike of USB was part of TAS policy, I would find it questionable... but internally consistent. But having "USB isn't that good" on one page and "USB is fantastic" on the next is horribly inconsistent.

 

[chrille]

Interesting discussion here since Taffel´s article was published and upset and shook the beliefs of many here .

To me it seems that he has got quite a bit of inconvenient truths to tell!!!!

As one who took an initial quite strong interest in computer audio,now lukewarm, and who is still waiting for someone to deliver A DECENTLY PRICED NOT THE RIP OFF PRICES most high quality DACs reviewed here seem to sell at and also TRULY PORTABLE SIZE!!! preferably firewire 800 dac.

I use a macbook pro.

And now it seems some smart guys who are after my money tell me and everyone else it seems that for Macs to sound really good you have to add Amarra at 1500 bucks or so!

I am STILL WAITING for something to take my computer audio to the level of my SACD system, in a portable format!

As far as I am still concerned the portable CD quality dacs are not of any interest to me at all.

CD quality still sucks after all these years and always will.

You can´t get more than a pint out of a pint bottle period!

As far as USB seems to go it also seems to be trying to squeeze more than a pint out of a pint bottle somehow.

 

Or is there no money in the things I am asking for??

No fuss, great sound at a good price and portable!

What seems to be happening is that a lot of manufacturers are producing very expensive stuff that is to be used in a home based system ,and why do you still have be more or less a computer expert to enjoy music via computer audio?

Open this menu, open that menu change this, change that, convert this, convert that seems to be what it all boils down to so far!

 

 

 

 

[Audio_ELF]

I'm going to respond to some of chrille's observations as I see it...

 

"decent priced" ... so what do you consider decent priced? Thats the question. Is a Bryston BDA-1 at £2000 decent priced, or a Cyrus DAC X at £1000, or are you expecting the world for the £225 that the Cambridge Audio costs. Each are good at their own price point. At most price-points you can find something worthy to demonstrate and better than the price-point below. If we're talking about the price of the Bryston BDA-1, then you have the Weiss DAC2 - okay it's not the most attractive looking device but is FireWire (400 not 800, but THEY ARE COMPATIBLE WITH EACH OTHER - only the connector is different). If you move up then there are very few DACs that have either USB OR FireWire, they expect an AES or SPDIF input, available (at good quality) using either FireWire or PCI interface.

 

"it seems that for Macs to sound really good you have to add Amarra" ... a Mac with iTunes sounds good; a Mac with iTunes and Amarra sounds better. In the same way a Chord Electronics QBD76 DAC sounds good with a £100 DVD player spinning a CD, but give it a £6,000 Chord Blu Transport and it really comes into its own.

 

"I am STILL WAITING for something to take my computer audio to the level of my SACD system, in a portable format" ... so what is your SACD system - what "level" is it. Many people have felt that computer based audio can reach the level of a good SACD system, but what are YOUR expectations? Personally I feel that the sound from my system using a simple USB connection is as good as when I demo'd a £1000 2channel SACD player - but YMMV. Most of the difference between SACD and CD playback tends to be on the mastering which is a fixed quality whether you are playing back on a CD Transport of a Computer. You say "CD quality still sucks after all these years and always will" - well it strikes me that if you feel that way, you're never going to get a computer audio system to sound good unless you ONLY listen to high resolution material on it - but that has nothing to do with the USB input argument of the TAS Article.

 

"As far as USB seems to go it also seems to be trying to squeeze more than a pint out of a pint bottle" ... as has been stated several times on this thread, the issue is NOT with the USB interface per say, its with how the interface to the DAC has been implemented.

 

Just my thoughts to your points ...

Eloise

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

Using Taffel's article to point out the limitations of computer audio is a bit like using a broken-down AMC Pacer to highlight the problems in today's motor industry.

 

A Musical Fidelity V-DAC does not cost a fortune and is extremely good. As is the Cambridge Audio DACmagic.

 

You won't get FireWire in a cheap DAC; the connection demands financial tribute to Apple and because it's not used in cheap PCs, it's not going to feature in cheap DACs.

 

Portable and good is difficult, because you are using USB power to drive the DAC. Some have cracked it (HRT, for example), most haven't. Drawing power from the wall seems the way to go to drive the 'AC' part of a DAC.

 

You can get high-resolution tracks from the people listed elsewhere on this site, if CD grade sound is not good enough for you (personally, I'd rather listen to CD than the tinkly-sweet but ponderous SACD any day).

 

But what it sounds like you want does not exist. Just like there were no portable SACD players. What you demand (portable, high-quality, low-cost) falls between those who want portable and low-cost (and don't really give a damn about quality) and high-quality (who don't give a damn about cost and size).

 

[CG]

For anybody not happy with the current commercial offerings, whether it's due to price not being to your budget or taste, the sound, the convenience factor, the color of the knobs, and what have you, the answer is simple.

 

Start your research on the internet, learn Verilog programming and filter design, learn C++ or Objective C programming, draw your schematic, lay out your boards, design your cabinet and have it fabricated or do it yourself, source your parts, solder these parts to the boards you designed, optimize and refine the design, write the firmware and the interface software, and then sit back and smile.

 

If it's really good in the end, maybe you can sell a few to recover your costs by setting up whatever distribution and support networks you think are suitable and turning the manufacturing crank.

 

In order to make sure that you aren't ripping customers off, be sure to take the material cost on the BOM and add maybe 20% for your trouble - if that's not too greedy - and make that your selling price.

 

Be sure to let us know what color Maybach you bought with your spoils.

 

 

[cfmsp]

 

"A DECENTLY PRICED NOT THE RIP OFF PRICES most high quality DACs reviewed here seem to sell at and also TRULY PORTABLE SIZE!!! preferably firewire 800 dac."

 

A few fine sounding portable Firewire 400 DACs of which I'm aware:

 

Apogee Duet $495

Apogee Mini-DAC WITH Firewire $895 @ B&H Photo

Metric Halo ULN-2 $1495@ B&H Photo, which is not such a small form factor as the Apogees listed here.

 

Gordon also makes a fine Async USB portable DAC, for $900.

I haven't heard it, but plan to soon.

 

Apogee have also just announced a very portable USB recording device called "One" which will function as a DAC albeit at only 44.1k/48k and with only 1/8" stereo output, for $250.

 

http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/one.php?section=features

 

 

 

 

clay

 

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Chrille - Thanks for your opinion.

 

"As one ... who is still waiting for someone to deliver A DECENTLY PRICED NOT THE RIP OFF PRICES most high quality DACs reviewed here seem to sell at and also TRULY PORTABLE SIZE!!! preferably firewire 800 dac."

 

I sense a lot of frustration in this comment that really is not a computer audio thing. Decently priced is very subjective and is an endless topic with all "luxury" goods. DACs reviewed here cover every price range imaginable. I now have the dCS Paganini DAC with Puccini U-Clock and the Devilsound DAC. I'll be publishing reviews on both in the near future. A good example of decently priced being so subjective is when I showed a local audio club the Devilsound DAC a few people scoffed at the $279 price. Also, as someone else mentioned here a few days ago, there are people leaving comments in the Apple app store who are irate over spending $0.99 on an app that didn't meet their expectations.

 

Truly portable size is already available from Wavelength and it goes beyond CD quality. Your preference for FW800 is based on what? Your open ports? If there is a market for this I'm sure a manufacturer will sell shortly.

 

 

"As far as USB seems to go it also seems to be trying to squeeze more than a pint out of a pint bottle somehow."

 

Not sure where this comment is coming from. In a way the same could be said of SACD trying to squeeze more than a pint out of an old physical format. I don't think this is the case with either however.

 

 

"No fuss, great sound at a good price and portable!"

 

This can be real tough. It's kind of like wanting the sound of the Wilson Alexandria X2 speakers but from a $1k speaker that's portable. It's a very valid want and would be fabulous for this to happen.

 

 

"why do you still have be more or less a computer expert to enjoy music via computer audio?"

 

I disagree with this 100%. It's highly possible to enjoy computer audio by purchasing a MacBook, pulgging in a Devilsound DAC and connecting it to your preamp.

 

When you want more there is no free lunch. This is just like anything in life. If you want a car that handles better than any other car you'll need the tires changed based on the weather conditions and changed often to maintain their effectiveness.