The State of USB Audio by Alan Taffel

[omahapianist]

Chrille's comment: "why do you still have be more or less a computer expert to enjoy music via computer audio?"

 

That's the illusion. "Experts" can convince you of the superiority or inferiority of all kinds of things based on specs and numbers but couldn't define or explain the actual elements that make up music in terms of enjoyment. Experts (and most audiophiles) and music lovers are mutually exclusive. One has nothing to do with the other in a majority of cases.

 

Lastly, Chris is right. You can enjoy GREAT computer audio by purchasing a MacBook with a DevilSound DAC to your preamp..

 

Or a PC with a DevilSound DAC to your pre/headphone amp....

 

Or a Mac/PC with a Red Wine Isabellina to your pre/headphone amp....

 

Or a Mac/PC with a V-DAC to your pre/headphone amp....

 

Or a Mac/PC with a Spitfire 24-bit DAC to your pre/headphone amp....

 

Or a Mac/PC with a DAC Magic to your pre/headphone amp....

 

Or.....

 

 

 

 

[ampman]

You don't have to be a computer expert to enjoy great sounds from a PC or Mac. I will be a little biased here but I have developed an integrated vacuum tube amp. The amp is push pull design with a built in DAC with USB and optical inputs. Just plug it into a Mac or PC and your sometimes flat digital files come to life. This is a no brainer, you don't need to be an audiophile or computer expert, just someone who likes to hear good quality music. Again I am biased but there is no discussion here this is not rocket science but I understand audiophiles will continue until they find the ultimate system (which I am guilty of), which as we all know will never really be found.

 

 

 

Edited to remove product plugs

- Chris

 

 

 

[satkinsn]

I'm sure this has been well-rehearsed elsewhere, so if someone can give me the links I'd appreciate it.

 

Is Lynx the only series of soundcards worth owning? If so, which ones are best? M Audio advertises at least one of its cards as 'audiophile.' Is it worth considering?

 

What else?

 

thanks,

 

Scott A.

 

[chrille]

Thanks to those who responded giving me advice,

although I honestly still don´t find that much to go by, for portable units , since some of you keep recommending me products that are by definition,ie low rez standards , and can not, again by definition! provide me with the quality I want from computer audio.

I state again of at least SACD standard !!

We have already had more than 20 years of "CD quality sound" it is high time to leave the low rez standard 16/44 behind!

CD was a clear compromize already then!

I am not interested in hearing the syntheziser version of Beethoven´s 7th to take one example!

I want to hear it in as close to live sound quality as currently possible!

I can already do that by listening to Channel Classic´s SACD with the BFO under Ivan Fisher performing in the wonderful acoustics of Palace of Arts in Budapest.

That recording and for that matter their recording of Mahler´s 4th by the same orchestra and conductor and same hall are STATE OF THE ART!

The same goes for the Brand new release of ShostakovIch´s 1 and 15th symphonies on the new SACD label Mariinsky!

Those here who say that the main difference between RBCD and SACD

is only in the mastering, simply don´t know what they are talking about IMHO, AND need their ears cleaned , or their systems upgraded and MOST PROBABLY , in the case of some here, start listening to REAL ACOUSTIC MUSIC!!!!

That is where the differences between low rez and high rez are REALLY OBVIOUS!

Most ELECTRONIC Pop and Rock is for kids anyway!

You don´t read Donald Duck do you?

Why listen to music on a similar level?

Or at least, if you listen to pop don´t make the mistake of making any serious judgments about sound quality based on such material!

 

It is NOT a coincidence that SACD has become THE new niche market for CLASSICAL LABELS who really care !!

Start by the three recordings I listed,and if you still can´t hear any difference between

RBCD and SACD ie low rez and hi rez, I can only feel sorry for you ,there has got to be something wrong with your hearing !!

I have only one reference the sound of live ACOUSTIC music.

And if this sounds very elitist so be it.

I am mainly interested in music as an art form!

And I want that art reproduced as faithfully as possible even when played via a computer.

And yes it seems like at least Reference Recordings are offering at a PREMIUM PRICE! true hi rez masters to the people.

Yes I also know HD Tracks are selling downloads in hi rez in the US, but not Europe!

It seems my main problem will still be to to find a truly high rez high quality truly portable DAC preferably one that does both PCM and DSD,but I´ll keep waiting.

Meanwhile I´ll listen to my SACDs.

All the best Chrille

 

 

 

 

[Audio_ELF]

You say... "It seems my main problem will still be to to find a truly high rez high quality truly portable DAC preferably one that does both PCM and DSD,but I´ll keep waiting.

Meanwhile I´ll listen to my SACDs."

Well apart from alienating everyone who enjoys contemporary music either instead of or as well as classical performances (remember in his day Mozart was "pop") I do wonder what your definition of "portable" is?

 

As for High Resolution recordings, as you identify a large amount of these are SACD - which is unusable with computer audio. There is however a late availability of 24/96 or 24/88.2 recordings available from (amongst others) Linn, Naim and Boston Symphony orchestra. If it's required / comercially desirable, small niche labels will also start producing high-res. Another option is making your own 24/176.4 transfers from vinyl if you prefer.

 

For playback you have wide choice - PCs and Macs into DAC via FireWire, USB or SPDIF; stand alone music "servers" such as Naim HDX, McIntosh and (coming soon) Unison or following the route of the Squeezebox Transport and Linn DS of using Network streaming. Okay these arn't what I consider portable - but then neither is a Linn Unidisc or Marantz SACD player (whatever you use now for SACD). No one is saythat you must or should move to computer based audio, but there are LOTS of options should you wish to do so that most people consider equal of a good disc spinner.

 

Of course none of this is related to "is USB a good interface for computer audio to a DAC?"

 

Eloise

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

You presume FAR too much. You presume my dismissal of SACD is based around poor quality equipment, some kind of dislike toward classical or acoustic music or that I need my hearing tested is both wrong and deeply insulting.

 

I reject SACD because of the way DSD is processed. It uses noise shaping, specifically parametrically controlled noise shaping (virtually the equivalent of gain riding by the engineer) and that means ad-hoc filtration. What this usually means is a trade-off between impulse response and high-frequency performance, and most audiophile labels go for the high-frequency benefits, which is why it usually sound so temporally compromised. It also often gives SACD a higher noise floor than CD at higher frequencies.

 

Of course, native DSD cannot be edited, so the audiophile labels can make fanciful 'no overdubs' claims. Sadly, they also slight DXD, which not only allows editing, but uses less noise shaping, because five-bits are not as 'pure' as one.

 

I have no problems with people going after better than CD sound. I do not think that all we need is 16bit/44.1kHz PCM audio. But to suggest a format that's functional, if limited, is better than one that was fundamentally broken from the outset, but looks like it ticks all the audiophile boxes, is absurd.

 

[chrille]

Well I suppose my post was already from the beginning a bit off track.

But I chose it as an entry point ,as good as any, to partly repeat my personal needs and preferences.

Big Ego? Yes.

But I am honestly grateful to those who instead of just being offended by my bad manners,have like you, given me useful advice.

On the other hand I stand by my elitist view of what counts as real music worth discussing in the context of Lo rez versus Hi rez

IMHO most pop music produced today is crap and might as well be served on the simple plate of MP3 to the kids it is intended for.

It doesn´t benefit from hi rez because there is in most cases little in it that can benefit from higher resolution.

 

A lot of it is simply another commercial product intended to earn its makers as much money as possible by adding as little real musical value or content as possible!

A lot of the Pop world today is just an another version of Hollywood.Crap for kids!

If my take on most modern pop- rock, hip hop, rap and other crap alienates anyone here ,so be it.

 

Since my needs are mainly for something that is TRULY portable to be used together with my Mackbook pro when I travel the world as a photographer,a lot of what both You and others are recommending so far is unfortunately of little use to me.

I already have hi rez capability with my SACD player and vinyl player in my home.

Until downloads become the main supply of hi rez classsical music, I see no need to pay a higher price for basically the same quality I already get from SACD!

And to be quite honest I would prefer it if Mac would include a good enough motherboard,and dac in the Macbook Pro to make any extra units unnecessary .

But that is of course just wishful thinking on my part.

All the best Chrille

 

[omahapianist]

And a condescending one at that!

 

Chrille, it really isn't necessary to impose your standards upon others because what you enjoy is simply what you enjoy and not the de facto standard for others to "inspire" to. You have defined your "absolute sound" so leave it at that.

 

Having said that, there are number of products that can give you outstanding 'Red Book' results that could challenge the quality of SACD's. (Notice I said 'challenge', not 'meet or exceed'). I think the initial problem with 16-bit reproduction was the conversion process which wasn't up to the task of providing an audiophile experience. However, DAC technology has come a LONG way since the days of the "synthesized Beethoven" sound and you would be hard-pressed to note any significant differences between formats.

 

Eloise brings up a good point: What is portable to you? Is it something you can slip into your shirt pocket or something that is inconspicuous amongst your other sound reproduction equipment? Although I cannot verify this, it would seems that the larger the DAC unit is, the "better" it is. After all, larger units can hold more parts that could (or not) be essential to proper conversion and subsequent output than smaller units. Of course, a smaller unit can be just as effective as a larger one depending on its unique architecture. I might be opening up a can of worms with this analogy as there are always exceptions to every rule but the point is: Size may not be everything. So you may be able to find something "portable" as soon as you can define what that is for you.

 

Whether you can find something that can come close to your SACD reference has yet to be discovered but don't dismiss the advice you're receiving. You are simply getting opinions and ideas from those who want to help you. We can all "hear" just fine even if we all have different ways of achieving our reference sounds. You'll obvious see a different set-up for everyone here so if you feel your exact standards cannot be met, I would suggest sticking with your current rig. Otherwise, open your mind and allow yourself the rich experience of exploring many options to achieving, as close as possible, the sound that you are striving for.

 

Randall

 

 

 

[chrille]

 

Sorry,I was not intentionally out to insult you or anyone else .

But it seems that many here jump to conclusions regarding sound quality without any proper reference points.

And IMO there is only ONE REAL REFERENCE POINT ACOUSTIC MUSIC.

Regarding formats it seems you and I have to agree to disagree regarding SACD .

I endorse it because to me it sounds great if done right.

Many of my ,all classical SACDs by the way, sound very realistic to me, CLEARLY MORE realistic than ANY RBCD has ever been able to make acoustic music sound.

Judging from the unfortunately few hi rez downloads I have heard so far, they also sound CLEARLY BETTER than ANY RBCD !

 

You on the other hand, seem to reject "DSD because of the way it is processed"

How about using your ears and brain as final arbiters of what sounds good or bad instead?

 

I don´t know what labels you are referring to regarding DXD" sadly they also slight DXD"?

 

I just listened to two SACDs recorded in DXD and downsampled to SACD ,

Ondine´s recent SUK Asrael symphony and Flute Mystery by the Norwegian label 2L .

Both of them, just like the other three SACDs I recommended in my earlier post, stunning examples of how truly realistic modern recordings can sound.

I should maybe also add here that when I say classical I also include contemporary music by contemporary composers like Calevi Aho ,Rautavara, Vasks and Sunleif Rasmussen ,to mention but a few of all the contemporary composers whose great music is luckily being released on SACD by labels who care!

I have also heard DSD mike feed and yes it sounds great, but not yet DXD .

Hope to do so during a recording session later this year.

I will report my findings .

Regarding RBCD I don´t think RBCD is all we need either, I think we never needed it !

Not even 20 years ago and certainly not today!!

But since this is after all a Computer Audio forum let me finish by saying that yes there seem to be a lot of good things happening from some really interesting sources when it comes to hi rez music downloads.

I´m sure there will be a lot offered at competitive prices too, from more of the great orchestras in the hopefully not so distant future.

When that really takes off the really inadequite format RBCD can and will be properly dismissed by many more than today.

SACD has its problems yes indeed, but they are IMO not so much to do with lack of sound quality as other things.

All the best Chrille

 

 

 

[chrille]

and thanks for your response too,

although you could have spared me the news about RBCD.

I have heard 16/44 from mike feed and down and it has always failed to deliver the goods!

It can be made to sound ok ,but never more than ok!

I am not dismissing the advice I get, I am in fact very grateful for it,I am just trying to get the info I need by being VERY SPECIFIC about my references, and my musical tastes and so that I can get the input and advice that really matters to me.

By the way I am not so sure that we all hear well !

Just look at the composer whose face you are hiding behind,he was almost deaf for the major part of his adult life,and yet composed some of the most wonderful music ever composed!

He has been blamed by some for not being the best of orchestrators but in the recent release from Channel Classics his 7th sounds heavenly beautiful and well orchestrated provided you listen to the SACD layer!

All the best from a "Super Elitist" classical music listener who from concerts and regular work as a photographer at concerts and recording sessions,knows what real music sounds like and has THE ONLY VALID REFERENCE POINT for judging sound quality in recorded music , LIVE ACOUSTIC MUSIC !

all the best Chrille

 

 

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

"I have heard 16/44 from mike feed and down and it has always failed to deliver the goods!"

 

Hi Chrille - Maybe I don't understand how all of this works, technically speaking but how could you hear a 16/44.1 mic feed? Was the analog performance converted to digital then back to analog and played through the monitors at 16/44.1?

 

[cfmsp]

Chrille,

 

Question for you, what choices have you made for photography gear?

Digital / film?

Format?

Lens manufacturer?

 

I'm very curious.

 

 

As for Portable SACD, there aren't many options. Sony has promised a portable SACD player within the next year or so, called the DSD-P1.

 

You don't seem to allow much for the possibility that non-SACD digital audio can meet your needs, so there's not that much we can do to help you. You might want to try head-fi or gearslutz.

 

Is SACD recorded material even 'rippable'? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

 

Have you considered a portable DSD device like the Korg MR1?

It will record in DFF, which as you probably know is the 1-bit audio file format used in professional audio devices for SACD (Super Audio CD) production.

 

It only has a 20G HD, but if you could 'rip' (or otherwise obtain) SACD material and load it onto the MR-1 (via USB), you'd have 'native' SACD music files in your shirt/pants pocket. It'd only come out of the MR-1 via 1/8" stereo (to headphones, or analog audio), but might meet your needs (even if it's not clear how much of the SACD superiority you hear will survive the 'translation'.

 

The MR-1 WILL play native DSD files, which is a start. No idea how good the in-built DAC / headphone amp is. It comes with software for playing back (its native DSD files) on a computer, with your choice of PCM output formats. Audiogate (the Korg software) might allow you to playback DSD on your computer IF you can get SACD files into native format.

 

A brief google says that 'ripping' SACD is NOT possible, so maybe the Korg will not help you.

 

If that's the case, and you want to maintain (as much as possible) the SACD quality you desire, you'll want a DAC that will read the SACD data stream (DSD), and provide digital output in the best PCM resolution possible, for playback via computer of no-longer-native SACD. Alternatively, there may even be DACs (dCS, perhaps?) which allow you to output DSD (in native format) to your computer.

 

There seem to be scant few DSD downloads.

 

Short of listening on the Korg MR-1, you'll eventually need a high quality, portable DAC to get the music out of your Macbook Pro.

 

Gordon's Proton only handles 96Khz, I think, but is likely the most portable (emphasis on portable) high quality DAC you will find - and it has a high quality headphone amp built-in. I believe the Apogee Mini goes up to 192Khz, and also has a small form factor. Each is $900.

 

As far as I can tell, some combination of products like this is the best that you can do at this point. I don't think Sony has plans to allow official playback of prerecorded SACD. The DSD-P1 in meant to playback prerecorded music on SD cards.

 

None of this is plug and play, nor usable without persual of the manual (Korg MR-1, for example) for navigation of menus.

 

Best of luck, my post is perhaps disjointed, as it's based on bits & pieces I read as I googled. I had NO knowledge of anything related to SACD, prior to your post.

 

clay

 

PS, trying to figure this out, I was reminded of recording 'records' onto a microcassette recorder for portable playback while camping YEARS before the Sony Walkman was introduced.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CG]

This is very pleasant and fun. Bye bye...

 

[icebreaker]

Alan Taffel is going to get an overinflated ego from all this "discussion" about him over at Computer Audiophile. :>/

 

[cfmsp]

 

say it isn't so, CG.

 

you'd be greatly missed.

 

clay

 

 

 

[icebreaker]

I thought he was referring to the endless Taffel thread and not the forum in general. ???

 

[chrille]

Well now we are really going off topic and track here,

but since you ask and since many of you answer my questions also off topic, here why not.

My workhorse since it was introduced is Canon´s 5D digital slr with several lenses

ranging from 24-105 zoom through 3002,8 telephoto 100-400 telezoom to mention the ones I use most frequently in my work.

I know that there is better stuff out now from both Nikon and Canon.

But unlike with my hobby music ,I do photography as a profession and what I have is good enough for most of my work,

And if I need more pixels I just stich frames in photoshop .I can in many situations make my 12,8 mpx camera turn out 24px or more if I need to.

Now, at least partly back on track ,yes I have been thinking of getting an MR 1 or even Mr 1000 which seems to be better but heavier and bulkier.

And since I always have my laptop with me for photowork anywayit seems a good idea to use it for hi rez music as well.

 

Regarding hi rez pcm I have heard lots of promising test downloads so I am not against it at all as some here seem to think that I am. In fact some of my best sounding SACDs have been recorded using DXD.

Thanks for your advice and all the best Chrille

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

If audiophile labels are adopting DXD than all to the good. I decided to walk away from such audiophile labels when I read utter nonsense in an attempt to justify DSD over DXD a few years back.

 

I take great issue with this statement of yours, though:

 

"How about using your ears and brain as final arbiters of what sounds good or bad instead?"

 

Well, that's making a huge assumption and like most assumptions, it's wholly wrong. My findings were based on comparing a Sony SCD-1 against my Wadia 6, played through the Spectral/MIT/Avalon system I had at the time. I looked at the SCD-1 because I'd started listening to the CD player of DSD recordings that began to roll out and found them lacking. I found the SADCD player was more of the same.

 

Maybe it's just me. Maybe I am more sensitive to temporal precision than most - I rejected belt-drive turntables for the same reason.

 

[chrille]

I really meant to say that I have heard 16/44 and up to DSD from master level and down.

I have not yet heard DXD but hope to do so soon.

all the best Chrille

 

[cfmsp]

 

 

"I thought he was referring to the endless Taffel thread and not the forum in general."

 

I hope so! It's the words "bye, bye" that are disconcerting.

 

clay

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Guys - There is an article on the AVGuide site now that was written by Alan and is titles The State of USB Audio. However, it appears that it's not the exact same article that went by the same title in the print magazine of The Abso!ute Sound. I don't have the print copy in front of me to check, but I thought a couple things were either missing or altered.

 

Can you guys have a look and let us know? I absolutely don't want to start a rumor that the article was altered if it's not true.

 

Here is the link http://www.avguide.com/article/tas-194-the-state-usb-audio

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I originally couldn't find the statement about lack of a FireWire DAC, but I have since read the article again and found the statement. I'll assume the article is the exact same as the one in print. I don't want to start any speculation. Rather just want the facts :~)