Barriers to Computer Audio

[gmgraves]

Be very careful with that 3TB Seagate drive. (I have one too; picked it up at Costco cheap.) The failure rate is very high.

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f7-disk-storage-music-library-storage/hard-disc-reliability-part-ii-23149/

 

 

I wonder why 3TB Seagates are so unreliable, while the Seagate 4TB seem to be among the more reliable of all the HDDs listed in the chart? That seems very strange to me.

[AudioDoctor]

I haven't opened it up to see what brand of HDD is inside, but my 5+ year old Neptune 500GB Firewire external drive from OWC has been working flawlessly.

 

The takeaway from this is that OWC has good products.

 

edit: I read the thread and If I were you I think I would be looking at the Marantz NA-11 DAC. It has direct USB and Coax/Optical connections, can stream internet radio, can connect to a NAS (I think) and sounds great.

[Jud]

People who have wireless might be more ready to blame dropouts on the connection to storage than people with wired interfaces.

 

In any case, it doesn't seem as if people are saying a wireless connection to storage creates constant dropouts or any sort of intolerable situation. So bottom line looks like either wired Ethernet or Wi-Fi will do.

[Jud]

I haven't opened it up to see what brand of HDD is inside, but my 5+ year old Neptune 500GB Firewire external drive from OWC has been working flawlessly.

 

The takeaway from this is that OWC has good products.

 

They do. I have one I'm very happy with. FireWire is not an interface of the future for the Windows OS the OP says he'll be using, though.

[gmgraves]

And how do you best get theses interfaces from computer to DAC? IMO firewire is pretty much dead, so what are you using to connect to your computer?

 

I never said that I didn't use Firewire, I was merely answering the question about why people were saying that USB isn't great for audio. If I had a Mac Mini as my directly connected computer music source, I would, without a doubt, use Toslink (optical), but I use a Windows laptop for that chore and the only I/O on that computer even remotely suitable for direct connection to my DAC is USB. It's troublesome and not very reliable and requires a driver from the DAC manufacturer, but there it is. Increasingly, I'm using WiFi to stream my 24/96 music files (and my iTunes rips) from my Mac directly to my Logitech Squeezebox Touch and then to my DAC via Toslink. It's much more reliable than the Win laptop. If I didn't have a bunch of 24/192 files to which I like to listen, I would retire the laptop from audio duty altogether.

[AudioDoctor]

They do. I have one I'm very happy with. FireWire is not an interface of the future for the Windows OS the OP says he'll be using, though.

 

I know, it was more of a recommendation for OWC than Firewire.

[BobSherman]

I never said that I didn't use Firewire, I was merely answering the question about why people were saying that USB isn't great for audio. If I had a Mac Mini as my directly connected computer music source, I would, without a doubt, use Toslink (optical), but I use a Windows laptop for that chore and the only I/O on that computer even remotely suitable for direct connection to my DAC is USB. It's troublesome and not very reliable and requires a driver from the DAC manufacturer, but there it is. Increasingly, I'm using WiFi to stream my 24/96 music files (and my iTunes rips) from my Mac directly to my Logitech Squeezebox Touch and then to my DAC via Toslink. It's much more reliable than the Win laptop. If I didn't have a bunch of 24/192 files to which I like to listen, I would retire the laptop from audio duty altogether.

 

The reason I asked is because even though USB was not originally thought of as a high-end audio interface it has become one. At this point it is pretty much the de facto standard. It is not perfect but it does work very well. Either internal USB or external converters (to SPDIF or AES/EBU) are pretty much used by almost everybody here currently.

 

Moving forward other interfaces do look promising but they at this point are still a bit limited in availability and often proprietary in implementation. Maybe not quite ready for prime time yet? Down the road these will get better and easy-to-use and mate with our systems. But for now USB in my opinion is not as bad as some want to make it out to be.

 

Regards

Bob

[Audio_ELF]

I wonder why 3TB Seagates are so unreliable, while the Seagate 4TB seem to be among the more reliable of all the HDDs listed in the chart? That seems very strange to me.

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/3tb-hard-drive-failure/ Describes the situation further...

[gmgraves]

And how do you best get theses interfaces from computer to DAC? IMO firewire is pretty much dead, so what are you using to connect to your computer?

 

 

As for FireWire (IEEE-1394), you are right, it is pretty much dead in the personal computer market, but it is very much alive in pro audio and video. USB needs a work-around called Asynchronous USB Steamlength™ technology transfer protocol designed by Gordon Rankin of Wavelength Audio or something similar to work with high-res audio. Because it is normally a host/client protocol whereby the client (in our case the DAC) never "speaks" to the host (the computer) unless the host requests it. This is not good for continuous data streaming because the host can interrupt the stream at any time for house-keeping duties or for other signals that the host considers a higher priority. With a FireWire network, OTOH, any capable node can control the network (I.E. be the host). IOW, in a Firewire connected DAC, the DAC can without any extra hardware or software tell the computer to switch from burst mode to continuous transfer mode, which is what one would want for both high-resolution audio and video. Although both USB 2.0 and Firewire 400, have the same theoretical maximum transfer rate, Firewire is actually faster than USB in the asynchronous or streaming transfer mode (as in high-resolution) audio. While I understand that USB 3.1 addresses many of USB 2.0's shortcomings (it is definitely faster at 5.0 GB/s and 3.1 is even faster still at 10.0 Gbs!) and even allows for device initiated communications, which should obsolete Firewire completely, but for some reason, even though 3.0 has been around since 2010, it has been slow to be adopted by DAC makers and other audio peripheral devices.

 

I went back and tried to add this to my last post when I realized that I posted it before commenting on your Firewire observation, but before I finished writing it, my 1/2 hour editing window had expired, so I had to make a new post

[gmgraves]

And how do you best get theses interfaces from computer to DAC? IMO firewire is pretty much dead, so what are you using to connect to your computer?

 

 

As for FireWire (IEEE-1394), you are right, it is pretty much dead in the personal computer market, but it is very much alive in pro audio and video. USB needs a work-around called Asynchronous USB Steamlength™ technology transfer protocol designed by Gordon Rankin of Wavelength Audio or something similar to work with high-res audio. Because it is normally a host/client protocol whereby the client (in our case the DAC) never "speaks" to the host (the computer) unless the host requests it. This is not good for continuous data streaming because the host can interrupt the stream at any time for house-keeping duties or for other signals that the host considers a higher priority. With a FireWire network, OTOH, any capable node can control the network (I.E. be the host). IOW, in a Firewire connected DAC, the DAC can without any extra hardware or software tell the computer to switch from burst mode to continuous transfer mode, which is what one would want for both high-resolution audio and video. Although both USB 2.0 and Firewire 400, have the same theoretical maximum transfer rate, Firewire is actually faster than USB in the asynchronous or streaming transfer mode (as in high-resolution) audio. While I understand that USB 3.1 addresses many of USB 2.0's shortcomings (it is definitely faster at 5.0 GB/s and 3.1 is even faster still at 10.0 Gbs!) and even allows for device initiated communications, which should obsolete Firewire completely, but for some reason, even though 3.0 has been around since 2010, it has been slow to be adopted by DAC makers and other audio peripheral devices.

 

I went back and tried to add this to my last post when I realized that I posted it before commenting on your Firewire observation, but before I finished writing it, my 1/2 hour editing window had expired, so I had to make a new post

[plissken]

I say any DAC above the $1000 should have a GB of RAM that it stores everything in locally and plays back out of.

[Audio_ELF]

I say any DAC above the $1000 should have a GB of RAM that it stores everything in locally and plays back out of.

The problem with that thought is that with any standard interface you would need to wait for the buffer to at least partially fill ...

 

Chord do this (well not 1GB but enough for several seconds) with their DAC64 and QBD76 (not sure if they still do it with the DAVE). Theoretically it removes any jitter issues.

[Jud]

I say any DAC above the $1000 should have a GB of RAM that it stores everything in locally and plays back out of.

 

Could be done that way and raise the price of DACs, plus requiring redesign of current DACs, possible changes in current form factors, circuitry, etc. Or you could accomplish the same thing a lot more simply by using the RAM already in the computer, which is what player software already available does.

 

But what does this have to do with what the OP is asking?

[plissken]

Could be done that way and raise the price of DACs, plus requiring redesign of current DACs, possible changes in current form factors, circuitry, etc. Or you could accomplish the same thing a lot more simply by using the RAM already in the computer, which is what player software already available does.

 

But what does this have to do with what the OP is asking?

 

It brings us back around to what buffering is and that all these interfaces aren't real time. They are buffered. If it's really of a concern ask manufactures how much data buffer they have implemented.

 

Then all the gnashing of teeth about non-realtime data interfaces would get tossed in the trash can where they belong. At that point the OP will have a much more helpful thread. I find it easier to make a point by letting others do it for me. It's why I asked the question I asked and posed it the way I posed it.

[plissken]

The problem with that thought is that with any standard interface you would need to wait for the buffer to at least partially fill ...

 

Chord do this (well not 1GB but enough for several seconds) with their DAC64 and QBD76 (not sure if they still do it with the DAVE). Theoretically it removes any jitter issues.

 

You have another thread pontificating on SSD NAND technologies. How long do you think 48M/Byte a second will take to fill a 1GB buffer. Never mind playback can start as soon as the buffer starts filling.

[plissken]

The problem with that thought is that with any standard interface you would need to wait for the buffer to at least partially fill ...

 

Chord do this (well not 1GB but enough for several seconds) with their DAC64 and QBD76 (not sure if they still do it with the DAVE). Theoretically it removes any jitter issues.

 

Duplicate post

[fastdart69]

Storage - The "action" and biggest "bang for the buck" seem to be happening right now with USB input DACs. There's been a fair amount of discussion on the forums saying you probably don't want to have both DAC and file storage on the computer's USB bus. I can tell you on my Mac computer I felt I got better sound when my file storage was not on USB. I'm using FireWire (one of the OWC enclosures George referred to), but that's a dying interface even on Mac. So my recommendation would be to avoid USB and use a NAS. Since I don't use one I don't have a particular one to recommend, but others already have, and perhaps there will be more. Synology seems to have a very good reputation.

 

DAC - I looked around at various DACs available in your price range. I haven't listened to many of these myself because I haven't been in the market for one in a couple of decades. (My own is a semi-DIY project put together from circuit boards and various other parts.) However, I try to read up and stay informed, and I would say it might be hard to beat the TEAC UD-503 at $999, no tax and free shipping. https://www.hideflifestyle.com/catalog/product/view/id/11095/s/ud-503-dual-monaural-usb-dac/?fee=5&fep=11095&gclid=CjwKEAiAs4qzBRD4l-2w7qOoqEMSJABauikXUHR90LAQxsAfOIWg-BWyMIQ0dUbkKE-JB6iEu-HuSRoCmzLw_wcB

 

TEAC UD-503 Dual-monaural USB DAC

 

There are a lot of very happy user reports about its predecessor the UD-501. It will accept virtually any sample rate music file you can buy or rip. It also offers a choice of a couple of filters of its own or allows you to turn its filters off and use external filtering of your choice, which I consider very important. What are these filters and what do they do? I'll explain when I talk about software.

 

Computer - There are a couple of schools of thought here. My thinking is you want something robust to run software really smoothly, that won't be working at the edge of its capabilities running the cooling fan on high while you're trying to listen to music. Don't screw around with i5, get something with an i7 in it; and put at least 16GB of RAM in there. After that, whatever you like.

 

Software - You know and like JRiver. That's cool and it may be all you ever want or need. Let me throw out another couple of ideas. If they make your eyes spin in your head, ignore them and be happy. If they intrigue you, try them and see what you think. All the stuff I'm going to talk about has free trials available.

 

- Filtering: You don't listen to 1s and 0s, you listen to music. What changes the former to the latter are a series of filters. Just about any DAC, including the one in your OPPO, uses a series of upsampling and conversion filters before getting to the final conversion from digital to analog (music). Right now I won't go into detail about what these filters do, though if you want to know, just ask. What's important is that these filters (along with hardware quality and design) are responsible for a large part of the sound of your DAC.

 

The chips in your DAC are somewhat resource-limited in terms of running filters. The CPU in a PC will as a general rule be capable of running better, more sophisticated filtering (i7, remember?). If you have a DAC like the UD-503 which allows you to turn off its internal filtering and do your own filtering in software, that makes it possible for you to listen to different filters and decide what you like without having to buy a new DAC. Or if you decide you like the TEAC's own filters, great - you can use those. You have the choice.

 

Software that does inline filtering runs while you listen to music, doing its upsampling and filtering "on the run." Two such programs for Windows I think very highly of are XXHighEnd and HQPlayer. I have to say, though, that XXHighEnd is for the geeks and tweakers among us, and may not be something you want to try when you're just starting out. HQPlayer has an interface that many people don't love either (more on that in a minute), but what it has in spades is the widest selection of excellent filters you will find. Signalyst But what if you don't like the interface? Well, apparently HQPlayer capability is about to get incorporated into the new hottest thing in interfaces, Roon. I haven't tried it myself yet (been waiting for the HQPlayer integration), but lots of folks rave about it. To get some idea of what it's about, here's the website: https://roonlabs.com.

 

Software that does offline filtering converts and filters your files offline, and outputs the upsampled, converted file that you then send to your DAC to play. JRiver will conveniently convert your regular FLAC files to what's called DSD, which is what you want if you do external filtering because it bypasses any need for further internal filtering or conversion in your DAC. Another program that does these conversions that I use and like is called Audiophile Inventory (the PROduce-RD version - AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HiEnd audio converter ISO DFF DSF WAV FLAC AIFF; don't be put off by the rather garish website design). A TEAC UD-501 owner who does a lot of "objective" testing of various audiophile things on the web praised the performance of this software: Archimago's Musings: ANALYSIS: DSD-to-PCM 2015 - foobar SACD Plug-In, AuI ConverteR, noise & impulse response....

 

I slightly prefer the sound of the files I convert offline, though inline conversion is more convenient - you just play your music and the inline conversion is done as you sit there and listen.

 

If you've got questions about any of this, let me know.

 

Thanks Jud! A lot of good information and food for thought contained in your response above. Inf fact many of the posts have been helpful. Fortunately, I'm not in a big hurry and will be able to take some time to research and learn more before taking the plunge. In the meantime this forum has been very helpful and I'm sure to have more questions along the way.

[fastdart69]

You ARE an audiophile, and you don't know what a DragonFly is?

 

USB Digital Analog Converter

 

Thanks for your patience. Mostly analog up to this point.

[crenca]

LLLLOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL!!!

 

I could only read the first page of comments, the (comedic) irony hurt my side!

 

I will add this for the OP, "computers" in general is an area of many many choices, and if you find one way to do things, you don't have to go very far to find 10 more solutions that get you to the same point. This crosses over into "computer audio". So, unless your willing to delve into the more technical side of things, you end up "copying" a system that works for someone else and maybe tweaking it a bit with something you have researched or have a particular attachment to, or having the geek in your family do it all for you. This works for about 99% of computer users - it works in "computer audio" also...

[fastdart69]

Laptop, at least 16gb of ram, jriver21, dbpoweramp to rip (it sounds better) use Aiff it's ubiquitous and you don't lose meta data, external storage ( back it up always and frequently) whether Nas or USB external hard drive.

USB capable DAC, half decent cable (Supra), interconnects, Amplification, Speakers or Headphones. DONE, Nuf said. Simple.

 

Sent from my SM-T113 using Tapatalk

 

Thanks DEANO2

[fastdart69]

Laptop with 16GB RAM, yes. JRiver if using Windows and Audirvana + if using a Mac. Rip with dbpoweramp yes, but use uncompressed flac for the best metadata support and sound quality (basically a wav in a flac container). Yes to the rest. IMHO naturally

 

Thanks Melvin.

[gmgraves]

Thanks for your patience. Mostly analog up to this point.

 

That explains it. It's just that DragonFly DACs are so famous and have had so much press in the last 3-4 years that I was surprised (taken aback, actually) that anyone interested in audio enough to post to a forum called "Computer Audiophile" could have possibly been unaware of the AudioQuest DragonFly. It's famous because it's both very good and cheap.

[sandyk]

That explains it. It's just that DragonFly DACs are so famous and have had so much press in the last 3-4 years that I was surprised (taken aback, actually) that anyone interested in audio enough to post to a forum called "Computer Audiophile" could have possibly been unaware of the AudioQuest DragonFly. It's famous because it's both very good and cheap.

 

Assuming that it doesn't step up the USB voltage to a higher voltage , it will always have limitations driving many types of headphones with differing impedances.

Many higher quality headphone amplifiers use supply rails as high as + and -20V.

What are the odds, that like most other USB Audio devices, that it will also further benefit from the use of a USB Regen in line with it ?

[gmgraves]

Assuming that it doesn't step up the USB voltage to a higher voltage , it will always have limitations driving many types of headphones with differing impedances.

Many higher quality headphone amplifiers use supply rails as high as + and -20V.

What are the odds, that like most other USB Audio devices, that it will also further benefit from the use of a USB Regen in line with it ?

 

Uh, I don't remember making any comments wrt its capability to drive headphones or its ability to benefit from further processing (BTW, I use mine with an iFi iUSB auxiliary power supply). I merely said that I was flabbergasted that someone who is posting to CA hadn't heard, by now, of the very famous AudioQuest DragonFly DAC and that it became famous because it was both cheap and very good (not perfect, mind you, just very good). Which of those statements are your comments disputing?

[sandyk]

(I hadn't heard of it before either, but I am not a great fanboi of USB for Audio.