Did We Overhype USB Audio And Overlook Possible Pitfalls?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Guys - The title of this thread "Did We Overhype USB Audio And Overlook Possible Pitfalls?" is meant to be read as a question, not a conclusion or suggestion.

 

 

A little background:

 

Remember the days of adaptive USB audio and 29/96 limitations? I remember thinking how great this was considering we could then play high resolution rather than being stuck at 48 kHz and lower. Then I remember the wonderful introduction of asynchronous USB and even higher resolution playback up through 24/192. Wow, life was good, especially when compared to where we had previously been with USB audio. Then came DSD via DoP. Another neat step in the USB audio evolution. More recently we are in a sample rate arms race of DSD256/DSD512 and PCM 32/384 or higher. I'm not suggesting this arms race it's beneficial, especially when so many members of the CA community really enjoy sample rate and format conversion prior to sending the audio to their DACs. But, in this evolution to higher and higher rates, it seems like very few people and still fewer manufacturers are talking about other areas of USB audio improvement. Companies like AudioQuest (Jitterbug) and UpTone Audio (Regen) have developed products to improve the USB audio experience. Many people will never go back to listening without one of these devices. Also, some manufacturers refuse to put USB inputs on their components (Berkeley Audio Design) while others recommend using digital inputs other than USB (Schiit, Hegel).

 

 

I've been thinking long and hard about USB audio for several months and even talked to some well respected audio engineers about the topic. I've been listening to many DACs using different inputs and trying to judge whether I can conclude anything with respect to the quality of an input and have this judgement be relevant for anything other than the exact system I'm using at the time. I haven't been able to come to any conclusion stating that one input method is always better than another or than USB is inferior to Ethernet or AES etc... But, I have listened to DACs in my system that certainly sound worse via their USB inputs. I raised this finding with a few engineers in the industry and was surprised to hear them either agree with me, take it a step further and says USB is too flawed, or provide me with solid objective information for using USB in other ways. One example of this came when talking to a manufacturer who has offered USB inputs on its DACs for many years and now offers Ethernet inputs (in addition to USB). This manufacture thinks Ethernet is capable of much better audio than USB. Sure that's one manufacturer's opinion and not indicative of anything else, but it's someone whose opinion I highly respect. Another manufacturer I talked to at CES told me something very interesting about his tests with USB inputs. He said when he physically removes the USB input / receiver board from the DAC and places it on top of the chassis for testing, the DAC measures better. This physical separation of USB from the DAC was objectively a better solution. He also said his customers weren't interested in another box or different solution, so he was sticking to the current integrated USB design. He ideal solution would be to have a USB to AES converter to send AES into his DACs. This is exactly what Berkeley Audio Design has been saying since it released the Alpha USB years ago.

 

 

That said, I'd like to discuss the question of whether or not we (me included) overhyped USB and/or overlooked some of its pitfalls, in addition to other people's thoughts about anything USB audio related.

 

Again, I'm making not judgement or conclusion about USB audio and in no way suggest that people render an opinion based on my questions. It's simply a topic I'm interested in discussing and think we could all learn quite a bit from members of the CA community.

[Panelhead]

Read BJ's post on the 3D upgrade for Metric Halo. He is deep into USB.

Metric Halo is moving from FireWire to USB. He feels with the hardware changes the results can surpass FW or TB.

[jeffmudrick]

I look at how much trouble and expense people here are going to to improve this superior technology and my head spins. If MQA is great and requires USB I'll go back but for now my Chromecast/Toslink to Remedy configuration is satisfying and cost effective for 99% of my listening (and sounds better than my USB ). Money not spent on $400 USB cables I can think of better uses for.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I look at how much trouble and expense people here are going to to improve this superior technology and my head spins. If MQA is great and requires USB I'll go back but for now my Chromecast/Toslink to Remedy configuration is satisfying and cost effective for 99% of my listening (and sounds better than my USB ). Money not spent on $400 USB cables I can think of better uses for.

MQA doesn't require USB.

[jeffmudrick]

MQA doesn't require USB.

 

For full implementation how does MQA identify the DAC used absent two way communication with the DAC? Id be happy if you're right about that.

[simplon]

My Weiss DAC 202 still works via FireWire Interface.

[The Computer Audiophile]

For full implementation how does MQA identify the DAC used absent two way communication with the DAC? Id be happy if you're right about that.

Meridian has always shown MQA using Ethernet. Other manufacturers who don't even support USB or Ethernet input on the DAC will have full implementations of MQA.

[jhwalker]

For full implementation how does MQA identify the DAC used absent two way communication with the DAC? Id be happy if you're right about that.

 

If I understand correctly, the stream coming is is always identical; i.e., there is not a different MQA stream depending on what DAC is on the other end. The code to properly decode / filter the incoming stream resides *in* the DAC; therefore, no two-way communication needed.

[jeffmudrick]

If I understand correctly, the stream coming is is always identical; i.e., there is not a different MQA stream depending on what DAC is on the other end. The code to properly decode / filter the incoming stream resides *in* the DAC; therefore, no two-way communication needed.

 

Thanks.

[sdolezalek]

Chris: Perhaps you can clarify this: Both my Oppo BDP-105D (which has an optimized USB to DAC chip connection that seems to make it sound meaningfully better than Ethernet through that, particularly with a Regen in place) and my Bryston SP3 have the choice of using the USB or Ethernet inputs to their DAC chip, but neither is configured to act as a network audio appliance or streamer. So if I want the benefits of Roon or HQPlayer, or both, I have no choice but to use the USB input using an NAA that itself gets its signal from Ethernet, but outputs through USB.

 

In order to allow us to continue to use software like Roon, HQPlayer, Audirvana, etc. would manufacturers have to add streamer capabilities to their DACs in order to enable us to feed them through the Ethernet connection?

 

Personally, I'd love to see a product that is an NAA, with Ethernet in (ideally both fiber and regular) and AES balanced cables out, perhaps incorporating some Regen like filtering/reclocking in the box, as necessary; but then I'd have to find a DAC that accepts an AES input.

[occamsrazor]

The biggest factor that has stopped me from experimenting more with other connections, or with USB-SPDIF converters, is the inability to pass USB HID commands. The ability to exercise the internal digital volume control of the DAC chip from the computer software, or to play/pause the computer from the DAC remote, is just really useful....

[徐中銳]

Well, I study Marantz... Below is a quick example of their USB-B direction since 2012—when Ken Ishiwata insisted they won't compromise in isolating « all those nasty noises coming into your audio system ! »

 

Extracted from my exploring their Japanese site, SA-14S1 (with Google Translate) :

Complete isolation system

In order to eliminate the noise inflow from adversely affecting PC sourced sound quality, with a "Complete isolation system", which was also adopted in NA-11S1. Fast digital isolator and dual relay spanning 18 circuit, USB-B input interface and signal lines between the digital audio circuits, ground in electrically to insulate and wraparound of noise, and have eliminated the fluctuation of the ground potential. In addition, such as inserting a decoupling capacitor to the DSP and USB controller IC each of the power supply line, by thorough measures against noise, prevent sound quality deterioration due to high-frequency noise. We realized stable sound clear.

 

 

Original Japanese :

コンプリート・アイソレーション・システム

音質に悪影響を及ぼすPCからのノイズ流入を排除するために、NA-11S1にも採用された「コンプリート・アイソレーション・システム」を搭載。18回路におよぶ高速デジタルアイソレーターと2系統のリレーにより、USB-B入力インターフェースとデジタルオーディオ回路間の信号ライン、グラウンドを電気的に絶縁することで、ノイズの回り込み、グラウンド電位の変動を排除しています。さらに、DSPやUSBコントローラーICそれぞれの電源ラインにデカップリングコンデンサーを挿入するなど、徹底したノイズ対策により、高周波ノイズによる音質劣化を防止。クリアで安定したサウンドを実現しました。

[crenca]

I am surmising here as I have "always" used USB, but based on my experience as a systems administrator all those years: USB suffers in that it is a general (indeed, "universal") bus designed and primarily used by the wider computer world. This means that in the commoditized computer world, the drive to the cheapest parts and implementation is very very strong. So, unless a DAC manufacture is using boutique parts/implementation he is using a USB solution that is "cheap".

 

I see no technical (or "physical law") USB can't get bits to the front side of your DAC in the same bit for bit way that Ethernet or any other bit delivery system can - even granting that it might have inherent limitations in technical design that these others don't (though I don't buy that these need apply to narrow bandwidth audio).

 

That said, your question is to the REALITY of current USB, and even then I would say that it is not "overhyped" in that on the high end boutique solutions are just a given (including avoiding USB altogether) and for the rest of the 99%, well USB is simply the "universal" bus, and as such it is what will be used (and should).

[tranz]

Wow. Finally.

 

I have been shouting that USB audio sucks for years. Adaptive USB was torture to the ears...utter shite!

 

Async although miles better was still shite for low noise/irritation and required a ridiculous amount of workarounds and money/gadgets to make it bearable. When a >$10k DAC benefits from USB regens, USB-SPDIF converters, split USB cables etc. , it provides a good example of how shite USB is for audio. Not one DAC I listened to did not require help.

 

It is good to see some manufacturers come around to something SlimDevices did many years ago. And how many pro-audio/studio engineers ever went down the USB road for DAC purposes?

 

Cheers

[Paul R]

I do not think USB has been over hyped, as it were. Compared to Coax, TOSLink, or AES inputs of 10 years ago, USB was easily an order of magnitude more versatile. With the advent of Async USB signaling, it became viable as an audiophile resource, and has continued to become ever better. And I really do think the typical USB input of today is better than the Coax and TOSLink inputs of yesterday.

 

But USB is still hobbled with issues. For example, the USB Audio format is super sensitive to timing issues - because it is in effect a timed transmission of audio data. Of course, there is buffering on both sides to account for that timing sensitivity, at least in part, but even then...

 

Ethernet, using a packet based data based transfer protocol like TCP/IP, avoids pretty much all of those timing problems, at least as concerns the transmission of the audio. USB transmissions in comparison, are like beaming an FM radio transmission over a USB cable. Possible, but not simple.

 

I am sure the future will reveal deficiencies with ethernet transmissions. One simple issue comes to mind, and that is controlling the audio playback. Stop, start, pause, etc. This really needs to be done with out of band transmissions, but few have embraced or implemented such a plan at this point. The trend seems to be to put all the intelligence in the player, and used shared resources like a NAS. Not a bad solution to be honest, but perhaps, bettered by putting logic and control in another area. Like a smartphone.

 

No idea where it is all going, but it sure is a great time to be alive and an audio hobbyist!

[The Computer Audiophile]

No idea where it is all going, but it sure is a great time to be alive and an audio hobbyist!

Agree!

[One and a half]

For most people, the thought of setting up an Ethernet DAC leaves them cold. Not talking about enthusiasts who will venture into the unknown. A direct cable connection to a computer and installing a simple setup program (or none at all) is slightly easier to grasp.

 

For 2016 notebooks, what connections are available for digital audio. A mediocre optical out if you're lucky and USB. There's no AES3 (the connector alone is triple the thickness of a notebook), no cabled AES3id, no cabled S/PDIF. USB has to be used due to necessity, so not much of a choice is it? Thunderbolt, please spare me from another interface that's super expensive, and limited for cable distance (again).

 

We *need* the Regen, Jitterbug, Wyrd, Remedy, Intona, Mutecs of this world to tame USB, since it's only connection we have to work with. High rate PCM and DSD rates are another issue entirely, there is USB C on the horizon, but it's still USB!

 

Keep the USB out of the DAC is a good idea. Requires more boxes and cables, so the merry go round continues.

 

Overhyped? when it's the only bar in town?

[tranz]

A fun chat some of us had a while ago:

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/lan-input-dacs-21722/

[gmgraves]

Hi Guys - The title of this thread "Did We Overhype USB Audio And Overlook Possible Pitfalls?" is meant to be read as a question, not a conclusion or suggestion.

 

 

A little background:

 

Remember the days of adaptive USB audio and 29/96 limitations? I remember thinking how great this was considering we could then play high resolution rather than being stuck at 48 kHz and lower. Then I remember the wonderful introduction of asynchronous USB and even higher resolution playback up through 24/192. Wow, life was good, especially when compared to where we had previously been with USB audio. Then came DSD via DoP. Another neat step in the USB audio evolution. More recently we are in a sample rate arms race of DSD256/DSD512 and PCM 32/384 or higher. I'm not suggesting this arms race it's beneficial, especially when so many members of the CA community really enjoy sample rate and format conversion prior to sending the audio to their DACs. But, in this evolution to higher and higher rates, it seems like very few people and still fewer manufacturers are talking about other areas of USB audio improvement. Companies like AudioQuest (Jitterbug) and UpTone Audio (Regen) have developed products to improve the USB audio experience. Many people will never go back to listening without one of these devices. Also, some manufacturers refuse to put USB inputs on their components (Berkeley Audio Design) while others recommend using digital inputs other than USB (Schiit, Hegel).

 

 

I've been thinking long and hard about USB audio for several months and even talked to some well respected audio engineers about the topic. I've been listening to many DACs using different inputs and trying to judge whether I can conclude anything with respect to the quality of an input and have this judgement be relevant for anything other than the exact system I'm using at the time. I haven't been able to come to any conclusion stating that one input method is always better than another or than USB is inferior to Ethernet or AES etc... But, I have listened to DACs in my system that certainly sound worse via their USB inputs. I raised this finding with a few engineers in the industry and was surprised to hear them either agree with me, take it a step further and says USB is too flawed, or provide me with solid objective information for using USB in other ways. One example of this came when talking to a manufacturer who has offered USB inputs on its DACs for many years and now offers Ethernet inputs (in addition to USB). This manufacture thinks Ethernet is capable of much better audio than USB. Sure that's one manufacturer's opinion and not indicative of anything else, but it's someone whose opinion I highly respect. Another manufacturer I talked to at CES told me something very interesting about his tests with USB inputs. He said when he physically removes the USB input / receiver board from the DAC and places it on top of the chassis for testing, the DAC measures better. This physical separation of USB from the DAC was objectively a better solution. He also said his customers weren't interested in another box or different solution, so he was sticking to the current integrated USB design. He ideal solution would be to have a USB to AES converter to send AES into his DACs. This is exactly what Berkeley Audio Design has been saying since it released the Alpha USB years ago.

 

 

That said, I'd like to discuss the question of whether or not we (me included) overhyped USB and/or overlooked some of its pitfalls, in addition to other people's thoughts about anything USB audio related.

 

Again, I'm making not judgement or conclusion about USB audio and in no way suggest that people render an opinion based on my questions. It's simply a topic I'm interested in discussing and think we could all learn quite a bit from members of the CA community.

 

If anything is wrong with USB, it's the fact that the high-end audio industry seems to be stuck at USB 2.0. The problem is obviously not the interface itself which continues to evolve. Going to USB 3.1 (Superspeed) would solve a lot of problems, make interfaces more reliable, obviate the need for DAC specific asynchronous drivers (in Windows and class drivers on the Mac), and open the door for new Internet protocols such as MQA and the myriad of high-resolution formats that MQA will make available via USB, not to mention the possibility of streaming 24/192/384 and perhaps higher and DSD without any data compression of any kind.

[mansr]

If anything is wrong with USB, it's the fact that the high-end audio industry seems to be stuck at USB 2.0. The problem is obviously not the interface itself which continues to evolve. Going to USB 3.1 (Superspeed) would solve a lot of problems, make interfaces more reliable, obviate the need for DAC specific asynchronous drivers (in Windows and class drivers on the Mac), and open the door for new Internet protocols such as MQA and the myriad of high-resolution formats that MQA will make available via USB, not to mention the possibility of streaming 24/192/384 and perhaps higher and DSD without any data compression of any kind.

 

I don't see how USB 3 can solve any of the problems you mention. The data rate of USB 2.0 is more than enough for audio, and the driver situation is exactly the same whatever the physical link.

[Paul R]

If anything is wrong with USB, it's the fact that the high-end audio industry seems to be stuck at USB 2.0. The problem is obviously not the interface itself which continues to evolve. Going to USB 3.1 (Superspeed) would solve a lot of problems, make interfaces more reliable, obviate the need for DAC specific asynchronous drivers (in Windows and class drivers on the Mac), and open the door for new Internet protocols such as MQA and the myriad of high-resolution formats that MQA will make available via USB, not to mention the possibility of streaming 24/192/384 and perhaps higher and DSD without any data compression of any kind.

 

Note that USB 2.0 AUDIO is not the same thing as USB 2.0 ports. USB 2.0 Audio runs over USB 2.0 and up ports, include USB 3.1 and USB-C. It's the protocol at issue, not the media.

[joelha]

For whatever it's worth, I recall having a long talk at the Newport Beach Show (at least that's where I think it was) with Keith Johnson (of Spectral and Reference Recording fame). A very nice and very knowledgeable man.

 

And I asked him about which digital interface he preferred. He would not state a preference. He firmly believed that the quality of the interface was secondary to the quality of implementation of that interface in the respective device.

 

While I'm certainly not qualified to judge, his explanation had a ring of truth to me.

 

Joel

[JohnSwenson]

Note that USB 2.0 AUDIO is not the same thing as USB 2.0 ports. USB 2.0 Audio runs over USB 2.0 and up ports, include USB 3.1 and USB-C. It's the protocol at issue, not the media.

 

So how does superspeed eliminate the need for a driver? Is there some secret new protocol that only runs over superspeed that all OS manufactures have included in their offerings? I certainly have not found any such thing, but I certainly could have missed it.

 

John S.

[tranz]

I don't see how USB 3 can solve any of the problems you mention. The data rate of USB 2.0 is more than enough for audio, and the driver situation is exactly the same whatever the physical link.

 

Not to mention the noise of those 3.1 chips. On an ASUS mobo I had to turn off the 3.1 chip since it made a crazy racket around 16kHz.

[bogi]

USB allows to utilize high quality software upsampling on PC and allows to send high rate PCM or DSD data to DAC. That's currently not possible with other standard computer interfaces. I mean >= 352.8/384k and >= DSD128 rates. As it is known, sending high rate digital data to DAC allows to bypass significant part of lower quality digital processing in delta-sigma DAC chips. To get better sound, investment to SW solution like HQPlayer can be much more effective than investment to DAC. We all already own home computers with much more processing power than is the power of typical DAC chip.

 

Chris, I read you tried many DACs with many different digital inputs and talked to many people. But ... Did you and people you talked with ever try well tuned HQPlayer type of solution with suitable DACs and with improved USB transport? Did they try and compare these solutions with others by listening or by measurements? Maybe people on this forum are trying things or have more shared experience with SW upsampling and USB related topics than some people you talked with. Maybe enthusiasts on forums like this are more free and open to experiment and search than people from music business.

 

Improving USB transport brings positive sonic results also without things like SW upsampling. Similarly, SW upsampling and SW delta sigma modulation can bring improved sonic results also without tweaking USB transport. But these 2 areas of improvement are often used by the same people. Real time SW upsampling and SW delta-sigma modulation simply require those "USB cables and solutions", which are topic of this thread.

 

Both areas (software and USB) are in development. The solutions people are trying and using on this forum currently don't seem to be for everybody. They are still in development and therefore they are used by enthusiasts, who participate on improvements by testing, comparing, providing feedback to developers. Often also by combining things which were never tried before. We are more likely able to use products which are in progress and solutions which are not perfectly convenient, but already bring interesting sonic results. The work to make these solutions more convenient to use is ongoing. It will take yet some time. I mean that's the main reason why outside of forums like this these solutions are less known and less popular.