To get 24-bit/192kHz from Vista Laptop today, go the Studio gear or the Audiophile gear route?

[Innertuber]

Hey Mark - he wasn't "just sitting", I think he was sleeping. You woke him up!

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Sleep? Does anyone get much of that anymore?

 

[TheRocker]

Hi Mike,

 

Can you clarify the following point:

 

So, USB1.1 will support 2 channels of 24/48 which adds up to an overall 24/96. Most annoying.

 

Surely if the waveform is sampled at 48kHz, each channel, they will still be 48kHz when added (unless upsampled)?

 

[markr]

... but you know Chris - if he WAS sleeping, it was in front of the computer with his hands on the keyboard with an HRx selection playing....

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Oops, did I leave my web cam on :-)

 

[Innertuber]

Yes, you did. And we're not gonna say what our wives watched you doing!

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Love it!

 

[Wavelength]

Gang,

 

Chris asked to step in and clear up the USB stuff. Basically USB 1.1 does not specify max sample rates... but 24/96 requires 4.64Mbps+ of the 12mbps bandwith. It would be possible to make a 192k as it would be double this. But many of the controllers do not have the memory required for the buffer space.

 

I also would say it would be better if you are trying to do 192k USB that you use USB 2.0. Many of the PRO units that do firewire or usb at that speed do block mode which requires device drivers.

 

The raw speed of either of those interfaces in Windows or OSX is limited to 24/210K sampling rate. Not sure where that comes from but I am sure there is some math barrier I have not seen yet.

 

Thanks

Gordon

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Excellent, thanks Gordon!

 

[PeterSt]

Hi guys,

 

I didn't read all posts, so maybe it was already told. Anyway, you can approach it like this just the same :

 

Get yourself a pro device that connects through firewire, and choose one of which you think it will be the best at PASSTHROUGH SPDIF (via ADAT or SPDIF itself). The pro gear allows for 192/24 anyway.

Now connect the DAC you like best to that device.

 

I myself use a Fireface800 (and a 400 won't be different).

Vista (via my own player and Engine#3 anyway -> http://www.computeraudiophile.com/node/273 ) will output to 352800/32 without hussle (ok, the only hussle might be that really large tracks may not fit into memory with that player, because it's a memory player).

 

Oh, using the the pro gear itself for the DAC is not an option if you want anything near good SQ ...

 

Best,

Peter

 

 

 

[mikeliao]

Thanks for the welcome everyone. Hmm, where to start? Or actually, with Gordon here, I'd defer to him on ANY questions.

 

My beef is with jitter (see http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue22/nugent.htm) and the data transmission method (data format, tx protocol, correction, etc.). http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/7719.html describes some of the transfer methods. The 'newer' method is block, which as Gordon mentions, requires device drivers. All these methods also lack adaquate error correction. Arguable if even needed, but with higher data rates and loose computer EMF requirements, something to consider.

 

Also http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=pcaudio&m=32178 has some good info and references. Just the first quarter, afterwards the thread goes in a different direction.

 

Peter, 2 channels of 24/48 is still 2 channels of 24/48 but data bandwidth is 24/96. Marketing math I suppose.

 

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hey Mike - I does seem like there is a lot of room for improvement in this area, but at least we can enjoy some excellent quality sound while the improvements are researched and implemented. Great things to look forward to!

 

Your mention of marketing math with 2x24/48=24/96 is one of those things that not many people realize. Still produces excellent sound, but somehow it feels like we are getting cheated :-|

 

Thanks for the links as well.

 

[Wavelength]

Guys,

 

Peter, 2 channels of 24/48 is still 2 channels of 24/48 but data bandwidth is 24/96. Marketing math I suppose.

 

Maybe I ran too much this morning or missing my coffee but WHAT?

 

24/48 has half the bandwidth than 24/96 has. Though this is primarily determined by the dac and it's internal filters. Most newer units will put 48 low pass at under 24k and 96 under 48K.

 

Just remember this if you are playing red book stuff upsample in even multiples don't go to the highest rate.

 

Also on computers sometimes more is not better!

 

Thanks

Gordon

 

[markr]

ah-ahh-ahh-ahhhhhh-men (choir of angels)

 

-- Gordon: the quote you are confused about has to do with Eiderol's listed specifications for the UA-101 and how that could confuse consumers -- Go to the 1st, 8th and 9th posts in this thread to understand the original confusion that generated the quote your referencing.

 

markr

*hoping my Rob Fetters: Musician album arrives in the mail today*

 

[markr]

"Oh, using the pro gear itself for the DAC is not an option if you want anything near good SQ..."

 

.... Peter, would you care to expand on that? What I'm concerned about is the fact that you always list the FF400 and 800 units as your DAC's of preference in your signature lines. Is it that you only use them for recording? You have just confused the heck out of me. I LIKE my SQ for both recording and playback with the FF400 - it is only Windows with reference to multimedia that I have a problem with. Windows is the best 'spreadsheet machine' that I have ever seen though. ...OK, it does more than that, if you are a tweaker.... THIS IS JUST MY OPINON. Things change, and will make me inaccurate here.

 

My experience does not match yours, but maybe my rock and roll ears aren't what yours are.

 

markr

BTW: As far as I can tell, "SQ" is a term that was 'coined' to describe the quality of a lossy-format, or compressed digital audio file as related to an uncompressed one. I believe that it might be being misused in some contexts nowadays.

Peter: You have really accomplished a lot in the arena of digital audio. Please don't allow my expressing my preferences here hinder your work with MS products. We need both platforms working properly to be able to continue on to what the consumer really needs.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hey Mark - I had the exact same question after reading that post. I know many people who really like the FF400.

 

C'mon Peter - Were waiting for your thoughts on this one :-)

 

[PeterSt]

... although I am not sure how to respond to this.

 

First off : SQ = Sound Quality in my book. But more books exist I suppose :-)

 

About the pro gear used as a DAC :

 

The fact that the FF800 is always listed in my sig is because I just *need* it as a vehicle to passthrough SPDIF properly. I mean, doing that via the on-board soundchip would really make SQ (hehe) lousy. Just bad. So, this really really matters.

And the other fact - that a dedicated audio DAC is just better - is, well ... how to "explain" that one ? I don't think there is much to explain here, where audio DACs obviously exist and they exist for a reason. If we leave this to personal taste we're done with it. Right ?

But you could also say that a 1300 euro 56 channel 192/24 device by (stupid) theory can't beat a 4000 euro dedicated 2 channel DAC (to name a random price which could be far less and far far more).

Also, I have never seen pro gear rave about their "DAC capabilities" (maybe ADC they do), with possibly Sphinx as an exception. And oh, before you start it : I exclude the 352800 DXD gear here because that is really in another leage (and exists in one or two brands, but which is about studio (recording) stuff, which IMO is better again.

 

Chris, the again "fact" that many people like the FF400 cannot and is not debated (by me), but obviously it comes down to really like a BMW 8 series vs. liking a Zonda. Both could be called sports cars, both need the money not everybody has, but the Zonda really is better and needs more money because of it (well, that's what they say).

Of course I shouldn't say that I'm in the Zonda leage (just because it sounds stupid), but then I just am ... And, all those others in "my environment" (forum) using the FF400, I think without exception just use it to pass through to their pricey DAC. I never told them to do it, but it just seems the best option when you have a DAC with SPDIF input (USB DACs are excluded in the discussion here).

 

Anyway, and just as a real life example, I could refer to this : http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=487.msg3816#msg3816

Again, I didn't do this or urged for it, but knowing Weiss you see that people are interested in the "passthrough" option only. The fun is, the Minerva doesn't show up (so far at least), apparently because it is not about that. People have their DACs (possibly for a long time), and what they need (being Zonda drivers) is switching from the CD player with external DAC, to PC playback. That needs the passthrough option, and not a new DAC ...

 

To make all at least a bit justified I can't emphasize more on again the "fact" that most of these guys are more or less known by me, and they are one way or the other very explicitly working on the improvement of their audio chain. A few build speakers (and please don't think cheap here), the other builds a nice DAC, the next owns a studio, another uses a 40K tube amp, few claim to have the largest subsoofers in the world, same for the largest electrostats, and in the end almost everyone has the same origine : race driver interest, so to speak.

 

In the end it comes down to a not so easy interpretation (as usual with audio) of what is good for a certain environment, or IOW, "you". What's good or the best for you, may be an undermeasure for me.

Or the other way around :-)

One thing I know - and that in fact is measureable - when we are together, which occasionally happens, we listen to one thing only : is this sounding completely natural, or might this cymbal need more warmth ? (etc. etc.). An e.g. FF400 just doesn't bring you that far; it then merely comes down to "hmm ... this cymbal is too much hissing, yesterday it was less disturbing".

 

Lastly, please don't forget that all parts in the chain must coorporate. You just can't start with any random Foobar, JRiver, WinAmp, XMPlay, iTunes and name them all. They were explicitly created for PC playback, which is rather different from something that was created for the best playback possible regarding sound quality, which nowadays just is a PC with dedicated software for *that*. The details coming from that makes you hear the difference between DACs enourmeously good. The differences are so huge, that not only different software is recognized within the ONE second (this is no joke), but also different DACs are recognized that quick. But start with the software, otherwise the rest doesn't work ...

 

I hope this was an appropriate (and useful) response.

Peter

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Peter - Thank you for supplying us with that very thorough answer. I'm sure some people will disagree, but there is no way everyone is going to agree on everything. The most we can ask is that people help us understand why they like or dislike the sound of a component.

 

Thanks again for taking the time to post a well thought out reply!

 

[markr]

I understand where you are coming from now. While a major factor in my FF400 purchase was its flexibility in passing/converting digital formats from one to the other, that was not the only one. For me, with my equipment - I love the way it sounds tool. I have to say that its recording quality is a large part of that, and I will readily admit, and have done so here before, that do not have the time to sit and compare many different models of equipment. This is especially true if that equipment is consumer oriented. I'll stick with my "BMW" for now 8^)

 

markr

 

[Wavelength]

Mark,

 

-- Gordon: the quote you are confused about has to do with Eiderol's listed specifications for the UA-101 and how that could confuse consumers -- Go to the 1st, 8th and 9th posts in this thread to understand the original confusion that generated the quote your referencing.

 

markr

*hoping my Rob Fetters: Musician album arrives in the mail today*

 

I know the piece pretty well as I have used on of those here ounce If we are talking about the USB spec and not the analog bandwidth then here is my take on it.

 

With 1.1 you really cannot think that you can get a full 12mbps out of the interface. It get's really pretty poor with any of the interfaces over 1/2 that speed. That is why they are saying 24/48 because they are saying that for the 2in and 2out which would set the combined rate at just less than 5mbps. In theory it would be easy to do out or in at up too 96k.

 

Hope you like the CD it's one of my favorites. Rob is a great player... when him and Adrian Belew play together (The Bears) it takes guitar to an entire new level of playing.

 

Thanks

Gordon

 

You could in theory run the output to full but I

 

[jxo]

Does anyone have any experience with this thing? I may give a try if it will work for another purpose-- helping me create digital music files from my vinyl collection. Will the 410 enable me to make digital recordings from my LPs? If I run analog cables from my preamp (tape out) to the 410 and connect the 410 to a laptop with suitable recording software, looks like this could be a decent recording device to make 24/96 files from my vinyl collection.

 

Separately, one could use the DAC for playback until Benchmark comes out with its own firewire DAC. The alternatives now to get full rez from HRx files seem uneconomical: 1) either drop $4500-5000 on a firewire DAC that enables an easy laptop connection or 2) spend $1500-1800 on a Lynx card and a laptop adaptor plus the cost of a 24/196 DAC (like the DAC1 for another $1k) that can handle the file via AES/EBU.

 

Any guesses on how the MAudio will sound? Am interested specifically on how one of the RR HRx files would sound through the MAudio as compared to the same file getting downconverted or a 24/96 file played back through a more typical home audio DAC (like my NuForce pre-processor).

 

Separate warning with these pro devices: make sure you get properly made (grounded) TS or XLR to RCA cables. Many of the cheap "off the rack" adapter cables are not properly wired and could introduce noise into your system-- I know from experience (I have about 3 pairs lying around if anyone wants to put in a bid).

 

[markr]

Just a quick note to say that I am a Trailerpark Bob fan now, Gordon. ... Not that this will make sense to anyone else.

 

markr

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

"... Not that this will make sense to anyone else."

 

Correctamundo!

 

[jeroen020]

Hi Vincent,

 

Just read your interesting post, and wonder how the journey is going ?

 

Jeroen

the Netherlands

 

[VincentH]

Hi Jeroen, well my sig really says it all :-). After auditioning several DACs and active monitors at home I selected the RME FireFace 400 as DAC (over the Weiss Minerva, which had better SQ but at that time no volume control) and for monitors I selected the Focal Twin 6 Be over the Adams P33A. Later I added the matching Focal Sub 6. Now I have better sound than I ever heard anywhere :-).

 

Now enjoying lots of music (also hi-res) and looking into room correction (both physical and digital).

 

Cheers, Vincent