Pro gear = digital nirvana

[bdiament]

Hi Dan,

 

When time avails, perhaps I can take a pic.

Right now, it is in constant use.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[ted_b]

The thread on FW cables shows that each of us like different (but cheap) fw cables. Clay's comments, and my follow up, was about the mega-buck USB cables not being an issue in the uniquely high-value low cost FW cable world...please understand the issue.

 

Also, I never said that there was not a poor sounding FW interface!! I said there was not a poorly implemented FW architecture...it's just FW. Your RME experiences are not due to the FW port, at least none I've ever read about. Most say that the DAC and or analog section is substandard. I'd rather you not confuse the issue and claim we're getting into a "all FW DACs sound great" debate. We aren't.

 

[bdiament]

Hi barrows,

 

"...Re Firewire cabling, I referenced the specific Firewire cable thread at computer audiophile, on this thread you can find the experiences of many people on sonic differences between firewire cables. To say that Firewire implementations always offer great sound is in error: my experience with the RME Fireface 400 was entirely dissapointing, it offered terrible sound through its analog outputs, and when used solely to convert Firewire to SPDIF the performance was also very dissapointing. Firewire is subject to the same limitations as USB: it needs to be properly implemented to offer excellent performance..."

 

Two things:

 

First, I agree, it is the whole of a design and its implementation are key. That is why singling out a single aspect of a design or a part, like a chip or power supply, makes no sense to me.

 

Firewire too is no guarantee of a great converter. Whether Firewire or a particular chip or a specific type of power supply design, etc. etc., *none* is a guarantee the results won't be terrible.

 

As to folks' comments, whether on Firewire or DAC comparisons or anything else, my own approach is to not take any too seriously unless I am familiar with how a given person hears and know it has some correspondence with how I hear. There are folks who can suggest a piece of gear and I'll often find their recommendation is one I would make.

 

On the other hand, Internet audio fora are filled with folks making all sorts of claims. On Computer Audio alone, I've seen comments about "improvements" wrought by certain power supplies (I listened and disagree) or folks who claim .wav sounds better than .aif of the same file. Perhaps it does to them but I don't hear it that way.

 

This is not to denigrate anyone's perspective or hearing. I'm simply saying that because someone says they like DAC A better than DAC B or that DAC A is "more transparent", I'm not convinced unless I know how they hear, what their listening biases are and what they deem "transparent". (This sometimes takes me a while, to read enough of a person's writings and gain some familarity with where they've coming from sonically.) If I don't hear it the same way, I don't take that particular point of view very seriously. I don't doubt the person feels the way they do. It is just that they hear things differently than I do.

 

I certainly enjoy the discussions as well as the different perspectives. I sometimes find I can learn something from a perspective that differs from my own. But as to folks' opinions, fora are the same as reading what reviewers say in magazines and Web sites. Some reviewers appear to hear things in a way I can relate to and others are clearly hearing something else.

 

This works both ways of course. My posts and experiences may be relevant to folks who hear things in a way similar to how I do. And may be of little value to folks who don't.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

 

[barrows]

As I would suspect, we are in agreement. You will never find me saying something (especially which I have not heard) will sound bad (definitively) because of one aspect of its design. I will perhaps speculate (and state speculation as such, meaning my POV is not definitive) that a change in a certain aspect of a design could, or a little more strongly, likely would, make for an improvement in sonics. These statements are based in being involved in the design process for quite a few audio products-first from the perspective of consulting with the design engineers and seeing measurements, and secondly from listening to potential products both in the company listening room and at home at various stages of evolution, so my POV is based more in the real world rather than as an internet postulator.

To be clear regarding Firewire and USB audio, in the context as described-two channel DACs for computer based playback, I want to be sure that readers understand that either interface can offer SOTA performance when properly implemented.

 

[barrows]

I do not know what you are saying? This is all semantics to me:

 

"Clay's comments, and my follow up, was about the mega-buck USB cables not being an issue in the uniquely high-value low cost FW cable world...please understand the issue.

 

Also, I never said that there was not a poor sounding FW interface!! I said there was not a poorly implemented FW architecture...it's just FW. Your RME experiences are not due to the FW port, at least none I've ever read about. Most say that the DAC and or analog section is substandard. I'd rather you not confuse the issue and claim we're getting into a "all FW DACs sound great" debate. We aren't."

 

What the H*** is: "the uniquely high-value low cost FW cable world" ??? And how do I get there. Does the Wireworld Starlight USB cable come from another unique place of high-value low cost USB cables? The thread referred to clearly states that people are hearing differences between different FW cables, Clay was insinuating that because Firewire interfaces do not demonstrate changes in performance with different cables they are somehow superior to USB.

Saying that the deficiencies of the FireFace are due to the DAC or analog sections does not explain its poor performance when used only to convert Firewire to SPDIF. I can say the same words as you: there is nothing wrong with the USB port, "it's just USB"-this is meaningless. BTW Some Firewire ports are certainly worse than others, If you are well versed in Firewire interface performance, I am sure you are aware of the preference for TI Firewire controller chips.

The fact remains: when properly implemented both Firewire and USB can offer the highest level of two channel audio playback performance, one method of interface is not inherently superior to the other for this use. Additionally, either one of these interfaces can produce poor performance when implemented poorly. That is my point, that both interfaces can offer SOTA performance, but neither one is gauranteed to offer SOTA performance.

BTW, Firewire audio interfaces by themselves are not necessarily low in jitter, nor are they necessarily asynchronous, they do differ in audio performance from one implementation to the next. See the Weiss DAC202 thread for more details on this topic.

I have nothing against Firewire, it can be a great interface, as can USB, but without good implementation either of these interfaces can perform poorly.

 

[cfmsp]

 

"Clay was insinuating that because Firewire interfaces do not demonstrate changes in performance with different cables they are somehow superior to USB."

 

I did NOT say, imply, nor insinuate anything of the sort. What I said is that no one claims that USB IS inferior just becuase owners of USB DACs drop a lot of money on USB cables.

 

I'm losing my patience with your BS interpretations of my actual comments.

 

clay

 

 

 

[cfmsp]

"come on man! It appears you are going a little off here:"

 

with all due respect...what's up with that comment? so we disagree on a thing or two.

 

"...rather than a $4.50 chinese wall wart sourced as an afterthought. Perhaps all the DC/DC converters and IC opamps in the MH boxes make it impossible to hear how good it could sound with a better PS?"

 

you posted only a day ago about an interest in learning about DC-DC converters, and yet you post this gratuitous FUD (about the MH box)?

 

this is beginning to look (to me) like a pattern of negative comments about MH, such that your objectivity is now in question with respect to your opinions of Metric Halo gear.

 

What gear have you heard it compared to personally? Have you heard it in your own system? Have you even heard it?

 

 

"Frank appears to hear a significant difference with his Cantata (the Cantata features four internal isolated linear power supplies with separate transformers)."

 

The Cantata is also $6k, which is TWICE what I paid for my LIO-8. The Cantata is 50% more than the LIO-8 retail price, and $2500 more than the going rate of an LIO-8.

 

That there is a product some might consider better for a LOT more money proves which of your points exactly?

 

Since you're using Frank as an expert witness, I will note that he agrees with my views (on your views) of the lack of ill effects from MH use of SMPS, and also that he found NO improvement with a linear power supply.

 

 

"According to the Firewire cable thread on this site, plenty of people are hearing differences in performance with different Firewire cables, on both Weiss and Metric Halo converters."

 

As Ted already pointed out, owners of Firewire gear almost universally agree that expensive Firewire cables are not required for the best sound. Neither is there a progressive improvement of sound with better cables (as apparently there is with USB). The designers of the products you mention - BJ, Daniel Weiss - say to use ANY Firewire cable. Even Kent Poon gave up on his Firewire cable shoot-out, and now recommends that people just use the Oyaide cable becuase of it's build quality.

 

Contrast this with Gordon's admission that USB cables do INDEED make a difference even with Asynchronous USB, even though he can't understand why/how. Presumably Charles concurs. [NOte: I have tremendous respect for both Gordon and Charles' work, I just don't happen to own any of it other than Gordon's Async USB Proton. Nothing I say here should be taken as disparaging either.]

 

Additionally, there are numerous threads here where people claim to hear improvements with more expensive USB cables.

 

"OK, I do not think anyone who is well versed in the technical differences between well implemented Firewire interfaces and well implemented USB interfaces think there is any performance difference for two channel audio playback between the two. I do not think that you even honestly believe this."

 

Barrows, please read my words again:

 

"No one seems to think of USB DACs as being inferior to Firewire DACs even though the former benefit from expensive USB cables, whereas Firewire DACs appear not to."

 

Where did I say that there is any performance difference between well implemented Firewire and well implemented USB? Actually, I didn't say it! In fact, I'm on record here with literally probably hundreds of posts here trumpeting the advantages of Async USB right along with my support for Firewire.

 

 

Indeed, what I said was more like the opposite.

 

What I effectively said is that even when audiophiles with USB DACs wind up needing to drop lots of bucks on USB cables to extract maximum performance NO ONE claims these USB DACs have poor design, not even strong proponents of Firewire interface DACs like myself (although I am on record here as saying that I would investigate the source of the problem requiring the expensive USB cable and fix that, rather than give big bucks over to e USB Cable manufacturer).

 

To put this in perspective, most of us here have a forgiving attitude with respect to what might be considered an acceptable additional investment to extract maximum performance from a DAC, yet, you repeatedly insist that products that don't meet your design goals are flawed, even questioning the motivations of the designers, and apparently with NO knowledge of the designer's intent with regard to the elements that you dislike. That you do this when the price to ameliorate said issue is not unlike what is dropped without batting an eye on cables and other tweaks makes me think of nothing more than these words: "methinks the lady doth protest too much".

 

Mind you, in any event, the evidence suggests that your blanket recommendation of replacing ANY SMPS with a linear power supply seems totally unnecessary, and perhaps even detrimental (per Barry's tests), making even an investment of this normally acceptable amount a total waste of money.

 

In the spirit of Campbell Brown ending a debate, I found a statement that I can wholeheartedly agree with you on, to end this conversation (between us).

 

"I think the issue of Firewire vs. USB is a non issue, as both interfaces have proven to offer the highest level of performance when properly implemented."

 

If you'll add the qualifier Async directly in front of USB (and ditto for Firewire if you think appropriate), we can agree on this.

 

I have (more like had as the posts pile up) respect for your knowledge, but your comments on MH gear are more than a little uneven-handed to me.

 

respectfully,

clay

 

 

 

 

 

[barrows]

I think we may have derailed the thread. Glad to hear that you are enjoying the new software.

For the record: I have never said anything about the sound of Metric Halo products. In fact, numerous times I have stated that I trust the reports of excellent sonics from users here. Neither have I made any disparaging remarks, all I have done is point out design aspects which I think could be improved. No one has to agree with me, and I am not looking for any validation for my opinion from anyone here, I am only stating it.

I used the words "properly implemented" when talking about both USB and Firewire interfaces, it is clear that async is one way to do this, there may be others (as in, is the Weiss DAC202 async...).

Regarding cables, I am going out on a limb here: in a high end context, with properly implemented interfaces, it is my contention that a Firewire Cable will have equal influence on sonic performance as a USB cable. There is no technical difference in how these interfaces are utilised that would make one more susceptible to cable differences than the other.

I am glad that you agree that Firewire and USB are equally capable of delivering state of the art sonic performance, I have been under the impression for a long time that this was not your point of view, As it now appears my impression was in error, I apologize for that.

 

[cfmsp]

"You will never find me saying something (especially which I have not heard) will sound bad (definitively) because of one aspect of its design."

 

Barrows, below are your very words in this thread, and it's not the only words with which you've castigated equipment that uses SMPS, and specifically Metric Halo.

 

What are these words below meant to say if not that DACs using SMPS "will sound bad (definitively) because of one aspect of its design?

 

"With a few exceptions (Chord and Linn as examples) audiophiles are well advised to avoid products with SMPS, or to replace SMPS with high quality linear supplies."

 

 

"Quick thought on....SMPS. Yes, they are evil."

 

"Most manufacturers that use SMPS use them because they are cheap and easy, they do not require large transformers (an expensive part of a power supply, even for low current components like DACs) and the entire SMPS can be purchased as a unit from a Chinese electronics parts supplier for low $$. This allows the manufacturer to not even bother with designing a power supply, as if power supply design has no influence on the quality of sound."

 

"The worst offenders are the really cheap wall wart SMPS supplies often supplied with pro gear, and with budget DACs. SMPS produce a lot of self noise, and their switching frequency is high enough for them to become broadcast RF generators as well-so the RF becomes airborne, and can then find its way into the system through many pathways."

 

I even gave you the opportunity to gracefully 'grant an exception' (to your comments) to exclude Prism Orpheus and Metric Halo gear on grounds of superior sound (i.e. sonics should overrule design principles), and you refused. To me, that clearly says that you believe a piece of gear is flawed "becuase of one aspect of it's design", despite spectacular sonics, if it does not meet your design standards with regard to lack of SMPS.

 

as the title says, I call Bullshit!

 

Please don't pretend NOT to say what you clearly have been saving all along, and with relish. I'd like to maintain a modicum of respect for your opinion, although it's disappearing with every post.

 

Clay

 

 

 

[barrows]

I never said MH, or Prism products sound bad because they have SMPS. I very specifically avoided saying this, because all evidence is to the contrary. I would put it this way: These products sound good despite the fact that they use SMPS.

 

Additionally in regard to Prism, as I stated elsewhere in this thread, I am not familiar with the design of its SMPS-for all I know it could be a very well implemented design, done in house, with highly sophisticated engineering. (As I know Chord and Linn are, being more familiar with the design of those products).

Regarding MH, as also stated previously in this thread-it appears that they have overcome the limitations of the cheap outboard supply they use, by clever onboard filtration and regulation of the supply. Apparently you missed this comment, or I did not make myself entirely clear. In this comment I am giving praise to the design of the MH products.

I think my advice to audiophiles to generally avoid or replace SMPS is still good advice, as most of them are poorly implemented-in the same statement I did point out that some are not, so it is not as simple as saying: never have a SMPS device in your home. If you looked at spectrum analysis of a clean AC line and then plugged in a cheap 8 amp SMPS I suspect you too would be wary of them.

Of course, in the future power corrected SMPS are going to become the rule, as the energy savings alone will dictate this. Right now, I suspect, we are in a transition period, where only a few really know how to make SMPS work in acceptable ways for high end audio. If we are lucky enough, some bright young engineers will decide that they want to work in high end audio, and will pioneer new power supply approaches that will offer the sonic performance of the best linear supplies, with the efficiency and cost benefits of power factor corrected SMPS.

 

[cfmsp]

"Regarding cables, I am going out on a limb here: in a high end context, with properly implemented interfaces, it is my contention that a Firewire Cable will have equal influence on sonic performance as a USB cable. There is no technical difference in how these interfaces are utilised that would make one more susceptible to cable differences than the other."

 

Your contention that the influence should be equal is the same as most everyone I know who has expressed an opinion, with notable exceptions of designers of some of the best sounding Firewire DACs, e.g. BJ and Daniel Weiss.

 

They simply contend that Firewire cables (so long as they meet basic standards) should not matter.

 

I also happen to believe that the same should be true for USB cables, but apparently it is not. I'm with BJ & Daniel, and my own experience. Even Gordon seems to believe that it shouldn't matter with USB cables used Asynchronously, and he is on record as saying that it does matter, for reasons he can't explain.

 

If you also agree that they should be equal, given the evidence that they apparently are not (ie. expensive USB cables do seem to make a difference), who do you disagree with - the people who can't find a difference amongst Firewire cables that is based on significant increase in expense, or BJ / Daniel and those who belief that expensive Firewire cables are not necessary? Or perhaps you believe that the people who claim to hear differences amongst USB cables are wrong when they quite expensive cables?

 

 

yes, it appears to be a loaded question.

 

clay

 

 

Ps, yes, there's a fourth alternative.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[barrows]

might be explicit in the way I worded my contention. I have more than one answer (none of which are really answers), but first, a little more background:

 

"Gordon seems to believe that it shouldn't matter with USB cables used Asynchronously"

 

Steve Nugent of Empirical Audio says the same thing-it should not matter with async USB.

 

Inherant in my contention was the possibility that the cable does not matter in either implementation. Honestly, I do not think anyboady is "wrong" here, just that they have had different experiences and also may have some different beliefs.

 

1.Some users of Firewire DACs have reported different sonics with different cables.

2.Some Users of (async, from here on lets assume this) USB report different sonics with different cables-but, most report much less difference between various cables with async USB vs adaptive.

3.Some users of each report no difference with changing cables

 

Now, on to Daniel Weiss, BJ, Gordin Rankin, and Charles Hansen. Here we have some of the finest digital designers around. BJ and Daniel say cables do not matter with Firewire interfaces, Charles and Gordon say that cables do matter with USB interfaces, but they should not, and they do not understand why they matter. I think these observations serve to show more the nature of these designers than anything else. Daniel and BJ are clearly in the more objective camp when it comes to audio performance and design, Gordon and Charlie are clearly in the more subjective camp. I have heard Charlie claim: "everything matters" many times, and he will tweak equipment and systems ad infinitum to get something to sound "right" to him-is he imagining things? Daniel and BJ are pro designers first, as such they likely put a lot more emphasis on engineering than tweaking: the nature of their designs represent this, Charlie and Gordon are more likely to ignore engineering "rules" in order to find the best sonic performance, and are likely to be more accepting of differences in sound that cannot be explained.

What do you think Daniel and BJ might have to say about the use of Alan Mahers CBF devices?

I am making no value judgements here, just expressing MY view of two different approaches to achieving great sound. Maybe Charlie and Gordon are hearing things that are not there, maybe Daniel and BJ are not hearing things that are there (or perhaps they have not even listen tested a selection of Firewire cables and have just stated that they do not matter based on engineering principals).

Are the people who do hear differences with different Firewire cables hearing things? There are plenty of them in the Firewire cable thread. I guess I just do not see the "evidence" that people hear no differences with Firewire cables-I will grant my feeling is that the differences would be small (I would not mind having a LIO-8 here right now to experiment with!), as they would also be small with USB cables (async).

OK, so if there are differences in sound in these cables, why? Measurements have shown that Gordon's async USB code indeed results (at least in the Ayre QB-9) in vanishingly low levels of jitter, lets assume that the Firewire interfaces are equally low jitter. Obviously these things are all bit perfect when properly configured. The only thing left that I can think of is RFI from the computer, getting into the DAC over the cable and causing some problems-trick cable design could mitigate this problem, also RFI is likely to cause only very low level degradation in sonics-some people in some systems might not even hear a difference. These differences might be so small as to be obscured by a wifi network operating in the home...

Ethernet is likely the ultimate interface, as there is no time dependency whatsoever, bandwith is not a problem (over a wired system) and the ethernet spec includes transformer coupling at both the receiver and transmitter specifically to control RFI. I wonder if we will have people claiming to hear differences in different ethernet cables?

 

EDIT: Clay, how much difference do you hear with different USB cables on the Proton and which cables have you tried?

 

[Audio_ELF]

Something to think about...

 

Yes; some DACs are supplied with what (appear to be) basic off the shelf PSU and other parts - how do you know that the designer hasn't sampled 100s of examples of these basic parts before deciding which one to use.

 

An example of this (that I know of) is Naim. They supply what look like basic power cables available for pennies from any major (Chinese) cable supplier - yet (at least Naim say) they spent a long time testing alternatives before buying a bucket load of these cables. Users do report variances with alternative cables which superficially look identical but from alternative suppliers... The same is true of the "in the box" cables they supply - look basic but have been tried and tested in development.

 

Eloise

 

[bdiament]

Hi barrows,

 

"...Firewire audio interfaces by themselves are not necessarily low in jitter, nor are they necessarily asynchronous..."

 

While theoretically this may be the case, this reminds me of Robert Harley's recent mistake in his TAS piece. So I ask: Can you name a single, real world Firewire implementation where the computer would be in control of the clock instead of the DAC?

 

I am not aware of any.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

[bdiament]

Hi barrows,

 

"...You will never find me saying something (especially which I have not heard) will sound bad (definitively) because of one aspect of its design. I will perhaps speculate (and state speculation as such, meaning my POV is not definitive) that a change in a certain aspect of a design could, or a little more strongly, likely would, make for an improvement in sonics..."

 

I'm sorry but I'm confused by this. If I'm correct, you'll never say something you have not heard sounds bad because of one aspect its design but you might speculate as to what would improve it.

 

You are of course, entitled to see it any way you want to see it. As I see it, this is still concentrating on a single tree in a forest (whether it be a chip or other component, or as in this case, a PS). I am curious to know just what specific areas of sonics you would expect improvement and what specific form such improvement would take - particularly when you have not experienced the device, hence don't know what the device sounds like.

 

Would the bass be better? I'm referring to the stunning bass the unit has, which I have never heard the match for in any other component in my experience, in terms of depth, speed, pitch definition, etc.

 

Would the dynamics be better? I'm referring to the sometimes scary slam this thing is capable of. And unlike many so-called "dynamic" components, this one can do it throughout the frequency range.

 

Would it sound less "digital"? I'm referring to the first piece of digital gear in my experience whose sound doesn't (in one way or another) identify it as such.

 

I understand you may well have heard specific improvements in other gear - which you had the opportunity to audition. I just don't understand the logic behind such a statement with regard to an unknown.

 

Just my perspective. Perhaps I'm missing something (always a possibility).

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

[barrows]

Please see the Weiss DAC202 thread for discussions on how Firewire implementations may or may not be considered "Asynchronous". That thread goes into detail on the subject. Suffice it to say, I think we both agree that Firewire in and of itself is no gaurantee that the interface will be low in jitter, that is my only real point.

 

"I'm sorry but I'm confused by this. If I'm correct, you'll never say something you have not heard sounds bad because of one aspect its design but you might speculate as to what would improve it."

 

Exactly, but please read my words closely-I used the word "could" when talking about different approaches that "might" improve a components sound. I am not being definitive here, and I specifically chose this language to demonstrate that my speculation could be in error as well. The point of view expressed by my suggestions on this is my own, based on my experiences listening to a lot of different implementations, often in the same circuit. An example may clarify my point of view-I often say something like: "I would prefer (this product) to have a discrete (low/no feedback) output stage." When I say something like this I am expressing my point of view-I have long preferred the sound of well designed discrete circuits vs high feedback IC opamps, all else being the same. In general, I prefer the sound of products with less (or no) global feedback. Yes, I believe that products designed this way are actually more accurate as well, especially when it comes to portraying space, and low level harmonic details. But this is My preference, I have no problem with a listener who might prefer something else.

 

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi barrows,

 

"...Please see the Weiss DAC202 thread for discussions on how Firewire implementations may or may not be considered "Asynchronous"...."

 

The term "asynchronous" is often used in reference to USB digital audio devices where the DAC, not the computer, serves as master clock. That's what I'm talking about. Every single Firewire implementation for digital audio (of which I'm aware) has the DAC in control of the clock, not the computer.

 

Perhaps I've missed one. This is why I asked "Can you name a single, real world Firewire implementation where the computer would be in control of the clock instead of the DAC?"

 

I have not seen the Weiss thread. Is one mentioned there? Or is it just a theoretical exercise?

 

Note, I've never said or implied Firewire is a guarantee of a great DAC, only that my favorite DACs happen to use it.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

 

 

[audiozorro]

all the previous posts which IMO have little to do with digital nirvana. But this tidbit peaks my interest:

 

"PS, Don't mind me, I'm giddy from listening to the best sounding software I've ever heard - and for the first time it works with my LIO-8, so I can hear it in all (or at least most of) it's glory."

 

What is the best sounding software you have ever heard?

 

[cfmsp]

 

AZ, apparently, I was so giddy that I posted something I shouldn't have, which is why I snipped that comment almost immediately afterwards.

 

I wish I could say more about it, but I can't. I've been chastised by Rob Robinson for mentioning it (as it competes with his existing products), and given that I don't know when it might be released, I should no longer discuss it.

 

So as not to appear coy, I'll share what I can, most of which has been made public prior to now, I believe. It's a Mac-based, brand new minimalist software player, written from the ground up for minimal processing and superior sonics. It employs as complete an avoidance (as possible) of CoreAudio via implementation of HOG mode.

 

It sounds better (to me, in my system, etc.) than any other software-based player on the Mac, and I've tried them all, been on the beta team for most.

 

Apologies,

clay

 

[audiozorro]

I look forward to your future posts when you can talk about it. I need a really good reason to buy a new Mac and I hope your player that inspires giddiness is not expensive.

 

[cfmsp]

 

"I hope your player that inspires giddiness is not expensive."

 

I'm more than a little confident that the only people who will not be happy with the price are those who make competing products.

 

Stay tuned,

Clay

 

 

[barrows]

Like I said, the answers to this are in the Weiss DAC202 review thread. I will refer you to Gordon Rankin's comment on that thread, his contention is that the Weiss DAC202 is not in his opinion asynchronous. But I would also submit that this is all nomenclature and does not really illustrate the point I was trying to make: my experience using the Fireface 400 only to convert from Firewire to SPDIF proves to me that just becasue an interface uses Firewire is not a reason to believe it has no flaws-how Firewire is implemented matters, just like how USB is implemented matters-this is simple stuff, and really does not need to be subject to any contention, right?

Both Firewire and USB can offer SOTA performance when properly implemented, and both can offer poor perfromance when poorly implemented, neither is a garauntee of excellent performance just be being present.

 

[fahadm]

Hello,

 

I was intrigued by what some of the world's top studios are using for recording and monitoring, so I did some research today and found the following gear used in Abbey Road Studios. Here are excerpts:

 

ROOM 5:

Apogee Rosetta 200 AD-DA

Benchmark DAC-1

B&W N801 speakers with Bryston 7B amplifiers

Yamaha NS-10M speakers with Bryston 2B amplifiers

 

ROOM 4:

Prism ADA-8

5.1 B&W N802 speakers with Chord amplifiers

 

I don't know about you guys, but it seems that the linear power supply argument is overly-exaggerated.

 

 

 

Source: http://www.abbeyroad.com/_static_files/pdf/Abbey_Road_Mastering_Room_Tech_Specs.pdf

 

Website: http://www.abbeyroad.com/studios/studio1/

 

[kana813]

"I don't know about you guys, but it seems that the linear power supply argument is overly-exaggerated."

 

No winner here.

 

Six pieces of electronics, three with linear PSUs and three with SMPS.

 

 

 

[cfmsp]

 

my guess is that Fahad was only pointing to the 3 DACs, since this thread has been about linear power supplies vis-a-vis DACs.

 

clay