DAC Manufacturer Aversion To External DSP

[Summit]

15 hours ago, matthias said:

 

IMO, one of the best USB implementations at the moment is the Schiit Unison USB. But even with this implementation the source matters. It seems to be that the better the implementation the better shows the USB interface the quality of the source and the quality of the music.

 

Matt

 

What make you come to this conclusion? I mean have you compared the Schiit Unison USB implementations to any other USB implementations? If you actually have which USB have you compared to and in which DACs?

[Summit]

17 hours ago, barrows said:

1.  Most input options can be implemented to work "perfectly" with good engineering.  Both Ethernet and USB allow for any sample rate, which is an advantage as far as I am concerned.  The main advantage of Ethernet is that has no distance limitations, so the server computer on the Network can be far away from he audio system, and Ethernet has an optical fiber option, which allows for excellent isolation.  But, Ethernet requires more processing power than USB for the receiver, so it needs to be very carefully implemented inside a DAC, with its own separate power supply, and internal shielding.  Also, for DAC manufacturers, Ethernet requires some serious development to work really well, we are in the early days, and it is going to be awhile before many DACs have really god built in Ethernet interfaces, IMO, there are really only a couple of DACs with really good Ethernet interfaces now, and many of these are still limited for sample rate, and/or compatibility with various protocols (HQPlayer NAA for example).

 

2.  HDMI sucks for audio, nuff said...

 

3.  For DSD conversion to analog, a discrete approach can be used, and the data can be kept single bit this way.  Which approach is "best", hmmm...  Implementation is very important, saying one approach is "best" is fraught with problems, as no one can guarantee "best" implementation with a given approach.  There are quite a few DSD DACs around these days, but many which do not keep things single bit all the way through.  T+A, Bricasti, Holo Audio, Denafrips, LampiZator, are some commercial DACs which use discrete single bit converters for DSD.  Also EMM labs and Playback Designs.  And there are various DIY variations on Jussi's DSC approach available as well.  

 

4.  Nothing is "perfect", remember also, a DAC is both an analog and a digital component, and analog circuitry is always going to add its sound signature to a DACs output.  But the approach of dong all the oversampling/processing in a computer and not the DAC does give the user more control over the sound, and frees up the DAC designer to make things as "perfect" as possible in the DAC hardware.

 

5.  As my desires are for single bit DACs and DSD, SPDIF has no place in my world.  SPDF is an ancient interface technology, originally designed for simplicity and ease of use, not ultimate sound quality.  While with heroic engineering SPDIF can be made to sound very good, i am of the opinion that it should be avoided for future development.

 

6.  There is nothing "wrong" with USB.  In fact, USB is one of the best digital audio interfaces we have.  Like anything, it can be done well, or not.  IMO the best option, if done well, is an optical Ethernet interface, with no sample rate limitations, and supporting all the relevant protocols (DLNA, RAAT, and NAA).  but USB is really the best option for most existing DACs right now, with a separate Ethernet Renderer, preferably optical, which supports all sample rates and Ethernet protocols.

 

7.  i prefer a simple system, and there is no reason to have an additional box (preamp) if one does not have multiple sources to contend with.  For me, that means a DAC with optical Ethernet input, going directly to an amp, or even a single box DAC with amplifier inside.  While a lot of audiophiles believe in many boxes, this is old skool thinking.  With the technology available now, it is possible to build things much smaller, and the need for many boxes is mostly inside peoples' heads.  The simpler the system, the less loss one can have, and the better fidelity.  Consider that every connection is a point of loss, every additional circuit is a point of loss...  Not every DAC built now can perfectly drive every amplifier directly, but it is very, very easy to insure that one's DAC design has adequate output capability to drive amplifiers directly.  Digital volume control with DSD is tricky (HQPlayer can do it well).  I think the DAC should have an analog volume control onboard, which is bypassed at 0 dB, in order to allow for volume control for those who might be nervous about just relying on volume control in software (HQPlayer).  There are very, very, very good resistor ladder analog volume control chips, which make adding an analog volume control to the DAC relatively trivial, without compromise.  For example, Pass Labs' most expensive mega buck preamp uses resistor ladder volume control chips.    

 

HDMI doesn’t sucks for audio. If it would no manufacturer would use it for AV.

 

If you mean I2S LVDS there a HDMI cable is used I disagree. Please name the DACs with I2S LVDS have you tested and in which way they sucked?

[Summit]

19 hours ago, barrows said:

When I say HDMI, I mean HDMI.  It is compromised for audio, if you do not believe me, do a little research.  Charlie Hansen (RIP) has explained why fairly well and his thoughts on this are available somewhere on the Internet, a Google search will find it.

My opinions are formed from technical facts, these are not things I am just making up.  HDMI was developed in order to provide a simple, easy to use, interface for home theater use, it was not designed to deliver the best audio performance possible.

I would suggest that anytime one combines a Television with an audio, one is making a compromise on audio performance, unless one unplugs all TV from the wall and connections between it and the audio system before listening to music.   

 

HDMI doesn’t sucks for audio and is in fact the best connection for AV. All manufacturer use HDMI for AV because it’s much better than USB for TV and movies, and R1200CL asked for HDMI for AV.

 

“Will HMDI as transfer technology be a better option than USB ? Or shouldn’t manufacturers at least incorporate a HMDI interface from your TV or player.”

[Summit]

4 hours ago, R1200CL said:

 

No doubt that was the case at some point, but maybe good engineering and better clocks etc has overcome some of the problems. Maybe there will be an HMDIregen 😀

HMDI should probably be an option in an idealistic build DAC, as not everybody needs it. 

 

C. Hanson from 2010
https://www.audioasylum.com/messages/pcaudio/82566/hdmi-has-the-highest-jitter-of-any-interface
 

Amir with interesting measurements:

https://www.audio “science” review/forum/index.php?threads/a-deep-dive-into-hdmi-audio-performance.56/

(Chris, are you blocking links to specific sites) ?
 

http://www.oppodigital.co.uk/Understanding-the-HDMI-Audio-Jitter-Reduction-Circuit-OPPO-UDP-205.html
 

Maybe HMDI discussion can continue here:

 

I wish some DAC manufacturers could enter this tread, as Chris is addressing them, but I guess it won’t happen.

 

But I’m learning at least what technology seems to be good, some input on which manufacturers that may have good product. 
 

It also seems quite clear that any DSP, as long as done right is good for SQ. (Including RC). 

 

I’m also wondering if there some dark forces out there that prevents good engineers/engineering/formats/etc to be fully developed. But that can be a topic for a new tread. 
 

 

When it comes to this kind of stuff it’s better to test it yourself. Please don’t forget that the audio quality of most AV gear is lower than the gear we audiophiles normally use in our 2 channel system. The difference between protocols is only one aspect and other AV aspects and devices may limiting the SQ more in the grand scheme of things.