Jump to content
IGNORED

DAC Manufacturer Aversion To External DSP


Recommended Posts

I find this DAC discussion very interesting. 
 

Should manufacturers more use ethernet as signal in ?

What’s the benefits over USB as an example.  It seems to me USB creates support issues, will use of Ethernet remove those issues as one example ?

 

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. 
 

What DAC technology is best for DSD input ?

 

Shouldn't a DAC with no internal up sampling and “perfect” clocks and power sound totally neutral, and the challenge for designer be how good they are to defeat jitter. (And SQ signature be decided by HQPlayer).

 

Will Ethernet to SPDIF converters be something that will better keep many of us using our old DAC with no USB interface, or poor usb interface be something to consider. And will this device still need support for RAAT and NAA, which I guess also mean a simple web interface, unless one create one Ethernet input (fiber) for each option ? (Or a simple switch to select).

 

Or could we place RAAT and NAA inside NUC, SonicTransporter, or whatever PC in use for the streaming purposes (if the DAC accepts Ethernet) ?

 

I wouldn’t mind if John S add some input here, but I suppose Superdad also can tell us something about an ideal technology for streaming and DAC’s. Maybe we need totally new standards ?

 

I think Barrows has some good ideas, but I understand from another tread he also is very keen on remove any preamp and go direct DAC to amps. How will this “requirement” affect SQ ? And cost ?

 

Am I correct that there is a consensus that volume control done right, now can be handled in the digital processing ?  And maybe even better than most preamps ? Hence one should assume preamplifier at least for music streaming isn’t needed. But maybe still for other digital interfaces connected to your DAC ?
 

 

 

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

It seems to me USB creates support issues, will use of Ethernet remove those issues as one example ?

Ask any manufacturer who supports Ethernet what the number one issue is with respect to support. The answer is almost always the customer’s network. 
 

I say people need to get real networks, rather than run from Ethernet. But, I like both Ethernet and USB and don’t see one as always better than the other. Heck, get a Sonore device with both. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
13 hours ago, asdf1000 said:

 

I don’t see anything there that says their USB cable is Belden.

 

I do know their ethernet cables are.

 

Sorry, you're correct, was thinking of Ethernet for some reason. Don't know about USB.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I say people need to get real networks, rather than run from Ethernet.

 

Interested in learning more.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, barrows said:

 

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.

 

Can you give me an example of a USB implementation "done well" were  swapping a USB cable or tweaking with the source has no impact on the sound quality? 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, hopkins said:

Can you give me an example of a USB implementation "done well" were  swapping a USB cable or tweaking with the source has no impact on the sound quality? 

Source and cable still matters, why would it not?  This is no indication of there being anything "wrong" with USB as an interface. In fact, USB is the best digital interface we currently have for audio, yes, some USB inputs are better than others, as is the case with any input.

SPDIF: cables matter

Analog inputs: cables matter

Ethernet inputs: apparently, cables matter

 

just like any input, it can be done well, or not, thta is up the engineering.  But there is nothing inherently wrong with USB.

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

Can you give me an example of a USB implementation "done well" were  swapping a USB cable or tweaking with the source has no impact on the sound quality? 

 

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

"I want to know why the musicians are on stage, not where". (John Farlowe)

 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, hopkins said:

So what is your explanation for the fact that even with a "well implemented" USB input there is still an impact of cables and source tweaking? 

This has been discussed ad infinitum at other places on this site and I feel no need to repeat it here.

 

And remember, my best case scenario DAC project outlined here would utilize an optical ethernet input.  This does, however, require a very sophisticated onboard Ethernet receiver implementation and isolation.

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

Should manufacturers more use ethernet as signal in ?

What’s the benefits over USB as an example.  It seems to me USB creates support issues, will use of Ethernet remove those issues as one example ?

 

That's one option, but very likely it will generate more support issues.

 

25 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

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.

 

HDMI is bad for audio, because you need to send picture always (black picture is enough though), and possible audio formats depends on the video resolution. In addition, audio clocks are based on the video pixel clock. So it is really only good when used for audio for video as it is intended to be used. Not really as an audio interface.

 

2 hours ago, R1200CL said:

Will Ethernet to SPDIF converters be something that will better keep many of us using our old DAC with no USB interface, or poor usb interface be something to consider.

 

Such can be useful, especially if you want to remotely access the DAC.

 

2 hours ago, R1200CL said:

And will this device still need support for RAAT and NAA, which I guess also mean a simple web interface, unless one create one Ethernet input (fiber) for each option ?

 

Could be one possibility. This can be implemented easily for example using RaspberryPi and HifiBerry Digi+ Pro.

 

2 hours ago, R1200CL said:

Am I correct that there is a consensus that volume control done right, now can be handled in the digital processing ?  And maybe even better than most preamps ?

 

Digital implementation can certainly beat preamps (or well, pre-atts to be accurate).

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, barrows said:

Source and cable still matters, why would it not?  This is no indication of there being anything "wrong" with USB as an interface. In fact, USB is the best digital interface we currently have for audio, yes, some USB inputs are better than others, as is the case with any input.

SPDIF: cables matter

Analog inputs: cables matter

Ethernet inputs: apparently, cables matter

 

just like any input, it can be done well, or not, thta is up the engineering.  But there is nothing inherently wrong with USB.


Well, it seems USB is more sensitive to cable, reading here at AS.

However maybe John S can develop a optical USB interface 😀

 

So far we haven’t started comparing SQ in fiber cables, and I hope we never will. I understand SFP devices are under discussion. I’m not sure how much that matters or single mode vs multimode. 
 

Ethernet seems like a better option than USB in order to avoid these cable discussions, and it already have a good standard for fiber, and remove the cable issues. 
 

Anyway, the manufacturers could make a module based DAC, so one could choose preferred interfaces. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, barrows said:

Both Ethernet and USB allow for any sample rate, which is an advantage as far as I am concerned.

 

USB is quite capable, but USB Audio Class is not. For example you cannot make standard compliant 8 channel interface that is capable of 705.6/768k PCM or DSD256 with USB Audio Class.

 

1 hour ago, barrows said:

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).

 

Nitpicking here, but I would say UPnP AV, RAAT and NAA. DLNA (one of those certification trademarks) is not really good for the purposes we talk about.

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, barrows said:

This does, however, require a very sophisticated onboard Ethernet receiver implementation and isolation.


Well we all know who has that cutting edge technology available already. We just have to wait what spin off effects will come out off that 😀

 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, barrows said:

This has been discussed ad infinitum at other places on this site and I feel no need to repeat it here.

 

And remember, my best case scenario DAC project outlined here would utilize an optical ethernet input.  This does, however, require a very sophisticated onboard Ethernet receiver implementation and isolation.

 

Yes it would, and the kind of "heroic engineering" you were referring to above... 

 

Lets keep our fingers crossed. 😉

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, R1200CL said:


Well, it seems USB is more sensitive to cable, reading here at AS.

However maybe John S can develop a optical USB interface 😀

 

So far we haven’t started comparing SQ in fiber cables, and I hope we never will. I understand SFP devices are under discussion. I’m not sure how much that matters or single mode vs multimode. 
 

Ethernet seems like a better option than USB in order to avoid these cable discussions, and it already have a good standard for fiber, and remove the cable issues. 
 

Anyway, the manufacturers could make a module based DAC, so one could choose preferred interfaces. 

 

You have cable differences with all inputs like USB, AES and Ethernet. With Ethernet there are endless discussions about fiber vs copper.

 

Matt 

"I want to know why the musicians are on stage, not where". (John Farlowe)

 

Link to comment
Just now, barrows said:

Yes, but USB is currently available, and optical ethernet in a DAC is in its infancy.  It will be quite a few years before we see really well implemented optical Ethernet interfaces become any kind of standard in DACs.  Right now there is one DAC with this I ma aware of.  

If i was developing the proposed DAC for commercial release, it would have a modular input section, and the customer could choose between optical ethernet and USB inputs at purchase.  The requirements would be to support up to DSD 1024 and for ethernet, DLNA, RAAT, and NAA.

 

Copper ethernet is also way better than USB anyway. It doesn't need to be optical to beat USB.

 

Why restrict to DLNA, why not UPnP AV? I'm personally not interested in DLNA, but only in UPnP AV.

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, barrows said:

If i was developing the proposed DAC for commercial release, it would have a modular input section, and the customer could choose between optical ethernet and USB inputs at purchase.  The requirements would be to support up to DSD 1024 and for ethernet, DLNA, RAAT, and NAA.


What is your best guess cost estimate for such DAC ? (I think XLR out).

HW cost. (As engineering may be harder to predict). What is your preferred DAC chip ?

 

Can we at AS challenge some DAC manufacturers to build a DAC according to such specs ?

Maybe some sort of group buy or crow founding ?

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, R1200CL said:


What is your best guess cost estimate for such DAC ? (I think XLR out).

HW cost. (As engineering may be harder to predict). What is your preferred DAC chip ?

 

Can we at AS challenge some DAC manufacturers to build a DAC according to such specs ?

Maybe some sort of group buy or crow founding ?

impossible to predict due to development costs, and engineering time.  My goal would be to have it be reasonable, as I have no interest in making 5 figure DACs.

 

This would be for DSD 256 input and above only, no PCM, US made,  I would like to target $7K or less, hopefully...  But remember this approach is all about less features: single input only, designed for oversampling in software, etc.  Sales would be somewhat limited, as this is special use case product, so development costs would only be spread over a handful of units.

No DAC chip, my preference would be for discrete DSD conversion stage, running at a high rate of DSD.  the exact topology of this conversion stage would be TBD, I have a heard a few different discrete DSD DACs here, and some of these approaches have some "problems" which would need to be ironed out.

 

Existing manufacturers want to build their own products, as well they should, and are unlikely to build something that few folks on the Internet want.  So this would require serious backing, and at least a year long development cycle, probably hiring at least two really sharp engineers-doing something like this is not simple, especially doing it right.

 

And there are plenty of good DACs out there already, which are close, like T+A and Playback Designs, etc, etc...  So I am not sure it would be a wise move to invest a ton of $$ into.

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, barrows said:

impossible to predict due to development costs, and engineering time.  My goal would be to have it be reasonable, as I have no interest in making 5 figure DACs.

 

This would be for DSD 256 input and above only, no PCM, US made,  I would like to target $7K or less, hopefully...  But remember this approach is all about less features: single input only, designed for oversampling in software, etc.  Sales would be somewhat limited, as this is special use case product, so development costs would only be spread over a handful of units.

No DAC chip, my preference would be for discrete DSD conversion stage, running at a high rate of DSD.  the exact topology of this conversion stage would be TBD, I have a heard a few different discrete DSD DACs here, and some of these approaches have some "problems" which would need to be ironed out.

 

Existing manufacturers want to build their own products, as well they should, and are unlikely to build something that few folks on the Internet want.  So this would require serious backing, and at least a year long development cycle, probably hiring at least two really sharp engineers-doing something like this is not simple, especially doing it right.

 

And there are plenty of good DACs out there already, which are close, like T+A and Playback Designs, etc, etc...  So I am not sure it would be a wise move to invest a ton of $$ into.

Maybe open a crowdfunding campaign? If you hit the targets, go ahead with the project. That would be fun. :)

1. WiiM Pro - Mola Mola Makua - Apollon NCx500+SS2590 - March Audio Sointuva AWG

2. LG 77C1 - Marantz SR7005 - Apollon NC502MP+NC252MP - Monitor Audio PL100+PLC150+C265 - SVS SB-3000

3. PC - RME ADI-2 DAC FS - Neumann KH 80 DSP

4. Phone - Tanchjim Space - Truthear Zero Red

5. PC - Keysion ES2981 - Truthear Zero Red

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Interested in learning more.

There are many people using a single “Xfinity” supplied modem / router / switch to run their entire house and audio systems. Plus, some people get curious/dangerous and use creative networking with bridges, loops, and unnecessary configuration pretzeling. It all amounts to trouble. 
 

Getting a “real” network designed by someone who knows what s/he is doing, or educating oneself on the topic can go a very long way. 
 

I should start keeping track of the messed up things I see (no blame though, people just don’t know what to do). I’d soon have a list like this one -

 

https://structuretech1.com/home-inspection-photo-gallery/

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
2 hours ago, barrows said:

Source and cable still matters, why would it not?  This is no indication of there being anything "wrong" with USB as an interface. In fact, USB is the best digital interface we currently have for audio, yes, some USB inputs are better than others, as is the case with any input.

SPDIF: cables matter

Analog inputs: cables matter

Ethernet inputs: apparently, cables matter

 

just like any input, it can be done well, or not, thta is up the engineering.  But there is nothing inherently wrong with USB.

I think that it is ironic that by utilizing computers, or mini-computers: people somehow think that they are getting better sound for cheaper: hardware is no longer important, and good sound has "advanced" for a much much cheaper price.

It's almost as if power supplies no longer matter, pre-amps don't matter, cheap-ass resistors with huge variances don't matter.....

 

It's like the analogy of disc transports: where-in, because of software/firmware correction, Plextor transports (designed for another application), are fine, there's no need for VRDS Neo, - they all sound the same: error correction fixes it all. But when it's actually tested and compared, - reality emerges.

 

the fact is that Schiit products sound EXACTLY like their parts employed, and just like every other $2000 DAC when compared to a SOtA DAC like a Meitner, they fit right into where they belong, - in an upper mid-end to low hi-end scheme with other $2000 speakers amps, and MacMinis and Dell Optiplexs. They NEVER belong with Verity/Wilson/Kharma & LAMM/VAC/Nagra etc. 

 

An un-treated USB signal coming from a Dell Optiplex USB bus, or a MacMini USB bus designed for printers, mice, (two way comms) etc., - sucks for high quality 4K video and high performance audio. This was not only proven by high performance audio manufacturers, - but by computer industry manufacturers.... Look at products by Intona, EMO Systems, and Icron.

With folks who think that they are getting something for nothing, - it's no wonder that manufacturers punt. There is a huge difference in the USB stream coming from MacMini vs a Sonore Signature Rendu. And if I was a manufacturer like Ed Meitner, - I"d NEVER put an USB B input on any of my DACs. 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

There are many people using a single “Xfinity” supplied modem / router / switch to run their entire house and audio systems. Plus, some people get curious/dangerous and use creative networking with bridges, loops, and unnecessary configuration pretzeling. It all amounts to trouble. 
 

Getting a “real” network designed by someone who knows what s/he is doing, or educating oneself on the topic can go a very long way. 
 

I should start keeping track of the messed up things I see (no blame though, people just don’t know what to do). I’d soon have a list like this one -

 

https://structuretech1.com/home-inspection-photo-gallery/

 

I think on the flip side, certain companies *cough*Roon*cough* need to recognize that, just maybe, there is a chance there software has a bug and the problem isn't ALWAYS the customers network.

 

They literally stopped helping me find a solution to my problem when we ruled out all the network possibilities.

 

It pissed me off so much I am considering sending them the bill for the i9 sonic transporter as the workaround to their problem introduced with the latest update.

No electron left behind.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...