Popular Post Superdad Posted July 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted July 10, 2020 48 minutes ago, asdf1000 said: I’ve struggled to find them but like you, I use many USB2 cables with ferrites built-in I've tried ferrets on my cables but they made the sound stink. kennyb123, asdf1000, sandyk and 2 others 1 4 UpTone Audio LLC Link to comment
R1200CL Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 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
Popular Post barrows Posted July 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted July 10, 2020 41 minutes ago, R1200CL said: 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 ? 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. R1200CL, Superdad, Qhwoeprktiyns and 1 other 1 2 1 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 | opticalRendu | ultraRendu | microRendu | Signature Rendu SE | Accessories | Software | Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted July 10, 2020 Author Share Posted July 10, 2020 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. Superdad 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Jud Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 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. asdf1000 1 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
Jud Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 59 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: I say people need to get real networks, rather than run from Ethernet. Interested in learning more. 4est 1 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
Qhwoeprktiyns Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 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
barrows Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 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. matthias 1 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 | opticalRendu | ultraRendu | microRendu | Signature Rendu SE | Accessories | Software | Link to comment
Qhwoeprktiyns Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 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? sandyk 1 Link to comment
matthias Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 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
barrows Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 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 | opticalRendu | ultraRendu | microRendu | Signature Rendu SE | Accessories | Software | Link to comment
Miska Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 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
R1200CL Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 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
Miska Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 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
R1200CL Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 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
Popular Post barrows Posted July 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted July 10, 2020 6 minutes ago, R1200CL said: 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. 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. Jussi, I just do not consider multi channel a viable thing for commercial high end audio products. there is so little interest in it in the high end, that it is a niche I would avoid. Not that I never appreciate a really good MC set up, with a few titles... It is just not very viable commercially or domestically. R1200CL, Albrecht, motberg and 1 other 2 2 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 | opticalRendu | ultraRendu | microRendu | Signature Rendu SE | Accessories | Software | Link to comment
Qhwoeprktiyns Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 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
matthias Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 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 asdf1000 1 "I want to know why the musicians are on stage, not where". (John Farlowe) Link to comment
Miska Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 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. barrows 1 Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers Link to comment
R1200CL Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 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 ? ssh 1 Link to comment
barrows Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 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 $$ into. Jud 1 SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers. ISOAcoustics Oreas footers. SONORE computer audio | opticalRendu | ultraRendu | microRendu | Signature Rendu SE | Accessories | Software | Link to comment
Matias Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 29 minutes ago, barrows said: impossible to predict due to development costs, and engineering time. My goal would be to have it be reasonable, as I have no interest in making 5 figure DACs. This would be for DSD 256 input and above only, no PCM, US made, I would like to target $7K or less, hopefully... But remember this approach is all about less features: single input only, designed for oversampling in software, etc. Sales would be somewhat limited, as this is special use case product, so development costs would only be spread over a handful of units. No DAC chip, my preference would be for discrete DSD conversion stage, running at a high rate of DSD. the exact topology of this conversion stage would be TBD, I have a heard a few different discrete DSD DACs here, and some of these approaches have some "problems" which would need to be ironed out. Existing manufacturers want to build their own products, as well they should, and are unlikely to build something that few folks on the Internet want. So this would require serious backing, and at least a year long development cycle, probably hiring at least two really sharp engineers-doing something like this is not simple, especially doing it right. And there are plenty of good DACs out there already, which are close, like T+A and Playback Designs, etc, etc... So I am not sure it would be a wise move to invest a ton of $$ 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
The Computer Audiophile Posted July 10, 2020 Author Share Posted July 10, 2020 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 Link to comment
Albrecht Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 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
AudioDoctor Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 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. Albrecht 1 No electron left behind. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now