|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.5.6.183
In an email "interview" with Dave Clark of Positive Feedback, Charles Hansen said Ayre has a new USB DAC using Gordon Rankin's USB driver firmware.
Charles, can you disclose at this time your expected release date and approximate price?
Will the DAC have any input besides USB?
Remote control phase toggle? Remote control volume?
Thanks!
Follow Ups:
Have been looking forward to your DAC- though still torn between transistors and tubes (normally an easy choice for me but my system needs a real electric kick-in-the-butt source component).
Will there be ANY way to tailor the output level of the DAC (jumpers, something at the factory)? My preamp can have a hard time getting levels right.
Also, if you ever DID offer the DAC with an Ayre quality volume control I would be one of the first customers- It's 2009- other than a turntable (OK that's a really big thing) what other analog components justify a preamp anymore? The setup of laptop - DAC / pre - power amp is so much simpler.
Thanks,
If you want to reduce the number of boxes, get an integrated amp. That is the optimal solution to that problem.
Putting the DAC into the same box as the preamp (with a volume control) is bad because now all the analog sources get pollution from the RFI generated by the high speed clocks required to make digital work.
I don't know why your setup would be so sensitive to the output level of the DAC. Our circuit has the gain set with one resistor per channel. On our preamps we put that into a terminal block so that the customer can change it with only a screwdriver. The DAC would require soldering. We would much rather that you have us do it at the factory, as doing it yourself would potentially void the warranty.
If you want a specific output level, just place the order that way and we will do it for no charge. If you want to change the output level later, we will have to charge you for that.
Maybe it will just match up great out of the box and that will be it. Thanks for responding to so many questions- clearly people here are psyched up about this product.
> > Charles, can you disclose at this time your expected release date and approximate price? < <
We are working hard to finish up all of the last minute details. It will look a bit different than the prototype we had at CES -- a bit lower and sleeker, with a larger "window" for the display. We are also trying out a new analog circuit just to see how that sounds compared to the prototype that had something similar to the CX-7e circuit.
I would say two more weeks to nail down everything. Then we drop the checkered flag to say "Go!" and it takes a minimum of eight more weeks after that to have the custom chassis made, get the empty PCB's made, stuff them, assemble the units, test them, burn them in, et cetera. So that would put us into early March before they are actually in the showrooms.
We usually don't know the price until about two weeks before we ship them. The biggest unknown is the labor cost to stuff the PCB's. That's why we're saying "under $2500".
Only a USB input. All other digital inputs are, unfortunately, broken. They unnecessarily add jitter (and expense). In this case we are building a single purpose, high performance machine that will be reasonably priced. It will be perhaps the best way to get the music out of your computer for under $10,000.
None of our equipment has a polarity switch. The only place where it makes sense is a preamp, because that is the only place that you can change all of your sources. Unfortunately, changing polarity in the analog domain without degrading the performance is extremely expensive. And the last time that I did a test, I played about a dozen different discs and they all sounded better with the correct absolute polarity. So I'm not personally a fan of the feature myself. Our goal is to build killer sounding stuff that is easy to use. Sit down, press "Play" and relax. YMMV. We can't be all things to all people.
Same thing with a volume control. If you want to save money, the volume control should be combined with the amp to make an integrated. Then you can add all the sources you want. A good volume control isn't cheap, and adding one to this product would probably drive the cost up 50%. We'll lose 10% of potential sales because some people want a single-source system, but that's better than losing 50% of potential sales because someone is paying through the nose for a killer volume control that they don't need.
Hope this helps.
Darn. I was hoping for the C-5xe analogue circuit for the USB DAC :)
Are both CX-7e and C-5xe analogue output stages both similar, hopefully using discrete devices and not op-amps?
I think what Charles wrote was that the prototype at CES had the analog output circuit from the CX-7e, but that they are trying an alternative (for a sonic benefit, I'm sure). Perhaps a discrete circuit like that in the C-5xe, or something new (Charlie & Co. are always inventing better mousetraps).
nt
Hey Charles,
When the chip that does 192/24 becomes available from TI, and after Gordon writes the async code for it - hopefully sometimes this year - will you be able to offer it to existing customers as an upgrade for the already purchased DAC? Or will it have to be included in a totally new product? That is the question.
Thanks!
As Gordon has pointed out, support for 192/24 is limited by two factors -- the current firmware in the USB receiver chip and also the support by the operating system.
Only a Mac will currently support 192/24 via USB with the native operating system, not Windows and not Linux. Adding that support requires writing specialized device drivers, and that is a nightmare that we don't want to enter.
The other side of the coin is the USB receiver chip. It's not clear to me if Gordon will be able to figure out some clever way to get the TI part to do something that it wasn't intended. If so, only a firmware update would be required. If a hardware change is necessary to get 192/24 support, the Ayre (and I believe the Wavelegths, too) are modular. The USB receiver is on its own daughterboard and can be replaced separately if that's what it takes.
Keep in mind that there is barely any 44/16 available for download right now. HD Tracks has some 96/24 files. But the only software beyond that that I've heard about is the Reference Recordings 176.4 kHz stuff. So far I think that is still vaporware. I'm not sure that I would base my buying decision on vaporware from one tiny label.
On the other hand perhaps you are intending on digitizing all of your vinyl collection. In that case it would make sense to go to as high a resolution as possible. But then you have the other problem of finding a good 192/24 A/D converter that doesn't cost $10,000.....
for a few more years!
> > > Keep in mind that there is barely any 44/16 available for download right now. HD Tracks has some 96/24 files.
I checked out HD Tracks and they don't have more than a few hundred hi-rez titles. I was starting to imagine playing hi-rez thru a relatively affordable system but that potential reality seems far off. And can we count on the labels f**king it up for audiophiles?
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about . . . More at hand, I look forward to getting the MP upgrade. I hope you are well.
I'm with you. I don't really want a computer in my living room. But a USB DAC would be killer as the heart of a nice desktop system (possibly with headphones) for music while working at the computer.
And the MP upgrade? Ah, you'll like that one!
I'm doing as well as can be expected. Thanks for asking!
Roman,
TI has frozen all new development. That really did not surprise us and we have plans of deciding on the only two remaining platforms capable of Class 2.0 USB and therefore 24/192.
The big problem though is Windows. Windows only supports Class 1.0 Audio which limits it to 24/96. MAC OSX 10.5.x does have native Class 2.0 support to xxx/xxx that's right it's totally open to above 24/192 in both bit depth and frequency.
Charlie and I have decided we will probably do what is called as an Alternative Enumeration.
This allows the device with operating systems that support Class 2.0 to work at the higher rates.
But if the OS does not then it merely uses the "Alternative" setting for Class 1.0 support.
When Windows get's Class 2.0 then it will work at the higher rates.
Thanks
Gordon
J. Gordon Rankin
Hello Gordon,
I have been dragging my heels on one of your products for that reason. Do you think Windows would do a simple upgrade in Vista or would it have to be in their next operating system?
Thanks.
Sparky,
I was told that there is no immediate plans for Class 2.0 support.But it is on the too do list.
I could write drivers but really don't have the time nor the motivation.
The way Charlie and I did this will allow for native use when ever the Class 2.0 drivers become available on Windows.
From what I heard there is really no difference in 7 and Vista as far as USB and Audio is concerned.
But Sparky I am not sure why you are dragging your heels all of my current stuff as well as the Ayre works fine with Windows now.
Thanks
Gordon
J. Gordon Rankin
> > > I would say two more weeks to nail down everything. Then we drop the checkered flag to say "Go!" and it takes a minimum of eight more weeks after that to have the custom chassis made, get the empty PCB's made, stuff them, assemble the units, test them, burn them in, et cetera. So that would put us into early March before they are actually in the showrooms. < < <
2 more weeks = middle of Feb. + 8 weeks = middle of April.
> > > Only a USB input. < < <
rules me out.
Bye-bye.
Jack
I'm sure that we will make a DAC product eventually with more types of inputs. But it will cost at least double what the QB-9 costs. Plus the S/PDIF inputs will never sound as good as the USB input, simply because it is literally impossible to achieve the same low levels of jitter. (But maybe they will be good enough for your intended application.)
Remember, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Any chance of a cd transport using usb as digital link to outboard dac? Could possibly provide better sound to those who don't want to use computer. Thought that I2S link was supposed to be virtually jitter free?
thanks
barondla
> > Any chance of a cd transport using usb as digital link to outboard dac? < <
Technically, now that we have the license to use Wavelength's "asynchronous" USB transmission mode, it would be fairly easy to make such a beast. I might only add $500 or so to the cost of a player, which isn't too bad.
The only question is why in world anybody would want such a thing?
If you have your music stored on your computer, why wouldn't you just pop the disc in the computer's ROM drive and rip it? Why would you also want a stand-alone CD player?
I'm sure that there are some answers to these questions, but I just don't think that the market for such a hybrid machine would be very large. Just my thoughts, maybe I'm missing something....
I still listen to my CX-7e cd player - but just not as much since building a server. It is still nice just to put a disk on when it comes in the mail from amazon and my wife will only use the cd player. Never forget the wife factor. (the cd player still sounds better than the server (( for now)))
I cant wait for your new dac - keep up the good work!!
Cheers
Not a computer genius. The work involved to rip cds to computer and getting it to work is mind numbing to me. Don't really want extra computer in listening screen along with screens etc. Sometimes friend brings cds over for a listen. I do the same at his place. Can't imagine ripping something just to see if I like it. Seems like more trouble than using my Linn turntable. Lots of transports and dacs are still available. Thought this maight be a way to improve their sound in the future.
Maybe I misunderstood the new PS Audio transport & dac. Thought it was designed to play cds or act as "hard drive" storage , which ever user wants at the time.
thanks
barondla
I still say that the computer audio craze will be killed when somebody makes a unit that offers the ease of use of a CD player with the powerful playing options of a computer.
The closest thing to that is the Olive music server. It does pretty much exactly what you want. The only two problem with it are that the display is wretchedly bad, so that the user interface is nearly unusable and that the sound quality, while good for the money, is not competitive with the better high-end offerings.
Still it may be worth investigating. Their entry level player is only around $1,500 or so. I have one of their older models (the one reviewed in the link below), but I never use it because it is easier just to use a CD player, plus our players sound better than it does.
A product that is much more usable to audiophiles, if PC audio is going to grow past being a small, cultish fraction of small niche hobby. Lets face it, a quick scan of the PC audio forum here shows how tweaky and buggy it is right now. Personally, I have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with that sort of thing. For those that do, great, but I suspect I'm not alone..
At least, Olive has the right idea-make a dead quiet hard drive, prepackaged with decent software, the data base, and digital out(s). Perhaps Meridian or someone else will come up with something.
JackPS. Olive has improved its interface considerably since that review, and the remote works just fine.
Edits: 01/31/09
Concur. It's just too much trouble with performance that's, at best, inconsistent. Two things need to happen imo, Olive type units with owner swappable hard drives that have the analogue performance of today's similarly priced CDPs and content providers putting out non-esoteric music at something other than 44.1/16 (imo, that's not going to happen in the next five years as in the current economic client I just don't see studio going back to remaster significant portions of their catalogs for high end use. I don't think I'm alone judging by the number of new CDPs introduced at CES).
Personally, I find it more than a little paradoxical that the same people who complain that putting a CD into a player is too much work then turn around and go gaga over a music server that requires configuration and hours upon hours of ripping and tagging music.
"Personally, I find it more than a little paradoxical that the same people who complain that putting a CD into a player is too much work then turn around and go gaga over a music server that requires configuration and hours upon hours of ripping and tagging music."Not only that, but with this "flavor of the month" mentality in today's high-end audio community, my fear in going music server is doing all that work, then several months later, realizing that I'm not getting the satisfaction that I thought I was going to get..... (I also realize that ripped files vary sonically, and the prospect of spending hours upon hours "re-ripping" files to improve playback quality..... ) This, along with my RFI-o-phobia, has made computer audio for me best served enjoying it while actually using the computer (watching YouTube, sites with multimedia, loading the iPod, burning CDs, etc.), but not as the primary digital audio source to be tied to an audio system.
Edits: 02/01/09
It's you, and people like you that are "a small, cultish fraction of small niche hobby". That's why we are clustered here on AA.
The formerly much vaunted "convergence" has occurred but many folks missed it because it didn't happen exactly as predicted. Technically there just isn't any fundamental difference between using a dedicated fixed appliance, a general purpose computer or a small portable unit to listen to recorded music. It boils down to industrial design and implementation. The latter controls how good they sound, the former, how good they look and ease of operation.
Look at any of the AA fora, to an audio epicure everything is "tweaky and buggy", absolutely nothing reliably delivers the good. That's why the hobby even exists! If you think about it, the audiophile of today frets over quite different things than the audiophile of old. The one constant is that we are still fussy about, or unusually sensitive to sound quality. But the factors that limit it are in constant flux.
The fact that you aren't interested in using a GP computer for audio doesn't reflect at all upon the merits of doing so. It merely says something about you. Namely that you prefer a slightly different form factor and are old enough to drink. I bet very few failing the latter test would agree with you.
Regards, Rick
I, for one, don't get it.
Do you leave your computer running 24/7 in case you want to listen to music? Or when you decide that some tunes would be nice, then do you turn on your computer and wait 4 minutes for it to boot (that's Windows, maybe Macs are faster, I don't know)?
And hard drive *always* fail, it's just a question of when. So you *have* to either back them up or else live with the specter of losing all your music (or re-ripping your entire collection -- I don't know which would be worse).
Would *anybody* have ever have bought a CD player if it took 4 minutes to turn on and that at any moment it might magically erase all of your CD's at once?
I don't see how anyone can say that a PC for music isn't "tweaky". To me it's far, far tweakier than , oh, a turntable...
Like I said before, it's nice to have *all* of you music available at a touch. And to be able to sort by genre and create playlists and so on -- it's all great. I just think that a lot more people will listen to music that way when someone make a box that does all that but doesn't take 4 minutes to boot and comes with redundant hard drives and transparent auto-backup.
Oh, and let's not forget the tagging nightmare. It's fine if all you do is download the top pop songs from iTunes or Amazon. But if you want to rip some obscure disc, especially classical, you'll spend more time tagging the damn thing than listening to it. The problem was that the people who invented tagging schemes didn't listen to classical music. So all of the big databases are next to useless for classical.
(By the way, the same problem existed before the advent computers. Go back into a Stereophile from the '60s or '70s and you'll see plenty of ads for systems of stickers and folders to help you organize your classical music....)
I didn't say that computers weren't tweaky, rather that everything else is also at the "audiophile level". Naturally I know that you know that.
While I agree with your comments, they are just symptoms of a paradigm shift and the pain involved in moving data between media. I feel it intensely, I didn't get all my slides and negatives done before my scanner died, I still haven't done my records. The CD to HD transition is nothing compared with those. So while I'm not there yet, I know where I'm going and that will be some form of NAS from which all my music, pictures and other data will be served to everything else in the house.
The boot time concern is specious, even my slowest computer restores from hibernation in seconds and the back-up and archive issues are far better addressed with a NAS and an offsite archive than relying upon physical media subject to theft, fire and flooding and, in the case of records and tapes, wear and aging.
Assuming we don't do the recording, I'm convinced that soon the audiophile part of our systems will only extend from ethernet to the speakers and room. The mere fact that you are introducing a DAC suggests to me that you also know where things are heading and realize the it's the high performance implementation that we either pay for or invest the time and effort to do ourselves, not the architecture. If you aren't already at work on your own "high end squeezebox" you probably should be.
GP computers will likely remain the best tool for managing our audio (and other) data for the foreseeable future, and I imagine that we will continue to listen to our music through them if we are at them doing something else anyway. For now, if I'm at my computer and want to listen to a CD, I stick it in one of the drives and listen to it, it's really easy. And if I do rip, I don't tag. Maybe I should, but just having the composer and work in the filename seems adequate.
Regards, Rick
For the computer-literate, it all makes sense. For those who didn't grow up in that era, it is rather daunting.
I remember when I had to get a computer to design crossover networks at Avalon in 1987 or so. I spent a month studying all of the magazines. I had to read them all three or four times before things started to make sense. And I was both smart and motivated. Even then I remember thinking "What in the hell is a BIOS?" They used the term a lot, but never explained what it even stood for, let alone meant. There wasn't an internet back then, so I couldn't just go online to acronymfinder.com!
We have about 20 people in our factory. About half of them use a computer on a regular basis. The rest barely know how to turn one on. Of the ones who use one, less than half could set one up from scratch. Of those, maybe half could solve problems if they occurred.
Whenever I go to a friend's house that needs help with their computer, it is pretty horrifying. They bought a system with much of the software pre-loaded. Then they added a few programs. After that entropy takes over. It eventually becomes a quagmire of disorganized files and directories and unused programs. Even if they buy a new computer and start over, they don't know how to transfer the files from the old computer to the new one.
Of the audiophile population, the rate of computer literacy is surely higher than average. But it still isn't anything like 100%. And there are still vast swaths of the country that only have dial-up. It will be a while before computers are the dominant way to listen to music. Obviously the iPod is the biggest force in changing that.
Which leads us to our USB DAC. If you've already got your music on a computer, that is the easiest way to get it off with high sound quality.
My WXP computer is on standby 24/7. Time to come back alive is under 10 seconds. This time is saved in locating the first disk to play.
The storage space for one CD is around 400 MB (flac encoded). For $100 one can by a 1 TB drive, which will store 2500 CDs. Double that cost to allow for backups. Software, such as 2BrightSparks, makes it convenient to keep the disks backed up. You can do this periodically or after adding new albums. Storing CDs on hard drive takes less space and money than storing the physical disks on shelves.
Tagging is a non-issue. It isn't necessary. But neither is keeping your physical CDs in order. If you have a large collection, some amount of effort is needed to keep your library in order. With computer audio this is a one time effort.
It is far easier to listen to one's musical collection with a computer based system, once it has been set up. There are two limiting problems:
1-computer knowledge/experience
2-physical location (office/living room issues and related noise questions)
Network approaches can probably address these two issues and make computer audio mainstream.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Agree with all of your points, inluding "There are two limiting problems:".
That plus the noise from the switching power supplies on all computers necessitates extra measures of AC noise filtration for the best sound quality.
And many people set up wireless networks that broadcast RFI onto every piece of wire in your house. I don't know of any cure for that.
Even computers without fans have spinning hard drives. The power supplies create RF noise, but so do the digital circuits.
Computers are a line of demarcation between music lovers and audiophiles. While it might be possible to make a computer that did not limit the audio performance from its RF noise emissions, to my knowledge this has not been done.
Another problem with computers as audio servers is the rapid evolution of operating systems. As soon as one gets stable enough to be useful, the designers are hatching a new, improved one. Moore's Law has to crash before we can get OS designers to stop adding 'features.'
"There are no quiet computers. The power supplies create RF noise, but so do the digital circuits."
And are the digital circuits in your CDP or DAC somehow so magically different that they produce no digital noise? Come on!
There are people in the Computer Audio forum using fanless computers that run off linear (non-switching) power supplies and 100% quiet solid-state disk. If you choose to use noisy spinning hard drives, they do not have to be located near the computer and the computer system itself doesn't even have to be located in your listening room, so the point is moot.
We can discuss all the "theoretical nasties" of a computer based music system until we're blue in the face but the proof is in the listening. I am happy to report that my simple music server is sounding pretty darn good compared to my traditional non-computer based setup.
So while you and others ponder all the theoretical reasons to sit on your hands and poo poo computer based systems, some of us are breaking new ground and having a blast along the way.
Enjoy your theorizing (hopefully in your Faraday cage), while I enjoy my computer based music!
And all computers are cesspools of noise, no matter what they are made of.
Enjoy your wallow.
"Tweaky and buggy" no, tweakable YES. I had my music server set up in no time. It worked great the very first day. The past few weeks have been spent experimenting with tweaks (DAC) to improve the sound quality, not due to any bugs.
"do you turn on your computer and wait 4 minutes for it to boot"
This is a non-issue. I just timed my Mac Mini. It took all of 40-seconds to boot from a cold fully powered down state. But who would do such a silly thing anyway? Just leave it powered up and let it go into "sleep mode" after an hour of inactivity. From "sleep mode", it comes right back up in a second. Same thing for a Windows PC, don't power it down completely.
"I just think that a lot more people will listen to music that way when someone make a box that does all that but doesn't take 4 minutes to boot and comes with redundant hard drives and transparent auto-backup."
There's little magic to it. Anyone can build one, commercially or at home.
Mirroring disks is so easy to do and there are PC's on the market that already include this feature. Good automated backup software can be had for $50 to free. On top of that we are seeing Solid-State Disk (SSD) prices plummet to the point where noisy spinning rust disks will soon be obsolete. Well, maybe in a couple years. A good 250GB SSD can be had today for under $500 retail, chump change to many audiophiles.
PC audio IS ALREADY main stream. I bet there are many users under the age of say 25 who have never bought a CD or a CD player and never intend to.
The day after Thanksgiving, I came home that night and found my mac mini hard drive had crashed. It was in sleep mode. All gone, and I wasn't even being silly!
Love your confidence. "Anyone can build one."
Really?
"If people don't want to come, nothing will stop them" - Sol Hurok
Like I said in my previous post, it's easy to mirror the disks so if one crashes the other is still good with your music content. You then replace the crashed disk and it automatically gets "rebuilt" from the other one. You can also run backup software. The software pieces to do this is built-in on the Mac, you just have to use it.
Yes, anyone can build a music server. Heck, you don't even have to "build it". All the components are already there, already on your computer, just waiting to be used.
As we speak I am in the middle of this thought process:
From what I understand the pros of Computer/Hard drive/DAC
You can make a perfect copy of the material...going round and round until you get perfect bit for bit copy...stored on hard drive
Hard drive space is pretty cheap...can easily add a backup disk...or several...and when solid state drives work perfectly and don't age so fast...no noise
If you listen contemporary music you have lots of neat ways to access the music easily/make play lists and have it play music for long time period
Easy to down load tunes....ideally HiRez from the internet
Some of the cons might be:
Will it provide the as good of a musical experience as is possible with the best CD players...not sure about that....I haven't heard it yet...and performing tweaks on the CD is still a benefit...whichever method you use
Hard drives do fail....as I understand it at this point SSD have limited life span...but doesn't everything...remember Murphy runs the world....so it will fail at some inconvenient point in time
Classical, Jazz and likely some other musical genres aren't well served by the current music access systems, iTunes, etc....I haven't been able to get Beatles covers into iTunes
Adding complexity to a hifi/analog system....will some of those components add noise to my system....remember most of these systems aren't engineered and tested and debugged for top performance with way a CD player is..
Not sure how I would deal with SACD playback....not that I personally do it now
Is there still potential for jitter/clock error/timing issues if I have a Mac computer...Billy Bob's hard drive and a DAC from another party
So, do I replace my D1-xe with next gen player....which still may or may not handle CDs or go to computer music replay....to get the very best of sound in my analog/2 channel portion of my system....and which unit would that be...sounds like Ayre and Wadia would be in the running....or do I add another Mac to my collection...rip my CDs....use a DAC...and hope iTunes gets better....and they find easier ways to deal with Classical/Jazz material....I am open to all the education I can get on this matter
So far, I am very pleased with the audio quality I'm getting from the Mac Mini, iTunes, and Apogee Mini-DAC Firewire, as a replacement for my Accuphase DP-65v CD player. And the music server makes it a lot more convenient being able to play any album or song at will, w/o having to swap a CD in and out of a CD player tray.
You can have both. You don't have to give up your CD player to experiment with a music server. Set up a music server and see for yourself comparing against your existing CDP. If you like what you hear, then consider replacing the CDP, or just keep both.
It's pretty easy setting up a music server, especially with the Mac. I'm new to this and just started down this path a couple months ago.
I have a local friend who is very active as an audiophile who recently sold his Marantz SA-7S1 AND his Cary 306 SACD pro:
Each of these players are in the $6000 - $8000 USD range. He now uses a Mac and iTunes with the Apogee Mini-DAC very similar to my setup.
Sure, there are some advantages and disadvantages to running a music server but believe me, it's a load of fun setting it up and there are measures you can take to protect your music collection from a disk crash, like keeping a backup copy to another disk, or setting up mirrored disks.
I'm glad you're having loads of fun.
We need more pioneers like you to lead the rest of us to the land of hope and glory.
"If people don't want to come, nothing will stop them" - Sol Hurok
I2S is a huge improvement over S/PDIF. The master clock is in a separate line instead of being jumbled together with a bunch of other stuff.
But now you have a completely non-standard system. It will only work with a particular manufacturer's transport.
If you want to do go that route, you are much better off to put the master audio clock in the DAC box and send the signal *upstream* to the transport. This is what Linn did with the Karik/Numerik in the early '90s and Wadia did later with their "ClockLink" two-cable system.
Sending the master clock down a length of cable will always have more jitter than putting it 1" away from the DAC chip. This is why different cables sound different for a normal S/PDIF connection.
Bottom line -- I2S is better than S/PDIF, but not as good as a "ClockLink" type of scheme. (Assuming that all else is equal.)
I had one of your V-3 amps (original version) for years. Nice amp. Warm.
A USB only DAC will be limited to mostly DIYers.
Enjoy,
Jack
What is your setup like?I would assume that if you are using your computer for audio that it would be the main source. Then the need for S/PDIF inputs would be limited to non-critical listening such as a DVD player for watching movies.
You could buy a good USB DAC for the critical listening and a cheap (possibly used) DAC for the non-critical listening. An extra box, yes, but possibly the most cost-effective route at this time.
When we eventually make a DAC with S/PDIF inputs it will probably be somewhat expensive. The problem with S/PDIF is that there isn't any clever way to get it to sound good. Instead, you just have to throw money at it. The more money you throw, the better it sounds.
Probably the best sounding S/PDIF input DAC was the Levinson piece with the "Intelligent FIFO". It wouldn't be that hard to make something similar nowadays, but it still wouldn't sound as good as a solution where a fixed-frequency master audio clock is in the DAC, a few inches away from the DAC chip itself.
Edits: 01/30/09
Jack,
On most MAC computers is an SPDIF input. The output can always be the same and use the USB as the audio output device.
For example the following:
Mac Mini-> USB DAC-> Stereo System.
Inputs to the MAC Mini:
SPDIF from say a receiver or such.
Cable TV into Elgato Cable to USB convertor (i.e DRV, Cable programming).
USB Phono :)))) I had to throw this in for Charlie
Video out of the Mac MINI DVR into Flat panel.
You can now use this for everything, Music, Video, DVD, DVR, Phono, Cable, Stream Audio/Video and Music Library as well as SPDIF.
Thanks
Gordon
J. Gordon Rankin
If the Mac Mini will take an S/PDIF input (which is streaming in) and turn it into a USB output (that is fed out asynchronously as requested by the DAC), it seems to me that the computer must be buffering the data. This would lead to a latency that may or may not cause problems, especially with video.
Am I missing something here? If not, do you have any idea what the latency is?
Hello Charlie,
I'm wondering if you ever received and answer for this question you posed regarding S/PDIF input to USB output latency on a Mac (mini or otherwise)?
I'm currently considering a USB only DAC (with the Ayre certainly being one of my choices!) but am concerned about this since I'll need S/PDIF playback capability (mainly since Apple still hasn't included Blu-ray playback on the Mac, so I'll need to run Blu-ray via SPDIF out either the DAC directly or to SPDIF inputs on the Mac which then somehow are routed to the USB out.
BTW, Thanks again for all you've contributed to the high-end audio world. I've been one of your earlier adopters (original (Avalon) Eclipse speakers and some other Ayre gear later).
Thanks for your thoughts or pointers to whether this latency issue will be a problem for video.
-Bob
For my digital source,I'm using an Olive server with 1TB hard drive. I'm bypassing the internal dacs, and at the moment and feeding a cullen modded PS DLIII WAV files. Strictly RCA out. The main reason I'm using an Olive, is that my house isn't networked, and the Olive comes with its own data base. It may not be SOTA, but its certainly better than most CD players out there.
Jack
EDIT: I know $tereophile didn't care for it when they used its internal dacs, but they liked the sound with the Benchmark.
Edits: 01/30/09
If you are using the Olive's S/PDIF output, why do you want a USB input?
I don't recall saying I did.
Jack
OK, now I get it. The topic was our new USB DAC. But you just want a plain old DAC.
I'll keep thinking about it. I really, really wish there were a magic bullet. Maybe I'll figure it out....
I use the other input for my dish network receiver. Even a bad sounding input is better than the TV speakers!
Cheers
> > I use the other input for my dish network receiver. Even a bad sounding input is better than the TV speakers! < <
We could add an ordinary sounding S/PDIF input for not a lot of money. A Crystal receiver chip is only about $10. But the problem is that we built our reputation on making gear that sounds great.
So if someone bought that and then hooked up a nice CD transport to it expecting great sound, they would probably be disappointed.
A lot of companies are "solving" this problem by putting ASRC (Asynchronous Sample Rate Converters) on the S/PDIF input. It then measures quite well. But the sonics of such a solution are controversial.
I really wish that we had a "magic bullet" for this situation. Currently the only way to get good sound from S/PDIF is to throw money at it....
There's no chance this unit will be in the L-5xe form factor then?
No, there isn't any reason to put this thing in a full-width chassis. It would be 90% empty if we did. A lot of people will want to use this in a desktop system. We will probably make a matching headphone amp at some point, and possibly some other half-width companion pieces.
"Only a USB input. All other digital inputs are, unfortunately, broken. They unnecessarily add jitter (and expense)."
Yep. Every method out there for digital transmission, except USB done correctly, is broken.
Properly done Firewire is fine as far as jitter performance. The problems are limited hardware support and special device driver requirements.
Ethernet can also work well as far as jitter. The problem is that a dedicated music player program must be used. There are a lot of people making hardware mods for the Squeezebox players. I haven't yet seen anyone making a better after-market software package for the Linn Ethernet DAC....
I was/am considering the Linn Klimax DS.It does sound great,but the software interface for what I want the DS to do is still far away. It allows you to use an Itouch to control it with full access plus album art on the Itouch, but I have grown to like the computer screen as well in my listening room with the album art and play lists, etc. (I use a fully customized Foobar).
This is why I keep wavering back and for to the Wavelength Crimson or the Linn Klimax DS.
The only technical advantage the Linn has is that it is 192/24 capable. However, Gordon is working on a solution for that for USB. (It won't work with Windows until they release new 2.0 drivers.)
The advantage of the Wavelength is that you get to choose your software. Plus it is cheaper. Much, much cheaper! You can buy a lot of music with the difference in price.
Sonically, you will have to judge for yourself. I haven't heard either product.
You are right, but at some point you may lose the advantage of doing the processing outside of the computer, if the circuit starts demanding switching supplies and starts generating too much EMI/RFI. I am not sure if ethernet has as little demand on a circuit as USB does.
USB actually requires more host processing power than ethernet cards that use TCP offload engines. In other words, the processing is done on-card rather than by the host computer.
Similarly, USB requires more host processing in general than Firewire that has dedicated hardware support.
Sorry...missed a question....how would I handle SACDs with your device and mac mini...is it possible??
Computer audio simply doesn't play well with SACD. You are basically SOL as far as that goes. That was part of the basic design of SACD -- they promised the record companies that a computer would never be able to play an SACD.
We almost put an SACD to PCM converter in the C-5xe to address this issue, but left it out due to cost and time constraints. It still would have only been a partial solution. Sony tried to brainwash everyone that there is something "evil" about PCM and that only "DSD" can give true musical satisfaction....
Charles,
I rather like your equipment...but I heard a demo of a Wavelength DAC...from whom I understand you are licensing some of their technology....it was played via a Mac mini/itunes...it sounded very nice....not sure it blew away my D1...but from what I could heard it seemed looser...less tight on the low end...could that be a result of wavelength's use of tubes to drive the output...into the preamp...I think it was into a K5 and V5....my goal is to replace the D1....and at this point it seems likely that top performance will come from a hard drive...and a great DAC.....have you A/B (I suspect you have) the wavelength device (retail was about $3K I think)...versus your dac with a mac mini....??
Our sales manager, Steve Silberman, has one of the Wavelength DACs at his house, but I have never heard it.
Any comparisons at this stage would be premature due to the fact that we haven't finalized all of the details. However, I think that some people are basically "tube fans" and others "solid-state fans". I can't imagine a tube love buying the Ayre gear or vice-versa, regardless of the model.
FYI, most media players on a PC have either an invert option or an invert plug-in...... (And I personally cannot distinguish polarity when listening to headphones.) So lack of such feature for a unit made for the PC is no biggie......
I believe Charles previously indicated that the Ayre USBDAC would be under $2500, and would be shipping early Q2.
http://blog.stereophile.com/ces2009/ayres_qb-9_usb_dac_revealed/
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: