|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.219.189.83
built into DAC. For standard audio I've typically leaned towards seperates.
Let's say, would the converter in a W4S DAC 2 be equal to the Halide Bridge? Or would I have to spend a lot more on the DAC?
I would not mind eliminating extra cable cost, if I went slightly higher than basic cabling
Follow Ups:
I own both the Halide Bridge and the W4S DAC2. Hands down the DAC2 sounds more open and uncongested with its built in USB vs the Halide Bridge.
That being said, I am using Stello U3 between my music server PC and a DAC which has no USB input.
As many will state, there are many steps from the binary file data and what comes out your speaker/headphone. All these steps make a difference in some way. Finding the bottleneck step in your system is the place to start.
If you have a favorite sounding DAC, then getting a "better" USB converter to access files that your old one won't use might help. The new USB systems in general are all worlds above the ubiquitous USB1 system. If you are ready to change DACs, then its easy to find good ones in most price categories containing a good enough USB.
An external USB -> S/PDIF converter still needs an S/PDIF receiver in the DAC. A USB receiver in the DAC does not need to go through the S/PDIF conversion and clock extraction process. Although many DACs actually DO use a USB to S/PDIF converter in the box and feed that into the S/PIF input.
A really good asynchronous USB input in the DAC is probably going to be better sounding than a really good external converter feeding the S/PDIF input on the DAC.
If the DAC has a crappy USB receiver you are better off using a GOOD external converter.
So how do you tell them apart? Look at the manufacturers specs first, check the sample rates supported by the S/PDIF and USB inputs. If the S/PDIF says it supports up to 192 and the USB only goes up to 48, you are probably better off with an external converter. If the spec says the USB input is asynch and goes up to 192 you probably have a good USB receiver and will be better off without an external converter. If the S/PDIF goes to 192 and the USB is asynch but only goes to 96, you have to decide if 192 is important to you. There are some very good asynch USB inputs that only go up to 96, if you don't need 192 support, USB directly into these can be a very good choice.
If none of these is definitive, look at the marketing literature, what does it focus on? If all it talks about is how good the S/PDIF input is and never talks about the USB input it's probably a good bet that the USB input was thrown in as an after thought and you will be better off using an external converter. If the marketing literature talks a lot about how good the USB input is, then you can probably assume the designers have done a good job with it and you probably don't need an external converter.
Of course the BEST way is to try both options yourself, but if you don't have that option the above might help steer you in the right direction.
John S.
.
"In this land right now, some are insane and they're in charge. To hell with poverty, we'll get drunk on cheap wine."
Focus in on getting yourself a good DAC, - or getting a great analog signal coming out....
As you have already intimated, we cannot help you with this. Sure, auditioning is very hard, but with a system as good as yours, you know that it's impossible to get it "right the first time." Even moreso in digital file playback, - which is far more in its infancy.
I don't know if you're looking for a Stello DA100 Signature at $900 or a Berkeley Systems at $6K. The Stello is a nice little DAC, warm, balanced, reasonably fast. But not ultra detailed, and very different from your Wadia. (At least as I heard your Wadia).
I would try the Stello, the Bryston, the Mytek, and the nuforce. Bet that you will like one of 'em.
Then, - get one of the external IF converters. I think that the HiFace is great cause you save a USB cable and it is cheap, and it sounds really good.
Good luck.
"In this land right now, some are insane and they're in charge. To hell with poverty, we'll get drunk on cheap wine."
If you are on a budget, just get a Metrum Octave DAC and a good external USB converter. Then you have the best clock and the best DAC for the money.
I wouldn't bet on that.
The Octave comes with
1. a rather "decent" SPDIF input stage.
2. needs 96+ resampled data for best sound (its funny to read the
marketing term NOS DAC, if you then need to resample outside that box
to get around NOS limitations.)
3. and doesn't even go 192khz.
I think it's wise to wait for Metrum V2.
Cheers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Squeezebox Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more ::: by soundcheck
and it looks very promising and w/ in my budget for sure. That and the Halide should be a match made in (somewhere close to) heaven.
Where would be the best place to purchase in the states?
Spend less on the DAC (Metrum Octave, buy direct for less than $750). Spend more on the USB converter, Empirical Audio Off Ramp 5, or wait for the Hot Rod.
Personally, I discounted any evaluation by anybody with little to no analog. This guy seems to have the experience I can trust. After you read his post check out his system.
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ddgtl&1327769923&openflup&25&4#25
Well , i've just received my Off Ramp 5 and it sounds great and is a considerable step up from the Off Ramp 4. (I had a borrowed one).
Analog guy. I've been suffering from "Digital Disinterest" but Nugent's OR5 has got me mostly over it. Even on 192/24 i've had difficulty maintaining concentration. (No difficulty with LP) But that's over now.
Here's a link to my sys: so you can see i'm credible.
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?vevol&1326243085
Suggest you try to get a well reviewed DAC that has I2S input, and OR5 and a SSD Win 7 laptop.
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?vevol&1326243085
Read Martin Collom's review from link in their website.
Pity is that it doesn't support 192k and so I'll wait.
Their web site directs US buyers to HiFiHeaven, who has it for @1,095.00. Still not a bad price if it's as good as they say.
I ordered from this page.
http://www.nosminidac.nl/How_to_order.html
When you listen to digital audio you are listening to a clock, just like you are listening to a turntable when you listen to an LP. The quality of this clock is more important than any other component involved in the conversion from digital to analog. (By "clock" I include the crystal, the associated oscillator and clock distribution circuitry and the power supply for all this associated circuitry.)
If a DAC includes a properly integrated async USB interface the clock involved will be local to the digital to analog conversion chip and the associated USB input circuitry will be clocked by this local clock. The USB input circuitry will have buffering circuits that reclock the signals sent over USB. As a result there won't be any direct coupling from the USB cable and the clock that runs the D/A chip. If a DAC accepts SPDIF the DAC will be forced to run on the clock provided by the SPDIF source. Unless this clock is very high quality and run by a very low noise power supply it will have significant jitter. In addition, even if this clock happened to be magically perfect the SPDIF cable will add jitter. An SPDIF DAC is forced to work with a jittery input signal and this precludes the best possible results. For this reason a properly integrated USB DAC can be expected to work better than an SPDIF DAC connected to an external source of SPDIF. (The only exception would be if the DAC exported a clock that could be used to control the SPDIF source, but this is not standardized and is certainly not the case with the Halide Bridge, as can be seen by the photo.)
If one has an existing DAC that one likes then it may be that an external USB to SPDIF bridge will work better than an SPDIF source that's internal to a computer. It may also be the case that even with a poor SPDIF source an SPDIF DAC sounds better than an another DAC with an integrated async USB interface because the clock is not the only important component in a DAC.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
very informative. Although, I don't fully understand the technical aspects, I think I'm starting to get the basics down. Thanks again.
Hi Tony,
Very informative post that relates to some of my dilemmas.
Instead of reposting the whole thing here I included the link http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=105536.0
Could you please comment on the question of jitter introduced by SPDIF transmitter and if it really means that you are essentially screwed if you must use SPDIF, regardless of how good clocking you may have in either PC/soundcard or USB/SPDIF converter.
I m wondering where you stand on this question considering that you use PC with ESI Juli@.
What made you go PC/soundcard path rather than USB/SPDIF converter?
There are no specs on measuring jitter in audio applications. The effect of jitter is to add phase modulation on the audio signal, and the audibility of this distortion depends on the music being played as well as the spectrum of the jitter. It's not something that is covered by a single number unless that number is just about zero, which is measured in single digit picoseconds. The fabulous AES spent years developing a standard for measuring jitter and failed.
I do not consider an outboard converter powered from a PC to be any different than a device located in the PC box. It all comes down to the quality of engineering and how a particular system is set up. I am running the analog section of the juli@ so I have no digital cables to worry about. I am definitely listening to the clock on the card and through it to the power supply in the PC and whatever noise it happens to have. I have had this card for several years, well before async USB came into use. This is not the greatest converter in the world, but the sound is enjoyable and I would hardly say that I was "essentially screwed" for $150. This card sounds good when run at 176.4 or 192 kHz, which is how I use it. (It does not sound so good running directly at 44.1 kHz.)
I have never been a fan of USB, going way back when USB was still under development. It's absurdly over complicated in the Intel tradition of hyper baroque engineering. On the other hand, SPDIF is too simple, not designed with a proper clock architecture. IMO the best method of sending digital data between two boxes is something like I2S but with the clocking coming back from the DAC to the transport. No unnecessary multiplexing of clock and data on the same wire, which avoids signal dependent jitter created by inter symbol interference, and the destination clocking eliminates the need for phase lock loops or other expensive and/or ineffective mechanisms at the DAC. Unfortunately in the long tradition of consumer audio the best technical solutions never are standardized in the marketplace.
"Make things as simple as possible, but not too simple."
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"IMO the best method of sending digital data between two boxes is something like I2S but with the clocking coming back from the DAC to the transport."
Does it actually exist such device/implementation?
I am aware of some USBtoI2S converters...
It turns out that there are bugs in the update process, which can cause usb to revert to 1.1 in W7 systems. Typically this results in slow usb copy or transfer.The MS update offered can actually cause usb devices to freeze up. There are at least 3-4 versions of usbehci and usbport, plus winusb, each offering different performance! Another, more recent, but not offered hotfix, can actually slows usb transfer compared to an earlier version.
If this software is doing things to a simple usb fob, what does it do to usb audio????????
I have always referred usb to sometimes universal serial bus.
USB3 is even more variable, depending on hardware and the version of driver.
Edits: 04/17/12
I 2 S-e Mode 1
It's I 2 S modified to work over a longer distance with the DAC controlling the transport. In Mode 2, the transport controls the DAC. I don't think anyone ever used Mode 1: Sonic Frontiers said they tested both methods in the preliminary stages of designing their SFT-1/SFD-1 combo and couldn't hear a difference, so they designed for Mode 2. The Assemblage DAC 3.0/3.1 models also used Mode 2.
External I2S has everything to do with the implementation, including the drivers used and the termination. There are some good implementations out there using Single-Ended and LVDS differential.The downside of putting the master clock in the DAC is that you have no control over it, particularly the quality of it. If the Master Clock is inside the DAC, then you certainly dont need I2S going to the DAC. The primary reason to have I2S going into the DAC is so you can give it better clocks from an external source.
Edits: 04/19/12
If you want to run at multiple sample rates and don't want to run everything through SRC, then you face something of a problem in setting the clock rate in the DAC since it would need the source to tell it the sample rate, but the source doesn't have a sample clock until the DAC supplies it, but the DAC doesn't know what clock to supply until the source tells it, ...
In any case, there aren't any commercial sources that have the connectors or the logic. Many have built their own in the DIY world, typically just using manual switching of the clock based on knowing what clock rate the source will require. But most have only implemented the link on single-clock CD players.
that is why Sonic Frontiers designed their I 2 S-e connection to also send the S/PIDF signal on another pair inside the jacket. I'm sure there are ways to solve just about any problem with the interface. It just takes a bit of knowledge about the system and the application and a desire to make the best interface possible (not saying that I 2 S-e is the best, but neither are the other interfaces we have at the moment).
The Assemblage DAC2 and D2D combo doesn't actually sound any better on I2S, even on pass thru. I have both Mk1 and 2 versions.
Just throwing this out there based on your comments:
The D2D-1 is not a transport, it's a jitter attenuator/upsampler. I believe transport/DAC combos were the subject, not middlemen.
I 2 S is not I 2 S-e. The latter was designed to work over longer distances, while the former should really be kept to 4cm or less.
It is also possible that the other digital outputs from the D2D-1 are of such high quality that they rival its I 2 S connection.
The D2D-1 may be doing such a great job with reducing jitter that any of the connections to the DAC2 sound similar.
The DAC2 is not the last word on resolution or audio quality. It may be that a better DAC would show the differences between the digital connections.
Furthermore, I don't believe any of the above is news to you. At least based on your posting history, it shouldn't be. I honestly don't know why you made the comment.
"I2S is not I2S-e. The latter was designed to work over longer distances, while the former should really be kept to 4cm or less."
Nonsense. I2S can easily do 10 meters. It's source-synchronous with no handshake and loads of timing margin, so the only limitation is the transmission-line effects and common-mode noise, which can be addressed with proper termination and cabling and/or differential signalling.
I was referring to the DAC -- "The DAC2 is not the last word on resolution or audio quality. It may be that a better DAC would show the differences between the digital connections." .
As for 10 meter runs, I 2 S was never intended for long runs. Will it work over longer runs than intended (4cm or less)? Yes, but not without quite a bit of investment and the potential for increasing jitter. What you are suggesting is like saying a pair of speakers are the greastest you've ever heard -- after you've put the drivers in another, better, enclosure and modified the crossover.
No, what I'm saying is that with some limited measures I2S external can be audibly identical to internal I2S.
One can separate the physical layer from the protocol. In the case of I2S this is a matter of drivers and receivers. I wouldn't say that the engineering investment in developing a longer run I2S would be much of a problem. The problem is lack of standardization and hence a limited marketplace over which to amortize fixed costs. The process of standardization would be politically difficult and hence costly. IMO standardization is probably unjustified by the potential benefit given the limited size of the audiophile marketplace.
I2S is a better protocol from an audiophile perspective than SPDIF because it does not multiplex clock and data over the same wires. This means that bandwidth limitations on the cable (or required at the driver to meet government EMC standards) do not add signal dependent jitter. However, with long cable runs bandwidth will be less than a direct point to point connection on a circuit board and this means that the rise time of a clock signal will be greater. With the slower rise time comes a lower slope on the voltage/time curve and that implies that noise on the signal (and ground if the signal isn't differential) translates into more jitter in the received clock signal. Therefore there will still be a potential source of jitter associated with the cable, but the situation will be potentially better with I2S than with SPDIF because one of the two possible types of jitter has been eliminated.
If I2S is run with the clock at the DAC then jitter effects associated with the cable and its drivers and receivers can be eliminated but at the expense of complexity. When the clocking comes at the source the relative phase of the clock and data at the receiver are not significantly changed as a function of cable length but this is not the case when the clock is sent back to the source. There will be a fixed delay between the phase of the clock and the data and this delay will vary with the length of the cable and this must be taken into account in the timing budget. (This type of system can be very simple if the cable length is fixed. This is the solution Seymour Cray used for the I/O system on the CDC 6600 computer sold in the 1960's.) There is an additional problem with running I2S clocked at the DAC. Unless an audiophile wants to play audio files recorded at only one sample rate he will have to suffer the distortion of a sample rate conversion or the inconvenience of manually switching the sample rate at the DAC unless additional signalling is provided that allows the source to tell the DAC what rate it should run at. One of the benefits of using an async USB interface is that the USB protocol allows the computer to send this control information, as well as other things such as volume control. (Some USB DACs may have an analog volume control built in.)
There is no theoretical reason why running I2S over a 10 meter cable clocked at the source couldn't be as good as with a local clock at the DAC, but it would require that the noise induced jitter provided by the clock transmission on the cable be kept well below the phase noise of the oscillator itself. Which approach will give better performance in any particular case will depend on the quality of design and execution. (This is the generic: YMMV.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
This is the info that I was given from Gary Gomes (now with Dolby, but he worked on this when he was at UltraAnalog):
"As to the background of I2S-e, the ‘e' does indeed stand for enhanced. It came out of the need to minimize the artifacts of digital audio clock jitter on digital audio products that need to route clocks and data beyond a few inches. It attempted to accomplish this by:
1. Use an extremely high rise time clock to minimize the effect of noise on the clock that drives the DAC (reduces clock jitter). This is based on the principal that for a given amount of noise that reaches the clock signal the faster the clock rise time, the less jitter is induced.
2. Reduce the ability of noise from reaching the clock signal by shielding the clock signals (coax cables are used).
3. Reduce the amount of noise emitted from the I2S-e clocks and data lines so that other clock signals in the audio system receive less interference noise. The coax helps in this way too.
4.Provide proper driving and termination at both ends of the cable to achieve optimum high-speed signal transmission characteristics.
5. Provide automatic sensing of clock signals so that the best clock is used in the system (when more than one clock is present)."
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
> > > The Assemblage DAC2 and D2D combo doesn't actually sound any better on I2S, even on pass thru. I have both Mk1 and 2 versions.A Dac can only sound 'so' good no matter what you do to it or have it connected too. There will always be a limit to the amount of resolution and information retrieval from a Dac. My Havana went through an extensive overhaul but still can not surpass my Ref7 in overall sound.
The best thing to do is to buy the absolute best Dac you can afford and even spend a little more if you can... But before you start spending money on anything its best to educate yourself on the subject, otherwise you will just be shooting in the dark and blindly following recommendations.
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
Edits: 04/18/12
perhaps SDIF? I can't remember if SDIF allows for the DAC to control the transport.
In the early days of the SCD-1, there were folks tapping the lines and adding L, R and CLK out; typically to a Meitner DAC. Why couldn't we have just gotten that to begin with? My senior project involved examining channel effects in PCM systems as well as implementing simple baseband PCM in the voice band for the Com Lab at the school. The kids that see those example systems today are impacted by the lead designer being an audiophile. :o
.
I wonder if there is a difference.
No DAC (the chip doing the DA conversion) talks USB.
You need to convert any way from USB to a protocol the chip does understand.
You can find USB to SPDIF converters based on e.g. XMOS.
You can find DACs with a build-in XMOS.
Likewise you have M2Tech USB to SPDIF converters.
You can also find DACs with this USB receiver build in.
The Well Tempered Computer
in the audio hobby, you'd have to audition to tell, which is virtually impossible. Being on a somewhat limited budget, I'd like to get it close to right the first time. My take is, although I'm sure the computer has something to do with it, it's the way the digital is converted to analog that makes or breaks it. My main goal is to have a decent analog out computer audio system, with a effortless, yet detailed sound, like the rest of my audio system.
companies are putting fancy converters IN the Dacs, EE, W4S, Anedio for example.
Although it raises the cost somewhat to have it IN the Dac, I imagine people still eventually purchase an outboard converter. Audiophile nervosa is not easily cured.
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
That was pretty close to something I could understand. I'll give you another shot at it.
So are you saying that seperate fancy converters (halide) are no better than the converters used in DAC's such as W4S,Anedio,etc? BTW, the Anedio gets just fair reviews when converting USB.
> > > > ...fancy converters (halide) are no better than the converters used in DAC's
Better than / Worse than is a matter of personal perception.
I'm saying exactly what I said....some Dacs have upgraded converters inside these days. Some people will still buy expensive converters even with one of these Dacs.
[Period]
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
if a DAC has a built in, but just so so converter and you add a higher quality dedicated converter. What does the DAC actually convert? Does it know the signal has already been converted and do nothing w/ the signal or try to convert again? Can it be defeated?
audioengr and Roseval for the input I think I basicall understand.
Dynobot - Thanks and go $%^k yourself.
If you use an outboard USB converter, you dont use the the one in the DAC, you use instead S/DIF coax input or AES/EBU input from the converter. This moves the master clock outside the DAC.
It is very simple.
You have a DAC, a chip doing the DA conversion.
Feed it a number (digital) and it outputs an equivalent voltage (analog).
The DAC, the box has various inputs e.g. AES/EBU, Toslink, SPDIF (coax), USB, Firewire, Ethernet. You have as many different protocols as you have different inputs.
None of these protocols the DAC (chip) does understand. It only speaks 1 protocol (probably I2S).
Behind each input there is a receiver translating the input protocol to I2S.
So we have a protocol conversion and a DA conversion.
Suppose you have a DAC with a simple 16/48 adaptive mode USB receiver and a 24/192 SPDIF (coax) input.
If you buy a 24/192 USB to SPDIF converter you can use this to play any audio > 48 kHz using your computer.
If you buy a asynchronous USB to SPDIF converter you might get a better sound quality.
An example is in the link below.
The Well Tempered Computer
"if a DAC has a built in, but just so so converter and you add a higher quality dedicated converter. What does the DAC actually convert? Does it know the signal has already been converted and do nothing w/ the signal or try to convert again? "
Think about what you are saying....
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
ars, think about how you are answering. Thanks for the intelligent input.
Funny how some find it difficult to give a little direction yet are more than happy to criticize ones misunderstanding.The upside is now you've met Steve Nugent aka Audioengr. His communication has always been civil and very helpful to the unendowed like me, thanks Steve.
In my tiny bit of digital research that lead me to the Octave there was a great deal of talk about the SP/DIF Octave associated with USB converters. You should look into this yourself and keep in mind the economy of the Octave. At the time it seems there were two converters that were said to be a substantial improvement over the rest of the field, the Berkeley Audio Design Alpha and the Empirical Audio Off Ramp 4.
I'm not using USB but rather a wireless connection to a Squeezebox. Compared to what I've auditioned I'm floored by the Octaves presentation even in this less than ideal setup. Even so I'm eagerly waiting for the production of the Empirical Audio Synchromesh reclocker for possible further improvement.
Edits: 04/20/12
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: