 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
75.165.164.246
... or has it not come up on this board, yet? I didn't find anything via the search function,
and given the author's conclusions, I'm surprised that there hasn't been any commentary.
Follow Ups:
I am delighted to see so much interest in my recent TAS article on “The State of USB Audio”, even though much of what has been written here and elsewhere takes issue with my methodology and findings, not to mention questioning my competence! Because this is such an important and timely topic, I thought it appropriate to clarify and expand upon elements of my piece, and to respond to accusations that have been leveled against me personally.
The article’s perspective: I believe it is important to understand the purpose and intended readership of the article. I consciously approached the topic of USB audio from the perspective of a typical high end audiophile (that is, a typical TAS reader), who is not necessarily a computer whiz. My aim was to determine, from this perspective, the results that could be achieved from USB both on an absolute and relative basis. My goal was not to assess USB in a vacuum, nor was it to determine what a highly sophisticated user might be able to do with it. In general, high end audio does not require those who enjoy its products to have expertise in those products’ inner workings. For computer audio to be broadly relevant to this market, it must meet this criteria as well as sounding good.
The author’s qualifications: Although many posts have implied otherwise, I am actually quite proficient in computer technology. I hold a degree with honors in Information and Computer Sciences, and have had a twenty-year career centered around data communications protocols. Suggestions that I might not understand the technicalities of asynchronous USB, for example, are incorrect. However, as noted above, my purpose was not to approach this research from the perspective of a computer expert.
Bias against USB: Quite a few posts have alleged that I was pre-disposed against USB, presumably because my results were less than glowing. By this logic, any negative review of any component or technology could be chalked up to bias rather than impartial observation. However, the fact is that I would have absolutely no reason to harbor such a bias, and indeed I did not. On the contrary, I would have enthusiastically reported more positive results, and I was disappointed at the actual outcome. I think the fact that I employed three different PC’s (from different manufacturers and running different operating systems), tried vainly to include a Wavelength example, tested multiple DACs and software programs, and even experimented with expensive USB cables attest to my efforts to give USB every opportunity to shine. Whether or not you agree with my results, know that they were based solely on what I heard. At the same time, it is worth noting that many of those suggesting, without foundation, that I have a bias actually do have a demonstrable, commercial motivation for promoting USB and for denigrating any negative opinions (and their source) about the interface.
The choice of DACs: For this project, I tried to round up as many exemplary USB DACs as possible. Audio Research and Bryston were chosen because both firms have solid engineering and build quality, and both understand good sound. Benchmark employs a highly respected, purpose-built USB input module. I sought mightily to include a unit from Wavelength because, as noted in the article, its technology is innovative and I actually do understand its promise. Wavelength refused to participate (more on that below) and Ayre, which uses similar technology, has by its own admission completely severed ties with TAS. Ergo, these latter two units were not available to me. Their lack of inclusion is unfortunate, but cannot be construed, as some have, as a desire on my part not to give USB its due. The units were excluded by their manufacturers, not by me.
Wavelength’s withdrawal: I have not been at all surprised to read Gordon Rankin’s reaction to my article, or his statements about my qualifications to review his equipment. In response, I would simply say that if I, with my education and experience, am not qualified to get the best out of his gear, then neither is TAS’ readership. However, I believe the issue of my qualification is a red herring. In our conversations, Gordon became familiar with my background and—although he now states otherwise—indicated comfort with it. As evidence of this, note that it was after these conversations that Gordon sent me a Cosecant for review. Things fell apart over a different issue: my intended test bed. Gordon’s preferences in this area are well known: powerful Macs with SSDs and massive amounts of RAM running iTunes. I did not feel such a configuration would be typical of our readership, and when I indicated the test beds I planned to use, along with my (valid) issues about iTunes, he demanded the return of his unit. As much as I would have liked to have heard the Cosecant, my feeling is that if Gordon’s recommended configuration is a prerequisite to his DAC (and by extension, USB itself) sounding good, it only reinforces my conclusion that the interface is not yet ready for the world of high end audio. Still, I wish Gordon had had the courage to subject his DAC to a controlled evaluation—where it would be compared to other USB and non-USB DACs—in a typical audiophile environment. I am certain the results would have added significantly to the conversation.
USB vs S/PDIF: Some posts have argued that USB actually does sound better than S/PDIF, if only the right DAC is used. These posts point to good experiences with DACs from Wavelength and Ayre, and the positive review by my colleague Steven Stone of the Streamers products. The fact that USB can sound pretty good (or even very good under narrow conditions) does not mean it is better than S/PDIF. I think it is noteworthy that none of the aforementioned products offers an S/PDIF input, making a true apples-to-apples comparison impossible. On the other hand, I used DACs that did enable such a comparison and in every case, including the Benchmark—which certainly does not treat USB as an “afterthought”—S/PDIF sounded clearly superior. Please don’t take my word for it, try it yourself—if you can be unbiased.
USB vs FireWire: I am glad to see that no one (yet!) has challenged my assertion that FireWire is a superior means of getting audio out of a PC. Several posts have actually pointed to technical reasons why this is true, and I would simply add that FireWire excels without the need for the elaborate technology patches USB apparently requires. My statement that “no FireWire DACs exist” was meant to say “no audiophile grade FireWire DACs exist”, and I owe readers an apology for not being clearer on this point. As many posters have rightly pointed out, there are a number of pro FireWire DACs available. My intent was to challenge high end companies to make a similar product built specifically with high end consumer sensibilities in mind. Perhaps this is one area in which we can all agree.
I hope the above serves to clarify what I was trying to accomplish with my report, and puts my results in a clearer context. Within that context, I believe those results are completely valid, and will prove useful to their intended audience. And while I don’t have the time or resources to engage in one-on-one discussions with everyone commenting on the article, I do look forward to reading additional comments.
"Gordon’s preferences in this area are well known: powerful Macs with SSDs and massive amounts of RAM running iTunes. I did not feel such a configuration would be typical of our readership, and when I indicated the test beds I planned to use, along with my (valid) issues about iTunes, he demanded the return of his unit. As much as I would have liked to have heard the Cosecant, my feeling is that if Gordon’s recommended configuration is a prerequisite to his DAC (and by extension, USB itself) sounding good, it only reinforces my conclusion that the interface is not yet ready for the world of high end audio."Do you also believe that all Thiel loudspeakers are not ready for the world of high end audio since some require a high current amp for best performance and the "typical" TAS reader is likely to own a small tube amp?
Yep, all Thiels suck. I KNOW THIS FOR A FACT because I hooked up a pair of 3.7's to my Cary SET, an old Dynaco, and a McIntosh receiver from the 1960's and they sucked on all three.
Sounds like a reasonable conclusion, right?
Edits: 07/07/09
...the manufacturer might determine what equipment I was going to use with his equipment and many times send me the ancillary equipment he preferred to use.
Of course that's not the only thing I would use with it but my goal was to bring out the best performance in the piece I was reviewing and discuss how different products worked with it.
The latest Mac Mini with 4gb RAM and a 64gb SSD will run about $1000. I think any USB DAC manufacturer should plan on sending one along, fully loaded with music, when their DAC is out for review.The TAS reviewer seems oblivious to the fact that the computer is just as important as any other part of the system. That is the only explanation as to why he would use Windows 2000 on one machine and a G4 processor in one of the others.
Edits: 07/07/09
Alan,
I think the biggest point anyone can take away from your article is that you never spent anytime trying to get the USB solution to work.
Setup as we all know is critical to any system. This is the failure of your Primer as it does not have any real meat.
As to why I use the hardware I do for both MAC and PC?
Simple it sounds better, something you should have explored.
Thanks
Gordon
J. Gordon Rankin
Ataffel TAS, received my subscription copy after reading the complaints here (small town mail delivery is slow). Was dreading it after all the complaints. Surprised at the trouble you went to. At least 3 computers & dacs. Numerous usb cables.
I am your target audience. Long time audiophile with few computer skills. Learned some things from your article. Tracked down the Belkin cable - sounds better than the one that came with the hard drive. Enjoyed the article.
You might have gone a little easier on the "usb doesn't rise to the level of audiophile quality" statement. The number of dacs tested is a small sample of every thing out there. Probably what everyone took the most issue with. Kind of like going to a tube meeting and telling everyone tubes suck. The title of the piece also leads people to think "state of the art". Thats how I took it the first time.
Can't believe people think you wrote this to get back at companies/people or to bolster your advertisers. How could it help to give Audio Research such a review? Also remember Robert Harley declaring that a hard drive made a better sounding transport than a disc spinner. How many hard drive companies advertise in TAS vs expensive cd player manufacurers? Thought that was brave and honest.
In my opinion, the industry does give the impression that any computer with usb and usb dac will sound glorious. They make it out to be similar to a cd player - plug and play. For the highest sound quality its really closer to setting up a turntable/tonearm/cartridge. From your article and responses here I have learned to be as careful matching computer audio equipment as any other highend equipment.
The sequencing between your article and Steven Stone's was a little imprecise. Doubt either of you have control over that. Would be nice if you could coordinate the magazine a little more. Understand that everyone won't agree on every thing.
Can't wait to read the next installment. A lot of people saw this issue of TAS!
thanks
barondla
In the same issue Steve Stone reviewed a $300 USB DAC he really enjoyed. He didn't say it was OK for $300, he actually liked it and seemed very impressed. Steve said this DAC "retains music's essential richness. Instead of a mechanical facsimile of music, the Music Streamer delivers that special spark that our brains identify as the real thing." Though Taffel says that USB DAC's can sound at best "pleasant", he goes on to say that the sound could be (his words)"nearly unlistenable", "plastic", "synthetic", "sloppy timing" and "pale and washed out". One would think that the Bryston and the ARC would have some redeeming qualities via USB that eclipsed the $300 High Resolution DAC. Maybe Taffel should have reviewed the $300 DAC. He might have liked it. It's almost as though the proofreader reversed the two reviews.
As editor, Robert Harley should have wondered why the two reviewers have such differing opinions on a particular technology given that the $2000-3000 more expensive products suck.
I read the article on USB Audio by Alan Taffel. Let's just say that I hope Mr. Taffel has another job as his computer audio knowledge is a joke.Have you noticed that the magazine is getting thinner these days. Perhaps TAS will do audiophiles a service and die. But they do have very nice pictures.
Robert Harley as editor-in-chief really dropped the ball on this one. I won't renew my subscription when it is up.
I let my TAS subscription lapse after their first foray into computer audio.
I remember thinking how sad it was that a regular on this forum probably had a better handle on the whole thing than they did.
Looks like I was on the right track....
Gang,
rhharley@nextscreen.com
Another thing... if I picked up on the lack of understanding about this from Alan, why didn't the other manufacturer's?
Thanks
Gordon
Oh, thank goodness Gordon! I was wondering why the heck you wouldn't even lend the dingbat a proton!The article basically said that if you compare S/PDIF to USB on the same USBs, that S/PDIF wins. Well, of course! Manufacturers who put both in are still far more knowledgeable designing for S/PDIF. (Except of course perhaps Charlie Hansen, who knows where to get his USB implementation from!) Tassel and Harley had better pay you or Chris Connaker or even the average Joe on this list to write their next computer audio piece. The only people who lost worse on this debacle is Blue Circle, who followed up their terrible review with a worse response. They were treated unfairly, but now they look dumb.
The most valid point made in Blue Circle's letter to the editor was that their USB Thingie is 1 1/2 years old while the MusicStreamer products are newly introduced. Since they still sell the Thingie, if they feel it is long-of-tooth perhaps it should have been retired instead of still selling it to consumers? How would customers obviously KNOW it's old technology (except for the admission in their letter), especially after they read other reviews online?
All three of the products I reviewed are available and in a similar price range, so what's unfair?
Also, I liked the Thingie's performance as a USB to SPIDF converter. For under $200 you get a box that will give you every permutation of SPIDF including AES/EBU. It was only its performance as a DAC that I found lacking.
If Blue Circle didn't feel I showed enough respect and wish to be taken more seriously perhaps they shouldn't have links between Blue Circle products and their purse and pump products?
If and when Blue Circle comes up with new products with innovative solutions to USB DAC issues I'm sure their designer will get interviewed about their new technology, just as I did with MusicStreamer's Kevin Halverson.
Gang,
I had sent Alan Taffel a Cosecant last summer. We exchanged a few emails and at that time Alan had never even done any Computer Audio. This scared me a bit... Then I asked what hardware he was going to use. Alan said this is only going to be a Primer not a Review.
At that point I called Jonathan Valin and said I wanted out. He said talk to Alan which I did and then I decided this was going to be a Train Wreck and asked for the Cosecant to be returned.
We all know what effect the computer hardware, setup and application can have on audio.
This was not an Absolute Sound review if the computer hardware, setup and application are as bad as he had.
It was an Absolute Train Wreck.
Thanks
Gordon
...but have to say that these sorts of concerns have kept me dubious about jumping into the computer audio lake. I just wonder if I would be getting anywhere near optimal performance.
That being said, the conclusion that USB DACs are not great WAS made in the article, and I think that was jumping the gun. It buried an entire group of DACs. The alternative was a firewire going into a DAC. That makes little sense to me; I don't HAVE a DAC at the moment, so why go down that road? And what DAC was the firewire unit connected to?
All that being said, the USB Brick I auditioned sounded mighty fine, but in the back of my mind is whether it is the most cost-effective option with the best sonics for the dollar.
Thanks for clearing this up, really!
Steve
So, you want to dictate peoples' computer hardware to use with your product. In that case, you will need to sell the whole package and not go on about your users' systems being inadequate.
I'd say something else.
If you're used to using high end software or computer hardware, there is always a minimum requirement for associated and recommended OS to ensure proper functionality of the product.
No one I know of has ever complained that their cheap PC doesn't do the same job as a workstation. I'm surprised that this is even an issue.
If you were selling a pair of high end speakers (it's analogy week on the asylum) you wouldn't expect the reviewer to wire them up to a boombox. A little heads-up on what matches well would be considered prudent rather than dictatorial.
And roundabouts...
There again, shouldn't Charles/Gordon's interface sound great with anything (assuming the trivial bit perfection is achieved)?!
Andy
I think Gordon wants people to hear what his asynchronous USB code can do.I haven't heard any of his USB DACs, but his asynchronous USB code in the USB/SPDIF converter I've used, is clearly superior to adaptive mode products and very easy to set up.
If TAS, and their reviewers are unable to understand, set up and report on the differences, they are inadequate.
To summarize, of the USB DACs Allan Taffel tried (and Wavelength chose not to participate for whatever reason), he didn't care much for any of them and preferred computer I/O to DAC via Firewire. "In my tests, FireWire proved to be a far better audio interface than USB."
I actually like TAS and think they're more in tune with the hottest topics concerning modern audiophiles than many other audio mags. They seem to monitor the pulse of the audiophile community and publish articles that are timely and relevant.
I am not surprised as FireWire was from the onset designed for streaming audio (or video) while USB was designed to connect peripherals such as mice and has only later been patched to make streaming audio possible.
"In my tests, FireWire proved to be a far better audio interface than USB."
It's easy to agree with that quote, knowing that they didn't test any Async USB devices.
"It's easy to agree with that quote, knowing that they didn't test any Async USB devices."
Well, not really.
Just because they didn't test any asynch USB DACs for the article doesn't mean they haven't heard any. These aren't people off the street who are having their very first high-end experience. The guys at TAS work in the industry. They go to the shows. They know what's out there. If they don't then they shouldn't be writing reviews.
Someone who read only that article may question just how good are Asynch USB DACs? I question whether TAS is a credible source of good information.
> > If they don't then they shouldn't be writing reviews. < <
Yup.
Did they ask you for a sample?
Much of that review is fair and covers low to high end dacs, although they did not test Gordon's technology.
> > Did they ask you for a sample? < <
No, it's a funny thing. After we found out that their top reviewer stole $50,000 worth of cables without receiving any punishment (in fact the company loaned the reviewer the money to pay for the stolen cables), we severed all ties with the magazine. No ads, no review samples, nothing.
The editors of TAS were not pleased to have their dirty laundry aired in public. Is the condemnation of USB a way to try and get back at us? I don't know -- you decide. I haven't even seen the article yet.
Haven't seen the article yet. Preferred TAS when it was a journal. Still subscribe. RH does a good job reviewing digital. He uses a computer and dac for his system. Surprised to see TAS reviews on the Ayre website.
thanks
barondla
Good point. They are very old. We should probably pull them down, as I really am not very interested in promoting their magazine.
It's interesting that the article says Wavelength chose not to participate but they didn't elaborate. The author made it sound like Wavelength was "afraid" to participate.
That is simply horrendous. I cannot believe they stole cables (just a rhetorical expression---I do believe you). I had heard very nasty suspicious behavior stories about TAS but never had it corroborated like this. I am reluctant to buy another issue.
I was at the 2007 ces in vegas in a 'power line conditioner' manufacturer room and they had indicated their top designer was in negotiaton meetings with tas and could not be here to explain new products. The body language indicated that the spokeperson was not happy with the 'negotiaton' and it was rather uncomfortable. The next issue of tas this manufacturer received fantastic reviews. I knew others who worked with tas for a while and told numerable sleazy stories about the internal workings of tas.
I obviously don't have the details of the incident.
But if you have severed ties, then you cannot complain about the lack of a review.
I checked their website. I found "Budget USB DAC Survey" in a list of articles in the August 09' issue (#194). Is that it? What does 'budget' mean to them?
Bob
I reviewed three DACs.
The most expensive was under $300.
That's what budget means to me...
Which review was this? I wasn't able to find it in a quick search. Sounds ideal for someone like me in the market for a budget DAC.
It's in the current - just-released - August issue, right behind the Alan Taffel USB article.
N/T
...and perhaps some I'm forgetting.
And Audio Research
... since supposedly some actual design went into those. However, I do recall that Stereophile measurements for Bel Canto's jitter were pretty subpar.
And that threw the measurements off.
This is from memory, btw.
> They did a followup on the bel canto - JA had a problem adjusting his
> software volume control...And that threw the measurements off.
> This is from memory, btw.
You can find the review at the link below. I am not sure what I wrote
that gave rise to your perception that I "had a problem adjusting [my]
software volume control." I was driving the Bel Canto with my Mac TiBook,
using Bias Peak to play back test tone WAV files. This is what I wrote in
the review:
"there were very slight changes in output level apparent when I fed [the
DAC 3] a continuous tone via USB. (This didn't happen with the other
inputs.)" I wasn't having problems with any "volume control"; instead,
the output level of the DAC3, fed USB data, continuously varied, not by
much, perhaps a couple of millivolts on a 2V output, but that's not
something usually seen with DACs and not with the Bel Canto via S/PDIF.
This behavior didn't change significantly when I switched to the Mac mini
that I use as my general music server.
I did check that CoreAudio wasn't changing the sample rate, BTW.
I did have other problems listening to music using my TiBook as source:
"Selecting the USB Audio Codec as the computer's default audio output in
the System menu and playing back 44.1kHz-sampled files with iTunes, the
sound was accompanied by what sounded like FM "birdies"; ie, silence when
no music was playing, but a random whistling when it was. I couldn't
eliminate this no matter how I tried—wondering if it was a grounding
issue, I tried using the laptop in battery-powered mode, but no luck."
I solved this by switching to the Mac mini.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Here is what I was thinking of:
"Repeating these tests feeding the Bel Canto's USB input, I wasn't sure what to expect, as the bit and word clocks are no longer embedded in the data; in fact, the data clock is generated locally. While the jitter with 24-bit data was even lower than with TosLink data, at just 63.2ps (fig.10, black trace), 16-bit data gave a moderately high 637.3ps, dominated by data-related sidebands (fig.10, grayed-out trace). Does this measured performance correctly characterize the DAC3's performance via its USB input? Was, for example, the very low 24-bit figure due to the data being truncated to 16 bits? Test-equipment manufacturer Audio Precision recently loaned me a sample of their state-of-the-art 2722 analyzer; in subsequent issues I will be further investigating this aspect of the Bel Canto's behavior, along with some other new digital processors."
"Other than the jitter performance via its USB input, the Bel Canto e.One DAC3 is the best-measuring digital component I have encountered."
I don't have the follow up which may have explained how to avoid this high jitter you got via USB in some way. I thought it had to do with your using a software based volume control somewhere, maybe in iTunes. I also could be confusing your review of the Bel Canto DAC with a review of another DAC entirely which had this issue. Perhaps a Benchmark.
If I had the print issue I could look at the manufacturer's comment and your follow up, but I don't save them. If I cared enough I could ring up Bel Canto...but they don't me and they have other priorities, as I am sure you do also. (BassNut.)
And my memory is not so reliable, so....
A lot of lumping USB solutions into one bin going on.
The "afterthought" methods are often adaptive move or just use the "USB Codec chip of the day". Very few are doing an asychronous direct-I2S method like wavelength, empirical or Scott Nixon.
And which firewire approach are we talking? Some here have testing SPECIFIC firewire applications and they were terrible.
I think generalizations are the bane of this forums existence lately...
Cheers,
Presto
Read the article
Judging by this statement from Bob Harley, maybe Wavelength knew they were going to slam the USB interface so he chose not to participate."...If you have a choice between SPDIF and USB, there's absolutely no doubt that SPDIF will sound better. The next issue of TAS has a major feature article on the limitations of the USB interface, along with notes of listening comparisons between USB and SPDIF..."
I don't subscribe to TAS, but now I'm curious as to what's in the article. I thought asynchronous USB had finally equalled or even exceeded SPDIF.
"If you have a choice between SPDIF and USB, there's absolutely no doubt that SPDIF will sound better."
Right on! So SPDIF out of my motherboard to *ANY* dac is going to blow away a Wavelength, Empirical audio or Scott Nixon solution?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
dCS SPDIF or reclocked SPDIF might be a contender. But to say "SPDIF beats USB" is to make a very laughable overgeneralization.
Cheers,
Presto
... in a decade old Stereophile review of Wadia CD player with digital input, John Atkinson measured lower jitter when going SPDIF from external transport (PS Audio something) versus internal Wadia's. And, BTW, the number was low on absolute scale, too - something like 179 ps, I believe.
May be SPDIF is inherently flawed, but everything needs to be looked at in the right context.
Sounds like TAS is closing some doors with that interpretation
Well I'd be surprised if both Wavelength and especially Ayre would stake their reputations on USB-only products that don't sound good. Ayre has some of the best sounding CD players out there. They never made a SPDIF DAC because Charlie didn't think the interface was good. So it's not like they don't know what they are doing or are hearing.
I can't comment personally on Ayre or Wavelength products and I have yet to try any brand of USB DAC in my system. But you're right, Wavelength and Ayre both have great reputations so I don't think they would risk going to USB if it didn't sound at least decent. But in their case, they have their own special USB implementation that departs from the mainstream norm.
"Wavelength and Ayre both have great reputations so I don't think they would risk going to USB if it didn't sound at least decent. But in their case, they have their own special USB implementation that departs from the mainstream norm."
To be fair, their 'special' USB interface is a very recent development. This is especially true for Wavelength, which got into USB DACS several years prior to the advent of the 'special' interface. As I recall, there were several positive reviews of 'pre-special interface' Wavelength USB DACs.
Bob
Well, I don't know why Wavelength chose to not participate but the article does seem rather harsh toward USB in general.
But I do enjoy TAS. Compared to some of the other mags, TAS seems to have a better pulse on what the hot topics are. When Class D amplifiers were all the rage, TAS was right there with a Class D shootout. Computer audio seems to be a very hot topic and again TAS is right there with relevant articles.
TAS sucks!
No, I haven't read it yet. It's probably waiting for me when I get back home in a few weeks.
TAS has nice pictures-that's it.
Bob Harley has ears and is a good reviewer dating right back.
Maybe so, but to make a general statement that SPDIF always sounds better? Doesn't make sense to me. Historically, the "state of the art" has always been challenged and improved upon. That's why digital audio has gotten better.
I haven't read the article. When they say SPDIF are they talking about optical or coax? Optical is, of course, incapable of carrying electrical noise and interference from power supplies, spinning HDs, etc, out of the computer, so it really comes down to accurate data and the relative accuracy of the timing. If jitter levels are low enough, before or after the DAC "better sounding" SPDIF is possible. I doubt that, in most cases, it would be noticeable when actually paying attention to the music, but it's possible.
P
"Optical is, of course, incapable of carrying electrical noise and interference from..."
Yea, sort of. It does provide galvanic isolation so it is incapable of participating in a ground loop (isn't that a type of Morris dance?). However that doesn't mean that interference can't be passed along. Let's say that you've got noise on your power buss (and who doesn't), it can modulate the toslink transmitter's amplitude which will unfortunately get demodulated at the receiver as FM (jitter) due to the finite bandwidth of the system. Power supply noise at the receiver can likewise affect the slicing point of the receiver and cause the same effect.
Probably the best approach is to try every option at your disposal to connect two pieces of gear and choose the one that sounds the best. There isn't a universal truth because so much depends on how things are implemented and what else is going on in the system. And even on the listener who may find some defects more tolerable than others.
Radio Rick
"Yea, sort of. It does provide galvanic isolation so it is incapable of participating in a ground loop (isn't that a type of Morris dance?). However that doesn't mean that interference can't be passed along. Let's say that you've got noise on your power buss (and who doesn't), it can modulate the toslink transmitter's amplitude which will unfortunately get demodulated at the receiver as FM (jitter) due to the finite bandwidth of the system. Power supply noise at the receiver can likewise affect the slicing point of the receiver and cause the same effect."
-- Which is, of course, why I qualified my remark with accurate data and relative accuracy of data timing.
"Probably the best approach is to try every option at your disposal to connect two pieces of gear and choose the one that sounds the best."
-- I have and I don't hear jitter. Or at least I don't hear a difference I have the patience to differentiate between optical, digital coax and USB. My investigations keep getting distracted music.
"There isn't a universal truth because so much depends on how things are implemented and what else is going on in the system. And even on the listener who may find some defects more tolerable than others."
I hear that. As I said, I don't hear jitter, but after years of phones and active speakers, I can't seem to stop hearing the distortions of passive crossovers, even in very good systems. If jitter manifests itself as it is often described, as harsh and edgy upper mids/trebles, I'm at a loss as to how anyone hears it on passive speaker systems, the inherent weaknesses of which I would expect to mask anything remotely subtle. But as you've said, we all have our sensitivities.
P
"Which is, of course, why I qualified my remark with accurate data and relative accuracy of data timing."
Well just because the interference is transferred by a mechanism that you have chosen to ignore by definition doesn't make it go away. You could expand your statement: "Assuming that things are perfect, nothing makes any difference." That would cover the ground.
From my perspective the main thing that drives audiophillia is dealing with reality which is that things aren't perfect, specifications are seldom sufficient to insure identical performance to critical users and higher order problems, such as susceptibility, emissions and power supply rejection can rarely be ignored with impunity.
I doubt that speakers have much to do with hearing jitter. I don't know whether I hear it or not, without being able to turn it on and off independently of everything else it's tough to tell. Since it's nature depends on it's source and how it sounds will depend upon it's nature, it's audibility is bound to vary widely.
How do you know you hear distortion from passive crossovers? It would take an incredible amount of control to isolate that as an issue. You may hear differences, but is it non-linearity or just a change in the transfer function? We can say with confidence that we prefer the sound produced by our system with black box A rather than B performing some function but actually understanding just why is a whole other kettle of fish.
Rick
"I doubt that speakers have much to do with hearing jitter."
-- So do I. But I don't doubt that they could mask it. Quite a few really smart people have conducted some really disciplined tests and concluded that it is, for the most part, inaudible with modern DACs. Are they right? I don't know. But if they came to those conclusions it's a pretty safe bet that average jitter levels are, at the very least, pretty subtle.
"How do you know you hear distortion from passive crossovers?"
-- I don't, really. What I know is that I hear a characteristic harshness, a glare or edge in the upper mids, in almost all passive speakers, even very expensive ones, even on very good recordings. It all but disappears on well-designed actives and it vanishes completely in good headphones and single full-range drivers. Don't listen for it. If you don't hear it, that's a good thing.
P
Just as everything from the sniffles to an inevitably fatal disease seem to start out with "flu-like symptoms" it seems to me that almost anything that goes awry with stereos causes an 'edge in the upper mids'. Including poor recordings. Of course we may not be talking about exactly the same thing but I reckon that our ears are really sensitive to something in that region. I THINK that it has to do with the zero crossings of the upper harmonics falling behind because ironically it can often be improved by turning up the treble control if one's machine is so equipped. Although that tilts up the response, that is easier to listen through than whatever else was happening.
Probably a lot of things including dielectric absorption conspire to screw things up in that region so capacitors, interconnect cables et al can make surprising differences. The screeching violin syndrome. Tweeter crossovers are especially suspect so that could be why you prefer active as the parts can be perfecter (sorry for using a technical term) if analog or non-existent if digital.
Rick
Well, hearing sensitivity in the range of the human voice certainly isn't surprising and I don't doubt that much of if is perception. I'm reminded of the many audiophile posts I've read, praising this preamp or that DAC for smoothing out things that are simply not meant to be smooth. Cymbals and bells hit hard with wood sticks, un-muted trumpets, Bette Midler's voice -- these things are glaring and intrusive. To smooth them out may be pleasant, but like so many things in the audiophile pursuit, they are not necessarily high fidelity.
P
This is the one time that I can say that I agree with you P. I hate systems or components that every recording sounds the same, homogenized or colored. Having been a professional percussionist for over 20 years, you understand that many instruments are not polite, warm and sweet. The sad truth is audiohphiles don't want to hear the truth, but like their systems to have some type of characteristic sound quality.
Then, Vincent, you are on the path to agreeing with me on many things. Don't underestimate the power of the dark side...
:)
P
"smoothing out things that are simply not meant to be smooth"
I bet describing a system as 'smooth' more relates to lack of this problem than a seriously altered response. But if the distortion happens at the recording end, which I think is common, then listening on a flat system may have less fidelity to what the performance 'should' sound like than one that has been tweaked. I want the sound that would occur without amplifiers or microphones. Or compressors. Or exciters. Reverb on the other hand...
Rick
I agree completely. The problem is when you try to mitigate recording problems by tweaking system components, which is the common audiophile path, you alter the good recordings too. I won't have it. But I will use EQ from time to time.
P
I haven't gotten my issue yet. Not much I can say.
You have to read the whole article to get it all in context but the author does seem a bit biased and maybe rightfully so based on the actual USB DACs he tried. Vs his Firewire conversion device - some pro audio device I don't recall the brand or model - he felt that USB wasn't even close. Of course he only reviewed a couple mainstream USB DACs and nothing from Wavelength or Ayre.
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:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
