Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

Computer Audio Asylum

My USB DAC research and some questions...

67.177.242.32

I did some very basic research on some common well known brands of DACs. And my question is, which DACs on the market today accommodate 24/96 on the USB input?

It appears that the Benchmark DAC1 USB and DAC1 Pre natively accommodate 24/96 at the USB input. This is not the case for the Bel Canto DAC3 and as best I can tell, not the case for the PS Audio Digital Link III. Heck, PS Audio doesn't even post specs up on their website for the Digital Link III.

While many DACs appear to accommodate 24/96 on their Toslink or Spdif inputs, this isn't always the case on USB.

I also looked at the Lavry DA10. This one doesn't appear to offer a USB input at all.

And another related question.... Since all of my content is ripped from CDs (16/44) Apple Lossless, it probably doesn't matter if my DAC will handle 24/96 on the USB input, right??

If I had vinyl transferred at 24/96, wouldn't it be very important that my DAC's USB input handle 24/96 if I planned to drive it via USB from a PC or Mac?

Thanks!

Follow Ups:

RE: My USB DAC research and some questions... - slwiser 08:41:38 01/01/09 (0)
This is what I do....I have my Lavry DA10 being feed by either a HagUSB or a M-Audio USB Audiophile for higher rez files. The M-Audio and HagUSB take the computer's USB turn that into the digital SP/DIF feed into my Lavry's XLR (via HAGusb XLR unit) or the M-Audio using it's RCA digital output.

I believe this to be a very nice setup with a very neutral sound.
Thanks Everyone! I learned a lot from this thread - AbeCollins 08:51:20 12/24/08 (0)
I'll keep this information handy as I have yet to purchase a USB DAC.

I liked the feature set of the Bel Canto DAC3 including it's multiple inputs and remote control but it doesn't appear to do what I want on it's USB input. The Benchmark DAC1 USB or DAC1 Pre are also attractive but have other limitations. You're probably saying, just pull the trigger dude and get SOMETHING !!

I even considered the Apogee Mini-DAC that has a Firewire input option (but having Firewire on this DAC means eliminating the USB input. Too restrictive). And it appears that Apple is moving away from Firewire on some of their most recent products.

I know that PS Audio is coming out with a new DAC soon and I have heard that even Cary Audio will have a new DAC sometime in Q1CY2009.

I like some of the very "high-end" USB DACs available today but my budget comfort level tells me to stay under $2K USD.

Thanks for your help and I'm looking forward to seeing what new options become available in 2009.
RE: My USB DAC research and some questions... - barrows 10:16:12 12/22/08 (0)
Hi,

The PS Audio DL-III accepts USB at 16 bits and upt to 48 kHz sampling frequencies.
The new PS Audio PerfectWave DAC (available spring '09) will accept USB audio at up to 24/96.
RE: My USB DAC research and some questions... - Gordon Rankin 07:47:41 12/22/08 (0)
Abe,

Basically there are two types, well three types of USB DACS.

1) Adaptive 16 bit units that use the Cmedia or TI based chip sets. These are not variable and usually support 32k, 44.1k and 48k.

2) Adaptive 24 bit dacs that use either the Centrance or their own code and an intelligent programable design (TAS1020 or other USB Audio Controller). These include the Benchmark, the newer BelCanto, PS Audio and Emperical.

Adaptive means the computer controls the USB receiver Audio clock and can change that at a rate of every 1ms which will inject jitter into the system. All of the above products have to incorporate some kind of jitter rejection beit upsampling or reclocking.

3) Asynchronous 24 bit dacs which I make and others that control the clock internally and tell the PC to send data in a kind of flow control method that reduces the injected jitter to a very low amount.

The difference between the 16 and 24 bit issue is where do you want to be in the future. Do you want to rip DVD Audio disks or download 24/96 capable music?

Others feel the 24 bit dacs just seem better sounding and if done correctly I would agree with that.

Thanks
Gordon
J. Gordon Rankin
RE: My USB DAC research and some questions... - Roseval 01:39:44 12/22/08 (0)
I compiled a list of USB DACs, maybe useful as a starter.
The Well Tempered Computer
- http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/HW/USB_DAC.htm (Open in New Window)
RE: My USB DAC research and some questions... - audioengr 22:11:35 12/21/08 (9)
I use exclusively 24/96, even from 44.1 files. I use Foobar 0.8.3 and SRC upsampler. This is an excellent upsampler, much better than hardware upsamplers. Even better than this, assuming you have enough disk space, is to re-write the 44.1 files as 24/96 using R8Brain or Adobe Audition.
There is also an increasing number of available 24/96 downloads.
The Overdrive USB DAC does 24/96 on USB.

Edits: 12/22/08
- Let's be careful.... - Chris Garrett 19:28:11 12/22/08 (0)
  Steve, you've been good lately. Watch the shameless plugs to general questions, por favor.
  
  Chris
- RE: My USB DAC research and some questions... - drrd 04:34:29 12/22/08 (5)
  How do you mean better than hardware? If you're talking about software playback with upsampling straight to a DAC compared to playback with a hardware upsampler in series how do you separate out the SRC quality from the playback process?
  I've *processed* files with different SRCs including loopback recording the output of a hardware upsampler and then playing the files back with the same software/hardware; secret rabbit was noticeably worse than r8brain which was slightly worse again than the hardware SRC. 44.1 -> 96 or 192 was not as good as 44.1 -> 88.2 or 176.4.
  
  To me Foobar 8.3 with secret rabbit 44.1 -> 96 smooths the high frequencies but is very woolly sounding, I've never really liked it.
  
  Disregarding my opinion and looking at http://src.infinitewave.ca/ secret rabbit 1.2 doesnt actually plot very well against r8brain or, for example, the Weiss hardware SFC2.
  - RE: My USB DAC research and some questions... - audioengr 11:16:18 12/22/08 (2)
    How do you mean better than hardware? If you're talking about software playback with upsampling straight to a DAC compared to playback with a hardware upsampler in series how do you separate out the SRC quality from the playback process?
    
    I have the same DAC with hardware upsampler and then one without, so I can hear the hardware upsampler and then the software SRC.
    
    I've *processed* files with different SRCs including loopback recording the output of a hardware upsampler and then playing the files back with the same software/hardware; secret rabbit was noticeably worse than r8brain which was slightly worse again than the hardware SRC. 44.1 -> 96 or 192 was not as good as 44.1 -> 88.2 or 176.4.
    
    To me Foobar 8.3 with secret rabbit 44.1 -> 96 smooths the high frequencies but is very woolly sounding, I've never really liked it.
    
    What operating system and means of bypassing kmixer are you using? This is critical. With XP unmapped, software SRC is excellent. If you dont bypass kmixer, it will sound worse than hardware upsamplers.
    
    steve N.
    - RE: My USB DAC research and some questions... - drrd 13:04:35 12/22/08 (1)
      vista and wasapi output sounds better than anything i've tried on xp. 'Andy' has posted a really excellent minimal waspi player. I get the best playback quality by dragging wav files from my hard drive to a ram disk and then also defragging the ram (lots of useful defrag tools for this, some allow you to right click and defrag files). Once you get to this level running the laptop just off battery gives a noticeable improvement too.
      I've tested wasapi and ks to be bit perfect with loop back recordings. Has to be that rather broadly defined and all-encompassing 'jitter' thing that gives these differences in real-time playback quality. But certainly with the same playback software and hardware there are clear differences between different sample rate converters.
      - RE: My USB DAC research and some questions... - Tony Lauck 13:50:32 12/22/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: My USB DAC research and some questions... posted by drrd on December 22, 2008 at 13:04:35
        
        "But certainly with the same playback software and hardware there are clear differences between different sample rate converters."
        
        Differences can be verified objectively as well as subjectively. Sometimes the difference between two SRCs on identical input is only 30 db down.
        (In the case of upsamplers, I only looked at differences below 20 kHz.)
        
        Tony Lauck
        
        "Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
  - RE: My USB DAC research and some questions... - Telstar 10:17:58 12/22/08 (1)
    How do you mean better than hardware? If you're talking about software playback with upsampling straight to a DAC compared to playback with a hardware upsampler in series how do you separate out the SRC quality from the playback process?
    I've *processed* files with different SRCs including loopback recording the output of a hardware upsampler and then playing the files back with the same software/hardware; secret rabbit was noticeably worse than r8brain which was slightly worse again than the hardware SRC. 44.1 -> 96 or 192 was not as good as 44.1 -> 88.2 or 176.4.
    
    To me Foobar 8.3 with secret rabbit 44.1 -> 96 smooths the high frequencies but is very woolly sounding, I've never really liked it.
    
    Disregarding my opinion and looking at http://src.infinitewave.ca/ secret rabbit 1.2 doesnt actually plot very well against r8brain or, for example, the Weiss hardware SFC2.
    
    I agree with the above post. redbook upsampled x2,x4,x8 DOES sound better than the fractions you get with 96k or 192k.
    
    BTW, did you try the Saracon software upsampler?
    It should match or besten the quality of the Weiss hardware upsampler.
    - RE: My USB DAC research and some questions... - drrd 13:23:46 12/22/08 (0)
      havent tried the weiss software or hardware src, i was comparing to dCS which isn't tested on that site. Realtime playback introduces jitter related variables so as i said difficult to compare sound quality even if it was the exact same algorithm running in windows. If the algorithm is the same though and you record to a file then it should actually negate jitter effects so it's quite possible in those circumstances that the weiss' hardware and software src may sound the same. If the hardware had fantastic power supply quality and near-perfect PLLs and the like it may actually sound substantially better but then your comparing jitter performance and not src performance :)
- RE: My USB DAC research and some questions... - fmak 01:59:04 12/22/08 (1)
  Foobar 0..5.6 has a much better src. When 44.1 gets upsampled by whatever means, there is a sonic signature. May sound good to you with your gear but it doesn't mean that it is best and right.
  - RE: My USB DAC research and some questions... - audioengr 11:18:33 12/22/08 (0)
    I have not tried this particular SRC, but I will.
    
    I have lots of independent reports from customers that also like 0.8.3 SRC the best. System setup is critical to getting a good result.
    
    Steve N.
RE: My USB DAC research and some questions... - BIOMAN 18:07:25 12/21/08 (1)
I’ll be following this post with great interest Abe. I just purchased the USB DAC1 and a PC for a dedicated Music Server. So I am looking forward to the knowledable responses from inmates as well.
- RE: My USB DAC research and some questions... - Roseval 03:10:29 12/22/08 (0)
  If you are running Vista on the PC, the link below might be relevant.
  
  The Well Tempered Computer
  - http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/VistaTweak.htm (Open in New Window)
RE: My USB DAC research and some questions... - aljordan 18:02:32 12/21/08 (2)
Hi Abe,

There are a couple outside of the Benchmark that handle 24/94 at the USB input. The newer Wavelength DACs will, as well as the E-Mu 0404 USB. I realize these are rather opposite from each other on the price scale.

You are correct; if you listen mainly to ripped redbook, you don't need 24/96, but you will need it for high resolution downloads and if you rip your records at a higher sampling rate.

Alan
- go with firewire instead - Telstar 10:21:24 12/22/08 (1)
  Even better would be to NOT go with USB at all.
  Until usb3 will come, it is limited to 24/96. No 176,4k or 192k files playback (unless downsampled).
  
  Somebody that writes in these forums hinted of the improvements in the audio stack of Windows7. It should also introduce support for usb3 and built-in firewire audio drivers.
  
  Drivers are what really limits the diffusion of firewire audio interface in the audiophile sector.
  - RE: go with firewire instead - b.l.zeebub 10:53:11 12/23/08 (0)
    My firewire ADDA convertor does 12 channels of 24/192 simultaneously without problems.
    Both directions and any mixture of DA or AD.
    
    (I'm using a quadcore 2.66GHz MacPro.)

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.