|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
196.2.124.251
Hi all. I have a question regarding my upgrade path. I currently run music from my PC which goes via USB to my Edirole UA-1EX and through its RCA out to the amp. It is thus used as both a USB interface and DAC (and I'm sure its DAC section is far from ideal).I want to upgrade and get an external DAC. If I get one with no USB input (e.g. X-Dac V3) there is no choice, but if I get one with USB input such as the new Musiland MD10 there would be two options:
1. keep Edirol and send optical digital out from it to optical in of DAC
2. connect DAC direct via USBThe differentiatior is that the Edirol has true ASIO 2.0 with its own drivers which work brilliantly. Many DACs with USB input (such as the MD10) use somewhat dodgy generic ASIO drivers which are more like wrappers for WDM or kernel streaming (such as ASIO2KS or ASIO4ALL).
Which would be the better option - optical through Edirol (true ASIO)or direct via USB (generic ASIO)? As an additional question also, what do you think of the higher-range stuff from the likes of Edirol such as the UA-5: Would their DAC sections be as good or close to those of dedicated DAC such as the MD10 or Zhaoulu?
Follow Ups:
> [Should I] send optical digital out from [USB interface]
> to optical in of DAC [or] connect DAC direct via USB
>
> The differentiatior is that the Edirol has true ASIO 2.0
> with its own drivers which work brilliantly.You would seem to have answered your own question here.
If the Edirol works "brilliantly" as a USB interface, then
keep it by all means! Go with what works -- if you're
not getting clicks, pops, or dropouts with the Edirol,
then stick with it. Why mess with success?> Many DACs with USB input. . . use somewhat dodgy generic
> ASIO drivers which are more like wrappers for WDM or
> kernel streaming (such as ASIO2KS or ASIO4ALL).ASIO2KS and ASIO4ALL are indeed ASIO wrappers for Kernel
Streaming. But if they work at all for you, then there's
nothing particularly "dodgy" about using them. Bit-perfect
is bit-perfect. I did notice, however, when I tried
ASIO2KS, that it seems to be restricted to 16-bit fixed-point
input. It won't accept the "24-bit padded to 32-bit"
playback option in Foobar that ASIO4ALL seems to swallow
just fine.OTOH, if Foobar's Kernel Streaming output option works
for you, there's no particular reason to waste CPU
resources on an additional Kernel Streaming wrapper
like ASIO4ALL. Or, of course, if your sound card or
USB interface has native ASIO drivers that work well --
as your Edirol does -- then by all means use them.BTW, apropos Foobar and Kernel Streaming -- you do (or did,
with Foobar 8) need to get the "special" (rather than the
"normal" or "lite") version of the Foobar installer --
the one that gives you all the bells and whistles -- in order
to have the Kernel Streaming output option. Kernel Streaming
with Foobar is (or was, with Foobar 8) considered
"experimental" -- though I've never had any trouble
with it.
> [Should I] send optical digital out from [USB interface]
> to optical in of DAC. . .If you go with S/PDIF optical, then depending on the DAC you choose,
you might want to pick up a jitter filter. Your choices are
constrained by the sample rate you intend to send to the DAC.
44.1 is easy -- just pick up a used Audio Alchemy DTI v 2.0
on Audiogon. 96 is harder -- you'll have to look for
a Monarchy DIP 24/96 **without** the upsampler, or
an Assemblage D2D-1 (whose upsampling is defeatable).
192 may be impossible (I think Peter Madnick's Alchemy2
once had a 192-capable jitter filter planned, but they
seem to have dropped it; and in any case nobody does 192
S/PDIF **optical**).Take S/PDIF **coax** out from the jitter filter into your DAC.
An outboard jitter filter may be unnecessary if you pick
a DAC with bullet-proof jitter filtering of its own
(the Camelot Uther comes to mind, but there may be
others).A DAC with an inboard ASRC chip can also probably do without
the jitter filtering (the new PS Audio Link III is an up-to-date
example of such a DAC, with a TI/Burr-Brown SRC4192 ASRC
chip; the Bel Canto DACs 1 and 2 used earlier ASRC chips
(the CS8420 and the AD1896, respectively).**If** you believe a straight USB DAC is inherently more immune to
jitter than a DAC with an S/PDIF interface (and this is a
controversial subject) -- and I suppose USB DACs **might** be if
they employ internal buffering ahead of the DAC chip
(but then DACs with S/PDIF interfaces can have internal buffering
too; e.g., the Chord DAC64 -- then you might consider a USB
DAC on the basis of sound quality alone. But USB superiority
in this regard seems to be far from a given. And, as you
intimate, you'll be opening a can of worms with respect to
drivers, etc.BTW, the new PS Audio Link III **has** a USB input in addition
to the usual S/PDIF ones.
-----**If** you believe a straight USB DAC is inherently more immune to jitter than a DAC with an S/PDIF interface...-----Jim F. - one of the engineers around here can correct me if I'm wrong, but just because a DAC has a USB interface does not necessarily mean it is a more direct interface than connecting with S/PDIF. They still take the USB connection and convert the signal before it goes to the DAC. And AFAIK the PS Audio Link III converts the USB input to S/PDIF before it goes to the DAC. What you want is a DAC (like from Wavelength or Empirical Audio) that convert the USB input to I2S (the more native interface of DACs - and supposedly with less jitter issues).
I think Scott Nixon's USB DAC utilizes I2S also.gotta admit.....after playing around with some different configurations.....EAC + Foobar + wave files on a separate hard drive > directly in to a good USB DAC sounds pretty darned good. (better than I want to believe ;> )
> AFAIK the PS Audio Link III converts the USB input to
> S/PDIF before it goes to the DAC.Why in the world would they convert to S/PDIF once
the signal is **inside** the box? That would be an
awful kludge, surprising from the likes of PS Audio.
> Where did you hear that?OK, I found a similar claim on the Web.
http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=29841.msg265447(Presumably the poster meant 'the new Bel Canto DAC 3'
rather than 'DAC 2').
This is a quote from Paul McGowan from the PS Audio website forum (not their AA forum):-----"The audio from your computer is sent via the usb audio standard to our dac. It does have buffering and error correction. We then convert it to S/PDIF to avoid the internal dac that is in the usb chip. At this point, the signal is treated just like any other input to the dac."-----
> This is a quote from Paul McGowan. . .Well, at least the Link III has that SRC4192 chip just
before the DAC, so there's probably no significant sonic
effect to going through S/PDIF. (OTOH, some folks are
allergic to ASRCs, just on principle. ;-> )
Hi and thanks....did not consider that. I am not looking at the very expensive DACs, but not the extremely cheap ones either. Probably DACs which are in the region of $300-$500 (such as those I mentioned, the X-Dac V3, Musiland MD10 etc.)
Hi there and thanks for the prompt reply.I would indeed like to keep true ASIO bitperfect output, which the Edirol currently provides. The only 2 reasons I would have been wary of it are as follows which may clarify the hesitation:
1. it is another link in the chain. I guess I am always under the impression that the fewer "moving parts" the less chance something will interfer with the signal ;)
2. the Edirol has only a mini-jack for optical digital out. That means I would need to use a mini-Toslink adaptor, and I am not too fond of adaptors and converters (though there is the Van Den Hul Optocoupler which can be purchase terminated with mini one side and Toslink the other).X
PS. I did some further checking on things up the line such as th Edirol UA-5. They are better, but only in terms of inputs, outputs, external PSU etc. The crux of the matter - the DAC section - is not really in the same league as a dedicated DAC (which can be expected).
The Musiland MD10 is looking mighty interesting at the moment - numerous inputs, well priced, and getting good feedback.
There are a couple of places you can get these mini opticals without spending a bundle.http://www.cablestogo.com/product.asp?cat_id=2001&sku=27016
and
http://www.ramelectronics.net/html/audio_toslink_cables.html#mini
just to name two. I'm sure there are more of them out there if you search a little. I'm using the one from cablestogo on my macbook pro and it seems to be working just fine. It's still functioning after 8 months and it gets plugged and unplugged quite often.
To be honest, I don't know that much about toslink quality. Maybe a jitter reduction box would improve it, maybe not. For the most part, I don't pray to the jitter gods and pledge that all jitter be hunted down and destroyed. There are other things worthy of pursuit in this journey of digital audio. Try a non oversampling DAC if you can. That will make more of a difference than shaving 10 picoseconds of jitter.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: