I have a QLS QA350 laying around gathering dust somewhere. I'll have to remember to dig it out sometime.
Getting data into the DAC is all that matters.
But... if we look back a decade or two, there are those that say that separating the transport and the DAC of a CD player into two boxes was the worst thing to happen to CD players. The single-box solution is tightly coupled, no timing errors, no jitter... All that stuff "started" when people began to use external DACs.
Maybe... the creation of problems with expensive "solutions" is just an audiophile thing.
PS... of course, you don't have to use USB, which is but one way of getting the ones and zeros from computer to DAC. Whilst I suspect that USB's bad reputation is based on the dog having a bad name in USB1.0 days, which are long since over, I also harbour suspicions, especially when USB is used to power the DAC.
By the way: I have had plenty of trouble with computers that wouldn't play audio properly. I might be in the "all ones and zeros" camp, but that does not mean that I claim that all equipment is equal or perfect. It isn't.
But... if we look back a decade or two, there are those that say that separating the transport and the DAC of a CD player into two boxes was the worst thing to happen to CD players. The single-box solution is tightly coupled, no timing errors, no jitter... All that stuff "started" when people began to use external DACs.
Um, nope. The transport mechanism itself is the biggest source of jitter--by far. If you have 1X variation in DACs (due to component variations, etc), you'll have 10x variation in transports. Transports also go off-frequency with age and have dramatically increasing jitter with age. And yes, internally as well as via the digital outputs.
Um, nope. The transport mechanism itself is the biggest source of jitter--by far. If you have 1X variation in DACs (due to component variations, etc), you'll have 10x variation in transports. Transports also go off-frequency with age and have dramatically increasing jitter with age. And yes, internally as well as via the digital outputs.
Schiit transport when?
All that being said: I have had very satisfying digital audio experiences that did not involve USB. I am very open to the idea of a purpose-built, super low noise digital transport. I know there are all sorts of $2K+ music servers out there claiming to be extra quiet but I am holding out for more (and for less)!Since the job of the digital transport is just to read the file stored on a media, wouldn't something like a Raspberry Pi, computer in a thumb drive, or computer in a wall wart be acceptable. Those things pretty much have no extraneous chips, just enough to run a CPU with power and I/O. You would then have it output to a external DAC. Those 1s and 0s should be pretty pristine.
:D You're here already!
I can't remember if the qa350 has a digital out. Otherwise it'll be very dependant on the internal dac. :-[
Assuming the platter or whatever else induces jitter on a transport, why wouldn't it on your crappy plastic PC drive during a rip? So yeah, your checksums mean jack shit. So much for just '1's and '0's. Interpolation FTL.
If people would see what goes into a ToTL CD transport and ToTL DAC, you'd never think it possible to do a one-box solution unless it was HUGE! Multiple big ass transformers, tons of damping, tons of shielding, discrete components. My transport is close to 30lbs. Marv's Theta is around 40ish I think.
Ask Jason too why he doesn't make all-in-one desktop boxes...
I don't understand stand who your responding too. Jason?
Assuming the platter or whatever else induces jitter on a transport, why wouldn't it on your crappy plastic PC drive during a rip? So yeah, your checksums mean jack shit. So much for just '1's and '0's. Interpolation FTL
Any recommendations for a coaxial cable
Um, nope. The transport mechanism itself is the biggest source of jitter--by far. If you have 1X variation in DACs (due to component variations, etc), you'll have 10x variation in transports. Transports also go off-frequency with age and have dramatically increasing jitter with age. And yes, internally as well as via the digital outputs.
I guess the ideal (modern) solution would be a single box R-2R WAV (flac, etc) file player. (Does anybody know of such a thing?) QLS do the QA860, but it's got a DS dac (AD1955). I guess it'll be interesting to know how it compares to other devices with a similar dac. But, as it even includes an amplifier section (quite reasonably specced @ 2 watts into 32ohms), I don't think that it's quite endgame.
A few people have been complaining about using quotes in replies.
To throw some more gasoline on the bonfire:
1. Jitter of a cheap CD transport in a computer will NOT be retained in ripping--it is simply creating numbers at that point, an exact copy of the disc that can be easily verified. Like Mike says, "This isn't religion, this is math."
So no interpolation ever takes place during the rip process? I've noticed a few times where a cloned disc that checksums fine doesn't have the same dynamics of the orignal.
Nope, it cannot. When you run a data verify between the CD and the rip, if it's 100%, it's 100%. Else, well, computing just wouldn't work.
So no interpolation ever takes place during the rip process? I've noticed a few times where a cloned disc that checksums fine doesn't have the same dynamics of the orignal.
Maybe I'll see if I can bring you something this weekend or run an experiment. I've had FAILboat sound with EAC checksuming fine before. Careful, you're beginning to sound like an ODAC D/S guy Jason. Maybe I should hang on to it.
Computers use interpolation all the time and run 'fine'. If fine is good enough for audio, use USB or stream your music.
That seems very strange.
Maybe I'll see if I can bring you something this weekend or run an experiment. I've had FAILboat sound with EAC checksuming fine before. Careful, you're beginning to sound like an ODAC D/S guy Jason. Maybe I should hang on to it. Reminds me of the printer argument. USB is bit-perfect. If it wasn't you're printer wouldn't work. Ergo....
Computers use interpolation all the time and run 'fine'. If fine is good enough for audio, use USB or stream your music.
You think?! EAC is the reason I stopped trusting the everything is just bits argument. Now, could there be a problem with a burned clone disc playing back with different jitter characteristics or some PC process affecting how the rip is played back? Sure. All I know is I've had identical checksum rips from two different rippers sound different. Take that fwiw. Placebo, psychosis, whatever.
I'll take a Linux source over the inconvenience of a disk-spinner
But then again, one of the unspoken commandments of Schiit is "thou shalt not feed audiophile nervosa."
Guess that rules out vinyl then. :)
My guess is its the burn that's the problem, not the rip. Quality of blank CD-Rs varies a lot. I've had some that would completely fail to play, and others that had drop outs or skips. Some people have also reported that burning at your drive's max speed sounds worse than 4X or 8X or whatever.
My guess is its the burn that's the problem, not the rip. Quality of blank CD-Rs varies a lot. I've had some that would completely fail to play, and others that had drop outs or skips. Some people have also reported that burning at your drive's max speed sounds worse than 4X or 8X or whatever.
Sell me a souped-up Linux source you bastard.
It's really not hard to make one yourself, like at all. The new Celeron N is a great platform, much faster than the old Atoms while still using a tiny amount of power, making DC input jacks and passive heatsinks possible. Get some laptop memory and an SSD or M.2 drive, install VortexBox or Daphile, and you're good to go.
Assuming the bits are the same (bear with me), couldn't one use USB to send the bits but not use the USB audio protocol to send/clock/stream them? Once the bits are at the DAC, it could clock them etc. appropriately.
That should provide a mostly consistent sound and should eliminate the USB thing.
But, yeah, bits are bits, bytes are bytes, code is code, storage is storage, it's either there or it isn't, it's either correct or not. Otherwise, like I said, *all of computing* would not work *at all.*FTW
Wait wait wait. Are you guys seriously comparing the quality of burned disks, not disk vs file?
If so, then like I said, you're listening to the burner and media. And considering the lowest-common-denominator burners with pennies-per-piece media, yeah, sure, they might verify fine...but cause all sorts of problems in a "real" CD player. And yes, that will be audible.
A program is much more sensitive than audio. Bad bits may induce a noticeable effect in audio. Bad bits will stop a program dead in its tracks (program bits, not data bits).
Nearly everything in a computer is checksum to some extent, even your RAM. =D Expensive RAM even does error correction for those applications where a 64 digit number has to be perfect or else.
A program is much more sensitive than audio.
I'm critiquing the concept of over-reliance and over simplification of checksums wrt both.A proper checksum should easily be able to identify if you're looking at the same bits or not. If you're hearing differences, it's not in the bits but in the playback system. Even the above mentioned issues with memory or sending it through a processor might not be the perfect, but the bits themselves should be.
I'm critiquing the concept of over-reliance and over simplification of checksums wrt both. Bear in mind, any audible discrepancies can only be determined at the point of playback. So that makes it more difficult to point to where exactly one might be hearing something if anything at all.
A proper checksum should easily be able to identify if you're looking at the same bits or not. If you're hearing differences, it's not in the bits but in the playback system. Even the above mentioned issues with memory or sending it through a processor might not be the perfect, but the bits themselves should be.
What I'm saying is, if you're comparing a pressed CD (usually with good reflectivity, well-shaped pits, consistent track spacing) to a burned CD (with less reflectivity due to the nature of the media, unknown-shaped pits depending on laser, unknown track spacing depending on laser), then you're hearing the media and burner, because the lower-quality copy (which verifies fine on a computer) will cause the CD's tracking servo and error correction to go nuts. It will produce an output, but it may be audibly different due to the machinations of the servo and error correction--the first of which can cause jitter to go nuts, the second of which will interpolate missing stuff.
A much better comparison would be good disk to ripped file.
USB, with output via a dedicated card, and going into a well designed asynchronous interface I think is quite good.You could modify a raspberry pi to output an SPDIF signal. As long as the purpose is to read a music file and process it into a bitstream for a DAC, then you wouldn't need much more than a pi. Yeah, thinking of using ethernet is beyond my understanding. If the ethernet carries the same bitstream and the DAC can read from an ethernet port as input, then there is no real difference from SPDIF, I guess. Ethernet would just be another type of port and cable.
Bingo. No need for us to do it.
This is why it's time for the CD to freaking die already. ... Just sell me your album in 24/48 or however you recorded it, as a FLAC file.
You could modify a raspberry pi to output an SPDIF signal. As long as the purpose is to read a music file and process it into a bitstream for a DAC, then you wouldn't need much more than a pi. Yeah, thinking of using ethernet is beyond my understanding. If the ethernet carries the same bitstream and the DAC can read from an ethernet port as input, then there is no real difference from SPDIF, I guess. Ethernet would just be another type of port and cable.
You guys can order a custom board easier than us. Intel cisc architecture is to wasteful and overkill. Arm boards are not optimized for audio and often use software dsp's .
Schiit pi- quad core mips cpu with I2s over bnc with direct DC and dual esata bays.
This is why it's time for the CD to freaking die already. It's 1970s technology, like the LaserDisc. Time to go away. Just sell me your album in 24/48 or however you recorded it, as a FLAC file. I don't need some dumb antiquated piece of foil.
headbang Yes! :)p4
I like CD
It's really not hard to make one yourself, like at all. The new Celeron N is a great platform, much faster than the old Atoms while still using a tiny amount of power, making DC input jacks and passive heatsinks possible. Get some laptop memory and an SSD or M.2 drive, install VortexBox or Daphile, and you're good to go.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-c7QkrVI-Z08/VakcxkUzblI/AAAAAAAAJek/ZF82BwOveUk/s1600/N3150DC-ITX%2528L2%2529.jpg)
Fuck that, the only keeping company's from selling uprez mp3 masters is them selling uprez CD masters. CDs suck but they're the lowest common denominator for good audio
Nothing is stopping anyone from selling uprez MP3 masters as CD releases. Beck's Morning Phase is EXACTLY that on CD, an uprez MP3 master. Hard brickwall filter at 16kHz. Nothing stopped anybody from selling uprez CD masters as "DSD" on many SACD releases. Nothing stops anyone from selling 16/44 cut to vinyl, or for that matter, MP3 cut to vinyl. Guess where the Morning Phase vinyl came from.
Your argument makes no sense.
You know what I mean, more of a hassle than digitalSame with me. I'm just looking at the rows and rows of CDs I have. Thinking how heavy they were to move and how much physical space they take up. Then, I look at an SSD that can hold my entire collection in FLAC with room to spare. That's the primary reason why I would like digital distribution.
The bit about a high-end phono pre makes me feel funny in my pants.
Same for the hdtracks mastering, your point
For long-term storage, probably a pressed CD is better ...
I have a hunch that many people, possibly even the majority, who adopt PC-based audio storage and play, never think about backups. And no, RAID is not a backup.
It might only be a small proportion, but I have too many CDs that are unplayable and unreadable by a PC. Also, they might survive a flood, but not a fire. Multiple copies on hard disks, with at least one back up always kept in a different location, is my recipe for long-term storage. For long-term survival, even.
I have a hunch that many people, possibly even the majority, who adopt PC-based audio storage and play, never think about backups. And no, RAID is not a backup.
This is why it's time for the CD to freaking die already. It's 1970s technology
Says the guy with a blog dedicated to setting up vinyl. ::)
The problem with hdtracks and some other places is I have no idea what they've done to the original master, or even if it is in many cases. It's easier for me to investigate a time-stamped pressing than to download a mystery file and perform a full spectral analysis. if someone can guarantee the original master's integrity and offer it up for download without media, sounds good to me. So far, most of those services have been pretty shady just like the many new vinyl releases.
Not to mention the DACs like Ayre's that don't even have S/Pdif inputs.
For long-term storage, probably a pressed CD is better, but I have run into laser rot. It's rare for a pressed CD (probably even rarer for the modern CD), but it has happened to me. SSD's can also have bit rot if not plugged in every so often (probably rarer with the new style memory architectures).
The problem with hdtracks and some other places is I have no idea what they've done to the original master, or even if it is in many cases. It's easier for me to investigate a time-stamped pressing than to download a mystery file and perform a full spectral analysis. if someone can guarantee the original master's integrity and offer it up for download without media, sounds good to me. So far, most of those services have been pretty shady just like the many new vinyl releases.
Oh btw, new Miata's weight saving? No glovebox, no telescopic steering, but there's a freaking cd player behind the armrest!!
and Dave whats the blog link?
I run a heavy metal/vinyl blog with a friend of mine. We started it around the 20th anniversary of the Loudness War, because we had become just completely disgusted with the state of modern production, and we wanted to review music with giant DR scores plastered at the bottom of every review to name and shame all involved.
http://www.metal-fi.com/
I've been thinking about building a dedicated arm based music machine. Using archphile or one of the other Linux distos. How do you think the Intel celeron boards compare to the arm boards like the RPi 2 Dave? What would be the reason to get the full Intel board?
Edit: I guess you would say it is so you can use dedicated USB cards with that Intel board, which you can't do with the arm ones.
It would be awesome if people could get audio out of their PC's without USB... :)p8 :)p8 :)p8
I'm just wondering if anyone has experience with the optical out in Macs versus USB, that should bypass USB, would that be much better than USB??
Sorry if this is a very noob question, just wondering
It would be awesome if people could get audio out of their PC's without USB... :)p8 :)p8 :)p8You can. I use spdif pin headers of motherboard to take digital signal out.
USB is better.(click to show/hide)
You can. I use spdif pin headers of motherboard to take digital signal out.
It would be awesome if people could get audio out of their PC's without USB... :)p8 :)p8 :)p8
I'm just wondering if anyone has experience with the optical out in Macs versus USB, that should bypass USB, would that be much better than USB??
Sorry if this is a very noob question, just wondering
So going back to the "files being read directly from DAC" point... would a memory card reader in a DAC be easier to implement/do a better job than going through USB? The DAC could still be "controlled" through USB, but I wonder if jitter could be eliminated this way? It doesn't seem very popular, so I'm guessing it's hard to properly implement? Just wondering.
I think those QLS devices use the CS8406, which might have somewhat high jitter. Though not sure if their implementation improves it somehow, and might still sound good regardless.
They've come a fair ways since the 350. Maybe I can find one to review. Those AES outputs are begging to hookup to the Yggy.
So going back to the "files being read directly from DAC" point... would a memory card reader in a DAC be easier to implement/do a better job than going through USB? The DAC could still be "controlled" through USB, but I wonder if jitter could be eliminated this way? It doesn't seem very popular, so I'm guessing it's hard to properly implement? Just wondering.
Coax/SPDIF out from my mobos have been pretty horrible.Using rca jacks from back panel or directly from the pin headers? Most mobos have very poor ttl to spdif converters with an electrolytic capacitor coupled output in most cases.
You're telling me PCI > USB > DAC makes more sense than PCI > AES/SPDIF > DAC ?
SD card readers are pretty unusual, but there are a fair number of network renderers that can accept USB thumb drives as local storage as an alternative to remote storage via Ethernet.
Some DACs can do this also. The Naim DAC for example has two USB inputs, which aren't for streaming via PC. They are used for playing music directly from a thumb drive.
Network renderer? I guess this is a device that purely plays media that's stored elsewhere on a conventional computer network. Would I be correct in thinking that they're more like a music dedicated pc, rather than a single purpose music player?
DACs that can play directly from usb, sounds interesting. Surely this means that the usb thumb drive input is like a dedicated drive; a transport.
Of course, it means that you're stuck with the sound/tech of that particular dac.
Has anyone tried such a dac, and A/B'd the usb thumb drive vs other inputs?
I get the impression that the SDTRANS384 would be something of interest to look at. Seems to be built in a pretty totl manner.Indeed : http://www.tachyon.co.jp/~sichoya/SDTrans/SDTrans4.html
If you listen to the genres I do, you're going to want to have a turntable. I've had conversations with guys that have been making music for decades, and some of them literally are not allowed to release a CD that hasn't been destroyed by volume. The label won't let them. The vinyl is allowed to slip through because nobody cares. That's why I own a turntable.
It would be awesome if people could get audio out of their PC's without USB... :)p8 :)p8 :)p8Hmmm... My current DAC is my first USB audio device, so it seems odd to hear people talking as if USB is the only way they do it!
Apart from sheer tactile preference, that is the best argument for buying vinyl that I have heard so far.
This goes back to last month and the review done by Hi-fi News for the N1A (August publication - current one is September).
A very interesting aspect came out from the review, while its use as a network player as far as the reviewer was concerned did not improve on their current setup, it was a different story when used specifically as a USB storage-push device into a traditional USB DAC with the reviewer mentioning the improvement for sound quality was notable when compared to an Apple Mac setup.
The reviewer in the USB setup used a Naim DAC, and then Marantz HD-DAC1,Pioneer U-05, and Denon PMA-50 (digital integrated DAC).
Now what is interesting is that Paul Miller noticed the same and looking at measurements it was noted switching from a dedicated PC/Mac setup for audio to the Melco improved the noise floor of the DACs (specifically using USB).
He tested and measured the Melco used with Chord Hugo and also the Oppo HA-2 as these can run in battery mode and isolated from mains.
The A-weighted S/N ratio results using USB between DAC and PC or Melco were as follows;
Chord Hugo with PC 91.5dB, with Melco 105dB
Oppo HA-2 with PC 96.6dB, with Melco 106.9dB
Jitter improved in both cases, but it was pretty exceptional anyway for the Chord to begin with and Oppo was incredibly good anyway but improved from 97psec to 60psec.
Speaking of transports:
Some big claims here:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?18189-Melco-dedicated-media-library-improves-S-N-ratio-of-DAC-vs-Mac
RJ45 ethernet, by the looks of it.
[(click to show/hide)
The last model from QLS :
http://www.qlshifi.com/en/wzcapi/qa661.htm
No indication what's the output chip
It seems like it is, from the website : "WordClock Output: The QA661 is including the low-jitter wordclock output for direct synchronizing external d/a converters.
Does anyone know of anything that it would connect to? (Some vintage Cambridge Audio Transport/dac combos had a separate 'clocking signal', additional to the spdif. I wonder if this is a resurrection of that.)
Antelope Audio's 10M Rubidium
It seems like it is, from the website : "WordClock Output: The QA661 is including the low-jitter wordclock output for direct synchronizing external d/a converters.
You might want to look at this thread for dacs with a worldclock input : http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/list-dacs-w-word-clock-input-and-audio-engineering-society-aes-world-wide-professional-society-devoted-audio-technology-3728/
This good article on jitter, states that it was used in some proprietary solutions, without saying which :
http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/diginterf2_e.html
So you do have a QA550 ? How does it fare compared to other transports ?
Thanks for the info and links.
Yeah, I use a QA550. I'm sorry, but I can't say how it compares to anything. (Trying not to go into my life story-) this is my one and only rig; it was made at my request and shipped out to me, as better solution to a cd player (plus my cd collection) or pc audio into a dac.
What I can tell you, is that the guy who put it together thought that it was better than using spdif pc audio (my second option; the first was fetching my cd collection and modding a player); when he tested it, he said that it had no obvious trait; it just allowed the characteristics of the dac to show. I trusted his opinion then, and still do now.
Coming from using vintage R-2R cd players, in a reasonable system, with some half decent kit speakers, I've certainly not been disappointed with using the qa550, connected to my 'fancy' dac. I'd much rather have the qa660, just for the ease of use. But soundwise, the qa550 performs just fine.
Previous research led me to believe that a standard qa550 is about the equivalent of a modern $2k cd transport. Mine has had a few mods. So my guess is that, with the I2S connection, it's about the equivalent of a $3-4k transport. Not as good as a modded vintage transport, or something proper high end. But tidy enough.
One day, I'll be able to make some comparisons, for myself. But for now, i'm asking 'the community' for their impressions and thoughts, as these alternative transports seem to have been overlooked by many.
The future should be ethernet.
It won't be... or, rather, it might well be, but some ghastly-high-cost audio-filed version catering to 'phool neuroses.
The real advantage to network streamers is when you have a huge music collection, over 4TB. A NAS is just better at handling that amount of storage.
I use the SoTM SMS1000d, which uses AES outputs. Much better than going from my mobo USB to the MSB Analog. Anyone know what's the AES output on the device? I hope it's not some off the shelf PCIe.
@Anax
I know their converters are mediocre at best. I was thinking in terms of reclocking a source to which they have a better reputation for.
I have read two general opinions regarding this: From those who haven't heard it say it shouldn't matter theoretically. Those that have heard it say it makes a significant audible improvement. I've wondered if the latter opinion was financially incentivized TBH.
I just thought it would be interesting to listen to their Platinum DAC with and without the added 10M clock.
(http://images.cdn.whathifi.com/sites/whathifi.com/files/styles/big-image/public/brands/Antelope/antelope_zodiac_1.jpg?itok=nv89xba9)
It would be awesome if people could get audio out of their PC's without USB... :)p8 :)p8 :)p8
That was basically the answer I got. "We optimized everything, it sounds better than other chips".(click to show/hide)
That was basically the answer I got. "We optimized everything, it sounds better than other chips".
Qa860 and qa661 don't use the same clocks. According to Clark the qa661 has better midrange and low end compared to qa860 because clocks are different. But I only have his word for it.
Eh, I get pretty wary when people are unwilling to spill the beans on their tech specs. Just a few things here and there to make it look good at first glance, then silence or Jedi hand waving when you try to dig deeper. On the other hand, there are those that love to show you all their awesome specs across the board, and yet their product sounds like ass.
I wonder what "better" means for the lows and mids. That's about as subjective and vague as you can get. For all I know, their "better" low end sounds like a dirty, swampy ass. Or lean as can be.
USB 2.0 full speed galvanic isolation
I'm pretty sure I've heard Jason from Schiit say this doesn't actually exist.
A 5KV isolation barrier is used to prevent any leakage of the noise from PC to your sensitive audio system. The USB isolation for audio devices is nothing but tricky. If you choose to use USB isolators, then sample rate will become limited, which is not an option. If you choose to isolate the output, you are adding significant amounts of jitter to the signal. By using a clever circuit topology, the Hydra design avoids these two bottlenecks. The isolation is placed between the ARM processor and the FPGA audio core, therefore not limiting the bandwidth. Being before the clocks, its jitter contribution becomes irrelevant.
USB Audio Class 2 standard (2009)
It is downwards compatible with class 1.
USB Audio Class 2 additionally supports 32 bit and all common sample rates > 96 kHz
Class 2 uses High Speed (480 MHz). This requires USB 2 or 3.
As the data rate of High Speed is 40 X Full speed, recording a 60 channel using 24 bits at 96 kHz (132 Mbit/s) is not a problem.
From mid-2010 on USB audio class 2 drivers are available in OSX 10.6.4 and Linux.
Both support sample rates up to 384 kHz.
It is unclear if Microsoft is going to support USB Audio 2.
You need a third party USB class 2 driver on Windows.
Companies like Thesycon or Centrance have developed a USB Class 2 Audio driver for Windows.
Using High Speed USB for playback there are no limits in resolution.
I'm pretty sure I've heard Jason from Schiit say this doesn't actually exist.
Anyone tried audio byte hydra z? I recall in an old 6moons article that audiobyte designer designed the MSB digital audio interface. Hydra Z features USB 2.0 full speed galvanic isolation with dsd512 support and femto class clocks, bnc,coax,aes. It should pair up nicely to Yggdrasil via AES I guess.G wizz, a full USB 2!? Wow Mister all of that stuff sounds super fancy and super expensive, I'm sure it's worth the money! Buy it!
Among the various digital connection methods (I2S, AES/EBU, S/Pdif via coax, Toslink, ST glass fiber, FireWire, and USB) USB is uniquely ill suited for streaming audio. The FireWire protocol is actually much better for audio than Isochronous mode USB streaming, which is why Weiss was so resistant to using USB instead of FireWire for such a long time.
You've got a very noisy ground path, a very noisy powerline loaded with DC ripple (500mV+ from a typical motherboard USB port) and a data connection that streams whenever the CPU can be bothered to get around to sending it, not necessarily when the DAC might want it. If you were designing a digital streaming connection from scratch, USB is pretty much the worst thing you could possibly come up with.
Slowly but surely over the years, designers and engineers have figured out how to work around the problems, starting with asynchronous mode, adding electrical isolation, etc. With a well designed input, and a computer with a well designed dedicated output card as opposed to a standard shared bus port, in my experience you can match or exceed the performance of most conventional digital transports with a computer and USB.
And yes, you can say "digital is digital its all 1s and 0s bit-perfect LOLLOLOLOLOL" all that says to me is "I don't know what I'm talking about."
Ok, so why would I want to use USB at all? Before you were telling us that USB is better than AES/SPDIF, but then you just listed all the problems inherent to USB that dedicated audio transmission protocols don't have. Something doesn't add up.
BTW I know some guys that would laugh at you for saying Firewire is a better transfer protocol for audio. Where are you getting this from?
USB will outperform AES/EBU
But most DACs won't clock off the digital inputs but rather use their own interal clocking/PLL to generate the clock. It's asynchronous just like USB. I feel like that argument falls flat on its face. Also nice how AES/SPDIF is transformer-coupled in good implementations so you're free from any noisy ground.
Out of curiosity, do you think USB would beat a dedicated transport with AES/SPDIF out? I've yet to experience a case where USB would beat that (or AES/SPDIF in any scenario really), but maybe I need to experience special JCAT card.
" LOLLOLOLOLOL" is all Ls and Os! LOL.
I am in in the all 1s and 0s camp, but I hear what you say about USB. With USB, it is not so much the 1s and 0s that bother me, it what might go along with them.
I didn't get any other suggestions beside Theta Data 3.
I know Stereophile are generally Ayre heads and up Charlie Hansen's ass, but the fact that the 1021 could just barely eke out a win (and possibility an imagined win) over a 1/4 as expensive Ayre (at least according to them) is not exactly a major accomplishment. It's also as much a computer as it is a conventional transport - audio is played back via internal memory as opposed to being directly read, and it runs an embedded Linux OS.
I have to wonder, if you're going to bother with pre-reading the disc every time and then playing back from memory, why wouldn't you just stick an SSD in there and put the FLAC files on that, rather than having to very inconveniently burn DVD-Rs every time, which incidentally it couldn't even read properly because the file names were too long? Not to mention the fact that the quality of the read in that case depends on the quality of the burn, so your $24K Boulder transport may be playing files from a DVD-R made on a POS $20 PC DVD burner.
1-Who says you have to play only DVD-Rs?
2-As much a computer? Really?? Doesn't look or sound like my PC using memory playback. How about some context and perspective without oversimplification. Commercial SSD transports also have only started getting exposure the last few years. This thing came out in 2008. At least it wasn't built to play Blu-Rays movies.
3-Have you heard it? I have with my own CDs. Of course this is before I had my own transport which I'm not sure how the two would compare directly since then. It was clearly better than any USB I had heard at the time. I'm still not sold on any magical USB superiority till I hear an example that is competitive including the OR5 super pimped edition. If anyone has a JCAT laying around, I'd be willing to give it a comprehensive review.
4-Don't like it without listening to it, get something else. Point is, there are many more options than just a vintage Theta or MSB. The whole question was whether spinning a disc is better or worse than streaming USB. SSDs weren't part of the original question.
bypass usb and computer all together with this:
http://www.rendu.sonore.us/rendu.html
Also another USB 2.0 Isolator shipping in Sept:
http://intona.eu/en/products
And also, how much we'd need to spend to make a worthwhile improvement. So, cost also has some relevance.
On another note, whilst comparisons between high end expensive usb, streamers, mass storage and any kind of transport solution is all relevant; we want to get an understanding of how different technologies ultimately compare. But I think that the asking price of each solution should also be taken into account more; this helps people to make value-for-money judgements.
Of course, the best value-for-money would be just to plug some IEMs (that probably came free with our cell phone) into our pc. But in reality, unless we really do have more money than we know what to do with, I think that most of us just want to understand the best compromise, for us. We want to know what level of performance we can expect to get for our available funds. And also, how much we'd need to spend to make a worthwhile improvement. So, cost also has some relevance.
its a wonder we get to listen to music at all. :-S
What? Didn't I repeatedly mention at least two?? There's also a couple more in that article to consider.
http://www.esoteric-usa.com/Products/index.php#transport
http://www.stereophile.com/cdplayers/boulder_1021_disc_player/index.html#7wWrazyuRS0TwJtp.97
Ahahahahahahah. You're back in MSB+ territory.
I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm just observing the current state of affairs for the multitude of audiophiles on a budget. I'm actually targeting a DIY solution myself at some point, tho not necessarily as part of a dedicated SOTA ARM file server or otherwise. That would be ideal, if I but had the capacity.
It is based off an Oppo, yes. However MSB claim the audio side is entirely their own thing. It also has a LPSU, and in terms of connectivity it has AES and more importantly I2S outputs to connect it to a MSB DAC. The latter is quite key.
MSBs narrative:
http://www.msbtech.com/products/universalV.php?Page=platinumHome
Of course, that still begs the question how that Oppo sounds in comparison. More than one person asked me to see if I can also get an Oppo to hear how it fares.
While on the subject of ridiculously priced transports connected to fathomable priced DACs, I have the MSB Universal Media Transport here, feeding the 20 years old Theta V A via AES.
The CD player section is decent, but the LAN streaming seems really good: it just sounds more transparent and resolves better. The Theta sounds really great with this.
For the scope of this thread, both the CD player and LAN streaming sections of the UMT are preferable to the built-in old gen MSB Signature 384k USB.
How the Theta V A / MSB Transport sounds vs the MSB Signature 5 DAC stack / MSB Transport is a story for another time.
What connector was i2s tech built for, HDMI or aes/ebu?
What connector was i2s tech built for, HDMI or aes/ebu?
What connector was i2s tech built for, HDMI or aes/ebu?
Let's all remember what I2S stands for: IIS > Inter-IC Sound. Meant for interconnecting DIT/DIT to DAC chip and so on. Was never meant for outboard connections hence that lack of standardization. That's what the AES/SPDIF format was created for. I wouldn't be surprised if it actually performed worse when using outboard connections.
There is no I2S connection that uses XLRs as far as I'm aware. Annoyingly, there's never been a standard for it. You most commonly see it using RJ-45 connectors, and some of those are incompatible with each other because they use different pin configurations. Some also used DIN type connectors that resembled S-video, but wasn't. PS came up with the HDMI version and opened it for others to use, but aside from W4S, Channel Islands, Empirical, and maybe one or two others, most haven't taken them up on it.
http://intona.eu/en/products