USB audio coming of age?

[whatsnext]

Personally I would prefer, a passive aggressive forum, a butthurt forum, and special forum for the posting of rhetorical-question-based threads aimed at giving the OP the opportunity to vent his half-baked prejudices in despite of any post addressing the question.

Thank you for your post. If it is intended to be humorous forgive my lack of a humour. Otherwise you are free to set up a forum as many have. If it does not draw people in you could aways try to take over someone elses - less effort too.

PFM is probably the most tolerant and broadest church (forum) I have found. Thanks to Tony and his helpers.

While this thread has been developing these last few days I have received and installed an Arkless Phono amp (thanks Terry), wired cables for a Heed Orbit 2 and fitted it to my LP12(thanks Frank), both yesterday and this afternoon I have some speaker cable which arrived this AM to fit and see if it improves on what I have.

I wonder what the other posters are doing besides posting.

 

[clivem2]

I hope you don't see this as bitching or point scoring, but the guy said 'he found the USB input section sounds better'.

Fair enough, a subjective opinion, but perhaps more weight might be lent to his findings if he provided proof of measured differences?

Shouldn't be hard for him.

To be fair to Stan I paraphrased what he said but IIRC it was subjective. In the context of his providing information about some of the aspects of his new design for the Caiman II I think he shouldn't necessarily be required to provide measurements. Yes it was a bit of marketing to show off his design but it was also an interesting aspect. I don't think we need proof be provided when such views are made public. If anyone is interested enough they can try themselves and do the measurements. If this were a technical design forum exclusively for scientists then proof would be a good idea.

 

[maxflinn]

To be fair to Stan I paraphrased what he said but IIRC it was subjective. In the context of his providing information about some of the aspects of his new design for the Caiman II I think he shouldn't necessarily be required to provide measurements. Yes it was a bit of marketing to show off his design but it was also an interesting aspect. I don't think we need proof be provided when such views are made public. If anyone is interested enough they can try themselves and do the measurements. If this were a technical design forum exclusively for scientists then proof would be a good idea.

I appreciate all that, but you asked for comments on the subjective opinion of a person who sells what he's describing. Is there any point?

 

[clivem2]

I appreciate all that, but you asked for comments on the subjective opinion of a person who sells what he's describing. Is there any point?

There's just as much point as there was the other day with the question about GI that whatsnext brought up. A useful discussion came out of that with input from 3 or 4 people on slightly technical level. All I'm asking is:

- if the USB input pcb being a daughterboard vs on the main pcb makes a difference to the sound of a dac what might the reason?

For now you have to accept that someone made a subjective judgement - though he may have used a scope for all I know.

 

[adamdea]

Thank you for your post. If it is intended to be humorous forgive my lack of a humour. Otherwise you are free to set up a forum as many have. If it does not draw people in you could aways try to take over someone elses - less effort too.

Oh yes and a random non-sequitur response forum.

 

[whatsnext]

Oh yes and a random non-sequitur response forum.

Sorry I willingly admit I am too dumb to follow your more sophisticated posts. Did Latin for 2 years then forgot it and avoided it in the world of industrial chemistry. Isopropanol , MEK, Acetone and Phenols

 

[maxflinn]

There's just as much point as there was the other day with the question about GI that whatsnext brought up. A useful discussion came out of that with input from 3 or 4 people on slightly technical level. All I'm asking is:

- if the USB input pcb being a daughterboard vs on the main pcb makes a difference to the sound of a dac what might the reason?

For now you have to accept that someone made a subjective judgement - though he may have used a scope for all I know.

Fair enough. I can offer no opinion as to the possible reason/s for any potential difference.

To me it's all just 'pass the data', though it doesn't necessarily need to be to the left hand side

 

[ItemAudio]

You turn your back and something interesting happens! As I've said, the more manufacturers on this forum, the better - so thanks for chipping in, Daniel Weiss.

For me, it's clarifed more strongly than ever the divide between those who make and do, and those who talk about it. In particular, the caution inbred by experience re: sweeping claims about how things will perform in the field.

We make, measure and listen as best we can, and listen to the feedback that returns from customers about whether our intentions (design goals) were accomplished.

There will always be those knee-jerk reaction to expensive products - or, without understanding or trying it, label them foo. And of course, some are. As ever, the tricky knack is knowing the difference.

 

[Mescalito]

You turn your back and something interesting happens! As I've said, the more manufacturers on this forum, the better - so thanks for chipping in, Daniel Weiss.

For me, it's clarifed more strongly than ever the divide between those who make and do, and those who talk about it. In particular, the caution inbred by experience re: sweeping claims about how things will perform in the field.

We make, measure and listen as best we can, and listen to the feedback that returns from customers about whether our intentions (design goals) were accomplished.

There will always be those knee-jerk reaction to expensive products - or, without understanding or trying it, label them foo. And of course, some are. As ever, the tricky knack is knowing the difference.

Shit, there goes the neighbourhood

Chris

 

[ItemAudio]

There's just as much point as there was the other day with the question about GI that whatsnext brought up. A useful discussion came out of that with input from 3 or 4 people on slightly technical level. All I'm asking is:

- if the USB input pcb being a daughterboard vs on the main pcb makes a difference to the sound of a dac what might the reason?

For now you have to accept that someone made a subjective judgement - though he may have used a scope for all I know.

Daniel makes the point that there are too many variables to offer more than a general comment on how devices will perform in the field - echoing post 239. However, as I said at the top of the thread we are seeing a broad trend toward PCIe-based USB solutions driven by users seeking the best from their DACs. Stan's feedback adds to a growing list.

Although, conspicuously, after 669 posts, we haven't managed to get a conversation going about them in any specific detail!

 

[Mescalito]

Daniel makes the point that there are too many variables to offer more than a general comment on how devices will perform in the field - echoing post 239. However, as I said at the top of the thread we are seeing a broad trend toward PCIe-based USB solutions driven by users seeking the best from their DACs. Stan's feedback adds to a growing list.

Although, conspicuously, after 669 posts, we haven't managed to get a conversation going about them in any specific detail!

Doesn't take you long to get into your shpiel, does it?

Chris

 

[clivem2]

Daniel makes the point that there are too many variables to offer more than a general comment on how devices will perform in the field - echoing post 239. However, as I said at the top of the thread we are seeing a broad trend toward PCIe-based USB solutions driven by users seeking the best from their DACs. Stan's feedback adds to a growing list.

Although, conspicuously, after 669 posts, we haven't managed to get a conversation going about them in any specific detail!

As with many technical areas it's not necessarily the technology used that's important but how it's implemented. The technology used (ie USB in this case) is important as it's pervasive in nature but after that it's implementation that's key, or so it seems.

 

[maxflinn]

You turn your back and something interesting happens! As I've said, the more manufacturers on this forum, the better - so thanks for chipping in, Daniel Weiss.

For me, it's clarifed more strongly than ever the divide between those who make and do, and those who talk about it. In particular, the caution inbred by experience re: sweeping claims about how things will perform in the field.

We make, measure and listen as best we can, and listen to the feedback that returns from customers about whether our intentions (design goals) were accomplished.

There will always be those knee-jerk reaction to expensive products - or, without understanding or trying it, label them foo. And of course, some are. As ever, the tricky knack is knowing the difference.

Mark, digital audio - no audible distortion, as with everything - good enough.

Better engineering, even lower distortion, added power supplies for lower again - all moot as good enough was good enough.

I think that just about sums it up

 

[ItemAudio]

It's quicker to type 'bump', Max!

 

[avole]

You turn your back and something interesting happens! As I've said, the more manufacturers on this forum, the better - so thanks for chipping in, Daniel Weiss.

For me, it's clarifed more strongly than ever the divide between those who make and do, and those who talk about it. In particular, the caution inbred by experience re: sweeping claims about how things will perform in the field.

We make, measure and listen as best we can, and listen to the feedback that returns from customers about whether our intentions (design goals) were accomplished.

There will always be those knee-jerk reaction to expensive products - or, without understanding or trying it, label them foo. And of course, some are. As ever, the tricky knack is knowing the difference.

I'm surprised you had the gall to make that post, given it was you who questioned a Weiss product to begin with.

Also, are you a manufacturer, or do you simply whack computers together in your premises? That's not intended as a criticism, merely saying there is a difference, in that Weiss and his company design and manufacture components plus write the software, whereas I've always had the impression you were pretty much a one-man band whose primary interest was in selling and promoting what you sell.

 

[Paul R]

- if the USB input pcb being a daughterboard vs on the main pcb makes a difference to the sound of a dac what might the reason?

We have no idea at all what the physical difference reported actually is, nor any confidence in an actual output difference, so no point in guessing why.

Paul

 

[clivem2]

We have no idea at all what the physical difference reported actually is, nor any confidence in an actual output difference, so no point in guessing why.

Paul

OK then if we can only deal in pure facts (that is rather boring I have to say, must be fun in the pub...), how many DACs do we know of that use a separate board for the USB? It should be quite a number. I'm not saying this method is purposely used for SQ reasons, mostly it's probably because DACs often use an M2Tech, Adnaco etc board. Can we correlate reportedly good sounding DACs with USB daughter boards? I would post a link to the original posting but as it's on another forum its probably not correct to do so.

Here are some I know....there must be loads more
Metrum Octave and Hex
Caiman II
Ciunas

This discussion might seem pointless for some but it's got to be more useful than much of what's been said today.

 

[andrewd]

The Server type MAN301 is meant for both user types, those w/o a Weiss DAC and those who already own a Weiss DAC and would like to continue to use it. Of course you can get decent sound quality with a computer and an external DAC. I don't claim that the MAN301 with built in DAC is inherently better (sonically) than a computer / DAC solution. We built the MAN301 for those people who like to have a one in all solution with a dedicated user interface and the looks of a HiFi unit.
Daniel

Daniel,

Thanks for the honest response. It is great to have DAC designers such as yourself contributing to PFM.

Your DACS have a strong reputation for being immune to downstream computers and cables, yet user experience reported with other asynchronous USB DACS sometimes differs. Theres some examples in this thread and I have experienced first hand with the Audio research DAC8 - the sound improved if I used an external USB-SPDIF converter, which should not happen if the Asynch USB was working as it should. Another disappointment that contradicts the notion that Asynch DAC works perfectly was the Naim DAC when loading a file directly from a USB stick - it sounded crap!

A key question is whether you think the effectiveness of Asynch USB is variable across different manufacturers DAC's based on design decisions, or do you think any form of Asynch USB design is sufficient to make the DAC immune from upstream jitter?

I found the following quote from Mark Jenkins of Antipodes thought provoking. I'd be interested to hear your commentary on this:

"When stored, digital files have no jitter in them. Based on this, digital is argued to be ‘fixable’ by buffering and reclocking the signal, late in the journey, close to the DAC. That is, write the 1s and 0s to a buffer (which does not store jitter information) and then clock it out with a good clock for a short journey to the DAC chip. This and similar stories are told to assert that a DAC is immune to jitter, or totally eliminates it.

But it is simply not true. One reason why it is not true is that a buffering and reclocking step is by definition a digital process that has two sets of clock data in it (even if a common clock was used), and that in itself generates noise interference. We know of only one DAC manufacturer that admits to this but there may be more.

Buffering and reclocking is a good idea - we do it twice within our servers - but it is not a panacea to fix molestation of the digital signal in a playback system. It is a process that has benefits and side-effects that are of a similar nature to what it was designed to fix. The quality of the digital signal entering the buffer stage impacts the magnitude of the side-effects.

We (Antipodes Audio) often make the analogy that the asynchronous resampling, or buffering and reclocking steps used to clean up digital should be seen as similar to suspension on a car. Some suspension systems are better than others, by the way. Continuing the analogy, think of the distortions in the waveform carrying the digital data as roughness in the road’s surface. With any suspension system, rougher roads feel rougher, despite the benefits of the suspension. So it is important to not molest the signal at any point on its playback journey, as well as judicious use of well-designed buffer/reclocking stages."

quoted from http://www.audiophilia.com/wp/?p=12895

 

[Julf]

But it is simply not true. One reason why it is not true is that a buffering and reclocking step is by definition a digital process that has two sets of clock data in it (even if a common clock was used), and that in itself generates noise interference.

Can I have some of whatever that guy is having?

 

[maxflinn]

"When stored, digital files have no jitter in them. Based on this, digital is argued to be ‘fixable’ by buffering and reclocking the signal, late in the journey, close to the DAC. That is, write the 1s and 0s to a buffer (which does not store jitter information) and then clock it out with a good clock for a short journey to the DAC chip. This and similar stories are told to assert that a DAC is immune to jitter, or totally eliminates it.

But it is simply not true. One reason why it is not true is that a buffering and reclocking step is by definition a digital process that has two sets of clock data in it (even if a common clock was used), and that in itself generates noise interference. We know of only one DAC manufacturer that admits to this but there may be more.

Buffering and reclocking is a good idea - we do it twice within our servers - but it is not a panacea to fix molestation of the digital signal in a playback system. It is a process that has benefits and side-effects that are of a similar nature to what it was designed to fix. The quality of the digital signal entering the buffer stage impacts the magnitude of the side-effects.

We (Antipodes Audio) often make the analogy that the asynchronous resampling, or buffering and reclocking steps used to clean up digital should be seen as similar to suspension on a car. Some suspension systems are better than others, by the way. Continuing the analogy, think of the distortions in the waveform carrying the digital data as roughness in the road’s surface. With any suspension system, rougher roads feel rougher, despite the benefits of the suspension. So it is important to not molest the signal at any point on its playback journey, as well as judicious use of well-designed buffer/reclocking stages."

quoted from http://www.audiophilia.com/wp/?p=12895

Sounds like scaremongering crap designed to sell expensive products to me.