Perhaps a re-iteration of my explanation is in order. All SPDIF digital connections (read "traditional") cannot sonically compete with a properly designed USB Dac (being driven by a hardrive). Even if the traditional digital connection is being "buffered" or "re-clocking" the data, etc. The traditional digital connection scheme was seriously flawed from the get-go. UBER designed "re-clockers" or "buffering" schemes are only band-aids. They work to a point, but still don't quite give us the true analog purity we were all hoping to achieve. Closer yes. Perfection, not by a country mile! Too many of these "band-aids" are damn expensive at that. Of course the proof is in the pudding. The recent USB Dac I heard comes so close to sounding like analog that I was shocked that ANY digital could sound this good. No other digital scheme I've heard comes nearly as close (and I've heard way too many to count). |
This type of product is already obsolete and I am sure that many audiophiles aren't even aware of it. We are on the verge of a imminent change to USB driven computer front ends that will sonically outclass the traditional CD transport and D/A converters here. Even the cost no-object "Uber" technology products. Here is a short understanding to why: once a CD is properly converted to a computer hard drive (with a true lossless format) there just isn't a need for something like the Esoteric "Superclock". With the hard drive containing the music data in a much purer form, it can then be sent to a USB D/A converter, via a USB cable, without the overlying clocking issues that creates such a headache sonically, i.e. a much purer methodology. In this new methodology, only one decent clock (read not overtly expensive) will be needed inside the D/A converter itself (instead of one at the tranport then another "Uberclock" at the other end attempting to "fix" and "massage" very ugly timing issues). Therefore, in an excellent designed USB D/A converter being driven from a hardrive without the ugly timing issues. We will be able to say "Goodbye!" to typical transmitted jitter problems. Say "Goodbye!" to transport differences! Say "Goodbye!" to CD treatments! And finally, say "Goodbye!" to high dollar "band-aids", uh..errr..."Superclocks" - (such as this Esoteric). We are on the precipice of a very exciting breakthrough with some new upcoming USB dacs that will sound much more analog than most of us have ever imagined. Sorry Esoteric, I'd really like to give you credit for this "breakthrough", but in my opinion, the true sonic breakthrough in digital will be in USB connected products that don't even need a clock such as this. |
The big breakthrough in upcoming Dacs has much more to it than just if they are USB connected. It's more to how the data is streamed from a hard drive to the USB dac. There are HUGE sonic gains to this methodology ONLY if it is properly executed. At this moment, there are only a few select digital designers that even know how to do this correctly. Most that have a USB connection are not taking advantage of the elegance of streaming the data via a USB to avoid the jitter and many other problematic issues that are inherent in our current way of digital playback. Once we get a digital couple of companies that surface into the mainstream (that actually know how to do this correctly via USB), I think many audiophiles will be STUNNED to hear the analog fluidity that cannot be achieved with any other form of connectivity. Other digital companies will have to notice of this leapfrog improvement in sonics. Subsequently, they will (most likely) just follow suit and copy, i.e someone else does it right first, then the "other" digital companies will copy the "correct" way to do it. I figure we are looking at sometime later this year for the first breakthrough USB dacs to surface. I know, I know... we've all heard these sort of "statements" many times before. This time though, I think we will finally have digital offerings that can actually have most (if not all) of the inherent musicality that was only inherent via an analog front end. It's about time! |
I wish I could talk more about what I recently heard (I've been sworn to secrecy). As to my earlier posts, I was not talking about a USB DAC that is currently available to the audiophile public at this very moment. Based on my discussion with the designers, it should be released within the next six months or so. In terms of the question regarding Gordan Rankin's product, this may be part of the "new wave" of revolutionary USB connected products that sonically prevail over typical transports/DACs. Unfortunately, I have yet to hear Gordan's product myself to determine if it also reaches above the levels which we are accustomed from typical "statement" digital offerings. As far as the "Beta" pre-production USB DAC that I heard though (from a company other than Gordan Rankin's) it was a serious jaw dropping experience! |
Kamil is correct about the need of some sort of "clock" . The point I've been making with my posts is that the synchronization of TWO clocking signals, between a "traditional" type of transport and a DAC, is completely eliminated with USB connectivity (provided it is designed correctly). With USB, we are down to just ONE clock at the DAC. With a hardrive having the ability to stream perfect music data and NOT having to carry an overlying clocking signal on the USB cable, the improvement is substantial. The sonic benefits are HUGE. Most importantly, the need for a "bank account breaking" UBER clock like the Esoteric is eliminated altogether. The sonic potential of the USB approach is way cheaper (no need for an UBER clock) and yields a superior sonic result to boot. This is the future of the best digital sound. |
Sean; the USB DAC that I have been citing does NOT connect to a CD transport, It connects directly to a computer i.e. my posts statements regarding the "hard drive" . With this methodology, the computer does not have a SPDIF (traditional) connection whatsoever. It streams pure data directly from the hard drive, WITHOUT the subsequent clock data. It is much different with this methodology. (It is also much more elegant). This is the ONLY way the sonic improvements that I am discussing can have any meaning. If there was a "traditional" CD transport involved, the USB carrying the data wouldn't yield any sonic improvements whatsoever (BTW: this is where your assumptions would be absolutely spot on). So, the complete elimination of having to carry clocking information from the CD transport to the DAC is where the huge jump factor relies (remember, the music data is now on a hard drive). With this in mind, any simplification of transferring the music data from point A to point B really does yield sonic wonders.
Drubin; Yes i have heard the Nova Physics player. I think it is an admirable attempt at solving many of CD issues. Like other offerings though, it is still a band-aid approach that doesn't simplify the transfer of music data as well as the USB approach . Again, the proof is in the pudding though. And this player doesn't actually stand at a complete different level above other UBER priced digital products. It is really good, yes. Revolutionary, well if so, then it should absolutely crush any other digital offering IMHO (which it doesn't achieve).
BTW: Even though my posts have been heavy handed technological discussions, I will always favor the digital product that sonically comes closest to a top level analog rig. IMHO way too many technological assumptions, WITHOUT direct comparison to a source of great music perfection (in my case, a great analog rig) are one of the reasons we are now accepting the crazy expensive digital mess and these inherent "band-aids".
Even if the best sounding digital front end turns out to be a Donkey spinning a CD, using a fifty cent flashlight, connected to an electronic slide rule, amplifying via a megaphone. If this "front end" truly sounds closer to a great analog rig, I'm buying it! ....and alot of Donkey food ;-) |
Rgt; I seriously applaud the Nova player designers. They are solving issues that most other digital solutions fail to address. I have no doubt that the Nova is very close to the "top of the heap" digital offerings at this point in time. Much closer to analog, absolutely. Close your eyes and absolutely match analog though, just a smidgent short (but the Nova is very special sonically IMHO). From a technical analysis, the USB solution (that sonically amazed me) avoids interleaving the clock data with the streaming digital information (as compared to the Nova and others). I should note that there are many similarities here with both the Nova and USB solutions. They both address the read error issues which I suspect are part of the sonic 'breakthrough" toward analog. I still hold the direct comparison to analog as my final "tool", i.e. the digital solution that comes closest to sounding like a great analog rig or a master tape deserves the "top of the heap" moniker.
Askat; I think you are correct to assume we need to watch out for EMI/RF issues in the computer. I myself was wary of sonic gremlins associated with a computer's hard drive as the digital transport. Thankfully, the potential problematic gremlins seemed to be entirely absent when I heard the computer to USB DAC solution. (The computer was a current generation Apple computer with the CDs transferred to the computer's hard drive via Apple's internal error correction enabled). Are Apple computers inherently low EMI/RF designs? I have no idea. I do know that the particular Apple to USB DAC was the best digital solution that I've ever heard in terms of managing to sonically emulate a great analog front end. |
Chris, your question about repairing source material jitter involves a bit more complexity than what the Esoteric Rubidium is actually accomplishing. A good way to think of exotic reclocking devices (such as the Esoteric) is they are repairing the myriads of synchronization issues associated with the abysmal SPDIF connection. With a SPDIF's flawed approach, the clocking information is interleaved with the music data. The Esoteric Rubidium's incredible improvements seem to prove how poor the idea of interleaving clock information along with the music data has been all along! Of course, we can do this much more elegantly if we don't even try to interleave the clocking data on top of music in the first place. Can we say "USB" ;-)
Lapaix; Linn seems to be on the right track in choosing a high bandwidth connection. The ability for a DAC to be able to talk "back and forth" to the computer hard drive (while the music is playing!) assures a much better opportunity to achieve a perfect data tranafer to the DAC. It also is apparent that a standard USB connection easily exceeds the bandwidth requirements for the DAC to talk back and forth to the computer. Is Linn's higher bandwidth approach even better? I think the jury is still out here. I do know that the USB DAC I heard sonically eclipses Linn's best offerings by MORE than just a hair. Perhaps Linn should take a second look at the other parts within their music servers? If they can develop similar advancements elsewhere, the stratospheric pricing of Linn's music servers could be more easily justified IMHO. |
Dgarretson; Ha! You really cracked me up with that 'WDP' moniker! I am not sure what I am allowed to say about the prototype USB DAC that I heard - The digital front end consisted of an Apple computer (that had the CD's transferred to it's internal hard drive via error correction) and it is connected to the DAC via a USB cable. The true proprietary information is not in my hands. It would be up to the designers to reveal once they launch this DAC sometime this year. |
Hi Chris, The prototype USB DAC that surprised my ears is not related with the Burwen Bobcat/Daniel (note, a few audiophiles with ears I trust say that the Burwen is very special indeed). The USB DAC I heard was a pre-production unit from a company most of us don't hear much about. I am thinking I may start a specific thread with the USB DAC's name and some other details when the company gives me the "green light" to talk about them in detail. |
So let's try to make this less confused *. Here are some of my points:
- This Esoteric clock and other's like it are not the wave of the future IMHO. They are more 'band-aids" trying to correct issues of our past way of doing digital transports and DACS with that horrible SPDIF connection!
- The future of "amazing sounding digital" (read; As good as analog, if possible) will be coming from manufacturers NOT using SPDIF connections, or Esoteric re-clockers, but from OTHER forms of connectivity, such as USB.
- The "non-technical" reason that helps an audiophile "wrap their head" around the reason a USB connection can have the ability to sound much better is do with the fact that it doesn't interleave* clock signals on top of music data like the SPDIF format does.
*Please note; the above statement is a VERY SIMPLIFIED way of explaining this point. Not all of us went to engineering school! I will attempt to explain the technical detail in my direct response to Agear below;
Warning, the rest of this posting is VERY LONG.....
Yes Agear, your statements are absolutely true "in form". There is quite a bit of engineering "tech speak" that I didn't explain to Audiogon readers (such as yourself) who actually understand the detailed technical side of digital interface methodologies and their inherent topological underpinnings.
Such as;
-The clock signal itself on a USB is much different than that of a clock on a SPDIF. So much so in fact, that many engineers don't even think of it or label it as a clock anymore as compared to "the clock" within a SPDIF connection methodology. Here are some reasons why they think this way. The timing is sent on the USB sort of like a "when to start" signal. Sort of a "Hey USB! You are going to get a stream of digital data in the form of bits, now GO!" This is not the same as a clock being put on top of a continuous data stream like in the SPDIF. That is where the HUGE difference is that supports the "interleaving" statement. It also explains why you aren't having the major sync ssues associated with SDIF. In the end though we are talking about the actual interface between the transport and the DAC's input receiver and the inherent connectivity downfalls associated of the actual "clocking" data itself, how it is configured, how it is married to the data stream and how that clock information is different "in form" as opposed to a SPDIF and it's real ugly sonic mess comparably.
Both USB and I2S connectivity are a superior way of connecting digital transports and DACS than SPDIF comparably. The conversion to I2S can actually happen in a properly designed USB Dac too. This conversion to I2S would happen later time in the digital chain itself. With this in mind, I do think we need to think of a properly designed USB DAC as having I2S (it just starts with USB cable before I2S). What does this all mean to the comparison of USB versus I2S connections if we convert earlier in the chain as opposed to using a simple computer USB connection? Well, that is where the sound quality itself will show the merits of both of these connectivity methodologies. Here are my thoughts ; since a computer has a built in USB connection, it makes it much more straight forward to connect the computer via USB to the DAC (Can we say "elegant"?). It also makes it easier for the audiophile to hook up (Can we say "simple"?) There is less cost associated with the USB connectivity (Can we say "We like to save money"?). Lastly and most importantly; the most impressive DAC I've ever heard up to this point was a USB Dac. That is where the "proof is in the pudding" for myself. Whatever format gives us the best sound and is actually closest to analog is where are measuring stick should be. All of these technical "explanations" and "tearing down" the engineering side of digital is interesting but the end sonic result is what really counts IMHO (not necessarily the technical methodology).
Since Agear pointed to Steve Nugent, I'll let some of Steve's statements outline what I've been trying to convey also (this information is from Steve Nugent himself):
"In an outboard USB converter, the data is received from the sending computer and precise timing information is added. The jitter from the computer clock can be effectively eliminated. The interface is then translated into an interface that a DAC can understand, such as S/PDIF, AES/EBU or I2S (the native DAC chip interface). The clock that generates the timing can be very precise and does not depend on data rate coming from a rotating optical disk, like a CD player, or the rate at which a hard disk is read. It does however depend on uninterrupted data flow from the computer." |
Agear, IMHO you are absolutely correct that USB intefaces are not created equal. (If it was only that simple!). I think we will see just a select few USB based digital standouts in the next year or so. Most likely, many of their competitors will be "scratching their heads" to why they cannot achieve the same sonic greatness when they try to implement a USB connection within their digital products. Steve Nugent is absolutely spot on with his assessments regarding USB variability. Only a very talented digital design staff (that understand digital like Steve Nugent) will be able to implement USB connectivity and actually achieve true sonic greatness due to the myriads of technical issues that Steve pointed out. As you surmised, the most important thing I've learned with this is that the SPDIF connection itself has always "sucked the life" out of what digital was capable of giving us. Of course, the Esoteric $15K Rubiduim clock probably helps fix some of this. ;-)
Bosrt; The wonderful pre-production USB DAC I heard was actually by accident. If their production USB DAC sounds as good as the beta unit I heard I think I will be "beating the drums" very loudly about it. I am so VERY TIRED of seeing the multitudes of huge dollar digital offerings that are being talked up in the rags and on the audio forums that don't actually meet the expectations? (Can we say "almost everything"). I think many audiophiles are getting burned out with digital as they spend STUPID money yet still end up flipping their digital front ends year over year. When are we going to see the super digital "revolutionary" product actually going to meet the hype about it?
BTW: Your "Alien Invasion" statement really cracked me up! |
