Usb wasn't developed as an interface between streamers and dacs, this interface has no inherent advantage over I2S. I2S interface not universally used due to the fact I2S clock best placed closest to data lines. So, we can then all agree I2S clock in an external device not ideal. Now not being ideal doesn't necessarily mean it can't or won't be superior to usb or some other interface for any specific dac. My Musetec dac has a highly developed custom build usb board, far superior to what I see in vast majority of dacs, Laiv has far more pedestrian implementation, this approximates what I see in most. My specific streaming setup and implementation of both I2S AND USB interfaces provides me with superior results via I2S. I posit quality of any input interface INTO DDC is critical, output is only part of the equation. In direct comparisons of my optimized usb vs optimized I2S, I2S wins out. And I will continue to state YMMV, this just as others should admit.
Six DAC Comparison
I am in the middle of comparing the sound of six different DACs in my system. I own them all (I know weird) but one of them is still within a trial/return timeframe.
Not to share specific comparisons today, but a couple of observations so far are that first, they all definitely sound different from each other. On one hand, they all sound pretty good and play what is fed to them without significant flaws but on the other hand there are definite sonic differences that make it easy to understand how a person might like the sound of some of them while not liking others.
Second, raises the observation that most of them must be doing something to shape the sound in the manner the designer intended since one of the DACs, a Benchmark DAC3 HGA, was described by John Atkinson of Stereophile as providing "state-of-the-art measured performance." In the review, JA closed the measurements section by writing, "All I can say is "Wow!" I have also owned the Tambaqui (not in my current comparison), which also measured well ("The Mola Mola Tambaqui offers state-of-the-digital-art measured performance." - JA). The Benchmark reminds me sonically of the Tambaqui, both of which are excellent sounding DACs.
My point is that if the Benchmark is providing "state-of-the-art measured performance," then one could reasonably presume that the other five DACs, which sound different from the Benchmark, do not share similar ’state-of-the-art" measurements and are doing something to subtly or not so subtly alter the sound. Whether a person likes what they hear is a different issue.
- ...
- 417 posts total
@ Soix Clocking is just one of the many factors. Re-clocking doesn’t fix corrupted data. And as I stated, it is not the accuracy of the clock that matters, but rather how little clocking noise it produces that pollutes sensitive analog components in the audible spectrum. So you can have the ultimate low-noise clocking in any number of components in your digital signal chain and then have your digital data corrupted or your analog signal polluted because of the clocking inside of your DAC. Every link in the chain matters. Think of the analogy of taking a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy. How much of a difference would it make if you used all high res scanners and printers in the chain but one was low res? All you would end up with is a very accurate reproduction of the worst scanner and printer in the chain. Or what would happen if you had all high res scanners and printers in your chain but then your last scanner and printer was low res? |
@ SNS Your DAC can have a very advanced USB input. But if the output from your digital source and your digital cables are not equal then you cannot make a fair comparison between USB and I2S. All the inputs and outputs on any component are not equal. Companies who are promoting I2S are making sure that their I2S inputs and outputs sound better than the other inputs or outputs. USB may not have been created for music but it was created for component-to-component data transfer. I2S was not created for component-to-component data transfer. Can anyone name a pro audio component that is used in professional recording studios that uses an I2S input? On the other hand, USB is used in professional recording studios. What does that tell you? |
@fuzzbutt17 I'm using the same usb chain with both I2S and usb, so usb>dac vs usb>Denafrips Gaia DDC.I2S>dac.
Neither my Musetec or Laiv dacs promote I2S as superior, Musetec specifically promotes their custom build usb board, again, this one of the best I've seen. This build based on what they had learned via Amamero usb board used in prior model dac.
What pro's use not necessarily always superior. I'd not want a pro system for my home system. And based on mediocre and worse sound quality on so many recordings pro's not generally my reference for best sound quality.
Finally, I'm not stating I2S is universally superior to usb, it is superior in my setup, many other report the same. |
It tells you nothing. The pro audio world also use cheap (compared to audiophile level) well measured and flat response studio monitors, how many audiophiles use those kind of monitors ? They also use Belden xlr interconnect - what percentage of audiophile use Belden in their setup ? They also sit in front of their mixing table with their ears and head in a vice, 4 ft away from the monitors - how many audiophiles do that ? And their are many more....does it matter what the pro audio world uses ? Their environment, purpose, use case are completely different than audiophiles. They do not listen to the music as we do - our purpose is to enjoy the music and to transport ourselves in that venue, their purpose to create that venue. In seems like you keep bringing the pro audio just to justify the lack of i2s in your dac. As @sns also alluded, I have not seen any manufacturer claim one input is better than others. You have your design, other manufacturers have theirs - what sounds best is finally determined by the consumer in their listening chair. @sns +1 |
- 417 posts total