USB DACs with 24/192 via USB

Bigamp

So....What are you planning to do with such a piece? Play DVD audio via your PC/MAC or ?

Are there any audio discs being recorded and available for download in that format now? Some threads here point to websites which are approaching sampling rates of 188… but 192?

On a likewise note previously mentioned about the restrictions of USB… from my laptop I go out via USB into a cheap Creative Labs 24/96 USB card, and then out via coax into my Sony HT receiver…. I use J River MC 12 AS THE MEDIA PLAYER…

I have MC 12 set to output audio at 24/96.

When I play ripped music from either WAV, ALAC or FLAC files the OSD on the Sony says 24/96 PCM is the current input stream. If I set MC 12 to go 16/44.1… it reports just that as well.

If USB is restricted to 44.1 > 48Hz… what is going on?

Bigamp

My point is as Onhwy61 said... does the "???" DAc support more than 16/44-48 over USB?

Can DACs in fact accept higher word lengths and bit rates using USB as the conduit, or why not?

My own meager trials indicate to me using USB as the only interface for music is not as positive as is using a sound card which outputs via coax, or AES instead.

I've not tried the Wavelength designs on USB, but sure wouldn't mind doing it just to see the degree of diff. But I am satisfied a sound card, either on board or USB which allows a pass thru of higher bit information bests USB alone.

...and yes, I've even bought the De ASIO driver online and implemented it too.

Now I'm not saying the sound isn't any good going USB alone... I'm saying placing a card in between the PC and stand alone DAC sounds better noticeably.... even with an inexpensive USB sound card!

What gets me in this topic is the notion USB only transmutes limited bit rates.

NOTE > Onhwy61 is right agbout many DAC makers indicating high word lengths and bit rate decoding, but they're not as clear on which or if all the interfaces of their DACs do indeed handle them... ya have to look closely to see who's doing what where.

Then too is the idea regardless the numbers... some will outperform others, as it's seldom as simple as a numbers game entirely.

I kinda think USB does transmute 24/96 presently.. or my sony sure thinks it does... but it's old, and may be developing a case of 'bitzhymers'.

well if you can’t relocate the server or just don’t want to, there are the usual ways of getting the music into the system… wireless laptop into the DAC via USB, or via an USB sound card and THEN into the ??? DAC. NOTE the shorter the USB cable there, the better.

Or you could choose one of the wireless sort of devices like the Squeeze Box, Duet, etc. and eliminate the laptop from that chain. Also, an iPhone for the remote track picking duties, or a laptop again, purely for selecting tracks or URLs.

I have my main ‘audio’ PC on my Sound Anchor rack just above the BC DAC3 and hook to it by a Stereovox BNC cable. I can interface with it in a number of ways, lengthy USB cable & USB hub for keyboard and mouse, with a small VGA LCD monitor. Or by remote desktoping into it with the laptop, or by using the HDMI output of it’s video card into my HDMI receiver to an overhead BenQ projector. I prefer to use the LCD, USB hub, and a small folding table to rest the monitor onto.

I’ve tried a fair number of approaches to get HDD based, and digital audio into my stereo. Single box CDPs, CDP + DACs, servers + laptop going USB alone, two different desktops using various sound cards and/or USB with several ASIO drivers.

My fav in the end is using my old XP Home desktop, a good PCI sound card within it, a pretty good power cord for it, the Stereovox coax cable, and the DAC3…. After all those trials.

At the “computer audiophile” website you’ll get lots more input/insights on how others have done things. Stuff like what can be done, and what can’t with USB.

The one particular thing I noticed overall at that site? I get the notion feeding a really nice DAC with a very good to excellent sound card is best. My own meager attempts seem to bare that out too…. so far anyhow. Although I am limited to only 24/96… I’m not unhappy about it. I’VE NOTICED SCANT LITTLE DIFF IN THE 24/96 TO 24/192 debate either… not enough to warrant my investing far more into a DAC which can and does decode the 192, 188, etc bit rates… I’ll just stick with the 96ers for a while more. It sounds excellent to me on my stereo…. So I’m happy now.

Good luck.

Dougmc

Could you or someone else, post a link to that article, please?

Thanks.

Let’s think for a second here about when USB for music playback came into being… and why.

It seems to me the USB interface was directed towards the ‘sake of convenience crowd’, far more so than for the ‘audiophilic nervousa crowd’.

But just as with the Pro Audio sector, the audiophobic crowd has found yet another vein for which to investigate and try bending to their ends. With a modicum of success only, they then have the audacity to cry for excellence from this interface while still in its infancy and as yet ill defined in it’s metamorphoses.

Goodness. See how much those little iPods have done to us? More so, I think than they have done for us, at times.

USB was to us… however large or small the promise was on it’s lips. A simple, widespread interface that yielded plug and play use. No learning curve to speak of, and it’s CHEAP!

Well…. It sounds pretty good on the desktop… let’s see how it sounds on the big rig! Hmmm… needs some tweaking but it has potential. Enter then, G Rankin, and those of that ilk offering the use of that simple convenient nothing to it cable, and assuring better than ever performance with some interesting and unique designs. Great!

Hard Drive acreage plummeted like A.I.G. stock, and now storing vast amounts of media could be had almost for the asking.

High Def… finally had sufficient egress. A new home almost anywhere and for mere pennies. Confusing the issues further was Hollywood. Namely with a covetous protection array instituted purely for their own ends called HDMI.

24-192 capabilities over HDMI 1.3a. one wire! Indeed an audiophiliac’s notion of heresy! I was just getting used to USB 1.0!

How better to serve the music nut than to enable them to render veritable square miles of HDD space than to make great DACs that also (oh by the way), have USB inputs? As well, for the more discriminating ($$$), some other levels of higher yielding digital fare?

Wait a mo’…. What about I2S, and Firewire… oops… USB 3.0?

USB was made for computer users. Personal confusers outdate themselves quicker than chickens eating skinny worms! Geezzz louise, they have obsolescence built into the equation as standard operating proceedure!

Now there’s a new USB format upcoming?
Hmmm…. Let’s see… can I keep up and live comfortably on the ‘bleeding edge’?

Nope. It’s too costly as the changes arrive too quickly and with too vast an assortment. Latest and supposedly greatest isn’t always bestest in truth.

So what’s to do? Well, what has worked in digital for some time now during the inception of iPods, HDMI, Why Fi, firewires, the various USB iterations and those which inevitably will follow?

AES… BNC, and Coax SPDIF… yep and TOS too.

So if it’s a digital world we’ll be a dwelling’ ing, All one needs to do is convert properly the digital signal, preferably outside the PCs domain to these aforementioned units and be done with it and let the digital dust settle.

According to the Stereophile review by JA on the BC usb converter, he made a case for the M Audio $99 unit too for that task, and the EMU USB card for a second option while addressing the 24/96 devotee needs.

there are others, BTW…. RME, Lynx , etc. which satisfy higher word lengths and bit rates.

I don’t think the digital world and the audio purists worlds are ever going to be on par with one another. The focus for each is different. The targeted audience is different. Blending new school tech with old school traditions is where things become muddied.

AS much as I respect efforts from Wavlenth, Imperical Audio, Bel Canto, Lavry, etc… using a standard (gosh) high end DAC being fed by a good to very good sound card via AES, BNC, or coax sure has it’s benefits. Not to mention the abilities to process more than adequately the higher ‘numbers game’.

True also for some configurations, the wireless route seems best and least pricey for some time to come yet. Unless of course, your pockets are as deep as are your ambitions.

As Jax2 said and I’ll support in other words, it always comes to this… “Just what flavor of chocolate does one prefer, and how much are you willing to pay the vendor for it? The digital world begs one other question… “…and how often?”

There’s an awful lot of ways around here to skin the proverbial cat than merely by USB alone that are a bit more ‘future proof’.

Restock

“I don't see any benefits of introducing an extra step of a sound card conversion from USB to AES/coax. In fact, I really don't see the advantage of using the badly designed AES/coax SPDIF connection that lacks a separate clock transfer and barely can make 24/192 (most SPDIF inputs are limited to 24/96 too).”

I don’t claim to have the professional knowledge of exactly what USB can and/or can not handle, nor the reaches of coax, be it thru put or bit rates beyond 96KHz… or if it is in fact as simple as a ‘driver’ issue for USB. What ever the case is, Coax, AES & BnC connections are on and have been on many stand alone DACs which tout processing 16/44 all the way up to 24/192 for some time now and they up sample or over sample the given input signal within. There are even one box solutions which do this as well. Long before USB or IEEE came along. They all seemed to be doing just fine using the interfaces I listed to supply the initial input signal (s). they too are all converting, or transmuting one signal to another… so adding steps to the processing of a signal isn’t altogether a bad thing then…. For some.

Of the DACs you mention most of them, if not all of them are well beyond certainly my own means. EM labs, Weiss, Imperical, etc., and perhaps those of many others. Consequently, my proposal was an alternative route to extract info beyond 24/96 without the use of a USB to ??? converter. After all if it’s a USB changeover device of sorts, or a sound card, the info is being converted at any rate. Some folks use still more pricey cards than I’ve employed to feed still more pricey DACs than I’ve had the opportunity to own. I’d not wish to had a DAC which ONLY supported one interface.

Then too, the only truly limiting factor is the system the information winds up being reproduced with.

Restock
“One of the big advantages with asynchronous USB is that you can place the clock right next to the DAC chip and slave the PC to the DAC clock. That gives the lowest jitter and something that is not at all possible with AES, coax or any other traditional conversion schemes. Finally, the only limit to data transfer rates via USB is due to the lack of drivers. If a company is willing to write drivers for their DAC then 24/192 won't be a problem. And I don't see USB disappearing from PCs anytime soon.”

You might want to look closer at some of even the lesser expensive sound cards now on the mkt. They allow for this particular step… slaving the pc to the clock in the stand alone DAC… even my M Audio 24/192 Audiophile PCI card can do that. Very well in fact, and for about $160 new… or you can set it to use it’s own internal clock. You pick.

I set it to external and make use of the BC DAC 3’s clock.

I don’t see USB going away either… I simply submit it remains unsettled. The addition of IEEE supports that remark. Some future iteration is also on the not distant horizon. What then?

I merely wanted to input alterior methods to convey pc info into a stereo system which permits very good to exceptional sound quality, if not truly remarkable, IMO. In fact I’ve found using much simpler paths a most satisfying, moderately expensive alternative route which allows for outstanding sound in my opinion, and in truth. Just as you said the best you had heard was via the IEEE WEISS MINERVA.

I’ve gone thru several ASIO USB drivers, cards, media players, file formats, interfaces and DACs. From modestly priced to significantly costly ones. What I mention here is exactly my own experiences and just what I use and own now. Nothing more.

I’d love nothing better than to drop $5K $ 10K on a DAC without blinking an eye. I can’t however. It’s that simple. I’ve heard upsampled signals too and I can take them or leave them… past 24/96 I don’t perceive a performance gain, but merely a difference in the sounds presentation itself. Some could well argue that diff is an improvement, subjectively speaking. I don’t.

AS to the driver barrier…. I doubt that issue will be resolved by confuser makers at large any time soon. Rather, I suspect such an area will be addressed by those DAC makers who wish to support ultra high res pc generated signals, or they’ll convert them in their own DACs, which will as now, remain financially well out of reach for many. It will be interesting to see who learns to write code proficiently enough to satisfy current driver needs, and supports such needs with future updates. So there’s a whole other bag of worms.

God bless you if you can afford to dwell on that bleeding edge, for it is a less peopled region and changes all too rapidly.

I too feel much of the numbers game is simply that… a numbers game providing different more often than it serves the ideal of true betterment. I find that argument akin to that which opposes tube and solid state mavens. Neither camp there is without validation. Neither can one say which is definitely the best method for the end result to be had with those quite personal choices.

I don’t always feel that removal of items in the signal path is always the answer to improve performance, or arrive at a better sonic product…. Ie., Subtracting a preamp and going directly from a DAC to an amplifier, for example, or always use less components in a loudspeakers x over network.

I’m not going inside any of these gizmos. I won’t be modding them or seeking such avenues with these components. I would be simply plugging them in and listening. How many fewer or further steps are in the processing, matters not in the end.

Practically speaking, it’s always going to come down to as I‘ve already said, “What’s it sound like to me in my house, and can or do I want to pay for it.” Technology aside.

Until the dust settles, and prices drop, the majority will seek out, and very well should, other means which offer stability and well above average performance for lesser expense. Latest ain’t always greatest, and highest priced isn’t always anything but the highest priced.

REstock

Thanks for the links... and I do dig where you seem to be coming from. The info from this link says some of what I alluded to early on in my diatribe on alternative methods, when I mentioned the JA article in Stereophile wherein he points to the M Audio transit, (?) and this self same EMU 404, I also briefly noted above.

That links poster also confirms my convictions about the aspects of having to write the driver, and support it thereafter.... I know that takes some doing and resources most high end DAC makers aren't looking forward to doing, if they do them at all.

Again, I absolutely am confined to look towards the most practical, high value paths first and foremost.

With respect to all, once you start digging in the 'mine of diminishing returns', you're going to wear out a bunch of shovels for just a bit or perhaps better gold.... if then.

the sole attraction for me in the 192KHz arena is IF I can capture stereo or multi ch audio onto a hard drive from ripping it off the disc itself and thereby have the ability to archive, select, and play it back from there.

Thereafter for me, is the choice of which interface, which or how many steps in the conversion process, and their accumulative cost to performance ratio.

Naturally, and as well, its' comensurate level with that of my current stereo's abilities. As is usual for me regardless the component to be added next. Such is just my lot.

Having heard some high res played back, I've got to ponder the expense for such a result, or a change.

Do check out the computer audiophile website too for more insights and methods.

an egg now and then isn't an altogether bad thing and I've managed to wipe most of it off my face now.....

Although I’m not actually from Missouri when I am shown something is audibly better than something else I’ve grown accustomed too, I’m fine with it… especially if the new item is a gizmo I can actually acquire.

Using the M2Tech Hiface briefly in house showed me it was a substantial gain over a modestly priced sound card of proportedly identical output capacities.

Past the more obvious traits of heightened cleanliness and clarity within the scope of the music, it was portrayed with greater fidelity and naturalness in 16/44 & 24/96 FLAC using both J River MC & Fubar 102. the latter player was the better sounding experience IMHO in conjunction with the Hiface’ Kernal Streaming mode. Even AAC (m4a) files seemed better overall, as did several other file types.

Small, lightweight, Plug ‘N Play, self powered, exceptionally lowered jitter (presumably), external application, and most importantly… affordable!!

Now, where it stacks up against a true high end sound card or another likewise adapter, I can not say. For now however at < $200, it’s a true no brainer of a decision if you’re aim is to use a pc as a source.

This should be interesting now… seeing how it stands up against more higher costing devices. It stopped me for a time, from investing in a Lynx or further upscale interface, as I’ve found it a bona fide step up in overall audio performance, yielding a more naturally accurate insight to the musical presentation.

The hidden bonus of it working best with a free media player was just icing. ;-))