USB SQ, what can one expect

Cerrot: "I can't stand the sound and can't stand how they shoved it down everybodys throat. The USB is a filthy, disgusting place. Iwill check the link."

Interesting choice of phrasing. What did USB ever do to you that you should harbor such anger toward it? It just seems like a disproportionate response for the subject at hand.

Cerrot: "To me, good sound has no boundaries...."

That makes little sense to me. You're clearly drawing a boundary, and it lies somewhere between the guts and the anus of your system.

Cerrot: You're now making a number of assumptions that I don't feel are contributing to any meaningful conversations. Plus, your obstinance around your opinion of USB does a disservice to others who ARE looking for meaningful advice and superb sound.

First, I use USB for my sound. If I wasn't getting absolutely spectacular results -- almost too good to stand, actually -- then I might be prone to taking your "advice" while thinking, "Man, what a dumb cluck I've been." USB is an implementation found in many DACs and servers that stand at the highest level of praise, and while that implementation must be treated well and carefully for best results, thousands of other people are likely pretty darned happy with their choices.

The other ASSumption is that one must be "afraid to open up" one's computer. Gotcha there, too: I used to work for major computer vendors and later had a consulting practice, and could field-strip and rebuild a PC or Mac in record time... I wasn't at all afraid. So, your argument falls rather flat, no?

Perhaps you should read Ken Wilber's "No Boundary." One key premise in the book is that any boundary line represents a potential battle line. To so blithely stand by the premise that all USB implementations are crap is to stand on one side of your artificial and possibly baseless boundary and simply confuse other people who might not have quite the same outlook or experiences that you seem to have had. As always in these matters, YMMV, and your experience/opinion should be offered to others, but perhaps not so vehemently defended.

But, you do appear to have something to defend, some emotional investment in making sure that others don't make the same dastardly mistake that you seem to know so much about. Having said my piece, I'll leave you to it.

Cerrot: "I have nothing to defend. Science proves my position. Audio should not be transmitted in packets. pretty simple from where I sit."

Not to pick nits, sir, but you DO have something to defend: Your position, which is stated so clearly in the above quote. (I do have a tendency to notice conflicting or internally inconsistent statements.)

I understand you've evangelized against USB as an audio solution. Perhaps, as you say, you're the only one doing so. I would agree with that, as there seem to be so many USB-based solutions that I'm compelled to think that people aren't listening.

What I would suggest, however, is, "So what?"

Maybe it's not the *best* approach, but I and perhaps others would suggest to you that the sound is pretty darned good when approached properly. I couldn't give a rat's pitoot whether it's USB, or Ethernet, or sound card, or the next big thing to come along. I'm more than delighted with my sound, and there is a general feeling that, USB limitations notwithstanding, digital playback is approaching or has approached the vaunted vinyl, and only stands to get better as time goes on.

Most people say "YMMV." Perhaps USB is not for you, and that's cool. Don't use it, then. But throwing such a huge (and wet) blanket over anything-USB is to denigrate peoples' chosen systems, and to diminish the work and accomplishments of system designers who -- despite the limitations of USB -- have developed equipment that produces world-class audio.

My position is that since people are getting excellent results from USB, then perhaps it's not such a bad thing after all. For now, I'll run with it.

Interestingly, Cerrot, I recently moved off of an S/PDIF implementation in favor of USB. But, my DAC is different than most, and is considered "input agnostic."

+1 Mrmb

I'm beginning to sense why Cerrot thinks that no one listens to him. I can only speak for myself, of course.