Do You Need To Use A USB TO S/PDIF Converter Instead of Direct USB?

[bonzo]

More OCD http://www.computeraudiodesign.com/Windows Software Modifications V2_1.pdf

That one is free though if you have the time.

There is one for Mac and Windows. I will instead just compare a modded mini to an aurender s10 and buy one

 

[risabet]

Why not just play the files from memory and not from the HD directly. This should in theory remove the quality of the HD from the equation. I am doing this in Jriver and may have heard a slight improvement when playing from memory as opposed to the HD.

If I were using my TADAC I would need a converter, but since I use either a AQ Dragonfly, at work, or recently the Schiit Loki, at home, I stream direct to USB. Asynch USB has no jitter to speak of so if you can go direct this would seem to be the better way to go, sans converter.

 

[Bernard]

The latest TAS has a review of the $16K Berkeley Alpha Reference DAC, together with an interview with the designer. When asked why the DAC lacks a USB input, this was his response:

"[.....] when you're shooting for the ultimate in performance, which is what we did with the Reference Series,not to mention the Alpha DAC before it, you absolutely don't want to connect the DAC directly to the computer or router. They have large amounts of electrical noise, and that noise gets injected into the DAC's ground, or the noise is capacitively coupled through the input. A separate isolation/re clocking device [a USB-to-SPDIF converter] for computer-audio playback is essential if you're going for the state of the art."

Comments?

 

[bonzo]

Bernard, modded laptops/desktops/aurenders work specifically on this USB thing to give it more power and clean up the noise to bring it to same quality as SPDIF. SPDIF can't play DSD.

I couldn't make out the difference between aurender spdif and usb into my lampi. Both the lampi distributor and the aurender dealer said that spdif should be marginally better, theoretically. I will stick to USB to have the convenience of DSD too. Only if you are using a CD transport, or need to pass a Datasat/Trinnov into your audiophile dac, do you need spdif, IME. That said, some dacs like AR dac 8 are made for CD transports, and not so much for computerised audio, and their USB quality is much lower than their spdif, easily distinguishable. But for lampi/weiss/meitner types, I doubt my ears could tell.

 

[slowGEEZR]

The latest TAS has a review of the $16K Berkeley Alpha Reference DAC, together with an interview with the designer. When asked why the DAC lacks a USB input, this was his response:

"[.....] when you're shooting for the ultimate in performance, which is what we did with the Reference Series,not to mention the Alpha DAC before it, you absolutely don't want to connect the DAC directly to the computer or router. They have large amounts of electrical noise, and that noise gets injected into the DAC's ground, or the noise is capacitively coupled through the input. A separate isolation/re clocking device [a USB-to-SPDIF converter] for computer-audio playback is essential if you're going for the state of the art."

Comments?

I disagree, after all, what he is saying is that the converter is stripping the noise. In my USB DAC, the noise is stripped as it uses its own power supply, not the power from the USB. So, SPDIF converter irrelevant. Just two ways to do the same thing.

 

[amey01]

The latest TAS has a review of the $16K Berkeley Alpha Reference DAC, together with an interview with the designer. When asked why the DAC lacks a USB input, this was his response:

"[.....] when you're shooting for the ultimate in performance, which is what we did with the Reference Series,not to mention the Alpha DAC before it, you absolutely don't want to connect the DAC directly to the computer or router. They have large amounts of electrical noise, and that noise gets injected into the DAC's ground, or the noise is capacitively coupled through the input. A separate isolation/re clocking device [a USB-to-SPDIF converter] for computer-audio playback is essential if you're going for the state of the art."

Comments?

Yeah, I will comment.

Electrical connection is electrical connection, regardless of what you pass it through. Unless he is specifically advocating the use of optical S/PDIF from the converter (which he is not), there will always be an electrical connection between the DAC and the source.

How does the USB>SPDIF converter eliminate this electrical noise? It might - I don't know. But more seriously, why is he is not able to eliminate this noise with exactly the same componentry (converting USB to SPDIF) inside his $16,000 DAC?

It doesn't say much for his design skills if a $300 Bel Canto converter can eliminate source noise that his $16,000 DAC can not.

I still maintain that a computer in your listening room is a really crude way to obtain computer audio. Streamers are everywhere. Why not do things properly?

So, he's basically said it clear and loud: Either:

1. The DAC is compromised because it doesn't contain the required isolation
or;
2. The DAC is compromised because the designer doesn't know what he's talking about.

I don't know which is the truth, but if SPDIF is so far superior, why not put this "magic" SPDIF converter on the other side of your USB input? The OEM parts probably cost about $20, and in a $16,000 DAC, saving $20 is a pretty big compromise if you are so sure that SPDIF is a better method of connection. Either that, or he doesn't know what he's talking about - which is pretty serious when he's asking $16,000 from people.

 

[User211]

Adam, even without any knowledge I agree it is easy to see that response is pure BS.

I like to use a laptop with async USB mainly because I like using Qobuz lossless FLAC. I'll move to TIDAL which US people should look out for too. It'll have a much larger library than Qobuz. It also has the support of 16 hi-fi h/w manufacturers. It is out VERY soon.

If you ask me, async USB from device to DAC is THE BEST solution given a decent isolated USB card in the DAC. That said, I have optical and coax SPDIF on the DAC too. I go HDMI->SPDIF sometimes and that is very close to the USB interface if not identical sonically WITH MY KIT.

I think I can hear differences in various USB software setups though which is worrying.

 

[MiTT]

Very much looking forward to the launch of Tidal here in the US!

 

[Bernard]

Maybe the guy's explanation for what he was hearing was contentious, but going with Kedar's statement that the Aurender and Lampizator guys said that SPDIF should be marginally better than USB: assuming that Berkeley built a DAC with both and found also that SPDIF was marginally better, and also, that DAC was supposed to be a no-compromise DAC, they would logically leave out USB as it would be a compromise if they included it.

It is an unusual decision, however, financially, as (the high price not withstanding) the omission of USB means less demand for their product. Well, the guy puts his money where his mouth is, or in this case, leaves the money.

 

[bonzo]

Hi Bernard, not so clear. That was the aurender s10, and the new x100 model is built only on usb to make it as good. Also then I had the l5, I doubt putting the x100 into l7 (or l5), one still be able to make out a difference with spdif. Everyone has a competence level for the technology they are using. Some PCM gels with DSD, some doesn't. Same with spdif and usb. Maybe BADA construction doesn't allow them to optimize usb without adding a significant size and cost

 

[amey01]

Maybe the guy's explanation for what he was hearing was contentious, but going with Kedar's statement that the Aurender and Lampizator guys said that SPDIF should be marginally better than USB: assuming that Berkeley built a DAC with both and found also that SPDIF was marginally better, and also, that DAC was supposed to be a no-compromise DAC, they would logically leave out USB as it would be a compromise if they included it.

It is an unusual decision, however, financially, as (the high price not withstanding) the omission of USB means less demand for their product. Well, the guy puts his money where his mouth is, or in this case, leaves the money.

I don't think one is intrinsically better than the other Bernard - there's no reason why USB can't sound every bit as good as SPDIF. I think it comes down to the particular DAC manufacturer's implementation of said DAC circuits that makes a difference in the sound. That, and the cheap, OEM parts sometimes used.