USB DACs with 24/192 via USB

I think differences between 24/96 & 192 would have to be very slight.

That would be my instinct as well, and I would expect that differences in implementation and quality would generally overshadow the difference in sample rate.

Compared to redbook, though, although most of us are aware that 24 bits represents a 256-fold increase in information compared to 16 bits (at least potentially), I would view the benefit of the higher sample rate (even at 96kHz) to be at least as significant, if not more so. It is probably tempting to think of it as a little more than a doubling, but I think it is best viewed in relation to the Nyquist frequency (the 40kHz minimum sampling frequency which is theoretically required to capture a 20kHz bandwidth). Redbook's 44.1kHz exceeds the Nyquist rate by about 10% (which to me has always made it seem wondrous that it works as well as it does); 96kHz exceeds it by 140%, which should make possible vastly reduced side effects from anti-aliasing and reconstruction filters.

Regards,
-- Al

I think differences between 24/96 & 192 would have to be very slight.

1st of all, it's only a difference of 2x the information.

2nd, 24/96 is really a staggering amount of information.

Then again, "hunches" and feel don't count for anything in this game.

My digital setup is far from the stratosphere of price but is really is pretty darn good. The AN DAC is the most important part, and I wouldn't trade it for any DAC with a 24 bit chip I've heard! Though eventually AN will go there.

Paul, I'm sure your setup sounds amazing, and you are right that some of us, including me, are too hung up on the technology... With 24/192, you might have vinyl... ;)

I'm playing 24/96 files (recorded from vinyl by me) via my Mac Mini to an Empirical Off Ramp to my Audio Note Kits DAC. The AN DAC does use an 18 bit chip, so it truncates, but note that 18/96 is still more than 8x the information of redbook.

This sound is incredible, close to vinyl much of the time.

Most of you guys are really too hung up on technology.

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.

The other background fact here is that my PC server is 60 feet away from my audio rig.

My server is two floor below my rig in my basement. I use a Modwright Transporter, which is an outstanding wireless server using an AKM DAC. You can also wire it to the network via cat-5 (Ethernet) cable. Unfortunately the specs are up to your standards (I believe it's limited to 24/92), but a network solution would eliminate your USB limitation.

The EMU 404 uses a USB 2.0 interface which is capable of higher bandwidth than the standard (original) USB interface that most of the others mentioned here are limited by. This is why it is capable of the higher resolution. As I pointed out, you can also use a Firewire DAC to get higher resolution also via the greater throughput capacity of that bus.

Blindjim, I see where your external soundcard would be better than an internal one. This sounds like a good solution. And I agree that a 24/192 DAC may only be able to receive 24/96 signals or less via particular inputs. The buyer has to look at the product specs to make sure the DAC can receive the higher sample rates via USB, or that its even a true 24/192 DAC.

For example, the new Emmlabs DAC2 is a 24/96 DAC, but it can only receive 24/48 via USB -- I would love to buy this DAC for its sound but it's a non-starter for me because it can't even receive 24/96 via USB.

The other background fact here is that my PC server is 60 feet away from my audio rig. I run a 30 meter fiber optic USB cable between PC and rig. This only goes up to 24/96. I suppose I could also run a 60 foot AES cable for 24/192 files, as you suggested; or put an external sound card at the end of that 30 meter USB cable and then feed 24/192 AES from the sound card into the DAC. But best case would be only a 30 meter USB cable that does 24/192 (no sound card or USB-to-digital converter).

There are DACs out there that take a 24/196 USB input, such as the Emu 404 DAC. I'm looking for a higher-quality DAC, such as an Emmlabs or whatever, that can do this. That way, one cable that does it all and great sound.

I

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'.

Are you sure the Apogee Mini supports high sample rates over its USB port?

Hi Blindjim, you're right, there are only a few sources of 24/192 recordings now, such as www.2L.no. But there will be more.

Also, I'm in the camp that you get lower jitter from a PC server by using USB/Firewire/Ethernet out of the PC compared to a digital signal that comes out of an internal sound card.

So, I'm trying to avoid spending big $ on a high-end DAC that only supports 48 or 96KHz via USB, because I see it as a white elephant in a year or two.

I suppose if someone like Empirical Audio had a Turbo-3 that did 24/192, then my problem would be solved; and I could let it convert the 24/192 USB to AES for any DAC that takes a 24/192 AES input. But it would be cleaner and cheaper to just plug the USB 24/192 cable directly into the DAC.

The Apogee Mini-dac can do that and sounds terrific.

"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?"

Yes, you can buy Reference Recordings HRX formats, as well as CLassic Records HDAD formats...downloading the format could still be daunting as files sizes are pretty large

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?

I'll take 24/48 over 20/192 any day. 24-bit has 16 times the amplitude resolution as 20-bit

I would respectfully disagree, Johnny, and I certainly wouldn't apply that as a general rule. At best I think it would depend on the dynamic range of the music, and perhaps the high frequency content of the music as well. Yes 24-bit has 16 times the amplitude resolution of 20-bit, but 20-bit has a resolution of approximately 2^20 = 1 part in 1,048,576 = less than 0.0001%, assuming the bits are used effectively (i.e., assuming that some of them are not thrown away to provide overly conservative headroom in the recording process).

While on the other hand a 48kHz sample rate barely exceeds the theoretical minimum Nyquist rate (40kHz for a 20kHz signal bandwidth), and invites pretty much the same side effects of anti-aliasing and reconstruction filters which are generally recognized to have limited cd sound quality right from the start.

Regards,
-- Al

I posit that the 24 bits vs. anything less is far more important to sound quality than 192 Khz vs. 96. I'll take 24/48 over 20/192 any day. 24-bit has 16 times the amplitude resolution as 20-bit. 96Khz is plenty high enough to maintain phase relationships in the treble, overtones, and soundstage.

What about the new PS Audio Perfect Wave DAC? John

Lets' see the Benchmark DAC1 USB can handle 24bit/192kHz..., but not from its USB input, only from its digtial inputs.

So can you buy a new 24bit/192kHz Computer Audio/Sound Card for your computer that has digital out to the digital in on the Benchmark.

Rich

I read that series of articles too. I think it would have been better to bring
more reviewers in on that series, as all the articles about the negative aspects
of USB conversion came from one author. And as has been mentioned, if
you're going to make sweeping statements about USB DACs, bring
Wavelength into the discussion. There are some who believe a PC into a
Wavelength Cosecant trumps just about any other 16/44.1 playback.

One other thing that piqued my interest, though, was the Focusrite Saffire.
While its list price is the same as the Bel Canto, it can do many more things,
the Firewire-to-SP/DIF sounds even better than USB-to-SP/DIF, and the
Saffire's street price is $350 at any music store chain. The LE version goes for
$299.

I have a MacBook with a Firewire output, so if I decide to up the sound quality
of my iTunes on it, I'll probably go with the Saffire to extract the digital
stream from the computer. Less money, better sound. What's not to like?

Bel Canto offers a 24/96 USB Link $495. I use the Bel Canto Dac3 vis USB and plan on adding the 24/96 Link when I start using higher resolution recordings.

I'm pretty sure the Weiss Minerva Firewire DAC can support that sample rate via Firewire. I think the USB bus runs at 12mhz which limits throughput to 44.1K or redbook. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Answering question of the original poster: - No, today there is no DAC that can receive a 24/192 input via USB.

Vast majority of them is limited to 16/48. The best DACs which can accept 24/96 are that of Gordon Rankin and Charles Heston who uses Rankin's technology.

For the record, Ayre stated that they hope to have 24/192 on their USB DAC by the end of this year...but I doubt

Good Luck
Rafael

A great article that was severely flawed by the absence of Gordon Rankin's Asynchronous USB interface. This is what most of us wanted to hear about, and TAS dropped the ball.

Agreed; Rankin's technology should have been included. I wish they'd also included Empirical Audio's Pace Car, which I've heard make a significant improvement in computer>DAC interface. It seemed like a pretty small sampling they decided to include given that it is a pretty strong movement in audio trends.

A great article that was severely flawed by the absence of Gordon Rankin's Asynchronous USB interface. This is what most of us wanted to hear about, and TAS dropped the ball.

Regards,

There's a great article about this in the current Absolute Sound and the limitations of USB audio. But the BelCanto USB interface, that then is meant to go from the USB interface into a DAC, improves the sound tremendously. I don't have one, since I don't use USB as an output, but a guy in our audio society did a test using it and there was a huge difference. He used the BelCanto USB interface from a MacMini into a BelCanto DACIII and the differece with and without it was incredible.