Well, not quite perfect Firedog55 (your comments about the Hiface). A number of devices I have tried sound a lot better than the Hiface, albeit for more money.
74 responses Add your response
Updating this thread; There's the M2Tech Hiface USB to SPDIF interface. It will get you perfect audio output from a computer USB port to your DAC. The Empirical Audio products are all now being made compatible for output up to 24/192. The website hasn't been updated with this info, but the Empirical discussion group at audiocircle received an official announcement. Email Steve and I'm sure he will be glad to confirm himself. I think you will be seeing this as a common feature on many new products with USB |
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. ;-)) |
Clio9, the music just flows better, more natural, more enjoyable with the HiFace. Everything is cleaner more musical. If you have a BNC connector on your DAC, get the HiFace with BNC, it is even better with a Naim DC1 BNC-BNC SPDIF cable. I tried the HiFace with an Altmann Attraction DAC, with a Lavry DA10, Naim Uniti and worked very well. |
Hi- The M2Tech HiFace USB>S/PDIF interface will work with files up to and including 24/192. From what I understand Empirical Audio will be adding USB 24/192 abilities to their Offramp and PaceCar interfaces later this year, as well as to their Overdrive DAC. Check periodically at http://empiricalaudio.com or the audio circle forum http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?board=40.0 |
I don't know that much about this stuff. I'm trying to record music that I have a subscription to Echoes from WXPN on my laptop to a cd recorder. I tried a headphone jack with two RCA cables. Now I'm trying a Benchmark USB DAC. The guy at the stereo store said it's compressed music and with a dac it uncompresses it but I have to mention it really isn't a big difference. It does seem to sound better going through my pre amplifier (McIntosh 2200) but then I read the less souces the better. I been playing this through my system before I even record. Does anybody have any suggestions? It would be much appreciated, Robert |
i agree antipodes. i had been waiting for this issue thinking it would be more imformative. what a waist. written for ipoders and not audiogoners. i left the digetal domain 8 or 9 yrs ago and been vinyl/2 channel only since. i don't get the reviews on the epensive or even cheap transports, why would anyone buy one? it's only a diferant and out dated way of recieving bits. it is aparant to me where the high end in digital is headed and it certainly should be to tas. their computer info was a joke and the 14 ways to imprving sound, give me a break. |
The problem with the TAS review, from my reading of it and the author's other comments, is that the USB DACs were tested on the assumption that customers just wanted to plug them into their existing computers. Therefore the reviewer made no attempt to use an optimal PC or Mac build. This invalidates his findings for high-end users who, if they have any sense, will dedicate a computer to audio duties and attend to its performance and setup. The reviewer missed the point that while many USB Dacs have been made for the convenience of the iPod generation, there is a growing market of audiophiles who are embracing computer audio for better sound. I understand the Wavelength product was pulled from the review because it was going to be tested in that silly context. Like test driving some new racing tyres on a Prius. The reviewer picked the wrong audience in my view, or has the Absolute Sound slipped further than I had thought? The trouble of course is the low level of understanding of computer audio and that this leads people to ask the wrong questions - such as whether USB DACs are better or not. What matters is that yes you can get state of the art sound out of computer audio, and that like everything else, it depends on the implementation and it, of course, doesn't come cheap. |
the latest Cary CD 303T Super Audio CD player comes with an USB DAC (24bit/192kHz) http://www.caryaudio.com/products/classic/CD303TSACDPro.html |
Restock, I've read conflicting info on whether it does 48 or 96 via USB. I would assume that their web site is correct. If it only does 48, then I'll do the comparisons at 48, or 44.1. In any event, I agree that I'll need to use AES from the Lynx card for 24/192. My hope here is to use only the Lynx card with one AES cable for all signals. This seems like an easy, clean solution -- no need for multiple cables from the PC or pricey converters -- and the AES cable will support all sample rates. I had considered using a different DAC with a Weiss Firewire converter or multiple Empirical Audio Turbo USB converters (each EA converter can only support 2 sample rates, such as 44.1 and 24/96). But after you add up the price for these converters plus a 30m optical firewire/USB cable, you might as well go with a DAC that has analogue jitter reduction (allegedly same low jitter on any digital input), like the Playback Designs. |
After I get the DAC, I'll compare at 24/96: 1) Lynx soundcard with an AES cable, 2) USB into my Empirical Audio Turbo USB-to-AES converter, and 3) USB straight into the DAC. Should be interesting... Also, looking forward to trying 24/192, which was the original target. On the Playback design website it mentioned that USB only goes to 48kHz - I guess you'll go high rez 24/192 via the Lynx only? I don't think the USB comparison will be very meaningful - given the implementation my guess would be the USB input is again not close to the Lynx. |
Thanks for all the input. I've decided to go with the Playback Designs MPD-5 DAC. They claim "no jitter" on any input, which hopefully solves my original issue of how to get 24/192 from PC to DAC with the least amountof jitter. This hopefully removes the need to go with USB/Firewire or a USB/Firewire converter out of the PC. After I get the DAC, I'll compare at 24/96: 1) Lynx soundcard with an AES cable, 2) USB into my Empirical Audio Turbo USB-to-AES converter, and 3) USB straight into the DAC. Should be interesting... Also, looking forward to trying 24/192, which was the original target. |
Therefore, I presume that if it receives a 24/192 digital bitstream, it will decode it in native mode as there's nothing to upsample. Not all DACs can receive a 24/192 stream even though they upsample. In particular 24/192is only possibly via USB if the unit requires special drivers to be installed on Windows or OSX (see for example EMU0404 USB). A USB input on a DAC does not necessarily mean it goes all the way to 24/192. For example: - Bryston BDA-1 (only 16/44 and 16/48 via USB) - Bel Canto e.One DAC3 (only 16/44 and 16/48 via USB) - Benchmark DAC1 USB (16/44, 16/48, 24/88.2, 24/96 via USB) - PS Audio DLIII (only 16/44 and 16/48 via USB) This websites list the USB input rates for different DACs with USB input (if available): The Well Tempered Computer |
07-29-09: KopsI get the impression that the PS Audio DAC III is 24/192 in native mode. It upconverts lower sampling rates and shorter word lengths to 24/192. Therefore, I presume that if it receives a 24/192 digital bitstream, it will decode it in native mode as there's nothing to upsample. BTW, the $299 Musical Fidelity V-DAC also runs internally at 24/192 and has a USB input. |
I may repeat some of what has been said: -there are various USB Dacs that go all the way to 192 but I believe most stop at 96 for now -firewire may generally produce better results, primarily used through Weiss equipment -all high end manufacturers I spoke to assert that for very best performance you still need to have the interface be outside the DAC. Use a computer card or other interface -so for best quality, run a firewire into a Weiss AFL1 or maybe a usb into other device. You can then run single or double XLRs into DACs such as the Scarlatti, Weiss Medea/DAC1, Accuphase DC801 etc and have the best possible sound you can get these days. I have not tried wavelength or the Wadia 9. You can download from HDTracks, Linn, HDTT, BSO's site, etc. But get ready for some quality time with your computer as most of these sites are amazingly bad at bundling the metadata, so you will have to move things around manually at times. I assume at some point they will get it right, get cheaper and we ll hear most master recordings such as Reference Recordings online. Of course, all this is only to get us closer to vinyl! |
BigampIt appears that the PS Audio Digital Link III has an internal native mode of 24/192KHz. It also has a USB input. As to whether it can actually receive 24/192 over the USB link, I don't know, but if it gets a 16/96 or 24/96, it's going to upconvert it to 24/196. |
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. |
Bindjim - here is some nice info on USB and the driver requirements in plain terms: 24/192 high rez via USB - Drivers, EMU0404, etc. The biggest problem with USB right now is really the mediocre and after-though implementations of many current DACs that just add USB as a second interface without using the advantages of USB (the TAS review just reflected that). Some of the DACs that have a dedicated USB interface of course do have good implementations, except then you throw all eggs into one basket which is not always a good thing. |
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 hit the nail on the head. It's not just souncard versus USB. If you feed a wordclock signal from the dac to the soundcard, you get better results than just sound card alone. Also, there a different ways to do USB - asynchronous, isochronous, different drivers, etc. And not all USB implementations are created equal. That's why other companies are now licensing Empirical Audio's technology for their USB implementations. A few years ago, there was a movement away from sound cards with AES and no wordclock feedback toward asynchronous USB because you could get lower jitter. Without owning one, it seems that Playback Designs and the new Emm Labs DAC2 eliminate the problem of which type of signal to use by doing whatever they do to correct the signal after it reaches the DAC. Now, is the result better if you use a less jittery USB signal compared to AES signal that comes off a noisy PC internal sound card? I don't know. |
07-24-09: RestockThat Focusrite Saffire, in addition to having two FireWire ports and RCA SP/DIF In and Out, also has built-in A/D *and* D/A converters with a max rate of 24/192. List price $500 (same as the Bel Canto USB-to-SP/DIF converter), but typical street price is $350. And if the DAC isn't up to snuff, one can always send the SP/DIF signal to a Benchmark, Lavry, or what have you. (PS:Lavry eschews 192K intentionally). |
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’. 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). 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. There is something to be said for Firewire too - the best computer DAC implementation I heard to date uses Firewire (the Weiss DAC2/Minerva). But that requires extra drivers as well for 24/192 operation. |
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’. |
RME has recently come out with a 24/192 capable USB digital interface. It's a pro oriented piece and offers a vast number of input/output options. For audiophiles it does offer a S/PDIF I/O. I believe the price is $1300. |
Good point, Onhwy61. Thanks for adding that, and yes, that is absolutely something that was brought up many times as a point of comparison. The issue baffles me, quite frankly. I've heard too many USB DAC's that do not fit the harsh critical descriptions of those reviewers (MHDT Havana, Wavelength, Empirical, heck, even the Benchmark DAC 1 which I did not like at all would not fit in the realms of their criticism by my ears). I did get to read the threads that Restock points to and I'd recommend others check those out as well. I think that the TAS article does the potential of the interface some injustice. That's not to say that SPDIF and Firewire can sound better, but I don't think the margins necessarily are as dramatic as they are made out to be in that issue and in those reviews. That said, I have not listened to any of those components that they reviewed (again, a very small sampling, with champions of the interface omitted). The one single firewire component that was included was a pro-audio solution. If I were to conduct such a review I would be sure to have the participation of Wavelength, Empirical, Ayre, and Red Wine Audio, among others. Also omitted were the two favorite affordable pro-audio solutions; Benchmark and Apogee. Other affordable USB DAC's from the far east with a great reputation among audiophiles go without mention. MHDT and April Music, among others there. I'd also like to see a comparison to my own favorite front end, the Modwright Transporter, which would add the network interface into the picture. That, in turn, would add a whole other group of worthy competitors into the mix. But I digress, as the intent of the issue is to examine USB. In that regard I find Gordon Rankin's refusal to participate very telling of something not being right. |
Hey Rene - thanks for the links. I'll check them out when I get home. I'm just getting out of a Cowboy Junkies concert! I can guess what the gist of the content of those threads might be. I won't go any further than that here, but to suggest, as I hinted at before, read some of the responses and get more information before making any knee jerk judgments and rule things out. And as always, ultimately you're the one listening - use your own ears, your own music, your own system and your own room. Take everything you read with a bag of salt, and keep in mind we're all human (and everything that goes with that). I'll ping you off the thread, Rene, and will check out your links soon. |
Marco (Jax2), the TAS article has indeed been controversial, and Gordon did answer why he withdrew his DACs from the review (questioning the competency of the reviewer). See the following threads for some more information: Audioasylum: Did I miss the discussion re: the latest TAS article on USB DACs ... Audioasylum: An Open Letter To Robert Harley Audiogon: Absolute Sound Article on USB and Firewire |
Jax2, interesting summary of the article. You've definitely got my interest and I will download a PDF copy. I'm not married to USB and would consider other options. I believe Opticis makes a 30 meter fiber optic Firewire cable that I could run from PC to DAC. The Weiss dacs look interesting for this. I just noticed the Berkeley dac may have an HDMI interface in the future. This is cool (for me at least) for a few reasons: 1) I already have a 30m HDMI cable run, and 2) if the jitter is OK, then HDMI would be "perfect" because HDMI supports 24/192, DSD, and Blu-Ray (I can sense the eye rolls; Blu-Ray trickling in guys; just listened to my Neal Young box set last night on the Blu-Ray player). |
I think you might be able to buy the issue as a .pdf online. I'll encapsulate what the issue has to say via two reviewers, FWIW: USB is an inferior interface, even using the better USB>SPDIF converters (which in the one reviewers estimation amounted to the Bel Canto Link, per Johnnyb53 above). Reading the issue would probably have most folks here avoiding a USB DAC or converter and seeking out Firewire, or Wireless Network solutions (which were not really addressed in that issue, but IMO also clearly superior to USB). There are quite a large number of options out there to choose from in USB DAC's and accessories. The TAS issue only touched on a very small sampling. I also wonder how the introduction of a good dejitter device in the mix may have changed things. I find it interesting that Rankin refused to include Wavelength gear - didn't he used to write for one of the rags? Has he commented over on AA as to why he declined? Did anyone read Gilbert Yeung's response to Steven Stones article? |
Jim, There are two problems in posting a link to the TAS article on USB DACs. First, the article appears in the current issue of TAS, and the magazine's website does not include content from its current issue. Second, I believe TAS posts only reviews of specific products, not surveys or articles of general interest, so I'm not sure if the article will ever be available on the website. If you e-mail me off-line with your address, I'll send you copies of this article and the same author's review of the Bel Canto USB Link. To all: Sorry for the typo in my previous post. Wavelength may be innovative, but it still designs DACs, not DADs. |
To the posters early in this thread that criticized the TAS article on USB for not including any Wavelength product, Wavelength may not have been included but it was not overlooked. This is what the writer had to say about Wavelength: "When it came to selecting USB DACs for these sessions, my biggest challenge was narrowing the burgeoning field of candidates. In the end, I chose the Benchmark DAC1 Pre, Bryston's brand new BDA-1, the equally fresh Audio Research DAC7, and my trusty, Golden Ear Award-winning Resolution Audio Opus 21 stack. (Wavelength Audio, which builds intriguingly innovative USB DADs, unfortunately declined to particpate in these tests.)" The conclusions of the survey may have been flawed by the absence of Wavelength but, at least in this case, TAS did not drop the ball. |
"I think differences between 24/96 & 192 would have to be very slight..." I believe that sometimes 96 kHz can be better. Still, we all "feel" that difference should not be great. Yet, Reference Recording charge for their 24/192 WAV files (HRz) - $45 and 24/96 FLAC files (via HDTrack.com) for $12 or $15 i.e. three times difference. I do not believe that RR take entire audiophile community as idiots so there is something there which I do not understand. If I buy new DAC and I do - I will take one with 192 capabilities even if I have to pay a bit extra |
This is a transition period for hiresolution audio and highend. You can use any dac you like in the market and connecti it to dCS Uclock, with its asychronous usb you can have full bandwidth and native 24/96. For the moment if we had all of our digital library in 24/96 native!!! it would be marvellous. Of course if money is not the object, you can go with dCS Paganini and Scarlatti systems for 24/192 or use Alpha dac with Lynx & RME sound cards also for true 24/192 but no usb. Ayre also has a usb adapter for 24/96. I guess in the next years all new DACS from respected digital companies will have built-in usb asychronous 24/96 and if new usb3.0 allows it even 24/192. And the new platoforms media players from microsoft and apple will make the simple 44.1/16 history. [of course the music companies should let their native material of 24/96 to access] |
Can you use FireWire instead of USB? The Focusrite Saffire has AD/DA, mixing, and a lot of different format conversions (e.g., SP/DIF I/O) for a street price of $349. As for audiophile quality, Alan Taffel, who did the series on USB digital audio in the Aug. issue of TAS, much preferred the results of the Focusrite Saffire's format conversion of FireWire-to-SP/DIF over what the Bel Canto was able to do with USB-to-SP/DIF. And he wasn't blaming the Bel Canto; he just feels that FireWire's additional bandwidth creates a better digital stream. That may also explain why this fairly inexpensive and easily accessible gizmo does 24/192 while you strain to find a 24/192 USB DAC. |