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 dont 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 isnt 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 its 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 Ive employed to feed still more pricey DACs than Ive had the opportunity to own. Id 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 its own internal clock. You pick.
I set it to external and make use of the BC DAC 3s clock.
I dont 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 Ive 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.
Ive 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.
Id love nothing better than to drop $5K $ 10K on a DAC without blinking an eye. I cant however. Its that simple. Ive heard upsampled signals too and I can take them or leave them
past 24/96 I dont 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 dont.
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 theyll 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 theres 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 dont 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.
Im not going inside any of these gizmos. I wont 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, its always going to come down to as Ive already said, Whats 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 aint always greatest, and highest priced isnt always anything but the highest priced.
