Are all asynchronous USB inputs similar?

The issue is which pathway offers the best sound quality. Baetis eschews
USB in favor of dedicated high quality SPDIF connection vs Steve's high
grade USB products approach. Someone with a computer and Empirical
Audio USB parts compared to Baetis with SPDIF using the same music
source.
Charles,

I welcome such a comparison. I have not lost in a fair shootout yet.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

From my research I am not convinced taking the SPDIF output from the motherboard is the best approach, and I was never convinced USB was either, although I have used it extensively in the last 6 month because of the convenience. Not that guys like Nugent and Rankin do not know what they are doing, they do in my opinion.

From my perspective I would fundamentally agree with Cerrot that a well designed sound card should provide the best option, but I do not really feel there are any worthy of trying, not even the Lynx which I have heard extensively. Forget Juli@ as well, although it is reasonably priced versus others I have seen.

Overall, the best I have heard in my system is where the digital output of the transport is slaved to the DAC. Right now I just started running Ethernet into my Resolution Audio Cantata and have to say I am quite impressed. Wonder why more people do not do this. If I was going to use a SPDIF interface I would be more inclined to try the Sonore Audio Ethernet to SPDIF converter than the Baetis in my system at this point.

Ethernet is the best possible option. We will all migrate to it eventually. It has the same benefits as Async USB, but avoids the issues that occur in computer software, making the computer/ipad a "don't-care".

I don't expect Ethernet to improve sound quality significantly over good USB interfaces, but computer optimization will hopefully not be necessary anymore, which is a big win for audiophiles.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

FWIW, assuming comparably good implementation of the various possible approaches IMO the most ideal one would be a **reliably functioning** wifi link, with the computer (and the digital and switching noise it generates) located nowhere near the audio system, and powered from a different AC branch.

Wired ethernet would be my next choice (with the computer powered from the same AC branch as the system, to avoid possible ground loop issues).

The following paragraph from this paper by Steve elaborates, persuasively IMO:

Networked audio (Ethernet), both wired and WiFi is a unique case. Because the data is transmitted in packets with flow-control, re-try for errors and buffering at the end-point device, it is not as much of a real-time transfer as USB, S/PDIF or Firewire. The computer transmitting the data packets must still keep-up" the pace to prevent dropouts from occurring, but the real-time nature of the transfer is looser. Unlike with other protocols, there can be dead-times when no data is being transferred. Networking also avoids the use of the audio stack of the computer audio system since it treats all data essentially the same. This avoids kmixer on XP systems and the audio stacks on Mac and PC Vista. Because of the packet-transfer protocol of Ethernet and data buffering at the end-point, the jitter of the clock in the computer is a non-issue. The only clock that is important is the one in the end-point device. Examples of end-point devices are: Squeezebox, Duet and Sonos. This would seem to be the ideal situation, which it certainly is. The only problem that can occur is overloading the network with traffic or WiFi interference, which may cause occasional dropouts. The problem for audiophiles is that the majority of these end-point devices were designed with high-volume manufacturing and low-cost as requirements, with performance taking a lower priority. As a result, the jitter from these devices is higher than it could be. It should be the lowest of all the audio source devices available.

Regarding USB, I have no relevant experience, but my perception has been that a lot of Audiogon members utilize asynchronous USB DACs with results that are satisfactory to them, while only one member consistently criticizes it. FWIW.

Regards,
-- Al