hemster
Global Moderator 
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,952
|
Post by hemster on May 4, 2016 0:21:22 GMT -5
So here's a question then. Optical or USB from my Mac Mini to my XMC-1? Doesn't matter much. Whichever is convenient really. |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on May 4, 2016 4:46:52 GMT -5
Good for you. Bon appétit!  Want to know why I call BS on all counts? I'll tell you anyway. A player reading data over IP is electronically more complex, more costly to get it right if the goal is to go from IP directly to I2S. A player like that is essentially a computer. Computers are known to generate massive amounts of electromagnetic interference. You want to keep that stuff away from the DAC. That's why people buy external DACs instead of internal soundcards anyway in the first place. Building a player into a DAC goes against this useful strategy of keeping noise pollution out of the DAC. Now that is some generalising BS if anything. Such broad generalisations are one of the reason why people believe in all kinds of magic for USB cables, CAT5/6/7 cables and all other kind of snake oil. I guess these guys have no clue on what they're doing since they're adding Ethernet for IP and a player into a DAC.... www.audiostream.com/content/ayre-qx-5-twenty-digital-hub#XEPxxH71YtavKK4d.97They're not really alone in doing that are they? Companies like Linn, Naim, SImAudio, Classê, Sony Pioneer, Marantz, Denon, BlueSound, Primare, Bryston, Hifiberry, IQaudiO, SOtM, Lumin, NAD, PS Audio and many other have it all wrong and you have it right.... |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on May 4, 2016 4:57:01 GMT -5
So here's a question then. Optical or USB from my Mac Mini to my XMC-1? If you want to play source material with higher sampling rate than 96 kHz and not use DIRAC, use USB. If you want to use DIRAC, either USB or Optical with your player software downsample to 96 kHz. Use the one that find sounding best and/or is more convenient. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on May 4, 2016 7:42:29 GMT -5
Want to know why I call BS on all counts? I'll tell you anyway. A player reading data over IP is electronically more complex, more costly to get it right if the goal is to go from IP directly to I2S. A player like that is essentially a computer. Computers are known to generate massive amounts of electromagnetic interference. You want to keep that stuff away from the DAC. That's why people buy external DACs instead of internal soundcards anyway in the first place. Building a player into a DAC goes against this useful strategy of keeping noise pollution out of the DAC. Now that is some generalising BS if anything. Such broad generalisations are one of the reason why people believe in all kinds of magic for USB cables, CAT5/6/7 cables and all other kind of snake oil. I guess these guys have no clue on what they're doing since they're adding Ethernet for IP and a player into a DAC.... www.audiostream.com/content/ayre-qx-5-twenty-digital-hub#XEPxxH71YtavKK4d.97They're not really alone in doing that are they? Companies like Linn, Naim, SImAudio, Classê, Sony Pioneer, Marantz, Denon, BlueSound, Primare, Bryston, Hifiberry, IQaudiO, SOtM, Lumin, NAD, PS Audio and many other have it all wrong and you have it right.... You don't think those DAC products could have costed a whole lot less while offering the same sonic performance level, had they simply kept the Ethernet audio streaming goop and some other fancy bells and whistles at bay? Oh boy. |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on May 4, 2016 8:17:12 GMT -5
In the case of Hifiberry and IQaudiO, instead of having a separate USB DAC, the added cost is as much as roughly $50. You show me a USB DAC that gives the same sonic performance for 50 bucks! For Naim, a separate DAC-V1 costs $2k, a similar unit but with player and amp built into it, UnitiQute 2, costs $1.9k. If you find a player with USB output where you get paid $100 to acquire it., let me know. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on May 4, 2016 8:40:54 GMT -5
In the case of Hifiberry and IQaudiO, instead of having a separate USB DAC, the added cost is as much as roughly $50. You show me a USB DAC that gives the same sonic performance for 50 bucks! For Naim, a separate DAC-V1 costs $2k, a similar unit but with player and amp built into it, UnitiQute 2, costs $1.9k. If you find a player with USB output where you get paid $100 to acquire it.... Every 50 bucks spent on useless paraphernalia is 50 bucks not spent towards getting more DAC. A moment ago you were talking about snake oil, but because I require my notebook PC for other purposes besides listening to music and watching movies anyway, it hasn't costed me anything apart from the 8 or so bucks that I have spent on my generic USB 2.0 extension cord. 50 minus 8 equals 42. Don't panic!  |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on May 4, 2016 8:54:07 GMT -5
I've proved by real world examples that it even gets cheaper with a player built into it, I rest my case.
Besides, you're calculations false since you still need the USB DAC to get some sound out of your existing laptop....
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on May 4, 2016 9:24:40 GMT -5
I've proved by real world examples that it even gets cheaper with a player built into it, I rest my case. Besides, you're calculations false since you still need the USB DAC to get some sound out of your existing laptop.... It doesn't get cheaper with a player built into it vs. with nothing built into it. That's because there's no such thing as free lunch!  |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on May 4, 2016 9:29:23 GMT -5
You can twist it as much as you want to, It still is cheaper than any USB DAC with similar sonic performance, which was your original statement.
Case closed.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on May 4, 2016 9:35:32 GMT -5
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on May 4, 2016 12:04:15 GMT -5
I'm afraid that I agree with his generalizations for the most part... but I would add the concept of looking at it as separating critical components that rarely change from more ethereal ones. If I take a laptop computer and connect it to a high quality DAC, I've effectively separated the DAC (which is critical to sound quality) from the computer (which is critical to flexibility and upgradability). To me this seems to be the logical way to divide the responsibilities. The computer portion of my "digital audio system" has to accept whatever file formats and data streams I want to play. This means that, every time Tidal upgrades their app, the computer has to be upgraded. And, every time some new digital audio format comes out, I have to either upgrade my audio player, or change to a different one. Therefore, I really must be prepared to update my computer every few months. However, as long as that computer does in fact output the correct bits, in a standard format, it has no impact whatsoever on my audio quality. Any computer (within reason) that can handle the files and streams I want to listen to will do the job just fine. It doesn't have to be especially 'good", or particularly expensive. In direct contrast, I can now take that standard digital audio signal, and feed it into a DAC which serves one purpose - to convert that one standard digital audio format into analog audio. Assuming that my DAC was "perfect" to begin with, it would virtually never need to be updated - because it already contains all the functionality to perform the one simple function it has to do. (And I don't have to feel bad spending a lot of time choosing such a critical component - only to realize that I'm going to have to replace it in a year or two anyway.) Or, to put it another way, what would I do with that $10k "really good media server with really good DAC" that I bought last year if the folks who made it decided NOT to develop a Tidal client? Or if they decided to support ALAC but not FLAC, or FLAC but not ALAC? Or not to support that new Meridian format? (A few people have already found out how that can happen.) Computers are relatively universal, and relatively cheap. If I have a $10k DAC connected to a $500 laptop computer, I can always install the latest App on my computer, or replace that computer with a newer one, without replacing a perfectly good DAC. In other words, all that stuff we call "rich content" is really well suited to an easily upgraded and easily replaced computer, while the relatively simply but critical job of converting digital audio to analog audio is better suited to a relatively simple and inflexible, but very high quality, DAC. (And leaving OUT all that flexibility and complexity allows me to choose a DAC that performs one critical function really well.) Want to know why I call BS on all counts? I'll tell you anyway. A player reading data over IP is electronically more complex, more costly to get it right if the goal is to go from IP directly to I2S. A player like that is essentially a computer. Computers are known to generate massive amounts of electromagnetic interference. You want to keep that stuff away from the DAC. That's why people buy external DACs instead of internal soundcards anyway in the first place. Building a player into a DAC goes against this useful strategy of keeping noise pollution out of the DAC. Now that is some generalising BS if anything. Such broad generalisations are one of the reason why people believe in all kinds of magic for USB cables, CAT5/6/7 cables and all other kind of snake oil. I guess these guys have no clue on what they're doing since they're adding Ethernet for IP and a player into a DAC.... www.audiostream.com/content/ayre-qx-5-twenty-digital-hub#XEPxxH71YtavKK4d.97They're not really alone in doing that are they? Companies like Linn, Naim, SImAudio, Classê, Sony Pioneer, Marantz, Denon, BlueSound, Primare, Bryston, Hifiberry, IQaudiO, SOtM, Lumin, NAD, PS Audio and many other have it all wrong and you have it right.... |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on May 4, 2016 12:20:45 GMT -5
Not that I disagree with you Keith but there are more than one way to skin the flexibility cat, not all of ut has to be done with a full fledged computer.
Since you're familiar with the squeezebox infrastructure;
Unless you already have, look at Roon.
|
|
|
|
Post by vneal on May 4, 2016 12:30:16 GMT -5
I just download HI RES FILES to my computer, transfer to a external portable hard drive (3TB $100), make a copy on a second hard drive, using J RIVER then run through my Oppo.
$200 investment less the computer , program and oppo
|
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on May 4, 2016 12:42:05 GMT -5
This all a bit silly. Isn't it?
There are multiple ways to play digital music, most of them satisfy our quality requirements. Obviously both USB DACs and network players with built in DAC fill a function but for different use cables. So does units using S/PDIF, AES/EBU and other protocols too.
What else is new?
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on May 4, 2016 13:21:15 GMT -5
This all a bit silly. Isn't it? There are multiple ways to play digital music, most of them satisfy our quality requirements. Obviously both USB DACs and network players with built in DAC fill a function but for different use cables. So does units using S/PDIF, AES/EBU and other protocols too. What else is new? What's new is that your "quality requirements" obviously are more easily satisfied that mine. And that's a big understatement. |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on May 4, 2016 13:50:10 GMT -5
This all a bit silly. Isn't it? There are multiple ways to play digital music, most of them satisfy our quality requirements. Obviously both USB DACs and network players with built in DAC fill a function but for different use cables. So does units using S/PDIF, AES/EBU and other protocols too. What else is new? What's new is that your "quality requirements" obviously are more easily satisfied that mine. And that's a big understatement. With a DAC specified having an SNR at an pathetic -98 dB, I think you're the one at loss. Jesus Christ! |
|
|
|
Post by yves on May 4, 2016 17:13:31 GMT -5
What's new is that your "quality requirements" obviously are more easily satisfied that mine. And that's a big understatement. With a DAC specified having an SNR at an pathetic -98 dB, I think you're the one at loss. Jesus Christ! The Dynamic Range is the most important measurement in determining DAC accuracy, not the SNR. The SNR is just an averaged result, that doesn't take into account the fact there can be a certain amount of supersonic (i.e. >20kHz) noise present in the signal, which is not uncommon due to the inherent noise shaping of Delta Sigma, whereas Dynamic Range does take into account the fact this supersonic noise is not discernible to human hearing. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio#Dynamic_range |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on May 4, 2016 17:18:37 GMT -5
With a DAC specified having an SNR at an pathetic -98 dB, I think you're the one at loss. Jesus Christ! Bra, blah, blah, I don't understand anything about SNR nor Dynamic Range or distortion and my inferior equipment shows I have less requirements on sound quality but I can link to Wikipedia site I sudo don't understand. Just face it! |
|
|
|
Post by yves on May 4, 2016 18:08:08 GMT -5
Bra, blah, blah, I don't understand anything about SNR nor Dynamic Range or distortion and my inferior equipment shows I have less requirements on sound quality but I can link to Wikipedia site I wrote myself. Just face it! Face the fact low amounts of supersonic noise are still undetectable by humans?  |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on May 4, 2016 18:14:49 GMT -5
Face the fact low amounts of supersonic noise are still undetectable by humans? Are you stating that your DACs specifications of SNR are for a non limited frequency range? EDIT: Why don't you start a separate thread if you really want to have this pissing contest about quality? |
|
