|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Nov 28, 2022 23:33:31 GMT -5
Given that both have strengths and weaknesses, and given that some DACs work better with one than the other, and (finally) given that the newer the DAC, the less the audible differences between the two - Is there any compelling reason to favor one interface over the other? I'm running an older Emotiva Stealth DC-2 DAC, and there are audible differences between USB and optical. Which I prefer depends on what speakers & amp I'm running. With my (more dynamic) Klipsch RP-600m speakers, the USB sounds better. If I use the optical interface with the Klipsch speakers things sound TOO dynamic and a bit edgy. But with my GoldenEar Triton Three+ speakers, the optical interface provides a stronger amplitude in the midrange and extends the ribbon tweeters nicely. So with my DAC, the "best" interface depends highly on the other system components. I strongly suspect that if I used a different DAC, the choices might sound differently. From what I've been able to read online, the majority of folks prefer the USB interface, claiming that optical has significantly more jitter. It would seem, though, that with an asynchronous DAC that is buffering and re-clocking the input, it shouldn't matter. KeithL? Thanks - Boom |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Nov 29, 2022 9:42:47 GMT -5
I play DSD128, 256, 512, 1024 all above capability of toslink (except 128, I suppose). Because of that I vote for the latest USB 3.0 sources (USB 4.0 is on the horizon).
|
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Dec 5, 2022 14:35:22 GMT -5
My vote? Not that it matters.....but I use OPTICAL whenever possible.
the reason?
NO GROUND OR ELECTRICAL Connection....this minimizes chances of ground loop or 'chain destruction' in the event of a 'power event'.....
What sounds better? Above my pay grade.
|
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Dec 6, 2022 7:56:47 GMT -5
Were Digital Coaxial available in the options I would take that over either of the two.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Dec 6, 2022 10:02:35 GMT -5
In my experience, interface performance is at least moderately variable depending on the source and DAC being used. Of the Interface varieties I've tried, the MOST variable is USB. USB is affected by the stability of the power bus feeding the USB sockets. With many DACs, this is not a factor because the only USB device on the DAC's bus is the USB input socket. But this can be UNTRUE for DACs that draw their power from the source USB component. Those "vampire DACs" can stress the source, particularly if there are multiple other USB devices on the same power bus. I've had two USB HDDs and a USB DAC hooked up to my Mac mini and gotten warnings that the current draw on the USB bus was excessive. For that reason, I no longer buy or use DACs that are powered by their USB source alone (this includes the Emotiva EGO line, the AudioQuest Dragonfly line, the Topping D10s, and the lower-end Schiit DACa). DACs with their own AC power supplies seem more immune to the draw on the source USB bus. You could add a powered USB expander box to your computer that should (at least in theory) prevent overloading of your source computer's USB bus but this isn't a guaranteed panacea. I've gotten "too much current" warnings even when using a powered expansion box. The interface that seems LEAST affected by source and destination variables is TOSLINK optical. This is NOT a comment on the audio quality of optical vs. anything else - only a statement about electrical conditions. Since a TOSLINK DAC cannot draw any power from the source, it MUST be self-powered. That's why "vampire DACs" such as those mentioned in the previous paragraph NEVER have TOSLINK inputs only. In other words, any TOSLINK DAC must get its power from another source (either the USB bus or from an external AC power wart) Mr. leonski is also absolutely correct when he mentions that TOSLINK optical connections have neither electrical or ground connections. So from an audio perspective, how does TOSLINK stack up? On the negative side, it has more jitter than any other digital audio interface. If you're using an older DAC that lacks buffering and reclocking, that could be a problem. But with most contemporary asynchronous DACs, it's a non-issue (at least, in theory)... I DO find that TOSLINK sounds differently from all other digital interfaces. Whether or not the effect is something inimical or beneficial to the sound of your system is a decision only you can make. Boom |
|
|
|
Post by selind40 on Dec 6, 2022 10:26:12 GMT -5
I'm still trying to figure out what the Stealth DC-2 DAC was?? I like my DC-1 but prolly would've bought the DC-2.  |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Dec 6, 2022 11:20:36 GMT -5
I'm still trying to figure out what the Stealth DC-2 DAC was?? I like my DC-1 but prolly would've bought the DC-2. LOL - Typo for sure. I've got the Stealth DC-1. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Dec 6, 2022 15:31:19 GMT -5
If you use a powered USB hub then the hub should be supplying ALL power that runs anything connected to it. However, USB devices do "report" their power consumption to the source. (I don't know the details of the way they do this but it could be that some sources are reporting that the DAC "says" it wants too much power rather than it is actually drawing too much power.) It's also worth mentioning that many Toslink inputs and outputs don't support sample rates above 96k (while many do support up to 24/192k I don't know of any that support 384k). And, yes, total electrical isolation, including both power and ground, is a definite plus with Toslink. In my experience, interface performance is at least moderately variable depending on the source and DAC being used. Of the Interface varieties I've tried, the MOST variable is USB. USB is affected by the stability of the power bus feeding the USB sockets. With many DACs, this is not a factor because the only USB device on the DAC's bus is the USB input socket. But this can be UNTRUE for DACs that draw their power from the source USB component. Those "vampire DACs" can stress the source, particularly if there are multiple other USB devices on the same power bus. I've had two USB HDDs and a USB DAC hooked up to my Mac mini and gotten warnings that the current draw on the USB bus was excessive. For that reason, I no longer buy or use DACs that are powered by their USB source alone (this includes the Emotiva EGO line, the AudioQuest Dragonfly line, the Topping D10s, and the lower-end Schiit DACa). DACs with their own AC power supplies seem more immune to the draw on the source USB bus. You could add a powered USB expander box to your computer that should (at least in theory) prevent overloading of your source computer's USB bus but this isn't a guaranteed panacea. I've gotten "too much current" warnings even when using a powered expansion box. The interface that seems LEAST affected by source and destination variables is TOSLINK optical. This is NOT a comment on the audio quality of optical vs. anything else - only a statement about electrical conditions. Since a TOSLINK DAC cannot draw any power from the source, it MUST be self-powered. That's why "vampire DACs" such as those mentioned in the previous paragraph NEVER have TOSLINK inputs only. In other words, any TOSLINK DAC must get its power from another source (either the USB bus or from an external AC power wart) Mr. leonski is also absolutely correct when he mentions that TOSLINK optical connections have neither electrical or ground connections. So from an audio perspective, how does TOSLINK stack up? On the negative side, it has more jitter than any other digital audio interface. If you're using an older DAC that lacks buffering and reclocking, that could be a problem. But with most contemporary asynchronous DACs, it's a non-issue (at least, in theory)... I DO find that TOSLINK sounds differently from all other digital interfaces. Whether or not the effect is something inimical or beneficial to the sound of your system is a decision only you can make. Boom |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Dec 6, 2022 16:36:30 GMT -5
Which, KeithL, brings up a (less than subtle) question - Any idea when we might expect some new premium stereo DACs from Emotiva? |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Dec 6, 2022 17:18:12 GMT -5
Actually you should be seeing a new high-end Emotiva DAC sometime in Q1-2023. Which, KeithL , brings up a (less than subtle) question - Any idea when we might expect some new premium stereo DACs from Emotiva? |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Dec 6, 2022 18:04:21 GMT -5
Was that 2023 a typo?
|
|
|
|
Post by thompson12 on Dec 6, 2022 21:25:00 GMT -5
I believe it was I think it was meant to be 2032  Mitch |
|
|
|
Post by brutiarti on Dec 6, 2022 21:43:38 GMT -5
Actually you should be seeing a new high-end Emotiva DAC sometime in Q1-2023. Which, KeithL , brings up a (less than subtle) question - Any idea when we might expect some new premium stereo DACs from Emotiva? If it is full size rack I will consider trying one |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Dec 6, 2022 22:26:44 GMT -5
They might miss the Q1, but I doubt that they’ll miss 2023. Can I pre-order now?
Glenn
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Dec 7, 2022 9:36:57 GMT -5
Not this time... It's actually pretty close... and about time we had another high-end DAC.  |
|
|
|
Post by SteveH on Dec 7, 2022 20:26:55 GMT -5
If it is full size rack I will consider trying one Can't go wrong trying a full size rack, they come in all shapes and sizes 🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Dec 7, 2022 21:30:53 GMT -5
Not this time... It's actually pretty close... and about time we had another high-end DAC. 3 or 4 inputs MINIMUM? Both Tos and RCA as well as a USB and include a BNC? Tos and RCA should be 'doubles' so you have 2 of each.......and make it a single USB and single BNC..... For high end? Have some selection of 'filters' as well...... |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Dec 8, 2022 6:48:37 GMT -5
What I'M hoping for is an Ethernet input.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Dec 8, 2022 11:47:53 GMT -5
There are several "Ethernet bridges" out there... (That term actually means something different in network parlance... but I have seen devices that send digital audio over Ethernet using a similar term). However there are two main things you need to keep in mind: 1. Ethernet is a bit more complicated, and less in demand, so there are fewer devices available, and they tend to cost more. 2. There is an actual standard for USB audio - so the USB signal that a USB converter has to accept at its input is standard (either UAC1, UAC2, or both). (And, in case you were wondering, DoP, and the other DSD USB options are simply encapsulated inside the standard USB signal packets.) However there is no specific standard for "audio over Ethernet"... you have DLNA, which comes in many flavors, Roon has their own transport protocol (RAAT), and then there's Dante, and at least a few others. And you also have the option of having the player device access the source as "a file, on a server, over a network share" - which can also be done in several different ways. The most standard of these options is to have a client device that can play audio files, on a server, that it accesses over a standard network share. (This can be done using Volumio or another player on a Raspberry Pi, or pretty much any player program on a Windows or Apple computer, as well as by many "dedicated hardware players".) Also note that both USB and Ethernet are packet based interfaces. This means that the audio signal/data is broken up into pieces - which are sent one at a time - and which must be reassembled at the receiving end. This means that things like the amount of jitter and noise in the transport part of the system are largely irrelevant... (and, in a perfect world, would be totally irrelevant). Because, since the audio data is broken up into packets, the audio must be reassembled and re-clocked by the receiving device (which is then also responsible for reinserting the clock). (Back in "the old days", most USB DACs used a PLL to "lock onto the incoming clock" to generate a new local clock, so they relied on the clocking of the source signal, but modern asynchronous USB inputs don't work that way.) (And, with Ethernet, packet timing is not intended or expected to be consistent, so a clock must always be generated at the receiving end when the packets are reassembled.) What I'M hoping for is an Ethernet input. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Dec 8, 2022 13:10:53 GMT -5
Thanks KeithL - So, I'll need a streamer that will convert Ethernet input packets to my choice of USB / TOSLINK / other outputs. Now for an interesting question - Does it matter whether my streamer uses DLNA, RAAT, or Dante provided that my source can output one that the streamer is accepting on its input? I wouldn't think so, but I could be wrong. I'm currently using Roon to feed a (DLNA?) Apple TV as the endpoint. I'm virtually certain that Apple doesn't bother to support RAAT, yet the system seems to work fine. To phrase my question in another way, is there any audible benefit to having a Roon-RAAT capable endpoint? And yet another follow-up question, please: Should I expect an audible improvement from a streamer that will feed the DAC a USB feed rather than an optical one? There may be a USB standard, but (assuming that the bit depth and frequency are not outside either the streamer or the DAC's capabilities) is USB technically superior to TOSLINK optical? Thanks - Glenn |
|
