Can anyone recommend a DAC that accepts 24/192 input?

[gazcarts]

Hi all,

I've also posted this on HiFi Wigwam, but thought I'd also post it here to get a good mix of views. I downloaded some of the free Linn 24 bits of Christmas FLAC files and put them on my NAS to play through my Squeezebox Touch, just to see what they would sound like. At that point I realised the SBT couldn't play them because they were 24/192kHz, so after a quick Google search I found the Enhanced Digital Output applet, which I've installed on the SBT. Great, so now they play, but then I found out my Tag McLaren DPA32R, which has 24/192kHz DACs, only accepts 96kHz digital inputs!

So, is it worth listening to these files, and if it is, what is a good DAC to buy? I currently run the unamplified signal from the DPA32R via the Tape Out into a Croft Acoustics Micro 25R pre then into a Croft Acoustics Series 7 Power amp feeding a pair of PMC Twenty22s. I'm not currently playing CDs, so my Tag CDt20R is in its box, however I have ordered a second hand Denon DVD-2900 to have a little dabble with SACD. Other than that and the SBT, there are currently no other digital sources.

Many thanks
Gareth

[Werner Berghofer]

Gareth,

So, is it worth listening to these files […]

Are all (!) parts of your audio playback chain able to deliver/support a dynamic range of 144 dB (24 bit)?
Are all parts of your audio playback chain able to reproduce ultrasound frequencies of 96 kHz (192 kHz sampling rate)?
Are your ears and your brain able to perceive and process this type of audio signals without permanent harm or immediate death?

If you’re interested in further reading about this topic: Archimago’s musings: 24-bit vs. 16-bit audio test (http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2014/06/24-bit-vs-16-bit-audio-test-part-i.html)

Werner.

[Stratmangler]

Resample the 24/192 stuff to 24/96, and your Tag will be able to play the files.
It's easy enough to do.

There are plenty of DACs capable of dealing with 24/192.
I use one from M2Tech http://www.m2tech.biz/it/evo_dac.html

[gazcarts]

Gareth,


Are all (!) parts of your audio playback chain able to deliver/support an dynamic range of 144 dB (24 bit)?
Are all parts of your audio playback chain able to reproduce ultrasound frequencies of 96 kHz (192 kHz sampling rate)?
Are your ears and your brain able to perceive and process this type of audio signals without permanent harm or immediate death?

If you’re interested in further reading about this topic: Archimago’s musings: 24-bit vs. 16-bit audio test (http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2014/06/24-bit-vs-16-bit-audio-test-part-i.html)

Werner.

That's a bit over my head I'm afraid :scratch:


Resample the 24/192 stuff to 24/96, and your Tag will be able to play the files.
It's easy enough to do.

There are plenty of DACs capable of dealing with 24/192.
I use one from M2Tech http://www.m2tech.biz/it/evo_dac.html

I've down-sampled the files but was curious to hear if there is any difference. Seems a lot of files are moving in that direction. I'll take a look at your DAC recommendation.

Many thanks

[Werner Berghofer]

Gareth,

That's a bit over my head I'm afraid :scratch:
a dynamic range of 144 dB and a maximum frequency of 96 kHz are the more familiar audio equivalents of what can be reproduced by a bit depth of 24 bit and a sampling rate of 192 kHz. In other words: I’m convinced that “Red Book” standard audio 16 bit/44.1 kHz is more than sufficient for high-quality sound reproduction — at least for human ears/brains. Your pet bats may think differently about it ;-)

Werner.

[StanleyB]

Although I design and sell a set of DACs that are 24/192 capable, those kind of files can be hard to stream through a network to the Touch if you don't have a fast and clean network connection. And just to complicate things, 96 sounds better than 192 as far as I am concerned. I challenge anyone in the audio industry to provide evidence to the contrary.

Have you tried looking for a DAC that can make your audio files sound better than what you are already accustomed to hearing? Or is your interest primarily in being able to play 24/192?

[StanleyB]

Gareth,

a dynamic range of 144 dB and a maximum frequency of 96 kHz are the more familiar audio equivalents of what can be reproduced by a bit depth of 24 bit and a sampling rate of 192 kHz. In other words: I’m convinced that “Red Book” standard audio 16 bit/44.1 kHz is more than sufficient for high-quality sound reproduction — at least for human ears/brains. Your pet bats may think differently about it ;-)

Werner.
I would go along with that. What the Caiman MKII is capable of extracting from standard Red Book 16/44.1 CD audio is still to be matched by many other DACs playing those same Red Book files. That leaves me to question the purpose of having the ability to play back higher bit rates when many existing DACs are failing in their capability to even handle 16/44.1 properly. It's not like if 16/44.1 is new technology. It is at least 30 years old FFS.

[gazcarts]

Although I design and sell a set of DACs that are 24/192 capable, those kind of files can be hard to stream through a network to the Touch if you don't have a fast and clean network connection. And just to complicate things, 96 sounds better than 192 as far as I am concerned. I challenge anyone in the audio industry to provide evidence to the contrary.

Have you tried looking for a DAC that can make your audio files sound better than what you are already accustomed to hearing? Or is your interest primarily in being able to play 24/192?

I suppose both would be an ideal scenario. At least it would be future-proof.

[StanleyB]

I suppose both would be an ideal scenario. At least it would be future-proof.
Future proof??? Have you heard of Betamax, HDCD, PCMCIA, etc? The electronics industry don't do future proofing. They are already up in arms that the humble turntable is back in fashion, with the compact cassette not far behind. We are going back to the future :D.

[gazcarts]

I would go along with that. What the Caiman MKII is capable of extracting from standard Red Book 16/44.1 CD audio is still to be matched by many other DACs playing those same Red Book files. That leaves me to question the purpose of having the ability to play back higher bit rates when many existing DACs are failing in their capability to even handle 16/44.1 properly. It's not like if 16/44.1 is new technology. It is at least 30 years old FFS.

Out of curiosity, what bit rates do the inputs of the Caiman accept? I'm unable to find the info on the website.

[Desmo]

Hi all,

I've also posted this on HiFi Wigwam, but thought I'd also post it here to get a good mix of views. I downloaded some of the free Linn 24 bits of Christmas FLAC files and put them on my NAS to play through my Squeezebox Touch, just to see what they would sound like. At that point I realised the SBT couldn't play them because they were 24/192kHz, so after a quick Google search I found the Enhanced Digital Output applet, which I've installed on the SBT. Great, so now they play, but then I found out my Tag McLaren DPA32R, which has 24/192kHz DACs, only accepts 96kHz digital inputs!

So, is it worth listening to these files, and if it is, what is a good DAC to buy? I currently run the unamplified signal from the DPA32R via the Tape Out into a Croft Acoustics Micro 25R pre then into a Croft Acoustics Series 7 Power amp feeding a pair of PMC Twenty22s. I'm not currently playing CDs, so my Tag CDt20R is in its box, however I have ordered a second hand Denon DVD-2900 to have a little dabble with SACD. Other than that and the SBT, there are currently no other digital sources.

Many thanks
Gareth

The Cambridge Audio Stream Magic 6 V2 supports 24/196 files http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/products/network-players/stream-magic-6-v2

[Stratmangler]

Funny you should mention HDCD Stan, because Microsoft bought the company that did HDCD a good while ago.
HDCD capability has been built into every Microsoft software player ever since.
You could say that it's alive and well, and living on a Microsoft running computer near you :D

[StanleyB]

Is that why you can't find a CD player on modern day laptop? It would be impossible to play a CD or HDCD is there is no mechanism present to insert a CD into your machine.

[Stratmangler]

Is that why you can't find a CD player on modern day laptop? It would be impossible to play a CD or HDCD is there is no mechanism present to insert a CD into your machine.

These laptops can all play CDs http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/computing/laptops/laptops/315_3226_30328_xx_ba00010216-bv00307926/xx_xx_xx_xx_4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-15-16-17-18-19-20-21-22-criteria.html

[gazcarts]

The Cambridge Audio Stream Magic 6 V2 supports 24/196 files http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/products/network-players/stream-magic-6-v2

I suppose that would kill two birds with one stone by replacing the SBT as well, but what's the software and usability like in comparison to the SBT?

[Stratmangler]

This bit about the CA player is interesting, and not necessarily beneficial ....
The bit about dragging extra detail from files is pure fantasy - if the information isn't there it isn't there, end of the story!


Everything that passes through the Stream Magic 6 V2 is upsampled, using our unique ATF2 (Adaptive Time Filtering) process, developed in conjunction with Anagram Technologies of Switzerland, through a high-end Analog Devices DSP (Digital Signal Processor), to ultra-high detail 24-bit 384kHz output.

As well as dragging extra detail from every source (even CD, Blu-ray and "Lossless" digital files), ATF2 virtually eliminates "jitter" common in playing digital audio files – which can lead to a flatter, lifeless sound with tinnier bass response. Those problems vanish when digital audio's put through Stream Magic 6 V2.

[gazcarts]

This bit about the CA player is interesting, and not necessarily beneficial ....
The bit about dragging extra detail from files is pure fantasy - if the information isn't there it isn't there, end of the story!

I have to admit, whenever I hear about something being upsampled I think what a load of b*llocks :)

[Macca]

Thread here (PFM) re the Linn Xmas downloads.

http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=165269

Upshot is there is no point having them in 24/192 since there is nothing out there but noise.

[gazcarts]

Thread here (PFM) re the Linn Xmas downloads.

http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=165269

Upshot is there is no point having them in 24/192 since there is nothing out there but noise.

I'd seen that thread. Someone on another forum has recommended the M2Tech Young DAC. Has anyone any experience of this? I can pick one up for under £400. Obviously not many people will have compared it to the DPA32R, but if it offers an upgrade in sound and future-proofing, then I'd be happy to change. Having a USB input, like many of the modern DACs is of interest too.

[Desmo]

I suppose that would kill two birds with one stone by replacing the SBT as well, but what's the software and usability like in comparison to the SBT?

I don't have a SBT, so can't make a comparison sorry. I used to have a Netgear MP101 and the CA is miles better than that! The CA Stream Magic 6 works just fine in my setup, and there is an Android/iPhone/iPad app to control it (though I tend to use the Bubble upnp app for controlling the streaming of my files as it seems faster to load) I do use the Android CA app for the internet radio/podcast etc stuff.

Hope that helps.

[Stratmangler]

I've only heard Gazjam's Young DAC, and that was at Owston a while back.
Sounded very good.
There's a new version of the Young DAC that can handle DSD files, which may account for the S/H value of the older model dropping slightly.

[gazcarts]

I've only heard Gazjam's Young DAC, and that was at Owston a while back.
Sounded very good.
There's a new version of the Young DAC that can handle DSD files, which may account for the S/H value of the older model dropping slightly.

Thanks Chris. I think an ex-demo one is about twice the price of a Mark 1. Still trying to get my head around this DSD stuff.

[Audio Advent]

Gareth,


Are all (!) parts of your audio playback chain able to deliver/support a dynamic range of 144 dB (24 bit)?
Are all parts of your audio playback chain able to reproduce ultrasound frequencies of 96 kHz (192 kHz sampling rate)?
Are your ears and your brain able to perceive and process this type of audio signals without permanent harm or immediate death?

If you’re interested in further reading about this topic: Archimago’s musings: 24-bit vs. 16-bit audio test (http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2014/06/24-bit-vs-16-bit-audio-test-part-i.html)

Werner.

With the right dithering you can achieve effective (i.e. as it sounds to the human ear) 19 or 20 bits noise floor from a 16 bit signal/file when played back through a 20 bit or higher DAC chip as most have been for a good 15 years. 21 bits is pretty much the limit of some of the top, 5-digit price tag studio converters (multi-channel) in real terms and 19/20 bits the limits of most consumer dacs even when the technology can process 24 bit signals.

So it's a bit of a funny one that test! He's playing 24 bit audio which can only be played in real terms as about 20 bit and comparing it to 24-bit dithered down to 16 bit, which with the right dither process can sound like 19/20 bits.. i.e. one should expect that most people would hear next to no difference between them. Should have truncated bluntly to 16 bit and not dithered thereby throwing away completely the extra resolution. Dithering works that extra resolution back in via clever maths, displacing noise where psychologically humans won't notice it much.

Hope that makes some sense to someone!

[Audio Advent]

Thread here (PFM) re the Linn Xmas downloads.

http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=165269

Upshot is there is no point having them in 24/192 since there is nothing out there but noise.

Whilst that's true (about the noise), I think people get the wrong end of the stick with higher rates. As I understand it, really they are helpful for the recording and A/D conversion, not necessarily helpful for playback.. necessarily. Plug-ins (used extensively in modern studio recordings today) work and apparently sound much better at higher rates for example.

For those who can stomach the technical language, here's a good snippet from a studio geek forum post, from the founder of a company which makes some of the best converters out there (well, that's always subjective, but you know what I mean) and used by many top studios: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/remote-possibilities-acoustic-music-location-recording/30990-dsd-wdsd-dxd.html


PCM 44.1-192 kHz/24 bit: Since all frequencies, at more than half the sample rate, will be mirrored around half the sample rate (aliasing), all PCM formats needs an anti aliasing filter. The normal anti aliasing filter is the 0.45/0.55 filter which starts at 45% of the sampling rate and has full attenuation at 55% of the sampling rate.

A major disadvantage in the normal 0.45/0.55 anti aliasing filter is that the filter is only attenuating 10-12 dB at half the sample rate (Nyquist), so frequencies between 50% and 55% of the sample rate will get mirrored around half the sample rate and will create new frequencies without any harmonic relationship to the audio. Another disadvantage is that some of the energy from the audio is lost in pre/post ringing; a stronger anti aliasing filter will create more pre/post ringing than a less intense filter. Since some of the energy is lost, the anti aliasing filter attenuates the impulse response.

Due to bandwidth a steep anti aliasing filter at 44.1 and 48 kHz sampling rate can be justified, however at higher sampling rates (96kHz, 192kHz) it would be better to use a less steep filter. All anti aliasing filters cause delay in the A/D converter which is about 0.8 ms at 44.1 kHz sampling rate with a 0.45/0.55 filter.

So using higher rates means you can divert away from theory and use more gentle digital filters, get rid of some problems these filters introduce to the audio and improve the 'impulse response' (how quickly the audio can start and stop which is important for transients and attack). Or a more concise quote from the same guy later in the thread:
Everybody who has ever compared DSD64fs, DSD128fs, DXD and 384 KHz to analog would probably agree, that all these formats are sounding much more transparent than PCM between 44.1 and 192 KHz. The main advantage of high sampling rate is however not the wider frequency band itself since we can not hear frequencies above 20 KHz.
High sampling rates is mainly about timing due to improved impulse response.

On the subjective front though, there are many engineers who will choose 96Khz with their selected converters because it sounds better than 192Khz. Much of it is all about the equipment itself. There are also 352Khz or DSD256 recording engineer converts out there who are amazed by what it can do sonically. The subjective stance should always win out in the end in my opinion, hence why I find this forum a better read than most.

Notice how the thread I linked to is about 7 years old! How slow things move. Although it means that the home studio hobiest like me can almost afford the 8 channel A/D D/A converters mentioned in the thread now and still be ahead of the consumer formats, cheaper than many high-end 2 channel dacs.

[Audio Advent]

Back to the original question, if you just want to be able to play the format, there are some pretty cheap DACs on ebay just circuits without cases.. My current DAC to get me by is one such circuit board although I've had it a while and is up to 96k. Think it was just £30 secondhand. Some of the Chinese products aren't half bad.

Just came across this too: http://www.supremepiano.com/product/serenade.html Not seen a cheap dac which can do DSD up to DSD512 before.. That's not to even imply it sounds any good at all but it can at least physically play the formats so you can listen to them non-critically. £199

[gazcarts]

Back to the original question, if you just want to be able to play the format, there are some pretty cheap DACs on ebay just circuits without cases.. My current DAC to get me by is one such circuit board although I've had it a while and is up to 96k. Think it was just £30 secondhand. Some of the Chinese products aren't half bad.

Just came across this too: http://www.supremepiano.com/product/serenade.html Not seen a cheap dac which can do DSD up to DSD512 before.. That's not to even imply it sounds any good at all but it can at least physically play the formats so you can listen to them non-critically. £199

Thanks. Some interesting points. The item you linked to looks interesting. Only one optical input though from what I can see.

[Audio Advent]

Maybe NO optical actually - looks like coax and USB only. They're a company making a cheap audio software that can handle very high resolution audio (at this point in time you have to use a pro multi-thousand pound software/hardware combination) and this seems to be just for hearing your editing on a laptop, a stereo DAC by any other name. Personally I've always thought it was hit and miss whether any individual optical input can actually handle anything higher than 96Khz, thought it was down to the specific receiver used and it's implementation.

You can get cheap stuff like this: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2014-New-Version-SMSL-Sanskrit-24BIT-192Khz-Coaxial-Optical-Input-USB-DAC-Black-/321300974300 £65

You'd have to check what it can do via optical and whilst it might play, it might not sound great and therefore you won't be able to tell if 192 is any good! But that would be the problem with any dac at any price in that you'd have to listen first.

[gazcarts]

Maybe NO optical actually - looks like coax and USB only. They're a company making a cheap audio software that can handle very high resolution audio (at this point in time you have to use a pro multi-thousand pound software/hardware combination) and this seems to be just for hearing your editing on a laptop, a stereo DAC by any other name. Personally I've always thought it was hit and miss whether any individual optical input can actually handle anything higher than 96Khz, thought it was down to the specific receiver used and it's implementation.

You can get cheap stuff like this: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2014-New-Version-SMSL-Sanskrit-24BIT-192Khz-Coaxial-Optical-Input-USB-DAC-Black-/321300974300 £65

You'd have to check what it can do via optical and whilst it might play, it might not sound great and therefore you won't be able to tell if 192 is any good! But that would be the problem with any dac at any price in that you'd have to listen first.

Thanks again. Have you seen the Pioneer U-05? Stumbled across it yesterday but there doesn't appear to be any reviews as it's so new. It has impressive specs.

[eisenach]

[...] Someone on another forum has recommended the M2Tech Young DAC. Has anyone any experience of this? I can pick one up for under £400. Obviously not many people will have compared it to the DPA32R, but if it offers an upgrade in sound and future-proofing, then I'd be happy to change. Having a USB input, like many of the modern DACs is of interest too.

I had a late Tag AV32R with the bypass and 192 DACs which I repaced with a Young. It was worth the change; better, but not life-changingly so. The Young responds well to a proper power supply. Avondale made one for a while, and it made the DAC sound more grown-up and settled, but even with the wal-wart PSU, it was still better than the AV32R.

[gazcarts]

I had a late Tag AV32R with the bypass and 192 DACs which I repaced with a Young. It was worth the change; better, but not life-changingly so. The Young responds well to a proper power supply. Avondale made one for a while, and it made the DAC sound more grown-up and settled, but even with the wal-wart PSU, it was still better than the AV32R.

Thanks. It's good to get a comparison to the Tag. Did you go for the mark 1 or the newer Mark 2 Young?

[eisenach]

Thanks. It's good to get a comparison to the Tag. Did you go for the mark 1 or the newer Mark 2 Young?

I had the first version.

I must say, it's all gone, now; my DVD32R went awol again, and I ended up with a Primare BD32, based on the Oppo 93. It's in a different league altogether and also streams from my network. I use an old Tag DAC20 for the sat box and MD player.

I can't remember what you said your source priorities are, but you could do worse than look at the Oppo players. I've got a 103 for the lounge TV / HiFi system and it's brilliant. The 105 is supposed to be even better. The 103 is a competent streamer, at least for what I need.

Edit: Just looked back to see that you started this thread by wondering about playing the Linn Downloads. I've been downloading them, too, each time in the highest quality flac available. The Oppo plays them all. I'd need to go through the manual to guarantee that it plays 192kHz files without downsampling them, but I don't really see why it would.

The Oppo has two HDMI inputs (and outputs) but no S/Pdif digital in, however, the Cambridge equivalent (current version only) does, so you can use it as a DAC, too.

If you're patient, you can get a Oppo 103 for about the same price as a 2nd-hand Young, as people seem to upgrade quickly to the 105, or in the non-Darbee version, it's only £499 new.

[MCRU]

Hi,
Has the OP a dedicated power supply for his touch? The supplied wall wart is poor.

I would suggest up-grading that then the music will move up several notches sound quality wise.

Plenty of suppliers make them.

The touch with a regulated linear power supply is difficult to better as a source unless spending £1000's

Agree with Stan about 96 versus 192, don't get too anal about bitrates.

[Audio Advent]

I agree about the bitrates too in the main as it's better to have a good converter than playing the higher bitrates and it all depends on the recording anyway. Although I'm facinated by the enthusiasm of recording engineers recording at 352.4/24 (coined DXD) and DSD256 - some seem amazed by the realism on various forums. Then I wouldn't expect to be amazed on playback if it was a poorly designed dac just ticking the spec boxes for those high rates.

When they have lower bitrates available too, do they use good dithering and sample rate convertors though. It's a shame they don't talk about the technical aspects, even if hidden a click or two away.

[Ali Tait]

Hi,
Has the OP a dedicated power supply for his touch? The supplied wall wart is poor.

I would suggest up-grading that then the music will move up several notches sound quality wise.

Plenty of suppliers make them.

The touch with a regulated linear power supply is difficult to better as a source unless spending £1000's

Agree with Stan about 96 versus 192, don't get too anal about bitrates.

Agreed, a decent power supply makes all the difference with the Touch.

[StanleyB]

I just noticed that there is a 24/192 DAC (http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?35768-Beresford-Bushmaster-MKII-TC-7533)in the Private listings section.

[gazcarts]

I just noticed that there is a 24/192 DAC (http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?35768-Beresford-Bushmaster-MKII-TC-7533)in the Private listings section.

Thanks Stanley. Out of curiosity, have you any plans to increase the USB input on the Caiman II?

[StanleyB]

Thanks Stanley. Out of curiosity, have you any plans to increase the USB input on the Caiman II?
I already sell a 24/192 USB adapter for those who want or need that kind of capability.

[gazcarts]

I already sell a 24/192 USB adapter for those who want or need that kind of capability.

Ok. Thanks.

[gazcarts]

Well, after much internet research, I decided to buy an iFi-Audio Micro iDSD and Micro iUSB Power (thanks David at MCRU). They arrived today. I'm now powering the Squeezebox Touch from the iUSB Power using the included USB to 5V cable. The iUSB also powers the iDSD. I tried connecting the SBT to the iUSB Power using the USB cable, and although it played normal FLAC/MP3 files perfectly, there was occasional stuttering when playing the Linn 24bit/192kHz files. The SBT also seemed sluggish when scrolling, so possibly it isn't up to outputting such large files through the USB? There is no such stuttering using the SPDIF out of the SBT connected directly to the iDSD.

Considering the iDSD is far from run in yet, it sounds bloody amazing! I tried the iUSB Power initially on its own, with the SBT feeding my Tag DPA32R, and there was a definite improvement from using the SBT's supplied power supply. The sound through the iDSD eclipses the Tag though; I'm really surprised how good it is. I haven't even tried any DSD files yet (I need to download some first), but the iDSD plays them ALL as far as I'm aware. What a bargain!

Happy New Year!

[Audio Advent]

I think I got my wires crossed when making suggestions, I was keeping the price to near £150 but I think now I'd confused this with reading another thread perhaps even on a different forum!

Sounds an interesting bit of kit you bought! Search around to see if you can find recording engineer's own recordings at DSD 256 or DSD 512 - there are bound to be some around the internet they've recorded for comparison purposes.

Here is a page I came across from 2L recordings, a Norwegian classical label, which has DSD, DXD and other high-res files of the same pieces: http://www.2l.no/hires/ You have to enter a password and username to download which is "2L" in both cases as stated at the top of the page. All free samples to download. Might be interesting to hear the different sample rates although they are all downsampled from the original DXD file (in most cases).

[Stratmangler]

I tried connecting the SBT to the iUSB Power using the USB cable, and although it played normal FLAC/MP3 files perfectly, there was occasional stuttering when playing the Linn 24bit/192kHz files. The SBT also seemed sluggish when scrolling, so possibly it isn't up to outputting such large files through the USB? There is no such stuttering using the SPDIF out of the SBT connected directly to the iDSD.

There ain't anything wrong with the SPDIF out on the Touch, so I'd stick with that!

The Touch not liking the USB connection is not a surprise. Reading the manual for the iDSD there's mention of Mac OSX, but not Linux. It looks like the iDSD is not fully compatible with Linux, even though Mac OSX is in itself derived from Linux

[Audio Advent]

Both Linux and OSX are versions of UNIX to be pedantic but yes are kind of parallel equivalents so should be simple for people to make Linux drivers when catering for OSX.

[gazcarts]

I think I got my wires crossed when making suggestions, I was keeping the price to near £150 but I think now I'd confused this with reading another thread perhaps even on a different forum!

Sounds an interesting bit of kit you bought! Search around to see if you can find recording engineer's own recordings at DSD 256 or DSD 512 - there are bound to be some around the internet they've recorded for comparison purposes.

Here is a page I came across from 2L recordings, a Norwegian classical label, which has DSD, DXD and other high-res files of the same pieces: http://www.2l.no/hires/ You have to enter a password and username to download which is "2L" in both cases as stated at the top of the page. All free samples to download. Might be interesting to hear the different sample rates although they are all downsampled from the original DXD file (in most cases).

Thanks for that. I'll take a look.

[gazcarts]

There ain't anything wrong with the SPDIF out on the Touch, so I'd stick with that!

The Touch not liking the USB connection is not a surprise. Reading the manual for the iDSD there's mention of Mac OSX, but not Linux. It looks like the iDSD is not fully compatible with Linux, even though Mac OSX is in itself derived from Linux

It does sound superb through the SPDIF. iFi show USB connections for the SBT on their website, so I tried that first. The iDSD works perfectly through USB from my laptop.