Who needs 24/96KHz USB

[StanleyB]

I get asked for 24/96KHz USB input, but I don't see the point of such heavy investment when clearly TOSLINK and SPDIF is superior in terms of flexibility. The latter are not operating system or PC specific for one. They don't need device drivers.
So why the infatuation with 24/96KHz USB?

[The Vinyl Adventure]

Laziness ... I only use the USB port when it's the easiest option... Ie before I had a computer with a spdif out...

[Batty]

I use Coax digital out from my PC, so not me.

[John]

A lot of computers/laptops do not have SPDIF out. I think people want to do without hassle of worrying about new PC would be my guess

[The Vinyl Adventure]

I everyone else is making thier dacs 24/96 via USB it might be good to not be left behind the crowd I suppose...

[StanleyB]

There are less than a handful of such DACs, and they all need special drivers on top of the extra cost of the DAC themselves.

[The Vinyl Adventure]

the only type of person this might bother is the type of person who uses a net book to play thier music from ... i have never seen a netbook with optical or coax ... but as they are so small and quiet they do make quite good option for a source in a louge

[Butuz]

Many PC's do not come with built in optical outputs, thus requiring an internal add on sound card (which could colour the sound) and the PC's that do have them built in generallty use the built in sound card on the motherboard which are even more likely to colour the sound than an add on card?

USB data bypasses the PC's sound card and is just sent straight into to the DAC as pure binary data i.e is just a transport?

I think that's a benefit.

Butuz

[Krisbee]

So why the infatuation with 24/96KHz USB?

Apart from the practical issue of getting decent spdif out from a computer, it seems to me that in the world of computer audio the arguments over which is the best interface (spdif electrical, spdif optical, firewire or USB) between PC and DAC are far from settled.

Some believe that "asynchoronus" USB mode, as opposed to the more common "adaptive" mode, has the potential to significantly reduce jitter and produce better SQ while also overcoming the 16bit/48kHz limitation. Hence a product like the Ayre Acoustics QB-9 USB DAC , which I think works natively in Windows and Mac OS thanks to using Gordon Rankin's ideas. The designers of the M2tech HiFace dongle also have an "asynchoronus" USB mode solution but choose to convert the final output to spdif.

I've not heard any DAC/device that works this way and I'm probably not likely to in the near future so who knows if it really does offer superior SQ. But USB audio does seem to be the area in which development is fast moving, e.g. use of xilinx chips, VIA produces a USB 2.0 Audio Controller, XtremeUSB and XMOS Audio 2.0 Reference Design. You can find a round up here http://www.audiodesignguide.com/HiResolution/index.html

[purite audio]

The new M2Tech dacs will be async USB and capable of playing everything up to and including 24/192.
Keith.

[Vincent Kars]

USB data bypasses the PC's sound card and is just sent straight into to the DAC as pure binary data i.e is just a transport?


All audio is handled by the OS audio engine.
You can apply volume control, EQ, all DSP available before the audio is send to the endpoint.
This applies to USB as well

[Vincent Kars]

I get asked for 24/96KHz USB input, but I don't see the point of such heavy investment when clearly TOSLINK and SPDIF is superior in terms of flexibility. The latter are not operating system or PC specific for one. They don't need device drivers.
So why the infatuation with 24/96KHz USB?

It is a bit unclear to me what you mean with "not operating system or PC specific".
All major OS (Win, OSX, Linux) implement USB including USB Audio 1.
They all implement the same standard in the same way.
Almost all USB DAC's use the native mode drivers of the OS and therefore work on all the 3 OS mentioned.
As the USB audio 1 is limited to 24/96, only if you want to support 176/192 too, you have to write your own drivers on the OS side.
The USB audio 2 specs where finalized in 2009, allowing for 24 at 176/192
Apple at the moment has USB audio 2 in Beta, MS is unclear.

[leo]

I wouldn't bother with it Stan, I think you did well adding the USB option on the Caiman , it may not do 24/96+ but its still nice to even have a USB input as an option. Not many dacs offer such a wide range of inputs at the Caimans price. For the few wanting hi-res from USB they may as well get something like the Hi-face and use that to feed the Caimans S/PDIF with 24/96 . Others not interested in USB will use soundcards digital out and those wanting convenience will use the Squeezebox Touch digital out.

[Themis]

I get asked for 24/96KHz USB input, but I don't see the point of such heavy investment when clearly TOSLINK and SPDIF is superior in terms of flexibility. The latter are not operating system or PC specific for one. They don't need device drivers.
I'm with you here, Stan. USB is far from perfect (cabling, etc) and in one word useless compared to the mature S/PDIF or AES/EBU.
In the rare case where a computer is used as source and lacks S/PDIF, an USB>S/PDIF converter (like the excellent M2Tech one) is more versatile imho.


So why the infatuation with 24/96KHz USB?
Because of the use of the word "asynchronous" ,which is a very sexy word in computer audio. It sounds the same as "Eldorado" sounds for gold hunters. :lol:

For me, USB audio is a secondary solution, a "nice to have" option. But certainly not a "must have" or a main listening option. Consequently, the 96+ feature is a waste.
(with the exception of some promising devices, designed for high-end use, like the M2Tech dac, for instance).

"My two cents", as the Americans say. ;)

[apanton1952]

I use a Creative Live USB Soundcard because I can plug it into 1 of any 3 machines including a laptop and record my lp's for archiving and restoration. I record and process at 24/96 then dither down to 24/48 for playback - best my Angstrom can do - and am happy with the results.
If the Angstrom handled 24/96 I wouldn't dither.
Maybe not the best card out there, but perfectly adequate for my needs and with Windows 7 drivers it is audibly better than with XP - go figure!

[Peter Galbavy]

I am not bothered about delivering 24/96 over USB to a DAC. On the other hand any potential future ADC product you may have in mind should have 24/96 USB.

I try to play my music in a room with little ambient noise and using a PC or laptop, with fans and HDDs, on a regular basis would annoy me. On the other hand, if I want to rip my vinyl I am happy to do that with a laptop sucking 24/96 over USB - this is one reason I bought a Numark USB mixer (cheap!) but I haven't even got as far as ripping any vinyl at 16/48 yet - which is the max it supports for in and out on USB for the same reasons as the 7250/Caiman.

[AndrewR]

I get asked for 24/96KHz USB input, but I don't see the point of such heavy investment when clearly TOSLINK and SPDIF is superior in terms of flexibility. The latter are not operating system or PC specific for one. They don't need device drivers.
So why the infatuation with 24/96KHz USB?

Hi Stanley,

Here's a thought. For me (and probably many others) all I need as a DAC and a turntable. Offering a Beresford with an analogue input to the pre-amp, in place of the USB real-estate could make a future DAC even more attractive.

Andrew

[James G]

All audio is handled by the OS audio engine.
You can apply volume control, EQ, all DSP available before the audio is send to the endpoint.
This applies to USB as well

Checked out your website, picked up some nice info. Thanks for sharing.

[Labarum]

Just picked up some gossip about the forthcoming Arcam r-Dac

Async USB for £300.

If it sounds good it may be a challenge to the Beresford Dacs.

Macs and Macbooks have optical output as standard but few PCs and laptops do.

A £300 DAC that will plug into any Vista box and play to the highest standards would be attractive.

For my part, I cannot hear the difference between the USB and S/PDIF inputs of the Caiman, but there you go - others will say they can. And some will want higher that CD definition.

Needs watching carefully, Stan.

[StanleyB]

At the end of the day USB is inferior to TOSLINK and SPDIF, which is why people have been debating about jumping on the asynch bandwagon in order to narrow the gap between USB and TOSLINK/SPDIF. But in my opinion the gap is far too big for USB to be capable of competing with TOSLINK or SPDIF in sonic quality. The IRQ timing delays introduced by a PC as it polls the USB ports causes audible data drop outs, which makes it useless for serious applications.
The novelty factor will wear out once adapters of current 96KHz USB solutions realize that it doesn't improve the audible short comings of the USB audio stream.

[roob]

Are Arcam having these Dacs built in China, seems awfully cheap.

[StanleyB]

Are Arcam having these Dacs built in China, seems awfully cheap.
You mean 'looks' instead of 'seems'.. Price wise it seems overpriced.

[roob]

Sorry Headmaster.

[dtakias]

Hi Stanley,

Here's a thought. For me (and probably many others) all I need as a DAC and a turntable. Offering a Beresford with an analogue input to the pre-amp, in place of the USB real-estate could make a future DAC even more attractive.

Andrew

Good idea!

[Labarum]

Offering a Beresford with an analogue input to the pre-amp, in place of the USB real-estate could make a future DAC even more attractive.


And, of course, the DAC could then double as a Headphone amp for an analogue source.

[BlueMax]

There are only few music files available as 24/96KHz. I doubt there will be that much more in the near future.

People asking for 24/96 or higher is kind of playing the numbers game.
So I guess, sales appeal will be better if a DAC can boast USB 24-bit/192kHz

Laptots/notebooks/netbooks and most PCs do not have optical or digital outputs. So USB input is a must have with a DAC.

[StanleyB]

There are only few music files available as 24/96KHz. I doubt there will be that much more in the near future.
People asking for 24/96 or higher is kind of playing the numbers game.

That's the impression I get as well. Online music resellers are only interested in small files of less than HIFI quality reproduction. The high bit rate stuff costs a fortune and I heard that they are in many cases mere 16bit/44.1KHz files that have been resampled to a higher bitrate.

It's nice to think that a DAC with all mods and cons would sell well. I very much doubt that. Such a unit would cost a lot to develop and build, which means a retail price of £300 to £500. From my own experience, £100 to $150 is the type of budget the casual buyer is prepared to fork out without thinking too hard about the cost. £300 to £500 is way too much for most, and would quickly make the whole idea a loss maker. It's extremely risky these days to spend upwards of £50K on R&D on such a project. Especially when it costs a fraction of that for competitors to copy.

[firedog55]

Guys-

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss USB or hi-res. Listen to the new USB out devices from M2Tech, Empirical Audio, or some of the higher end DACs with USB input. These are based on USB 2 and have proprietary drivers. M2Tech is already licensing its drivers to other companies, so the development costs for implementing hi-res USB are being reduced.

Simply put, these devices sound great. Sometimes better than SPDIF and Toslink audio from the same computer. The M2Tech setup allows for use of kernel streaming drivers. From my PC it is the best sounding output by a large margin - noticeably better than the SPDIF or Toslink outs using ASIO or WASAPI.

I'm not claiming hi-res USB will become a mass market item, but I think it will become standard on "better" equipment. Note that even the new Squeezebox Touch ($300) is designed to give native, quality playback of 24/96 files, and is being picked up by audiophiles as a cheap way to start with reasonable quality hi-res listening. Logitech didn't add that feature without evidence that there was demand for it, as native 24/96 reproduction demands both hardware and software changes to their devices.

As far as hi-res files, I think it is a niche market like other "audiophile" stuff. But IMO it is here to stay. The catalogue is small, but growing, especially in Classical Music. There are also some firms like HD Tape Transfers that are taking high quality analogue tapes of classical music and converting them to hi-res files. I downloaded a couple of albums and they were tremendous - especially good dynamics.

The Beatles have already put out a 24/44.1 version (on USB stick) of the Remasters that even vinyl advocates admit comes closer to the vinyl sound than the standard remasters. The Beatles remasters were done in 24/192 and downsampled for CD production. How much do you want to bet that a full hi-res version (96 or 192k) will be released in the not distant future?

That will sell, and it alone may create a new demand for hi-res files.

I think Jazz afficianados will also be willing to pay for hi-res versions of Jazz, especially the "classic" Jazz catalogue.

I've just recently started to obtain hi-res files, and some of them sound fantastic, much better than the 16/44.1 counterparts. Like any other medium, the quality of the final product depends on the care in recording and production of the files - some aren't worth the money they cost.

I don't think the hi-res market will ever be mainstream, but I think it will be big enough that we will begin to see lots of releases in hi-res as well as normal resolution. (Downloads or DVDs with standard and hi-res files both included on a "premium" disc that has a premium price). In a lot of cases the cost to the recording company is nil, as the master is hi-res anyway, and then downsampled to make the final CD master. Hi-res will become another way for the recording companies to entice consumers to buy physical media, and to segment the market and generate some extra income.

[BlueMax]

I've just recently started to obtain hi-res files, and some of them sound fantastic, much better than the 16/44.1 counterparts. I don't expect many original recordings in hi-res either. In these days of MP3s and portable music, market is too small and expenses high to make them commercially viable.
My setup can handle 26/96 and I love classical music. Apart from electro music by MusicTrade i have't found anything.
May be you could post some links.

[firedog55]

I've used these:

http://www.highdeftapetransfers.com/storefront.php
also http://www.hdtracks.com and linn audio

Recent purchases:

I bought Stravinsky - L' historie de soldat from HDTT, not a new recording, but it sounds great.

I also got Leopold Stokowski | Bartok: Concerto for Orchestra | Audiophile 96khz/24bit recording. Recorded on Everest Records in 1961 from HDTracks. The original recording was 3 track (with middle channel) on 35mm (yes, 35mm) tape. Also sounds great, and is good performance.

The HDTracks site says you have to have a US address to download, but it isn't true. Paypal works there. I also put a US address (family members) in the form, charged the files to my CC, and then downloaded to my non US location.

Apparently they don't have any system in place for checking the location of the downloading IP. I have no problem circumventing their rule, as I'm paying full price for the files, royalties are being paid, and it certainly isn't illegal where I live.

There's also this site (in French) that I think has hi-res: http://www.qobuz.com/

Here's a link to a fairly comprehensive list of sites with HQ downloads:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/state-of-audiophile-music-downloads

and this thread which is partly on topic and interesting:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Little-Music-Your-Listening-Pleasure

[BlueMax]

cool..
thanx
:)