Do I need a DAC?

[mwheelerk]

The majority of audio files stored on a PC are 16Bit/48KHz or less. That's what the USB input on the DAC is catering for.
If you have audio files that are 24Bit/96KHz, then use optical or coax. If you don't, then what is the problem?

I have read that some of the USB inputs on DACs do not handle jitter/timing/clocking well. I think that some of the DACs have USB as an afterthought. I believe that is what is thought of my DAC the CA DacMagic, which I use the optical connection and love this device. I also believe that this is changing and more manufacturers are realizing that users want a high quality USB capability.

[StanleyB]

What users want, and what the majority are pepared to pay for are two different quantities. High bit rate and frequency USB already exist. So it's not that the market is starved of those solutions.

[mwheelerk]

What users want, and what the majority are pepared to pay for are two different quantities. High bit rate and frequency USB already exist. So it's not that the market is starved of those solutions.

Maybe my statement was too general. You are right that good solutions do exist but that some manufacturers haven't given USB the consideration it requires.

[mwheelerk]

http://www.ayre.com/PDF/Ayre_USB_DAC_White_Paper.pdf

This covers the issue I was thinking about.

[StanleyB]

You are right that good solutions do exist but that some manufacturers haven't given USB the consideration it requires.

The limiting factors are the availability of USB chips. The main ones available are from Texas Instruments. DAC designers like me are limited to what components are available for the intended task.
At the same time, USB cannot surpass TOSLINK or COAX.

[purite audio]

USB just isn't the best way to transfer timed data, async USB designs such as the Wavelength dacs offer the best implementation.
Keith.

[Themis]

USB just isn't the best way to transfer timed data, async USB designs such as the Wavelength dacs offer the best implementation.
Keith.

Thats, true. Async pipes are better. I simply wonder if one day someone will use bulk-transfer pipes (the ones used for file transfer) and pack the audio protocol inside...

USB has very well designed connectors, but all my pro friends tell me that USB is the poorest for audio (compared with firewire, etc), mainly due to the power connectors next to the data ones...

[StanleyB]

Even though USB is so poor in terms of interference etc., there are still loads of people who seem to care more about being abe to play back 96KHz audio via USB. How do they justify living with the lower playback quality of USB, just for the sake of listening to 96KHz tracks through USB?

[Kris]

How do they justify living with the lower playback quality of USB, just for the sake of listening to 96KHz tracks through USB?

Because USB is the flavour of the month, it's been over-hyped and pushed in the media and in ads. Everything these days is 'USB', so naturally 'USB audio' must be better (in the eyes of those who don't know otherwise) than any other type of audio out.

Also, and please correct me on this if I'm wrong, but many laptops don't have co-ax or optical out, so for them USB is the only way.

[StanleyB]

Also, and please correct me on this if I'm wrong, but many laptops don't have co-ax or optical out, so for them USB is the only way.

You are totally correct about the USB only facility on most laptops. However, the Creative Labs X-Fi card can quickly solve that problem. I use one on my laptop and it is far cheaper than other USB solutions I have come across.