Motherboard for audio

Vincent Kars

WBF Technical Expert: Computer Audio
Jul 1, 2010
860
1
0
Gigabyte is the first company known to me selling a mobo with audio quality as a sales argument.
It features a dedicated USB port with clean power.
The onboard audio has socketed op-amps and adjustable gain.
They also claim to shield the analog components from noise at PCB level.

Gigabytes GA-H81.Amp-UP
 

edorr

WBF Founding Member
May 10, 2010
3,139
14
36
Smyrna, GA
Gigabyte is the first company known to me selling a mobo with audio quality as a sales argument.
It features a dedicated USB port with clean power.
The onboard audio has socketed op-amps and adjustable gain.
They also claim to shield the analog components from noise at PCB level.

Gigabytes GA-H81.Amp-UP

Optimized for gamers, using the analog outs of the board. Not high end audio applications. No audiophile building a server will use the MOBO USB port.
 

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
Small Green Computer and similar companies don't count?
 

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
They build computers optimized for audio using standard components, but they do not use a Motherboard optimized for audio.

Ahh. But isn't it more desirable to have most or all audio processing off the motherboard?
 

edorr

WBF Founding Member
May 10, 2010
3,139
14
36
Smyrna, GA
Ahh. But isn't it more desirable to have most or all audio processing off the motherboard?

The optimized audio servers use audio cards (mostly SotM USB cards, or Lynx AES/EBU), and the MOBO has zero or little impact on sound quality.
 

mojave

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2010
251
0
321
Elkhorn, NE
No audiophile building a server will use the MOBO USB port.

Why? Due the control a motherboard can have over the port, I would tend to like this more than a SOtM PCI or PCIe USB card. You can even turn off the power.

From Gigabyte:

Featuring a gold plated USB 2.0 port, GIGABYTE USB DAC-Up provides clean, noise-free power delivery to your Digital-to-Analog Converter. DACs can be sensitive to fluctuations in power from the other USB ports, which is why GIGABYTE USB DAC-Up takes advantage of an isolated power source that minimizes potential fluctuations and ensures the best audio experience possible.

GIGABYTE USB DAC-Up also allows the port to be configured in BIOS for enthusiast system configurations which do not require USB power to the DAC. This makes it suitable for high-end audio enthusiasts building extreme fidelity audio systems.
 

edorr

WBF Founding Member
May 10, 2010
3,139
14
36
Smyrna, GA
Why? Due the control a motherboard can have over the port, I would tend to like this more than a SOtM PCI or PCIe USB card. You can even turn off the power.

From Gigabyte:

Nothing the SotM cannot do. You can (A) power the board with battery power or external PS, and (B) switch of the 5v power out if your DAC / converter does not need it.
 

Vincent Kars

WBF Technical Expert: Computer Audio
Jul 1, 2010
860
1
0
Ahh. But isn't it more desirable to have most or all audio processing off the motherboard?

I’m inclined to say no.
Processing = using a processor= RFI and other dirt and you probably want to have this done not close to the DAC (the chip) or the clock driving the DA.
Besides, the processing power of a modern CPU is superior to the DSP chips in power and precision.
 

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
The optimized audio servers use audio cards (mostly SotM USB cards, or Lynx AES/EBU), and the MOBO has zero or little impact on sound quality.
Is this in support of what i posted (it sounds like it is)?

I'm getting more confused.
 

edorr

WBF Founding Member
May 10, 2010
3,139
14
36
Smyrna, GA
I’m inclined to say no.
Processing = using a processor= RFI and other dirt and you probably want to have this done not close to the DAC (the chip) or the clock driving the DA.
Besides, the processing power of a modern CPU is superior to the DSP chips in power and precision.

Vincent, what do you think of this three box architecture. Server with USB out to digital converter box (USB to MSB I2S Pro conversion), converter feeds DAC over MSB I2S Pro. MSB I2S Pro protocol slaves converter box to clock in the MSB DAC. I am intrigued giving it a try to compare against using the USB input on the DAC, but it is not cheap.

http://www.bluesmokesystems.com/
 

Vincent Kars

WBF Technical Expert: Computer Audio
Jul 1, 2010
860
1
0
Hi edorr

I must admit it doesn’t appeal to me.
The more boxes the longer the signal path.
The “problem” with digital is that only our bits are digital (and have the digital robustness).
Our timing isn’t, in fact with all legacy protocols, the timing is generated by the source and as a consequence the DAC is dependent on the source (just as in the analog days).

My ideal is a DAC isolated from the source as much as possible.
Isolated at protocol level (asynchronous) and as there is always some dirt, “noise” isolated as well.
 

edorr

WBF Founding Member
May 10, 2010
3,139
14
36
Smyrna, GA
Our timing isn’t, in fact with all legacy protocols, the timing is generated by the source and as a consequence the DAC is dependent on the source (just as in the analog days).

My ideal is a DAC isolated from the source as much as possible.
Isolated at protocol level (asynchronous) and as there is always some dirt, “noise” isolated as well.

I2S Pro slaves the source to the clock in the DAC, so there is no timing information in the source.
 

Vincent Kars

WBF Technical Expert: Computer Audio
Jul 1, 2010
860
1
0
I2S Pro slaves the source to the clock in the DAC, so there is no timing information in the source.

By design I2S is a bus connecting a source and a receiver powered by a common clock.
Hence zero input jitter at the receiver.

Almost all DACs (the chip) requires I2S for input.
A build-in async USB receiver converts the data to I2S and this conversion is driven by the clock of the DAC.
 

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
There's a certain appeal to this motherboard as it focuses (to some extent) on the power aspects of the device.

In experiments with PCs on another forum we have come to the tentative conclusions that one crucial factor in computer audio is the power on the motherboard. In moving from SMPS to linear to battery power, a commensurate & noticeable improvement in sound was noted. In further separating the battery power into 12V, 5V & 3.3V feeds, another improvement in sound was achieved. I know that there are still DC-DC switchers on the mobos & these may well be the next area to address but so far the results have been encouraging. Some have reached the stage where there are now no audible differences between different playback software - a situation that was not the case in the untweaked PCs. (Does this give any clues as to what might have been the underlying factors in these software players?)

In this Giga mobo, the VRM (voltage regulator module) may be more stable, lower noise?
Supplying clean power to the USB ports is one of the factors that we have identified as crucial, although when the mobo PS is cleaned up this separate USB power is no longer needed.
Not particularly interested in the on-board audio, unlike Vincent, as I feel that the analogue side of things needs different considerations to the digital side & is better separated from it.
 

edorr

WBF Founding Member
May 10, 2010
3,139
14
36
Smyrna, GA
There's a certain appeal to this motherboard as it focuses (to some extent) on the power aspects of the device.

In experiments with PCs on another forum we have come to the tentative conclusions that one crucial factor in computer audio is the power on the motherboard. In moving from SMPS to linear to battery power, a commensurate & noticeable improvement in sound was noted. In further separating the battery power into 12V, 5V & 3.3V feeds, another improvement in sound was achieved. I know that there are still DC-DC switchers on the mobos & these may well be the next area to address but so far the results have been encouraging. Some have reached the stage where there are now no audible differences between different playback software - a situation that was not the case in the untweaked PCs. (Does this give any clues as to what might have been the underlying factors in these software players?)

In this Giga mobo, the VRM (voltage regulator module) may be more stable, lower noise?
Supplying clean power to the USB ports is one of the factors that we have identified as crucial, although when the mobo PS is cleaned up this separate USB power is no longer needed.
Not particularly interested in the on-board audio, unlike Vincent, as I feel that the analogue side of things needs different considerations to the digital side & is better separated from it.


Reason I was asking is I am having my CAPS 3.0 rebuild as we speak, because it had a defective motherboard. I was wondering if it had any merit to specify this board instead of what my builder is planning to put in (Asus). I may end up getting the USB to I2S Pro coverter which used the MOBO USB, but without the 5v power. Thoughts? Not sure if assembly has started, but it may not be too late yet.
 

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
Reason I was asking is I am having my CAPS 3.0 rebuild as we speak, because it had a defective motherboard. I was wondering if it had any merit to specify this board instead of what my builder is planning to put in (Asus). I may end up getting the USB to I2S Pro coverter which used the MOBO USB, but without the 5v power. Thoughts? Not sure if assembly has started, but it may not be too late yet.

I don't know what the USB to I2S pro converter is as I'm not that familiar with the CAPS 3.0 menu. As all of this is uncharted territory, hard & fast statements can be misleading. All I can say is that it seems like the PS of the computer is crucial to audio. Is this because of noise leaking through to the analogue stage of the D/A conversion? I have done experiments to isolate this noise as completely as current devices allow (between DAC & USB receiver chips) & there was still an audible effect from changes on the PC side. Others, like John Swenson have done similar experiments with similar results. I know that complete isolation is a near impossibility but I also suspect that there is some other influence at play.
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
There's a certain appeal to this motherboard as it focuses (to some extent) on the power aspects of the device.

In experiments with PCs on another forum we have come to the tentative conclusions that one crucial factor in computer audio is the power on the motherboard. In moving from SMPS to linear to battery power, a commensurate & noticeable improvement in sound was noted. In further separating the battery power into 12V, 5V & 3.3V feeds, another improvement in sound was achieved. I know that there are still DC-DC switchers on the mobos & these may well be the next area to address but so far the results have been encouraging. Some have reached the stage where there are now no audible differences between different playback software - a situation that was not the case in the untweaked PCs. (Does this give any clues as to what might have been the underlying factors in these software players?)

In this Giga mobo, the VRM (voltage regulator module) may be more stable, lower noise?
Supplying clean power to the USB ports is one of the factors that we have identified as crucial, although when the mobo PS is cleaned up this separate USB power is no longer needed.
Not particularly interested in the on-board audio, unlike Vincent, as I feel that the analogue side of things needs different considerations to the digital side & is better separated from it.[/QUOTE]

Given that Vincent just said his preference is for conversion isolated and re-clocked outside of the computer, I don't think you disagree on this point. Power supply impact is, of course, another question.

P
 

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
Given that Vincent just said his preference is for conversion isolated and re-clocked outside of the computer, I don't think you disagree on this point. Power supply impact is, of course, another question.

P
Oh, I must have misunderstood his reply to Edorr?

Hi edorr

I must admit it doesn’t appeal to me.
The more boxes the longer the signal path.
The “problem” with digital is that only our bits are digital (and have the digital robustness).
Our timing isn’t, in fact with all legacy protocols, the timing is generated by the source and as a consequence the DAC is dependent on the source (just as in the analog days).

My ideal is a DAC isolated from the source as much as possible.
Isolated at protocol level (asynchronous) and as there is always some dirt, “noise” isolated as well.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing