Is USB for Serious Audiophiles with TBs of music on a NAS or for Geeks playin w/ Computers? Why USB?

caesar

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2010
4,290
767
1,698
Any serious audiophiles with large music collections on a NAS use USB? Is USB only used by computer geeks who like to play with computers, or do serious audiophiles get great sound with it?

Why would anyone use USB these days in favor of AES or SPDIF?
 

Kal Rubinson

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2010
2,360
697
1,700
NYC
www.stereophile.com
Any serious audiophiles with large music collections on a NAS use USB? Is USB only used by computer geeks who like to play with computers, or do serious audiophiles get great sound with it?

Why would anyone use USB these days in favor of AES or SPDIF?
Higher resolutions and/or multichannel.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
USB is technically superior because it make the DAC clock the master, and the server, a slave. This is as it should be. The audio stream is data and does not need to run in real-time. The server in this regard can be just a data pump and nothing else.

With S/PDIF and AES/EBU, the source is the master and the DAC must constantly chase it to extract the clock. The stream here is real-time. And the server is now an audio device.

Both S/PDIF and AES/EBU are antiquated interfaces that need to be shot in the head in favor of USB. :)
 

BMCG

VIP/Donor
Oct 1, 2016
234
41
133
United Kingdom
USB is technically superior because it make the DAC clock the master, and the server, a slave. This is as it should be. The audio stream is data and does not need to run in real-time. The server in this regard can be just a data pump and nothing else.

With S/PDIF and AES/EBU, the source is the master and the DAC must constantly chase it to extract the clock. The stream here is real-time. And the server is now an audio device.

Both S/PDIF and AES/EBU are antiquated interfaces that need to be shot in the head in favor of USB. :)

I'd buy into much of that....Exclduing the use of weaponry on defencelesss cables...

That said surprises me the extent to which cabling type impacts the "voice" of the USB data/bit stream
 

Kal Rubinson

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2010
2,360
697
1,700
NYC
www.stereophile.com
Kal,
Thank you. What do you consider high resolution? I believe spdif can do 192/24.

Well, the lack of MCH support eliminates it from my consideration but, in addition, I have files with higher native resolution that 24/192. Note that I am not saying that they necessarily sound better but I would rather have the option to play them than not.
 

caesar

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2010
4,290
767
1,698
USB is technically superior because it make the DAC clock the master, and the server, a slave. This is as it should be. The audio stream is data and does not need to run in real-time. The server in this regard can be just a data pump and nothing else.

With S/PDIF and AES/EBU, the source is the master and the DAC must constantly chase it to extract the clock. The stream here is real-time. And the server is now an audio device.

Both S/PDIF and AES/EBU are antiquated interfaces that need to be shot in the head in favor of USB. :)

Thanks, Amir. But don't the "better DACs" reclock that signal from S/PDIF and AES/ EBU?

And don't the biggest proponents of USB claim that the USB signal contains a large amount of "noise"? Of course, they can solve the problem via a $2K converter, like the one from Berkeley...

I am not sure if both of these engineering solutions are a wash sonically, (and I would rather kill myself than do the A/B comparisons myself!), but the thought of a computer and a USB cable in the listening room is a huge buzzkill also...
 

caesar

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2010
4,290
767
1,698
Well, the lack of MCH support eliminates it from my consideration but, in addition, I have files with higher native resolution that 24/192. Note that I am not saying that they necessarily sound better but I would rather have the option to play them than not.

Thank you
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
Thanks, Amir. But don't the "better DACs" reclock that signal from S/PDIF and AES/ EBU?
Actually almost all DACs do that in that the clock they need for the DAC runs at a different frequency than what comes over S/PDIF and AES/EBU. The issue is that this doesn't solve anything. See this article I wrote on this topic: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...performance-pc-server-interfaces-async-usb.8/

The architecture you imagine is one where the DAC detects the sample rate of incoming data over S/PDIF and plays at that rate on its own. The problem is that the standard does not mandate that the number of samples actually match the sample rate. Instead of 44100 samples/second the sender may send 44101 samples/sec on the average. Or 44099/sec. The rate can vary up to 5%. Let's take the case of sender/server being one sample too slow. You fill a buffer (memory) with some audio samples and then start playing. Because the DAC clock is running faster, it will eventually consume all the data in the buffer and starves for audio samples. The moment this happens, there will be nasty glitch as the DAC doesn't have anything to play.

The reverse happens when the DAC clock runs a bit slow. The buffer keeps growing and growing and eventually runs out of space and samples need to be discarded.

There is another problem with video. There, audio is slaved to video in that every frame of video has X number of audio samples. Here, you are guaranteed to have different number of samples than the stated sample rate. The assumption in this architecture is that the DAC will play exactly those number of samples, not what the sample rate says. If you do otherwise per above, over time your soundtrack runs too slow or too fast, causing it to run out of sync. If you do the math, you will see that in just a few minutes the audio track gets out of sync so much that you will notice it not matching the video.

The issue is that the DAC cannot tell the server/sender to slow down or speed up. It must act as a real-time slave and do what it is told at the rate that the data is coming.

The solution to all of this is to have your local clock for the DAC but adjust its timing constantly up and down to track the rate of audio samples coming over S/PDIF and AES/EBU. This means that all the noise and vagaries of these interfaces also bleeds into your clock accuracy. Well implemented devices are able to clean this up and offer exceptional performance but it is still a kludge.

With asynchronous USB, you get to pick your DAC clock and keep it constant. Then a microprocessor fetches chunks of data at a rate that keeps it ahead of the DAC speed. This way there is no incoming data to synchronize to.

And don't the biggest proponents of USB claim that the USB signal contains a large amount of "noise"? Of course, they can solve the problem via a $2K converter, like the one from Berkeley...
All else being equal, that is true. USB being a computer interface requires its own processor usually to interpret its protocol and hence is more complicated and capable of creating more interference. And as you mention, the interface is designed for data use so it can easily bleed tons of noise from the computer into your DAC. These are very much solvable problems though and it is what we pay the design engineers to do. :)

To be sure though, you do want to see the measurements of the interfaces. If USB doesn't measure up, then sure, S/PDIF would be the prefered interface. Then again, where are you getting your S/PDIF interface on your computer? In this day and age it would have to be an add-on interface and you would need to measure that to be sure.

I am not sure if both of these engineering solutions are a wash sonically, (and I would rather kill myself than do the A/B comparisons myself!), but the thought of a computer and a USB cable in the listening room is a huge buzzkill also...
That is what I have and it is not a buzzkill at all. There are networked solutions like the Regen if you want to put the computer/NAS elsewhere. You would then need to deal with Ethernet as your interface but does eliminate the computer in the room.
 

Kal Rubinson

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2010
2,360
697
1,700
NYC
www.stereophile.com
I am not sure if both of these engineering solutions are a wash sonically, (and I would rather kill myself than do the A/B comparisons myself!), but the thought of a computer and a USB cable in the listening room is a huge buzzkill also...
Not for me. I have three silent computers in my listening room right now connected by USB or ethernet to an array of DACs and all drawing from a relatively quiet NAS that is in another room. There is no noise from all this and I can silently switch among the various combinations and permutations. Admittedly, this is overkill but, as a reviewer, I have a need for multiple options.

However, my point is that, for a single dedicated computer+DAC, there is no buzzkill. In addition, depending on how you want to operate (interface with) your system, the computer can go in another room, too, and link with the DAC via ethernet. That, however, means using a tablet for control and, although many (most) people prefer it, I do not.
 

Believe High Fidelity

[Industry Expert]
Nov 19, 2015
1,665
318
355
Hutto TX
ibelieveinhifi.com
Caesar,

What is the point of going digital streaming if you are not prepared to interface with computer software regardless of where that computer is located? As pointed out the computer can be anywhere in your home and you are not limited to USB as an interface.

Are you more concerned with the noise of the computer in the audio room?

A monitor in the audio room (which you dont have to have one)?

Or is it the USB interface in general that is concern and why? Sound quality? Computer drivers?
 

Legolas

VIP/Donor
Dec 27, 2015
1,042
387
455
France
USB is technically superior because it make the DAC clock the master, and the server, a slave. This is as it should be. The audio stream is data and does not need to run in real-time. The server in this regard can be just a data pump and nothing else.

With S/PDIF and AES/EBU, the source is the master and the DAC must constantly chase it to extract the clock. The stream here is real-time. And the server is now an audio device.

Both S/PDIF and AES/EBU are antiquated interfaces that need to be shot in the head in favor of USB. :)

Yeah right. And I have had about 12 different USB fixers and reclockers, it never made USB sound right to me. Converting from Ethernet to SPDIF sounds much more natural to me. Vincent of TotalDAC used AES at a recent hifi show with his top server, Audio Note use S/PDIF, Zanden use i2S. USB is not the answer to beautiful sound IMO. Yes, it is a cheap way to connect unpowered devices, but it was never designed for high end audio. It also carries 5V power down the line and tons of RF noise. I have heard quite a few top end DACs and the USB input board has been weaker than the SPDIF or Ethernet (AMR, CH Precision, Metrum). Most have the Amanero board which is nothing special, but why do DACs costing 3 times as much still have that same board?

So not so quick to hail USB as the answer to all our dreams my friend....
 

Believe High Fidelity

[Industry Expert]
Nov 19, 2015
1,665
318
355
Hutto TX
ibelieveinhifi.com
Yeah right. And I have had about 12 different USB fixers and reclockers, it never made USB sound right to me. Converting from Ethernet to SPDIF sounds much more natural to me. Vincent of TotalDAC used AES at a recent hifi show with his top server, Audio Note use S/PDIF, Zanden use i2S. USB is not the answer to beautiful sound IMO. Yes, it is a cheap way to connect unpowered devices, but it was never designed for high end audio. It also carries 5V power down the line and tons of RF noise. I have heard quite a few top end DACs and the USB input board has been weaker than the SPDIF or Ethernet (AMR, CH Precision, Metrum). Most have the Amanero board which is nothing special, but why do DACs costing 3 times as much still have that same board?

So not so quick to hail USB as the answer to all our dreams my friend....

None of the outputs listed were created for high end audio either (even if they were designed for audio in general). Ultimately the manufacturer picks the platform that best leverages the technology and works to draw out its full potential so dont agree with the any of the other outputs being inherently better than another based on a DAC board or similar.

The same board and the same analog stage design would be a good reason why the price is wildly different.
 

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