Help me to better understand the digital terms I2S and Ethernet Renderer

Believe High Fidelity

[Industry Expert]
Nov 19, 2015
1,665
318
355
Hutto TX
ibelieveinhifi.com
Key takeaway as I think even with the number of explanations given it is just one of 3 best methods to transmit the audio data from the server(PC/MAC) to the DAC with the DAC doing the heavy lifting as it should be.

USB/I2S/Ethernet all do it, but I would not say one is any better than the other. The implementation is the key difference among the three, but they will all do the same thing (more-less).

Are you looking for a new DAC now Steve?
 

Steve Williams

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Key takeaway as I think even with the number of explanations given it is just one of 3 best methods to transmit the audio data from the server(PC/MAC) to the DAC with the DAC doing the heavy lifting as it should be.

USB/I2S/Ethernet all do it, but I would not say one is any better than the other. The implementation is the key difference among the three, but they will all do the same thing (more-less).

Are you looking for a new DAC now Steve?

I have been for quite a while

The specs that I have seen on the Pacific make it a solid contender
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal

Believe High Fidelity

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

Alrainbow

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2013
3,189
1,387
450
In my case I have a umt plus that does not need anything to stream music from any devices with hard drives and the internet too
You tube , tidal and many others.
Then if you have a Msb dac then the i2s allows for dsd output all other outputs
Are pcm only. In my case I bought the new USB module that was supposed to do a few things that neber will happen as Msb has done this to me now to twice. The new USB was supposed to do complete unfold of mqa wins free updated modual. This modual will never happen now lol. The second was it was supposed to do dsd 256
It will never happen. Now vince tells me a new renderer will do dsd 256 and mqa unfold but will have to be used server anyway.
STEVE what I can say of digital audio is this. If it's done well it's pleasing it's not analog no matter who tells you it is. Having said that it is also music that has emotion not a jarring sound that you cannot wait to stop it. Msb makes a very good dac and at a much cheeper price point there is a lampi dac and rolling tubes gives you a much better chance of getting the sound you love.
If I may ask what do you use now and how do server the dac ?
 

sbo6

VIP/Donor
May 18, 2014
1,662
594
480
Round Rock, TX
Key takeaway as I think even with the number of explanations given it is just one of 3 best methods to transmit the audio data from the server(PC/MAC) to the DAC with the DAC doing the heavy lifting as it should be.

USB/I2S/Ethernet all do it, but I would not say one is any better than the other. The implementation is the key difference among the three, but they will all do the same thing (more-less).

Each was designed for a different purpose and not necessarily audio. It's more than the implementation, it's the requirements for each to TX/RX that's a major factor in sonics. Arguably I2S is the best choice for several reasons one not being trace / cable length.
 

Believe High Fidelity

[Industry Expert]
Nov 19, 2015
1,665
318
355
Hutto TX
ibelieveinhifi.com
Each was designed for a different purpose and not necessarily audio. It's more than the implementation, it's the requirements for each to TX/RX that's a major factor in sonics. Arguably I2S is the best choice for several reasons one not being trace / cable length.

But the context is towards a purchase so even if your opinion is that I2S is arguably better, an implementation of I2S in a cheap chinese DAC vs well designed USB or Ethernet renderer would never stand a chance. Since they all send data via those mediums to the DAC for all the conversion it does in fact come down to implementation. None of these standards were designed for High Fidelity even if they were for designed specifically audio (ex Delta Sigma chips vs ladder R2R)

If you have anything to support the TX/RX overhead impacting sonics I would appreciate if you could share them. If it is just your opinion based on it being overhead alone then everyone would be using Linux instead of Windows if it were that easy.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
(...) USB/I2S/Ethernet all do it, but I would not say one is any better than the other. The implementation is the key difference among the three, but they will all do the same thing (more-less).

I2S is a synchronous protocol - if the clock is supplied by the DAC it can surely be less noisy and much more simple than other asynchronous protocols. However somewhere in the chain we must have circuitry to deal with the timing requirements of the data storage.

Theoretically, using an external clock for all the system and separating the DAC unit using AES/EBU lines just for data seems a good move - it was one the reasons that make me consider the DCS Vivaldi.

In the end, the implementation is what matters, as you say.
 

sbo6

VIP/Donor
May 18, 2014
1,662
594
480
Round Rock, TX
But the context is towards a purchase so even if your opinion is that I2S is arguably better, an implementation of I2S in a cheap chinese DAC vs well designed USB or Ethernet renderer would never stand a chance. Since they all send data via those mediums to the DAC for all the conversion it does in fact come down to implementation. None of these standards were designed for High Fidelity even if they were for designed specifically audio (ex Delta Sigma chips vs ladder R2R)

If you have anything to support the TX/RX overhead impacting sonics I would appreciate if you could share them. If it is just your opinion based on it being overhead alone then everyone would be using Linux instead of Windows if it were that easy.

First, you need to compare at the same $ playing field. Arguing that a cheaper implementation of an interface protocol such as I2S (which btw was designed to transmit audio) versus a USB implementation in a DAC 4x the price isn't logical or valuable. I get the salesman approach, but that doesn't make it apples to apples.

Second - they all don't "send data via those mediums to the DAC for all the conversion" the same way. A computer or any computation device is reading data + converting data out, reclocking to USB and then sending off to your DAC. All done different ways with different overhead. This is not my opinion, plenty of white papers you can read to understand it. Here's why companies like Aqua and MSB use I2S as their data transfer choice - "The I²S bus separates clock and serial data signals, resulting in a lower jitter than is typical of communications systems that recover the clock from the data stream." - look no further than Wikipedia.

WRT my statement, "TX/RX that's a major factor in sonics" look no further than external atomic clocks with USB implementations as an example.
 

Believe High Fidelity

[Industry Expert]
Nov 19, 2015
1,665
318
355
Hutto TX
ibelieveinhifi.com
First, you need to compare at the same $ playing field.

Why do I have to do that? The whole purpose of the comparison was to refute your commentary that I2S was arguably the superior format, which without any context is wildly misleading
"Arguably I2S is the best choice for several reasons"


Arguing that a cheaper implementation of an interface protocol such as I2S (which btw was designed to transmit audio) versus a USB implementation in a DAC 4x the price isn't logical or valuable. I get the salesman approach, but that doesn't make it apples to apples.

This is why I put price into the equation. Now if you had put a category of design or price I wouldn't have made a gross exaggeration of the two. And to reiterate,just because it was designed for audio does not mean it was designed for High Fidelity and as such will never guarantee it is the "best". SPDIF was designed for audio so does that make it the superior output?

Second - they all don't "send data via those mediums to the DAC for all the conversion" the same way. A computer or any computation device is reading data + converting data out, reclocking to USB and then sending off to your DAC. All done different ways with different overhead. This is not my opinion, plenty of white papers you can read to understand it. Here's why companies like Aqua and MSB use I2S as their data transfer choice - "The I²S bus separates clock and serial data signals, resulting in a lower jitter than is typical of communications systems that recover the clock from the data stream." - look no further than Wikipedia.

I don't care to look it up as I am not the one asking the question about the topology. The OP (and others) would benefit from you posting this data as anyone with internet can search it.
 

Believe High Fidelity

[Industry Expert]
Nov 19, 2015
1,665
318
355
Hutto TX
ibelieveinhifi.com
I2S is a synchronous protocol - if the clock is supplied by the DAC it can surely be less noisy and much more simple than other asynchronous protocols. However somewhere in the chain we must have circuitry to deal with the timing requirements of the data storage.

Theoretically, using an external clock for all the system and separating the DAC unit using AES/EBU lines just for data seems a good move - it was one the reasons that make me consider the DCS Vivaldi.

In the end, the implementation is what matters, as you say.

Hence the "more-less". I find people who are asking about digital tend to get lost in the language of synchronous/asynchronous, jitter, etc. The main message is that Ethernet/USB/I2S are all sending the data to go through the conversion outside of the source regardless if the DAC has the clock on the inside or outside.
 

sbo6

VIP/Donor
May 18, 2014
1,662
594
480
Round Rock, TX
Hence the "more-less". I find people who are asking about digital tend to get lost in the language of synchronous/asynchronous, jitter, etc. The main message is that Ethernet/USB/I2S are all sending the data to go through the conversion outside of the source regardless if the DAC has the clock on the inside or outside.

A gross simplification of the processes that take place. See it your way if that helps you.
 

sbo6

VIP/Donor
May 18, 2014
1,662
594
480
Round Rock, TX
Why do I have to do that? The whole purpose of the comparison was to refute your commentary that I2S was arguably the superior format, which without any context is wildly misleading

Did you see my post above wrt clocking? Also reiterated by another gentlemen after my response?

This is why I put price into the equation. Now if you had put a category of design or price I wouldn't have made a gross exaggeration of the two. And to reiterate,just because it was designed for audio does not mean it was designed for High Fidelity and as such will never guarantee it is the "best". SPDIF was designed for audio so does that make it the superior output?

It's the specific design of I2S which I and others simply stated above that make it superior. Yes, SPDIF was also designed for audio, do you understand why it's not preferred over I2C for companies like MSB, Aqua and others? Also, companies design equipment not solely on the basis of superior, it's appeal to the masses which is what makes USB so appealing.

I don't care to look it up as I am not the one asking the question about the topology. The OP (and others) would benefit from you posting this data as anyone with internet can search it.

Search this site, Google, etc, tons of information on I2C, SPDIF, USB for audio. As I've said, MSB, Aqua
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
As long as we refer to technical details everyone will agree, and as far as I understood this was the objective of Steve OP - not to prove anything, but just understand what was behind people claims, irrespective of being true or not.

As long as we do not have clear explanations of the mechanisms how "nasty" interferences entering the DACs (or indirectly the system connected to the DAC) affect subjective sound quality there is no reason to say why one technique should be preferred over the others.
 

Believe High Fidelity

[Industry Expert]
Nov 19, 2015
1,665
318
355
Hutto TX
ibelieveinhifi.com
Did you see my post above wrt clocking? Also reiterated by another gentlemen after my response?

Sure did. But only one of you understood that the advantages of I2S only matter in the implementation. If I gave you the best engine you still have to design a car around it. If I gave you the best tube you still have to design a circuit around it.


It's the specific design of I2S which I and others simply stated above that make it superior. Yes, SPDIF was also designed for audio, do you understand why it's not preferred over I2C for companies like MSB, Aqua and others? Also, companies design equipment not solely on the basis of superior, it's appeal to the masses which is what makes USB so appealing.

Guess you didn't see the satire in the "because I2S was designed for audio" comment you made I threw in SPDIF in their to debunk that fallacy. As stated, none were designed for High Fidelity.


Search this site, Google, etc, tons of information on I2C, SPDIF, USB for audio. As I've said, MSB, Aqua

Thanks. Always appreciate it when you talk beneath me..
 

Barry2013

VIP/Donor
Oct 12, 2013
2,305
487
418
Essex UK
I recently had on home loan the PS Audio top Direct Stream DAC and matching memory player transport and posted my impressions on another recent thread.
The two were connected with a modest PS HDMI cable.
Set up was so easy and they sounded very good and would I am sure have sounded even better with a high end HDMI cable. A distinctly analogue character to their sound.
The duo was not quite up to weaning me away from DCS and I was fortunate to find an absolutely mint Scarlatti transport which I will use with the current Scarlatti clock and the Puccini DAC while I decide upon and find a DAC.
BUT I have to say the PS Audio duo was very tempting value for money, sound quality and convenience.
I will watch I2S future developments with continued interest.
 

opus112

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2016
462
4
148
Zhejiang
It's the specific design of I2S which I and others simply stated above that make it superior.

If you mean original I2S then its not designed for the context of inter-box communication even though designed for audio. Context most certainly matters. If you mean LVDS-I2S then its still generally synchronous (but please correct me if I'm wrong on this) meaning the data transmitter is master. Having the DAC as clock master might be compatible with LVDS-I2S but I've not studied it enough to know. BCLK could in theory be originated at the DAC and sent over the link to the data transmitter.
 

sbo6

VIP/Donor
May 18, 2014
1,662
594
480
Round Rock, TX
Sure did. But only one of you understood that the advantages of I2S only matter in the implementation. If I gave you the best engine you still have to design a car around it. If I gave you the best tube you still have to design a circuit around it.




Guess you didn't see the satire in the "because I2S was designed for audio" comment you made I threw in SPDIF in their to debunk that fallacy. As stated, none were designed for High Fidelity.




Thanks. Always appreciate it when you talk beneath me..

Joshua, take a deep breath, my responses weren't meant to talk beneath anyone. I get your analogy about the engine and car around it. In the same vein, if you start with a sub - par engine you can optimize the rest of the drive train and suspension but you're already starting pissing up a rope.

All these bus interfaces and transfer protocols have different purposes. Those designed for audio have a jump on being lead contenders as most efficient and effective for even better quality audio. But as you well know the market drives technology and as of now USB is king. More innovation, more implementations, more optimization. This doesn't change the fact that from a sonic perspective, it's really an ill - suited technology. It's also one of the reasons there are so many reclockers, conditioners, isolators specific to USB...
 

opus112

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2016
462
4
148
Zhejiang
This doesn't change the fact that from a sonic perspective, it's really an ill - suited technology.

Strikes me that its not possible to listen to a technology, only particular implementations of that technology. So all the listening in the world can't tell if the technology itself is ill-fitted for a particular application.

It's also one of the reasons there are so many reclockers, conditioners, isolators specific to USB...

Those add-ons are telling me the current implementations suck but can be cleaned up. So that tends to indicate the tech itself isn't the problem. Eventually all the USB-purifying gizmos will get integrated into the components themselves. Take for example Schiit's next-gen USB, it now includes isolation which evidently they forgot about before.
 

cat6man

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2013
891
995
1,155
west of NYC, east of SF
The .pdf does a good job of explaining what a renderer is, "“Media renderer” is a term from the UPnP AV protocol which specifies how devices connected to a LAN can cooperate to play a media file stored on one device (a “media server”) on another device (a “media renderer”).

To clarify some of the above posts' explanations, a renderer isn't a CPU inside a DAC, it's typically a modular device that takes network - based input (music) and outputs via USB. An example is the microrendu and new ultrarendu which perform 3 tasks: 1) Accept data in via ethernet 2) Run an OS on a simple FPGA which 3) converts and reclock the input data to USB and outputs to a DAC.

As Wisnon said quite well, i2s is a communication protocol of DAC chips designed for very short distances (<6"). Companies like MSB have been adopting their own flavor extending past 6". I believe others have used it via HDMI and other connector interfaces.

As far as pros vs cons:
Pros:
Renderer is a dedicated, purpose built unit (opposite of a music PC/Mac designed to do many tasks not just music data - specific)
Renderer often includes common programs accepting input for DLNA, HQPlayer, ROON, etc. (e,g,: 1 stop shop for your favorite music interface)

Cons:
Requires a network accessible computer/device to provide music via ethernet
Extra cables, extra box(es) for additional PSU

I'm not sure that definition is accurate. In my system, HQPLAYER contains the renderer, then HQP outputs ethernet to microRendu (configured as NAA) which sends cleaned up USB to DAC.
 

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