I have trouble accepting this test, not because of the results (direct and indirect, measured jitter and sound quality) but because of the chosen conditions, particularly the chosen lengths of the tested cables.
First why did the tester use almost the maximum allowable USB cable length (16 feet)?
Everybody knows the damage that length in the USB connection creates to the computer data (in general the equipment sometimes don't even connect, let alone computer audio). This way the length compromises seriously the quality of the USB connection plus who amongst us uses such a long USB cable? I use 2 feet, others that I know use max 5 feet.
Plus, since the tester wonders about the use of expensive USB cables, where has he seen expensive USB cables that long or how many of them are that expensive for the normal lenghts (2K)? I have, on the other hand, seen some very expensive LAN cables (>5K for really small lengths).
(The 2.0 specification limits the length of a cable between USB 2.0 devices (Full Speed or Hi-Speed) to 5 meters (or about 16 feet and 5 inches)).
Steve:
When will your new Off-Ramp 6 would be available?
One of the issues for me with your previous Off-Ramp 5 was the converter not being able to pass DSD. Would it be the same with the 6?
thanks,
Ki
In my experience, in order to get a really great sounding USB chain, one must optimize Ethernet as well.
Best regards,
Marcin
Marcin, you have perfected cards for both. Can you tell us, with all variables hypothetically held constant, in your opinion which sounds better?
Your USB interface uses XMOS drivers from M2TECH, correct? What date/version are these drivers? From a quick check I gather they are from 2010. Is that correct? If they are, then you first have to blame the drivers for the USB interface sound quality and not the actual USB connection. The most recent drivers for XMOS right now (4.14) are way better in SQ from whatever there was available from 2010 and if you want to deliver something that is as good as it gets, or you want to draw more precise conclusions you should address that issue.
Of course, if your goal for creating the Ethernet interface (I guess brand new, that's why it is not listed in your line of products yet) was to eliminate (as you mention somewhere else) the computer and playback software (and driver quality and cost) as a factor affecting SQ then...
The problem is that the variables can't be constant. In my opinion, USB is still the way to go as the best sounding connection between a PC transport and a DAC. (...)
Best regards,
Marcin
The problem is that the variables can't be constant. In my opinion, USB is still the way to go as the best sounding connection between a PC transport and a DAC. But in order to get a truly great sound with USB DAC, Ethernet must be optimized as well, even if the network connection is used just as a remote control. Not many people are aware of this. Ethernet connection is active most of the time anyway, not always moving audio bytes, but still. And it's connected to your home network which then connects to the AC grid. It can be noisy.
That said, I think it's easier to get a great sound with Ethernet DACs.
Best regards,
Marcin
What do you exactly mean by a "PC transport"?
What do you exactly mean by a "PC transport"?
Good question. Obviously, execution matters but I find it hard to believe a server like the Mojo or Innuos with dedicated direct ethernet ports running to a well designed dac renderer (MSB in my case) which goes direst to I2S and resides in close proximity to the best clock in the chain (the dac clock) would not be superior to the same server running through USB to the same dac. MSB has a phenomenal USB input and they disagree with you indicating to me their ethernet port is best FWIW.
What do you exactly mean by a "PC transport"?
A computer audio transport. What else is equipped with a USB output, runs a playback software and can detect a USB DAC? (...)
(...)
I'm using this Japanese hi-end network switch in my system now. It should be an essential component of every high end file-based system. I can't imagine playing music without it. And I'm using USB connection to my DAC...
View attachment 38742
...
I'm using this Japanese hi-end network switch in my system now. It should be an essential component of every high end file-based system. I can't imagine playing music without it. And I'm using USB connection to my DAC...
View attachment 38742
No, the OR6 uses XMOS and the design is galvanically isolated, with the Master Clock on the isolated side. Driver only needed for PC.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio
Personally, when I see so many "solutions" - like fiber converter, USB reclocker/cleaner, Ethernet receiver (a small PC inside a DAC), audiophile switches,... -, I think they are all patched up jobs or simply temporary arrangements.
I welcome LAN audio distribution. IMHO, a good, possibly better option would be a bridge external to a DAC with Ethernet RJ-45 IN and I2S Differential Fiber Optic SFP OUT. It would function as endpoint for Roon/LMS/NAA/... through RJ-45; at the same time, through Fiber Optic SFP it would receive a non disturbed clock from DAC in one direction and send out data to DAC in the opposite direction. Clock inside can be highly sophisticated.
It will come I am sure
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |