USB versus Ethernet - a study reveals the winner

Empirical Audio

Industry Expert
Oct 12, 2017
1,169
207
150
Great Pacific Northwest
www.empiricalaudio.com
Correct. But the PC is the source and the driver is "in the way". The driver version is directly linked to the final sound quality and in a big way, unfortunately for all of us. All drivers are not created equal and by "ignoring" their contribution in SQ is not the proper way to do things, IMHO, if someone is looking to get the most out of his/hers PC based sound system. To test this you can get the Wave I/O interface (USB to i2S and spdif) and I can send you most of the drivers from the last three years. This way you can experience the huge change in SQ with the different drivers versions (the guy behind it is doing an excellent job updating his drivers unlike some big brands...).

I already have 6 generations of USB converters I designed, including Off-Ramp, Off-Ramp Turbo, Off-Ramp 3, Off-Ramp 4, Off-Ramp 5 and Off-Ramp 6. I have heard these difference in SQ. No argument there.

Hardware is 1/2 of the SQ equation, the other half is the software, be it drivers, players or OS...

Also add format, FLAC, AIFF ALAC, uncompressed FLAC. All of these sound different and not as good as .wav.

As far as the capability of a well set up PC (from individual parts, from a well reputed company etc.) to sound better than a CD/SACD transport there is no doubt in my mind, if properly set it is better. All our efforts usually are so that we get the most out of our PC based sources not only to better a conventional transport...

Agreed. Preaching to the choir.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
 

Empirical Audio

Industry Expert
Oct 12, 2017
1,169
207
150
Great Pacific Northwest
www.empiricalaudio.com
Check out what MSB is doing with their new Pro I2S fiber link from their Transport to DAC.


New ProISL proprietary connection:
Dual-link laser fiber technology

Cable lengths up to 1 km

100% electrically isolated

Synchronous clock signal

Data redundancy



http://www.msbtechnology.com/transports/

Frankly. I don't understand why, if you have control over both the transport and DAC, you would not just put a PLL clock in the transport and slave it to a Master Clock inside the DAC. This is the best way to get the lowest jitter. Then, there is no need for expensive interconnect solutions like optical. You only need a decent clock cable from DAC to transport.

And why would you need to put you transport more than maybe 50 feet from your DAC???

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
 

Pb Blimp

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2017
518
25
140
USA
Frankly. I don't understand why, if you have control over both the transport and DAC, you would not just put a PLL clock in the transport and slave it to a Master Clock inside the DAC. This is the best way to get the lowest jitter. Then, there is no need for expensive interconnect solutions like optical. You only need a decent clock cable from DAC to transport.

And why would you need to put you transport more than maybe 50 feet from your DAC???

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

Maybe because the clock in the DAC is a a $19,900 Femto 33 and it will vastly exceed through a synchronous connection any PLL transport clock run asynchronously.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Check out what MSB is doing with their new Pro I2S fiber link from their Transport to DAC.


New ProISL proprietary connection:
Dual-link laser fiber technology

Cable lengths up to 1 km

100% electrically isolated

Synchronous clock signal

Data redundancy



http://www.msbtechnology.com/transports/

There is not enough information supplied to have an informed view on this device - just a list of the usual soundbytes, adding the word proprierary.
 

Pb Blimp

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2017
518
25
140
USA
There is not enough information supplied to have an informed view on this device - just a list of the usual soundbytes, adding the word proprierary.

Ya, I find you gotta listen to it.
 

ddk

Well-Known Member
May 18, 2013
6,261
4,040
995
Utah
...As far as the capability of a well set up PC (from individual parts, from a well reputed company etc.) to sound better than a CD/SACD transport there is no doubt in my mind, if properly set it is better. All our efforts usually are so that we get the most out of our PC based sources not only to better a conventional transport...

From reading the posts here that “if” is the huge fly in the ointment since apparently there’s no off the shelf solution that does it right and the many real world variables degrading the signal seem to only have theoretical cures beyond reasonable setup requirements. You should try some quality transports they actually exist :), before proclaiming certainty of their inferiority. Of course comparative listening parameters need be identified first otherwise we all might be listening to and arguing about different things.

david
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Ya, I find you gotta listen to it.

Yes, this is only possible advice ...

But there are so many excellent products in the computer audio high-end that we must select a few to listen. And in this aspect credibility of information is critical for me, particularly if availability for listening is scarce. Surely YMMV.
 

Empirical Audio

Industry Expert
Oct 12, 2017
1,169
207
150
Great Pacific Northwest
www.empiricalaudio.com
Maybe because the clock in the DAC is a a $19,900 Femto 33 and it will vastly exceed through a synchronous connection any PLL transport clock run asynchronously.

I think you missed my point by a mile. I was exactly talking about this if you go back a carefully read my post. The point of the PLL in the transport is to synchronize with the Femto clock in the DAC. It enables one to use a free-running clock with low jitter in the DAC. Without the PLL in the Transport, you cannot use a free-running clock in the DAC.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
 

Pb Blimp

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2017
518
25
140
USA
I think you missed my point by a mile. I was exactly talking about this if you go back a carefully read my post. The point of the PLL in the transport is to synchronize with the Femto clock in the DAC. It enables one to use a free-running clock with low jitter in the DAC. Without the PLL in the Transport, you cannot use a free-running clock in the DAC.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

Ahh, I thought you were arguing for an asynchronous clock arrangement. In that case, your post makes even less sense to me. I believe what you are proposing with regard to clock control is exactly what MSB is doing. Synchronous control by the DAC clock. That is a separate matter form the digital connection. What I think you are missing is that they are running glass for its the benefits to the digital connection not just the the clock. We have had the discussions about the benefits of a not electrical, glass isolated source for dacs before with regard to ethernet. This application is the same concept, but with regard to I2S. I understand you are not a fan of this approach but MSB and I feel otherwise.

And yes the possible 1km cable length, while factually correct, I think is merely a demonstration of glass's complete lack of vulnerability to rmi/rfi even in the extreme strictly for a marketing purposes (i.e., it is obviously not meant to relate to a real world application).
 

Empirical Audio

Industry Expert
Oct 12, 2017
1,169
207
150
Great Pacific Northwest
www.empiricalaudio.com
This application is the same concept, but with regard to I2S. I understand you are not a fan of this approach but MSB and I feel otherwise.

I don't know were you got that idea. Most of my products have I2S inputs and outputs, sometimes two. I had these long before PSAudio and MSB. It is just an external interface that suffers from galvanic isolation and the cables are expensive.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
 

Pb Blimp

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2017
518
25
140
USA
I don't know were you got that idea. Most of my products have I2S inputs and outputs, sometimes two. I had these long before PSAudio and MSB. It is just an external interface that suffers from galvanic isolation and the cables are expensive.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

Ahh, I thought you were arguing for an asynchronous clock arrangement. In that case, your post makes even less sense to me. I believe what you are proposing with regard to clock control is exactly what MSB is doing. Synchronous control by the DAC clock. That is a separate matter form the digital connection. What I think you are missing is that they are running glass for its the benefits to the digital connection not just the the clock. We have had the discussions about the benefits of a not electrical, glass isolated source for dacs before with regard to ethernet. This application is the same concept, but with regard to I2S. I understand you are not a fan of this approach but MSB and I feel otherwise.

And yes the possible 1km cable length, while factually correct, I think is merely a demonstration of glass's complete lack of vulnerability to rmi/rfi even in the extreme strictly for a marketing purposes (i.e., it is obviously not meant to relate to a real world application).


No Steve, I was referring to our discussions about you not being a fan of GLASS not I2S. Sorry if I was not clear.
 
Last edited:

microstrip

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

And yes the possible 1km cable length, while factually correct, I think is merely a demonstration of glass's complete lack of vulnerability to rmi/rfi even in the extreme strictly for a marketing purposes (i.e., it is obviously not meant to relate to a real world application).

Curiously Hervé Delétraz of DartZeel also claimed that his 50 ohm cable links between preamplifier and amplifier could be as long as one kilometer without any degradation of sound quality. Occos had similar claims about length of their 10 ohm characteristic impedance speaker cables. Marketing has some common patterns ... :)
 

bibo01

Member
Nov 26, 2013
201
1
16
Check out what MSB is doing with their new Pro I2S fiber link from their Transport to DAC.


New ProISL proprietary connection:
Dual-link laser fiber technology

Cable lengths up to 1 km

100% electrically isolated

Synchronous clock signal

Data redundancy



http://www.msbtechnology.com/transports/
Yes, I am aware of it. MSB already has an I2S input with clock in the DAC. I am not sure if this latest one is actually available yet.
Anyhow, I dislike proprietary solutions.
 

Mike Lavigne

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 25, 2010
12,471
11,366
4,410
Curiously Hervé Delétraz of DartZeel also claimed that his 50 ohm cable links between preamplifier and amplifier could be as long as one kilometer without any degradation of sound quality. Occos had similar claims about length of their 10 ohm characteristic impedance speaker cables. Marketing has some common patterns ... :)

my ears tell me whatever Herve and MSB say (compared to any other electronics manufacturer) has a pretty good chance of being right on. they get my complete benefit of the doubt. and i'm using a 12 meter 'zeel' 50 ohm interconnect with my King Cello (connecting my RTR decks to my dart pre on the other side of the room) that sounds superb. and an 8 meter pre to amp that is likewise wonderful sounding.

but I do see it's reasonable to be a skeptic. and in the context of high end audio those distance claims do invite scorn. that I agree with.
 

thmor288

New Member
Feb 7, 2018
13
0
0
From reading the posts here that “if” is the huge fly in the ointment since apparently there’s no off the shelf solution that does it right and the many real world variables degrading the signal seem to only have theoretical cures beyond reasonable setup requirements. You should try some quality transports they actually exist :), before proclaiming certainty of their inferiority. Of course comparative listening parameters need be identified first otherwise we all might be listening to and arguing about different things.

david

Unfortunately there are always "if"s in high end audio because "conditions" are the key to achieve the best possible sound. I do not believe that you think that all transports (good ones as per your words, which I have tried many over the last 20 years) sound the "same" especially if they are not set up properly (proper rack, proper cables, proper ac filtering, proper grounding etc.). And yet, from your words I get the idea that you excuse them and accept them as the only "correct" digital source (maybe I misunderstood).

If you meet the proper conditions and if they use the same reading mechanism (very unlikely in our days) they should sound very similar (otherwise one would be correct and the other not). I have done this test with the Forsell transport and the Theta Digital Data Basic II. They used the same Philips CDM9Pro (to my ears the most "musical" mechanism ever made, some years ago, more than I care to remember) and after proper tweeking of the cheaper transport (a lot, mechanical and electronic) and a lot of effort in the set up (at the time I tried most of the anti-vibration tricks available) they sounded pretty darn close in character (tone, resolution, stereo image) for such different machines (especially in price).

From my experience as a reviewer (and I mention that only to show you that I have had the chance to test many of them through the years), all transports sound different (in some degree or another) and then you end up with the same "problem" that you get in computer audio, which is which one is the "best" or for that matter the right one? I guess the only "right" one is the one that you like most in your system, and that is with the equipment that you have in the room that you have (change the amp or the speakers, or the room and you will probably like something else)... The same applies to a computer based source. But in computer audio the more you "take care of things" the better the SQ, and the advantage of this fact is that you can do a lot of things about it, as long as you have the knack for it (some do, some don't). And more times than someone would think is possible, computer audio sounds way better than any CD or SACD based audio, and most of the time it is cheaper too (there are always exceptions). And to my knowledge, there are of the self solutions (look at all the servers out there) that actually do a great job, and lots of "accessories" that can improve them even more (like the anti-jitter devices that used to flood the market some time ago, and which by the way I used 17(!) of them since they did improve the sound of my CD based source at the time). Its a trial and error procedure, like everything else in audio. And that is a big part of the fun about it (or the fact that we get bored easily, but we are only human :D), correct?

thanasis
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
my ears tell me whatever Herve and MSB say (compared to any other electronics manufacturer) has a pretty good chance of being right on. they get my complete benefit of the doubt. and i'm using a 12 meter 'zeel' 50 ohm interconnect with my King Cello (connecting my RTR decks to my dart pre on the other side of the room) that sounds superb. and an 8 meter pre to amp that is likewise wonderful sounding.

but I do see it's reasonable to be a skeptic. and in the context of high end audio those distance claims do invite scorn. that I agree with.

Mike,

It seems you are missing my main point. I am not skeptical about the technical achievement - even more, I know it is technically true, these are just generic properties of terminated lines and optical glass fibers. The question is how these long distances are technically relevant to audio subjective quality.

BTW, 50 ohm cables are supposed not to have a sound. But when I had the Dartzeels I found that Hervé recommended cables sounded better that a few others, even technically better, 50 ohm cables we used in the laboratory. Some certified cables even sounded very poor.
 

Bso

Well-Known Member
Sep 30, 2016
98
18
138
Massachusetts/Toronto
Mike,

It seems you are missing my main point. I am not skeptical about the technical achievement - even more, I know it is technically true, these are just generic properties of terminated lines and optical glass fibers. The question is how these long distances are technically relevant to audio subjective quality.

Remember it is always easier and cheaper to scale down than up. The reason the distance figure is important is that it demonstrates theoretical bandwidth of glass (we know what the speed is). I trust they have measured this interface, it is not just theoretical. if so they have a proper implementation. Extending I2s for example, that was designed by Phillips to be a short internal bus, is an example of "engineer bus mania" that I often saw as an engineering manager. My house has cat 6 wired all over the plase long before I considered computer audio and I can tell you that the major run is at least 150'. Just because one can't imagine something is not a rational argument. People couldn't image the earth was round-ish or that light could be affected by gravity.

The other person complaining about proprietary interfaces has merit. Many computer companies went down the tubes because of "proprietary systems." However, one issue today is that there is much theft of intellectual property especially if you have your product built in India or Red China. They have never signed IP agreements. If they build it for you they own it. Look at the Huawei phone. That is why so many of the N/A, EU, and UK manufacturers in this space develop their own interfaces and have them produced at home. It is another reason they usually favor their own firmware adaptations and Windows drivers (first) since one has to have a license to run the OS however stripped down. One has an option to keep it a trade secret and license it, patent it and license it, or build it in such a way that it is hard to copy. How is MQA any different?

It also easier/cheaper to buy an Intel NUC, etc. as several manufacturers have done as the basis for their server or DAC and put a fancy or not so fancy box around it or them. Some make no bones about it.

There will be optical interfaces both for sender and receiver coming on the market soon that will be a purchasable subsystem for both the under $1000 sender/receivers as well as the high end DACs. Of course every manufacturer will be running their own clocks and secret sauce it make it better or to market it better. These will range from ironically USB internal bus cards up to PCI-e cards and possibly beyond. Then cable manufactures will come out with "improved" fiber optic cables - LOL.

I never understood why the early optical interfaces were bandwidth limited but I guess this was marketing and perhaps the sender/receiver adaptors were purposely bandwidth limited.
 
Last edited:

Pb Blimp

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2017
518
25
140
USA
Yes, I am aware of it. MSB already has an I2S input with clock in the DAC. I am not sure if this latest one is actually available yet.
Anyhow, I dislike proprietary solutions.

I like solutions that sound best.

Remember it is always easier and cheaper to scale down than up. The reason the distance figure is important is that it demonstrates theoretical bandwidth of glass (we know what the speed is). I trust they have measured this interface, it is not just theoretical. if so they have a proper implementation. Extending I2s for example, that was designed by Phillips to be a short internal bus, is an example of "engineer bus mania" that I often saw as an engineering manager.

The other person complaining about proprietary interfaces has merit. Many computer companies went down the tubes because of "proprietary systems." However, one issue today is that there is much theft of intellectual property especially if you have your product built in India or Red China. They have never signed IP agreements. If they build it for you they own it. Look at the Huawei phone. That is why so many of the N/A, EU, and UK manufacturers in this space develop their own interfaces and have them produced at home. It is another reason they usually favor their own firmware adaptations Windows (first) since one has to have a license to run the OS however stripped down. One has an option to keep it a trade secret and license it, patent it and license it, or build it in such a way that it is hard to copy. How is MQA any different?

There will be optical interfaces both for sender and receiver coming on the market soon that will be a purchasable subsystem for both the under $1000 sender/receivers as well as the high end DACs. Of course every manufacturer will be running their own clocks and secret sauce it make it better or to market it better. These will range from ironically USB internal bus cards up to PCI-e cards and possibly beyond. Then cable manufactures will come out with "improved" fiber optic cables - LOL.

I never understood why the early optical interfaces were bandwidth limited but I guess this was marketing and perhaps the sender/receiver adaptors were purposely bandwidth limited.

No it's because of glass's immunity to emi/rfi; noise from stray voltages of any kind.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Remember it is always easier and cheaper to scale down than up. The reason the distance figure is important is that it demonstrates theoretical bandwidth of glass (we know what the speed is). I trust they have measured this interface, it is not just theoretical. if so they have a proper implementation. Extending I2s for example, that was designed by Phillips to be a short internal bus, is an example of "engineer bus mania" that I often saw as an engineering manager. My house has cat 6 wired all over the plase long before I considered computer audio and I can tell you that the major run is at least 150'. Just because one can't imagine something is not a rational argument. People couldn't image the earth was round-ish or that light could be affected by gravity (...)

Sorry but your argument does not sustain. Bandwidth of glass fibers is well know subject, nothing new here. Considering that typical used lengths will be around 1 m should we consider that a bandwidth of 1000 GHz in the link improves the sound quality of DACs that have clocks close to DAC chips? :) My point is that if people want to use technical arguments they should use them correctly. BTW, very, very few do it.

Sometimes over engineering results in real improvements due to side consequences, not the expected ones.
 

Mike Lavigne

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 25, 2010
12,471
11,366
4,410
Mike,

It seems you are missing my main point. I am not skeptical about the technical achievement - even more, I know it is technically true, these are just generic properties of terminated lines and optical glass fibers. The question is how these long distances are technically relevant to audio subjective quality.

which is exactly what i said.

BTW, 50 ohm cables are supposed not to have a sound. But when I had the Dartzeels I found that Hervé recommended cables sounded better that a few others, even technically better, 50 ohm cables we used in the laboratory. Some certified cables even sounded very poor.

like anything, executing a proper 50 ohm BNC cable comes down to getting the details correct. so proper connections and cable construction matter to the sound. I've tried Radio Shack BNC cables, Herve's BNC cables, Audience BNC cables, and Evolution Acoustics BNC's. the Evolution are best sounding, and Herve's are also quite good. the Audience was ok, but not great. the Rat Shack sucked.

the 50 ohm interface is a concept. execution matters. like bits is bits for data, but it's not so simple for music.
 
Last edited:

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