Audio Soundcards
- Thread starter Bruce B
- Start date
I'm not sure I agree with the above for non-studio use. There are several examples of very high quality DACs, and even some ADCs, that are USB plug and play and deliver excellent 2 channel performance without even any special drivers required. I'll put the performance of some of these devices up against anything for 2 channel playback. If anyone wants some examples, please just ask?
If you're talking about multi-track studio work, then I'm somewhat more inclined to agree with you (and that's more your area of expertise than mine). But I got the impression this thread was mainly about home audio?
Even for multi-track work, something like the RME Fireface UFX can do a very respectable job for recording and playback via USB. It does, of course, require proprietary drivers. But you don't have to go the Lynx/AES route to get good performance. This is backed up by articles/reviews in Sound on Sound. The latest high-end USB 2.0 gear, like the UFX, are getting rave reviews.
Last edited:
I totally agree with you that there are several USB DACs and ADCs.. the Lavrys and Benchmarks come to mind. They do a very commendable job but I don't think they represent the crux of this forum.... "What's Best". For the utmost in recording and playback with no compromises, I'll stick with my suggestions.
Thanks for the reply. I'm still poking around here getting my feet wet and trying to understanding the goals here. Obviously there are many kinds of "best". If this website is about Robb Report levels of excess, then yeah, I agree with you. The mission says:
"The best doesn’t mean the most expensive. It simply means that it stands head and shoulders above everything else in its category."
That helps but it's rarely so black and white. Such a single stand-alone product in the audio business is rare. And when you try to balance price, measured performance, sound quality, build quality, appearance, etc. things become even more fuzzy. The best built product might not have the best performance for example. And the best performing product could be some piece of pro gear that might be out of place in a high-end home system.
So I'll poke around more, but to me, it usually comes down to discussing the relative strengths/weaknesses of a given genre of products and others can decide from there what matters most to them.
Last edited:
And a good thing too as otherwise, there would be no reason to have a forum!
. Welcome by the way.Exactly. What we try to do is to have the discussion be peaceful so that different points of views can get out without tension.
Let me share with you my last experiment for listening ripped CDs and Hi-Res (downloaded) files.
PC with
W7 (64 bits).
SSD for the OS.
WD HardDisk for music files.
Foobar with Wasapi
RME HDSP 9632 connected 2 ways (RCA & Toslink) to
TC Electronics BMC-2 as DAC+volume control.
XLR cables to
ADAM A7x active monitors.
Recently I had purchased a Lynx AES16 soundcard (XLR dig I/O) . Unfortunately BMC-2 doesn't have any XLR dig input, only RCA & Toslink. I guess I could use a kind of adapter to go from the Lynx AES/EBU connector to the BMC RCA input but I didn´t like the idea of losing the balanced mode in that digital stage. In fact I bought that card to try that (the RME has that option, but I couldn´t get the proper breakout cables available easily).
On the other hand, I had read also some good things about a cheap product from Behringer (Ultramatch Pro: includes DAC & sample rate converter), I decided to use both functions: DAC & Sample converter.
I tried the Ultramatch, as a pure DAC and upsampler, between the RME soundcard and the ADAM A7x (each one has a pot to control the volume). Psssh, different sound, but not better.
I tried also the Ultramatch as a pure simple sample rate converter between the RME soundcard and the BMC-2. Same results: different sound but nothing that I could really call "Better".
Finally, I decided to take the chance of the Behringer's XLR dig input, to install the Lynx AES16 and send the Lynx AES16 dig. output to the Behringer, upsample the data up to 96 kHz and, still in the digital domain, send it (through both Toslink and RCA) to the BMC-2 (DAC + volume control).
I didn´t have high expectations on this: now I was adding a sample converter between a new soundcard and the BMC-2... more stuff in the middle, buff... Surely nothing was going to change for better until I could get a new DAC with a real XLR input.
Well, well, for my ears, I was totally wrong: now, the level of transparency, stereo, almost holographic, as well as those small details that get into my ears so easily, deeper bass, etc. is something one must listen to be believed: I can understand the singer's english lyrics ! . My present monitors seem to be not enough to reproduce all the information (specially, bass frequencies). I had read a lot of good things about the Lynx AES16 but, frankly speaking, after getting many different results I was thinking about a new DAC as the only solution to get a better sound.
One thing is for certain: now I understand why the Lynx AES16 is used in many studio recordings. This takes me to the following: up to what point we can blame on digital, when, the truth is, that many people is not extracting the best of the stored digital data ? I prefer not to imagine what a Mykerinos with its software can do when transmitting the data to the DAC...
Bravo for the pro-stuff: once again, computers and pro-stuff are the new real Hi-End world.
PC with
W7 (64 bits).
SSD for the OS.
WD HardDisk for music files.
Foobar with Wasapi
RME HDSP 9632 connected 2 ways (RCA & Toslink) to
TC Electronics BMC-2 as DAC+volume control.
XLR cables to
ADAM A7x active monitors.
Recently I had purchased a Lynx AES16 soundcard (XLR dig I/O) . Unfortunately BMC-2 doesn't have any XLR dig input, only RCA & Toslink. I guess I could use a kind of adapter to go from the Lynx AES/EBU connector to the BMC RCA input but I didn´t like the idea of losing the balanced mode in that digital stage. In fact I bought that card to try that (the RME has that option, but I couldn´t get the proper breakout cables available easily).
On the other hand, I had read also some good things about a cheap product from Behringer (Ultramatch Pro: includes DAC & sample rate converter), I decided to use both functions: DAC & Sample converter.
I tried the Ultramatch, as a pure DAC and upsampler, between the RME soundcard and the ADAM A7x (each one has a pot to control the volume). Psssh, different sound, but not better.
I tried also the Ultramatch as a pure simple sample rate converter between the RME soundcard and the BMC-2. Same results: different sound but nothing that I could really call "Better".
Finally, I decided to take the chance of the Behringer's XLR dig input, to install the Lynx AES16 and send the Lynx AES16 dig. output to the Behringer, upsample the data up to 96 kHz and, still in the digital domain, send it (through both Toslink and RCA) to the BMC-2 (DAC + volume control).
I didn´t have high expectations on this: now I was adding a sample converter between a new soundcard and the BMC-2... more stuff in the middle, buff... Surely nothing was going to change for better until I could get a new DAC with a real XLR input.
Well, well, for my ears, I was totally wrong: now, the level of transparency, stereo, almost holographic, as well as those small details that get into my ears so easily, deeper bass, etc. is something one must listen to be believed: I can understand the singer's english lyrics ! . My present monitors seem to be not enough to reproduce all the information (specially, bass frequencies). I had read a lot of good things about the Lynx AES16 but, frankly speaking, after getting many different results I was thinking about a new DAC as the only solution to get a better sound.
One thing is for certain: now I understand why the Lynx AES16 is used in many studio recordings. This takes me to the following: up to what point we can blame on digital, when, the truth is, that many people is not extracting the best of the stored digital data ? I prefer not to imagine what a Mykerinos with its software can do when transmitting the data to the DAC...
Bravo for the pro-stuff: once again, computers and pro-stuff are the new real Hi-End world.
I'm not clear how you fed the Behringer before you tried the AES16? Did you use a TOSLINK output from the RME soundcard?
Where, and how, the clocking is done can certainly make a difference. It's no secret the AES digital interface has some advantages. But, I can make a pretty strong case, it has no audible advantages for PC audio over a properly implemented direct USB connection to a single "box" for 2 channel playback.
If you already have an outboard DAC/Interface you like that supports AES but not USB or Firewire, then an AES16 might make sense. It also makes sense for 24/192 or multi-channel recording. But for everyone else reading this thread interested in 2 channel playback, I'm less convinced.
The AES16 by itself costs more than many very high quality, and well regarded, stand alone USB DACs. I'm not sure it offers any real-world advantages over some of the best USB devices for stereo playback. A USB DAC also doesn't require opening your PC up, needing the right kind of free slot, and they're much more portable between computers, work on laptops, etc.
So, IMHO, the AES16 is at a disadvantage compared to USB in several areas. And if doesn't offer an audible advantage playing back commercially available 2 channel formats, that makes it a less than ideal choice for someone looking for a high quality computer audio solution--even if cost is no object.
Exactly: the RME has Toslink and RCA dig. outputs. Also XLR... but needs a special breakout (extra cables) and I had to order them to Germany. In the meantime a used Lynx AES16 appeared in sight.
The clocking is till something to test.. No, my still present DAC only has SPIDF Coax & Toslkink. No USB, nor Firewire. Same about your comment about Hi-Res files: in fact... I have many Hi-Res recordings with different sample rates: still can´t understand why there is not a standard. Some of them are at 48, others 88.2 or 96 kHz and... even worse: 192 kHz. And my present DAC doesn´t manage 192 kHz so, don´t know if my next DAC should have such feature or forget about that, as I don´t know if those 192 kHz, because a simple matter of aesthetics ("bigger numbers must be better"), will be more and more oftenly launched.
Regarding the price of the Lynx or any RME, well, at this moment, at least in my country, they are not rare in the 2nd market: a RME can be bought at 180 € and I paid 300 € for the Lynx AES16 (cables not included).
All you suggestions are welcome and, in fact, can be proved easily ('though expensive) in a next movement: buying a Benchamark or Lavry with USB/XLR input. However, it is not necesarily the definitive prove: it is not always the kind of input itself but the way it is implemented in the DAC, ...I guess. Anyway, I suspect that both brands (Lavry or Benchmark) have carefully implemented both protocols.
Of course, if you know about a (not expensive) DAC which connected to a PC through USB can beat a Lynx AES16 + Lavry (or Benchmark) DAC, I will be delighted to know ! I don´t want the most expensive system (at all!) but the maximum quality at the lowest price... as any smart person, ...I guess (wrongly, I presume).
If you don't need level controls or multiple inputs, I'd strongly suggest looking at the HRT Streamer DACs:
http://www.highresolutiontechnologies.com/products/
The Streamer+ (or Pro if you want balanced outputs) is extremely well designed. And they also offer USB isolation which can be critical in some systems to avoid noise and ground loops. That's something else the Lynx AES16 connected to most hardware does not offer. HRT DACs have received many very favorable reviews, are made the in USA, and very well designed and made. Of course, the high-end audiophile mags haven't rated them at the top as, given the low price of the HRT's, that would upset a bunch of their advertisers who sell much more expensive DACs (not to mention the status quo). So take those reviews with several grains of salt.
If you want preamp-type functionality, then products like the Benchmark and Lavry are safe choices. I plan to review some of the less expensive options on my blog in the future.
Thank, NwAvGuy.
...funny: I was the original importer for HRT (as well as other excellent brands) a couple years ago: http://www.azimutaudio.com/sonido/sonido-pc/dac-usb-rca.html. Based on their present stock, it seems that I did the right selection: only 1 pc remains at the warehouse.
Unfortunately I left the company (Azimut, no HRT) just when the product arrived so I didn´t have the opportunity to test it. I did it with the previous models (first HRT units) and, although they sounded excellent for the price, they didn´t come close to the sound quality I can hear now. Don´t know about the new models.
Yes, of course, I think that I need a volume control (as everybody does). I had thought in something like this:
Thanks for your recommendations. Interesting website... in fact I had already included one of your posts in mine.
However, I can see that you like Benchmark... Any opinion regarding the suggested HRT vs Benchmark ?
...funny: I was the original importer for HRT (as well as other excellent brands) a couple years ago: http://www.azimutaudio.com/sonido/sonido-pc/dac-usb-rca.html. Based on their present stock, it seems that I did the right selection: only 1 pc remains at the warehouse.
Unfortunately I left the company (Azimut, no HRT) just when the product arrived so I didn´t have the opportunity to test it. I did it with the previous models (first HRT units) and, although they sounded excellent for the price, they didn´t come close to the sound quality I can hear now. Don´t know about the new models.
Yes, of course, I think that I need a volume control (as everybody does). I had thought in something like this:
Thanks for your recommendations. Interesting website... in fact I had already included one of your posts in mine.
However, I can see that you like Benchmark... Any opinion regarding the suggested HRT vs Benchmark ?
I haven't yet done a direct comparison--objective or subjective--of the Benchmark vs a HRT. If you're in the EU you might consider the higher-end Firestone products if you haven't already. The Libby is their flagship:
Firestone Audio Libby DAC
It has AES/EBU as well as USB along with volume, input switching, etc. They also have less expensive models like the Fubar 4 and Fubar 3. I haven't directly compared any of them to the Benchmark but, as a company, they seem to know what they're doing and have a good reputation.
And yes, from what I've read and heard, the newer HRT Streamers are far superior to the originals. That's one reason I like HRT. Their original product was criticized, and rather than ignore their critics, or argue it was fine the way it was, they replaced it with greatly improved versions.
As for Benchmark, there's a short writeup on my blog about why I chose their gear. There are other excellent choices but, for what I needed, Benchmark had the most respected product I could find that met my needs. They do a better job than most companies of bridging the pro audio and high-end home audio markets. The closest competition is probably this:
Grace Design m903
Lavry makes very good converters but they don't really have a product that's exactly like the DAC1 Pre or DAC1 HDR with analog inputs and an analog volume control. There are other products similar to the Benchmark DAC1 Pre, such as the Burson HA160, but they're typically even more expensive than the Benchmark or Grace.
The "bargain version" seems to be something more like the Firestone Libby or Fubars. There's also the Music Hall DAC 25.3 and Peachtree products if you like tubes. I would suggest staying away from anything made by NuForce.
Just a personal preference: if you go for a USB implementation, go for one at least USB audio class 1 compliant so 24/96
Probably asynchronous USB is to be the preferred mode.
NwAvGuy,
Would love to see you measuring the difference between a adaptive mode e.g. Benchmark DAC 1 USB and a asynchronous one like Arcam rDac
Probably asynchronous USB is to be the preferred mode.
NwAvGuy,
Would love to see you measuring the difference between a adaptive mode e.g. Benchmark DAC 1 USB and a asynchronous one like Arcam rDac
I agree! It seems 'async' has been latched onto by several companies as their latest marketing spin and product differentiation strategy. HRT is in that camp as well.
I'm hoping to do just such an article. You have probably seen my jitter spectrum plots already--they would be one basis for comparison. And I also plan to explore some additional "corner case measurements" with future DAC tests that might help reveal some less obvious differences. And, in addition, it would be interesting to attempt a reasonably well done blind listening test, with multiple listeners, of three DACs: The adaptive Benchmark, an async DAC (i.e. Arcam or HRT), and one with a conventional USB interface (i.e. Firestone Fubar or DacMagic).
Thank you both, gentlemen. I'll keep my BMC-2 until I can see such technical data as my next purchase should be a DAC for a long time. The truth is that I am quite satisfied with the extra info I can easily hear now in all my music files.
I see the new TAS has a soundcard round-up that Carl Schuster is reviewing. The contenders are: Lynx AES16/L22, RME Hammerfall HDSP-9632, ESI Juli@ and Maya44 and Echo Mia/Gina
I cheated and read which one he preferred! Shocker!
I cheated and read which one he preferred! Shocker!
I couldn´t read that review although... I already know which is the "one".
Bruce, do you know what DAC they used for the test ? Thanks !
Bruce,
What would be your advise for a reasonable price PC soundcard to be used with the RCA SPDIF input of Krell S350a CD player?
I have been burning-in this player for the last month, and it is an excellent sounding CD player with a digital SPDIF input, but limited to 96 kHz.
Thanks. Can I aks you also for a USB - SPDIF converter? Do you think that a USB unit can have the same quality of a PCI card?
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |