Discussion in 'DACs' started by stoutblock, Dec 9, 2017.
Didn't know - sorry.
I came close to buying the F-1 prior to buying the Breeze XU208. I believe the F-1 uses Crystek CCHD oscillators and I’ve been told these are a little better than the oscillators in the Breeze? I know the oscillators in the Silver Breeze are TCXO and good but not sure what they are exactly? All it says is gold plated ultra high precision .1PPM low phase noise oscillators?
The reason I went with the Breeze is the reasonably high quality internal PS and the price. I also like that the Breeze has output connections for I2s, AES and SPDIF built in. I believe the X-1 only has built in output connection for SPDIF? Also at the listed price the Breeze has a case. Buy the time you get a decent PS, a case and provisions for other connections, the F-1 is quite a bit more expensive.
There is nothing new in USB audio in the last 3 years. The only change is wide adoption of DoP, but it was available in some DACs 3 years ago.
So XU208 is not new? What about XU216? What about the latest Windows 10 native drivers for USB 2.0 audio? What about USB Regen? What about ISO Regen? What about W4S Remedy? What about MQA?
NAH not MQA Everything else, yes.
There is nothing new in handling USB audio - the same since USB 2.0 standard adoption over 15 years ago. All important things happen on DAC side, not in USB transport chip.
Well it is controversial but also new...
So XU208 is not new? What about XU216? What about the latest Windows 10 native drivers for USB 2.0 audio? What about USB Regen? What about ISO Regen? What about W4S Remedy?
Agree that DAC processors are improving along with better implementation of older designs but USB continues to mature as a valid method to transport musical files. It was not that long ago it was considered inferior to SPDIF but that is no longer the case.
What is new about lossy compression? Also what is new about a watermarking system?
Good point, can we agree it is a new acronym?
My big issue with MQA is third party analysis cannot be done on the files, so you have to take the word company supplying the file where it came from. This is in contrast to regular FLAC files which can be analysed and know that it come from where the company says it come from. Why do we need another compression system when we already have several that work well. Storage space and even bandwidth is not really an issue any more.
OK, I am getting off my soapbox now.
The goal for USB receiver is to get data and reformat it for use by DAC circuit. There is nothing fancy there, All magic happens later in clock recovery, digital filtering and actual D/A conversion. There are new new features still coming out. But this all is WITHIN DAC BOX! It is impossible to keep clock stable with low jitter if it is located further than a couple inches from D/A chip. This means that all this magic should happen within few square inches of a single circuit board. This has nothing to do with USB protocol processing.
How about the drivers for my XA? Been looking all day...
So all the USB bridges on the market are a waste of money and offer no benefit to the internal USB solution all DACs already have? All of the USB Regen and Remedy products are all a waste of money and offer no benefit? So when I hear any improvement from such devices it is all in my imagination?
I am not sure, maybe? I am open to the possibility they could. But the amount of variation in a digital signal is in the femto-seconds. Could they change things? maybe. I just bought a new DAC and the difference between the SMSL-M8 or iFi Nano i have and the new one (TEAC UD-501). The differences in sound is not subtle.
Exactly right. They just used in case if DAC does not have internal USB interface (usually older or pro-audio devices). Any data stream extracted from USB still needs to be re-clocked and processed inside DAC unit.
It does not mean that there are no poorly designed DACs which incorrectly process data via USB (you can find some examples reading measurement section of Stereophile reviews). But they are broken to begin with and their place is in garbage bin regardless of original price. If software developers or hardware designers could not simply implement well written standard from decade ago, they should be immediately fired.
So, are we saying the latest XMOS chip doesn't bring anything new to the table? Like I mentioned I'm in the market for a DDC to be used with a vintage Dac and wonder if the latest XMOS solutions are worth the premium. I suspect not for redbook.
Of course the DAC itself is of the most importance for any digital to analog conversion. This is where you should spend your money.
I do not agree the USB interface is not critical to sound quality. I do agree that the best solution is to have a good USB interface internal to your DAC. I do agree having a short connection between the USB interface and the DAC processor is important but mostly this is true for the raw I2s interface. A USB interface that converts to PCM and transmits over SPDIF is not nearly as distant critical (this would also rule out DSD transfer). So if you have the latest XMOS and TCXO components in your internal USB interface an external one won’t provide any improvement (with a few other assumptions included). If you have a DAC that has a USB interface that is a couple of generations back, an external USB converter with the latest components absolutly will improve audio performance of your digital files as they sound coming out of your DAC. It is not subtle and it sounds like you should try it for yourself.
In my experience the latest USB interface with current XMOS and TCXO will make all digital files sound better than any USB interface from a few generations ago.
Separate names with a comma.