Why is USB frowned upon?

[sKiZo]

Might have mentioned this previously, but USB on my DAC tops out at 96/24. I could get 192/24 using optical or coaxial, but the USB just sounds better, so I stick with that, mostly feeding it FLAC rips from CD. Not much in the way of real hi-res digital here, as I haven't been all that impressed with it. Heck, I want hi-res, I'll just cue up vinyl. <G>

Please explain how a red book cd that is two-channel 16-bit sampled at 44,100 Hz.

Sounds better at 24/96 or 24/196? Where is the additional resolution coming from?

Basically what you're doing is allowing the ripping software to use more bits to store the same digital data. Same principle really as a half mastered vinyl disk or recording to tape at higher speeds. This results in improved headroom and indeed, improved resolution in that you're not making a single bit of storage do as much work. Sort of like a digital KISS, keeping those bits much simpler and easier to decode if your equipment can handle it.

Where I draw the line here is at 96/24 ... don't really see any sonic improvements at higher resolutions with my equipment, and I've got IMHO a really decent system to work with. This holds true with any genre, and I'll listen to most anything. Well, maybe not klezmer or country. <G>

 

[PureQuill]

It may indeed be that I misread or misinterpreted what he posted.
If so my bad and stand corrected and apologize for the misinterpretation of the quoted post.

But I stand by USB is far from being inferior or frowned upon.
And listening to his hi resolution recordings using 24/96 & 24/192 is far more about the quality of his DAC than the bit depth and sample rates.
As someone who spends a little time in recording studios & understand the process.
I can tell you that there is no audible advantage to recording at 24/96 & 24/192 other than psychological advantage that as humans we think bigger is better.
The provided links actually shows that higher res recording can introduce ultra high & ultra low frequencies at those rates may actually have detrimental effects on the frequencies that we as humans actually hear.

Best analogy I can compare it to is the solid state wattage & lower distortion spec wars of the late 70’s
In theory a 500 watt SS amp @ .0001% thd should sound much better than a 50 watt tube amp 0.5% thd right?
On paper yes. But in the real world that harmonic distortion is what gave tube gear its perceived warmth & musicality.
And the better specked SS gear a perceived sterile sound.

This link explains it much better than I ever can.
https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

I find it very interesting that today digital recording marketing is all about adding back analog tube warmth and tape saturation to the digital recording process.
The best and most expensive studios in the word today are the ones with vintage analog desks , tube mics & racks of analog outboard gear tracking to 2inch tape @15ips

Buy and listen to what ever makes you happy in the long run that what really counts.
PQ

 

[JP]

...Same principle really as a half mastered vinyl disk or recording to tape at higher speeds. This results in improved headroom and indeed, improved resolution in that you're not making a single bit of storage do as much work. Sort of like a digital KISS, keeping those bits much simpler and easier to decode if your equipment can handle it.

Sorry, incorrect on all counts.

 

[PureQuill]

Sorry, incorrect on all counts.

+1

One can not add additional resolution that does not exist already.

PQ

 

[mdewire]

[QUOTE="mdewire, post: 9683947, member: 72216"

The sound of Red-book CD rates is very good and gets to amazing with high resolution 96/24 or 192/24..

Please explain how a red book cd that is two-channel 16-bit sampled at 44,100 Hz.

Sounds better at 24/96 or 24/196? Where is the additional resolution coming from?
If 16/44 is all the digital info there is how is up converting to 24/96 or 24/192 creating higher resolution?
I can see how theoretically(Check out the links below) if one had access to the original recording session files all tracked mixed & mastered at 24/96 or 24/196 there could be better SQ & resolution.
But not if they were bounced down & converted to red book 16/44.1. at any point in the process.


If I watch a 1080 DPI video on a 4K DPI video screen will it make it 4k?
No its is still only 1080 DPI right?
Doesn’t digital audio works the same way?
Or if I am missing something please explain it to me.

Maybe what you are hearing is the improved sound quality of the converters and not the increase in bit & sample rate at all.
Just like the improved over all quality of the 4K TV makes 1080 dpi look better because it has much better over all color ,contrast , sharpness & detail in general and nothing to do with it being a 1080 DPI video.

I agree that USB is not the problem if RME is now able to do this
DURec, which is available on the front of the Fireface UFX+, now offers second generation hardware with improved USB functionality and compatibility, providing greater reliability even with slower or multi-partitioned USB thumb drives.

The maximum number of recordable channels has been raised to 76, meaning all 12 analog inputs plus 64 MADI channels can be recorded simultaneously. An internal Realtime Clock (RTC) delivers time-stamped files, and playback now includes several advanced player functions previously unavailable.

PQ

PS some good reading because acoustic science facts are not subject to marketing hype or community drinking of the Kool Aid winds.

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

https://www.applied-acoustics.com/techtalk/sampleratebitdepth/

http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/...rates-when-higher-is-better-and-when-it-isnt/

http://www.mcelhearn.com/music-not-sound-why-high-resolution-music-is-a-marketing-ploy/[/QUOTE]

You read my post wrong, maybe my mistake of how I wrote it. I did not mean that I upsampled 44.1/16 bit files. What I meant to say was 44.1/16 bit files sound very good with the Vega DAC and that higher resolution files sound even better.

 

[mdewire]

Might have mentioned this previously, but USB on my DAC tops out at 96/24. I could get 192/24 using optical or coaxial, but the USB just sounds better, so I stick with that, mostly feeding it FLAC rips from CD. Not much in the way of real hi-res digital here, as I haven't been all that impressed with it. Heck, I want hi-res, I'll just cue up vinyl. <G>



Basically what you're doing is allowing the ripping software to use more bits to store the same digital data. Same principle really as a half mastered vinyl disk or recording to tape at higher speeds. This results in improved headroom and indeed, improved resolution in that you're not making a single bit of storage do as much work. Sort of like a digital KISS, keeping those bits much simpler and easier to decode if your equipment can handle it.

Where I draw the line here is at 96/24 ... don't really see any sonic improvements at higher resolutions with my equipment, and I've got IMHO a really decent system to work with. This holds true with any genre, and I'll listen to most anything. Well, maybe not klezmer or country. <G>

Wow I need to work on my writing skills. I meant to say the with my DAC even a 16/44.1 file sounds very good and the DAC makes higher resolution files sound even better. I was not taking about or implying that I was upsampling a file.

 

[PureQuill]

I cased you missed this 1st part of my 2nd post I will repost it.

It may indeed be that I misread or misinterpreted what he posted.
If so my bad and stand corrected and apologize for the misinterpretation of the quoted post.

Glad you are very happy with your DAC at all bit depth and sample rates.
The most important thing is that your gear & choice of analog or digital format meets your needs & adds to your listening experience.
If it sounds good to you what I or any one else in the word thinks doesn’t really matter.

Now to get back on this thread back track and answer the OPs question.

USB is not frowned upon and contrary to post #22 that starts with & I quote
“USB for serious audio is on its way out”

USB is alive and well, RME one of the largest manufacturers of professional audio recording gear for broadcast as well the music recording industry is actually embracing & developing new technologies and flagship products around USB3.0.
So much for post #22 point.

There is a general consensus that there is little to no audible advantage to the huge files created by 24/96 or 24/192 recordings except for the most critical audio professionals involved in the creative process.
Most end listeners don’t need the digital equilvent of a 2” 24 track tape recording.

And there are some very experienced professionals who believe & back up their arguments with science.
That hi bit rate & sample recordings may actually be recording subsonic & hypersonic frequencies that cause artifacts that have a negative impact on most listeners experience.

Read the links yourself & then decide for yourself.
Psysudo science mumbo jumbo BS or logical info backed up by accepted science & professional expertise?

Lastly I will leave you with this thought. Its is not the size of the file but the quality & musicality of the converters that have most impact on our listening experience.
Digital conversion is a bit of a black art much like designing any high fidelity music product.
I don’t care if its microphones, recording consoles,outboard tube compressors and EQ’s used in making the recording.
Or our choice of speakers and all of components we as listeners use .
Each leaves its own bit of sonic DNA on everything we listen to.
It is more than just how many 1’s & 0’s a file has.

Crappy converters can make the biggest best recorded files in world sound like crap.
And top notch DACS can make the lowly redbbok standard 16/44.1 sound breathtaking.

USB and 16/44.1 are not going anywhere soon and there is no good reason for them to at this time.
As always YMMV.
Cheers

PQ

 

[lini]

md: No, you needn't - actually it was perfectly clear what you meant. To me it would rather seem likely that PQ missed that you had written "Red-book CD rates", not "Redbook CDs"...


PQ: What you forgot to mention is that the UFX+ also sports a Thunderbolt port. But I think one also generally has to be careful with conclusions regarding suitability based on availability - as we have numerous examples in the past, that it the end it was often the cheaper and/or more aggressively marketed approach that won.

Well, and currently the market situation is that a FireWire 400 or 800 port isn't a frequent feature on current PCs and notebooks anymore (and has never been on the now very important smartphone and tablet market) - and we'll yet have to see, how popular Thunderbolt might become, but currently it's not really a standard feature (yet). Whereas USB has become so ubiquitous, that a manufacturer of external sound-interfaces would practically have to be nuts to not offer models with USB port, even if other interface types would be more easy to work with...

Or in other words: I'd rather first hear/read for example Matthias Carstens' opinion on USB for audio use, before jumping to any conclusions regarding its suitability for the job...

Well, and then RME might not be the best example to conclude from anyway, 'cause RME's products aren't exactly cheap stuff. So if it takes more of a programming and hardware effort to deliver a good USB implementation, the extra cost for that is more likely to have much less of an impact on the price of an RME product in relation to for example a USB sound-interface for 25 Euro like the Logilink UA-0099.


So, back to the initial topic, in my view there is no doubt that USB for audio use is frowned upon in certain circles for a couple of reasons. However, in the end that's nothing to really worry about, 'cause there will always be certain circles frowning upon whatever for whichever good or silly reasons - while what's really relevant is whether the whatever works well for the individual user's requirements or not. If it does, possible inherent problems obviously have been sufficiently overcome to let the product perform as intended - and as long as the user can get a good product at his desired price level, it would seem of secondary interest only, whether that was hard or easy to achieve for the manufacturer.


Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[PureQuill]

@lini
I didn’t forget to mention it has a Thunderbolt I ignored it because of the very reason you stated
I consider thunderbolt a primarily apple connectivity technology that just like FW 400 & FW 800 is just another soon to be abandoned apple connectivity moving target.
And for the record thunderbolt 3 is USB-C
https://thunderbolttechnology.net/blog/thunderbolt-3-usb-c-does-it-all

Apple days as the manufacturer of high quality computers that provide rock solid OS systems for creative professionals are over & they don’t care.
The new Mac Pro 6.1 released in 2013 affectionally referred to as trash cans are a utter failure both in sales & utility. Over priced & vastly inferior to the 5.1 Mac pro cheese graters in almost every way.
There are companies specializing in upgrading & updating the 5.1 mac pros because of this and laughing all the way to bank as Apple walks away from a market they dominated..
http://create.pro/blog/mac-pro-51-b...xpandability-unparalleled-customisation-king/

The new apple OSX releases are a bloated mess of features designed to interface with their new primary source of revenue all of apples new gadgets & services. ipads iphones iwatches apple pay apple tv apple music ect.
AVIDs Pro Tool 12 is a buggy crashing mess partly because of this and protools users are furious & looking seriously at any other option but PT and Apple. A quick look thru the avid PT 12 forum will show a very unhappy user base looking to jump ship and many are steadily migrating to Studio One ,Nuendo,Logic & Cubase & PC computers as quickly as possible . Avid’s stock once worth $60 a share has been delisted from NASDAC and trading around $5 a share resulting in massive lay offs & technical problems.
http://duc.avid.com/forumdisplay.php?f=142

The reason I pointed to RME is exactly for the reason you state. RME isn’t cheap.
It is engineered to be sonically excellent & provide professional level reliability, stability & longevity.
RME doesn’t operate on a planned obsolesce business model
I don’t believe that they are developing their flagship lines around USB3 for just the heck of it.
RME has some of the best engineers & programers in the world.

Digital recording, interfacing, connectivity & compatibility technology is something I deal with almost on a daily basis.There is a RME interface within hands reach as I type this.

So with all due respect Lini I think USB is far from being frowned up in professional audio circles.
And those circles that do are stuck in the past or uninformed.

My prediction is Apple with stay on their very profitable path of forced obsolescence and marketing to young people who will buy anything apple sells.(except their watch LOL!)

Intel will absorb thunderbolt3 and future generations as a version of USB
Avid & Protools will teeter on the brink of bankruptcy and will be bought out , saved and fixed by ether a rival company or a group of high profile users like Lucas’s Skywalker sound or Disney.
And life will go on with USB for a little while longer.

Cheers
PQ

 

[lini]

PQ: I'd not quite concur in terms of "Thunderbolt 3 = USB C", but that aside to me your points still don't seem relevant for the question, whether there are certain traits of USB, which would seem problematic for audio use (or at least more problematic compared to other interface types), and why one hence could have a reason to frown upon using USB for that purpose. And I've already named one reason on the hardware side quite a bit above in this thread, i.e. that it's hard to implement a galavanically decoupled USB connection.

But just as in single-ended/unbalanced versus balanced analogue audio connections, that doesn't have to mean that technical inferiority in a certain aspect necessarily means a less good particular implementation with actually practice-relevant disadvantages.

So that there are so many USB sound-interfaces today and that even high-quality brands like RME support it rather just tells us that there currently is no way around USB for a manufacturer who wants to sell, whereas it can hardly tell us anything about how much of an effort (or respectively how much more of an effort compared to other interface types) it has been to make it work sufficiently well, so that it's now actually working pretty well for a pretty large number of users.

For more comparable examples we just need to look at turntables: How about belt-drives models with a motor control that includes actual platter speed sensing? Hardly any, though that would definitely have a couple of advantages. How about models with vacuum suction and/or at least scrubbing-minimised tonearm geometry with the vertical pivot point lowered to record level? In fact not even a tilted arm exit angle/vertical pivot axis perpendicular to the headshell orientation has become a universal standard, although in that case one could of course at least argue that this on the other hand would have the disadvantage of a more significant change of SRA/VTA with height change... And how many turntable models do we know that address the problem of record excentricity? Also hardly any...

So from a technical point of view one would also have good reasons to frown upon the majority of current turntable designs. Still there obviously are quite a few models that even very demanding users would call high-end designs, even if these designs don't address as many record-playback-inherent problems as possible.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[lini]

botrytis: You sure it was IBM and not Intel? And if my memory doesn't fool me, the first Thunderbolt generation was already twice as fast as USB 3.0, and Thunderbold 3 should be about 4 times as fast as USB 3.1.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[JP]

Wow.

Yes, Intel. Thunderbolt 1 and 2 are dual-channel at 10Gb/s per channel, though 2 has channel aggregation. Thunderbolt 3 is 40Gb/s aggregate.

USB 3.0 is 5Gb/s.

 

[Alobar]

Question I have is do we need 40GB per second speed for music? I don't know what USB 2 is but that is all I have and seems adequate for playing lossless on my DAC. Am I missing some potential improvement?

 

[PureQuill]

@ Lini
You are correct Thunderbolt is an intel product licensed to Apple in its present incarnation.

PQ: I’d not quite concur in terms of “Thunderbolt 3 = USB C"

So what part of the beleow 2 links do you not concur with?

https://thunderbolttechnology.net/blog/thunderbolt-3-usb-c-does-it-all
https://thunderbolttechnology.net/sites/default/files/Thunderbolt_3_Overview_Brief_FINAL.pdf


Is Jason Ziller, Director of Thunderbolt Marketing, Intel wrong?
Is the official Intel Thunderbolt3 site wrong?

Lini I have read many of your post & threads and respect your knowledge and judgment.
You don’t post not well thought out remarks info & statements.

So help me understand if intel is marketing TB3 as “The USB-C that does it all."
What part don’t you quite concur with?

Cheers
PQ

PS
Or in other words: I’d rather first hear/read for example Matthias Carstens' opinion on USB for audio use, before jumping to any conclusions regarding its suitability for the job...

Here you go
http://www.synthax.com/index.php/id-20-years-of-rme-interview.html


Matthis Carstens shared some perspective on his design philosophy, “As both a user and a customer, I am acutely aware of and annoyed by devices that miss those features I deem crucial. At RME, we therefore try to produce very flexible designs based on a re-programmable Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA). This way, a unit can be upgraded later on in the event we initially missed something. But already, the base of our designs is more flexible and powerful than with most competitors. We also opted for better audio quality and, thus, accepted a higher price point while being careful not to become too expensive. The balance between optimal performance and acceptable compromises is very carefully designed into all our units.”

“From the start, he continued, “RME did not use custom chips for many tasks. For example, AES, ADAT and MADI receiver and transmitter circuits are part of the FPGA design. That helps our products not only to be more flexible, it also saves some costs. While our first bus interfaces were based on example code, this code was already highly modified. Later on, we took over the core interface's entire development, so FireWire 400/800, USB 2, and USB 3 are fully self-developed and integrated into the FPGA.”

 

[lini]

PQ: Well, the equation simply is too simplified - or not really an equation, as it won't work both ways. I.e., while Thunderbolt 3 is indeed designed to use a USB C connection, just because a device sports a USB C port doesn't necessarily mean it would have to support Thunderbolt 3 as one of the possible "alternate modes" - in fact that doesn't even mean it would have to support USB 3.1 speed.

So one could compare that for example to a USB 2.0 port not necessarily having to support 480 Mbps "Hi-Speed" or to modern Intel processors that are based on the same core or even die version, but have different features enabled/disabled...

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[PureQuill]

PQ: Well, the equation simply is too simplified - or not really an equation, as it won't work both ways. I.e., while Thunderbolt 3 is indeed designed to use a USB C connection, just because a device sports a USB C port doesn't necessarily mean it would have to support Thunderbolt 3 as one of the possible "alternate modes" - in fact that doesn't even mean it would have to support USB 3.1 speed.

So one could compare that for example to a USB 2.0 port not necessarily having to support 480 Mbps "Hi-Speed" or to modern Intel processors that are based on the same core or even die version, but have different features enabled/disabled...

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

Well if intel who is the developer of all Thunderbolt versions is marketing Thunderbolt3 as USB-C
In the eyes of most consumers it is a new version of USB In spite of the over simplicity of the equation,

Which quite frankly intel rebranding TB3 as USB-C is a good marketing move that may lead to more acceptability among consumers & PC manufactures.
TB1 & 2 have after 4 years failed to be widely excepted & implemented withe the exception of Apple products.

Tubderbolt3 or USC-C or whatever it called is way too early to see if it will become “the one compact port that does it all.”
The industry & consumers over time will decide if it lives up to its promise and becomes the new standard.

I personally stay as far away from any new digital product ,format ,DAW or OS until it has stood the test of real world application & proven to be stable, reliable and the accepted industry standard.
Been there done that & learned that lesson the hard way.
I have nether the time or inclination to beta test any new technology and certainly won’t invest my money in something that simply is unproven and may soon be as useful as floppy disk.

Maybe TB3 will be the game changer that it is hyped to be. If so I will implement into my workflow when its has a proven track record.
Until then “No thank you to any version of Thunderbolt.”

I will stick with my time tested RME FF800 & ProToools 10 and OSX 10.8.5
I own a PT10/11/12 license and when PT12 is fixed & proven bug free & rock solid( if ever) only then will I ever consider installing & using it.
Right now I can open a session in my present system walk away from the desk go on the road for 2 weeks and the session will be exactly as I left it when I get home.

When my FF800 fails I will then look at what is available at that time with proven track record equal to the FF800.
I am pretty sure it will be a RME product that has been on market for years just as the FF800 was when I purchased mine new 6 years ago.

If RME engineers are actively developing products, drivers & technology around USB3 that tells me a lot.
I doubt seriously if Matthis Carstens is paying his developers to pursue soon to be obsolete technology & that is for technical reasons sonically inferior..makes no sense.

Bottom line is in some circles who’s only experience with USB is cheap or poorly implemented USB DAC’s …There for frowned upon so be it..

The other side is the engineers & developers at RME who are actively developing & implementing new technologies and flagship products using USB. So one can logically conclude that they don’t frown upon USB and believe in its future.

USB -Thunderbolt -Firewire or whatever new technological wonder that awaits us in the future is really irrelevant.
How the 1 & 0’s go from the digital domain to the analog sounds waves the we hear doesn’t really matters.
There are and will be a few incredible sounding products and some really bad sounding products too and bunch that fall somewhere in the middle no matter the technology used.

In the digital world the early bird doesn’t just get the worm… they get all of bugs, glitches, & crashes & failures too!
So wade into new & unproven technological waters at your own risk.

Cheers
PQ

 

[SoNic67]

Shout to SoNic67:

I have this, some say it's not true asynchronous, that the advert is deceptive.
http://www.amazon.com/Music-Hall-Digital-Audio-Converter/dp/B002NZV7X4

Then I have this;
http://ppaproduct.blogspot.tw/2013/07/audio-grade-usb-30-pcie-card.html

I'm true asynchronous now, with the Paul Pang. Is this correct?

I have a nice cable between the two, FWIW.

I don't know what USB converter is inside the Music Hall and their website is silent on that.
However, that listing that says "Sophisticated asynchronous re-clocking and anti-jitter control system" is referring to the Ti SRC4192 chip (ASRC), not to the USB.
As for the dedicated Pang USB, that's one step in the right direction to decouple PC USB from Audio USB. You need also the async USB on the DAC side for the best results.
Can't make out the USB receiver chip in this pic (small black chip right under the USB connector), if you are curious maybe you can take a peek in yours.

 

[SoNic67]

I will stick with my time tested RME FF800 & ProToools 10 and OSX 10.8.5

That FF800 is one of the few professional cards that don't need any "refreshing". The ADC in it is good (I have it seen mentioned as being AK5385 with THD+N -103dB), and that's the only thing it counts. No need for USB, the firewire interface was designed with audio in mind, unlike USB, it provides a truly dedicated point-to-point connection.
I am also holding on to my E-MU 1820m, it has as ADC chip the AKM AK5394A (THD+N -110dB), works in my Windows 10 and doesn't need any improvement on the digital side...

 

[PureQuill]

That FF800 is one of the few professional cards that don't need any "refreshing". The ADC in it is good (I have it seen mentioned as being AK5385 with THD+N -103dB), and that's the only thing it counts. No need for USB, the firewire interface was designed with audio in mind, unlike USB, it provides a truly dedicated point-to-point connection.
I am also holding on to my E-MU 1820m, it has as ADC chip the AKM AK5394A (THD+N -110dB), works in my Windows 10 and doesn't need any improvement on the digital side...

I love my FF800 best investment in my studio I ever made.

As much as we love to debate & discuss all of the pros and cons of the many different technologies equipment & technique used to record or play back music that we enjoy.
The fact is even the crudest methods of recording produced the haunting blues of Robert Johnson inspiring Eric Clapton and countless others. Woodie Guthrie , Billie Holiday , Ella Fitzgerald ,All of the Jazz greats of 20’s thru the 50’s, Hank Williams, Elvis, Johnny Cash, Sinatra and the Rat Pack, the Beetles and many others made legendary recordings long before modern multitrack recording was possible.
And those recordings will always be musical treasures even if they are crude by modern standards.

The Music not the technology is all that we should care about.

Every minute we spend worrying or debating focused on tech stuff is a minute wasted that we could be listening to or making music that we will never get back!

What the hell am I doing here?
I'm going back to working on music that hopefully will bring joy to at least those involved in the process & will find fulfilling In some way.

I’m leaving the smiling or frowning on USB to you!
Cheers
PQ

 

[BigElCat]

I don't know what USB converter is inside the Music Hall and their website is silent on that.
However, that listing that says "Sophisticated asynchronous re-clocking and anti-jitter control system" is referring to the Ti SRC4192 chip (ASRC), not to the USB.
As for the dedicated Pang USB, that's one step in the right direction to decouple PC USB from Audio USB. You need also the async USB on the DAC side for the best results.
Can't make out the USB receiver chip in this pic (small black chip right under the USB connector), if you are curious maybe you can take a peek in yours.

Thank you for the input, and the time you took to research this. I'm going to hook up my USB microscope within a few days, I'll post some internal zooms.