Deficiencies of USB

rbbert said:
IMO The Absolute Sound's assessment of recordings' sound quality is even worse than their assessment of equipment quality, and that is poor at best. There have way too many instances where I have done the same comparisons they have and come to opposite conclusions.
Click to expand...

Hi Robert, I kind of gravitate towards your assessment.

...And real glad to see you here; a very warm welcome! :)
 
AJ Soundfield said:
Agreed. It's only tubes or vinyl that someone should have to be physically restrained from killing someone else over.

cheers,

AJ
Click to expand...

dlb2 said:
Now that's sig worthy right there! :)



Sent from my mobile.
Click to expand...

:D +1 Doug, my second chuckle for the day after the first from my Dalmatian puppy. Asynchronous USB/I2S is far from inferior to most with my ears if a few basics are adhered to!
 
AJ Soundfield said:
Agreed. It's only tubes or vinyl that someone should have to be physically restrained from killing someone else over.

cheers,

AJ
Click to expand...

WireWorld Platinum USB when I'm a lazy trucker. TFK ECC803S + Goldfinger Statement in a 45rpm groove, sometimes not as black but feels much better. Same again with the tubes & software spooling from the Studer.
 
slowgeezr said:
I totally disagree that USB is inferior. Properly done, it is at least equal, if not superior to other methods. Implementation is key. In my own listening, I have not found any other connection type sound any better than USB.
Click to expand...

The problem the USB interface has, is the lack of galvanic isolation. That makes the Ethernet superior.

However, it has to be noted, that the lack of galvanic isolation on USB iterface can still be implemented on the DAC side, on I2S lines. It only makes the life harder for a designer and costs extra money. But can be done. Berkeley does it on their Alpha USB, Trinity does it in their DAC, and probaby a few others (and if not, they will probably start in not too distant future).
 
Elberoth said:
The problem the USB interface has, is the lack of galvanic isolation. That makes the Ethernet superior.

However, it has to be noted, that the lack of galvanic isolation on USB iterface can still be implemented on the DAC side, on I2S lines. It only makes the life harder for a designer and costs extra money. But can be done. Berkeley does it on their Alpha USB, Trinity does it in their DAC, and probaby a few others (and if not, they will probably start in not too distant future).
Click to expand...

I agree with this.
I know some folks claim to have wonderful experiences using USB connections, it's just that so far, I have not... Just my opinion/experience.
 
Elberoth said:
The problem the USB interface has, is the lack of galvanic isolation. That makes the Ethernet superior.

However, it has to be noted, that the lack of galvanic isolation on USB iterface can still be implemented on the DAC side, on I2S lines. It only makes the life harder for a designer and costs extra money. But can be done. Berkeley does it on their Alpha USB, Trinity does it in their DAC, and probaby a few others (and if not, they will probably start in not too distant future).
Click to expand...

I believe galvanic isolation on USB is one of the main reasons Bryston's BDP-1 has been so successful and sounds so good.
 
The Bel Canto REFLink Asynchronous USB Converter features a triple galvanic isolation which what I use to convert from USB to ST Glass Fiber.

REFLink_01.jpg
 
If using the ST interface, that alone gives you 100% isolation. However, using ST opens another can of worms, which is jitter.

IME the best combination is optical interface (Tos or ST) and a DAC with an input memory buffer. The optical connection gives you the isolation from computer gremlins, and the buffer takes care of jitter.
 
Elberoth said:
If using the ST interface, that alone gives you 100% isolation. However, using ST opens another can of worms, which is jitter.

IME the best combination is optical interface (Tos or ST) and a DAC with an input memory buffer. The optical connection gives you the isolation from computer gremlins, and the buffer takes care of jitter.
Click to expand...

Bel Canto also uses Ultra-Low Phase-Noise Clocks in the converter to deal with jitter. The outcome is just jaw dropping pristine play back.
 
Audioseduction said:
Bel Canto also uses Ultra-Low Phase-Noise Clocks in the converter to deal with jitter. The outcome is just jaw dropping pristine play back.
Click to expand...

The Bel Canto converter alon cannot 'deal with jitter', as the final jitter depends both on the SPDIF signal quality AND the intrinistic jitter of the SPDIF input receiver used in the DAC. The later is rather high by today's standards (by 'today's standards' I mean jitter levels achivable in async USB interface for example, with a free running clock), even if you use the best input receiver chip available. The Wolfson 8804 chip for example, which is one of the best, still has an intrinsic period jitter of 50 ps RMS.
 
Elberoth said:
The Bel Canto converter alon cannot 'deal with jitter', as the final jitter depends both on the SPDIF signal quality AND the intrinistic jitter of the SPDIF input receiver used in the DAC. The later is rather high by today's standards (by 'today's standards' I mean jitter levels achivable in async USB interface for example, with a free running clock), even if you use the best input receiver chip available. The Wolfson 8804 chip for example, which is one of the best, still has an intrinsic period jitter of 50 ps RMS.
Click to expand...

According to Bel Canto their DAC performs best via the ST Glass Fiber and they describe their DAC utilizes a jitter-eliminating Master Reference Ultra-Clock circuitry that ensures that jitter from any source is reduced below the audible threshold. They rate their Master Clock jitter of 2 picosecond RMS. Any how I'm extremely satisfied with the DAC setup, I don't expect to change it out for years to come.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top