Digital Connection Preference?

J

jadedavid

New member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
712
Location
west Michigan
Have been discussing the best digital transfer connections with several friends. And with all things audio, opinions vary.
Given the choices of BNC, USB or AES/EBU, I would be interested in hearing about your experiences and what you ended up with between these three choices.
 
SPDIF / BNC / AES/EBU : Unless the DAC reclocks the signal it will be subject to the clock of the source, and jitter caused by interference picked up by the cable.

USB: Many audiophile DAC use asynchronous USB, so the DAC can use its own clock. However, many people use a computer as a USB source which is inherently noisy.
 
Thanks Peter for the response.
Some music servers have the above listed output options and thus the debate occurred over which one is superior.
Is it your opinion that all of them are equal in sound quality and that the determining factor is the DAC? Particularly the asynchronous ability in processing the signal?
As for music servers, I thought that they are just stripped down and specialized computers and as such wouldn't they then also be subject to be inherently noisy?
 
jadedavid said:
Is it your opinion that all of them are equal in sound quality and that the determining factor is the DAC? Particularly the asynchronous ability in processing the signal?
As for music servers, I thought that they are just stripped down and specialized computers and as such wouldn't they then also be subject to be inherently noisy?
Click to expand...

Owing to the differences in clock, jitter caused by cable, and noise that is carried by the USB cable, they are gonna be different - but which works best, I believe, depends on the combination of the equipment and cable and specific implementations.

I may be biased, but I honestly believe a network music player (with integrated DAC inside for analogue output) can be the best for a reasonable budget. Decoded audio signal is carried via I2S (instead of one of the above kinds of cable) inside the player, while being free from mechanical vibrations of CD mechanism and associated complexities. I also believe noise affects Ethernet network music players much less than USB DAC.

While modern audiophile players / DAC or network transports must have some sort of processor inside, they produce much less noise than computers because they only have the essential components required for audio decoding/reproduction. Switching power supplies and HDD used by computer are also generally noisy for audio purpose. Multiple fans in computers are even worse.
 
Initially it sounds like Ethernet is the way to go. Unfortunately neither I nor any of my friends equipment have that port available, hence the choices originally stated. However for the future it will be good to keep in mind. But probably by the time to upgrade comes around there will be some new type of connection available.
 
I believe Ethernet and I2S could be the preferred digital connections of the future.

Ken
 
George - Don't you still have to use a USB cable between your music server and the REFLink converter? Bel Canto is one of very few digital components that still supports ST glass fiber into their DAC.
 
audio.bill said:
George - Don't you still have to use a USB cable between your music server and the REFLink converter? Bel Canto is one of very few digital components that still supports ST glass fiber into their DAC.
Click to expand...

Correct, the REFLink media converter reclocks the signal coming in as will as the DAC with it's femto clock.
 
It depends on your sources... SA-CD through fairly decent RCA to pre-amp. Music server, I have a fairly high end PC which I have heavily modified... same mo-bo as many dedicated music servers use, gold standard power supply, etc... WW USB cable to W4S Recovery, WW cable to DAC with femto clock, XLR to pre-amp... Redbooks, Optical to DAC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top