 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
73.45.7.229
Is there one inherently superior connection (optical, coaxial, USB or HDMI) between a streamer and DAC?
Edits: 04/06/25Follow Ups:
For streaming, I prefer using a reclocking device and optical connection between reclocker and DAC. (Some don't like optical, you should try different formats and find the one you prefer. KabelDirekt makes an inexpensive optical cable that I believe matches the performance of the high-end products.)
Although not technically a reclocker, some digital signal switches do a really nice job (see link), the linked unit uses optical in and out. (I use this device personally.)
To the best of my knowledge Spdif/coax, AES/EBU and Hdmi can only handle PCM files like WAV and Flac, and only up to a certain limit. I think the limit sampling rate is 24bit/192khz for Spdif/coax and AES/EBU.
If you want to be able to play native DSD files, PCM files converted to DSD (SACD) or PCM files in higher resolution than 24/192 you have to use USB or i2s. But your streamer and DAC must also be able to handle these higher resolutions anyway.
Edits: 04/07/25
USB is best today but sometimes has performance issues with older or less expensive gear like the Fosi integrated amp/DAC used in the garage system. S/PDIF has greater backwards compatibility.
x
USB is async transfer. The clock is generated in the DAC. It usually has a higher resolution. It decomposes each instrument better.
However coax SPDIF has a better music coherence and timing smartness.
Modern DACs use asynchronous sample rate conversion making them protocol agnostic.
If you look here
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/smsl-m500-mkii-review-dac-hp-amp.29468/
you will notice that there are no differences between coax, Toslink and USB.
All have a noise level way below what is audible.
The Well Tempered Computer
"Modern DACs use asynchronous sample rate conversion making them protocol agnostic."
I think you mean "asynchronous mode"...... Which make DACs compatible with digital signal aberrations...... (Asynchronous sample rate conversion is fortunately a thing of the past. It IMO sounds awful.)
USB is technically superior but you'll hear arguments about that mostly from really really old guys ;-)
Some streamers support legacy Optical and Coaxial output but I would say that most folks in the past 10 + years have gone with USB as the preferred interface.
HDMI on DACs and some Integrated Amps exist for two purposes. 1) For easy hookup to TV's for superior sound. The HDMI connection usually goes to the HDMI eARC port on the TV. 2) Non-standardized HDMI connectors on DACs are used for I2S which some say is superior but I'm not convinced.
I2S was never meant for outboard connections. It's fragile signal is meant for internal chip to chip signals over short distances.
"I2S, or Inter-IC Sound, is a serial communication protocol used for transmitting digital audio data between integrated circuits, specifically designed for audio applications like connecting microcontrollers to audio codecs or digital signal processors."
Best sound from computer: add capacitors to processor supply and feed sound from hdmi/displayport through hdmi-i2s box to dac's i2s input.
Unfortunately that modern hdmi-arc thing has killed everithing. Windows does not show hdmi sound output anymore, says it does not exist.
Does any linux still show hdmi sound output? On windows it was shown in device manager.
This "really old guy" does not agree on the innate superiority of USB. Think of all the decrapifiers that have been invented to clean up USB signals. And more than in the other systems, I think, the quality of the cable matters more for USB than for the others leading to ultra expensive ones. There are too many great performing and sometimes very expensive streamers putting out spdif, AES/EBU and even I2S to write them off.
That I2S was never meant for outboard connections is irrelevant. Remember, USB was "meant" to run printers! There are too many folks who report that I2S is the very best to ignore it. And as long as the cable is kept under 1 meter, the cable is not an issue.
Fact is that I2S is the simplest system, and simple is often good. Virtually every streamer uses an RPi or something equivalent and I2S appears directly at its GPIO. I2S thus requires no conversion before going to the DAC. Going to spdif is a conversion, combining the digital signal and clock (which are separate in I2S) on the same wire and consequently limiting the bandwidth. That's why spdif cannot carry native DSD or higher data WAV files. And outputting USB is even more of a conversion.
As spdif and I2S use synchronous communications, the use of high performing (though sometimes very expensive) clocks within the streamer can raise the performance of the system to beyond what USB can deliver.
All that being said, there are too many good brains behind all of these and great quality has been reported from all of them, USB included.
Well, I wonder which digital interconnects were originally designed to carry audio, rather than video or digital computer digits.
As far as I know, the one interconnect that meets this is AES/EBU aka AES3. This is the protocol used extensively in the professional audio industry and is always my first choice. Cable runs can be very long without signal deterioration and the spec of the cable means that it needn't be crazy priced.
USB belongs in PCs and coax and optical belong in run-of-the mill audio kit
"USB belongs in PCs and coax and optical belong in run-of-the mill audio kit"A PC is just a Personal Computer. Doesn't a streamer have an even more personal computer within ;-)
I've never tried AES/EBU but then again I don't think my consumer DACs ever supported it.
Edits: 04/07/25
AES is found more on costly kit but I use it between my server and my amp (NAD M50.2 to M33), although the former is likely to be sold soon.
I think of AES as comparable with XLR balanced for analogue interconnects - better, but found in more costly kit with the advantages of longer runs using relatively low-cost wire that still retains the quality one needs, and free of interference, etc
DSD and sample rates > 192 kHz.
Recurring theme is you prefer to limit choices with both hardware and software.
I don't set out to limit my hardware choices, nor software ones. Please give examples.
My audio goal is simply to achieve the best sound quality possible within the budget I'm prepared to invest in this hobby. In order to achieve this, I certainly wouldn't want vinyl playback or associated media, and I wouldn't want a pile of boxes if one would do the job at much lower cost. I've grown out of DIY although I used to be active in this area. I want high quality reliable kit that can deliver excellent sound without fuss.
Do you think I could get better sound with different kit? How would you have spent the sort of money I have with my NAD33 all-in-one and Avantgarde Duo XD speakers, plus Qobuz subscription? That's really all I need apart from a pair of speaker cables. Spreading any budget over lots of components must surely mean that each is compromised.
I don't set out to limit my hardware choices, nor software ones. Please give examples.I'm happy to repeat what I just posted. AES does not support DSD nor sample rates above 192 khz. USB does. Apparently, you don't understand what that means.
Your passion for all-in-ones decidedly limits hardware choices. Why did you purchase a redundant power amp? Fine for a $250 component, but not for ones costing thousands.
Choose as you will.
BTW, the word "kit" has a different connotation this side of the pond. It refers to purchasing a selected collection of parts for assembly. I built two Dynakits in the 70s when I was a teen. One for a FM-5 Tuner and the other for a PAT-5 preamp. Involves lots of effort. If memory serves, Feanor also built some different Dynaco kits.
Edits: 04/08/25
We've veering from the subject, but your comment about all-in-ones needs questioning.
Yes of course, you can't select a particular DAC for example, because you leave the brand to match the comparative quality of all parts to work as far a possible perfectly together. The obvious advantages is that there are no interconnects involved (the interconnect that improves the sound has yet and never will be invented whatever its cost), one buys a single case (often more costly than the innards), there's no need for multiple power supplies and the number of sockets and other parts is minimised. The result - a device costing FAR LESS than the equivalent multi-box set up. Also, a multi-box system always has a weak link that one is looking to upgrade - leading to a fresh weak link. An all-in-one, though more costly to replace has no weak link as such.
By redundant amplifier, are you referring to the Atma-Sphere monos? Yes, they are an option at present but were bought in expectation of a NAD M66 to replace the M33. The former has no power amp. However, as I've discovered and mentioned elsewhere on other forums, I'm becoming less enamoured with the M66, largely as it seems unsuitable for those with genuinely full-range main speakers and who want to add subs to minimise room effects on the main speakers. I'll elaborate if you wish.
Yes, "kit" mean a box of bits or a collection of equipment that needs assembly as for example a pile of separates. Instead of using wire and solder, the latter requires just interconnects. Yes, a quirk of the language, but really much the same!
I too used to build kits, but from Heathkit. FM-4 tuner, USC-1 preamp, MA-12 power amps and a tape preamp the code of which I've forgotten. Also loudspeakers from scratch, but following Gilbert Briggs' (of Wharfedale) designs as published in his books. First a concrete column design, then an ambitious home-built Wharfedale Airedale 6-sised system. All good fun, educational and rewarding when they work out OK!
We all know what you meant by 'kit' in the context of your writing. The nitpick on this unrelated point is, well pointless.
Technical limitations don't often equate to sonic limitations. Although the USB interface CAN do DSD and PCM greater than 192-kHz who cares? Personally I never listen in DSD or PCM that high except when tinkering around rather than enjoying the music.
Some people have perfect rooms, perfect ratios, perfect cables, perfect amps, perfect preamps, perfect DACs, perfect streamers, etc. And they KNOW what a perfect system should be. How can anyone compete with that?
- As you say ......
I listen to music streamed from Qobuz, both CD and HQ and from my ripped CD library on FLAC. Also several radio stations and Radio Paradise. Why should I need anything more than AES/EBU is capable of? And because AES does the transfer better than other protocols, I choose it in preference over coax and optical. I have no use for USD apart from my Library, now stored on a USB SSD connected directly to my streamer
The nitpick on this unrelated point is, well pointless.
understands British-speak. Just a clarification for those who don't.
but your comment about all-in-ones needs questioning.
We do, however, agree that all-in-ones offer two real advantages:
1. Cheap
2. Compact
Which are important considerations for the garage system. I'm happy using a $230 Chi-Fi Fosi integrated/DAC fed by an RPi3 streamer.
I am not, however, faced with either compromise in the main system. My budget supports better and space is a non-issue in that 25'x16' room.
The obvious advantages is that there are no interconnects involved...
I find that low EDC cabling works well as my components were designed for use with balanced connections.
there's no need for multiple power supplies
The LAST THING I would ever want to do is locate high energy 500 joule power supplies within inches of a high gain phono preamp. Much less cheap, high RFI switch mode units. My DAC alone has separate power supplies for the digital and analog sections. Isolation is most certainly a good thing.
Also, a multi-box system always has a weak link that one is looking to upgrade - leading to a fresh weak link.
This makes no sense at all as the situation exists for every component over time. The key difference, however, is how much needs to be replaced in order to benefit.
I continue to use power amps purchased in 2001. No need to replace them as I've upgraded the preamp and digital front end components.
I continue to use a preamp purchased in 2014. No need to replace it as I've upgraded the digital front end components.
I continue to use a DAC purchased (used) in 2016. No need to replace the streamer.
Over the past dozen years, streamers have indeed changed quite a bit. I've enjoyed taking advantage of multiple higher performance levels without have to throw the baby out with the bath water! Which you have done four times since then!
for those with genuinely full-range main speakers and who want to add subs to minimise room effects
Lucky lad that I am, my dedicated room has nearly Golden Ratios. With careful speaker and bass trap placement, I get remarkably flat measured in-room response to 25 hz. Plot available in gallery. Subs unnecessary. They are, however, implemented in the HT with the smaller stats where I've likewise enjoyed the benefits of separates. I'm on my third processor given the changes in HDMI and introduction of ATMOS while continuing to use the same power amp purchased in 2011.
Not everyone shares the compromises you face. To each his own guvnor. :)
If I invested in the piles of boxes you have in the photos and that includes vinyl, I'd have little left for the main event - the loudspeakers.
My priority is ultimate excitement-factor when listening to music and that means exceptional speakers. I have zero interest in cluttering up my room (not a dedicated listening room) with audio junk. My audio junk consists of a single box, plus a pair of full-range speakers - no subs (the ones I have aren't connected and will be sold), no shelves sagging under the wight of 1000s of albums and CDs - it's all in the cloud for a small subscription and much of it at better quality.
My garage is used to house my car when not in use, and my tools and other non-audio junk that I wouldn't want in the house, but perhaps this word has also lost its true meaning after crossing the Pond! ;-)
My priority is ultimate excitement-factor when listening to music and that means exceptional speakers.Agree entirely. More than half of system investment.
I try to minimize clutter in the family room where the HT lives. Processor and Roku live on floating shelf while power amp and BR player are found in hidden closet behind pictures near right speaker. Cables go through floor and back wall. Power outlet for stats on floor behind each. Surrounds mounted on wall and kitchen column with cables similarly hidden.
My digital library of audio and video alike lives in a toaster sized NAS.
My garage is used to house my car when not in use, and my tools and other non-audio junk that I wouldn't want in the house,
Same here. I enjoy listening to music while there. :)
Edits: 04/09/25 04/09/25
"More than half of system investment."
Mine is more like 70% and that is appropriate in these days of tiny circuit boards and chips that actually cost far less than the cases they are installed into - or even the cables needed to connect these boxes.
As long as you are happy with your collection of single-use boxes and snake-pit of cables, and I am happy with my single box (and hence very costly speakers), we should both be very content.
with the musical transparency of the main system. Better always exists (say U990s driven by Siegfried IIs ) but it satisfies my listening priorities.
And enjoy having met Dr. West and Luke Manley to discuss the perspectives behind the wonderful handbuilt products I've enjoyed for twenty years. :)
What about Ethernet? The Roon Nucleus streamer connects to the KEF LS60 and Ayre QX-5/20 DAC via Ethernet. Am I missing something?
Yours is a "streaming DAC" so cabling between those otherwise separate parts is internal.
Similarly, my media server is connected to Sonore endpoint via ethernet but requires short USB cable to connect to DAC.
My DAC supports AES input but the ultraRendu's output is strictly USB. Cable run is but a foot. :)
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
