 
|
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 |
74.192.32.214
In Reply to: RE: Issue is System Architecture, not FW vs. USB posted by Tony Lauck on June 28, 2011 at 14:28:43
Tony, I am not one who is capable of evaluating what you say, but Daniel Weiss only uses FW as do others for a reason.
I just last night got the USB keyboard and mouse replaced with a bluetooth system, and heard a small improvement, which I again replicated today when I had to use the USB keyboard again.
Follow Ups:
The reason my have been valid for the equipment that Daniel Weiss compared, but that was probably several generations ago. There were certainly some serious problems with USB 1.0.
If the interconnect (Firewire or USB) makes a difference in the sound of a DAC this indicates an interaction between the interconnect and the DAC, specifically input circuitry that is not providing adequate rejection. As I recall, Daniel Weiss has supported the idea that well designed DACs aren't sensitive to these factors. This seems contradictory to the statement he made that you referenced, assuming that he believes his DACs are well designed. Of course, sometimes manufacturers make statements that are deliberately misleading for commercial reasons. I have no idea if this is the case here.
I have no problem with people reporting what they hear. However, when they go on to generalize to an entire technology I don't pay much attention to these generalizations unless they come with some indication of a deep understanding of the technology or a wide range of experience with many implementations. These kind of generalizations are how "audiophile myths" get propagated. I would go no farther than to say that some Firewire implementations are better than some USB implementations.
BTW, I have not been a fan of USB. Indeed when I first learned of the proposal that Intel was pushing I thought it was a bad idea. Since those ancient days USB has improved and my initial concerns have been addressed. Like most computer technology both USB and Firewire have been over hyped.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
good post.
> However, when they go on to generalize to an entire technology I don't
> pay much attention to these generalizations unless they come with some
> indication of a deep understanding of the technology or a wide range
> of experience with many implementations.
Amen!
Bill
Although my computer has a FireWire port I've never used it. However USB in it's current state of development is fabulous compared to where we were. To the user it is usually plug and play, these are halcyon days!
I've got perfectly good perherials that I can't use because the SCSI card won't fit in the bus sockets. And it's been quite a while since I've had to figure out what interrupts to use!
I used to design stuff that interfaced via RS-232 or keyboard wedge and in a word both sucked. Neither interface was designed for general usage yet they were the only ones typically available. From a manufacturer's viewpoint there is nothing worse than fleeting interfaces and despite a rocky start USB has been pleasingly long-lived with good support for legacy products.
Obviously the technical problems for audio use are solveable as they largely have been and it could get even easier with a little driver standardization and specialized silicon. For one thing with the higher speed versions it's becoming practical to do large dumps almost instantly allowing the play process to occur completely within the peripheral.
Your belief that adequate isolation should occur at the interface is spot on. There are already some damn good implementations and they wouldn't cost much in volume. It seems inevitable to me that stereos will ultimately cease to exist physically except for speakers as rendering nodes on an RF (or optical) network. At that point, galvanic isolation will be intrinsic.
Rick
> It seems inevitable to me that stereos will ultimately cease to exist
> physically except for speakers as rendering nodes on an RF
> (or optical) network.
The AVI ADM 9.1 speakers that Phelonious Ponk uses are pretty far along that road. The DAC, preamp, active crossovers and amps are integrated with speakers. And the speakers come with a remote control. The digital inputs are toslink so isolation from the aduio source is a given.
http://www.avihifi.co.uk/adm9.html
---
The Audioengine A5s I use are powered and have two analog inputs and a stereo volume control. Very handy for a near field office situation.
> There are already some damn good implementations and they wouldn't
> cost much in volume.
Lots of < $ 500 DACs coming out now.
Bill
It's been quite a while since I've had to figure out what interrupts to use!
Remember EISA? That was even more fun than SCSI. The latter was, of course, typically much better on the Mac than the PC. If you had a pocket full of terminating resistors and a prayer book, you could get almost anything to run. Eventually.
Odd things, computers. Normally, if something separates the men from the boys, it's the men wot can do it . . .
I thought it was the other-way 'round, if your computer has you pinned to the mat, call for a kid. Maybe that doesn't hold for HW?
Rick
'These kind of generalizations are how "audiophile myths" get propagated. '
Like usb audio has lower jitter and is the modern solution to audio streaming.
Like 14 bit dacs playing red book with cMP2 provides the definitive answer to good PC auio.
Like 16G Macs sound better than 8G ones.
The list goes on.
True audiophiles look for high quality replay systems regardless of setup.
Like usb audio has lower jitter and is the modern solution to audio streaming.A meaningless claim that no-one has ever made. OTOH, competent engineers have designed fine-sounding audio products using USB and got them out the door . Which is a damn sight more than you've ever done.
Like 14 bit dacs playing red book with cMP2 provides the definitive answer to good PC auio.
As you well know, no-one has ever made that claim - it verges on mendacious to keep repeating it here. In any case, you don't know what cMP2 sounds like. By your own admission, you couldn't get cPlay to run properly.
Like 16G Macs sound better than 8G ones.
How would you know? AFAIK, you don't own a Mac and you've never compared the two setups. There are still some field of expertise you have yet to conquer.
The list goes on.
And so, sadly, do you. About things you know little or nothing about.
True audiophiles look for high quality replay systems regardless of setup.
While others sound off on all sorts of topics they know little about. I'm increasingly convinced that perhaps the biggest audio myth on this list is that you are some sort of expert. The reality is that you're the most prone of all of us to making silly generalisations.
"Malice in Wonderland"? Well said. (Wish I'd thought of it. But, as the famous quip had it, "Never mind, you will".)
Edits: 07/02/11 07/02/11 07/02/11
nt
This part of the reason I have never been able to compare FW with USB. Again everything I say is based on what I hear. I am told Weiss relies on a bit by bit comparison. I think this all applies to USB2, but certainly not USB3.
You have a wonderful DAC Norm. But it's really tough to compare Firewire to USB on the same dac as a great deal of effort is spent on a particular interface by the manufacturer. There is really no benefit for both interfaces on the same DAC. There are excellent firewire DACS and excellent USB DACs. The total design has to be looked at, not just the interface.
Post a Followup:
| 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 ]
