USB DACS
-- Wed, 08/19/2009 - 10:07
In a recent issue there were several reviews of USB DACS including the music streamer that got rave reviews. The question I have is how in the same issue one mentioned that USB is one of the worst mediums to transfer music on. SO how can a USB DAC be so great when the medium is supposed to be so bad?!
Can anyone clarify for me...
Thanks,
Budd
Easy...computer audio is FAR more complex than old-style system audio. Change one thing in the audio chain and listening results can change.
The MusicStreamer+ is an excellent sounding DAC. And yes, it is USB, and frankly with old computers, older software, and DACs with outdated USB implementations USB will not sound so great - but with current SOTA applications and hardware, USB is the equal of any other digital transfer methodology.
Also generalizing about USB (or any other aspect of computer audio) is a great way to be wrong.
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Thank you for that clarification!
Budd
Steve
I'm curious how well a new MS+ compares with the high priced spreads, particularly lets say 2-3 years ago giant killers and "DAC du jour"?
In my system the MusicStreamer + was comparable with the $599 PS Audio DAC using USB connections.
Of course, YMMV.
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
I have the Cambridge Audio Dacmagic connected via USB from my computer, to which I stream mostly uncompressed WAV files from CD and vinyl, and from the dacmagic via good quality Audioquest analog interconnects to a NAD C372 integrated amp. This is used in a small room for nearfield listening, with some Monitor Audio BR1 speakers. The NAD is a very neutral amp, and the BR1's with their metal tweeters lean a little to the brighter side, yet the sound via the Dacmagic is fantastic. It has in fact removed some zing from the high frequencies and really filled out the midrange. Bass is very good also and not in short supply. I get as much enjoyment from this system as I do from my main system which costs several thousand more.
I don't understand the reviewers who have commented so negatively on the quality of USB to transport audio. I have a very discerning ear, and I have heard nothing but good things from my setup. Good width, depth, timbre, and so on. I've never felt that the USB technology lets me down in any way.
Maybe with a system that is more revealing than mine you might find some shortcomings, but the convenience combined with the quality for me outweigh any minor flaws I might hear. Which by the way I have yet to hear.
I don't know how the DACmagic compares to the other DAC's, but I also have the Cambridge Audio 840C which has better sounding dac's than the dacmagic. Still, the dacmagic for me in it's setup is just an enjoyable listen as compared to using the dac in the 840C to listen to WAV files from a multimedia hard drive fed via good quality RCA digital cable.
I would also like to know how the Dac Magic compares to other sub-$1,000 DACs. I would appreciate a more comprehensive review of such DACs than the article by Steven Stone in the August, 2009 issue of TAS provided. There's alot of gear out there and I rely in part on TAS to help me sort it out. So far, there has been little help in this segment of equipment.
I am currently running a music streamer dac with my windows vista laptop connected to Krell 400xi integrated to Krell Resolution 2 speakers
cd player is Krell SACD Standard Version 2
Would I expect a SIGNIFICANT improvement upgrading to Music Streamer+ or would be the way to go a different dac
say the new Ayre just reviewed in Stereophile? I would be willing to spend the extra money if worth it
Thanks
I just re-read the August 2009, The State of USB Audio. Since the author made such sweeping generalizations of the inadequate nature of USB's, I found it quite surprising how he concluded that from his comparison between S/DPIF from two CD players and USB from three computers. He might have learned a lot more by comparing the desktop's S/PDIF and USB outputs. If he would have also found significant differences between those two outputs, then he might have had a leg to stand on. But as one of the comments above indicated, the quality of USB output may simply vary from computer to computer, and it is very likely that the three computers he used were just not up to the USB task. If the desktop S/PDIF output sounded better than the same computer's USB, one might be closer to a correct conclusion that even a particular computer can have great S/PDIF and poor USB---it just depends how each output is engineered even in the same computer. I have a three-year-old Dell XPS laptop that has S/PDIF outout, and many computers at the time the article was written had that and HDMI, so not only was the approach used to generalize on USB flawed, it was significantly out of date!
Post new comment