Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) › Optical TOSLINK vs. USB: Which connection is better to connect a DAC?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Optical TOSLINK vs. USB: Which connection is better to connect a DAC? - Page 7

post #91 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by 00940 View Post

We're OT since a long time already and the OP is long gone.

 

You mean the website where they discuss the merits of respective usb cables ? rolleyes.gif

 

It was a jest, because 16 to 24bits saves the day as far as high-resolution formats and THD+N are concerned. However, it is also quite serious. Many professionals, including Dan Lawry (in here: http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf ), have pointed out that 192khz is completly useless. 24bits/96khz is already overkill. The DAC IC don't care if they receive a file sampled "natively" at 192khz or upsampled. In both cases, they will add more distortion of their own than if they had received files sampled at 96 or 44.1 khz, just have a look at the datasheets.

 

Bogus data is perfectly fine, when the differences in the analog waveform end up under -140db (Benchmark measured distortion due to their use of an ASRC at -135db, http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t75505.html ).


I have some 24bit 192kHz music I downloaded from HD Tracks.  I also have music server software on my laptop that has drivers for 24/192 along with a digital output.  The music played 24/192 is much better sounding by many orders of magnitude with more detail than anything else I have in my library.  The music recording business is not my business or area of expertise, however I do have an experience of its results.  And I am shifting my entire music playback system architecture to feed my DAC from a music server which I intend to load with 24/192 music because of superior results.  I don't understand the metrics you are using, but (not to be sniping at you, please don't take it that way) I don't listen to metrics, I listen to music and I will move toward what sounds best and give me the most enjoyment.

 

What is your experience with higher resolution music?  Have you experienced it to be just about the same as "regular" music?
 

 

post #92 of 105

I've been exposed to some. When I was listening to HD music, it was as a rule better than usual... because the recordings had been remastered with greater attention. This by itself might be a very good reason to get into high-rez formats.

 

Keep in mind that it's very hard to fully isolate those 4 variables:

 

- quality of the recording/mastering

- 16 vs 24bits

- 44.1khz vs 96khz or 192khz

- quality of the sound system

 

However, it is a mathematical certainty that, by itself, 192khz cannot sound better than 96khz.

 

 

edit: grammar


Edited by 00940 - 3/10/11 at 2:26pm
post #93 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by 00940 View Post

I've been exposed to some. When I had it was as a rule better than usual... because the recordings had been remastered with greater attention. This by itself might be a very good reason to get into high-rez formats.

 

Keep in mind that it's very hard to fully isolate those 4 variables:

 

- quality of the recording/mastering

- 16 vs 24bits

- 44.1khz vs 96khz or 192khz

- quality of the sound system

 

However, it is a mathematical certainty that, by itself, 192khz cannot sound better than 96khz.


Totally get your bullet points.  Can you elaborate a bit, or possibly point me to a link that fleshes out the thought that from a mathematical perspective 192 cannot sound better than 96?  It would help me understand the issue better.  Thanks.
 

 

post #94 of 105

If I am not completely wrong it has sth to do with the Nyquist theorem and in summary there are no more useful information included in a 192 kHz sample as in a 96 kHz sample.

post #95 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by monoethylene View Post

If I am not completely wrong it has sth to do with the Nyquist theorem and in summary there are no more useful information included in a 192 kHz sample as in a 96 kHz sample.


Can you help me understand in simple terms how doubling sample size does not provide any more useful information?  If that were the case, why are labels recording at 192?
 

 

post #96 of 105

192kHz is like 4K for video, all it does is capture more noise...and it also forces most DAC chips to lower their internal oversampling rate(check the last two pages): http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf

 

I've got a DVD-A w/ 24/96 and 24/192(Grover Washington Jr), good luck DBT'ing them.

 

That friend of mine who rips SACD's digitally said that SACD is more less capped at 40kHz: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=sacd+40khz&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

 

"SACD format plays 20hz to 40khz, and has like and extra 30db of dynamic range"


Edited by leeperry - 3/10/11 at 2:13pm
post #97 of 105

When I am going back to Nyquist, this theorem says that an audio wave has to be sampled with twice the maximum frequency to include all information to reconstruct this wave in a "economical" way. 44.1 kHz is the CD standard and the double of 22 kHz (normally the human limit of hearing). The same for DVD with 48 kHz as twice of 24 kHz (I dont know exactly why there is 48 kHz chosen. Maybe it has sth to do with the format itself?? ). So, 96 kHz is already a two time oversampling of the 48 kHz and in terms of Nyquist useless because there are no more significant information. 192 kHz is four time 48 kHz and in this meaning even more useless, because there are also no more new information. I, for myself compare it with a periodic sine wave and after 2*pi the same sine wave starts again.. 

 

A time ago I have read the paper of Lavry. There it is also explained. Concerning your question of 192 kHz samplings my personal opinion is to get more consumers with not so much background knowledge. But this is my personal opinion and I am not an expert in digital signal processing. I only want to give myself logical answers and of course I want to understand it :)

 

ou, I see that I am very slow in writing (((


Edited by monoethylene - 3/10/11 at 2:32pm
post #98 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post

192kHz is like 4K for video, all it does is capture more noise...and it also forces most DAC chips to lower their internal oversampling rate(check the last two pages): http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf

 

I've got a DVD-A w/ 24/96 and 24/192(Grover Washington Jr), good luck DBT'ing them.

 

That friend of mine who rips SACD's digitally said that SACD is more less capped at 40kHz: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=sacd+40khz&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

 

"SACD format plays 20hz to 40khz, and has like and extra 30db of dynamic range"



 



Quote:
Originally Posted by monoethylene View Post

When I am going back to Nyquist, this theorem says that an audio wave has to be sampled with twice the maximum frequency to include all information to reconstruct this wave in a "economical" way. 44.1 kHz is the CD standard and the double of 22 kHz (normally the human limit of hearing). The same for DVD with 48 kHz as twice of 24 kHz (I dont know exactly why there is 48 kHz chosen. Maybe it has sth to do with the format itself?? ). So, 96 kHz is already a two time oversampling of the 48 kHz and in terms of Nyquist useless because there are no more significant information. 192 kHz is four time 48 kHz and in this meaning even more useless, because there are also no more new information. I, for myself compare it with a periodic sine wave and after 2*pi the same sine wave starts again.. 

 

A time ago I have read the paper of Lavry. There it is also explained. Concerning your question of 192 kHz samplings my personal opinion is to get more consumers with not so much background knowledge. But this is my personal opinion and I am not an expert in digital signal processing. I only want to give myself logical answers and of course I want to understand it :)

 

ou, I see that I am very slow in writing (((



Thanks for the responses, this is very interesting to me as I have no technical background in this area.  Personally, I like to eliminate superstition from my understanding wherever possible, and it seems like 192 is better may be superstitious thinking.

 

post #99 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post

Glass toslink very much matters if you use cheap gear in realtime, it's been thoroughly discussed in this thread: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/459752/which-is-the-best-optical-cable-under-300/135#post_6599838

 

"I swapped out the 1M Monster cable with the 1M Dayton GOC-3 Glass Toslink cable and viola!

The cymbal smashes became three dimensional with a better sense of space, they were better located in the sound stage and no longer too bright and came to life. The bass surprisingly tightened up even further with better definition."


eek.gif I can't believe someone actually quoted the junk that I write. smile.gif

 


Edited by MacedonianHero - 3/10/11 at 6:06pm
post #100 of 105

Well, when you hear stuff on your own you're delusional and a poor victim of teh 3vil placebo...when you're two or more, you start to sound less "out there".

 

What are your thoughts on coax/toslink/USB after all this time?

post #101 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post

Well, when you hear stuff on your own you're delusional and a poor victim of teh 3vil placebo...when you're two or more, you start to sound less "out there".

 

What are your thoughts on coax/toslink/USB after all this time?


LoL...then call me dilusional. tongue.gif

 

COAX > TOSLINK GLASS > TOSLINK PLASTIC

 

USB is hard to place in there as I find it is so DAC dependent. With my Cary Xciter it is actually about equal to toslink (with a cheapo Monster plastic cable), but with my old PS Audio DLIII, USB was the worst by a good margin.

 

At least that's how I hears it. smile.gif
 

 

post #102 of 105

Just thought I would check in on the 192kHz thing, as I have read from various sources that agree with the above posts that it is useless for listening at that bandwidth and is a gimmick in that respect. But it is evidently very useful for recording engineers, as it gives them more headroom for non-destructive edits when mixing multiple audio tracks together and what not. So for professional recording/mixing/mastering applications in the digital domain it is very useful, but that is the only place IIRC. Sorry I don't have time to offer a more detailed technical explanation, or cite a source for this ATM, but it's not a big secret or anything in professional audio circles. For audiophile listening however, 192kHz is totally unnecessary as pointed out above.

post #103 of 105
Quote:

Hi Mike

 

"Thanks for the responses, this is very interesting to me as I have no technical background in this area.  Personally, I like to eliminate superstition from my understanding wherever possible, and it seems like 192 is better may be superstitious thinking."


 

If you are interested in this, maybe this will help:

 

http://www.dspguide.com/pdfbook.htm

 

It is a little bit more as only Nyquist and so on but I like it :)
 

 

post #104 of 105

from dspguides.com :

 

 

Quote:
Consider an analog signal composed of frequencies between DC and 3 kHz. To properly digitize this signal it must be sampled at 6,000 samples/sec (6 kHz) or higher.

 

So we might say, we can digitize an analog signal with a double sampling frequency. Mathematically this would give : For a given analog signal AS of frequency F, its "lossless" digital signal DS can be fully constructed with a sampling rate N in [2*F : +infinity[. So yes, 2*F is enough but this is in an ideal physical world, but electronic components are not theoritically perfect.

 

 

 

Quote:

The key point to remember is that a digital signal cannot contain frequencies above one-half the sampling rate (i.e., the Nyquist frequency/rate).

 

 

Quote:
The analog filter used to convert the zeroth-order hold signal, (c), into the reconstructed signal, (f), needs to do two things: (1) remove all frequencies above one-half of the sampling rate, and (2) boost the frequencies by the reciprocal of the zeroth-order hold's effect, i.e., 1/sinc(x). This amounts to an amplification of about 36% at one-half of the sampling frequency. Figure (e) shows the ideal frequency response of this analog filter.

 

Several sampling techniques exists. Shanon and Nyquist set the basis and formalized the theory. But today, in practice, more complex problematics appears due to some component imprecision. I think CD and SACD are technologically well advanced and the main problem still the source, how to record ! Our media are under-exploited. 

 

This is just my opinion. I can only feel the difference between a Master 24b/192KHz plugged to a cambridge DAC (Magic Plus) when its plugged to a real amplifier. But from the headphone (which still a hifi ones), just on classical tracks.

 

Concerning USB or Toslink, it depends on the soft, that's true, listening the same hi quality track under the same reader but on two different computer (VAIO and MacBook Pro) : USB didn't change anything but toslink did not sounds that good on the older Macbook pro. 

post #105 of 105

usb 3.1 vs thunderbolt vs metal halide bridge ;                 ~~  just head phone jack out for audio  to dac  ???

 

http://www.audiophilleo.com/audiophilleo2.aspx

  can one   elaborate   on how best to connect a dac to a system and total 0f gadgets to get best sound out ";

http://www.audiophilleo.com/purepower.aspx

 

 

http://www.empiricalaudio.com/products/off-ramp-converter

 

 

 

 

 

~~MCRU linear power supply

~ pwx power supply ?


Edited by starstern - 12/30/13 at 9:25pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) › Optical TOSLINK vs. USB: Which connection is better to connect a DAC?