Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › All the talk about asynchronous usb, but optical sounds more analog.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

All the talk about asynchronous usb, but optical sounds more analog.

post #1 of 13
8/21/11 at 9:31am
Thread Starter 

 

I spent a few hours listening, going back and forth between my Musical Fidelity V-Link with Coaxial out to Apogee Mini-DAC (battery powered) and Mac Mini optical output to the same DAC. Result was optical sounded closest to the original CD playing on Sony SCD-XA5400es player. I mean our goal in building a music server was to get as close to the original as possible right? So much chat about asynchronous usb when optical sounds better? I urge you to do the same test.

My System:
- 2010 Mac Mini with SSD and 6gb RAM
- Lacie Firewire HD (bus powered)
- AIFF audio files ripped in iTunes in 16/44.1
- Monster Cable M1000 optical and coaxial cable
- Musical Fidelity V-Link
- Monster Cable USB cable
- Apogee Mini-DAC
- McIntosh C2200 preamp
- McIntosh Mc2000 tube power amp
- JM Lab Mezzo Utopia speakers

Audio Midi set to 16/44.1 for optical output & 24/44.1 with V-Link

6066095456_dba579b19e_z.jpg

5543006133_b51432ac27_z.jpg

 


Edited by DjAmTraX - 8/21/11 at 9:43am
Reply
post #2 of 13
8/21/11 at 10:07am

Nice Mc there.. tongue_smile.gif

Reply
post #3 of 13
8/21/11 at 11:00am
  1. Not every PC and DAC supports optical
  2. How do you know your CD player sounds exactly like the "original"?
  3. If one sounds "analog" the other sounds "digital". What is a "digital" sound? What is an "analog" sound?
  4. Subjective impressions won't prove either optical or USB is better or closer to the original
Reply
post #4 of 13
8/21/11 at 2:02pm
Thread Starter 

I consider the Sony SCD-XA5400es is good reference CD player.  I know you mileage may very, but I urge everyone to try it.

Reply
post #5 of 13
8/21/11 at 6:52pm

Eh, I thought optical was considered better? USB is just more prevalent. Most of the talk I hear about USB DACs is everything they have to do to get rid of its inherent issues.

Reply
post #6 of 13
8/21/11 at 7:39pm

I urge you to devote more than just a few hours to listening and comparing. When I first began listening to the Halide Bridge, the sound was, for me, utterly unlistenable, and quite odd. It took about 2 weeks, again for me and my ears, to become acclimated to the new sound.

 

The V-Link compares favorably in reviews with the Halide Bridge, excluding certain comments about digital coax.

 

I normally listen to the older EAD DSP7000 mkIII dac.

Reply
post #7 of 13
8/22/11 at 1:37pm
Optical is better dude.
Usb is just convenient, and just a way to sell new gear.
Reply
post #8 of 13
8/22/11 at 1:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonci View Post

Optical is better dude.
Usb is just convenient, and just a way to sell new gear.


 

There is an async optical transport for computer?

Reply
post #9 of 13
8/22/11 at 4:32pm

cant help but agree here....I never really trusted USB, synch or asynch. I use Ethernet. I can sleep at night knowing I have bit perfect transfer etc. I even played with different ratings of ethernet cable - no difference. USB is IMO a convenience and nothing more. More trouble than its worth.

Reply
post #10 of 13
8/22/11 at 5:13pm

ethernet? I'm guessing to a transport? At some point those bits need to be converted to a digital signal that an external dac can interface with... what is your setup?

 

i think optical or usb are dependent in implementation, not all usb asynchronous interfaces are the same! Maybe the V-link is just ****


Edited by muad - 8/22/11 at 5:23pm
Reply
post #11 of 13
8/23/11 at 3:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by muad View Post

ethernet? I'm guessing to a transport? At some point those bits need to be converted to a digital signal that an external dac can interface with... what is your setup?

 

i think optical or usb are dependent in implementation, not all usb asynchronous interfaces are the same! Maybe the V-link is just ****


sorry - I should put my rig in my signature or something...Using the squeezbox server on laptop, files ripped to hard-drive in 24/96 using foobar with Sox SRC. Transporter (Logitec) is the DAC. It receives PCM over Ethernet (25 ft. cable). Squeezebox is one of the few to use Ethernet protocol to transfer the bits from "server" (laptop) to DAC. In other words, the laptop is the transport, Ethernet is what would be USB or S/PDIF to get the bits to the DAC.

 

Reply
post #12 of 13
8/23/11 at 5:01pm

 

Quote:

 Squeezebox is one of the few to use Ethernet protocol to transfer the bits from "server" (laptop) to DAC

Not really, all UPnP/DLNA compliant devices use the network to do streaming AV

There are many of them

 

 

Reply
post #13 of 13
8/23/11 at 5:09pm

and the decoding is occurring after the ethernet adapter... as in it's not a digital transport. The files are decoded by the squeezebox while sent across the network. USB and optical are decoded by the pc and the raw bits are sent to the dac across usb/optical out. With a squeezebox the mp3's or flacs or whatever are decoded and sent to the dac all internally. Maybe it has very little jitter and maybe not.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › All the talk about asynchronous usb, but optical sounds more analog.