[madwolfa]

Everything matters, but the degree of importance (of certain components) is often much exaggerated. 

 

[Allanmarcus]

seems to make sense. If the digital signal is converted to analog differently depending on interface, then there could be an audible difference. If all the interfaces simply feed the digital signal to the same analog converter, it seems the only difference would be timing (jitter). 

 

[gregorio]

  [1] All digital transports sound different.
[2] There's no way to transfer 0's and 1's without first turning them into an analog signal.
[3] The cables do matter ... and so does the signal being fed into them, aka your transport, whether that be a computer or a CD transport, etc. Specifically, the USB input of the DAC or SPDIF converter you are using makes a big difference. [4] The Schiit gear is incredible for the money [5] but they do not use the best USB input receivers on the market and I have experienced the same type of results that you have. Specifically, using AES/ EBU instead of USB and getting better results. It all depends upon the equipment you are using and the type of cables in each scenario. [6] Everything matters and all 0's and 1's are not created equally.

 
1. No they don't. They may be perceived as all different but not due to their sound.
2. There's no way to listen to digital audio without converting to analog but digital audio data it is NOT turned into an analog signal for transfer, that would defeat the whole purpose of digital audio!
3. Within certain fairly broad limits, no, they don't!
4. The Schiit gear is schiit for the money, they even tell you that with the name of their company! You can get exactly that level of performance from equipment costing a fraction of the price.
5. You don't need the best USB input receivers to get perfect transmission of digital audio data. It's nice to own a Bugatti but driving to the shops in nose to tail traffic, you don't get any better performance than in a Ford Focus.
6. All 0's and 1's are just 0's and 1's, there is no difference or benefit of a high quality 1 or 0 over a poor quality 1 or 0, that was the whole point of inventing digital audio in the first place!
 
Digital audio is NOT analog audio and is not subject to the same potential issues!
 
G

 

[Ancipital]

   
4. The Schiit gear is schiit for the money, they even tell you that with the name of their company! You can get exactly that level of performance from equipment costing a fraction of the price.
 

 
Don't undermine an otherwise coherent post by irrationally throwing your toys out of the pram, just because something is popular. Unless some of their surprisingly good value budget amps slept with your wife, you should make an effort to calm down 

 

[GRUMPYOLDGUY]

 [1] All digital transports sound different.
[2] There's no way to transfer 0's and 1's without first turning them into an analog signal.
[3] The cables do matter ... and so does the signal being fed into them, aka your transport, whether that be a computer or a CD transport, etc. Specifically, the USB input of the DAC or SPDIF converter you are using makes a big difference. [4] The Schiit gear is incredible for the money [5] but they do not use the best USB input receivers on the market and I have experienced the same type of results that you have. Specifically, using AES/ EBU instead of USB and getting better results. It all depends upon the equipment you are using and the type of cables in each scenario. [6] Everything matters and all 0's and 1's are not created equally.

 
1. No they don't. They may be perceived as all different but not due to their sound.
2. There's no way to listen to digital audio without converting to analog but digital audio data it is NOT turned into an analog signal for transfer, that would defeat the whole purpose of digital audio!
3. Within certain fairly broad limits, no, they don't!
4. The Schiit gear is schiit for the money, they even tell you that with the name of their company! You can get exactly that level of performance from equipment costing a fraction of the price.
5. You don't need the best USB input receivers to get perfect transmission of digital audio data. It's nice to own a Bugatti but driving to the shops in nose to tail traffic, you don't get any better performance than in a Ford Focus.
6. All 0's and 1's are just 0's and 1's, there is no difference or benefit of a high quality 1 or 0 over a poor quality 1 or 0, that was the whole point of inventing digital audio in the first place!
 
Digital audio is NOT analog audio and is not subject to the same potential issues!
 
G

1. Agreed. There is no DSP on the raw DAC values before they are transmitted.

2. Technically a square wave is an analog signal. The logic that generates it is digital logic, but technically speaking the signal itself is analog. It's semantics really. These signals are however susceptible to things like jitter (for clocked interfaces) or skew between pos and neg differential lines, as well as noise. The result would be bit errors in the receiver though. Not gain in some part of the spectrum as some people here might be wrongly convinced.

3. Cables do matter. Particularly with fiber... I wouldn't be surprised if some of the cheaper mass producers of these cables used too tight a bend radius when shipping to increase yield. Cracks can be a serious problem. But in general, any good cable will perform satisfactorily.

4. Don't insult other people's choices. If they enjoy the product they spent their money on, who are you to tell them it's crap?

5. Why do people use analogies instead of talking in appropriate terms? Most USB receiver chips are well tolerant of signal integrity issues. USB has the added benefit of common mode noise rejection due to the differential signalling. I'm not too familiar with optical receivers, so I won't comment on it.

6. Once they are resolved by the receiver correctly and provided that the board layout wasn't done by an intern, that is true. See (2).

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon

 

[gregorio]

2. Technically a square wave is an analog signal. These signals are however susceptible to things like jitter (for clocked interfaces) or skew between pos and neg differential lines, as well as noise. The result would be bit errors in the receiver though. Not gain in some part of the spectrum as some people here might be wrongly convinced.

3. Cables do matter. Particularly with fiber...

4. Don't insult other people's choices. If they enjoy the product they spent their money on, who are you to tell them it's crap?

2. An effectively square electrical signal is only analogous if you're ultimately trying to output a square acoustic sound wave but of course even that wouldn't work in practice because we can't propagate or hear an actual acoustic square wave, only approximate one by modulating sine waves. Compared to an actual analog signal, digital audio data being transferred via an electrical difference signal is NOT susceptible to noise, at least until the noise becomes so severe it almost obliterates the square waves. Also, these signals are not particularly prone to audible amounts of jitter.

3. No one, including me is saying that cables don't matter. A broken, damaged or defective cable certainly does matter but assuming cables are not broken, damaged or defective and are operating within (USB or Toslink) specs then there should be no audible difference at all between a cable costing a few dollars and significantly more expensive cables, except in some rare, extreme circumstances which do not apply to the vast majority of consumers.

4. I didn't say Schiit was crap, certainly the Schiit units I've seen appear to be very well made units. However, I have every bit as much right to say that the price/performance ratio on at least some of their DACs is poor, as someone else has to say it's "incredible".

G

 

[Maxx134]

Haha this is an easy answer to this.
Different input, different circuit, different sound.
It's not just the wire , but the different system s as a whole have their own different circuits to your dac.

So there was no way they had a chance to sound identical even if they both were theoretically perfect methods, because they are just plain different methods.
Just because they "Supposed" to use digital, means nothing in terms of similarity, because they handle in totally different digital methods.
"Digital" is a description.
It does NOT mean identical, just because they use digital..

I will make an analogy of "digital", calling it "vanilla":

How may companies make "vanilla ice cream" yet none are identical?
You see?
So what, they both using digital...
Digital is just a method...

that's like saying we both using English language, and you speaking slightly different English than me,
Does it mean English is perfect?

So digital methods are not perfect.
I don't know why this is so often regarded saying..
That all digital is supposed to be perfect or same..
It's just a language or method.
Nothing is perfect.
DUH
BS.

Anyways,
The main common denominator will only be your source file,
As your computer even have different outputs,
So there is nothing identical in this thread title to claim any similarities..
Hahaha.

 

[Allanmarcus]

Haha this is an easy answer to this.
Different input, different circuit, different sound.
It's not just the wire , but the different system s as a whole have their own different circuits to your dac.

So there was no way they had a chance to sound identical even if they both were theoretically perfect methods, because they are just plain different methods.
Just because they "Supposed" to use digital, means nothing in terms of similarity, because they handle in totally different digital methods.
"Digital" is a description.
It does NOT mean identical, just because they use digital..

I will make an analogy of "digital", calling it "vanilla":

How may companies make "vanilla ice cream" yet none are identical?
You see?
So what, they both using digital...
Digital is just a method...

that's like saying we both using English language, and you speaking slightly different English than me,
Does it mean English is perfect?

So digital methods are not perfect.
I don't know why this is so often regarded saying..
That all digital is supposed to be perfect or same..
It's just a language or method.
Nothing is perfect.
DUH
BS.

Anyways,
The main common denominator will only be your source file,
As your computer even have different outputs,
So there is nothing identical in this thread title to claim any similarities..
Hahaha.

dig·it·al
ˈdijidl/
adjective
1. 
(of signals or data) expressed as series of the digits 0 and 1, typically represented by values of a physical quantity such as voltage or magnetic polarization.
 
---------------------
Given this common definition of digital, the transport should not matter. If I tell you 001100 over the phone, in person, or through a tin can and your write it down, unless you write down the wrong numbers (unlikely with today's tech), you still get 001100

 

[Maxx134]

Haha this is an easy answer to this.

Different input, different circuit, different sound.

It's not just the wire , but the different system s as a whole have their own different circuits to your dac.


So there was no way they had a chance to sound identical even if they both were theoretically perfect methods, because they are just plain different methods.

Just because they "Supposed" to use digital, means nothing in terms of similarity, because they handle in totally different digital methods.

"Digital" is a description.

It does NOT mean identical, just because they use digital..


I will make an analogy of "digital", calling it "vanilla":


How may companies make "vanilla ice cream" yet none are identical?

You see?

So what, they both using digital...

Digital is just a method...


that's like saying we both using English language, and you speaking slightly different English than me,

Does it mean English is perfect?


So digital methods are not perfect.

I don't know why this is so often regarded saying..

That all digital is supposed to be perfect or same..

It's just a language or method.

Nothing is perfect.

DUH

BS.


Anyways,

The main common denominator will only be your source file,

As your computer even have different outputs,

So there is nothing identical in this thread title to claim any similarities..

Hahaha.

dig·it·al

ˈdijidl/

adjective
1. 

(of signals or data) expressed as series of the digits 0 and 1, typically represented by values of a physical quantity such as voltage or magnetic polarization.

---------------------
Given this common definition of digital, the transport should not matter. If I tell you 001100 over the phone, in person, or through a tin can and your write it down, unless you write down the wrong numbers (unlikely with today's tech), you still get 001100

a!

But I can hear you saying that number many ways!
You can say it sweet, angry , crying, sharp , low, loud, soft, scary, happy , scared, bored, mad, or even saying that same number while laughing at me!
Bahaha!

 

[Maxx134]

I get what your saying , simplistically, digital is static and non changing in paper.

But that is not holding true in our real world.
In other words, theoretically is not reality.
Digital is only perfect on paper.
In real world outside of paper writing, digital is subject to all sorts of issues both digital and non-digital problems.

Always issues with performance and tolerance of parts and chips with other introduced effects and conditions to be addressed.

It is impossible to have "digital playback" perfection in real world.
Edit*
I should say,
The storage of digital is static with error checks so as if writing it down,
But the playback is subjected to non perfect live streaming methods and dependant on how accuracy of the components..

 

[GRUMPYOLDGUY]

Jesus.

Digital describes the format of the data. The interface over which it is transmitted is 100% irrelevant as long as the data is not corrupted.

I don't care how "angry" or "happy" or "sad" the transceivers are.

I think now I've heard everything.

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon

 

[Allanmarcus]

Jesus.

Digital describes the format of the data. The interface over which it is transmitted is 100% irrelevant as long as the data is not corrupted.

I don't care how "angry" or "happy" or "sad" the transceivers are.

I think now I've heard everything.

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon

Dude, he was joking about that. 
 
We he wasn't joking about how the digital data is fed into the analog converter. There certainly could be timing issues, but that usually translates into jitter, right? I've experienced noise on my USB connection with one particularly quirky DAC, and no issues with that same DAC using optical. 
 
That all said, it appears there is no scientific reason for one transport over another (that I've read about, anyways). Some people claim to hear a difference, and only DBT can prove or disprove them. I've some bulls*t stuff linked from AudioStream from Michael Lavorgna, which I do not respect much, on this topic. 
 
I guess I'm going with "no difference" until I'm convinced otherwise. My personal AB testing resulted in me not hearing any difference, but that is just one data-point. 

 

[GRUMPYOLDGUY]

Jesus.

Digital describes the format of the data. The interface over which it is transmitted is 100% irrelevant as long as the data is not corrupted.

I don't care how "angry" or "happy" or "sad" the transceivers are.

I think now I've heard everything.

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon

Dude, he was joking about that. 
 
We he wasn't joking about how the digital data is fed into the analog converter. There certainly could be timing issues, but that usually translates into jitter, right? I've experienced noise on my USB connection with one particularly quirky DAC, and no issues with that same DAC using optical. 
 
That all said, it appears there is no scientific reason for one transport over another (that I've read about, anyways). Some people claim to hear a difference, and only DBT can prove or disprove them. I've some bulls*t stuff linked from AudioStream from Michael Lavorgna, which I do not respect much, on this topic. 
 
I guess I'm going with "no difference" until I'm convinced otherwise. My personal AB testing resulted in me not hearing any difference, but that is just one data-point. 

There are some characteristics of signal transmission that can result in data corruption. They've been well discussed here recently. Ultimately it manifests as seemingly random bit flips in the data, but in practice at an extremely low rate. So perhaps one sample** (out of 44100 every second) may present an unintended amplitude change for that instant... But it in no way manifests as some sweeping change to the frequency response. This would require some non trivial DSP... Either bin manipulation in the frequency domain or some consistent and precise multiply/accumulate of an impulse response on a sample by sample basis. In other words, it's just not happening.

**I have no idea what a reasonable bit error rate would be, but I can't imagine it would be many orders of magnitude greater than this. Even a bit error in 20 samples per second would likely be inaudible. A number of factors impact this... Environmental mostly, but for example a cracked fiber cable or detached shield on a cable could be a factor as well. For this example I assumed an undamaged, good cable.

Sent from my E5803 using a highly trained, special forces carrier pigeon

 

[Allanmarcus]

Then why the frack don't DAC makers put a buffer in the stream and CRC check the the stream? Sure, might require a network rather than a bus, or a special driver, but if data loss and timing is such BFD, it seems the solution is relatively straight forward. 

 

[castleofargh]

wondering how to explain something that we do not know happened, that's really wasting time. if there is a variation and it's audible, then it should be relatively easy to measure or blind test(depending if we're looking for proof of a significant difference or proof of audibility).  that is step one. 
moving on to step 2 and all the great questions and hypotheses before step one is cleared, that's science fiction or theoretical science, none of which have a place for something well understood like electricity where experimental science is such an available and logical choice.
 
IMO don't waste your time with space teapots.