[colinharding]

I would stay away from USB as well, it's nice for your printer but not quite there yet for audio.  COAX should be your choice of connectivity if you have that option.  The Audio GD is nice....but VERY neutral.  Doesn't add much of well, anything to the sound.  This is their mantra though, so if you want something that is very very true to the recording that would be the way to go.  It's not extremely fun sounding though, just my two cents.  

 

[Greyowl]

Is there a laymans explanation why a USB DAC will be inferior to the coax option?  As long as the USB can deliver the data stream rapidly enough, isn't this really a reflection of early USB DACs simply being inferior DACs?   The HRT MSII+ continually gets very high marks from reviewers as an asynchronous USB DAC.
 
For those opposed to USB connections, what is the best alternative to getting audio files from your laptop to your home audio system?
 

 

[Gwarmi]

Quote:

Is there a laymans explanation why a USB DAC will be inferior to the coax option?  As long as the USB can deliver the data stream rapidly enough, isn't this really a reflection of early USB DACs simply being inferior DACs?   The HRT MSII+ continually gets very high marks from reviewers as an asynchronous USB DAC.
 
For those opposed to USB connections, what is the best alternative to getting audio files from your laptop to your home audio system?
 

 

[colinharding]

Quote:

Is there a laymans explanation why a USB DAC will be inferior to the coax option?  As long as the USB can deliver the data stream rapidly enough, isn't this really a reflection of early USB DACs simply being inferior DACs?   The HRT MSII+ continually gets very high marks from reviewers as an asynchronous USB DAC.
 
For those opposed to USB connections, what is the best alternative to getting audio files from your laptop to your home audio system?
 

The simple answer is not really.  USB vs COAX is much the same as COAX vs Optical.  Why does one sound better than the other, I'm not entirely sure.  I've heard USB sound great in its own context but it never matches the quality of a good COAX implementation or Optical for that matter.  The chain, from worst to best would be something like this IMO, USB<Optical<COAX.  USB always sound a harsher and thinner to me and although I realize that on its most fundamental level it is passing zeros and ones through to a DAC, no different than the other two, but somehow it just does not sound the same.  Granted, USB is passing through the motherboard of your computer and has to contend with a lot of other signals that are also doing so.  COAX generally comes from an audio only device which will have much less signal competition.  And then you have to factor in the materials used in the construction of each.  The above post is a great way to get files from your computer via USB.  Those converters are all about the same sounding, I've tried the ultimately high end and the 20 dollar ebay low end.  As long as it works, I haven't been able to pick up any audible difference.  By no means am I apposed to USB audio, by all means it is convenient and a great alternative to other means of audio transmission, IMO it's just not contest when paired with my COAX sources.  

 

[proton007]

I'm not sure if someone has done a DBT for this, but coax and usb are essentially transfer mediums. However the coax also carries the clock signal (which can transmit jitter), not the case with usb. The USB can, however, drop packets if your PC runs under heavy load (WASAPI can help). The end stage is the same for both, conversion to analog.

 

[ramarge3653]

[size=medium]Thanks a lot for all the information.  This is most definitely helping with my decision making process.[/size]

 

[Greyowl]

Quote:

The simple answer is not really.  USB vs COAX is much the same as COAX vs Optical.  Why does one sound better than the other, I'm not entirely sure.  I've heard USB sound great in its own context but it never matches the quality of a good COAX implementation or Optical for that matter.  The chain, from worst to best would be something like this IMO, USB<Optical<COAX.  USB always sound a harsher and thinner to me and although I realize that on its most fundamental level it is passing zeros and ones through to a DAC, no different than the other two, but somehow it just does not sound the same.  Granted, USB is passing through the motherboard of your computer and has to contend with a lot of other signals that are also doing so.  COAX generally comes from an audio only device which will have much less signal competition.  And then you have to factor in the materials used in the construction of each.  The above post is a great way to get files from your computer via USB.  Those converters are all about the same sounding, I've tried the ultimately high end and the 20 dollar ebay low end.  As long as it works, I haven't been able to pick up any audible difference.  By no means am I apposed to USB audio, by all means it is convenient and a great alternative to other means of audio transmission, IMO it's just not contest when paired with my COAX sources.  

 
Thanks for the post and the preceeding recommendation of converters as a solution.   I certainly won't argue with your conclusion of favouring COAX, but as you say the USB source is a computer, not an defined audio source supplying the COAX which makes a direct comparison of the two somewhat unfair.  Rather I find it somewhat surprising that a simple conversion of a data file to S/PDIF would make an audible improvement coming from a DAC.  Will a converter like the Audiopilleo 2 accept any lossy/ lossless file format from the USB?   So far I'm not convinced that lossless is in anyway superior to high bitrate lossy, but that's another matter.  Until I can listen to my accumulated files onto my home audio system, I won't make a definative statement

 

[colinharding]

Quote:

 
Thanks for the post and the preceeding recommendation of converters as a solution.   I certainly won't argue with your conclusion of favouring COAX, but as you say the USB source is a computer, not an defined audio source supplying the COAX which makes a direct comparison of the two somewhat unfair.  Rather I find it somewhat surprising that a simple conversion of a data file to S/PDIF would make an audible improvement coming from a DAC.  Will a converter like the Audiopilleo 2 accept any lossy/ lossless file format from the USB?   So far I'm not convinced that lossless is in anyway superior to high bitrate lossy, but that's another matter.  Until I can listen to my accumulated files onto my home audio system, I won't make a definative statement

 
Well, I think the point that most are making here is that computer based audio is on par if not above that of legacy based audio gear.  Legacy gear representing anything other than computer based audio.  What I'm trying to promulgate is the fact that computers were not intended for audio and therefore make a decent basis for audio reproduction, but not one that will surpass built-for-audio products like a transport with a DAC.  So yes the comparison between USB and COAX is a skosh unfair, nonetheless highly debated and compared here on HeadFi.  
 
Definitely do your own tests with lossy vs lossless.  I use a SONOS with COAX out to my DAC so I'm only listening to mp3 320 at the highest point and cannot tell the difference between that and my AIFF files.  To each their own here though, if you can hear the difference by all means use the lossless/lossy version of the file.  As for the converter is isn't a question of what CODEC it supports as much as it a question of what bitrate slash bit depth it supports.  The computer will decode aiff, wav, flac, etc for your converter or DAC, however what you need to make sure that the two components can support 24bit if you would also like that functionality. 
 
Not sure I understand this sentence, "Rather I find it somewhat surprising that a simple conversion of a data file to S/PDIF would make an audible improvement coming from a DAC."  COAX and S/PDIF are, for all intensive purposes, different names for the same cable.  Anyway the difference in sound between the three (USB, Opt, COAX) are accounted for by their inherent cable designs and how the data is received at the DAC.  The data is the same in each scenario, but how the data originates from point A and is received at point B accounts for the difference in sound.

 

[RonaldDumsfeld]

Quote:

Is there a laymans explanation why a USB DAC will be inferior to the coax option?

 
Actually it's the other way round.
 
In most circumstances the USB will give superior technical results although the difference is almost certainly below the threshold of human hearing.
 
I'll explain why.
 
Audio information consists of two components. The samples themselves, made up of zeros and ones, and the timing thereof. The samples were taken at a predetermined rate, usually 44.1k times a second in the case of lossless CD audio, so they need to be read by the DAC chip at the same rate.
 
When you send audio to your DAC box via USB (or Firewire, or PCIe) the samples themselves are received bit perfect. If they were not your computer wouldn't work. Then the clock in the DAC reads them and does the conversion.
 
S/PDIF is a sort of half way house. The samples are the same but the timing data has already been reapplied by a clock in your onboard soundcard.
 
So you can see the conundrum?
 
If you want an aftermarket outboard interface because you think it will sound 'better' or more transparent than the onboard DAC on your motherboard or CD player what makes you think that the onboard clock is more accurate than the equivalent one on the outboard interface? Chances are if the outboard DAC chip is 'better' then so will the included clock.
 
There is also another consideration. S/PDIF data transfer is one way only. If it gets corrupted, however unlikely this may be, that's what the DAC has to try and convert. With most modern USB DAC boxes there is two way communication with the source. If an error is detected the sample can be re-sent and buffered before being re-clocked.

 

[colinharding]

Agreed, a nice USB implementation will achieve higher technical marks than that of its COAX counterpart because of its inherent implementation.  That was also a great writeup RonaldDumsfeld!  However, superior technical architecture that is quantifiable on paper doesn't always resemble the same perfection in real world applications.  I would agree with everything you've said, but I've yet to hear a USB out of my computer into a DAC best a COAX out of a comparable transport.  It sounds just like you've described, perfect.  But perfect to an extent that it is also lifeless, sterile, and far too accurate.  There is no euphoric distortion or emotional coloring, which is what music strives to imbue on its listeners in the first place.  Artists want to move you not test the accuracy of your hearing.  In that respect I'll stick with my possibly corrupted COAX connection 

 

[proton007]

Quote:

Agreed, a nice USB implementation will achieve higher technical marks than that of its COAX counterpart because of its inherent implementation.  That was also a great writeup RonaldDumsfeld!  However, superior technical architecture that is quantifiable on paper doesn't always resemble the same perfection in real world applications.  I would agree with everything you've said, but I've yet to hear a USB out of my computer into a DAC best a COAX out of a comparable transport.  It sounds just like you've described, perfect.  But perfect to an extent that it is also lifeless, sterile, and far too accurate.  There is no euphoric distortion or emotional coloring, which is what music strives to imbue on its listeners in the first place.  Artists want to move you not test the accuracy of your hearing.  In that respect I'll stick with my possibly corrupted COAX connection 

 
All well and good, but pls do not generalize. Technically whats better applies to all cases. What you find better applies to you.

 

[Greyowl]

Quote:

Agreed, a nice USB implementation will achieve higher technical marks than that of its COAX counterpart because of its inherent implementation.  That was also a great writeup RonaldDumsfeld!  However, superior technical architecture that is quantifiable on paper doesn't always resemble the same perfection in real world applications.  I would agree with everything you've said, but I've yet to hear a USB out of my computer into a DAC best a COAX out of a comparable transport.  It sounds just like you've described, perfect.  But perfect to an extent that it is also lifeless, sterile, and far too accurate.  There is no euphoric distortion or emotional coloring, which is what music strives to imbue on its listeners in the first place.  Artists want to move you not test the accuracy of your hearing.  In that respect I'll stick with my possibly corrupted COAX connection 

 
Agreed, that was a nice offering RonaldDumsfeld.  When technical specifications go beyond our auditory senses I guess it all becomes rather moot.  I just find it interesting that adjectives like lifeless, sterile and emotional coloring can be attributed to binary data carried by two different media.  We hear what we perceive, or is it the other way around?  Cheers.

 

[customNuts]

I highly recommend Audio-gd DAC's & there new tenor usb implementation is pretty damn good. Ref 5 for that price range.
or go to Anedio D2 if u can stretch it using usb again.
or for more musical, Yulong D18 is great value. No usb so I would either get a soundcard like emu 1210 or a high value usb converter like Audio gd DI. u could even go up to Audiophilleo 2 but that's nearly as much as the dac.  Or you could go down to the Yulong d100 mk2 which is insane value and has a excellent usb input & class A amp.
Good luck, sooo many high value options now it's AWESOME.

 

[bixby]

Quote:

I would stay away from USB as well, it's nice for your printer but not quite there yet for audio.  COAX should be your choice of connectivity if you have that option.  The Audio GD is nice....but VERY neutral.  Doesn't add much of well, anything to the sound.  This is their mantra though, so if you want something that is very very true to the recording that would be the way to go.  It's not extremely fun sounding though, just my two cents.  

Are you serious!  USB not there for audio???  I respect your opinion, but it is only that.  There are many very, very well respected dacs that offer the best sound available through their USB inputs not their coax inputs if they even have them.  Perhaps you should give one or two a listen.

 

[ROBSCIX]

I agree with Bixby, there is nothing wrong with using USB for audio, unless you are using some outdated, poor example of the technology.
You can find many excellent USB/S/Pdif converters or DAC with USB input.  Quite a few new DAC are using async transfer that
improves transfer by a large margin.  I have tested quite a few newer USB based DAC and they are very nice sounding products.