[Triode User]

For all the concern with noise, why don’t people make it a point t to use optical in their setup? Are that many using hi res above 192k or does a high-end USB streamer/server sound as good or better?

Innuos say they carried out measurements on optical based circuits compared to USB and concluded that overall a well implemented USB circuit had less measured overall noise and was better in other respects than optical. Whilst it is true that an optical cable breaks the link for RF noise the counter argument is that converting the optical signal back to an electrical digital signal can generate noise in the circuit at that point. Note that the Innuos Zenith servers including the Statement have only USB output and no optical for this very reason.

 

[rkt31]

I leaned very heavily into trying to answer this question for myself (what became the Opto DX review linked in my sig below). With Hugo mScaler doing the heavy lifting to upsample, living with 192k and below really wasn't a big deal (although it was annoying to be limited to DSD64...I have a bunch of DSD128 and DSD256 content). Until very recently, my preferred reference setup was a NUC (USB) to Uptone ISO Regen (USB) to Matrix Audio XSPDIF2 to TOSLINK to HMS to OptoDX (optical) to DAVE. No fuss, no muss.

I still recommend the Chromecast Audio as a Roon end point to TOSLINK to anyone who'll listen. Best bang for the buck in audio, with minimal complexity/hassle factor.

Alas, if you want to get more SQ, you have to deal with the complexity/hassle factor.

For me, the Matrix Audio is a very clear step up from the CCA (I attribute this to a better clock, no WiFi, better power and ground management, etc). The ISO Regen to clean up the USB input to the Matrix Audio is also a clear step up (vs no ISO Regen). Powering the ISO Regen with a great power supply (in my case, the Uptone LPS 1.2) also made a big difference. The better power to the ISO Regen also has the side benefit that I could get rid of the power supply to the Matrix Audio, and have the MA powered by clean power from the ISO Regen (over USB).

If you're OK with a modest amount of hassle/complexity, an optical chain with the Matrix Audio is great intermediate stopping point.

However even with this chain (USB regeneration, high quality mains isolated power, two levels of optical isolation, etc), changes in software and configurations running on the NUC are still VERY clearly audible (maddening but true...signal integrity seems to really matter too)

All that being said, USB can (and for me, it now does) exceed what I was able to get from from the optical chain. It has taken a lot more focus on cables and power and all that icky stuff (and regrettably it will drag me kicking and screaming into the world of master clocks at some point), but I'm now back to USB end to end and incrementally tweaking things up again. Alas, things are also creeping back to lots of hassle/complexity.

If you're a Roon user, my advice is to start with the CCA ($30 used), remembering that it sounds like absolute ass if you're not using Roon. If you like what you hear, invest in better power to the CCA. If you like what you hear, track down a used Matrix Audio XSPDIF 2. If you really like what you hear, get a ISO Regen to put in front of it, with a solid power supply (LPS 1.2 is a great choice). Everything after that is 5x more hassle and cost to get the last couple percent of improvement (beware...here Dragons dwell

If you don't hear any differences or you get to the point of diminishing returns, happily stop and enjoy a fine beverage while listening to Anouar Brahem channel the angels on "The Astounding Eyes of Rita". If you do hear differences and want more, there is always more to be found down the rabbit hole.

Net net: noise matters and optical does an amazing job of cleaning it up, but alas, everything else STILL matters, even with optical everywhere...we haven't yet figured out how to build the mythical "moat" that makes everything upstream of it irrelevant, but an optical chain is in the sweet spot of the 80/20 rule.

I fed cca with 4x NiMH battery pack. It's optical out into HMS sounded good but it was not anywhere near xduoo x10t's optical out. But then xduoo is not a streamer. I also feed HMS through my old laptop using foobar asio out. I use a good pcocc A oyaide neo A class cable with three ifi isilencer in series and also an ifi idefender which replaces laptop usb power by a 4x NiMH battery pack. Results are nothing short of stunning. It seems all the noise has been sucked out and there is pure liquid music and nothing else. In fact this way there is a very little difference between between usb and xduoo x10t optical out. Xduoo x10t has slightly more depth while usb is slightly smoother. The advantage with laptop is that you don't need a streamer as such as apps like tidal or foobar can be remotely controlled through android phone and foobar asio allows all sample rates to be sent via usb bit perfect (except dsd512 as far as i know ) to tt2 or HMS.

 

[betula]

Innuos say they carried out measurements on optical based circuits compared to USB and concluded that overall a well implemented USB circuit had less measured overall noise and was better in other respects than optical. Whilst it is true that an optical cable breaks the link for RF noise the counter argument is that converting the optical signal back to an electrical digital signal can generate noise in the circuit at that point. Note that the Innuos Zenith servers including the Statement have only USB output and no optical for this very reason.

Measurements are helpful to some extent but at the end of the day we don't listen to numbers; we listen to music with our ears.
I never understood folks who go by measurements only. I always followed my ears and what sounded good to me.
It is merely a coincidence, Chord DACs have such good numbers and they sound incredible too.

 

[miketlse]

It is merely a coincidence, Chord DACs have such good numbers and they sound incredible too.

That carries about as much intellectual rigour, as someone stating 'it is merely a coincidence, that when the hours of daylight are longest, the plants grow more'.

 

[betula]

That carries about as much intellectual rigour, as someone stating 'it is merely a coincidence, that when the hours of daylight are longest, the plants grow more'.

Not necessarily. Some audio equipment with less amazing measurements might sound better to the individual than others with better measured numbers. I have seen many examples for that. This is a highly subjective hobby and according to my experience measured numbers don't necessarily follow popularity, just have a look at the group of R2R fans. My point is what you hear must overwrite the measurements you read. At the end of the day it is about your personal enjoyment.
I preferred my Audeze LCD2C to some more expensive headphones with better measurements. To me it is not evident that measurements match what my ears prefer. That's why I said it is somewhat a coincidence with Chord DACs.

 

[miketlse]

Coincidence implies that no causality can be demonstrated.
We just use different dictionaries, and mindsets.

 

[betula]

Coincidence implies that no causality can be demonstrated.
We just use different dictionaries, and mindsets.

Yeah, I guess. I am just saying there is no causality in measured numbers as the subjective factor is too big in what we hear.

 

[jarnopp]

Yeah, I guess. I am just saying there is no causality in measured numbers as the subjective factor is too big in what we hear.

I think the hard part is figuring out what to measure, and the scale of measurement necessary. There is a correlation between what we hear and what we measure, if we measure the right things in the right way. It’s possible that that is not entirely feasible at this point.

 

[betula]

I think the hard part is figuring out what to measure, and the scale of measurement necessary. There is a correlation between what we hear and what we measure, if we measure the right things in the right way. It’s possible that that is not entirely feasible at this point.

Measurements and what we actually hear will never entirely correlate. Machines will always be able to detect measurable differences which are inaudible for human ears. The same way human ears might be able to detect qualities immeasurable by machines.

 

[bluenight]

Since i brought it up some time ago about ethernet cables i post my findings here.

Yesterday i replaced my generic cat 5 ethernet cable to my streamer from switch with Supra cat 8 ethernet cable. Before i had also replaced the generic cat 5 ones with supra cat 8 from internet fiber outlet to router and from router to switch. So Supra cat 8 all the way now.

I do hear an improvement its not night and day but i do hear some more opening up of the sounds and more refinement, more clarity/blacker background and more details/textures, better bass but all frequency ranges sound better, and wider soundstage and less harshness. Subtle changes but they are there. More pricier ethernet cables probebly can give you more changes if you want to pay the price.

The bigest strenght i like with this cable is its musicality i enjoy the music more. So worth it for me .

I did try wifi instead of wired connection for a while with my streamer but realised it sounded to soft with to little treble information. So wired connection i think sounds best with my cambridge audio cxnv2 streamer.

 

[bluenight]

About measurments i think audio bacon said something good about it in this review. A dac that measures better then mojo but aint better subjectively when he compares.

https://audiobacon.net/2019/12/24/topping-d50s-dac-review/amp/

 

[rkt31]

Topping d50s does not measure better than Qutest even in asr who are heavily biased against chord. As per asr d50s measures better than mojo but mojo has been measured by many others and as per measurements other than asr mojo betters d50s. Even specs of mojo are better than d50s imho.

 

[bluenight]

Topping d50s does not measure better than Qutest even in asr who are heavily biased against chord. As per asr d50s measures better than mojo but mojo has been measured by many others and as per measurements other than asr mojo betters d50s. Even specs of mojo are better than d50s imho.

Yup first i wrote that it messures better then qutest because i thought so but double checked on asr and edited it out. Ok people messures differently?

The interesting thing though if you read the review i linked is what he writes on.
D50s vs mojo

How can you messure some of the things he writes?

For exe. A more organic natural analouge sound with better timbre and better tonality closer to artist inteded with more soul to the music?

Maybe only the ears can there.

 

[jarnopp]

Yup first i wrote that it messures better then qutest because i thought so but double checked on asr and edited it out. Ok people messures differently?

The interesting thing though if you read the review i linked is what he writes on.
D50s vs mojo

How can you messure some of the things he writes?

For exe. A more organic natural analouge sound with better timbre and better tonality closer to artist inteded with more soul to the music?

Maybe only the ears can there.

My point was not that we necessarily know the measurement(s) that equate with “more organic,” but that if there is a scale of “organicness” then there is a corresponding set of measurements for it. We should not abandon trying to determine what those are, even if we don’t have sensitive enough equipment right now to find them.

 

[rkt31]

My point was not that we necessarily know the measurement(s) that equate with “more organic,” but that if there is a scale of “organicness” then there is a corresponding set of measurements for it. We should not abandon trying to determine what those are, even if we don’t have sensitive enough equipment right now to find them.

Effect of long tap lengths can be measured upto a certain limit, after that it can't be measured or plotted . It can only be experienced as more focused and true to source sound.