[negura]

 
MSB believe that their I2S module provides the best possible connection between DAC and transport, its performance far exceeds any other inout option. MSB are on their 2nd iteration of this technology and it it provides much lower jitter and more than double the performance of their own Network Renderer which in turn provides far superior performance than their new Quad Rate USB module. On the USB module for a minute, I queried if the one for the Select was the same as for the Analog DAC and it is not the same, providing a higher level of performance, as one would expect. 
 

 
I can confirm this. I have heard the Signature V over COAX, AES, I2S (from UMT Plus transport) and Signature USB. The I2S is far and away the best input. Realism is at another level.

 

[isquirrel]

MSB make an OEM I2S board, all of their high end transports feature this input. It by itself it worthy of discussion as its the way of the future, holding as it does so many advantages over noisy USB. BTW both the Network Renderer ad the USB inputs are integrated into the I2S internal bus system. It allows top to 20 channels of data at 32 bit, 768 kHz ! as well as extremely low Jitter that is about 2% of S/PDI. 
 
It also has its own grounding topology which I know is a subject close to your heart !
 

 

The MSB PRO I2S offers amazing performance on new transports as they are brought to market. (See the table) It is lower jitter and higher speed (ready for 768 kHz music) than the MSB Network. It contains 20 channels of audio of 768 kHz, 32 bit audio in the I2S format, as well as a an outgoing clock and control data. These can be used to send multichannel data as would be required with digital crossovers, distribute independent super precision clocks and do auto setup of DAC parameters.
 

 

[isquirrel]

Hi Roy,
 
This where your input would be useful to the folks here, given your discussions with TotalDac.- Effictive Bit rates, perhaps the most controversial and biggest untruth in the digital audio world. I while ago I sought clarification from a DAC designer/manufacturer about what all this talk of 32 bit etc DAC's was all about. His answer surprised me.
 
Many DAC's particularly the ones common to most Head-fiers market themselves as 32 Bit DAC's and therefore people think thats great look at that resolution. nothing though could be farther from the truth.
 
It turns out that to achieve a real world bit depth in excess of 22 bits from the least significant bit to the most effective bit, a lab setup where noise, power and other conditions can be carefully controlled, certainly not in a commercial product sitting in a box with average power supplies and parts. Granted this conversation took place a few years ago but things have not moved on that far until recently. So when a DAC is marketed as a "32" bit DAC, what they are really talking about is the DAC chip itself does its internal processing at 32 bits. It has nothing to do with the bit depth of the file you are listening to.
 
Here I will quote an article re bit depths.
 

A DAC is a circuit that converts digital measures of audio amplitude in discrete steps into a continuous analog electrical equivalent of the sound to be reproduced. We have been taught to associate the number of bits in that digital word with the quality of the calculation, but the rate of the converter also comes into play. If we do conversion at 16 bits, 48,000 times per second, it is not the same as doing conversion at 16 bits and 96,000 times per second. Along comes 1 bit DACs and SACD that convert at a much higher rates and the whole idea of performance and bit depth falls apart. But in a ladder DAC the performance of the DAC is directly linked to the precision of the ladder, and the number of bits in that ladder are critical.

We are now facing bold product claims about new 32 bit DAC's. These are DAC chips just like any other from Burr Brown, AKM or Analog Devices. Lets look a little deeper to avoid any confusion about what these DACs actually are.

Here is what a typical web site says. “The advantage of using this 32-bit process to reconstruct a 16-bit digital signal (i.e. Redbook CD) is simple; This process interpolates the digital information more accurately by calculating the finer steps with 32-bit resolution that were lost during the analog-to-digital 16-bit mastering process. “

Notice that they use the word “process “ not DAC. Notice they talk about “reconstruct “ and “interpolate “ - both digital terms, not analog conversion. All this is saying is that they are using a digital filter with “32 bit resolution “ to do their math. 

Looking into a typical Datasheet: Input resolution is 32 bit. Digital filter: 32 bit architecture. Thats all it has to say except it has a THD of -110 dB. So what is the DAC technology? They do not even say!

We dig deeper and find it is a delta sigma DAC just like everyone else's. Then we find this quote. “After all the DSP and complex noise shaping of the signal is complete the digital number must be converted to an analog output. In principle the typically six bit number may be applied to a six bit DAC and the analog output is produced. “

So the hot new 32 bit DACs are actually 6 bit DACs with a 32 bit digital filter.

 

[negura]

Seems like you've been doing a lot of discovery in the MSB literature.
 
Yes, there is some great engineering going on.

 

[isquirrel]

  Seems like you've been doing a lot of discovery in the MSB literature.
 
Yes, there is some great engineering going on.

Yes it is very well written isn't it

 

[romaz]

  Hi Roy,
 
This where your input would be useful to the folks here, given your discussions with TotalDac.- Effictive Bit rates, perhaps the most controversial and biggest untruth in the digital audio world. I while ago I sought clarification from a DAC designer/manufacturer about what all this talk of 32 bit etc DAC's was all about. His answer surprised me.
 
Many DAC's particularly the ones common to most Head-fiers market themselves as 32 Bit DAC's and therefore people think thats great look at that resolution. nothing though could be farther from the truth.
 
It turns out that to achieve a real world bit depth in excess of 22 bits from the least significant bit to the most effective bit, a lab setup where noise, power and other conditions can be carefully controlled, certainly not in a commercial product sitting in a box with average power supplies and parts. Granted this conversation took place a few years ago but things have not moved on that far until recently. So when a DAC is marketed as a "32" bit DAC, what they are really talking about is the DAC chip itself does its internal processing at 32 bits. It has nothing to do with the bit depth of the file you are listening to.
 
Here I will quote an article re bit depths.
 

A DAC is a circuit that converts digital measures of audio amplitude in discrete steps into a continuous analog electrical equivalent of the sound to be reproduced. We have been taught to associate the number of bits in that digital word with the quality of the calculation, but the rate of the converter also comes into play. If we do conversion at 16 bits, 48,000 times per second, it is not the same as doing conversion at 16 bits and 96,000 times per second. Along comes 1 bit DACs and SACD that convert at a much higher rates and the whole idea of performance and bit depth falls apart. But in a ladder DAC the performance of the DAC is directly linked to the precision of the ladder, and the number of bits in that ladder are critical.

We are now facing bold product claims about new 32 bit DAC's. These are DAC chips just like any other from Burr Brown, AKM or Analog Devices. Lets look a little deeper to avoid any confusion about what these DACs actually are.

Here is what a typical web site says. “The advantage of using this 32-bit process to reconstruct a 16-bit digital signal (i.e. Redbook CD) is simple; This process interpolates the digital information more accurately by calculating the finer steps with 32-bit resolution that were lost during the analog-to-digital 16-bit mastering process. “

Notice that they use the word “process “ not DAC. Notice they talk about “reconstruct “ and “interpolate “ - both digital terms, not analog conversion. All this is saying is that they are using a digital filter with “32 bit resolution “ to do their math. 

Looking into a typical Datasheet: Input resolution is 32 bit. Digital filter: 32 bit architecture. Thats all it has to say except it has a THD of -110 dB. So what is the DAC technology? They do not even say!

We dig deeper and find it is a delta sigma DAC just like everyone else's. Then we find this quote. “After all the DSP and complex noise shaping of the signal is complete the digital number must be converted to an analog output. In principle the typically six bit number may be applied to a six bit DAC and the analog output is produced. “

So the hot new 32 bit DACs are actually 6 bit DACs with a 32 bit digital filter.

 
Yes, good points.  Some claims are obviously meant to be deceptive but there are enough of us who know better.  What gets me more are the spec bumps that have been occurring over the past few years for no practical reason.  For example, I still struggle to understand why there's even a DXD spec because who really needs 32 bits of resolution and 384kHz oversampling?  This oversampling leads to a time resolution that is well beyond what a human can discern.  I also have yet to convince myself that 2x DSD sounds better than standard DSD which is already 64x times the resolution of a CD and as we know, there's already a 4x DSD spec that many DACs are touting.  And as far as bit depth which is a measure of dynamic range, 24 bits is already more than sufficient and some would argue it is overkill because who really needs 144dB of DR (32 bits = 192dB which is beyond lethal)?  Peak SPLs at an amplified rock concert is about 130dB.  At a symphony, maybe 115dB.  Subtract the noise floor which is probably anywhere from 25-40 dB and so in these real world scenarios, you're dealing with a DR of between 75-105 dB but just to be generous, let's say 110dB.
 
It's already been shown that the threshold of what a human can hear in terms of time resolution is between 5-10μs and that 192kHz of oversampling covers this so really anything more is meaningless.  If we use 110 dB as the maximum DR we might experience at a live venue, that equates to a bit depth of about 18 bits.  Based on this reasoning, the most that a DAC has to resolve that a human can discern or consider realistic should be 18 bits/192kHz.  It's one thing for a DAC to be capable of playing back a 32 bit/384 kHz file but anybody who tries to tell you that you need more than 18/192 probably also has an 8k televesion they want to sell you.  If an MSB DAC or any other DAC sounds really good, I struggle to understand that it would because of bit-depth or oversampling capability beyond these figures.

 

[negura]

Agreed about high res/DSD - Recordings many times have other limitations and flaws which render the choice of format irrelevant. It is a bonus having native support for it and nice for a high-end DAC to have it covered, but I am personally not getting much benefit out of that in practice.
 
Although both are measured dB, I don't think SPL and DR have any relation though.

 

[isquirrel]

  Agreed about high res/DSD - Recordings many times have other limitations and flaws which render the choice of format irrelevant. It is a bonus having native support for it and nice for a high-end DAC to have it covered, but I am personally not getting much benefit out of that in practice.
 
Although both are measured dB, I don't think SPL and DR have any relation though.

I don't think they are related either. @Neugra what do you think of the Signature DAC ? 
 
I had a DAC disgner tell me that the MSB's were the worst DAC's he had ever heard and were sterile and unemotional tot he point where he felt he couldn't listen for more than 20 mins. I have asked around and I have not found anyone that agree's with his statements, however it put a dent in my excitement and anticipation for the Select. Do you use an MSB Transport?
 
I apologise if this has been covered earlier in the thread.

 

[romaz]

 
Although both are measured dB, I don't think SPL and DR have any relation though.

 
Actually, they do.
 
Dynamic Range = Peak SPL (sound pressure level) in dB - Noise Floor also as a measure of SPL in dB.  
 
When you measure the noise floor of a room, for example, you do it with an SPL meter.

 

[negura]

I don't think they are related either. @Neugra what do you think of the Signature DAC ? 

I had a DAC disgner tell me that the MSB's were the worst DAC's he had ever heard and were sterile and unemotional tot he point where he felt he couldn't listen for more than 20 mins. I have asked around and I have not found anyone that agree's with his statements, however it put a dent in my excitement and anticipation for the Select. Do you use an MSB Transport?

I apologise if this has been covered earlier in the thread.

Well with the amount of non-sense I read every day, I am less and less surprised by random statements... The UmtPlus/i2s/ Signature V is the most (goose bumps level) realistic sounding DAC stack I ever heard at length. I did hear the Select too but that was in show conditions. I had the Sig V for 2-3 months now and it still impresses me every day. I guess you could call it analogic sounding, and while it has that, it is better imo (clearer, more resolving and precise) than any analogic rig I have heard. Where the Signature betters the Analog stack is that it manages to be both more resolving and more natural (as in you are there and the music is real) at the same time. That is what the big bucks buy. It is difficult to imagine how the Diamond and Select would sound heard properly at home, but sadly they are very likely even better.

What the MSB are not is very coloured sounding as some other DACs out there. They do not try to mimic lush tube sound for example, but sound realistic as in having your own private concert at home. I cannot ask for better.

 

[isquirrel]

Well with the amount of non-sense I read every day, I am less and less surprised by random statements... The UmtPlus/i2s/ Signature V is the most (goose bumps level) realistic sounding DAC stack I ever heard at length. I did hear the Select too but that was in show conditions. I had the Sig V for 2-3 months now and it still impresses me every day. I guess you could call it analogic sounding, and while it has that, it is better imo (clearer, more resolving and precise) than any analogic rig I have heard. Where the Signature betters the Analog stack is that it manages to be both more resolving and more natural (as in you are there and the music is real) at the same time. That is what the big bucks buy. It is difficult to imagine how the Diamond and Select would sound heard properly at home, but sadly they are very likely even better.

What the MSB are not is very coloured sounding as some other DACs out there. They do not try to mimic lush tube sound for example, but sound realistic as in having your own private concert at home. I cannot ask for better.

Thank you for providing your summation of them, it has gone a long way to allying my fears. I have not looked forward to piece of equipment this much for a long time. It is as you say such a shame that not many people will be able to get an opportunity to hear the higher end MSB DSAC's for that matter, it was pretty hard for me to organise listening to the Analog DAC which I liked. If you ever come out to Australia your are welcome to visit and have a listen. My 2 channel system will be fully finished by early February.
 
I am trying to arrange for my unit to go to Roy's first and then out here, I understand they put at least 100 hours on them before shipping so if I can organise it it will give him a good feel for it. The real issue is the voltage we run is at 240V an it has just been confirmed today that it is not switchable.
 
I will however post impressions of it when it arrives. Given your comments I can't see anything else I have here being in the same league.

 

[Pale Rider]

  Agreed about high res/DSD - Recordings many times have other limitations and flaws which render the choice of format irrelevant. It is a bonus having native support for it and nice for a high-end DAC to have it covered, but I am personally not getting much benefit out of that in practice.

I think this is generally true for most, and it's certainly the marketing approach that Schiit is taking with the Yggdrasil ["we'll do DSD when the market is there for it"; well, duh]. And I agree that there are plenty of flaws in many recordings that might hi-res seem superfluous. But the reality is that there is in fact a fair bit of quality material available in DSD, and there is a growing amount available in higher-res DSD. Remember when people said hi-res wouldn't amount to anything? Files too big, no DACs to play it, etc.? Well, look at the market now just a few years later. [Frankly, it was a stupid market position; bandwidth and storage space are among the cheaper elements of the digital r/evolution.] There is every reason to think that the same or similar will continue to happen with DSD. Watch the progressive studios and hi-DSD supply houses like Blue Coast and 2L. They aren't "hanging on." They are thriving, growing, and in some cases have more business than they can handle.
 
For me, the QuadDSD capability of the MSB is a significant box checker, especially as that capability is available over their network input. It's the reason I am picking up a NADAC tomorrow, the first stereo unit on the West Coast. it's not to do some up-sampling or whatever [not a knock on up-sampling; I love the sound of my DirectStream; its architecture works for me]. It's because there is music being recorded in it, and having heard a little bit of it, it sounds more musical and realistic to me. 
 
If you have any doubts, download a Blue Coast QuadDSD track or two and try it out on the Select or Signature. The first thing I will do with the NADAC, and then with the Sig when I get it, is to play the QuadDSD I have. Compared to to some of the "huge" changes folks hear from swapping Ethernet power cables or changing power supplies on computer servers, the difference that the recording studio injects into the sonic characteristics of the recording really is significant. And in the case of some stunning recordings by BC, actually choosing to not hear it the way it was recorded is not a choice I want to be forced to make. This is "as far upstream as we can go" right now.  My ears aren't what they used to be, and I cannot hear the difference that swapping ethernet cables can make, and frankly, I am dubious of any such claim, in part because of the absence of an objective anchor point to help explain what some folks do say they can hear [and i for one am willing to believe it is possible we just haven't found the way to measure what some folks might actually hear]. But let's not open that can of worms. Just focus on the fact that some great music is available in QuadDSD. I think it's worth it to hear it.

 

[Yoga]

Very nice indeed @isquirrel. 
 
The Signature and UMT over I2S is another level entirely.
 
It was hearing this that pushed me to buy the Lumin A1; a DAC and network streamer in a single unit, which of course completely circumvents all issues regarding DAC/transport connectivity.

The Lumin S1 is the new QuadDSD flagship. Might be worth an audition.

@negura - any update as to when you have to return the Signature and UMT loaners back? I'll wait until the Analog network renderer is out before comparing the TotalDAC/CAD etc. Pointless if done before then.

 

[negura]

  Very nice indeed @isquirrel. 
 
The Signature and UMT over I2S is another level entirely.
 
It was hearing this that pushed me to buy the Lumin A1; a DAC and network streamer in a single unit, which of course completely circumvents all issues regarding DAC/transport connectivity.

The Lumin S1 is the new QuadDSD flagship. Might be worth an audition.

@negura - any update as to when you have to return the Signature and UMT loaners back? I'll wait until the Analog network renderer is out before comparing the TotalDAC/CAD etc. Pointless if done before then.

 
No updates... shhh. And yes - agreed. Any of the MSB DACs deserve a good transport, ideally via I2S.

 

[bigfatpaulie]

I wonder how the Analog sounds with a UMT V (i2s) and Signature power base...  I suppose that would be the best the Analog could sound, correct (aside from replacing the signature with diamond base)?