[Pale Rider]

  i dont know how to edit the signature already.may be to each of its own. USB cant really do GI.
 
check rednet thread for more detail. 

You don't know how to edit your signature to reflect your equipment? Okay, fine. Even so, that's not an answer to my question. But I saw in your posts earlier in this thread that apparently you have/had an MSB Analog with the QuadDSD. Great, that's a starting point for comparison.  The two devices are very different, so I am curious how you employed the Singer with the Analog DAC. Into what MSB input did you feed the output of the Singer? And if not into the Analog, what DAC were you comparing? I scrolled through the Rednet thread; what is it I should be finding there? [BTW, I follow that thread, because I am very interested in both Rednet and Ravenna, but I am not prepared to say that either is inherently superior to the other. I do believe that in the long run, AoIP will prevail, because it has some advantages, but right now, a lot of the differences in sounds between machines is a reflection of execution, not abstract superiority.
 
I have not used a Singxer F-1, so I cannot attest to its sonic qualities or compare it to equipment I do know [though for a while I had a very nice Audiophileo setup, and I know what such devices can do]. But I do use daily an MSB QuadDSD module in a Select II DAC, and while I do not like USB, it is pretty impressive. What I do know is that the Singer is not an AoIP device, so its possible advantages over a QuadDSD module are not related to its protocol superiority. Perhaps its chipset delivers an inherent advantage. I honestly don't know. But if you're going to toss out a cavalier "mediocre" assessment, I think it's fair to ask: on what basis and how so?
 
I am not a fan of USB. I use the QuadUSB module in my Select II only because that is the only way for me to get Roon operability on the Select. I am a network audio person. I am impressed with Ravenna over Ethernet protocol [and I am watching Rednet to see if it might be worth the early plunge], and that's one reason I have a Merging NADAC. It sounds very good on a 10gigabit network, but it is not as musical as the Select. But it is able to play Quad DSD over that network, and that is nice. If and when MSB deliver Roon readiness to their Network Renderer, I will go back to network audio on that machine. But for now, I am listening and comparing every day both network and USB solutions. Each has its merits and disadvantages. I am still curious what comparison led you to conclude the QuadDSD MSB module was mediocre compared to the Singer. Don't be shy. If you are correct, we could all save a lot of money.

 

[negura]

I highly doubt an external USB interface (to what? AES or Coax would be inferior to I2s on MSB by way of design) can match let alone be better sounding than the Quad USB. Although I have not heard this one, I've heard many interfaces/transports myself, and the Quad USB really was the best USB transport. With the Analog DAC the MSB UMT+ transport network streaming via I2s had improved flow and a more organic sound, while the Quad sounded a wee bit more energetic/open. These were relatively minor differences, but audible to me. I did prefer the transport with the Analog DAC overall, while on DAC V the Quad USB sounds better than the transport imo.
 
But yeah everyone to their own I guess with regards to Quad USB sound quality.

 

[ccschua]

a singxer F-1 is very affordable and users new xmos XU208, and I have been using it. while Quad still using the old Xmos. F-1 sounds open and transparent. all u will need after that is a good coaxial cable (if that is still lying around). however I restrict to 44.1 or 24/192 music as I dont explore much on DSD. 
 
there is newer  version of xmos XU 216 and I hope it can be mass used.
 

 

[negura]

The big key here is that the Quad is an USB to I2S implementation, whatever the chip. Also much is about implementation not just the chip. Using COAX on the MSB, adds another conversion stage, which will sacrifice transparency (and a cable).  USB > COAX  > I2S. There is little advantage to choose that path unless there isn't another option, and partially explains why the Quad sounds so good compared to external interfaces.
 
Also I always preferred AES before COAX with MSB DACs (and other DACs too) where available.
 
More on topic, I would certainly be glad if they used a newer chip in the new module, IF it brought some advantages to the table.

 

[Pale Rider]

  The big key here is that the Quad is an USB to I2S implementation, whatever the chip. Also much is about implementation not just the chip. Using COAX on the MSB, adds another conversion stage, which will sacrifice transparency (and a cable).  USB > COAX  > I2S. There is little advantage to choose that path unless there isn't another option, and partially explains why the Quad sounds so good compared to external interfaces.
 
Also I always preferred AES before COAX with MSB DACs (and other DACs too) where available.
 
More on topic, I would certainly be glad if they used a newer chip in the new module, IF it brought some advantages to the table.

Same here. I don't know yet what other changes, if any, have been made in the module. Could be none, I suppose, but given that it requires a module swap, something probably more than just firmware has changed.

 

[ccschua]

  The big key here is that the Quad is an USB to I2S implementation, whatever the chip. Also much is about implementation not just the chip. Using COAX on the MSB, adds another conversion stage, which will sacrifice transparency (and a cable).  USB > COAX  > I2S. There is little advantage to choose that path unless there isn't another option, and partially explains why the Quad sounds so good compared to external interfaces.
 
Also I always preferred AES before COAX with MSB DACs (and other DACs too) where available.
 
More on topic, I would certainly be glad if they used a newer chip in the new module, IF it brought some advantages to the table.

 
refer the photo given, see how Singxer uses a XPLD to reclock the signal. talking about the chinese developer giving cost effective solution. 
 
the AES/spdif gives galvanic isolation as compared to I2S , no ?

 

[phaeton70]

Analog already does reclock on all inputs.
 
So using Quad you have
usb-receiver-reclock-i2s-dac
 
while using your card you have
usb-receiver-reclock-spdif-receiver-reclock-i2s-dac
 
I honestly don't see how the latter can be better, from any point of view, unless we are talking about psychoacoustic.
 
I have used many USB DACs, implementing different technologies (Amanero, Xmos, etc), and I have used many SPDIF DACs using usb-spdif converter (Audiophilleo, M2Tech, etc), and to my ears the Analog with the QuadRate is the best USB DAC implementation I've ever listened to, and by far the best SPDIF DAC + converter implementation I've ever listened to.
 
Of course, the above is just AFAICH (as far as I can hear

) and YMMV.

 

[ccschua]

My progression starts from Terakdak X1/X2.
 
M2Tech, audiphileo, MX-U8, DIYINHK pro3a, Pro3Z, and then F-1. I have had USB2 384 and quad rate. I have compared them apple to apple.
 
after F-1, there is a better unit with dedicated power supply. 
 
Dont get me wrong, for the price of quad rate, its not VFM, and MSB kept the I2S proprietary. 
 
I dint use the Analog desktop power supply or the dedicated power supply either too. 

 

[negura]

We get that. It seems to be a very good external interface. Whether the Quad USB is value for money or not, is up to anyone to decide for themselves. However it has been reported by many here and elsewhere as the best sounding interface for MSB DACs that require USB input.

 

[Pale Rider]

Given the MSB architecture, it's really difficult to have a true apples-to-apples comparison between an external USB renderer/reclocker and the MSB QuadUSB module. But at the end of the day, if ccschua liked the sound better from something other than the module, the good news is that he gets to make that choice.

I don't think that assessment here, as thin as it is with very little to go on, helps me a lot or gives me a reason to invest in additional non-MSB equipment. From my own perspective, I would prefer not to use USB at all, but in order to have Roon on the Select, that's what I have to do. And the Mivera SuperStream does a very good job with the Select USB module. Together, they are equal, if not superior, to UPnP/DLNA into the Network Renderer. Pretty impressive. Looking forward to trying the MQA feature.

 

[ccschua]

I wonder if anyone pick up the MQA modules for analog dac ?

 

[marycz]

Hi
I'm goint to replace my current dac AMR DP777 (lack of DSD) to MSB Diamond IV + render + Galaxy clock. Does accept this dac in render mode Roon and Tidal ? Does accept render true DSD128/256 (sorry for dumb question)?
And one more question, if i use render, usb quality (usb II/quad usb) is not important, does she? Does support this dac in render mode MQA?

thx
Kris

 

[DACLadder]

Hello Kris,

I no longer have the Analog DAC in my possession. Network Renderer was the most difficult input to get going consistently. I did not use Tidal or Roon but rather a NAS server running Minimserver. Finding a good playback app for the IPad was a challenge as well and I tried many. I never could find a playback app that played music continuously. For instance if one playback track continued to the next without pause the playback apps would always add a few seconds of silence between the two. It was like it played one track then called the next at the end of the track. Maybe there are better player apps available now..

Yes, you are correct. You do not need USB input if using Network Renderer. I am not sure about MQA mode but that would be somethinng very desirable. Good luck with your Diamond DAC and should be great quality. I got good service from MSB Technology when I called them on a question and had to send it in for repair. Cost was very resonable. Scott

 

[ralpheburns]

Question: are there drivers available for or needed to run a Linux computer feeding the MSB Analog DAC USB?

I've had the MSB Analog DAC with the Quad Rate DSD USB module for a few years and am quite happy with it. My CAPS-Zuma music server with a SOtM USB card running JRiver has died, and the vendor is suggesting a Linux solution as a lower-noise, lower-latency upgrade over a Windows 10 computer. My music collection has various PCM / DSD file types and the old system accepted them all without re-sample (.dff, etc.).

New suggested computer:
https://www.smallgreencomputer.com/...ear-power-supply-combo?variant=12400215785506

My old computer. I can be repaired versus buying the new computer. MSB sends test files to test for "bit-perfect" and it always passed.
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazi...o_Zuma_CAPS_v3_JPLAY_SOtMtX_USBexp_HDPLEX.htm

And the info from MSB:
http://www.msbtechnology.com/usbdrivers/

 

[ralpheburns]

FWIW, I ended up getting the ethernet in MSB v2 MQA Renderer and the Linux-based i7 SonicTransporter, so won't use the USB input anymore.