[45longcolt]

First, all thanks to Jason for being so in touch with us music lovers/customers.
 
Second, how about bulletproof 24/96 for the first (entry) DAC, but 24/192 for the Big Bertha (which can't come soon enough for me) whose users are more likely to be able and willing to do what it takes to make full use of the technology?
 
Third, Misterogers, I think you mean "elicit" when you referred to responses. Illicit means illegal, which doesn't apply here (hopefully.) Sorry, can't help myself, ex-editor...

 

[Misterrogers]

Ha! yes, you are correct. It's risky for me to attempt communication before I've had my coffee.

 

[MrScary]

 
 
 
 
Well I'm glad we've established that much. 

  
 
 

hahahahaha that's me when it comes to USB

 

[K3cT]

Jason, please use the Wolfson WM874x chips. They are pretty lovely. 

 

[sridhar3]

Quote:

Jason, please use the Wolfson WM874x chips. They are pretty lovely. 

Sabre32 IMO. 

 

[Dynobot]

IMO the most musical Dac chips are the TDA154x chips.  Judging from the years of buzz around the net concerning Dac chips the TDA chips gets the most nods from the DIYers and Modders it seems.  Even here, look at the huge Valab thread...out of the thousands of Valab/Teradak Dacs sold you hardly ever see them for sale. 
 
Just my 0.02, but I don't think Schiit is taking suggestions so what ever they end up with should sound fine and convey their intent for what sounds best to them.
 
About the 1704 sounding boring, well to each his own...but then having driven both a Miata and a Corvette I would say the Miata is more fun to drive.

 

[falis]

 
Quote:

Interesting question - and I'm sure likely to illicit a wide range of responses. As one who spends time every day tracking down 24/96 and 24/88.2 well recorded source (with the occasional 24/192 - though my current 'chain' downsamples), I'd prefer the latter (USB 2.0 24/192 with win driver). I notice and enjoy the sonic improvements in a well recorded, mixed and mastered song. Also being a developer and general tech geek - I prefer the leading edge, and will almost always assume the risk of slightly less stability for higher performance.

That becomes limiting for users of other OS's though.
 
- Ed
 

 

[MrScary]

I say use Spdif or optical. I cannot figure out why everyone is so worried about USB. Guess its me I just kicked my dead horse again

 

[Misterrogers]

Certainly - use optical whenever possible. Though it's never going to be as good as other inputs, USB can at times be necessary or preferable (not sonically, but say to interface with a device only having USB). For those times I'm sure everyone wants the best possible USB implementation.

 

[jerikl]

You guys are a hardware company. Leave the USB support at 24/96. If the SPDIF implementation really is that much better than USB, why would one want to listen to 24/192 on USB anyway? It doesn't make any logical sense other than being the only input the user has available to them (time for a new soundcard or laptop).
 
BTW, I just got the Asgard ... and I can't freaking wait for you to come out with a DAC so I can be done with my upgrade ... ready to start listening to music again without mucking with my system.

 

[DemonicLemming]

USB is great for the little amp I have sitting on my desk at work (Travagans White, and I love the thing).  But, for my "Never gonna move off my desk" home rig, optical all the way.  I tried the USB input once, gagged as soon as the music started, and promptly switched back to optical.
 
So, I'd vote for 24/96 USB.  24/196 is great and all, but outside of (boring) classical, where am I ever going to find regular music recorded that way?  Hell, finding any sort of metal on SACD is hard enough.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

After further consideration I think that anyone that really needs 192k over 96k could easily figure out how to feed the DAC with coax/toslink instead of usb. 192/usb would still be a nice feature, but it's not entirely necessary.

 
I totally agree.

 

[WarriorAnt]

Quote:

After further consideration I think that anyone that really needs 192k over 96k could easily figure out how to feed the DAC with coax/toslink instead of usb. 192/usb would still be a nice feature, but it's not entirely necessary.

How would you do that out of an iMac?

 

[grokit]

 
Quote:

How would you do that out of an iMac?

 
The Mac isn't capable of rates over 96k. You would need an alternative interface such as M2Tech Hiface usb-coax converter to achieve 24/192z.

 

[WarriorAnt]

Quote:

 
 
The Mac isn't capable of rates over 96k. You would need an alternative interface such as M2Tech Hiface usb-coax converter to achieve 24/192z.

Ah. I'm new to computer audio.  My application Audio MIDI Setup show a rate selection up to 192 so I'm confused. It seems like my Mac can produce 192K 32 bit output.