USB DACs with 24/192 via USB


Are there any "audiophile" quality DACs that can receive a 24/192 input via USB?
bigamp
07-24-09: Restock
There is something to be said for Firewire too - the best computer DAC implementation I heard to date uses Firewire (the Weiss DAC2/Minerva). But that requires extra drivers as well for 24/192 operation.
That Focusrite Saffire, in addition to having two FireWire ports and RCA SP/DIF In and Out, also has built-in A/D *and* D/A converters with a max rate of 24/192.

List price $500 (same as the Bel Canto USB-to-SP/DIF converter), but typical street price is $350. And if the DAC isn't up to snuff, one can always send the SP/DIF signal to a Benchmark, Lavry, or what have you. (PS:Lavry eschews 192K intentionally).
Restock hit the nail on the head. It's not just souncard versus USB. If you feed a wordclock signal from the dac to the soundcard, you get better results than just sound card alone. Also, there a different ways to do USB - asynchronous, isochronous, different drivers, etc. And not all USB implementations are created equal. That's why other companies are now licensing Empirical Audio's technology for their USB implementations. A few years ago, there was a movement away from sound cards with AES and no wordclock feedback toward asynchronous USB because you could get lower jitter.

Without owning one, it seems that Playback Designs and the new Emm Labs DAC2 eliminate the problem of which type of signal to use by doing whatever they do to correct the signal after it reaches the DAC. Now, is the result better if you use a less jittery USB signal compared to AES signal that comes off a noisy PC internal sound card? I don't know.

Restock

“I don't see any benefits of introducing an extra step of a sound card conversion from USB to AES/coax. In fact, I really don't see the advantage of using the badly designed AES/coax SPDIF connection that lacks a separate clock transfer and barely can make 24/192 (most SPDIF inputs are limited to 24/96 too).”

I don’t claim to have the professional knowledge of exactly what USB can and/or can not handle, nor the reaches of coax, be it thru put or bit rates beyond 96KHz… or if it is in fact as simple as a ‘driver’ issue for USB. What ever the case is, Coax, AES & BnC connections are on and have been on many stand alone DACs which tout processing 16/44 all the way up to 24/192 for some time now and they up sample or over sample the given input signal within. There are even one box solutions which do this as well. Long before USB or IEEE came along. They all seemed to be doing just fine using the interfaces I listed to supply the initial input signal (s). they too are all converting, or transmuting one signal to another… so adding steps to the processing of a signal isn’t altogether a bad thing then…. For some.

Of the DACs you mention most of them, if not all of them are well beyond certainly my own means. EM labs, Weiss, Imperical, etc., and perhaps those of many others. Consequently, my proposal was an alternative route to extract info beyond 24/96 without the use of a USB to ??? converter. After all if it’s a USB changeover device of sorts, or a sound card, the info is being converted at any rate. Some folks use still more pricey cards than I’ve employed to feed still more pricey DACs than I’ve had the opportunity to own. I’d not wish to had a DAC which ONLY supported one interface.

Then too, the only truly limiting factor is the system the information winds up being reproduced with.

Restock
“One of the big advantages with asynchronous USB is that you can place the clock right next to the DAC chip and slave the PC to the DAC clock. That gives the lowest jitter and something that is not at all possible with AES, coax or any other traditional conversion schemes. Finally, the only limit to data transfer rates via USB is due to the lack of drivers. If a company is willing to write drivers for their DAC then 24/192 won't be a problem. And I don't see USB disappearing from PCs anytime soon.”

You might want to look closer at some of even the lesser expensive sound cards now on the mkt. They allow for this particular step… slaving the pc to the clock in the stand alone DAC… even my M Audio 24/192 Audiophile PCI card can do that. Very well in fact, and for about $160 new… or you can set it to use it’s own internal clock. You pick.

I set it to external and make use of the BC DAC 3’s clock.

I don’t see USB going away either… I simply submit it remains unsettled. The addition of IEEE supports that remark. Some future iteration is also on the not distant horizon. What then?

I merely wanted to input alterior methods to convey pc info into a stereo system which permits very good to exceptional sound quality, if not truly remarkable, IMO. In fact I’ve found using much simpler paths a most satisfying, moderately expensive alternative route which allows for outstanding sound in my opinion, and in truth. Just as you said the best you had heard was via the IEEE WEISS MINERVA.

I’ve gone thru several ASIO USB drivers, cards, media players, file formats, interfaces and DACs. From modestly priced to significantly costly ones. What I mention here is exactly my own experiences and just what I use and own now. Nothing more.

I’d love nothing better than to drop $5K $ 10K on a DAC without blinking an eye. I can’t however. It’s that simple. I’ve heard upsampled signals too and I can take them or leave them… past 24/96 I don’t perceive a performance gain, but merely a difference in the sounds presentation itself. Some could well argue that diff is an improvement, subjectively speaking. I don’t.

AS to the driver barrier…. I doubt that issue will be resolved by confuser makers at large any time soon. Rather, I suspect such an area will be addressed by those DAC makers who wish to support ultra high res pc generated signals, or they’ll convert them in their own DACs, which will as now, remain financially well out of reach for many. It will be interesting to see who learns to write code proficiently enough to satisfy current driver needs, and supports such needs with future updates. So there’s a whole other bag of worms.

God bless you if you can afford to dwell on that bleeding edge, for it is a less peopled region and changes all too rapidly.

I too feel much of the numbers game is simply that… a numbers game providing different more often than it serves the ideal of true betterment. I find that argument akin to that which opposes tube and solid state mavens. Neither camp there is without validation. Neither can one say which is definitely the best method for the end result to be had with those quite personal choices.

I don’t always feel that removal of items in the signal path is always the answer to improve performance, or arrive at a better sonic product…. Ie., Subtracting a preamp and going directly from a DAC to an amplifier, for example, or always use less components in a loudspeakers x over network.

I’m not going inside any of these gizmos. I won’t be modding them or seeking such avenues with these components. I would be simply plugging them in and listening. How many fewer or further steps are in the processing, matters not in the end.

Practically speaking, it’s always going to come down to as I‘ve already said, “What’s it sound like to me in my house, and can or do I want to pay for it.” Technology aside.

Until the dust settles, and prices drop, the majority will seek out, and very well should, other means which offer stability and well above average performance for lesser expense. Latest ain’t always greatest, and highest priced isn’t always anything but the highest priced.
Bindjim - here is some nice info on USB and the driver requirements in plain terms:

24/192 high rez via USB - Drivers, EMU0404, etc.

The biggest problem with USB right now is really the mediocre and after-though implementations of many current DACs that just add USB as a second interface without using the advantages of USB (the TAS review just reflected that). Some of the DACs that have a dedicated USB interface of course do have good implementations, except then you throw all eggs into one basket which is not always a good thing.
It seems from reading the above that, in terms of ethernet connections, wireless is considered better than wired. Why is that? Is it simply so that one can place the computer/nas/etc further away from the audio equipment?