Naim DAC... revisited

Asynchronous USB gets my vote and a couple of SPDIF connections. Just concentrate on getting this bit right than offering all things to all men with multiple 'pro' interfaces and needing to compromise.

Asychronous USB would make this DAC a really plug and play solution for PCs and Macs but I think it would imply a limitation for HD formats because of USB bandwith limitation. Firewire wouldn't, Weiss DAC use this.

Anyway, I don't think including SPDIF, optical and AES/EBU would compromise the sound or would make it much more expensive to produce.

USB bandwidth is not an issue for audio streaming.

USB 2.0 @ 480Mb/s is more than adequate for HD audio. Let alone USB 3.0 at 4.7Gb/s.

quote:

Originally posted by Occean:
USB bandwidth is not an issue for audio streaming.

USB 2.0 @ 480Mb/s is more than adequate for HD audio. Let alone USB 3.0 at 4.7Gb/s.

Maybe it shouldn't be an issue but AFAIK current DACs can't handle anything above 24/96 via USB!

quote:

Originally posted by goldfinch:

quote:

Originally posted by Occean:
USB bandwidth is not an issue for audio streaming.

USB 2.0 @ 480Mb/s is more than adequate for HD audio. Let alone USB 3.0 at 4.7Gb/s.

Maybe it shouldn't be an issue but AFAIK current DACs can't handle anything above 24/96 via USB!

...without a custom driver.

quote:

Originally posted by goldfinch:

quote:

Originally posted by Occean:
USB bandwidth is not an issue for audio streaming.

USB 2.0 @ 480Mb/s is more than adequate for HD audio. Let alone USB 3.0 at 4.7Gb/s.

Maybe it shouldn't be an issue but AFAIK current DACs can't handle anything above 24/96 via USB!

The limitation isn't USB bandwidth. USB 2.0 can move data about 100X faster than is required for real-time 24/96 stereo.

quote:

Originally posted by David Dever:

quote:

Originally posted by goldfinch:

quote:

Originally posted by Occean:
USB bandwidth is not an issue for audio streaming.

USB 2.0 @ 480Mb/s is more than adequate for HD audio. Let alone USB 3.0 at 4.7Gb/s.

Maybe it shouldn't be an issue but AFAIK current DACs can't handle anything above 24/96 via USB!

...without a custom driver.

If a custom controller/driver is needed and none firm in the industry has taken yet this direction, I guess it is unlikely Naim offered it with its first DAC. Maybe asychronous USB up to 24/96 with the usual USB controllers other DACs are using?
What kind of USB input is Naim using with HDX?

I was ignorant enough to encode a few needle drops to 24/192. They play wonderfully via USB.

Exactly what are we talking about here that USB is unsuitable for?
5 channel audio in 24/96?

Just why use USB? Surely you panicking types (Yes PCS I am talking about you) would have some serious fears about other USB items on the hub.

Just don't see the point except as a solution for people with shit computers with no digital output. In which case upgrade the computer first.

quote:

Originally posted by garyi:
Just why use USB? Surely you panicking types (Yes PCS I am talking about you) would have some serious fears about other USB items on the hub.

Just don't see the point except as a solution for people with shit computers with no digital output. In which case upgrade the computer first.

Couldn't be argued that USB input has more potential for computer audio than any other interface?

With an asinchronous and custom controller USB DAC it would be possible to stream bits even with a crappy computer...

With a digital out (SPDIF, AES/EBU) you still need to invest in a decent audio device to feed the DAC with low jitter.

quote:

Originally posted by garyi:
a solution for people with shit computers with no digital output. In which case upgrade the computer first.

I have a digital output on my soundcard, as I suspect you do in your Mac. My own Mac does not have a digital output, whatever that is worth. That the digital output on your Mac Mini soundcard is integrated into the casing and box, and therefore not upgradeable is a draw back in my opinion. And honestly I dont think there is a difference, sonically or otherwise between bit-perfect passthrough of PC digi out, Mac digi out, USB to Toslink convertors, USB to I2S, Firewire, etc.... As long as all are bit perfect.

I just dont see the point of using a stock Mac/Apple soundcard blindly without questioning anything, then assume a "shit computer" with a pro sound card, is somehow inferior?

If Naim released a Firewire only DAC, it wouldn't sell.

To be honest, I trust USB output far more than any digital output of ANY computer, PC, MAC or otherwise.... or Operating system... Which is really what we are talking about anyway with Mac v PC arguments. For example, in Mac/iTunes, there are bit perfect issues with the volume control. XP PC have ASIO whatnot and K-mixer issues. All of which can be bypassed by keeping Foobar or iTunes volumes at 100%, and NOT playing more than one source through the card at a time.

Other things on the USB Hub? Like hard drives? Not worried about it. My system sounds fantastic. Even with a shit source..... the Beresford.

Why does it always come down to Mac v PC? How does threads always devolve to this?

Let's forget about PC vs Mac war!

IMO Naim DAC should work just as well with both of them,
What I would like to discuss is if USB asynchronous would be the best interface for performance...

The Weiss Minerva/DAC 2 has a firewire input and Daniel Weiss believes this to be the best mode of connection. The DAC 2 is very highly regarded. I too have wondered about the difference between Firewire/USB/optical etc and wondered whether it really matters.

Googling about I found out some stuff that may or may not be important. If any of it is incorrect I am sure someone will very politely correct me

1. Daniel Weiss in a paper on his site says that using Firewire he can slave the computer to the clock in his DAC.

2. Firewire can operate in what is called isochronous mode where bandwidth between two devices connected by Firewire can be guaranteed.

3. USB requires help from the computer's main processor to operate - Firewire can operate independently of the processor

I can see how all of these things could be important.

Thanks for sharing that Harry,

Gordon from Wavelenght (this company offers a range of USB DACs)explained in computer audiophile forum why he prefers USB interface:

1. Some companies like Apple has removed firewire from its new products (compatibility issue).
2.He claims USB lets you do things natively that are not supported by Firewire because the former has a better audio protocol.
3.USB lets the door open for 24/192 res or higher depending on the processor used (for instance ARM controllers). Most current stereo USB audio controllers are limited to 24/96, though.
4. It is possible to operate in Asynchronous USB making unnecessary to use additional PLL, upsamplers or reclockers to reduce the jitter. I think you can have the same advantage in Firewire.

Nonetheless, He also thinks Firewire drivers are simpler than USB drivers.

I haven't heard a good USB implementation yet, I don't think this is necessarily a problem with the dac, but with the 'other' end of the USB connection the PC or whatever, firewire on the Weiss is absolutely superb.

Although Apple have removed FireWire 400 from its products it is replaced by FireWire 800. A number of convertors exist in cable form and plugs, I believe.

I am sure, over time, we shall all be discussing the sonic quality of each of these convertors

quote:

Originally posted by Harry H. Wombat:
Although Apple have removed FireWire 400 from its products it is replaced by FireWire 800. A number of convertors exist in cable form and plugs, I believe.

I am sure, over time, we shall all be discussing the sonic quality of each of these convertors

Though the isosychroous capability of a firewire interface has higher capability for multichannel use, asynchronous USB should be more than enough for hi-res audio files. Until the asynchronous wall was broken, firewire was the the way to go but only because no-one got it right with standard USB. This still doesn't mean that standard USB can't work well with additional conditioning sans reclocking. Maybe not even that as I can get excellent results from usb attached drives for a player to access. Perhaps the interface bits most are using just aren't very good. Getting your ducks in a row before attaching the clock in an accurate way should be all that's required though this may actually be a bit more complex in a standard synchronous USB configuration.
Even firewire interfaces need more elaborate clocking circuits to be at their best. It's why you find JET or DICE technology in the better ones. These are significantly more complex than a PLL in use. It makes a lot better marketing sense to use a universal interface if it's capabilities don't limit performance as applied. The key is being smart enough to pull it off and there's really no reason why it can't be done.

Firewire, while not my first choice, would be just fine. If it was the only (hard to believe), "Computer" input available on the Naim DAC, I would simply add a Firewire card to my PC.... Wait... I think it does have Firewire. Well I know my lappy does.

If the DAC is that good, I will accommodate, as I suspect many others would.

Seeing that Naim has integrated USB into more than one of their products, and nothing with Firewire, I think the Firewire zealots better ready themselves for a big disappointment.

Why are people talking about firewire, its all but dead.

The new 'metric halo' dac is firewire, that is supposed to be 'state of the art' at the moment.

Firewire is easier to get right with multichannel interfaces like those used in pro mixing gear. It's why you see a lot of it there.

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:
Firewire, while not my first choice, would be just fine. If it was the only (hard to believe), "Computer" input available on the Naim DAC, I would simply add a Firewire card to my PC.... Wait... I think it does have Firewire. Well I know my lappy does.

If the DAC is that good, I will accommodate, as I suspect many others would.

Seeing that Naim has integrated USB into more than one of their products, and nothing with Firewire, I think the Firewire zealots better ready themselves for a big disappointment.

I think I will accomodate too, but it might be Naim had been working on a USB interface for its DAC. From a marketing point of view, excellent performance through USB is needed for such a product aimed to computer audio aficionados.
From all possible digital inputs (SPDIF, optical, AES/EBU, I2S), the DAC will have spdif and optical for compatibility with tv tuners, dvd, cdp. I hope they won't forget at least AES/EBU, again for the same reason, I think this interface is necessary to make the DAC appealing to computer audiophile crowd.

Is there any launch date? june?

quote:

Originally posted by goldfinch:

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:
Firewire, while not my first choice, would be just fine. If it was the only (hard to believe), "Computer" input available on the Naim DAC, I would simply add a Firewire card to my PC.... Wait... I think it does have Firewire. Well I know my lappy does.

If the DAC is that good, I will accommodate, as I suspect many others would.

Seeing that Naim has integrated USB into more than one of their products, and nothing with Firewire, I think the Firewire zealots better ready themselves for a big disappointment.

I think I will accomodate too, but it might be Naim had been working on a USB interface for its DAC. From a marketing point of view, excellent performance through USB is needed for such a product aimed to computer audio aficionados.
From all possible digital inputs (SPDIF, optical, AES/EBU, I2S), the DAC will have spdif and optical for compatibility with tv tuners, dvd, cdp. I hope they won't forget at least AES/EBU, again for the same reason, I think this interface is necessary to make the DAC appealing to computer audiophile crowd.

Is there any launch date? june?

Lots more computers have firewire than aes/ebu. I would guess higher than 100/1. Pro interface which would have only been added after purchase. All have USB and again at a significantly higher rate than Firewire. AES/EBU would be nice for the pro market but I really don't see the need for audiophiles, especially if they sort out a direct computer interface where the DAC would effectively replace the sound card.

I hope that Paul clarifies some of the rumor mill that's been presented vis a vis the DAC.

Apparantly some have commented that the "First" dac will have a pre in it. There was no mention earleir of this. I hope that this is not true and that the entire development is devoted to the "DAC itself." There is no way that the pre in the DAC will be as good as a separate Naim pre-amplfier or the pre in a SN etc... I've heard other examples of a DAC wit a pre and the same DAC bypassing the internal pre with an external one was far superior.

quote:

There is no way that the pre in the DAC will be as good as .... the pre in a SN etc.

Don't follow - why wouldn't the pre in the SN with an external power-amp be as good. Lets wait for the product and then we can judge how good it sounds.