Yeat another way to go USB into Naim DAC

quote:

Naim must include a proper async protocol in their next dac.

Yes that would be good - you've still got the issues of getting the computer end sorted though. Not everyone is keen to have a computer (however acoustically quiet) in the listening room and i'm more and more convinced that some of the issues people find with differing sound quality with different software, settings etc (de compressing on the fly, different USB cables) is down to the susceptibility of the hi-fi components to conducted and radiated emissions from the computer itself which can vary depending on the setup, earthing, cabling arrangements etc. Apart from looking at processor loading, i've not seen any tests yet which actually measure noise coupled into the DAC / Amplifier stages and correlate it against subjective changes in hi-fi performance.

James

Having a spare couple of mins i had a flick through the manual - two interesting modes. Virtual cable mode and a jitter simulator. Looks a nice piece of kit with some well thought out features and engineering.

James

I dont mind separate boxes. Not in the least.

So you want a Uniserve with a DAC inside, but without the ripping drive. Correct? Is that the ideal product?

In 10 years time you will have a hard time using it as you would today. All of the inputs, protocols etc will be different. You think UPNP will be used as it is now in 10-15 years?

I will in ten years time I will simply use whatever PC>spdif converter needed. Maybe that will be an e-sata to BNC, maybe firewire8>toslink, maybe HDMI2>coax, who knows?

All i know is that the less obsolete proof the DAC, the better.

I am hoping to use this source for years and years to come.

-Patrick

For once I agree with Patrick.

All the conversion crap can be left to a computer and OS as it was always intended.

If people don't want a computer as part of the chain, then what are they doing in this particular part of the forum?

quote:

Originally posted by DHT:
Naim must include a proper async protocol in their next dac.

Why? And what kind of async protocol?

If you're going to go properly implemented (OS supplied driver) async USB, then currently there are two implementations - Wavelength's Streamlength code as use by Ayre's QB9 or dCS's implementation also used by Arcam. Oh except only Mac OS X and Linux support Class 2.0 USB Audio required for 24/192 (with Streamlength), Windows still needs a vendor supplied driver; and dCS only support 24/96.

So then we look at the propriety implementations: yes there's a lot more of these available, but all potentially have problems with compatibility with different versions of software; motherboard chipsets; new versions of OS and issues where not all OSes are supported. In each case you're having to hold out for the manufacturer to write new drivers - and if we look at Naim's record of getting software out (new OS for HDX and Uniti for example) I for one wouldn't want to be holding my breath. If you go this route not longer is your DAC just an audio component but it's also a computer peripheral and you're beholden to support, new drivers, etc.

Eloise

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:
So you want a Uniserve with a DAC inside, but without the ripping drive

?
Nope.
I just want to put the DAC on my network and play files from whereever they are on my network through it, using whatever control object is handy. No desire to connect it to a particular pc whatsoever, anymore than a printer or network drive needs to be connected to a pc.

Networks will certainly be around for 10 years. USB to S/PDIF converters won't, they are just a transient kludge. Remember moving coil step up transformers?

Eloise it would seem obvious to me that if any manufacturer wants to compete they will have to adopt an async protocol.

quote:

Originally posted by likesmusic:
I just want to put the DAC on my network and play files from whereever they are on my network through it, using whatever control object is handy. No desire to connect it to a particular pc whatsoever, anymore than a printer or network drive needs to be connected to a pc.

So a completely new set of protocols: something like Resolution Audio's Pont Neuf but without a USB dongle?

quote:

Networks will certainly be around for 10 years. USB to S/PDIF converters won't, they are just a transient kludge. Remember moving coil step up transformers?

Those would be the moving coil step up transformers that some audiophiles (albeit not Naim) use because they still feel give the best sound?

Eloise

quote:

Originally posted by DHT:
Eloise it would seem obvious to me that if any manufacturer wants to compete they will have to adopt an async protocol.

Maybe: I'm just worried about a DAC becomming obsolete like my 5 year old scanner...

quote:

Originally posted by likesmusic:

I just want to put the DAC on my network and play files from whereever they are on my network through it, using whatever control object is handy.

Then buy a Linn DS.

quote:

Originally posted by DHT:
Eloise it would seem obvious to me that if any manufacturer wants to compete they will have to adopt an async protocol.

Like i've said. In 10 years time we will laugh at the existing USB connections on the DAC. I am hoping to use my source for longer than that hopefully.

quote:

Originally posted by Eloise:

Maybe: I'm just worried about a DAC becoming obsolete like my 5 year old scanner...

Exactly.... Remember those 8000 pin printer cables, and big monitor cables? They were around when people were using CDS2 that are still happily in service today.

I bought a very nice, very expensive mouse about 8 years ago that can only be used on a computer as old (and the Uniserve ), because it has that round connector.

I like that the DAC is a DAC. I want my DAC to be a solid usable source for as long as my buddy's Audio Note that is probably 20 years old now.

Imagine owning an ethernet ONLY streamer/DAC, like the Linns, in 10 years time.

quote:

Originally posted by garyi:
For once I agree with Patrick.

only once?

Gary, it isnt that they dont want a computer as a part of the chain, they want a computer in EVERY part of the chain.

A DAC with a computer inside of it, fed by a NAS with a computer inside of it, controlled by a computer, or phone with a computer in it.

It is taking distributed audio to its most extreme logical conclusion.

I would rather have the best possible sound now.

I just did a little research on the Linn players.

$7K or $18K for a streaming/networked DAC that ONLY has one input and it is ethernet?

Count me out.

quote:

Originally posted by DHT:
I would rather have the best possible sound now.

Don't you think Naim may have tried the USB solutions that existed when they were building the DAC and decided that the "best possible sound" came from using an external USB to SPDIF converter?

And what if they HAD included a little board with an M2Tech HiFace on it (for example) wouldn't you now be clammering for them to upgrade that to a M2Tech Evo baord?

Eloise

quote:

Originally posted by Eloise:
Don't you think Naim may have tried the USB solutions that existed when they were building the DAC and decided that the "best possible sound" came from using an external USB to SPDIF converter?

Personally, I think it's more down to software support as Naim would have to start supporting different OS drivers if they wanted to do an async. USB connection.

quote:

Originally posted by Andy S:

quote:

Originally posted by Eloise:
Don't you think Naim may have tried the USB solutions that existed when they were building the DAC and decided that the "best possible sound" came from using an external USB to SPDIF converter?

Personally, I think it's more down to software support as Naim would have to start supporting different OS drivers if they wanted to do an async. USB connection.

That's a possibility (and one I've commented on before) ... but then it's valid reason for NOT including USB as without drivers there is no sound at all ... which definitely ISN'T the best possible sound!! Having said that, I would have thought if there was that much to gain using an internal USB rather than an external converted (given the rest of the design of the DAC) that Naim would have tried harder to incorporate one.

quote:

Originally posted by Eloise:

quote:

Originally posted by DHT:
I would rather have the best possible sound now.

Don't you think Naim may have tried the USB solutions that existed when they were building the DAC and decided that the "best possible sound" came from using an external USB to SPDIF converter?


And what if they HAD included a little board with an M2Tech HiFace on it (for example) wouldn't you now be clammering for them to upgrade that to a M2Tech Evo baord?

Eloise

Eloise have you heard any async firewire dacs in your system?

quote:

Originally posted by DHT:
Eloise have you heard any async firewire dacs in your system?

No... but is that relevant?

Have you heard an inbuilt async USB connection vs. SPDIF into the Naim DAC? No of course you havn't because for various reasons we can speculate on Naim haven't implemented a direct to the DAC async USB connection. You could compare the inbuilt async USB in something like a Wyred4Sound DAC vs using a HiFace, but that wouldn't tell you how the Naim DAC would perform in a similar comparison. The only time I've heard reports of a similar comparison was involving a dCS Debussy (note all the other dCS setups have their async USB separate from the DAC and connected via SPDIF or AES) and it was reported that a SPDIF connection was preferred (sorry can't remember which device was used in this test - possibly INT202 but not 100% sure) - this is obviously purely anecdotal. In addition to all that - would you really have wanted to wait even longer for the DAC. 12-18 months ago when then DAC was first mentioned there were (that I know of) 3 async USB implementations - Wavelength (also used by Ayre); dCS and Musiland. Yes there are more now, but that is significantly longer to wait and many of the DACs which were promised with async USb were significantly delayed.

There's no right or wrong answer to this, just like there's no right or wrong answer to using Ethernet as an alternative (though that brings another bucket load of issues - to start apart from UPnP there is not universally available protocols to do what people are asking for AFAIK).

Sorry I've realised after typing you asked the question to begin about "Firewire Async". Well I guess the same can be said for FireWire too. At the end of the day, my comment is that with the Naim DAC there is no evidence that an internal async solution WOULD provide higher quality audio (because the end user cannot test it) and I am giving benefit of the doubt to Naim that they did experiment with such connection methods and decided not to implement it more because the gains were not significant compared with the troubles. You could say ... well Naim want to sell the HDX or UnitiServe to go along side the DAC rather than promoting the use of general purpose computers ... but think about that. If USB technology gave significant improvement, couldn't they have implemented a USB link on the HDX / UnitiServe with just software update - the hardware is in place on those devices and it would have made the UnitiServe a simpler device (no PCI card to provide SPDIF required).

At the end of the day I think we can rely that Naim have tried multiple solutions before deciding on the SPDIF feeding SHARC processing with buffer schema that they implemented. Just like I would thick (referring to another thread) they would have experimented with ESS Sabre DAC chips (and others) before deciding on the PCM1704 and the way (it's reported) they test different manufacturers of cables before deciding which AC cable to supply. And such discussions are pretty pointless - we're second guessing future products (though I hope the DAC will be around considerable time rather than the chopping and changing of product lines some manufacturers are guilty of) and there is no USB input (from your computer) so the object is to get the best input you can from a third party rather than worrying about what ifs and maybes.

Eloise

quote:

Originally posted by DHT:

quote:

Originally posted by Eloise:

quote:

Originally posted by DHT:
I would rather have the best possible sound now.

Don't you think Naim may have tried the USB solutions that existed when they were building the DAC and decided that the "best possible sound" came from using an external USB to SPDIF converter?


And what if they HAD included a little board with an M2Tech HiFace on it (for example) wouldn't you now be clammering for them to upgrade that to a M2Tech Evo baord?

Eloise

Eloise have you heard any async firewire dacs in your system?

However it is not a question addressed to me, but probably good to know, the majority of firewire dac manufacturers are using the Firewire implementation of TC Applied Technology, the so called Dice II or Dice Jr/Dice Mini boards and drivers. Actually Weiss is using Dice Jr. Some of the very cheap interfaces like TC Electronic Impact Twin for 250 Euro using this too. So if an exceptional product like Weiss Dac2 or 202 sounds good it is about the whole, not about part of the construction. As I remember, only two manufacturers, Metric Halo (and Sonic Studio) and Apogee are using their own firewire implementation, Metric Halo/Sonic Studio with very advanced DSPs too, something similar to the Naim DAC. The rest of others like, Mytek, Lynx, Prism, Lexicon, Focusrite, M-Audio, PreSonus, Allen and Heath, Alesis, RME, Motu, etc are using a variation of Dice and JetPLL solutions from TC.

quote:

Originally posted by ferenc:
As I remember, only two manufacturers, Metric Halo (and Sonic Studio) and Apogee are using their own firewire implementation, Metric Halo/Sonic Studio with very advanced DSPs too, something similar to the Naim DAC. The rest of others like, Mytek, Lynx, Prism, Lexicon, Focusrite, M-Audio, PreSonus, Allen and Heath, Alesis, RME, Motu, etc are using a variation of Dice and JetPLL solutions from TC.

Just for reference / correction ... RME also use their own implementation.

quote:

From: http://www.rme-audio.de/en_pro...verview_firewire.php
The secret of success: RME is the only manufacturer not to use a third party FireWire audio technology, but an own, self-developed Firewire Audio Core with an outstanding performance and uncompromising pro audio features. We´ve revolutioned and combined the technic with the unique RME features. TotalMix, ultra-low latencies down to one millisecond, including on-the-fly latency changes, support of multiple devices, samplerates up to 192 kHz and much more.

quote:

Originally posted by Eloise:

quote:

Originally posted by likesmusic:
I just want to put the DAC on my network and play files from whereever they are on my network through it, using whatever control object is handy. No desire to connect it to a particular pc whatsoever, anymore than a printer or network drive needs to be connected to a pc.

So a completely new set of protocols: something like Resolution Audio's Pont Neuf but without a USB dongle?

quote:

Networks will certainly be around for 10 years. USB to S/PDIF converters won't, they are just a transient kludge. Remember moving coil step up transformers?

Those would be the moving coil step up transformers that some audiophiles (albeit not Naim) use because they still feel give the best sound?

Eloise

The highly respected Nagra still does.

Lots of us have heard various firewire interfacecs but don't use them for personal enjoyment though we may for a specialized use. Naim supplies sources they trust. Beyond that, you can use what you like as there are a myriad of solutions depending on what you want to do. There is no consensus on the best computer arrangement. Ferenc, David D and I were promoting firewire/jet/async for computers when everybody here was using tos and Itunes because they were 'bit perfect' and nothing else mattered . This was before any mention of a seperate Naim DAC. I said at the time that the board would come around because these things were self evident once looked at with an open mind and better files. It's silly that now we are being 'told' all about it. Perspective.

You can like something but it doesn't mean it's best for everyone. Ignoring SPdif, there's sync, async of some sort, ethernet or combo. At this point ethernet is the more viable. Firewire the least due to market penetration. If you do ethernet, it would be silly to include that without full rendering and streaming capabilities. Those that prefer a local computer interface wont want it and those that only want to stream will not want the additional async interface. All can use SPdif with your own source solution. Naim's Spdif can also gets the most from non computer sources which is still a strong part of the market.

None of that makes the other worse as a way to address this but there are a lot of very myopic views on how to do this. I prefer the SPdif interface as I use all of the above type sources and can optimize as I see fit.

quote:

I just did a little research on the Linn players.

$7K or $18K for a streaming/networked DAC that ONLY has one input and it is ethernet?

Count me out.

Patrick, Linn KDS sounds beautiful. It's a very special product.
And I'm sure Ethernet has inherent capacity to break through the time.
Linn will definitely keep successful sales of DS range for quite a prolonged time.

And it costs less than $18K in my area

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:

quote:

Originally posted by DHT:
Eloise it would seem obvious to me that if any manufacturer wants to compete they will have to adopt an async protocol.

Like i've said. In 10 years time we will laugh at the existing USB connections on the DAC. I am hoping to use my source for longer than that hopefully.

Longer than 10 years? On the background of a digital market growth?

Patrick, be sure I shall remind you on this post the next summer