which is better : USB asynch or network tcp/ip for low jitter

Analogue music, these are really two very different methods of transporting data. Asynchronous audio using USB in isochronous mode is akin to SPDIF, that is the data is sent in a stream at a rate determined by the sender. Clearly that rate and the sample rate need to be related or the buffer would run out or overload in the receiver. Typically the data here is rebuffered and then accurately clocked to be sent to the DAC. Therefore jitter in the data rate can be ironed out. In the early days of SPDIF the DAC clock used to be directly derived from the SPDIF transport clock, and here jitter in the sender clock would have a marked effect in the audio sample jitter. That would be unusual now.

Streaming audio over the Ethernet with AirPlay, upnp and web radio, typically uses something called TCP. This is a transport protocol, which receives packets of data at differing rates and even out of order and are then reconstructed into a big data window and passed over to the application. So hear the audio data received is topped up into a big buffer, and then accurately clocked out by the network renderer. This clock is the important one. The network timing had little to do with the sample data jitter or quality, unless the buffer runs dry.. (like the gapless issue). If the buffer gets full the receiver simply tells the sender not to send data until there is space.

So in summary, there is not one preference over an other IMO, it is down to the implemtation and the accuracy of the buffer clocks in the receivers.

Simon

So basically the DAC V1 is special because it is really the first naim dac that connects directly to a USB port.

Am I right to assume it would offer no special advantage sonically or jitter wise over say ND5XS ?

Of cours there is the not small matter of cost ! 

Most of us own computers and squeezebox touch, so for me purchasing ND5XS is making my SBT a bit redundant?

There is also the matter of PSU upgrade.... 

Yes the DacV1 is the first Naim DAC to use isochronous mode USB to carry asynchronous audio data. The other DAC and the Network players use different USB formats, ie they play files or Apple audio over USB.

Other than the transport interfaces between the DACs I am sure there other differences, but am not familiar with the DAC details of the V1.

A ND5XS will IMO make the SBT redundant. My SB has gathered dust since I got an NDX. There really is no comparison, even if using an external DAC, well according to my ears.

Simon

Wat, FWIW, other than I haven't yet heard the DACv1, I agree with your preferences.. You are not alone.

Simon

You know Simon - the second I saw this thread title I thought this was right up your alley, and it required your attention & expertise!

But the thread question remains.... we know that both usb and ethernet inputs can be great but which one has better SQ potential? I mean if we consider all the factors that may disturb data apart from those explained by Simon. For instance, has not ethernet the advantage of taking the computer out of the equation? I have been playing with computer audio for some years and IMO the software player and the computer hardware have their importance in the digital audio chain when using a USB port. 

The answer that I have satisfied myself with is that there are too many variables beyond the usb vs. ethernet variables.  It is impossible to 'tease out' which is better, as there are always confounding variables when devices are listened to. 

One can speculate based on 'theory,' but as we all know, theory ends and what sounds better takes over at some point.  I find the 'theoretical' answers to be useless, imho of course.

I don't know which is better, but I know Wat's annoying. Keep it in your moniker or avatar.

Please.

Wat would that be?

Gordon Bennett  Just reading this thread has given me an headache !!

Thank goodness I just play humble CD's

I would suggest to all V1 (can't guaranty the same on nDAC, I haven't heard it) owners to try MQn player. It leaves anything, I tried so far, in the dust.

I have never believed that computer and player are to do so much to the SQ. I completely changed my mind.

My V1/100/P3ESR is transformed into an "analog" like sound machine!

Wat,

No offence taken.

I have found your posts interesting in general. However, when reading them, the insertion of the « Wat » interrupts the flow of the idea and says « look how clever I am ». It's cute once. Beyond that it's irritating.

If your intent is to be humorous, you've missed the mark. If the intent is to stamp an original style on your writing, may I suggest taking some cues from Speedo.

all the best,

jan

I gotta agree with Jan on this.    Why not just stop?  It's gotta be a pain to type

wat,

it's a free forum, and freedom of expression is ok.

however, this is a place where people discuss hi fi, and it takes a certain level of expenditure to even own a basic Nait.

clearer typing makes it easier to read postings, and I must say your content is good and I appreciated your response.

By the way I am not very keen on the Linn way of changing c into K. 

Now, Watever happened to Speedo? They were great posts, very witty. In my view, Wat's posts are informed and useful, though the 'Wat' within sentences is a little unhelpful. A lot of Forumites are not native English speakers, and may find it confusing. Or not, on the other hand.

here