Jump to content

Know of any cheap true 24/96 USB DACs?


yoginasser

Recommended Posts

I was told that the Bel Canto USB Link 24/96 was made to allow 24/96 type files to be put out via the computers USB and received via the coax of their USB 24/96 DAC so that people could overcome the limitations of their (and most DACs USBs) to receive anything over 16/44.1 , I was impressed that someone could spend so much money on their DAC and still not have a simple solution for this issue without blowing an extra $500.Before looking into this I just thought that if a USB DAC said 24/96 then that's what you would be getting via the USB.If I'm not mistaken Wavelength DACs deal with this issue without the use of a USB to coax converter just over the USB,does anyone here know if there is a cheap DAC that can achieve this on a budget of $200 or less?

Thanks in advance for any help on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for those suggestions.

The 0404 may be the closest thing to what I'm looking for but some have reported issues with vista (and some have reported that they have had no issues with even vista 64),Any idea if any of the cheapy DACs off of fLeBay

(Zero or Zhaolu ) would deliver?I'm not really looking for a soundcard or interface solution,just a stand alone DAC that can accept USB at 24/96.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is something I have always been curious and annoyed at......

I can absolutely see the point in striving for a 24/96 USB transport if you have 24/96 source material. But if you are like the vast majority of us just running CD audio at 16/44.1 ripped to FLAC, then what is the point of using 24/96 from the PC? It means you are upsampling in software, giving your PC more to do in real time, and sending large amounts of unnecessary data over USB - all of which I would argue would significantly amplify the potential for audible jitter.

Surely it is better to leave the audio in its native format, let the DAC do any upsampling, and minimise the amount of data that needs to be sent? Or is there something I am oversimplifying here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is something I have always been curious and annoyed at......

I can absolutely see the point in striving for a 24/96 USB transport if you have 24/96 source material. But if you are like the vast majority of us just running CD audio at 16/44.1 ripped to FLAC, then what is the point of using 24/96 from the PC? It means you are upsampling in software, giving your PC more to do in real time, and sending large amounts of unnecessary data over USB - all of which I would argue would significantly amplify the potential for audible jitter.

Surely it is better to leave the audio in its native format, let the DAC do any upsampling, and minimise the amount of data that needs to be sent? Or is there something I am oversimplifying here?

It only means 24/96 is the highest supported rate. 16/44.1 will stay 16/44.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some audiophile websites sell high res downloads in 24/96.

Oh sure, if you have a big collection of high-res material, I can understand completely. But it seems that the vast majority don't, and it is just a case of moar USB!

It only means 24/96 is the highest supported rate. 16/44.1 will stay 16/44.1

I've seen quite a few cases of people installing upsampling DSPs in Foobar just so that they can use the 24/96 capabilities of their shiny new transport :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOW!Thanks everyone for your suggestions.

I have not heard anyone mention the Audiotrak Prodigy Cube before (especially at that nice price),do you use it yourself Azazel?It would be cool if someone here has used the 0404 and the prodigy cube to see the differences in performance between the two.The 0202 was a consideration for me until I read the reviews on amazon.

Beefy:There are lots of guys on the P2P torrent sites that rip their vinyl collections in 24/96 WAV/FLAC files and share them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beefy:There are lots of guys on the P2P torrent sites that rip their vinyl collections in 24/96 WAV/FLAC files and share them.

Cool bananas. Just checking that you are striving for 24/96 for the right reasons.

Only if it uses an integer multiplier, otherwise what do you do with the partial bits? (Hint: if an upsample followed by downsample isn't an identity transform, what just happened?)

Not that I would ever use it, but I was pleasantly surprised to see the other day that the el-cheapo Philips DVD player I bought upsamples CD data to 24 bit, 88.2kHz or 176.4kHz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By this do you mean that it plays SACDs, or that it does it's own upsampling of RB CDs in which case why wouldn't you????

No, just redbook. I won't use it because I'm pretty sure my Buffalo DAC will do a better job upsampling job than a CA$64 DVD player ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't say a thing like that and not send a brother an invite, yogi. That's just not nice :)

Consider an invitation always open to you good sir:dan:

Cool bananas. Just checking that you are striving for 24/96 for the right reasons.

This reminds me of when I was first interested in hearing a hi-rez download,so I downloaded Amadeus soundtrack (at a retarded price if I might say) and when I was listening very carefully I could hear the stylus contact with the vinyl:palm: It sounded great but it made me appreciate what the P2P community are doing and realize that their methods are no so different.

I share your opinion on the upsampling BTW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It means you are upsampling in software, giving your PC more to do in real time, and sending large amounts of unnecessary data over USB - all of which I would argue would significantly amplify the potential for audible jitter.
I'm not sure I see how you get to your "if A then B" B. If you're upsampling in software, then you're probably not doing anything to the driver. Large amounts of data, yes, unnecessary -- well, only if you don't care about upsampling, in which case, why are you upsampling? And now you're at 24/96, not 16/44.1, I don't see how that can amplify the potentional for audible jitter. Going from 16/44.1 to 24/96 -- in, for example, the Monarchy DIP -- inherently reduces jitter (some people use it mostly as a jitter reducer, not because they believe in upsampling).
Surely it is better to leave the audio in its native format, let the DAC do any upsampling, and minimise the amount of data that needs to be sent? Or is there something I am oversimplifying here?
Depends on whether you believe the DAC's upsampling algorithm is superior to whatever software you plan on using.
Only if it uses an integer multiplier, otherwise what do you do with the partial bits? (Hint: if an upsample followed by downsample isn't an identity transform, what just happened?)
Transmorphicalization?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I see how you get to your "if A then B" B. If you're upsampling in software, then you're probably not doing anything to the driver. Large amounts of data, yes, unnecessary......

It is my understanding that jitter over USB is a problem only when the frames aren't transmitted at precise 1ms intervals. If you are processing, buffering and sending the smallest possible amount of data, there is less chance of the transmit window being missed than if you have to process, buffer and send much more data.

Again, if I am oversimplifying things, I am happy to be corrected.

And now you're at 24/96, not 16/44.1

You still haven't gained any extra information. For data transmission over what is possibly the least reliable medium, I personally don't see the point.

Depends on whether you believe the DAC's upsampling algorithm is superior to whatever software you plan on using.

True.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still haven't gained any extra information. For data transmission over what is possibly the least reliable medium...
Depends what algorithm you use. If you use one that invents data, then you have, indeed, gained information. Fictitious information, agreed...as to whether or not it is superior or inferior to the input is subjective.
I personally don't see the point.
Well then, don't. I explained one or two possible scenarios, but if you don't want to be convinced, then I'll stop trying to teach the pig to sing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.