Paul. Spot on. I've been using spdif as an output from my player to my receiver for years and wasn't happy with the sound. By accident, one day, I connected it through HDMI audio. The difference was AMAZING. I can't understand why DACs don't usually include HDMI as an usual input.
I am new to this, but from Paul’s other video clips I believe HDMI is a proprietary audio video interface by Sony. Any HDMI ‘out’ from a TV etc. is going to be that proprietary interface, coding, etc. . What Paul is talking about in this video is just using the HDMI cable for an I2S out -> I2S in, which are aren’t common in most DACs, amps, and others. No?
@@jasonraasch405 Sounds like he is referring to his eArc thing on his TV, not I2S. It could be very well that the sound is better on his HDMI connection though, some toslink outputs on TVs have terrible jitter and dont sound very good.
Somehow he didn't actually answer your question so I will took a liberty of doing so. The best way is through real-time DSD conversion to DoP output method through USB. Naturally the DAC have to support DSD decoding & DoP input. For instance Onkyo HF player (Android/iOS) supports this method. It pretty much resolves the most of signal multiplication and dividing that whose bean talked in video while adding sind waigh with real time volume normalisation put to weak. It simply works when it's good implemented which in this case is. Best regards.
Thanks for inventing I2S inputs and outputs, Paul! I am starting to better appreciate the unusually large number of innovations PS Audio has made to the hifi industry.
I wonder why audio over ethernet cable isn't popular!! My both integrated amp and CD player HK990 and HD 990 have HRS-link (high resolution synchronisation), When the HRS-link is established, the CD player doesn’t use its internal clocks but locks itself to the external clocks delivered by the amplifier. The data extracted from the disc is then stored into buffers asynchronously and formatted synchronously to the amplifier clocks into 24 bits and up sampled to a 192 kHz stream. The result is a jitter free connection between two units, similar to having the CD player inside the amplifier. Jitter is less than 1ps RMS
Your format has a great concept but only for very high-end revealing systems. With my modest setup (oppo 203, marantz pm6007, B&W 606 S2 AE) a regular coax/toslink are more than enough for an external dac.
Would seem to me if you have a great CD player like the Marantz SA10 etc. Adding a DAC is just making it more complicated than you need to or can an out-board DAC take the quality out a step up.
Is this Paul's favourite joke? Is there any RCA connector around? There must be one somewhere... I must be prepared :) Every single video when it is about RCA vs XLR cable related discussion :) But hey Paul, thanks for sharing your great knowledge with awesome clean explanations!
grant jonsn yeah, I find it hard to reconcile my relationship with Behringer. Some of their brands and products are phenomenal (Midas, Turbosound, etc) Malaysian clones, ok... Chinese clones, not so sure about. Moog is the real deal and still made right here in Asheville, NC, US. Sticking to their roots has earned my respect and repeat business. Had Uli Behringer setup manufacturing in their home country the prices would certainly increase... I suppose that someone needs to cover the low cost side of the equation.
J Dillinger I don’t have $3k for a circuit that is worth $300. Their products are of an outstanding value, and are doing a lot of good for the sake of music.
Ok, first time I've heard about this "new" HDMI format. That's pretty cool that they use standard HDMI cables. I'd love to hear Paul's thoughts on standard HDMI as a connector, although not many DAC's have HDMI of course. Also, I've just assumed TOSLINK was superior because it's fiber-optical but of course the standard that's used to transmit the bits is also very important and Spdif doesn't seem ideal. Interesting stuff and would love an update to this.
I think this explanation may be above many user's heads. They don't really understand the differences between the logical and physical layers of data transport. It is helpful if you have a background in TCP/IP, and understand the OSI seven-layer transport model.
Interesting take..., it would never occur to me that this would be too much for even those new to audio, let alone what I'd guess to be the average viewer here. I disagree. Regardless, ... in my opinion he shouldn't ease up, if anything quite the opposite. Those viewers challenged by an element of the subject matter can pursue developing their own strengths parallel to consuming this material. My take
Naim Audio disagree. Although they use i2s internally, they say that the best way to cover longer distances such as those between two pieces of equipment is to use spdif as i2s starts to lose integrity very quickly
Both coaxial, optical and usb do the job just fine. Some guy did a test on RUclips where he had to use very, very long cheap rca to degrade the signal. Toslink has the advantage of avoiding ground loops if that is a problem in your system.
Toslink is garbage. Just because a signal works doesn't mean it sounds good which is really what matters. You really should look into the specifications of the toslink chain from the connections to the cable.
I was under the impression that all the old CD players used I2S internally to go from optical reader to internal DAC and that it only worked short distances.
I've been subscribed since the beginning and am disappointed by Paul's lack of prep for this video. Honestly, how difficult would it have been to gather the 4 cable types as examples before begining the the recording session?
meh, ... Paul's more a wing it kind of guy... broad strokes storytelling and generalities. Besides, simple cable types; RCA, XLR, BNC, DIN Basic stuff, granted the DIN cable perhaps isn't often encountered, but I'd think most here are aware of it.
Not sure if this has been asked before, but have you ever considered using a neutrik locking connector instead oh HDMI? It is a much more robust connector, albeit mainly used in professional applications, but I feel like that kind of connector gives you a much more premium feel than consumer grade HDMI
Couldnt you channel the info from a source through an inexpensive DAC into a higher end DAC so that the first DAC does all the splitting then the second one just has to give you better sound?
Dear Paul, first off: keep up the good work, you make great content! I have a question. What do you think of second hand/used speakers? How far back can one go? 10 years old used, 20, 30 or even 40 years? Are those still valid speaker and if so, what kind or models would you still appreciate today and are still available to the average consumer? Best regards and all the best
For just playback, best would be to use a packet based connection where the DAC ‘pulls’ the data from the source; and leave the clocking to the DAC... Note that this approach won’t work very well for real-time systems (I.e, live performance); it’s just suited for playing back prerecorded files. The other nice thing about this kind of approach is that it doesn’t matter what kind of horrible specs the source has timing-wise; as it’s just a byte stream. If the DAC is good, the output will be good. For live performance, you would need a synchronous data link with a master clock distribution system... much more complex to implement; but as was mentioned in the video suitable transceiver ICs are now available inexpensively thanks to systems like HDMI. 🤔
USB is a packet based data stream; however it is based on the master (usually a PC) polling the endpoints on the bus for data to transfer. It’s also got lots of complexity and overhead due to it trying to be all things to everyone (which is why it’s called Universal Serial Bus)... IMHO, gross overkill for the task at hand (of course, that sure hasn’t stopped manufacturers from sticking a USB port just about everywhere - my car even has one!) USB, by the way, is inherently incapable of maintaining tight clock synchronization between devices... the latency is just too high. Word clock synchronization would need to be transmitted on a separate channel.
Ideally the cable must be true 75 ohm cable and the rca connectors must also have a 75 ohm characteristic impedance. They are crimp style and are available from Canare and one or two others. True 75 ohm rca cable assemblies are available from Markertek for reasonable money. Cable dillusionists need not apply. Not complicated.
Not necessarily. For example, both in professional audio and in high-end products (e.g., DACs, SACD/CD players) such as those made by Esoteric (TEAC, Japan), an external master clock must be connected using a 50-ohm cable to the DAC. In mastering, all such cables are also of 50-ohm impedance, not 75-ohm.
@@hushpuppykl dcS did something similer to I2S back in the late 90s. They separated the signal and clock information and run them through different cables. I have no idea what format they used though
Stephen S2r ... all I know is so far whether it’s coax or Toslink, sounds about the same to me 😬 I prefer a streaming DAC nowadays. Makes things a lot easier (means I’m just getting lazy) 😂🤣
@James Beck. Maybe, but the data coming out of toslink is in SPDIF format. Same as the data stream coming out of a coaxial RCA socket. Same format, SPDIF, only different mediums.
Learned something, I didn't know that AES/EBU was another permutation of S/PDIF. This is getting into "if you need to ask, you can't afford it" territory, but I recall reading that some of the dCS systems can use double AES/EBU cables with 4-pin (?) XLR connectors to allow higher bit rates. Do these also separate the data and timing streams or do they just allow greater bandwidth through two 'pipes'? I know, overly simplistic view, I'm just a retired groundwater geologist, not an engineer.
Someone once told me that the good old fashioned RCA cables for audio is the best, and toslink cables are crap. I didn’t quite agree with that. With a toslink cable, you’re basically just rerouting the information to bypass the DAC built into your digital component, and sending the information to another DAC elsewhere to be decoded. It all depends on the quality of the DAC as to how the music is going to sound.
An issue with usb can be noise. A well implemented usb where designers pay attention to clean usb power and trying to isolate it from the noisy pc will sound better. It's why you see some usb cables and high end servers separating out the data and power. Computers are one of the noisiest environments as far as audio and one thing I have learned is that it is difficult and expensive to get rid of that. To some degree it always seems to be there.
I have a PC to DAC system. It is connected by USB and by I2S. The I2S uses HDMI cables. (It is not an HDMI connection, rather it is an I2S connection that uses HDMI cables). Sound quality wise they seem about the same. There are a couple of traps with I2S. The first is that the To and From boxes could use separate pin arrangements - so you have to be sure they are the same. Migrating to one standard, eg PS Audio would be a good trend. The second trap is the so-called USB to I2S converter. These are silly because you are now using two methods of communication rather than one.
The best way for digital audio is asynchronous pulling of the music data from the storage media with the DAC precisely driving the clock master and with effective isolation of digital noise from the digital cable. USB, Ethernet, SATA or even WiFi can all follow such pulling principle and only concern is to avoid any digital noise to mix into the analog audio. Concepts pushing data like SPDIF are less ideal due to jitter issues. I2S is just one of many data interface concepts and doesn’t add anything you can’t get out of USB. In fact USB-C is much superior to I2S on bandwidth and reliability. I actually prefer the DAC to be in full control of the clock precisely as that’s the ideal architecture.
Audio does not require high bandwidth at all, even super high resolution audio formats require very low bandwidth in today terms (below 1MByte/s). USB-C for audio is a complete overkill, it's adding more complexity for no reason, complete non-sense like all the USB audio drama. A solution for a non-existing problem. I2S, AES/EBU and SPDIF are much simpler connections... and simple is always better than complex in technology matters. Unfortunately, crappy technologies usually wins (thanks to big companies like intel backing them) and USB is not the exception to that... :(
NETnews USB-C is just the current latest standard and agree bandwidth is not really an argument for USB-C unless you have video in the data also. The point is that for moving data, many standards can do nowadays and asynchronous pulling is architecturally better than having the clock master at the source and pushing through the music data to a DAC that then needs to use a PLL to try to recover the clock. I2S is decades old and just one of many ways to clock music data between chipsets. It’s very inflexible and limited compared to an asynchronous standard. The future in audio architecture is already landed and is with asynchronous pulling of data to the decoder and DAC that ticks with a precise clock. There is zero difference in where the file is stored between a US$5 flash drive locally, super expensive transport mechanism or on a cloud service, and how it sounds; provided it’s the same audio data and the data is coming in pulled asynchronously.
NETnews what do you care? isolate the interface and use an off the shelf USB solution, maybe even an USB FPGA soft core; the worse thing for customers is to have a custom interface that only works between few products, screw that, interoperability is everything here
@@FooBar89 there's nothing more interoperable than spdif or aes/ebu!!! No FPGA soft core needed. USB wasn't created for audio it's a super complex protocol that tries to do everything mixing data with power and the kitchen sink. For audio purposes (and for everything in life really) I prefer simple "analogue like" connections like spdif, aes, i2s or even HDMI (not my cup of tea but much better than usb for audio). I know people love USB for its supposed "interoperability" but that's not because its technical merits, it's because intel was behind it pushing it from the get go. Everybody in tech knows USB sucked (and sucks), even for data transfer purposes, Firewire was vastly superior and better designed based in the great ideas that SCSI peripherals had ... but big companies rule and USB was imposed everywhere and used in areas it was never designed for (like audio) just because it's popular. Audio and USB doesn't make sense, using it is stupid and a complete overkill. I hope someday, smart and honest audio companies like PS Audio, will have the guts to say "USB sucks" very loudly and remove the shit from all their products even if people love it. My 0.00002 cents.
NETnews USB just happen to have a lot more data bandwidth than you need for audio but nowadays you don’t develop USB chips or USB drivers for a new product. They already exist and your argument is not so good. USB is superior in every way relative to those ancient one-way connections as there is flow control support for asynchronous pulling of the audio data. Try to understand why pulling audio data asynchronously is the right way of managing a clock master topology in audio.
I am wanting to buy PS sprout amplifier how do I connect my CD player to the amplifiers?, your help is appreciated Paul, sincerely Darren Liddon, England
Why is coax > optical when it comes to spdif? Also, are there optical or coax to I2S converters? Wondering if I can tap into benefits of I2S if my CD player only has coax and optical digital outputs. Does PS Audio have the only dac with I2S input?
As a serial bus, Isn’t i2s data multiplexed over the time domain? Pretty sure this was the case, the last time I looked on my oscilloscope with interleaving of left and right audio within the frame. I understand the benefit of separating the clock when super clocking at frequencies greater than the audio sample rate, and the benefit of combining to a single cable. Moreover, I understand that i2s would be easier and cheaper to implement as it doesn’t require addition processing to convert formats. For example, a left right interleaved clock for a 44.1Khz in i2s would be 44.1kHz x 2 x 16 = 1.4112 MHz. But there are other well established methods of carrying clock signals that are far more ubiquitous and less likely to skew over distance. I run my professional recording equipment using a rubidium sourced 10 MHz frequency standard word clock over coax to keep all devices on my digital recording chain locked. This is many times the i2s clock rate. I just don’t understand the need in the audiophile market for a proprietary cable to perform external clocking, when there is already a workable, industry standard, solution at a much higher resolution. Wouldn’t i2s data be considerably more fragile and prone to signal skew over distance? For home built projects back in the day, I remember taking special care on PCB traces to guard this signal from EMI even over short distances.
I also have questions along those lines; lack of error correction/detection and two dedicated lines needing to be in perfect sync with the serial line. Logically i2s should be a far less reliable interconnect, at least for high speed and long cables - there’s a reason no other interconnect cables are built like this. It would seem more logical with a traditional error corrected serial interface (like Ethernet, PCI, USB) and then re-clock inside the DAC.
I don't understand why the USB connection is not good? As far as I know the spdf is limited in bit. You can't get high rees audio thru spdf. Is it true?
So I have an ERC3 transport and just run the balanced outputs to my pre-amp. Would it be better to run through my DAC then balanced to the pre-amp? My DAC is fairly old.
Sir I am not able to get DAC for its high prices. So can I use CD ROM for playing audio cd and get quality sound as using DAC. I want to know your valuable opinion.
Chances are that you already have a dac in your receiver. If you're only listening to music, toss out your receiver and get a decent integrated amp and decent speakers. Your integrated amp will already have a dac. Connect cd player and speakers to integrated amp and you should have something quite decent. Decent budget amp and speakers could be had for under $400 and really good system for under $2000 for typical sized listening room. Anything above that and you're going to need some super ears and knowledge of how to enjoy the music in the same size of room. The big bonus for going above that range would be better build quality and more exotic materials used and designs.
If you listen to CD music directly from a computer CDROM, the chances are you're using the DAC (sound chip) in your computer (which can be good or bad). In the old days a CDROM drive had a built-in DAC and connected to your sound card over a thin analog wire, but these days generally the connection is digital.
Apple makes a $9 Lightning to 3.5mm headphone jack adapter. It supports lossless quality, up to 24/48. No reason to purchase an ultra-expensive DAC to enjoy CD quality music on your iPhone or Mac, etc..
Whats about the way e.g. Burmester does it with 111 and 151? You can buy Music online in high res shops, download the files "losless" they promise, directly onto your integrated SSD or HDD and play it from there. A great DAC is in the house, so you come out analogue. How is that in comparison?
It doesn't matter if the data stream is coming from the playback of a CD, SACD, DVD or decoding a lossless file such as you have mentioned. The point is that they are all digital data streams in thier raw form. At some stage, they go through a DAC before it can be amplified for your speakers. Whether it be an external one or the one built into your computer or CD player or whatever, if you're using SPDIF out of your computer to play a lossless file into your DAC, it's the same as playing a CD using SPDIF into your DAC. In both cases, the method of transport of the digital data is using the SPDIF format, which as Paul said, has its issues. Although it's pretty good really.
@@JeanKatana An external DAC certainly has its advantages over a built-in one, especially in a computer where noise from all the computers other internals gets into the analog output. You all have some noise from a stand-alone CD or DVD player. Although noise from the analog output of these devices is a lot lower than from a computer, a good quality external DAC is going to have lower noise again because it's designed with these considerations in mind.
I think he's implying: 1. HDMI (I2s) 2. USB 3. AES/EBU or Coax He said AES/EBU or coax is his prefer way of connecting if you (the person asking question) doesn't have USB. So, this imply USB is rank higher.
So if I stream Amazon Hd, Tidal or Quaz audio trough WI-FI to my tv and then connect my tv using HDMI cable to my reaciaver it should be the best way to do it or am i missing something?
As he is saying, yes you are incorrect. The best way is having his streamer from Ps audio which had a proprietary connector called the i2s but it just works through an hdmi cable, the connector is not HDMI.
You probably know by now, but if you play CD's you already have a DAC. Your speakers or headphones don't listen to bits and numbers, they listen to analogue signals. A DVD player is completely fine, I haven't seen objective proof that the digital output of a dedicated CD player is better than a DVD or Blu-Ray player
@@carlosoliveira-rc2xt USB is a global standard no matter which class system is & certainly wins over everything else when used as DSD DoP but you are right about how it's up to equipment manufacturers to ensure flow less DoP integration which isn't up to USB per se. Firewire is dead as a standard for more than decade.
Paul, you are confusing digital formats with they types of cables used to carry the signals. SP/DIF is a digital audio format with fairly limited bandwidth capability (originally intended to only carry a two-channel (stereo) 44.1 KHz/16-bit CD quality signal). A SP/DIF signal is the same whether it is transmitted over an RCA phono cable (which are also used to carry analog audio signals) or over a Toslink optical cable. A Toslink cable can carry other digital audio formats and is capable of transmitting high bandwidths. For example, Toslink cables can carry eight channels of 48 KHz digital audio in the ADAT format. In theory it would be possible to fabricate an optical digital transmitter and receiver and send signals in the MHz frequency range over a Toslink cable. There just isn't any industry standard for such a product. If you want to talk about high bandwidth cables. a standard CAT5 ethernet cable can carry hundreds of digital audio channels in the Dante format.
All said and done ... If you don't own a product from PS Audio which has .I²S ....... you must be listening to BS. Audio ................. Cut to the chase and go get your self a PS Audio product ... just GO FOR IT ....................
@PS Audio there is nothing wrong with USB, and you cannot do better than it; you might have to choose a special class or roll your own driver, but USB can truly accommodate any scenario, audio is nothing in comparison for USB to handle there are actually an array of digital interfaces that can accommodate digital audio transmission (of any kind): USB, Ethernet, Wi-Fi, optical, SPDIF, Thunderbolt, USB-C, I2S, SPI, FireWare etc. I2S is actually affected by noise and has no noise protection, it can only go very short distances, even a feet can be problematic, I'd rather take SPDIF over I2S, on a few feet of cable. DSD has the same problem as anything else, and doesn't solve anything here
1. I²S 2. USB 3. Koaxial & AES/EBU 4. Optical The only advantage of the optical cable is that there is no electrical connection between the connected devices. So there is no risk of ground loops.
@@FooBar89 I could have swore Paul said something about inherent problems with USB. Also, another recording engineer I respect has said USB is not good for audio for particular reasons. Have things improved recently for USB?
No he wasn't saying USB is his preferred choice. He didn't mention a preferred choice between USB, optical or coaxial. All of these multiplex the data stream in the SPDIF format so there is no difference except USB has another logical layer. He was trying to get to I2S which has advantages over SPDIF in that it doesn't combine everything down into one stream of data.
It’s a Behringer Model D. Very powerful analog synths. Moog clones, that are every bit as wonderful. Obviously ps audio agrees that’s why they have 8 LOL.
Ok, so if you have a cd transport with an HDMI connector for digital audio and you wake up in a drunken stupor thinking it's the DVD player will there be any permanent consequences if you plug it into the HDMI input of your AV reciever? Same Q if you plug a DVD player into a PS Audio DAC?
Presumably they have wired the their HDMI interface so only data signals go to data signals. Probably they don’t connect HDMI power lines to anything (or use it in a compatible manner). So unless you engineer your cable abuse in a boneheaded manner, it is perfectly safe to send other data on same cable. Compare this to e.g. HDBase10, the standard that uses Ethernet cables to transmit HDMI.
Let's not forget to mention McIntosh's SACD players. With these units for SACD playback you DO NOT HAVE the option of outputting the digital signal via any type of cable to an external DAC. For example, with the MCD600 SACD player, the SACD digital stream must be (will be) processed internally in the player--END OF STORY. I do not understand why other SACD players can output a SACD digital signal so that the consumer can choose which external DAC to use, but McIntosh makes a SACD signal slave to their not-so-great internal DAC. Likewise for their transport; you must use their proprietary MT cable which will only mate with their (mediocre) DAC. So the question is: Why should one pay big bucks for SACDs when you are required to process the signal with McIntosh's lackluster internal DAC? Answer: You shouldn't--stay away from McIntosh SACD players.
USB certainly isn't the way to go, if you don't decouple the USB ground properly. It can create nasty ground loops and noise from the PC power supply can get coupled into the audio ground.
easy to decouple, easy to galvanically isolate even, and quite cheaply, why are you talking as if a hobbyist would build these? USB is absolutely the way to go, every, single, time
@@FooBar89 Yeah, you're right about that, it is easy to decouple. So USB audio has great potential indeed. But in reality this potential isn't put to full use most of the times, often isn't decoupled properly; the average johnny dough just plugs their USB soundcard or D/A converter straight into their PC. Most of those low and midrange units don't have any internal decoupling as well. I have a ground lift switch on the back of my USB DAC, so I don't have any of those problems and USB audio is working great for me. But a ground lift switch on a 400 buck DAC like I have is very rare; most people don't even want to spend 400 buck on a fully integrated amp, let alone buying a >400 buck DAC. It is an exception, not the ordinary.
I agree with everything you said Paul but I go even further: I try to avoid USB at all costs, it's an extremely complex connection/protocol and in technology complexity is the enemy of good. I always follow the KISS principle (keep it simple stupid) and I prefer simple plain connections like I2S, AES/EBU and SPDIF over USB any day of the week. USB sucks and everything is wrong with it.
good video! Been using I2S for a couple of years now after having my first usb setup... I had a sbotw psu and a regen amber etc on my usb line before trying the pink faun I2S bridge and only that card with hdmi/I2S was way better than my tuned usb setup which required add ons which were at least twice the price! Even the modded upgraded usb line wasnt comparable to the usb connection. I2S has to become a standard and usb has to sto pbeing used by audiophiles as audiophile.... its shit compared to I2S so why even bother....
Paul - through the magic of editing, you can pause the recording, grab an RCA coax cable, and we would barely even notice :)
Paul. Spot on.
I've been using spdif as an output from my player to my receiver for years and wasn't happy with the sound.
By accident, one day, I connected it through HDMI audio.
The difference was AMAZING.
I can't understand why DACs don't usually include HDMI as an usual input.
I am new to this, but from Paul’s other video clips I believe HDMI is a proprietary audio video interface by Sony. Any HDMI ‘out’ from a TV etc. is going to be that proprietary interface, coding, etc. . What Paul is talking about in this video is just using the HDMI cable for an I2S out -> I2S in, which are aren’t common in most DACs, amps, and others. No?
@@jasonraasch405 Sounds like he is referring to his eArc thing on his TV, not I2S. It could be very well that the sound is better on his HDMI connection though, some toslink outputs on TVs have terrible jitter and dont sound very good.
Thanks so much for answering my question! As always, I learned a lot!
Somehow he didn't actually answer your question so I will took a liberty of doing so. The best way is through real-time DSD conversion to DoP output method through USB. Naturally the DAC have to support DSD decoding & DoP input. For instance Onkyo HF player (Android/iOS) supports this method. It pretty much resolves the most of signal multiplication and dividing that whose bean talked in video while adding sind waigh with real time volume normalisation put to weak. It simply works when it's good implemented which in this case is. Best regards.
I wish you had gone deeper into this subject, Paul.
i agree!
On golden punch cards hand carried bit by bit on a silver platter in a temperature controlled pure N2 atmosphere by (preferably) identical twins.
So the main technical concepts that have been delivered here are "this is the way to do it" and "this is what I like". Thank you.
Paul we all know how RCA cable looks like :D
Thanks for inventing I2S inputs and outputs, Paul! I am starting to better appreciate the unusually large number of innovations PS Audio has made to the hifi industry.
I wonder why audio over ethernet cable isn't popular!! My both integrated amp and CD player HK990 and HD 990 have HRS-link (high resolution synchronisation), When the HRS-link is established, the CD player doesn’t use its internal clocks but locks itself to the external clocks delivered by the amplifier. The data extracted from the disc is then stored into buffers asynchronously and formatted synchronously to the amplifier clocks into 24 bits and up sampled to a 192 kHz stream. The result is a jitter free connection between two units, similar to having the CD player inside the amplifier. Jitter is less than 1ps RMS
Your format has a great concept but only for very high-end revealing systems.
With my modest setup (oppo 203, marantz pm6007, B&W 606 S2 AE) a regular coax/toslink are more than enough for an external dac.
That rack of model Ds, LOL. I have one, and I love it!!!
I’m using Transparent Digital Premium Coax cable because they deliver 75 Ohm from end to end including their connectors.
Haaiy, feeling for windows, Intel and realtek romance instead of hardware PhD. Other romances are also earnestly expected!
So wait a minute, if we don’t have hdmi connections, USB is the best?
Yes, that was a little unclear....
I was left wondering the same.
What about usb? They have the same problem?
Use a network attached storage, capable of FLAC, ALAC, DSD, WAV and all good stuff, i have certainly not say'd anything about Synology... i think :)
Would seem to me if you have a great CD player like the Marantz SA10 etc. Adding a DAC is just making it more complicated than you need to or can an out-board DAC take the quality out a step up.
Hi Paul, I have gotten Amazing results with your Genesis Digital Lens. :o)
Is this Paul's favourite joke? Is there any RCA connector around? There must be one somewhere... I must be prepared :) Every single video when it is about RCA vs XLR cable related discussion :) But hey Paul, thanks for sharing your great knowledge with awesome clean explanations!
Oh and BTW... giving all due respect for the awesome Moog gear on your desk!
J Dillinger moog clones by behringer
Apparently I didn’t look closely enough. Deducting half of the credit due.
The respect is still due, even if it’s not for the MASSIVE investment that the moogs would have cost. Those things are the real deal.
grant jonsn yeah, I find it hard to reconcile my relationship with Behringer. Some of their brands and products are phenomenal (Midas, Turbosound, etc) Malaysian clones, ok... Chinese clones, not so sure about. Moog is the real deal and still made right here in Asheville, NC, US. Sticking to their roots has earned my respect and repeat business. Had Uli Behringer setup manufacturing in their home country the prices would certainly increase... I suppose that someone needs to cover the low cost side of the equation.
J Dillinger I don’t have $3k for a circuit that is worth $300. Their products are of an outstanding value, and are doing a lot of good for the sake of music.
Ok, first time I've heard about this "new" HDMI format. That's pretty cool that they use standard HDMI cables. I'd love to hear Paul's thoughts on standard HDMI as a connector, although not many DAC's have HDMI of course. Also, I've just assumed TOSLINK was superior because it's fiber-optical but of course the standard that's used to transmit the bits is also very important and Spdif doesn't seem ideal. Interesting stuff and would love an update to this.
I think this explanation may be above many user's heads. They don't really understand the differences between the logical and physical layers of data transport. It is helpful if you have a background in TCP/IP, and understand the OSI seven-layer transport model.
Interesting take..., it would never occur to me that this would be too much for even those new to audio, let alone what I'd guess to be the average viewer here.
I disagree.
Regardless, ... in my opinion he shouldn't ease up, if anything quite the opposite. Those viewers challenged by an element of the subject matter can pursue developing their own strengths parallel to consuming this material.
My take
That vertical stack is bound to tip over 😂
Congratulations on your new buliding, looks nice!
Naim Audio disagree. Although they use i2s internally, they say that the best way to cover longer distances such as those between two pieces of equipment is to use spdif as i2s starts to lose integrity very quickly
I use rca's out of my cd player b/c the cd player dac sounds sweeter than my avr dac. I prefer the conversion to analogue to take place there.
Both coaxial, optical and usb do the job just fine. Some guy did a test on RUclips where he had to use very, very long cheap rca to degrade the signal.
Toslink has the advantage of avoiding ground loops if that is a problem in your system.
Toslink is garbage. Just because a signal works doesn't mean it sounds good which is really what matters. You really should look into the specifications of the toslink chain from the connections to the cable.
Paul, for the umpteenth time, prepare.
How important is the quality of the I2S cable?
CD
I was under the impression that all the old CD players used I2S internally to go from optical reader to internal DAC and that it only worked short distances.
Yes this was usually the case
I've been subscribed since the beginning and am disappointed by Paul's lack of prep for this video. Honestly, how difficult would it have been to gather the 4 cable types as examples before begining the the recording session?
If your looking this deep into Hi-Fi audio I think he'll presume you'll know what the cables look like 😉👌
@@HiFiNi-TheDigitalScientist that doesn't matter. The man makes RUclips videos and he should be prepared
I'm a Paul fan (PS audio too), but yeah, a little prep would be helpful here. Pause the vid and go get the cables.
meh, ... Paul's more a wing it kind of guy... broad strokes storytelling and generalities.
Besides, simple cable types; RCA, XLR, BNC, DIN
Basic stuff, granted the DIN cable perhaps isn't often encountered, but I'd think most here are aware of it.
Get a life.
Toslink is 48 bit/ 192kz. PCM RCA is 24 bit/ 192kz.
Not sure if this has been asked before, but have you ever considered using a neutrik locking connector instead oh HDMI? It is a much more robust connector, albeit mainly used in professional applications, but I feel like that kind of connector gives you a much more premium feel than consumer grade HDMI
Couldnt you channel the info from a source through an inexpensive DAC into a higher end DAC so that the first DAC does all the splitting then the second one just has to give you better sound?
Run it through the synths!
Dear Paul, first off: keep up the good work, you make great content! I have a question. What do you think of second hand/used speakers? How far back can one go? 10 years old used, 20, 30 or even 40 years? Are those still valid speaker and if so, what kind or models would you still appreciate today and are still available to the average consumer? Best regards and all the best
Check out the PS audio forum on their website and ask there. Lot's of knowledgeable people there to help.
For just playback, best would be to use a packet based connection where the DAC ‘pulls’ the data from the source; and leave the clocking to the DAC... Note that this approach won’t work very well for real-time systems (I.e, live performance); it’s just suited for playing back prerecorded files. The other nice thing about this kind of approach is that it doesn’t matter what kind of horrible specs the source has timing-wise; as it’s just a byte stream. If the DAC is good, the output will be good.
For live performance, you would need a synchronous data link with a master clock distribution system... much more complex to implement; but as was mentioned in the video suitable transceiver ICs are now available inexpensively thanks to systems like HDMI.
🤔
Dark Winter that doesn't make any sense
just use USB
USB is a packet based data stream; however it is based on the master (usually a PC) polling the endpoints on the bus for data to transfer. It’s also got lots of complexity and overhead due to it trying to be all things to everyone (which is why it’s called Universal Serial Bus)... IMHO, gross overkill for the task at hand (of course, that sure hasn’t stopped manufacturers from sticking a USB port just about everywhere - my car even has one!)
USB, by the way, is inherently incapable of maintaining tight clock synchronization between devices... the latency is just too high. Word clock synchronization would need to be transmitted on a separate channel.
@@darkwinter6028 Thank you. Good explanation.
Ideally the cable must be true 75 ohm cable and the rca connectors must also have a 75 ohm characteristic impedance. They are crimp style and are available from Canare and one or two others. True 75 ohm rca cable assemblies are available from Markertek for reasonable money.
Cable dillusionists need not apply.
Not complicated.
Not necessarily. For example, both in professional audio and in high-end products (e.g., DACs, SACD/CD players) such as those made by Esoteric (TEAC, Japan), an external master clock must be connected using a 50-ohm cable to the DAC. In mastering, all such cables are also of 50-ohm impedance, not 75-ohm.
Transparent Digital Coax cable deliver 75 Ohm from end to end including their connectors.
It always comes back to something he sells.
Skip to 6:44
How about Ravena AES67 that works for DSD and PCM formats via Ethernet?
You look like you are seated at an old-time small town telephone switchboard operator's seat in the 1940s.
( I remember those)
Toslink is Toshiba!
James Beck ... Paul was trying to get to I2S and hence mentioned S/PDIF to group the rest of the other types of cables.
@@hushpuppykl dcS did something similer to I2S back in the late 90s. They separated the signal and clock information and run them through different cables. I have no idea what format they used though
Stephen S2r ... all I know is so far whether it’s coax or Toslink, sounds about the same to me 😬
I prefer a streaming DAC nowadays. Makes things a lot easier (means I’m just getting lazy) 😂🤣
@James Beck. Maybe, but the data coming out of toslink is in SPDIF format. Same as the data stream coming out of a coaxial RCA socket. Same format, SPDIF, only different mediums.
@@hushpuppykl It should sound exactly the same. It's the same data!
Learned something, I didn't know that AES/EBU was another permutation of S/PDIF. This is getting into "if you need to ask, you can't afford it" territory, but I recall reading that some of the dCS systems can use double AES/EBU cables with 4-pin (?) XLR connectors to allow higher bit rates. Do these also separate the data and timing streams or do they just allow greater bandwidth through two 'pipes'? I know, overly simplistic view, I'm just a retired groundwater geologist, not an engineer.
Someone once told me that the good old fashioned RCA cables for audio is the best, and toslink cables are crap. I didn’t quite agree with that. With a toslink cable, you’re basically just rerouting the information to bypass the DAC built into your digital component, and sending the information to another DAC elsewhere to be decoded. It all depends on the quality of the DAC as to how the music is going to sound.
So, is usb the best way?
at the end I think he meant "if you don't have i2s"
Asynchronous USB is the way to go.
No, not at all. In fact, if you don't use super high resolution formats (>192khz/24bits PCM or >DSD128) there's no single reason to go usb.
repeat after me: "USB can accommodate any transmission scenario, audio is nothing to USB"
An issue with usb can be noise. A well implemented usb where designers pay attention to clean usb power and trying to isolate it from the noisy pc will sound better. It's why you see some usb cables and high end servers separating out the data and power. Computers are one of the noisiest environments as far as audio and one thing I have learned is that it is difficult and expensive to get rid of that. To some degree it always seems to be there.
HDMI?
only mechanicaly. electronically their I²S implementation is completely different from the hdmi used to connect a display to they PC, for example
Paul
Why don't you think Toslink does as good a job?
Bandwith limitations. 96khz max.
Why is there sudden loss in volume when the DAC is plugged to phone/ computer ??
I have a PC to DAC system. It is connected by USB and by I2S. The I2S uses HDMI cables. (It is not an HDMI connection, rather it is an I2S connection that uses HDMI cables). Sound quality wise they seem about the same. There are a couple of traps with I2S. The first is that the To and From boxes could use separate pin arrangements - so you have to be sure they are the same. Migrating to one standard, eg PS Audio would be a good trend. The second trap is the so-called USB to I2S converter. These are silly because you are now using two methods of communication rather than one.
zog zog not a silly method at all if done internally
The best way for digital audio is asynchronous pulling of the music data from the storage media with the DAC precisely driving the clock master and with effective isolation of digital noise from the digital cable. USB, Ethernet, SATA or even WiFi can all follow such pulling principle and only concern is to avoid any digital noise to mix into the analog audio. Concepts pushing data like SPDIF are less ideal due to jitter issues. I2S is just one of many data interface concepts and doesn’t add anything you can’t get out of USB. In fact USB-C is much superior to I2S on bandwidth and reliability. I actually prefer the DAC to be in full control of the clock precisely as that’s the ideal architecture.
Audio does not require high bandwidth at all, even super high resolution audio formats require very low bandwidth in today terms (below 1MByte/s). USB-C for audio is a complete overkill, it's adding more complexity for no reason, complete non-sense like all the USB audio drama. A solution for a non-existing problem. I2S, AES/EBU and SPDIF are much simpler connections... and simple is always better than complex in technology matters. Unfortunately, crappy technologies usually wins (thanks to big companies like intel backing them) and USB is not the exception to that... :(
NETnews USB-C is just the current latest standard and agree bandwidth is not really an argument for USB-C unless you have video in the data also. The point is that for moving data, many standards can do nowadays and asynchronous pulling is architecturally better than having the clock master at the source and pushing through the music data to a DAC that then needs to use a PLL to try to recover the clock. I2S is decades old and just one of many ways to clock music data between chipsets. It’s very inflexible and limited compared to an asynchronous standard. The future in audio architecture is already landed and is with asynchronous pulling of data to the decoder and DAC that ticks with a precise clock. There is zero difference in where the file is stored between a US$5 flash drive locally, super expensive transport mechanism or on a cloud service, and how it sounds; provided it’s the same audio data and the data is coming in pulled asynchronously.
NETnews what do you care? isolate the interface and use an off the shelf USB solution, maybe even an USB FPGA soft core; the worse thing for customers is to have a custom interface that only works between few products, screw that, interoperability is everything here
@@FooBar89 there's nothing more interoperable than spdif or aes/ebu!!! No FPGA soft core needed. USB wasn't created for audio it's a super complex protocol that tries to do everything mixing data with power and the kitchen sink. For audio purposes (and for everything in life really) I prefer simple "analogue like" connections like spdif, aes, i2s or even HDMI (not my cup of tea but much better than usb for audio). I know people love USB for its supposed "interoperability" but that's not because its technical merits, it's because intel was behind it pushing it from the get go. Everybody in tech knows USB sucked (and sucks), even for data transfer purposes, Firewire was vastly superior and better designed based in the great ideas that SCSI peripherals had ... but big companies rule and USB was imposed everywhere and used in areas it was never designed for (like audio) just because it's popular. Audio and USB doesn't make sense, using it is stupid and a complete overkill. I hope someday, smart and honest audio companies like PS Audio, will have the guts to say "USB sucks" very loudly and remove the shit from all their products even if people love it. My 0.00002 cents.
NETnews USB just happen to have a lot more data bandwidth than you need for audio but nowadays you don’t develop USB chips or USB drivers for a new product. They already exist and your argument is not so good. USB is superior in every way relative to those ancient one-way connections as there is flow control support for asynchronous pulling of the audio data. Try to understand why pulling audio data asynchronously is the right way of managing a clock master topology in audio.
I am wanting to buy PS sprout amplifier how do I connect my CD player to the amplifiers?, your help is appreciated Paul, sincerely Darren Liddon, England
Why is coax > optical when it comes to spdif? Also, are there optical or coax to I2S converters? Wondering if I can tap into benefits of I2S if my CD player only has coax and optical digital outputs. Does PS Audio have the only dac with I2S input?
As a serial bus, Isn’t i2s data multiplexed over the time domain? Pretty sure this was the case, the last time I looked on my oscilloscope with interleaving of left and right audio within the frame. I understand the benefit of separating the clock when super clocking at frequencies greater than the audio sample rate, and the benefit of combining to a single cable. Moreover, I understand that i2s would be easier and cheaper to implement as it doesn’t require addition processing to convert formats. For example, a left right interleaved clock for a 44.1Khz in i2s would be 44.1kHz x 2 x 16 = 1.4112 MHz. But there are other well established methods of carrying clock signals that are far more ubiquitous and less likely to skew over distance. I run my professional recording equipment using a rubidium sourced 10 MHz frequency standard word clock over coax to keep all devices on my digital recording chain locked. This is many times the i2s clock rate. I just don’t understand the need in the audiophile market for a proprietary cable to perform external clocking, when there is already a workable, industry standard, solution at a much higher resolution. Wouldn’t i2s data be considerably more fragile and prone to signal skew over distance? For home built projects back in the day, I remember taking special care on PCB traces to guard this signal from EMI even over short distances.
I also have questions along those lines; lack of error correction/detection and two dedicated lines needing to be in perfect sync with the serial line. Logically i2s should be a far less reliable interconnect, at least for high speed and long cables - there’s a reason no other interconnect cables are built like this. It would seem more logical with a traditional error corrected serial interface (like Ethernet, PCI, USB) and then re-clock inside the DAC.
I don't understand why the USB connection is not good? As far as I know the spdf is limited in bit. You can't get high rees audio thru spdf. Is it true?
oooooo.... nice Model D poly chain.
The ARP is nce too... I like this new spot.
So I have an ERC3 transport and just run the balanced outputs to my pre-amp. Would it be better to run through my DAC then balanced to the pre-amp? My DAC is fairly old.
Already I know more about than his said
For streaming I guess the best way to get the data to your dac is the ethernet LAN cable?!
WLAN directly into DAC?
Only if you use an air purifier. (yes that's a joke)
Is that a stack of Behringer Model D's??
Yeah isn’t it lovely? Haha
yep making it an 8 voice [ 24 vco ] model d
Sir I am not able to get DAC for its high prices. So can I use CD ROM for playing audio cd and get quality sound as using DAC. I want to know your valuable opinion.
Chances are that you already have a dac in your receiver. If you're only listening to music, toss out your receiver and get a decent integrated amp and decent speakers. Your integrated amp will already have a dac. Connect cd player and speakers to integrated amp and you should have something quite decent. Decent budget amp and speakers could be had for under $400 and really good system for under $2000 for typical sized listening room. Anything above that and you're going to need some super ears and knowledge of how to enjoy the music in the same size of room. The big bonus for going above that range would be better build quality and more exotic materials used and designs.
If you listen to CD music directly from a computer CDROM, the chances are you're using the DAC (sound chip) in your computer (which can be good or bad). In the old days a CDROM drive had a built-in DAC and connected to your sound card over a thin analog wire, but these days generally the connection is digital.
@@travis1240 thanks for your valuable opinions
@@kickyouinhalf thanks for your valuable opinions
Apple makes a $9 Lightning to 3.5mm headphone jack adapter. It supports lossless quality, up to 24/48. No reason to purchase an ultra-expensive DAC to enjoy CD quality music on your iPhone or Mac, etc..
Whats about the way e.g. Burmester does it with 111 and 151?
You can buy Music online in high res shops, download the files "losless" they promise, directly onto your integrated SSD or HDD and play it from there.
A great DAC is in the house, so you come out analogue.
How is that in comparison?
It doesn't matter if the data stream is coming from the playback of a CD, SACD, DVD or decoding a lossless file such as you have mentioned. The point is that they are all digital data streams in thier raw form. At some stage, they go through a DAC before it can be amplified for your speakers. Whether it be an external one or the one built into your computer or CD player or whatever, if you're using SPDIF out of your computer to play a lossless file into your DAC, it's the same as playing a CD using SPDIF into your DAC. In both cases, the method of transport of the digital data is using the SPDIF format, which as Paul said, has its issues. Although it's pretty good really.
So thats why I'm glad that there is no SPDIF transportation needed inbetween any devices. Thats what I meant.
@@JeanKatana An external DAC certainly has its advantages over a built-in one, especially in a computer where noise from all the computers other internals gets into the analog output. You all have some noise from a stand-alone CD or DVD player. Although noise from the analog output of these devices is a lot lower than from a computer, a good quality external DAC is going to have lower noise again because it's designed with these considerations in mind.
Wait what?!?
1. HDMI
2. Optical digital audio / Toslink / fibre optics
3. USB
I think he's implying:
1. HDMI (I2s)
2. USB
3. AES/EBU or Coax
He said AES/EBU or coax is his prefer way of connecting if you (the person asking question) doesn't have USB. So, this imply USB is rank higher.
He misspoke, you meant to say if you don't have hdmi/i2s
So if I stream Amazon Hd, Tidal or Quaz audio trough WI-FI to my tv and then connect my tv using HDMI cable to my reaciaver it should be the best way to do it or am i missing something?
As he is saying, yes you are incorrect. The best way is having his streamer from Ps audio which had a proprietary connector called the i2s but it just works through an hdmi cable, the connector is not HDMI.
What's RCA?
NAS -> LAN -> Raspberry Pi 3 -> Hat with LVDS -> I²S over HDMI -> DAC
I usualy play my cd in my dvd player.which is connected to my pioneer receiver.do I need DAC to improve the sound?
In my experience CD player would be a better choice to play CDs instead of a DVD player.
You probably know by now, but if you play CD's you already have a DAC. Your speakers or headphones don't listen to bits and numbers, they listen to analogue signals. A DVD player is completely fine, I haven't seen objective proof that the digital output of a dedicated CD player is better than a DVD or Blu-Ray player
What about FireWire?
carlos oliveira same as USB, it's great, but USB is more common, just use USB
@@FooBar89 USB is currently still too flawed to use in a high-end system.
@@carlosoliveira-rc2xt USB is a global standard no matter which class system is & certainly wins over everything else when used as DSD DoP but you are right about how it's up to equipment manufacturers to ensure flow less DoP integration which isn't up to USB per se. Firewire is dead as a standard for more than decade.
Paul, you are confusing digital formats with they types of cables used to carry the signals. SP/DIF is a digital audio format with fairly limited bandwidth capability (originally intended to only carry a two-channel (stereo) 44.1 KHz/16-bit CD quality signal). A SP/DIF signal is the same whether it is transmitted over an RCA phono cable (which are also used to carry analog audio signals) or over a Toslink optical cable. A Toslink cable can carry other digital audio formats and is capable of transmitting high bandwidths. For example, Toslink cables can carry eight channels of 48 KHz digital audio in the ADAT format. In theory it would be possible to fabricate an optical digital transmitter and receiver and send signals in the MHz frequency range over a Toslink cable. There just isn't any industry standard for such a product. If you want to talk about high bandwidth cables. a standard CAT5 ethernet cable can carry hundreds of digital audio channels in the Dante format.
i use ethernet - as my server is located in another room
You mean you use ethernet cables to connect your server?
Great question... let me immediately get you lost in the weeds.
Кто-нибудь можете объяснить по русски, в чем смысл? Что лучше i2s или spdif?
All said and done ... If you don't own a product from PS Audio which has .I²S ....... you must be listening to BS. Audio ................. Cut to the chase and go get your self a PS Audio product ... just GO FOR IT ....................
@PS Audio there is nothing wrong with USB, and you cannot do better than it; you might have to choose a special class or roll your own driver, but USB can truly accommodate any scenario, audio is nothing in comparison for USB to handle
there are actually an array of digital interfaces that can accommodate digital audio transmission (of any kind): USB, Ethernet, Wi-Fi, optical, SPDIF, Thunderbolt, USB-C, I2S, SPI, FireWare etc.
I2S is actually affected by noise and has no noise protection, it can only go very short distances, even a feet can be problematic, I'd rather take SPDIF over I2S, on a few feet of cable.
DSD has the same problem as anything else, and doesn't solve anything here
"...if you don't have USB". So are you saying USB is your preferred choice?
1. I²S
2. USB
3. Koaxial & AES/EBU
4. Optical
The only advantage of the optical cable is that there is no electrical connection between the connected devices. So there is no risk of ground loops.
Robin Brandl no, it's more like:
1. USB
2. USB
3. USB
4. USB
5. USB
there is no reason to not USB
@@FooBar89 I could have swore Paul said something about inherent problems with USB. Also, another recording engineer I respect has said USB is not good for audio for particular reasons. Have things improved recently for USB?
No he wasn't saying USB is his preferred choice. He didn't mention a preferred choice between USB, optical or coaxial. All of these multiplex the data stream in the SPDIF format so there is no difference except USB has another logical layer. He was trying to get to I2S which has advantages over SPDIF in that it doesn't combine everything down into one stream of data.
@@robinbrandl9388 If you are at risk of ground loops then may I suggest you stop running in circles.
What model Moog is that?
It’s a Behringer Model D. Very powerful analog synths. Moog clones, that are every bit as wonderful. Obviously ps audio agrees that’s why they have 8 LOL.
Ok, so if you have a cd transport with an HDMI connector for digital audio and you wake up in a drunken stupor thinking it's the DVD player will there be any permanent consequences if you plug it into the HDMI input of your AV reciever? Same Q if you plug a DVD player into a PS Audio DAC?
No.
Presumably they have wired the their HDMI interface so only data signals go to data signals. Probably they don’t connect HDMI power lines to anything (or use it in a compatible manner). So unless you engineer your cable abuse in a boneheaded manner, it is perfectly safe to send other data on same cable. Compare this to e.g. HDBase10, the standard that uses Ethernet cables to transmit HDMI.
there can be, yes
Let's not forget to mention McIntosh's SACD players. With these units for SACD playback you DO NOT HAVE the option of outputting the digital signal via any type of cable to an external DAC. For example, with the MCD600 SACD player, the SACD digital stream must be (will be) processed internally in the player--END OF STORY. I do not understand why other SACD players can output a SACD digital signal so that the consumer can choose which external DAC to use, but McIntosh makes a SACD signal slave to their not-so-great internal DAC. Likewise for their transport; you must use their proprietary MT cable which will only mate with their (mediocre) DAC. So the question is: Why should one pay big bucks for SACDs when you are required to process the signal with McIntosh's lackluster internal DAC? Answer: You shouldn't--stay away from McIntosh SACD players.
USB certainly isn't the way to go, if you don't decouple the USB ground properly.
It can create nasty ground loops and noise from the PC power supply can get coupled into the audio ground.
easy to decouple, easy to galvanically isolate even, and quite cheaply, why are you talking as if a hobbyist would build these? USB is absolutely the way to go, every, single, time
@@FooBar89 Yeah, you're right about that, it is easy to decouple. So USB audio has great potential indeed. But in reality this potential isn't put to full use most of the times, often isn't decoupled properly; the average johnny dough just plugs their USB soundcard or D/A converter straight into their PC. Most of those low and midrange units don't have any internal decoupling as well.
I have a ground lift switch on the back of my USB DAC, so I don't have any of those problems and USB audio is working great for me.
But a ground lift switch on a 400 buck DAC like I have is very rare; most people don't even want to spend 400 buck on a fully integrated amp, let alone buying a >400 buck DAC. It is an exception, not the ordinary.
So the best is usb is that what your saying 🥴
With a cable! Ha!
Hdmi?
Bleuthooth 😎
You waste so much time. Show some respect for the viewers and get prepared. Lord.
I agree with everything you said Paul but I go even further: I try to avoid USB at all costs, it's an extremely complex connection/protocol and in technology complexity is the enemy of good. I always follow the KISS principle (keep it simple stupid) and I prefer simple plain connections like I2S, AES/EBU and SPDIF over USB any day of the week. USB sucks and everything is wrong with it.
NETnews USB is complicated yes, but no, you're wrong about everything else, USB can accommodate any possible transmission scenario
You are really funny guy. Now read this:
dsd-guide.com/dop-open-standard#.XWQmnlO4SyM
So it's simple, it's open source & vendors are mostly morons.
good video!
Been using I2S for a couple of years now after having my first usb setup... I had a sbotw psu and a regen amber etc on my usb line before trying the pink faun I2S bridge and only that card with hdmi/I2S was way better than my tuned usb setup which required add ons which were at least twice the price!
Even the modded upgraded usb line wasnt comparable to the usb connection.
I2S has to become a standard and usb has to sto pbeing used by audiophiles as audiophile.... its shit compared to I2S so why even bother....
CD