• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

High Performance PC Server Interfaces (Async USB)

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,384
Location
Seattle Area
[Note: This article was published in the Widescreen Review Magazine. This is a revised edition.]

There is no larger transformation of personal music consumption than to store your entire library of music on a server and play them on demand. Rich metadata and searching means instant access to all of your content. With the advent of high resolution downloads, the notion of using a physical media is obsolete even for the most diehard devotees of physical media.

I suspect if you have not yet gone this route, one of the reasons is the myriad of choices in building a music server. Unlike buying a stand-alone transport, the choices are infinite when it comes to building a server/playback system. I hope to shed some light on one critical component of such a system, at least in the case of PC and Mac Servers. Namely, how to interface them to an external DAC. Unless you are using a professional audio interface, in general I do not recommend that you use internal DACs to the computers. You get far more flexibility in using a high-quality interface to "bridge" the connection between the PC/MAC music server and the DAC that converts the audio samples to analog.

If you have a modern computer with HDMI output, you already have a very convenient way of sending digital audio out of your computer to an outboard device – usually an Audio/Video Receiver (AVR) or Home Theater processor. HDMI can produce good performance but sadly, that is more of an exception than rule. HDMI “slaves” audio to video meaning you cannot have audio without video. This in turn lights up tremendous amount of circuitry in the receiver. The enemy of high-performance audio is noise and interference and with HDMI that comes with the territory.

Please don’t believe in online folklore that says “digital is digital” and hence it does not matter which digital path you use to output your audio samples to the external DAC (stand-alone or internal to an AVR or Processor). That is the layman understanding of how our audio systems work, not the reality. That reality says that digital audio reproduction requires two pieces of information: audio samples and their timing. For the purposes of this article we assume that digital audio samples are always delivered error free to the receiver (if not, you will get audible glitches). Fidelity differences are not as such due to errors in the digital link. They are due to the other inputs to the digital to audio converter (DAC) as shown in Figure 1. Delivering correct PCM (or DSD) audio samples takes care of only one out of three factors that determine the output of the DAC.
DAC..png


Figure 1: Digital to Analog Converters (DACs) need high quality clock pulses and reference voltage to output clean analog signal. It is not sufficient to just capture the audio samples reliably.

Let's look at the role of the clock pulses. When you play CD audio, there are ostensibly 44,100 such samples/second. I say ostensibly because there is no requirement that the source actually feed the DAC that many samples/second. It can just as easily choose to run a tiny bit slower or faster or alternate between those speeds. The system must reliably handle such small timing differences and stay in “lock” with the source. The DAC cannot generate its own timing using the sample rate to drive its DAC silicon. If it did so, its clock no matter how accurate, would over time drift away from the one used in the source. If it runs too fast, it would run out of data at some point and would have to introduce a pause or glitch. If it ran too slow, then it would keep accumulating audio and at some point, run out of a place to store them. And in the case of video, lose audio and video sync. For these reasons, an unwritten rule of consumer audio is that the DAC must slave its timing, i.e. its clock to the source. It must stay in lock-step with it no matter what.

The timing extraction subjects the DAC to noise and variations in the clock produced by the source. We call such variations "jitter." Yes, the DAC can and routinely filters such noise using a circuit called "PLL" or Phased Locked Loop. No, such a circuit does not eliminate audible jitter. The primary role of the PLL in the DAC is to extract digital values coming to it. That is the mission critical component. Eliminating high-frequency jitter, i.e. well above audio band, accomplishes that and gives us glitch-free audio that is in sync with the source. This however does not ensure best fidelity as if we allow audio-band jitter frequencies to enter the DAC, then they show up in the output of the DAC per Figure 1. They may not always be audible depending on their level but they will be there and no amount of hand-waiving saying there is a PLL and "locally generated clock" explains them away.

Because of high precision of our audio samples, i.e. 16 bits or higher per PCM sample, it takes very little variation in the clock timing to produce a distortion product in the output of the DAC. We are talking mere billionth of a second here. Do not make the mistake of thinking the DAC is running at thousands of samples per second makes this issue go away. What I just said can be shown mathematically to be the case. To produce even 16-bit audio samples correctly requires jitter to be down in nanosecond range.

Jitter in audio systems is a manifestation of real systems versus what I call paper ones. On paper, a DAC performs as well as its silicon manufacturer specs in their publications. We see numbers these days that are superlative even in the case of DACs that cost pennies. What any DAC designer knows though is that as soon as you put said DAC silicon in a real device, there is potential for significant drop in performance. DAC silicon manufacturers test their components using clean and simple circuits. Nothing remotely as complex and noisy as aforementioned HDMI is used. It is left as an exercise for the designer to figure out how to deliver a clean clock (and reference voltage) to the DAC. Something that is missed unfortunately in all the AVRs I have tested. So on that front, my recommendation is to stay away from HDMI for 2-channel, critical music listening. For movies, it is a fine and mandatory choice to get multi-channel sound and such. For music, there are far better choices.

Toslink and S/PDIF
Many desktop PCs have with a digital audio interface in the form optical Toslink or coax S/PDIF digital audio output. These are the same familiar connections we have had in our traditional audio systems such as the output of a CD or DVD/Blu-ray player. Each has its own advantages. Toslink optical connection electrically isolates the server and the DAC and hence can keep the noise in the PC from polluting the sensitive DAC downstream. The down side is that optical connection tends to suffer from higher jitter due to low bandwidth of the cheap optical cable used for audio. In that case, the coax connection may be superior.

Without measurements it is hard to know whether you are better off with Toslink optical or S/PDIF. You could get lower jitter over S/PDIF only to have the electrical coupling of the server and DAC undo that and then some. My suggestion is to connect both links and perform a blind test. Close your eyes and randomize which one you are using. Listen for any differences. Use a soundtrack that has high frequency notes that decay into nothing and pay attention to how clean that decay is and whether it terminates abruptly. Also note whether the sound is brighter in one interface than the other. I have had better luck with coax but in at least one occasion, I found optical sounding better.

USB Audio
The (relatively) new kid on the block is USB. No doubt you are familiar with this ubiquitous computer interface for everything from keyboards to printers. Countless DACs are available that take USB as their input and operate in what is called Isochronous mode. Isochronous mode sends packets of data that are ~1024 bytes long. The receiver uses this block transfer cadence to generate the DAC clock. The problem with this approach is that it is "glitchy." At the end of each block transfer by definition there is a pause before the next block is transmitted. So if care is not taken, we get a timing glitch/jitter every 1 KHz which is smack in the middle of audio band and where the ear is nearly most sensitive.

Despite this issue, USB paves the road to finally fix the ills of our current consumer digital interfaces. Namely the fact that the DAC must stay "slave" to the source in deriving its timing. This as I explained, immediately sets us up for source induced jitter. A much better scheme is put to the DAC in charge of timing and make the source slave. In doing so, we can have a clean clock source for the DAC chip and have the server feed us data as we need and request it. USB if completely suited to this purpose as its primary function is to convey digital samples to the peripheral device. And that is all we want to use it for: to give us data but let us determine the timing of them. This mode of operation is called "asynchronous USB" or async USB for short.

Another benefit of async USB is that it can deal with the server falling behind the DAC. Audio is a "real time" operation. If you are playing 48 Khz PCM audio, there better be an audio sample every 1/48,000 of a second or else you will hear a glitch as the DAC would have nothing to play. A MAC or PC on the other hand is a non-real-time device. They are orders of magnitude faster than what we need them for audio, but they are not always there when needed. Activities on the computer may make it slow at a critical moment to feed data to a DAC resulting in the glitch. It is the case of being way too fast, and too slow at the same time. A technique called buffering allows us to take advantage of our "faster than real-time" performance to make up for slower than real-time response. Instead of reading data just when we need it, we can set aside a large pool of memory called a buffer, and put the audio samples there. Then we "drain" the data as we need it using our precise DAC clock. As long as the pre-fetch mechanism, the logic that fetches audio samples, is faster than us consuming the data, we can survive momentary periods where the server gets too busy to service the DAC. This mechanism is ideally suited to async USB because by definition we can read data at a different rate than we are consuming it in the DAC.

Note that asynchronous audio output has existed for a long time in professional audio cards that you plugged into a computer or used over Firewire or USB. What is new is being able to do the same thing but with standard in-box drivers in Windows or Mac. Both operating systems come with built-in drivers for USB class 2 that allows driver-less attachment of such devices. The Windows implementation stops at 24 bit/96 KHz so you usually get a driver from the manufacturer to support higher data rates. In some cases the implementation is proprietary requiring a driver for the device to operate at all.

Asynchronous mode nicely solves our upstream jitter problem. It matters not how much jitter exists in the USB clock coming or the source PC. We have our own clock in the DAC or S/PDIF interface that is used for conversion of digital audio to analog. This method, on paper at least, is superior to HDMI or SPDIF out of the server because these continue to keep the source/server as the master. I say on paper because the local clock still has to have good performance and external interference kept away. It is possible to build an asynchronous USB interface that does no better than classic interconnects because of failings in this regard. Let's dig into this further.

Electrical Isolation
Asynchronous transfer mode of USB solves our clocking problem but we are still stuck with electrical coupling of the PC and our AV gear courtesy of wired USB connection. You can have the world's best DAC clock but if you let noise bleed into its power supply or even couple through it over the air, you still wind up with noise and distortion on the output of your DAC. The first way to guard against this is to isolate the power including the ground of the server from the DAC. This is usually done with an integrated IC such as the Analog Devices ADuM4160 whose block diagram is shown in Figure 2. Alas, that IC cannot support speeds above 24-bit/96 KHz. Higher speed solutions require a more discrete solution such as a generic digital isolator.
Analog Devices Adum4160.PNG


Figure 2: Electrical/Galvanic isolation using off-the-shelf USB isolator IC.

As I noted, it is important that the ground connection is also isolated as otherwise that line will not only allow interference to transmit to our sensitive audio circuits, but can also create ground loops. Ground loops are caused by differences in the voltage potential of the ground on the sending and receiving equipment. They almost always exist in such scenarios and the question only becomes how well the equipment deals with it and how bad the differential is. Best thing is to not create a ground loop than try to diagnose and fix it. Galvanic isolation does that and should be on your list of “must haves” when buying USB audio solutions.

Flavors of Async USB
You have two choices here. You can get a new DAC or AVR with a built-in asynchronous USB interface or buy a “bridge” adapter that converts USB asynchronously to S/PDIF (and its balanced professional AES/EBU counterpart if you have that in your DAC). My preference is for the bridge as that gives you much more choices of AV products including the DAC/AVRs you already have. There are many such interfaces at all price points. In this article I will be talking about two of my favorites:

1. Berkeley Audio Design Alpha USB adapter. This is a very high performance bridge that takes USB input and produces either S/PDIF or AES/EBU. It has a built-in power supply that is a must for clean power as opposed to trying to use the USB power.

2. Audiophilleo USB to S/PDIF adapter. This is another well designed product which is small enough to couple directly to the S/PDIF connector.

Measurements
Let’s put the theory to practice and see if we are able to improve the performance of our systems using this new technology. Figure 3 is the measurement of the Mark Levinson No 502 processor when being fed the “J-Test” signal (essentially a 12 KHz tone). The Ideal performance would have a single tone/sharp spike at 12 KHz and nothing else. The server is my Sony laptop driving the processor either using its built-in HDMI output, or the Berkeley async USB adapter feeding the 502 over S/PDIF.

I have given substantial benefit of the doubt to HDMI as the Mark Levinson 502 processor produces superb performance with the spikes hovering at very low level of -113 dBFs. No other HDMI device I tested could remotely approach this level of performance as you will see later. As good this HDMI performance is though, the Berkeley S/PDIF connection bests it, by taking distortions down by 13 dB (-127 dBFs vs -114 dBFs). Yes, we are talking about how many angels may be dancing on top of the pin but I wanted to show that even in heroic implementations of HDMI, a better architecture in the form of async USB and great implementation of that, can provide superior performance.

Mark Levinson 502 HDMI input vs Berkeley Async USB to SPDIF.png

Figure 3: Mark Levinson 502 Processor performance using HDMI as input versus S/PDIF driven by the Berkeley USB adapter.

Now let’s come down to earth and see what happens when we make the same comparison using a sampling of higher-end AVRs. First up is the Anthem AVM 50 processor as shown in Figure 4.
AVM 50 HDMI vs Berkeley.png


Figure 4: Anthem AVM 50 HDMI in red compared to Berkeley S/PDIF in green. Note the much improved level of distortion in the latter case.

An entirely different picture emerges with HDMI distortion spikes reaching up to -84 dBFs. Let's put that in context by mentioning that signal to noise ratio of 16 bit audio is 96 dB. Inverted, the noise floor would be at -96 dBFs which means using HDMI on this AVR, we have introduced distortion products that rise well above our theoretical noise floor for 16 bit audio. Forget about 24 bit audio. We are having trouble and serious one at that, reproducing 16 bit audio here.

Thankfully using the Berkeley to drive the S/PDIF input on the exact same AVR with the exact same DAC results in reduction of distortions by nearly 20 dB. Let me repeat: nothing was changed in this experiment other than replacing one digital interface, HDMI, for another one, USB to S/PDIF bridge. Yet we managed to reduce the analog distortion coming out of the DAC by a huge amount. Distortion products are down to a much more reasonable -103 dBFs making the promise of producing clean 16 bit audio a realistic proposition (we can hear distortions through noise so need better than -96 dBFs distortion performance). Next time someone says "bits are bits" and you can't change anything by modifying the digital feed to a DAC, show them this graph.

To show this is not a unique example, let’s repeat the exercise with the Pioneer Elite SC-63 AVR now in Figure 5. As with the Anthem, HDMI interface is suffering from low frequency jitter which causes our main 12 KHz test tone to broaden its "skirt" on each side. We also have our usual set of "correlated" distortion spikes on both sides of our main test signal.

Switching to the Berkeley USB to S/PDIF bridge yet again shows a marked improvement by attenuating the low frequency jitter and reducing the amplitude of the higher frequencies ones. The reduction in correlated distortion spikes is about 7 dB which is not an insignificant amount.

Pioneer SC-63 HDMI vs Berekeley.png


Figure 5: Comparison of HDMI to S/PDIF on a Pioneer SC-63 AVR showing better performance yet again using USB to S/PDIF bridge.

I won’t bore you with more measurements as the theme continues with all the other AVRs I have tested. Suffice it to say, unless someone backs their statement with objective measurements, you can safely assume that you can do better than HDMI with a well-implemented USB Async interface such as the Berkeley and while not shown, the Audiophilleo.

Quality Implementation
It is important to not automatically assume that just because a device is advertising asynchronous USB operation that it produces the same results I have shown above. The implementation can create its own “local” noise and timing distortions. To show an example of differing performance, let’s look at Figure 6 which compares performance of the Peachtree Decco DAC's internal asynchronous USB versus an external bridge. That input as shown in red produces excellent performance at -116 dBFs distortion level. As good as that is, we are able to improve upon it by using the Audiophilleo USB to S/PDIF to the tune of 13 dB reduction in noise+distortion products. Clearly the two async USB implementations are not the same.

Decco USB vs Audiophilleo.png


Figure 6: Comparison of built-in asynchronous USB in the Peachtree Decco (in red) versus outboard Audiophilleo (in green).

For another comparison let's look at how the Berkeley compares to the Audiophilleo when driving the mark Levinson 502 in Figure 7.
Mark Levinson 502 HDMI input vs Berkeley vs Audiophilleo.png


Figure 7: comparison of Berkeley and Audiophilleo USB to S/PDIF showing the former to have improved performance (in green).

The correlated distortion spikes in red produced by the Audiophilleo essentially vanish when the Mark Levinson is driven by the Berkeley.

There is no free lunch here as the Audiophilleo is about one third the cost and physically about 1/10th the size of the Berkeley. The small size makes it very difficult to provide physical separate of the components. And the lower cost excludes using more exotic parts. So it is not surprising that there is some measured difference here.

To see what it takes to produce the superlative performance that the Berkeley manages, let’s look at what is inside it as shown in Picture 1. On the bottom right is the USB port. It goes into the ubiquitous XMOS USB interface IC (large square chip). This is the “dirty” side of the unit meaning it has high-speed digital signals that must be kept away from our audio signals as much as possible. Such noise can bleed not only through connected circuits but literally through air. Good design hygiene therefore calls for physical separation which we see here as I have indicated with the marker "Isolation." USB computer interface stays on the right whereas S/PDIF and AES/EBU clock and signal generation are to the left. This reduces the chances of the clock oscillators (the shiny metal boxes) becoming contaminated with the digital activity on the dirty (USB) side.
Berkeley Alpha USB Internal PCB 005K7331-small.jpg


Picture 1: Main interface board in the Berkeley Alpha USB to S/PDIF and AES converter. Note the excellent isolation of USB digital interface on the right and S/PDIF and AES/EBU on the left to reduce crosstalk (contamination).

There is more to the performance of the Berkeley than just this physical separation that goes beyond the scope of this article. Suffice it to say, excellence in engineering pays off in better measured performance.

The Audiophilleo is also an excellent device but as you see in Picture 2, it is a very small device, not a whole lot bigger than the American quarter. There is no separation to speak of as we had with the Berkeley. So no wonder that we had some bleeding of noise from USB side into the S/PDIF clock.

005K7333.jpg


Picture 2: Audiophilleo USB to S/PDIF Converter. Note the diminutive size.

There are asynchronous USB adapters at all price points. Unfortunately without measurements you cannot know how well they perform. Given that, look for “galvanic isolation” and separate power supply in the device spec sheet as generic clues to good performance but no guarantee.

In summary, we now have a superb way to get audio out of a computer server into a DAC. By using a well-implemented async USB bridge we get all the benefits and conveniences of modern music systems, with superlative performance. It is not always the case that we can have our cake and eat it too, but such is the case here.

References
Digital Audio: The Possible and Impossible, Amir Majidimehr, Widescreen Review Magazine
 
Joined
Dec 15, 2018
Messages
21
Likes
26
Is there anything that has changed since this was written? Is this still how you access your library?
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,384
Location
Seattle Area
The only thing that has changed is that my Berkeley Alpha broke. :( So the Audiophilleo does that job now.

Today, async USB is standard in just about every DAC unlike when I wrote that article. So the novelty has worn off. Stand-alone devices tend to try harder to create cleaner clocks, and galvanic isolation. The latter is usually not found in budget DACs and would be a good way to break ground loops.
 

stunta

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
1,155
Likes
1,399
Location
Boston, MA
Thanks, Amir. You made it easy to understand. In the Berkeley board, why do the other no-usb inputs not need any isolation?
 

stunta

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
1,155
Likes
1,399
Location
Boston, MA
There is only one input (USB). The other two are outputs (AES and S/PDIF).

Doh! Reading comprehension issue. Thanks.
 

Final

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
49
Likes
75
As you say Amir, the novelty of Berkeley Alpha USB has worn off. However the quality has not. I own a Bricasti M1 SE with numerous inputs including AES and USB. Subjectively the Bricasti sounds grainfree and relaxed over the USB input.

However, when using the Berkeley bridge and the AES input, there is a difference. It`s Christmas and recordings of orchestral works and boys choires fill my living room. With Berkeley in the system the boys voices lose all harshness. A slightly darker presentasjon with lifelike voice separation, like in Church. Not bad over USB at all either. But there is a difference. Wish it wasnt, but thats how it is.
 
Last edited:

Dialectic

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
1,738
Likes
3,090
Location
a fortified compound
As you sat Amir the novelty of Berkeley Alpha USB has worn off. However the quality has not. I own a Bricasti M1 SE with numerous inputs including AES en USB. Subjectively the Bricasti sounds grainfree an relaxed over the USB input.

However, when using me Berkeley bridge and the AES input, there is a difference. It`s Christmas and recordings of orchestral works and boys choires fill my living room. With Berkeley in the system the boys voices lose all harshness. A slightly darker presentasjon with lifelike voice separation, like in Church. Not bad over USB at all. But there is a difference. Wish it wasnt, but thats how it is.

Would be curious to see the difference using null testing.
 

Final

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
49
Likes
75
Yes that would be interesting. Would be interesting to see measurements too. Maybe measurements would show no audible difference. One should never underestimate psychological bias or defects in audio memory.
 

gino1961

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2018
Messages
428
Likes
139
... However, when using the Berkeley bridge and the AES input, there is a difference. It`s Christmas and recordings of orchestral works and boys choires fill my living room. With Berkeley in the system the boys voices lose all harshness. A slightly darker presentasjon with lifelike voice separation, like in Church. Not bad over USB at all either. But there is a difference. Wish it wasnt, but thats how it is.

Hi, sorry to pick up again an old but very interesting thread to me. I am very interested in these USB TO AES/EBU converter. Are you still using the Berkeley bridge ? have you tried anything else ? i was about to upgrade from my cheap Gustard U12 to the new U16 ... but then i saw the so so measurements. Thanks a lot indeed for any advice. Bye, gino
 

Final

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
49
Likes
75
Hi, sorry to pick up again an old but very interesting thread to me. I am very interested in these USB TO AES/EBU converter. Are you still using the Berkeley bridge ? have you tried anything else ? i was about to upgrade from my cheap Gustard U12 to the new U16 ... but then i saw the so so measurements. Thanks a lot indeed for any advice. Bye, gino

Hello.
yes I am still using the Berkeley. I`ve tested The HiFace, a cheap solution. It gave OK results, nothing more. A solution only if you don`t have USB. I`ve wanted to use only the USB and lose the Berkeley. Can`t play DSD with the Berkeley. Not a big Issue, but if I can do with less boxes, then I prefer it.

I have no measurements, this is only subjective. I have conducted an A/B test with my wife. Telling her I would let her listen to two DAC inputs and saying that there should be no difference between the two. No change in volume of course Her response: Your` kidding. The second one was better by far. Sounded much more like real life instruments.

After that session I kind of accepted that I wasn`t imagining things.
 
Last edited:

gino1961

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2018
Messages
428
Likes
139
Hello.
yes I am still using the Berkeley. I`ve teste The HiFace, a cheap solution. It gave OK results, nothing more. A solution only if you don`t have USB. I`ve wanted to use only the USB and lose the Berkeley. Can`t play DSD with the Berkeley. Not a big Issue, but if I can do with less boxes, then I prefer it.
I have no measurements, this is only subjective. I have conducted an A/B test with my wife. Telling her I would let her listen to two DAC inputs and saying that there should be no difference between the two. No change in volume of course Her response: Your` kidding. The second one was better by far. Sounded much more like real life instruments.
After that session I kind of accepted that I wasn`t imagining things

Hi ! thank you very much indeed for your kind and valuable reply. The Berkley has been an epic unit. I really think that it is still an exceptional unit. Reading a review i found really interesting that the aim of the designer had been to design and build a unit that could provide top performances indipendently from the actual computer used upstream. Therefore no need for an expensive computer/streamer. And the testing confirmed this with even a cheap laptop providing great sound. The price of the unit is justified by its quality.
Since then i have been always looking for a poor guy Berkeley. I have bought some cheap usb to spdif converters:
  • Gustard U12,
  • one from Breeze Audio,
  • Melodious Audio MX-U8 (1st edition),
  • Yellowtec PUC2,
  • another one that it is stored away i do not remember the brand.
In the meantime from another thread here i have learned that some dacs are much less sensitive than others to different DDC. One case being the wonderful Exasound e32
https://www.exasound.com/Products/e32MarkIIDAC.aspx
I guess they have a sort of reclocking system particularly well implemented ? Actually i tried all the above with an old but decent Apogee Rosetta 200 that has a reclocking circuit without hearing much of a difference.
I also read some people recommending the cheap Hegel HD2 as DDC ... it has a rca spdif out with low jitter ?
I was about to buy the newer U16 by Gustard but then i saw the measurements.
Maybe i should stop looking and start listening to music.
Thanks a lot again
Kind regards, gino
 
Last edited:

ZolaIII

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
4,069
Likes
2,409
Meh I considered non contact inductive transformers recently and all do they resolve one issue they created another one the EMI buzz they produce so you would need to tackle up transformer in to tick shielding (1.5~2 cm of steel plates or graphite) to get blocking pass 120 dB. Other than that they are highly inefficient.
 

Mariner9

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2020
Messages
56
Likes
41
I've been lurking for several months, trying to learn as much as possible from the reviews and the forums.

I'm considering buying an Alpha USB as a way to provide a digital input to a pair of D&D 8Cs. While it would be possible to connect the analogue outputs from a DAC to the 8Cs, this introduces an additional A/D conversion. D&D said via email that they would recommend sending a digital signal if it's possible to do so (assuming the source is digital, which, in my case, it is - all my CDs and vinyl have been recorded to my PC). Of course, one could argue - as Berkeley did - that I should be using a music server rather than a PC but that solution doesn't work for me.

There are a number of USB to AES converters but my impression - in part from ASR reviews/discussions, e.g. of the Gustard U12 - is the quality isn't great. The better converters seem to be the Mutec MC3+ and the Berkeley Alpha USB. My understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that the design of the Alpha USB is better as it only provides a signal to one output whereas the Mutec provides a signal to multiple outputs concurrently (described here).

I would welcome thoughts on the above. Question is really the improvement in using digital input to the 8Cs rather than analogue - which might not justify the cost of the Alpha USB.
 

Bulldogger

Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
69
Likes
27
The only thing that has changed is that my Berkeley Alpha broke. :( So the Audiophilleo does that job now.

Today, async USB is standard in just about every DAC unlike when I wrote that article. So the novelty has worn off. Stand-alone devices tend to try harder to create cleaner clocks, and galvanic isolation. The latter is usually not found in budget DACs and would be a good way to break ground loops.
What happened to the Berkeley? Mine blew a fuse a few years back. I sent it to Berkeley and haven't had any issues since. Do your measurements of current dacs with better USB implementation match or better the Berkeley for jitter?
 

Mas950

New Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2023
Messages
2
Likes
0
nice write up, simple and clear to understand.

I have an old diy computer server based on the intel atom caps music server from computer audiophile.

I have a usb dac which again is quite old, it is a lavry da11 which at the time was comparable to the benchmark dac1.

From what I understand from this article, asynchronous USB and electric isolation are the way to go.

The problem is, whatever research I'm trying to do on let's say electrical isolation like how to achieve galvanic isolation, whenever I come back to cross check on audio science, the advice seems to be that it won't make much of a difference and is written off contrary to the advice from this write up.

For example, I've been following the little green computer's videos online regarding getting a clean signal from my pc into my dac via ethernet which offers galvanic isolation, when I come back to audio science and read a review on say the microrendu, amir says that it won't make much of a difference even though in the article it says to look for galvanic isolation to treat the noise from bleeding into the dac. The microrendu used with an ethernet adapter offers galvanic isolation.

I'm assuming that's because most modern DACs power supplies are competent enough to filter or reject any noise coming through however where I get confused is in 2018 Amir says in a reply on this thread that he uses the audiophilio bridge as his Berkely has broken down, that's the only thing that's changed in his system at the time he stated.

I'm sure in 2018 his equipment had competent power supplies etc so why was he using the audiophilio?

I'm just trying to get my head around most of this and how I can move forward with improving my system.

I'm thinking of linear power supplies for my diy music server, Ethernet switch to Galvanically isolate any noise from my pc going into my dac.

I can't afford to spend thousands on a Berkely alpha, I'm thinking surely there is a cheaper way to do this hence the ethernet adapter route however I don't want to start something that has been clearly measured here to not make much of a difference!

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
 

gino1961

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2018
Messages
428
Likes
139
I remember a review of the Berkeley dd converter
The designer suggested to use the aes/ebu out because of the better S/N ratio
The reviewer used different pcs from desktop to a cheap laptop without perceiving any substantial difference in sound quality
Another important issue is the dac and its ability to reject jitter
I have an old Apogee Rosetta that has a reclock circuit that seems to work fine
I have not heard any substantial difference even when feeding it with a cheap tv box via optical out with the tv box reading Redbook files from a USB pen
 
Last edited:

MaxwellsEq

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
1,627
Likes
2,424
I'm just trying to get my head around most of this and how I can move forward with improving my system
If in doubt about galvanic isolation, do the networking via WiFi and the connections via Toslink.
 

Mas950

New Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2023
Messages
2
Likes
0
Hi,

Thank you for your replies,

I was looking at the little green computer's videos on routing my music from my computer to my dac via ethernet adapter and then an optical microrendu to my dac until I realised that the microrendu costs nearly £2k here in the UK!

The reason I want to do this is to reduce or eliminate the noise from my pc that is coming into my dac.

Are there any other cost effective but effective ways that this can be done and is it worth doing so in the first place as I'm just hanging on to the article from amir to steer me in the right direction and there are only 2 recommendations there which is a Berkely alpha and audiophilio.

Many thanks.
 
Top Bottom