Review and Measurements of Matrix Audio X-SPDIF 2 USB Converter

[Veri]

hi guys,

Any ideas for best cheapest USB Audio Digital interface Converter? Which does the job well?

just like a SMSL X-USB?

Thank you

This Matrix one is exemplary if you want the best. But a Topping D10s should work just as good. It's only a digital signal, no D>A conversion of any kind yet.

 

[misog]

This Matrix one is exemplary if you want the best. But a Topping D10s should work just as good. It's only a digital signal, no D>A conversion of any kind yet.

I see, forgot about SPDIF and COAX out thx man

 

[snapcrackle]

I am looking to feed an old DAC which is limited to 44.1 and is coax SPDIF only (please don't scoff) with a high quality SPDIF signal. I already have a clean USB signal going out from an SOtM sMS-200 ultra - so just need an async USB to SPDIF converter which will feed this old DAC with a really good high quality signal (it's fussy about the digital transport).

So ultimately the upstream SPDIF signal should have excellent clocks to mimic a great digital transport.

Do these cheaper USB to SPDIF converters have really good clocks for the SPDIF out? The old DAC really is fussy about upstream digital probably because old tech does not recover the clocking so well - therefore a good signal in is essential.

Thanks.

 

[EchoChamber]

I am looking to feed an old DAC which is limited to 44.1 and is coax SPDIF only (please don't scoff) with a high quality SPDIF signal. I already have a clean USB signal going out from an SOtM sMS-200 ultra - so just need an async USB to SPDIF converter which will feed this old DAC with a really good high quality signal (it's fussy about the digital transport).

So ultimately the upstream SPDIF signal should have excellent clocks to mimic a great digital transport.

Do these cheaper USB to SPDIF converters have really good clocks for the SPDIF out? The old DAC really is fussy about upstream digital probably because old tech does not recover the clocking so well - therefore a good signal in is essential.

Thanks.

I have 2 of them and they work great converting USB to AES/EBU. I’m pretty sure the X-SPDIF 2 will work for you. But I’m wondering if you’re better off buying a modern USB Dac. There’s a bunch tested here in ASR that test exemplary well. I’d pick one of those instead if your goal is transparency.

 

[gvl]

Watch out for word truncation if the "old DAC" doesn't support anything above 16-bit. Any digital volume control upstream of the DAC will likely produce 24 or 32 bit samples even when playing 16-bit material, so even with excellent clock you may have a less than excellent solution. If the DAC 24 bit capable then you're ok.

 

[snapcrackle]

Watch out for word truncation if the "old DAC" doesn't support anything above 16-bit. Any digital volume control upstream of the DAC will likely produce 24 or 32 bit samples even when playing 16-bit material, so even with excellent clock you may have a less than excellent solution. If the DAC 24 bit capable then you're ok.

That's something I did not consider. My DAC is restricted to 16-bit (Arcam Black Box 1) - so yes - it would be great to find a solution in that case for both a high quality SPDIF out and perhaps getting it re-clocked to a steady 16 bit.

Both Volumino and the Auralic software have got options to cap sound to 16 bit - but I'm not sure that is necessarily as good as a re-clocker, however I don't really know. Sorry I know most people are chasing 24 bit an above, but not me (yet).

Suggestion above to change DACs is, I know, obvious. But I like the sound of this old DAC when hooked up to an excellent transport. The great transport (and it definitely shows its prowess as a transport to my ears) I am using right now is a Marantz NA7004 - but this streamer is limited in its functionality so I want to use a more feature rich streamer behind the BB1.

I listened to a friends Topping in his setup and thought it was aneamic sounding - but that was in the context of his system so... I cannot judge.

Where I want transparency is from the 16 bit stream - not necessarily the DAC because I can't imagine my DAC being transparent but I like the sound and that's what this hobby is all about.

 

[gvl]

If you only play Redbook 44.1khz/16bit and don't use digital volume control on the source it should fine. If you can set your source to 16bit output it should be fine as well in theory if it adds dither as needed. The issue is that the Matrix (or other) UAC device advertizes 32/24bit capability and some players will use that word length when sending data out. If no volume control or DSP is done at the source then the original 16bit samples are simply padded with zeroes, so no harm is done if the DAC truncates them.

 

[snapcrackle]

If you only play Redbook 44.1khz/16bit and don't use digital volume control on the source it should fine. If you can set your source to 16bit output it should be fine as well in theory if it adds dither as needed. The issue is that the Matrix (or other) UAC device advertizes 32/24bit capability and some players will use that word length when sending data out. If no volume control or DSP is done at the source then the original 16bit samples are simply padded with zeroes, so no harm is done if the DAC truncates them.

I think I should try the Matrix and see how it works out.

This old DAC will only understand 16 bit in all circumstances so, lets just see what happens with something like the Matrix.

Perhaps it is safer still to deploy a re-clocker than can down-sample everything strictly to 44.1khz/16bit thus ensuring the DAC does not cough and splutter because it can't understand what's going on upstream.

I'm not sure.

 

[gvl]

It'll work, but will not yield the best performance if sample truncation happens. The effects can be subtle, so may not be an issue audibly.

 

[snapcrackle]

It'll work, but will not yield the best performance if sample truncation happens. The effects can be subtle, so may not be an issue audibly.

Check out this here: https://www.allo.com/sparky/kali-reclocker.html

From that link I have copied and pasted this: there are 2 kinds of frequencies for digital files: 44.1Khz (wave files) and 48khz (streamed music). Some SBCs (like RPIs) can output only 48Khz, so imagine the degradation of the sound that was recorded at a different frequency.

So does that mean streaming from Tidal which is streamed music is 48khz ?

 

[EchoChamber]

I think I should try the Matrix and see how it works out.

This old DAC will only understand 16 bit in all circumstances so, lets just see what happens with something like the Matrix.

Perhaps it is safer still to deploy a re-clocker than can down-sample everything strictly to 44.1khz/16bit thus ensuring the DAC does not cough and splutter because it can't understand what's going on upstream.

I'm not sure.

If you buy from a place like Apos, they have a good return policy, and if you’re inclined to subjective experimentation, get the X-SPDIF and an affordable top scoring DAC like the Gustard X16. And see which set up you prefer. I tend to prefer my DAC’s fed AES/EBU through the X-SPDIF instead of USB in most cases.

 

[Veri]

Perhaps it is safer still to deploy a re-clocker than can down-sample everything strictly to 44.1khz/16bit thus ensuring the DAC does not cough and splutter because it can't understand what's going on upstream.

I'm not sure.

I've used 24-bit volume control with a 16-bit DAC at home for months and honestly, I can't even hear the truncation happening. Best case it still has about 96dB of SINAD for 16 bits of resolution. realistically it'll reach a little less. Unless you listen to the highest quality "hi-res" kind of material, I would imagine you'd be hard pressed to hear a difference between truncated and "down-sampled" 44/16. I second the other suggestions here that you'd be likely wasting your money.

If you really want to spend money, get a better DAC. That'll likely yield the "best" result. And if you're already happy as is, just keep things as they are!

 

[gvl]

Get a Topping D10S and kill 2 birds with one stone and save money in the process. It should be better than enough for this application.

 

[snapcrackle]

Get a Topping D10S and kill 2 birds with one stone and save money in the process. It should be better than enough for this application.

As good as the D10S is, it is first and foremost a DAC - if you look at the clocking used in the Matrix X-SPDIF 2 they look very good indeed. I still like experimenting with old DACs so I need the best possible transport I can find.

 

[gvl]

As good as the D10S is, it is first and foremost a DAC - if you look at the clocking used in the Matrix X-SPDIF 2 they look very good indeed. I still like experimenting with old DACs so I need the best possible transport I can find.

Nah, whatever clocking differences there might be, if any, their impact will be magnitudes lower than that caused by the imperfections of your vintage DAC. Topping engineers commented that the D10S's SPDIF output is same or better than the AP anslyzer's Amir uses. It doesn't get much better than that.

 

[snapcrackle]

Nah, whatever clocking differences there might be, if any, their impact will be magnitudes lower than that caused by the imperfections of your vintage DAC. Topping engineers commented that the D10S's SPDIF output is same or better than the AP anslyzer's Amir uses. It doesn't get much better than that.

OK fair enough - I guess choosing the Matrix is comfort food in the fact that it 'looks' better engineered and is designed for purpose.

My vintage DAC is fussy to be sure - for example - the spdif from an Auralic Mini isn't even close to the spdif out of a Marantz NA7004 - so the old timer can easily distinguish between those two at least. This is why I am cautious.

 

[gvl]

It's your money... As for hearing differences, try a blind level matched test to try to tell one from another, it should bring much relief.

 

[snapcrackle]

It's your money... As for hearing differences, try a blind level matched test to try to tell one from another, it should bring much relief.

I'm pretty much immune to issues when it comes to the influence of the eye/brain - ears, otherwise I would putting the much touted Chord Mojo above the vintage DAC - but frustratingly the old boy sounds better but 'only' when fronted with a stellar transport!

When attached to a less than stellar transport she responds with comparatively lifeless performance - it's so obvious.

But yes - it's my money and my brain - and the grey cell ear combo are adamant that the transport makes difference and the old DAC sounds better when hooked up properly despite being ancient.

 

[Veri]

I'm pretty much immune to issues when it comes to the influence of the eye/brain - ears

Oh boy are you in for disappointment

But yes - it's my money and my brain - and the grey cell ear combo are adamant that the transport makes difference and the old DAC sounds better when hooked up properly despite being ancient.

Uh, sure. Enjoy what you enjoy, no harm in that. Being adamant about something does not make it verified nor true though.

 

[gvl]

I'm pretty much immune to issues when it comes to the influence of the eye/brain - ears, otherwise I would putting the much touted Chord Mojo above the vintage DAC - but frustratingly the old boy sounds better but 'only' when fronted with a stellar transport!

I believe you probably can discern some difference between these particular DACs, but I was suggesting to compare SPDIF from different sources into the vintage one, with no digital volume control upstream.