• 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!

Study: Is I²S interface better for DACs than S/PDIF or USB?

srkbear

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 16, 2021
Messages
1,038
Likes
1,456
Location
Dallas, TX
It isn't that they don't matter, it's that they don't have to be expensive. The cable side of this business, both analog and digital, has to be the worst offenders in terms of taking advantage of the ignorance of buyers.
Whew. There’s that damn ignorance word again—I gotta adjust to that.

Now in regards to the headphone cables, I have been wary of snake oil. I found a small shop called GUCraftsman with a guy who makes hand made cables with excellent quality parts who doesn’t gouge like Audioquest and Wireworld do (don’t get me started on Moon Audio). I bought a set of mixed single crystal silver/copper (not plated) with pentaconn connectors to replace the mess that came with my Focals and Hifimans and they sound perfect, and cost me $110.

Maybe that’s more than necessary but I love the build quality, look, and tightness of the connectors and I figure for a $4,399 headphone, the minor investment is worth it.
 
Last edited:

BDWoody

Chief Cat Herder
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
7,082
Likes
23,533
Location
Mid-Atlantic, USA. (Maryland)
Maybe that’s more than necessary but with these I can hear clear differences in tonality and sibilance in the highs and I know for SURE there’s no placebo effect involved. I’m POSITIVE lol…

I like blue jeans cables...they are well made, and easy to deal with. It won't sound better than Amazon basics, but a little splurge here and there I can handle.

So, do you believe the guy with the kilobuck+ cables when he claims they sound better than what you have? I don't mean this to seem inflammatory, I'm wondering where you feel your inner skeptic making noises...

This industry is filled with claims about improvements from anything from green markers to boxes of dirt. We struggle here with getting to an evidence based answer where we can, so we aren't as easily taken advantage of by the Fraudioquests and BS Audios of the world.
 

srkbear

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 16, 2021
Messages
1,038
Likes
1,456
Location
Dallas, TX
I like blue jeans cables...they are well made, and easy to deal with. It won't sound better than Amazon basics, but a little splurge here and there I can handle.

So, do you believe the guy with the kilobuck+ cables when he claims they sound better than what you have? I don't mean this to seem inflammatory, I'm wondering where you feel your inner skeptic making noises...

This industry is filled with claims about improvements from anything from green markers to boxes of dirt. We struggle here with getting to an evidence based answer where we can, so we aren't as easily taken advantage of by the Fraudioquests and BS Audios of the world.
I’m not sure whether you’re referring to my guitar amp guy or to the GUCraftsman shop. The latter never made any claims about better sound; I just found his stuff and gave it a try, and liked what I heard.

I trust the collective consciousness of the folks like you on here and I am convinced that you are steering me in the right direction for future purchases. I’m definitely convinced about the USB/digital cables and as far as the analog cables go, I already made the investment, like their look and form factor, and I’m very happy with how my system sounds. I’ll definitely look into blue jeans if I need analog cables in the future.

Hope that addressed your question—I’m here to learn and I can change my mind with good info, as I have here. I am a scientist by profession and always trust evidence-based info over the anecdotal, when it’s available.
 
Last edited:

srkbear

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 16, 2021
Messages
1,038
Likes
1,456
Location
Dallas, TX
I like blue jeans cables...they are well made, and easy to deal with. It won't sound better than Amazon basics, but a little splurge here and there I can handle.

So, do you believe the guy with the kilobuck+ cables when he claims they sound better than what you have? I don't mean this to seem inflammatory, I'm wondering where you feel your inner skeptic making noises...

This industry is filled with claims about improvements from anything from green markers to boxes of dirt. We struggle here with getting to an evidence based answer where we can, so we aren't as easily taken advantage of by the Fraudioquests and BS Audios of the world.
I also changed my avatar to my next favorite thing after cats. They’re still pissed though.
 

BDWoody

Chief Cat Herder
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
7,082
Likes
23,533
Location
Mid-Atlantic, USA. (Maryland)
I’m not sure whether you’re referring to my guitar amp guy or to the GUCraftsman shop. The latter never made any claims about better sound; I just found his stuff and gave it a try, and liked what I heard.

Not your guy...thats not a crazy price for well made cables. I made some of my own, but am happy to pay someone else to do the soldering..

I'm referring to the guy who bought these...or the headphone cable version of them:


There will be many who claim veils were lifted. Do you feel they are likely audibly better, but just not worth it, or are you confident your guy hooked you up properly with appropriate cables for the job?

No answer really needed, just saying that it's safe to dramatically increase your skepticism of what you hear 'out there.' Sounds like you already are.

Cheers by the way for sticking with it here. It's worth breaking through the outer crust to the gooey inside.
 

srkbear

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 16, 2021
Messages
1,038
Likes
1,456
Location
Dallas, TX
Not your guy...thats not a crazy price for well made cables. I made some of my own, but am happy to pay someone else to do the soldering..

I'm referring to the guy who bought these...or the headphone cable version of them:


There will be many who claim veils were lifted. Do you feel they are likely audibly better, but just not worth it, or are you confident your guy hooked you up properly with appropriate cables for the job?

No answer really needed, just saying that it's safe to dramatically increase your skepticism of what you hear 'out there.' Sounds like you already are.

Cheers by the way for sticking with it here. It's worth breaking through the outer crust to the gooey inside.
That link—ouch! I never put out for any of those zillion dollar Audioquest speaker hookups or the Moon Audio Dragon nonsense. I bought a 0.75m Audioquest Coffee USB B to A cable to run from my streamer to my DAC that was open box and set me back $199.

I’m now accepting that this money could have been better spent elsewhere, but after investing well over 12 grand in my dream setup as a whole (after saving for years to finally get it) I was hallucinating in a spending jamboree and it didn’t trouble me terribly at the time (endorphins).

But the mere thought of spending more for your cables than for the most premium quality components is the definition of highway robbery, and I say personal hubris. I can’t imagine anyone who had any respect for hard work or the value of money buying these things without feeling a excruciating amount of embarrassment.

I imagine the character study of such individuals to be those who couldn’t care less about audio, and who instead acquire these items to put under glass on a pedestal display with the price tags left conspicuously visible. I’m not sure they’re being suckered exactly; I think they have different motives for buying these ostentatious “statement” pieces and probably bore their guests to death showing off their plush-lined home theatres lined with expensive posters of films they’ve never watched.

I’ll never be able to afford such ghastly examples of conspicuous consumption and thanks to the advice I’ve received here and elsewhere, I’ve learned that I don’t need to to achieve sound reproduction of the highest quality.

As a TL/DR attempt to give an example of what my values are about, I always wanted a 1957 Fender Tweed Bassman amp, and the market for originals were in the $18,000-$20,000 range. You can buy them new from Fender, but they aren’t the same; they’re made with circuit boards instead of point-to-point wiring and you can hear the difference. They have Chinese tubes where the original RCA black plates once were. They attempt to reproduce the originals but they don’t sing. And yet they still cost $6,000, and they sell like hotcakes to those who care about the name but don’t appreciate that they’re laying down big money on what are essentially knock-offs.

So I spent well over a year scouring eBay, Reverb and Craigslist finding every single component from the real thing, either as NOS or very well-preserved originals—the chassis, the drivers, tube sockets, chicken head knobs, right down to the decals. I downloaded the original schematics and found a guy in Wyoming to build the bare wood enclosure for me out of the original poplar wood. And I scarred myself a dozen times lovingly soldering each piece together by hand over eight months; on my fourth try I finally got the tweed cover glued on seamlessly, which was a bitch, full stop. Then I found a $180 military tube tester and rifled through dozens of NOS American made rectifiers, power tubes and 12ax7s until I found the perfect mix (seven in all), with the preamp tubes matched down to two decimal points.

It took me 18 months total, but at the end I had myself an “original” 1957 Fender Tweed Bassman—one of the most celebrated guitar amps ever made—it sounded like a dream and only the most discerning expert could tell the difference. Total cost: $1875.

Hope that illustrates my level of gullibility and capriciousness a bit better than what may have been implied by my mistaken choice of that USB cable…peace!
 
Last edited:

sq225917

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2019
Messages
1,372
Likes
1,647
Grk, the better get shaking was simply a playful invitation to get on board with what happens inside a modern dac. Your guru is likely basing his advice on what dacs used to do, pre async usb, he's just out of date, but likely still well intentioned.

Building an exact physical and electrical replica of a highly prized bass amp makes perfect sense. Like the guitar it's a musical instrument with its own tone and sound. Sounds like a fun project and an education all in one.
 

Hattrick

Active Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
Messages
112
Likes
72
Location
Northern Utah.
This is an analysis of I²S interface to see if it is superior to S/PDIF or USB interconnects for audio DACs. From what I recall, it was PS Audio that popularized I²S for external DAC connections. Phillips (now NXP) had invented I²S years early as an internal protocol to route audio. It was not and has not been blessed for external use over cables. This use has been ad-hoc with no real attempt at any kind of standardization. As a result, schemes for external use vary, some use HDMI connectors, others RJ-45 (ethernet) and so on. Even with the same connector, the wiring may not be the same. You can see the HDMI variation of it here in the devices I tested for this review:


Note that despite use of HDMI connector, there is absolutely no compatibility with HDMI as used in video and home theater. All that is in common is use of the connector or cable, not the language spoken over it.

The motivation for I²S instead of S/PDIF serial bus was to separate the clock and with it, provide some kind of benefit. I let Paul McGowan of PS Audio explain it a bit more:


Toward the end he says I²S sounds "considerably better." Does it? It makes intuitive sense that sending out the clock and data separately would be better but we don't design electronics based on lay intuition. If something sounds a lot better, it better darn show up in measurements and hence this article.

Measurements
I wanted to do this study earlier but lose use of the only DAC I had with I²S input. I am fortunately enough to have the Gustard DAC-X26 with has that input and is one of our top performing DACs. As such, it should be good enough to show any benefit from I²S. I also have the Singxer SU-1 which converts USB to I²S. I just reviewed its functionality in generating S/PDIF. For this test, I will be showing how it performs using I²S.

I started by running my usual dashboard with balanced output of the Gustard DAC-X26 connected to my analyzer and input set to I²S and provided by Singxer SU-1. This is what I got:

View attachment 23901

Usually our oscilloscope waveform display on top left is ornamental and not revealing of much. But here, it immediately shows a problem: the two channels are not locked together! There is a phase shift/delay in one channel and hence the reason the Left and Right don't land on top of each other. I added the phase differential meter at the bottom which shows one channel has a delay of 8 degrees! This is not good. A digital to digital interface better be "lossless" in this regard. And what the heck is the benefit of separate clock in I²S is if it causes this kind of skew?

Maybe our DAC is broken. So let's also connect the S/PDIF cable between Singxer SU-1 and DAC-X26 and measure that:
View attachment 23902

Channels are in lock-step as they should be. We will investigate this further but for now, notice that there is no performance improvement with I²S. Differences are run to run variations.

EDIT: Setting mode switch 6 to on fixed the phase delay.

As it happens, I also have a Gustard U12 USB converter which also outputs I²S. So let's wire that up and see what it does:
View attachment 23903

Ah, channels in lock step as they should be. Performance is the same (again, ignore small changes). So while I²S connection doesn't break anything, it doesn't provide any measurable benefit either.

Since the U12 works better, let's use it to run a jitter test, comparing I²S to S/PDIF on the output the Gustard DAC-X26:

View attachment 23904

Again, we have tiny variations but nothing of not let alone a change that is audible.

Conclusions
It is remarkable how as non-technical audiophiles, we quickly play engineer and decide what is technically better. "Oh, the clock is separate in I²S so it must sound better." Do you even know what a clock is? How about clock skew? How about perils of taking a standard for moving an inch or two inside some gear and making it travel dozens of inches externally? You think that doesn't do anything bad?

If you want to use lay assumptions, think of how S/PDIF is decades old and by now, folks have figured out pretty well how to extract the clock out of it and deliver excellent performance. Such is the case here. S/PDIF has universal compatibility to boot which I²S does not have.

So Paul McGowan, please don't spread misinformation about I²S sounding better. Start by showing us measurements that demonstrate anything improving and if so, why PS Audio gear doesn't have good enough S/PDIF performance to need something better. And then, point the camera at yourself, connect both inputs to your DAC and have someone else switch inputs and see if you can tell the difference. Since levels don't change, it is dead simple to conduct a blind test.

Bottom line, please don't rely on fantasies like I²S improving audio performance. Insist on measurements being provided to demonstrate audible change in the output of the DAC -- the thing you hear. Don't accept hand gestures as evidence. And certainly not any appeal to a lay person's intuition as a replacement for proper data providing proof.

I will test I²S more in the future as I get other devices with it in there. For now, don't waste a penny even thinking about it, let alone using it.

------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Went to till the field to plant vegetables and realized my diesel tractor is almost out of fuel. I need money to buy some more. So please donate using:
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/audiosciencereview), or
upgrading your membership here though Paypal (https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...eview-and-measurements.2164/page-3#post-59054).
Thank you so much. I was getting sucked into purchasing a new CD Transport with I2s and a new DAC with I2s per PSA video and some other YouTube videos stating that this is the best connection for digital music. Quick question I am using an Oppo 203 via SPDIF COAX out for CD listening but can also listen via the Blueray out/in via HDMI. Is one better than the other for digital connection to my Arcam AVR 850?
 
Last edited:

Roland68

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
1,460
Likes
1,278
Location
Cologne, Germany
Thank you so much. I was getting sucked into purchasing a new CD Transport with I2s and a new DAC with I2s per PSA video and some other YouTube videos stating that this is the best connection for digital music. Quick question I am using an Oppo 203 via SPDIF COAX out for CD listening but can also listen via the Blueray out/in via HDMI. Is one better than the other for digital connection to my Arcam AVR 850?
However, you should not forget that in CD players, i2s is always first generated from the read data and then the conversion to SPDIF takes place.
With a good implementation of the LVDS physical layer, I have no doubt that i2s is the best solution. You don't even need a tranceiver chip because the DAC chip can process the data directly. But the experience with i2s_over_LVDS in DACs is still young and maybe not always mature.
On the other hand, if you transfer 100% of the CD's read data via SPDIF, how is that supposed to improve?

But to your actual question I would advise you to go with the HDMI connection. Especially with AV receivers, the SPDIF interface is no longer given much attention, so that the quality and implementation is often not very good.
 

Hattrick

Active Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
Messages
112
Likes
72
Location
Northern Utah.
However, you should not forget that in CD players, i2s is always first generated from the read data and then the conversion to SPDIF takes place.
With a good implementation of the LVDS physical layer, I have no doubt that i2s is the best solution. You don't even need a tranceiver chip because the DAC chip can process the data directly. But the experience with i2s_over_LVDS in DACs is still young and maybe not always mature.
On the other hand, if you transfer 100% of the CD's read data via SPDIF, how is that supposed to improve?

But to your actual question I would advise you to go with the HDMI connection. Especially with AV receivers, the SPDIF interface is no longer given much attention, so that the quality and implementation is often not very good.
Well noted. I just wasn't sure if the data transfer assist in better sound quality via Coax vs HDMI. I am guessing the answer is no. One less connection needed between the Oppo to the AVR-850. I will run HDMI. Though on a curious note I did compare and heard a difference but I believe the Coax maybe louder than the HDMI not sure....
 

Beershaun

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 3, 2019
Messages
1,876
Likes
1,922
Well noted. I just wasn't sure if the data transfer assist in better sound quality via Coax vs HDMI. I am guessing the answer is no. One less connection needed between the Oppo to the AVR-850. I will run HDMI. Though on a curious note I did compare and heard a difference but I believe the Coax maybe louder than the HDMI not sure....
In my experience and in some of Amir's measurements HDMI has shown to transmit more noise from the host device depending on it's implementation. I have also seen the signal strength is lower with HDMi forcing you to crank up the volume more. So I would just try both out and see if there is an obvious difference in volume level. If not then you are good.

A simple test is to use a smartphone audio spectrum analyzer app and measure the overall volume level with each input type to see if there is a difference.
 

linger63

Active Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2021
Messages
105
Likes
75
Location
Australia
Thank you so much. I was getting sucked into purchasing a new CD Transport with I2s and a new DAC with I2s per PSA video and some other YouTube videos stating that this is the best connection for digital music. Quick question I am using an Oppo 203 via SPDIF COAX out for CD listening but can also listen via the Blueray out/in via HDMI. Is one better than the other for digital connection to my Arcam AVR 850?

My recommendation is to listen via HDMI as SPDIF Coax has less bandwidth.
This will ensure playback of any hi rez files and also facilitates SACD (DSD) should you so desire.
 

Piere

Active Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2022
Messages
196
Likes
190
I2S is nothing else than the direct hardware layer going into the DAC chip at internal logic voltage level (5V or 3.3V). Consisting of a LR clock at the sampling rate (sometimes called masterclock), data and a shift clock and optional a system clock. It is what inside almost any audio box containing audio DACs. This has technically the lowest jitter possible. It was never intended to be used outside the box as an interconnect. The only thing PS Audio did was putting cheap LVDS buffers on the internal I2S signals at the sending side and LVDS receivers at the receiving side. LVDS stands for Low Voltage Differential Signalling and is the voltage standard for HDMI. If it is well done the only advantage is lowest jitter and fast data rates. But with HDMI by itself it has nothing to do, only the way HDMI is transferred along a cable at signal voltage level. It can be potentially better concerning jitter than S/PDIF but not better than USB Audio Class 2. But Amir's measurements do not show up any evidence.
 
Last edited:

Lupin

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 11, 2021
Messages
588
Likes
984
Jitter is not (audible) issue with >75% of the reviewed DACs using poor mans USB connection.
In my opinion Paul is trying to sell a solution for an absurd premium price to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place.
 

Piere

Active Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2022
Messages
196
Likes
190
True. it is even a lot cheaper than the usual standard interface solutions. Inside the box, it is just low cost cable buffers and HDMI connectors. But I2S over HDMI is not free of jitter also. We cannot simply eliminate noise. And Amir's findings show that!

I2S over HDMI cable:
I2S at TTL level --> LVDS buffer/level converter --> HDMI cable --> LVDS receiver/level converter --> I2S Dac chip.

S/PDIF:
I2S at TTL level --> I2S to S/PDIF modulator/converter --> Coax/Toslink driver --> Coax cable/Toslink --> Coax/Toslink receiver --> Clock recovery, data recovery --> I2S Dac chip

USB Audio Class-2:
PC/Laptop --> USB cable --> XMOS USB receiver --> I2S Dac chip
 

Roland68

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
1,460
Likes
1,278
Location
Cologne, Germany
True. it is even a lot cheaper than the usual standard interface solutions. Inside the box, it is just low cost cable buffers and HDMI connectors. But I2S over HDMI is not free of jitter also. We cannot simply eliminate noise. And Amir's findings show that!

I2S over HDMI cable:
I2S at TTL level --> LVDS buffer/level converter --> HDMI cable --> LVDS receiver/level converter --> I2S Dac chip.

S/PDIF:
I2S at TTL level --> I2S to S/PDIF modulator/converter --> Coax/Toslink driver --> Coax cable/Toslink --> Coax/Toslink receiver --> Clock recovery, data recovery --> I2S Dac chip

USB Audio Class-2:
PC/Laptop --> USB cable --> XMOS USB receiver --> I2S Dac chip
Unfortunately, however, the whole thing contains an important flaw in thinking/critical point.
The direct transfer of i2s via LVDS actually only makes sense if the audio data is transferred directly from the source to the DAC.
If you first transfer the data via USB to a DDC, you have the same possible interference via USB as if you connect the DAC directly via USB. You only move the conversion from the USB data stream to i2s from the DAC to the DDC.
This says nothing about the quality of the i2s/LVDS connection between DDC and DAC.
Only if you equip the same source with USB and direct i2s output, you could make a meaningful comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zog

Piere

Active Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2022
Messages
196
Likes
190
Duh, of coarse not. With USB audio data comes from memory trough software directly, not from an I2S source. Depends on how/with what the USB protocol is implemented, but with asynchronous transfer that can be bit-perfect and jitter only comes from the X-tal clock near the DAC chip and the DAC chip itself. Almost all ASIO drivers work that way.

When I drive my MiniDSP HD DSP though USB and send the processed data back to the computer, no jitter at all is introduced.
 

ahofer

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
5,045
Likes
9,151
Location
New York City
I2S is without a doubt a better transport audibly, you'll be spending thousands correcting USB before it approaches the sound quality i2s offers, and don't speak if you haven't listen to it less own a dac that has it. Measurements aren't everything but cheapskates will use it as means to avoid all other possibilities out there. Tubes, r2r exists and they are fantastic, but you cheapskates will never understand less buy one.
We love you too. Thanks for your thoughtful and well-supported contributions!
 
Top Bottom