This is exactly what I plan on doing in my desktop setup.
YouTube, Movies and TV shows: PC → USB → DAC
Music: RPi4 + DigiOne → SPDIF → DAC
I’m just taking my time getting the DigiOne since I’d rather be listening to the 2ch. 
7 Likes
The source is introducing the noise to the DAC. Quieter, better clocked source (for aes/spdif) source = less noise DAC is dealing with.
But I’m using digital in 2 ways, in mixing, there is no conversion to analog at all it’s all, and nothing timing sensitive, just bits, that’s all lossless.
The issue comes when you have to do something with those bits where time and electrical noise matter, in transmitting them over a cable to convert them back to an analog signal, the DAC can reconstruct the signal exactly, but additional noise has been introduced to the DAC, and in the case of AES/SPDIF, the timing matters, and you get into Jitter
Personally I’d at least just buy a Raspberry Pi, and use it as a source for critical listening.
But beyond that point the DAC upgrade will buy you more up to a certain point.
You have to get away from thinking about the system as a set of components, it’s a system, any dollar you invest should be put where it has most value.
Same reason I wouldn’t recommend a Callisto USB cable to someone with a Bifrost2, would it help? sure, would you get more out of upgrading the DAC? I’d think so.
Sometimes PC’s are so noisy it’s audible, in which case I’d find a way to address it.
4 Likes
This sounds more like jitter.
Through a variety of means. Some just don’t, but most nicer studios I’ve seen put care into building/specing out an audio optimized pc, using various means of isolation, using modern networked audio solutions, using high quality interfaces (basically ddc in both directions), and at times clocking their digital components together as well. Also typically improving the power for their components either though conditioning or isolation transformers to reduce potential noise as well. I’ve even seen some use audiophile focused tweaks in their systems with good results as well. It’s really going to vary from studio to studio for their budget, needs, and overall experience. Physical placement/spacing/racking/what have you and proper cabling and cabling techniques also helps to reduce overall noise and nastiest in a system
For myself when I still had a mostly full studio running, I didn’t end up going the audio networking route like dante or madi (or even adat), as I mostly dealt with only 2 channels rather than the multichannel setups most larger studios run (since I mainly only dealt with mastering for non multichannel audio), but rather had an audio optimized PC I built for running sequoia, and I used a merging hapi using ravenna to connect to that PC (which is basically audio over ethernet) and the PC had a high quality NIC with as much isolation and a separate PSU for the card as well, and my 3 main studio ADC and dacs (lavry DA294 (then Quintessence) and AD122-96, along with a crane song hedd quantum), were connected over AES to that unit. No master clock since I didn’t think the system benefited from it with either the lavry or crane song, they have very good internal clocks and processing and I didn’t have that much digital equipment aside from those. It also aided in audio routing and other complications that can take place when dealing with routing and recording/capturing audio through PCs to work on it which can sometimes cause issues and nasties as well.
I could have just connected them over USB, and while the USB was good on the crane song it wasn’t as good on the lavry (still better than other converters I had tried though) and I found an improvement using that method, if that was from noise on the pc or just the better digital solution I never really did a proper test, I just was happy it sounded better lol. There’s a lot of potential ways you can improve the quality of your digital in a studio, but it’s also sometimes neglected as well, because (as I’ll respond to later) that’s sometimes not the biggest bottleneck or not worth stressing over compared to other aspects
Audiophile nihilism
Would agree
Would also agree. I think it really comes down more to finding bottlenecks in your chain, and also the specific components involved. I would generally say that I’d rather put my money toward a dac upgrade over digital source upgrade assuming things are equal, but again it all really depends on what you’re options are for your specific setup, as what makes the most sense to focus on will be different from chain to chain and options to options.
There will be some dacs that truly rely on the their digital source for most of their performance, and others that will be somewhat more agnostic and have their own digital processing/correction which makes it not worthwhile as much to focus on the digital source. All depends on the dac. Also comes down to a bang for buck comparison as well, sometimes you’re at a point where it’s both cheaper and higher value to bump up your digital source, some points it clearly makes sense to upgrade the dac first. Things don’t scale linearly most of the time, and it’s hard to tell what ends up making more sense without trial and error. Again all comes back to the specific chain and equipment and the potential bottlenecks and value proposition goals.
I generally agree that getting off a bog standard PC is beneficial, but there are ways to still improve your digital while still using a PC as well, so there’s options in both paths (although from my experience I think getting entirely away from the average pc is king in the really high end as you sort of run out of options for improving the bog standard PC). For what approach (standalone digital streamers/servers/transports vs DDC and PC addons) makes more sense will depend on your chain, how you actually listen to music, and how much you want to spend. I don’t think I’m in the camp of “get off your PC NOW” but also not “it doesn’t really matter”, and am more in the middle, and what makes more sense will really depend on the chain and how they use it
Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I see where you’re coming from, but there are times where I’d personally disagree with that lol. But I do value getting the most out of a recording as you do, and I think that’s more the important aspect, hearing the flaws is the double edged sword that comes with that lol
The higher you go, the more reliant a piece tends to be on everything else surrounding it. Most things can only be as good as what they’re given, so improving what they’re given is typically a winning sentiment in high end audio with a wide range of component types. Some people falsely think that “if I buy higher end it’s going to always sound better right out of the box and isn’t going to need anything else to make it sound it’s best” which typically isn’t true, the higher you go the more work and care needs to go into the piece to get it to perform the way you expect it to (or higher than expectations lol).
3 Likes
It is jitter and other noise.
Jitter is irrelevant to a USB connection for example.
The noise exists on the signal and on the power lines of the USB connector, that’s what galvanic isolation in the DAC is supposed to fix, but it is imperfect, for multiple reasons, and makes it into the power and signal lines of the actual DAC which makes it into the analog output.
Some DAC’s will be better than others, but PC’s in particular have extraordinarily dirty output, it doesn’t really impact signal transmission (i.e. you don’t get errors per se) because the signal is differential (read balanced).
Hans “Dry Toast” Beekhuyezen does a very good job here of putting the chain of noise together and explaining the ramification at each conversion point.
Jitter is a form of noise that’s introduced because of time domain sync issue but the time domain sync issues are there because of noise in the system affecting the point of conversion. For the most part the weak link to the whole digital process is at those points of conversion.
Can you link a track? I’d love to hear what the net result was taking all of those measures.
Nope (I didn’t work on music outside of for my own practice, outside of privacy reasons). Truthfully most of my chain didn’t have to be as good as it was for what I did, and was more because I could and because I could (falsely) justify buying nicer stuff to mess around with even when it didn’t make financial sense for what I worked on. Even if I did send anything, I don’t have direct comparison tracks (at least I don’t think I do) of the tests between different digital setups, so I don’t know if it would really provide anything.
Also, I guess I did technically go the audio networking route now that I think about it, but I don’t think of it that way since I basically only had a single link between the pc and the interface, in most typical audio networking setups you have more advanced routing and switching at times with multiple components
1 Like
So the DACs clock.
Not exactly.
It might be better to take a step back, what exactly are you struggling to understand.
I don’t think it’s useful to get into the issues with digital circuits and multiple clock domains and it might not even be relevant.
Though I guess it is fair to say that in the end, the only part that is corrupted in the digital domain is time.
But the noise introduced will also affect the analog parts of the DAC.
1 Like
I respect that. It’s like a home video, it’s private and it’s your.
I often wonder of what steps studios take and if I’d even notice the differences not knowing what they did. It makes me wonder what makes some mixes/masters sound so good compared to others.
1 Like
I don’t think that has very much to do with the hardware TBH.
It used to be the case in the tape days where using an 8 track system over a 4 track let you do things you otherwise couldn’t without extra passes, each of which was lossy.
But the fundamental advantage of mixing in the digital domain is mixing down is only lossy once.
1 Like
It’s also a lack of self confidence in my work lol, another reason why I never got into it fully, I don’t think I’d ever end up happy/satisfied with what I put out when a lot of it (when it comes to music) is more an art and relies on being creative (which I don’t think I am lol)
It probably depends on the setup, there’s a lot of things at play, so typically the average signal path has a lot of things in it lessening the effect of a small change on one aspect unless it’s a big problem. It’s why you don’t typically see a lot of engineers absolutely obsess over making their chain perfect like you see in this hobby, that’s for many reasons but one of them is just because the signal paths get a lot more complex and at times it’s either not worthwhile or unfeasible to try and focus on improving one single aspect too much
A lot of the time music isn’t mixed and mastered for the demographic here, it’s targeted towards the masses, and a lot of the time it’s not worth the investment (in time, energy, and resources) for making an entire setup catered to the 1% of listeners when the masses aren’t really going to notice or care. A lot of the time “good enough” is the main sentiment and it’s the most effective approach at actually effectively running a studio
When it comes to specific mixes and masters for why they sound good, could be a variety of reasons from just raw talent and experience of the person working on it, could be just awesome chains, could be due to a difference in source material provided, could be because they had a lot more time and resources afforded to them to allow them to improve what they wanted to or catch things they couldn’t with the allocations previously provided
The end result is what matters, and for someone with a high end setup and a discerning ear you can easily notice these changes, although it might be hard to tell at times what those changes were in specific as in what they did to achieve those changes
4 Likes
That’s all of us, haha.
I played guitar (classical) for many years and I absolutely hated playing in front of people (aside from my teacher). I played because I loved it and it was for me. Thank God I never recorded myself. 
1 Like
Is there something more commercially available and unified/simplified/easier to use, with even better SQ, like a Pro-Ject Stream Box S2 Ultra, that’s worth getting? Just want to pick something up to try from Amazon or wherever ASAP. Let’s say ~$1000 limit
The only options I personally know on amazon are the Wiim streamers (mini or pro), ifi Zen Stream and Bluesound Node. From that list I only tried the Node and it’s a step in the right direction.
I’m sure there are plenty more but my knowledge is limited for that price range and immediate availability.
Depending on if your current DAC supports it but I would ask @FiCurious about his Pi2AES that’s listed for sale as it’s a better deal than all the above and it’s as easy to use as the others afaik.
2 Likes
So, before these streamers/bridges/RPI2AES/whatevers became the new, hot hifi craze in the last few years, what were we using before, to achieve that level of sound? Just CD/SACD/vinyl players and DAPs?
Great physical transports are as good or better than streaming. They’re just inconvenient by todays standards.
Turntables can be astonishing sources, but it’s an expensive hobby.
2 Likes
Before streaming became popular and then high res streaming actually became good some of these devices weren’t even needed but the idea of clean players and NAS drives etc have been around for a long time. Same goes for better CD players and ripping music.
Depending on how you define “last few years” but my current server (and newest acquisition from the last few weeks) is by Antipodes and I think their earliest products are over 10 years old easily.
Oh, so I should get a better quality, standalone CD ripping drive then, too. And standalone player, to use as a system reference point/tool. Perhaps the latter can do the former…?
I really don’t care about music streaming in any method(services, wireless), so these device names don’t help me out at all, for what I’m after.