If you like, or think you would like, the Apogee Duet - then try their mini-dac: http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/mini-dac.php . It is a few dollars more, but works up to 24/192 Khz.

markr

... the Apogee mini dac has the balanced outputs that maitadan wants, and it is at or near the price range that he wants.

Cheers?
markr

EDIT: Hey sammie, how about a link to the article that your referenced?

Leaving aside the hi-rez issue, how do the Duet and Mini-Dac compare in sound quality?

Inasmuch as none of the Async USB devices were tested, this condemnation of USB is invalid. OTOH, I'm not surprised that Firewire - aka the forgotten interface - was deemed better than the non-Async USB devices. The use of Async USB is meant to duplicate the behaviour of Firewire, i.e., using the local clock in the DAC to control data flow.

For whatever reason - e.g. avoidance of writing drivers - the audiophile community has not adopted Firewire as an interface for DACs. Pro audio is the primary source. Apogee, Metric Halo, RME, Prism are some of the brands I'd recommend for consideration.

clay

edit

Interesting information Gordon. I venture to guess people like you (the few that exist) are in a major league of their own when it comes to understanding USB and computer audio. Even trying to understand the concepts behind Asynchronous USB (not the Asynchronous Sample Rate Conversion used by Benchmark) is mind boggling. The learning curve and cost must be pretty high considering major companies like PS Audio for example are making DACs that don't include the technology despite claiming to be on the cutting edge.

As for why other companies didn't pull their products . . . perhaps others were just looking for a quick review and some advertising. Or, maybe they are just not as involved as you. The absence of your products from the review were instantly a question in my mind. For gods sake your website is USBdacs.com . . . not to mention wavelength is pretty much considered the premier USB Dac in audio circles.

I personally feel the reviewer of the article had preconceptions of USB from the start, and proceeded down from that point.

Mike

Scott,

after reading the article, it does seem as if Alvin (if that's even his real name) was damning an entire protocol. He pointed almost exclusively to USB in his comments (rather than the products), when he had only apparently tested the products in question. How one can damn an entire interface protocol on the basis of a handful of products is beyond me, but that's what it appeared that he did, as seen from my vantage point.

His comment that 'there is as yet no such thing as a Firewire DAC' is ludicrous. While it is very remotely possible that what he meant to say was that "there is no such thing as a Firewire-capable device built by an audiophile company that functions only as a DAC", that's a pretty significant slip of the tongue, err, typo. That is the level of qualification required to state that there is no such thing as a Firewire DAC, and a 'writer' that knowingly was that imprecise is not worthy of the name, which leads me to believe he hasn't a clue.

How someone can know about pro audio devices like the Focusrite Firewire to S/PDIF converter WITHOUT seeming to know about a SINGLE pro audio Firewire device that can function as a DAC is beyond me. He actually recommended this converter as his 'solution' for people using Firewire connections.

Gentlemen,
First, I don't think Gordon Rankin necessarily has a monopoly on the truth, though he may have the best USB solution to date. It appears Charlie Hansen (Ayre) thinks so, which counts to me. I don't think his USB scheme is any harder to understand than most technical audio writing, and in fact I'm not sure it matters. What matters is that ALAN Taffel doesn't know squat about computer audio (the Weiss Minerva isn't a high end Firewire DAC? If not then CA must be a pro audio site...) FWIW, I think Mr. Harley and Mr. Taffel need to know our opinions. I wrote the following letter to Mr. Harley:

Mr. Harley,
I am not often driven to write an editor regarding articles that they publish. Having said that, the article regarding USB audio in the 8/09 TAS by Alan Taffel was so fundamentally wrong and of poor structure that I feel compelled to write. In my opinion, there are two things which currently might save high end audio (not to mention TAS) by bringing the new gen x and y'ers into it. The first is vinyl. The second is computer audio. Mr. Taffel is clearly either biased against USB audio or the manufacturers who are at the forefront of its production. To make a blanket statement about ALL USB being worse than S/PDIF is wrong and shortsighted. Furthermore, on the page following Mr. Taffel's diatribe, is Mr. Stone's overwhelming recommendation of not only a $299 USB DAC, BUT a $99 dollar one from the same company! Why were the USB only Music Streamers not included in the USB discussion? How could you, as editor, let Mr. Taffel's article go to print with his clearly lacking knowledge of computer audio and the available products? He states, (Page 31) "However, there is as yet no such thing as a Firewire DAC." Interesting. See page 50 - Weiss Jason/Medea review. Perhaps Mr. Taffel's computer skills are sufficient for him to visit Weiss' website. Have him look under products- Minerva DAC. He might change his mind about whether there is a Firewire DAC. Additionally, I would refer Mr. Taffel to Chris Connaker's website- Computer Audiophile.com. He could learn a lot. I don't know why two of the leading high end USB only DACs were not even mentioned. Mr. Taffel states that he could not get a USB DAC from Gordon Rankin of Wavelength audio. Why not? How about Charlie Hansen of Ayre, who uses Mr. Rankin's software? He couldn't even discuss what he has heard at audio shows or friend's systems with either of these implementations of USB only DACs? Does he believe Wavelength and Ayre are not up to snuff? I must say, I have heard products from both, and consider them to be some of the finest made. (I own neither, but despite this article, may soon). The reputation of and impartiality of TAS has been destroyed by the article. I hope you better consider what you publish in the future. You have just alienated every ipod listening 20 or 30something from high end audio. We as a community cannot afford that.

If you wish to use some or all of this to express your opinions, I would welcome it. I have no connection to the audio industry except that I want motivated designers to continue to build great products and for more people to join our fold so that those designers have a market. I am a practicing eye surgeon.

Mr Taffel's e-mail is: alan taffel

You can e-mail Mr. Harley at: AV Guide.com- TAS- Contact US.

This is where our opinions could do some good, at least if these two care about either their jobs or high end audio.

One of my club members made me aware of this article. As the President of an Audiophile club that started back in the year 1979, I truly am in a position to debate and trounce this ludicrous article written in TAS.

I work in the computer field so I have the well-informed skills, which IMHO are necessary in order to get Computer Audio (USB) to sound right.

I am currently using an IBM ThinkPad T43 laptop with Windows XP SP3. All versions of Windows that have preceded Vista have within their subsystems, a component called the kernel mixer. Prudence tells me I should use Vista yet I am apprehensive about using that OS. I have even contemplated using Ubuntu yet the lack of support for applications holds me back.

I will get right to the point: A computer, DAC and USB cable right out of the box will not sound like a finished product. There are configuration issues, choice of cable, Power filtration, front-end application etc. I do plan to get a new notebook when Windows 7 is released.

I feel fortunate that I have been able to speak with some of the gurus in computer USB audio. I have to inform all of you that the S/PDIF interface is highly flawed and was not meant by either Sony or Philips to be used in the consumer marketplace. Sony and Phillips used this to communicate with each other’s chips. I am no electrical engineer but I can confirm that SPDIF is highly flawed.

When using S/PDIF, you will experience a higher rate of timing errors aka JITTER! The off the shelf S/PDIF receivers are built to a specification, they are not built for performance. Why do think there are so many devices and people out there who reclock, or resync the clock signal?

Audiophiles have long known that their choice of cabling can make or break a system. Nowhere has this been the case with me that usage of both S/PDIF and USB cable. It would seem to me that the digital cable between transport and DAC is critical to the playback.

For years, I have used the Illuminati S/PDIF cables and I still use the D-60 from my HT to connect to my HT processor from the cable converter. I use the newest generation cable from this designer, the Stereovox XV2 is used from my DVD player to decode surround sound. I even purchased another 2.0-meter cable to use between my modified DVD player and my Audio Note Dac Kit.

I can recall when I was breaking in this DAC (250-300 hours) I was using the S/PDIF connection wit the XV2 and I liked it better than my stand alone player. I heard a batter sense of the music, a dimensionality that had been lacking, etc.

A few weeks later, I placed the laptop into the system when my shelves were ready. I tried a Belkin Gold USB cable and it was ok yet something was lacking. I then used my vaunted Ridge Street Audio Poiema!!! and I was amazed at the improvement I was hearing. The Tonal quality was so much more natural and engaging. I had a 3-Dimensional soundstage and I could hear the different sections in a orchestral piece.

I must state that I use the files ripped from CDs using EAC in secure mode. I rip the WAV files then I encode them to FLAC in order to conserve space. I used these files to compare the sound of my Player with CDs and my laptop with ripped files. I used several genres of music and each time I preferred the USB connection over the S/PDIF connection knowing I had been using top notch interface cables.

This whole endeavor has taken me a lot of time to learn how to use USB audio to satisfy my Audiophile years and yet, I still feel I am learning.

I incorporated many changes, which now has my not listening to any CDs anymore. I do not even listen to my SACDs which I used to think rivaled Vinyl. The point I am making is this, you need to setup your computer connection properly, just like a LP player and CD player.

I switched off any software volume controls, including the front end application. That and other bypasses, tuned off services, unmapping devices, etc made the SQ better and better. I had been using ASIO4all and thought that was pretty nice as it was better than Direct Sound. I use XP and I knew I had to bypass the Kmixer, not warp around O I am now using the actual ASIO driver and it does indeed sound better!

I place the Laptop and Hard drive’s wires away from other cables and I plug both devices into my Furutech conditioner and into the accessory outlets. I recently upgraded my USB cable to the newest cable from Ridge Street Audio. The Enopias is a statement type of product IMHO. As pleased as I was my stem using USB audio, I am now even more engaged in the music. I hear a similar flavor yet the SQ is much better. The voices are more distinct and separate. The tonal qualities in the Midrange and highs seem sweeter and more organic. The opening then decay of notes is now more evident and really shines when listening to Violin and Piano.

I have had many members from my Club listen to my system using USB (not firewire) and some have said it sounds like ANALOG!

Here is the biggest advantage that USB computer usage has over the flawed S/PDIF interface. Firewire is used in the Pro market and we al know the pro market is not as good at the Audiophile market. Firewire usage requires additional drivers, which is a no no IMHO and can cause some configuration issues. I also believe it jacks the price up which I despise.

Alan’s article to me seems ludicrous. How can any knowledgeable audiophile claim that SP/DIF is superior to a USB connection that is properly setup.

On CA we have a few gurus who participate such as Gordon from wavelength and Steve from Empirical Audio. I have spoken to Gordon and sought his advice. He was nice enough to take the time and speak with me and I am very grateful for that. Check out his web page http://www.usbdacs.com/. That helped me confirm what I thought was the best front-end windows player, J. River Media Center. Steve’s page confirms what I have always known that not all computers sound equal.

I am not attempting to trash another platform. I want to convey that using a properly setup Windows based Laptop is great and has even toppled a couple of Macbooks.
I am not convinced that one platform is superior to the other. You need to understand and maximize your computer’s setup and that is what I have done.

Let me go even deeper into this. Computers use a switching power supply as opposed to a linear power supply. For audio, this is a disadvantage ass it emits noise. I use shielded power cords on all components (Signal Cables). Then they plug into a Furutech E-TP80 passive conditioner. I use the Omega Mikro Active Planar power cord to feed the line conditioner and that conditioner is plugged into a Varistat so I can maintain a constant voltage. Where I live, AC power is a big concern, perhaps larger than in other areas. I can suggest for those who own their own homes, to install a dedicated AC circuit.

Once and I while I try listening to a CD into my Dac and it does not satisfy me. Even the SACDs do not do it anymore. Computer based Audio is the most gratifying playback system which the convenience in mind. Of course, a good system will sound only as good as what you play. I suggest you digitize some Vinyl LPs as the captured records provide the analog warmth and fullness that a lot of CDs do not have.

Make sure the computer you use is a USB 2.0 port and do not use a USB Hub with your DAC. The DAC should have its own dedicated USB port.

For the readers of CA, I can point out the one disadvantage that USB does not have. The highest sample rate that native USB supports is 48Khz. That will restrict you from playing higher resolution recordings. This can be resolved if companies that make off the shelf USB Receiver chips such as Burr Brown (TI) get off that fat butts and manufacture them. Demand drives supply so let’s work on that!

To my knowledge, two companies have programmed USB chips to handle higher resolution sample rates and lower jitter. One of those companies is a member of this Website and contributes often.

I do not care about higher resolution sample rates at this time. My music is sourced from Redbook, 16 bit 44.1 KHz. CD players, Dacs that use SPDIF do not get that to sound engaging to me. A computer using USB that is setup properly and with a good cable, isolation, etc. does satisfy the Redbook playback in this ‘philes system.

Liz Out…..

Hopefully this thread will help protect those entering the world of computer audio from poorly researched info. Especially buying DAC products based on those recommendations. Good to see Computer Audiophile serving its purpose.

I hear ya JT :~)

Chris,
Let's hope Taffel and Harley hear him (and the rest of us).

Hi Scott - The premise still holds, no worries.

One writer from a traditional print magazine will not decide the fate of USB audio for a whole industry. The future has never been brighter for audiophile sound quality and USB will be a huge part for the foreseeable future.

I don't disagree that USB can be a great interface for a DAC when done well (Wavelength, Ayre, dCS) but many products have been (IMHO) jumping on a bandwaggon adding a cheep USB interface without really understanding it and in many cases doing a job best described somewhere between mediocre and piss poor. For many audiophiles who want to daddle in computer as a source, they are looking at iTunes or out of the box Media Monkey or J.River or Foobar and don't want to start messing with ASIO, etc. It's these people who buy a Bryston DAC, plug it in via USB and find it poor compared with atavhibgtheir CD transport via SPDIF or AES. And it's to these people that TAS article (which I've not read to be honest) is probably talking about. Yes the details maybe were lacking with deails of FireWire DACs (though to be honest I wouldn't class Weiss as an Audiophile company, more a pro audio company looking to sell to audiophiles with their Jason / Medena / Minerva range) but by his own omission Gordon withdrew his DAC from being reviewed beause the reviewer wasn't competent with Computer systems - though I'm sure a lot of his caomera are darting at a similar place.

If you're an audiophile used to plug and go of a CD player, then (most) DAC don't give their bet performance through USB conenction - you onl need to see just how many posts there are asking about Lynx / RME / ESI cards and FireFace / ProFire 610 / AFI1 FireWire interfaces into DACs such as the Bryston which has a USB conenction.

Finally some people commented about how the article tars all USB DACs with same brush. Part of that is probably down to how the article was editted rather then the original author. Writing USB is alot shorter than non-asynchronous USB each time. Also as I commented Gordon did decline to allow the Wavelength to be tested whch MAY have given the article a different spin assuming that the author was being unbiased.

Eloise

I am delighted to see so much interest in my recent TAS article on “The State of USB Audio”, even though much of what has been written here and elsewhere takes issue with my methodology and findings, not to mention questioning my competence! Because this is such an important and timely topic, I thought it appropriate to clarify and expand upon elements of my piece, and to respond to accusations that have been leveled against me personally.

The article’s perspective: I believe it is important to understand the purpose and intended readership of the article. I consciously approached the topic of USB audio from the perspective of a typical high end audiophile (that is, a typical TAS reader), who is not necessarily a computer whiz. My aim was to determine, from this perspective, the results that could be achieved from USB both on an absolute and relative basis. My goal was not to assess USB in a vacuum, nor was it to determine what a highly sophisticated user might be able to do with it. In general, high end audio does not require those who enjoy its products to have expertise in those products’ inner workings. For computer audio to be broadly relevant to this market, it must meet this criteria as well as sounding good.

The author’s qualifications: Although many posts have implied otherwise, I am actually quite proficient in computer technology. I hold a degree with honors in Information and Computer Sciences, and have had a twenty-year career centered around data communications protocols. Suggestions that I might not understand the technicalities of asynchronous USB, for example, are incorrect. However, as noted above, my purpose was not to approach this research from the perspective of a computer expert.

Bias against USB: Quite a few posts have alleged that I was pre-disposed against USB, presumably because my results were less than glowing. By this logic, any negative review of any component or technology could be chalked up to bias rather than impartial observation. However, the fact is that I would have absolutely no reason to harbor such a bias, and indeed I did not. On the contrary, I would have enthusiastically reported more positive results, and I was disappointed at the actual outcome. I think the fact that I employed three different PC’s (from different manufacturers and running different operating systems), tried vainly to include a Wavelength example, tested multiple DACs and software programs, and even experimented with expensive USB cables attest to my efforts to give USB every opportunity to shine. Whether or not you agree with my results, know that they were based solely on what I heard. At the same time, it is worth noting that many of those suggesting, without foundation, that I have a bias actually do have a demonstrable, commercial motivation for promoting USB and for denigrating any negative opinions (and their source) about the interface.

The choice of DACs: For this project, I tried to round up as many exemplary USB DACs as possible. Audio Research and Bryston were chosen because both firms have solid engineering and build quality, and both understand good sound. Benchmark employs a highly respected, purpose-built USB input module. I sought mightily to include a unit from Wavelength because, as noted in the article, its technology is innovative and I actually do understand its promise. Wavelength refused to participate (more on that below) and Ayre, which uses similar technology, has by its own admission completely severed ties with TAS. Ergo, these latter two units were not available to me. Their lack of inclusion is unfortunate, but cannot be construed, as some have, as a desire on my part not to give USB its due. The units were excluded by their manufacturers, not by me.

Wavelength’s withdrawal: I have not been at all surprised to read Gordon Rankin’s reaction to my article, or his statements about my qualifications to review his equipment. In response, I would simply say that if I, with my education and experience, am not qualified to get the best out of his gear, then neither is TAS’ readership. However, I believe the issue of my qualification is a red herring. In our conversations, Gordon became familiar with my background and—although he now states otherwise—indicated comfort with it. As evidence of this, note that it was after these conversations that Gordon sent me a Cosecant for review. Things fell apart over a different issue: my intended test bed. Gordon’s preferences in this area are well known: powerful Macs with SSDs and massive amounts of RAM running iTunes. I did not feel such a configuration would be typical of our readership, and when I indicated the test beds I planned to use, along with my (valid) issues about iTunes, he demanded the return of his unit. As much as I would have liked to have heard the Cosecant, my feeling is that if Gordon’s recommended configuration is a prerequisite to his DAC (and by extension, USB itself) sounding good, it only reinforces my conclusion that the interface is not yet ready for the world of high end audio. Still, I wish Gordon had had the courage to subject his DAC to a controlled evaluation—where it would be compared to other USB and non-USB DACs—in a typical audiophile environment. I am certain the results would have added significantly to the conversation.

USB vs S/PDIF: Some posts have argued that USB actually does sound better than S/PDIF, if only the right DAC is used. These posts point to good experiences with DACs from Wavelength and Ayre, and the positive review by my colleague Steven Stone of the Streamers products. The fact that USB can sound pretty good (or even very good under narrow conditions) does not mean it is better than S/PDIF. I think it is noteworthy that none of the aforementioned products offers an S/PDIF input, making a true apples-to-apples comparison impossible. On the other hand, I used DACs that did enable such a comparison and in every case, including the Benchmark—which certainly does not treat USB as an “afterthought”—S/PDIF sounded clearly superior. Please don’t take my word for it, try it yourself—if you can be unbiased.

USB vs FireWire: I am glad to see that no one (yet!) has challenged my assertion that FireWire is a superior means of getting audio out of a PC. Several posts have actually pointed to technical reasons why this is true, and I would simply add that FireWire excels without the need for the elaborate technology patches USB apparently requires. My statement that “no FireWire DACs exist” was meant to say “no audiophile grade FireWire DACs exist”, and I owe readers an apology for not being clearer on this point. As many posters have rightly pointed out, there are a number of pro FireWire DACs available. My intent was to challenge high end companies to make a similar product built specifically with high end consumer sensibilities in mind. Perhaps this is one area in which we can all agree.

I hope the above serves to clarify what I was trying to accomplish with my report, and puts my results in a clearer context. Within that context, I believe those results are completely valid, and will prove useful to their intended audience. And while I don’t have the time or resources to engage in one-on-one discussions with everyone commenting on the article, I do look forward to reading additional comments.

"Here is the biggest advantage that USB computer usage has over the flawed S/PDIF interface. Firewire is used in the Pro market and we al know the pro market is not as good at the Audiophile market. Firewire usage requires additional drivers, which is a no no IMHO and can cause some configuration issues. I also believe it jacks the price up which I despise."

LIzard,
your words above are inconsistent with reality, IMO. the 'pro market' has been manufacturing DACs for a lot longer than audiophile firms. They use Firewire - the protocol designed for high bandwidth audio data transmission - becuase it's better than any other protocol (until the recent equalization with Async USB).

The only disadvantage that I'm aware of with Firewire is the need to write drivers, In my experience, there are NO configuration issues, just download, install and play - as easy as an iTunes install, and faster. That may not be true on your preferred OS, I can't vouch for lack of configuration challenges of WinDOHs. Indeed, most of the highest quality Pro audio software / hardware I'm aware of is purpose built around Mac OS X (Metric Halo, Wave Editor, etc.).

Incidentally, industry luminaries seem to agree with me that audiophile companies have no 'advantage' over pro audio companies when it comes to computer audio. As reference, I would refer you to the dozen or so interviews with the computer audio 'household names' published by Positive Feedback Online in issue number 41.

enjoy
clay

Alan,

You reviewed dacs without even understanding the USB interfaces involved. Did you take the time to even try to understand what was involved? Your computers were not worthy of Gordon's Cosecant. You made a ridiculous assumption that people who read about $68,000 speakers would not purchase a decent computer for their high end system. TAS is about sound excellence; you instead took the low road and not only are you proud of your work, but blame Gordon Rankin for your lack of universal accolade.

Eloise,

I purchase The Absolute Sound to be informed on the status of high end audio. If I want the common man's approach, I'll purchase Consumer Reports. Would you play the Wilson Maxx3 speakers with a $200 amp from WalMart? That's the equivalent of what Alan did in his report.

Lars, trying to be enlightened.

Hi to all,

I haven't read the article from TAS but I think that it does show that having a good usb implementation is not an easy thing. It is also what Mr RANKIN means when he says that it took him years to developp asynchronous usb.
That is certainly why Alan think that usb DACs do not work as well as their Spdif counterparts.

On the contrary, with firewire it is the normal mode to have the computer slaved to the Dac. In a way, asynchronous usb is a way to make usb work like firewire...

But asynchronous usb or audiophile firewire DAC are not main stream audiophile products and this article is a warning (justified?) against standard usb implementation. Why would a company like Bel Canto design the usb link if they were satisfied with their usb input in their DAC.

If this article had been written been two years ago, it would have been very interesting but now it is seriously outdated since it does not take into account sate of the art products.

However like the author, I also wonder why there are so few firewire DACs. It is an easy way to go asynchronous and it can go up to 24/192 whereas usb is still limited to 24/96.

Laurent

I have a very good turntable, TW AC Graham Phantom, Colibri and XV1-S , extremely good turntables tend to sound more and more like extremely good digital sources, what you don't get with digital of course is the tracking and tracing distortion an the increased noise floor, btw Amarra was only released this year so I doubt very much you used that a few years ago.

Will see if they have a copy in Borders later in the month, otherwise will look at paying for a copy.

Eloise

Alan,

I would like to clear up a something that Alan may not remember. Here is the email from 9/17/08 that I sent Alan before I demanded the Cosecant to be returned.

Alan,

People have been tauted with lackluster reviews of Computer Audio for sometime. They want the meat now not the sizzle. Doing a survey now is silly. That means your not going to get into any of the products to any degree. Your not going to get into the technology. Your not going to get into the setup.

Believe me I talk to 100 people a week. This is what they are waiting for.

Now that I understand it's a survey... I am even less enthusiastic about doing it.

Thanks
Gordon

Really if anyone read the article they would not have called it a survey, heck not even a Primer. What valuable information would anyone have gotten from these writings Alan?

Alan you may not recall but I have designed computers since the late 70's. I have had more than 140 commercial software products based on Windows, UNIX and Macintosh computers. I have more than 3 different full PC platforms for which I have more than 5.4M PC's in the field. Along with that I have more than 68 hardware products for PC's including ISA and PCI cards. My specialty has hardware low level interface, device drivers etc...

I would say I know more about PC's and Windows than I do about Macintosh Computers.

The reason I use MACs is because it sounds better. As I stated in several emails about all of your hardware that it was pretty sub par compared to what people are using in the field.

I use MACS with more memory and SSD's because it sounds better.

Jonathan Valin lives down the street from me. I have known Jonathan for many years and the one thing he taught me was that setup was the key to a crucial review. On many occasions I would go there and he would be setting up something new, not to my taste but something non the less. I would come back a week later and it would be sounding a ton better. This setup really helps to describe the capabilities of what the products were.

This is where Alan totally failed in all of his articles, he never even understand the basic setup procedures.

But really a better understanding of why I think computer audio sounds better with better resources is simple. I think it really comes down to task swaping, virtual memory and computer performance. Virtual Memory is basically non critical memory (usually large chunks) that is stored on a hard drive until required then the OS/Kernel will swap this in putting some other process's memory on the hard drive. When it comes to audio programs there is a lot of virtual memory because large songs require lots of memory. Even more so with Lossless file types as it would require 2x the memory to decode on the fly. This is all virtual memory.... the faster it can come in and out the better.

BUT!!!!!! Even better than that... if you have a ton of real memory then the Virtual memory does not go to the hard drive it stays resident all the time.

Alan, heck even your old friend Steve Nugent a PC user to the hilt is now feels the best platform is his new MAC Mini with Amarra/iTunes.

Anyways... gang after Alan and I had a few phone calls and the editors pushed me some more. I said WAIT**** this is going to end up a big mess and just confuse the heck out of people. This is when I asked for the Cosecant to be returned.

I am pretty sure that what I read was exactly what I thought would happen.

Alan you never spent the time like Valin would have to really get inside and see what is capable. This is what I derived from talking and the 20 or so emails we exchanged.

Thanks
Gordon

Eloise.

Please read the article before commenting. You seem to have missed the poit about our objections to Alan's article. An informed comment from you would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

Lars writes ... "Please read the article before commenting. You seem to have missed the poit about our objections to Alan's article. An informed comment from you would be greatly appreciated."
You are correct I should read the article... no further comment will be forthcoming from me until I get the opportunity to.

Eloise

Eloise,

Most of the SSD drives being made today are MLC and have superior specs to the original SLC drives. The new ones are faster and hold more data. Do you have a turntable? Installing a phono cartridge properly on a turntable takes more skill than installing a hard drive in a computer.

Again, the point of my objection to Alan's article was that he did not research USB audio properly for high end audiophiles. High end audiophiles will buy the proper computer if advised. TAS is not an economy magazine. Please look at the components being reviewed in this issue. This is the point I am making. Sure, if Alan wants to suggest out-of-date equipment that's fine. But I won't pay for this type of review in TAS. This is not what the magazine is about. Never was. Look again at the name of the magazine.