tmitchmd

I have a large collection of SACDs, DVD-As, and Blu-Ray Audio discs but not all that many CDs. Not much on hard disc, I'm afraid. I purchased the Oppomod 203 from Jaehong with the added i2s output. The Oppomod 203 works perfectly with the Spring 2 over i2s. I am also streaming Qobuz over ethernet into the 203 which provides the rendering and then outputs the Qobuz bits to the Dac over i2s. No USB connections are used. I believe it is this combination that allows both transport and dac to be used to full potential. I have yet to try HQ Player as I am Chromebook based rather than PC. I encouraged Jaehong to pick up as many new Oppo 203s as he could find at the old price and I believe he may still have a few left in stock but all will surely be gone soon.

Hallelujah yes, the share feature works! Thank you both for saving me several hundred dollars. The ultimate solution I am working on is using an i2s output modified Oppomod 203 as transport and renderer and a Holo Audio Spring-2 Dac for the DA conversion. Still several weeks away, but the fix you have supplied today will allow for the simplest possible connection.

This JF DestinY MX-Pro audio streamer seems like a potentially ideal solution to use with an i2s Dac like the Holo Audio Spring-2. Since it is Android it should allow one to add the Qoboz app, no?

I am streaming the Qoboz beta with the BubbleUPnP app from a Pixel 2 to an Oppo BDP-105, using an ethernet cable attached to the router. The problem is with the BubbleUPnP app I lose the informative Qoboz GUI. Is there some other way, short of purchasing a streamer that already has Qoboz built in like the Blusound node 2i, to allow me to use the Oppo in a similar manner while preserving the Qoboz GUI?

I can stream Qoboz from a Pixel 2 to an Oppo BDP-105 attached to the router with an ethernet cable using the BubbleUPnP app. The problem is I lose the informative Qoboz GUI. Is there some other way, short of purchasing a streamer that already has Qoboz built in like the Blusound node 2i, to allow me to use the Oppo in a similar manner while preserving the Qoboz GUI?

I hope to soon be using what should by be the simplest solution and that is inputting an Oppomod UDP-203 over ethernet and then outputting i2s over hdmi to the Holo Audio Spring-2 Dac. I have just hooked up to Qoboz for the very first time from a Pixel 2 using BubbleUPnP with playback in 96/24 on an Oppo BDP 105D. Elsa Dreisig sounds pretty divine already, so I'm really looking forward to seeing how the Oppomod 203 i2s to Holo Audio Spring-2 compares.

Do you use uapp with the V30? Can uapp connect with the ES9018 chip in the V30 to allow full Hi-Rez output to the headphone port? Will the V30 stream Tidal MQA Masters with uapp or is an outboard dac still a necessity?

As Chris has pointed out asio provides a means to recover a data stream unpolluted by Windows. He is right. I am wrong. However, the E-Mu 0404 IS an Asynchronous USB DAC. While Chris has not yet conceded this point in this thread, he has done so elsewhere. The point of the original post was to point out that quality Asynch USB DACs from EMU have been in common use by professionals as well as audiophiles for some years. It's fine that Empirical, Wavelength, dCS, and others realize the potential of asynch USB DACS in the marketplace. Every day more and more high rez downloads become available and naturally this will drive demand for the best possible sound chain. I felt it was misleading for both a feature article and the featured review that followed to omit any mention of a readily available and cost effective means of playing back high resolution audio over USB using an Asynchronous USB DAC that does not cost $$$. Especially when that unit has been demonstrated to produce bit perfect output from asio using popular media players like JRiver and Foobar. Does the EMU 0404 sound better than the new high end asynch USB DACs when playing back high resolution audio files? Truthfully I cannot say. I have not done the comparison for 24/88 and 24/96 audio files. But an increasing volume of my collection is 24/176 and 24/192. Of the asynch DACs Chris is talking up, NONE can decode those files. Others have favorably compared the sound of the EMU0404 to high rez capable DACs from Weiss and Apogee in direct a/b tests. These cost 10x or more $$ than the EMU . These anecdotes as well as a a not insignificant amount of objective data can be found on posts from last year on this very forum. Chris I apologize for mistakenly insisting that asio=asynch. I do again state that I am grateful for the versatility of the EMU 0404 that in combination with JRiver and Foobar allows proper decoding of high rez DVD-As, downloaded music files, HRx Reference Recordings, and dsd to high rez PCM digital transfers of SACDs using a PS3 and an HDMI audio breakout box. Peace.

Joined: 12/06/2007 .:. Offline .:. Comments: 394 Fri, 04/24/2009 - 10:49 — audioengr "If Foobar, JRiver TMC 12 and 13 deliver bit perfect PCM to the USB 0404 to then be converted, how can the software players possibly sound different as described in the above posts? Surely if a signal is truely untouched there can be no difference in sound between players." With the 0404, which is an asyc device, there should be no jitter differences, but there still may be. Assuming no jitter differences, there are still things in the audio stream that can make things sound different. Converting from 16/44.1 to 24/44.1 for instance. There are other control bits too, such as emphasis bit. Those that are leading this industry are aware of these differences and we are trying to determine what is causing this. Amarra has their theories. Gordon Rankin has his theories. Empirical Audio has their theories. None of use know the exact mechanisms in each situation. Even WiFi servers have demonstrated this phenomenon. WiFi, being networked should have nothing to do with the audio stack, so it does not make any sense. Someday one or all of us will have an answer for you. Steve N. Empirical Audio Joined: 04/23/2009 .:. Offline .:. Comments: 7 Fri, 04/24/2009 - 17:44 — alpine alpine's picture Asyncronous? Hi Steve N. Thanks for your explanation above about the differences in software players. I was not aware the 0404 is Asyncronous. This must be one of the few on the market today! Thanks again, Adrian.

"Now on to the fun part, the synchronization modes. In all cases the data from the bus goes into a buffer and gets clocked out by a clock, how that clock is generated and how it interacts with the bus is the differences between the modes. Synchronous: in this mode the readout clock is directly derived from the 1KHz frame rate. There is a PLL that takes in the start of frame signal and generates a clock. Using this scheme its rather difficult to generate 44.1, but very easy to generate 48KHz. This is a primary reason why many early USB audio devices only supports 48KHz, they used this mode. As you can guess this mode is very susceptible to jitter on the bus, pretty much anything that causes the output from the host to be jittered (PS noise, vibrations, interference etc) AND things that can cause jitter on the interconnect (interference, reflections, ground noise etc) will wind up with jitter on the readout clock. This is a VERY poor mode to use for decent quality audio. Adaptive: in this mode the clock comes from a separate clock generator (usually implemented as a PLL referenced by a crystal oscillator) that can have its frequency adjusted in small increments over a wide range. A control circuit (either hardware or firmware running on an embedded processor) measures the average rate of the DATA coming over the bus and adjusts the clock to match that. Since the clock is not directly derived from a bus signal it is far less sensitive to bus jitter than synchronous mode, but what is going on on the bus still can effect it. Its still generated by a PLL that takes its control from the circuits that see the jitter on the bus. Its a lot better than synchronous mode, but still not perfect by a long shot. This is the mode that MOST USB audio devices use today. Asynchronous: in this mode an external clock is used to clock the data out of the buffer and a feedback stream is setup to tell the host how fast to send the data. A control circuit monitors the status of the buffer and tells the host to speed up if the buffer is getting too empty or slow daown if its getting too full. Note this is still isosynchronous, the host is continuously sending samples, there is no "per packet handshake" going on. Since the readout clock is not dependent on anything going on with the bus, it can be fed directly from a low jitter oscillator, no PLL need apply. This mode can be made to be VERY insensitive to bus jitter. The reality: There are NO USB audio chips that out of the box support asynchronous mode! If any one here is aware of any please let me know. I have researched the field quite thoroughly and not found any. There are a few that theoretically do support it, but their firmware has to be rewritten to support asynchronous transfer. I have been trying to do this for one of these chips for the last several months and have been running into a lot of roadblocks. Sometime in the future I hope to get it working, but for now I have to live with chips that support adaptive mode. These adaptive chips are not bad, they actually have quite good jitter performance, much better than I thought they would have when I started working with them. But its not perfect, or really even close. Because of this the DAC is still sensitive to whats going on with the cable and the host, not a lot, but it is definitely there. As the quality of the power supply, DAC board layout and output stage have increased the level of grunge and noise from these sources on the output signal have decreased to the point where the jitter effects are a larger percentage of problems with the sound. You probably will have a hard time hearing these effects on a stock transit for example, there is too much else going on that is masking these effects. But once this other stuff is diminished significantly the effects of the interface jitter are much more noticeable. Of course there is another way to deal with this, throw out the USB audio spec and write your own using the bulk protocol. Of course this means you have to write your own windows, MAC and linux drivers, AND your own firmware for a generic USB interface chip. It CAN be made to work and if done right could provide a very low jitter interface, but it is one heck of a lot of work, one I don't have the time for (unless someone here is willing to support me and my family so I can spend full time on this) John Swenson

"The hype around asychronous USB converters seems rather funny to me. In fact, such converters are not that rare and don't necessarily cost a fortune - Tascam US-144 ($149) is asynchronous, as well as the very popular E-Mu 0404 USB 2.0 ($199). It's true, that "driver-less" converters (the ones that use the built-in USB Audio drivers) are usually adaptive and require some hardware programming to work asynchronously, but in the pro-sector, where the manufacturer usually provides custom drivers, the asynchronous approach is more common." Thu, 07/02/2009 - 14:53 — Leonid Khachaturov "There is also asynchronous mode, here the data is clocked out by the local oscillator when the buffer starts to over or underflow it tells the host to slow down or speed up the data stream. This is the only mode where the DAC is in control. The host is still sending the packets isochronously, there is no packet by packet handshake or anything like that, but there IS a path back from the reciver to the host. This is almost never done. There are only one or two USB chips that support this mode and ALL of them require re-writting the firmware inside the chip, not an easy task. I only know of one person who has ever done that. I tried for a long time and gave up. (thats a whole nother story). There a few devices that DO have the DAC in control (such as the EMU 0404 USB) but they do not use the official USB audio spec, they came up with their own packet protocol which means they have to write their own drivers." JohnSwenson RE: "Asynchronous Mode" USB DACs and Price........ - soundchekk 01:36:07 04/17/09 (15) M-Audio Transit runs 44.1 and 48kHz in async mode. EMU-0404 USB runs async. (I own both of them) * Async mode - Gordon Rankin 11:23:45 04/17/09 (5) Guys, Remember just like any other interface all Async's are not created equal. The big payoff is using an ultra low jitter Master clock as the reference clock to output the I2S to the dac/spdif converter. This is the real key... The Transit does not do this. The EMU does, but has a lot of DCDC converters and power supply issues. Thanks Gordon J. Gordon Rankin o RE: Async mode - soundchekk 15:06:05 04/17/09 (4) In Reply to: RE: Async mode posted by Gordon Rankin on April 17, 2009 at 11:23:45 The original question was, if there is an async USB DAC below 1000$. Yep -- the fun starts at 70$ -- delivering a decent sound with a bit of tweaking. And continues with an 0404 USB at 199$, which will be a very good USB device with a bit of tweaking. WallyWest 08-30-08, 11:49 AM If you want to get technical there are several different modes USB can run in, based on the Windows drivers. The really horrible one is synchronous mode. Which many cheap USB devices use. There is zero error correction of any kind used in this mode. And it uses a fixed clock which makes it virtually impossible to generate 44.1Khz. It's essentially fixed at 48Khz. Jitter in this mode is off the charts, and that has been backed up many times. I agree that in general jitter is an overblown issue, but this is extreme jitter. If you care at all about audio quality stay far far away from devices using synchronous mode. Which can usually be identified by running only at 48Khz. Asynchronous mode, which is very flexible and allows any clock speed you want, would be great. Too bad nobody uses it. Adaptive mode is what most decent devices use. It's better than synchronous, but still not great. Or you can do what Emu does and throw all that out the window. They wrote their own standard which runs in what is essentially asynchronous mode with some fancy error correction, and they reclock the data at the other end. This is probably overkill, and I wouldn't pay a premium for it. But the 0404 is pretty cheap. As for proof I've heard it many times myself. The 0404 supports ASIO, but only through it's own drivers since the timing is totally different. Using the standard ASIO drivers in Winamp produces all sorts of clicks and pops and dropouts. That's an extreme case where the source is completely out of sync with the card, but I've heard many people complaining of the same thing with cheaper synchronous USB sound cards. Veda 09-02-08, 11:51 PM I use the Emu 0404 USB. http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/proaudio/emu-0404-usb.html I've heard the 0404 compared favorably with DAC's costing thousands more. It may not the be the absolute best solution, but it's a fantastic value. USB is usually very jittery, but that's because of the way Windows handles it. The 0404 has it's own USB drivers that fixes that problem, and it's a reclocking DAC. Plus it has phantom power for a microphone if you want to use your PC to do room measurements, speaker calibrations, things like that.

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/transports/high-definition-dvd-players-hd-dvd-blu-ray/lexicon-bd-30-blu-ray-oppo-clone/oppo-inside-lexicon-outside-1 http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=76749&st=0 http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=pcaudio&m=56920 http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=pcaudio&m=50321

I may be wrong but AFAIK the Benchmark DAC does not use asio, and also cannot decode an HRx or 24/192 data stream over USB. The only reason i transferred the thread was to allow a larger audience to read, consider, and comment. As a post review comment, only those actively seeking to read post review comments would discover it. I have no axe to grind with Chris. However, I do watch my pennies and like many I look for bang for my buck, especially in this economy. How does one determine if indeed the equipment under review is better sounding and a better buy than what is out there already without a comparison both of features and of sound? Myself, I have not found MRSP to necessarily be an accurate measure of quality and versatility. There is wealth of information here at Computer Audiophile regarding the E-MU 0404 USB. When other DACs come along claiming to do the same thing only better, I think it is incumbent upon a reviewer to compare and contrast with other similar units at above, below, and at a similar price point. Moreover, in 2010 it is not unreasonable to demand of any reviewer some statement as to potential conflict of interest. Since Chris raised the question, I will state for the record that I have absolutely no stake in any way shape or form in E-MU or any related company. Please note I am not saying that Ayre (thus the ? mark) will be using non-modified BDP-83 innards in their upcoming Universal Blu Ray player. However, there does seem to be substantial evidence that other high end companies are dong little more than re-badging. Perhaps Mr Hansen himself might address this. Look, I am not holding myself out as any great expert. But me I have long lived with extremely high end DACs and the majority of my music is now enjoyed in high rez. I'm not an engineer either and if I am wrong and asio/Asynchronous USB are two completely different kettle of fish I will eat my humble pie. Somebody please explain to me how they differ, be it trivial or fundamental. BTW, in reviewing prior threads it is clear that there has been some reference here to spdif ripping of SACD via HDMI PCM breakout. Best thread I have seen that describes this process is here: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f7/ripping-sacds-via-spdif-176-4-ps3-455769/

From the comments section of the review: Thu, 01/28/2010 - 23:35 — tmitchmd tmitchmd's picture CHRI$ and A$YNCHRONOU$ U$B DAC$ From Chris’s Asynchronicity article: "Asynchronous USB capable DACs are few and far between. Currently Ayre, Wavelength, and dCS are the major manufacturers with asynchronous products on the market. In my opinion the reason for this lack of async DACs is simply because it's very difficult implement this technology. There is a specific skill set required to implement asynchronous USB and it's not common place in high-end audio. Implementing async USB requires a manufacturer to write its own software for the TAS1020 chip and invest thousands of hours on this part of the DAC alone... Note: I am by no means a leading authority on USB audio and I relied heavily on engineers in the industry while researching this article. Some, but not all, of my sources were Gordon Rankin from Wavelength Audio, Charlie Hansen from Ayre acoustics, and engineers at Data Conversion Systems (dCS). I filter out all marketing terms and bias when analyzing my correspondence with all experts." No mention of the E-Mu 0404 until the comments section later: "There's no free lunch as I'm sure you know. The EMU DAC does support 24/192 and is only $200, but just because it goes to "11" doesn't mean much. I think there is good reason nobody else is supporting 24/192 via USB. While it's technically possible there are some major compromises. This particular DAC has very high noise related to the oscillators and the USB circuitry. Thus, the jitter is about 15x higher than some of the CASH list products that only support 24/96 via USB. Nobody I know has developed an asynchronous USB DAC at this level. The EMU 0404 is technically asynchronous via USB, but it's design and implementation are 180 degrees different than Ayre, Wavelength, and dCS. There is a reason the EMU is only $200 even though it's one of the only async USB DACs in the world." Two pages of flatulent commentary on this review, yet no one has yet questioned the wave of the hand dismissal of the E-Mu 0404 as unworthy competition for Ayre, dCS, and other rarefied (and Computer Audiophile sponsoring) Asynchronous USB DAC uber priced competitors (God forbid that you might mention that "asio"is a common term for the same damn thing, lest the fool and his money make the connection?). Well golly gee, this impoverished unit does not even require an optional several $$$ dollar hardware/software upgrade (if they’re dopey enough the first time might as well keep ‘em sucking at the teat) to decode native hi rez 24/176 and 24/192 music files, not to mention the hi rez tunes on your vintage DVD-A discs (Foobar DVDA decoder). No extra charge for the asio driver either (see new Wyred four Sound USB DAC). If your proposed USB DAC purchase cannot decode an asio-excuse me, ASYNCHRONOUS- delivered hi rez music file out of the box, walk, nay run away! I am rocking out to downloaded hi rez files of every stripe (heck Foobar even has a plug in that will convert DSD to hi rez PCM and another for native rate decoding of DVD-A discs); even digital hi rez rips of SACDs. Look, I know dCS, Meitner, and others make nice sounding products. But price no object, the humble E-Mu is right there with them and does not require a wealthy freshly killed elderly relative to afford. The great thing about computers for the audiophile is that it exposed many of the rotten lies that pervade high end audio. Look Chris, Can't we reserve this $$$ nonsense for Stereophile and The Absolute Sound? I have no problem with you reviewing $1.5K-$40K DACs and Louis XIV barcoloungers, but would it be so painful to admit (at least way down in the fine print) that a damn fine "Asynchronous" 24/192 USB DAC can be had for under $200 clams? Where is your review of the Musiland Monitor 02, another sub $200 hi rez capable asynchronous USB Dac? BTW, Creative Professional is not a start up. I would venture to guess that their volume of product sales would swamp several-fold "major manufacturers" Ayre, Wavelength, and dCS. __________________ "Damn it Chris! I'm a doctor, not an engineer!" * reply Joined: 11/28/2007 .:. Offline .:. Comments: 5395 Thu, 01/28/2010 - 23:59 — The Computer Au... The Computer Audiophile's picture Wow, where to begin Doctor. Wow, where to begin Doctor. Your comments are so full of misinformation that it's just easier to write off your whole post. I'm not sure where you got your information that ASIO is the same thing as Asynchronous but I suggest you find a new source. You also mention rips of SACDs. Again, wow. __________________ Chris Connaker Founder Computer Audiophile * reply Joined: 12/23/2009 .:. Online .:. Comments: 6 Fri, 01/29/2010 - 02:28 — tmitchmd tmitchmd's picture Wow Chris. Why don't we begin here? Chris, Are these not your words? "The EMU 0404 is technically asynchronous via USB" "...the EMU is... one of the only async USB DACs in the world." Perhaps you might consider the words of one of your sponsors: "Guys, Remember just like any other interface all Async's are not created equal. The big payoff is using an ultra low jitter Master clock as the reference clock to output the I2S to the dac/spdif converter. This is the real key... The Transit does not do this. The EMU does, but has a lot of DCDC converters and power supply issues. Thanks Gordon J. Gordon Rankin" __________________ "Damn it Chris! I'm a doctor, not an engineer!" * edit * reply Joined: 12/23/2009 .:. Online .:. Comments: 6 Fri, 01/29/2010 - 02:33 — tmitchmd tmitchmd's picture Digital Rips of SACDs The Sony PS3 converts dsd to PCM 24/176 over HDMI. The Oppos convert to 24/88. Using an HDMI breakout box one then captures the 24/176 PCM converted to SPDIF. Press record. Voila... "Again, wow." __________________ "Damn it Chris! I'm a doctor, not an engineer!" * edit * reply Joined: 12/23/2009 .:. Online .:. Comments: 6 Fri, 01/29/2010 - 11:50 — tmitchmd tmitchmd's picture Inquiring Minds Want to Know "Wow, where to begin Doctor. Your comments are so full of misinformation that it's just easier to write off your whole post." Gee Chris, Could you please document at least one or two of the misinformative comments? __________________ "Damn it Chris! I'm a doctor, not an engineer!" * reply Joined: 11/28/2007 .:. Offline .:. Comments: 5395 Fri, 01/29/2010 - 13:26 — The Computer Au... The Computer Audiophile's picture OK Doc - I won't play into OK Doc - I won't play into your entire game here but I will respond. By the way I certainly hope you give more respect to the people you write to in your professional career than you have given me here. Your original post is full of innuendos and statements like you are the king of all knowledge. I'm beginning to wonder if someone has stolen your username and password as I find your comments rather sophomoric. "Two pages of flatulent commentary on this review, yet no one has yet questioned the wave of the hand dismissal of the E-Mu 0404 as unworthy competition for Ayre, dCS, and other rarefied (and Computer Audiophile sponsoring) Asynchronous USB DAC uber priced competitors (God forbid that you might mention that "asio"is a common term for the same damn thing, lest the fool and his money make the connection?)." A. The reason nobody questioned it is because I provided solid engineering reasons why the EMU is inferior. B. Ayre and dCS are not sponsors of Computer Audiophile. Your comments suggest that I only mention the Async manufacturers because they are sponsors. This goes to show your ignorance or willingness to lie in spite of clear facts. C. Wavelength and Ayre are far from uber priced. As a highly paid Doctor you are very well aware of this fact. D. ASIO is not another term for Asynchronous Mode USB. "Well golly gee, this impoverished unit does not even require an optional several $$$ dollar hardware/software upgrade (if they’re dopey enough the first time might as well keep ‘em sucking at the teat) to decode native hi rez 24/176 and 24/192 music files, not to mention the hi rez tunes on your vintage DVD-A discs (Foobar DVDA decoder). No extra charge for the asio driver either (see new Wyred four Sound USB DAC)." You're right, the EMU doesn't require anything extra. Neither does a 1982 Ford Escort. It will travel 70 mph. But so will a Ferrari and the Ferrari will travel 70 mph much better than the Escort. To be clear, I am saying that just because the EMU can handle higher sampling rates doesn't mean anything in terms of sound quality. "If your proposed USB DAC purchase cannot decode an asio-excuse me, ASYNCHRONOUS- delivered hi rez music file out of the box, walk, nay run away! I am rocking out to downloaded hi rez files of every stripe (heck Foobar even has a plug in that will convert DSD to hi rez PCM and another for native rate decoding of DVD-A discs); even digital hi rez rips of SACDs." You mention the ASIO / Async thing again. Where did you ever come up with that information? Converting DSD to higher resolution PCM has nothing to do with any of the DACs mentioned here. It's been done for years. It also has nothing to do with SACD the physical format. DSD and SACD also have nothing to do with DVD-A discs. Again, what are you even talking about? Then you suggest that SACDs can be ripped by something less than a several thousand dollar mastering workstation. What's happening with your PS3 example is a simple SACD DSD to PCM conversion. Again, this has been going on for years and is not what I call ripping DSD from an SACD. If you have native DSD or DST images ripped from an SACD that would be another story. "Look, I know dCS, Meitner, and others make nice sounding products. But price no object, the humble E-Mu is right there with them and does not require a wealthy freshly killed elderly relative to afford." I can't argue with what you hear but I can disagree with your inferences of equality. Suggesting the EMU is even close to sounding as accurate or "nice" is absolutely preposterous. When did you make the direct comparison between these DACs? What music was used? What sample rates? What was the rest of the system? What is your reference that you use to judge the sound of equipment? "The great thing about computers for the audiophile is that it exposed many of the rotten lies that pervade high end audio." That's a great thing if it's true. Please elaborate and give everyone a few examples of rotten lies that pervade high end audio. Again, it's a great thing if true. "Can't we reserve this $$$ nonsense for Stereophile and The Absolute Sound?" A $900 Proton and a $2,500 Ayre QB-9 are not "$$$ nonsense" whatever than means. "would it be so painful to admit (at least way down in the fine print) that a damn fine "Asynchronous" 24/192 USB DAC can be had for under $200 clams?" It really seems like you have a vested interested in raising interest in this DAC. And Yes, it would be impossible for this type of admission as it would be a blatant lie on my part. "Where is your review of the Musiland Monitor 02, another sub $200 hi rez capable asynchronous USB Dac?" In the same place as my review of 10,000 other components that I've never heard. "BTW, Creative Professional is not a start up. I would venture to guess that their volume of product sales would swamp several-fold "major manufacturers" Ayre, Wavelength, and dCS." I don't get your point. But I do suspect a vested interest on your part. If you don't like what your reading here at Computer Audiophile you can have a full refund of your purchase price and move on to any other website in the world that you like. __________________ Chris Connaker Founder Computer Audiophile * reply Joined: 12/23/2009 .:. Online .:. Comments: 6 Fri, 01/29/2010 - 16:14 — tmitchmd New tmitchmd's picture Chris, I apologize for the Chris, I apologize for the inference that this is some kind of sliming. It is not. But i would suggest that your attacks on me have been a great deal more personal. Nobody is claiming the E-Mu 0404 USB's innards cost the same as the dCS. The point is that there have been few computer dacs at any price capable of high rez playback. Even fewer that have done so asynchronously. The E-Mu and a few professional firewire units for the most part. Maybe a couple of others. And no I am not begrudging Ayre or Wavelength their right to a proper livelihood. dCS OTOH has abandoned the professional market for PT Barnum like reasons. What makes the E-Mu different and ultimately better sounding than the ~ 6X more costly Benchmark is asio. I'm glad that others are now getting on board, but you have to demonstrate why one should consider spending 10-12x the cost of the 0404 for a brand new dac that still cannot decode HRx and 24/192 until it has been sent back for a costly upgrade. Granted, from a $$$ standpoint, the Ayre, dCS, and Wavelengths are apples to E-Mu's oranges. But from a functional standpoint they are not. Thus when you review one of these $$$ asynchronous Dacs you owe your readers some reasoned and detailed commentary beyond "published jitter measurements" and presumed power supply issues why they should consider spending their hard won $$ on equipment that may in fact have few advantages over much much less expensive professional units. You owe your readers some listening comparison between 24/96 asioed to an E-Mu and 24/96 asynched to an Ayre or Wavelength. And perhaps a reminder that an upgrade of __ dollars will be required before said Dacs will be able to handle the 24/176 and 24/192 sources that the E-Mu decodes with ease right out of the box (well after the asio drivers are installed anyway). My God man, higher sampling rates and longer bit lengths are what achieving high quality digital sound is all about. The rest is mostly sock chips and fancy enclosures. If there is a significant distinction between asio (asynchronous input output) over USB and "Asynchronous USB" than clearly I am not appreciating it, nor from his remarks apparently is Gordon Rankin. As my moniker indicates, I am no engineer so please explain it to me. You have an entire thread up about ripping SACDs with the conclusion that it can be done only by recording from the analog outputs or digitally in 16/44 from the CD layer. There would be little point in ripping SACDs to DSD as so few components would be able to properly decode the data. No place for that file on the old music streamer. Inexpensively converting dsd digitally to high rez PCM has been a bit of a holy grail for computer audiophiles for many years. The fact that it can now be done easily and $$ painlessly qualifies as significant. Or perhaps you have already described the process here on your website and I missed it. I know many have asked the question. Why don't you steer us to the post where you described the process of obtaining 24/176 files from SACDs without an analog conversion? And I'm sorry but $2500 for a dac is uber in my house. Your Ford Ferrari metaphor is indeed appropriate to those dirty little lies about "high end" audio and video. Take the innards of a Ferrari and drop 'em in a Ford. What do you call that? Or more likely, take the innards of a Ford and drop it into a gorgeous Ferrari body and call it high end. Take an Oppo BDP-83, drop it into an opulent enclosure and you've got a Lexicon or a Theta or god forbid an Ayre? Take a Panasonic plasma display remove the label and add a shiny bevel and sell it for 3-5x the price as a Runco. Ayre and dCS may not support the forum directly but their dealers may be another story. As a physician I must disclose any financial conflict of interest before I publish or speak in public. Do Ayre, dCS and the like not provide some perks and favors in exchange for your selection of their product among the 10,000 others competing for your attentions? What % of retail will you pay for your review sample, eh? Is that perhaps at least part of the reason that we should look elsewhere for that review of the Musiland Monitor 02? Okay Chris, you got me. I just bought Creative Professional and I am now planning to corner the high end Dac market. Just kidding.... __________________ "Damn it Chris! I'm a doctor, not an engineer!"

Chris,<br /> <br /> I apologize for the inference that this is some kind of sliming. It is not. But i would suggest that your attacks on me have been a great deal more personal.<br /> <br /> Nobody is claiming the E-Mu 0404 USB's innards cost the same as the dCS. The point is that there have been few computer dacs at any price capable of high rez playback. Even fewer that have done so asynchronously. The E-Mu and a few professional firewire units for the most part. Maybe a couple of others. And no I am not begrudging Ayre or Wavelength their right to a proper livelihood. dCS OTOH has abandoned the professional market for PT Barnum like reasons. What makes the E-Mu different and ultimately better sounding than the ~ 6X more costly Benchmark is asio. I'm glad that others are now getting on board, but you have to demonstrate why one should consider spending 10-12x the cost of the 0404 for a brand new dac that still cannot decode HRx and 24/192 until it has been sent back for a costly upgrade. <br /> <br /> Granted, from a $$$ standpoint, the Ayre, dCS, and Wavelengths are apples to E-Mu's oranges. But from a functional standpoint they are not. Thus when you review one of these $$$ asynchronous Dacs you owe your readers some reasoned and detailed commentary beyond "published jitter measurements" and presumed power supply issues why they should consider spending their hard won $$ on equipment that may in fact have few advantages over much much less expensive professional units. You owe your readers some listening comparison between 24/96 asioed to an E-Mu and 24/96 asynched to an Ayre or Wavelength. And perhaps a reminder that an upgrade of __ dollars will be required before said Dacs will be able to handle the 24/176 and 24/192 sources that the E-Mu decodes with ease right out of the box (well after the asio drivers are installed anyway). My God man, higher sampling rates and longer bit lengths are what achieving high quality digital sound is all about. The rest is mostly sock chips and fancy enclosures.<br /> <br /> If there is a significant distinction between asio (asynchronous input output) over USB and "Asynchronous USB" than clearly I am not appreciating it, nor from his remarks apparently is Gordon Rankin. As my moniker indicates, I am no engineer so please explain it to me.<br /> <br /> You have an entire thread up about ripping SACDs with the conclusion that it can be done only by recording from the analog outputs or digitally in 16/44 from the CD layer. There would be little point in ripping SACDs to DSD as so few components would be able to properly decode the data. No place for that file on the old music streamer. Inexpensively converting dsd digitally to high rez PCM has been a bit of a holy grail for computer audiophiles for many years. The fact that it can now be done easily and $$ painlessly qualifies as significant. Or perhaps you have already described the process here on your website and I missed it. I know many have asked the question. Why don't you steer us to the post where you described the process of obtaining 24/176 files from SACDs without an analog conversion?<br /> <br /> <br /> And I'm sorry but $2500 for a dac is uber in my house. Your Ford Ferrari metaphor is indeed appropriate to those dirty little lies about "high end" audio and video. Take the innards of a Ferrari and drop 'em in a Ford. What do you call that? Or more likely, take the innards of a Ford and drop it into a gorgeous Ferrari body and call it high end. Take an Oppo BDP-83, drop it into an opulent enclosure and you've got a Lexicon or a Theta or god forbid an Ayre? Take a Panasonic plasma display remove the label and add a shiny bevel and sell it for 3-5x the price as a Runco.<br /> <br /> Ayre and dCS may not support the forum directly but their dealers may be another story. As a physician I must disclose any financial conflict of interest before I publish or speak in public. Do Ayre, dCS and the like not provide some perks and favors in exchange for your selection of their product among the 10,000 others competing for your attentions? What % of retail will you pay for your review sample, eh? Is that perhaps at least part of the reason that we should look elsewhere for that review of the Musiland Monitor 02?<br /> <br /> Okay Chris, you got me. I just bought Creative Professional and I am now planning to corner the high end Dac market.<br /> <br /> Just kidding....