Bel Canto high rez USB playback at last

[aardvark baguette]

This is the update to the Dac3 that allows for high rez playback. Its a lot steeper than I thought it would be. Still, I'm tempted. I think someone on the Computer Audiophile forums was going on about how it uses a better USB chip too. (as opposed to what the Dac3 uses)

I'd have to get an explanation as to what it does better than the M Audio transit via toslink before buying.

Someone talk me out of it.

[Hopstretch]

Someone talk me out of it.

Dew note dew eet.

[JBLoudG20]

Hammond 1455 epic fail on a $500 unit.

[Pars]

Hammond 1455 epic fail on a $500 unit.

Yes, but hopefully they put the money inside? Better than some vendors with a $300 case on a $500 $25 unit.

[n_maher]

Hammond 1455 epic fail on a $500 unit.

Pretty much what I was thinking.

[JBLoudG20]

Yes, but hopefully they put the money inside? Better than some vendors with a $300 case on a $500 $25 unit.

Not a bad way to look at it, but I still want more out of commercial offerings. The Bel Canto doesn't even have the metal endcaps!

[aardvark baguette]

I'm trying to figure out why I would take this over the M Audio transit. Is there any reason to assume it would transfer digital better over the BNC cable?

[thrice]

Not a bad way to look at it, but I still want more out of commercial offerings. The Bel Canto doesn't even have the metal endcaps!

Yeah, seems unlike them.... they have a certain aesthetic to their cases and this seems to go against that. I can understand saving money, but this seems uncharacteristic... perhaps it's a photo of a demo/prototype unit? I don't see anything official on their site yet.

[JBLoudG20]

Or maybe that is the metal endpanel. Kinda looks blackish, but then again, maybe silverish.

[aardvark baguette]

Computer Audiophile said this was a prototype.

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/files/11152008/belcantousblink/full2.jpg

[Knuckledragger]

I'm trying to figure out why I would take this over the M Audio transit. Is there any reason to assume it would transfer digital better over the BNC cable?

BNC offers true 75-ohm termination, while RCA can at best approximate that. BNC is also easier to attach and remove, and stays secured better. It's a pro standard and a much nicer to work with. I cannot argue that any of this will have an effect on sound quality.

[justin]

i'm working on one of these except it uses asynchronous USB (I'm assuming this one is adaptive mode since they don't specify) and will have RCA + optical output

[postjack]

i'm working on one of these except it uses asynchronous USB (I'm assuming this one is adaptive mode since they don't specify) and will have RCA + optical output

neat!

[Voltron]

Funny that a noob posted this yesterday by linky only and got shat upon. Rightly so, but still funny.

Justin's sounds cool. There are also some similar products to these from Steve Nugent at Empirical Audio, right?

[JBLoudG20]

Funny that a noob posted this yesterday by linky only and got shat upon. Rightly so, but still funny.

Justin's sounds cool. There are also some similar products to these from Steve Nugent at Empirical Audio, right?

This thread was here before the noob's.

[Voltron]

K

[cclragnarok]

i'm working on one of these except it uses asynchronous USB (I'm assuming this one is adaptive mode since they don't specify) and will have RCA + optical output

Does yours do 24-bit?

[Knuckledragger]

How well does USB2.0 handle 24bit/192KHz stereo audio? I wish more high end DACs/converted used FireWire. How much is a FW400 port going to add to the cost a $2500 DAC? Yes, I know, spoken like a true Mac twit. A Macbook-Jan2008-equipped twit, at that. Doesn't change the fact that FW is a more robust spec, with better sustained throughput.

[deepak]

How well does USB2.0 handle 24bit/192KHz stereo audio? I wish more high end DACs/converted used FireWire. How much is a FW400 port going to add to the cost a $2500 DAC? Yes, I know, spoken like a true Mac twit. A Macbook-Jan2008-equipped twit, at that. Doesn't change the fact that FW is a more robust spec, with better sustained throughput.

USB 2.0 can do 24/96 without a problem.

The FW port might be pretty cheap, but the circuitry to convert FW to digital in the DAC might not be...

And Apple is changing their FW spec so frequently, I'd rather do USB.

I'd like to see a USB to AES/EBU converter. But that's only because all the DACs I've owned had that connection

Edited December 5, 2008 by deepak

[ilikebananafudge]

I'm trying to figure out why I would take this over the M Audio transit.

So am I. Anyone know? Just in terms of sound quality, besides what Knuckledragger said.

[Dusty Chalk]

How well does USB2.0 handle 24bit/192KHz stereo audio?

Yeah, it shouldn't be a problem theoretically -- you only need USB1.0 for 24/96. I have had other problems though (not with USB, the bottleneck was the bus).

[ZephyrSapphire]

Funny that a noob posted this yesterday by linky only and got shat upon. Rightly so, but still funny.

Justin's sounds cool. There are also some similar products to these from Steve Nugent at Empirical Audio, right?

I should check this section more often.

[poo]

^ Fuck em Zeph - I'd rather hear about something like this regardless, so thanks.

Now if Justin could just get one or two ready to sell...

[Knuckledragger]

Slightly cheaper option.

[justin]

pcm2902 is from the plug-and-play (both for designer and user) family of USB audio chips. it wont support anything over 16/48