Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: USB versus HDMI: which is best for audio output to amp? (Read 23821 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

USB versus HDMI: which is best for audio output to amp?


Hello and thanks for taking the time to read this post.

I have a good quality pc which i use as a home theatre system and it has audio out via usb ( i use a firestone fubar 2 dac) and audio out via a hdmi socket.
Which of these 2 interfaces would be best for audio output to a good amplifier the usb or the hdmi. I am thinking of either buying a top quality dac or a top quality hdmi processor and woud appreciate a nod in which direction to go. I use the pc for viewing bluray, dvd, listening to cd's etc  At a guess i would have said hdmi is better for audio but a few buddies have said the bandwidth of usb is good enough and there would be no difference, think it may depend on the bit rate the two interfaces can support.

Many thanks in advance. John.

USB versus HDMI: which is best for audio output to amp?

Reply #1 –
The USB device itself is an audio device, and it will register in Windows as such. There is no audio through USB standard as far as I know. So, the capabilities will depend on the USB device, and in your case it seems that it's a simple 16-bit 48 kHz-max stereo USB device. I don't think you can even do multichannel.

So, assuming you have a true full-rate HDMI device (Core iX dual-core graphics or the new gen Core iX quad-core "Sandy Bridge", or Nvidia GTX460, GTX560 or below, or ATI 4000 series and up), then you will get up to 24-bit 192kHz 7.1 LPCM audio. This is optimal for blu-ray based home theater. Due to some technicalities, I'm partial to the ATI devices myself.

What players are you using? I really would concentrate more on features rather than buying "top quality" HDMI processors or DAC. Get a nice receiver. That Fubar II thing already seems awfully overpriced.

USB versus HDMI: which is best for audio output to amp?

Reply #2 –
Bandwidth is not an issue for audio. I frequently play 15 megabit/sec high def MPEG2 video files through USB 2.0 with no problems. Uncompressed CD is 1.4 megabits. USB 1.1 is 10 Mbit, 2.0 is 480 Mbit.

G²

USB versus HDMI: which is best for audio output to amp?

Reply #3 –
Hi. Many thanks for the response.

Unfortunatly it is top quality 2-channel sound that i am after rather than a lot of features. I ask as i heard that usb is limited to 16 bit and 44khz sampling, whereas hdmi may do 24 bit and 192khz sampling is this true, in real life listening terms how much difference would there be in sound quality terms between the two.

Many thanks. John.

USB versus HDMI: which is best for audio output to amp?

Reply #4 –
USB is not limited to stereo 16/48. In fact I have an Asus Xonar U1 (retail $80) which is a 7.1-channel 24-bit 96 kHz device. It doesn't output the 7.1 channels (it would need either 8-channel analog, or an HDMI output, and since HDMI has to be mixed with video that's practically unfeasible for a device like this), but it does get them from the player and mixes them into stereo Dolby Headphone/Virtual Speaker. It also has the capability of doing 5.1 Dolby Digital Live through its optical output.

USB does have the bitrate to output easily 24/bit 192 kHz 8-channel LPCM, the problem is that there is not a standardized digital consumer interface (like HDMI or SPDIF) that you can put at the other end of the USB device. SPDIF can only do up to 5.1 lossy DTS or DD and HDMI needs video as I said above.

I really would familiarize with the concept of blind testing and audiophile product claims though, before spending a lot of money. There are many USB devices that are way cheaper, including $25 dongles, that have more capabilities than the Fubar II. Wouldn't you be interested to know if there is any audible difference between all of them?

USB versus HDMI: which is best for audio output to amp?

Reply #5 –
Hi. Many thanks for the email.

Yes i would be interested. I chose the fubar 2 as an entry level dac just to try out and see what usb is capable of rather than listening to manufacturers claims. It is good but i was wondering if using the audio out from hdmi through a processor would be any better. I want to spend a lot of money getting a home cinema set up but am not sure which way to go. It is pure sound quality i am after am not too interested in trick effects, upsampling, remixing from stereo into 5.1 or 7.1 etc
Can you tell me any more about the $25 dongle being better than the fubar, i did read a little about the fubar and it seems to be a respectable little unit(for the price)

Many thanks. John.

USB versus HDMI: which is best for audio output to amp?

Reply #6 –
I'm not making the claim that it is better, just that the Fubar II seems very overpriced for what it is, and its specs seem pretty underwhelming, so it looks like a typical audiophile fluff product. The $25 Turtle Beach dongles work the same. I don't know if they're better or not, but they do have more actual useful features, like SPDIF outputs or mic inputs. Chances are that unless they introduce audible noise, they'll sound about the same, but my point (and one of the rules of this forum) is that without proper double-blind testing, one shouldn't make claims of one being better sounding.

Also, the devices I mentioned do not remix from stereo to 5.1 or 7.1. Dolby Headphone mixes from 5.1 to stereo, which is different. You have all the sound from the movies, and it does a pretty good job of virtualizing each channel, considering what it works with (usually binaural recordings are set up from the recording stage with special mics). But still, you don't have to like it. But, HDMI of course will provide you with up to 8 full, discrete channels of 192kHz 24-bit audio. No gimmicks.

If you do a quick search for discussions here regarding DAC quality, you'll find that the consensus is that you don't have to spend a lot for transparent sound. I think at this point in digital audio history, worrying about DAC quality instead of the features provided by the component is, most of the time, looking at it backwards.

USB versus HDMI: which is best for audio output to amp?

Reply #7 –
Quote from: john11 on
Hi. Many thanks for the response.

Unfortunatly it is top quality 2-channel sound that i am after rather than a lot of features. I ask as i heard that usb is limited to 16 bit and 44khz sampling, whereas hdmi may do 24 bit and 192khz sampling is this true, in real life listening terms how much difference would there be in sound quality terms between the two.


Just to confirm what the others said, USB is most definately limited to 48/16 or 44/16. I've personally run 24/192 stereo over USB and equipment that runs 8 to 16 channels of 24/96 or higher is generally available.

The story about USB being limited to 44/16 relates to USB 1.0 and 1.1 which have been obsolete for over a decade. The current standard is USB 3.0, and virtually every PC you've ever seen runs USB 2.0 or better.

That all said, you only need USB 1.1 to get to qualty sound for 2 channels. And, you only need well-designed low cost equipment to enjoy it. You'll see a lot of mentions of the Behringer UCA 202 around here, and it costs less than $30. Behringer even gives it away with some of their products. Many of us have it, some of us have tested it extensively, and its as good as is needed to get a top quality job done for playing back stereo music.

Actually, if your PC is reasonbly new, the audio interface that is built into it can deliver top quality sound. Lots of people are put off by the PC 3.5 mm mini jack because it is not the familar RCA jack.  But, the electrons don't care. Proper adaptor cords are available all over the place for reasonble prices.

USB versus HDMI: which is best for audio output to amp?

Reply #8 –
This has nothing to do with USB 1/2/3 but most of all with the USB audio standard.
USB audio class 1 devices, the first USB audio standard, is limited to 24/96.
It runs on USB 1.1 (12 MB/s)
USB audio class 2 devices also support 24/176 & 192.
They require USB 2 (high-speed mode 480 MB/s)
Class 2 is available in Linux and OSX from mid 2010 on.

A lot of USB DACs are limited to 16/48. This is obvious not a limitation of the standard nor the USB 1 speed but a matter of cost. You can simply buy a drop-in chip from TI and you have a USB DAC.
TheWellTemperedComputer.com

USB versus HDMI: which is best for audio output to amp?

Reply #9 –
John11,

Roseval hit the nail on the head.  very succinct. 

I've gone through exactly what I think you seem to be going through.  all you really care about is 2 channel sound quality, but you do also want a theater setup.  considering that I watch TV, movies, and play video games, I too wanted a theater setup.  so I made compromises to my 2ch quality due to cost.  I got an Integra DTC9.8 preamp that has hdmi.  all of my sources have hdmi including my computer.  I've only recently started wondering about hdmi vs. USB.  I'm about to look into it.  but I'm still unmotivated to buy a USB DAC because I like the sound from my Integra.

that fubar 2 sounds like it wasn't a huge investment, so for cost / convenience purposes you could sell it and get a nice surround unit with hdmi.  the others are right, topping out at 48khz is really showing its age.  even cheap stuff can handle 96 these days. 

as for "audiophile claims" a few companies offer a 15 - 30 day money back policy on their DACs.  possibly benchmark and shiit.  also, local dealers might also let you audition in your home.  all I'll say for fear of backlash is that they cost more than $30 for a reason. magazines review them for a reason.  stores sell them and people buy them for a reason.  do you really think that reason is entirely snake oil? decide for yourself with the almighty ABX.  I have no opinion. 

and remember, if you put a DAC in your system that outclasses everything else you might have trouble hearing a difference. 

as for "electrons are all the same.  they don't care."  if 2 things are different, then it's possible for them to sound different.  if it's possible for them to sound different then it's possible for one to sound better.  you claim to have heard it yourself.  can anyone else here say they've NEVER heard or measured a difference between 2 components?

USB versus HDMI: which is best for audio output to amp?

Reply #10 –
Quote from: galtthedestroyer on
as for "electrons are all the same.  they don't care."  if 2 things are different, then it's possible for them to sound different.  if it's possible for them to sound different then it's possible for one to sound better.  you claim to have heard it yourself.  can anyone else here say they've NEVER heard or measured a difference between 2 components?


Of course not.  No one's claiming that.  That's a ridiculous strawman, and your rhetoric throughout (and on other threads) suggests you most certainly *DO* have an opinion re: ABX.

Don't be afraid to just come out and say it.

As for the rest:
Lots of things are 'possible' -- much of science is expressed in terms of probabilities, including ABX results, that never *absolutely rule out* something's existence.  The key point is that all possibilities are not EQUALLY probable.  How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go to feel 'protected' from something that's very unlikely?

And I'm curious to know what the 'reason' is you referred to.
The reason a DAC costs more is because... it's likely to sound better? 
The reason 'magazines' review higher-priced DACs is because...they're likely to sound better? 
People buy expensive DACs because...they're likely to sound better?

Help me out here.

USB versus HDMI: which is best for audio output to amp?

Reply #11 –
Quote from: galtthedestroyer on
... all I'll say for fear of backlash is that they cost more than $30 for a reason. magazines review them for a reason.  stores sell them and people buy them for a reason...


The "reason" is to make money at the expense of misinformed people.


USB versus HDMI: which is best for audio output to amp?

Reply #12 –
Quote from: krabapple on
your rhetoric throughout (and on other threads) suggests you most certainly *DO* have an opinion re: ABX.

Don't be afraid to just come out and say it.

Isn't this a tired old tactic of the denialist.

USB versus HDMI: which is best for audio output to amp?

Reply #13 –
Mini jacks often have abysmal quality, and make for a noisy connection, so I avoid them for everything but computer desktop speakers.

USB versus HDMI: which is best for audio output to amp?

Reply #14 –
Quote from: MikeFord on
Mini jacks often have abysmal quality, and make for a noisy connection, so I avoid them for everything but computer desktop speakers.


I use a toslink mini-jack out from laptop to AVR in, and it's not 'noisy' at all.  It's streaming digital bits, not analog.

USB versus HDMI: which is best for audio output to amp?

Reply #15 –
Quote
topping out at 48khz is really showing its age. even cheap stuff can handle 96 these days.


What the fuck does topping out and showing his age have anything to do with sound quality? Especially when most source material around is still 16/44.1 and not 24/96 or whatever.
Do you really think that upsampling from 16/44.1produces superior sound quality?