[wdmaudiodev] Re: USB Audio Class 2.0
- From: Matthew van Eerde <Matthew.van.Eerde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "wdmaudiodev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <wdmaudiodev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 22:45:33 +0000
Specific reasons to invest in USB Audio 2.0:
* Higher bit rate enables more formats
* Dynamic jack presence detection
* Anything else?
-----Original Message-----
From: wdmaudiodev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:wdmaudiodev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Børge Strand-Bergesen
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 2:38 PM
To: wdmaudiodev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [wdmaudiodev] Re: USB Audio Class 2.0
Thank you Phil.
The market demands Hi-Res, science of not.
Microsoft will sell more OS licenses with UAC2 support. Apple will
sell less Macs with Windows UAC2 support. Enough to justify the
investment? I think yes. Enough to get a measurable peak on the first
quarterly report? Probably not.
Børge
P.S. I'm sorry for going OT with the mention of megapixels and MHz.
I'm just trying to see the world of electroncis through the eyes of
the people browsing the shelves at Best Buy. Having a number to
compare will tip their scale. Lots of users will ignore the not easily
quantifiable quality of the optics if the other camera has more
pixels. Currently, UAC2 DACs don't play out of the box, and they sell
to customers who care about the quality of the optics. Make them play
out of the box and they will sell to the much larger crowd which
doesn't.
P.P.S Don't forget the placebo effect. This DAC has more X than that
other one, so it _must_ sound better. No UAC2, no cake!
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Philip Gruebele <pgruebele@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Three points worth making:
>
> 1. Whether or not it is technically necessary to support higher sample rates
> is not relevant. What is relevant is whether the market demands it, and it
> undeniably does. Otherwise why would so many companies - hardware
> manufacturers and download services - invest so many resources to make it
> happen?
>
> 2. Using Nyquist and human hearing to make a case for not supporting higher
> sample rates is looking at the issue too narrowly. The reason higher sample
> rates can be better are complex and include things like simplifying DAC
> design and out-of-band filtering. Also some protocols like DSD64 over DoP
> require 176.4Khz and DSD128 requires double that just to get the data
> across. UA2.0 also supports certain use cases which are not possible with
> UA1.0. The minimum sample rate that should be supported is at least 384Khz
> and UA2.0 has handled all these cases for many years.
>
> 3. The lack of USB Audio 2.0 support causes a headache for consumers because
> they have to deal with low quality, poorly test, third party drivers. These
> drivers are not going away because of point (1). There are a LOT of high-end
> audio enthusiasts who voted against Windows by using Apple products because
> they provide a better end-user experience.
>
> -phil
>
> Tim Roberts wrote:
>>
>> Børge Strand-Bergesen wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm sorry Tim, but this is like saying Canon & Co. should have stopped
>>> adding megapixels once their cameras got 4 or so of them.
>>
>> No, this is not a valid comparison. Our eyes can tell the difference
>>
>> between 300dpi and 600dpi, and a 4MP camera can only do about 200dpi
>> when printed at 8.5x11. Those extra pixels ARE being put to use.
>>
>> The same is simply not true of audio. You don't "zoom in" on an audio
>> track. The concept doesn't make sense. The best human ears are
>> physically unable to sense frequencies above about 20kHz. Per Nyquist,
>> anything above twice that frequency serves no purpose at all. They
>> CANNOT, physically, alter what we sense in the sound.
>>
>> It reminds me of the "Dominator DMX 10" scene from Ruthless People:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNzr6lfiHJE
>> (Caution: language)
>>
>>
>>> kHz is a simple number. Comparing the kHz of your audio system will be
>>> done in the consumer crowds just like they compared the MHz of their
>>> CPUs and the megapixels of their cameras. The more you have of that
>>> simple metric, the better they will feel.
>>
>> That's voodoo, not engineering. Those MHz and megapixels are being
>>
>> used. Those extra kHz are utterly pointless. Unlike the other two, we
>> have reached a physical limit.
>>
>
> ******************
>
> WDMAUDIODEV addresses:
> Post message: mailto:wdmaudiodev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subscribe: mailto:wdmaudiodev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=subscribe
> Unsubscribe: mailto:wdmaudiodev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
> Moderator: mailto:wdmaudiodev-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> URL to WDMAUDIODEV page:
> http://www.wdmaudiodev.com/
>
******************
WDMAUDIODEV addresses:
Post message: mailto:wdmaudiodev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe: mailto:wdmaudiodev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=subscribe
Unsubscribe: mailto:wdmaudiodev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
Moderator: mailto:wdmaudiodev-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
URL to WDMAUDIODEV page:
http://www.wdmaudiodev.com/
******************
WDMAUDIODEV addresses:
Post message: mailto:wdmaudiodev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe: mailto:wdmaudiodev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=subscribe
Unsubscribe: mailto:wdmaudiodev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
Moderator: mailto:wdmaudiodev-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
URL to WDMAUDIODEV page:
http://www.wdmaudiodev.com/
Other related posts:
