The view on this forum seems to be that ethernet is preferred over USB, and - if I am reading things right - Vivaldi always beats Rossini? So is Vivaldi DAC over USB better than Rossini over ethernet?
I am planning on getting either Rossini DAC or Vivaldi DAC - both with Vivaldi clock, but I can’t stretch to Vivaldi Upsampler hence my question. I have listened to Rossini + Vivaldi clock (over ethernet) which is fantastic but can’t make the Vivaldi USB comparison right now.
I have an Innuos Statement which has a re-clocked USB interface (same as PhoenixUSB I understand) which I would use with the Vivaldi so should be a good source. What do people think is the best route?
I’ve had the Rossini DAC/clock and now the Vivaldi DAC/clock. Like you said, much better. I then had a fanless audio pc with USB to the vivaldi DAC. Since 2 weeks now an Auralic Aries G2.1 transport as source with Shunyata Omega USB cable and the Shunyata Alpha NR v2 power cables on all devices. Incredibly beautiful!! Mind you, this is my experience, and the cables make a very big difference. I also want to try the XLR output, but first enjoy it for a while.
My impression has always been that sound-quality-wise, USB is slightly better than RAAT (ie ethernet) for Rossini. I haven’t done that comparison in a long time so given RAAT clients and implementation has changed this might be different.
As for best route… For USB, the Innuos will better a computer. Over ethernet, I have never heard a different from any source. I have tried a mac mini, mac pro, and now a NUC10i7 with RoonROCK. To me they all sound the same over ethernet, and my take is using an Innuos server over ethernet is completely unnecessary.
Also I should clarify that my Rossini is connect to ethernet over optical using a 10GTek SPF/Ethernet bridge and another one on the main switch side.
A good rule of thumb in audio is following the K.I.S.S. principle, that is “keep it simple stupid”. That comes down to: the least number of links in the chain, the better, all other things being equal. That also makes it easier to identify when auditioning any changes, finding out which may be better - fewer elements that will influence the “roadway” for signals to travel. And there’s no absolute right or wrong approach.
USB has come a long way since it’s days of de facto usage in digital playback, principally from PC’s to DACs. So, unless a dealer or manufacturer has recommended one over the other, it becomes more a matter of your own unique system environment.
Each approach presents its own challenges. It would appear that using a well designed USB cable between player and DAC, all other things being equal, should trump a networked approach. The latter demands some form of routing/switching with more links in the chain, and associated interface points.
However you cut, it do we live in a world of growing streaming. Networking and its associated technology is therefore required. So, a source is needed to deal with that data stream. And then there’s the local library, which started its life on ripped CDs for playback on computer based “players” into DACs. Now we have some players that can handle both. Some pick one output approach, either network or USB. And, as I indicated before, the DAC may be capable of handling one or the other.
Since you use USB, I would recommend trying Innuos Phoenix USB re-clocker. Based on my experience, I can assure that it will improve the experience substantially. Yes, one more box but that is the uglier side of this hobby.
I used to have melco, innuos and roon nucleus connected to USB vs Ethernet connection/upnp to Rossini. For me, Ethernet wins hands down. More air, space floating…
Interesting. I have not done a thorough comparison in a long time, and my setup has changed (eg the optical ethernet connection). Unfortunately, it is now not possible for me to compare anymore as my Roon core is running on a NUC via ROCK in my office.