Does anyone have insight on using USB 2.0 vs USB 3.0 ports and cables to send data to a DAC?
Googling around I found this on the iFi webpage:
Why use a USB3.0 connector when the device operates on USB 2.0? | iFi audio (ifi-audio.com)
It makes some sense to me. But in my low(er) end setup I’m not hearing any difference running USB2.0 vs USB3.0. All of my DACs are USB2.0. When I connect to the USB3.0 ports on my laptop or RPi4 I don’t hear a difference relative to the USB2.0 ports. So if there is a difference, at least in my setup, it’s being washed out by other noise/limitations in the system.
Just curious if there’s a good theoretical reason to use one over the other.
Their response reads to me as to why they’re using USB 3.0 ports and cables because that gets them higher quality hardware from their suppliers, not that your USB 2.0 or 3.0 connectors on your devices are any better or lacking, which is why you’re not seeing any difference in quality from your device side, if that makes any sense.
1 Like
The theoretical is that USB 3.0 is a faster protocol and cables that meet the 3.0 standard have to be built to a higher quality. So generic USB 2.0 certified cable is not as shielded as a generic USB 3.0 certified cable.
For operation, I’d stick to 2.0. Slower means less noise but also way fast enough to support even DSD audio. The less noise is the reason you see most DACs even the ultra high end, use plain ol’ USB 2.0.
2 Likes
Thanks @Blackscreen, @db_Cooper. The way I would like to think / hope it works is by using a USB3.0 port and cable I would benefit from better supply/ground and better shielding. But because my DAC is USB2.0 it slows the 3.0 port down to 2.0 speeds, thereby reducing potential noise from the faster data link and “getting the best of both worlds”. optimism!
That said, my suspicion is other devices running on the same USB controller (and same supply/ground) will have more impact on noise than anything coming from the DAC data link itself.
Fair way to put it.
My usual line of thinking is that I save my USB 3.0 ports for storage connections and the like that need the USB 3.0 throughput or any other devices whose manufacturers require/recommend it. If the device works the same on USB 2.0 as 3.0 then it goes on a 2.0 port.
1 Like
not only faster, but more power too.
Honestly the biggest change you can make is to get off USB in the first place. This way there’s no USB to I2S translation that has to happen. But I wouldn’t worry much about the difference between 2.0 and 3.0 and most people serious about audio are already going to not be buying poor quality cables.
I know that’s not an option for all people since getting sound out of your PC is still best done via USB but on my desktop for critical listening I use a Pi2AES bridge via Roon, and for windows audio I use USB just switch the input selector each time I switch.
Yes, this is definitely the path I’m on. Especially in my main listening setup. My lower performance listening setups around the house will likely stay on USB, just because it’s more cost effective. But then it doesn’t matter again, because those DAC/Amp/Headphone/Speakers likely won’t be revealing enough to pickup the differences.
1 Like
USB 3.0 cables are usually better shielded than 2.0 cables.
With proper cable routing, this should not matter.
USB 3.0 to USB 3.0 connections can also deliver more power (4.5 W) compared to USB 2.0 (2.5 W).
Data rate wise, USB 2.0 is actually insanely fast (64 channels @ 24 bit 96 kHz is definitely possible).
Note: Avoid adapters where possible. Depending on the driver quality, a flaky USB connection can sometimes cause interesting computer problems.
1 Like
Thanks for all of the feedback on such an obscure question. This forum is great!
In summary, avoid USB audio, and if you do use it make sure the cable is of decent quality and routed cleanly between source and DAC. Other than that…
1 Like
I still use USB. The path was to get off USB in the manner suggested above but honestly, since I did the re-cable and got that USB re-clocker I have no issues with USB. With the gear I have now I don’t really see the need to move beyond this. If / when the equipment ante gets raised, this will be revisited.
But yeah, the evidence points to 2.0 being A-OK.
