:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: ROFL ROFL, now where have you been hiding all this while? we demand that you post in every other thread, as frequently as time permits as guru dakshina :lol:
Are CD Player still relevant?
- Thread starter fx20
- Start date
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: ROFL ROFL, now where have you been hiding all this while? we demand that you post in every other thread, as frequently as time permits as guru dakshina :lol:
Hi ranjeetrain, I am sorry i misunderstood you. I take it back
Problem is i have seldom played at entry or mid level. At the highest level i would still prefer a transport + dac to computer audio. At mid level i would go with computer audio. But that's just me.
As i had mentioned earlier in this thread, cdp is not relevant, going ahead. To me relevance is something that should be supported by numbers. If digital downloads is soon going to have over 80% share, how can any other format be relevant.
In fact i am planning to get into computer audio soon.
Problem is i have seldom played at entry or mid level. At the highest level i would still prefer a transport + dac to computer audio. At mid level i would go with computer audio. But that's just me.
As i had mentioned earlier in this thread, cdp is not relevant, going ahead. To me relevance is something that should be supported by numbers. If digital downloads is soon going to have over 80% share, how can any other format be relevant.
In fact i am planning to get into computer audio soon.
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
We have had some great arguments on this forum, and, being a bit hot-headed, I have been happy to throw myself into a few of them, on subjects that I find very heating indeed. I can get very heated about certain aspects of digital audio... but should people who want to listen to a CD player have PCs rammed down their throats? No. Does anyone want to? No.
So what's going on here? Some of the posts seem to suggest that those of us who are keen on PC listening are trying to pull the CD players out of the hands of of their listeners. Why?
So what's going on here? Some of the posts seem to suggest that those of us who are keen on PC listening are trying to pull the CD players out of the hands of of their listeners
. Why?
humblebee
Active Member
I saw some nice arguments about the simplicity of use of a CD Player.
Remembered the simplicity of use of my cassette player in the days gone bye forever.
To those who don't want to read much I just have this to say - You don't have to have a list of songs on the computer. Agreeably thats horrible as you have stated.
Modern playback software offer music library management and there is what you will get - View songs by Album, Artist or Genre.
So simplicity-oriented people can just rip their CD and on their software when they choose to view by Album, they will see only the songs of their selected CD. Just push play and let it play all songs.
Now for something more -
Having been in the computer industry for some time, I have tried to tackle this exact thing. Here's whatever little I have:
a) The experience of actually operating the device is known as User Interface Experience.
Some design principles (that Apple follows well) make it intuitive and easy to use.
The goal is that "the device should not interfere with one's experience" rather "facilitate or bow away".
But in audio systems I see that this would not be enough.
Consider the feature of playlist. Now this is also pointed out by some people to be very useful and it is.
Thus the software needs to have both simple and extra usability features.
iTunes has both in my opinion (Plus the whole iTunes Store feature). Maybe some other software too has it. Take your time to explore it. You may find a view in it that suits you.
Plus it also allows WASAPI.
b) Along with User Experience there is another thing - the computer with its clicking and desktop and all those things are disliked by some. In a way those things interfere as well. They can seem complicated to some people. Plus, even after many customizations, it might feel like - "Its a computer after all" not "my audio device". This is a point that some people might be sensitive to.
Take heart.
There are a few things that I have tried that are listed in this post -
http://www.hifivision.com/home-thea...learnt-about-building-htpcs-2.html#post612774
Along with the above point, there is the point of "Screen". CD Players with their small screens may not give enough info or options and you have to enter menus or click many buttons on the remote. Now that itself is a good point for some. But for those who want to see the album art as well, there are players like olive doing exactly this thing + the functionality of PC storage.
The PC with its screen (you can have ANY size here - even the small 15" screen) has this feature already and if a way can be found where the Screen "doesn't interfere with the experience" then all the more good. (Don't forget the simple screen saver !!)
This too I have tried to tackle in the above listed attempt.
I will be unable to take it any more forward and I offer it here in the hope that you may find it useful. Hopefully it will be taken as a starting point.
For anyone willing :
1) List the problems you want to solve or features you want to have like the ones listed above "Not in technical terms but the Human Issues".
2) Think a bit about the broad points from above in Design terms regarding how the interface will function
3) Then, search for software that will help you do that.
4) If not 3, try to find someone who has tried it.
Its what the PC is all about. An Open System to cobble together what you want.
These days almost all of them modify the PC to 'be their goal system first'
Then they manufacture their products.
And also, don't think in front of the screen until you reach step 3.
My Mentor/Philosopher Architect used to say -
"Even monkeys can type when given a keyboard. Get your pen and paper and do your thinking first !!!"
Regards
Remembered the simplicity of use of my cassette player in the days gone bye forever.
To those who don't want to read much I just have this to say - You don't have to have a list of songs on the computer. Agreeably thats horrible as you have stated.
Modern playback software offer music library management and there is what you will get - View songs by Album, Artist or Genre.
So simplicity-oriented people can just rip their CD and on their software when they choose to view by Album, they will see only the songs of their selected CD. Just push play and let it play all songs.
Now for something more -
Having been in the computer industry for some time, I have tried to tackle this exact thing. Here's whatever little I have:
a) The experience of actually operating the device is known as User Interface Experience.
Some design principles (that Apple follows well) make it intuitive and easy to use.
The goal is that "the device should not interfere with one's experience" rather "facilitate or bow away".
But in audio systems I see that this would not be enough.
Consider the feature of playlist. Now this is also pointed out by some people to be very useful and it is.
Thus the software needs to have both simple and extra usability features.
iTunes has both in my opinion (Plus the whole iTunes Store feature). Maybe some other software too has it. Take your time to explore it. You may find a view in it that suits you.
Plus it also allows WASAPI.
b) Along with User Experience there is another thing - the computer with its clicking and desktop and all those things are disliked by some. In a way those things interfere as well. They can seem complicated to some people. Plus, even after many customizations, it might feel like - "Its a computer after all" not "my audio device". This is a point that some people might be sensitive to.
Take heart.
There are a few things that I have tried that are listed in this post -
http://www.hifivision.com/home-thea...learnt-about-building-htpcs-2.html#post612774
Along with the above point, there is the point of "Screen". CD Players with their small screens may not give enough info or options and you have to enter menus or click many buttons on the remote. Now that itself is a good point for some. But for those who want to see the album art as well, there are players like olive doing exactly this thing + the functionality of PC storage.
The PC with its screen (you can have ANY size here - even the small 15" screen) has this feature already and if a way can be found where the Screen "doesn't interfere with the experience" then all the more good. (Don't forget the simple screen saver !!)
This too I have tried to tackle in the above listed attempt.
I will be unable to take it any more forward and I offer it here in the hope that you may find it useful. Hopefully it will be taken as a starting point.
For anyone willing :
1) List the problems you want to solve or features you want to have like the ones listed above "Not in technical terms but the Human Issues".
2) Think a bit about the broad points from above in Design terms regarding how the interface will function
3) Then, search for software that will help you do that.
4) If not 3, try to find someone who has tried it.
Its what the PC is all about. An Open System to cobble together what you want.
These days almost all of them modify the PC to 'be their goal system first'
Then they manufacture their products.
And also, don't think in front of the screen until you reach step 3.
My Mentor/Philosopher Architect used to say -
"Even monkeys can type when given a keyboard. Get your pen and paper and do your thinking first !!!"
Regards
Last edited:
ranjeetrain
New Member
Hi Prem, when so many people are posting in a thread some confusion is understandable. So no apology required
Also, in my view, entry-level, mid-level etc are very relative term. These terms set a very loose reference for a discussion. For a meaningful dialog a correct point of reference is absolutely required.
As of now, in all systems I have heard including my own, I have seen a computer transport easily equaling transports in the range of USD 5000 range. Since I have not had a chance to compare a computer transport at higher price points I will reserve my comment. But I have a feeling even a absolutely high-end transport can be beaten with a purpose built computer transport. What one needs to know is what are the problems to eliminate.
Also, in my view, entry-level, mid-level etc are very relative term. These terms set a very loose reference for a discussion. For a meaningful dialog a correct point of reference is absolutely required.
As of now, in all systems I have heard including my own, I have seen a computer transport easily equaling transports in the range of USD 5000 range. Since I have not had a chance to compare a computer transport at higher price points I will reserve my comment. But I have a feeling even a absolutely high-end transport can be beaten with a purpose built computer transport. What one needs to know is what are the problems to eliminate.
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
notwithstanding options already mentioned, the cost of the computer-as-transport is probably not very relevant to its performance. Is this what upsets some people? There is still the option of spending $$$-thousands on the DAC.
ranjeetrain
New Member
Ummm I'll say that a bit differently
Since a typical computer transport is cheap to build, it doesn't ring a serious bell in an audiophile-mind. But it isn't like all computer transports are cheap. You can hit the ceiling at USD 3000+ if you start acting finicky in a typical audiophile way. However, you are part right; the cost of transport is not directly related to it's performance. Though it does increase as you strive to boost the performance of it's building blocks.
The best part about computer transport is that the point of diminishing return sets in very very early (I think this is the point, or something like it, you were trying to make), especially by the audiophile standards. For example, it may not be easy to tell the difference between a USD 2k computer transport and USD 4k computer transport. But even a tone deaf person should be able to tell the difference between a USD 2k and a USD 4k traditional CD transport.
Agree to that.
Computer technology is improving at a mind-warp pace. Audio equipment industry is comparatively much much smaller. The time and money invested by Audio equipment industry on R&D is proportionally smaller too. Companies like Intel, AMD, nVidia have invested so heavily in R&D that the budget of one of these companies alone might be more than the total budget of all Audio Equipment manufacturers.
This planet might have collapsed if computing didn't occur to it in right time and in right measure. Had it not been for these rapid advances in computing technology, we might still be dealing with lots of hassles in our daily lives, things that we take for granted today. While rest of human societies have jumped at computing technologies and availed all the opportunities of improving life through technology, audiophile society doesn't want to move on.
If someone tried computer audio 10-20 years ago and thought it was passable, they need to revisit it. They need to be open to fact that the advances in the computing technology may have become able to deliver the goods to audiophile community. Unfortunately, the moment you mention computers you start getting reactions. Emotional outbreaks, poetic dramas, and even taunts. In some cases, even mentioning digital can cause nausea. Not a great atmosphere for discussing your interest. Fortunately, the number of converts is increasing daily. And very very few people can deny the pleasure of computer audio once they have tasted it.
Thanks comrades, for the motivation. I hope I'll be able to pick up from where I left sometime soon.
Ambio,
I'd be happy to discuss this with you, but in this thread we're already talking about too many things. So let's keep it for another time.
Since a typical computer transport is cheap to build, it doesn't ring a serious bell in an audiophile-mind. But it isn't like all computer transports are cheap. You can hit the ceiling at USD 3000+ if you start acting finicky in a typical audiophile way. However, you are part right; the cost of transport is not directly related to it's performance. Though it does increase as you strive to boost the performance of it's building blocks.
The best part about computer transport is that the point of diminishing return sets in very very early (I think this is the point, or something like it, you were trying to make), especially by the audiophile standards. For example, it may not be easy to tell the difference between a USD 2k computer transport and USD 4k computer transport. But even a tone deaf person should be able to tell the difference between a USD 2k and a USD 4k traditional CD transport.
Agree to that.
Computer technology is improving at a mind-warp pace. Audio equipment industry is comparatively much much smaller. The time and money invested by Audio equipment industry on R&D is proportionally smaller too. Companies like Intel, AMD, nVidia have invested so heavily in R&D that the budget of one of these companies alone might be more than the total budget of all Audio Equipment manufacturers.
This planet might have collapsed if computing didn't occur to it in right time and in right measure. Had it not been for these rapid advances in computing technology, we might still be dealing with lots of hassles in our daily lives, things that we take for granted today. While rest of human societies have jumped at computing technologies and availed all the opportunities of improving life through technology, audiophile society doesn't want to move on.
If someone tried computer audio 10-20 years ago and thought it was passable, they need to revisit it. They need to be open to fact that the advances in the computing technology may have become able to deliver the goods to audiophile community. Unfortunately, the moment you mention computers you start getting reactions. Emotional outbreaks, poetic dramas, and even taunts. In some cases, even mentioning digital can cause nausea. Not a great atmosphere for discussing your interest. Fortunately, the number of converts is increasing daily. And very very few people can deny the pleasure of computer audio once they have tasted it.
Thanks comrades, for the motivation. I hope I'll be able to pick up from where I left sometime soon.
Ambio,
I'd be happy to discuss this with you, but in this thread we're already talking about too many things. So let's keep it for another time.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure. Looking forward to.
humblebee
Active Member
The environmentalists and advocates of sustainable simple living might disagree.
Rather, the part of human society that is inefficient might have collapsed.
And the human society is not the whole planet.
Still, this collapse might only have been delayed a bit by computers so that the inefficient part of society might get its act together.
Last edited:
M
mpw
Guest
i was reading an article on another forum ( the audiophile.net ) which had an article which said that the author downloaded 7 songs ( same song same band ) from different sites including a "hi-res" version and he found that for that particular track the mp3 version sounded more dynamically open than the so called - hi res.
funny isnt it ??
there is no for and against computer audio but this article brings our the fools world we live in if we think all computer audio sounds the same or sounds good and that computer audio would take you to the way the artist intended his record to be heard.
what complicates things for computer audio is the presence of too many standards and too many "experts" who dis-agree with the present standard and try to set their own standard :lol:
here is the link..
Computer Audiophile - And The Winner Is ?
i quote partially " These results are troubling for many computer audiophiles and frustrating for anyone trying to get the best sounding version of this album without purchasing a physical copy of the vinyl.... "
it is food for thought...
given a standardized version available it would be easy for anyone to get into computer audio but unfortunately it is not ( IMO )
Is CD playback - the option - i do not entirely agree but i find the CDP more convenient ( just buy CD ) and thats why i use it.
audiofoolia here ??
thats fine by me.... as long as i enjoy my music.
regards
mpw
funny isnt it ??
there is no for and against computer audio but this article brings our the fools world we live in if we think all computer audio sounds the same or sounds good and that computer audio would take you to the way the artist intended his record to be heard.
what complicates things for computer audio is the presence of too many standards and too many "experts" who dis-agree with the present standard and try to set their own standard :lol:
here is the link..
Computer Audiophile - And The Winner Is ?
i quote partially " These results are troubling for many computer audiophiles and frustrating for anyone trying to get the best sounding version of this album without purchasing a physical copy of the vinyl.... "
it is food for thought...
given a standardized version available it would be easy for anyone to get into computer audio but unfortunately it is not ( IMO )
Is CD playback - the option - i do not entirely agree but i find the CDP more convenient ( just buy CD ) and thats why i use it.
audiofoolia here ??
thats fine by me.... as long as i enjoy my music.
regards
mpw
dheerajin
Well-Known Member
Thanks coaltrain,
Interesting read...looking forward the same kind of enjoyment in my home through pathos...
koushik
Well-Known Member
Ahh ok so that is the case!Oh my..
Are we discussing all CDPs and DAC sound the same?
Call it EQing or adding pleasing harmonics or unnatural coloration or whatever but they ALL sound different.
In fact I have seen any two different DACs that sound the same.
@Ambio: Lot of our assumptions are based on our own setup. You seem to have a harbeth. I have read in many places that harbeths don't show much difference between components. In fact the creator challenges that any half decent CDP and amp is enough to make the harbeths sound the way they should. Now, this may be the reason for a lot of your assumptions. You are in for a surprise when you change (for example to a thiel which lays bare everything your components have and don't have).
Believe me, from the day 1 when Ambio joined this forum, seeing his all good equipments list and at the same time he is non-believer of cable, Amp, CDP etc I thought something is wrong because his system is supposed to be revealing enough to find these differences.
I was unaware of the Herbeth case. So this clears pretty much everything.
dheerajin
Well-Known Member
Enjoy the Music.com Review Magazine
Myths And Misconceptions About CD Players And DACs
Article By Liudas Motekaitis
In the 1980's, people spoke of experiencing "no air" and "aggression" while listening to digital recordings. Today we understand the principles which are fundamental to this phenomenon, we name it Jitter, we test it, calculate it and dress it with numbers, systemize it and describe it entirely. Jitter has always been and still is the worst enemy of the digital audio format. And today it is understood.
Fact: Digital audio data is 'just' 0's and 1's. There may be many formats (.wav, .aif, CD-audio) but the information is still digital. There is no loss during format conversion, provided the formats don't utilize compression.
Fact: Copying CD's (if they aren't damaged physically) is a lossless procedure. You can extract CD-audio with your computer and generate a file on your hard disk. Compare this file with the file created when you extract the same audio using a $30,000 player, the resulting two files are identical.
The question which naturally arises out of this paradox is: why does the $30,000 player sound better?
Before we answer that question, let us first understand that at the Digital Out of a $100 CD-player we have the same 1's and 0's as we do in the $30,000 player. The only difference is in the Jitter content. Jitter only means that the data (the 1's and the 0's) is not perfectly time-aligned, but is transmitted either slightly earlier or later than it should be in the ideal case. However, this time flaw is not as great as to cause a digital error (data fallout).
Now if you know that, then you must ask: so why does one CD-transport cost much more than another? Ah, Jitter. The cheap ones shake and the expensive ones don't.
Well, that's true. The entire audio business of CD transports and DACs is built on the totally backward setup of the CD player containing the Master Clock and the DAC being the Slave. This results in the entire palette of innovations to lessen Jitter, starting from air drives to expensive digital cable technologies with complex math to reduce line-induced Jitter, to very carefully filtered power supplies, to all sorts of very necessary things when you want to achieve the least possible Jitter. So we have the worst possible digital scenario bringing in the most possible amount of money, because it is extremely difficult to annihilate Jitter when the CD player is the Master Clock. If you're looking for quality, this is stupid, to say the least!
The whole setup should be different. As is the standard case in any pro-audio studio, it is always the playing device, the DAC, which is the Master Clock. The clock is located right next to the converter chips. That way, no line induced Jitter can appear. This clock signal is then taken from the DAC device and is used as the clock input of the signal source device, say the computer, the DAT player, or the CD player. Yes, in that setup, the CD player is receiving a more jittered clock than the DAC is, but that doesn't matter, because the DAC is doing the audio playing. When the Jittered audio signal arrives at the DAC, it is quantized into place temporally and is then played, in perfect synch with the clock oscillator, which is right next to it.
But oh! In that case, you can use a $100 CD-player with a very poor power supply, a digital cable made from your average household extension cord, and still get a better sound than you'd be getting if you spent $30,000 on the best transport and digital cable! Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is the naked, uncensored, plain truth about CD players and DACs. Their Master/Slave relationship is BACKWARDS and their prices therefore HIGH.
If you don't believe this, then all you need to do is record digitally your favorite tune from a $100 CD player into your computer (provided you have a soundcard and software that doesn't add yet more lies into the equation, which is often the case, so beware!) Then borrow the most expensive CD transport you can get your hands on and repeat the experiment. The resulting sound files aren't just similar, they are identical!
But the $30,000 player sounds better! How do you get them to sound the same? You only need to slave the transports to a DAC in Digital Master Mode. That's it. Identical sound, guaranteed. The least possible Jitter. The least loss.
Myths And Misconceptions About CD Players And DACs
Article By Liudas Motekaitis
In the 1980's, people spoke of experiencing "no air" and "aggression" while listening to digital recordings. Today we understand the principles which are fundamental to this phenomenon, we name it Jitter, we test it, calculate it and dress it with numbers, systemize it and describe it entirely. Jitter has always been and still is the worst enemy of the digital audio format. And today it is understood.
Fact: Digital audio data is 'just' 0's and 1's. There may be many formats (.wav, .aif, CD-audio) but the information is still digital. There is no loss during format conversion, provided the formats don't utilize compression.
Fact: Copying CD's (if they aren't damaged physically) is a lossless procedure. You can extract CD-audio with your computer and generate a file on your hard disk. Compare this file with the file created when you extract the same audio using a $30,000 player, the resulting two files are identical.
The question which naturally arises out of this paradox is: why does the $30,000 player sound better?
Before we answer that question, let us first understand that at the Digital Out of a $100 CD-player we have the same 1's and 0's as we do in the $30,000 player. The only difference is in the Jitter content. Jitter only means that the data (the 1's and the 0's) is not perfectly time-aligned, but is transmitted either slightly earlier or later than it should be in the ideal case. However, this time flaw is not as great as to cause a digital error (data fallout).
Now if you know that, then you must ask: so why does one CD-transport cost much more than another? Ah, Jitter. The cheap ones shake and the expensive ones don't.
Well, that's true. The entire audio business of CD transports and DACs is built on the totally backward setup of the CD player containing the Master Clock and the DAC being the Slave. This results in the entire palette of innovations to lessen Jitter, starting from air drives to expensive digital cable technologies with complex math to reduce line-induced Jitter, to very carefully filtered power supplies, to all sorts of very necessary things when you want to achieve the least possible Jitter. So we have the worst possible digital scenario bringing in the most possible amount of money, because it is extremely difficult to annihilate Jitter when the CD player is the Master Clock. If you're looking for quality, this is stupid, to say the least!
The whole setup should be different. As is the standard case in any pro-audio studio, it is always the playing device, the DAC, which is the Master Clock. The clock is located right next to the converter chips. That way, no line induced Jitter can appear. This clock signal is then taken from the DAC device and is used as the clock input of the signal source device, say the computer, the DAT player, or the CD player. Yes, in that setup, the CD player is receiving a more jittered clock than the DAC is, but that doesn't matter, because the DAC is doing the audio playing. When the Jittered audio signal arrives at the DAC, it is quantized into place temporally and is then played, in perfect synch with the clock oscillator, which is right next to it.
But oh! In that case, you can use a $100 CD-player with a very poor power supply, a digital cable made from your average household extension cord, and still get a better sound than you'd be getting if you spent $30,000 on the best transport and digital cable! Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is the naked, uncensored, plain truth about CD players and DACs. Their Master/Slave relationship is BACKWARDS and their prices therefore HIGH.
If you don't believe this, then all you need to do is record digitally your favorite tune from a $100 CD player into your computer (provided you have a soundcard and software that doesn't add yet more lies into the equation, which is often the case, so beware!) Then borrow the most expensive CD transport you can get your hands on and repeat the experiment. The resulting sound files aren't just similar, they are identical!
But the $30,000 player sounds better! How do you get them to sound the same? You only need to slave the transports to a DAC in Digital Master Mode. That's it. Identical sound, guaranteed. The least possible Jitter. The least loss.
This is the case of bad mastering and being used against computer audio as a whole. Let's say I get a badly mastered CD. Can I draw a conclusion based on that all the CD players are bad? We can't use bad music data to begin with and call a system is bad. Garbage in/garbage out.
I don't use computer audio, I use a disc player and media player but still think the above example is a bad idea to draw a conclusion.
As per the article, the master clock resides in the cd player and the slave clock in DAC. Master clock being more important, hence justifies expensive cd players.
However i had read somewhere that the DAC can also act as the master clock and request data from cd player at its convenience. In such cases it is always better and justifies the expensive DAC.
If that is true, then in which cases would that happen? Would it happen in case apple tv / airport express is connected to schiit bifrost?
However i had read somewhere that the DAC can also act as the master clock and request data from cd player at its convenience. In such cases it is always better and justifies the expensive DAC.
If that is true, then in which cases would that happen? Would it happen in case apple tv / airport express is connected to schiit bifrost?
dheerajin
Well-Known Member
Please read the below section carefully, I think you missed it.
Please compare different inputs given to DAC in the net..you will forget apple IMO..
Well, that's true. The entire audio business of CD transports and DACs is built on the totally backward setup of the CD player containing the Master Clock and the DAC being the Slave. This results in the entire palette of innovations to lessen Jitter, starting from air drives to expensive digital cable technologies with complex math to reduce line-induced Jitter, to very carefully filtered power supplies, to all sorts of very necessary things when you want to achieve the least possible Jitter. So we have the worst possible digital scenario bringing in the most possible amount of money, because it is extremely difficult to annihilate Jitter when the CD player is the Master Clock. If you're looking for quality, this is stupid, to say the least!
The whole setup should be different. As is the standard case in any pro-audio studio, it is always the playing device, the DAC, which is the Master Clock. The clock is located right next to the converter chips. That way, no line induced Jitter can appear. This clock signal is then taken from the DAC device and is used as the clock input of the signal source device, say the computer, the DAT player, or the CD player. Yes, in that setup, the CD player is receiving a more jittered clock than the DAC is, but that doesn't matter, because the DAC is doing the audio playing. When the Jittered audio signal arrives at the DAC, it is quantized into place temporally and is then played, in perfect synch with the clock oscillator, which is right next to it.
But oh! In that case, you can use a $100 CD-player with a very poor power supply, a digital cable made from your average household extension cord, and still get a better sound than you'd be getting if you spent $30,000 on the best transport and digital cable! Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is the naked, uncensored, plain truth about CD players and DACs. Their Master/Slave relationship is BACKWARDS and their prices therefore HIGH.
For more clarity read about my DAC here..
So, whats all this about Adapticlock? Well, you probably know about jitter. And you probably know one of the best ways to kill it is with high-precision, voltage-controlled crystal oscillator (VCXO) reclocking. Now, thats all well and good, but what happens when you have a source that wont allow the VCXOs to lock? You know, like a satellite receiver or some computers? In other cases, youre toast. The VCXOs unlock, and jitter flows right through the system.
In Gungnir, if the VCXOs wont lock, it shifts the entire reclocking network to VCOs. This allows us to lock to virtually any input, and still provide a low-jitter regenerated master clock. The result is higher-quality clocks, despite the source
Ok, sorry i am still not clear, just trying to understand as this is new to me and even though spdif may mean digital, it is not purely digital in the strictest sense it seems.
Does it all mean that the master clock will still be in the cdp/transport in case of spdif? Or otherway round is also possible?
If we compare spdif to usb asynchronous, it seems in the case of usb asynchronous the external dac is the full master in terms of clocking and jitter and hence usb asynchronous is preferred over spdif optical or coaxial. Hence the confusion.
Does it all mean that the master clock will still be in the cdp/transport in case of spdif? Or otherway round is also possible?
If we compare spdif to usb asynchronous, it seems in the case of usb asynchronous the external dac is the full master in terms of clocking and jitter and hence usb asynchronous is preferred over spdif optical or coaxial. Hence the confusion.
reubensm
Well-Known Member
Cd players are disappearing by the day, but there's still fun playing those cds and listening to them. I still enjoy listening to CDs on my CD63SE
M
mpw
Guest
Manoj
OTOH I think its a good example to see that nothing is gospel even with purported hi Res downloads.
Also that you and I look at things differently and both inferences can be correct.
I think that's beautiful.
Regards
Mpw
Join WhatsApp group to get HiFiMART.com Offers & Deals delivered to your smartphone!
Similar threads
