Guide to PC Audio

Q. Who better to write a guide to PC Audio?

A. Someone who does not sell expensive DACs.

Challenge: Show me where they mention getting good analogue-out from your PC, despite mentioning two high-class sound cards.

Conclusion: It is as much an advertisment as a guide --- though it should be very useful to someone who has already decided to buy the company's products, which, I hasten to add, I have nothing against!


(Only flicked through it, so if this is a hasty conclusion and I have to eat my words, it won't be the first time!)


Constructive addition: try The Well-Tempered Computer
 
Sorry...
More CPU processing-power and more RAM make your music playback sound better.
No. they do not.
Whether the hard drive you store your music on is internal or external, the quality of that drive and how its connected to your computer impacts your computer-audio sound. Higher transfer speeds sound better, so faster-spinning hard drives sound better. A 7200-rpm drive offers better audio performance than a 5400-rpm drive.
Complete bollocks.
And, of course, the new cables matter. When using a USB or FireWire DAC, the USB and/or FireWire cables that connect the computer and DAC have a profound impact on the sound you hear
Ahh... You did mention that these guys make cables, I think!

I'm not saying it's all wrong... that is actually against probability, but when a glance shows stuff like the above, I'm not going to read on. But at least I got page two before parting company with this one :lol:

To be fair to dcs: I think they did call it the dcs guide... Which is exactly waht it is!
 
Totally agree. Probably they are trying to cultivate an audiofool culture in a society of otherwise smart computer engineers.

Most laughable was, faster hard drives sound better. Joke of the century. Even the slowest HDD in production today can supply data with much faster continuity than required by any audio application.
 
Look buddy, if you are smart, you can take the good stuff and junk the rest from this and other websites. For instance i found a line which says that wav is superior, for specific reasons to flac. i experimented, in in my simple system, it turned out to be true. The improvement was noticeable, however minor. In a very high grade system, perhaps not.
 
Not smart... just have worked with PCs for past couple of decades. Honestly, the crap is obvious. As a simple, techie-minded computer person, I will speak out against this nonsense when I encounter it.

Frankly, one doesn't even have to be a techie. Take a look at threads here, and other sources, on building PCs for playing music. One of the requirements tends to be that the PC is as physically silent as possible, and for these reasons, less-powerful CPUs and slower HDDs, both of which produce less heat and, hence, need less cooling, with less cooling meaning less (or even no) fans. A P4, or even a 486, can play sound: cpu power not at all needed. A CD drive can feed data fast enough to play music: how can anyone seriously suggest the speed of the hugely faster HDD can make a difference?

There is geeky stuff, like reading entire files into RAM before playing them. I do not believe that this can, technically, make a difference, but nor am I against people playing with and experimenting with the technology in this, and other, ways, or even working on stuff that can barely make theoretical changes, let alone audible ones --- especially if it is free or cheap. I'm less happy when the expensive DAC or cable becomes a don't-even-turn-it-on-without-this marketing success. As in a conversation with a friend yesterday: he uses Apple because he wants stuff to just work: I use Linux, because playing with the thing is, for me, all part of the deal.

What you say, though, about taking the good bits, is quite true. I'm always on the lookout for new information about sound and PCs, and am more active in PC threads here than most others. The problem is, how is the newcomer (at which something like this is aimed) to tell what bits are good, and what bits are not good. Don't the items that I marked sound good? They will be very believable to anyone who doesn't know they are just wrong. Plausible misinformation is the most dangerous kind.

ranjeetrain said:
Probably they are trying to cultivate an audiofool culture in a society of otherwise smart computer engineers.
I'm afraid that, as PCs and computer technology (eg NAS, wireless net, etc) become more and more accepted as audio sources and equipment, the audiofool culture will invade!
... faster hard drives sound better. Joke of the century.
There's worse: sata cables can affect the sound. Google and be horrified!

.
 
Last edited:
Look buddy, if you are smart, you can take the good stuff and junk the rest from this and other websites. For instance i found a line which says that wav is superior, for specific reasons to flac. i experimented, in in my simple system, it turned out to be true. The improvement was noticeable, however minor. In a very high grade system, perhaps not.

What Thad is saying is true that you don't need a fast processor, faster hard-disks etc to make an audio PC.

Stumbled upon this link while reading about the Altmann DIY Turntable:
The ALTMANN DIY 192 kHz AUDIO COMPUTER

Question: Altmann seems to say that SPDIF TOSLINK is a better digital output that SPDIF COAXIAL. Is it really true that TOSLINK is isolated from noise? By noise I am referring to the EMI\RFI etc being produced by the SMPS, electronics etc?
 
I'm an analogue-out man.

Toslink is electrically isolated, of course, which is a theoretical advantage. On the other hand, the transmission of light is subject to the quality of the material (which may vary from cheap plastic to expensive glass) and is also affected by bending the 'cable'. I think this is straightforward technical stuff, not cable marketing :eek:. Anyway, someone will soon correct if I am wrong!

My point of view is that the alleged effect of noise from PC components on a properly made sound card or external interface is hugely overstated anyway, which is why I have been happily using analogue out from my machines for the past several years.

Interesting Altman link, talking about things that do make technical sense (except a good sound card should not sound like crap!). I'd be nervous to change a PSU fan speed ... but I have a high-capacity PSU in a PC that draws only a little power, and it is, effectively silent. There are several threads on silent PCs. I've almost made a hobby out of changing fans and my CPU cooler is one of the most expensive bits in my box! :eek: The hottest thing inside my machine is one of aforementioned fast HDDs!

It's a general machine. If I had kept the CPU to <3Mhz rather than greater than, and used only relatively slow HDDs, I think it could have been silent. At least I get not much much than air noise, which is often below ambient noise (eg turn on one room fan, let alone one AC) levels anyway ... but one day soon I'll swap around all the fans again!
 
Toslink being better for noise seems stated in several places. But equally numerous references to coax being generally better than toslink. In my DAC (Accuphase DAC-30), USB and Toslink are at 24/96 but Coax is 24/192, which gives some indication of where the maker has placed the empahsis.

But to fix noise there could be several other ways, like shielded cables...better placement etc. VDH FAQ is a good place to get clues on this.
 
...

Question: Altmann seems to say that SPDIF TOSLINK is a better digital output that SPDIF COAXIAL. Is it really true that TOSLINK is isolated from noise? By noise I am referring to the EMI\RFI etc being produced by the SMPS, electronics etc?

Yes. Since TOSLINK is optical (and not electrical) it is not affected by EMI/RFI. But, from what I've read, data transferred over TOSLINK is more prone to jitter.
 
What Thad is saying is true that you don't need a fast processor, faster hard-disks etc to make an audio PC.

Stumbled upon this link while reading about the Altmann DIY Turntable:
The ALTMANN DIY 192 kHz AUDIO COMPUTER

Question: Altmann seems to say that SPDIF TOSLINK is a better digital output that SPDIF COAXIAL. Is it really true that TOSLINK is isolated from noise? By noise I am referring to the EMI\RFI etc being produced by the SMPS, electronics etc?

Not exacty true, If you are trying to make music from PC using some professional software like Fruity Loops, try running it on a less powerful PC with Less RAM, your processor utilization will go to full and also PC will hang. Everything works in sync, i dont want to debate that sound quality will be better than faster hardrive, but the time to buffer some high quality audio sure will take less time. If you try to run HD master audio with a normal PC single core, it will sink. And when processor runs in full power it consumes more power, so when you are trying to play something which is going to consume more memory, all of the components try to run as fast at its best and even if one fails it hinders the progress.
 
Not exacty true, If you are trying to make music from PC using some professional software like Fruity Loops, try running it on a less powerful PC with Less RAM, your processor utilization will go to full and also PC will hang. Everything works in sync, i dont want to debate that sound quality will be better than faster hardrive, but the time to buffer some high quality audio sure will take less time. If you try to run HD master audio with a normal PC single core, it will sink. And when processor runs in full power it consumes more power, so when you are trying to play something which is going to consume more memory, all of the components try to run as fast at its best and even if one fails it hinders the progress.

Mate, we are talking Audio PC as a music source here not for creating/mastering music. IMO a single core Atom/486 processor based PC is sufficient if playing music (source material being wave/hi-res FLAC) is the only purpose of the PC. An expensive power-hungry i5 processor with 8+ GB Memory and Solid State Hard-disk is an overkill for a PC just built to play music.

With HD Master Audio, we are now in HD Video territory. Even here what you need is a capable GPU as HD Audio is (mostly) passed through for decoding in the AVR/PreProcessor.
 
I agree with Santhosh as that is my experience. I am using a simple ATOM based pc with 2GB memory. CPU utilisation with any audio file - FLAC etc etc is less
than 10%. Foobar is my most widely used application.

My major use is audio though at times I use it for media also.Then the utilisation
goes up..never cared to measure how much with what media files as my application is purely audio...
 
Is it really true that TOSLINK is isolated from noise? By noise I am referring to the EMI\RFI etc being produced by the SMPS, electronics etc?

Out of curiosity, I decided to give it a go. I don't have specific measurements to support my claim, but Toslink did sound more useful to me. It does seem to transfer data in a more transparent manner. Toslink being an Optical connection is much less prone to (virtually free of) interference. Coax being an electrical connection is susceptible to all applicable kind of noises. In case of Coax, you may experience some improvement in a head-on comparison of a run-of-the-mill vs a sophisticated cable. Whereas in case of Toslink, even the cheapest ones transfer the data with absolute transparency.

Personally, I tried a few branded Coax and went back to a no brand Toslink. Very happy with the switch.
 
i found a line which says that wav is superior, for specific reasons to flac. i experimented, in in my simple system, it turned out to be true. The improvement was noticeable, however minor. In a very high grade system, perhaps not.

Are you using a slow system, that can't decode the data fast enough? Or are you using a player that does a poor FLAC decoding? What was the configuration of your test system, and what sound card and software player were you using? I don't see how it is possible to hear a difference between FLAC and WAV. I have used computer audio for 17 years now, and was never ever able to tell a difference between WAV and FLAC. I'd love to throw a blind test challenge to anyone willing to help demystify this, at an appropriate time. Who knows you may just end up helping me get a better understanding of computer audio, something that I have been missing for 17 years :eek:hyeah:
 
re the cables, I am stuck at the opposite end of a long room from the hifi. If I want PC music from it, these days, it has to go via the squeezebox. Otherwise, it is analogue out to the desktop monitors.

Back in London, with all the stuff much closer and carpets to hide cables under (not the ideal thing to do) I had a much more complex set up with digital and analogue i/o to/from various devices and including a switchbox for different tape loops for cassette and mini-disk equipment. My primary PC playback, to the amplifier, was analogue out, but all the permutations got used. The only trouble I ever had with toslink was when it got a nasty bend from a piece of equipment being pushed back against the wall. I thought the 'fibre' was probably broken, but it worked afterwards. I didn't know then, that bends of less than a certain radius affect the signal itself.

Those cables ran across a doorway, under the carpet, so yes, they would have been trodden on regularly! It is a testament to how tough the toslink actually is, although, being very thin, it might have been less prone to physical damage in that situation than the audio cables. Anyway, all four cables survived well!

If we hear differences in the same equipment connected with different cables, we must remember that there is some circuitry inside the boxes specific to that protocol, so it not just the cables themselves that we must consider.
 
from what I've read, data transferred over TOSLINK is more prone to jitter.

My experience is opposite. My Denon AVC-A1SR detects the signal at 192 Khz from the cheapest Toslink I throw at it and applies AL-24 processing. With Coaxes that I used in past, including some branded ones that were about 5-15 times the Toslink I am using now, it never did. I haven't spent enough hours doing an A/B for Toslink/Coax. So I wouldn't like to claim it as a conclusive observation without subjecting myself to a blind test, but Toslink does seem to do better for me.
 
Last edited:
I've been a Foobar user for ages. I've tried them all from Winamp to cPlay. To my ears Foobar via WASAPI sounds the best. I also like the sound of XMPlay and use it a fair bit.

MusicBee is probably the best library manager... very easy to sort and tag all my FLACs with it.
 
The Marantz PM7000N offers big, spacious and insightful sound, class-leading clarity and a solid streaming platform in a award winning package.
Back
Top