On transports

[jls001]

Totally agree! Most sound cards leave a lot to be desired when compared to exotic audiophile gear. But then, come a few notches down and they give mid-level audio gear a good run for their money.

I agree with what you said about computers being the way forward. What I find a wee bit disagreeable was: "But then, it's not suitable for people who are not satisfied with cheap solution." I know and have met and interacted with many serious enthusiasts who are as frugal as any of us rank and file enthusiasts when it comes getting the best bang for their hard earned buck .

BTW, a properly optimised computer audio setup can also cost quite a bit, but far less than what one would have to spend on a fine dedicated transport (the external DAC being equal).

 

[2chFreak]

PC playback has more immediacy than using a top quality disc spinner

However all said - lacks the emotional aspects that the disc spinner imparts

the PC is more bland with gobs & gobs of info

which is fine for the mastering / balance engineer in the studio

But for an audiophile seeking bliss & wanting to be emotionally touched, he demands more

 

[jls001]

PC playback has more immediacy than using a top quality disc spinner

However all said - lacks the emotional aspects that the disc spinner imparts

the PC is more bland with gobs & gobs of info

which is fine for the mastering / balance engineer in the studio

But for an audiophile seeking bliss & wanting to be emotionally touched, he demands more

At least in my setup, using PC with sound card as transport, AES/EBU digital output from card going into DAC using a DIY-ed 110 Ohms Belden 1800F digital cable with Neutrik XLR at the other end (actually the CDP is a CDP-cum-DAC-cum-Preamp), against the CDP transport used to spin CDs, I find:

1) tone: the CDP beats the PC on tonal colour and fidelity
2) warmth: the CDP somehow sounds more analog and warmer
3) spatial cues: not much to differentiate between the two
4) response across the frequency band: not much to differentiate between the two
5) dynamics and PRaT: not much to differentiate between the two

A more revealing amp + speakers than mine could probably reveal more differences but in my setup the differences are subtle and can be mostly glossed over, but if I have to take sides I like the CPD more due to 1) and 2). But I acknowledge that the CDP can't do hi-res or FLACs. So I keep both.

 

[Gerry_the_Merry]

60% of my music is FLAC, 20% MP3, 10% Vinyl, 10% CDs. The 60% part can be easily copied. Since TBs are cheap, anyone who does not use a PC is missing out on a good part of the 60%, unless he has 1000s of CDs, which I dont. Much of the music I like is only in FLAC files, even if I want I cannot get them in any other format. Dont want to be the sort of guy who "will listen to any kind of music as long as it is hi-res" as was mentioned in one of the previous posts or if I may add "will ignore music which is not in vinyl since he is a vinyl freak". I briefly considered buying a high-end transport, but I will improve 10% of my music by 20%, so that is a 2% overall improvement - not worth it. Vinyl has similar proportions but the added fun of equipment manipulation, tweaks, the charm of seeing the record spin, etc.

 

[ranjeetrain]

I agree with what you said about computers being the way forward. What I find a wee bit disagreeable was: "But then, it's not suitable for people who are not satisfied with cheap solution." I know and have met and interacted with many serious enthusiasts who are as frugal as any of us rank and file enthusiasts when it comes getting the best bang for their hard earned buck .

BTW, a properly optimised computer audio setup can also cost quite a bit, but far less than what one would have to spend on a fine dedicated transport (the external DAC being equal).

You got me.

When I read that back, I do agree that statement seems a bit impolite Sorry about that. May be I should say that in a slightly more rounded manner. Such as:

People who have never experienced computer audio due to misconceptions or bias would find it a bit hard to believe the kind of performance a well optimized or a custom built computer can deliver.

In fact, many high end companies are almost openly referring to their products as "computer". Wadia comes to mind

 

[ranjeetrain]

PC playback has more immediacy than using a top quality disc spinner

However all said - lacks the emotional aspects that the disc spinner imparts

the PC is more bland with gobs & gobs of info

which is fine for the mastering / balance engineer in the studio

But for an audiophile seeking bliss & wanting to be emotionally touched, he demands more

I agree with the emotion part. A CD gives a more "physical" feel of the albums, and in turn the music. There is something you can touch, connect with.

But such connect will be even more with LPs and Cassettes. Specially cassettes, who I remember, used to put under the sun to dry to avoid fungus. Slamming them, tapping them help them unlock and move forward when the transport would get stuck etc

Actually I wanted to post the same in the other thread which was here yesterday or day before about missing Cassettes. But I didn't want to be too emotional about letting go of them :lol:

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Totally agree! Most sound cards leave a lot to be desired when compared to exotic audiophile gear. But then, come a few notches down and they give mid-level audio gear a good run for their money.

What do they leave to be desired? Exoticism!

Digital audio was kept like a secret. Till around 2000, audio manufacturers rode on the digital-unawareness and managed to charge exorbitant sums for mediocre gear digital gear. It wasn't until entry level players (Baresford, Cambridge Audio, Benchmark, NAD) came with budget-priced products that these companies started to think of offering their products at more earthly prices.

Excepting the obvious statement that digital audio began with the CD player, didn't "digital audio" in the context of this discussion, begin with the PC Sound card? If there were independent "DACs" (maybe there might have been a high-end CD-player manufacturer that sold two boxes instead of one) before that, then I need a history lesson --- please!

Today's high end sound cards are better than many multigrand DACs of yesteryears. And they run neck to neck with equivalent products from audio manufacturers 1.5 - 2 - 3x the price. The challenge in dealing with digital audio is to get rid of the electrical noise. And with digital technology having outpaced the Moore's law, it's only a wee bit harder than kid's play.

You are placing the "DAC" as reference and comparing the soundcard against it. Surely companies like Lynx, RME, and even M-Audio had all this licked and wrapped up over a decade ago --- before anyone decided they needed a hifi box and a hifi name for their "DAC"?

PC Audio: it was only the really early sound cards that were truly awful.

The red book format asks for a data rate of 1,411.2 kbit/s. Today's computing devices can supply that amount of data even when processor is running red hot with 80% utilization.

A CD player is hardly a fast deliverer of data and, yes, A PC can deliver with ease, even from an optical drive, let alone a hdd.

The only thing that can interrupt a computing device from supplying data at such a low rate as required by the red book standard is a system deadlock. Unless a computing devices gets engaged in in a deadlock somehow, supplying the data at the 1,411.2 kbit/s is a piece of cake, even when processors are really really busy. Afterall, today's peripherals are capable of multi-million bits of data read out.

Where was I?

err...

Oh yes: Interupts!

Actually, the PC works for audio despite, not because of its design. It is not a real-time system, even if it is running a "real-time" operating system. There are PCs that are just plain bad at audio.

The next dreaded challenge (and one which the audio manufacturers are still riding on), is of uncertainty about the continuity of data supply. But then, if there is a problem, there are solutions. Nothing, absolutely nothing, stops manufacturers from building a small memory buffer and have a clock reclock the incoming data reading from the memory buffer.

Done, already, surely? Which is why most of our PCs are happily playing music, and have been for the past decade.

I agree with what you said about computers being the way forward. What I find a wee bit disagreeable was: "But then, it's not suitable for people who are not satisfied with cheap solution."

I thought it spot on! See my opening comment in this post about what's lacking in a sound card: exoticism!

This is part of our psychology. I'm convinced that a sound card costing four or five times the price of the one I have is a much-to-be-desired item, and will improve my sound quality. I'm convinced of this despite the fact that I can refer myself to a demonstration by Ethan Winer in which he shows the difference in performance between a soundblaster card and a piece of exotic, expensive, studio kit to be absolutely minimal!

PC playback has more immediacy than using a top quality disc spinner

However all said - lacks the emotional aspects that the disc spinner imparts

the PC is more bland with gobs & gobs of info

which is fine for the mastering / balance engineer in the studio

But for an audiophile seeking bliss & wanting to be emotionally touched, he demands more

He demands exoticism. He demands a box that says Wadia outside, not Intel inside. Ultimately, digital sound drops out of the question, because he demands a black vinyl disc, an album sleeve, and the whole ethos of the turntable. It is mostly to do with psychology, not sound.

 

[jai1611]

What do they leave to be desired? Exoticism!


Excepting the obvious statement that digital audio began with the CD player, didn't "digital audio" in the context of this discussion, begin with the PC Sound card? If there were independent "DACs" (maybe there might have been a high-end CD-player manufacturer that sold two boxes instead of one) before that, then I need a history lesson --- please!

You are placing the "DAC" as reference and comparing the soundcard against it. Surely companies like Lynx, RME, and even M-Audio had all this licked and wrapped up over a decade ago --- before anyone decided they needed a hifi box and a hifi name for their "DAC"?

PC Audio: it was only the really early sound cards that were truly awful.

A CD player is hardly a fast deliverer of data and, yes, A PC can deliver with ease, even from an optical drive, let alone a hdd.



Where was I?

err...

Oh yes: Interupts!

Actually, the PC works for audio despite, not because of its design. It is not a real-time system, even if it is running a "real-time" operating system. There are PCs that are just plain bad at audio.

Done, already, surely? Which is why most of our PCs are happily playing music, and have been for the past decade.


I thought it spot on! See my opening comment in this post about what's lacking in a sound card: exoticism!

This is part of our psychology. I'm convinced that a sound card costing four or five times the price of the one I have is a much-to-be-desired item, and will improve my sound quality. I'm convinced of this despite the fact that I can refer myself to a demonstration by Ethan Winer in which he shows the difference in performance between a soundblaster card and a piece of exotic, expensive, studio kit to be absolutely minimal!


He demands exoticism. He demands a box that says Wadia outside, not Intel inside. Ultimately, digital sound drops out of the question, because he demands a black vinyl disc, an album sleeve, and the whole ethos of the turntable. It is mostly to do with psychology, not sound.

Thad, we are all familiar with your skepticism about the use of DACs and view that computer audio is all that one needs.

One question: have you heard a sound card based analog output in a highly resolving system? If yes, have you compared a top quality DAC in the same system?

In my experience, one of the critical things that impacts the end quality of any audio component is the power supply. Sound cards have a big disadvantage starting off simply because they rely on bus power from the PC, which in turn comes from a switching power supply - often of dubious power quality (atleast on the standard pc that an HP or Dell might sell for home use).

 

[ranjeetrain]

Sound cards have a big disadvantage starting off simply because they rely on bus power from the PC, which in turn comes from a switching power supply - often of dubious power quality (atleast on the standard pc that an HP or Dell might sell for home use).

I thought this thread was about a Transport

Sure, a computer as a Transport + DAC ( + preamp?) may introduce electrical noises (that can be heard but in only the most resolving of systems). But at the same time the transport part is the least complicated of them all. (Unless you remain adamant about sticking to reading the data at 1x and reading and rereading them till you got no or minimum jitter.)

The point is - a well put together computer will serve as a great "transport". With many added advantages that cannot even be dreamed off as of using conventional transports.

 

[jai1611]

I thought this thread was about a Transport

Sure, a computer as a Transport + DAC ( + preamp?) may introduce electrical noises (that can be heard but in only the most resolving of systems). But at the same time the transport part is the least complicated of them all. (Unless you remain adamant about sticking to reading the data at 1x and reading and rereading them till you got no or minimum jitter.)

The point is - a well put together computer will serve as a great "transport". With many added advantages that cannot even be dreamed off as of using conventional transports.

I agree that computers can make an excellent transport and I've heard a setup that demonstrates their capability very well.

However, as I mentioned in my first post, in my system the CD transport is better. What makes it ironic is the fact that the CD transport cost me less than what the PC transport has so far.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Thad, we are all familiar with your skepticism about the use of DACs and view that computer audio is all that one needs.

One question: have you heard a sound card based analog output in a highly resolving system? If yes, have you compared a top quality DAC in the same system?

That is not what my post was about. It was a series of answers to specific points.

I have compared a good sound card in a system that had a MRP of well over a thousand UK pounds (Hmmm, nearly two, I suppose) ten years ago (just for the CD, amp, speakers, which would cost at least twice as much now. There is always more expensive kit, and someone can say there is always "better resolving" kit. As such, the spend more and you'll hear the difference is an unbeatable argument. Yes, I know: If I spend more, I'll hear the difference: its part of my psychology . Only thing is, the sound card that so impressed me cost 1/3rd the price of CD player I was comparing it with. It beat my psychology.

In practical terms, so far as the hifi is concerned, I'd also rather have a CD player. Everyone/anyone can use it, for starters. So, I don't actually think that a computer is all one needs: there are other members here that have chosen to replace their CD players with a PC or PC-based media player, with or without stand-alone DAC.

The sound of my personal PC audio system has heaps of scope for improvement. I'm very well aware of that. Above all, it needs space, which is a practical rather than necessarily-expensive or exotic requirement. Unfortunately, that space would cost the price of a new house --- but without it, there is hardly any point in my getting started, for instance, on the path of dream speakers that I have in my head. So far as headphone listening is concerned, there will be improvements, and they may well include DAC/'phone amplifier, because I hope that my headphones are capable of better than I hear from the hp amp of my sound interface. If not, there will, I suppose, be better 'phones. Are any of immune from the upgrade bug? Or the marketing? Certainly not me.

There's plenty of room for stand-alone DACs, but lets be clear about their place in history, technology, quality, etc etc. One thing I really believe in is focussing expenditure on what you need. Originally, my PC did not replace my CD player or my turntable: it replaced my cassette deck*. I needed I as much as I needed O. If someone does not record, then why pay for an ADC when all they need is a DAC?


*(At the time, my line up, if I remember correctly, was amp, cd player, turntable, two cassette decks, mini-disk deck, provision for connecting mini-disk portable, with a mixture of analogue copper and digital fibre (a choice in some instances, such as the PC) with a tape-source selector I could play from anything and record to anything that could. It was fun just having it all set up!)

 

[2chFreak]

Specially cassettes, who I remember, used to put under the sun to dry to avoid fungus. Slamming them, tapping them help them unlock and move forward when the transport would get stuck etc

Actually I wanted to post the same in the other thread which was here yesterday or day before about missing Cassettes. But I didn't want to be too emotional about letting go of them :lol:

This reminds me of my dad's cassettes & his cassette days of the entire '80s. We still have 800 odd of 'em, mostly TDK SA-X, Maxell XLII-S, TDK MA-X and some TDK MA-XG stuffed somewhere in some corner of the home, all recorded on a Nak 1000 ZXL.

Sad that they're unused now but one still gets big time kicks seeing metal tapes hit +10 dB on the Peak level meters on a upper strata Nak machine with zero trace of distortion.

{ Extremely sorry to the OP for the OT. but just couldn't resist this post. }

 

[ranjeetrain]

I agree that computers can make an excellent transport and I've heard a setup that demonstrates their capability very well.

However, as I mentioned in my first post, in my system the CD transport is better. What makes it ironic is the fact that the CD transport cost me less than what the PC transport has so far.

What transport is that? Sounds interesting!

 

[jai1611]

What transport is that? Sounds interesting!

A Teac VRDS 10 (somehwat modified).

 

[gobble]

PC playback has more immediacy than using a top quality disc spinner

However all said - lacks the emotional aspects that the disc spinner imparts

the PC is more bland with gobs & gobs of info

which is fine for the mastering / balance engineer in the studio

But for an audiophile seeking bliss & wanting to be emotionally touched, he demands more

That is a puzzle I hope to answer by playing a PC transport next to a top class transport.

At least in my setup, using PC with sound card as transport, AES/EBU digital output from card going into DAC using a DIY-ed 110 Ohms Belden 1800F digital cable with Neutrik XLR at the other end (actually the CDP is a CDP-cum-DAC-cum-Preamp), against the CDP transport used to spin CDs, I find:

1) tone: the CDP beats the PC on tonal colour and fidelity
2) warmth: the CDP somehow sounds more analog and warmer
3) spatial cues: not much to differentiate between the two
4) response across the frequency band: not much to differentiate between the two
5) dynamics and PRaT: not much to differentiate between the two

I agree with the emotion part. A CD gives a more "physical" feel of the albums, and in turn the music. There is something you can touch, connect with.

But such connect will be even more with LPs and Cassettes. Specially cassettes, who I remember, used to put under the sun to dry to avoid fungus. Slamming them, tapping them help them unlock and move forward when the transport would get stuck etc

Actually I wanted to post the same in the other thread which was here yesterday or day before about missing Cassettes. But I didn't want to be too emotional about letting go of them :lol:

If there is a difference in emotional connect why should it be there? After all its about clocking a steady jitter free digital stream of bits with 173 picoseconds as a benchmark (if we go by the designer of the 47 Labs gear). So why would it matter that a physical medium is spinning on an axis to supply the digital bits from a CD or if its coming off a hard disk or SSD? Where is the emotional connect born? In the presence or absence of jitter? Or is the emotional connect induced by the mechanical movement of a disc due to the fact that it is bound to have some wow and flutter (and introduce jitter)?

But I disagree with your appropriating the Vinyl experience to describe the CD experience. It does not exist with CD players except the initial involvement of choosing a physical medium and placing it in a usually flimsy plasticky tray. Still it is a very sterile experience compared to handling the cover of an LP, smelling the cardboard, gazing at the fabulous artwork, drawing the LP out from its sleeve, cleaning it with gentle angular strokes along the circle and then slightly tilting it towards the outer edges, placing it carefully on the spindle and clicking the knob to get it rotating, and the final clicks of the TT arm as it swings into action, the gentle pop or thud and the crackle as it lands on the rotating Vinyl - it is not like these individual sensory inputs having their distinct but limited impact on ones senses. The overall experience drowns the handler - speaking holistically, and he submerges himself into an inner space magically created by his handling of the medium. The artwork even perhaps inspires a near LSD like trip I imagine, where things take larger than life proportions - and where the mind is already primed to embrace every subtle nuance about the artiste's work and creations, even before the first notes start flowing thought the system and waft into the air. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts as one famous Greek philosopher said. Handling a CD is a relatively dead experience in comparison.

The red book format asks for a data rate of 1,411.2 kbit/s. Today's computing devices can supply that amount of data even when processor is running red hot with 80% utilization. The only thing that can interrupt a computing device from supplying data at such a low rate as required by the red book standard is a system deadlock. Unless a computing devices gets engaged in in a deadlock somehow, supplying the data at the 1,411.2 kbit/s is a piece of cake, even when processors are really really busy. Afterall, today's peripherals are capable of multi-million bits of data read out.

The next dreaded challenge (and one which the audio manufacturers are still riding on), is of uncertainty about the continuity of data supply. But then, if there is a problem, there are solutions. Nothing, absolutely nothing, stops manufacturers from building a small memory buffer and have a clock reclock the incoming data reading from the memory buffer.

Audio manufacturers who consider jitter THE PROBLEM in digital audio, should learn from water supply system.
<snip>

Getting the data out of a computer's chasis is the same. Its no big deal if the computer cannot supply data constantly. There are many workarounds. And that is not even keeping in mind that a computing system runs on a way way faster clock rate and the clocks they use internally is hundreds times faster than those used in CD players.

Its not that simple!! An OS runs on H/W clock ticks (typically 100 times a second) to schedule processes into memory and there is never any guarantee that an existing process ( for example a kernel data copy module) will execute in cpu at a precise time. See for example the problem traditionally that has existed for decades

Observations
I quickly coded up wakeup_latency.c which sleeps until the next second and then prints the difference in seconds between the actual time and the time expected. On a GHz machine, I expected this to be very accurate, but to my astonishment, I got the following:

0.019496
0.019506
0.019516
0.019525
0.019535

i.e. 19ms later than expected! This is is nearly twice the default system tick length of 10ms based on 100 Hz!! That is unexpected and certainly undesirable.

Then a progress to a bug-fix/solution...

The improvement is reflected in the following figure using the same old wakeup_latency.c tests (with slight changes to improve precision.) Due to the nature of the PLL which takes a few minutes to stablize, one can see that there is clock aliasing until a lock on the frequency is attained. After that, the Hz timer appears very accurate, indeed.
...<snip>...
There is some slight improvement with higher Hz rates, but both seem to perform very well now, generally staying within 10 microseconds of the expected time (about a thousand times better than some other operating systems.)

From: http://www.dragonflybsd.org/presentations/nanosleep/

Whoa! We are talking about double digit microseconds as a great leap and improvement and our audiophile benchmark is 173 picoseconds!! Ok this article is 8 years old. But has the PC hardware (or sound card) been optimized today in 2012 to use a solid state memory buffer right next to the DAC or Coax/SPDIF out without having to cross the system bus or DMA channel to overcome any potential bottleneck and provide triple digit picosecond level resolution? I seriously doubt it though I would love to be proved wrong!! hyeah:

All said please note the conventional clock inside a PC that ticks only 100 times a second (Edit : Now 1/1000 since freebsd 6) is too coarse to provide even nanosecond level or 10^-9 ticks per second granurality!! hyeah:

--G0bble

 

[jls001]

After all its about clocking a steady jitter free digital stream of bits with 173 picoseconds as a benchmark (if we go by the designer of the 47 Labs gear).

A bit is a bit is a bit. Or is it? Do read this infomercial: Terra Firma

 

[gobble]

A bit is a bit is a bit. Or is it? Do read this infomercial: Terra Firma

So what exactly are you disputing?

--G

 

[square_wave]

I think most of the time, the difference is in the ripped file which you have on the computer. Instead, if this is a pristine download, the quality of the file will almost always be better than the one which comes to you via the cd pressing pipeline.

Now playing back this file from a computer requires the same amount of careful dedication one would do if it were a transport. From what I hear from folks into high end audio who have tried all this out, there are differences depending on the computer design, player, settings and all that. If one can figure all this out, pc playback plays in the highest league.

 

[musicbee]

me being a starter would like to know how you can make computer as well optimized?

Start with the C.A.P.S. system @ Computer Audiophile - Computer Audiophile - Computer Audiophile Pocket Server - C.A.P.S. v2.0

 

[kaushik]

Start with the C.A.P.S. system @ Computer Audiophile - Computer Audiophile - Computer Audiophile Pocket Server - C.A.P.S. v2.0

Any one used it? seems pricy affair