PC playback as an alternative to CD Players

[reignofchaos]

^^I agree to this. However in my setup, the digital out of my EMU 1212M PCI sounds better than the M2Tech Hiface. So sound cards are not completely out for me.

 

[GeorgeO]

Instead of a PC, I use a NAS with a 1.5TB HDD, which connect wirelessly to my Squeezeboxes.One SB is connected to a DAC. I stopped spinning discs about a couple of years ago, and I don't think I will look back.Most of my music is in FLAC-some, which I got from a friend is MP3.

 

[awedeophile]

^^I agree to this. However in my setup, the digital out of my EMU 1212M PCI sounds better than the M2Tech Hiface. So sound cards are not completely out for me.

Hi,

I havent tried the EMU card. The hiface sounds much better if you give it external power and dont use the USB power. I did this by using a USB extension cable and splicing out the power wires to an external 5V battery pack.

I am now using the M2Tech EVO which is a big step up from the original Hiface. It does not use USB bus power and instead requires an external 7-12V power source. I use a 7.4V 2250 mAh Li-ion rechargeable battery pack.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Studio-quality sound card should certainly be hifi quality. I believe that my RME card is, but (at rough conversion rates and even rougher memory) it cost me over Rs7,000, and that was heavily discounted due to being end-of-life.

This, however was seven or eight years ago, so I cannot say if it would confidently stand against the CD players or DACs of today. Everything has moved on.

Essentially, we are talking DACs --- whether the box is sold as a "DAC" or as a firewire/usb "interface" or even a a sound card.

I have an Audiofire-2 waiting in its box since February. I cannot use it with this PC, due to latency problems with this motherboard, but the new machine (a long time coming!) will be bought and built next month. It will be interesting to see if the Audiofire is better than the old RME. Obviously, I hope that it will be, otherwise I will have wasted my money --- and maybe there will be a good firewire interface advertised for sale here!

Still... I cannot actually use my PC as a physically-connected source to my hifi due to physical separation. Back in London there were cable connections both analogue and digital. I had cassette, mini-disc and computer connected to the amplifier's tape loop via a tape switching box: it was a very flexible setup

 

[ajinkya]

I don't use compression as I find seek times faster without compression. Must be something to do with Foobar first having to decompress the file and then play it. Also, I'm guessing it saves on CPU usage.

Is flac a compressed (zipped) wav file (as per your analogy)? I am aware Flac and Wav are two different formats. I was simply saying they sound the same to me. Whether they have to or not, I dont know.

@awediophile:
Yes, flac decompression does take CPU cycles but on today;s HTPC machines, that is not an issue. I've been using foobar and Mediamonkey alternately, and I don't find any time difference on my machine. But on a slower one, the difference may come into play.
Yes, flac is a lossless file compression format/algorithm. Which means that when uncompressed, it will be the same file as the original wav file it was created from. So, they will sound the same...in fact they must.
Some people try to be purists and say that the decompression from flac to wav can cause time artifacts during playback...
which is like saying that playing music on the equator will sound different from playing it on the poles of the earth because the acceleration due to gravity is slightly different at these two places, and can affect the spinning and reading of the CD.

@Shanti:
As mentioned above, flac does not deteriorate the quality of the sound. So where does sound quality enter the picture when choosing between wav and flac? And though I agree that HDDs are becoming cheaper by the day, when one can save space, why not? When hi-res music becomes more mainstream (24/196K) the space savings will be magnified. Something to think about too.

 

[suri]

the decompression from flac to wav can cause time artifacts during playback...

how long does it take for the average computer - to de-compress such files?

 

[reignofchaos]

Hi,

I havent tried the EMU card. The hiface sounds much better if you give it external power and dont use the USB power. I did this by using a USB extension cable and splicing out the power wires to an external 5V battery pack.

I am now using the M2Tech EVO which is a big step up from the original Hiface. It does not use USB bus power and instead requires an external 7-12V power source. I use a 7.4V 2250 mAh Li-ion rechargeable battery pack.

Yup I've tried that too and that is my basis for comparison. I spliced an old USB extension cable and used that connected to a 5V battery supply. I still find the EMU to be better. I'm planning to order the EVO soon but if it turns out to be worse than the EMU, even that one will go for sale.

 

[ajinkya]

how long does it take for the average computer - to de-compress such files?

Suri,
That is a difficult question to answer because it is hard to quantify 'average', whether it's the computer, the song file, or the software environment. But a quick read through the FLAC faq had this to say:
FLAC - faq

"Why do the encoder settings have a big effect on the encoding time but not the decoding time?

It's hard to explain without going into the codec design, but to oversimplify, the encoder is looking for functions that approximate the signal. Higher settings make the encoder search more to find better approximations. The functions are themselves encoded in the FLAC file. Decoding only requires computing the one chosen function, and the complexity of the function is very stable. This is by design, to make decoding easier, and is one of the things that makes FLAC easy to implement in hardware.

Why can't you make FLAC encode faster?

FLAC already encodes pretty fast. It is faster than real-time even on weak systems and is not much slower than even the fastest codecs. And it is faster than the CD ripping process with which it is usually paired, meaning even if it went faster, it would not speed up the ripping-encoding process anyway.

Part of the reason is that FLAC is asymmetric (see also). That means that it is optimized for decoding speed at the expense of encoding speed, because it makes it easier to decode on low-powered hardware, and because you only encode once but you decode many times. "

 

[ajay124]

I was extremely happy with Flac....until I discovered Apple Lossless

 

[longshanks]

^ Is there difference between the two in terms of SQ?

 

[vasishta.sushant]

^^^
Can not be. Both are lossless formats. ALAC is just apple proprietary stuff.

 

[awedeophile]

I was extremely happy with Flac....until I discovered Apple Lossless

Hi, what software do you use to play your files?

 

[anm]

instead of adding another component in the chain, why not use a single async usb dac?

Hi,

I havent tried the EMU card. The hiface sounds much better if you give it external power and dont use the USB power. I did this by using a USB extension cable and splicing out the power wires to an external 5V battery pack.

I am now using the M2Tech EVO which is a big step up from the original Hiface. It does not use USB bus power and instead requires an external 7-12V power source. I use a 7.4V 2250 mAh Li-ion rechargeable battery pack.

 

[awedeophile]

The DAC (Cary SACD 306 CD player - Now Sold) I was using does not accept USB, which is why I needed to convert the signal. Plus not all DAC's have a good implementation of USB and in fact sound better through their SPDIF inputs.

Off the few dedicated DAC's I am thinking of upgrading to, two accept USB. If I get one of those, I wont need the EVO.

 

[anm]

which dacs are you considering? how about rdac from arcam that has async usb? I know it is much cheaper than your budgets.

The DAC (Cary SACD 306 CD player - Now Sold) I was using does not accept USB, which is why I needed to convert the signal. Plus not all DAC's have a good implementation of USB and in fact sound better through their SPDIF inputs.

Off the few dedicated DAC's I am thinking of upgrading to, two accept USB. If I get one of those, I wont need the EVO.

 

[awedeophile]

There are a few top end DAC's. I will post once I have confirmed.

The Arcam, while probably being a decent DAC would IMO be a downgrade from the Cary I sold, based on what I have read about it.

 

[reignofchaos]

How about a dCS Scarlatti .

If that is too pricey, then you have the Paganini and the Debussy.

 

[awedeophile]

The Scarlatti is outrageously priced. Also, I prefer a little warmer, more organis sound which I dont think the Paganini and Debussy are known for. dCS is known for a more accurate sound.

 

[hemantwaghe]

One of the member has DCS scarlati right?

 

[arj]

Awedeophile, are you also considering the Ayre QB-9 ? or are you looking above that ?