PC playback as an alternative to CD Players

[reignofchaos]

The PBO is a audio decoder and streams the audio as PCM bitstream. Then you use a high end DAC downstream to do audio processing digital to analog conversion. This can even be a good audio receiver. What else someone wants/needs PBO to do?

If put in the same analogy of a PC -
PC - Media played and decoded by software player using codecs.
PBO/Media box - media played and decoded by hardware chip. Passed on to the receiver using raw bitstream. For 2 channels, it is PCM.
PC/Soundcard - Sound card does the audio processing and DAC (if analog output is used)
Digital Receiver - Receiver does the audio processing and DAC.

I just don't see technically what different is done by the PC. or may be if I am missing something, please enlighten me.
best,

You may think so but after changing from an xtreamer (same realtek chipset as the PBO) to an AMD fusion based HTPC, my video and audio quality has improved by leaps and bounds. The biggest difference is better dynamic range in the sound and much richer colors with better blacks. Also any AMD/NV chipset supports 10 bit output which is the native format for many high end TVs and dithering is completely avoided at the TV end. The change in sound quality is evident even to a layman.

I'm not even comparing the output quality of a pro card like the Lynx or EMU or ESI. This is simply a comparison between the hdmi/optical out of the media streamer to the hdmi/optical output of an HTPC using onboard audio and video.

 

[manoj.p]

There is nothing different in what the PBO does that numerous other media player do, and what a PC does. It is just the quality of what is done that makes the difference.

If you use a high end card such as Lynx or even Asus STX, the quality of extraction and decoding is far far superior to what you will get in a media player. I have tried TViX, XTreamer, and Dune. The output from a well designed PC with a card such as the STX is in a completely different league. I have heard this argument that digital data stream is all the same and how does it matter what you use!! You should do an AB comparison between a media player and a PC with a soundcard.

I did not use a high end card like Lynx. Cause I was planned to use my AV receiver to do audio processing. My ultimate aim was to send PCM/raw bit-stream audio to receiver and let the AVR do extra things like room correction, bass management, sub-woofer management, speaker calibrations and Dolby ProLogic processing to convert 2/5.1 channel to 7.1. If I decide to use a high end card, then the only way I will get the use out of USB card is by using analog. That's my exact point. If using an USB card, then the audio processing is done there instead of the receiver. Now, we are really comparing the DAC and other processing to the receiver. Take a look at the audio processing features for the media playing (not gaming like EAX processing - cause those are used for mostly creating ambiance or something during game play). You will see the same, Dolby/DTS decoding, Dolby PLII/DTS neo processing. Same is used in the receivers. Its not going to differ in quality just because a sound card is doing it. Those processing algorithm are provided by Dolby/DTS and the are same. DAC yes. Because that depends on what DAC is used in sound card and what is used in the receiver.

And the fact - The raw bit-stream/PCM uncompressed off the media is SAME across all devices. So the bit-stream from $100 media streamer will be same as in the bit-stream from sound-card. The bits don't change just because they go through a high end sound card. There is a lot of misinformation about high end products but facts don't lie.

 

[manoj.p]

You may think so but after changing from an xtreamer (same realtek chipset as the PBO) to an AMD fusion based HTPC, my video and audio quality has improved by leaps and bounds. The biggest difference is better dynamic range in the sound and much richer colors with better blacks. Also any AMD/NV chipset supports 10 bit output which is the native format for many high end TVs and dithering is completely avoided at the TV end. The change in sound quality is evident even to a layman.

I'm not even comparing the output quality of a pro card like the Lynx or EMU or ESI. This is simply a comparison between the hdmi/optical out of the media streamer to the hdmi/optical output of an HTPC using onboard audio and video.

For the video, I agree. Cause the video can only be output as raw using the HD-SDI or SDI. So, the player does all the video processing and its evident in the picture that you see.

But for Audio - I have to disagree. The PBO/Xstreamer does not do much for audio processing. All it does is reads the media stream which is in wav format or flac format for that matter, gets the PCM out of it and passes out through HDMI. For movies, it takes out the 5.1 track by de-mux. And then it just outputs as bit-stream. There is no processing involved. If the soundtrack is lossless which is the case for CD, wav and FLAC, after decode, the output is exact copy of the original, bit by bit when encoded. It's like winzip extracting the word file.

That's the exact thing happens when you do the kernel streaming with sound card and it outputs raw bitstream/PCM uncompressed. So, where is the question of better quality comes in? Are you meaning to say, a PCM uncompressed music track or a Dolby Digital 5.1 track from a movie gets changed by the pc and made to sound better? When you say, that there is better dynamics when the sound is output through the PC, that would be a miracle. You want to believe in it, then believe. But scientifically, it just does not happen.

 

[spirovious]

I did try new SW for PC music & is sounding good-
http://www.hifivision.com/home-thea...12373-bit-perfect-sound-output-your-pc-3.html

 

[Chid]

Hi,

Planning to build a budget HTPC based on AMD E350.

Can I use Android OS for HTPC?

Thanks

Chid

 

[reignofchaos]

^^Nope! You need to use the usual Windows/*nix

 

[baijuxavior]

Hi,

Planning to build a budget HTPC based on AMD E350.

Can I use Android OS for HTPC?

Thanks

Chid

You can't use android to run your HTPC. However you can use android phone with the right app to control XBMC media center.

 

[hydra]

Can an SSD improve how a Music PC sounds?

One of the (backup) HDDs in an Office PC gave up the ghost today. I need to buy a 1TB or at least 500GB HDD to replace it. Considering the insane prices of HDDs now, I was thinking of picking up an SSD. I could use the SSD in my Music PC, and move the 1TB HDD in the Music PC to the Office PC.

Well, this is mostly an excuse to get an SSD for the Music PC (heh heh), and I know this is probably an unnecessary expense, but I wanted to let the logical side of my head to work for a bit and see if it is really worth it. I also have about 3.9K on credit with theitdepot that I can use. Their rates for HDDs are far higher than other alternative sources, but their rates for SSDs (specifically the one I'm considering) are somewhat the same. So utilizing the credit (plus whatever extra) for an SSD would be more uh, "sensible". This an additional excuse (= "reason").

I'm currently considering an OCZ Agility 3 (SATA III) 60GB SSD. :licklips:

The three scenarios I was thinking of are:
1) OS, Foobar and Music on SSD
2) OS & Foobar on SSD, Music on HDD
3) OS & Foobar on SSD, Music on external HDD

I think (not backed up by science) that option 1 would be the best, with the option 2 next. I'm not really happy with option 3 (but I mentioned it for the sake of discussion).

I did a bit of preliminary research on the internet, and anecdotal evidence seems to support using an SSD. Apparently Amarra even recommends using an SSD.

Do you guys have an opinion (or do you have any first-hand/second-hand info/experiences) about whether an SSD can improve how a Music PC can sound (as against a HDD)?

I'd love to hear what you guys think

EDIT: I mentioned Amarra above just to indicate that a public stand has been taken on the issue by somebody. As most of you know, I use a Win 7 based setup (and not a Mac).

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

An SSD is said to be the thing that can most make your PC feel like a new machine.

But... this is in terms of boot-up and program-loading times. It should be pretty good for something like database access too. or anything where you are going to actually experience the time that it takes to retrieve bits from storage.

In the music-playing scenario, the only delay that you probably experience might be the time that it takes for your optical drive to swallow a CD and give of its table of contents to your media player. From then on, actually listening to the music will be just the same as listening to it from a hard disc.

So, if a HDD, which is hugely faster than a CD, does not, in any way, improve the music-listening experience, how can a SDD improve over a HDD? What's more, it is going to be filling the same buffers with the same amount of data in the same way.

An SSD won't improve music.

Except...

HDDs are not very noisy these days, but taking one away is going to take a tiny bit of noise away. Most of all... It is going to be a whole lot cooler than a hard disc. It might even be as much as a whole fan, or a slower, quieter, fan.

...And that is the basis on which you can justify your purchase!

But beware! I have seen an awful lot of complaints about these devices failing, and some IT people claiming that SSD failure rates in the companies are higher than HDD failure rates ... so do be sure of the backup copy.

 

[Kannan_madhu]

why not android ?

 

[awedeophile]

SSD's run silent and hence are considered 'better' than HDD's for an audio environment.
Most playback software like Jriver/Foobar have the option of playing the entire track from RAM which makes the argument redundant.
A simple test is to copy a few tracks to a good quality USB Pen or SD Drive and A/B them against the same tracks on your HDD.

 

[hydra]

@thad, the added silence (no moving parts) aspect is definitely another reason! I'm a bit leery about the high incidence of SSD failure too. But the newer SSDs with the 2nd gen SandForce controller seem to be quite a bit more stable than the older ones.

@Kannan_madhu, my Desire HD does sound all right (nearly as good as any portable device), but it can't hold a candle to the way my Music PC + DAC combo plays music. The difference is like day and night. Even the analogue outs of the Xonar STX are far superior to the phone.

@awedeophile, what you mentioned is the main reason I'm not too sure about how much improvement an SSD can make. I have Foobar setup to buffer 200MB into memory (= RAM), which is just like playing from data on an SSD.

Thinking rationally, if there is no real audible benefit to getting an SSD, I'm not really sure if should get an SSD right away, at the current capacity-to-cost ratio. Even if I did get an SSD, I would need at least 120GB of storage for the music (though I don't really keep that much on the PC). Which means that I will need an additional spinning drive in the PC anyway.

I'm not too particular about saving about 15-20 seconds of boot-up time (the Music PC boots up pretty fast already). The current HDD makes a racket only while booting up and shutting down, and I never notice it making any sound while music is playing.

More research is needed

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Playing music from an entire track bufferred into RAM: file under religion

If you want to do it ... no problem!

 

[awedeophile]

Playing music from an entire track bufferred into RAM: file under religion

If you want to do it ... no problem!

Got it now!

 

[hydra]

There is a new wrinkle to the SSD-for-music thing:

It seems SSDs based on the SandForce 1 and SandForce 2 controllers work on the basis that most data can be compressed. And it seems this approach makes Audio & Video data (which cannot be compressed without degrading performance/output) run in the worst-case scenario.

As against this, it seems the Marvell controllers are efficient with both compressible as well as non-compressible (= Audio, Video, Photos) data.

Source: http://www.ssdfreaks.com/content/923/corsair-performance-pro-aims-to-battle-the-competition
and
Blog - Corsair Performance Pro Series SSD Benchmarks: An Early Peek

Even more research needed.

Playing music from an entire track bufferred into RAM: file under religion

If you want to do it ... no problem!

I'll plead guilty to this one

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Well, I just hope you are using audio-grade RAM Not to mention, of course, special SATA cables. :lol:

I gave up desiring SSD when I gave up Windows. What I wanted then was the fast boot and program load. I no longer need an SSD for that

But I haven't kept up with the technology. I would guess that WAV files can be compressed, but not FLAC files, because they are already. I'm sure the same thing applies to the compressed/uncompressed video formats, too, but I don't really do video. It is like making a compressed archive of JPG pics: sometimes it ends up bigger than the sum total of the pics, and takes a lot longer because the software has to try and compress it. Efficiently compressed data can only be made smaller by a more efficient compression --- or by lossy compression.

 

[marsilians]

T.... And it seems this approach makes Audio & Video data (which cannot be compressed without degrading performance/output) run in the worst-case scenario.

Most audio files by default are compressed. Note that compress is not equal to lossless. They are uncompressed by applications like vlc or foobar and then played.

The biggest issue that might come up when playing from normal HDD vs. SSD is the lag due to disk seek times and jitter. Without opening a can of terrible worms this is hard to decipher esp. when you are not into critical listening sessions (how many of us really do??)

 

[marsilians]

@Kannan_madhu, my Desire HD does sound all right (nearly as good as any portable device), but it can't hold a candle to the way my Music PC + DAC combo plays music. The difference is like day and night. Even the analogue outs of the Xonar STX are far superior to the phone.

I couldn't resist jumping in now. All phones are just terrible to even be considered as sources (POS if I have to use strong language). The audio circuitry in them are so cheap and terrible even expensive DACs wont fix the quality.

The cheapest and decent way to listen through a portable would be a good player such as Sansa or Cowon or FIIO with a decent y-cable

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

The biggest issue that might come up when playing from normal HDD vs. SSD is the lag due to disk seek times and jitter. Without opening a can of terrible worms this is hard to decipher esp. when you are not into critical listening sessions (how many of us really do??)

Look now! Worms! ...all over the place! hyeah:

Remember: it's all data inside that computer case!

The techie cell in my brain, though, did suggest that, given that data is being fed into buffers, it might be better if the storage access is not too fast. What I'm saying is that a more constant stream might be better than intermittent bursts. In the end, though, all that buffering is going to make the source irrelevant.

It reminds of my endless attempts to get backup tapes to actually streeeeaaaammm (as per the name of the stupid device) instead of stop/start/stop/start.

 

[hydra]

I couldn't resist jumping in now. All phones are just terrible to even be considered as sources (POS if I have to use strong language). The audio circuitry in them are so cheap and terrible even expensive DACs wont fix the quality.

The cheapest and decent way to listen through a portable would be a good player such as Sansa or Cowon or FIIO with a decent y-cable

Agree completely. A Clip+ sounds far better than the Desire HD.