Pssst, letting you in on a little secret: You Don't Need a CD Player! [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Pssst, letting you in on a little secret: You Don't Need a CD Player!



Mike Anderson
06-10-2006, 09:57 PM
People are constantly asking for advice in these forums about what CD player to get. I understand lots of people really want the particular functionality of a CD player, but a lot of people don't realize this point:

If you put your music on a computer, you can get far better sound quality and convenience at a fraction of the price! For anyone shopping for CD players, you *really* ought to consider this option.

I honestly can't remember the last time I powered up my CD player. I'll never go back. It's completely outdated.

I suppose this thread is more apropos to the computer audio section, but hardly anyone reads it -- particularly someone who doesn't yet realize they can completely bypass the CD player altogether.

Feanor
06-11-2006, 03:46 AM
People are constantly asking for advice in these forums about what CD player to get. I understand lots of people really want the particular functionality of a CD player, but a lot of people don't realize this point:

If you put your music on a computer, you can get far better sound quality and convenience at a fraction of the price! For anyone shopping for CD players, you *really* ought to consider this option.

I honestly can't remember the last time I powered up my CD player. I'll never go back. It's completely outdated.

I suppose this thread is more apropos to the computer audio section, but hardly anyone reads it -- particularly someone who doesn't yet realize they can completely bypass the CD player altogether.

Of course I totally agree. Really, I'm looking forward to the day when all functionality except final amplification is handed by standard computers and sound cards.

And that day is already here for people with the interest and expertise to pull together such a system. The foobar program has plug-ins that will handle crossovers and equalization and also interface with suitable, multichannel sound cards. I just lack the time and patience to get into this, but more integrated, simpler to uses software will eventually come about.

But wait!! Why isn't it here already? Simple: the high-end business model is to sell the audiophile expensive, high mark-up hardware. And audiophiles remain equipment aficionados in general. :arf:

kexodusc
06-11-2006, 03:58 AM
I just bought 2 new soundcards for my new and old PC's....hooked em' up briefly, but I have to admit, they sound pretty darn good...and that's just WMA and MP3 and decent bit rates. I tried this a few years ago, maybe 2001 or so back and it was pretty terrible. So I don't know if the MP3 and WMA compression algorithm improvments have been that dramatic, or the soundcards are just way, better (I suspect both)...it's at least as good as XM radio or whatever.

Haven't actually tried a CD in them yet, so I can't comment on that, but I expect they'd sound more than good enough for most people.

I'm in agreement...as compression techniques continue to improve, higher rez formats emerge, and storage capacity grows, the home PC is definitely going to becom a piece of the audio rig.

N. Abstentia
06-11-2006, 04:35 AM
Interesting. How do you remotely control it from the couch?

Feanor
06-11-2006, 04:40 AM
....

Haven't actually tried a CD in them yet, so I can't comment on that, but I expect they'd sound more than good enough for most people.

I'm in agreement...as compression techniques continue to improve, higher rez formats emerge, and storage capacity grows, the home PC is definitely going to becom a piece of the audio rig.

Kex, m'man, no need to wait for improvements. It's all here, now. I really can't tell the difference between Apple Lossless played on iTunes throught my M-Audio Audiophile USB, and the real thing thru my CDP. (Granted, no part of my system is really high-end.)

And there's nothing to keep a person from using WAV format files, the native CD format; a 300 GB hard disk costs $120 and will hold >400 CD-equivalents in that format.

Feanor
06-11-2006, 04:46 AM
Interesting. How do you remotely control it from the couch?

My laptop running iTunes sits, you guessed it, on my lap or be side me. It's connected to a USB hub using a 15' cable that is connected to my Audiophile USB and 200 GB hard disk holding my music files; they are located with the rest of my system. Gads! couldn't be easier or simpler.

kexodusc
06-11-2006, 05:01 AM
Interesting. How do you remotely control it from the couch?

That's the only drawback in the setup I'm putting together...But realistically, my receiver's remote controls the volume etc, and track flipping/disc switching aren't something I'd do if I'm running off the PC anyway. For some that will matter, not so much me. I usually listen to albums, not songs - for albums, I'll use my cd player, but for the times I do just want music in the house I'll use the computer. Then it's more for background music in the house, so I just set it on a playlist and use the random feature...

In my setup, the computer will output to the TV, and I'll have my wireless mouse near the couch actually...guess that's as close as I can get it. I'm sure someone will invent a remote setup for soundcards etc, if there isn't one already.

Florian
06-11-2006, 05:48 AM
I am sorry, but this is silly. Maybe in a sub 400$ range, but a good dedicated CD player will run circles around a computer setup. Even if you dont compress it!

kexodusc
06-11-2006, 05:50 AM
I am sorry, but this is silly. Maybe in a sub 400$ range, but a good dedicated CD player will run circles around a computer setup. Even if you dont compress it!
If you use a digital output to a quality DAC, how so?

Florian
06-11-2006, 05:57 AM
If you use a digital output to a quality DAC, how so?

First its the ripping which you will loose information on. Then the encoding, and the Jitter thats not removed. You can hear certain section of the electronics inside the computer or the laptop through the sound card and you have voltage fluctuations.

There is most likely a whole range for and against it, but the simple fact is that you can hear it. We ran music from a Apple Ibook to a TagMcLaren Preamp here and while it was practical it did suffer in resolution, harmonic correctness and texture. Now given, you could possibly hear it on the Maggies, but it will be very obvious on Apogees, Magnepans and Electrostatics.

-Flo

PS: I am willing to do a blind test!

kexodusc
06-11-2006, 06:20 AM
First its the ripping which you will loose information on. Then the encoding, and the Jitter thats not removed. You can hear certain section of the electronics inside the computer or the laptop through the sound card and you have voltage fluctuations.
Very interesting...
For any compressed format there always will be some loss of sound quality for sure...but I have absolutely no degradation due to voltage fluctuations or other other electronics interfering with the transport of digital data to my DAC. I can only assume my M-Audio card protects against it then?
I've never tried it, but one would think if the CD player reads the data and it's properly transmitted to a DAC by the computer, it would be doing the same job a CD player does.
Jitter would be a concern, but even the most expensive Krell or ARC players I've heard didn't completely solve this...$18,000 DACs aside. - as long as crystals continue to be piezoelectic jitter will exist. Half the time the circuitry designed to eliminate jitter does more bad than good anyway...I'm usually so into the music that I never really notice any jitter effects except on the worst CD players. Same with pops or crackles on my turn table. Until they make a perfect format there's always gonna be something.

Anyway, as far as using a PC goes...I think it's coming - it may or may not be the best sounding - but then, there will be audiophile companies that try to address that someday too.
I certainly wouldn't expect my PC to play CD's as well as my Arcam, but as I said, I'm usually just using it as a programmable DJ for parties or for background music...it's not even hooked up to my stereo system, just my HT. Most people won't even own a $2000 system, so using their PC probably makes sense to them. It's gonna be handy in my case, I only have 2 CD players and 5 rooms with speakers in them in my house.

Florian
06-11-2006, 06:27 AM
I think its a great choice for many people and encourage the IT Technology growing togehter with Audio and HT system. But i also heard some CD Transports that "only read 0 and 1's" with staggering differences! For most its great but i think that this is highly system and resolution dependand.

For instance the Tact users (room correction) upgrade the voltage regulation on their DSP chips and get a big improvement in the sound. So there are affects but you will not hear them on moderate systems.

So i recommend it, but i would be VERY carefull givin it a A+ for those addicted to audio at a certain level.

-Flo

shokhead
06-11-2006, 06:39 AM
Computers and A/V are seperate in my home. Why somebody would watch a movie on the computer or use it as part of a home theather is by me. Guess i'm old school when it come to this.

Mike Anderson
06-11-2006, 07:44 AM
Interesting. How do you remotely control it from the couch?

With this thing:

http://www.slimdevices.com/index.html

Mike Anderson
06-11-2006, 07:49 AM
First its the ripping which you will loose information on. Then the encoding, and the Jitter thats not removed. You can hear certain section of the electronics inside the computer or the laptop through the sound card and you have voltage fluctuations.

I'm sorry Florian, but you're dead wrong about this:

1) Ripping: Using a program like Exact Audio Copy, you can get completely error-free rips out of 99.99% of the CDs you buy. Perhaps 1 in 1,000 is damaged to the point where you get an error.

2) Encoding and computer electronics: I'm not sure what you're talking about re encoding (if you mean compression, you can rip w/lossless compression), but if you use an off-board DAC you can move the whole process off the computer. The computer than serves as storage, and as a means to manage your collection.


There is most likely a whole range for and against it, but the simple fact is that you can hear it. We ran music from a Apple Ibook to a TagMcLaren Preamp here and while it was practical it did suffer in resolution, harmonic correctness and texture.

With that kind of setup, absolutely you will hear it. But come listen to mine, where I stream a pure digital signal to a hign-quality DAC that's sitting far away from the computer.

Sorry Flo, you're behind the times on this one.

Florian
06-11-2006, 07:54 AM
You know i like you Mike, so i wont get upfront with this. Your Maggies are a great start and so is the Pathos, but you wont hear the difference. Its simply a lack of resolution!

I wont get into this, and i will not argue. I am, once again comparing two different realms of HIFI. If this works for you, thats fine but i can blindly say that E-Stat, Joe, Bernd, Y-S and myself would never do this because of the lack of resolution, downward dynamic range, and none-harmonic correctness that we can hear on our systems.

-Flo

PS: As a designer of Phase Changed cooled computers, watercooled multiprocessor systems i am right in the time, but my level of musical fideliy along with others wont allow us such toys-

Mike Anderson
06-11-2006, 08:01 AM
Here's my setup, BTW:

1) Music is all stored in lossless format (FLAC) on a 500-GB external drive.

2) The music can be managed with any number of software setups (like iTunes, if you aren't using FLAC), but I'm OK using the Slimserver software that comes free with the Squeezebox I linked to above. That can be accessed from any computer that's on the network, or you can use a remote control to control it through the Squeezebox. You can have any number of these things throughout your house, hooked wirelessly to your network if you like.

3) The computer sends a network signal to the Squeezebox, which outputs a 44.1/16 bit PCM stream to a DAC. My Squeezebox is hooked to the computer via CAT5 cable, but wireless is also an option.

4) In my case, I'm using a Benchmark DAC1, which puts jitter at a below-audible level. Of course this makes the setup slightly more expensive, but then I'm getting sound quality that will rival a CD player many times more expensive than this.

5) The Benchmark outputs the analog signal to my Pathos Logos amp via balanced XLR cables.

That's it! I can control my music without touching a computer, via the Squeezebox. Or, I can use the laptop that's often sitting right in my lap, if I prefer.

The other nice part about it is that the Squeezebox makes Internet radio extremely convenient. You can even access it without having your computer on, via the Squeezenetwork. And through this setup, Internet radio actually sounds pretty good (about as good as you can make a 128k signal sound, which is good enough to fool most people).

Mike Anderson
06-11-2006, 08:03 AM
You know i like you Mike, so i wont get upfront with this. Your Maggies are a great start and so is the Pathos, but you wont hear the difference. Its simply a lack of resolution!

I wont get into this, and i will not argue. I am, once again comparing two different realms of HIFI. If this works for you, thats fine but i can blindly say that E-Stat, Joe, Bernd, Y-S and myself would never do this because of the lack of resolution, downward dynamic range, and none-harmonic correctness that we can hear on our systems.

-Flo

PS: As a designer of Phase Changed cooled computers, watercooled multiprocessor systems i am right in the time, but my level of musical fideliy along with others wont allow us such toys-

Have you listened to a computer setup with an offboard DAC?

I fully agree that if you just take the sound signal out of a laptop, it's going to suffer big time. But in my case, the analog signal is coming not from the computer, but a Benchmark DAC1. And you can make your DAC as fancy as you like.

Thus the computer is not acting as a sound signal generator, it's merely a storage and management device. My Squeezebox is acting as a "transport", and the DAC deals with any jitter problems.

Mike Anderson
06-11-2006, 08:09 AM
Re ripping CDs, here is Exact Audio Copy, which will give you error-free rips on the vast majority of CDs:

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/

Here's info on the jitter level of the Benchmark DAC1:

http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/dac1/

I seriously doubt even the most golden ears listening to the world's best setup can here the level of jitter this thing puts out. It simply isn't an issue.

Bernd
06-11-2006, 08:11 AM
Hi Mike,
When I first read your post this morning I thought it was a wind-up, but it turned into a debate. So here are my 2cts.
My wife bought last week an i-pod Nano to use on her long car journeys and got bitten by the PC jukebox bug. So out we went and bought an offboard DAC "Perreaux Silhoutte SXD".
It sounds acceptable through the living room system. We then made an experiment and took the PC into the listening room and have the DAC run through the Main System. Believe me the sound is nowhere near as good with the PC in the chain. We then used the CDP as transport only and the sound was a lot better.
Just my findings as of yesterday.
We all like different presentations and have different expectations.

Peace

Bernd:16:

Mike Anderson
06-11-2006, 08:21 AM
Hi Mike,
When I first read your post this morning I thought it was a wind-up, but it turned into a debate. So here are my 2cts.
My wife bought last week an i-pod Nano to use on her long car journeys and got bitten by the PC jukebox bug. So out we went and bought an offboard DAC "Perreaux Silhoutte SXD".
It sounds acceptable through the living room system. We then made an experiment and took the PC into the listening room and have the DAC run through the Main System. Believe me the sound is nowhere near as good with the PC in the chain. We then used the CDP as transport only and the sound was a lot better.
Just my findings as of yesterday.
We all like different presentations and have different expectations.

Peace

Bernd:16:


1) What's the source for your digital signal? If it's the computer's internal soundcard, you can easily do better. My Squeezebox puts out a digital signal with inaudible jitter (in the double-digit picosecond range).

2) It's best not to put the PC in the room where you do your listening, because the noise from the PC itself (fan etc) will corrupt your listening experience. Note that you can easily run 50 feet of CAT5 cable before you have a problem with network signal, or you can stream wirelessly to something like the Squeezebox.

Bernd
06-11-2006, 08:54 AM
1) What's the source for your digital signal? If it's the computer's internal soundcard, you can easily do better. My Squeezebox puts out a digital signal with inaudible jitter (in the double-digit picosecond range).

2) It's best not to put the PC in the room where you do your listening, because the noise from the PC itself (fan etc) will corrupt your listening experience. Note that you can easily run 50 feet of CAT5 cable before you have a problem with network signal, or you can stream wirelessly to something like the Squeezebox.

Mike, I am not a PC techno guy, so can't really answer your questions with knowledge. We used the PC from its usb port. We didn't have the machine in the room as the usb lead is long enough to reach the Living room but not quite the Listening room. We just needed to move it a little closer.
How is everything with you? Hope you're doing well.

Peace

Bernd:16:

Mike Anderson
06-11-2006, 08:57 AM
Mike, I am not a PC techno guy, so can't really answer your questions with knowledge. We used the PC from its usb port. We didn't have the machine in the room as the usb lead is long enough to reach the Living room but not quiet the Listening room. We just needed to move it a little closer.
How is everything with you? Hope you're doing well.

Peace

Bernd:16:

Everything's great here, thanks -- still enjoying your tubes in my amp!

Feanor
06-11-2006, 10:45 AM
Here's my setup, BTW:
...


Mine is really simple & managable ...
http://gallery.audioreview.com/showphoto.php?photo=1632&size=big&password=&sort=1&cat=all

The M-Audio Audiophile USB:

Feanor
06-11-2006, 10:51 AM
First its the ripping which you will loose information on. Then the encoding, and the Jitter thats not removed. You can hear certain section of the electronics inside the computer or the laptop through the sound card and you have voltage fluctuations.

...!

If you are concerned about exact, jitter-free copies, use Exact Copy ...

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/
Reputedly, external USB-connected sound cards such as I use, reduce the effect of EMI/RFI found inside the computer.

Feanor
06-11-2006, 11:02 AM
Hi Mike,
When I first read your post this morning I thought it was a wind-up, but it turned into a debate. So here are my 2cts.
My wife bought last week an i-pod Nano to use on her long car journeys and got bitten by the PC jukebox bug. So out we went and bought an offboard DAC "Perreaux Silhoutte SXD".
....

Peace

Bernd

Bernd, at what resolution is your wife's music encoded?

I'll be the first to agree that compressed formats aren't nearly as good as lossless formats: there is a "huge" loss of resolution and transparency.

Wireworm5
06-11-2006, 11:06 AM
There is one exception to this that I am aware of, that is copy protected cd's. Fortunately I only have a few, but if you burn a copy to a cd-r and I assume tranfer to PC you won't get the sound quality that is on the original cd. I found this out the other day, I was playing a burned copy and it had some skips that was annoying me to the point that I pulled out the original cd. I was immediately aware of how much better this cd sounded then the cd-r. So with some copy protected cd's you have to play them in a standalone cd player.

JohnMichael
06-11-2006, 11:46 AM
Computers and A/V are seperate in my home. Why somebody would watch a movie on the computer or use it as part of a home theather is by me. Guess i'm old school when it come to this.



Shokhead I guess I am very old school. Two channel stereo in the living room, TV in the bedroom and my computer will have nothing to do with either one.

Mike Anderson
06-11-2006, 11:51 AM
My wife bought last week an i-pod Nano to use on her long car journeys and got bitten by the PC jukebox bug. So out we went and bought an offboard DAC "Perreaux Silhoutte SXD".


Bernd,

If this is the product:

http://www.perreaux.com/product.php?idp=52

Then yes, you are doing the encoding and digital-to-analog conversion offboard. That will sound much better than taking the audio right out of your computer's sound card.

However, I see that unit uses 24-bit Burr-Brown DACs. Those are OK, but at EUR 999, the unit is *way* overpriced for what it does. You can get the same 24-bit Burr-Brown DACs in the Squeezebox for $250 USD. You can't plug your CD player into it, but you get way more functionality with the remote control access to all your music, Internet radio etc.

See if you can return the Perreaux. For the kind of money you're spending, you'd be much better off getting a much higher quality DAC like the Benchmark.

Feanor
06-11-2006, 12:20 PM
Have you listened to a computer setup with an offboard DAC?

I fully agree that if you just take the sound signal out of a laptop, it's going to suffer big time. But in my case, the analog signal is coming not from the computer, but a Benchmark DAC1. And you can make your DAC as fancy as you like.

Thus the computer is not acting as a sound signal generator, it's merely a storage and management device. My Squeezebox is acting as a "transport", and the DAC deals with any jitter problems.

You know that there are certain equipment snobs who will never admit that a lower cost solution will approach -- or maybe exceed -- a high-cost solution. Don't bother them with facts, their minds are made up.
:sleep:

Mike Anderson
06-11-2006, 01:46 PM
^^^ That's OK, he's entitled to his opinion too.

FWIW, there are an awful lot of "equipment snobs" who are going the way of the computer. Check out the Squeezebox forums, there are some very serious audiophiles, as well as some extremely knowledgeable engineers there:

http://forums.slimdevices.com/

Look at some of the setups folks are using (including Apogees):

http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=21643&highlight=apogee

PHiX
06-11-2006, 03:02 PM
You'd have to use a pc dedicated for music, which is more expensive than a cd player. Any that is used for other purposes will become fragmented and might hurt your listening experience by skipping or fluctuations of other processes (windows!). Not only would you need a hard drive, but a good sound card as well and those add up to the price. I do believe the cd player is outdated, but I hope we'll some day get a lot of dedicated music servers on the market... like hifi audiophile iPods. I know Cambridge has one, but $1200 for a 160Gb hard disk player is a rip-off. You could buy 10 160 Gb hard drives and still have money left to buy a pc to put the components in.

Mike Anderson
06-11-2006, 03:07 PM
You'd have to use a pc dedicated for music, which is more expensive than a cd player. Any that is used for other purposes will become fragmented and might hurt your listening experience by skipping or fluctuations of other processes (windows!). Not only would you need a hard drive, but a good sound card as well and those add up to the price. I do believe the cd player is outdated, but I hope we'll some day get a lot of dedicated music servers on the market... like hifi audiophile iPods. I know Cambridge has one, but $1200 for a 160Gb hard disk player is a rip-off. You could buy 10 160 Gb hard drives and still have money left to buy a pc to put the components in.

I don't use a dedicated PC, I just used what I already had sitting around, which is the same computer we use to do everything else. It simply doesn't require that much memory to run the music server software.

I don't use the sound card either, all the encoding and conversion is done offboard.

I did get an external hard drive, but those aren't that expensive these days, and it isn't necessary unless your present hard drive isn't large enough to accomodate your collection.

Note: I have nearly 8,000 "songs" (many of which are really radio show segments running up to an hour), and 99% of it is in FLAC (lossless compression, about half the size of redbook CD file sizes). It's still not a problem for my PC.

JoeE SP9
06-11-2006, 04:19 PM
Why do so many who come to audio through their interest in computers want to get rid of CD's and other tangible sources? It reminds me of the introduction of CD's. That was a wonderful time for me. I was not happy with “perfect sound forever” from the beginning. As an early adopter I bought a CD player when they were all in the kilobuck price range. To all those wonderful people who sold their vinyl I thank you again. If I'm lucky I'll be able to get a mountain of CD's as people start ripping them to HD (hard drives). There is a high convenience factor associated with putting one's music on a music server. There is also a very high risk factor that most ignore or forget about. Hard drives are not in any way reliable. The reason servers use RAID arrays is because we who work with them know that hard drives die with no warning. The raid array stripes data across several drives so that when a drive failure occurs, and it will, the dead drive can be swapped out and the missing data reconstructed on the fly. I have no idea how this would work with music or even if it can. Don't get me wrong. I have been working at integrating my audio and video since 1967 when I bought a Pioneer TVX-95 TV audio tuner. It allowed me to have TV audio through my stereo. This was way before stereo TV and VCR's.

When I bought an IBM PC they came with 360K floppy drives and had no sound. I have been in the vanguard of computer audio from the beginning starting with the old AdLib sound cards. Even now My main PC is connected to my stereo. I rip LP's to be burned on CD and output Pandora to my stereo when I'm feeling lazy. I agree that the idea of having a personal jukebox that plays what you want is very nice. One problem for me is spending the time ripping 1000+ CD's to hard drive. The other problem is the sheer size of the files. Any kind of audio compression other than lossless is not for me. Of course there is the remote control thing and I need the exercise I get changing the LP or CD anyway. I would guess that using an outboard DAC would remove any question of sound quality. The thing to remember is whatever you do, don't get rid of your CD's because one day that hard drive will crash taking all of your data (music) with it. The larger hard drives are the ones on the bleeding edge of technology and they are the ones most liable to crash. Unfortunately the larger hard drives are the ones folks with large music collections need to rip their CD's to.:cool:

Mike Anderson
06-11-2006, 04:34 PM
Why do so many who come to audio through their interest in computers want to get rid of CD's and other tangible sources?

1) As I started out saying in this thread, the quality for the $ is much higher, if you go about it the right way;

2) You say "convenience", I say "power"! I can play any song out of my huge collection instantly, without getting out of my chair. I can build playlists for parties. I can randomly generate playlists, or play only one genre, or one year. I can search through my collection instantaneously for any song/artist/album/whatever.

And because I can play songs randomly, I often hear songs I haven't heard in a long time, and wouldn't have heard if I had to use the CD player, because it simply wouldn't have occurred to me to go find the CD and put it in the player.

It's just... COOL! :5:

Really, at some point you have to admit that "convenience" goes far beyond the meaning of that word.

You wouldn't believe how people react to my system when they see it in operation. They're wordless -- not just at the sound quality (which also blows them away), but the sheer *power* of it. I say "name your favorite group" and about five seconds later it's playing!

I've also had people thank me very heartily after I convinced them to buy a Squeezebox.

As far as hard drive failure: after I rip a dozen or so CDs in FLAC and have them all properly tagged (another feature you don't get with CDs), I back them up on an archive-quality DVD that will last a lot longer than any hard drive I'll ever own.

Woochifer
06-11-2006, 10:35 PM
Very interesting thread with a lot to think about. With the growth in distributed music servers, I never really thought much of it simply because those devices have only been feasible by converting and compressing the music files due to their comparatively limited storage space.

Now that 500 GB SATA drives are going for less than $200, you're probably right that the time has arrived to start thinking of the computer as a viable music storage and management system, because with that amount of storage, it's now possible to store a large music collection using lossless encoding. I'd be curious as to how this would work with a wireless network because my desktop computer is nowhere near my audio system, and if I have to run CAT5 cabling then I'd rather stick with loading up my CD changer. For one thing, I already own a CD player and keep my CD collection in the same room with my audio system.

I know that the market is headed towards greater convergence between the PC and home entertainment worlds, but the thing that I like about having a standalone audio system is the simplicity and reliability. A CD player or a receiver will simply power up and you're ready to go -- no operating system to go through, no network security patches, no blue screens, etc. And as Joe already mentioned, if a hard drive goes kaput, there goes the music collection (and RAID or other backup configurations add cost). If you have the CDs in your collection, you don't have to worry about losing your music if the CD player breaks, or re-encoding everything if the hard drive fails.

The other factor that would keep me from getting rid of my CD player altogether is that I play SACDs, which have copy protection. Someone else already mentioned the copy protection schemes built into some CDs that prevent them from playing on CD-ROM drives.

Still though, you're bringing up some good points and a lot of ideas that I hadn't thought about yet. The weak link with sound cards has always been the analog circuitry, and using an external DAC gets around this issue.

superpanavision70mm
06-11-2006, 11:14 PM
Well, I don't have much to add to this particular thread other than this...

At least CD players don't get viruses like a PC....Apple for me all the way, but never for serious music playback.

Bernd
06-11-2006, 11:19 PM
Bernd,

If this is the product:

http://www.perreaux.com/product.php?idp=52

Then yes, you are doing the encoding and digital-to-analog conversion offboard. That will sound much better than taking the audio right out of your computer's sound card.

However, I see that unit uses 24-bit Burr-Brown DACs. Those are OK, but at EUR 999, the unit is *way* overpriced for what it does. You can get the same 24-bit Burr-Brown DACs in the Squeezebox for $250 USD. You can't plug your CD player into it, but you get way more functionality with the remote control access to all your music, Internet radio etc.

See if you can return the Perreaux. For the kind of money you're spending, you'd be much better off getting a much higher quality DAC like the Benchmark.

Jep, that's the one. And I have no doubt that there are better units out there, but as my wife bought this (because it looks nice) I doubt that it will be returned.
As for me if it keeps her happy I am good with that. As I have no desire to put a PC into my listening chain.
Thanks for the tips though and glad the tubes are doing stern service. Good aren't they?

Peace

Bernd:16:

Bernd
06-11-2006, 11:21 PM
You know that there are certain equipment snobs who will never admit that a lower cost solution will approach -- or maybe exceed -- a high-cost solution. Don't bother them with facts, their minds are made up.
:sleep:
My dear friend Feanor,

I hope this wasn't a cheap shot directed at me. I am far from an equipment snob. I am all for it to spent less for better performance. Just haven't come across to many units that fit that.
Hope you are well.

Peace

Bernd:16:

Florian
06-12-2006, 12:46 AM
My dear friend Feanor,

I hope this wasn't a cheap shot directed at me. I am far from an equipment snob. I am all for it to spent less for better performance. Just haven't come across to many units that fit that.
Hope you are well.

Peace

Bernd:16:

You know how it is Bernd. Those that cant hear the difference, will point a finger and call you a snob. Its normal! And once they hear a system that blows their mind, they are too stuck in their routine bashing of quality equipment that they cant admit that they are wrong.

-Flo

Mike Anderson
06-12-2006, 04:54 AM
Still though, you're bringing up some good points and a lot of ideas that I hadn't thought about yet. The weak link with sound cards has always been the analog circuitry, and using an external DAC gets around this issue.

Wooch, you (and for that matter, anyone else nearby) are welcomed to come check out my setup.

As far as wireless, the Squeezebox works wirelessly. (And if you have an Apple setup, so does the Airport Extreme, but you have to control the music from your computer, whereas the SB has a remote control.)

I will say that because the SB is cutting edge technology, it helps to be computer savvy to get the most out of it and have it working 100% smoothly. A small but non-negligible minority of people do experience problems getting it to work wirelessly. (There's a review of it on this site that details such problems.)

What's very cool is the whole community of fanatics, engineers and computer geeks that have sprung up around the thing. The code for the server is open-source, so people create all these crazy plugins that let you do dozens of different things with the SB:

http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?SlimServerPlugins

Feanor
06-12-2006, 05:28 AM
My dear friend Feanor,

I hope this wasn't a cheap shot directed at me. I am far from an equipment snob. I am all for it to spent less for better performance. Just haven't come across to many units that fit that.
Hope you are well.

Peace

Bernd

Bernd, it was a bit of shot, but not necessarily aimed at you. Incidentally, you are always gentlemanly and tactful, other people occassional forget themselve, (maybe I'm one: sorry).

There are diminishing returns in home audio. I don't acknowledge any huge gulf, as Flo implied, between really high-end systems like yours, Florian's, E-Stat's, et al.. Differences from more modest systems like mine, and Mike's maybe, are real enough in general, but incremental. Admittedly if I'd had more cash I'd spend more on hi-fi, but I try to keep diminishing returns in perspective.

Speaking of "huge gulfs", I proposed that such a difference exists between stereo and multichannel when the latter is properly done. I guess we disagree on that too.

Florian
06-12-2006, 05:33 AM
Bernd, it was a bit of shot, but not necessarily aimed at you. Incidentally, you are always gentlemanly and tactful, other people occassional forget themselve, (maybe I'm one: sorry).

There are diminishing returns in home audio. I don't acknowledge any huge gulf, as Flo implied, between really high-end systems like yours, Florian's, E-Stat's, et al.. Differences from more modest systems like mine, and Mike's maybe, are real enough in general, but incremental. Admittedly if I'd had more cash I'd spend more on hi-fi, but I try to keep diminishing returns in perspective.

Speaking of "huge gulfs", I proposed that such a difference exists between stereo and multichannel when the latter is properly done. I guess we disagree on that too.

You know guys, Multi Channel, Vinyl or Squeeze boxes all have their fans. MC systems can kick ass, Vinyl can kick ass and so can a Squeeze box and a laptop over some CD players. But never in "absolut" terms.

I think its cool that you guys try out MC and Squeeze boxes and if that works for you and you like then more power to you. I have build some crazy things in the past, and can see the fascination.

Keep on Rockin!

But please accept that E-Stat, Bernd, Joe and myself are two channel, vinyl and freaks who simply will keep their music in a different way and do not care about diminishing returns first.....if we can...we go the next level.. By the way, how many are there?

:-)

GMichael
06-12-2006, 06:16 AM
You know guys, Multi Channel, Vinyl or Squeeze boxes all have their fans. MC systems can kick ass, Vinyl can kick ass and so can a Squeeze box and a laptop over some CD players. But never in "absolut" terms.

I think its cool that you guys try out MC and Squeeze boxes and if that works for you and you like then more power to you. I have build some crazy things in the past, and can see the fascination.

Keep on Rockin!

But please accept that E-Stat, Bernd, Joe and myself are two channel, vinyl and freaks who simply will keep their music in a different way and do not care about diminishing returns first.....if we can...we go the next level.. By the way, how many are there?

:-)

42. The answer is 42.

OK, I'll go first.

My name is Michael, and I love music. It's been almost 23 seconds sinse my last CD.

Mike Anderson
06-12-2006, 06:34 AM
But please accept that E-Stat, Bernd, Joe and myself are two channel, vinyl and freaks who simply will keep their music in a different way and do not care about diminishing returns first.....if we can...we go the next level.

And I accept that fully.

My thread is really aimed at the countless number of people who post in these forums, asking "What's the best CD player I can get for $800?" without knowing that they have a whole other alternative for playing their CDs.

These folks aren't going to drop $20k on a set of refurbished Apogees and a high-end amp to power them. For them, the quality of sound they can get out of a computer for $800 surpasses what they will get out of the CD player they will otherwise buy -- and the power of music management they'll get from the computer is a whole other world.

I will say that going the computer route requires a little more effort. For one, you have to rip your CDs (a time-consuming task if you have a large collection, although you can also ship them out to someone else if you want to pay for it.) You also have to have a little bit of computer savvy. It isn't quite plug'n'play yet.

But for those who make the effort, it's extremely rewarding.

(And Florian, I still maintain that you could do as well or better than your CD player if you ran your computer into a high-end DAC, but I won't push the point.)

Florian
06-12-2006, 06:39 AM
Yes, i agree and we should make a new Thread with a description of how to use this and make it a sticky and lock it!

My suggestion, but i only have that power in the planar section. Maybe JM or Ericl, E-Stat etc..can help?

-Flo


(And Florian, I still maintain that you could do as well or better than your CD player if you ran your computer into a high-end DAC, but I won't push the point.)

I tried that with a Tag McLaren Processor and a Apple Ibook....never underestimate my choices ;-)

Florian
06-12-2006, 06:46 AM
To Mike:

Not to be a snob, but i had 16000$ Krell DACS in here, your little Benchmark too and i kept the wadia for a reason ;-) I am saving for the dcs dacs or big Wadia 861SE

Mike Anderson
06-12-2006, 07:22 AM
Not to be a snob, but i had 16000$ Krell DACS in here, your little Benchmark too and i kept the wadia for a reason ;-) I am saving for the dcs dacs or big Wadia 861SE

Well OK, but it simply isn't fair to compare a piece of gear costing $10k-16k with something costing $950.

Please remember that most people simply don't have that kind of money to drop on a CD player or DAC. People have families, mortgages, kids who want to go to college, retirement funds, etc, and vew few of us can afford to indulge our hobbies to that degree. It's hard enough for me to justify a Benchmark, the Pathos Logos and Maggies.

The Squeezebox, on the other hand, is $250 ($300 for the wireless option). Just about anybody can afford that!

Florian
06-12-2006, 07:26 AM
Well then you should have phrased it differently. This was directed at me, and so you got a response with me ;-)


(And Florian, I still maintain that you could do as well or better than your CD player if you ran your computer into a high-end DAC, but I won't push the point.)

If we are comparing squeeze boxes to 1K players then ok, but you cant argue FOR the SB and when i bring up something that will run circles around it, lift up the flag and say noone can afford it.

;-)

Mike Anderson
06-12-2006, 07:41 AM
If we are comparing squeeze boxes to 1K players then ok, but you cant argue FOR the SB and when i bring up something that will run circles around it, lift up the flag and say noone can afford it.

;-)

Sorry, this exchange got a little confused -- I was talking about your reference to the Benchmark in comparison to the Wadia and the $16k Krell DACS.

And just for anyone else who's confused by this:

1) The Squeezebox has both analog and digital outs. The analog outs use the 24-bit Burr-Brown DACs. Those are pretty good, and probably compete with a $1k CD Player from a couple years ago.

2) But you can also take the digital out of the Squeezebox, and run it into a high-end DAC if you like, including the $16k Krells, or whatever you like.

I'm not an engineer, but I'm not sure why any CD player should be able to best this kind of a setup. As long as you're getting error-free rips, and you're decoding with an inaudible level of jitter -- both of which aren't hard -- I can't imagine why you couldn't use the exact same DAC technology (and other hardware) that comes with the best CD Player money can buy.

What, then, would account for any differences? I don't know enough about the technology to answer that question, but maybe somebody else here does.

Perhaps I'll post something on the Squeezebox forums.

Florian
06-12-2006, 07:47 AM
Well Mike, the answere is simple!

0 and 1's are not always 0 and 1's.

I heard for myself first a CD on a Krell KPS20T and then using the same cables, the same DAC etc... we switched to the Goldmund Mimesis CD36 and the difference was night and day. NIGHT AND DAY!!!

How can this be when all 0 and 1's are the same?

I dont know, but there is a huge difference and one day you might experience the same. And this is the reason why E-Stat, Joe, Bernd, myself etc... know what we seek and why we seek it.

-Flo

JoeE SP9
06-12-2006, 08:33 AM
One problem I didn't mention is the unreliability of Windows itself. As long as Windows is prone to lockups freezes and blue screens of death it is unusable for me as a music server system. I am looking into building a Linux box to try this. Burning CD's that I already have to DVD-R's seems kind of redundant. If you're getting rid of the CD's I understand. I am in the market for used CD's. State title and price.:cool:

Florian
06-12-2006, 08:35 AM
LOL....I have ZERO problems with my Windows box :-) Did you cheap out on the hardware and ram? ;-)

But i still use my CDP and TT

JoeE SP9
06-12-2006, 08:42 AM
Well Mike, the answere is simple!

0 and 1's are not always 0 and 1's.

I heard for myself first a CD on a Krell KPS20T and then using the same cables, the same DAC etc... we switched to the Goldmund Mimesis CD36 and the difference was night and day. NIGHT AND DAY!!!

How can this be when all 0 and 1's are the same?

I dont know, but there is a huge difference and one day you might experience the same. And this is the reason why E-Stat, Joe, Bernd, myself etc... know what we seek and why we seek it.

-Flo
I agree with you 100% Flo. I'm an engineer and I hear things my education and experience tell me should not be. That's why my motto is "The ears decide". Sometimes I think that should say her ears decide. Some of the most accurate observations of sound quality have come from my own mother and my ladyfriends. They don't care about the gear but the sound is very important. When they stop telling you to turn it down you're on the right track going in the right direction.:cool:

Mike Anderson
06-12-2006, 08:43 AM
One problem I didn't mention is the unreliability of Windows itself. As long as Windows is prone to lockups freezes and blue screens of death it is unusable for me as a music server system.

These days, Windows is pretty stable. I can't remember the last time my computer locked up or gave me a blue screen.


Burning CD's that I already have to DVD-R's seems kind of redundant.

You've obviously never had to rip and tag 800 CDs!

Plus, I live in earthquake country, so I like to have one copy of my stuff stored off-site.

Feanor
06-12-2006, 09:15 AM
...
Please remember that most people simply don't have that kind of money to drop on a CD player or DAC. People have families, mortgages, kids who want to go to college, retirement funds, etc, and vew few of us can afford to indulge our hobbies to that degree. It's hard enough for me to justify a Benchmark, the Pathos Logos and Maggies.
...


I'm one of those people with a dozen other, high-demand priorities. But there's something else too. Like I said a while ago, I'm utilitarian by nature as well as by necessity -- I can't ignore diminishing returns.

And there's more. My hi-fi objective is to grow and enjoy my music collection. For me it's not just about perfectionist sound. Yes, I love great sound but I can accept certain compromises. So maybe my Audiophile USB doesn't have the greatest DAC in the world, but it's good enough. The Audiophile USB + external hard drive + USB hub + cables = $450: I could afford that

Then again on my modest $8k main system I really cannot hear the difference between my computer configuration and my, albeit modest, CDP. For the convenience and power gained, the "compromise", (effectively none), is well worth it. :cornut: .

PHiX
06-12-2006, 09:17 AM
I agree with you 100% Flo. I'm an engineer and I hear things my education and experience tell me should not be. That's why my motto is "The ears decide". Sometimes I think that should say her ears decide. Some of the most accurate observations of sound quality have come from my own mother and my ladyfriends. They don't care about the gear but the sound is very important. When they stop telling you to turn it down you're on the right track going in the right direction.:cool:

Apparantly women do have better ears than men, men just want to have the best toys technically, but women are the ones who can really tell the difference since their ears can handle a larger frequency range.

Feanor
06-12-2006, 09:20 AM
Well Mike, the answere is simple!

0 and 1's are not always 0 and 1's.

I heard for myself first a CD on a Krell KPS20T and then using the same cables, the same DAC etc... we switched to the Goldmund Mimesis CD36 and the difference was night and day. NIGHT AND DAY!!!
...

-Flo

One man's night-and-day is another man's twilight. :2:

Florian
06-12-2006, 09:22 AM
To Feanor;

Noone is arguing against the SB or against a computer music server. But to claim that the SB will eliminate a good CD Player and that "I" as an example could improve my sound "sonically" by using a computer based player is laughable and arguable.

I have nothing agains the SB, but on my personal system and my parents system the differences between CD Transports is quite big! And 0 and 1's do not sound the same :-)

So, i encourage the SB and the capabilitys or a PC/Mac based system but it will not replace a good cd player in all systems.

-Flo

Florian
06-12-2006, 09:23 AM
One man's night-and-day is another man's twilight. :2:

Yes, but then i was not the one who talked about a pc/mac based music server in absolute terms ;-)

shokhead
06-12-2006, 09:51 AM
Apparantly women do have better ears than men, men just want to have the best toys technically, but women are the ones who can really tell the difference since their ears can handle a larger frequency range.

You mean they are not human?

ericl
06-12-2006, 10:39 AM
Florian,

What type of PC Audio hardware did you use to come to the conclusion that pc audio is inferior? as you know, it is key. internal soundcards won't do it. There are many USB-DACs starting to come out (you might try wavelength audio's brick). There are also high options for converting USB to SP/DIF for use with your own DAC (empirical audio - heard incredible resolution at his display at CES ).

Also, you have to bypass window's kmixer for best sound. This requires special hardware and drivers, not available with typical soundcards...

Mike Anderson
06-12-2006, 10:46 AM
Here's the thread I posted on the other Forum about this topic:

http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=24670

Of course these folks may be biased towards the Squeezebox, but they're also very smart technically.

Suffice it to say so far that you can do very, very good with a good DAC. Whether it's the equivalent of a $10k CD player can be debated, but even there the differences must be extremely subtle.

Florian
06-12-2006, 10:50 AM
Aaah, this is getting tiresome. As soon as someone doesnt agree with others it is talked to death. Everyone ignores the experience that Joe and I had, that just the xchange of CD Transports transformed the sound. If changing from a Krell KP20T to a Goldmund CD36 had a very audible difference in sound, and all they do is read 0 and 1's then something is going on!

We used the Tag McLaren AVR32 with 192khz dacs. The Apple Ibook ran the wireless connection to a MC Airport and then digitally straight into the Tag McLaren. That Tag is way above any preamp used by our members with PC based audio storage. The CD where ripped in pure uncompressed format. We used CDex for the Job and then compared them to normal CD's using the VRDS T-1 Transport also into the Tag McLaren.

The difference was obvious in the soundstage depth, micro details and harmonic correctness. Something simply didnt sound right. Speakers used where Apogee Scinitllas. Arguably one of the absolut highest resolution speaker on this planet.

-Flo

Florian
06-12-2006, 10:52 AM
Here's the thread I posted on the other Forum about this topic:

http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=24670

Of course these folks may be biased towards the Squeezebox, but they're also very smart technically.

Suffice it to say so far that you can do very, very good with a good DAC. Whether it's the equivalent of a $10k CD player can be debated, but even there the differences must be extremely subtle.

You guys do not understand. We dont care about the technical aspect, as Joe as an Eng. said, he heard differences eventough there shouldnt be any technically. So have i, and my friends. We dont need Technical Mumbo Jumbo, all we need is high resolution equipment and good ears.

And thats the end for me on this issue.

-Flo

ericl
06-12-2006, 10:54 AM
Aaah, this is getting tiresome. As soon as someone doesnt agree with others it is talked to death. Everyone ignores the experience that Joe and I had, that just the xchange of CD Transports transformed the sound. If changing from a Krell KP20T to a Goldmund CD36 had a very audible difference in sound, and all they do is read 0 and 1's then something is going on!

We used the Tag McLaren AVR32 with 192khz dacs. The Apple Ibook ran the wireless connection to a MC Airport and then digitally straight into the Tag McLaren. That Tag is way above any preamp used by our members with PC based audio storage. The CD where ripped in pure uncompressed format. We used CDex for the Job and then compared them to normal CD's using the VRDS T-1 Transport also into the Tag McLaren.

The difference was obvious in the soundstage depth, micro details and harmonic correctness. Something simply didnt sound right. Speakers used where Apogee Scinitllas.

-Flo

So you're comparing an unmodified, $129 airport express to a Krell transport?? Sure, those are very comparable products. :rolleyes5:

ericl
06-12-2006, 11:00 AM
And thats the end for me on this issue.

-Flo

Yes, first get some experience on the subject and we can talk about it more. Your traditional gear is expensive, but that doesn't mean you have any idea of what you're talking about when it comes to different subjects. :wink5:

Florian
06-12-2006, 11:03 AM
So you're comparing an unmodified, $129 airport express to a Krell transport?? Sure, those are very comparable products. :rolleyes5:

No, you and the others are comparing it. I said right from the start that these are not compareable, not price wise and performance wiese either. But you guys cant accept that and argue with me that this SB is soo good that i can forget my CDP.

And that is simply wrong!

Florian
06-12-2006, 11:06 AM
Yes, first get some experience on the subject and we can talk about it more. Your traditional gear is expensive, but that doesn't mean you have any idea of what you're talking about when it comes to different subjects. :wink5:
I wouldnt start about network technology and computers with me, if i where you with all respects. I have been featured twice in germanys PC Games and PC Picture with my Phase Change cooling and Watercooled Designs. I designed the Network used by Zettler (Germanys largest Calander maker, CBL Chemical Laboratorys and Eisele Enviromental Protection). I know what i am talking about, and i said multiple times that i welcome this design but it cannot replace my equipment, no matter how fancy these designs are.

And Joe agrees with me too, you are the ones who cannot accept the fact that there are differences in reading out CD's, and if a Krell and Golmund get different read outs then so will the PC CD Rom.

Simple!

ericl
06-12-2006, 11:18 AM
I wouldnt start about network technology and computers with me, if i where you with all respects. I have been featured twice in germanys PC Games and PC Picture with my Phase Change cooling and Watercooled Designs. I know what i am talking about, and i said multiple times that i welcome this design but it cannot replace my equipment, no matter how fancy these designs are.

And Joe agrees with me too, you are the ones who cannot accept the fact that there are differences in reading out CD's, and if a Krell and Golmund get different read outs then so will the PC CD Rom.

Simple!

Of course I accept that there are differences. I disagree with the rest of the group on this and many subjects. This is the whole point behind why computer audio is better. You are no longer reading the data off the CD, the point at which jitter is often introduced. The argument for PC audio is that, done right, it is the most jitter free transport available. And it is easier to do it for less money than with a CD.

Also, experience with "water-cooled PCs" still doesn't equal PC audio hardware experience. Funny, you use our inexperience with ultra high end equipment to beat us over the head day in day out, but now, your experience with networking (??) means you are an authority on PC Audio? Can you explain that to me?

You need a high-end USB-SP/DIF converter or better yet, a USB-i2S-DAC and to bypass windows mixer to really hear what PC audio is capable of.

read
http://www.empiricalaudio.com/frComputer_Audio.html (you should try one of his products)
http://wavelengthaudio.com (or one of his)

also, stop acting like a pompous jackass for once in your life.

cheers

eric

Florian
06-12-2006, 11:22 AM
Funny how the only people on this forum who have this problem with me are the once who are against high priced audio gear. I was never against this unit, and i never claim knowledge in the PC Audio Area. You questioned my knowledge, without knowing anything about me. What would you have said if a had made custom PC audio solutions in the past?

You dont, and thats what pisses me off. You always asume, you never ask or know.


also, stop acting like a pompous jackass for once in your life.

I'll stop when you go back and read what i wrote!


Of course I accept that there are differences.

Boom! There you go! If the read outs are different from CD Drive to CD Drive, then the information will be tainted before even going to the drive (ripped) and then still tained when it reaches the USB DAC. Is it better or equal to a certain price range? Maybe! But is it better then what i heard so far? No! Practical? Yes! A perfect solution for all Audiophiles? No!

End of Story!

Addon: More pieces = more distortion, more cables, more equipment in the signal path. Why dont we ask Bernd, E-Stat, Joe and others what they think of that?

Mike Anderson
06-12-2006, 11:51 AM
This is the whole point behind why computer audio is better. You are no longer reading the data off the CD, the point at which jitter is often introduced. The argument for PC audio is that, done right, it is the most jitter free transport available. And it is easier to do it for less money than with a CD.

Exactly.

And all this is in addition to the powerful music management capabilties you get with the computer (which are not even disputable).

ericl
06-12-2006, 03:15 PM
I've got a USB Tube DAC from Scott Nixon and I am working on a review:
http://scott-nixon.com/dac.htm
It's pretty great. I am very excited about it.

Also, we have a section on computer audio, which needs some updating:
http://www.audioreview.com/pcaudiocrx.aspx

GMichael
06-13-2006, 05:10 AM
You are no longer reading the data off the CD, the point at which jitter is often introduced.
eric

This got me thinking. My CD/R has a hard drive that a lot of my CD's are recorded onto. So do I get this same advantage because I'm playing back from an HD? Or is it a wash because the HD info was recorded from a CD to begin with?

shokhead
06-13-2006, 05:33 AM
I belive its against the law to mix computer in with HT.

GMichael
06-13-2006, 05:51 AM
I belive its against the law to mix computer in with HT.

They'll never take me alive copper.

Geoffcin
06-13-2006, 06:38 AM
This got me thinking. My CD/R has a hard drive that a lot of my CD's are recorded onto. So do I get this same advantage because I'm playing back from an HD? Or is it a wash because the HD info was recorded from a CD to begin with?

A Digital to Analog Converter takes a digital signal (0110110111011,ect) and converts it to a analog signal, which is, (for audio DAC's) a waveform traced out in voltage. The DAC doesn't care where the digital signal comes from, only that it conforms to the design specs so that it can lock on to it.

So the answer is YES, absolutely!, a DAC can make a difference in what your hearing from music stored on your HD.

Mike Anderson
06-13-2006, 07:16 AM
This got me thinking. My CD/R has a hard drive that a lot of my CD's are recorded onto. So do I get this same advantage because I'm playing back from an HD? Or is it a wash because the HD info was recorded from a CD to begin with?

Generally, yes. But your rips may have errors. You typically have to make some effort to make sure you're getting good rips. The errors may or may not be audible; in the worst cases, they are VERY audible (e.g. blanks spots in a song, pops and clicks, etc.)

Use a good ripping software, like Exact Audio Copy (which has to be configured properly -- Google for the instructions on how to do this.)

iTunes has an option for error-checking when you rip, but it isn't as good as EAC. I'm sure it's better than nothing though.

GMichael
06-13-2006, 07:24 AM
A Digital to Analog Converter takes a digital signal (0110110111011,ect) and converts it to a analog signal, which is, (for audio DAC's) a waveform traced out in voltage. The DAC doesn't care where the digital signal comes from, only that it conforms to the design specs so that it can lock on to it.

So the answer is YES, absolutely!, a DAC can make a difference in what your hearing from music stored on your HD.

I thought that what Eric was saying was that: sinse a computer is reading the 1's & 0's from a drive instead of a CD that it wasn't getting as much jitter because the reading from a CD is where most jitter comes from. Maybe I misread what he wrote.

I can see where a DAC would do a better job of converting than a receiver. Just another toy that will have to wait.

GMichael
06-13-2006, 07:28 AM
Generally, yes. But your rips may have errors. You typically have to make some effort to make sure you're getting good rips. The errors may or may not be audible; in the worst cases, they are VERY audible (e.g. blanks spots in a song, pops and clicks, etc.)

Use a good ripping software, like Exact Audio Copy (which has to be configured properly -- Google for the instructions on how to do this.)

iTunes has an option for error-checking when you rip, but it isn't as good as EAC. I'm sure it's better than nothing though.

My CD/R has the HD built in. It's doing all the ripping for me internally. Can I download s/w into the unit that will do a better job? Is there s/w available that will let me test it?

Wireworm5
06-13-2006, 08:38 AM
Generally, yes. But your rips may have errors. You typically have to make some effort to make sure you're getting good rips. The errors may or may not be audible; in the worst cases, they are VERY audible (e.g. blanks spots in a song, pops and clicks, etc.)

Use a good ripping software, like Exact Audio Copy (which has to be configured properly -- Google for the instructions on how to do this.)

iTunes has an option for error-checking when you rip, but it isn't as good as EAC. I'm sure it's better than nothing though.

I am of the opininion that when blank spots,pop clicks occur on a burn it is because it is a copy protected cd. I run across these discs occasionally and the last track or two is where it is apparent. This doesn't happen with other discs. With some of the newer cd's I have it won't even copy to computer. I can copy the the disc with the standalone burner but I can't copy them to hard drive.
I also found glitches that occur randomly in cds, they will occur if different places on the disc from one burn to the next. Is cause by bad compression software. Since using a better mp3 convertor I haven't encountered this problem I use to have.

Geoffcin
06-13-2006, 08:54 AM
I thought that what Eric was saying was that: sinse a computer is reading the 1's & 0's from a drive instead of a CD that it wasn't getting as much jitter because the reading from a CD is where most jitter comes from. Maybe I misread what he wrote.

I can see where a DAC would do a better job of converting than a receiver. Just another toy that will have to wait.

Burned into the HD copy while transfering from the disk. There's simply no way to get around that unless your using digital master tapes.

GMichael
06-13-2006, 09:05 AM
Burned into the HD copy while transfering from the disk. There's simply no way to get around that unless your using digital master tapes.


Hmmmm.... This unit has inputs to record from other sources onto the drive. Maybe there is a way for me to rip CD's from the computer instead. I know that it will rip from a TT but all of my LP's are way to old to be usable.

ericl
06-13-2006, 09:22 AM
Burned into the HD copy while transfering from the disk. There's simply no way to get around that unless your using digital master tapes.

But jitter is also introduced elsewhere down the chain, like when a cd player reads a disk. The advantage of ripping to a harddrive is that you can rip with error correction (like what Mike A was talking about) and when you read the disk, you are less likely to get jitter reading from a harddrive than when reading from a disk..

That's how I understood things anyway.

eric

Geoffcin
06-13-2006, 10:00 AM
But jitter is also introduced elsewhere down the chain, like when a cd player reads a disk. The advantage of ripping to a harddrive is that you can rip with error correction (like what Mike A was talking about) and when you read the disk, you are less likely to get jitter reading from a harddrive than when reading from a disk..

That's how I understood things anyway.

eric

The CD player reads the disk to the HD, the jitter in the CD player is recorded to the HD. It is an artifact of the process. CD player manufactures have developed sophisticated processing to correct reading errors, but jitter is an artifact from the process of reading a disk, and cannot be fully removed.

Mike Anderson
06-13-2006, 10:48 AM
The CD player reads the disk to the HD, the jitter in the CD player is recorded to the HD. It is an artifact of the process. CD player manufactures have developed sophisticated processing to correct reading errors, but jitter is an artifact from the process of reading a disk, and cannot be fully removed.

I'm not an expert in this area, but I don't think this is correct. Jitter is a timing/clocking problem that arises downstream, once the data is converted into a PCM signal. It's not a problem at the ripping end of things.

Here's a primer on jitter:

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1093jitter/

Mike Anderson
06-13-2006, 10:49 AM
I am of the opininion that when blank spots,pop clicks occur on a burn it is because it is a copy protected cd.

I don't know about copy-protected CDs because I've never bought one, but you can get errors from an unprotected CD if you don't use the right sofware at the right settings.

kexodusc
06-13-2006, 11:06 AM
I tend to agree with Mike Anderson...I'll admit to being very unknowledgeable about all things jitter-related, but every magazine/web article I've read that spoke about jitter referred to it as a timing/clocking issue, and that by definition the errors occured at the DAC stage not before or after...I could very well be wrong - I'm not an expert at jitter, and I would appreciate some reputable sources/references/links to better information.

The best site on jitter I've seen is:
http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/jitter.htm

Geoffcin
06-13-2006, 11:55 AM
I'm not an expert in this area, but I don't think this is correct. Jitter is a timing/clocking problem that arises downstream, once the data is converted into a PCM signal. It's not a problem at the ripping end of things.

Here's a primer on jitter:

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1093jitter/

Since I was about to index the same article for you. I suppose you have read this, right? If so, then you will know that this error is also introduced at the TRANSPORT level. PCM is what your transport reads off of the CD. The transport adds it's own jitter into the PCM signal. PCM is then converted into an analog signal by your DAC.

Here's another Stereophile article for you;

http://www.stereophile.com/features/368/

GMichael
06-13-2006, 12:18 PM
Great! And I left my oscilloscope in my other pants. Dang.

Mike Anderson
06-13-2006, 12:25 PM
Since I was about to index the same article for you. I suppose you have read this, right? If so, then you will know that this error is also introduced at the TRANSPORT level. PCM is what your transport reads off of the CD. The transport adds it's own jitter into the PCM signal. PCM is then converted into an analog signal by your DAC.


Right, but you were talking about what happens when you rip the CD to your hard drive, no? That's a totally different process.

Geoffcin
06-13-2006, 12:36 PM
Right, but you were talking about what happens when you rip the CD to your hard drive, no? That's a totally different process.

As far as the transport is concerned it doesnt care whether your outputting to a DAC, or a HD. It is going to include it's own jitter content into the PCM stream regardless. I'm assuming your doing a bit-to-bit transfer of course. Recording into different formats, whether they be AAC, FLAC, or any other of the numerous storage formats will add their own artifacts into the mix.

Mike Anderson
06-13-2006, 01:35 PM
As far as the transport is concerned it doesnt care whether your outputting to a DAC, or a HD. It is going to include it's own jitter content into the PCM stream regardless.

My understanding is that when you rip a CD onto your hard drive, there's no "transport" involved, and it never gets converted to PCM stream. A CD drive is not the same thing as a transport.


Recording into different formats, whether they be AAC, FLAC, or any other of the numerous storage formats will add their own artifacts into the mix.

Again, I believe this is incorrect. If you're using a lossless format like FLAC, there are no artifacts introduced whatsoever. If you like, you can translate a FLAC file back into a WAV file, and you'll get the *exact* same thing. It's the exact same information.

AAC, on the other hand, is lossy compression, and I agree that artifacts may be introduced. But you can't compare that to FLAC, they're two very different codecs.

Geoffcin
06-13-2006, 02:10 PM
My understanding is that when you rip a CD onto your hard drive, there's no "transport" involved, and it never gets converted to PCM stream. A CD drive is not the same thing as a transport.



Again, I believe this is incorrect. If you're using a lossless format like FLAC, there are no artifacts introduced whatsoever. If you like, you can translate a FLAC file back into a WAV file, and you'll get the *exact* same thing. It's the exact same information.

AAC, on the other hand, is lossy compression, and I agree that artifacts may be introduced. But you can't compare that to FLAC, they're two very different codecs.
Which is present in EVERY digital system, not only audio.

Jitter has nothing to do with the ones and zeros, and everthing to do with how long they time for.

And your mistaking "lossless" for errorless, which is a totally different thing.

Lossless just means nothing is thrown away, the process can add all sorts of it's own artifacts in the process.

Mike Anderson
06-13-2006, 02:19 PM
Re jitter, I give up.

But:


And your mistaking "lossless" for errorless, which is a totally different thing.

Lossless just means nothing is thrown away, the process can add all sorts of it's own artifacts in the process.

Do you have any sources that show lossless codecs like FLAC introduce errors or artifacts? Everything I've read says the contrary; for example:

http://www.bobulous.org.uk/misc/lossless_audio_2006.html


Evidence that conversions really are lossless

To make sure that the audio stored in each lossless format really is the same as the original audio source, I used an uncompressed Wave file of Canon in D major from The Essential Classics Collection. This Wave file was examined using the handy HashTab Shell Extension, and the MD5, SHA1 and CRC-32 hash values for the file were noted down, as was the size of the Wave file in bytes. This Wave file was converted using dBpowerAMP into a FLAC file (using the same compression settings as used in the big comparison above), and the original Wave file was deleted. The FLAC file was converted into a Monkey's Audio file, which was converted into an OptimFROG file, which was converted into a Shorten file, which was converted into a WavPack file. Finally, the WavPack file was converted into an uncompressed Wave file.

The resulting Wave file was exactly the same size as the original Wave file, and the MD5, SHA1 and CRC-32 hash values matched exactly with the original. This is very strong evidence that each of the lossless formats tested preserves the original audio perfectly.

If you can convert back and get the original WAV file, how are errors or artifacts being created? After all, the FLAC file gets decoded before it's converted into a PCM signal, right?

Geoffcin
06-13-2006, 03:13 PM
Re jitter, I give up.

But:
Do you have any sources that show lossless codecs like FLAC introduce errors or artifacts? Everything I've read says the contrary; for example:

http://www.bobulous.org.uk/misc/lossless_audio_2006.html

If you can convert back and get the original WAV file, how are errors or artifacts being created? After all, the FLAC file gets decoded before it's converted into a PCM signal, right?

I'm not saying that FLAC isn't a wonderful lossless way to save audio files to a HD. I'm ONLY saying that it's a process that CAN induce it's own artifacts, EVEN THOUGH it's lossless. Anytime you subject information to encoding/decoding that's a possibility.

The page you index is interesting, but flawed. You would have to apply a bit-to-bit digital reader to examine the two files and pick out flaws. Even this would not tell you how much jitter would have been added in the encoding/decoding process. For that you would need a jitter analizer.

After all that you STILL might not be able to tell the difference by ear, OR, as was the case with CD jitter, you MIGHT be able to hear something even though the specs say you shouldn't. It took smart people a long time to figure out that digital jitter had an effect on audio (or even how to quantify it!), even though many people already knew it sounded bad.

Mike Anderson
06-13-2006, 03:19 PM
I'm not saying that FLAC isn't a wonderful lossless way to save audio files to a HD. I'm ONLY saying that it's a process that CAN induce it's own artifacts, EVEN THOUGH it's lossless.

Do you have any sources that show this?

Geoffcin
06-13-2006, 03:23 PM
Do you have any sources that show this?
It's the law of Entropy, as it applies to statistical mechanics in information systems.

Mike Anderson
06-13-2006, 03:46 PM
It's the law of Entropy, as it applies to statistical mechanics in information systems.

Ok. Um... I give up again.

Rock on. :5:

Geoffcin
06-13-2006, 04:03 PM
Ok. Um... I give up again.

Rock on. :5:

I never said that a HD based system isn't a good thing. I think it's a system who's time has come.

I can see a time (within the next 10-20 years is my guess) when opto-mechanical storage media is as quaint and old fashioned as vinyl. Already I exclusively use a 1 gig flash drive to move files with me at work, and the thought of burning a CD for music is pretty old now that there's 2 Ipods in the house. (I use neither of them) No, the time of CD's is soon to be over, replaced by HD & SS based digital media.

E-Stat
06-13-2006, 04:44 PM
My understanding is that when you rip a CD onto your hard drive, there's no "transport" involved, and it never gets converted to PCM stream. A CD drive is not the same thing as a transport.
Yes, all "drives" are transports. And there is a decided difference in the ability of a basic $39 computer drive and better ones like Plextors or significantly enhanced variations found in dedicated players to transcribe the bits. Ever seen a Burmester 969 ? It is built like a tank with the disk secured to the platter via a threaded weight.

The concept of a large capacity digital library is compelling. There are, however, some qualitative issues on the capture end to address with basic computers IMHO.

rw

Mike Anderson
06-13-2006, 04:52 PM
Yes, all "drives" are transports.

I thought a "transport" outputted a PCM signal, e.g. a 44.1khz/16bit signal you can feed into a DAC. The usual CD drive on your computer doesn't do that when you rip a CD to your hard drive, does it?


And there is a decided difference in the ability of a basic $39 computer drive and better ones like Plextors or significantly enhanced variations found in dedicated players to transcribe the bits.

And I thought the whole point of error-correction software like Exact Audio Copy was to deal with any problems presented by the CD drive.

For example, I don't have a real fancy CD drive or anything, but on 99.9% of the CDs I rip with EAC, once it does the error correction, it says I've got an error-free rip. Are you saying that's a lie?

bubslewis
06-13-2006, 05:32 PM
One problem I didn't mention is the unreliability of Windows itself. As long as Windows is prone to lockups freezes and blue screens of death it is unusable for me as a music server system. I am looking into building a Linux box to try this. Burning CD's that I already have to DVD-R's seems kind of redundant. If you're getting rid of the CD's I understand. I am in the market for used CD's. State title and price.:cool:


Seems to me I read something recently where a guy found that burned cd-r, cd-rw, dvd-r's etc begin to deteriorate after only a few years. This was not the case with manufactured cd's, dvd's that are pressed, but only with burns.

I have no idea if this is true or not, but I'd hate to back up my computer with hundreds or thousands of burns and then find out they don't sound that good when my hard drive crashes in five years.

Mike Anderson
06-13-2006, 05:37 PM
I have no idea if this is true or not, but I'd hate to back up my computer with hundreds or thousands of burns and then find out they don't sound that good when my hard drive crashes in five years.

1) I use archive quality DVDs (Taiyo Yuden).

2) Once they're burned, I put them in a case and pack 'em up, store 'em in a cool, dry, dark place.

3) They aren't audio discs, they're data discs. But to tell you the truth, I have a large number of audio cds I burned a long time ago (when the technology was first commercially available), and I've never had any problem with them.

I'm guessing that I'll move to a new hard drive long before the DVDs go bad.

superpanavision70mm
06-13-2006, 08:05 PM
A squeezebox is an accordian right? J/k

Mike Anderson
06-14-2006, 10:56 AM
These guys are still debating this stuff:

http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=24670&page=5

It's an interesting technical discussion, but I can't figure out who's right.

noddin0ff
06-14-2006, 11:05 AM
Mike, I'm with you all the way. Keep up the good fight!

bonsaiguitar
06-14-2006, 11:50 AM
Interesting. How do you remotely control it from the couch?

I use a dell wireless mouse and keyboard with my laptop connected to the plasma and receiver. Dual tap kegerator on the left right next to the kitchen. Now all I need is a porta potty.

bonsaiguitar
06-14-2006, 12:07 PM
Wow! This is freaking getting technical. I work on computers for a living so the last thing I want to do when I get home is get into the techno mumbo jumbo.

Here's what I can tell you. With my setup running my laptop to a plasma TV and A/V receiver I play I-Tunes radio and hardly touch my CD collection. In fact I don't even burn anymore. Just a high speed stream of very high quality music, and so many stations to choose from. The sound is better to my ears than CD's playing through my player. In fact this setup is what got me back into audio. And my sons I-Pod also sounds excellent. Hard to beleive it gets much better than this.

We can sit here and do calculations and it won't change what your ears hear. Even age has a large impact on this. It's and individual thingy.

I remember when LP's were the $hit, and then people were arguing about which was better metal or CR02 cassette tapes. LMAO.

emorphien
06-14-2006, 06:58 PM
[/INDENT]Reputedly, external USB-connected sound cards such as I use, reduce the effect of EMI/RFI found inside the computer.
Wouldn't surprise me.

There's a huge amount of variation in the quality of sound cards, but overall I still find I prefer the sound of my CDP (as humble as it may be) running through my amp than any computer I've compared to it. The sound card in my shuttle is not stellar (integrated but it's enough for my needs), and to be honest the mac mini I picked up from a friend sounds more energetic and dynamic.

Of course I could always put a real sound card in the shuttle or get one of those external sound "cards" and it'd likely be better than both. I can't say I care, I don't do critical listening through my computers.

shokhead
06-15-2006, 06:09 AM
You mean you dont sit back in your computer chair for the night with a drink and listen to your new remastered cd you just bought and then put in a DVD/DTS movie thats 3 hours and watch it on your big screen computer monitor?

Mike Anderson
06-15-2006, 07:29 AM
There are plenty of people on this forum who don't care about HT (including me).

And I don't sit in my computer to chair to listen to music. My amp and speakers sit about 25 feet away from where the computer is. And the rig doesn't include a TV...

It's a real shame there's so much built-in prejudice about this topic. People here about music on a computer and they simply can't get past the image of crappy MP3s coming out of those tinny little computer speakers. That's too bad.

People who see my setup in action are blown away by the power, elegance, and sound quality. I've won more than one convert.

shokhead
06-15-2006, 07:44 AM
Tongue in cheek dude,tongue in cheek. But if you want to get down with it, i like to enjoy a DVD and enjoy music,not just watch a DVD or have music on,like a computer.

bonsaiguitar
06-15-2006, 08:14 AM
People who see my setup in action are blown away by the power, elegance, and sound quality. I've won more than one convert.

Same here. And I don't even have a great system. But then again I'm listening to a high speed stream most of the time. I also listen to my sons band on Myspace and it's very good quality. They're recording their debut CD on a computer. Something most in the music industry are doing now days. So PC recording can't be too bad. ;)

ericl
06-15-2006, 08:31 AM
http://scott-nixon.com/smallusbtdrear.jpg

scott nixon usb tube and chibi dacs (http://scott-nixon.com/dac.htm)

bonsaiguitar
06-15-2006, 08:55 AM
Guy from China is selling these on Ebay. Getting good feedback too.

noddin0ff
06-15-2006, 09:53 AM
So, back to the question of reading data off a disk and whether reading a disk to write to a hard drive is more error free than a CDP reading a disk to send to a DAC. I put the question to a friend of mine who is very smart, into chip design, etc...

I asked him if a PC reading data of a redbook CD is the same as reading a data file off a CD with regard to error correction (assuming lossless copying).

His reply was very illuminating and corrected my incorrect assumption...

Yes it is fundamentally different, although it depends on the format of the disc. Most audio CDs (older usually) can not be mounted like like a CDR or CDROM. They don't have any kind of filesystem on them, so you can't just move the tracks around manually. They are kind of like the old tar format VMS/DEC tape drives in that sense.

The error checking/correcting codes are built into the filesystem (FAT32, NTFS, EXT3, Reiser, ISO9660, etc).

The ripper here is a special piece of software that access the drive at the lowest possible level and basically just streams the serial bits into a raw file (WAV on ms). So the only error checking/correcting you get is what is built into the firmware of the drive, usually not much if any. Which is why programs like CD Paranoia exist; it basically adds that layer of error correction that was lost by not having a true filesystem on the media. Also this is why it is kind of a misnomer to "rip to MP3", you are actually ripping to WAV(or AIFF) and converting to MP3, the WAV file is usually not kept (with most converters).

Newer CDs actually have ISO9660 filesystems on them, and can be mounted like a read-only USB thumb drive. In fact a disc that I just got (Wolfmother, Australian power rock trio, kicks serious ass) actually had MP3, OGG, AIFF, and WAV formated files on it, that could be copied. In this case, yes you do get the error coding benefits "for free". These types of discs also have the old style "unformatted cdda tracks" on them as well, so you can play it in a traditional cd-player. The PC readable section of the disc is ignored by the cd-player. and the cdda portion is ignored by the PC (unless your ripping).


Clear as mud, right?

He commented in an earlier exchange that real CDP's have much better error free reading. and that PC-CDROM drives aren't really designed for error free reads and rely on detection correction of errors (which I understand to require the above mentioned filesystems).

So with regard to getting the correct bits off the disk, CDP's have the advantage unless it is a newer disk with a filesystem. Now, we can continue on down the chain...

Learn something every day.

Mike Anderson
06-15-2006, 10:15 AM
He commented in an earlier exchange that real CDP's have much better error free reading. and that PC-CDROM drives aren't really designed for error free reads and rely on detection correction of errors (which I understand to require the above mentioned filesystems).

He commented in an earlier exchange that real CDP's have much better error free reading. and that PC-CDROM drives aren't really designed for error free reads and rely on detection correction of errors (which I understand to require the above mentioned filesystems).

So with regard to getting the correct bits off the disk, CDP's have the advantage unless it is a newer disk with a filesystem. Now, we can continue on down the chain...

But I think you missed part of what he said -- on the software end (he mentioned "CD Paranoia"), you DO get error correction, even with the older types of CDs. And it is "free" because the software is now free. Whether the CD drive is producing errors doesn't matter anymore.

Ask him about Exact Audio Copy, and whether it provides error-free rips on the vast majority of CDs. If he knows what he's talking about, he'll say "yes".

Exact Audio Copy will confirm that you have an error-free rip. Unless someone wants to prove the developers are lying (and they have no motive to lie; after all, it's free software) or the software is defective, I don't know what the fuss is about.

The bottom line is that if you use a program like EAC, you will get error-free rips on the vast majority of your CDs.

noddin0ff
06-15-2006, 10:25 AM
I agree with you Mike, I just wanted to break the problem apart step by step. There was a statement earlier that PC's gave inferior reads and error correction came up. I always assumed that all data going into a PC was buffered, checked, and corrected and couldn't imaging why bits from a redbook CD would be any different - but I see this is not the case with CD's lacking filesystems. My friend mentioned a program called CD Paranoia which probably functions much like EAC.

I just started reading a link he sent, might be more info there, might not. I do agree that it is possible to get perfect data. I'm just surprised it's not automatic.
http://www.xiph.org/paranoia/faq.html#play

bonsaiguitar
06-15-2006, 10:37 AM
I beleive most of the newer recorable drives have error checking built into the firmware. Also most newer burning programs due this and also prepare logs for errors if any, and also show the corrections. These are usually shown as C2 errors if you happen to view one.

It's pretty much a non issue unless you're using an outdated burner. And I'm pretty sure all dual layer rippers on the market have the error checking in the firm.

noddin0ff
06-15-2006, 11:10 AM
I beleive most of the newer recorable drives have error checking built into the firmware. Also most newer burning programs due this and also prepare logs for errors if any, and also show the corrections. These are usually shown as C2 errors if you happen to view one.

It's pretty much a non issue unless you're using an outdated burner. And I'm pretty sure all dual layer rippers on the market have the error checking in the firm.
You're probably right. I wouldn't know. But, for the Mac users out there who want an application similar to EAC there's one called MAX
http://sbooth.org/Max/

Unfortunately for me, it may only run under OS 10.4 (see help forums on the site). I'm running 10.3.9 and it won't launch. It looks like the most powerful and FREE ripper and encoder available for the Mac.

Mike Anderson
06-15-2006, 11:36 AM
scott nixon usb tube and chibi dacs (http://scott-nixon.com/dac.htm)

Looks like a nice DAC for the money. What are you using for your transport?

Feanor
06-15-2006, 11:38 AM
But I think you missed part of what he said -- on the software end (he mentioned "CD Paranoia"), you DO get error correction, even with the older types of CDs. And it is "free" because the software is now free. Whether the CD drive is producing errors doesn't matter anymore.
...
The bottom line is that if you use a program like EAC, you will get error-free rips on the vast majority of your CDs.

That is, as read by the computer DVD/CD drive? I would say not very. I was playing with Exact Copy a couple of weeks ago and ran through a dozen of so CDs. In fact, the highest number of errors any any of the discs I tried was 3 and several had zero errors, (as detected by Exact Copy). Exact Copy corrected them 100%, so it claimed.

That is, with the exception of the CDR that purposely scratched deeply in several places as an experiment. Exact Copy persevered and was able to copy virtually all of the discs but indicated that it could not guarantee that the correction was 100%. The process to 1.5 hours!!

E-Stat
06-15-2006, 11:43 AM
I thought a "transport" outputted a PCM signal, e.g. a 44.1khz/16bit signal you can feed into a DAC. The usual CD drive on your computer doesn't do that when you rip a CD to your hard drive, does it?
Transports are merely devices to transfer a datastream. A CD drive has no idea whether the output is music or data. Doesn't care. If you purchased a tape deck from Crown back in the 70s, you chose the transport and separately, the electronics. A data tape transport reads the tape and outputs the bits. When you rip to hard disk (I also use EAC), you must specify the coding (WAV, MP3, etc.) that the software uses to encode the bitstream coming off the CD. Ever burn a music disk as a "data project"? Won't work. It was not the transport's fault.


And I thought the whole point of error-correction software like Exact Audio Copy was to deal with any problems presented by the CD drive.
While there is not yet consensus on the issue, I understand the challenge to be one of timing. The exact timing may not be returned.

rw

noddin0ff
06-15-2006, 12:02 PM
Transports are merely devices to transfer a datastream. A CD drive has no idea whether the output is music or data. Doesn't care. If you purchased a tape deck from Crown back in the 70s, you chose the transport and separately, the electronics. A data tape transport reads the tape and outputs the bits. When you rip to hard disk (I also use EAC), you must specify the coding (WAV, MP3, etc.) that the software uses to encode the bitstream coming off the CD. Ever burn a music disk as a "data project"? Won't work. It was not the transport's fault.

I think that this is no longer strictly true. Because of error correcting mechanisms that are integrated in the transport for CD drives. On a PC the error correction, as I posted above, relies on filesystem data resident on the disk and on firmware incorporated in the transport. I suppose CDP's also have error correcting firmware. So as I understand, the passage of info is not strictly passive.

When you rip to MP3 the data is still written temporarily to the HD as a WAV file. You rip to WAV and then convert to MP3. A data disk has a file structure not recognized by a CD player but it still works for music on machines that can read it.

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to clarify and learn. Please correct me.



While there is not yet consensus on the issue, I understand the challenge to be one of timing. The exact timing may not be returned.

rw
I'm still of the impression that if the bits are not corrupted all timing issues are resolved by DAC (which has its own buffer and clock) to the best of the DACs ability. I still don't quite get where these timing problems you're bringing up come from?

Mike Anderson
06-15-2006, 01:26 PM
When you rip to hard disk (I also use EAC), you must specify the coding (WAV, MP3, etc.) that the software uses to encode the bitstream coming off the CD.

But it never gets converted into a PCM signal. That's where the timing/clocking/jitter problem comes in - when the PCM signal is transmitted to another device like the DAC.

bonsaiguitar
06-15-2006, 01:41 PM
That is, as read by the computer DVD/CD drive? I would say not very. I was playing with Exact Copy a couple of weeks ago and ran through a dozen of so CDs. In fact, the highest number of errors any any of the discs I tried was 3 and several had zero errors, (as detected by Exact Copy). Exact Copy corrected them 100%, so it claimed.

That is, with the exception of the CDR that purposely scratched deeply in several places as an experiment. Exact Copy persevered and was able to copy virtually all of the discs but indicated that it could not guarantee that the correction was 100%. The process to 1.5 hours!!

What type of disc are you using? CD+RW, CD-RW etc.

Mike Anderson
06-15-2006, 01:43 PM
While there is not yet consensus on the issue, I understand the challenge to be one of timing. The exact timing may not be returned.

There is no timing problem at that point, when you're just ripping the CD to a WAV or whatever.

Can't somebody back me up on this? I'm not an EE, but everything I've read -- if I understand it correctly -- says timing/jitter is only an issue downstream, where clocking needs to be done.

Mike Anderson
06-15-2006, 01:49 PM
That is, as read by the computer DVD/CD drive? I would say not very. I was playing with Exact Copy a couple of weeks ago and ran through a dozen of so CDs. In fact, the highest number of errors any any of the discs I tried was 3 and several had zero errors, (as detected by Exact Copy). Exact Copy corrected them 100%, so it claimed.

That is, with the exception of the CDR that purposely scratched deeply in several places as an experiment. Exact Copy persevered and was able to copy virtually all of the discs but indicated that it could not guarantee that the correction was 100%. The process to 1.5 hours!!

Are you sure you're interpreting the output properly?

I'm talking about getting error-free rips AFTER error correction.

When EAC gives the you Track Quality "98% accurate" or whatever, it's reporting the accuracy of the rip BEFORE error correction. Once the errors are corrected, it's usually 100% error-free.

If you get errors EAC cannot correct, it will say something like "suspicious position at X:XX" or somesuch.

See the FAQ here:

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/


Q: What does the Track Quality really mean? A few times I get 99.7% or 97.5%. But there are no suspicious position reported.

A: When you get 99.7% and so on, that means that a bad sector was found, but the secure mode has corrected it - from 16 times of grabbing the sector, there were 8 or more identical results. So it only indicates read problems. It is the ratio between the number of minimum reads needed to perform the extraction and the number of reads that were actually performed. 100% will only occur when the CD was extracted without any rereads on errors. ONLY when there are suspicious positions reported, there are really uncorrectable read errors in the resulting audio file.

noddin0ff
06-15-2006, 02:01 PM
That's my take too. Timing is an issue when the bits hit the DAC. And, it shouldn't be an issue there because now DACs have buffers and re-clock (internal or external). The bits SHOULD flow at a precise PCM rate. But, they may slow or speed up if the sending clock is not so great (which it might not be) but a good DAC will correct that provided the buffer is not exceeded. Timing may also be misinterpreted if there are interferring signals (like reflections at the ends of cables or some God awful electromagnetic power burst) that can cancel or extend some peaks, but again the DAC should compensate and IF there are such distortions in the transmission you've probably got bigger problems living near a power station or something.

I can't see how timing would effect ripping with error correction in play. I could see how the outgoing PCM signal from the PC might not be perfectly clocked.

I'm not really backing you up with references, but I would like to know at specifically what stage this supposed jitter is being introduced?

Mike Anderson
06-15-2006, 02:57 PM
And, it shouldn't be an issue there because now DACs have buffers and re-clock (internal or external).

I've read a great deal of debate about whether DACs can deal with jitter sufficiently. Benchmark says their DAC can do it, but a lot of people dispute that as marketing. I don't know for sure what the answer is on that, but to me, anyway, it's inaudible.


I'm not really backing you up with references, but I would like to know at specifically what stage this supposed jitter is being introduced?

My understanding is that jitter gets introduced once the PCM signal is transmitted to another device, like a DAC. There's a lot of technical discussion about it in that thread I've posted to a couple times now.

Feanor
06-15-2006, 03:24 PM
What type of disc are you using? CD+RW, CD-RW etc.

It is a DVD?RW drive, but since I've never tried to record anything on this particular drive, I don't know whether it's DVD-RW or DVD+RW or both. :confused5:

Feanor
06-15-2006, 03:27 PM
Are you sure you're interpreting the output properly?

I'm talking about getting error-free rips AFTER error correction.

When EAC gives the you Track Quality "98% accurate" or whatever, it's reporting the accuracy of the rip BEFORE error correction. Once the errors are corrected, it's usually 100% error-free.

If you get errors EAC cannot correct, it will say something like "suspicious position at X:XX" or somesuch.

See the FAQ here:

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/

Frankly I don't recall the details. Yes, from normal errors recovery is typically 100% with message a long the lines you indicate.

GCRhoads
06-22-2006, 01:54 AM
When transferring data from a computer to a DAC, timing is a problem *before* the data reaches the DAC! Computer hard drives do not read data in quite the same way as a CD player. The computer reads the data in variable-sized "bursts" which are copied in fixed sized "blocks" to a memory "buffer." The data is then sent in a stream to the output port. When transferring this data through a USB port, the DAC has *no* control over the rate the computer sends the data. To ensure that the DAC's local buffer doesn't overflow nor underflow, the DAC must use a local clock that can adjust itself over a relatively large range so that its word-clock frequency equals the average of the incoming data. Such a local clock will not be super precise. Also, if you send the data wirelessly, you run into essentially the same problem because the DAC does not control the data source.

The following reference contains some more details about USB transmission and jitter.
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/7719.html

The following is an excellent summary of eight distinct contributors to jitter.
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue22/nugent.htm

Feanor
06-22-2006, 02:06 AM
When transferring data from a computer to a DAC, timing is a problem *before* the data reaches the DAC! Computer hard drives do not read data in quite the same way as a CD player. The computer reads the data in variable-sized "bursts" which are copied in fixed sized "blocks" to a memory "buffer." The data is then sent in a stream to the output port. When transferring this data through a USB port, the DAC has *no* control over the rate the computer sends the data. To ensure that the DAC's local buffer doesn't overflow nor underflow, the DAC must use a local clock that can adjust itself over a relatively large range so that its word-clock frequency equals the average of the incoming data. Such a local clock will not be super precise. Also, if you send the data wirelessly, you run into essentially the same problem because the DAC does not control the data source.

The following reference contains some more details about USB transmission and jitter.
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/7719.html

The following is an excellent summary of eight distinct contributors to jitter.
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue22/nugent.htm

Very interesting indeed.

My bottom line is that configuration using the M-Audio Audiophile USB sounds practically no worst -- nor better -- than my CDP.

Mike Anderson
06-22-2006, 07:46 AM
Also, if you send the data wirelessly, you run into essentially the same problem because the DAC does not control the data source.

The wireless setup I'm talking about sends a network signal, not a PCM stream. It doesn't require clocking at that point; it's no different than getting a wireless signal on your laptop, only here the receiving device is the Squeezebox.

The SB then outputs a PCM signal/SPDIF stream via the usual hard-wired outputs to an external DAC (or the SB's internal DAC, if you want to use that). That's where the potential for jitter arises.

But really, it's inaudible at that point, particularly if you use a decent external DAC.

Woochifer
06-22-2006, 12:51 PM
The wireless setup I'm talking about sends a network signal, not a PCM stream. It doesn't require clocking at that point; it's no different than getting a wireless signal on your laptop, only here the receiving device is the Squeezebox.

The SB then outputs a PCM signal/SPDIF stream via the usual hard-wired outputs to an external DAC (or the SB's internal DAC, if you want to use that). That's where the potential for jitter arises.

But really, it's inaudible at that point, particularly if you use a decent external DAC.

I did some research into the Squeezebox, and it looks like a very cool device. The only drawback that I saw was the lack of an on-screen display for organizing playlists and simply finding the music I'd want to play. The device has a large display, but my system is tucked into an audio rack with a perforated metal screen door. Remote sensors work fine, but I can't really read any of the device displays.

Of course, once you add the OSD, then others will demand video streaming, slide shows, etc. and it will be no different than any other media server.

Mike Anderson
06-22-2006, 01:26 PM
I did some research into the Squeezebox, and it looks like a very cool device. The only drawback that I saw was the lack of an on-screen display for organizing playlists and simply finding the music I'd want to play. The device has a large display, but my system is tucked into an audio rack with a perforated metal screen door. Remote sensors work fine, but I can't really read any of the device displays.

Of course, once you add the OSD, then others will demand video streaming, slide shows, etc. and it will be no different than any other media server.

By on-screen I take it you mean on your TV screen? You can control it from a laptop, and there may well be a way to put it on your TV as well.

You'd be welcomed to come check out my setup if you like. I'm in Emeryville.

jtgofish
06-30-2006, 02:25 PM
Many of us still enjoy the process of selecting a CD and placing it in a machine.There is an enjoyable ritual in this and we also have the chance to read about the recording ,musicians and lyrics.Of course this is even more profound with records.

To me this shows due respect to the music and to the performers.

Even the move away from hard plastic cases to more book like paper ones helps us make this connection.

JT

curiousburke
08-11-2006, 12:45 PM
Sorry to wake up an old thread, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading through this. I have a Squeezebox on order so this thread really cought my interest and I thought I might be able to add something to the debate somewhere.

So, I decided to tackle the question of whether all "1s and 0s" were created equal. I think this can be dug into from a lot of different directions, but I chose a very simple one. The first question in my mind is: do 2 rips of the same source material end up bit-for-bit identical? That one was easy. I used Exact Audio Copy to create the 2 rips on my WinXP laptop, then I compared them (bit-for-bit) with "diff" on my linux box. Result: these files are identical, wheh ... the hurdle has been leapt.

Then I did a rip on my linux box using "cdparanoia" and diff'd it with the exact audio rip. Although the files all appeared to be the same size, "diff" claimed the binary files to be different. To dig into the details I told "diff" to pretend they are text files and show me the differences. Well, the biggest differences were in the first and last line, presumably some sort of formatting differences due to the different programs that we can ignore for this discussion. There were also a smattering of differences within the body of the file. So it appeared that not all "1s" and "0s" were created equal. However, the percentage of the file content that differed was only 0.0003% or 1 bit in roughly 3 million.

This is when I noticed that 'cdparanoia' puts out some info on errors as it goes, and I realized there were some on that first track. Well, I chose a track that had no errors reported from 'cdparanoia' and diff'd it with its exact audio twin and that is eactly what it was. Save the first and last line they were bit for bit the same.

I don't think this necessarily says all 1's and 0's were created equal, but it provides evidence that computers reproducably rip CDs even between programs, OSs and machines. In that sence, it seems computers are extracting exactly the data sets that are on CDs. Maybe this isn't the case for older CDs (I'm testing an older one now) but it appears so for new CDs.

Maybe the reason why there is an audible improvement with very, very high end stand alone CDPs is that these machines don't exactly extract the CD data, instead they do some signal processing that improves it, like how a "unsharp mask" can make a photo look better.

anyway, cool topic.
cheers,
mark

curiousburke
08-11-2006, 12:57 PM
I got the same test results from a fairly old CD. It's a Cat Stevens clasics CD purchased in the early 90's. On the cd it says 1987. Is this old enough? When I stick it in a windows machine and file browse to it, I do see the individual tracks.
-m

CookieFactory
08-18-2006, 06:42 PM
haha! CDs?!?:ihih:

gbowers
01-22-2008, 02:55 PM
I don't use a dedicated PC, I just used what I already had sitting around, which is the same computer we use to do everything else. It simply doesn't require that much memory to run the music server software.

I don't use the sound card either, all the encoding and conversion is done offboard.

I did get an external hard drive, but those aren't that expensive these days, and it isn't necessary unless your present hard drive isn't large enough to accomodate your collection.

Note: I have nearly 8,000 "songs" (many of which are really radio show segments running up to an hour), and 99% of it is in FLAC (lossless compression, about half the size of redbook CD file sizes). It's still not a problem for my PC.

As I am considering using an external USB soundcard/DAC to play WAV music files (96 sampling 24 bit) via home stereo (NAD amplifier and B&W speakers), will I get same sound fidelity compared to playing DVD-audio or CD discs via NAD cd/dvd player.

Thanks

Ajani
01-22-2008, 03:41 PM
As I am considering using an external USB soundcard/DAC to play WAV music files (96 sampling 24 bit) via home stereo (NAD amplifier and B&W speakers), will I get same sound fidelity compared to playing DVD-audio or CD discs via NAD cd/dvd player.

Thanks

Based on my own experience using a NAD CD Player and a Mac Mini, I would say yes...

bonsaiguitar
01-22-2008, 04:03 PM
If any sound quality is lost I sure can't tell with my ears.

gbowers
01-22-2008, 04:15 PM
Based on my own experience using a NAD CD Player and a Mac Mini, I would say yes...

What external USB sound card or DAC (M-Audio Audiophile USB) are you using to move bit stream from PC to home stereo.

Bonsaiguitar, please update.

gbowers
01-22-2008, 04:42 PM
If any sound quality is lost I sure can't tell with my ears.

What external USB sound card or DAC (M-Audio Audiophile USB) are you using to move bit stream from PC to home stereo.

gbowers
01-22-2008, 04:44 PM
Based on my own experience using a NAD CD Player and a Mac Mini, I would say yes...

What external USB sound card or DAC (M-Audio Audiophile USB) are you using to move bit stream from PC to home stereo.

Ajani
01-22-2008, 04:46 PM
What external USB sound card or DAC (M-Audio Audiophile USB) are you using to move bit stream from PC to home stereo.

Bonsaiguitar, please update.

For the Mac Mini, I didn't use either, just the standard Mac soundcard (which was suprisingly good).... But if you don't find that your computer soundcard is up to the task, then you have a number of good USB DACs available (depending on your budget)...

pixelthis
01-23-2008, 02:03 AM
For the Mac Mini, I didn't use either, just the standard Mac soundcard (which was suprisingly good).... But if you don't find that your computer soundcard is up to the task, then you have a number of good USB DACs available (depending on your budget)...

The fubar dac looks pretty good, for a 100$ its worth a shot.
I use an old creative usb external soundcard, it sounds very good, but I think I will go the DAC route.
And yes, the high end CD player is dead, if you want one go ahead, but when you realize that computer audio is just as good , if not better, well, that will be a sad day

noddin0ff
01-23-2008, 05:01 AM
There are many options in the DAC route especially if your computer has an optical out. As far as I know all newer Mac's have a mini-optical out in the headphone jack, my laptop does.

I think one of the more interesting choices for USB is Nixon's USBChibi (http://www.scott-nixon.com/dac.htm). I'm tempted to add that one to my home system. My previous DAC purchase ended up driving headphones at work. I started a thread to list as many sub $400 DACs as I could find at the time. If anyone can add to it...

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=22028