Need for CD player (revisited)

[Century L100]

I had seen a post somewhere in this forum stating that you don't really need a CD player anymore...you can use your PC as a jukebox of sorts.

This has occurred to me as I pondered what to do about an old CD player that died a while ago. Shall I replace it with a good (but not top of the line) unit like the Yamaha CDC-585, or should I go the PC route?

The problem with the latter is that my PC is in my den and my audio rack is in the living room. There's no reason to put the PC in the living room, since I need it in the den where I work, but moving the audio rack and my rather bulky JBLs into the den makes no sense either. The den isn't a good listening venue anyway, compared to the acoustics of the LR.

So is there some way to wirelessly stream audio from the PC to the audio rack, a distance of about 30 ft.? Thanks for any ideas.

P.S. Obviously, I'm a 70s sort of guy who isn't up on the latest digital/wireless technology. :-)

[Mr Peabody]

I am not up on all the computer to audio marriage stuff either. I prefer to keep them separate, so I vote for getting new CD player. You can buy CD players with built in harddrive if you want the jukebox thing. I believe Yamaha makes one as well as a few others.

[emorphien]

I haven't heard many computer systems that really sound as good as a decent CD player. Some can probably accomplish it, particularly if you're using lossless or uncompressed audio, but I haven't been that impressed with the computer audio on the whole.

[Mike Anderson]

Yes, you can leave your computer in the other room and get kickass sound.

Check out the Slim Devices stuff:

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

The Squeezebox costs a couple hundred bucks and has great sound. If you want audiophile sound, the Transporter is the route.

Both can run wirelessly, although I prefer running a length of CAT 5 cable for mine (you can probably go up to 50 feet or more that way).

[Mike Anderson]

Notice that all the anti-computer sentiment tends to come from people who have never seriously tried it.


I am not up on all the computer to audio marriage stuff either. I prefer to keep them separate, so I vote for getting new CD player.

I'd simply like to highlight this logic: you're basically saying, "I don't know anything about using a computer for audio, so based on my lack of knowledge, I think you should stick with a CD player."

I'm sorry, and I'm not trying to be rude, but there's no polite way to say this: That line of thinking makes absolutely no sense.


You can buy CD players with built in harddrive if you want the jukebox thing.

Why??? You already have a perfectly good hard drive in your computer. (And if you need one with more space, you're far better off getting a new hard drive yourself, rather than paying for one to come in a clunky CD player format where the manufacturer charges you extra for it.)

You will get *much* more flexibility and power if you do it on your own computer. If you want audiophile quality sound, spend the money on a high quality DAC (or something like the Transporter), NOT the hard drive.

[Rock789]

I'll suggest a cd player... but for a different reason:
for me, I like to have all my equpiment in one location...
having to go into the den (or any other room) to select what I want to listen too would be a downside for me...
just my 2 cents...

for audio with a computer,
I have 2 computers hooked up to non-computer audio equipment... both are using the optical out of the sound card... my gaming computer goes to the denon 2805, and my general purpose computer goes to the a denon dac for my 2ch system in my bedroom...
I listen to internet radio from time to time, and it doesn't sound too bad...

hope this helps...
Mike

[Mike Anderson]

I'll suggest a cd player... but for a different reason:
for me, I like to have all my equpiment in one location...
having to go into the den (or any other room) to select what I want to listen too would be a downside for me...

With products like the Squeezebox or Transporter, you don't have to go into the other room. The device has a display and an interface with a menu that lets you select your music, search through it, etc, all using a remote control.

You can also use a laptop or handheld computer to interface with it.



for audio with a computer,
I have 2 computers hooked up to non-computer audio equipment... both are using the optical out of the sound card... my gaming computer goes to the denon 2805, and my general purpose computer goes to the a denon dac for my 2ch system in my bedroom...
I listen to internet radio from time to time, and it doesn't sound too bad...

You can get better sound if you bypass your computer's sound card. The whole advantage of the setup described above is that the PCM signal generation -- in addition to the analog conversion -- is done far away from the noisy environment of the computer. This generally reduces jitter a great deal.

The other advantage over a CD player is that if you do your rips carefully (e.g. using error-correction software like Exact Audio Copy) you can get bit-perfect sound. CD players, by contrast, give you errors.

[basite]

The other advantage over a CD player is that if you do your rips carefully (e.g. using error-correction software like Exact Audio Copy) you can get bit-perfect sound. CD players, by contrast, give you errors.

i'm not completely against computer use in non pc audio equipment, but i'm not a big fan of it, so, here's my opinion.

pc's can give you decent sound, when you use the right equipment (dac's, audiophile soundcards, ...) the transporter is a good looking, and probably good sounding machine, but the transporter costs alot of money, and he did say "good (but not top of the line)" so, that's pretty much ruled out. then the squeezebox, at that price, you'll need a dac (or use the optical out, if you have a optical inputs on your amp), and yes, when you do your rips carefully, you can get bit-perfect sound, but that would mean the file is quite big, which also means that your hard drive will be stuffed with music, and only music that is. then there's wireless, wireless signals are very depending on distance, or it haves to go through walls and stuff, so they could lose bits of data, which would result in short pauses during songs,
and, decent cd players have bit correction too, and some of them (like the rega one) even has built in memory, so it streams the audio from the cd, resulting in a flawless and warmer reproduction of the sound.

but still, if you want your pc, then do it.

[JoeE SP9]

[quote=Mike Anderson]Notice that all the anti-computer sentiment tends to come from people who have never seriously tried it.quote]

What you are saying is not necessarily true. I am a professional in the computer field. MS in Computer Science and MCSE among other things. My specific objection to archiving a music collection on HDD revolves around the inherent failure rate of said hard drives. I suppose it's all right as long as you keep a hard copy (original CD) of all your music. Actually you should. The HDD is going to fail. It will fail with no warning and you will loose every thing on it.
That said, I realize just how seductive such products as the Squeezebox and others are. Just remember, you should always keep the original source material. You will need it.:biggrin5:

[SlumpBuster]

I have an anti-CD player bent. But it isn't because I am pro-computer. Rather, a CD player is superfluous IMO. While I don't have a CD player in my main rig, I have a DVD player and a CD recorder. Both are connected optically, and accordingly, both act solely as transports re: audio reproduction. And that is where my anti-CD player bent comes in.

With the inclusion of top notch DACs in even mid priced AVRs, the CD player has essentially become a transport. Why pay for the DAC and all the other unnessesary junk in the CD player when your just connecting digitally anyway. To me, CD players only count if your sending an analog signal to your pre-amp. In my case, my CD recorder's DAC only comes into play when recording analog signals or copyprotected signals.

[emorphien]

I have an anti-CD player bent. But it isn't because I am pro-computer. Rather, a CD player is superfluous IMO. While I don't have a CD player in my main rig, I have a DVD player and a CD recorder. Both are connected optically, and accordingly, both act solely as transports re: audio reproduction. And that is where my anti-CD player bent comes in.

With the inclusion of top notch DACs in even mid priced AVRs, the CD player has essentially become a transport. Why pay for the DAC and all the other unnessesary junk in the CD player when your just connecting digitally anyway. To me, CD players only count if your sending an analog signal to your pre-amp. In my case, my CD recorder's DAC only comes into play when recording analog signals or copyprotected signals.
You wouldn't be saying that kind of thing if you had an integrated amp without a built in DAC.

[Mike Anderson]

then the squeezebox, at that price, you'll need a dac (or use the optical out, if you have a optical inputs on your amp)

No, the Squeezebox has its own DAC, so you can use either its analog outs, or its digital outs if you want to use your own DAC.


and yes, when you do your rips carefully, you can get bit-perfect sound, but that would mean the file is quite big, which also means that your hard drive will be stuffed with music, and only music that is.

I use lossless compression (FLAC) which gives you file sizes half the size of the original CD's files. If you want to compress further, you can do so. But these days, hard drive space is pretty cheap.

And I store plenty of other stuff on the same hard drive.


then there's wireless, wireless signals are very depending on distance, or it haves to go through walls and stuff, so they could lose bits of data, which would result in short pauses during songs,

You may or may not have a problem with dropout in wireless connections, depending on your enviroment. If it's a problem, you can run CAT 5 cable for quite some distance.


and, decent cd players have bit correction too, and some of them (like the rega one) even has built in memory, so it streams the audio from the cd, resulting in a flawless and warmer reproduction of the sound.

Most CD players don't have error correction, they do interpolation. Something that buffers the signal to do real error correction is going to be way more expensive than ripping it on your computer. How much does the Rega cost?

And the sound will not be any "warmer" than using your computer unless it's being colored somehow.

[Mike Anderson]

What you are saying is not necessarily true. I am a professional in the computer field. MS in Computer Science and MCSE among other things. My specific objection to archiving a music collection on HDD revolves around the inherent failure rate of said hard drives. I suppose it's all right as long as you keep a hard copy (original CD) of all your music. Actually you should. The HDD is going to fail. It will fail with no warning and you will loose every thing on it.

That said, I realize just how seductive such products as the Squeezebox and others are. Just remember, you should always keep the original source material. You will need it.:biggrin5:

I keep backups of all my FLAC rips on DVDs. I also store them offsite. If my house burned down or collapsed in an earthquake, I'd still have my music collection.

Can't do that with vinyl -- or CDs unless you copy them, and now you're back to your computer as the best solution.

I bring this up every time you raise this point, and you haven't really said why you still think this is a problem.

[basite]

You may or may not have a problem with dropout in wireless connections, depending on your enviroment. If it's a problem, you can run CAT 5 cable for quite some distance.

you CAN run cat 5 cable for quite some distance, but do you WANT to run cat 5 cable?



Most CD players don't have error correction, they do interpolation. Something that buffers the signal to do real error correction is going to be way more expensive than ripping it on your computer. How much does the Rega cost?

The rega will cost you $900, which exactly $1100 less then the slim devices transporter.

and btw,
i'm not saying that pc audio is bad, i'm just saying that there are better things, i know that other things have disadvantages too.
And this is a fact you can't ignore: played from a hard drive or through anything else on your pc, no matter what you do with it, it will always pass through the motherboard and the cpu, before it goes to your squeezebox or whatever you use, which is exactly the same reason why stereo people buy stereo amps and preamps and not surround receivers, they have too much tiny electronics which will all change the sound a tiny little bit.

[Mike Anderson]

you CAN run cat 5 cable for quite some distance, but do you WANT to run cat 5 cable?

If you live in an enviroment where, for some reason, you cannot have a wireless network, then why not?


The rega will cost you $900, which exactly $1100 less then the slim devices transporter.

But that's not a relevant comparison -- we're talking about what it takes to get a bit-perfect signal, not what you do with the audio after that. My point was that you can do error-free rips on your computer for FREE.

The Transporter has nothing to do with how you get a bit-perfect signal, it only converts the signal to analog once you've done the ripping.


And this is a fact you can't ignore: played from a hard drive or through anything else on your pc, no matter what you do with it, it will always pass through the motherboard and the cpu, before it goes to your squeezebox or whatever you use, which is exactly the same reason why stereo people buy stereo amps and preamps and not surround receivers, they have too much tiny electronics which will all change the sound a tiny little bit.

No, you're confusing things - the signal that gets sent to the Squeezebox is a network/data signal, NOT a PCM digital music signal. It's no different than transferring the data for any kind of file, like the content of a web page or a word processing file.

The network/data signal doesn't get converted into a PCM digital music signal until it gets to the Squeezebox. It is literally impossible for your computer to have any kind of effect on the sound at that point.

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-code_modulation

This (the demodulation) is done at the Squeezebox, NOT at the computer.

You're thinking of the situation where you have something like the sound card on the computer that's generating the signal. That's not what's happening with the Squeezebox. You don't even need a soundcard.

(Note: The Squeezebox has the ability to take a raw PCM stream, but it's kind of pointless to do so, given that you can send it losslessly compressed/transcoded files like FLAC.)

Now, the Squeezebox has its own electronics that may affect the sound, but then so does a CD player. The point is to get as much of the process far away from the computer, which has particularly noisy electronics.

[Rock789]

they have too much tiny electronics which will all change the sound a tiny little bit.

shouldn't the digital signal remain constant...

it may be transmitted with a different protocol but unless something is rewriting the digital code (an eq or some software), regardless where it comes from, or where it goes, it should remain the same...

it's how the signal is converted to analog where the sound may vary...

perhaps I am way off... I don't know:confused:

[Rock789]

I guess I answered this myself...
if the protocol changes, then the digital code will be changed to conform to the given protocol...
sorry

edit... so I guess the quality will depend on the ability of the drivers converting from one protocol to another and back...
if everything is done properly, no errors will occur...

[noddin0ff]

My specific objection to archiving a music collection on HDD revolves around the inherent failure rate of said hard drives. I suppose it's all right as long as you keep a hard copy (original CD) of all your music. Actually you should. The HDD is going to fail. It will fail with no warning and you will loose every thing on it.

My solution... 2 hard drives. Much less effort for backups. $100 for 320GB. Drag and drop backup in a couple hours as opposed to burning 60+ DVD-Rs over several days. Updating the backup periodically is simple.

(And of course, keep the original CDs)

[basite]

maybe you're right, but still, for some reason, i still prefer a cd player instead of a pc. and as far as i can remember, i never had any troubles with cd players.

for me, it just doesn't feel right, and if pc's were all that better, the cd player wouldn't exist anymore.

but you've made your point, and yes with alot of hard disk space (like you with your 500 gig drive, and me with my 420 gigs of space) you could store alot of music.
but i guess i don't like it that much. And believe me, it's weird for a 16 year old guy to prefer cd players above computers and ipods.

Peace,
Basite.

[Mike Anderson]

shouldn't the digital signal remain constant...

Yes, and it does.


it may be transmitted with a different protocol but unless something is rewriting the digital code (an eq or some software), regardless where it comes from, or where it goes, it should remain the same...

it's how the signal is converted to analog where the sound may vary...

perhaps I am way off... I don't know:confused:

No, you are absolutely right.

There's one complicating factor though -- jitter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jitter

That's because the digital signal has a clocking component to it.

There are ways to deal with this problem though (and by the way, a CD player has the same problem, it's nothing specific to computer audio.)

[Mike Anderson]

maybe you're right, but still, for some reason, i still prefer a cd player instead of a pc. and as far as i can remember, i never had any troubles with cd players.

It isn't so much having troubles with CD players (although that happens), it's what you're not getting. For example, I can select any song out of thousands, without getting out of my chair. I can build playlists, or have them randomly generated. I can search my collection, etc. etc.


for me, it just doesn't feel right, and if pc's were all that better, the cd player wouldn't exist anymore.

People always take time to adopt new technology. For one thing, it takes a little bit of time and effort. You have to rip your CDs, learn about the technology, etc. At first, it's not as convenient as just plugging in a CD player, but once it's all setup, it's actually much *more* convenient - and powerful.

Personally, I haven't turned on a CD player in a long, long time.

[SlumpBuster]

You wouldn't be saying that kind of thing if you had an integrated amp without a built in DAC.

Your right. I'd probably be advising that the OP take a look at outboard DACs. My point was to say "No" to middle of the road compact disk players and "Yes" to more sophisticated solutions. If you are using the latest AVRs, why use old DAC tech? If you do have a SOTA reciever, its DACs are probabably very very good. In that use and entry level player or a $30 Ebay special as a transport. On the other hand, if you are using a nice integrated (or separates), why not use a nice outboard DAC, along with that Ebay special?

My point is that if you have a nice SOTA reciever, there is no reason not to use the onboard processors rather than spending lots o' coin to get a new DAC inside a new CD player, when you've already got a perfectly good DAC in your AVR. Of course this is from a guy that uses both the DAC and Phono preamp that are on-board my Yammie reciever. (No outboards yet :14: ) On the other hand, if you have a nice integrated, treat it to a nice SOTA DAC.

[jrhymeammo]

Your right. I'd probably be advising that the OP take a look at outboard DACs. My point was to say "No" to middle of the road compact disk players and "Yes" to more sophisticated solutions. If you are using the latest AVRs, why use old DAC tech? If you do have a SOTA reciever, its DACs are probabably very very good. In that use and entry level player or a $30 Ebay special as a transport. On the other hand, if you are using a nice integrated (or separates), why not use a nice outboard DAC, along with that Ebay special?



I will never use $30 DVD player as a transport. I never got to try it with my Marantz since I've sold my Rotel, but when I plugged my Zenith DVD player and my Yamaha CDP to my Rotel with optical cables, the different in SQ was very obvious. I used to think like you, but not no more.

JRA

[Carl Reid]

I guess it's time I jumped into this discussion... since I have both a MAC and a NAD CD player connected to my Pre-Amp as source material.....

I have no external DAC (yet).... and I have my music stored on my MAC in AA3 (Not Apple Lossless as is recommended).....

I use the MAC's soundcard to send an analog signal to my Pre-amp.... and despite what I've heard from many about how BAD computer audio (especially compressed files) sound... I have not experienced that for myself....

Frankly, I find that just using the computer directly gives me a pretty good sound even when directly compared with tracks played from my CD player... I spent over 2 hours yesterday doing a listening comparision between the two and while I'll admit that the CD player sounded a bit better.. I was not overwhelmed.....

So based on the share convenience of using a computer to play your music... I'm willing to say that a dedicated CD player is unnecesary... and if you're computer has a crappy soundcard, then buy a USB DAC (which should eliminate any issues with Jitter).

An interesting side note though: when I tried playing a CD on my Panasonic DVD player I thought it was clearly the worst sounding of the 3 options.

[Century L100]

Wow, I didn't realize I would be setting off this much of a firestorm by starting this thread! But I appreciate all the input and it's an interesting thread to read. :biggrin5:

Mike A., the Squeezebox looks interesting and there's probably something like it in my future, I suppose. But the thing alone costs than a lot of the CD players I've been eyeing, plus the fact that my current Dell desktop has no wireless capabililty at all, nor do I have any other use for a home network at this point. So I'd have to add a wireless card, which represents additional $$.

As for running cables, my house makes this difficult, what with inaccessible areas above the dropped ceilings in my basement and other complications. Ugh.

As for the superior cataloging/indexing/searching/jukebox capabilities of the computer hard drive method...my collection isn't that large or complex that I'd really benefit from that, I don't think.

So all things considered, a dedicated, moderately priced CD player will probably be my choice, at least for the interim. Thanks again for all the ideas and discussion.

[Mr Peabody]

Mr...... Anderson, my post was not meant to be a serious reply, you need to lighten up.

I am, interested, in audiophile playback. I have my doubts that computer digital playback would satisfy me. It has been my experience that all digital is not the same. Transports can make a difference as well as other links along the chain. If one has to spend money on a chain of gadgets to come close to good sound from a computer, I'd just as soon buy the player and get it over with.

The bottomline, IN MY OPINION, is dinking around with computer when I want to listen to music is a royal pain. But, If I ever should happen to change my mind Mr. Anderson you'd be the one I'd consult.

Another thing to add fuel to the fire, I can usually tell by listening if a disc is burned or not. The only discs I've heard that I couldn't tell without looking is some a friend recorded from a Phillips stand alone CD recorder. This is more doubt in my mind that computer could get the job done.

I also want to clarify by saying I'm not talking about getting a computer to sound as good as a A/V receiver, I was using a Krell 280cd, and now use an Audio Note DAC with an EAD transport.

[Rock789]

Mr Peabody, the burned cd's, were they direct copies or were they burned from some form of compressed file? if it was a direct copy, you should not hear a difference... unless the burner did a horrible job and burnt many errors, then you would hear odd beebs and such...

to those of you talking about hard disks and backing up stuff... why not just use a raid setup? then it is automatically backed up...

[Mr Peabody]

Some were direct copies and others I can't be certain. My first clue when listening is the highs aren't as smooth as he original and the bass response is usually a dead give away. I can't explain in words the difference but the response is not the same.

[royphil345]

Yes, I've heard a slight difference in burned copies too. Blank disks and burners do seem to have improved quite a bit since I've done a comparison. CD players seem to read CD-R better now. And I've learned to rip and burn with more attention to quality. Would be interesting to try the comparison again.

[SlumpBuster]

I will never use $30 DVD player as a transport. I never got to try it with my Marantz since I've sold my Rotel, but when I plugged my Zenith DVD player and my Yamaha CDP to my Rotel with optical cables, the different in SQ was very obvious. I used to think like you, but not no more.

JRA

I don't think that way. Actually I agree with you. Perhaps I should be more precise. I don't mean a $30 wal-mart dvd player, but a solid cd player off ebay. There are lots of top notch players to be had for under $50 that retailed for 10-20 times that amount 4 or 5 years ago.

Frankly anyone hooking up a $30 DVD player as a transport is simply trying to be difficult. :sleep:

This is what I use. It retailed for $600 in 2001 and is on ebay for $20 right now. Spend the $580 you save on an outboard DAC and you've got quite a potent combination.
http://www.audioreview.com/mfr/cd-recorders-players/PRD_126682_2740crx.aspx (the bad reviews are wholly unwarranted IMNSHO.

http://cgi.ebay.com/SONY-RCD-W1-CD-RECORDER-PLAYERCD-R-CD-RW_W0QQitemZ130056383661QQihZ003QQcategoryZ14976QQ ssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[jrhymeammo]

One kid stealing music online that are 128kbps, then burns it on to a CD. His friend burns that CD , then rips it on to his PC at 128kbps.. If it continues like that, wouldnt SQ be absolutely horrible?

Slumpy,

I buy stuff all the time without hearing it first. Actually everything I own except for my sub and TT(only) has been purchased without hearing it... From what I've learned on this site, SONY makes pretty damn good transports, so your advice sounds pretty good. But I wouldnt know for sure...

JRA

[Rock789]

perhaps the issue here with burnned cd's is how the program "rips" the cd...

I haven't used any newer programs, but CloneCD was susposed to do a disk copy...
the burned disk should be a an exact copy of the original... no ripping, then reencoding...

eg... 1001001001 = 1001001001 with clone cd...
rather than ripping 1001001001 -> some other code then reencoding while burning a cd and hoping to get the same 1001001001 but possibly getting 1100110011001...

what programs are you guys using? and are you using an actual copy, or are you ripping first?

[Dusty Chalk]

Actually, it's much more complicated than that. The main issues have to do with error checking, redundancy, and the mapping of bad blocks on the CD (yes, CD's have bad blocks just like hard drives do, and just like floppies did).

[Mike Anderson]

I am, interested, in audiophile playback. I have my doubts that computer digital playback would satisfy me.

Well, have you ever heard a decent computer setup -- something with a nice DAC that's separate from the computer?


If one has to spend money on a chain of gadgets to come close to good sound from a computer, I'd just as soon buy the player and get it over with.

But my main point is that you get better quality for the $$ if you go the computer route. You have to buy some gadget or another, what's the difference between buying a gadget and buying a CD player?


Another thing to add fuel to the fire, I can usually tell by listening if a disc is burned or not. The only discs I've heard that I couldn't tell without looking is some a friend recorded from a Phillips stand alone CD recorder. This is more doubt in my mind that computer could get the job done.

I don't understand what this has to do with computers getting good audio. Nothing in the process involves burning disks.

As far as burning disks goes, if you do it right, you shouldn't hear a lick of difference. You can prove it by comparing the digital files you get -- bit for bit, they should be the same. If they aren't, your burner is making errors. That can be fixed with the right setup, but the point is that there's nothing inherently inferior about it.


I also want to clarify by saying I'm not talking about getting a computer to sound as good as a A/V receiver, I was using a Krell 280cd, and now use an Audio Note DAC with an EAD transport.

Right. I guarantee you, you can get high-quality, audiophile sound from a computer.

Look, you can use your Audio Note DAC with the computer. The computer will deliver a bit-perfect digital signal to it, as long as you set it up right. Please tell me exactly how you think the computer is going to degrade the sound in such a setup?

[basite]

yes i agreed that pc's can give good sound,

but still, i'm going to say something.
here goes nothing,
i still prefer the cdp, the pc cd station refuses duty sometimes, and my pc can be noisy, and i don't feel like buying new fans, and a new power supply, and a new cd station. i already have the nice pc case, which is built significantly better then standard cases, it made my pc quieter, but stil not quiet enough to play cd's undisturbed.

[Dusty Chalk]

Mike,

You do realize that some people turn off the LCD displays on their CD players because they believe it dirties up the sound, right? Think how much extra RF crap the computer is going to generate. The minimalism contingent believe in having exactly enough equipment to play their CD's, and no more.

Me, I do it just for the convenience factor -- I hate waiting for my computer to boot up.

That said, I usually wait for my amps to warm up, so I'm a bit of a hypocrite.

[Mike Anderson]

You do realize that some people turn off the LCD displays on their CD players because they believe it dirties up the sound, right? Think how much extra RF crap the computer is going to generate. The minimalism contingent believe in having exactly enough equipment to play their CD's, and no more.

But the whole point of the discussion above is that you can get the signal-generation part of the process as far away from the computer as you like. Basically, all the computer is doing is storing the files, managing them, and sending the files off to another component where the digital signal gets generated (in my case, more than 20 feet from where the computer sits).

There's absolutely no way the computer can affect the sound in this case.

[Daedilus]

Wow.. this is an ugly argument ...

I see both sides in this, Obviously an audiophile will never stoop to the depths of digital playback... while technophiles will swear with their dying breath that reproduction can be every bit as good as the vinyl recording...

I can appreciate the merits of both, but will add this into the mix... Not every moment of every day is an "audiophile moment", The Christmas party, burgers and beer in the backyard, a little background music while you work on a report, etc.

Many (most) of today's integrated systems have multizone capability with multiple power amps controlling whole house audio. For these circumstances either PC based or CD based music would perform equally well at providing ambient sound.

Into that i will throw in the fact that people are stupid. Vastly, unbelievably, immeasurably stupid, capable of doing things more incomprehensible and irrational than words allow for. For this reason alone, the 5 disc CD carousel is good, fast, cheap and easy.

I ALWAYS put one into my systems, even if i have a DVD carousel, simply because i can set the system configuration to have it always on, in an endless shuffle, of their 5 favorite discs, so that at any time, all they need to do is walk to the wall of the room and turn up the volume, like they would a switch, to have music in any room.

More technical clients get music servers, which i usually use Elan analog > cat 5 >back to analog devices for, if i don't have a local machine, coupled with wireless mouse/keyboard combos for remote system control...or the Elan Via DJ system. I have also used infrared IR modules in the PCs learned into system remotes.

I can appreciate the nuances of a plucked string vibrating the fur on my... ... chest.. as much as the next guy, but life isn't a concert, and even when I'm not "listening to music" I'm listening to music. For that reason i will stand in the defense of CD players as a valued member of the home theater system, and the music server as well. 97% of the population will never be able to tell mid quality sound from high quality sound anyway, so the point is pretty much moot.

[Mr Peabody]

Mike, I have compared transports in a Denon, Krell, EAD and a cheezy TDK recorder and have heard a difference, enough to be convinced the transport is important to SQ. I doubt if a PC would have a CD drive as good as any of the above except maybe the TDK. Also, I have experienced compatibility problems between cable box and HT processor and know of other equipment digital compatibility issues, so I'm also convinced that all digital signals are not identical the way you say.

I do have a friend who has tried several transports and says he cannot hear a difference BUT he has an expensive Levinson DAC that has some type of time alignment/buffer built in which I believe has something to do with clocking. So if this type of circuitry can be in the chain after the PC maybe it can get close.

[Mr Peabody]

Daelius, you have some valid points.

[jrhymeammo]

I buy stuff all the time without hearing it first. Actually everything I own except for my sub and TT(only) has been purchased without hearing it...
JRA
opps. I meant I heard them before making my purchase..

Dalieus,
What you said about Audiophile moments is absolutely true. For that purpose, I cannot disagree...

[Mike Anderson]

Mike, I have compared transports in a Denon, Krell, EAD and a cheezy TDK recorder and have heard a difference, enough to be convinced the transport is important to SQ. I doubt if a PC would have a CD drive as good as any of the above except maybe the TDK.

I fully agree that transports are important. But you have to look at what makes a high quality transport give better sound -- then you can see why a computer can do just as well as a high quality transport for less money.

The main point is that when I put a CD into my computer for ripping, it can take all the time in the world to extract the audio data. That's really what gives you a superior ability to read the CD.

Good ripping software, such as Exact Audio Copy, makes multiple reads from the CD to ensure there are no errors. It can do this because you are not trying to read the data and decode it into audio in real time. So the computer can take its own sweet time to read the CD and check for errors.

Once the CD is ripped, the audio files are sitting there on your hard drive in a perfect bit-for-bit copy, and they can be transferred over a network with every single bit intact.

At that point, the *only* factor that can possibly affect the sound is jitter, and you can take care of that with the DAC you use.


Also, I have experienced compatibility problems between cable box and HT processor and know of other equipment digital compatibility issues, so I'm also convinced that all digital signals are not identical the way you say.

I didn't simply say that "all digital signals are identical". But there are ways to transfer a digital signal so that it stays unchanged. All it takes is the right knowledge and technology, neither of which are terribly expensive at this point.


I do have a friend who has tried several transports and says he cannot hear a difference BUT he has an expensive Levinson DAC that has some type of time alignment/buffer built in which I believe has something to do with clocking. So if this type of circuitry can be in the chain after the PC maybe it can get close.

You're talking about jitter, which is a clocking problem. One solution to jitter is to store the signal in a buffer and reclock it from scratch. I know the Lavry DAC does that, and perhaps that's what you're talking about with the Levinson.

But DAC technology is improving very, very rapidly. These days you don't have to spend thousands of dollars on a DAC to eliminate jitter (or at least reduce it to an inaudible level).

[Mike Anderson]

I doubt if a PC would have a CD drive as good as any of the above except maybe the TDK.

By the way, I have to point out something: In your first post in this thread, you already admitted that you "are not up on all the computer to audio marriage stuff".

So you have to admit that all your doubts are based solely on your suspicions and doubts -- not actual experience in dealing with computer-based audio. Is that an accurate statement?

Have you ever heard a well-done computer-based system running into a high quality DAC? If not, what is the basis for your opinion?

[Dusty Chalk]

At that point, the *only* factor that can possibly affect the sound is jitter, and you can take care of that with the DAC you use.No, actually the transport is important too. You can make a DAC such that it is less affected by jitter, but never completely immune.

That said, there's a case to be argued that a well-designed computer can have less jitter than a CD transport (think about buffering).

So Mr. Peab -- I recommend trying to hear a well set up computer system. I disagree with the statement:
I doubt if a PC would have a CD drive as good as any of the above except maybe the TDK.

[Mike Anderson]

No, actually the transport is important too. You can make a DAC such that it is less affected by jitter, but never completely immune.

I'm talking about the signal *after* it leaves the "transport" (which, in a computer setup, isn't what Mr. Peabody is thinking a transport is).

And once jitter is reduced to under 100ps or so, it's inaudible. You just don't have to spend huge bucks on a DAC to get that level of quality these days.

[Century L100]

Wow.. this is an ugly argument ...


Yeah, man...look at what I started! :biggrin5:

Bottom line: "Ya pay your money and ya take your pick"!

[2325fan]

i have both a cd player an my computer hooked up to my oldie but goodie rantz 2325 an let me tell u music on my pc omg i hear more than the cd player look into some wireless systems they sound pretty decent too

[musiclover60]

Century L100,

You sure opened a can of worms with this one! I'm not going to go into the merits of cd players vs. computers, but I think you may have answered your own question. You stated that your computer was in your den where you work so I'm assuming that you use your computer for work purposes. Do you really want your work computer to be part of the family stereo? I can see it now, your working away, and one of the kids come in and and ask. "Dad can I run this *****in cd?", or something to that effect. My work computer is also the family computer, and I don't know how often I've had to put aside work while the wife was online or the kids were doing homework.
If you don't have that worry, keep in mind that your computer has only a limited supply of resources (memory, stacks, etc.) and though new computers have quite a bit of resources, new programs use up huge chunks of resources.
Try playing some music while your computer is under load (virus scanning, your multitasking, etc.) and see how it sounds. If everything runs smoothly, that's still an option. If it doesn't, well then maybe you should stick to the cd player.

musiclover60

[Mike Anderson]

^^^ I keep the Slimserver software running on my computer to serve my Squeezebox, and you can run anything else you want, including Photoshop, Wavelab or other demanding applications. And you don't have to touch the computer to play music; somebody else can be working away, and they'd never know the difference.

These days RAM is dirt cheap. If you have a problem, just buy some more.

[avgjoe]

Mike check my PM I sent you but what exactly is the purpose of having the audio signal being produced elsewhere? What exactly is jitter? And for those of us who have a pretty much inaudible pc (thank silentpcreview.com) what steps would we need to take to allow us to use the computer as our main source. I'm almost done ripping my 800+ cd collection onto my computer (WAV). Now I need to get some nice speakers and I assume a USB DAC or would you suggest something different. I hear USB DACs decrease jitter by being more "native" (whatever that means) to the computer.

Also what exactly is the squeezebox and how does it actually work. I understand that it's wifi but is the PCM signal processed at the squeezebox or the computer? What is the point of an external DAC when the squeezebox's output isn't USB but rather through spdif which is supposed to add jitter? Wouldn't that be more "jittery" than the wired option through USB?

In addition slimdevices' transporter, is that just a squeezebox with a really nice DAC or what?

Excuse me for any ignorance. Just trying to learn... :confused5:

[hermanv]

...edit...The other advantage over a CD player is that if you do your rips carefully (e.g. using error-correction software like Exact Audio Copy) you can get bit-perfect sound. CD players, by contrast, give you errors.This intregues me a great deal. I have always wondered why with CD players going for 20K and up, no reviews have done error rate measurements. They never even bother mentioning how many of the error correction layers are implemented. Some players are quite proud of custom transports, CD clamps, top loading etc. Lot of hype, little meat.

Do you have any links to sites that have measured the error rate, the effectiveness of the Audio Copy error correction? Error comparisons player to player or player to computer?

[Mike Anderson]

Do you have any links to sites that have measured the error rate, the effectiveness of the Audio Copy error correction? Error comparisons player to player or player to computer?

Exact Audio Copy is "exact" -- That is, for 99.5% of my CDs, I was able to get a 100% perfect, error-free copy. For the other .5%, the CD was too scratched or damaged to make a perfect copy.

Here's the website:

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/

Somewhere on there it will explain how the error-correction process works.

As far as CD players, I don't know. But it's going to depend on what CDs you put into it, that's for sure.

[Mike Anderson]

Mike check my PM I sent you but what exactly is the purpose of having the audio signal being produced elsewhere?

To avoid jitter caused by the computer's noisy electronics.


What exactly is jitter?

Errors in clocking the PCM signal. Here are some references:

http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/diginterf1_e.html

http://www.lessloss.com/about.html


And for those of us who have a pretty much inaudible pc (thank silentpcreview.com) what steps would we need to take to allow us to use the computer as our main source. I'm almost done ripping my 800+ cd collection onto my computer (WAV). Now I need to get some nice speakers and I assume a USB DAC or would you suggest something different. I hear USB DACs decrease jitter by being more "native" (whatever that means) to the computer.

I don't know a great deal about USB DACs; other people (likely on other forums, such as hydrogenaudio) could address this better.


Also what exactly is the squeezebox and how does it actually work. I understand that it's wifi but is the PCM signal processed at the squeezebox or the computer?

It isn't necessarily wifi, you have the option of using it wired (like I do).

The PCM signal is generated at the Squeezebox, not the computer. That results in less jitter.


What is the point of an external DAC when the squeezebox's output isn't USB but rather through coaxial.

The Squeezebox has both digital/coaxial/optical outputs as well as analog outputs. It has its own internal DACs, but they aren't quite as high quality as something you can get for much more money, which is why some of us use the digital out into an external DAC. A high quality DAC can render jitter inaudible.


Wouldn't that be more "jittery" than the wired option through USB.

No, not if you use a high quality external DAC.

As far as the analog outs of the SB, it would depend on what external DAC or USB DAC you compared it to, I suppose.

But frankly, the SB's internal DAC is pretty damned good for a $250 device that does as much as the Squeezebox does.

[avgjoe]

Wow very comprehensive and easy explanations but one question was left unanswered. I assume the basic purpose of buying an external DAC is to "dejitter" the audio signal but I read somewhere that spdif signals are full of jitter and thus according to my logic:
1. computer via wifi/ethernet to squeezebox (ok)
2. audio signal processed in squeezebox (i assume it's similar to an external soundcard)
3. thru spdif to external DAC (confused- wouldn't there be a loss of quality because the spdif is supposedly "inferior" and causes jitter)

Also do you seem to know anything about the transporter and what are the primary differences between it and the squeezebox. I assume the transporter, as it is a hell of a lot more expensive, probably has a much better onboard DAC...

[Dusty Chalk]

I assume the basic purpose of buying an external DAC is to "dejitter" the audio signal ...No, the basic purposes of an external DAC are (1) to provide a better output than your soundcard, and (2) to move the conversion to analog away from the computer.
...I read somewhere that spdif signals are full of jitter...All digital signal are full of jitter. It's not a function of the type of signal (PCM, USB, whatever), it's a function of the implementation. A well-implemented PCM signal over SPDIF can have low jitter. "You heard" "You read somewhere" -- these sources of yours seem to be incorrect, I would stop listening to that person.

[Rock789]

one has the Scott Nixon USB Tube DAC (http://www.audioreview.com/USBTDcrx.aspx) as an option...

[Mike Anderson]

I assume the basic purpose of buying an external DAC is to "dejitter" the audio signal

A good DAC can reduce the jitter to an inaudible level, so I'd say that's one of the purposes of buying an external DAC. For example, some DACs (like the Lavry) do this by storing the signal in a buffer and re-clocking it from scratch.


but I read somewhere that spdif signals are full of jitter

Not necessarily, but jitter tends to be a bigger problem with SPDIF signals. It's really a poor implementation of technology in this regard.


and thus according to my logic:
1. computer via wifi/ethernet to squeezebox (ok)
2. audio signal processed in squeezebox (i assume it's similar to an external soundcard)
3. thru spdif to external DAC (confused- wouldn't there be a loss of quality because the spdif is supposedly "inferior" and causes jitter)

If the external DAC is good, it will "clean up" the jitter problem, reducing it to an inaudible level.


Also do you seem to know anything about the transporter and what are the primary differences between it and the squeezebox. I assume the transporter, as it is a hell of a lot more expensive, probably has a much better onboard DAC...

I haven't seen/heard a Transporter yet, but yes, better DAC, cleaner power supply setup, more inputs and outputs, better quality components all around, etc.

[Mike Anderson]

By the way, for all the obsession about jitter, we're really talking about very subtle differences these days.

When CD players and other digital music devices first came out, it was a noticeable phenomenon because the problem wasn't terribly well understood. People criticized the poor quality of digital sound, with some justification.

But nowadays, I just don't see it as a huge problem. For one thing, you have to have a very good rig downstream to hear any differences. Unless you have a really good set of speakers, you probably aren't going to appreciate much of a difference between the Squeezebox and the Transporter, or a $300 DAC and a $10,000 DAC.

The other thing is that peoples' ability to hear subtle differences in sound varies tremendously. Some people really do have "golden ears", but a lot of us do not.

I have a pretty damned good setup myself -- Magnepan 3.6/R speakers and a reference quality amp -- but I'm not even sure I could pick out the difference between the Squeezebox's analog outs and my Benchmark DAC1, if you were to blindfold me.

I highly recommend you try the Squeezebox by itself before you spend the dough for a DAC. The SB really is a pretty damned good source for the analog signal. Since it has digital outs, you can always add a high end DAC down the line if you decide you want to blow the extra dough for some reason.

Essentially, you're going to get a much, much bigger bang for the buck if you put any extra money towards other parts of your system, like the speakers, room treatment, and so on. Or, a half-decent room correction setup (like the Behringer DEQ2496) will have a very dramatic effect on the sound that anybody in the world can hear.

[Fergymunster]

If I were you a would get a CD player.My chioce would be the new Rega Apollo or the Rega Saturn in that the what you have is a stand alone CD player.In other words there is no need for a seperate DAC.With the arrival of these and some others seperate DAC's are now becoming a thing of the past.There was a time when seperate DAC's were needed because of the sensitivity to jitter but is no longer the case as the times are changing, thus my suggestion of the Rega Apollo or if you can afford it the Rega Saturn.

[Mike Anderson]

With the arrival of these and some others seperate DAC's are now becoming a thing of the past.

No way are standalone DACs becoming a thing of the past. Perhaps that's the case in conjunction with CD players (I wouldn't know about that), but more and more people are moving to computer-based audio, and it makes all the sense in the world to have a standalone DAC for the reasons stated above.

[Fergymunster]

No way are standalone DACs becoming a thing of the past. Perhaps that's the case in conjunction with CD players (I wouldn't know about that), but more and more people are moving to computer-based audio, and it makes all the sense in the world to have a standalone DAC for the reasons stated above.
I'm just saying that my solution in a stand alone CD player is a more simplfied approach in reducing the effects of jitter.Mind you no source is totally immune to these effects.Also technology is advancing so rapidly that there are more and more choices in how you want to listen to your music.It's just that in my opinion your solution has a greater potentail for jitter in that your passing the signal through several components.Sure seperate DAC manufacturers arn't going out of buisness any time soon as long as people keep buying them.

[Mike Anderson]

There's no doubt that a standalone CD player would be a simpler setup, but you can get jitter just as low with a computer setup.

More importantly, when you say "just buy a CD player", you are ignoring what the computer can do for you in terms of music management. When you get to the point where you have more than a thousand CDs worth of music, as do I, the computer's ability to let you play and search the music is unsurpassed.

And then there's Internet radio, which is how I discover most of my new music these days.

People who see my setup in action are blown away. And they always say, "How did you find this music?" :idea:

[Carl Reid]

More importantly, when you say "just buy a CD player", you are ignoring what the computer can do for you in terms of music management. When you get to the point where you have more than a thousand CDs worth of music, as do I, the computer's ability to let you play and search the music is unsurpassed.

I'm 100% in agreement with that statement... I only have around 300 CDs, but even so... using a CD player is a pain in the @$$... especially compared to the convenience of using my MAC as a music library.... Even a simple thing like being able to adjust the volume on individual tracks in the ITunes Menu to ensure that all my songs play at the same volume... so I don't need to mess with my remote when I have a playlist running...

The only way I would recommend a dedicated CD player now, would be if you have a very limited CD collection and enjoy getting up to change discs whenever you want to hear a different album....

As for the supposed inferiority of computer audio... well I just sold my stand alone CD player on Friday and I have absolutely no regrets about that decision... I honestly think that digital source has the absolute least impact on the overall sound of your setup... well maybe cables have less impact :idea:

[Fergymunster]

There's no doubt that a standalone CD player would be a simpler setup, but you can get jitter just as low with a computer setup.

More importantly, when you say "just buy a CD player", you are ignoring what the computer can do for you in terms of music management. When you get to the point where you have more than a thousand CDs worth of music, as do I, the computer's ability to let you play and search the music is unsurpassed.

And then there's Internet radio, which is how I discover most of my new music these days.

People who see my setup in action are blown away. And they always say, "How did you find this music?" :idea:
The convience of your sound sources stored by your computer is a plus.However, with my Rega Saturn each CD is thoughly analized before you push the play button.It's new procedure in a CD player's and one that makes the sound quality exceptionable.With that said I'm sure that there are many who will go your route but the sound quality stored in a computer is hardly the equivalent to a quality CD player especially if your listening to internet radio and this is the crux of our argument.For me I can take the time to listen to one CD at a time while at home.When not at home then the door is wide open,Satellite radio,I-pod Hd radio etc...the list goes on and on.

[Mike Anderson]

However, with my Rega Saturn each CD is thoughly analized before you push the play button.It's new procedure in a CD player's and one that makes the sound quality exceptionable.

You're talking about error-correction.

Read through the thread above. With the computer, you have the ability to do error-correction in ripping the CD, and you can get a 100% error-free copy unless the CD is too physically damaged (which is extremely rare, in which case your Rega won't read it perfectly either). And I didn't have to spend hundreds or thousands of bucks on a CD player to get error-correction; there's software that will do it for free:

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/



With that said I'm sure that there are many who will go your route but the sound quality stored in a computer is hardly the equivalent to a quality CD player...

If you do it right, it is every bit as good as you get with a high end CD player... Read through the thread above, there's no point in explaining this yet again.

Have you actually heard a well-done computer setup running into a high end DAC, or something like the Transporter? Or even the Squeezebox?


... especially if your listening to internet radio and this is the crux of our argument.

No, that's not the crux of my argument at all. The Internet radio is just the icing on the cake.

And believe it or not, you can get Internet radio that sounds pretty decent, depending on the bit rate. A lot of people wouldn't know it from the CD.

[Fergymunster]

You're talking about error-correction.

Read through the thread above. With the computer, you have the ability to do error-correction in ripping the CD, and you can get a 100% error-free copy unless the CD is too physically damaged (which is extremely rare, in which case your Rega won't read it perfectly either). And I didn't have to spend hundreds or thousands of bucks on a CD player to get error-correction; there's software that will do it for free:

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/




If you do it right, it is every bit as good as you get with a high end CD player... Read through the thread above, there's no point in explaining this yet again.

Have you actually heard a well-done computer setup running into a high end DAC, or something like the Transporter? Or even the Squeezebox?



No, that's not the crux of my argument at all. The Internet radio is just the icing on the cake.

And believe it or not, you can get Internet radio that sounds pretty decent, depending on the bit rate. A lot of people wouldn't know it from the CD.
Why don't you do a search of the Rega players as I did a search with your silly little sqeeze box idea.You have no idea what your talking about.On the same note same people are going for the Bechmark DAC and Lavry DAC's when you have an exceptionable CD player in that of the Apllo for $995.I'll repeat one more time your Transporter,Sqeezebox or your sepearte DAC tandem is a very around about way to listen to your music.

[Mike Anderson]

Why don't you do a search of the Rega players as I did a search with your silly little sqeeze box idea.You have no idea what your talking about.On the same note same people are going for the Bechmark DAC and Lavry DAC's when you have an exceptionable CD player in that of the Apllo for $995.I'll repeat one more time your Transporter,Sqeezebox or your sepearte DAC tandem is a very around about way to listen to your music.

I don't claim the Squeezebox, by itself, is an audiophile component. It costs $250 for godsakes. But plug the digital out into a good DAC, and you absolutely can get audiophile sound. There's nothing "round about" about it at all.

I know all about your Rega CD players. Your Saturn costs how much? Oh yeah - a couple thousand dollars.

Meanwhile, I can do error-correction on my computer for free. Then I can spend half what you did and get a DAC with an analog stage every bit as good as what's in your CD player, and that will, for all intents and purposes, eliminate any jitter problem.

In addition to all that, I get the power of managing thousands of songs on my computer.

I asked you if you've ever listened to a high quality computer setup, or if you've even heard something like the Squeezebox for that matter. You did not respond, so I take it your answer is "no".

You have no basis to say I don't know what I'm talking about, when you yourself know basically nothing about how to do audio on your computer. Like everyone else here who thinks you can't get good quality sound out of a computer, you've never actually heard one.

[Dusty Chalk]

I have both. They both have their utility.

Carry on.

[Fergymunster]

I don't claim the Squeezebox, by itself, is an audiophile component. It costs $250 for godsakes. But plug the digital out into a good DAC, and you absolutely can get audiophile sound. There's nothing "round about" about it at all.

I know all about your Rega CD players. Your Saturn costs how much? Oh yeah - a couple thousand dollars.

Meanwhile, I can do error-correction on my computer for free. Then I can spend half what you did and get a DAC with an analog stage every bit as good as what's in your CD player, and that will, for all intents and purposes, eliminate any jitter problem.

In addition to all that, I get the power of managing thousands of songs on my computer.

I asked you if you've ever listened to a high quality computer setup, or if you've even heard something like the Squeezebox for that matter. You did not respond, so I take it your answer is "no".

You have no basis to say I don't know what I'm talking about, when you yourself know basically nothing about how to do audio on your computer. Like everyone else here who thinks you can't get good quality sound out of a computer, you've never actually heard one.
In your first responce to me you said"I wouldn't know about that"refering to CD players.So your argument holds no water since you havn't listened to a quality CD player.Also you poked fun at my Saturn which really isn't necessary.Even a $400 CD player will out perform your childish set up.Also I have a big smile on my face listening to my Saturn through headphones while your fiddling around with some silly apparatus around your computer.

[Mike Anderson]

In your first responce to me you said"I wouldn't know about that"refering to CD players.

Not quite - what I said was that I wouldn't know about whether standalone DACs are still being used by people who use CD players:


No way are standalone DACs becoming a thing of the past. Perhaps that's the case in conjunction with CD players (I wouldn't know about that), but more and more people are moving to computer-based audio...

I promise you, I have heard very good CD players. But more importantly, I don't doubt for one second that you are getting excellent sound out of your CD player.

What I'm saying is that it's also possible to get excellent sound out of a computer + DAC, or something similar.


.Even a $400 CD player will out perform your childish set up.

Please explain why or how. If you aren't basing your statement on actual experience (and it is clear you are not), can you back it up using technically accurate, logical analysis? Exactly how does my setup fail to perform as well? At what point in the digital signal chain is the signal getting degraded, and how?

[hermanv]

Not quite - what I said was that I wouldn't know about whether standalone DACs are still being used by people who use CD players
...edit...
What I'm saying is that it's also possible to get excellent sound out of a computer + DAC, or something similar.

Stand alone DACs are not a thing of the past, not that many use them, they imply a degree of dedication and complexity (not to mention cost) that is too much for many audio buffs. A good DAC costs about the same as a good player. In my experience the external DAC usually sounds better at a given price point than a player with built in processing.

I have switched to a music server, I guarantee many of you will in the near future. A music server is just another way of saying a computer. Although music servers are obviously speciallized for audio, mine contains a 160 Gbyte hard disk, a playlist organizer, an internet port, a wireless hub allowing multiple music programs run in different rooms simultaneously and obviously a microprocessor with small keyboard and display window. It also connects easily to a computer to import internet music, download songs or manipulate the stored music using iTunes or a similar program. It has internal DACs, (they stink). The external DAC gets me back to truly first class music reproduction with all the conveinience of a flexible storage media (that incidentally has a better error rate the optical CD readers).

The server provides nearly instantaneous access to all the songs, no gaps when switching from one album to the next. Songs can be strung together in any order and favorites can be saved in a list form for each family member, easy listening, party music, dance, you name it. It's the way to go. The brand I bought is inexpensive but the software is somewhat buggy, I assume improvements will come along as the player allows new software to be downloaded when available.

[Fergymunster]

Not quite - what I said was that I wouldn't know about whether standalone DACs are still being used by people who use CD players:



I promise you, I have heard very good CD players. But more importantly, I don't doubt for one second that you are getting excellent sound out of your CD player.

What I'm saying is that it's also possible to get excellent sound out of a computer + DAC, or something similar.



Please explain why or how. If you aren't basing your statement on actual experience (and it is clear you are not), can you back it up using technically accurate, logical analysis? Exactly how does my setup fail to perform as well? At what point in the digital signal chain is the signal getting degraded, and how?My reasoning is only in relation to jitter and this why I jumped in to the discussion in the first place.My thinking was your computer as a source is a hot bed for jitter.Ok,so you move down the chain until you filter the jitter to acceptical levels.I have no doubt that's what you set up is doing.My approach in this process is simplified in that you only have one source.However,you got me because I havn't listened to your set up so I can only go by what you tell me.So now this agrument is becoming pointles as both are approaches limit the jitter to acceptical levels.Which source or sources people choose in the end only time will tell.

[Mike Anderson]

My reasoning is only in relation to jitter and this why I jumped in to the discussion in the first place.My thinking was your computer as a source is a hot bed for jitter.

You understand that jitter is a result of inaccuracies in synchronizing the clock signal, right? And you understand that the clock signal is embedded in the SPDIF signal, right?

Well then you can see that it's impossible for the computer to be a source of jitter in my setup, because the computer is not generating any SPDIF signal, and hence it is not generating any clock signal.

All the computer is doing is storing the song files, and sending the files over a network to another device where the SPDIF signal gets generated from scratch. The files aren't even decoded by the computer -- in my setup the computer holds FLAC files (with a small handful of MP3s). These are compressed files, and don't get decoded until they get to a device that is about 20 feet away from the computer.

So please explain, how can the computer possibly be a source of jitter when it isn't generating a clock signal, and when it's 20 feet away from the place where the clock signal is generated?

[Fergymunster]

You understand that jitter is a result of inaccuracies in synchronizing the clock signal, right? And you understand that the clock signal is embedded in the SPDIF signal, right?

Well then you can see that it's impossible for the computer to be a source of jitter in my setup, because the computer is not generating any SPDIF signal, and hence it is not generating any clock signal.

All the computer is doing is storing the song files, and sending the files over a network to another device where the SPDIF signal gets generated from scratch. The files aren't even decoded by the computer -- in my setup the computer holds FLAC files (with a small handful of MP3s). These are compressed files, and don't get decoded until they get to a device that is about 20 feet away from the computer.

So please explain, how can the computer possibly be a source of jitter when it isn't generating a clock signal, and when it's 20 feet away from the place where the clock signal is generated?Your still around,look I'm busy listen to my headphones

[musicman1999]

Sorry guys,i am a music lover first,so my Arcam stays until my Moon arrives in the new year(hopefully).A big part of the music experience for me is going through my cd collection,about a thousand strong,and finding something there that i have not heard in a while,and reading the booklet at the same time.I understand that it is more convienient to store them on a hard drive but i don't see it in my near future.

bill

[Carl Reid]

Sorry guys,i am a music lover first,so my Arcam stays until my Moon arrives in the new year(hopefully).A big part of the music experience for me is going through my cd collection,about a thousand strong,and finding something there that i have not heard in a while,and reading the booklet at the same time.I understand that it is more convienient to store them on a hard drive but i don't see it in my near future.

bill

There's nothing to be sorry about.... whether you use a computer, a cd player or a seperate DAC and transport should be a matter of personal preference....

I think the point being made in this thread is that there are acceptable alternatives to the traditional CD player approach....

[Mike Anderson]

A big part of the music experience for me is going through my cd collection,about a thousand strong,and finding something there that i have not heard in a while,and reading the booklet at the same time.I understand that it is more convienient to store them on a hard drive but i don't see it in my near future.

For me, I tend to hear things I haven't heard in a long time precisely because of the computer. That is, I frequently put it on random, and so I hear things I wouldn't have thought to listen to.

Also, while I know some people sell off their CDs after ripping them (which is probably illegal), I too like to have the case, booklet etc., so I hold onto them. There's no reason why you can't read them while you computer plays whatever it's playing.