Need for CD player (revisited)

[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).

[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

[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...

[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.

[Century L100]

Wow.. this is an ugly argument ...

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

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

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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?

[Mr Peabody]

Daelius, you have some valid points.

[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...

[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 have both. They both have their utility.

Carry on.