Benefits of a CDP over a decent DAC for ur computer...?

[uofmtiger]

Originally Posted by PITTM

I imagine the 840c has a pretty good DAC AND can be a great cdp. Why not buy an 840c and connect your computer to it AND use it to play cd's. I have thought of buying the 740c for the same reason.

I have considered this route, but I think I am going to end up with a Stello DAC instead. The fact of the matter is that I moved to FLAC+server a while back and I doubt I will listen to very many CDs via a CD player in the future.

If I had 100 CDs, I think I would stick with a CD player, but with 1300+ CDs, it just makes it easier to fnd albums, artists, etc.. without ever leaving my chair. Also, since the music is on a network, I can listen to my entire collection in any room of the house using Roku M1000s/laptops/PS3s.

My computers and Rokus can be controlled with a remote. So that is not a problem at all. I leave my media server computer running all the time, so reboots are not a problem, either. The more I think about it, I can't think of any reason I would want to go back to a CD player.

[White Mike]

I think, ultimately the move away from CD's for the mainstream is inevitable (however long that takes).

For me I have only been able to convert about a third of my 4000+ CDs to flac, purely due to the practicality of the cost of that much redundant storage.

I could have ripped them all to smaller MP3's but I figure I'd rather only have to go through the hassle of physically ripping my CD's once. Better to have them in a lossless format which could be batch converted to any future format down the road!
I still enjoy browsing through CD's though... I just dont enjoy scrolling on an iPod or SB3 display.

[Hellenback]

This might be a bit off topic but it applies. I just don't get how "lossless" works. If it only takes up half the room where is the other half of the information? Is there truly no information loss in "lossless conversion" and if so why don't CDs use the same format to save space? SACD and DVD audio have many times more information pressed into the discs. How does lossless preserve ALL the information?

[HighLife]

I think CDs still have a ways to go before they are forgotten. Dont forget people like DJs and MC's that use LPs and even CDs to spin and scratch. Granted, this can all be done digitally...but the cost is still much higher...a average kid can go pick up 2 turntables and a mixer for cheap.

I do agree though, someday....not really any time soon, we all will face the digital only era.

[HighLife]

Originally Posted by Hellenback

This might be a bit off topic but it applies. I just don't get how "lossless" works. If it only takes up half the room where is the other half of the information? Is there truly no information loss in "lossless conversion" and if so why don't CDs use the same format to save space? SACD and DVD audio have many times more information pressed into the discs. How does lossless preserve ALL the information?

Well lossless isnt half the room, in fact its 100% of the room mainly. Depending on the format. I believe all CDs are in .wav format when read in a PC. This is normally about 30-40mb per song. If you go FLAC, its about the same, maybe a bit bigger as there are different levels.

Mp3s are LOSSY format..They are normally 3-5mb in size...they are chopped down for amount.

If you thinking digitally, the normal CD format is .wav to a PC and is about 30-40mb, the MP3 is normally about 3-5mb.

[Maniac]

Just wondering, does people here consider PS3 as a computer playback device or a dedicated player(more or less)?

I personally think of it as a computer playback device and it worked mostly fine except for the interference it puts out to devices close by. It is a nice option for people who want to pull music from their server, play from HDD (it seem to allow uncompress PCM storage if you pull it off a server), or for those who want to play SACD/Blu-Ray. It works either way, and even downconverts SACD to high bit rate PCM for external DAC to decode.


And it is a whole lot cheaper than computers.




With that said, I still drop my red-book CDs onto my CDP-X5000, yes it is a lot more fun seeing your disc spin through the clear top.

[jp11801]

Originally Posted by Hellenback

This might be a bit off topic but it applies. I just don't get how "lossless" works. If it only takes up half the room where is the other half of the information? Is there truly no information loss in "lossless conversion" and if so why don't CDs use the same format to save space? SACD and DVD audio have many times more information pressed into the discs. How does lossless preserve ALL the information?

the compact disc format is locked into a protocol that was developed by Sony and Philips almost 30 years ago lossless works much the same way a zip file works. CDs by nature are a somewhat outdated digital format based on current tech maybe someday we can get beyond the physical product and just download music in high rez.

[jp11801]

Originally Posted by Maniac

Just wondering, does people here consider PS3 as a computer playback device or a dedicated player(more or less)?

I personally think of it as a computer playback device and it worked mostly fine except for the interference it puts out to devices close by. It is a nice option for people who want to pull music from their server, play from HDD (it seem to allow uncompress PCM storage if you pull it off a server), or for those who want to play SACD/Blu-Ray. It works either way, and even downconverts SACD to high bit rate PCM for external DAC to decode.


And it is a whole lot cheaper than computers.




With that said, I still drop my red-book CDs onto my CDP-X5000, yes it is a lot more fun seeing your disc spin through the clear top.

a 60g ps3 is $50 cheaper than a mac mini on amazon but the ps3 will play blue ray while the mini + hd will store all your music. 2 nice options I can't wait until apple supports blue ray

[Maniac]

Originally Posted by jp11801

a 60g ps3 is $50 cheaper than a mac mini on amazon but the ps3 will play blue ray while the mini + hd will store all your music. 2 nice options I can't wait until apple supports blue ray

PS3 can use external HDD as well. not to mention a lot of people have upgraded the internal HDD with ease too. :P

[Asr]

Originally Posted by Hellenback

This might be a bit off topic but it applies. I just don't get how "lossless" works. If it only takes up half the room where is the other half of the information? Is there truly no information loss in "lossless conversion" and if so why don't CDs use the same format to save space? SACD and DVD audio have many times more information pressed into the discs. How does lossless preserve ALL the information?

The information on a CD is optically written/read as PCM: Pulse-code modulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Data on the CD is stored digitally on a computer as a WAV file, this information is still in PCM, it's just not optical anymore.

The aforementioned analogy to ZIP is the best one that can be thought of. Lossless compression is basically an implementation of an idea of how to compress data without losing any information, of course. ZIP works its magic by doing things like counting how many times a single unique character appears and where, instead of storing *all* the instances that character may appear. Lossless for audio takes a similar approach, counting how many times a specific quantity is in the PCM, instead of storing all instances of that quantity in the PCM. No data is lost, hence lossless - it can be decompressed to the full original PCM since all the important information is still there, just in a different way.

Lossy formats like MP3 probably do the same thing. MP3 manages a much higher compression ratio since it works on a much more complex algorithm, and it tosses out inaudible frequencies (>20 kHz, <20 Hz).

Another file format analogy between WAV = FLAC -> MP3 would be something like BMP = PNG -> JPG. BMP files store the data for each individual on-screen pixel in a color range up to 24-bit. PNG files store all the same data in a compressed form. JPG files, on the other hand, are very lossy, and their algorithm uses a pixel-block approximation - this is why low-quality JPGs look very blurry.