Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Intro to Computer Audio
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intro to Computer Audio - Page 2

post #16 of 36
He makes some good points on AC power, imho.
post #17 of 36
His comments on the post are pretty ridiculous.

I kind wonder if the whole thing was an elaborate flame.
post #18 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by nealric View Post
His comments on the post are pretty ridiculous.

I kind wonder if the whole thing was an elaborate flame.
I think you mean troll.

And, unfortunately, I wish it was. The truth is unfortunately much worse - he probably believes the crap he's spouting with full conviction.
post #19 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by grokit View Post
[snip]

Setting up the QB-9 in my main system wasn't as plug'n'play as I'd envisioned. Details mattered—maxing out the RAM on my G4 iBook made a huge difference to the sound, as did matching the sample rates on the computer and DAC."

IMHO, the DAC is equally as important as the source recording and resolution, the amplification, and the speakers/headphones; also DAC technology is obviously still evolving.
I agree with you about DACs. What Gordon developed and what I've done with my DAC are similar, except I was able to use ethernet and custom software since I'm not selling anything. The idea of it all being to slave the PC to the DAC instead of the other way around. I've seen a few other people with the same approach, and I'm surprised it hasn't caught on long ago. It makes PC problems, digital cables and all that other crap stop being a problem.

About the RAM comment though, all I can say is I'm an open-minded guy but that reviewer was just hearing what they wanted to hear. The whole point of slaving the PC to the DAC is so that timing errors on the PC don't have any effect on the DAC.
post #20 of 36
Haha... it's his replies in the comments that are just idiotic

"
While I would love to see you eat your hat...

You are talking SNARKY? Have you READ this thread?

Obviously not.

If it looks and acts like a troll, it is a troll.

I know what your hat looks like - it's floppy with a point.
"

Just because some guy calls him out on being able to hear the difference between a 3" and a 6" usb cable.

This (actually, a lot of audiophile topics, from cables to cd treatments to jitter) really, really reminds me a lot of the way creationists present their argument against evolution...

I see many similarities in the type (lack) of proof presented compared to this: YouTube - Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright (Part 1/7)
post #21 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by evanft View Post
Most DBT I've seen with DAC's concluded that they sound very, very similar, often indistinguishable from each other.

Of course, this assumes ideal conditions with the bitstream being fed to it.
As far as differences evolving in cutting-edge asynchronous USB DACs goes, there's good news and bad news in regards to new proprietary upsampling algorithms being created in conjunction with individually-tailored speaker/room correction software.

The good news: Mark Shifter is back in action!

The bad news: Mark Shifter is back in action!

Quote:
Originally Posted by b0dhi View Post
About the RAM comment though, all I can say is I'm an open-minded guy but that reviewer was just hearing what they wanted to hear. The whole point of slaving the PC to the DAC is so that timing errors on the PC don't have any effect on the DAC.
You have to keep in mind that the reviewer was using an iBook G4, which maxed out at 1.5gB of RAM, if you had the very best version, and came stock with 512mB if you were lucky; he disclosed it
post #22 of 36
More magical thinking from the "audiophile" set… just folks with too much money who haven't discovered cocaine yet. I've got to start making ******** products to sell to these idiots! Like those little rocks they sell for your listening room.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shike View Post
[T]here's still people out there that think their monitor is their computer…
My monitor is my computer!

Quote:
Originally Posted by grokit
You have to keep in mind that the reviewer was using an iBook G4, which maxed out at 1.5gB of RAM, if you had the very best version, and came stock with 512mB if you were lucky; he disclosed it
Great computers. Terrible logic boards (on the first couple of revisions). I have a 1.33gHz 12" I'll never part with.
post #23 of 36
I think my favorite part is this comment:

"Computer audio has become one of the last bastions of the bits is bits, flat earth, everything sounds the same, double blind testing, specs are all that matters gang. They get very huffy when someone with an open mind and good ears invades their space..."

Does he even know what a bit is?
post #24 of 36
"While this may be a tweaker's paradise, it's a reviewer's and manufacturer's nightmare."

????????
This means reviewers will have plenty of things to review and describe how they change the sound, even if they don't.
This means manufacturers can sell you anything they want, even if it doesn't have an audible effect.

How is this a nightmare for these parties???

I don't know about you, but I like having lots of work. It means I get paid.
post #25 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSGant View Post
My monitor is my computer!
No, they're just stored in the same space

Semantics aside, I'm talking about those that don't realize their computers aren't all in ones (for those that don't have all in ones obviously).
post #26 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iniamyen View Post
How is this a nightmare for these parties???

I don't know about you, but I like having lots of work. It means I get paid.
f you're already well-paid, it decentralizes things and the reviewer and high-end manufacturer lose influence, power, and finally $.
post #27 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by grokit View Post
I was reading a review of the new high-end asynchronous USB DAC from Ayre, and evidently the weak link in the chain was the computer until the reviewer increased the RAM in it. In the context of what this thing actually goes through to re-clock the datastream, I can see why. Most USB DACs are entirely different than the QB-9, being adaptive rather than asynchronous, and therefore don't need proprietary coding:
I see asynchronous USB DAC was first mentioned on head fi a couple of years ago (Wavelength crimson). Was wandering how this technology is evolving. Does it make a difference to SQ? Which DAC's currently employ this technology?
post #28 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shark_Jump View Post
I see asynchronous USB DAC was first mentioned on head fi a couple of years ago (Wavelength crimson). Was wandering how this technology is evolving. Does it make a difference to SQ? Which DAC's currently employ this technology?
Not very many compared to adaptive, although I wouldn't be surprised if there was a thread listing them somewhere in the source section. Off the top of my head I know the Ayre is asynchronous. Perpetual Technologies comes to mind...

I seem to remember reading a USB audio primer somewhere a few months ago that said there were actually three protocols, adaptive being the only one that didn't require programming skills to implement; then I believe they differentiated between synchronous and asynchronous for the other two.
post #29 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnOYiN View Post
That's where I stopped reading.
+1, I'd love to know how on earth he can think that a 3" cable is going to sound better then a 6" cable. The same goes for all those ram comments, clearly he doesn't have much of a grasp on how computers work.
post #30 of 36
My question is he names all of these cables you should replace. What about the sata cable that goes from the motherboard to the hdd? Or the wires coming out of your power supply? I mean if you have a $___ power wire and a $____ USB cable, what good are they if the wires inbetween them only cost $2.99?? Or do those wires not really count?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Intro to Computer Audio