Advantage of computer-as-source?
Apr 9, 2006 at 1:53 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 31

Bovine

New Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Posts
20
Likes
0
Actually wt's the advantage of computer-as-source over dedicated source such as CDP in terms of quality and other factors
confused.gif

Investment in computers seems no cheaper than dedicate ones
 
Apr 9, 2006 at 2:51 PM Post #2 of 31

Shogun84

New Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Posts
6
Likes
0
Personally, speaking from experience, I have dumped my Marantz CD5400 for my computer. The biggest improvement in my computer chain I obtained was when I replaced my Chaintech AV710 to a EMU 0404. Just for reference, a Marantz CD5400 retails at 230usd, and an EMU0404 retails at 100usd. Of course there is the hard drive and the casing and the PSU to take into account,but at least here the above is a simple reference point for you.

Next advantage would be the convenience factor. If you do what most head-fiers do-- rip their collection to the hard drive (instead of what I do-- run the CD in the CD-RW drive), then you would 1.be able to access your music collection rapidly 2.avoid or lower the amount of errors

Third advantage is, I guess, a soundcard would be easier to mod compared to a CD player.

Feel free to correct me if I got some of the informaton wrong.
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Apr 9, 2006 at 2:53 PM Post #3 of 31

NiceCans

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Posts
3,875
Likes
13
off the top of my head:
1- All your music at your fingertips and with instant access
2- programmable - playlists, etc
3- a hard drive takes up less space that the hundreds of CD's it can replace
4- you do not have to dust the hard drive every other day like the shelves full of CD's
5- moderm computer audio can achieve sound quality on a par (obviously there is some debate on this one)
 
Apr 9, 2006 at 3:11 PM Post #4 of 31

RockinOut

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Posts
273
Likes
0
Apr 9, 2006 at 3:28 PM Post #5 of 31

Bovine

New Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Posts
20
Likes
0
Thanks for reply, guys
tongue.gif

So wat should I do if I wanna upgrade my current system?

My current config:
RME HDSP 9632
Antec True Power 2.0
Plextor DVD-RW 716L
Maxtor 200GB PATA
Headphones: HD 595, HF-1 (I never use speakers)
 
Apr 9, 2006 at 4:05 PM Post #7 of 31

Bovine

New Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Posts
20
Likes
0
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shogun84
Hmmmm... if you mind hdd noise, you could try getting a Seagate. and...

WHERE IS YOUR HEAD AMP!!!!???

:p



I dun hv 1 yet
tongue.gif
 
Apr 9, 2006 at 4:10 PM Post #8 of 31

NiceCans

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Posts
3,875
Likes
13
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bovine
Thanks for reply, guys
tongue.gif

So wat should I do if I wanna upgrade my current system?



Quote:

Originally Posted by Shogun84
Hmmmm...
WHERE IS YOUR HEAD AMP!!!!???
:p



Quote:

Originally Posted by Bovine
I dun hv 1 yet
tongue.gif




Seems you've found your answer.
biggrin.gif
 
Apr 9, 2006 at 4:11 PM Post #9 of 31

Chri5peed

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Posts
3,611
Likes
12
Also a computer will play any file under the sun, mind you CDPs only play CDs so its not an advantage as such, over DAPs more...

It was touched on, but music files don't physically exist and are therefore not prone to physical damage like CDs, as long as you keep back-up copies, music files are bulletproof.

As said, convenience. On my 250GB HDD I can have a fairly large collection of Lossless music at my fingertips.
 
Apr 9, 2006 at 4:23 PM Post #10 of 31

Bovine

New Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Posts
20
Likes
0
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chri5peed
Also a computer will play any file under the sun, mind you CDPs only play CDs so its not an advantage as such, over DAPs more...

It was touched on, but music files don't physically exist and are therefore not prone to physical damage like CDs, as long as you keep back-up copies, music files are bulletproof.

As said, convenience. On my 250GB HDD I can have a fairly large collection of Lossless music at my fingertips.



If size is not a matter, wat format should I rip to obtain the best quality?
 
Apr 9, 2006 at 4:32 PM Post #11 of 31

NiceCans

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Posts
3,875
Likes
13
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bovine
If size is not a matter, wat format should I rip to obtain the best quality?


For the best quality choose a LossLESS encoder format such as FLAC, SHN, or Monkey's Audio (flac seems to be the most popular of these)

Lossless such as flac will compress the files to approximately 40%-60% or their original size as compared to Lossey formats such as mp3 or ogg, which get considerable smaller due to the removal of 'unnecessary' bits.
 
Apr 9, 2006 at 4:49 PM Post #12 of 31

Bovine

New Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Posts
20
Likes
0
Quote:

Originally Posted by NiceCans
For the best quality choose a LossLESS encoder format such as FLAC, SHN, or Monkey's Audio (flac seems to be the most popular of these)

Lossless such as flac will compress the files to approximately 40%-60% or their original size as compared to Lossey formats such as mp3 or ogg, which get considerable smaller due to the removal of 'unnecessary' bits.



how abt WAVE?
 
Apr 9, 2006 at 4:54 PM Post #13 of 31

Chri5peed

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Posts
3,611
Likes
12
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bovine
how abt WAVE?


See 'FLAC...40-60%', well WAV files are identical but are 100%. So in certain circumstances might be twice as big.

Edit - Or 0%, I don't know? But Foobar says they're 100%.

But WAVs are totally uncompressed, whereas FLACs aren't to make them smaller.
 
Apr 9, 2006 at 5:01 PM Post #14 of 31

NiceCans

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Posts
3,875
Likes
13
While I am certian that someone will claim otherwise, there is no difference between a Wav and a Flac file. But you could always rip a track to each and compare.

The FLAC file is LOSS-LESS, meaning nothing is lost, when you uncompress the flac file you get back exactly what was there before in the original file, no different. Ergo, the flac & the wav sound the same . . . . although the Flac may use a bit more CPU due to having to uncompress the file as it is playing.
 
Apr 9, 2006 at 6:08 PM Post #15 of 31

Chri5peed

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Posts
3,611
Likes
12
Quote:

Originally Posted by NiceCans
The FLAC file is LOSS-LESS, meaning nothing is lost, when you uncompress the flac file you get back exactly what was there before in the original file, no different. Ergo, the flac & the wav sound the same . . . . although the Flac may use a bit more CPU due to having to uncompress the file as it is playing.


Thats probably not as well known as it might be.

Lossless files get uncompressed during playback. Which is why its often a trick for Portable mp3-players to play Lossless.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top