[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 325xi Theoretically SB should outperform any regular CD player, assuming it has very good clock.

Where did you get that idea? I find that very hard to believe. Quote:

Originally Posted by Loftprojection I would be forever grateful if you wouldn't mind taking a few pictures and sharing some info on the parts you install and on what you did.

Will do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon L rub the CD with twelve virgins' underwear on the 15th day of Sabbath.

That is what I'm doing... getting great results over here.

 

[325xi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox Where did you get that idea? I find that very hard to believe.

HDD based source lacks transport related jitter and reading error correction problems - normal CD player reads CD just once, and not necessarily successfully, otherwise why EAC would work so slow - it performs multiple reads and compares them.
I agree that all the rest of the jitter components are the same, but the above plays substantial role in deterioration of sound quality.

 

[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 325xi normal CD player reads CD just once, and not necessarily successfully

This is not necissarily true when you are talking about most hi-fi CD players. Most use a buffer of some kind.

 

[325xi]

Buffer alone doesn't help much - you need high speed reading with multiple attempts, and I recall only Meridian and Alesis are doing that to some extent, but there might be more of course. But whatever they do, they have to do it real time, and thus they are still limited comparing to no-real-time audio extraction EAC does.

And, any CD player have to do something about that problem, while HDD have no such problem at all. There are other though.

As for our new Chinese products, they seem to do very well in standard, recognised and well tested solutions, but I seriously doubt they can offer something really innovative and technically sophisticated on their price level. Which of course includes ways to treat the problem above.

 

[Bosk]

I've noticed that the advocates of PC-as-source are always discussing theories while the advocates of CD-as-source discuss realities.

I also think it is rather unlikely that masses of audiophiles around the world would spend thousands of dollars on dedicated CD transports if computers were really just as good.
It's also no accident that advocates of PC-as-source often tend to have very limited budgets, and have simply never heard any genuine high-end gear in their lives.

Tin-eared skeptics can call us what they like, but the fact remains that by and large we simply have deeper wallets, sharper ears and better taste than they do - and the differences aren't subtle.

 

[325xi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bosk I've noticed that the advocates of PC-as-source are always discussing theories while the advocates of CD-as-source discuss realities. I also think it is rather unlikely that masses of audiophiles around the world would spend thousands of dollars on dedicated CD transports if computers were really just as good. It's also no accident that advocates of PC-as-source often tend to have very limited budgets, and have simply never heard any genuine high-end gear in their lives. Tin-eared skeptics can call us what they like, but the fact remains that by and large we simply have deeper wallets, sharper ears and better taste than they do - and the differences aren't subtle.

My humble system is posted, you're welcome to check it out.

One of our basic freedoms is freedom of being ignorant, huh?

 

[bahamaman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bosk I also think it is rather unlikely that masses of audiophiles around the world would spend thousands of dollars on dedicated CD transports if computers were really just as good. It's also no accident that advocates of PC-as-source often tend to have very limited budgets, and have simply never heard any genuine high-end gear in their lives. Tin-eared skeptics can call us what they like, but the fact remains that by and large we simply have deeper wallets, sharper ears and better taste than they do - and the differences aren't subtle.

That masses of audiophiles spend thousands of dollars on a product proves nothing, imo. And the fact that a computer is my source is neither indicative of my poverty or of my having a tin ear. It rather reflects that a new technology has come on the market with superior convenience and equivalent performance.

 

[Bosk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahamaman That masses of audiophiles spend thousands of dollars on a product proves nothing, imo. And the fact that a computer is my source is neither indicative of my poverty or of my having a tin ear. It rather reflects that a new technology has come on the market with superior convenience and equivalent performance.

I can't imagine many audiophiles owning a similar level of quality components as yours yet still opting to use a PC (edit: Mac) as their source. Perhaps you are an exception to the rule?
I'm glad that you find your PC a satisfactory source, but I still maintain that CD sources are inherently higher in fidelity.

I agree that hard drive based sources are awfully convenient.
I myself, mainly out of laziness have been using an iPod Video as my main source for the past couple of months. It beats the hell out of any CD player on the market for ease of use, but I would never be fooled into thinking it offers superior sound to even most budget DVD players.

 

[Jon L]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bosk but I still maintain that CD sources are inherently higher in fidelity.

It's great that you "maintain" your belief, but I maintain that these sorts of statements are usually made by those who know something about PC audio, but not enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bosk I agree that hard drive based sources are awfully convenient. I myself, mainly out of laziness have been using an iPod Video as my main source for the past couple of months. It beats the hell out of any CD player on the market for ease of use, but I would never be fooled into thinking it offers superior sound to even most budget DVD players.

There is NO correlation between state-of-the-art PC audio and iPod, any more than correlation between SOTA non-PC audio and 1985 Sony Walkman.

 

[325xi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bosk I can't imagine many audiophiles owning a similar level of quality components as yours yet still opting to use a PC (edit: Mac) as their source. Perhaps you are an exception to the rule? I'm glad that you find your PC a satisfactory source, but I still maintain that CD sources are inherently higher in fidelity. I agree that hard drive based sources are awfully convenient. I myself, mainly out of laziness have been using an iPod Video as my main source for the past couple of months. It beats the hell out of any CD player on the market for ease of use, but I would never be fooled into thinking it offers superior sound to even most budget DVD players.

May I suggest you to do some homework? Even in this very forum - try to get some understanding of underlying physics: "how" and "why".

 

[325xi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox Where did you get that idea? I find that very hard to believe.

Thinking again... It is not that Squeezebox should be able to outperform any regular CD player, but rather SB's concept. Imagine Squeezebox designed by Lavry...

 

[Ruppin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bosk Tin-eared skeptics can call us what they like, but the fact remains that by and large we simply have deeper wallets, sharper ears and better taste than they do - and the differences aren't subtle.

P.T. Barnum would have loved people like you. Call it "...phile" or "high-end", make it pretty, and double (triple, quadruple?) the price. Be proud of yourself, you are supporting a slumping industry.

 

[Akathriel]

Bosk, although I agree with you I have to say your are pretty much a troll. You state your opinion, provide no evidence, and denounce and insult the opposition.

Also I see people stating that a CD reads in "realer" time than a HD?! How can that be? Think about it this way, a Hard Drive is just a CD with a much bigger capacity. The method in which they are read is exactly the same. The data is permanently on the CD just as it is on the hard drive, if you must insist that a CD is read in real time, then an HD is too. If I am incorrect could someone explain to me how?

 

[Loftprojection]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akathriel Bosk, although I agree with you I have to say your are pretty much a troll. You state your opinion, provide no evidence, and denounce and insult the opposition.

I'm also of that opinion Akathriel. In my view Bosk is mostly right, he just has a "bad" way of communicating it and offending others...

I have a pretty good CD player that was sold in the +$2000 range 3-4 years ago and I have yet to find a PC audio solution to best it as a transport into my DAC. I would love to by the way, there is nothing that would please me more then replace it with a pure PC solution but not at the cost of sound quality, even minimal. Up to now I've tried a Audigy optical out and a HagUSB coax out. My next step is to try a Squeezebox but I don't think it will do it. I'm convinced it will be very close but not quite. Just like Philodox has experienced with his Eastsound as transport vs his SB into his Lavry! There seems to be something "quality" CD players do in their transport section that is quite good and I don't think graphs, sound meters and all sorts of theories can really explain it.

 

[bizkid]

You certainly dont need to spend big $$$ for a quality transport, the HD970 for example measured a jitter of around 150ps. The 20000$ Naim measured 140ps in the same magazine. Ofcourse the low price of the HD970 isnt as good for your placebo

Now PLEASE dont tell me there is "good" and "bad" low jitter