[nigeljames]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Covenant /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm sorry, but this is misinformation. To make things clear here, the Pico is serving two roles in his setup - amp, and source. His source is not his Macbook, as you've stated. The Macbook is his transport. Lets look at things from a CD player perspective. You insert a disk, which has digital information on it. A laser mechanism reads the disk. This part of the CD player is the transport. That data then gets sent on to the DAC - digital to analogue converter - which converts the 1's and 0's into analogue waveforms. The analogue signal then gets amplified to a 2V line level by an output stage, and sent to the analogue outputs of the player. This part of the CD player is the source. When looked at like this, you can see that the only role that the transport serves is getting the digital data off the disk bit-perfectly to pass on to the DAC - aka, without losing any bits. A computer is perfectly capable of doing this just as well as any expensive optical drive used in high end CD players. For USB dacs like the Pico, all the connected computer is doing is passing in a digital signal. The critical part is how well the digital to analogue conversion goes, and to a lesser degree, the quality of the output stage following it. To summarise, yes he is being held back by the AMP section in the Pico. But no, he is not being held back by his source - not to any significant degree anyway.

Hi Covenant
Just to be clear the Pico never becomes the source!
The Pico's job is to convert the digital information into analogue yes but it does not produce the original digital data and therefore has to rely on the source to retrieve that information first and then pass it to the Pico.
The source would be the CD Transport or the motherboard bus depending on where the information is stored.

As West726 never stated that he only uses data stored on the Macbook I assumed that he would also use cd's directly via the cd drive and therefore the drive transport would play a part in the audio process at least some of the time.
In a comparision with an turntable based system the transport would be the equivalent to a stylus and cartridge. Now I am not saying that the transport is going to have as big an influence as the stylus and cartridge comparison but a transport thats designed purely for audio would be better at retrieving audio data. The differences probably would not be major but I do think significant. Reducing the need for error correction and leading, in my experience, to a more focused cleaner sound.
I have heard cd-r's burnt via a audio only cd recorder that has a small but obvious sound quality improvment over the same cd-r burnt via a computer cd recorder (recorded at the slowest speed).

I stand by my opinion that if the OP uses CD's he would be better of upgrading his source. If he just uses computer audio then yes it would not be practical.

 

[XXII]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nigeljames /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi Covenant Just to be clear the Pico never becomes the source!

This is not the standard usage of the word "source" on head-fi. Typically (and slightly paradoxically) the DAC is called the "source" and the CDP/computer etc. is called the transport.

I think most people would believe that changing DACs has a larger affect than changing transports.

 

[Covenant]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nigeljames /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi Covenant Just to be clear the Pico never becomes the source!

As XXII says, there must be a difference in terminology here. On Head-Fi, the device that performs the DA conversion is referred to as the source.

Quote:

As West726 never stated that he only uses data stored on the Macbook I assumed that he would also use cd's directly via the cd drive and therefore the drive transport would play a part in the audio process at least some of the time.

This is an un-optimal way to run a computer as source setup. A serious audiophile computer rig plays lossless files run directly off the hard drive.

Quote:

I have heard cd-r's burnt via a audio only cd recorder that has a small but obvious sound quality improvment over the same cd-r burnt via a computer cd recorder (recorded at the slowest speed).

What this boils down to is using incorrect software (or incorrectly configuring the software) to perform the rip. As I mentioned in my previous post, it is possible to guarantee the accuracy of every rip if you know what you're doing.

 

[nigeljames]

Quote:

Originally Posted by XXII /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is not the standard usage of the word "source" on head-fi. Typically (and slightly paradoxically) the DAC is called the "source" and the CDP/computer etc. is called the transport.

If being technical the source 'of the data' would be the actual media itself. However when talking about hi-fi and audio chains the source is usually the device that 'retrieves' that data from the media and not receives it from another part of the audio chain. I was not aware that the standard usage was different on head-fi and I apologise for any confusion caused.

 

[nigeljames]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Covenant /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is an un-optimal way to run a computer as source setup. A serious audiophile computer rig plays lossless files run directly off the hard drive.

Sometimes HD space issues dictate that space is saved and not all audio files are stored on the HD especially if a lossless format is used. I play CD's on my computer quite often. As its my secondary source there is not point putting everything on the HD.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Covenant /img/forum/go_quote.gif What this boils down to is using incorrect software (or incorrectly configuring the software) to perform the rip. As I mentioned in my previous post, it is possible to guarantee the accuracy of every rip if you know what you're doing.

I did not do the rips myself so I can not say what software was used but I agree with your point but there is no guarentee that the recording software pre-installed in the audio recording machine (that was a few years old!) would be of better quality than one that was downloaded or available commercially for profit. You would assume that the downloaded/commercial program would be more up to date and/or have better functions/performance to encourage its purchase.

 

[Covenant]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nigeljames /img/forum/go_quote.gif If being technical the source 'of the data' would be the actual media itself. However when talking about hi-fi and audio chains the source is usually the device that 'retrieves' that data from the media and not receives it from another part of the audio chain. I was not aware that the standard usage was different on head-fi and I apologise for any confusion caused.

Well you could equally say that the "source" then is the mics used to record the artist in the studio

From an audio reproduction perspective, we use the term for the device that is the source of the waveform, or the analog signal. Up until we have a waveform to work with, all we're doing is carrying bits around, or transporting them.

Quote:

Sometimes HD space issues dictate that space is saved and not all audio files are stored on the HD especially if a lossless format is used. I play CD's on my computer quite often. As its my secondary source there is not point putting everything on the HD.

For occasional non-serious use, sure. But hard drive space isn't really a limiting factor. A lossless album usually takes up anywhere from 400-500mb of space or so. Mass storage is ridiculously cheap these days, a terabyte hard drive can be had for $160 AUD retail here, which is storage for 2,000 lossless albums. And a computer can run multiple hard drives.

 

[KingStyles]

Quote:

Wheras in a computer, you can test to make sure that what you're getting is bit-perfect output. I have EAC as my ripping software, configured properly to give an accurate rip, and the benefit of EAC is that it reports any errors that occur in the read of the disk, exactly which track the error occured on, and at what time during the track. So that you can go and re-rip any individual tracks that had read errors, until you get a perfect rip. What this means is that when using computer as transport, you don't need an expensive, exotic, overbuilt optical drive like they use in high-end cd players, because you can ensure that every rip is done perfectly.

I use dppoweramp to rip my cds to my harddrive and does exactly the same thing as the eac program. The quality of the rip makes a large part of the quality of the playback and can be controlled by a 30 doller program. The usb cable can dramaticly change the sound and a usb/spdif converter with recloker to eliminate jitter can take your computer audio even further. A couple of notes of interest on using the mac areAmarra testing
and http:
//www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=54881.0

 

[Bilavideo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by West726 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I recently bought some GS1000s for home listening. I use them with ipod as well as out of my macbook air with Pico USB/dac. Sounds fantastic; I'm happy with that purchase for all the reasons that people generally are happy with GS1000s. Here's the issue: Using the GS1000s, I can't hear a difference in anything. I can't hear a difference between the ipod and the mac. I can't hear a difference -- ok, maybe a very, very subtle one of warmer bass -- between amped and unamped. I can't hear a difference between dac and no dac. I can't hear a difference between 128 kbps and FLAC. I've gone back and forth over and over and I just can't tell the difference. Either my 40-year-old ears are reaching their expiration date or the equipment isn't good enough to change the great sound of the GS1000s. Like I said, I love how the GS1K sound, but I keep wondering hmmmm maybe throwing more money into this more would make the sound better, as good as people say it should? I'm thinking of getting a desktop amp in the $1000-$2000 range, like the Woo 6SE or a Zana Deux. Am I and my perhaps not-so-good ears going to be able to notice the difference in sound? I would want a huge, knock-your-socks off difference in sound, or it's not worth it. Or should I just be happy with my sound?

Just be happy with your sound? Are you in a Sears? This is HeadFi, man. Crack open that wallet before somebody gets hurt.

I'm 43 (and dead sexy). I have a pair of GS-1000s. When I bought them, they were supposed to be this wondrous achievement. They were nice. I heard I should burn them in, so I did, and did, and did, and did, and have heard lots of nifty details.

But I hadn't really heard them till I got a decent amp. I went through the iPod, Cmoys with opamps rolling like marbles, the Pimeta, the Mini3 and then hit some paydirt with the M^3. The M^3 finally convinced me that I'm not taking crazy pills. It had the power and the authority to show me what my GS-1000 could do. Holy momma!

Get a decent amp. I'm no authority on what "decent" is. I'm still in solid state, though I'm building a B22 so I can go where the M^3 hasn't. Then I'll probably sell it and start sniffing tubes.

By the way, John Grado doesn't listen to the RA-1. You probably know that, but I kinda enjoy it as a mantra. John Grado listens to a Melos. That actually makes sense. What would be a great pairing for that Grado sound?

Bring me some tubes! And the head of Alfredo Garcia!

 

[West726]

Dude, I've got so much sexy I don't know what to do with it (I hear it fades at 44, though). It's amp, as you point out, that I ain't got. But I'm hoping that my Zana Deux (on order) will help. As for the head of Alfredo Garcia, you're on your own.

Seriously -- helpful post; thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilavideo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just be happy with your sound? Are you in a Sears? This is HeadFi, man. Crack open that wallet before somebody gets hurt. I'm 43 (and dead sexy). I have a pair of GS-1000s. When I bought them, they were supposed to be this wondrous achievement. They were nice. I heard I should burn them in, so I did, and did, and did, and did, and have heard lots of nifty details. But I hadn't really heard them till I got a decent amp. I went through the iPod, Cmoys with opamps rolling like marbles, the Pimeta, the Mini3 and then hit some paydirt with the M^3. The M^3 finally convinced me that I'm not taking crazy pills. It had the power and the authority to show me what my GS-1000 could do. Holy momma! Get a decent amp. I'm no authority on what "decent" is. I'm still in solid state, though I'm building a B22 so I can go where the M^3 hasn't. Then I'll probably sell it and start sniffing tubes. By the way, John Grado doesn't listen to the RA-1. You probably know that, but I kinda enjoy it as a mantra. John Grado listens to a Melos. That actually makes sense. What would be a great pairing for that Grado sound? Bring me some tubes! And the head of Alfredo Garcia!

 

[atothex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by West726 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Dude, I've got so much sexy I don't know what to do with it (I hear it fades at 44, though). It's amp, as you point out, that I ain't got. But I'm hoping that my Zana Deux (on order) will help. As for the head of Alfredo Garcia, you're on your own. Seriously -- helpful post; thanks.

So, umm... do you have a reference quality source on order, too?
I won't be able to take you seriously unless you have at least an EMM SE stack.

(half joke)

 

[Berlioz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by West726 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can't hear a difference between 128 kbps and FLAC.

Has anyone read this yet? I find that incredibly hard to believe. I can hear a HUGE difference between 128 kbps and FLAC. Even with 320 kbps, I can pick it out almost immediately versus it's FLAC counterpart.

Not to mock the OP in any way. All I'm trying to say is, if one can't hear the difference between 128 and FLAC, then maybe spending $1000+ on an amp is a bit excessive?

There's probably something I'm missing here. I am relatively new to this game.

 

[nigeljames]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Covenant /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well you could equally say that the "source" then is the mics used to record the artist in the studio

Going that far back in the chain you might as well just say the source is the vocalist/s or instrument/s being played.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Covenant /img/forum/go_quote.gif For occasional non-serious use, sure. But hard drive space isn't really a limiting factor. A lossless album usually takes up anywhere from 400-500mb of space or so. Mass storage is ridiculously cheap these days, a terabyte hard drive can be had for $160 AUD retail here, which is storage for 2,000 lossless albums. And a computer can run multiple hard drives.

Agreed but not everyone uses a PC as their sole or primary audio source.
I only listen through mine while I am working.
Many people also use a laptop for their audio which have more limited hd space and most have no internal space for another HD so will require their current HD to be replaced and all data on the old one to be copied to the new one. External HD's are not the ideal solution either because only a limited number can be connected and portability is compromised. Plus you also have the risk of corrupted or failed HD's and then everything is lost! Thats when you will wish you had a backup

 

[West726]

Berlioz -- Good call, and no mocking taken. In the past few days I've done a lot of research, and with the help some of the posters here, I've realized, to state it simply, that I'm an idiot. Well, that's too harsh, but I was doing some simple things incorrectly. I've now discovered that my ears aren't as bad as I thought! Appreciate the post.

 

[scootermafia]

I second the M3. It will give plenty of exercise to any headphone, although go Beta if you can afford it.

 

[KingStyles]

Amphora is a good ss amp too, or you can go on the preorder list for a isabellina hpa which is the geat issabellina usb dac plus a amphora amp combined for 2100. its 400 less than the isabellina by itself. You can add a zana to it someday if you want since you would already have a great dac to run it with to go to a zana. It would help if your dac was a little better to get the full benifit of the zana.