[sejarzo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fordgtlover /img/forum/go_quote.gif It seems that the first point in question is whether there is a difference in quality between a CD reading a Disc in realtime and reading the CD during ripping and then storing the data for later use later. Let's say that both devices are able to read the data well enough, and buffer enough of the digital stream to successfully avoid pops and drop outs. There should be no difference in the initial digital data stream. Is this a reasonable working assumption?

Your conclusion (should be no difference) is reasonable IF the first part is valid. Therein lies the issue........

Quote:

Originally Posted by fordgtlover /img/forum/go_quote.gif The CD player then uses its DAC to convert the digital stream for analog output. The same would be done in a typical PC by the soundcard (or onboard sound). The accuracy of the conversion is dependant on the quality and stability of the clock in the DAC. CDPs typically have better DACs than PC sound cards. Is this assumption fair? What other factors might give the CDP an advantage in regards to the DAC?

No, I don't think that is necessarily true, if you are referring to the DAC chip itself. There are sound cards that use the CS4398 and the AK4396, the best and latest chips available from Cirrus and AKM.

If you are referring to the total D/A function, including clocking and analog output, then I suppose most internal sound cards are at a disadvantage.

But there is no reason that an external DAC component for a computer would suffer from any inherent disadvantage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fordgtlover /img/forum/go_quote.gif Once converted to analog the signal is then susceptible to EMI interference. This is of greater significance in a PC than a CDP because of the PCs native environment. If you take the data off board from the PC using USB and ASIO to an external DAC, can you successfully avoid both of these problems?

Sure.

 

[sejarzo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Better clock, bypasses SPDIF circuitry, linear power supply. But to me, CDP's just sound right. Even my SCD-CE595 has something my PC setup was lacking.

If S/PDIF is truly a major disadvantage, then why do so many audiophiles claim that separate transports and DACs, connected via S/PDIF, are superior to one-box solutions?

Granted, some of the higher end transport/DAC combinations use a proprietary data link, but most of them operate via S/PDIF, or AES/EBU in the professional field.......and believe me, virtually all of what you listen to on CD has passed through multiple AES/EBU connections in the process of going from the live performance to the consumer CD.

 

[Hi-Finthen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ccotenj /img/forum/go_quote.gif probably depends on how you define "audiophile".... for the "audiophile" who believes that nothing sounds as good as vinyl, can tell the difference between power cords, transports, can "hear" differences that aren't measurable, etc. etc., probably not... for the "audiophile" who listens to music because he/she enjoys it and doesn't obsess over every little thing that "might conceivably" (no matter how unlikely) interfere with their sound quality, the computer is REAL good...

Quote:

Originally Posted by onvn /img/forum/go_quote.gif Those people are not audiophiles.. They're 'technophiles'..

Tecnophile snobs who also go skiing, which consists of wearing $3,000 worth of clothes and equipment and driving 200 miles in the snow in order to stand around at a bar and drink and debate audiophile definitions intermingled with their latest ski gear purchaces as to how and why their rigs are the best.

The OP uses the term "Decent". Then we have terms used such as a good CDP.

IMO, and as 003 states, the comparison should be made not as an inexpensive giant killer, however at the sweet spot of investment spent, then there are systems delivering decent audiophile quality sound both by computer and CDPs.

Also audio technophiles come in at both ends of the price spectrum and they can argue there is no difference to be heard with a $50 Sony Discman CDP as it sounds decent to them. I believe the truth lies between these extremes. At comparable price points either based system will sound better to some irrespective of which delivery system is chosen.

 

[GAD]

Awesome discussion.

For me, I can get equal sound using my Lavry DAC w/lossless compared to what I can get on a CDP. In fact, I get better sound, because I've never heard a Meridian.

I love music, but I hate CDs. Not because of any sound signature, but because of the disk, case, etc. etc. I spend a good deal of time writing, and while I'm writing I listen to music. PC-based sound lets me plant my fat ass in the chair and not leave for hours. That's important to me.

Seriously though, my setup sounds awesome to me. About the only change I'd consider is a tube amp. For me I'm damn close to the "good enough" mark where spending more would not be worth the investment.

Just like I'll never go back to film photography, I'll never go back to CDs.

GAD

 

[itsborken]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zirgated /img/forum/go_quote.gif Indeed. In fact, it's a little known fact (that the Linux people keep hushed up) that the only reason Windows is unstable, is because of the damned Internet. .

I've found Windows goes unstable when lots of programs are loaded/unloaded into the registry over the course of time. This has happened since they moved away from ini files. The only way to fix it is a complete reinstall and then the clock starts ticking again.

Quote:

That TCP has it's own data verification (just a basic CRC), nearly all link layers have very good error detection (and correction), that many files are also given with their own checksums (all torrents, for instance) and that pressed CD's are rarely perfect is quite besides the point. Erm.. yeah, that really isn't something you should worry about.

That was my point. There's error checking built in to CDs, HDs, IP stack, etc. to cover this aspect. Bits aren't going to be flipped that often to make a difference unless the CD is very marginal.. If one mistreats their sources / scratch them up, why even try being an audiophile? They are wasting their time.

 

[ccotenj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GAD /img/forum/go_quote.gif I love music, but I hate CDs. Not because of any sound signature, but because of the disk, case, etc. etc. I spend a good deal of time writing, and while I'm writing I listen to music. PC-based sound lets me plant my fat ass in the chair and not leave for hours. That's important to me.

x2 (not the writing part though, coding instead)...

plus you don't have to worry about caring for your cd's... or storing them in a easily accessible place... or finding the one you want... or hauling them back and forth to the office... and so on...

i liked the skiing analogy hifinthem...

and i'll also agree that there are technophiles at both ends... the difference between the "low end" technophile and the "high end" technophile is that the "low end" says "it's good enough for me" and the "high end" says "it's never good enough for me"...

 

[Lord Chaos]

I switched exclusively to computer-based audio two years ago. Right now I'm listening to Peter Gabriel on this laptop (Itunes lossless from an offboard hard drive, Benchmark DAC1 USB, Shure E500) and am very content. I have no desire to look for anything better, as this system is limited by what's on the record.

OP, go for it. You'll never look back.

 

[itsborken]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sejarzo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Your conclusion (should be no difference) is reasonable IF the first part is valid. Therein lies the issue........

Please expand on what the issue is. Is it because normal CDP is 1x and ripping is 40x worst case? I found it ironic that MSFL vinyl remastering was done at 1/2 speed for accuracy but when ripping, it doesn't matter. Guess that is the difference between analog and digital.

 

[LonerGenius]

This indeed is a great topic. As usual it comes down to set up and preferences. With my set up, my computer works as well as my CDP for quality. My DAC is the same in both cases. The Cambridge Audio 740C functions as a stand alone DAC (upsampling seperately for left and right channels) and I am using the digital out from my computer through Zu's ASH cable. WOW is all I can say.

 

[itsborken]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sejarzo /img/forum/go_quote.gif If S/PDIF is truly a major disadvantage, then why do so many audiophiles claim that separate transports and DACs, connected via S/PDIF, are superior to one-box solutions?

Perhaps for consistency between multiple digital sources, it would flavor the music the same? A plus is that the DAC could be replaced to adjust all sources without having to replace transports, etc.

Personally, with just the CD source, I let the conversion happen within the box. The less circuits the music passes through the better. I guess that means I'm not an audiophile.

 

[003]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif stand alone cd player sounds better. not sure why. but in my system, it does.

I can mirror this. Recently I found an old Denon DCD-595 cd player. Real crappy, especially the RCA jacks. I believe it cost around $200 around 1991.

Using my AXP-1 source switcher, I was able to directly compare it to my sonicraft modded DAC-60 with the best 6922 amperex tubes. The cd player sounded better. In comparison the dac sounded veiled and had no detail. I don't know why.

The DAC is hooked up via digital coax to my PC, which outputs bitperfect using asio and the ORIGINAL foobar SRC resampler.


I am now investigating ways to improve it. I am going to try putting ERS paper around the sound card.

 

[sejarzo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsborken /img/forum/go_quote.gif Please expand on what the issue is. Is it because normal CDP is 1x and ripping is 40x worst case? I found it ironic that MSFL vinyl remastering was done at 1/2 speed for accuracy but when ripping, it doesn't matter. Guess that is the difference between analog and digital.

Normal CDP's that run at 1x have only one chance to read the data. All of that then has to pass through error correction to see if it "makes sense", and if it doesn't, then the error correction kicks in and interpolates. There is no "second try" in such CDP's, which were the norm for a long time (and may still be prevalent now?)

Cutting vinyl and making CD masters/reading pressed CD's are two very different things. Half-speed mastering of vinyl primarily allowed higher frequencies to be cut more accurately as the cutter head and lacquer had physical limits that decreased quality in full-speed mastering.

 

[itsborken]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sejarzo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Normal CDP's that run at 1x have only one chance to read the data. All of that then has to pass through error correction to see if it "makes sense", and if it doesn't, then the error correction kicks in and interpolates. There is no "second try" in such CDP's, which were the norm for a long time (and may still be prevalent now?)

Thanks. I'll have to check out the stats on my transport. So ripping is guaranteed to get the data off the CD accurately? It wasn't originally written for speed i.e. we can accept an error rate of X because its just getting sampled to lossy MP3 anyway (back in the days...)? I can see why today's ripping programs would have to be 100% accurate for lossless, better CD technology, etc.

 

[ccotenj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsborken /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks. I'll have to check out the stats on my transport. So ripping is guaranteed to get the data off the CD accurately? It wasn't originally written for speed i.e. we can accept an error rate of X because its just getting sampled to lossy MP3 anyway (back in the days...)? I can see why today's ripping programs would have to be 100% accurate for lossless, better CD technology, etc.

yea, it'll be accurate... accuracy in the rip process should be a complete non-issue...

data is data... the only real difference between cd rippers (imo) besides their user interfaces is their ability to error correct (and none of them do "true" error correction) and report read errors from damaged disks... as long as your disk isn't damaged, you are going to get what is on it... again, data is data... when you burn an excel file (for example) to a cd, there isn't an "acceptable" error rate on the read... to a computer, there's no difference between music and a spreadsheet, it's all the same...

damaged disks are a different story, but i'm willing to say that using eac in secure mode will produce a far more "accurate" (as accurate as something can be from an interpolated result) read/rip than a standalone cdp would...

 

[Morph201]

Ignoring the subjectiveness of this hobby...

PC's can produce decent sound, but there's more to it then ripping music to lossless files, such out output dbs, digital to analog conversion, eletrical noise level inside the PC,etc... so for the most part yeah, even if you rip music perfectly, bit for bit, you have other variables which could make the sound less than ideal compared to similarly price standalone cdps (ignoring the amps at this point also). But, that's just my 02 cents. Using a PC as a transport to read 0's and 1's from a HD into a soundcard does not consititute "audiophile" sound, at least in my world. But, it'll get ya toes tappin'!