Can a computer be a decent audiophile source? - The answer is yes.
Jul 5, 2007 at 2:32 PM Post #106 of 230
Gang,

I have been computer audio for about 5 years now. Here's a few bits/bytes of information that I have gathered over the years.

First one of the real reason's a computer is better than a transport is that it can go back and re-read a track till it receives an error free copy of the original. A transport cannot do this as it is required to feed the information to the SPDIF transmitter and therefore will pass errors onto the dac. I have a few extra pins on my modified Shigarki transport (X03 Tent module & power supply) to monitor errors. They happen espeically with poorly made cd's and older ones. On a computer these will sound better than with any transport.

On the PC & Mac each player seems to have it's own personallity and sound associated with it. I think this is basically due to the interpretation of the file type and then passing that data down the line.

All the ASIO modules simply buffer data to the lower levels. They do not effect the bits at all. BUT... they can over run and under run the low level drivers and this can make them sound different. Especially to different players and especially to the lower drivers.

Board level products have not really come to age. The PC/Mac's suck as far as clean power and low noise. Someone really needs to make a board that is externally powered (or battery powered) for the analog section. DC-DC covertors and believe me (as I have designed mother boards) are all over a mother board and invade the ground like dirt on a black car.

USB and Firewire are both capable some by drivers and some not. I think we are just coming into what is really capable here. In general there is no jitter on these interfaces like there is on SPDIF because they lack the clock like SPDIF has (i.e SPDIF has data & clock multiplexed as one signal). Since USB and Firewire is just data then it has no jitter. This is does not mean that there isn't jitter in a USB/Firewire dac. There is always some "intrinsic" jitter in any serial clocked device. The nice thing is we can so much better manage this because we don't have to deal with the problems of clock recovery as much. In USB you can do Async mode which means in a sense that the DAC controls the computer's clocking. You can then supply a very low jitter clock to the USB controller and get the intrsinc jitter down very low.

In the end... I think computers do a much better job and they keep getting better. Heck when was the last time you got a software update for your transport?

Thanks
Gordon
 
Jul 5, 2007 at 3:27 PM Post #107 of 230
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wavelength /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Heck when was the last time you got a software update for your transport?


About the same time I had to update the antivirus software on my CDP
wink.gif


Seriously though, thanks for your comments. They were great.
 
Jul 5, 2007 at 5:39 PM Post #109 of 230
Quote:

Originally Posted by tbonner1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Does anyone know of a computer system (software and hardware) that can host SACD and DVD-A?


Quote:

Originally Posted by zirgated /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Yes, though it would be a very difficult process to rip an SACD, and it may not be possible to do it bit perfectly.

A DVD-A is very easy to rip; the hard part is decoding the data if it's encrypted or compressed with MLP (a proprietary lossless compression format made for DVD-A).

DVD-A's support decent encryption - however, that doesn't help if you have the keys for it.

There are some modifications for WinDVD that allow you to decrypt the data and uncompress MLP; there are also some easier (and faster) ways to unencrypt and/or decompress DVD-A's.

If the disc doesn't have a key that WinDVD is using, you won't be able to decrypt it by that method.

Thread that lead to much of this.

EDIT: Commercial hardware hack to add digital (SPDIF) outputs to SACD and DVD-A players; not bit perfect for SACD (PCM output, SACD is DSD)



So it looks like "sorta" for the DVD-A and "not so much" for SACD. I believe this is a PC's inherent inferiority to a universal player of pretty much any performance level.
 
Jul 5, 2007 at 6:09 PM Post #110 of 230
Quote:

Originally Posted by khbaur330162 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
So it looks like "sorta" for the DVD-A and "not so much" for SACD. I believe this is a PC's inherent inferiority to a universal player of pretty much any performance level.


It's not inherent to a PC. It's entirely possible to make a DVD-A that is unplayable on a universal player of their choosing. As for SACD, the owner of the format (Sony) refuses to allow drives to be released for a computer.

What are the statistics on high-resolution (legal) downloads vs. high-resolution (legal) erm.. non-downloads?
 
Jul 5, 2007 at 8:15 PM Post #111 of 230
Gang,

You know what to do if you are tired of antivirus!

There are no drives nor will there ever be drives for SACD. Sony will not allow that as they are so paranoid. There really is no DVD-A software out there. You could take a DVD-A disk and use some of the video editors to extract the audio content (since this is all there is) and then write it out.

Or better yet download some tracks from Linn or some of the other sites that offer High Definition downloads.

I would also like to mention something about all the hopla about Bit Perfect. I don't get it... if you take a file and play it in 2 different players through the same ASIO output then it should sound the same, right? Never.... It's not the ASIO it's how the application converts the file. So all these claims about bit perfect especially through the KMixer seem a bit far fetched.

We could proabably write some low level fake drivers to test this. Come up with a USB driver say that basically goes no were and writes the data to file then check it against what was written say at the user interface level and see how bit perfect it is.

But basically I would not get so hyped up on this term as I don't think it's truelly something that happens. Because if that was the case then each player would not sound different. They would all sound the same.

Thanks
Gordon
 
Jul 5, 2007 at 8:51 PM Post #112 of 230
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wavelength /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I would also like to mention something about all the hopla about Bit Perfect. I don't get it... if you take a file and play it in 2 different players through the same ASIO output then it should sound the same, right? Never.... It's not the ASIO it's how the application converts the file. So all these claims about bit perfect especially through the KMixer seem a bit far fetched.


That's why people go to great lengths to setup foobar2000 properly with the right sound card and the ASIO plugin. Then all the player does is decode the track to PCM and sends it directly to the sound card, bypassing all other processing (in theory).

Of course the problem with this is nothing guarantee's your sound card leaves its fingers off the PCM signal. It should, but sometimes it needs a kick in the rear end to do so. Then it goes back to NOT being bit perfect due to minor conflicts that can occur from regular PC usage.

The whole KMixer thing is it reduces the volume of the signal by a hair, on the order of the last bit of data. This is enough to kill the signal from being bit perfect, even if all the other stars align and no resampling occurs.
 
Jul 5, 2007 at 9:36 PM Post #113 of 230
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wavelength /img/forum/go_quote.gif
There really is no DVD-A software out there.


Oh?

Quote:

You could take a DVD-A disk and use some of the video editors to extract the audio content (since this is all there is) and then write it out.


Not true.

A DVD-A disk really just means there is a DVD-Audio part on the disc; that is in folder (root directory)/AUDIO_TS. DVD-V content is in (root directory)/VIDEO_TS. The DVD-V's audio normally is lossy (DTS), though it does support lossless in some configurations.

Quote:

Or better yet download some tracks from Linn or some of the other sites that offer High Definition downloads.


That, I hope, is the future. There aren't many of them around though.

Quote:

I would also like to mention something about all the hopla about Bit Perfect. I don't get it... if you take a file and play it in 2 different players through the same ASIO output then it should sound the same, right? Never.... It's not the ASIO it's how the application converts the file. So all these claims about bit perfect especially through the KMixer seem a bit far fetched.

We could proabably write some low level fake drivers to test this. Come up with a USB driver say that basically goes no were and writes the data to file then check it against what was written say at the user interface level and see how bit perfect it is.


Your broken software isn't an inherent problem of PC audio...

Quote:

But basically I would not get so hyped up on this term as I don't think it's truelly something that happens. Because if that was the case then each player would not sound different. They would all sound the same.


Is this a Windows Media Player vs Real Player issue?
rolleyes.gif


When I get an SPDIF cable, I think I'll loop it from SPDIF out on my sound card to SPDIF in, play through mplayer, VLC, etc. and see which output the same data.

I would certainly expect mplayer to be bit-perfect - it doesn't have bloat like soft volume controls by default.

Of course, SPDIF might be somehow different - no telling what's happening if the sound card is in on this conspiracy against bit-perfectness. However, unless something is seriously broken with your software, that shouldn't be a problem (I'm thinking buffer-under runs here).

EDIT: Virtual audio cable
 
Jul 6, 2007 at 12:42 AM Post #114 of 230
Quote:

Originally Posted by khbaur330162 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
ISteve N. seems to somewhat agree saying optical isn't the best solution. (He says USB/Firewire is superior to any other current method of data transfer for this application) However, this doesn't stop many people from using external DAC's with their PC's via optical connection. I was simply asking if this jitter that could potentially be caused by the optical conversion process could undermine the exacting precision of bit perfect output by the PC, and if so, why so many people still used this method. Was this answered in the article?



The optical conversion process definitely adds jitter. However, if your particular system has ground-loop problems, which many systems have, then the optical isolation can be more beneficial than the jitter reduction of going to S/PDIF coax.

However, some converters and USB DAC's actually isolate using a transformer with the S/PDIF coax as well, so you get the best of both worlds, isolation and lower jitter. If you have both of these, then it should be superior to Toslink unless the S/PDIF design is lousy. Many of them are.

STeve N.
 
Jul 6, 2007 at 12:45 AM Post #115 of 230
Quote:

Originally Posted by tbonner1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Does anyone know of a computer system (software and hardware) that can host SACD and DVD-A?


No, but I just spoke with Music Giants, and they are evidently ripping DVD-A's to 24/96 files that you can download and play on any player.

Steve N.
 
Jul 6, 2007 at 1:17 AM Post #118 of 230
Quote:

Originally Posted by ryssen /img/forum/go_quote.gif
How do they do that?


The said they are using some studio gear as well as DCS and Meitner. They are also converting SACD to downloadable hi-res PCM files.

Steve N.
 
Jul 6, 2007 at 4:57 AM Post #120 of 230
Quote:

Originally Posted by wnmnkh /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Personally I don't bother with DVD-A or SACD. It is simply pain.

Check out Linn Record online Store, and get 'studio master' files which is same/sometimes better than DVD-A or SACD sounds.

http://www.linnrecords.com/



I tried some of these. The quality was not great IMO. I like the highdeftapetransfers oldies much better.

Steve N.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top