Can a computer be a decent audiophile source? - The answer is yes.

[fierce_freak]

I'm not really sure whether CD players or computer setups sound better given a certain pricepoint. Really, for me, while the point is worth considering, I don't think I'll ever really use a CD player. This just shows how our culture has become - CD's are inconvenient. With the computer I don't have to change CD's or keep all my CD's around (I can keep them in my car), and I have every song I own at my fingertips. I can shuffle through the whole thing if I don't feel like album-listening. These things make thinking of going back to CD seem like a bit of a burden.

 

[audioengr]

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.

Computer playback can do all of these things too. Once you have this, it leaves ALL CDP's in the dust IME.

Steve N.

 

[audioengr]

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?

Because they usually are better, and it's because the DAC is better. A separate DAC has a better power supply, more optimized analog section, prehaps DC-coupled etc...

Quote:

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.

This is why most recordings are crap. If the studios would upgrade hardware, the recordings would improve dramatically. I mod some studio gear. Stock pro gear is not any better than high-end consumer gear, usually worse....

Steve N.

 

[audioengr]

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?

The difference is that the computer STORES the data in RAM before spooling it out and it can spool at any speed. It is not necessarily real-time. Networked streaming is probably the best scenerio because the data is burst in packets over an ethernet protocol. The CD player is reading real-time, so jitter is introduced by the mechnical systems, even if there is a buffer. I have yet to hear a CDP that sounds as good as computer-driven audio. It is probably possible though with a good FIFO buffer design and good clocks.

Steve N.

 

[G A]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan the man /img/forum/go_quote.gif So if one does impliment USB, which is the best USB DAC for use with a computer??

Not an answer, but just a remark. Although USB has enough bandwidth for regular cds, when you get to using dvd-a or sacd, you'll want to use FireWire instead.

 

[audioengr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by God of Atheism /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not an answer, but just a remark. Although USB has enough bandwidth for regular cds, when you get to using dvd-a or sacd, you'll want to use FireWire instead.

I use USB routinely for 24/96 hi-res files and upsampled music.

Steve N.

 

[Happy Camper]

Yes.

 

[Scrith]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 003 /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

This comparison has nothing to do with using a computer. You are comparing the DAC built into your CD player vs. your stand-alone DAC (and it sounds like you prefer the DAC in your CD player).

 

[appletree]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petyot /img/forum/go_quote.gif You should read that article : http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue22/nugent.htm

Is this true ?

Quote:

The pits in a CD have two attributes, the data and the timing. The data is encoded in the depth of the pits. The timing information is the physical placement of the pits. When CDs are created, the master has jitter in the pits, and the manufacturing process that fabricates the duplicates creates even more jitter.

 

[Scrith]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morph201 /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

I agree, the rest of the system is the critical part, in my opinion. But I think the original point of the thread can be summed up as "can using a computer as your source work as well as using a CD player as your source?" The answer is definitely yes, and actually it can be a MUCH better source than a CD player.

By the way, I suspect that the analog output of many CD players starts with a process of digitally manipulating the data in order to make it sound better (and this is the real reason CD players "sound" different). With computers you can do this as well, using DSP plug-ins in Foobar2000 for example, but you also have the option of disabling it. So not only are CD players incapable of the fidelity of having the data stored on a less error-prone device (like a hard drive) before playback, but you can't trust them to be using bit-perfect playback either!

WARNING: If the analog output of your CD player sounds better than another CD player, you might be the vicitim of digital manipulation. And when your CD player has the word Meridian on the front of it, that could be a very expensive DSP plug-in you're running.

 

[Scrith]

Quote:

Originally Posted by appletree /img/forum/go_quote.gif Is this true ?

I call BS. Well, BS in the sense that this information is being used to mislead people. I say that because this timing information is not used when ripping the CD using a computer, and also because many external CD players are using a playback method similar to that of a computer that is ripping the audio as data (of course, such a CD player probably has a big price tag and a fancy label on it despite the fact that there is probably a $10 CD-ROM drive sitting inside and it is acting as a simple single-function computer, without the flexibility that a real computer running your choice of software with your favorite settings would have).

I make video games. The data for these video games is stored on a CD. If even one bit of the data is not read correctly due to timing, the game will crash. My games don't crash. However, given the tendency of some game players to treat CDs like frisbees, sometimes the game takes a long time to load (or never loads) because the CD is damaged. Real-time CD audio players do not have this flexibility, and hence are inherently flawed.

And so it is with CDs that contain audio data. The key is getting the data off, and that isn't that hard to do (unless you're doing it in real time, like one of those old-fashioned and now obsolete devices like a CD player).

 

[appletree]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrith /img/forum/go_quote.gif I make video games. The data for these video games is stored on a CD. If even one bit of the data is not read correctly due to timing, the game will crash. My games don't crash.

Well, the audio vs. data CD formats are different, data CD uses more redundancy in its selfrepairing codes, besides jitter occurs even with bit perfect playback.

 

[zirgated]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ccotenj /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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...

Not at all, but more importantly, to the CD drive, a standard audio CD uses a CD-DA (Compact Disc Digital Audio) format rather than CD-ROM.

They are different. I do not have enough knowledge to say for certain that CD-DA is intrinsically inferior as far as accuracy is concerned. Certainly, an error on a CD-ROM will normally manifest itself in an obvious way - refusing to load a program (many, many, files use checksums) - whereas a CD-DA may have no noticeable change if you don't know how it should sound (CD-DA players are often adept at covering up errors).

With a good drive such as an UltraPlex (SCSI, not IDE, please - it will make your computer happy), good ripping software such as EAC/cdparanoia you don't have much room for improvement.

Quote:

he timing information is the physical placement of the pits. When CDs are created, the master has jitter in the pits, and the manufacturing process that fabricates the duplicates creates even more jitter.

What they're trying to communicate is true. Is jitter the correct term? I think not - though jitter (in the CD masterers (wrong term) clock) may be responsible for what they're describing.

It would have to be seriously messed up to make an inaccurate read. However, you just know that many CD distribution facilities don't have great QC, will use stampers well after they should be, etc. Then, as the problems accumulate, this could indeed cause difficulties.

If something else in the, erm, read chain, this will increase the chance of it manifesting itself in some way.

 

[ccotenj]

format isn't relevant... to the computer, it's the same... cd-da isn't intrinsically any "worse" than cd-rom, it's merely a different format... if the file is "good", it's "good"... if the file is "bad", then yes, how it is manifested may indeed be different, which is where the ripper software comes in (error logging, etc.)....

 

[germanium]

My modded computer soundcard & modded stand alone SACD & DVD-A players sound very near identical even though the SACD player has clearly inferior DACs from a technical standpoint than my computer. The DVD-A players DACs are somewhat technically better than the others but not sufficiently to alter the sound in any meaningfull way. All dacs in this case are full D.C. coupled. Major differences in sound between them before were caused by the coupling caps which in the case of the computer & DVD-A player no longer exist & the coupling caps in the SACD player have been upgraded to the point that they are no longer an issue in the sound.

I went from a low grade electrolytic that was bypassed by a very small metallized film to a full metallized film cap, 10uf compared to about .1uf metallized film on the SACD player.The electrolitic was 47uf. Even though the 10uf metallized film is smaller that the electrolytic the bass actually was more robust & had no meaningfull rolloff in the bandpass of audible sound. This produced a much more consistant sound top to bottom but then I could hear the deficiencies in the analog filters compared to my DVD-A player & compter sound so I revised the filters to address the deficiencies. now all three sound very near identical.