CDP vs DAC connected to computer

[HeadLover]

So
What will give a better sound quality ?
A good (a very good) DAC connected to a PC with FLAC files
Or
A CDP (good one) with CD's ?

 

[tfarney]

If the DACs are equal, and the files on the computer are lossless, the computer will be technically better. The computer feeds chunks into RAM, varifies that they are a bit-perfect match to what's on the hard drive, them plays them from RAM. No moving parts. No stability issues. No contest. No matter how good the cdp is. With that said, I don't know if you'll ever hear the difference, but theoretically the computer is superior if the DACs are the same.

The real advantage to computer-as-source, though, is having all your music at your fingertips in iTunes or some other software program. You'll find, be reminded of, and listen to music you haven't paid attention to in years. And you'll listen more because it is so much easier to get to.

Tim

 

[HeadLover]

so
If that the case, why do people spend like 10,000$ or more for a CDP, when they can buy a good DAC for like 2000$ ?
A good DAC may cost you even 5000$ or 10,000$ but still some CDP cost 5x times more

So, what and where is the "trick" ?

 

[error401]

I would guess that it's the result of the CDP being much more complex, with mechanical systems that must be precisely tuned along with additional precise electronics beyond the DAC. A CDP is more complex and has more stringent requirements than a DAC, hence it costs more even if it's less practical and arguably may not sound as good.

With a computer as the source though, you do need a good quality sound card that has an excellent clock and solid output stage to compete. Or you need to slave the PC to the clock of an excellent DAC, which poses its own issues. Most DACs with clock outputs give you the master clock directly, which isn't usable to sync with a PC. You need to have the software set up properly to make sure there aren't any additional processing steps on the data. There are a bunch of little niggles with using a PC as a source, and I think that's the main reason it's both less expensive and less well regarded by audiophiles.

Creative's sound cards used to resample everything internally to 48KHz, with a broken and poor quality resampling algorithm. I don't think they do this anymore, but they may just resample to a higher rate with a better resampler.

Practically though, I think the PC is definitely a better choice.

 

[infinitesymphony]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadLover /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, what and where is the "trick" ?

The "trick" is that CD players must have moving parts and electronic systems capable of properly reading information off of a disc. They also need to have a motorized drive tray, a bigger enclosure, a track display, and transport controls. A CD player is a transport and DAC rolled into one, with the added benefit of having the DAC directly-connected to the digital stream from the transport without the interference of external cables or the conversion to S/PDIF.

 

[HeadLover]

so how can you make sure the sound from your computer get completely "clean" from the sound card digital exit to the DAC ?
What sound card do you need and what drivers and software so you can play FLAC and let the DAC do the rest of the process ?

 

[HeadLover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinitesymphony /img/forum/go_quote.gif The "trick" is that CD players must have moving parts and electronic systems capable of properly reading information off of a disc. They also need to have a motorized drive tray, a bigger enclosure, a track display, and transport controls. A CD player is a transport and DAC rolled into one, with the added benefit of having the DAC directly-connected to the digital stream from the transport without the interference of external cables or the conversion to S/PDIF.

I know of some CDP like the Cytus DAC XP that come with the CD-X
The CD here is only transporter and the DAC is an outside unit
From what you say, it will give less good results as a stand alone CDP, is it true ?

 

[infinitesymphony]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadLover /img/forum/go_quote.gif I know of some CDP like the Cytus DAC XP that come with the CD-X The CD here is only transporter and the DAC is an outside unit From what you say, it will give less good results as a stand alone CDP, is it true ?

Not necessarily. One downside of having everything in one box like a CDP is that space is limited. With two components (transport and DAC), each can have better parts and more complex circuit design. There is no possible way to say that CD players are better than DACs or vice-versa; it's all on a case-by-case basis.

 

[HeadLover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinitesymphony /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not necessarily. One downside of having everything in one box like a CDP is that space is limited. With two components (transport and DAC), each can have better parts and more complex circuit design. There is no possible way to say that CD players are better than DACs or vice-versa; it's all on a case-by-case basis.

So, having things like a separate power supply and a DAC and than the CD trans', can make things better or not ?
Why some brands take this design (Cyrus, NAIM) and some not?
What are the benefits of each design ?

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadLover /img/forum/go_quote.gif so If that the case, why do people spend like 10,000$ or more for a CDP, when they can buy a good DAC for like 2000$ ? A good DAC may cost you even 5000$ or 10,000$ but still some CDP cost 5x times more So, what and where is the "trick" ?

There is no trick. I suspect people buy expensive cdps for the look, feel and perception of quality, completely convinced that it is better. This doesn't look that good in a rack:

By the way, because of a application called Core Audio, built into OSX, Macs are a bit better at this than PCs. If you're buying hardware, that's the way to go.

Tim

 

[tfarney]

There is an opportunity to dirty the signal with electro-mechanical noise from the operation of the cdp or computer. This is the best argument for a DAC outside of either of those boxes. Beyond that, people will variously argue the merits of having the DAC built into the cdp or having the DAC outside the cdp, depending on what they have their own money invested in and what they think they hear. But what they actually hear is something else. The differences in the tone of the output sections of the DACs/cdps perhaps? But it isn't complicated, it is zeros and ones -- from CD to DAC or from computer to DAC (inside or outside the DAC's box). The difference is that the computer has no moving parts involved in playback, no stability issues, and that the error correction software built into even the most modest jukebox software (iTunes...free) will double-check as many times as necessary (so quickly you will never know it happened) to ensure that the zeros and ones playing from RAM are identical to the zeros and ones on the HDD (which it already checked to make sure they were a bit-perfect match to the original cd). There is no analog signal chain, and no opportunity to degrade or alter signal quality, until the DAC converts the bits to volts.

Period.

It cannot get any cleaner than that. Of course there are opportunities for the introduction of jitter. Regardless of which path you take and how you connect the various components, there will be jitter. You won't be able to hear it, but there will be jitter.

Tim

 

[infinitesymphony]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadLover /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, having things like a separate power supply and a DAC and than the CD trans', can make things better or not ? Why some brands take this design (Cyrus, NAIM) and some not? What are the benefits of each design ?

It's impossible to generalize that one type of setup makes things better, because it varies. Some companies make separates, some make CDPs, and neither is necessarily better than the other. It's just a design choice, and it will depend on what they think will sell. Audiophile companies often make both CDPs and DAC/transport combinations.

 

[HeadLover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tfarney /img/forum/go_quote.gif There is no trick. I suspect people buy expensive cdps for the look, feel and perception of quality, completely convinced that it is better. This doesn't look that good in a rack: By the way, because of a application called Core Audio, built into OSX, Macs are a bit better at this than PCs. If you're buying hardware, that's the way to go. Tim

So, why does the MAC is better on playing audio ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tfarney /img/forum/go_quote.gif There is an opportunity to dirty the signal with electro-mechanical noise from the operation of the cdp or computer. This is the best argument for a DAC outside of either of those boxes. Beyond that, people will variously argue the merits of having the DAC built into the cdp or having the DAC outside the cdp, depending on what they have their own money invested in and what they think they hear. But what they actually hear is something else. The differences in the tone of the output sections of the DACs/cdps perhaps? But it isn't complicated, it is zeros and ones -- from CD to DAC or from computer to DAC (inside or outside the DAC's box). The difference is that the computer has no moving parts involved in playback, no stability issues, and that the error correction software built into even the most modest jukebox software (iTunes...free) will double-check as many times as necessary (so quickly you will never know it happened) to ensure that the zeros and ones playing from RAM are identical to the zeros and ones on the HDD (which it already checked to make sure they were a bit-perfect match to the original cd). There is no analog signal chain, and no opportunity to degrade or alter signal quality, until the DAC converts the bits to volts. Period. It cannot get any cleaner than that. Of course there are opportunities for the introduction of jitter. Regardless of which path you take and how you connect the various components, there will be jitter. You won't be able to hear it, but there will be jitter. Tim

So
Can I have jitter free or do something to prevent them?

Also, will a computer always be better than CDP ? so why every audiophile usually say else? and so are the brands? is it just an urban legend or what?
Also
Does the sound card, or software means any thing? if we are talking about using a DAC ?
And is it the best option for hearing music today? (Digital, not analog)

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadLover /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, why does the MAC is better on playing audio ? So Can I have jitter free or do something to prevent them? Also, will a computer always be better than CDP ? so why every audiophile usually say else? and so are the brands? is it just an urban legend or what? Also Does the sound card, or software means any thing? if we are talking about using a DAC ? And is it the best option for hearing music today? (Digital, not analog)

I don't think there's any such thing as jitter-free. You can spend oodles of money on re-clockers to reduce the jitter beyond the relatively low jitter levels of decent digital audio equipment, but it is, IMO, reducing the inaudible to even lower levels of inaudible. Not something I'm in a hurry to invest in.

Yes, theoretically, playing lossless files from a computer through a DAC of equal quality is superior to a stand-alone cdp. That doesn't mean there aren't stand alone cdps out there that sound better than some computer audio set-ups.

Whether or not you need an outboard DAC vs. your computer's soundcard depends on your ears and your soundcard. Many PCs have very noisy internal environments - one reason to get the sound processing out of there. DAC quality is another issue, and a huge can of worms I've spent enough time wallowing in...

Tim

 

[HeadLover]

So
What do you mean?
Can a 500$ DAC give the same quality as a 15,000$ one ?
And, if the computer has noise, but I am using a DAC, does it matter any way ?