[J-Pak]

The title says it all. This was started on the GS-1000 thread in the "headphone forum".

Quote:

Originally Posted by robm321 No worries The GS-1000's need at least a CD player or even better an TT. I've heard them on a computer based system and the sibilence was very strong. I don't have that problem on my system with that. They will expose sibilence, but not nearly as strong as they did on the PC/DAC system I heard them with. These need a good system as they reveal the recording and equipment much more than the RS-1 - which IMO means they are doing what they are supposed to be doing.

Over generalization. You can use an external DAC with a PC based system. And there are DACs that sound just as good as the best CDPs.


MOD EDIT: I moved all the posts pertaining to the subject matter of this thread here. Sadly, VBulletin merges/moves in chronological order so things are kinda messed up a bit, but deal with it as best you can. - Zanth

 

[robm321]

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-Pak Over generalization. You can use an external DAC with a PC based system. And there are DACs that sound just as good as the best CDPs.

I guess we'll disagree completely on this one. If PC based music servers MP3, Flac, whatever and a DAC sounded just as good, why are they still making uber expensive single disk players? Or are all of us CD player users just misinformed? Because clearly a single disk player is much less practical and a lot more inconvenient.

Just something to ponder.

 

[J-Pak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by robm321 I guess we'll disagree completely on this one. If PC based music servers MP3, Flac, whatever and a DAC sounded just as good, why are they still making uber expensive single disk players? Or are all of us CD player users just uninformed? Just something to ponder.

I never said the PC route was better. Just equally as good as a CDP based system. A good PC system will not be sibilant. Just like a good CDP system won't be. iamdone explained the sibilance in his post.

CD players are still good since you don't have to go through the process of setting up a PC specifically for listening.

However once you do have a computer based setup done and you're using lossless files it is just as good as any world class CDP system. If you're using an exceptional transport and DAC.

 

[robm321]

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-Pak I never said the PC route was better. Just equally as good as a CDP based system. A good PC system will not be sibilant. Just like a good CDP system won't be. iamdone explained the sibilance in his post. CD players are still good since you don't have to go through the process of setting up a PC specifically for listening. However once you do have a computer based setup done and you're using lossless files it is just as good as any world class CDP system. If you're using an exceptional transport and DAC.

If it sounds just as good my point still stands. Setting up a music server through a PC is not even close to being as inconvenient as playing 1 CD at a time.

 

[warpdriver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rshdhead I dont agree. Today a well designed sound card(that "sound card" sounds cheap I know because it produced rather poor quality a few years ago) can generate near perfect line out quality. The line out signal quality is measurable by many popular tools.

That's not the same thing. We are talking about using an audiophile quality external DAC from a PC to get quality sound....not a typical consumer grade soundcard.

Rip some lossless files from CD, plug your PC into a Wadia DAC, and you'll have a world class playback system that can match any standalone CD player costing thousands.

Unfortunately, most people don't want a PC in their living room, so that's why there is a market for high end CD players. They do that one thing well, and you don't have to deal with Windows.

 

[warpdriver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by robm321 I guess we'll disagree completely on this one. If PC based music servers MP3, Flac, whatever and a DAC sounded just as good, why are they still making uber expensive single disk players? Or are all of us CD player users just misinformed? Because clearly a single disk player is much less practical and a lot more inconvenient.

Seems you did answer your own question. Yes, the PC based music systems can sound as good as the best CDP standalone units, but are clearly less convenient for a lot of people.

 

[robm321]

Quote:

Originally Posted by warpdriver Seems you did answer your own question. Yes, the PC based music systems can sound as good as the best CDP standalone units, but are clearly less convenient for a lot of people.

Please explain how a PC based system where you can access 1,000's of songs at any time instantly with the click of a mouse is "clearly less conveniant" than having to change each CD and being either forced to listen to the whole CD, or having to change a CD every couple of songs?

Quote:

Originally Posted by warpdriver Unfortunately, most people don't want a PC in their living room, so that's why there is a market for high end CD players. They do that one thing well, and you don't have to deal with Windows.

We all must have a PC if we are posting here, so your logic doesn't make sense.

Are you saying the whole market for stand alone CD players is so people won't have to deal with windows? LOL

 

[rshdhead]

Quote:

Originally Posted by warpdriver That's not the same thing. We are talking about using an audiophile quality external DAC from a PC to get quality sound....not a typical consumer grade soundcard. Rip some lossless files from CD, plug your PC into a Wadia DAC, and you'll have a world class playback system that can match any standalone CD player costing thousands. Unfortunately, most people don't want a PC in their living room, so that's why there is a market for high end CD players. They do that one thing well, and you don't have to deal with Windows.

I think I do not say it clearly. No external DAC required. Show me some measurable data that external DAC exceeds DACs in EMU1820M

 

[warpdriver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by robm321 Please explain how a PC based system where you can access 1,000's of songs at any time instantly with the click of a mouse is "clearly less conveniant" than having to change each CD and being either forced to listen to the whole CD, or having to change a CD every couple of songs?

What about SACD? You can't rip those to your hard disk. No serious audio system precludes the use of SACD or other HD audio source.

See my sentence below. Convenience can mean many things.

Quote:

Are you saying the whole market for stand alone CD players is so people won't have to deal with windows LOL

Yes I am saying that.

It's the same reason I have a DVD player in my home theater room instead of a PC even though there are HTPC systems (for less cost) that rival expensive digital processors for driving high end digital projectors.

A PC requires you to boot, click with the mouse, put up with fan noise, and a use a separate display to see what track number you are playing, and put up with an ugly box that makes hard disk sounds. Pressing my remote on a standalone player is much easier to booting and operating a computer.

If you are willing to put up with all that, then yes, a PC based source is more convenient if you want a digital jukebox. I don't bother with CD's myself. All my CD music is stored on my PC driving a Micro DAC.

 

[warpdriver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rshdhead I think I do not say it clearly. No external DAC required. Show me some measurable data that external DAC exceeds DACs in EMU1820M

The measurement tool is my ears.

A high end DAC sounds better than a cheaper DAC. There are better digital processors than you can find in a EMU card.

 

[Zanth]

Though this is a serious aside in this thread, I'll chime in that really, a solid media pc is no different than running DVD-A for many things (as in, requires a screen to work the menus). Using a Mac Mini as a media comp one does not need to use windows, no fan, output to tv screen, can use remote (no mouse required) etc etc, and can be wired to a sweeet dac, all this with using iTunes and access to a bizillion songs. However, as stated, SACD and DVD-A can't be ripped.

 

[Audiofiler]

Quote:

Originally Posted by robm321 Please explain how a PC based system where you can access 1,000's of songs at any time instantly with the click of a mouse is "clearly less conveniant" than having to change each CD and being either forced to listen to the whole CD, or having to change a CD every couple of songs?

Hmm..lets see.

PC's (mac's aside) crash all the time.
When it is storming out, people like to listen to music still, and not shut down the PC for fears of spikes, strikes, etc. Often times after an update of sorts, the data or settings can become compromised thereafter.
You cannot rip HDCD,SACD, or Gold Discs to my knowledge
Plus loading 500+ CD's to HD is a pain for some..And the formats for encoding bit rates, which change and supersede eachother every other 6-8 mos seemingly, makes it difficult to key in on one type of format for most users..
Organizing music is still just that, so trying to organize 75K different songs to a HD can be just as arduous (again to some) as keeping tabs on 1200+ CD's.

Finally, there will always be those that are interested in redbook or vinyl playback, puritans some say, and do not subscribe to the digital medium for reproduction, etc..

I fall into the last category myself, but can understand both vantage points, especially given considerations to space, budget, equipment on hand, and interests (HiFi Goals)

 

[Patu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by robm321 Please explain how a PC based system where you can access 1,000's of songs at any time instantly with the click of a mouse is "clearly less conveniant" than having to change each CD and being either forced to listen to the whole CD, or having to change a CD every couple of songs?

-You have to turn on your PC (which can take 2-5 minutes)
-PC consumes MUCH more electricity than a stand alone CD-player
-It isn't self-evident that you have a remote control for your PC

Of course if you sit on your computer when you listen to music (like I do most of the time) then it's way more convenient.

And of course you can get equally good sound quality with FLAC + PC + DAC system than with separate CD player. This is quite self-evident thing to me.

 

[fwojciec]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Audiofiler PC's (mac's aside) crash all the time.

That's a huge, and illegitimate generalization - it's just like saying that all CDs get scratched and eventually stop playing. It all depends on your skill at maintaining your operating system/cd collection in good working condition. I honestly don't remember the last time when either of my computers crashed (both PCs with Windows XP).

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Audiofiler You cannot rip HDCD,SACD, or Gold Discs to my knowledge[...] Finally, there will always be those that are interested in redbook or vinyl playback, puritans some say, and do not subscribe to the digital medium for reproduction, etc.. I fall into the last category myself, but can understand both vantage points, especially given considerations to space, budget, equipment on hand, and interests (HiFi Goals)

HDCD and Gold Discs are perfectly rippable. I'm not sure if there is a true HDCD decoder in foobar but windows media player does I believe. Gold Discs are just RBCD's held to a higher standard of mixing/mastering so there is no problem on that one.

I much prefer using CD's and LP's. I don't mind a bookcase full of media and yeah...the hassle of ripping is um....a big one. Once done though, it's done! Backups are easy etc etc, but the initial time to get up and running can be quite prohibitive (I have maybe 100 CD's ripped of well over 1000...I don't look forward to ripping them all).

I've never heard any really high end dac's connected to a PC so I can't comment on the sound, but I would assume it would be good if not great. The fact that jitter is non-existant is really a bonus too.