| Originally Posted by akwok And there goes my plans to buy a LessLoss. |
| Originally Posted by gevorg No, I mean reasonable. 
|
| Originally Posted by audioengr As the old adage goes, you get what you pay for.... |
| Originally Posted by Konig For me its the offramp. No question about it. Offramp i2s should be closest to the best you can get but steves backlog is 12 weeks to mod your dac....
|
| Using a Computer as Digital Audio Source. We have carefully evaluated the top possible quality achievements when using a computer as digital source. The result is that a simply slaved CD player (not even synchronously re-clocked by LessLoss) outperforms even the most scrupulously slaved computer soundcard running directly off of the DAC 2004's SuperClock frequency of 11.2896 MHz. Using this SuperClock frequency, the 44.1 kHz audio sampling rate derivative is achieved through dividing this clock frequency by the exact round value of 256. Yet even in this mathematically 'clean' configuration, here is a list of known parameters inside the computer which all still have influence on the audible Jitter amount to be heard after D/A conversion, even using the top-quality LessLoss digital cabling and the syncronously slaveable LYNX soundcard. The computer was P4 Northwood 3.4GHz, 512x2 MB DDR2 @ 400MHz, PCI CLOCK 33.3 MHz, ASUS P5AD2 925XE mainboard, Antec 550 PSU. Using Wavelab 5 with ASIO output at native 16 Bit 44.1 KHz playback, and Foobar 2000 player with Kernel Streaming output. Using only 44.1 KHz 16 Bit original files in the form of Wav PCM. Lightened Windows services: Audible. Probable reason -- less time-splitting of system operations Increased memory timings to maximum smooth operation: Audible. Probable reason -- more consistent data transfer Changing the card's DMA buffer size: Audible. Probable reason -- more consistent data transfer Changing the audio software's buffers: Audible. Probable reason -- more consistent data transfer Change the CPU frequency from 3.4 to 2.8 to 1.8 GHz: Audible. Probable reason -- less parasitic HF radiation Changing the memory timings inside the BIOS: Audible. Probable reason -- more consistent data transfer Playing the file from USB RAM drive instead of from Hard Disk: Audible. Probable reason -- less power supply spikes from Hard Drive Playing the file from a deeply embedded folder instead of from top of directory: Audible. Seems to have same effect when file path name is maximum length, regardless of directory structure. Probable reason -- buffering issue, since the music playback software takes considerably longer to load the data prior to playback in these cases. Filtering the PS of the computer: Audible. Reason -- Avoiding parasitic power supply fluctuations. This is just as important and audible in CD players and DACs. Turning off the CRT monitor: Audible. Probable reason -- less HF radiation within the computer's schematics, and hence the audio card. Unplugging all external devices, i.e. mouse, keyboard, monitor, etc: Audible. Probable reason -- less antenna effect, hence less HF radiation within computer schematics. Even after all of these tweaks, the computer as source could not compete in clarity and low Jitter performance with a synchronously slaved run-of-the-mill NAD CD player. The DAC in all cases was the DAC 2004 with integrated volume control feature and all audio cabling and power filtering was LessLoss. Further discussion regarding the audibility of computer parameters. It is often falsely believed that parameters regarding only the digital domain do not affect the analogue results of the D/A process due to the fact that digital errors are neither introduced nor corrected by tweaking these parameters. The famous slogan for this school of thought is "Bits is Bits." This train of thought is founded on the absence of direct experience and personal analysis of what Jitter at the D/A process sounds like. Nevertheless, we believe it is possible to appreciate the importance of Jitter reduction when seeking the highest quality digital-source playback even without direct experience with tweaking all of these parameters. We provide the reader with several thoughts about why these parameters do indeed lead to different discernable levels of quality after A/D conversion: |
| Originally Posted by audioengr I dont buy it. Computer audio is still better than any transport, I dont care if it is slaved to some clock. The reason is that there is sufficient decoupling of the clock of the computer from the DAC clock to allow the DAC clock to be extremely low jitter. This is only possible in systems that have sufficient "slop" in the data rate, such as the computer. Causing this magnitude of "slop" in the data rate from a CD player would cause underruns or overruns with longer tracks. Steve N. |
| Now from people with $50k instruments we are told that even when slaved to a DAC a soundcard emits high jitter. They make it sound as though a $50 DVD player could beat a $5000 computer slaved to a $2000 DAC |
| Originally Posted by lan Listening trumps all though. The questions are, is all this fancy stuff audible and is the improvement worth the money. Do these companies offer auditions? |
| Originally Posted by audioengr I dont buy it. Computer audio is still better than any transport, I dont care if it is slaved to some clock. The reason is that there is sufficient decoupling of the clock of the computer from the DAC clock to allow the DAC clock to be extremely low jitter. This is only possible in systems that have sufficient "slop" in the data rate, such as the computer. Causing this magnitude of "slop" in the data rate from a CD player would cause underruns or overruns with longer tracks. Steve N. |
