[Nezer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Calanctus Nezer, thanks for your reply--now I'm definitely intrigued. I do take your point about 'weakest link in the chain.' Can you tell us the name of the plugin--with that I can Google it and install. At some point, if you feel like it, perhaps you could post your experiences with upsampling/processing digital sound from computer. I'm intrigued, since I have a bit of a thing for 'all-in-one' systems build around my computer--currently use it for music, movies, gaming, work, news, hobbies (like this one)....

I'll have to hunt around for it again... Perhaps it's still in my history on my desktop system.

As for updampling and filtering on a PC, I'm not there yet. I'm willing to spend up to about $3500 to NOT have to go that route. I talk more about my ultimate media system in a thread titled 'High Capicty CD Changers" or something like that. Search for it in Source Components.

 

[Nezer]

That was easy...

http://www.hitsquad.com/smm/programs/CDDApluginWinAmp/

I just searched for CDDA Winamp Plugin in google and it popped right up.

 

[markjia]

I'm curious, if a CD-Rom is able to extract the audio from a CD without any error (which I don't see why it can't considering that data can be done without much problem), then why is this a problem for normal CD players? I understand the issue of real-time playback requirements on CD players, but why not use a sort of cache and put a few second delay on the playback. Also, a faster CD reader mechanism could be used and the data could be read several times over to guarentee accuracy. I know that there are CD extraction programs that actually do this...why not incorporate something like this in a CD player?

CD-Roms have no problem with reading data extremely accurately (using error correction and verification), I don't see why it is such a problem with audio CD players.

 

[Tim D]

actually my Panasonic 570 in 10 sec anti-shock mode is able to playback a CD that has heavy scratches without audible hiccups...turn off the anti-shock and it skips on the errors constantly. Put it into my 40x CDrom and it skips. Put it into my CD burner and play and it skips. Using DAE it gets both sync read errors and missing samples even. Just tried my Denon-370...no problems there either. Course I don't have a Plextor drive...but it boils down to simply...better components = better sound. Yes you can probably try your best to slap together an audio workstation...but my bets are it isn't going to be cheaper way to go...it actually depends on your budget.

Quote:

could computer media files, properly ripped and encoded, actually sound BETTER than CDs, due to elimination of jitter from the CD transport?

That is a loaded question...you are replacing one form of jitter from the CD transport to the jitter based on the computer resources...there is not really an "elimination". A typical computer is just based off a noisy switching supply, and there are just SO many functions going on in the background that is not related to audio to interfere with the audio signal. Not all soundcards have low-latency standards...in fact you often need professional cards and some professional sound software with special standards for true recording quality playback. Also the better professional soundcards have high quality clocks. But so do the better CD players. It is also a flawed assumption that every data CD-rom built for computers is somehow perfect because they can handle data for the most part. The handling of data only seems perfect after levels and levels of error correction and read redundancy in a non realtime situation. If you've ever used less than high quality CDR's that are either old or have some scratches, you know after hearing some strange CD churning noises that data reads are less than perfect...but your OS will do its best to tell you everything is ok...til everything has gone to **** basically. In fact Win NT/2K and probably XP has event logs where it may report less than perfect data reads from your CD-rom...but you hafta look for it.

 

[Calanctus]

So, TimD, you are saying that computer-based play is not likely a cheaper route to high-quality audio play, because it has its own timing errors and the like?

Too bad....

 

[markjia]

I don't think it is fair to measure a CD-Rom's accuracy with a damaged CD. Sure there are error correction mechanisms, but these are not designed for this purpose. No matter how good a drive's mechanism is (both for CD-Roms and CDPs), there is no way to read information that has been destroyed.

A drive's capability to read damaged media is not related to its accuracy in reading normal material.

As for the finacial aspect of using a computer as a source, I believe that the added competion will lower the price. Compare the number of CD-Roms brands out there to the number of CDP manufacturers. There is much more encouragement to produce better CD-Roms at a lower price. The computer market is also much (MUCH) larger than that of high end audio, not to mention that high end gear will always cost substantially more than the actual materials and workmanship used.

 

[Tim D]

That wasn't really the point...what is damaged or impossible to read on one drive can quite possibly be readible on another...wheter it is a CD-rom or CD player.

CD-rom performance varies widely, as usage of EAC and different drives will show. Of course if all your CD's were in tip top condition, than of course CD-rom performance is less an issue...but having your entire CD collection be 100% flawless to even the weakest of CD-drives is quite an ideal. There are basically two performance measures...two types of error tolerances, which sets transports apart. The ability to read data from discs...and the ability to transmit this data with strict timing.

My only point is...not all CDs will be flawless(wheter difficult to read, or uneven spacing of pits), and not all CD-roms will be flawless at reading them...that is reality as opposed to technical ideals of digital perfection. If all CD's were flawless, than your assumption that CD-roms perform better than CD players at transcribing data perfectly would be moot since transcription would be perfect from both, and the buffer and read redundancy on the computer CD-rom would be pointless. My point was to show that my low-cost audio CD players did a better job reading CD's and transcribing data without audible hiccups better than those of my computer. You get what you pay for wheter it is audio equipment or computer equipment. You can buy audio junk and computer junk. Saying that computer junk is better because it is more prevalent doesn't hold seeing as Creative Lab soundcards are the computer audio standard...and not for fidelity, but because of good marketing. However you are right that you can get a very affordable CD-transport in a computer just like some high-end audio CD transports use some of the better computer CD-rom drives like the Meridian. But still it comes down to selectivity and what you can get for what price. Just don't think that because its in a computer box hooked up to some switching supply, that all of the sudden it is guaranteed to be the best bang for the buck digital audio perfection compared to just a consumer CD player. It is a slippary slope fallacy in believing, "hey my computer handles, processes, and transfers digital data perfectly" (which is a wrong assumption to begin with), so I don't see why it doesn't handle digital audio data perfectly in the same manner. But than I can argue that a home audio CD player is just a specialized digital computer with all non-audio functions and capabilities stripped for higher performance/cost.

IMO, if you slap together a prosumer soundcard + a nice Plextor drive, you are already at the mid-fi mark in audio players in cost, and IMO only approaching it in fidelity.

If you want to utilize computing power to maximize audio quality to the fullest...it certainly isn't in playback of compressed audio...and it is not even playback of normal redbook audio. It is the ability to use computing power and hard disk space to process audio and upsample it and apply digital filters and algorithms. This is kinda like how computers can emulate old console games and apply graphical filters to create a higher resolution display out of old 16 bit SNES graphics (i.e. SuperEagle, Sai type filters). But than you can argue if the resulting filtered data is truer to the artists intent or not. However in order to really take advantage of that you need an extremely proficient soundcard that can actually realize the benefits of 24-bit audio(this is not that easy since not even all SACD or DVD players are designed well enough to realize the extent of their superior format). You also need a quiet system that introduces no background noise to your listening, both mechanically and electronically. If it is just about convenience and music access...and not audio performance, broadband + Audigy works for most people.

 

[Mel4]

If you can't tell the difference between the source CD and the same MP3 then
your source is the problem not the amp...

ALL MP3 files are inferior to the source as they are after all compressed format files....

A good source is the best improvement you can ever make if you are
listening to a poor one ...

A poor source through superior amplification/phones will always sound WORSE
than a good source through lesser components...

Just thought I would throw my tuppence worth in...

 

[Nezer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Calanctus So, TimD, you are saying that computer-based play is not likely a cheaper route to high-quality audio play, because it has its own timing errors and the like? Too bad....

Well, to do anything right, it's never cheap.

I'm not looking at the computer thing for the cost savings, but rather the convienience factor and the ability to easily upgrade myself.

If done correctly I think it could better the high-end offerings. Note that correctly doesn't mean cheaply. A computer introduces all kinds of noise and you have to take great care here. *I* plan on using a good sound card's SPDIF out into an external DAC that reclocks the signal to reduce jitter to near nothing.

This gets the analog stage off the noisy power supply and somewhere wher it can be done right.

 

[Calanctus]

Nezer, I saw your other thread--RAID arrays of HD sound like the biggest challenge (both in terms of $ and skill required to set up). The soundcard and external DAC would seem to be much less of an issue--just read some reviews and pick the best you can afford.

The decision on whether you need RAID would seem to hinge on whether, and by how much, Monkey Audio files are better than MP3s. From what you and Kelly say, it would seem that they can be significantly better. If I couldn't hear the difference, I might be fine with MP3s on my 80-gig HD, a really good soundcard (Lynx 2?) and an external DAC.

 

[grinch]

Quote:

Originally posted by Nezer Nope, should rip the file to a wav and remove the transport altogether.

i agree with this much, but for a true true test he should encode that wav file and then decode it and then listen to each wave file. this will take out the variable of the decoder.. r3mix's forum is what brought me here and i still remember all the lessons that they taught me.

 

[Nezer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Calanctus Nezer, I saw your other thread--RAID arrays of HD sound like the biggest challenge (both in terms of $ and skill required to set up). The soundcard and external DAC would seem to be much less of an issue--just read some reviews and pick the best you can afford. The decision on whether you need RAID would seem to hinge on whether, and by how much, Monkey Audio files are better than MP3s. From what you and Kelly say, it would seem that they can be significantly better. If I couldn't hear the difference, I might be fine with MP3s on my 80-gig HD, a really good soundcard (Lynx 2?) and an external DAC.

Actually the RAID arrays aren't at all hard to setup nor are they exensive anymore. They *can* be but what I'm talking about isn't as it's not like a high-speed fiber-channel SAN with a ton of 15k RPM SCSI disks is going to help the music sound better, quite contrary, all those drives and fans will make it hard to *hear* anything over them.

I have used Abit motherboards for a few yeras now and thier better offerings come with a RAID controller on-board. The newest ones would appear to be able to handle 4 160GB ATA disks in a RAID-0 configuration... That's a LOT of music (640 GB)any way you slice it (MP3, Monkey, etc).

Drives are so cheap anymore that I just can't justify dropping down to MP3s to save a few hundred bucks in disk drives when I'm pushing it all through a $400 sound card into a $1500 DAC into a $500 headamp into a $150 headphone cable into a $300 pair of headphones. Adding another $200 disk or two really is insignificant in the whole realm of things. Plus, I'll be able to make *perfect* backup copies from the Monkey Audio files without having to touch the originals ever again (No, I don't sell them to a used CD store rather I'm anal about scratching them).

As a matter of fact, when you look at what I've spent on CDs the rest seems cheap!

 

[Kryogen]

Considering the money that I wanted to put into audio, I think that my grado sr125 phones sound hella good, and next year if I can leave home with the amp I'll take it, if not I'll get myself a heaphone amp, and I'll perhaps upgrade my sound card if they make one that is good at music and gaming.

That's it for me, until I get a real job in like 4-5 years. Prolly pharmacian or dentist.

 

[markjia]

Tim D,

My point was that a CD-Rom/CDP's ability to read damaged CDs cannot really be used to judge how accurate the drive is. But you're right in that it really depends on the individual drive. I have some CD-Rom that can hardly read any CDs, only those of extremely high quality. I also have CD players that frequently skip, even on brand new CDs. Your PCDP might have done a better job with scratched CDs because it may have been designed specifically for that purpose. Using a portable is much harder on the CDs, consider the lack of proper storage, little space to manuver if used on a bus or the like, running with it, etc. It would make sense for a PCDP manufacturer to put emphasis on making a device capable of reading CDs in poor conditions and difficult situations, not on their precision.

As for the accuracy of a computer versus a CDP, I'd have to go with a computer. It's true that a CD-Rom is not 100% accurate, but given the quantity of data that I pass through it, I'd say it's better. This is based on based on bit-to-bit comparisons of duplicated CDs (both data and audio). I burn hundreds (maybe even in the thousands) of CDs, some direct CD-to-CD, others from files. After burning, I always perform a verification, and I estimate that the failure rate is something like 1-2% of CDs (I generally only burn full CDs, I don't like wasting space). These errors could be the result of either the write or read process, but more likely the former. Writing is also much more error prone, so if a CD-R can write with such reliability, CD-Roms should be able to read even better. I mainly use SCSI drives, and I think that has a significant impact.

You raise an interesting point about CD players being specialized devices, but I think that you need to consider that when I talk about CD-Roms, I'm not really just talking about the CD-Rom itself, but also the computer. The error correction can be done at many different stages with a computer, anywhere from the SCSI/IDE bus controller, to software based error correction like redundancy. In my opinion, the bus plays a huge role in the accuracy of a CD-Rom (based on experience with identical drives with different controller). I also believe that using software to read a CD several times over is a very effective means of preventing error. You must recognize the price of a CD-Rom is not just for the CD-Rom itself, but also the few hundred/thousand for the computer. The only difference is that we almost all already have suitable computers to use for this purpose.



Some have mentioned the use of RAID for storage, but I don’t really see the need. True that it is really very easy to setup, it’s not necessary in my opinion. I have several arrays, both SCSI and IDE, as well as countless other individual drives, and find that playing audio is not demanding at all. Think about, a CD played at 1x only has a bandwidth of 150 KB/s, do you really need 40-100 MB/s? And don’t forget that using RAID 0 doubles the likelihood of failure and error. RAID level 0 is kinda pointless if used specifically for this purpose, especially considering cheap 7200RPM IDE drives can give you 40+ MB/s sustained. Actually, virtually any hard drive would suffice in my opinion. Though using level 1 or 5 could have it benefits (but of course more expensive).

 

[Nezer]

Quote:

Originally posted by markjia Some have mentioned the use of RAID for storage, but I don’t really see the need. True that it is really very easy to setup, it’s not necessary in my opinion. I have several arrays, both SCSI and IDE, as well as countless other individual drives, and find that playing audio is not demanding at all. Think about, a CD played at 1x only has a bandwidth of 150 KB/s, do you really need 40-100 MB/s? And don’t forget that using RAID 0 doubles the likelihood of failure and error. RAID level 0 is kinda pointless if used specifically for this purpose, especially considering cheap 7200RPM IDE drives can give you 40+ MB/s sustained. Actually, virtually any hard drive would suffice in my opinion. Though using level 1 or 5 could have it benefits (but of course more expensive).

I'm wanting to do this not for performance's sake but becasue it's the only way I can get all my music in one place!! I guesstimate that I'll need somewhere in excess of 200GB to store all of my CDs in Money's Audio format. These drives are probably around the corner but for right now it's RAID-0 or JBOD. Given the choice of the two I'd take RAID-0 anyday as I'm going to be in a position to match drive sizes when I build it out.

Also, ripping a CD to a RAID-0 array will provide better performance benefits for drives that rip at high-speeds (like my Plextors). But this isn't the main reason for doing this (I have fast storage all over my network).

I agree that even an old slow 4500 RPM IDE disk is *MORE* than adequate for streaming even multiple uncompressed audio streams.