[skeptic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmanGeorge /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was bored and decided to change my setup slightly for fun. My normal setup is Laptop -> Creative X-Fi Extreme Soundcard (optical out) -> Stock PS Audio DLIII DAC -> Head-Direct EF1 amp -> Headphones. I decided to try listening to a CD, and hooked up my DVD player's coax out to the DLIII, and A/Bed the same song from my CD and my computer. Lo and behold, the CD had a noticeably blacker background, better detail retrieval, and better dynamics. And this is through a cheap DVD player as a transport. Am I doomed to having to listen to CDs instead of my laptop to maximize my experience?

Aman - can you run coax out from your x-fi instead of optical? This seems a key variable to explore based on your description above, and my impression is that some dac's definitely perform better with one input as opposed to another (coax generally seeming to be less error prone).

I'm using the flexijack on my X-fi with a Blue Jeans digital cable - constructed with a canare minijack on one end (for the x-fi) and a standard canare rca on the other (for the dac). [Beldon 1505F - ]http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/...dio/index.htm]

Supposedly, these jacks come about as close as you can to 75ohm given the inherent limitations of non-BNC connectors.

In any event, comparing coax in vs coax in with your dac would be an interesting experiment imo.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Try comparing it to vinyl.

My computer-as-source rig gathered dust as the black discs went around and around at 33.3RPM.

 

[Honkymagoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif Try comparing it to vinyl. My computer-as-source rig gathered dust as the black discs went around and around at 33.3RPM.

What about lossless vinyl rips through a DAC and then a tube headamp?

 

[Ham Sandwich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audioengr /img/forum/go_quote.gif The best method I have found for ripping is dbpoweramp and Accurate-Rip. Beats EAC. Bit-perfect is not the whole story. the Offset must be dead-on.

Why would offset make a difference in sound? The stream of bits will be the same. A wrong offset just means you miss a few samples from the very beginning or very end of the disc or track, but the stream of bits in between will still be exactly the same.

 

[fjf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif Try comparing it to vinyl. My computer-as-source rig gathered dust as the black discs went around and around at 33.3RPM.

Vinyl sounds very good. But the disks are big, hard to handle and store, and worst of all, they get charged with static electricity and become dust magnets. Pops and clicks obscure the music. Keeping them clean becomes a full time job. No, thanks. I respect people liking them, but they are too much work, and IMHO not worth the trouble since we have digital.

 

[fjf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honkymagoo /img/forum/go_quote.gif What about lossless vinyl rips through a DAC and then a tube headamp?

Good rips sound VERY good, even though they are contaminated by the digital virus

 

[Shike]

The only reason Vinyl is still around and kicking is because CDs have fallen prey to the loudness wars. Some music just isn't tolerable on CDs as they have almost no dynamic range. On the other hand if done right and played on equivalent systems CD can outshine vinyl . . . it's just very rare unfortunately.


As for the issues the OP is having . . . many Creative cards force resampling and prevent bit-perfect output. Not sure which X-Fi he owns or if it's impacted, but it's definitely plausible.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Set yourself up a blind listening test, a way for you to switch back and forth quickly enough that, when you're not looking, you can easily lose track of what you're listening to when. Once you've lost track. Switch back and forth more slowly. Listen carefully. Stop when you think you're on the CD then look. Do this a couple of dozen times and see how often you get it right. Less than 80%? Examine your mind, not your equipment. Are there any reasons why you might have wanted or expected the CD to sound better?

P

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fjf /img/forum/go_quote.gif Vinyl sounds very good. But the disks are big, hard to handle and store, and worst of all, they get charged with static electricity and become dust magnets. Pops and clicks obscure the music. Keeping them clean becomes a full time job. No, thanks. I respect people liking them, but they are too much work, and IMHO not worth the trouble since we have digital.

I used to think the same, until I came across an old Rega Planar 3 for $200.

As it turned out, vinyl really doesn't require that much care. The biggest step is washing the record when I first get it. After that, a clean sleeve, proper handling and a five second brushing before and after play keeps it clean. Marginally more work than loading a CD player and worth the effort.

Also, you don't get surface noise on clean discs in good condition.

The only thing that rivals the sound quality of vinyl is good hi-rez digital. I love SACD, as well.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif The only thing that rivals the sound quality of vinyl is good hi-rez digital. I love SACD, as well.

The resolution of the disc usually means nothing. I'm telling you it's the mastering you need to watch for, honestly.

Examples:

Death Magnetic CD vs. Lossy Dolby Digital copy with superior mastering from Guitar Hero. The first one is regarded as a joke while the latter is seen as widely good sounding . . . that's of course assuming you like the music, but shows my point. Mastering makes a HUGE difference in how good something will sound.

 

[atothex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike /img/forum/go_quote.gif The resolution of the disc usually means nothing. I'm telling you it's the mastering you need to watch for, honestly.

Yep.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by atothex /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yep.

This is true. Painfully true given that there is nothing we can do about it. My example comes from a day a couple of months back, when I was on a passing bluegrass binge. I listened to Emmylou Harris' classic "Roses in the Snow" back to back with "Alison Krauss and Union Station Live." Roses in the Snow is a wonderful set of songs, incredible performances. But its sound was, well let me use all the descriptors used by audiophiles to describe digitits -- flat, dead, lifeless, brittle, two dimensional -- compared to the Union Station effort which is full of dynamic (and FR) range, lively, present, real, musical.

The Emmylou album is on my drive as a lossless file. The Union Station album is a 128kbps iTunes download.

I know it's depressing to think about, but most of it is out of our hands.

P

 

[DoYouRight]

its very difficult and more of a PITA than a great dac/amp with a good cd transport. but for those like myself with over 2Terabytes of FLAC getting a CD player is insane to find space to store that many and be able to get them easy instead of having them in storage and ripped to a drive the size of a book holding thousands and thousands of albums in FLAC/ALAC/DTS

 

[linuxworks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmanGeorge /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah, unfortunately there just aren't that many good USB DACs out there - most DACs that have USB just do USB -> SPDIF (with a few exceptions, of course, but there aren't many options).

this is not quite correct. more and more, dacs are converting usb to i2s; then direct from i2s into the dac. nothing wrong with this!

nothing really wrong with usb->spdif and then spdif reclocked into a dac.

spdif haters make me laugh

 

[robm321]

I've yet to hear a PC based set up that can compare to dedicated quality CD or vinyl front ends. I've heard a variety but not every PC set up. So, I'm not making any claims that one is better, but I'm not going to switch until I find one that can do as well as the ol' disks.

On convenience alone it's obvious which wins.