[Crackle]

Hoping someone can clarify something for me.

The main problem with cdp's is getting the 0's and 1's off the CD as accurately as possible so it can be quite expensive - I've seen the cost of high end transports.

Yet, a computer can get those 0's and 1's spot on - need to otherwise programs won't run.

So in my mind using a computer to get the 0's and 1's off a hdd and then outputting them via optical cable to a high end dac with a nice output stage would be the cheapest and best way to get the music.

Or am I missing something?

If not, would would be a good system?

 

[sejarzo]

You're close.

First, remember that the audio CD predated the data CD. That doesn't mean that the format itself is bad, but it was conceived for reading on the fly with less rigorous error detection/correction. If something doesn't look quite right, just interpolate a bit and the listener will not be able to detect it--that was the fundamental concept, AFAIK.

So yes, if you can "overread" the CD to be certain that the data is correct, then transmit that data to a buffer, again with error checking, and then clock it out of that buffer to the DAC, you are theoretically ahead of a simple CD player that is subject to a variety of complications.....vibration affecting the transport, inability to read some discs well in one pass, and others.

It's not that there are no standalone CD players that do these things well, but as I and apparently you believe, why buy an expensive standalone player when we have PC's that can use software to ensure the data is stored as error-free as possible on a hard drive and take care of the data transmission?

Optical transmission is not an end-all, as the process of converting the electrical data to light and back has its practical limitations.

IMHO, the "better system" is free of the limits of the CD........starting with downloadable hi-rez FLAC files on the front end, followed by straightforward player software, an interface of some sort that is optimized (hardware, OS and drivers) for hi-rez audio transmission, and then great DAC and output design.

 

[poo]

You need to do some searching and some reading. Long story short - some people think you can make a great audio system with a computer as source, and some disagree.

All components have their drawbacks - even the most expensive. So you have to decide what your ears and wallet are happy with and balance between the two.

Search the forum for 'jitter' - generally considered to be the result of not getting the gap quite right between the 0's and 1's you mention.

 

[poo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sejarzo /img/forum/go_quote.gif First, remember that the audio CD predated the data CD.

No... it didn't

 

[sejarzo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by poo /img/forum/go_quote.gif No... it didn't

Most references state something such as "A Compact Disc or CD is an optical disc used to store digital data, originally developed for storing digital audio.....".

"The Red Book is the 1980 document that provides the specifications for the standard compact disc (CD) developed by Sony and Philips.........Sony and Philips referred to the discs as CD-DA (digital audio), defined as a content medium for audio data digitized at 44,100 samples per second (44.1KHz) and in a range of 65,536 possible values (16 bits)."

PC's didn't exist in 1980, so how could the use of CD for data purposes (as we know it) have come before the Red Book?

 

[poo]

Yellow book was first introduced in 1985 - more or less todays data CD.

It has been suggested that the first Red book discs, made in 1980 did not contain music, but information specific to setting up frames on the disc. A 'frame' is made up of 33 bytes. 24 of these are audio bytes, 8 are for error correction and one is called a 'subcode' byte. The 8 bits of a subcode byte are for control and display. This is argued to be the original information pressed to CDs - essentially the file structure within which audio is contained.

PC's certainly did exist in 1980, and as early as 1970 for that matter.

 

[Crackle]

I'll have a look at jitter, cheers.

It was just that I saw the cost of sources and thought well as long as you've got the right O's and 1's what does it matter whether they are on a £10k cdp or a £100 mp3 player, sending the wav file to a decent dac with a nice output stage.

The reason I am looking at this is that I want to update my source but I am trying to work out where the money rises exponentially to the sound improvement. At the end of the day, I like music, not the fact that my sound system costs more than my car.

So if I could get a great sounding dac and hook it up to a portable player using wav or flac then I could be very happy. Or PDA or PC or whatever.

Thing is the cost of a decent dac seems about the same as a decent CDP. So not sure where to go.

Regarding digital transfer, anyone have an opinion (LOL) about which is the best, USB, optical or whatever.

I'm a noobie at this so if my post seems naive, its because I am.

 

[sejarzo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by poo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yellow book was first introduced in 1985 - more or less todays data CD. It has been suggested that the first Red book discs, made in 1980 did not contain music, but information specific to setting up frames on the disc. A 'frame' is made up of 33 bytes. 24 of these are audio bytes, 8 are for error correction and one is called a 'subcode' byte. The 8 bits of a subcode byte are for control and display. This is argued to be the original information pressed to CDs - essentially the file structure within which audio is contained. PC's certainly did exist in 1980, and as early as 1970 for that matter.

OK, you have me on a technicality, I suppose..........

Of course someone had to test the frame setup! But the intended use of the disc was for music, not for data as we know it today. And by PC, I don't mean something that was built by experimenters, I meant a commercially available and usable machine such as the IBM PC...that's what I meant by my comment "as we know it."

Not too many people played music on their Altairs, will you at least give me that????

 

[poo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sejarzo /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't mean something that was built by experimenters, I meant a commercially available and usable machine such as the IBM PC...that's what I meant by my comment "as we know it." Not too many people played music on their Altairs, will you at least give me that????

Altairs - very nice

Yeah I'll give you that... but don't agree entirely (of course

) 1977 saw the Apple II released which I would consider 'a commercially available and usable machine'. Not often used for music playback though...

Enough of the off-topic rant - I'm just being picky for the sake of it and apologise. Your points are more valid than mine in the sense of the original post...

 

[poo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crackle /img/forum/go_quote.gif The reason I am looking at this is that I want to update my source but I am trying to work out where the money rises exponentially to the sound improvement. At the end of the day, I like music, not the fact that my sound system costs more than my car.

You will never get decent audio with that attitude! If you were a real audiophile you would sell your house for a decent system.

On a more serious note - your point on money vs improvement is what will answer most of your queries. I would suggest getting your speakers, soundcard and software sorted out first, then look at other components such as DACs. In doing so you will have a better appreciation as to which additions to your system are making an improvement to your audio.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crackle /img/forum/go_quote.gif Regarding digital transfer, anyone have an opinion (LOL) about which is the best, USB, optical or whatever.

LOL indeed! Everyone has an opinion on the matter - all quite different from one another. You really are spooning through that can of worms aren't you?

Opinion as to the 'best' seems dependent on the particular devices being used. Depends if you want to use the DAC in the soundcard, in your amp, or an external one (for example). Just let your ears decide which is the better connection method...

 

[infinitesymphony]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crackle /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thing is the cost of a decent dac seems about the same as a decent CDP. So not sure where to go. Regarding digital transfer, anyone have an opinion (LOL) about which is the best, USB, optical or whatever.

Do you like being around your computer when you listen to music, or would you rather have a dedicated listening room where you put CDs into the player? This should be your first question.

I chose the latter, because otherwise I'd be more inclined to skip around to different tracks and never listen. But after all, many sound cards and interfaces these days allow digital input, so theoretically you could hook a CD player into a computer, or hook your computer into your receiver, etc., etc.

For most purposes, coaxial S/PDIF output is better than optical output because of its signal transmission properties. However, if you're in an environment that's especially prone to electrical or radio noise or interference, optical will be a better solution because it's not affected by EMI or RFI. USB has a different set of pros and cons (ex. computer power is dirty, USB has jitter, etc.).

Basically, it's more a question of how well the equipment designers implemented every particular interface. Maybe on some players, they skimped on the coaxial digital output, or perhaps the USB input has some extra features? It's really a matter of try-and-see. The only realistic solution to jitter (which is what you're getting at) is a reclocking scheme employed by DACs like the Benchmark DAC-1 USB and others.

 

[Crackle]

Cheers. You've given me something to think about. I guess half the fun is research!