[Dynobot]

You kinda went off on a tangent but for the sake of argument....ok you are right, I have no rebuttal.
 
Quote:

How does Linux change that? It's software... How does Linux make it so that you can plug a DAC directly into your computer without a USB converter? Unless I'm missing something incredibly amazing about Linux, you still need a USB converter and cables. Batteries and a special power supply means that the converter is running on better regulated power than the switching power supply in your computer (how does Linux change this?). Isolation device reduces grounding and noise issues via USB (again, how does Linux change this?). Clockers and reclockers are hardware and software related and I don't know about Linux's communication so you may win this aspect of the argument but what about the rest?
 
Also, I've gotta agree with leeperry. I don't know what I'd do without CoreAVC and ReClock.

 

[ninjikiran]

On the software end there are differences between Linux and Windows.  Supposedly bit-perfection is easier to achieve on Linux long as your transport/device can handle it due to the way Linux handles audio.  But with windows you still have WASAPI/ASIO/Kernal Streaming which does the exact same thing. 
 
Really, there is no other major difference between Linux and Windows.  But take it from a guy who hears no difference between the multitudes of bit-perfect audio players on the PC.
 
Still you could probably create a super low power/silent digital music player using Linux and tune its performance for only media applications easier than you can on Windows.  Less Memory/Other hardware constraints as well.  You have full control over every little piece and if you can code you can do really whatever the heck you want.  Its the perfect sand box for these kinds of operations.  But yea everything else is either bi-os(SoX for instance) if you prefer software solutions, or hardware deficiencies whether you believe in them or not.
Quote:

How does Linux change that? It's software... How does Linux make it so that you can plug a DAC directly into your computer without a USB converter? Unless I'm missing something incredibly amazing about Linux, you still need a USB converter and cables. Batteries and a special power supply means that the converter is running on better regulated power than the switching power supply in your computer (how does Linux change this?). Isolation device reduces grounding and noise issues via USB (again, how does Linux change this?). Clockers and reclockers are hardware and software related and I don't know about Linux's communication so you may win this aspect of the argument but what about the rest?
 
Also, I've gotta agree with leeperry. I don't know what I'd do without CoreAVC and ReClock.

 

[joe_cool]

Quote:

Aren't you tired of Windows and all of its problems?
 
Time to go Linux!
 

 
I really want to use Linux (Ubuntu seems like a good starting point) but I always have problems with audio. Lately I have a system at home dedicated to Ubuntu and most things work really well. I don't understand why OSS was dumped for ALSA and now we have g-streamer and pulseaudio. It seems we are missing the Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) in Linux. Why isn't there an interface like ASIO or DirectSound and applications like Foobar2K and Audacity?
 
OBTW, Teralink X2 and similar devices (Audiotrak and Stello for example) work fine in Windows XP using Direct Sound. Kernel Streaming is nothing more than generic ASIO and neither are needed in Vista Or Windows 7 for playback.
 

 

[ninjikiran]

programs such as Foobar2000 exist under Linux, there is one popular program which seems to be similar but I couldn't tell you the name as I don't run Linux.  (Amarok rings a bell though)
 
Besides assuming Linux by nature is bit-perfect(dependent on driver obviously) audio player should just be an interface with optional bells and whistles.

 

[Dynobot]

I use Lubuntu which is a very lite version of Ubuntu and Music Player Daemon or DeadBeef for audio.
 
I have zero problems and everything works perfectly
 
If you need some info on how to set everything up take a look at my site
https://sites.google.com/site/computeraudioorg/linux-for-audio
 
If you want something a little better (user friendly, better looks etc) than Ubuntu try LinuxMint
 
 
 Cheers

 

[Dynobot]

Quote:

programs such as Foobar2000 exist under Linux, there is one popular program which seems to be similar but I couldn't tell you the name as I don't run Linux.  (Amarok rings a bell though)
 

Yes you are right, there are plenty of programs like Foobar for Linux.
 
In fact you can even use Foobar with Linux via Wine.
 

 

[ninjikiran]

Almost senseless to use a pretty GUI if you have a specific purpose .  Functionality over beauty.
 
I would always suggest the more difficult approach, you always learn a little more.  Besides reading over that guide its rather step by step simple, and no where near as complicated as say back when Gentoo first came out building it from Stage 1 which you could mess up even with a guide. It lets you create a very pure system.
 
I wouldn't use WINE at all for audio especially since its going through WINE Direct X calls which are possibly dangerous for the sake of purity.  Besides there is no purpose....  considering native players do the exact same thing in the exact same way.
 

I use Lubuntu which is a very lite version of Ubuntu and Music Player Daemon or DeadBeef for audio.
 
I have zero problems and everything works perfectly
 
If you need some info on how to set everything up take a look at my site
https://sites.google.com/site/computeraudioorg/linux-for-audio
 
If you want something a little better (user friendly, better looks etc) than Ubuntu try LinuxMint
 
 
 Cheers

 

[Dynobot]

Yeah you are right, which is why I use Lubuntu.  Its bare bones, very light on resources and I use it on a headless machine, so I never even see a GUI.
 
But some people prefer to look at a nice GUI because they use their audio computer for everything else.  Hence the LinuxMint suggestion.
 
I tried to spell everything out step by step clearly, in fact when I build or rebuild I follow the exact same steps.  If I run into a snag or fell that something is not totally clear I go back and edit.
 
Like you mentioned before in another post, Linux lends itself to fit a users needs to do what ever it is they want.  You can easily have a lean mean audio machine. 
 
FWIW, I have been down the Windows path, over and over back and forth, inside and out....Linux is the way to do for audio.
 
Quote:

Almost senseless to use a pretty GUI if you have a specific purpose .  Functionality over beauty.
 
I would always suggest the more difficult approach, you always learn a little more.  Besides reading over that guide its rather step by step simple, and no where near as complicated as say back when Gentoo first came out building it from Stage 1 which you could mess up even with a guide. It lets you create a very pure system.
 
I wouldn't use WINE at all for audio especially since its going through WINE Direct X calls which are possibly dangerous for the sake of purity.  Besides there is no purpose....  considering native players do the exact same thing in the exact same way.
 

 

 

[_Spanky_]

Quote:

You kinda went off on a tangent but for the sake of argument....ok you are right, I have no rebuttal.

Sorry, I just get annoyed when Linux users push their operating system on others for, IMO, invalid reasons. Sure, Linux is customizable but the blanket statements like "Linux is the way to do for audio" and "Aren't you tired of Windows and all of its problems? Time to go Linux!" are uncalled for and there's plenty of people that would back me up on that. I'm not trying to flame, I'm just trying to shave some excess bias off of this You like your setup for audio, that's what matters. I just had to call you out on those statements though because someone that doesn't know any better might spend a lot of time finding out that it's not true. I don't think people should switch their OS just for audio output, there's plenty of resources and methods to get "perfect" playback anywhere. You seemed to complain about not needing "all that stuff" on Linux. I took a look at your "linux for audio" site and I could easily complain about not wanting to follow all those steps and edit code. On Windows, you just install Foobar (no command line crap), get the WASAPI component, select it from the list and play your music.
 
I guess what I'm trying to say is, it's better to explain and inform than to push something in a biased manner. Also, this thread is about the Teralink X2, let's talk about that

 

[ninjikiran]

I prefer windows solely on the fact that I have it configured perfectly and I use it for everything else but if I were to make a small digital music box I would go Linux for its lean'ness.  In terms of audio quality there should be no difference unless something is humbugged.

 

[Dynobot]

I understand Spanky...this whole thing was actually just me razzing Lee.  He knew it, which is why he kinda laughed it off....
 
The statements and convo were not as serious as you are making it out to be...
 
If you look at my site you will see that I have done extensive comparisons between OS's these are my words.
 
"Sound wise Mac and Linux are more analytical than Windows and ultimately more true to the music. All can be enjoyable to listen to with the right associated equipment and all can be controlled remotely. Making a hard stand for one being the best in everyones system is nearly impossible.  Sound is too subjective and there are just too many variables in any particular set-up to say clearly one is best in all situations."
 
https://sites.google.com/site/computeraudioorg/home
 
You are actually preaching to the choir.

 

[Dynobot]

Quote:

I prefer windows solely on the fact that I have it configured perfectly and I use it for everything else but if I were to make a small digital music box I would go Linux for its lean'ness.  In terms of audio quality there should be no difference unless something is humbugged.

Audio quality is subjective, but rest assured the Audio does sound different between Windows, Linux and Mac.  I have built and compared all 3 with machines that were totally optimized to the 9th degree with every audio player available.  Everything makes a difference in audio, the theory of 1s and 0s sounding the same is a myth.  Everything can and does make audio sound different.  Power supplies, CPU's, RAM, voltages, drivers, loads, spikes, overall processes, the way an audio program utilizes the CPU for example cPlay as well as XXHighend both are tailored to take advantage of the way different CPU's handle information.
 

 

[ROBSCIX]

Quote:

Audio quality is subjective, but rest assured the Audio does sound different between Windows, Linux and Mac.  I have built and compared all 3 with machines that were totally optimized to the 9th degree with every audio player available.  Everything makes a difference in audio, the theory of 1s and 0s sounding the same is a myth.  Everything can and does make audio sound different.  Power supplies, CPU's, RAM, voltages, drivers, loads, spikes, overall processes, the way an audio program utilizes the CPU for example cPlay as well as XXHighend both are tailored to take advantage of the way different CPU's handle information.
 

Sure, there are many things that can and do influence the overall soudn quality of your system.  To those that say 1's and 0's should all be the same, they either don't know or don't consider the timing aspect.  Digital audio is 1's and 0's but also has a very precise timing component that some seem to forget about or think is of no consequence.
 
Do you personally use Cplay or XXhighend?

 

[Dynobot]

Quote:

 
Do you personally use Cplay or XXhighend?

I used Cplay for more than a year and XXhighend for roughly 6 months while I was evaluating the differences in different operating systems.
 
From my web site:
 
"As a starting point i used BlackVipersWindowsServices to reduce my processes down to a bare minimum.  I mean just to the point were Windows would not crash.  I went into bios and followed Cics's tweaks to optimize the CPU and RAM settings as well as used a latency tool to tweak my USB latency to optimal settings.  Even going so far as to kill WindowsExplorer [that would be the main GUI task bar/menu GUI for Windows] so ONLY my music software was running and even that was set to the highest priority.  I also disconnected the keyboard, mouse and monitor while playing.  So as you can see I went to extreme lengths to get the most out of Windows.  Over the course of a year +/- I tried every music software I could get my hands on, XXHighend, cMP, Foobar, JRiver [the usual suspects] plus KMPlayer, uLilith, XMPlay etc....literally everything I could find."

 

[ninjikiran]

While timing is important I have tried a few of these tweaks for giggles.  There is no noticeable difference, everything else is just overkill.  Granted its harmless overkill if you were making a box solely for music so if it lights your fires go for it.  Everything seems to be a "HUGE" improvement but I just can't see it or hear it.
 
In fact one of those high end audiophile players seems to raise the volume very slightly.  Can't put my finger on which one atm since it has been a while.