[Jasper994]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood Have you seen what OEM manufacturers charge for computers? A computer with enough power for upsampling can be had for less than $500 retail. Then add in the costs of all the upgrades for audiophile use. Hmmm. Computer ---> Soundcard ---> Interconnect ---> Amp ---> Speakers. Not too difficult there. You can get really fancy too, like setting up a VFD display with an IR remote so you can control it like a CD player. Or perhaps a small monitor extended from the computer right at your listening position. (there are even wireless touchscreen tablet monitors) Or for the folks that have a TV right between their speakers for the hybrid home theater, 2 channel setup (yes, most people in the world do not have a dedicated 2 channel listening room) they can use their TV as a monitor. Computers come in all shapes and sizes as well. You can have all of the noisy storage in another room with a small fanless "client" computer networked to it. The installation possiblities are far more flexible than a huge box with a spinning disc inside. I thought this thread was directed at Head-fi folks and not the iPod luvin masses (no offense, portable folks, )? There is more than a little chance that a $1K sound card will sound a lot better than a $1K CDP. Of course we need to factor the cost of the computer itself. You can easily build a tiny music only computer for less than $500 with retail prices. With more DIY and buying a really cheap case, it falls to less than 2/3 of that price. -Ed

You could be using a tablet PC from your couch doing wireless remote administration on a mini PC with your favorite sound card receiving data from the file server stored in your basement wiring closet.

 

[Jasper994]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mastergill OK, Orpheus, but by "sound cards" you mean "external sound cards" right?. Using computer as a data storage is ok (but still not the perfection for me, call me old school but i don't trust hard drive, i love having my stuff printed on tape...analog or digital...or real CD) you can still use the best outboard DAC and compete with top-notch cdp...but as Markl stated in the beginning of this thread it's about "in-board" sound card, inside the computer. About the $80k SSL yeah, cool, but some guys say it's too much expensive for what it does. Me, i would buy Forssell all tubes channel strip replacement for Sony console...or check eBay, there's some amazing deal for good old analog console ( I saw some killer 24 channel Studer at $7k !! in very good shape! )

And the $500k non-computer setup wasn't too expensive?!?

Anyway, why don't your trust hard drives? RAID pretty much takes care of failure problems... If you really wanted, once you ripped the CD's to hard disk, you could just stick the originals in a CD binder and throw them in a fire proof safe on site or store them off site... admittedly this is overdoing it but hey... we are talking about excess for the most part here anyway.

 

[lini]

darkclouds: I'd agree to your point that standalone equipment might be still better for exclusive listening (= not doing anything else at the same time). But I'd contradict your statement regarding audiophile soundcards not being probable to be built: Just look at the history of computers, especially motherboard features. Graphics can be a good analogy. Nowadays, there's no room for really low end graphics cards anymore, because this segment has already been occupied by onboard shared-memory solutions (next gen Intel will be about as fast as a GeForce FX5200 and DX9 compatible, btw.) in the meantime. With better onboard audio solutions just coming up, which should be easily good enough for fulfilling average Joes' exspectations, we might see just the same trend in soundcards: The remaining manufacturers will probably be forced to specialize more and deliver better performance... That's why I'm actually quite confident that we will actually see more audiophile oriented products in the future.

scrith: Uhm, just a hint - maybe you should dig a bit more into cd formats and cd drive technology... I can't explain in it detail here, but reading a redbook cd "the data way" is not the optimal way - that's why your dae speed results with EAC are not really relevant for a standalone player reading the cd in "the audio way".

Greetings from Hannover!

Manfred / lini

P.S.: Just btw, VIA has just announced the new mobile version of the ENVY24. Maybe a hope for non-resampling, better than just acceptable notebook sound soon...

 

[Mastergill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasper994 And the $500k non-computer setup wasn't too expensive?!?

We were talking about a new SSL console and according to some guys i really trust the price is too high for the feature. This has nothing to do with a $500k non-computer studio! It's just trying to evaluate ONE piece of gear.

 

[MoLtoSoLo]

Well, if you are looking for a hi-end Hi-Fi company to produce a Audio Harddrive system with all the hi-end power, DAC...etc.
Linn has got it.
Linn Knekt Kivor

 

[darkclouds]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoLtoSoLo Well, if you are looking for a hi-end Hi-Fi company to produce a Audio Harddrive system with all the hi-end power, DAC...etc. Linn has got it. Linn Knekt Kivor

I've read the review on the Linn unit awhile ago in TAS, I believe. IT's quite expensive and is meant to be part of a multi room setup. Furthermore, if I recall correctly, it still can't match high end stand alone cdp. I'll have to look up that issue.

 

[darkclouds]

It's in TAS Oct/Nov 2003 issue. The Linn system seems to be very well received. According to the reviewer (Nicholas Bedworth), this system exceeds mid price range stand alone cdp like the Rega Jupiter at a cost of $16k to $20K. So there you have it.

 

[MoLtoSoLo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkclouds It's in TAS Oct/Nov 2003 issue. The Linn system seems to be very well received. According to the reviewer (Nicholas Bedworth), this system exceeds mid price range stand alone cdp like the Rega Jupiter at a cost of $16k to $20K. So there you have it.

Thank you for the information.
I have tried Jupiter in my system and it was not as good as my RME card or EMU card setup. My setup is a factory out Dell PE400SC computer.
Maybe afterall, all these hi-fi power supply, external DAC, or expensive cases don't matter.

 

[darkclouds]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoLtoSoLo Thank you for the information. I have tried Jupiter in my system and it was not as good as my RME card or EMU card setup. My setup is a factory out Dell PE400SC computer. Maybe afterall, all these hi-fi power supply, external DAC, or expensive cases don't matter.

Well, it all depends on what follows behind your source. I wouldn't spend 5k on a source with $1000 amp and speakers.

For what it's worth, the Kivor did far exceed the Jupitor, albeit at a substantially higher cost. The kivor is actually comprised of 3 main units, the Tunbok (a hard disk archive), Oktal multichannel DAC and a PCI musik Machine card inside the Tunbok.


I dont' think I'll be spending my money on a computer based source for a long, long, long time. (Although I may pick up an RME soon, just to prove it to myself definitively that a computer source at the moment is far behind my SCD-1.)

 

[markl]

Quote:

(mastergill) yeah... you're right. but there are "sound cards" that do equal the best CD players out there. and i mean THE best.

Such as? What high-end CDPs are you talking about that you've used in your extensive comparisons to reach this sweeping conclusion? The awesome specs of the sound cards DACs don't mean much if they hand that pristine digital signal off to a half-baked, cheap and noisy analog section being powered by a crummy cheap power supply not designed for audio but to power a computer as cheaply as posible. Quote:

most of your CDs are now mixed in Protools or Nuendo, which technically would be on a system using a "computer sound card." so, better than a CDP?--of course. but of course, these aren't ordinary 2-channel sound cards... systems start at $5000 for the cheaper ProTools set... and can easily go into 6 figures.

OK, here's where the argument gets weird. If you look at any recording studio, they are composed of hundreds of pieces of equipment, each with hundreds of indivual components within them. Is *any recording* whether or not it uses pro-tools limited by the weakest component in any link in the recording and mastering chain? Is that 50 ohm crummy quality resistor in the signal path somehwere the ultimate arbiter of how good any recording made in that studio can sound? Maybe. Is resolution limited to the resolution of every circuit in every component used in the recording? If so, no recording would likely sound good, somewhere along the line in all these signal paths are less than ideal components and they will affect EVERY SINGLE RECORDING EVER MADE. I doubt there's any multi-billion dollar studio in the land in which every single component in every part of the signal chain, including the amplifiers of the band playing, is 100% "audiophile approved". Yet we are able to discern differences in recordings and discern diferences in indivual remasterings of these recordings. I'm not sure how much stock I put into the fact Pro Tools is setting the absolute upper limits on how any recording of any track or the resulting pressed CD version of that recording will sound. I think it's only one of a million potential factors that can effect the sound we hear, with maybe not that much more significance than any other factor.

I do recognize that there is no way to recover information that was never recorded in the first place. i do recognize that use of pro-tools in modern recordings will limit ultimate resolution to the digital bits it's able to capture. But how relevant is that compared to any other limitation imposed by every other component in the signal path? I don't know the answer to this, and I don't think there is one.

Quote:

there is no limit to the performance of computer audio.

In essence I agree with this, *in theory*. EXCEPT for the fact that in reality, most sound cards are cheaply made, low-cost afterthought items. There is not as much margin available in these items as is available in a $2000-$20,000 CD player for parts quality. They will also be stuck in noisy computers with their crummy power supplies, etc. Maybe one day we'll be able to buy Krell pC an Levinson sound card etc., but until then, it seems to me, there are inherent limitations in what can be achieved in a computer-based system, constraints that don't exist in a stand-alone player. Quote:

What do I want? A wonderful ICEPower based amplifier that will let anything I feed it through. What do I want feeding that? A PC source where through software I can tweak anything. Simulate a triode, simulate a transformer, upsample/downsample, equalize, play with the soundstage and presentation, play with dynamics, dither, crossovers, simulate filters, simulate tube gear -- I geat one box to play around with my sound...as source.

Ugh! Software based EQ? You obviously don't care at all about fidelity or remaining true to the signal. In audio, simpler is almost always better. The simplest circuit path with the fewest high-quality components will sound best. You want to go ahead and process and tweak the sound manually to make it palatable. IMO, the best way to achieve this is by buying high-quality gear, not by applying EQ to make lousy gear sound acceptable.

 

[cjr888]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl In essence I agree with this, *in theory*. EXCEPT for the fact that in reality, most sound cards are cheaply made, low-cost afterthought items.

Most sound cards, and most audio equipment. Again what we're talking about is the minority, not the majority of equipment out there, PC based, or standalone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl Replace Maybe one day we'll be able to buy Krell pC an Levinson sound card etc.,

Again we're stuck with the audiophile brand stigma. If Krell gear was rebadged as pro gear, and 19" rack mount handles were added, would you take it less seriously? If someone created it, customized it, or used it -- it being some component, audio or PC based, and you weren't sure if it was meant for a studio or meant for a livingroom, how would you generalize about it? We'd be right back to what matters most -- how it sounds, and either preference or technical merit.


Quote:

Originally Posted by markl but until then, it seems to me, there are inherent limitations in what can be achieved in a computer-based system, constraints that don't exist in a stand-alone player.

Which constraints are these? Different approaches, both that require power, both that have to do something with a digital signal, both limited by the software available -- whether that software is embedded in a chip with a very specific function or acts more as what most people consider software. A spinning disc and jitter qualify as quite a big constraint to me.

Quote:

Ugh! Software based EQ? You obviously don't care at all about fidelity or remaining true to the signal. In audio, simpler is almost always better.

I was speaking in regards to options available, and yes digital EQ is of interest to me. Why? Room correction, measurement, and everything in between. I use speakers, thus my room is part of my audio chain -- keeping things simple doesn't me pretending the room doesn't exist. And yes, headphone output is compensated for everyone else here, and for most...in the design of the headphone itself. Its been customized to fit the need and the environment. You are using an opamp based amplifier -- theory would say that this would not be the best approach. Its done though. Why? It sounds good.

Quote:

The simplest circuit path with the fewest high-quality components will sound best.

If thats what the design dictates and that's what makes sense. Simplicity alone does not equate to good sound.

Feed a digital signal through to its output -- simple or complex, this is independent of PC or CDP.

Does your CD player perform any sort of sampling?

Why?


Quote:

You want to go ahead and process and tweak the sound manually to make it palatable. IMO, the best way to achieve this is by buying high-quality gear, not by applying EQ to make lousy gear sound acceptable.

The recording studio did it.
You did it when you chose one pair of headphones over another.
You did it when you chose one amplifier or another.
Sony did it when they created the drivers for the headphones to match their design parameters.
Its just that the way you modified the signal required shipping and handling.

Unless of course we always ensure that frequency response is absolutely exact compared to a reference each time we replace a box of electronics.

 

[Orpheus]

markl,

first off, matergill pointed out you're talking straight "soundcards" as in actual PCI cards that you stick into a computer. and i didn't realize that. so, my comments were not directly addressing your original situation.

but anyway, i don't know if you realize this, but all the highest-performing solutions for computers are not soundcards!!! even my studio doesn't use a "soundcard!"--i use a Motu 896, which is an outboard solution connected via firewire to my computer.

anyway... on to your comments:
Quote:

Such as? What high-end CDPs are you talking about that you've used in your extensive comparisons to reach this sweeping conclusion? The awesome specs of the sound cards DACs don't mean much if they hand that pristine digital signal off to a half-baked, cheap and noisy analog section being powered by a crummy cheap power supply not designed for audio but to power a computer as cheaply as posible.

as noted, these solutions used by professionals are not housed in your computer--they are completely external. the power supply thus is not shared with the computer--it is made solely for the "soundcard." and just so you know, your comment's illogical--if the soundcard measures well, it's already encompassing whatever power supply it might be using, thus nullifying your argument about the power supply / measurement relationship.
Quote:

OK, here's where the argument gets weird. If you look at any recording studio, they are composed of hundreds of pieces of equipment, each with hundreds of indivual components within them. Is *any recording* whether or not it uses pro-tools limited by the weakest component in any link in the recording and mastering chain?

again, i dunno if you realize, but ProTools usually isn't used as just one component among hundreds--EVERYTHING is routed through the darn system. there are two setups in the modern studio: you either have a mixer as a front end (like the SSL i discussed with Mastergill) or you have Protools do EVERYTHING. and as time passes, more and more studios are going to an all Protools environment. in fact, Digidesign (the creator of Protools) just released a $80,000 console/control board for Protools, making the merging of computer based recording and high-end mixer recording complete. so, Protools does 50-95% of the recording, and very little signal relative to the main Protools system actually sees any outboard gear. relatively.
Quote:

I do recognize that there is no way to recover information that was never recorded in the first place. i do recognize that use of pro-tools in modern recordings will limit ultimate resolution to the digital bits it's able to capture. But how relevant is that compared to any other limitation imposed by every other component in the signal path? I don't know the answer to this, and I don't think there is one.

well, i wasn't really arguing a bottleneck effect type of a thing. i was arguing that if the people who make your records feel is satisfactory to record on a certain system, which happens to be "soundcard" based, well, then surely these soundcards work very well!
Quote:

In essence I agree with this, *in theory*. EXCEPT for the fact that in reality, most sound cards are cheaply made, low-cost afterthought items.

your question wasn't whether the AVERAGE soundcard can better a good CDP. your question was whether ANY soundcard can. yeah, most soundcards aren't all that. that is true.
Quote:

They will also be stuck in noisy computers with their crummy power supplies, etc. Maybe one day we'll be able to buy Krell pC an Levinson sound card etc., but until then, it seems to me, there are inherent limitations in what can be achieved in a computer-based system, constraints that don't exist in a stand-alone player.

again, all the top-end "soundcards" are not housed physically in the computer. Protools is made up of external outboard interfaces that connect to its own proprietary PCI cards inside the computer. each interface has its own power supply and draws no power from the computer.

anyway, let's make this into a metaphor that's easier for audiophiles to understand:

think of a high-end "soundcard" as a good DAC or ADC. after all, what's the soundcard's job?--to get an analog signal into the computer. well, that's in its most simple form, a DAC. now, let's look at a CDP... what is it? it's basically a DAC and a transport mechanism. now, let's look at Protools: you got the computer that acts as a transport. then you got several external boxes that are essentially the same thing as external DACs.

so, let me rephrase your question: "Can a CDP hooked up to an external DAC ever sound better than a CDP without an external DAC?" yup... of course, that's what many audiophiles' system are based on--CDP + external DAC.

and voila... the answer to your question: yes, soundcards can perform just as well as and CDP.

 

[darkclouds]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjr888 Most sound cards, and most audio equipment. Again what we're talking about is the minority, not the majority of equipment out there, PC based, or standalone. Again we're stuck with the audiophile brand stigma. If Krell gear was rebadged as pro gear, and 19" rack mount handles were added, would you take it less seriously? If someone created it, customized it, or used it -- it being some component, audio or PC based, and you weren't sure if it was meant for a studio or meant for a livingroom, how would you generalize about it? We'd be right back to what matters most -- how it sounds, and either preference or technical merit. Which constraints are these? Different approaches, both that require power, both that have to do something with a digital signal, both limited by the software available -- whether that software is embedded in a chip with a very specific function or acts more as what most people consider software. A spinning disc and jitter qualify as quite a big constraint to me. I was speaking in regards to options available, and yes digital EQ is of interest to me. Why? Room correction, measurement, and everything in between. I use speakers, thus my room is part of my audio chain -- keeping things simple doesn't me pretending the room doesn't exist. And yes, headphone output is compensated for everyone else here, and for most...in the design of the headphone itself. Its been customized to fit the need and the environment. You are using an opamp based amplifier -- theory would say that this would not be the best approach. Its done though. Why? It sounds good. If thats what the design dictates and that's what makes sense. Simplicity alone does not equate to good sound. Feed a digital signal through to its output -- simple or complex, this is independent of PC or CDP. Does your CD player perform any sort of sampling? Why? The recording studio did it. You did it when you chose one pair of headphones over another. You did it when you chose one amplifier or another. Sony did it when they created the drivers for the headphones to match their design parameters. Its just that the way you modified the signal required shipping and handling. Unless of course we always ensure that frequency response is absolutely exact compared to a reference each time we replace a box of electronics.

Hmm... I think I've been quite foolish and over spent on my gear. I think I'm going to sell it and get some mid-fi stuff with a massive EQ and just tune up the signal to perfection. Massive EQ? There I go again spending money; I can just get software base EQ/DSP and run my system off of my audigy.

 

[Wodgy]

These arguments, as I see it, boil down to one simple fact: while sound cards that rival the best CD players are possible, as commercial products they don't currently exist. They're theoretical rather than real.

You can buy very high quality CD players from a variety of vendors (Bel Canto, Meridian, Wadia, etc.). You cannot yet buy a sound card with similar attention to engineering anywhere, at any price. Iron_Dreamer's modded E-MU probably comes closest, but that's a custom hot-rodded job where the added parts cost as much as the card itself. The fact that simple mods can make so much difference shows that there is still room for improvement in the design of these cards.

(The E-MU is a clear, definite improvement in real engineering over the RME, however, and I give its designers a lot of credit for doing things right instead of just throwing together the cheapest analog section they could design, like the RME.)

As enthusiastic about computer sources as I am (I post most frequently in the computer sources forum), I'm under no illusions about the limitations of the current cards available for purchase. They're better than the last crop, but there's still nothing you can buy (external DACs excluded) that rivals the performance of the best standalone CDPs.

 

[Orpheus]

Quote:

These arguments, as I see it, boil down to one simple fact: while sound cards that rival the best CD players are possible, as commercial products they don't currently exist. They're theoretical rather than real.

not really. go out and buy yourself an AES/EBU PCI card for your computer. then hook up a Benchmark DAC. play straight .WAV's ripped from CD's. there...... a "soundcard" that betters 99% of the standalone CDP's out there.

i'm partial to the Motu 896 i got here myself. works very well. but it does much more than play back music, so you'd be paying for features you don't need.