XXHighEnd

[PeterSt]

... with the conclusion that your other DAC(s) can accept coax/toslink SPDIF, right ?

 

The Zalman looks attractive, assuming it is an "audio" product, but which I actually don't know.

I do know about the Juli@, and this sure is ok (for an in-PC card used for passthrough).

 

I would not use the converter stuff.

 

Please don't hang me for wrong advises !

 

About the Benchmark, yeah, true. This is one of these rare occasions I referred to. Btw, thanks for sorting that out yourself. Sorry anyway ...

 

Peter

 

 

[Roseval]

Dell Inspiron with Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio. I don’t intend to use this computer as a longtime music server, but it is new and available for now.

Assuming you are using it for direct playback and not as a server maybe it is agood idea to check this link: http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/Trouble/Dell.htm as Dell has a reputation to lose for selling cripled audio drivers.

 

Has anyone tried this DAC before?

Yes, but with WMP11 in exclusive mode, the whole range 16/24 - 44.1/96 works flawless.

I tried PlayWasapi, first it was not able to play WAV (probably due to tags) and has never been able to play over the USB.

 

I wonder if converters from USB to SPDIF will improve sound quality, sounds like one jitterbug waltz to me.

You might try AudioAsylum, Juli@ has a good reputation.

 

Benchmark is one of the few USB dac's supporting 24/96 using native mode drivers. A media player unable to drive this DAC is not my choice.

 

 

[glt]

And I don't think is computer hardware. Why is that? because everything inside the computer is digital and even at the lower logic voltages and higher bus speeds, the computer still works flawlessly. There could be bugs in the software, but the hardware is basically operating on those bugs. The problem with jitter in the digital domain inside a computer has been solved because you can't afford to have unreliable communication. In fact, every bit that moves inside the computer does not change because you changed the hardware configuration, or else you will have the computer behaving erratically.

 

Even if the digital signal leaves the computer, it will be received at the other end exactly the same, through any transport and protocol.

 

It is only when the signal ends in an audio type of device that we claim there are "problems", so if we use the same logic, the signal exiting the computer is fine. It is in the audio receiving end that something is happening (this also applies to the sound card that takes the digital signal and converts it to SPDIF or I2S or something else)

 

So efforts of the audio community have focuses in this area: bit perfect drivers, jitter reducers, jitter immune DACs, etc. Since this is not a "computer issue", no R&D money from the big companies will ever be spent here since for them it is not a problem.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi glt - I think I follow your comments, but I do have some interesting info to add. A hardware/software beta test site in Northern California that I work with frequently recently conducted some tests of computer sources. One very interesting item to come out of this testing was that many components inside the computer do effect the audio output. For example, with the Ethernet controller connected to the network via CAT5e there was a large measurable difference in line noise seen in the AES/EBU cable connecting the PC and DAC. Using difference PSUs lead to a very similar result.

 

The audibility of measurable results like this is unknown to me at this time. I do think limiting this noise and using solid engineering techniques to refine internal computer components at least shouldn't degrade the sound quality.

 

[audiozorro]

Peter, I just installed XXHighEnd-09-x3 on another Vista computer. I received the following message regarding Microsoft.Net Framework:

 

“Unhandled exception has occurred in your application”

 

I clicked to “Ignore” and everything seemed to install okay, though who knows what happens when you ignore such messages. I believe I read something on your website regarding installing a particular version of Microsoft Net Framework but I’m not sure if I need to install anything for Vista 64.

 

I tried playing the sample Vista music files again but they still had an unreadable header. So I copied over some WAV tracks I previously ripped from a CD. Those files played fine, so your hunch about something limiting in the sample Vista files is probably correct.

 

I am just using the SoundMAX Integrated Digtial HD Audio on the computer motherboard and I am listening through my Grado SR80 headphones plugged into the computer headphone jack. Hardly audiophile but what I hear sounds pretty good. Who knows, perhaps next weekend my Benchmark USB DAC1 may work after? If not, I will try something else.

 

It seems that the ESI Julia@ is backordered for about 6-8 weeks. Another card in that same price range is the EMU 1212M. I don’t mind waiting for the Julia@, but if the EMU 1212M works better with your software and Vista Home Premium 64, I’ll try that. What do you suggest?

 

Also, is it possible to play an entire library or playlist on continuous repeat? There seems to be much to learn about using this software and possible tweaks. Once I get a handle on how best to use the library and playlists, it should be interesting.

 

 

[glt]

It would benefit us in audiophile community if we can apply some engineering thinking. For example, rather that focusing in "fixing" the noise problem inside the computer why not focusing on isolating the noise from the audio card?. That is, measuring the noise rejection of audio cards, then one can go and purchase/mod the card with the best noise rejection.

 

Then the next level would be to figure out at what level would the noise cause problems for example, does noise level cause increased jitter or is it noise spectrum.

 

And so on.

 

And little by little we can get closer to "audio perfection"

 

But if our tests consist of: "I changed this and my jaw dropped", then it will be hard to move forward in finding real engineering solutions.

 

[BEEMB]

 

Peter, firstly thanks very much for your response. A number of my questions related to a discussion I was having with somebody else, and i just wanted to get a few things straight in my head.

 

Interrupts - the word I was looking for, so easily explains the need to minimise other tasks and services running on your computer.

 

Point 3 - re bit perfect; I think I was getting at the fact some cards just won't allow such a thing anyway. Though I guess most will nowadays. You're description of jitter was excellent.

 

Thanks again for your time.

 

BobH - thanks for the link. I'll have to a have a good read now (wow, we are geeks). I really enjoy being able to fully understand what I'm dealing with so this will help.

 

Chris, i am also interested in your findings which pretty much confirms that components DO matter.

 

Loving this thread. And this site. When can I move in ?

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

Audiozorro,

 

Vista provides several sample WAV music files in a Sample Music directory that I tried to play. When I tried to play any of these files XXHighEnd reports "Unrecognized WAV Header Data".

 

I just looked it up, and these are 160Kbs WMA files. Although people may have different minds, I never saw a reason to support that. So that's where the Unrecognized WAV Header message comes from.

 

“Unhandled exception has occurred in your application”

 

Sorry, I didn't hear this one before, and it could be anything. About ignoring it, you're right.

But nothing wo workout here at CA I think. I will to the bone over at Phasure ... with your help of course.

Nothing needs to be installed additionally, AFAIK.

 

The EMU1212M will be fine just the same, but I didn't lookup wether it has Vista drivers. Pretty much required !

 

Also, is it possible to play an entire library or playlist on continuous repeat?

 

Currently I better say No. This is about A-B playback, and the tooltip-help on it will tell you how to do it I think. However, this is subjective to the new memory management introduced recently, and I did not test this anymore. This means : probably not.

Even today I added the comment in the program "not tested !" at exactly such an A-B occasion, and at getting to working something unrelated but more important. The "virtues" of beta software ...

 

Thanks and appreciated !

Peter

 

 

[ldolse]

Just as an FYI, I have a Juli@ and a Benchmark DAC1-USB, and I got XXhighend to play a number of files on Vista no problem. Note in general I had to have them on the local hard disk, in numerous cases having the files on a network share would crash XXhighend.

 

'Course Motherboard may also factor into the equation, not sure what you're using. I'm using an Asus with a G35 chipset (I think, can't remember for certain now).

 

[bluedy1]

The discussion is fascinating but a bit difficult to understand for non technical boy.

Chris: do you plan to do a tutorial in the Academy (or test) on xxhighend or similar software?

What would help me (and some others?) is a summary of different options or clarifications: itunes is super easy but all the other options seem (I spent sometime on XXHE website and feel confused) much more complicated if you are no computer expert.

thks anyway

 

[PeterSt]

Just as an FYI, I have a Juli@ and a Benchmark DAC1-USB, and I got XXhighend to play [...]

 

Hi Idolse,

 

Would you mind sharing how you exactly did this ?

The point is, I always must depend on people *not* getting it to work, and never found someone who could (and of course I don't own a Benchmark).

 

a. This isn't related to the Juli@, is it ?

b. You are using Engine#3, right ?

 

About the network share ... this is related to the naming of the share IIRC. Can't dig it up right now. Will come back on that one.

 

Thanks,

Peter

 

[BEEMB]

Idolse,

 

Did you do much listening? What are your thoughts?

 

[audiozorro]

Idolse, thanks for the feedback. I have a Lynx AES16 card that I could use but I don't want to disturb my CA recommended "Audiophile Reference Music Server For A Song", so I will try the Juli@.

 

But I would have thought the Benchmark DAC1 USB would work without any PCI audio interface card. Have you tried connecting the Benchmark DAC directly to the USB connection on your computer? I will be experimenting this weekend so any insight and recommendations you provide will be appreciated.

 

[PeterSt]

Idolse,

 

Note in general I had to have them on the local hard disk, in numerous cases having the files on a network share would crash XXhighend

 

I looked it up, but this is (most probably) because you will be using access from "My Network Places" instead of a drive letter. This problem was brought up ages ago, but as it now appeared, I never solved it. :-(

 

Can that be the reason in your case ?

If so, assign a drive letter to the Share, and work with the drive letter.

In the mean time I must solve it of course.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

"Chris: do you plan to do a tutorial in the Academy (or test) on xxhighend or similar software?"

 

As soon as PeterSt. ports XXHighEnd over to OS X :~)

 

Only kidding. One of these days I'll dig into the application again.

 

[ldolse]

Let's see if I can take a crack at some of those questions. I'm not home this week, so this is mostly from memory:

 

@PeterSt

- I didn't do anything special to get output through Juli@, the only thing I recall doing that may not have been in your instructions on phasure.com was that I had to go into Vista's sound settings to make sure the Juli@'s SPDIF output was the primary output. After that I believe XX started making noise. As this is SPDIF the Benchmark isn't really part of the equation.

 

I was using Engine number 3 for certain, couldn't get the other engines working on XP, which was why I switched to Vista.

 

Regarding the Network Share, I was definitely using a mapped drive letter, not network neighborhood. Like I said, it's intermittent and seemed much more likely to happen with large Flacs where the whole album is a single file.

 

@Beemb

I've been living without my primary stereo for a while now, so I've been reduced to using some Sennheiser 595's. Maybe I need higher end headphones, but I find it more difficult to listen critically through cans. That said, XXHighend did seem to sound noticeably better than the usual suspects like Mediamonkey and Foobar. The only thing that was at a similar level to XX was Cplay from audioasylum, and I haven't really done much A/B between those two. I'm planning to get proper stereo setup in a few weeks, so I'll be able to listen a bit more critically then.

 

@Audiozorro

I did try the USB, but not with XXHighend. I tried it with Mediamonkey and Foobar. On Mediamonkey USB sounded awful next to SPDIF, on Foobar the difference wasn't so great, but I didn't A/B so much there. I decided to go with the Juli@ just because I've heard so many arguments against USB, and SPDIF allows me to use all the possible resolutions the Benchmark supports. I'm not sure if attempting to use USB with XXhighend might be the cause of some of the problems noted here, I'll give it a try when I'm back home.

 

If you pick up the Juli@ then I would be most interested in hearing some more about a comparison between that and the Lynx. The budget hifi folks seem to have latched onto the Juli@, but I'd really like to know how much bang spending another $550 bucks on the Lynx will provide. I haven't read any comparisons from someone who has listened to both anywhere.

 

[tfarney]

I just skimmed this thread. Just to be sure I haven't missed something...the final digital output of the systems in question here...it is a bit-perfect match to the original files, right?

 

Tim

 

[PeterSt]

But I can only speak for mine, and as long as the digital volume of the player is at max (system volume is disabled anyway) and stuff like upsampling is not used. We talk Vista/Engine#3 here.

Q sliders can be used at will and they don't influence the bit perfectness.

 

Peter

 

[tfarney]

"Yes

 

But I can only speak for mine, and as long as the digital volume of the player is at max (system volume is disabled anyway) and stuff like upsampling is not used. We talk Vista/Engine#3 here.

Q sliders can be used at will and they don't influence the bit perfectness.

 

Peter"

 

So the digital data exiting the computer is exactly the same as the data that entered in the form of the original file? I just want to be sure I'm not missing anything.

 

Tim

 

[PeterSt]

Uhm, Tim. I have the hunch that if I say Yes one other time, something nasty is going to happen to me.

 

So I don't.

 

Peter

:-)

 

[tfarney]

I'll be good, I promise. I'm trying to keep my mind open and understand what you guys are talking about. I'll assume the answer is yes. To what do you attribute the difference you hear in the analog signal that can be linked back to the software that delivers identical digital data?

 

Tim

 

[BEEMB]

 

Chris,

 

I know you're were only joking above re OS ... but what are you using most right now? - given your previous reports on your XP system when I recall you saying it was the best sound you'd heard - I even remember the build up to it!

 

Matt.

 

[audiozorro]

I assume the question is not limited to XXHighEnd. With all the bit perfect player software out there, iTunes on Mac, foobar2000, MediaMonkey, Amarra, Wavelab, JRivers, etc., what makes one sound superior to another? Is it timing or are there other factors involved? Can the fidelity of bit-perfect audio files be improved and still be bit-perfect? Why is it generally accepted that my Lynx AES16 card is capable of passing through bit-perfect digital data regardless of the available drivers, but with certain drivers the audio playback sounds superior?

 

Is it a case of superior implementation? Are we back to trying to explain so many things in music (like depth, soundstage, naturalness, transparency, presence, visceral impact, rhythm & pace, and focus) that we (or at least some of us) can hear but can't fully explain. Don't tell me I'm back to relying on my ears.

 

[tfarney]

If you're referring to my question, yes, zorro, it is most definitely about any "bit-perfect audio software and how one can hear a difference when the data is identical leaving the computer. And it is most definitely not about the many things in music that we can hear, but can't fully explain, because until the zeros and ones have passed through a DAC, there is no music. There is only data. And if the data is identical, well, I'm quite confused.

 

Tim

 

[BobH]

I think the discussion is based around what can happen to that digital data between it leaving the hard drive - as blocks of data - and being sent to planet dac - as an audio stream. Any number of things can be done to that data, whilst it remains data, and most of them will be voluntary - eq, volume, replaygain, whatever. The head-scratching comes about when it is suspected that our precious data is being got at despite our best efforts, and it is a 'got at' we don't like!

 

On my little netbook I get a much clearer final sound by making sure that the Windows volume control does not get loaded. Conventional wisdom says that all I need to do is make sure it is at 100% and it won't matter, which is what I was doing. When I discovered I could stop the pesky thing from even being loaded up, things got a lot better. The logical, (not scientific!), conclusion for me to draw from that, is that the volume control is having an effect on the final sound, even though I was telling it not to get involved. Now it may just be that it is doing nothing more than attenuating the signal a tiny wee bit, and the improvement I hear is nothing more than a slight increase in volume. An effect I could replicate at the amp! The problem is we don't know for sure. Hence the headache. I think. Maybe.