Barriers to Computer Audio

[gmgraves]

Over the past few months I've been researching computer audio to learn more about the topic in preparation to acquire the necessary components, e.g., software and hardware, for an audiophile quality computer audio system. One of the recurring themes I discovered as I conducted my research on this and other web sites and at Best Buy, hi fidelity audio stores, and other sources, etc., is the amount of divergent, conflicting and confusing information regarding high resolution computer audio. What software to use, what type of storage to use, hardware requirements, connectivity, etc. This may explain why computer audio as a consumer phenomenon has been slow to catch on - it's currently too confusing. Mac or PC, J.D. Rivers, D.B. Power Amp, I-Tunes, DACs, NAS, SSD, USB, SP/DIF, Ethernet. This is the tip of the iceberg.

 

The analogy I like to use is buying a basic stereo system to play records: you need a receiver or separate components, a turntable, a cartridge, interconnects and speakers. Sure the cost and quality varies depending on how much you have to spend but at least you know what you need. Somehow this decision making process needs to be simplified and standardized so that the average consumer is able to make informed choices regarding audiophile quality computer sound. And it needs to be much easier to set up. Currently one needs to be a computer whiz or electrical engineer to put together a computer system to download and play computer files and stream music from various web sites. Make it easier and the consumer will buy it.

 

As for me, I will sort it out but it will take some additional time and, even then I may not end up with the optimal system, but I will persevere. By the way, I have been audio enthusiast for many, many years and have a graduate degree in Finance. I think what we need is a step by step approach that provides examples of computer audio systems at various price points, e.g., what hardware, software, storage mechanism, file formats, interconnects, etc. Some of you may think this information is readily available but I can tell you that most of these examples assume a level of knowledge well beyond someone who is just starting to consider computer audio, e.g., the average consumer. I would be interested in others comments.

 

 

Well, it's early days yet. Eventually all of this will settle out and there will be many affordable solutions that will make this endeavor virtually as simple as buying a "record player" or probably a better analogy; buying a CD player. There are some such solutions out there now, but they are still relatively primitive and pretty expensive. The way I see it computer audio is a bit of a paradox, similar to playing a guitar. A guitar is an easy instrument to play as long you just want to noodle around. It's the easiest thing in the world for a kid to pick-up an inexpensive electric guitar and learn a few rock chords and be able to grind-out Smoke on the Water, but if one wants to proficiently play Recuerdos de la Alhambra by Tarrega, for instance, it will take many years of study and practice. Likewise, it's easy for a non-audiophile to download music into one's iTunes and transfer it to their iDevice or to buy any of the dozens of portable players now supporting 24/96 and higher. All you need is a laptop or tablet and the player. But, if you want to get the best sound quality possible from those hi-res downloads, it takes a lot of not inexpensive gear and some expertise to put together a proper system, and that system is fraught with pitfalls. Many a time I've lashed-up a USB network of components (Windows laptop to USB power supply (Ifi iUSB or Schiit Wyrd) to USB-to-SPDIF converter to DAC) and have the thing inexplicably simply not work! Sometimes the USB driver on the Win laptop refuses to load for some reason, or the resultant sound "motorboats" for some unknown reason, or more likely, I get no sound at all. Hours of dinking with the thing might finally get it to work and the 24/192 file I was trying to play suddenly springs forth in all its glory, and I think "got it knocked!" only to find that the next time I fire the system up, it's stopped working again. Computer audio can be digital voodoo and it can be very frustrating.

 

To believe that computer audio download sites exist to service the audiophile market would be a mistake. The market exists because of those casual listeners who just download the music and play it through their cell phones, tablets and dedicated music players. Audiophile quality computer music is a niche market within a niche market and a clear path to successful implementation of a high-end computer music system is yet to exist.

[gmgraves]

Yes, but I agree on the avoid USB bit if you can. If you are starting from scratch why not skip the USB pain and expense many have gone through. USB was never meant for audio.

 

+1 to that, brother!

[gmgraves]

Thank you for all of the responses. I think you can appreciate my confusion based on the diversity of opinions in the responses above, but there is really a lot of helpful information in the responses and it is much appreciated.. I have spent a lot of time on this site and will continue to study the information contained herein. I don't really have a set budget at this point but am willing to spend what is necessary to obtain high resolution audio through my stereo system.

 

Here are my thoughts so far: I plan to use a PC (perhaps a laptop) with Windows 10 most likely. I will use J Rivers Media Center for playback and file management purposes. I plan to store the downloads and ripped CD's as FLAC files. For storage purposes I plan to buy a 4 to 6 terabyte hard drive and connect to the laptop using an ethernet connection. For ripping CD's I will likely use D.B. Poweramp. In my current system already which is a combination 2 channel stereo and home theater, I have an OPPO BDP-95 CD player and a Marantz 7055 AV Pre-Pro. For the pure stereo mode, I'm using a Parasound JC-2 pre-amp running through 2 McIntosh 501's into Legacy Focus SE speakers.

 

For now I would like to use the OPPO as my DAC until I conduct some additional research and buy a DAC for converting files to audio into the stereo system and for streaming from Pandora, internet radio, etc. Remaining questions include which type of connection should I use from the hard drive to the computer and from the computer to the OPPO or DAC to optimize the sound? Am I on the right track so far and what is it I'm missing. I would also consider a solution that combined all of these into one device such as was mentioned above. Thanks for all of the information so far.

 

 

I think that will work satisfactorily. Pretty decent plan all told.

[gmgraves]

It all depends on whether you wish to have a Computer specially for Audio or a general purpose PC.

I use a W8/64 PC because I am able to fit additional PC cards such as an Asus Xonar card for both playing and recording, as well as readily install additional SSDs or HDDs for internal storage, and readily fit additional RAM.

I have nothing but trouble using USB with external HDD storage such as a WD Elements, which is often not recognised , or disappears completely.

As I also use my P.C. for downloading Videos etc.I am also able to use a Video card such as this http://www.mwave.com.au/product/gigabyte-geforce-210-silent-1gb-video-card-aa77606?gclid=CKyz6duevMkCFVgRvQodPA4Msg#detailTabs=tabOverview

which uses CUDA technology to markedly improve processing times when using additional Filters.

This makes it easier to view downloaded /ripped video and audio through my TV and main listening system.

 

A cheap USB output computer could also be used with a good USB to SPDIF converter to avoid the need for expensive aftermarket USB cables, special PSUs etc. At present, most affordable DACs use cheap generic USB inputs added more as an afterthought.

 

 

"I have nothing but trouble using USB with external HDD storage such as a WD Elements, which is often not recognised, or disappears completely."

 

And here I thought I was the only one! I have endless problems with USB connected HDDs and USB audio on the Toshiba Laptop (Win7) that I use for a computer music server. In my office I have a Mac with a DragonFly feeding my desktop system, and I never have any USB problems. The USB audio feed is as reliable as the morning sunrise, I can always count on it, and every external USB HDD (and I have three of them connected all the time) always mounts and dismounts instantly and reliably. Being that Macs and PCs are architecturally virtually identical (same processors and chip sets including USB controllers) I have to wonder what MS is doing wrong to make their USB implementation so "iffy".

[gmgraves]

Sorry, what is DragonFly?

 

You ARE an audiophile, and you don't know what a DragonFly is?

 

USB Digital Analog Converter

[gmgraves]

Sorry but I don't quite understand why USB is not meant for audio, I thought it was just an interface like toslink and so many others. Imho, the new usb type C is on its way to become the new standard on all usages being smaller, faster, reversible...

 

It wasn't designed for audio, it was designed for keyboards and mice, and possibly storage devices, printer interfaces and scanners. Because of the way it works, it is not really suited for continuous streaming applications because the computer can interrupt the stream for what it considers "higher priority" interrupts. So the downstream music processing devices such as DACs must be designed to take charge of the propriatizing of data in order not to interrupt the music stream. This is not ideal, and in some instances specific drivers must be written for each DAC used (MS Windows). It can work, and can be made to work quite well, but it's easier to use an interface more suited to audio such as optical or coaxial SPDIF or FireWire which has faster continuous throughput and was designed for audio and video.

[gmgraves]

Have you ever gotten dropouts in the music using wireless?

 

 

Yes, occasionally

[gmgraves]

It's killing me to know what everyone is doing that has wireless so unreliable. I don't remember a single drop out due to wireless in the last 5-6 years ever. One weekends I easily stream 20GB of audio over the wireless.

 

Wireless is brain dead simple to setup and be reliable and I'm doing it with vanilla hardware. The most expensive piece is a Dlink POE AP that cost me $80 and is N300.

 

Also what is this with data corruption? You rip your music to the NAS once. You read many times. It's just a read operation. DATA CANNOT be corrupted by a failed read operation.

 

 

OK, lemme make something perfectly clear. I have occasionally had dropouts in audio, almost entirely from streaming sources, but I never said or intimated that the problem was with my WiFi setup. I stream Netflixs and have never had a glitch or a dropout of a screen freeze (Like I used to get with ADSL). My WiFi is 100% reliable as far as I know. The question I answered from Jud was: "Have you ever gotten dropouts in the music using wireless?" And my answer was yes, occasionally. No mention of where in the chain the dropouts have occurred was made.

[gmgraves]

Be very careful with that 3TB Seagate drive. (I have one too; picked it up at Costco cheap.) The failure rate is very high.

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f7-disk-storage-music-library-storage/hard-disc-reliability-part-ii-23149/

 

 

I wonder why 3TB Seagates are so unreliable, while the Seagate 4TB seem to be among the more reliable of all the HDDs listed in the chart? That seems very strange to me.

[gmgraves]

And how do you best get theses interfaces from computer to DAC? IMO firewire is pretty much dead, so what are you using to connect to your computer?

 

I never said that I didn't use Firewire, I was merely answering the question about why people were saying that USB isn't great for audio. If I had a Mac Mini as my directly connected computer music source, I would, without a doubt, use Toslink (optical), but I use a Windows laptop for that chore and the only I/O on that computer even remotely suitable for direct connection to my DAC is USB. It's troublesome and not very reliable and requires a driver from the DAC manufacturer, but there it is. Increasingly, I'm using WiFi to stream my 24/96 music files (and my iTunes rips) from my Mac directly to my Logitech Squeezebox Touch and then to my DAC via Toslink. It's much more reliable than the Win laptop. If I didn't have a bunch of 24/192 files to which I like to listen, I would retire the laptop from audio duty altogether.

[gmgraves]

And how do you best get theses interfaces from computer to DAC? IMO firewire is pretty much dead, so what are you using to connect to your computer?

 

 

As for FireWire (IEEE-1394), you are right, it is pretty much dead in the personal computer market, but it is very much alive in pro audio and video. USB needs a work-around called Asynchronous USB Steamlength™ technology transfer protocol designed by Gordon Rankin of Wavelength Audio or something similar to work with high-res audio. Because it is normally a host/client protocol whereby the client (in our case the DAC) never "speaks" to the host (the computer) unless the host requests it. This is not good for continuous data streaming because the host can interrupt the stream at any time for house-keeping duties or for other signals that the host considers a higher priority. With a FireWire network, OTOH, any capable node can control the network (I.E. be the host). IOW, in a Firewire connected DAC, the DAC can without any extra hardware or software tell the computer to switch from burst mode to continuous transfer mode, which is what one would want for both high-resolution audio and video. Although both USB 2.0 and Firewire 400, have the same theoretical maximum transfer rate, Firewire is actually faster than USB in the asynchronous or streaming transfer mode (as in high-resolution) audio. While I understand that USB 3.1 addresses many of USB 2.0's shortcomings (it is definitely faster at 5.0 GB/s and 3.1 is even faster still at 10.0 Gbs!) and even allows for device initiated communications, which should obsolete Firewire completely, but for some reason, even though 3.0 has been around since 2010, it has been slow to be adopted by DAC makers and other audio peripheral devices.

 

I went back and tried to add this to my last post when I realized that I posted it before commenting on your Firewire observation, but before I finished writing it, my 1/2 hour editing window had expired, so I had to make a new post

[gmgraves]

And how do you best get theses interfaces from computer to DAC? IMO firewire is pretty much dead, so what are you using to connect to your computer?

 

 

As for FireWire (IEEE-1394), you are right, it is pretty much dead in the personal computer market, but it is very much alive in pro audio and video. USB needs a work-around called Asynchronous USB Steamlength™ technology transfer protocol designed by Gordon Rankin of Wavelength Audio or something similar to work with high-res audio. Because it is normally a host/client protocol whereby the client (in our case the DAC) never "speaks" to the host (the computer) unless the host requests it. This is not good for continuous data streaming because the host can interrupt the stream at any time for house-keeping duties or for other signals that the host considers a higher priority. With a FireWire network, OTOH, any capable node can control the network (I.E. be the host). IOW, in a Firewire connected DAC, the DAC can without any extra hardware or software tell the computer to switch from burst mode to continuous transfer mode, which is what one would want for both high-resolution audio and video. Although both USB 2.0 and Firewire 400, have the same theoretical maximum transfer rate, Firewire is actually faster than USB in the asynchronous or streaming transfer mode (as in high-resolution) audio. While I understand that USB 3.1 addresses many of USB 2.0's shortcomings (it is definitely faster at 5.0 GB/s and 3.1 is even faster still at 10.0 Gbs!) and even allows for device initiated communications, which should obsolete Firewire completely, but for some reason, even though 3.0 has been around since 2010, it has been slow to be adopted by DAC makers and other audio peripheral devices.

 

I went back and tried to add this to my last post when I realized that I posted it before commenting on your Firewire observation, but before I finished writing it, my 1/2 hour editing window had expired, so I had to make a new post

[gmgraves]

Thanks for your patience. Mostly analog up to this point.

 

That explains it. It's just that DragonFly DACs are so famous and have had so much press in the last 3-4 years that I was surprised (taken aback, actually) that anyone interested in audio enough to post to a forum called "Computer Audiophile" could have possibly been unaware of the AudioQuest DragonFly. It's famous because it's both very good and cheap.

[gmgraves]

Assuming that it doesn't step up the USB voltage to a higher voltage , it will always have limitations driving many types of headphones with differing impedances.

Many higher quality headphone amplifiers use supply rails as high as + and -20V.

What are the odds, that like most other USB Audio devices, that it will also further benefit from the use of a USB Regen in line with it ?

 

Uh, I don't remember making any comments wrt its capability to drive headphones or its ability to benefit from further processing (BTW, I use mine with an iFi iUSB auxiliary power supply). I merely said that I was flabbergasted that someone who is posting to CA hadn't heard, by now, of the very famous AudioQuest DragonFly DAC and that it became famous because it was both cheap and very good (not perfect, mind you, just very good). Which of those statements are your comments disputing?

[gmgraves]

Actually, almost all current USB DACs sound better with their USB input than with the Coaxial or Optical inputs. (shrug) USB protocols and S/PDIF protocols are not that dissimilar.

 

Now, if you go back a few years, the Coaxial and Optical inputs routinely sounded better, but that is not true today. And that is without ruinously expensive USB cables too. $50-$100 for a USB cable puts most people into extraordinary sound.

 

 

I would only use SPDIF over USB because it's more reliable than USB over Windows (IMHO). But since I don't know of any Windows laptop that has optical SPDIF out (like Mac laptops do) that the issue is largely academic.

[gmgraves]

Exactly. Implementation, implementation, implementation, at both sending and receiving units.

 

 

By "source", I assumed he was talking about recording quality; 95% of which are garbage -in all genres!