Why does the computer matter?

[Miska]

Why not just wait for DACs with built-in SDHC cards up to 2TB? It may sound like the panacea but I'm sure they will be issues with these devices as well. There's no free lunch.

 

I would call that a computer with a built-in soundcard. With many of the same problems... Problems don't disappear by making a black-box solution.

 

And there are not such a huge problems, there's no reason why one couldn't use a set of high-speed fiber interconnects to interface sample stream from computer to a DAC in completely isolated way and without problems of S/PDIF.

 

And at least I see that computer playback gives much more possibilities due to vast quantity of inexpensive processing power, than it has problems. I see the role of computer much more than just a mere transport of digital data.

 

[1audio]

The Constellation Transport/Server connects to the Constellation DAC with essentially I2S over fiberoptic SC links. Its an effective if non-standard way to keep source noise away from the DAC.

 

[audiozorro]

So when will you release a Linux version of HQPlayer for consumers?

 

Personally I believe in having it all, so I don't have to choose. I can use whatever player sounds best (cMP/cPlay, XXHighEnd, HQPlayer) or whatever player is most convenient at the time (MediaMonkey, iTunes (Mac only)). I previously compared Amarra to Pure Vinyl and I preferred the latter. I still have to compare Pure Music and AyreWave to see which I prefer. I let the player determine which OS is best and what hardware is strongly recommended by the developer of the player.

 

I can say without a doubt that cMP/cPlay rules XP and XXHighEnd and HQPlayer rule Vista. I have yet to find the player with ultimate sonics under Win7 and I believe that the efficient Linux without any OS baggage has an inherent advantage though only the delivered sonics can confirm this belief. And though I still need to further explore solutions for my MacBook Pro, I feel comfortable in saying that Amarra, Pure Music and AyreWave rule Snow Leopard.

 

[ziggyzack]

I have indeed, on occasion, talked about network streamers :~)

 

I left USB out because it can be powered and people are particularly concerned about cables and isolation issues, but really not meaning to go there. So yes, for the sake of argument, USB too, why not. All I am trying to say is that primarily, I couldn't care less what connection is used, as long as clocked audio processing and analogue conversion are well isolated from the machinations of a personal computer.

 

Linn DS uses UPnP. It may also be DLNA compatible but I'm not sure.

 

I'm not sure integrating more components into a player would be better for SQ or anything else. I'm not talking about swings and roundabouts here, there are clearly compromises that go on by using mainstream pcs as audio devices. This is not to suggest that they can't be very good, but there are real products out there now which are designed from a clean sheet to be digital audio players. The free-lunch element comes in as there is less product choice, and you can't really tweak inside the player - not issues that bother me - but not from a design or architecture point of view, where they are clearly superior.

 

Suggesting that any system where the computer matters is like saying all amps sound the same and any amp where the tubes matter is flawed

 

I thoroughly disagree. Tubes are designed and tested as audio components to an audio spec, running in an amp designed to audio spec. Conversely, there are god knows how many millions of lines of code running the OS in a PC of any flavour, over which you have control of relatively few, not to mention the stuff going on in all the other subsystems in a PC.

 

ZZ

 

[cfmsp]

"from a design or architecture point of view, where they are clearly superior."

 

Ziggy,

 

Can you share your evidence here, as opposed to just (repeating) your opinions about all that (you claim) is 'wrong' with using a computer to send data to a DAC?

 

As far as I'm concerned, the only way to ascertain whether an architecture is superior (to another) is to compare products made with the architectures in question - on a comparative cost basis. The reason comparable cost is important is that any competent digital designer should be able to out perform a different 'design' architecture given more money (i.e. look at dCS).

 

You seem to believe that just becuase audiophiles are fiddling around with stuff on their computer that this is enough proof that your proposed architecture is superior.

 

 

As Chris has asked, why not share the negatives of the streaming approach? You'd come across less like a blind evangelist that way.

 

Elp has posted here that people on the Linn forum are suggesting that the NAS, the router, and the cables can likewise affect the sound when using streamers. To paraphrase you, "that's not exactly a vote of confidence".

 

 

Please name the players that meet your design approach that are soundwise "CLEARLY SUPERIOR" (your words, not mine) to either Async Firewire or Async USB Dacs for the same relative cost.

 

{note: I mention Async Firewire/USB as they are my (and others) current preferred design approach, and they seem to meet your criteria, i.e. "I couldn't care less what connection is used, as long as clocked audio processing and analogue conversion are well isolated from the machinations of a personal computer."]

 

If the architecture (you propose) is clearly superior, designers should be proving that in their products.

 

 

best,

clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[barrows]

Clay. I am a little confused by Ziggy's posts. It appears to me that any asynchronous interface (be it USB, Firewire, or ethernet) as currently implemented, meets his criteria: no clocking in the computer. As you mention , Linn users are finding out that tweaking the system does make a difference. PS Audio PerfectWave DAC/Bridge users are finding out the same thing. And despite the seemingly massive data throughput of ethernet, only properly sorted systems of this type are capable of consistently playing 24/192 files: just like USB and Firewire!

I am big fan of the ethernet streaming approach, but it clearly is not a panacea, it has its foibles just like every other approach. To me, we are dealing with a situation where: "everything matters", even when we do not understand why. As in all things high end audio, there will be those who feel the need to tweak, in order to get that last 1% of performance-as an example, a SSD in the serving computer (in a USB/Firewire) system is clearly not a necessity to get great sound, it is a tweak, that in some cases may improve the performance incrementally. I am sure there will be those audiophiles who set up ethernet streaming systems with SSDs for every drive on the network, and I am equally sure that those same audiophiles will report small sonic improvements from doing so. Perhaps these audiophiles will soon be demanding $1000.00 per meter etherent cables, made from Mundorf Silver/Gold wire, and reporting more improvements!

 

[cfmsp]

 

very well said, indeed, I wish I'd said it myself!

 

cheers,

clay

 

 

[audioengr]

I recently was approached by a company "Mach2 music" to try their modified Mac Mini. I was skeptical about the advertised improvement, but I gave it a try at RMAF on Saturday night and ended-up using the Mach2 Mini on Sunday at the show. It was definitely better than my stock Mac Mini. We used the same identical Amarra player version and tracks. My USB is also async 192, so I didnt expect any improvement, just like with USB cables which dont make any difference.

 

The problem with this device is that there are so many things changed that it is diffficult to put your finger on what is the silver bullet. They turn-off most non-critical applications, use a SSD, write scripts for the player S/W and other things. I dont believe the difference is jitter in my system, although it undoubtedly reduces USB jitter. You can read more about it here:

 

http://www.mach2music.com/

 

Steve N.

Empirical Audio

 

[dmccombs]

Steve,

 

It was great getting to work with you at RMAF. Man you all had a great sounding room. What a great time...

 

I wish there was a silver bullet for making the computer sound great. Then we would have to do just one thing. That would be sweeett... ;-)

 

Instead, like you said, we work from several different angles to improve the sound of the MacMini. Hardware can help, our proprietary software mods greatly help, the scripts help, turning off unused applications/processes help.

 

Some of the things we found are logical. Some aren't so we do a lot of A/B sound tests to determine what goes in our set up.

 

Like any CD or Preamp, the Computers can benefit from better power cables, isolation, and emi protection. Weird eh?

 

Darrell

Mach2 Music

 

[ziggyzack]

As Chris has asked, why not share the negatives of the streaming approach? You'd come across less like a blind evangelist that way.

 

Clay, again, I'm not talking about 'the streaming approach'.

 

despite the seemingly massive data throughput of ethernet, only properly sorted systems of this type are capable of consistently playing 24/192 files: just like USB and Firewire!

 

Barrows, the entire Linn DS range are examples of such properly sorted systems. Naim in their wisdom seem to have launched their network players with only 24/96 capability. Whatever the reason, it's not a limitation of ethernet. The PS Audio plays 24/192 over ethernet.

 

Look, of course there are Linn and PS Audio users who tweak the wrong bits and pieces and attribute sonic differences to improbable causes. Some people think accurate rips from the original pressings of CDs sound more lively. Bless them, but thankfully they wouldn't know where to start if they had to design a player. The point is, with a purpose designed player, you have engineers who are on top of the design and its measurable, audio-related properties. So when an enquiry is made by a Linn forum member like this:

 

From conversations with engineers designing streaming solutions, it has been brought to my attention that the conversion from FLAC (or any other compressed format) to an uncompressed format may cause a ripple in the power supply due to the extra processing demand. This is a possible cause for noise/jitter. While rockfather does say that the timing comes from the internal clock, it is entirely possible that the internal clock is affected by the above.

 

You get a response from a Linn engineer like this:

 

We have done extensive measurements on power supply disturbance recently, and have compared results for both FLAC and WAV streaming. Our findings are as follows :

 

1. If we measure the power rail that feeds the main processor in the DS we can clearly see identifiable disturbance patterns due to audio decoding and network activity. These patterns do look different for WAV and FLAC - WAV shows more clearly defined peaks due to regular network activity and processing, while FLAC shows more broadband disturbance due to increased (but more random) processor activity.

 

2. If we measure the power rails that feed the audio clock and the DAC we see no evidence of any processor related disturbances. There is no measurable difference (down to a noise floor measured in micro-volts) between FLAC and WAV in any of the audio power rails.

 

3. Highly accurate measurements of clock jitter and audio distortion/noise also show no difference between WAV and FLAC.

 

The extensive filtering, multi-layered regulation, and careful circuit layout in the DS ensure that there is in excess of 60dB of attenuation across the audio band between the main digital supply, and the supplies that feed the DAC and the audio clock. Further, the audio components themselves add an additional degree of attenuation between their power supply and their output. Direct and indirect measurements confirm that there is no detectable interaction between processor load and audio performance.

 

Now please, forget the flac/wav subject matter of the original post. The point is that a PC starts out being designed as a PC, and that must put it at a disadvantage from a design point of view vs a bespoke player. I don't think that's a controversial statement to make, you'd have to be pretty bloody-minded to disagree. This is not to say that PCs can't sound very good indeed, as I have been at pains to say, but the absolute fact remains: by definition, they are not ideal. Like touring cars losing the electric windows of their donor car to save weight, vs Formula 1. The advantages of purpose-built shouldn't really have to be enumerated.

 

This is all in the context of having clocked digital audio and analogue conversion going on inside the PC. If you can get un-OS-molested music data out of the PC, then use two cans and a piece of string for all I care. But if you are doing that, then I really do not understand why PC tweaks should be necessary.

 

ZZ

 

[barrows]

It sounds like we are in agreement. I do know that PS audio customers are sometimes having some difficulties getting 24/192 to work flawlessly. I equate these difficulties as being similar to the difficulties some people have with getting 24/192 Async USB DACs to work flawlessly: the problems are not with the players themselves (in the ethernet case, the PS Audio hardware) but in perpheral network gear which does not really meet is proper spec. The same kinds of problems apply to both approaches: ie with USB, computers which do not actullay fully comply with USB2 (all windows PCs) eventhough they say they are USB2, or USB ports which are shared by other devices.

In any case, I believe that either approach can work flawlessly, with excellent sound, with all data rates, and the audiophile should choose the system approach that better serves their needs. Due to my special circumstances, using an async USB approach, with a dedicated laptop on my rack, is the best answer for me, and when properly configured I would argue that there is no compromise with this approach vs an ethernet based interface. But I do recommend the PS PerfectWave and Bridge, and the Linn Klimax players, to many people.

 

[Miska]

This is all in the context of having clocked digital audio and analogue conversion going on inside the PC.

 

I think ASUS Essence STX has demonstrated quite well what is possible to achieve at very reasonable cost within a computer. (just look at the Stereophile measurements)

 

And naturally there are bunch of others.

 

And already something like ten years ago M-Audio Delta1010 achieved quite good performance (at that time) at reasonable cost with combination of PCI-card and external converter box (powered from a separate power supply). 8 channels in and 8 channels out at 96/24. I was using this on Linux at the time.

 

Naturally if the entire device is within a PC and using PC's power supply, the performance cannot be generalized to cover all configurations. Mileage may vary.

 

 

[cfmsp]

nt

 

[cfmsp]

"The point is that a PC starts out being designed as a PC, and that must put it at a disadvantage from a design point of view vs a bespoke player. I don't think that's a controversial statement to make, you'd have to be pretty bloody-minded to disagree."

 

ZiggyZack, you've claimed that your proposed approach is CLEARLY SUPERIOR (your words, not mine), and yet you still fail to offer any evidence to support your claim.

 

"but the absolute fact remains: by definition, they are not ideal"

 

If meant to be evidence that your favored approach is clearly superior, that's laughable.

 

 

 

"Look, of course there are Linn and PS Audio users who tweak the wrong bits and pieces and attribute sonic differences to improbable causes."

 

You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth here. When computer users report tweaks that improve the sound in a manner that you can't understand (quote "then I really do not understand why PC tweaks should be necessary"), you claim there MUST be something wrong with that design approach (which seems to be your basis for believing that your proposed approach is superior), and yet when tweaks are reported to improve the sound in your favored approach, you say

"Look, of course there are Linn and PS Audio users who tweak the wrong bits and pieces and attribute sonic differences to improbable causes."

 

enjoy,

 

 

clay

 

 

[audiozorro]

I’ll put a cMP music server or a Mach2 music server against any bespoke player and I’m pretty confident I’ll win.

 

But if by chance I happen to lose the battle for superior sonics against some $10-50K bespoke player, it won’t be by much and I’m pretty sure that I’ll still have lots of money left in my pockets.

 

[cfmsp]

"...using an async USB approach, with a dedicated laptop on my rack, is the best answer for me, and when properly configured I would argue that there is no compromise with this approach vs an ethernet based interface."

 

Ditto for my use of a Firewire-based DAC.

 

 

cheers,

clay

 

[cfmsp]

 

In thinking about Scot's question - why does the computer matter? - another question popped into my head:

 

How did computers outperform CD Players and CD transports in the first instance (even before/without Async interfaces to DACs)?

 

Are they not able to offer bit-perfect data consistently?

 

Are they more highly jitter-prone?

 

Or something else?

 

clay

 

 

 

[barrows]

"How did computers outperform CD Players and CD transports in the first instance (even before/without Async interfaces to DACs)?"

 

They did not!

Good single box CD/Disc players outperform basic computer based systems. Only very well sorted computer based systems, running good software, and asynchronous (or asynchronously re-clocked) interfaces can outperform really good disc players. There is a prevalent myth in the land of computer audio regarding this-but it really appears that very few people have actually done the comparisons to excellent CD players. Until I got the Wavelink combined with Pure Music, none of the computer based systems I tried could clearly outperform my CD player, these systems include: optical output from MacBook, RME Fireface 400 used as firewire to SPDIF converter (or via its analog outputs), Sonicweld Diverter, USB input on PS Audio DL-III, and Centrance based USB input on PS Audio PerfectWave DAC.

I suspect this myth was propogated by people who did not own high quality CD/Disc players in the first place, as CD/disc players vary widely in performance.

 

 

 

[Audio_ELF]

@Clay...

I would suspect that the first "high end" computer playback came out of the studio when someone wondered why playback direct from the audio workstation was better than from the resultant disc playback. That combined with the convinience factor drove the computer as audio source forward.

 

@Barrows..

It all depends on your reference points. I would suggest that a Netbook fed to Arcam rDac using even iTunes (configured correctly for 16/44.1) would beat Arcam's entry level CD player (i.e. Price comparable) though I wouldn't expect such a setup to be beating high end CD Players. It all depends how end you expect the High End to be. Anything over £1,000 per box is stratospheric for most civilians! :-)

 

Eloise

 

[Purite Audio]

Barrows I did and continue to compare computer set ups to disc players, EMM labs XDS1 at the moment, it was hearing a Lavry 924 outclass my Meridian 808 that drew me into CA in the first place.

I agree that it is easier to obtain really high quality CA playback now as manufacturers understand the particular demands.

Keith.

 

[barrows]

You might be right re the rDAC. Although the power supply limitations make me doubt it.

As I said, and your "suggest(tion)" supports my view, many people seem to believe the prevalent myth of computer audio's general superiority without actually doing the comparison.

In any case, let me make clear my point of reference. The CD player I used for comparisons was the bel canto CD-1, this player originally retailed for $5,000 USD, but was actually discontinued by bel canto almost immediately upon its introduction, and the price reduced to $2500 USD, when bel canto shifted its line to the half width chassis model. for reference, I would put both of the Ayre players at a similar level in terms of sonic performance.

One of the myths surrounding computer playback is the "big" advantage of error correction during ripping (via re reading), vs error correction (via interpolated values) during CD playback. This advantage is actually really small, almost negligable, because actual read errors during CD playback are very rare (except with damaged discs)-Robert Harley has written about this quite a few times in TAS. The one other (perceived) disadvantage of CD players, is that the disc transport and its servo mechanism causes vibration and spurious electrical problems that find their way into the DAC and analog output sections-good CD palyers avoid these problems through power supply and vibration isolation, to the point where they are not real world issues (although, certainly these things are issues for lesser players).

 

Keith: I was not suggesting that no one did such comparisons, just that most did not, and blindly accpeted the "myth". Bear in my mind I am not suggesting that computer based systems cannot outperform traditional disc spinners, only that doing so requires a careful and considered approach, with considerable monetary investment.

 

[Miska]

One of the myths surrounding computer playback is the "big" advantage of error correction during ripping (via re reading), vs error correction (via interpolated values) during CD playback. This advantage is actually really small, almost negligable, because actual read errors during CD playback are very rare (except with damaged discs)-Robert Harley has written about this quite a few times in TAS.

 

It is also entirely possible and nice to play back CD's using a PC too. No need to RIP, encode, etc.

 

As an added bonus, one can apply all kinds of processing to the CD playback on-the-fly. Not that easily done with conventional CD-player or electronics.

 

And there are quite a bunch of recent "CD-players" that actually use a computer CD-ROM/DVD drive electronics instead of conventional CD-drive. There's a huge difference in how these work.

 

[Audio_ELF]

@barrows...

So if I've read / understood correctly you are saying that a $5000 (original retail) CD Player beats a $799 DAC (the PS Audio) fed with the Fireface? That's not price comparable which I'm sure I stated I was considering in my post.

 

My experience (I said suggest as others opinions to the relative merits may be different) says that a similar price computer setup can match (I shouldn't say beat) a similar CD player (at a modest level of kit) so long as you put a little thought into setting it up.

 

I used rDAC vs Arcam CDP, but other equal examples exist. I'd also say that ny current (very basic) setup is equal of a £500-£1000 CD players I've heard. I have compared the equipment I mentioned side by side but not at home. At the moment I'm not buying any new equipment. But I don't think computers make audio significantly cheaper which some people expect.

 

Eloise

 

[Windows X]

Tell me any music server that can beat the crap out of

 

Esoteric P-03/D-03/G-0Rb

 

If it's too much...maybe

 

Esoteric P-05/D-05/G-03x

 

I'm desperate to know one, seriously.

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

Barrows: "Good single box CD/Disc players outperform basic computer based systems. Only very well sorted computer based systems, running good software, and asynchronous (or asynchronously re-clocked) interfaces can outperform really good disc players." [emphasis mine]

 

This matches my experiences. There is a flexibility with computer audio which makes it far preferable, but sonically, computer audio is still routinely outclassed by dedicated digital playback.

 

It's all in the implementation.

 

I think you can get very nice sound out of a computer, don't get me wrong. And it's quite possible that a fully tweaked computer system (with or without a good intermediary, as needed) with a great DAC can sound "world-class". But do note that this is a category that has already been very well defined by CD and SACD players.

 

However, to say categorically that computer audio can, will, or even should outclass purpose-built systems designed and constructed solely for digital playback is, at best, an over indulgence in enthusiasm, but honestly, it's naive.

 

Sometimes, my Legato-BADA rig sounds as good as my Accuphase SACD player. But then I put some well-recorded SACDs in that Accuphase and the distance between the two widens. Good, well-recorded high-res on the Alpha brings them closer again. But is one "the best"?

 

Absolutely. The Alpha. But for ergonomic reasons if not for sonic ones.

 

I'm keeping both. And will probably upgrade both. If I'm lucky, I might be able to collapse the two into a single unit (wouldn't that be nice) but only if I'm still maintain the high level of performance I'm currently enjoying.