Next step for better performance?

treitz3

Ok, you don't want to take some solid advice. That's cool.

How about this then? Go borrow a nice CDP from one of your friends and buy or borrow Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon". Hook it up to your system and hit play. Then play back the same thing in your I-Pod. Decide for yourself.

Your thought process without even trying it is detrimental to your advancement in this hobby. It's not all just about 1's and 0's. I wasn't kidding when I said that you can't make chicken soup out of chicken ****.

heiney9

treitz3 wrote: »

Man, I'll be honest with you. Save up for a used universal player and go start purchasing some physical media. You'd be amazed at how good your rig can sound with an awesome SACD. You can't make chicken soup out of chicken ****.

I agree, but digital delivery via lossless if done right sounds no different than physical media. SACD is a different animal. The key to lossless file delivery is doing it correctly from the 1st step to the last step. The way the OP is doing it, is about as poor as it can get unless one is using MP3's which would be worse.

1's and 0's are not all the same.

H9

cokewithvanilla

concealer404 wrote: »

You're still "reading the media" with lossless files, too. No change there.

Yes, but what you gain is the ability to read in in advance, instead of on the fly. This allows music to be processed and stored in the ram. Better processing can be done if done in advance.

treitz3 wrote: »

Ok, you don't want to take some solid advice. That's cool.

How about this then? Go borrow a nice CDP from one of your friends and buy or borrow Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon". Hook it up to your system and hit play. Then play back the same thing in your I-Pod. Decide for yourself.

Your thought process without even trying it is detrimental to your advancement in this hobby. It's not all just about 1's and 0's. I wasn't kidding when I said that you can't make chicken soup out of chicken ****.

I don't mean to start an argument about CDP's vs digital media, and I am certainly gonna say you're right about the ipod. The only reason I'm using it right now is I am too lazy to move the computer. However, I don't agree with you about SACD. What makes SACD better than a computer with the same files (and properly setup http://www.cicsmemoryplayer.com/index.php?n=Main.HomePage#cPlay)?

concealer404

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

Yes, but what you gain is the ability to read in in advance, instead of on the fly. This allows music to be processed and stored in the ram. Better processing can be done if done in advance.

Yuck.

So you want it to pass through 3 mediums before it even hits the DAC?

heiney9

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

Yes, but what you gain is the ability to read in in advance, instead of on the fly. This allows music to be processed and stored in the ram. Better processing can be done if done in advance.

Nope not true at all.

SACD does have the capability to sound better than redbook files. So again your preconceived notions are all way off base.

cokewithvanilla

concealer404 wrote: »

Yuck.

So you want it to pass through 3 mediums before it even hits the DAC?

I could be totally missing something, but as long as your passing a digital file bit by bit, why would that matter?

cokewithvanilla

heiney9 wrote: »

Nope not true at all.

SACD does have the capability to sound better than redbook files. So again your preconceived notions are all way off base.

But then aren't you comparing two different files? If all things are equal, same files on the SACD as on the computer, and done correctly, shouldn't it sound the same?

What am I missing?

Edit: also, wouldn't it lack read errors? when you rip a cd, it can be read and verified as many times as you want... but on the fly, you've only got one chance.

heiney9

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

But then aren't you comparing two different files? If all things are equal, same files on the SACD as on the computer, and done correctly, shouldn't it sound the same?

What am I missing?

The fact that SACD has higher resolution and I don't know of any outboard dac or soundcard that can decode the SACD bit stream. I also don't know of any SACD's and redbook cd's that have exactly the same information on them. Usually, not always, the SACD track is mastered differently to take advantage of the higher resolution, etc. But there are some SACD recordings that sound the same or worse than a redbook version. With ANY recorded music you are at the mercy of the producer and engineer as to what the final product sounds like irregardless of the medium used.

H9

heiney9

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

Edit: also, wouldn't it lack read errors? when you rip a cd, it can be read and verified as many times as you want... but on the fly, you've only got one chance.

Nope, where are getting all this mis-information from?

cokewithvanilla

heiney9 wrote: »

Nope, where are getting all this mis-information from?

.... educate me... when I put a cd in my computer and tell it to do 9 passes and a verification, it doesn't actually do that?

edit: we're getting off topic. I wouldn't ever buy SACD's anyhow i'd lose em, damage them, ect... besides, something about having my library of music all in one place makes it worth a slight decrease in quality (besides, repurchasing all of my music is certainly not a quick and easy solution, if I could even find it all on SACD)

heiney9

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

.... educate me... when I put a cd in my computer and tell it to do 9 passes and a verification, it doesn't actually do that?

And what about when you send that info out to be heard over your stereo? You can rip things absolutley perfectly, just like a cd can be pressed absolutley perfectly.............it's at the extraction and conversion stages all the problems can and do begin.

I thought that's waht you were referring to all this time. It's easy to make a nice perfect rip to a HD but that's not where the issues are.

H9

cokewithvanilla

heiney9 wrote: »

And what about when you send that info out to be heard over your stereo? You can rip things absolutley perfectly, just like a cd can be pressed absolutley perfectly.............it's at the extraction and conversion stages all the problems can and do begin.

I thought that's waht you were referring to all this time. It's easy to make a nice perfect rip to a HD but that's not where the issues are.

H9

Ah. I was referring only to the read process. Am I right in assuming you will have less errors if done by a PC with verification than done by a CDP? Then, I must also assume, from what you are saying, that that is the least of my worries.

Isn't it possible to get all the way to the DAC with bit perfect quality?

heiney9

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

Ah. I was referring only to the read process. Am I right in assuming you will have less errors if done by a PC with verification than done by a CDP? Then, I must also assume, from what you are saying, that that is the least of my worries.

Nope, and in fact, unless one is careful like you seem to be with ripping, it can actually be worse on a computer.

What "errors" are you referring to that are going to be reduced by using a PC vs. a cdp?

Read up on this, this is the standard for which all cdp's use:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed%E2%80%93Solomon_error_correction

H9

dhart86

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

My preamp does not have a digital in, wouldn't I need this?

yes you would need a digital input on your pre-amp

cokewithvanilla

dhart86 wrote: »

yes you would need a digital input on your pre-amp

Ah.. back to the DAC

H9 - that seems pretty technical ... I was simply referring to the "eh-eh-eh" sounds I've gotten from time to time out of every CD/DVD player I've ever owned, then extrapolating that this must have other, smaller effects. As well as the concept of 'jitter' that seems to be discussed whenever CD's are mentioned. Do I know anything about the latest technology of CDP's? Nope. But do I think that eliminating rotating media seems logical, yep :P It just seems logical to assume that you *can* achieve better sound without rotating media, and the same audio file.

If am correct, IDK, just observations... and my opinions

dhart86

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

My preamp does not have a digital in, wouldn't I need this?

How do you connect your source to listen to audio thru your system. DAC / sound card (audiophile quality) could be had for approx $80

heiney9

dhart86 wrote: »

(audiophile quality) could be had for approx $80

Not hardly, but then we all define audiophile quality differently.;)

cokewithvanilla

heiney9 wrote: »

Not hardly, but then we all define audiophile quality differently.;)

Hah. What would you recommend? You know my equipment.. what would be a DAC that matches the quality>?

heiney9

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

Ah.. back to the DAC

H9 - that seems pretty technical ... I was simply referring to the "eh-eh-eh" sounds I've gotten from time to time out of every CD/DVD player I've ever owned, then extrapolating that this must have other, smaller effects. As well as the concept of 'jitter' that seems to be discussed whenever CD's are mentioned. Do I know anything about the latest technology of CDP's? Nope. But do I think that eliminating rotating media seems logical, yep :P It just seems logical to assume that you *can* achieve better sound without rotating media, and the same audio file.

If am correct, IDK, just observations... and my opinions

I have no idea what you're talking about ("eh-eh-eh") that's a software issue not hardware if it happens on more than one cdp. Jitter is present in the same forms whether you use a cdp or computer.

Eliminating rotating media???? Makes no sense at all, your HD rotates unless it's solid state.

Nope the sound out of a computer does not achieve better sound. 99.9% of the issues are during the conversion from digital to analog.

H9

cokewithvanilla

heiney9 wrote: »

Eliminating rotating media???? Makes no sense at all, your HD rotates unless it's solid state.

Nope the sound out of a computer does not achieve better sound. 99.9% of the issues are during the conversion from digital to analog.

H9

or loaded to the ram.

So, then, doesn't the DAC do the rest? Everything is digital until it hits the dac, so if you have an outboard dac, you can't really fault the computer for poor quality?? right??

edit: the sound I refer to can be easily duplicated by taking your keys and scratching the bottom of the CD.

heiney9

How does it get to the RAM? A cdp uses a buffer which serves the same process as RAM. Really until you get a better grasp on how this process works you can't make these wild assumptions you are making.

None of your logic is remotely factual. You just have to get your learn on like the rest of us. The scope of this subject is huge and can't be learned in a few condensed links.

The analog portion of the dac is the single most important part of the process to get the most accurate sound whether you use a cdp or computer.

H9

tonyb

heiney9 wrote: »

Not hardly, but then we all define audiophile quality differently.;)

Exactly !!!

I think it's entirely possible to get good sound from a computer,great sound is another story. Ripping 1's and 0's on a computer is one thing,it's the extraction process people don't seem to understand. In the end,everything is converted to analog,regardless of the media. The OP wants better SQ from his ripped music,cool, he's been offered lots of ways to do it. For me,it's more so in the quality of the recording itself,lots of music today and yesterday have such poor quality. There's just soo much more to extracting the info from a disc or a computer than just 1's and 0's.

cokewithvanilla

I get what you're saying. I know a CDP has a buffer, but I am still wondering what advantage it has over digital media. If the cd is scratched, you get poor quality, if the file is corrupted on the HD, you get poor quality... it keeps coming back to the DAC being the most important part (according to you, and the DAC is not in the CPD or computer, in this case)... so, what I am asking is, why is a computer any worse of a source than a CDP?

A dac is what I need, I am totally aware... what matches my equipment?

heiney9

Of couse the DAC is in the cdp, how else would you listen to 1's and 0's? I never said there was no dac in the cdp. I was assuming based on your posts you were looking to get an outboard, stand alone dac.

cokewithvanilla

heiney9 wrote: »

Of couse the DAC is in the cdp, how else would you listen to 1's and 0's?

lol.. guess I haven't owned a CDP in a while.... they don't have digital outs? I was assuming CDP>DAC>PRE vs COMP>DAC>PRE

yep, and I am wanting a dac. So what would you recommend that would match my gear? People have posted under a hundred to over a thousand... I don't really know how to tell the difference in any case, or how to match my gear.

tonyb

Analog output stage and build quality of such plays into it....alot.

zingo

I'm going to jump back a ways fellas and suggest that if you want to go the PC route, it can sounds really good and I think I have mine dialed in well currently. A good DAC is a key to a good PC music rig, and mine was only $300. I also am running optical and I feel it's the best way to go when running a PC to minimize noise.

However, the original suggestion of a universal player is also a good one as it sounds like the OP is interested in music and movies. Getting a good DVD player that has been designed for music and movies can solve a lot of problems, and allows both to be great. SACD do sound good, but a great regular CD source can also sound great and I keep toggling back and forth between the two these days.

cokewithvanilla

zingo wrote: »

I'm going to jump back a ways fellas and suggest that if you want to go the PC route, it can sounds really good and I think I have mine dialed in well currently. A good DAC is a key to a good PC music rig, and mine was only $300. I also am running optical and I feel it's the best way to go when running a PC to minimize noise.

However, the original suggestion of a universal player is also a good one as it sounds like the OP is interested in music and movies. Getting a good DVD player that has been designed for music and movies can solve a lot of problems, and allows both to be great. SACD do sound good, but a great regular CD source can also sound great and I keep toggling back and forth between the two these days.

What dac do you have?

I'm gonna drop the idea of movies for now. anyhow, I would never consider a universal player simply because I do not own, or ever intend to own, any physical media. All my movies are on my computer, as well as all my music. May sound dumb, but it's what I prefer. I would probably be best served by having the computer convert the DTS or DD into 2 channel ... maybe not the best SQ, but my system isn't the best either.

I think I should focus on the DAC... this would make it so I can use all my computers, and if I get some sort of Ipod transport, I could use that as well. I just need to find something that is very cheap, due to me not having a job and all that

zingo

My lossless music files -> toslink sound card -> mini-i DAC -> tube amplifier system keeps up with Primare CDP source just fine; the sound quality isn't quite as good, but almost there and way better than my original iPod based system. Higher than 44.1kHz/16bit files are available for many sources now online, and can sound just as good or better than SACDs, although the same content usually is not available on both formats (i.e. popular music usually come in SACD form over hi-res digital files).





Matrix "mini-i" Balanced DAC

cokewithvanilla

Does the volume control on the dac have any effect on the sound?