cd transport/dac vs computer/dac

heiney9

soundfreak1 wrote: »

direct in through routers direct wire anyway I want even could tether my phone however my future intention would be internet direct in from like say road runner. that would seem to allow me to download all my music say grooveshark or pandora as well as upload all my cds play them as well without having to go to the internet all the time..

You lost me here, upload cd's to where? Do you mean "rip" to a hard drive? If not, I don't know what you mean. Grooveshark and Pandora don't allow you to download music to keep.

soundfreak1 wrote: »

as far as the bluetooth dac goes it was dirt cheap works incredible sounds better than any cd player or dvd player I've ever owned with the caveat that my dvd and cd players are crap having said that I still know what sounds good and this damn thing sounds really good.
.

I can't imagine how poor your cdp and dvdp were then. Streaming compressed music over bluetooth shouldn't sound better.

soundfreak1 wrote: »

is building the server correctly. and I do emphasize correctly I should be able to have my cake and eat it too are you great streaming sound and full access to my cd's and downloaded music at potentially higher quality. it simply down to what specific devices do I need in the computer and picking out a outboard dac. I think therefore I am I think.

What format of music are you planning on downloading? FLAC files are expensive and MP3's stink as far as sound quality. Most streaming from music services like Grooveshark, Pandora, etc are not cd quality, pretty far away actually so if you think those sound great.............well then I guess you will be set. The SQB does all this.

H9

steveinaz

Realizing your setup is different from mine (I'm running a SQB Touch), when A/B'ing between my CD transport and the Touch, I couldn't detect any differences. FWIW, the transport was a CEC CD-3300. There are times when I think hard drive music sounds a little smoother...but this could be placebo at work. I ran both thru a Benchmark DAC, both using coaxial cable.

soundfreak1

yes I did mean rip cds to the hard drive far is what format obviously whichever 1 is best in available. and I do agree the grooveshark should not sound is good coming through this dac, but it does I don't know how it does but I do know that it does. so my fault was it has to be better coming to the computer properly configured. so I'm looking at that as an advantage as well as the access to the cds. and as long as I do the computer correctly it appears to be a win win situation for me. I just don't know where to start with the computer as far is which hard drive which media player which type of conetions are best between the computer. And the dac.

thsmith

soundfreak1 wrote: »

yes I did mean rip cds to the hard drive far is what format obviously whichever 1 is best in available. and I do agree the grooveshark should not sound is good coming through this dac, but it does I don't know how it does but I do know that it does. so my fault was it has to be better coming to the computer properly configured. so I'm looking at that as an advantage as well as the access to the cds. and as long as I do the computer correctly it appears to be a win win situation for me. I just don't know where to start with the computer as far is which hard drive which media player which type of conetions are best between the computer. And the dac.

Before you go hog wild you need to understand what you are in for. You can become a slave to the music server if you dont watch out. You seriously need to look at H9s recommndation with a SB.

It is a serious contender to a dedicated music server but do yourself a favor and get a good DAC.

steveinaz

Exactly, there's a lot to be said about simplicity and flexability. I rip my stuff via EAC using flac, to an external USB HDD.

heiney9

So based on the above post you aren't even considering the Squeezebox? You keep focusing on the computer, that's just part of it. There is a difference between setting up the computer for the SQB vs. using the computer as a streaming device and internet streaming device.

So you need to decide or atleast investigate, educate yourself. Like I said atleast 3 times now, the Squeezebox is going to be the easiest and most straight forward. If you don't want to do that, that's perfectly fine, but now you a little more complicated set-up as well as buying a dac.

Since you keep mentioning connections from the computer to the dac to the rig, then I will assume the Squeezebox is out of the running.

H9

heiney9

thsmith wrote: »

It is a serious contender to a dedicated music server but do yourself a favor and get a good DAC.

That can even wait for later. If compressed 128kbps music via smartphone thru an inexpensive bluetooth dac sounds great to him, the dac's in the SQB Touch will be more than enough to give him the good sound he is looking for.

H9

thsmith

heiney9 wrote: »

That can even wait for later. If compressed 128kbps music via smartphone thru an inexpensive bluetooth dac sounds great to him, the dac's in the SQB Touch will be more than enough to give him the good sound he is looking for.

H9

Good point and a nice saving in cash to boot.

soundfreak1

"what we have here is a failure to comunacate"

heiney9

soundfreak1 wrote: »

"what we have here is a failure to comunacate"

Lol

soundfreak1

sorry just couldn't help it. LOL. sometimes it's like asking the time a day and getting instructions on how to build a watch

steveinaz

Well, the simple straight truth is: Properly implemented, there should be no difference between computer audio vs an optical transport. All things being equal.

soundfreak1

Well steveinaz i like ypur choice of amps.

falconcry72

steveinaz wrote: »

Well, the simple straight truth is: Properly implemented, there should be no difference between computer audio vs an optical transport. All things being equal.

I don't know. I think the digital output sections of said devices makes a difference. Not a big difference, but a difference nonetheless;i.e., two different CD transports can sound different, even when using the same external DAC, because of varying qualities of digital output sections.

In my experience, the difference between different digital transports is minimal compared to the difference between DAC's and analog components.

steveinaz

But differences in transports become issues of "subjectivity" not objectivity. The digital signal is passed, with perfect integrity either way. If we start wading into areas of subjectivity then all bets are off. One guys "bright" is another guys "articulate." While 2 transports may sound different, that doesn't necessarily make one better than the other.

falconcry72

steveinaz wrote: »

...While 2 transports may sound different, that doesn't necessarily make one better than the other.

Agreed. I was just noting that there are differences.

BlueFox

Transports have read jitter. This is one of the areas manufacturers spend money on trying to reduce. So, a $20,000 CDP should have lower read jitter than a $200 CDP. If the digital out is sent to the same DAC then the odds are the $20,000 transport will sound better than the $200 transport.

steveinaz

And I quote again, "All things being equal." There are 10 million variables we can plug into the situation.

Both systems are capable of transmitting bits with perfect integrity, when properly implemented.

heiney9

Funny seeing that quote from someone (bluefox) that uses an iPod for a transport and has stated numerous times it sounds fantastic and just as good as a cd player. Anyone else find the humor in the irony of his post. ROTFLMAO

H9

FTGV

heiney9 wrote: »

I retract my absolute statement and will say most soundcards are inferior to USB....

H9

I'll disagree aleast in relation to the plethora of basic low rez, hi jitter adaptive mode USB recievers.

BlueFox

heiney9 wrote: »

Funny seeing that quote from someone (bluefox) that uses an iPod for a transport and has stated numerous times it sounds fantastic and just as good as a cd player. Anyone else find the humor in the irony of his post. ROTFLMAO

What are you talking about? Or are you trying to prove again why **** (heiney) is your handle? I never said the iPod sounds as good as a $20,000 CD player. Nor did I ever imply it. I did say, and will continue to say, it sounds great as a digital source with the Wadia 171 iTransport and the Bryston BDA-1 DAC. Definitely the equal of a comparative CD player.

Of course, that is not up to Squeeze box level. :rolleyes:

FTGV

BlueFox wrote: »

I did say, and will continue to say, it sounds great as a digital source with the Wadia 171 iTransport and the Bryston BDA-1 DAC.

With lossless files into that DAC,I believe you.

BlueFox

FTGV wrote: »

With lossless files into that DAC,I believe you.

Yes. Most definitely. Apple Lossless. No CD read jitter with this setup.

heiney9

I just found it humorous you were splitting hairs about cd transport jitter when you extol the high virtues of an iPod as a transport. If you can't see the irony in that, I'm sorry. I got a good chuckle from that.

Don't kid yourself there is plenty of jitter introduced when using the iPod as a transport, again the irony in your post that I found humorous. Please don't misread my comments as far as it sounding good to you. I'm sure it does. But the way you worded it made it sound like because you were using the iPod/Wadia/Bryston there was no jitter, and that's not the case.

H9

BlueFox

heiney9 wrote: »

Don't kid yourself there is plenty of jitter introduced when using the iPod as a transport, again the irony in your post that I found humorous. Please don't misread my comments as far as it sounding good to you. I'm sure it does. But the way you worded it made it sound like because you were using the iPod/Wadia/Bryston there was no jitter, and that's not the case.

Data please showing all the jitter from the iPod. Oh, that's right. There is no data on jitter from an iPod. At least no more jitter than from any other hard drive.

Now, what has been said, and verified by stereophile, is that the Wadia 170 has a 'high' amount of jitter. However, one of the upgrades Wadia did to the 171 Transport is to reduce the jitter.

Of course, I have never said, or implied, that there was no jitter in my setup. What I did imply above is that a $20,000 CDP should have less read jitter than a $200 CDP. That read jitter is from a laser trying to read pits in a plastic, revolving disc. While I have no data at hand, I would expect the read jitter of a hard drive to be less than the read jitter of an optical transport.

FTGV

BlueFox wrote: »

Now, what has been said, and verified by stereophile, is that the Wadia 170 has a 'high' amount of jitter.

Not surprising since the data is exracted from the ipod;s drive much like PC-USB.Infact I believe the 170 utilises one of the BurrBrown PCM27** series USB interface IC's.Devices not considered"low jitter".

BlueFox

FTGV wrote: »

Not surprising since the data is exracted from the ipod;s drive much like PC-USB.Infact I believe the 170 utilises one of the BurrBrown PCM27** series USB interface IC's.Devices not considered"low jitter".

Right you are.

From a follow up review.

"Wadia's iTransport is an ingenious device. It appears to use a Burr-Brown PCM2705 chip"

http://www.stereophile.com/content/wadia-digital-170itransport-digital-ipod-dock-john-atkinson-june-2009


From the original review.

"Footnote 2: I recorded the bits coming from the Wadia's coaxial S/PDIF output to my lab PC via the digital input of an RME soundcard, with Wes's iPod Nano playing a losslessly compressed file. I then compared that recording with a WAV rip from the original CD. The files were bit-for-bit identical, meaning that the 170iTransport is indeed transparent via its digital output. However, the datastream appears to have fairly high jitter, which will make the Wadia's sound quality dependent on the D/A processor used"

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalprocessors/1008wad/index.html

While the 171 model with lower jitter does sound better than the 170 model, unless you are really used to one model and then switch to the other model, the difference probably would not be noticeable to a first time user of the 170. Especially if, as they say, you use a good DAC with jitter rejection.

falconcry72

BlueFox wrote: »

...(the ipod)...sounds great as a digital source with the Wadia 171 iTransport and the Bryston BDA-1 DAC....

I bet it does sound excellent. That DAC is on my shortlist to compare with my Audio GD NFB-7. I LOVEEEE that is has a remote to swtich inputs... it would make comparing sources sooooo easy!

heiney9

Let's get back on track. Soundfreak, since you bought the Adcom GDA700 in the FM, how are you going to utilize it in your rig? Are you just going to use with your current cd players digital output, or are you still going the computer music server route?

H9

soundfreak1

Going the computer route . With a little reading it seems i was overblowing my need tomod the computer it seems all i need to do is add a new ( large and as fast as i can afford) harddrive.and the ripping software.if i dont go with the sbt right away does the db power amp have a player in it to select and play from the "down loads or rupped files" or will nees to use some other player? And not sure the best way to connect tje dac to the computer.