Sounds good but not the same as cd

BlueFox

FTGV wrote: »

I suspect most audiophiles will try to avoid using itunes if possible...

Most audiophiles will not use a general purpose CPU for digital file playback. Instead they will use a dedicated, optimized file player such as the Bryston BDP1 or BDP-2. :biggrin:

FTGV

Agreed,but us Cheapo-philes have to make due.The BDP's are slick pieces of engineering.

tonyb

FTGV wrote: »

I suspect most audiophiles will try to avoid using itunes if possible ,but if one absolutely must the JPlay software will allow you to squeeze a bit more SQ out of your itunes library on a PC.
Ofcourse J River is completely stand alone and I'm not aware of another Windows player thats offers the great feature set and more important excellent sound.They have also recently introduced a Mac version.

Again, we agree. For windows ITunes....Jriver is about as good as it's going to get. Which I don't get if they can make programs to run on top of ITunes for macs, why not for windows ?

Btw...ask Bobsauto about running plain ITunes lossless into his Cary 100t dac. Given the rest of his gear list, I think the dude qualifies as an audiophile. Stand alone music servers are nice, but with advancements in dacs these days, seem obsolete soon. Plus the cash outlay for a good music server.....you can buy a hell of a dac for that coinage.

BlueFox

tonyb wrote: »

In that aspect, yeah...not the same. Which kinda sucks because Windows based PC''s don't have much in the way of programs to run on top of ITUNES.

Then get a Linux based music server. Here is one getting good press, and it is only $17,000.

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/573-aurender-w20-review/

tonyb

LOL....17K, yeah right. Thanks for making my point. 2 years from now you could probably pick one up for 10k. Now that's a return on investment....not !

BlueFox

No thanks. In two years I will still have my Bryston BDP-1, that cost 2K two years ago. Triple 2. LOL.

However, while a generic computer can sound pretty good, a dedicated machine designed for a single purpose will outperform it. The real lesson here is the performance of the $17K music server will be available for a much lower price in the near future. Whether it is DACs or music servers, life is getting better and less expensive each year.

tonyb

BlueFox wrote: »

... life is getting better and less expensive each year.

Oh...dunno about that. Think I can find a few hundred million that will disagree with that. Technology in general becomes cheaper as time goes on, but as a whole everything becomes more expensive.

You are right in the sense that a dedicated music server will out perform a computer on any given day. Which is why I want to see computers built for audio in the future. Could resurrect the whole PC market which is biting the dust lately.

B&k's approach to combining components.....just bolt 2 together and have them talk to each other. That's basically how they did their receivers....bolt an amp to a processor. I think the PC market can do that with 'putters and music servers.

BlueFox

BlueFox wrote: »

Whether it is DACs or music servers, life is getting better and less expensive each year.

tonyb wrote: »

BlueFox wrote: »

...life is getting better and less expensive each year.

Oh...dunno about that. Think I can find a few hundred million that will disagree with that. Technology in general becomes cheaper as time goes on, but as a whole everything becomes more expensive.

You are right in the sense that a dedicated music server will out perform a computer on any given day. Which is why I want to see computers built for audio in the future. Could resurrect the whole PC market which is biting the dust lately.

B&k's approach to combining components.....just bolt 2 together and have them talk to each other. That's basically how they did their receivers....bolt an amp to a processor. I think the PC market can do that with 'putters and music servers.

I was ignoring this, but it has grated on me all day. I was obviously talking about DACs and music servers. To quote someone out of context for a political dig, while true for a variety of reasons, does not inspire confidence in the message.

erniejade

I tried to change the IIR bandwidth to 60 then 70, It was set at 50. The bass weakened the higher i went up. Tony kind of described it the best. "Slight differences, not huge but noticeable....and not in a good way"

It is slightly better in the high end and low end via the old monster ( don't laugh) coax feeding the w4s vs the usb / flac.

I do have a different USB cable coming to check out. I will say the panega is a huge difference vs the stock cable that the unit came with. I am going to try playing with the volume next as suggested as well.

erniejade

I tried changing the volume from fixed. This made very little difference. For it to even be close to the volume of the cayin via coax its at max of 70. Sound was close as it was when it was set to fixed.

erniejade

Fidelizer made a big difference. Its still not there yet but, its closer!

Polkitup2

Also, what Version of Windows are you using? Windows 7 and 8 sound better than XP. I also have a Wyred DAC-2 DSD SE with Femto clock using JRiver 18 and Windows 8. It sounds phenomenal. I also use an Audioquest Diamond USB cable which was a big upgrade over Audioquest Cinnamon.

PolkieMan

You nailed it.

Burn a CD (at 4x) of the FLAC files and see how they sound on your CD player.

BlueFox wrote: »

Get a better file player and DAC if the CD player sounds better.

erniejade

But I'm using the same cd player through the dac. Same dac is being used for the cd and the flac files so I'm not understanding the comment.

Polkitup, I did not know the windows versions would make a difference. That laptop I left on xp but, I do have 7 I can put on it.

nspindel

This is why I use a Squeezebox Touch to play my flacs. I grew tired of all these software issues many years ago. Squeezebox is plug and play bit perfect.

The suggestion by PolkieMan is a good one. Take a cd that sounds great through your player and rip it to flac. Then take those flacs and burn them back onto a cd, using a low speed burn. Then play the burned cd through the same player. If you can't distinguish between the original and the burn, then you've proven to yourself that there is nothing about flac as a source that is inferior to a cd, and what you have is a configuration problem with your playback methodology.

IRLRaceFan

I have a W4S DAC2 and found the SPDIF input to sound much better than USB. Note that I use a digital interface (USB to SPDIF), so that is a factor/influence to consider. I have tested this with Windows XP, 7, & 8.1 machines (J. River 19) and with a Mac Mini (Pure Music and J. River 19).

I get the best sound (for my ear) with the Mac using Pure Music (Channel D) - FLAC files. On a side note, I tend to listen with J. River more than Pure Music because it's a close 2nd in sound quality and more straightforward to use (will play FLAC natively & is stand alone, compared to Pure Music that runs with iTunes and has to create translation files to run FLAC).

Something you might want to try is to compare the sound with your laptop power supply vs. unplugged (running off the battery). A noisy power supply can influence a USB signal - mostly ones without a 3rd pin for ground.

StantonZ

FWIW, I've also had great luck with a SPDIF instead of USB (DAC) interface. Even better, I can compare CD/DVD vs. FLAC (from an audio server) files via the same DAC (receiver/amp). If you want to read more, checkout an article I wrote about my recent experience at http://www.audioholics.com/diy-audio/building-a-media-server

tonyb

IRLRaceFan wrote: »

I have a W4S DAC2 and found the SPDIF input to sound much better than USB. Note that I use a digital interface (USB to SPDIF), so that is a factor/influence to consider. I have tested this with Windows XP, 7, & 8.1 machines (J. River 19) and with a Mac Mini (Pure Music and J. River 19).
Something you might want to try is to compare the sound with your laptop power supply vs. unplugged (running off the battery). A noisy power supply can influence a USB signal - mostly ones without a 3rd pin for ground.

Excellent points. Power supply....and a USB to SPDIF converter. Many have used these with great results, just consider that they all are not created equal....like everything in audio. Digital isn't as easy to get right as analog is...too many variables to consider that effect the sound.

erniejade

Bringing this back from the dead.

Swapped laptops from the old AMD XP box to an HP that has an I7, 64 bit win 7, 8 gig ram. SO besides speed, the sound is now the same as cd!. I still have one more issue though I need to address but, I will post that in another thread. I just wanted to say thank you to everyone that helped me get the sound to match what I was hearing on the cdp using the same dac.

cnh

dkg999 wrote: »

For any given CD, my Jolida CDP with tube output sounds just a tad better than the ripped FLAC file played via my SBT and PS Audio DLIII DAC.

Tubes. tubes, tubes. I concur!

cnh

tonyb

Doug,

If you were to stick a tubed dac in the mix, your Jolida may be getting a new home in it's future. I'm thinking the Cary 100t with the SBT would send your cdp packing. The Aurelic dac is also pretty sweet though not tubed and does dsd 9 ways to Sunday.

mikey1987

Dont mean to hijack the thread, but what do tubes offer in a DAC that a SS doesn't do? I was always under the impression that tubes are most useful in preamps and amps.

tonyb

mikey1987 wrote: »

Dont mean to hijack the thread, but what do tubes offer in a DAC that a SS doesn't do? I was always under the impression that tubes are most useful in preamps and amps.

Why are they most useful in pre's and amps ? Because of the sound, nothing more or less. Same with dacs, it's about the sound of tubes.

erniejade

I have a w4s dac and a tube arc sp16 pre. I also have a yaqin cd2 tube buffer I have been playing with on the back of the dac2. It doesnt suck.
My sacd player is also tube. I wish the jolida I had did sacdm if it did I would still have it.