PC as a transport, starting out questions

madmax

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

The bottom line is if you want that little extra 3-5% you pay a premium, but the magic is in that little extra. Not my words really ask MadMax about that and his experiences particularily with a modded 3960 going head to head with a high dollar machine at Jesse's. I have pretty much given up on the so called giant killers, especially after owning one.

RT1

We really didn't listen to the 3960 at F1's. The first few notes came out and we shut it down. Jesse wasn't into it and I wanted to hear more from the MF. But to look at it another way, even on the 3960 it was the extra difference by making the mods that kept me interested. Stock player was crappy, modded player was reasonable enough to keep in my system for quite some time. (thats saying something) You don't necessarily have to have the best sound available, only the best attributes you are used to hearing. If one of those attributes is diminished in the least and you don't listen for the new better attribute you won't like the sound of anything different. I give you vinyl vs digital.
madmax

heiney9

strider wrote: »

Actually no, I didn't get that figured out. Good information; my plan as it stands now is to figure out what file type and program(s) to use and pick up a Duet later down the road. If I can get the main system (mine) up and running, then use the already burned audio files to use with the Duet and it's cool remote for the main system (especially the Atriums on the deck where we BBQ) I'll be a happy man.

I have a SQbox 2 and I use a Dell Mini 9 PC to control the SQbox in the main system. Since the interphase is internet based and the Dell Mini is wireless it works well. Now on the deck during a BBQ...........probably not so well. I found for my situation to be a better solution for about the same cost. My brother has a Duet and it's cool but perhaps not for the cost.

For me the Dell Mini sort of kills 2 birds w/one stone. You could use any wireless laptop actually to control any SQbox.

H9

P.s. As far as archive.org you can only stream whatever bitrate they allow(mostly 128kbps). I found it cool to listen to all sorts of shows and then DL the FLAC versions of the one's you like, add them to your library and then play them on the SQbox.

bikerboy

I have finally resolved my computer problems and have moved on to making a second pc for the mancave. After reading posts here and elsewhere I decided to use mediamonkey for software. I tried EAC a long time ago and it was over my head as far as the learning curve goes. Mediamonkey lets you rip, burn, covert, and stream internet radio all from one interface. I use flack and output a optical out of the terratec ewx 24/96 sound card into the TPA Buffalo dac. I ripped 58 hours of music (20 gb) and tagging is good for the most part. CDRs that I made with different multiple artists it cant tag properly. It sounds good but a cd still sounds better when played on the esoteric. I dont think I will try to make the pc sound better, I want it more for convenience. I dont have a way to use a remote on the pc, so its pick a play list and walk away. I guess I could use a pda or netbook as a remote but again more to learn and buy! I like not having to listen to commercials all the time. I like how Mediamonkey fades from one song into the next.

Stider: What do you think of the PV Fathom? 8 TDA 1543 chips should be quiet and smooth. Unless I dont understand tagging, mediamonkey does that automatically.

BlueFox

madmax wrote: »

My main wonder about the people doing this is WHY compress the music files?

If you are using lossless compression then it makes sense. Personally, I have always been of the "waste not, want not" school of thought (what recession). If I can double my storage space for free, without losing any data or musical quality, then it makes sense to me.

strider

bikerboy wrote: »

Stider: What do you think of the PV Fathom? 8 TDA 1543 chips should be quiet and smooth. Unless I dont understand tagging, mediamonkey does that automatically.

I haven't received the Fathom yet, but when I do I'll definitely post my thoughts on it.

heiney9

strider wrote: »

I haven't received the Fathom yet, but when I do I'll definitely post my thoughts on it.

Please do. I have the urge (for no good reason) to change out the DAC in the office rig. I have no idea why...........because everything sounds sooooo good.

strider

Someone please check me on my understanding of EAC:

I'd use EAC to record my audio CD onto my computer in the FLAC format. Then I'd use Media Monkey or Foobar to organize and output the music to my DAC.

EAC's good because it tags automatically, and it deals well with scratched CDs. From what I'd read on their site it also does some jitter correction? Doesn't sound like it's talking about the same type of jitter we are referring to when talking about redbook CD reproduction, but is it?

Am I close?

sucks2beme

Right now I'm using a bluetooth presentation remote to forward/back through the playlist. I'm a knuckle dragger, so I really don't do playlists, I just select an album and go. It's not that I don't know how, It's just not the way
I'm used to listening.
I've got plenty of room on the hard drive, but I'm still using lossless FLAC.
From what I've researched, it's truly lossless, so compressing/not compressing
isn't hurting the sound.
Some of the playback software out there is such a PITA. They seem to be
designed to be an advertising application rather than a useful playback
interface. I'll have to take a look at mediamonkey.

adam2434

The other major advantage of using lossless compression (like FLAC) vs. WAV is the ID tagging convenience. I can't imagine navigating/selecting music without full tagging.

Another interested party regarding the Fathom DAC...

This is essentially the same as the VALAB DAC sold on eBay. There are a couple big threads on Head-Fi on the VALAB, including a lot of talk on mods and parts upgrades. I have a VALAB and upgraded the I/V resistors and output caps.

heiney9

Someone please check me on my understanding of EAC:

I'd use EAC to record my audio CD onto my computer in the FLAC format. Then I'd use Media Monkey or Foobar to organize and output the music to my DAC.

EAC's good because it tags automatically, and it deals well with scratched CDs. From what I'd read on their site it also does some jitter correction? Doesn't sound like it's talking about the same type of jitter we are referring to when talking about redbook CD reproduction, but is it?

Am I close?

Media Monkey will do the same thing if you want to save a step. EAC is the best way to go but I got lazy and have been using Media Monkey to rip files also. I can't tell a difference when Media Monkey is set-up properly.

Try it both ways and see if you can tell a difference on music ripped with EAC and Media Monkey. Manny, many times EAC isn't configured properly so it gives no audible advantage.

heiney9

Go FLAC or go home!

ben62670

OK I wilk go home to my Windows lossless. Tags very well minus a few artists in Win7. Loving it. Only problem I am having is with the ASIO4ALL drivers.

strider

Here's a link to a great post on head-fi concerning setting up to use EAC, foobar, Asio4all, and Wasapi.

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f46/eac-foobar-asio4all-wasapi-settings-pictorial-402765/

As far as I can tell, Wasapi can serve the same purpose as Asio4all, but is for use only with machines running Vista. Since I have XP, I stopped reading there. The consensus in the posts I've run across is that Wasapi has the edge over asio4all in regards to SQ.

ben62670

It appears that wasapi does not work with Vista/Win7 media center:(

strider

This is the tutorial I used when installing EAC. Holds your hand from installing the program to ripping your first disc into FLAC. You can just look at the screen shots and bullited info and get it done easy, or read everything and understand the hows and whys of the process. Highly recommended.


http://blowfish.be/eac/

heiney9

Thanks for the link Ben, I have it bookmarked.

reeltrouble1

The fatal flaw is the belief that a machine designed to accomplish mulitple tasks posseses a greater potential to accomplish a given task in comparison to the potential of a machine designed to do only that one given task.

Classic example of the efficiency/effectiveness compromise paradigm.

RT1

strider

The flaw is only fatal if you allow it to be. In this case, I do believe that higher fidelity is possible through more specialized means, to wit a stand alone transport or player. My contention lays in my belief that, at the budget level with which I'm comfortable, a PC can give results that are at least on par with comparably priced traditional solutions.

My particular scenario supports my contentions so far. The new DAC's burning in, albeit slowly due to my home schedule as a new dad. Couple of bugs to work out WRT program settings, but I'm enjoying it so far.

reeltrouble1

strider wrote: »

The flaw is only fatal if you allow it to be. In this case, I do believe that higher fidelity is possible through more specialized means, to wit a stand alone transport or player. My contention lays in my belief that, at the budget level with which I'm comfortable, a PC can give results that are at least on par with comparably priced traditional solutions.

My particular scenario supports my contentions so far. The new DAC's burning in, albeit slowly due to my home schedule as a new dad. Couple of bugs to work out WRT program settings, but I'm enjoying it so far.

well since you understand perfectly, by all means carry on your experiment/path or what have you as I suspect one day when your situation is different you might get that special source to make the rig more effective. I suspect a great deal of computer use for audio by folks is done simply becuase they find it enjoyable and fun to use the computer as well as mulit-task with other things on the screen. Like yourself there are exceptions, but still you realize it is in the end lacking.

Mouse--sure be glad to

OK--Go get your Swiss Army Knife and your Buck Knife, a canopener, bottle opener, and a fork. Now cook up a steak, a juicy one, get two cans of peas and two bottles of soda pop.

Sit it all in front you

Now starting with the Swiss Army knife, cut your steak in half, then that half in pieces, take a bite, now open a can of peas and pop the top on the soda. Now do the same tasks with the individual tools.........which way was more effective to complete each task?? Ok, its rhetorical and your not going to really do all that, but if you at least have the Buck knife take it out and use it to cut your throat.;)

I would theorize that as a whole we have come to expect electronic products to do many things, because in fact they can do many things, however, just because a machine can do something does not necessarily mean it should or is by any means the best way to do a task.

Just my take on the recent trends aiding to the Ride to the Bottom with a bit of antagonism thrown in. You know..old guy stuff.

RT1

strider

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

well since you understand perfectly, by all means carry on your experiment/path or what have you as I suspect one day when your situation is different you might get that special source to make the rig more effective. I suspect a great deal of computer use for audio by folks is done simply becuase they find it enjoyable and fun to use the computer as well as mulit-task with other things on the screen. Like yourself there are exceptions, but still you realize it is in the end lacking.

RT1

It's all in the journey, my friend.

I'd rather get on the ride and see for myself then sit back and wait for someone else to tell me about it.

There's definitely the monetary aspect of it, but there is more to it. The biggest excitement that I get is the music. I can stream literally thousands of live performances through my computer and into my system. Stuff from bands you've heard of, like The Grateful Dead, Gov't Mule, Phish, etc to up and coming stuff that none of us has heard of yet. Stuff that will never be sold on a CD, let alone on vinyl. I got into audio because of the music, because I wanted to feel Jimi's guitar in Machine Gun as well as hear it, because I wanted to be completely enveloped by Echoes. To me, that's damn exciting.

reeltrouble1

yes I get why you do it, I will even give you the potential that someday an audio stream could be better than the best stand alone source/software but not today, not this day. However, you can do similiar things without a computer in the mix even today.

So you see therein lies the basis for the paradigm, most effective method for delivery of the sonics or most efficient method, certainly measured in terms of money but what else? I suppose storage, media flexability, however, at what cost and detemined by who, how much trade-off is acceptable? For me the thought of having a computer in the music room is abhorent, I use the thing all day, its a work tool, last thing I want to do in my two channel room is look at some damm computer, or screen, or even a display on my player, I tolerate the processors needed in my machines to enjoy well recorded digital but I would just as soon listen to the turntable and a well recorded album.

Spitballing a bit, simply different paths of the same big rabbit hole with the emphasis in a different area. We have lost sight of the simple fact that any tool designed to do just one thing has the potential to do so better than one designed to do more than one thing, multi "apps" great for iphones I suppose, not so hot for a recorded auditory only experience.

RT1

sucks2beme

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

Just my take on the recent trends aiding to the Ride to the Bottom with a bit of antagonism thrown in. You know..old guy stuff.

RT1

I'm an old guy ,too. But the computer audio ISN'T a toy anymore.
The tools are there, and DACS that can make it happen are starting
to become commonplace. Is it vinyl? HELL NO! But I believe you can
make it sound as good as a CDP. No technical reason why it shouldn't
be able to sound as good. But will it ever take the place of an analog
source? Not anytime soon. The bitrate needed to match analog sound
is insane. And the industry trend has been going down in digital quality,
not up. The price for my setup was midfi level, and I got midfi results.
And the ability to search albums out in a second is great. The next step
up is going to be a very pricey step in DACS. Just like CDP's, that real
improvement in sound is going to hurt.

strider

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

....at what cost and detemined by who, how much trade-off is acceptable?
RT1

Bingo. That is exactly what it all boils down to.

Personally, I like the way my system sounds. It does certain things well, others not so much. I'm cool with it. Some day, it may have gone so far in a different direction I won't remember it as it sits today. Whatever, it's not like we're curing cancer or anything, it's audio.

reeltrouble1

Sucks, (most fondly)

I never said it was a toy, you did, by implication, when saying that it is no longer. I contend there is no present computer based system that can match my digital rig, bring it if you can or care to.

I also contend there are stand-alone players and systems that can outperform my rig. Better rigs so to speak.

However, you are wrong when you state multi-task machines can do as well as a machine designed to do one thing. That machine will always have more potential to perform a task than a machine designed to many, but I am repeating myself.

RT1

strider

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

Sucks, (most fondly)

I never said it was a toy, you did, by implication, when saying that it is no longer. I contend there is no present computer based system that can match my digital rig, bring it if you can or care to.

I also contend there are stand-alone players and systems that can outperform my rig. Better rigs so to speak.

However, you are wrong when you state multi-task machines can do as well as a machine designed to do one thing. That machine will always have more potential to perform a task than a machine designed to many, but I am repeating myself.

RT1

I'd be weary of absolutes. Some of those guys build some seriously high end, specialized machines.

What is a CDP, really? A disc drive, power supply, digital to analog conversion section, and an output stage? They've got displays, too. Take the display out of it, mount it remotely. Have your transport separated from the D/A conversion section and power supply. To me, it's starting to sound like the same method to skin two slightly different cats.

reeltrouble1

I will give you that you can have a seperate transport and DAC and improve the SQ of the digital play unit(s) even with the extra connects, you missed though the point..........so sad, example, stand alone players can have three or more power supplys each designated with a specific task to do for that machine, the design incorporates that these supplys must meet extremely tight tolerances prior to letting the circuit even activate. Not happening in your Dell, HP, Mac, what have you. Lasers? clocks? shielding? vibration? circuits? capacitors? So you listen and then comes the subjective of the machine being more "musical" more "coherent" yada yada yada.

I pass for now, besides I already have over 10,000 song titles in my music library all nicely categorized and stored, I can put my hands on them very quickly, not that I actually will ever listen to that many tunes anytime soon.

RT1

strider

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

I will give you that you can have a seperate transport and DAC and improve the SQ of the digital play unit(s) even with the extra connects, you missed though the point..........
RT1

Actually, it is you who missed the point. I was describing a PC.

Respectfully,

Ben

reeltrouble1

No I got it, I knew you were talking PC, I meant I give you that you can take a stand-alone player, seperate the DAC section you can come up with a better two-box system over the original one box stand-alone player.

If you choose to discount the basic paradigm the computer presents then you do and rock on with it. There is not much more I can say about it.

RT1

sucks2beme

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

Sucks, (most fondly)

I never said it was a toy, you did, by implication, when saying that it is no longer. I contend there is no present computer based system that can match my digital rig, bring it if you can or care to.

I also contend there are stand-alone players and systems that can outperform my rig. Better rigs so to speak.

However, you are wrong when you state multi-task machines can do as well as a machine designed to do one thing. That machine will always have more potential to perform a task than a machine designed to many, but I am repeating myself.

RT1

Once the guys designing standalone DACS get their heads out of their butts, the gap
between CDP's and computer audio will close quickly. That new and shiney DAC chip
won't set the world on fire, but a good power supply and analog section will.
I had the chance to try a high end Halcro preamp with a built in DAC. I now
know what the word "clinical" means. Yuk. Right now, you'd win that contest.
But the day is not far away when a pc/DAC combo will match stand alone
CDP's.

strider

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

No I got it, I knew you were talking PC, I meant I give you that you can take a stand-alone player, seperate the DAC section you can come up with a better two-box system over the original one box stand-alone player.

If you choose to discount the basic paradigm the computer presents then you do and rock on with it. There is not much more I can say about it.

RT1

Cool.

I hope I didn't come off as flipant or dismissive of your opinions. I do respect your experience and knowledge when it comes to audio. I know that you aren't talking out your **** as some tend to do around here, it's nice to have a good quality back and forth with someone every once in awhile.