My first foray into stereo audiophile quality sound

You need to try out with speaker positioning.
need to give lots more room between the speakers and the back, side wall.

60 watts may be a little less IMHO to achieve better dynamics and for thoswe passages where transients in the lower octaves are so very important.

M Audio is okay..better than most mainstream but there are better sound cards(DACs)..much better ones.am assuming you are using a break out cable or does the M audio have seperate analog line outs for the left and right channels?

You need to try out with speaker positioning. need to give lots more room between the speakers and the back, side wall.

Yeah, I suppose so...need to play around witht hat to find the perfect positioning

60 watts may be a little less IMHO to achieve better dynamics and for thoswe passages where transients in the lower octaves are so very important.

The PM17 is a reference class Amp and the 60W rating on them is measured on a dual channel load at room temperatures...

The 80/100/120 W (supposedly) ratings on a bunch of Yamahas/Denons that I auditioned on the same speakers were nowhere close to this Amp

M Audio is okay..better than most mainstream but there are better sound cards(DACs)..much better ones.am assuming you are using a break out cable or does the M audio have seperate analog line outs for the left and right channels?

Using a breakout cable (Need better cables though as the current one is playing havoc with the channel separation)
The M-Audio Audiophile seemed to be the best buy as better DACs were horribly overpriced

Hi superczar,

Where did you buy your DAC? Is it available in India (if so, how much What other DAC's did you consider? Have been looking for a DAC and am trying to source a Xindak.

Nopes mate, I got these from the US...

However, what is available here is the EMU 0404 (Which may not be just a pure DAC, but has stellar Analog Audio-Outs)
I remember seeing them at Ritchie street (CHennai) and www.theitdepot.com

True the Emu0404 is a superb sound acrd..
so is the ESI Juli..
The newer better cards from Emu like the Emu1616(i think ) are really good..the softweare packages are also simply too god..

But reference cards would be something like the Lynx2(900$$ ).

The EMU uses AKM's latest DAcs..the EMu 0404 uses DACs from AKM but not the best ones avalable from them.
The converteers on the two EMU are essentially the same.


Raftuq, look at gr-research.com and the Lite audio DaC or the Zhalou DAC.
Excellent buys both.
Ifu go for the Zhalou then ask for the one which comes with the AKm DAc and not the Analog Devices Dac.

I opened u the audiophile and turns out it uses the AK4584 DACs
The EMU 0404 AFAIK uses the AK4395 DAC
The advantage the Audiophile offers over the EMU is that all the analog circutry is out of the electrically noisy interior of your PC
The EMU 0404 seems like a good buy, but if you could source the M-audio Transit (~$90) or the Audiophile (~$120), nothing like it in that price segment

Having such a fabulous setup, are you happy with your source? The quality of sound is limited by the waekest component in the chain. In fact a good amp and speakers will only highlight the imperfection sof the source component.

Regards

Sanjay

Having such a fabulous setup, are you happy with your source? The quality of sound is limited by the waekest component in the chain. In fact a good amp and speakers will only highlight the imperfection sof the source component.

Thanks Sanjay!

The FLACs are technically bit perfect till they reach the USB audiophile (outside the Mac)

The USB M-Audiophile Audiophile uses the AKM 4584 DACs which are one of the best DACs in the less than the stratospheric
price segment ( I have started working just a couple of years ago and can't afford to spend $1000 on DACs )

If you were to ask me , The weakast link right now in the setup is the breakaway cable from the USB DAC to the Marantz

I am using a cheap 60/- Rs. 1/4" Stereo to RCA cable ( ANd i deserver to be flogged for it I suppose )

Also apart from FLACs, i also listen to 320/256/192 kbps MP3s on it....
Since I am no Golden (or even silver)eared audiophile (perhaps bronze ), I realy am not able to discern between the 320 kbps and FLACs
Though the 192 kbps ' ones sure sound a lot less livelier (for the lack of a better word )


On a side note, this system has made me rediscover my love for music...
I used to be a big music lover in my college days spending most of meager hostel pocket money on cassettes despite the fact they were totally unaffordable, and would listen them out till the tape would wear out

Once I started working though, My love for music somehow fell through the cracks of work pressure an stress!

And now, it's like I have rediscovered my love for music again

Great going superczar...
yeah, that's what i meant by the EMu 404 being a peg down..
but its a great buy especially since u can get it for less than 100$.
in fact there are a few modsfor noth the EMU and the M audio...google for them and u should find then.

There is no doubt abt the M audio or the EMU being a better DAc than most commercial DAcs found in CDPs in the below 500$ category(maybe even more)
Use your comp as transport(notebook would be better especially if ur SMPS/fans are noisy).
For people who are concerend abt breakout cables..do look at ESI Juli, they come with XLR i/ps and o/ps and can be switched instantly by turning it 180 degrees to starnadrd RCA type..
An excellent sound card.

your setup looks very decent superczar...way better than what most would have here even if they spent 1.25 lac.

Upgrade the cables especially the steereo jack to RCA jack needs to be changed.

In digital data, cables play a huge part.

Look at bluejeanscable for solutions.
There are other places where u can find better stereo jack to RCA cables ..will try and dig them up for you.

The AKM(Sigma Delta modulation) Dacs are very very good DAcs...better than Wolfson..and rivals the R-2R ladder configs of the PCm1704/1704/AD1852.

was fairly inclined towards the Xindak MKII (purely based on reviews though);

Savyasaachi,

Thks for the DAC pointers, now to hunt for some decent reviews of the Liteaudio's and the Zhalou...

also look at Monarchy audio DAcs...a bit expensive though...but the design and quality of components used are excellent or go for the Wadia 12(one Arj has i preseume)..
don't know the MRP..but can be found on audiogon.com for around 600-700$

Upgrade the cables especially the steereo jack to RCA jack needs to be changed.

Thanks! I suppose I Need to do that ASAP

Use your comp as transport(notebook would be better especially if ur SMPS/fans are noisy).

The noisy fans are the reason I took out the Ultra Silent Mac Mini as the source...Quieter than most laptops as there is no chassis and the CPU fan (almost noiseless) comes on only when doing CPU intensive tasks

Also, I got a nice deal on the Marantz PM17 and the speakers though despite the deal, the setup almost broke my meager bank balance which is why I had to go for the Audiophile USB and couldn't even consider the high end DACs

Hi !

I was pointing towards MP3 as the source - is it not a format much inferior to CD Audio. The algorithm used to compress the data does loose some information in the process of conversion. In fact it is believed that even CD Audio is not a perfect format for music and that's why DVD-A & SACD formats are being tried out.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Regards

Sanjay

Flacs are actually lossless and a dedicated computer transport + DAC could be better than entry level CDPs.

yeah , FLAC is supposedly superior to MP3
i for one believe that the future is going to be centered around the PC(as though it already isn't)..

The pluses of these compressed format are far too great to ignore nad with better and better USB DAcs being introduced by TI, AKM and others i would definitely go for a PC instead of a dedicated CDP as my source component.
Not to emntion the DSP softweare and features u can have to address room corrections and the like.

FLAC is supposedly superior to MP3

Small correction, FLAC is definitely superior to MP3s as FLACs use lossless compression.


Thus vis-a-vis a CD, you get a bit perfect output from both, but minus the jitter if you use well ripped FLACs

In fact, I would go to the extent of saying that a well ripped FLAC (say, using EAC) readd off a HDD and channeled to the Amp via a good quality DAC would definitley sound superior to a low end or mid end CDPs, and would equal if not better the output of hi-end CDPs

Technically, Even with hi-end CDPs, there would be a minor jitter problem as the discs are being read in real time.
However, a FLAC ripped using EAC even from a cheap PC optical drive would have no jitter issues and would be retained as a bit-perfect source on the computer's hard disk

In fact, I would go to the extent of saying that a well ripped FLAC (say, using EAC) readd off a HDD and channeled to the Amp via a good quality DAC would definitley sound superior to a low end or mid end CDPs, and would equal if not better the output of hi-end CDPs

I disagree...

There was a discussion long time back on this forum where people spoke about Computer Soundcard VS CDP. I remember someone saying that there is a difference between loud and clear sound Vs "MUSICAL" sound. I didnt understand this phenomenon then since I was a newbie to this part of the world but slowly I have realised this phenomenon. A good CDP (need not be high-end) when fed with a decently recorded CD "doesnt" give you a world of improvement over a mp3 or a Flac but it adds manyfolds to the "last mile" of involvement with the music, which basically gives you a significant rise in ultimate pleasure of listening to music.

I disagree... There was a discussion long time back on this forum where people spoke about Computer Soundcard VS CDP.

A soundcard inside the electrically noisy environs of a computer and a external USB DAC cannot be compared at all...
so let us leave Computer soundcards (internal) out of the picture here

A good CDP (need not be high-end) when fed with a decently recorded CD "doesnt" give you a world of improvement over a mp3 or a Flac but it adds manyfolds to the "last mile" of involvement with the music, which basically gives you a significant rise in ultimate pleasure of listening to music.

There has to be a reason why it would be so?
Perhaps something to do with the psyche of the listener who knows what source is being used (And has a mental leaning towards CDPs)
Try doing a blind test and see what happens!

I do not see a reason why a jitterless (by default) FLAC converted to an analog output using good quality DACs should be any inferior to the output of even a high end CDP (with minimal jitter and using a high quality DAC)

Low end CDPs use poor quality DACs and jittery lenses anyway, so let us just leave the out of this discussion




Though perhaps, i think i already know the reason behind this widely-held perception...Most computer soundcards (excluding a few like M-audio and EMU) sample their audio at 48 khz
Since all ACDs are mastered at 44.1khz, the internal upsampling done by the card rob the musicality (for lack of a better term) of the output

Only few internal sound cards (EMU 0404, M-audio 2496 being notable exceptions ) support 44.1. khz sampling natively

Also, Windows (the majority OS choice) kills the musicality by looping the output to its kernel mixer at the default setting.
Try setting up a external DAC (or a soundcard in ASIO mode (thereby bypassing the Windows kernel mixer)) with native 44.1khz sampling, and try telling the difference between a ACD (on a hi-end CDP) and an EAC ripped FLAC

Where did you buy your speakers from ?

I disagree... There was a discussion long time back on this forum where people spoke about Computer Soundcard VS CDP. A soundcard inside the electrically noisy environs of a computer and a external USB DAC cannot be compared at all... so let us leave Computer soundcards (internal) out of the picture here A good CDP (need not be high-end) when fed with a decently recorded CD "doesnt" give you a world of improvement over a mp3 or a Flac but it adds manyfolds to the "last mile" of involvement with the music, which basically gives you a significant rise in ultimate pleasure of listening to music. There has to be a reason why it would be so? Perhaps something to do with the psyche of the listener who knows what source is being used (And has a mental leaning towards CDPs) Try doing a blind test and see what happens! I do not see a reason why a jitterless (by default) FLAC converted to an analog output using good quality DACs should be any inferior to the output of even a high end CDP (with minimal jitter and using a high quality DAC) Low end CDPs use poor quality DACs and jittery lenses anyway, so let us just leave the out of this discussion Though perhaps, i think i already know the reason behind this widely-held perception...Most computer soundcards (excluding a few like M-audio and EMU) sample their audio at 48 khz Since all ACDs are mastered at 44.1khz, the internal upsampling done by the card rob the musicality (for lack of a better term) of the output Only few internal sound cards (EMU 0404, M-audio 2496 being notable exceptions ) support 44.1. khz sampling natively Also, Windows (the majority OS choice) kills the musicality by looping the output to its kernel mixer at the default setting. Try setting up a external DAC (or a soundcard in ASIO mode (thereby bypassing the Windows kernel mixer)) with native 44.1khz sampling, and try telling the difference between a ACD (on a hi-end CDP) and an EAC ripped FLAC

Agreed, but have you heard music on a good cdp in a complete good set up to pass these judgements?
Looks like you are prejudiced to your choice of equipments.
Take a look around and listen, you'll discover a lot.

abhi.pani schrieb:

I disagree... There was a discussion long time back on this forum where people spoke about Computer Soundcard VS CDP. I remember someone saying that there is a difference between loud and clear sound Vs "MUSICAL" sound. I didnt understand this phenomenon then since I was a newbie to this part of the world but slowly I have realised this phenomenon. A good CDP (need not be high-end) when fed with a decently recorded CD "doesnt" give you a world of improvement over a mp3 or a Flac but it adds manyfolds to the "last mile" of involvement with the music, which basically gives you a significant rise in ultimate pleasure of listening to music.

Would not agree with you

I currently have 2 sources feeding my DAC (an old entry level Wadia)

1. A heavily damped Pineer Mid End DVD P
2. Apple Air port express which feeds Lossless files wirelessly from an external 160GB Hard disc (Via USB), from a XP machine.

To my ears the Airport express provides much better resolution and detail ! (Of course When I use it i do not have any other programs running in my m/c).

hard disc as a media is anyway mechanically superior to a reading from a CD in terms of error protection etc. (I am not including these transports which read and buffer into a RAM..but in that way it is simulating the working of a computer)

Differences do start coming in with transports like Wadia, Metronome, Audiomeca, Sim audio et etc which used advanced materials as well as supension/absorbing mechanisms and designs to eliminate vibration and improve error correction. but if you are goiung to compare it with the transports of a entry level NAD/Marantz; et al it is really no comparison. All of these anyway use standard CD/DVD ROMs as transports and we all know that we prefer running stuff out of HDDs than CDs in our comps

superczar schrieb:

In fact, I would go to the extent of saying that a well ripped FLAC (say, using EAC) readd off a HDD and channeled to the Amp via a good quality DAC would definitley sound superior to a low end or mid end CDPs, and would equal if not better the output of hi-end CDPs Technically, Even with hi-end CDPs, there would be a minor jitter problem as the discs are being read in real time. However, a FLAC ripped using EAC even from a cheap PC optical drive would have no jitter issues and would be retained as a bit-perfect source on the computer's hard disk

Interesting.What brands do you have in mind, when you talk of low-end,mid-end,hi-end cdps ?

To my ears the Airport express provides much better resolution and detail ! (Of course When I use it i do not have any other programs running in my m/c).

Exactly! and that, is for two simple reasons:

Though perhaps, i think i already know the reason behind this widely-held perception...Most computer soundcards (excluding a few like M-audio and EMU) sample their audio at 48 khz Since all ACDs are mastered at 44.1khz, the internal upsampling done by the card rob the musicality (for lack of a better term) of the output Only few internal sound cards (EMU 0404, M-audio 2496 being notable exceptions ) support 44.1. khz sampling natively Also, Windows (the majority OS choice) kills the musicality by looping the output to its kernel mixer at the default setting. Try setting up a external DAC (or a soundcard in ASIO mode (thereby bypassing the Windows kernel mixer)) with native 44.1khz sampling, and try telling the difference between a ACD (on a hi-end CDP) and an EAC ripped FLAC

a) All Apple products support 44.1khz natively, so does the airport express
b)The DAC in the Airport is outside the computer, hence minimal interference

Interesting.What brands do you have in mind, when you talk of low-end,mid-end,hi-end cdps ?

Agreed, but have you heard music on a good cdp in a complete good set up to pass these judgements? Looks like you are prejudiced to your choice of equipments. Take a look around and listen, you'll discover a lot.

As i stated in my first post, I am pretty much a n00b to audio...
any my knowledge of CDPs is limied to the CDPs used at the places where I auditioned Amps and speakers before making this prchase...

Having said that, I am also a firm beliver in the fact that there has to be an explanation behind every phenomena...
And if a $20000 CDP is claimed as a way better transport than a well configured computer + DAC setup (but the total setup was say just $2000), there has to be a reason behind the claim

Unfortunately it seems that many audiophiles always equate a high price with better quality (which is often but now always the case)

I can still understand Vinyl lovers claiming the superiority of Vinyl over digital transports....After all it's a pure Analog process all the way from the original rendition to the recording to the final playback

But I definitely can't understand why a comparison between purely digital media based transports should not be based on cold hard facts?

I am not prejudiced, and am definitely willing to listen...but please do give me a reason why a well configured computer based transport should be inferior to a high end CDP

I am not prejudiced, and am definitely willing to listen

That attitude will get you very far in this hobby

and this

I can still understand Vinyl lovers claiming the superiority of Vinyl over digital transports....After all it's a pure Analog process all the way from the original rendition to the recording to the final playback

is a very astute understanding from a n00b

Perhaps something to do with the psyche of the listener who knows what source is being used (And has a mental leaning towards CDPs) Try doing a blind test and see what happens!

I am not one of them. Infact I was in your camp till about a year ago untill I heard some good CDPs coupled with good setups. In hifi there are many questions which doesnt have direct answers and sometimes flexible answers, thats why we mostly end up with "To each his own" theory.
I agree that I havent done a setup, the way you have mentioned, with an external USB DAC etc etc...but whatever little I have done, in terms with playing around with Soundcards, DAPs (digital audio player), ripping in different formats usic EAC etc etc...I could never reach a point where I could even debate between the two. CDs as a media and CDP as a player always did better.

I do not see a reason why a jitterless (by default) FLAC converted to an analog output using good quality DACs should be any inferior to the output of even a high end CDP (with minimal jitter and using a high quality DAC)

As I said I havent done this exercise..but if you are following this technique because you dont find a reason to stray away from it then I have nothing to say.
But in hifi everything is not reasonable enough..so they are measured in terms of absolute musicality..so if you have done an A/B between your setup and a good CDP then let us know your findings exclusively in terms of sound and music and not in terms of Jitter and Kernel Mixer.

abhi.pani schrieb:

Perhaps something to do with the psyche of the listener who knows what source is being used (And has a mental leaning towards CDPs) Try doing a blind test and see what happens! I am not one of them. Infact I was in your camp till about a year ago untill I heard some good CDPs coupled with good setups. In hifi there are many questions which doesnt have direct answers and sometimes flexible answers, thats why we mostly end up with "To each his own" theory. I agree that I havent done a setup, the way you have mentioned, with an external USB DAC etc etc...but whatever little I have done, in terms with playing around with Soundcards, DAPs (digital audio player), ripping in different formats usic EAC etc etc...I could never reach a point where I could even debate between the two. CDs as a media and CDP as a player always did better. I do not see a reason why a jitterless (by default) FLAC converted to an analog output using good quality DACs should be any inferior to the output of even a high end CDP (with minimal jitter and using a high quality DAC) As I said I havent done this exercise..but if you are following this technique because you dont find a reason to stray away from it then I have nothing to say. But in hifi everything is not reasonable enough..so they are measured in terms of absolute musicality..so if you have done an A/B between your setup and a good CDP then let us know your findings exclusively in terms of sound and music and not in terms of Jitter and Kernel Mixer. :KR

Abhi,
The man has a point and it definitely merits consideration.

Hey Superczar,
I was just trying to get a sense of what CDPs/systems you considered before zeroing on your current setup.

K

I agree that I havent done a setup, the way you have mentioned, with an external USB DAC etc etc...but whatever little I have done, in terms with playing around with Soundcards, DAPs (digital audio player), ripping in different formats usic EAC etc etc...I could never reach a point where I could even debate between the two. CDs as a media and CDP as a player always did better.

I shall try that out this weekend...My vendor has no issues in giving me home auditions so I can ask him to get a few decent CDPs

Having said that, here is my take on the three things you have stated:

1) DAPs: Almost all DAPs use cheap DACs coupled with cheaper op-amps to drive the supplied earphones, so DAPs are out of contention altogether. SOme DAPs like the iRiver PMP series fare better than run of the mill iPods', nevertheless, they would all fail miserably even in front of even the most basic dedicated CDPs

2) Ripping using EAC: If you use a lossless algorithm like Apple lossless, or FLAC, the output file is bit perfect. The problem however comes later which is:

3)playing around with Soundcards: This is where most people err, and assume that CDPs are by default superior to computer transports (Are computer a superior transport? debatable...but here goes..)

As I stated before, nearly all sound cards kill the musicality by resampling the data to 44khz fronm the original 44.1 khz at which the source was mastered

Dedicated CDPs on the other hand handle the analog conversion at the original sampling rate

Additionally, windows OS adds to the mess by introducing its own layer (the kernel mixer) so the end result is a strangulated garbled output that is nowhere close tho the original master

Ths CDPs score over a standard computer transport due to their very simplicity.
A good CDP straight out of the box would sound way superior to a PC straight out of the box even if you add a (supposedly good ) $200 Creative X-Fi Platinum sound card to it

However, getting a computer to perform at the same level is slightly difficult and needs some amount of time, tweaking and equipment (fortunately not expensive) and the results could be surprising

I was just trying to get a sense of what CDPs/systems you considered before zeroing on your current setup.

Frankly, only one, it was a Marantz CC4300 for which i was quoted 16K so I presume it would be a mid-end CDP

I had my heart set on using a Comp based source because I like easy and a well tagged & arranged music collection, so the CD audition was just to get a feel of whether a dedicated CDP would be better than my existing source..
However, the weekend is almost upon us, and I would love to do another audition tomorrow

Frankly, only one, it was a Marantz CC4300 for which i was quoted 16K so I presume it would be a mid-end CDP

Nope..thats a bare basic entry level CDP.

A good CDP straight out of the box would sound way superior to a PC straight out of the box even if you add a (supposedly good ) $200 Creative X-Fi Platinum sound card to it

There I am confused again...Is creative not good enough or are we missing the trick/tweak

Krish wrote:

Abhi, The man has a point and it definitely merits consideration.

Yes Krish, I agree that there is a point. What I dont agree though is his strong authoritative statements/opinion without having an adequate proof of concept in terms of A/B between well setup systems, taking into account different genres of music, different tastes of different people.
superczar, no offence to you but you havent conducted enough DBTs with good CDPs with different genres of music and with different people taking the tests so as to conclude in such a generalized manner that A > B. Hence my stand.

There I am confused again...Is creative not good enough or are we missing the trick/tweak

Creative's entirre range including the flagship X-Fi's are targeted at the Gamers /Digitally processed audio lovers...

All (and I mean all) creative cards are guilty of the fundamental upsampling problem

Here are the basic steps to setup a Computer as a proper transport:

1) Never ever use the on-board Audio

2) If you have to (and only if you have to) get an internal sound card, get a EMU or M-Audio (The EMU 0404 and the M-audio 2496 being decent entry level choices)

3) If you can, get a good quality USB based DAC, preferably with its own power supply. The reason for suggesting USB is:

a) No interference from the electrically noisy interiors of a PC. You are just sourcing the bit-perfect data from the PC through the USB cable

b) If the USB DAC has its own power supply, you are reducing the electrical interference from the PC down to zero (Since a USB self-powered DAC will still be sourcing its power from the PC)

4) All good quality DACs will allow you to do a Analog conversion at the original 44.1 khz/16 bit sampling for a ACD rip

5) All good quality DACs will allow you to do an analog converion at the original 96khz/24 bit sampling for a SACD rip

6) If you are using a windows PC, use Foobar after disabling MS DirectSound and enabling ASIO (or any other application that supports ASIO)

Why ASIO : (from wikipedia)

ASIO provides an interface between an application and the sound card. Whereas Microsoft's DirectSound is typically for stereo input and output for consumers, ASIO provides for the needs of musicians and sound engineers. ASIO offers a relatively simple way of accessing multiple audio inputs and outputs independently. It also provides for the synchronization of input with output in a way that is not possible with DirectSound, allowing recording studios to process their audio via software on the computer instead of using thousands of dollars worth of separate equipment. Its main strength relies in its method of bypassing the inherently high latency of Operating system audio mixing Kernels, allowing direct, high speed communication with audio hardware.

6b) If you are using a Mac, you don't need to bother with ASIO as the defaul Core Audio implementation is a low latency low level API based setup


7) So this brings us to the last step, where the pristine Analog out from your external USB DAC box can now be delivered to your Pre-Amp/Integrated Amplifier

strong authoritative statements/opinion without having an adequate proof of concept in terms of A/B between well setup systems, taking into account different genres of music, different tastes of different people.

Sorry Abhi, but I don't feel i took an authoritative stand anywhere...
All the while, I talked mostly along technical lines

Sorry if any of my posts sounded offensive

Just to clarify, my stand all the while has been this:
A well setup computer transport system can beat CDPs at the same cost, better CDPs at twice its cost, and can rival CDPs several times more expensive

If you are using a windows PC, use Foobar after disabling MS DirectSound and enabling ASIO (or any other application that supports ASIO)

How do we disable MS Directsound and enable ASIO ?

How do we disable MS Directsound and enable ASIO ?

The card needs to support ASIO, and don't expect that from Onboard sound

Buddy you said this:

In fact, I would go to the extent of saying that a well ripped FLAC (say, using EAC) readd off a HDD and channeled to the Amp via a good quality DAC would definitley sound superior to a low end or mid end CDPs, and would equal if not better the output of hi-end CDPs

Which is far from this:

A well setup computer transport system can beat CDPs at the same cost, better CDPs at twice its cost, and can rival CDPs several times more expensive

Look at the words in bold in the both the quotes. They dont mean similar...do they?
Thats the reason I used the word "Authoritative". IMO to say something with that kind of rigidity, you need to backup your statements with live proofs and not only the theory.

they do mean the same thing

The Can in the second statement is to emphasize the fact that the PC transport needs to be well setup

Running a FLAC on winamp channeled through the onboard audio-out of a PC will sound way bad than even the cheapest chinese portable CD unit

And at both the places I maintain that a PC transport (properly tuned and built) will sound better than low and Mid end CDPs, and rival high end CDPs

To be fair, i can't comment on high end CDPs as I have never even seen one, but technically, I cannot see any reason why this should not be the case

backup your statements with live proofs and not only the theory.

I don't really see how that can be done in a world of audiophiles and wannabe audiophiles

I don't really see how that can be done in a world of audiophiles and wannabe audiophiles

Thats very much possible in audiophile world because people here are always ready to explore each other's systems. The point is you should feel it necessary to collect such data and then get convinced. Else how do you give weightage to your words in a world where "Trust your ears" is the ultimate Mantra ?

And at both the places I maintain that a PC transport (properly tuned and built) will sound better than low and Mid end CDPs, and rival high end CDPs

You havent even heard a mid-end CDP with a decent setup but you are ready to claim that it will be beaten...coool..

Hi !

I agree that external USB DAC would not result in any loss and ELAC could be read in a jitterless way. But what about ELAC itself? I believe it is a compressed format. And whenever there is compression there is a loss - although such a loss would only be apprent when played through a good system.

E.g. a 100 dpi JPEG image looks great on the computer monitor (almost lossless) - enlarge it an print it on photopaper using a good printer and you could see pixelization - because there is no data between the pixels. Similarly convert a good violin concert to a (lossless) compressed format and then play it - you may find excellent resolution and details but you might just hear the sound from the strings of each violin - you might miss the overtones emanating from the bodies of each violin.

Experts say that even Audio CD format is not perfect because it is based on 44.1 KHz samplig rate at 16 bit - that's not bandwidth enough for music. And that's why there is a quest for better format - SACD, DVD-A, XRCD, etc.

If ELAC or anything else like that could provide high quality inexpensive solution - ALL of us would like to jump on it.

I would certainly like to learn more about ELAC.

Regards

Sanjay

I have a feeling that this discussion is going nowhere.
Anyway, here is the reasoning behind my stand:

As long as the same chunk of data is being channeled in a digital format, whether it is being read from and channeled through a $50 Seagate Hard disk, or a $15000 CDP, there would be absolutely no difference between the streams

The differences will start emerging only when this digital data needs to be converted to Analog to be fed to your amplifier

(Please correct me if I am wrong so far)

A hi quality CDP (say $15000) will handle this job as would a dedicated $1000 DAC

Anyway, Since I do not think I will be able to wean you away from your belief that an expensive CDP will necessarily be better than a cheaper PC transport without considering the merits of an argument, I suppose It is pointless for me to keep replying on this particular argument!

Sanjay, Here is an analogy...

FLAC is like a zip file
MP3 is like a JPEG

When you unzip the contents of a zip file, you get exactly the same output that was input in the zip file, i.e. Both FLAC and Zip are based on lossless compression algorithms

And as for MP3's As you said, a JPEG shows pixellation when blown up, as do MP3s sound like poor reproductions when played on a good system.
i.e. Both MP3 and Jpeg are lossy algorithms, some amount of the data that is input is lost forever

same chunk of data is being channeled in a digital format

That's where I differ - I don't think it's the same chunk. The rest of your point is valid. The moment you compress, you loose some chunk, however small it may be.

Regards

Sanjay

Act I don't think it's the same chunk. The rest of your point is valid. The moment you compress, you loose some chunk, however small it may be.

No, not always...
As a zipped file can be uncompressed to retrieve the exact original file, similarly, a FLAC is uncompressed during playback to an exact replica (Bit-perfect, i.e consisting of the exact same sequence of 1's and 0's) of the original CD

Actually there quite a few other lossless formats (Apple lossless, LPAC to name a few) but FLAC seems to be the most favored lossless format at the moment

Good analogy. Just try Zipping a high quality image file say tiff or something similar. The end result would be a file of the same size. Hence, no loss. But if you are able to get a file smaller in size there is a loss.

You might be able to hear the overtones from the body of Violin but are you able to "hear" the size of the concert hall, the imaging, the layering, etc.

I would love to store large volumes of music on my PC and access it from anywhere in my house through WiFi - provided I get to "hear" quality music exactly the way it was recorded.

Regards

Sanjay

SDhawan schrieb:

Hi ! But what about ELAC itself? I believe it is a compressed format.

Hello Dr , FLAC is lossless ie no compression.
Eg a FLAC ripping for a song could be anywhere from 30 to 70 MB compared to a 128 Mbps MP3 of 3-5 MB.

So it if ripped well it would have all the information available in the CD.

The differences in CDP Vs HDD would be in

1.Reading the data from media ie function of
the Transport

a. CDPs would read the CD optically then convert it to Digital 1s/0s.

Problems here is that the reading of the optical signal is actually in analogue ie a threshold level would be kept and if the signal is weaker it is a 0 and higher is 1. (Not always accurate, depending on the quality of the transport)

hence for entry level CDPs where the maximum cost gain is in using cheaper transports, the problem of Jitter (ie wrong readings of these 0s 1s) and hence loss of resolution is very high.

incidentally this is exactly why you might have differces in the sound quality of a Indian/Europe pressing Vs a US/Japan pressing which has better quality.

b. HDDs would read 0s/1s directly as the file would have been read by a cd drive (may not be a very good one) but if you use a good ripper like EAC the built in error correction is very strong so that we actually get a good replica of the original.
And this can be measured by a bit to bit comparer.

HDDs would come out stronger in the entry as well as in the Midfi region eg a Rega Apollo etc.

These days may cdps actually built in a Buffer (RAM) in the player so that it reads the cd multiple times along with error correction then stores it in a largish buffer and only then transmits it..in a way doing a "Computer" )

these players hence take a couple of seconds before they play the cd.

2. transmit the 0s/1s to a DAC to convert to analogue. signal

process is the same here either if it is a HDD or a CDP. but the medium used to tranfer is important.

Problem here in a PC is that if your processor is used for heavy memory applications then it could affect the signal in terms of delays etc. hence the necessity that it is more or less a dedicated usage.

Hmm, Actually not,

from: The FLAC site

Notable features of FLAC: * Lossless: The encoding of audio (PCM) data incurs no loss of information, and the decoded audio is bit-for-bit identical to what went into the encoder. Each frame contains a 16-bit CRC of the frame data for detecting transmission errors. The integrity of the audio data is further insured by storing an MD5 signature of the original unencoded audio data in the file header, which can be compared against later during decoding or testing.

In fact you can try it out on your own...
1) Rip an Audio CD to uncompressed WAV on you PC (which is bit perfect replica) say xyz.wav
2) Download the FLAC encoder/decoder package
3) Use the FLAC encoder to encode xyz.wav to a FLAC file
4) rename xyz.wav to say xyz_original.wav
5) Now Use the decoder to decode it back to xyz.wav (which is what your audio player would do during the playback process)
6)Windows has a command line File parity checker called fc
now if you were to go to the command line
Run-> Command
and do a FC /b xyz.wav xyz_original.wav
and check the results
The utility runs a binary check and will report a 100% parity

Oh, and do not expect huge reductions in size a 60 minute ACD occupies around 400MB on FLAC

SDhawan schrieb:

I would love to store large volumes of music on my PC and access it from anywhere in my house through WiFi - provided I get to "hear" quality music exactly the way it was recorded.

There are devices which actually do that. eg a Squeezebox, Roku sound bridge and the airport express do.

But then you need a Wifi enabled PC to transmit and one of these other devices to recive and feed the amp (or even a DAC ) wherever you want it..

but since the heaviest and most critical components are the Speakers and the amp......

Good analogy. Just try Zipping a high quality image file say tiff or something similar. The end result would be a file of the same size. Hence, no loss. But if you are able to get a file smaller in size there is a loss.

Zip is used for text data hence you would see no difference in zip for image/sound files.

Let me try to put another analogy

Lets consider 10+5-3 , 15-3, and 12

When we know 10+5-3=12 then the smallest compression achievable is to represent 10+5-3 as 12.
We have compressed it efficiently and losslessly since we know 10+5-3=12 .

Flac is an audio compression algorithm and it knows how to compress audio losslessly

On the other hand zip doesnt have that information and hence does not compress the audio file to less size.

Also i feel flac uses a robust error checking while reading the flac data compared to the way PCM (audio cds) are encoded. There is more chance of error while reading cd tracks than while reading flac files (which is plain data) until it reaches the decoder.

Audio CD tracks do not use a more robust error correction since it was decided at the time the red book standard was invented that little error in audio cd streams will not be noticed by the human ear.

You are right about 15+5-3 = 12 and THAT exactly is the difference between the mid-fi and hi-fi.

If you just want to hear 12 it's all OK. But an audiophile also wants to hear the 15+5-3 i.e. the undertones and the overtones.

Anyway if you say there isn't much compression in ELAC then why not just copy Audio CD on the hard disk?

Regards

Sanjay