Bottlehead Forum

Other Gear => Digital => Topic started by: John Roman on December 14, 2010, 06:29:15 AM

Title: pc based audio
Post by: John Roman on December 14, 2010, 06:29:15 AM
I've been reading rather obsessively lately about pc based options for hi-rez downloads and playback. As usual, there is no lack of
sites saying how great their option is. So I stumbled on a couple of sites that seem very down to earth. That is they are of like mind.
Having enjoyed the Bottlehead community (and of course some of their wonderful gear, Extended Foreplay and Paramount's) for several years because of the folks that trade ideas as true enthusiasts. So, I'm hoping to get your take on these two sites:

www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com]www.cicsmemoryplayer.com and [url]www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com (http://www.cicsmemoryplayer.com and [url)
Best regards,
John Roman
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: glynnw on December 14, 2010, 10:47:12 AM
Hi John - Both of these sites are well regarded as is the Asylum PC Audio site - a lot of crossover by users between these 3 sites.  The Cics stuff was just too advanced for me.  Although I am happy with my PC, I am still tempted to switch to the other camp and get a mac, which just seems to be an overall simpler solution, especially when paired with the Pure Music software.
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: John Roman on December 14, 2010, 12:27:09 PM
Hey Glynn,
Fortunately my brother is pretty savvy about pc stuff and I'll be seeing him over the holiday. Good time to start a project with him,
little does he know...
John
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: 2wo on December 14, 2010, 05:21:01 PM
Have a look at this. incredibly easy to implement, which is a good thing because I have very little patience with computers.

Plugged it in, the network found it, my squeezebox found it. Feed it CD's and it rips them, tags them and gets the covers, automatically.

And it's free, donations accepted   
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: bobster on December 14, 2010, 06:01:47 PM
John,

Was there a product name or link in your post?  I couldn't see it.

Thanks,

Bob
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: denti alligator on December 15, 2010, 03:59:57 AM
In anticipation of the Bottlehead DAC it would be nice to get some recommendations for good (but cheap) PC sound cards that output digital signals only (i.e. do not do DAC themselves).
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: John Roman on December 15, 2010, 06:36:23 AM
Check out ESI-audio.com Their Juli@ has a good reputation. I've not listened to it yet but plan on putting together
a memory player that I may elect to use it in. The Juli@ goes for about $150
Best regards,
John
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: denti alligator on December 15, 2010, 07:39:55 AM
Thanks, John. Ordered it.
Until the Bottlehead DAC is revealed I'll be using the PC card in my S.E.X. amp, so anything will be better than the Audigy I have now.
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: 2wo on December 15, 2010, 12:38:05 PM
The link to the Vortexbox is   Vortexbox.org

I did try to include a link, guess it shows just how computer savvy I ain't...John
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: Jim R. on December 15, 2010, 01:02:04 PM
Glynn,

I just made the switch to a modified mac mini (modified by mach2 music) and use it with PureMusic with my Tranquility SE dac and it is many, many notches higher than even a tweaked Asus eee box and using foobar 2000 in kernel streaming with the incredible AQVox usb driver.  In fact, the modified mac mini is easly the best transport I've ever heard, even on dacs other than the Tranquility SE, and the stock 2010 unibody mini is really great with just a few software tweaks you can do yourself.  You can also use an iPhone or iPod Touch with the iTunes remote app to control a headless mini both with and without PureMusic.  PureMusic is a significantly better sounding playback engine than quicktime, which is what iTunes uses for playback.

HTH,

Jim
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: glynnw on December 15, 2010, 03:14:18 PM
Oh man - don't tell me that.  I am neurotic enough about my PC as it is.  I just looked at the Mach2 Music site and it really is appealing, but since retiring, money is really tight.  But I do appreciate your thoughts on this subject.  Maybe I could sell blood weekly for a while.
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: Doc B. on December 15, 2010, 03:18:39 PM
Hey Glynn, if you are using a PC try Reaper. It's not a simple player, it's digital audio workstation software and as such it's not easy to play more than one track at a time. But you can download an eval copy for free. I think it is much better sounding than Foobar and shows some hope for the PC camp.
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: denti alligator on December 15, 2010, 04:03:51 PM
I've recently switched from foobar to J. River Media Center. Am much happier with it in terms of layout, and it's supposed to sound better--though with my current set-up, I couldn't tell.
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: InfernoSTi on December 15, 2010, 04:20:14 PM
Just thought I would comment that I use AyreWave to playback audio on my Mac via my Beresford DAC:  http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/AyreWave-New-OSX-Audio-Player-Released-RMAF (http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/AyreWave-New-OSX-Audio-Player-Released-RMAF)  I can manage my playlists in iTunes and with a single mouse click have it loaded into AyreWave.  However, it really shines on my FLAC tracks in hi-rez. I'm becoming a big fan of HDTracks (I missed all the earlier drama about sample rates). 

I suppose I need to try out some of the other software packages: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/Forums/Equipment/Software (http://www.computeraudiophile.com/Forums/Equipment/Software)   But I'm pretty happy with the simplicity of AyreWave (simple is good for me...but this is a playback software, not a music management software).
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: bobster on December 15, 2010, 06:17:51 PM
The link to the Vortexbox is   Vortexbox.org

I did try to include a link, guess it shows just how computer savvy I ain't...John

John,

Thanks for adding the info.  The device looks pretty slick.

Bob
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: Jim R. on December 16, 2010, 05:18:29 AM
Another option, which I haven't heard myself, but is still somewhat in development, and based on a linux single board computer is a:

http://www.auraliti.com

I am building a similar box, but using a single board alix computer running MPD, and connected to a NAS running NFS.  This and another one similar to it will be used for my living room and headphone rigs.
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: glynnw on December 17, 2010, 07:57:09 AM
Well, I put my foot in it and asked over on the Asylum Computer Audio Forum if anyone had done a PC vs Mac comparison and if not, would anyone want to.  YEEOW!  All I got were comments that it was pointless for a myriad of reasons.  I can't help but think that the main negative reason would be that it would end many of their daily posting arguments if someone were to produce a real comparison with valid results saying one format sounded better.  Every time I post elsewhere I am reminded of what a great group of people we have here at Bottlehead.
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: ironbut on December 17, 2010, 08:30:42 AM
For the most part, I've given up on most of the online computer audio forums.
That's not to say that they aren't very helpful in getting a computer rig put together from square one or finding out the latest stuff that you might want to try.
But when it comes down to refining the sound that comes out of it, I can't say I've ever seen so much confusion!
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: denti alligator on December 27, 2010, 05:58:23 AM
Got the Juli@ and installed easily. However, it doesn't seem to recognize samples rates over 44.1. I can play 24/96 files in foobar or J.River Music, but they only appear as 44.1 in Juli@. When I force the sample rate to 96k they sound all sped up and wrong.

Any clues as to what I've done wrong?
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: John Roman on December 27, 2010, 07:18:51 AM
Have you checked their website www.ESI-audio.com (http://www.ESI-audio.com) for tech support?
Also check www.computeraudiophile.com (http://www.computeraudiophile.com).
Let me know what you figure out.
John
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: denti alligator on December 27, 2010, 08:23:39 AM
Hm, well, I recovered from a crash due to fooling with the settings and now it seems to be fine.

Oh, how glorious this stuff will sound with a Bottlehead DAC and my SEX!
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: Doc B. on December 27, 2010, 09:32:26 AM
We are working on some aspects of the DAC circuit today.
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: dstrimbu on January 07, 2011, 06:08:08 PM
Hi everybody,

I'm fairly new to the BH family - I just built a Crack over Xmas break - but I have some ideas here.  I'm an engineer, and I've spent 22 years with Autodesk, Inc. in various roles.  I'm primarily a music lover, and I'm fascinated with the concept of music reproduction.  I recently (two days ago) changed "The #1 Wish in my Life" from driving a factory Porsche GT3 at the Nuerburgring (which was never going to happen) to getting my hands on a production BH DAC... pretty messed up, eh?

Regardless of my weak qualifications, I have spent a couple of years building several pc-audio systems, and I think that I've learned a lot.  I know nothing about vacuum tube circuit design, but I think I understand PCs.  So, here's a synopsis:

1.) Analog audio out of a PC is... bad. You can imagine all of the schytt that's going on inside of that box. PCs are Ghz-frequency digital devices, and - amazingly enough - the noise/RFI generated inside of the PC is of little consequence to the digital circuitry inside.  It's either a zero, or a one... and it's fairly easy to make that determination in the digital domain.  In the analog world, however - all that RFI is just radiating, looking for an "antenna".  Your analog audio wiring inside the box looks a lot like an antenna, BTW.  I know that you're all aware of the limitations of analog audio from a PC-source, as you are all Bottleheads... so enough on that subject.

2.) USB was NOT designed to carry music.  I am not an EE, I was trained as a ME... however, with 20+ years in the industry, I understand the difference between data and music.  Data is, just that - get my zero'es and one's resolved, and I'm fine - I will have data integrity.  On the other hand, digitized music is a slave to the 4th dimension - time - and, if you don't pay attention to that requirement, even your digital streams are going to sound like they've originated from a PC.  This timing issue can be ameliorated, but it takes either a.) a schytt-load of cash or b.) some ingenious software.  More on that to come...

3.) Harry Nyquist (and Claude Shannon) was (were) wrong - at least as far as music is concerned.  Their sampling theorem might hold true for data - in that case, the concept of the data being "completely determined" by a [max_freq]*2 sampling rate is valid and has been empirically proven.  But shuffling bits from one place to another has nothing to do with music, and that's why my loving-yet-tone-deaf wife can easily tell the difference between a CD and a high-rez (24/96 or higher) bit-stream, without being prompted...

So, as any engineer would approach this.... "how to fix?"  Indeed, it's not as hard as they (the audio press) would want you to believe. I have nothing but respect for the editors of Stereophile (I've been subscribing for.... 15+ years?) and The Abso!lute Sound...but the true solution to the problem is not based on throwing money at it.  It's about being smart, and working to understand the issues at hand.

[BTW, my friends:  it's Friday night, I've had a coupla brews, and I'm listening to Janet Jackson's "Rhythm Nation 1841" via a FLAC stream from my HP workstation... bitperfect (via ASIO) digital out to a marvel of price/performance:  the Pro-Ject USB Box.  Analogue voltage swings exit the Pro-ject via AudioQuest Black Mamba II cables (BTW, the concept of 'cables' will be the subject of another rant, RSN) to my beloved, hand-forged Crack.  :-)  The modulated audio signal causes current to cascade across that workhorse 6080 (and it's such a pretty tube!), inducing voltage-swings that are transmitted via the (marginal) stock cable, into the drivers of my 1,000+ hour Sennheiser HD-600s... did I say that 'Life is Good'? I'm 52 years old, and I'm chair-dancing to Michael Jackson's sister's worst album... auch du lieber, Augustine!]

But I digress.  Doc, I promise to get my 'script refilled tomorrow... I promise.

I'll be really honest:  if $$$ were unlimited, I'd buy all my music in highrez from HDTracks.com - OMG, I've always loved Alison Krauss, but "A Hundred Miles or More - A Collection" will stop your heart... and no, Doc - I'm not talking about two hands in the B+ power supply.  I'm talking about plain 'ol LOVE.  The girl is an angel...

And then... I'd listen to those 48k/24-bit (or higher) bitstreams via a dCS Puccini U-Clock, because it's the most incredibly-stable DAC out there... [Doc, Paul... I know that you guys can do better...  ;-) ]   But, I have two kids in college and a wife.  So, no U-Clock, and... what the heck to do with these 800+ Nyquist-theorem-crippled 44.1khz/16-bit CDs?

I have three systems in the house.  Two are purely digital in terms of input; both are driven by PCs.   Both sound amazing, IHMO.   I promise to tell you guys more about what I did, and how I did it, if you're interested.  Let me know, OK?

And Doc... how's that DAC coming?  I'm on the order list as soon as you announce...  :-)

Thanks for putting up with me,

-don

Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: John Roman on January 07, 2011, 08:29:28 PM
Sounds like you'll fit right in around here. But chair dancing to Janet Jackson, now that is cause for concern. You steadied the ship with Alison Krauss though.  BH is a true value in this all to often over priced audiophile endeavor. None the less I'm along for the ride and BH has yet to disappoint. I'm also interested in a pc based system and am currently looking at building a music server. I've rolled it over so many times I'm gettin nauseous. Time to bust a move on it soon but for now,
Ich mus eine Heineken trinken
John
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: Jim R. on January 08, 2011, 07:39:45 AM
Hi don,

I don't mean to sound snarky, but there are lots of myths, half-truths, misinformation, and even some dysinformation concerning computer-based digital audio  out there.  Also, this is in no way meant to criticize bottlehead as hardly anybody outside BH has heard their dac so far.  That said, a few things...

usb, when ddone right (and that does not mean async necessarily) is perfectly suitable to superb digitial playback.  Secondly, there are a huge variety of asio drivers, and none of them can gurantee bit-perfect playback as there is much much too much going on inside the PC, even when carefully stripped downwith nLite) to guarantee bit-perfect playback.  I also don't agree that it takes tons of money to get superb playback, but software can be a very important part.  After loads and loads of experiments by myself an friends, it is clear that a windows based transport is in third place witha single-board linux box in second place and a tweaked Mac Mini, clearly ahead of everything out there atthis time.

Also, spdif is full of compromises and is far more difficult to get a quiet, clean data stream out of.  How do I know this?  Well, like you, I am 52, an EE/CE and a 40 year audiophile, but all that aside, it is because I am listening to a usb-only, 16/44.1 only dac connected to a modified Mac Mini as transport, and for the firstime in my life I am hearing the real promise of digital in a completely, grain-free, glare-free, dynamic, extended, detailed,and completely enchanting way.  The dac in question is less than $2k, is a NOS chip, has no async usb interface, nojitter reclocking circuitry, no tubes -- just a power indicator light, an iec power inlet, a usb B data connector, and two rca outs, and cost less than $k (currently, but going up at the end of the month.)

There is absolutely nofatigue at all with this dac, and I have listened (to plain-jane 16/44.1 cds for 10 hours straight and could have kept going.

This dac asympotitically approaches vinyl, but has overall dynamics, and maye even more importantly, dynamic contrass to die for and that you'd have to spend an executive's yearly salary on an analog setup to even start to come close to.

I've heard many many dacs of all kinds, with all kinds of transports, and at all price level imagineable, and to my mind, this is the one to beat.

I too am looking forward to the BH dac, but it's going to take some amazing engineering to outclass this one I'm talking about.

This is the dac that shattered all the myths about usb and the limitations of 16/44.1 and affordability.  It really is the game changer to pay attention to if you are considering and/or designing a new dac.

-- Jim


P.S. -- welcome!

Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: denti alligator on January 08, 2011, 09:57:48 AM
and that DAC is ... the HRT MusicStreamer II+ ? That's less than the cost of the Seduction.

Listen, I understand next to nothing of the technical talk. This is not my field. But I care deeply about getting the best out of my music, and feel that I can hear the differences.

With digital it gets tricky. I have a lot of FLAC that I've downloaded and a lot of my own collection ripped to FLAC. Loaded in J.Rivers Music Console these files are easy to access and sound relatively good. I'm running Vista and have a Juli@ installed. It is doing the dac, so that I'm outputting analog. Now I know it would be ideal to get an external DAC, but I don't have the funds yet.

I listen to my CDs and SACDs on a Denon 2930CI. I haven't yet compared the two, but I suspect the Denon sounds better. Once I do the dac externally, however, they should sound identical, right? The catch is SACD, which I don't think can be output digitally (on this machine). So I let the Denon do the dac, but then I'm short-changing myself, or?

(Addendum: actually the Denon does output SACD digitally through the Denon Link, only compatible with Denon receivers. It would be great if this signal could somehow be converted into one recognizable by a standard DAC.)
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: Jim R. on January 08, 2011, 10:28:56 AM
Well, I didn't really want to mention it on the BH forum, but since somebody asked, I'll mention it this once...

it's the db audio labs Tranquility SE.

I also am generally really rserved when it comes to talking about audio products as I know there are such huge variables in our systems, rooms, tastes, and budgets, but I'm definitely not a wealthy person, but music and audio are my number one priority after my wife and our critters, and as a blind person,it is probably more important to me than most as it is the most powerful way I connect with the emotional/sensory world.  I'm also not easily impressed.

-- Jim

Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: dstrimbu on January 08, 2011, 04:35:51 PM
Hi Sam - I don't think that anyone has come up with a consumer-friendly way to get the digital bits off a SACD.  Unlike CD, the SACD data is stored on disc, and delivered to the player's digital processing chain, as an 1-bit Direct Stream Digital bitstream at 2.822 Mhz.  There are several pretty heady physical copy protection features that prevent this data from being ripped, including an encryption key that's located on the disk in a physically inaccessable area - except to a licensed SACD device.

And even if you could get the bits off the disk, conventional DACs can't decode the encrypted, delta-sigma modulated data.

So, I would say: don't stress on which DAC might be better; we have an older Denon DVD/SACD player (DVD-2200) in our surround system downstairs; it sends multichannel SACD audio out to a Sherbourne pre-pro via six unbalanced analog (RCA) outputs (5.1 channel), and it sounds fantasticI know that SACD sounds wonderful - my desire is to get as close to SACD sound as I can with the 800+ CD discs that are hanging around the house.

I would say - enjoy those SACDs as played by the Denon; I know that mine sounds really great - and as you've said, probably better than your music server.

Thoughts?

-don
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: dstrimbu on January 08, 2011, 05:25:17 PM
Hi don,

I don't mean to sound snarky, but there are lots of myths, half-truths, misinformation, and even some dysinformation concerning computer-based digital audio  out there.  Also, this is in no way meant to criticize bottlehead as hardly anybody outside BH has heard their dac so far.  That said, a few things...

usb, when ddone right (and that does not mean async necessarily) is perfectly suitable to superb digitial playback.  Secondly, there are a huge variety of asio drivers, and none of them can gurantee bit-perfect playback as there is much much too much going on inside the PC, even when carefully stripped downwith nLite) to guarantee bit-perfect playback.  I also don't agree that it takes tons of money to get superb playback, but software can be a very important part.  After loads and loads of experiments by myself an friends, it is clear that a windows based transport is in third place witha single-board linux box in second place and a tweaked Mac Mini, clearly ahead of everything out there atthis time.



Hi Jim,

I don't think that you have a snarky bone in your body, sir.  I realize now, after re-reading my email from last night, that I could have been a bit overenthusiastic (read: inebriated) regarding friend's hardware that I have heard, and the virtues of high resolution audio files.  Thank you for your patience with me, I'm new here.  And thanks for the welcome, too.

Regarding USB for audio, I actually downloaded and read a fair amount of the USB Device Class Definition for Audio Devices today (yeah, I'm a bit weird).  Also interesting that Release 1 of that doc was dated 18 March 1998... not nearly as old as the CD-DA standard, for sure.  And you are 110% correct - USB _was_ designed with high quality audio in mind.  From the Management Overview section, pp17:

An essential issue in audio is synchronization of the data streams. Indeed, the smallest artifacts are easily
detected by the human ear. Therefore, a robust synchronization scheme on isochronous transfers has been
developed and incorporated in the USB Specification. The Audio Device Class definition adheres to this
synchronization scheme to transport audio data reliably over the bus.

So what I'm reading here - at the risk of oversimplification - is that the USB standard supports high-quality audio, but very few have built software that takes advantage of this capability.

Hmmmmm.  Sounds like an opportunity.  In the meantime, those of us who don't have the right chops will be stuck with S/PDIF, I think.  I totally welcome a USB audio implementation that sounds correct.  If someone could build it at the "right" price-performance point, they'd be overwhelmed with orders.

That being said, Jim - I still think that the 16-bit / 44.1khz standard for CD-DA is flawed - but then, the Red Book was first published in 1980.  I guess that my real issue (and I know that you got this) is what I said in italics near the bottom of my rambling:  "...what the heck to do with these 800+ Nyquist-theorem-crippled 44.1khz/16-bit CDs?"  I think that the solution looks like this:

1.) bitperfect FLAC rips of CDs (with a tool like dbpoweramp)
2.) bitperfect output from the pc to the DAC - (USB, S/PDIF... don't care - as long as it's correct)
3.) time-domain coherency in the reconstruction of the audio waveform and
4.) enough amplifier power to drive the transducer of choice

I think we got #1 and #4 nailed.  Still waiting on #2 & #3. 

I've been applying "gearhead techniques" to this problem here at our Casa - mainly because I'm a gearhead, and that's all that I know.  I'll have to rely on folks like Doc, Paul J, Paul B, Grainger and others to come up with an elegant solution to the task of converting 1s & 0s to smooth, spacious, grain-free sine waves at a price point that I can afford.  And, if it's a kit that I can actually build, it'll be awesome.

Thanks again, Jim.  Great to meet you!

-Don


Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: Paul Joppa on January 08, 2011, 06:19:51 PM
...I'll have to rely on folks like Doc, Paul J, Paul B, Grainger and others to come up with an elegant solution ...
Don't leave out John Swenson, who has been spearheading the digital portion of the DAC we're working on. I've played with digital acoustic data for more than 30 years professionally, but I turned down that job - John is way more qualified, knowledgeable, and talented. I'll just work on the tube/audio parts.
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: Doc B. on January 08, 2011, 09:58:59 PM
Yup, John Swenson is absolutely not to be left out of these conversations. He is the most knowledgeable of the folks who have worked on this project when it comes to the digital realm and that aspect of the design is definitely contributed by John. PJ and I have been discussing some new ideas for the analog part of the D/A, and we will be testing some theories over the next month or two, with PJ leading that part of the development. I know some of you guys are champing at the bit for the DAC. My job is to decide when we need to do just a little more experimentation to get it the best we can before going into production. Right now we are in one of those phases where we may have a new idea that can give us another nice jump in performance, with the added bonus of a bit less cost. That makes it easy for me to say we need a little more time to get this thing the best we can.
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: AudioDave on January 09, 2011, 05:23:59 AM
dstrimbu,  you mentioned in your post below a program called dbpoweramp for making bitperfect FLAC rips of CD's.  I have heard of and was wondering if you have tried EAC (Exact Audio Copy)?  I was just curious how they compared.  I would like to rip my CD collection and want to use the best program and I am definitely not an expert at this at all.
Thanks,
Dave
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: Jim R. on January 09, 2011, 07:13:47 AM
Hi Xavier,

A couple of things...

I've owned both the Proton and the Cosecant -- with both the high-res and NOS dac modules, and the cosecant is way better than the proton, but that doesn't mean the proton is a bad dac.  Also, neither of those live here anymore because I was able to do a side-by-side comparison with my current dac, and again, there was no contest.

With regards to processing power, there is actually a point of diminishing returns as once you have enough power to move bits out the door (and this can be easily improved with any given computer by shutting down background process and other things that could grab the processor's time), any processing power above that is just additional RF energy that invades the circuitry and has the potential tointerfer with the signals.  Also, with laptops, you can never get too far from the display hardware, and this seems to be one very large contributor to digital noise and interference, again lowering the quality of playback.  I run the Mac mini headless and use a remote app on an iPod touch to control it, which also lets me turn off the bluetooth and IR ports, which add another step in improvements.  This stuff is criticaly sensitive to absolutely everything, and especially the AC power fed to the entire digital chain, the cablinhg -- there's a huge variability in quality to be experienced with different usb cables, firewire cables, etc.  If I had not done these experiments for myself, I would be skeptical as any normal engineer would be.

Increasing memory is typically a good idea, but again, only if your playback software can support truly track-buffered memory play, which most sofware out there can't do.  The speed of the external HD is also another factor, and the 5400 rpm drives typically sound better than the faster 7200 ones, and the firewire chipset in the drive can also have a pretty noticeable effect, with the Oxford 934 chipset being the current go-to unit.

So, the point here is that it's great that you did a comparison, I think if you're going to compare a sota turntable and R2R unit to a computer-based dac as source, you really should strive to do more of an apples to apples comparison.  Of course, I can understand why you can't do that as this stuff, at this level, whilee not cheap, is typically not as expensive as a similar level TT or R2R setup.

I have been underwhelmed by most dacs, even expensive, high-res ones for years, but for me, the major concen was the convenience of access to my music, which as a blind person, and a sizeable music collection, was getting unmanageable.

It was less than a year ago now when the predecessor to my current dac came out, and that's when things really started to happen.  I've played with windows boxes of various kinds from laptops to htpcs, to single-board linux boxes (very, very good and quite inexpensive) and finally in October, I took the plunge and joined the mac world and that was the quantum leap to the entire system that took it up to a level where I am now, which is further than I ever expected to be, regardless of source type.

Friends come by and listen, some very hardcore audiophiles with nothing but analog setups and are simply stunned to silence, especially the ones whose systems cost more than an order of magnitude more than mine.  When that happens, all I can think is that I must have done something right -- if the people who have been fairly critical of my system (as polietely as possible) leave here shaking their heads, well, maybe I finally feel vindicated :-).

So there it is -- a computer, usb dac (16/44.1 only), a custom LDR attenuator, a pair of 3 watt direct-coupled amps, and a pair of speakers with 8 inch main drivers and a ribbon tweet, copper cabling, no power conditioning (yet) and I'm living large.

Best,

Jim
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: Beefy on January 09, 2011, 07:46:54 AM
dstrimbu,  you mentioned in your post below a program called dbpoweramp for making bitperfect FLAC rips of CD's.  I have heard of and was wondering if you have tried EAC (Exact Audio Copy)?  I was just curious how they compared.  I would like to rip my CD collection and want to use the best program and I am definitely not an expert at this at all.
Thanks,
Dave

I used to use EAC extensively before trying dbpoweramp. I liked dbpoweramp so much, I bought it within about 20 minutes of use; same functionality, but in a *much* more user friendly and stable package.
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: dstrimbu on January 09, 2011, 03:52:46 PM
dstrimbu,  you mentioned in your post below a program called dbpoweramp for making bitperfect FLAC rips of CD's.  I have heard of and was wondering if you have tried EAC (Exact Audio Copy)?  I was just curious how they compared.  I would like to rip my CD collection and want to use the best program and I am definitely not an expert at this at all.
Thanks,
Dave

I used to use EAC extensively before trying dbpoweramp. I liked dbpoweramp so much, I bought it within about 20 minutes of use; same functionality, but in a *much* more user friendly and stable package.

Thanks Beefy, you beat me to it.  Dave, EAC was a bit iffy on my Win 7 machine; dbpoweramp is much more stable and easy to use.  I bought a license the next day... its that good.  You won't regret it; ripping CDs is a boring process and making it foolproof the first time was critical to me.  I actually went back and re-ripped several hundred discs that I had previously ripped with older versions of MediaMonkey.

-don
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: AudioDave on January 10, 2011, 12:37:26 AM
Thanks for the replies guys,  I checked out dbpoweramp and I agree it is much easier than EAC.  Thanks for the suggestion!
Dave
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: Yoder on March 04, 2011, 10:51:20 AM
So here I go, a Proton and a new, dedicated, Macbook Pro (there's consensus that the more processing capacity of the machine the better it will sound).

This was a very valid statement a few years ago, but with the continual increase in processing power you could get away with using a MacMini as your dedicated audio computer. Kind of hate to waste the beautiful LED screen on just music. Besides, the Mini has basically the same processor as the MBP's except you cannot boot the newer one's into 64-bit mode without doing a firmware hack that will nullify the warranty.
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: Jim R. on March 04, 2011, 12:56:07 PM
Hi Yoder,

Don't get me wrong, the MBP makes a very nice music player, but the mini is really the superior machine for this purpose -- when given the full treatment of OS tweaks, music drive on a different type of interface than the dac, maximized memory, SSD, 64-bit mode, hogmode enabled, etc.

Also, try flipping the power cord on the mini and you get asomewhat different presentation -- more dynamic and detailed in one orientation, more warm and smooth in the oother.

Next up will be my new linux box with voyage linux .6 and the latest version of MPD, all controlled from the MPoD app on an iPod Touch...

-- Jim


I just tested two identically spec'ed mcs -- a 2010 mini w/8gb ram and 2.4 ghz processor and an MBP with same ram and processor, and the mini is the clear winner and by a substantial margin.  But there are some other factors to consider -- the mini is running headless with no display and only a usb keyboard and has a fully tweaked operating system (that does indeed boot into 64-bit mode) and the MBP is stock with all my working software installed on it.  both machines have SSD drives, and both used the same external firewire 800 music storage drive.  Both machines are also running the same playback software -- latest version of PureMusic
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: Yoder on March 05, 2011, 09:09:15 AM
Hi Yoder,

Don't get me wrong, the MBP makes a very nice music player, but the mini is really the superior machine for this purpose -- when given the full treatment of OS tweaks, music drive on a different type of interface than the dac, maximized memory, SSD, 64-bit mode, hogmode enabled, etc.

-- Jim

I think you misunderstood me, I am for using the MacMini as a music server in place of a MBP, and have one performing such duties in my home while the 17" MBP is used for other duties. If you are using a new Mini, then I am curious how you got it to run in 64-bit mode without violating the warranty. I don't know why Apple won't give it 64-bit capabilities like the server has, but you cannot boot in 64-bit mode without hacking into the firmware. I have filed my concerns with Apple, but I doubt if me little voice will have much impact.
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: Jim R. on March 05, 2011, 11:02:40 AM
Hi Yoder,

I don't know how the guys at Mach2 Music did it, but it does run in 64-bit mode.  Not sure if this is on even newer minis, but mine was purchased directly from Apple last September.  I think there are 3 significant differences between my mini and MBP -- the mini has the highly tweaked OS and launch scripts for the music players, the power supply on the mini is better (even better sounding than batteries on the MBP), and the lack of a LED screen, which really does seem to introduce some nasties in the system.

I've also used the mini without the OS tweaks, and the sound is much closer to the stock MBP, so reducing the OS overhead and the launch scripts that shutdown all unnecessary processes just before the music player apps run, is also very key to the sound.  In fact, it is very easy to just launch the apps without the scripts and even that is a very noticeable difference.

So, the mini is cheaper,, can run without a display, is silent with an SSD, can use after market power cords if desired, is smaller (in terms of typical audio rack real estate) and is super easy to upgrade the memory on.  This system as it is now is right up there with some of the cost-no-object transports and dacs, and is far more convenient (once setup, that is.)

Back to your original question/concern -- it came with the software tweak package, and if something goes wrong, Mach2 Music will take care of it, I'm sure.

I'm a relative Mac newbie, so I really don't know all the ins and outs of the OS and aside from some basic tweaks to improve music player performance (which are all documented all over the internet) I wouldn't dare go hacking the kernel or anything else myself.

-- Jim
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: Yoder on March 05, 2011, 07:23:24 PM
Jim, I just visited the Mac2Music site http://www.mach2music.com/ (http://www.mach2music.com/). Yea, they must do the firmware hack that will boot in 64-bit mode. I am a little confused where they say they "We strip out almost 1.5GB of unnecessary code" from the OS. I know you can turn certain things off like the Spotlight by typing in the terminal: $ sudo mdutil -a -i off

The above is supposed to help with the sound quality. Since the Apple warranty is still valid, my guess is that they are doing a lot of terminal commands, but the 64-bit thing confuses me still. If you change the firmware so that it will boot in 64-bit, then you void the warranty and they say the warranty is not voided...unless they have an agreement with Apple.

Will you check something for me?

Go to the Open Apple on the upper top left of the screen -> About this Mac -> More Info -> Software -> 64-bit Kernel and Extensions Does this say "Yes"?

After looking at their site it appears that they do 2 hardware upgrades: 4 Gb of RAM and a SSD. The cable they make looks like a BH cable with a C7 connector--now there is an idea worth pursuing, especially since they charge $299 for their's.
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: InfernoSTi on March 06, 2011, 03:23:49 AM
Per Apple, the mid-2010 Mac Mini can use 64-bit, it is simply not by default (unless you are running the Server OS which uses it by default).  Apple states they can use 64-bit if user selected: no hack, no warranty worries.

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3770 (http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3770)

Last Modified: February 28, 2011
Article: HT3770
 
Summary
Learn which Macs can use the 64-bit kernel in Mac OS X v10.6 and which use it by default.

These Macs use the 64-bit kernel by default in Mac OS X v10.6:
Mac Pro (Mid 2010)
MacBook Pro (Early 2011)

These Macs use the 64-bit kernel by default in Mac OS X Server v10.6 (they can also use the 64-bit kernel in Mac OS X v10.6, but do not use it by default):
Xserve (Early 2008) and later
Mac Pro (Early 2008) and later
Mac mini (Mid 2010)

These Macs support the 64-bit kernel, but do not use it by default.
iMac (Early 2008) and later
MacBook Pro (Early 2008 through Mid 2010)
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: Jim R. on March 06, 2011, 04:43:34 AM
Thanks, John.  I knew there was no real hacks involved with this, but didn't know the details -- and actually still don't, but I trust Darrell at Mach2Music.

BTW, I am in no way affiliated with either Mach2Music or Pi Audio Group --  the makers of the MPC power cable and Mac Sandwich, just a satisfied customer and one who has met all the people involved and hold them in the same high esteem as the Bottlehead crew.

I'm also wondering if we're straying a bit out of the bottlehead realm and wonder if we shouldn't take this offline?

Last night just as we were leaving for an evening out, a priority box arrived with my new mac sandwich, and new MPC + and Source 1 + power cables for the mini and dac respectively, so today I'm putting the system back togther so then I can look at my mini config for you, Yoder and let you know what the story is with the 64-bit enabled.

Just a note, I was a betatester for the original MPC power cable, and while I certainly can't define value for anybody else, I have tosay the improvement between this cable and the stock cable that came with the mini is pretty amazing, and from those I know who now have the plus version, they say it is just much more of the same goodness.. I'm about to find out.

-- Jim
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: Yoder on March 06, 2011, 06:27:26 AM
This is interesting. I got a mid-2010 Mini, and originally it could not be booted in 64-bit mode. After visiting the Apple link that Inferno posted I did a reboot and got into 64-bit mode. My guess is that Apple bent to the needs of the consumers, since there we a lot of hot folks out there who could not initially boot the new mid-2010 Mini into 64-bit mode.

There is one problem with 64-bit, and that is that a lot of audio drivers will not work with it. As soon as I got into 64-bit today I lost my E-Mu 0404 USB. Consequently, I am back in 32-bit mode and will go to 64-bit when I replace the 0404. There are a lot of older, and some newer, audio devices (E-Mu, M-Audio) that will not talk to OS X 64.

The Mach2Mini is a nice box, but I would like to figure out what he does so that I can do the same...$1495 is to rich for my blood.

There appears to be 3 hardware upgrades: SSD, 4 Gb (got it), and the power cord (easy to make.) The power cord seems to be the biggie. I was using an Apple HDMI cable for awhile until the cat chewed through it. Replaced it with a better one and what a profound difference.

Jim, you will have to give us some feedback (if you so desire) as to what apps, and utilities have been turned off...stuff like the Spotlight, maybe certain Dock/startup components, etc. Since the Mini does not boot in 64-bit mode by default, I am curious how he does it. I use SixtyFourSwitcher for my machines that do not do it by defaut http://seiryu.home.comcast.net/~seiryu/sixtyfourswitcher.html (http://seiryu.home.comcast.net/~seiryu/sixtyfourswitcher.html), he may just do it via a terminal command.

Regarding if this thread should be pulled...NO. This has been a learning experience for me. At least I know that I can now boot in 64-bit mode--notice the date of the Apple post 28Feb2011.

Good info.
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: Doc B. on March 06, 2011, 06:56:45 AM
FWIW I got an early Intel Mini playing Amarra 2.11 running into our prototype DAC via the Mini optical in and out for the meet yesterday. Working quite nicely. We were listening with Crack and HD800s and HD600s yesterday. Hope to get it into the big system for more critical eval this afternoon.
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: Jim R. on March 06, 2011, 07:03:00 AM
Yoder,

Drat!, I just lost a long, detailed reply to you, and of course forgot to copy the contents to the clipboard before posting, and I really must get back to getting my system bak together, but I will reply again later.  Bottom line, the Mach2 price includes all the hardware, including the mini itself.  If you do all the hardware upgrades yourself, you can send the computer to Mach2 for the software only mods.  This is really the product they are selling, and as such it is all proprietary to Mach2.  Check out the site and you'll see the various options, including the software-only service.

-- Jim
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: Yoder on March 06, 2011, 08:16:25 AM
This is getting to be a lot of fun.

Jim, I have the same problem if I try to post using Safari. Consequently, I use Opera for posting to the BH Forum. I learned to copy anything in Safari before trying to post here. If you aren't using Opera, then give it a shot--it kicks some serious butt, and is superior to Firefox.

Have been doing some research on the Core Audio that is used by Apple and came upon this: http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/MusicAudio/Conceptual/AudioUnitProgrammingGuide/AQuickTouroftheCoreAudioSDK/AQuickTouroftheCoreAudioSDK.html (http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/MusicAudio/Conceptual/AudioUnitProgrammingGuide/AQuickTouroftheCoreAudioSDK/AQuickTouroftheCoreAudioSDK.html)

This is of great interest to me, being a former programmer and all. When time permits I am going to delve into this and see what is possible though I am sure there is some audio tweaking software for the Mac already out there.

Jobs came out recently asking the music industry to make higher grade audio available to the consumer. Few realize it, but Apple has a pretty decent audio system...always has. I think it is currently capable of 24-bit, but the problem is with the industry...hence Jobs remarks. It is hard to get Apple specs on their audio.

Maybe I should start a thread elsewhere, but I am curious how you configure the wiring for a C7 connector power cord. Are they non-polar? Meaning that it does not matter what wire goes where. Got to get this figured out before I make my own, since there is no way in hell I would plug it into my mini for fear of frying the little guy.

Another possible mini tweak that may be worth pursuing is one that they do with the Apogee Duet. Both devices have their aluminum cases which must create some reflective interference within the unit. The cover certain IC chips with EFI paper. The effect is supposed to be profound, but you only do certain chips. They say if you do them all some do not take well to it and actually create more noise. EFI paper is almost impossible to find now, but it seems that some 3M shielding tape...a liddle bit... would work Feedback?

@Doc: Glad to hear the prototype DAC worked. Keep us posted as I think many of us here are ready to jump in. Wish I lived closer to the Sound...no pun intended initially.
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: Yoder on March 06, 2011, 08:51:42 AM
Forgot to mention this. You can make a lot of changes in your OS X audio by going to: Applications->Utilities->Audio Midi Setup or just type "Audio MID" in the Spotlight. Once you are in the Audio Midi Setup, the goto Window-> Audio Window. Once there you can set the clock speed and bit depth. Looks like Apple will can use up to 32-bit, 96KHz, and 2-Channels with the system devices. Not bad.
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: Jim R. on March 06, 2011, 09:38:46 AM
Yoder,

Regarding the power cord, it's non-polarized, and as I mentioned in a previous post, flipping the cable over can change the presentation a bit.  Also, this thing is so quiet that there is really no need for any additional RFI control, and it would seem to me that adding tape and such to chips could be bad for heat dissipation and would possibly be the kind of thing that could void the warranty.

I've heard it for myself -- a stock, fresh from the box 2010 mini sounds better than a 2009 with typical audio use tweaks.  Those would include, but are not limited to: turning off spotlight, journaling, dashboard, any unnecessary interfaces (I leave ethernet on for headless operation, but turn blue tooth and wifi off), changing power management and screen saver options, etc., etc.

I'd really suggest you go have a look at the Channel D web site and see how they deal with docking to iTunes, sampling rate and bit-depth, etc.  As for the audiomidi, the macs will support whatever dac is connected, so if your dac does 24/96 or even 192, the mini will work just fine with it... and PureMusic, unlike iTunes, will automatically change the sample rate to match the track being played.  PureMusic also does things somewhat differently from Amarra in that PM and I tunes running together (using iTunes for database functions only) is actually a smaller footprint than I tunes running by itself.  Amarra uses a ghost play mode where it plays two music streams and throws one away (the normal iTunes Quicktime stream) and the Amarra playback engine then communicates with the dac.  Web site for PM is:

http://www.channld.com

There is a free, full-function demo and the software has no complex kernel lock copy protection, just a username and key.

I need to mention that I am not in any way affiliated with any of these companies, just a very satisfied customer and one who has experienced, for the first time, the long-awaited promise of digital in what can only be described as a game-changing way.

Thanks for the tip on Opera, but I'm still using my windows machines for forums and such until I get more used to VoiceOver, and Opera is not a viable solution with the screen reader on my windows machines.  Sad, but the only real workable browsers are IE and FF, and they both have their issues, so depending on what I'm doing, I need them both.  So far though, Safari with VoiceOver, while a very different screen reading and browsing experience, is looking very, very nice from my perspective.  Not perfect, but seems to do everything that both FF and IE do with the windows screen reader, and some things that neither of them can do.  At this point I have no idea how accessible Opera is with VO, but I will check it out at some point I'm sure.

Getting closer to having tunes...  Another hour perhaps.  At this rate I probably won't put the paramours in until tomorrow.

-- Jim
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: Yoder on March 07, 2011, 07:20:24 AM
Hey Doc, does the Amarra 2.11 make a noticeable difference? What version were you using? I visited their site and saw it priced from $79 for the Junior, up to big bucks for the Pro.

I was playing with the MIDI Audio Setup last night on both my mini and iMac. It made a profound difference in the reproduction going form one sample rate to another. Oddly though, when I got to school and tried to show it to another teacher the Audio Window was not there. This was on a Leopard box, so I am not sure if the Audio Window is a Snow Leopard feature only. Impressive though, you can go up to a 32-bit depth.
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: Doc B. on March 07, 2011, 07:35:37 AM
I haven't A/B'd 2.11 against earlier versions, and this is the first time I've had Amarra in our system here at Bottlehead. I had the setup playing for the Head Fi meet this weekend, into a Crack. Yesterday I pulled the main system back together and installed the server in the listening room. Hopefully I will have a little time to play around with various settings now that I have a familiar system to work with.
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: JC on March 07, 2011, 08:42:09 AM
Yoder, from the perspective of having been involved with digital recording in the studio from all the way back in the SynClavier days of the 1980s, I have long advocated a sampling rate of at least 96k and a bit depth of at least 96 as a "standard" the industry should have been shooting for.  The difference in sound quality is just that huge.

Understandably, that was thought to be too much of a strain on consumer hardware back then, but now that we're running full-motion HD video on consumer PCs, I have to wonder what we are waiting for.  There is absolutely no earthly reason that I can discern why digital audio recording standards are lagging, except that the music industry seems to be content with much, much lower quality if it increases the number of cuts available on small portable devices.
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: vikbot on April 02, 2011, 03:23:17 AM
Thanks so much for the info...just getting used to using PC based audio!!
Title: Re: pc based audio
Post by: John Roman on April 02, 2011, 05:08:03 AM
Hello JC,
You stated a bit depth of "at least 96". I've heard of 32, but 96?
Regards, John