Why would a PC be better?

dayneger · « **on:** 11 Jan 2005, 04:15 pm »

Hey there,

Since my PC died last week

I've been looking around for replacement ideas, and one of the things I'm considering is using a PC at least as a music server.

Several people have made comments along the lines of a PC being better than a CD player, or better bang for the buck, or whatever. I haven't yet seen an explanation of why this would be so? I'm not saying it's not true, just wondering what factors could lead to superior performance in absolute terms as well as price performance.

As a second question, with sound quality being the most important concern, what's the best way to stream audio into my living room (via cable, not wireless)? I don't want a PC, even a quiet one, in the living room. I could either stream the digital data to a DAC in the living room, or I could run a 4m/13ft cable from the PC sound card to my preamp.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

Dayne

PhilNYC · « **Reply #1 on:** 11 Jan 2005, 04:18 pm »

The main benefit I've heard about using a PC is that there is no need to convert the data from an optical medium to electrical...

Ulas · « **Reply #2 on:** 11 Jan 2005, 05:03 pm »

Quote from: PhilNYC

The main benefit I've heard about using a PC is that there is no need to convert the data from an optical medium to electrical...

That's true. But the PC requires that you convert the data from a magnetic meduim to electrical. There is still a conversion, just a different kind.

Carlman · « **Reply #3 on:** 11 Jan 2005, 05:32 pm »

I don't remember the exact technical reason but it had to do with the fact that there is no possibility of jitter. There are no transport speed anomolies, and there is much less room for data errors because of how the data is retrieved.

What I actually hear different is that there seems to be tiny gaps in the music that sound like a buzzing to me with a cd player. Whereas with the audio pc, there are no gaps, just like analog. The music sounds more whole to me...

I should have my very own up and running this weekend.... so I'll think more about it... but there are others around that can explain why the difference exists better than me.

-C

CSMR · « **Reply #4 on:** 11 Jan 2005, 05:59 pm »

I don't think computers are better or more-cost effective than a CD player. Unless you have one already and it is already noiseless. They may be more convenient. That is why I use a PC. PCs don't eliminate jitter, and both sound cards and CD players will use a buffer, so the transport itself should not affect jitter.
PCs are good for scratched CDs - a drive such as the Plextor Premium is very good at reading these and will tell you if it fails. So you are guaranteed not to have any errors.

Jon L · « **Reply #5 on:** 11 Jan 2005, 06:30 pm »

Quote from: Carlman

I don't remember the exact technical reason but it had to do with the fact that there is no possibility of jitter. There are no transport speed anomolies, and there is much less room for data errors because of how the data is retrieved.

What I actually hear different is that there seems to be tiny gaps in the music that sound like a buzzing to me with a cd player. Whereas with the audio pc, there are no gaps, just like analog. The music sounds more whole to me...

I should have my very own up and r ...

What PC setup did you go with? Lynx card or outboard DAC? If you went with Lynx, make sure you make up your own breakout cable or adapter ahead of time so you'll hit the ground running.

The stock breakout cable sounds pretty mediocre at best.

Carlman · « **Reply #6 on:** 11 Jan 2005, 09:00 pm »

I couldn't afford the Lynx (yet). So, I'm getting an M-Audio Delta Dio that will have to work until I get a Lynx. I may one day try an outboard DAC but that defeats the purpose of the PC to me. I'm trying to get the whole system to just 3 boxes including a turntable. So, I have very few wires, very little power supply needs, and simplicity.

The processor is a 2.4G Intel and its in a CoolerMaster desktop case. I'll post more info about it in a new post when I've had some time with the new PC.

Hantra · « **Reply #7 on:** 11 Jan 2005, 09:17 pm »

Quote from: Ulas

That's true. But the PC requires that you convert the data from a magnetic meduim to electrical. There is still a conversion, just a different kind.

True. But the conversion from magnetic to electrical is a digital one. Optically reading pits is very much an analog process with hundreds of times more variation and opportunity for error.

And these people who say things about PC's not being quiet, or about how the inside of a PC being a hostile environment, are just giving themselves reasons not to try it. Which is cool with me. But anyone who comes off with that, hasn't heard a decent one.

MonkeyK · « **Reply #8 on:** 11 Jan 2005, 09:28 pm »

I use a PC. The main purpose is convenience.
I have 300 albums (with no real limit on how many more I could add) in one place searchable by artist,album,song or any other crazy organizational scheme that I might be interested in. I can quickly and easily create playlists that span as many of those albums as I like.

My server is a $300 special from Dell with 2 mirrored 80GB hard drives. I have my RAID arranged as a mirror because my RAID controller is capable of doing seperate reads on each drive. This means that if I access music from more than one location I am very unlikely to get ahead of the drives. The drives are Seagate Barracuda IV 80GB drive which I selected because they run almost silent. My RAID was close to state of the art (for an IDE interface) when I bought it, If I were purchasing today, I would be looking for an orboard (on the motherboard) RAID controller that can handle RAID 5 and three Seagate 7200.7 line of drives in the largest size I could afford.

For a music client I have a slimdevices SliMP3. The SliMP3 is their first generation device and only streams MP3s. If I were doing things now, I would get their newer device, the SqueezeBox which can handle many formats including WAV and the Apple lossless fromat.

While the music server is controled my the SliMP3 server software, I organize my music using Media Jukebox. I find that I really like this software as jukebox database better than anything I've tried (though I am so satisfied with it that I have not look for over a year now)

ctviggen · « **Reply #9 on:** 11 Jan 2005, 09:32 pm »

Honestly, there isn't a true "digital" anything, other than 1s and 0s written on paper. Reading bits from a magnetic platter is also really analog -- the bits are written in certain polarities and the writing process and reading process are not error free. See:

http://www.research.ibm.com/research/gmr/basics.html

dayneger · « **Reply #10 on:** 12 Jan 2005, 06:16 pm »

Has anyone measured their digital output for jitter, direct from the mainboard or the soundcard?

What happens with jitter if you stream with a Roku soundbridge over ethernet and then use its digital out?

Cheers,

Dayne

Adarsh · « **Reply #11 on:** 8 Feb 2005, 04:27 pm »

My laptop has no special 'alterations' to it, but sounds way better than a JVC boombox.

-A

JoshK · « **Reply #12 on:** 14 Feb 2005, 07:18 pm »

The question I am still wrestling with using a PC as a playback source is whether their is a difference in playback from an internal HD or networked HD. I.e. if I store the data over a network on a remotely located file server, does it in any way degrade from the performance?

ctviggen · « **Reply #13 on:** 14 Feb 2005, 07:38 pm »

It shouldn't. The data still comes into your computer. Assuming no errors (which should be corrected -- I assume networks use error detection/correction), the data inside and outside your computer should be exactly the same.

BillyM · « **Reply #14 on:** 14 Feb 2005, 07:42 pm »

In response to JoshK

...not if your "network" happens to be ethernet based, as it is fully error-detecting/correcting. Now, the buffers on your player may have to be cranked up a bit if you do heavy traffic in the background, I put mine up to 1sec and have no problems even when drag-n-drop'n movies 1+GB in the background (a true 29mB/s headroom doesn't hurt either, GIGABIT FOR LIFE!)

...plus your local disk doesn't "crunch" (seek/stall) constantly when playing large lossless files pulled from a network server.

JoshK · « **Reply #15 on:** 14 Feb 2005, 08:10 pm »

Thanks guys. I have the luxury of putting a large file server is the utility room right below the listening room. I have a par-metal file server case and most of the parts for this. I will network it to a playback rig.

mgalusha · « **Reply #16 on:** 14 Feb 2005, 11:56 pm »

Quote from: JoshK

The question I am still wrestling with using a PC as a playback source is whether their is a difference in playback from an internal HD or networked HD. I.e. if I store the data over a network on a remotely located file server, does it in any way degrade from the performance?

I've had a server in the basement for years with several 120gb discs. Used it so my wife and I could have access to all our tunes in the office. Once I decided to go with the PC as-a-source idea I had the same question. My resolution was to put some big disks in the music server and hit those via 802.11G from the office when we wanted music at our PC's. I still only have one repository but it's local disc for the system that matters, I don't have to screw with any additional ethernet cable and for playing remotely in our office the G wireless is plenty good.

I got the new box up and running today. Still waiting for some extra $$ to pick up a Lynx but even with my old Stereolink USB DAC it's working pretty well. Doesn't sound as good as my modded Denon 2900 but I know the DAC I'm using isn't so hot. Give how crappy the DAC is it actually sounds quite good. Now, if that touch screen would just get here...

Mike

EchiDna · « **Reply #17 on:** 15 Feb 2005, 12:06 am »

touchscreen?

you going for a veiwsonic airpanel? or?

still waiting for my Dell PDA to arrive *sigh*

WerTicus · « **Reply #18 on:** 25 Apr 2005, 05:06 pm »

how about use the pc as a analogue player / pre amp - straight into your amp?

im doing that right now with my audigy2 - sounds great, but i was wondering whats the 'best' sound card out there in terms of quality?

http://www.soundblaster.com/products/Audigy4pro/

i noticed there is an audigy 4 out - but i would bet money there is something i never heard of out there that is better?

did some more research

http://www6.tomshardware.com/consumer/20041104/index.html
EMU this is a 90 dollar card! with nice looking specs

and lynx l22 looks cool

http://www.lynxstudio.com/lynxl22.html

a 600 dollar card.

Jon L · « **Reply #19 on:** 25 Apr 2005, 06:11 pm »

I'm doing that with my Lynx audio PC. One word of caution, though, about using digital volume control via something like Foobar. I can hear sonic degradation if I'm using large attenuation, which I don't hear when I'm using say 3-6dB of attentuation.

My high sensitivity system would be way too loud at that level, so I'm using EVS ultimate attenuators to cut the output so I can use ~2-3dB attentuation on average, which also can act as remote volume control from my Viewsonic Airpanel

Sound-wise, if one is going w/ PCI soundcard route, I heartily do recommend the Lynx card, but with caveats. You need to replace the stock analogue breakout cable with something better. Power cord to PC still make a huge difference. What PC is sitting on makes a big difference as well. I found good synergy with Neuance "badboy" shelf.

Basically, you need to treat the audio PC with the same care you would a high-end CDP or transport to get best results. I would also add that Palladium-based interconnects seem very, VERY synergistic with this setup..