Who has switched to pc audio and is happy?

Garyg · « **Reply #20 on:** 2 Jun 2005, 05:45 pm »

Thanks for the link George.

Regards
Gary

Hantra · « **Reply #21 on:** 2 Jun 2005, 11:13 pm »

Quote from: Carlman

If you go a little farther and build an Audio PC with attention to detail, I feel certain you will create a transport that relays music better than any cd player.

Without a doubt.

thayerg · « **Reply #22 on:** 3 Jun 2005, 03:46 am »

I just tried using an Airport Express as the DAC. Granted my aspirations are a lot less high end than most people's around here but the thing is surprisingly musical--great transients, good imaging, good extension.

cytocycle · « **Reply #23 on:** 3 Jun 2005, 07:21 am »

Quote from: zybar

Gary,

The TacT with the Aberdeen Audio power supply is transparent and a very big improvement. I agree with you that with the stock ps the preamp/dac isn't as transparent and clean as I would have liked. However, the correction capabilities more than made up for it. Now I feel like I have my cake and I can eat it too.

George

George Thanks for the suggestion, I orderd one today as I would have probably ended up just using it as a DAC since it is not in the same league as my Rowland Preamp.

When I used my HTPC with a Midiman 410 DAC I was very disappointed in how lean my audio was and gave up a couple years ago, now this thread has me juiced to try this again with the Tact. My first step will be to try a different player, plus no one has mentioned using EAC (Exact Copy)to rip CD's exactly this is probably the best software to pull music off and make it sound better, the only problem is a CD is 600-770meg.

JoshK · « **Reply #24 on:** 3 Jun 2005, 02:33 pm »

Quote from: cytocycle

My first step will be to try a different player, plus no one has mentioned using EAC (Exact Copy)to rip CD's exactly this is probably the best software to pull music off and make it sound better, the only problem is a CD is 600-770meg.

If you look on the Square Circle you will find a lot of info about EAC ripping. Also, since a CD is up to 740mg, using FLAC to compress to ~1/2 in a non-lossy format is a natural next step. Foobar is one of the more popular audiophile approved software players and can play FLAC files.

Carlman · « **Reply #25 on:** 3 Jun 2005, 02:41 pm »

About that FLAC... I've noticed a significant difference listening to FLAC vs. non-FLAC... and that's on my PC as well as Hantra's. Listening to FLAC files removes the accuracy and clarity I like. It sounds less like the real thing. So, I don't think it's lossless.... it loses some music somehow.

I'm going to experiment with it again... There are some cd's I don't care about being perfectly reproduced... (basic pop and weird stuff) and it actually helps some overly compressed cd's sound more tolerable.

Is it just me that hears this difference?

-C

Garyg · « **Reply #26 on:** 3 Jun 2005, 02:51 pm »

Apple Lossles is the same, robs the music of life somehow, convert a lossless file to WAV and it sounds better, weird.

Regards
Gary

Jon L · « **Reply #27 on:** 3 Jun 2005, 06:18 pm »

That's what I used to think about lossless files, especially Apple Lossless. However, upon further experimentation, I've come to the conclusion it's the limitations of iTunes in PC environment (non Mac) that can be misleading and not apple lossless codec.

In Foobar, if I open my eyes and A-B Flac vs. .wav, I can sometimes convince myself there is a difference in sound. But after "blinding" myself, I've convinced myself that I can't tell between Flac and .wav. In other words, I would not bet even $1 that I can reliably tell Flac vs. .wav blindfolded.

Both Flac and Apple Lossless have been demonstrated to be bit-perfect w/ .wav, and Foobar at least decodes Flac into basically the uncompressed equivalent before playing the file, so there is no "loss" of any digital information. Some people could argue, and they have, that the Flac encoder/decoder can introduce some kind of interference or distortions, but no one has proven this with any kind of real evidence so far.

shokunin · « **Reply #28 on:** 3 Jun 2005, 11:50 pm »

Quote from: cytocycle

plus no one has mentioned using EAC (Exact Copy)to rip CD's exactly this is probably the best software to pull music off and make it sound better, the only problem is a CD is 600-770meg.

EAC is an option, so is Plextools XL using a Plextor drive. In either case, you'll have to enter in the right offset of your drive or you could be missing some bits at the beginning or end of each file. I tend to prefer Plextools with my plex premium over EAC.

Aman · « **Reply #29 on:** 6 Jun 2005, 02:22 am »

To the fella building the Linux fileserver:

Watch out! I work on the Gentoo Linux development team, so I know this first hand: Sound quality for almost all linux audio drivers is very subpar! To get an acceptable sound quality out of your sound card, you will be forced to go to a PC. If you have an Apple computer, even better. Unfortunately, the multimedia department (especially in audio) for Linux is a bit behind. The best driver I have seen for ALSA in Linux is the ice1712 driver, which supports 24/96 chips like M-Audio's Audiophile Delta 24/96 card (which is actually a pretty high-end card, featuring RCA inputs and outputs, digital in and out, and midi in/out).

Good luck with the server, though! You made the right operating system choice for large-disk arrays.

Hantra · « **Reply #30 on:** 6 Jun 2005, 02:36 am »

Quote from: Carlman

About that FLAC... I've noticed a significant difference listening to FLAC vs. non-FLAC...

Is it just me that hears this difference?

Yep.

But seriously. . . I haven't done a comparison with my current system, but when I had the Lynx, I really could not tell a difference.

CSMR · « **Reply #31 on:** 6 Jun 2005, 10:17 am »

Quote from: Jon L

In Foobar, if I open my eyes and A-B Flac vs. .wav, I can sometimes convince myself there is a difference in sound. But after "blinding" myself, I've convinced myself that I can't tell between Flac and .wav.

No surprise there, given that the decoder will produce the same output in either case.

JoshK · « **Reply #32 on:** 6 Jun 2005, 01:40 pm »

Quote from: Aman

To the fella building the Linux fileserver:

Watch out! I work on the Gentoo Linux development team, so I know this first hand: Sound quality for almost all linux audio drivers is very subpar! To get an acceptable sound quality out of your sound card, you will be forced to go to a PC. If you have an Apple computer, even better. Unfortunately, the multimedia department (especially in audio) for Linux is a bit behind. The best driver I have seen for ALSA in Linux is the ice1712 driver, which supports 24/96 ...

Well actually the way it works for Squeezebox is that you don't use a soundcard at all in the PC. The Linux (in my case Redhat 9.0 b/c it was free to me) file server runs a program called Slimserver which is open source and ported to a couple O/S's. The Slimserver runs a ethernet driven communication with the Squeezebox and serves up the files for the SB to churn into SP/DIF.

lcrim · « **Reply #33 on:** 6 Jun 2005, 03:38 pm »

The Squeezebox 2 is a really neat solution and I am making plans to employ this w/ my laptop and USB 2.0 hardrives. The inherent noisy environment of the PC is pretty much obviated because you would stream the files digitally to the Squeezebox 2 module which would be located by your sound gear. The unit has a built in DAC or you can use your own. (It has both digital and analog outputs.)
I have not seen any discussion of "jitter" and the Squeezebox2, somehow this system has inherently very low "jitter." Also the built in Burr Brown DAC seems to be of high quality but again I have not seen a review that discusses this at any length.
The use of 802.11G (Wi-Fi) rather than hardwiring things with CAT 5 seems so much more convenient, Josh why are you hardwiring ? Is there a problem in your local environment that requires this?
Just trying to get a handle on this. For $300 for the Squeezebox 2 and roughly $250 for USB harddrives, this looks to be a cheap, high quality digital playback solution that adds a lot of ease of use as well.

zybar · « **Reply #34 on:** 6 Jun 2005, 03:45 pm »

Quote from: JoshK

Well actually the way it works for Squeezebox is that you don't use a soundcard at all in the PC. The Linux (in my case Redhat 9.0 b/c it was free to me) file server runs a program called Slimserver which is open source and ported to a couple O/S's. The Slimserver runs a ethernet driven communication with the Squeezebox and serves up the files for the SB to churn into SP/DIF.

Josh,

What is your timeframe on this project?

I am thinking about using the SB2 to feed my TacT.

It would be great to get an audiophile opinion before jumping in.

George

JoshK · « **Reply #35 on:** 6 Jun 2005, 03:45 pm »

As with most things in my system right now, I don't have the file server up and running yet. It is in pieces on my dining room table. I had planned to hardwire (ie. Ethernet) rather than wi-fi it because of theoretical advantages and the ease for which hardwire will be in my case. No other reasons.

brj · « **Reply #36 on:** 6 Jun 2005, 03:57 pm »

For those considering the Slim Devices Squeezebox, you might also want to evaluate the Roku Labs Soundbridge as well. They just lowered their prices on all three models (some via rebate).

JohnnyLightOn · « **Reply #37 on:** 6 Jun 2005, 08:35 pm »

They could lower their prices to $10 and it still wouldn't be worth it to audiophiles. SlimDevices (Squeezebox) pioneered the hardware as well as the open-source software that runs it. There's a large community of audiophiles and technophiles that support the Squeezebox, in addition to the folks at SlimDevices itself. All Roku did is do the same thing using the open-source software.

Still, that's not illegal or even immoral. But SlimDevices did something Roku did not: they listened to audiophiles. The differences between the Squeezebox2 and the previous versions include a LOT of attention paid to sound quality. The built-in DAC has been greatly upgraded (as mentioned above), and also the box has been redesigned specifically for lower noise and lower jitter. Those with previous generation Squeezeboxes who have modified them with a better clock (or who have used a reclocking device such as the Apogee Big Ben) have reported that their modified Squeezeboxes rival high-end CD transports. (Of course they are using an outboard DAC for highest sound quality.)

Full reports are not in yet, but it looks like the Squeezebox2 is closing the gap with their new improvements. If it sounds as good as the previous Squeezebox + an Apogee Big Ben, this is really great news. It means that $300 + a computer will buy you a potentially high-end transport that will make your CD player seem as obsolete as live TV after TiVo. This leaves Roku in the dust. Personally, I would not be surprised if Roku went out of business. The Squeezebox, on the other hand, will be around a long time.

No affiliation, just a very satisfied owner.

jhenderson010759 · « **Reply #38 on:** 6 Jun 2005, 09:40 pm »

I have sqeezeboxes driving my primary stereo, den stereo and headphone rigs. I use them primarily as SP/DIF transports to external D/As and/or crossovers and I am very satisfied with their sound quality.

My entire audio collection is ripped to FLAC and I run TelCanto for SlimServer on my PDA as a remote-control device.

The only problem I have experienced is that wired ethernet connections were mandatory - with WiFi connections I experienced data dropouts during streaming, even with the SB2. However, my neighborhood is somewhat congested with WiFi traffic, so others may have better luck.

There is no basis for claims that FLAC sound quality is deteriorated. Unlike MP3 and that ilk, FLAC is a lossless format; Consequently it decodes to a bit stream identical to that which was originally ripped. And, it is routine to rip bit-perfect CDs using EAC or dBPowerAmp

Jim

lcrim · « **Reply #39 on:** 7 Jun 2005, 09:59 am »

I may have to rethink this because my neighborhood is very congested with WiFi networks as well, I can see 6 or 7 being detected right now. Since running CAT5 cables is a huge PITA and using my laptop is impractical therefore requiring a separate dedicated PC w/ a WiFi adapter and USB 2.0 to get the transfer rates, the price tag is growing. Hmmm