[firedog]

See:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/2/27041.html

or

http://imageevent.com/cics/cmp

What do you guys think of this solution?

Danny

[sbrtoy]

Maybe I am missing something but how is this so different than a normal windows PC?   I guess it now plays off the RAM reducing disk issues?  I use an Apple but I can't say I understand how playing from hard disk increases jitter...maybe someone more technical can weigh in?

[firedog]

The idea is that it isn't just like a normal PC:

1. Minimal hardware and special hardware configuration (to reduce internal noise/jitter)

2. Configure windows so that many functions are disabled/removed. Supposed to remove many sources of interference/jitter. Sound doesn't go thru the usual windows kernel, e.g. better reproduction.

3. Use EAC set up for bit-perfect ripping (re-ripping repeatedly so that file is checked and re-ripped until perfect accuracy is acheived).

4. Use of Foobar + 2 specially written programs so ripping is done with Windows in command line (minimal mode) and that when ripped file on HD is played, the whole file is immediately read to RAM and played back from there (memory player function). Supposedly eliminates souces of playback jitter.

So very different than "normal" PC. Does it work? I don't know, but the idea is interesting.

[ted_b]

This open-sourced memory player is a direct response to the $12-18k Nova Physics Memory Player.  That machine has built quite a reputation as either the greatest digital thing ever invented or the most expensive over-hyped cd player ever invented.  To simplify, Nova Physics folks claim that the combination of flash drive quietnes/error-correction and the proprietary removal of the Reed-Solomon redbook error code "layer" is creating a playback environment that is second to none, and outperforms all digital and analog. Personally, I heard it at last years RMAF and didn't have any eye-opening moments, although I had no experience with the rest of their system.  It's clear, once you look at the machine, that their bill of materials don't add up to anywhere near $15k.

[darrenyeats]

Conventional rippers are pretty much bit-perfect these days (on unscratched discs). This has been discussed a lot on this and other forums. It's easy to get carried away with the technical details of HOW the MP is supposed to rip CDs but bit-perfect RESULTS are a "me too" achievement these days.

Add in a network audio player - and there are many now from the SB3 to the Linn DS - with zero moving parts and digital volume (attenuation) and you've got all you need.

Don't get me wrong. I've not heard an MP; I'm sure it is a very good player.
Darren

[bbaker6212]

I have not read any other posts about other players describing them as sounding "Analog like" and huge "Wow" factor, and comparing it to some very expensive and well regarded digital and analog gear.  My interpretation of these posts are that this is one very special sounding player... due to the use of the Juli@ card and close attention to implementation details - power supply, noise, latencies, etc.

If the SB3 sounded as good as this player then I would agree, why go to the trouble and expense of building one of these.
But what evidence do you have that a SB3, either stock or modified, sounds as good?  Are there any reviews/opinions out there comparing the two?

And EAC cannot be beat as far as I know with ripping CD's, especially scratched ones.  Mostly, all CD's are scratched if they are not new, just some more than others.  No way to know for sure if you will have losses unless you use an error correcting ripper like EAC.  I don't find much of anything "me too" regarding EAC abilities.  If there are other programs that do the same thing, I'd like to know the name of them as I have not heard of them.

I look forward to reading other reviews/opinions from people who have built this particular PC/HD implementation.

[Doublej]

Bill Gaw's opinion on the topic.

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0808/aachapter106.htm

[Geardaddy]

To really know if a homemade MP is comparable to the real thing, we would need to run an actual controled trial with 100 blinded audiophiles with a system fronted by either device behind a curtain, etc.  To me, the crux of the matter in regards to the real MP is the "Reed Solomon" manipulations.  Who cares about bit perfect ripping.  There are a multiplicity of shareware programs that can do that.  Your homemade MP cannot correct Reed Solomon data inserts, nor can any other hi end digital device as that programming appears to be proprietary.  I asked Steve Nugent at EA if Reed Solomon correction was bogus, and he did not give me a clear answer at the time.  As for the pantheon of wireless devices and their level of performance, I respectfully disagree in terms of their performance.  An unadulterated SB is sonically poor, and my personal experience with a SB + DAC was nothing to write home about.  Maybe the heavily modded versions are better, including the ModWright TP?  Another wireless device I have been intrigued by is the Zardoz, a heavily modded Airport Express made by a French company:  http://www.db-system.fr/bd_system/Aiport_Express_modifiee_-_WiFi.html (be warned, its in French....)     

[jhm731]

Cics goes thru lots of PC formating, but still runs his unit off noisy SMPS PSUs and connects the Juli@ card to his upsampling DAC with bandwidth limited Toslink. If you want a pretty PC case with fans in your listening room, go for it.

A friend who is a MS solution provider has built a number PC music servers, and has heard the Nova Physics Memory Player prefers:

http://www.referencerecordings.com/HRxSETUPS.asp, using a Dell Optiplex.

If you want to playback HRx 176.4/24 or 192/24 files this is the way to go.

Also see:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/audiophile_reference_music_servers_osx_windows

[studley]

PS Audio are going to bring out their memory player the PWT later this year for sub $2k.  They are pretty excited about it and I have to say at that price I'm really hoping it lives up to expectations.

[darrenyeats]

And EAC cannot be beat as far as I know with ripping CD's, especially scratched ones.  Mostly, all CD's are scratched if they are not new, just some more than others.  No way to know for sure if you will have losses unless you use an error correcting ripper like EAC.  I don't find much of anything "me too" regarding EAC abilities.  If there are other programs that do the same thing, I'd like to know the name of them as I have not heard of them.

I was referring to NP claims not EAC (which comes under 'conventional rippers' in my book). We're all agreeing mainstream technology can get bit-perfect copies of CDs onto music servers without us paying 15k for the privilege.

To me, the crux of the matter in regards to the real MP is the "Reed Solomon" manipulations.  Who cares about bit perfect ripping.  There are a multiplicity of shareware programs that can do that.  Your homemade MP cannot correct Reed Solomon data inserts, nor can any other hi end digital device as that programming appears to be proprietary.

It's the "Reed Solomon" claims from NP I was referring to as "me too". You can get bit-perfect results from EAC (and IMO cdparanaoia). It doesn't matter if someone has figured out a revolutionary way to read bits off the CD using a stethoscope...bit-perfect reads are bit-perfect no matter HOW they are accomplished. The means is irrelevant: the result is what counts. EAC (etc) has perfect results. So the MP reading the data off perfectly is "me too" in terms of what it accomplishes. BTW bit-perfect means you can't get better. The 1s and 0s are read off 100% correctly with 100% reliability, there is no "more correctly" to be had.

I have not read any other posts about other players describing them as sounding "Analog like" and huge "Wow" factor, and comparing it to some very expensive and well regarded digital and analog gear.  My interpretation of these posts are that this is one very special sounding player... due to the use of the Juli@ card and close attention to implementation details - power supply, noise, latencies, etc.

If the SB3 sounded as good as this player then I would agree, why go to the trouble and expense of building one of these.
But what evidence do you have that a SB3, either stock or modified, sounds as good?  Are there any reviews/opinions out there comparing the two?

I wasn't disputing that the MP sounds good, I was just clarifying some technical points. If it sounds better than other players it's not because it reads data better than EAC (it doesn't). It's not because it has less moving parts than an SB3/TP/Linn DS (it doesn't). Go look elsewhere for an explanation is all I'm saying.
Darren

[firedog]

Hi-

I think you guys are missing the point of the device/software.

Ripping "bit-perfect" copies to a HD is obviously not difficult. But getting "bit perfect" output from the PC is. You won't get "bit perfect" reproduction from the output of a typical PC, even with a quality sound card. And BTW, besides the bit perfect ripping, there's also the problem of perfectly clocked digital output from a PC.

One of the theoretical superiorities of network players, is that the network data stream is bit perfect, unlike audio data coming from a PC soundcard. But again, as in the comments about the SB3, that doesn't mean that the output from such a device is bit perfect.

That's the point of the hardware/software combination in the original post. "Bit perfect" output, not just on the HD.

[Geardaddy]

Well put firedog.  "Bit perfect" output is the goal.  I know measurements were done on the bit accuracy of the cMP.  I would be interested to know how the real MP stacks up as well as the various streaming devices....

[jhm731]

Hi-

I think you guys are missing the point of the device/software.

Ripping "bit-perfect" copies to a HD is obviously not difficult. But getting "bit perfect" output from the PC is. You won't get "bit perfect" reproduction from the output of a typical PC, even with a quality sound card. And BTW, besides the bit perfect ripping, there's also the problem of perfectly clocked digital output from a PC.

One of the theoretical superiorities of network players, is that the network data stream is bit perfect, unlike audio data coming from a PC soundcard. But again, as in the comments about the SB3, that doesn't mean that the output from such a device is bit perfect.

That's the point of the hardware/software combination in the original post. "Bit perfect" output, not just on the HD.

Steve N. at http://www.empiricalaudio.com has pointed out many times, that network players are bit-perfect.

You're right, the problem is perfectly clocking the digital output.

If you use a bit-perfect network players and improve the clock(s) or use a clocking devise like Steve's Pace Car or the upcoming PSAudio Digital Lens to feed your DAC, IMO, it should sound just as good or better then Cics' PC solution. 

Steve's Pace Car and the upcoming PSAudio Digital Lens offer I2S outputs to their DACs.  Cics uses a stock soundcard powered noisy PC grade SMPSs and bandwidth limited Toslink connections between his PC and DAC.

I'm looking forward to PSAudio's solution which takes the PC out of the process, until then, I can live with my ART modified Duet.

[Geardaddy]

the only downside to network players are the limitations of digital content resolution. 

[bbaker6212]

GD, I don't understand what you mean. Can you give a more detailed explanation?
Do you mean because many/most do not do 24/96 or higher?

[Geardaddy]

that's correct.  I know the Transporter can do 24/96....but not the Duet or SB3.  Whether or not that is relevant at this juncture is another story....

[jhm731]

Pictures of the new PSAudio gear:

http://boards.psaudio.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=12&d=1221253938

http://boards.psaudio.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13&d=1221253949

http://boards.psaudio.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14&d=1221253961

http://boards.psaudio.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15&d=1221253980

http://boards.psaudio.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16&d=1221253994

[firedog]

Can anyone explain what the PS Audio "Digital Lens" is supposed to be? Is it some kind of reclocker? The company website mentions it several times but doesn't really explain what it is.

Thanks

[jhm731]

Can anyone explain what the PS Audio "Digital Lens" is supposed to be? Is it some kind of reclocker? The company website mentions it several times but doesn't really explain what it is.

Thanks

The PS Audio "Digital Lens" like the old Genesis Digital Lens is a reclocker.

The inputs are:

2 BNC Canare
· 2 TOSLINK connector that supports 192kHz
· 1 USB – 24/96 Firmware
· 1 XLR
· 1 HDMI (I2S)

The outputs are:

1 TOSLINK
1 BNC
1 XLR
1 HDMI (I2S)