Finally – Beautiful Digital Sound

I think Mr. Mahoney needs to try MQN.

SBGK is in the vanguard of player tweakers and it is sad his work is neglected here.

Tweaking the newest versions of WINDOWS is hampered by the fact that no one to my knowledge has figured out how to disengage WINDOWS FILE PROTECTION.

One can nibble around at the edges, basically doing what cics recommended all those years ago. From what has been let on about OPTIMIZER is that it is a batch file that makes it easy. It doesn't do anything you cannot do for yourself.

I have found deleting files to be impossible - I should say the .dlls and drivers I want to delete. You can delete stuff that makes little if any difference but that is where you are stopped. And for all I know SERVER does not need the massive deletions that XP excelled with. But until someone figures out how to remove file protection we will never know.

It depends on the DAC, posted on March 30, 2014 at 10:29:47

Scrith
Audiophile

Posts: 1169
Location: Los Angeles
Joined: July 19, 2005

If the DAC has a dependency on the timing of the incoming data, then seemingly everything in the universe has an impact on the quality of the analog signal coming out of the DAC. Otherwise it is all moot...I could be transmitting via some interface that interprets my hands clapping a digital signal, for example, and it would sound the same as this ridiculous two-computer setup.

That being said, I am not sure we have a DAC that is 100% independent of the timing of the incoming data yet. Some are better at interpreting data with a lot of jitter than others, but the 100% goal may not have been hit yet.

RE: It depends on the DAC, posted on March 30, 2014 at 11:17:39
Bob_C Audiophile Posts: 2667 Location: NY Joined: July 31, 2000	"It depends on the DAC" You would like to think/assume this but it is not reality IMO.

RE: It depends on the DAC-It's, posted on March 30, 2014 at 11:22:15
fmak Audiophile Posts: 13158 Location: Kent Joined: June 1, 2002	the Lauck/IT Guys' doctrine. We know that dacs sound different but this has nothing to do with it.

RE: The player is more important and the player defines the OS needed, posted on March 30, 2014 at 11:25:40

Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000

"From what has been let on about OPTIMIZER is that it is a batch file that makes it easy. It doesn't do anything you cannot do for yourself."

Actually so much more than that.

"And for all I know SERVER does not need the massive deletions that XP excelled with."

Server 2012 is in another universe compared to XP, but still needs the improvement that the Audiophile Optimizer provides.

''But until someone figures out how to remove file protection we will never know."

Some of us already know...

RE: It depends on the DAC-It's, posted on March 30, 2014 at 12:28:20

Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007

My take is that different DACs (and different inputs on the same DAC) have different sensitivity to activity in the computer. What one hears is the result of a complex interaction of factors. My position is that a high quality DAC "should" provide a high degree of isolation from noise and jitter on its digital input and on its electrical power. Obviously, the amount of isolation is going to depend on engineering factors, cost, etc...

BTW, I am not and was not an "IT" guy. I was trained as a mathematician and mentored and managed a group of PhD and Masters level engineers and computer scientists. The group produced hundreds of patents for inventions in the area of computer networking. IT guys are basically technicians who install, operate, repair and provide support for computing installations. Not the same thing at all.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

Interesting career, posted on March 30, 2014 at 12:45:14
Metralla Audiophile Posts: 7801 Location: San Jose, California Joined: January 30, 2001	I was trained as a mathematician and mentored and managed a group of PhD and Masters level engineers and computer scientists. Must have been fun. I have an Honours degree in Applied Maths but I realized the huge gulf between me and those who stepped up to the next level - the PhD. It's not an easy path, and those who take it are truly gifted. Regards, Geoff

RE: Finally – Beautiful Digital Sound, posted on March 30, 2014 at 14:30:40
theob Audiophile Posts: 3180 Location: ann arbor michigan Joined: November 4, 2000	Isnt this what cics,steppe, mihalov, jack wong did with xp and cplay?

RE: Finally – Beautiful Digital Sound, posted on March 30, 2014 at 14:41:14
Bob_C Audiophile Posts: 2667 Location: NY Joined: July 31, 2000	"Isnt this what cics,steppe, mihalov, jack wong did with xp and cplay?" This goes much further with a better more stable OS IMO. You can also use whatever player software you like. I use Jriver as a front end for JPlay, which gives a full featured interface with remote etc.

RE: It depends on the DAC, posted on March 30, 2014 at 16:52:54

AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46302
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
Since: February 2, 2002

You make a good point.

DACs have gotten significantly better at source generated jitter rejection in the past couple years.

Just like other components with an analog output stage, one will hear significant differences among various DACs, more so than the differences among various computers and operating systems, assuming a decent DAC is attached to the computer and the OS isn't hacked to near crippled status.

I am not implying that certain OS optimizers cripple the OS. I am referring to those who willy nilly delete files and kill processes with no clue what they're doing. One inmate crippled his Windows 8 to the point where he was unable to update to Window 8.1, a significant improvement over the original Windows 8.

And for those who habitually misquote posts to strengthen their position, I never said the computer and OS make no difference.

RE: Finally – Beautiful Digital Sound, posted on March 30, 2014 at 17:45:45
theob Audiophile Posts: 3180 Location: ann arbor michigan Joined: November 4, 2000	If you think cplay with the help of all of these characters didnt go deep, you dont know deep. Look i have migrated to jriver but cplay with a fully slimmed os (how about a 16 mb windows os) is deep. Or do you mean something else by deep?

RE: It depends on the DAC, posted on March 30, 2014 at 21:30:18

Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000

"You make a good point."

Not really. SoS... Is it just an opinion? Any actually listening?

"DACs have gotten significantly better at source generated jitter rejection in the past couple years."

What DACs and what technology in the last two years? How have they made these difference? Who in this conversation is using a bad DAC?

"Just like other components with an analog output stage, one will hear significant differences among various DACs, more so than the differences among various computers and operating systems,"

You keep saying exactly the same thing without ever actually listening. You "hear significant differences" without listening... Very talented...

IMO is is exactly the opposite. The OS makes a major difference, these differences have nothing to do with the sound of different analog stages.

How do different analog stages factor into the discussion?

"assuming a decent DAC is attached to the computer and the OS isn't hacked to near crippled status."

Again... What does this mean? Does the computer need crutches to play music?

"I am not implying that certain OS optimizers cripple the OS. I am referring to those who willy nilly delete files and kill processes with no clue what they're doing. One inmate crippled his Windows 8 to the point where he was unable to update to Window 8.1, a significant improvement over the original Windows 8."

You repeat this over and over again. What is the point? What does this have to do with playing music?

BTW...Have you compared the sound of Win 8 vs 8.1? Is it a "significant improvement"?

Did the original post have anything to do with Win 8? 8.1?

"And for those who habitually misquote posts to strengthen their position, I never said the computer and OS make no difference."

Ok... smh LOL...

RE: Interesting career-Those, posted on March 30, 2014 at 22:27:03
fmak Audiophile Posts: 13158 Location: Kent Joined: June 1, 2002	of us who are engineers see audio in real life situations. Managing PhDs has nothing to do with what transpires within audio replay. There were at least two PhDs who I worked with who were idiots.

RE: It depends on the DAC, posted on March 31, 2014 at 04:46:45

b.l.zeebub
Audiophile

Posts: 9361
Location: 52deg 28'N,1deg56'W
Joined: April 17, 2006

If the OS does make a major difference you should be able to easily tell if something was recorded using SADiE (Windows) or Logic (MacOS).

So far nobody has been able to tell one DAW from another from listening alone as long as the settings were the same in any case.
In the cases where it was possible to hear a difference it was tracked down to pan pot ballistics as the default setting varies from DAW to DAW. Once these were set to the same audible differences disappeared regardless if the computer attached was a Mac, Linux or a Windows machine.

Ive been very happy with the dual pc and server 2012, posted on March 31, 2014 at 05:16:14
panhead Audiophile Posts: 920 Location: chicago Joined: January 20, 2007	So I agree with this article. Not really interested in listening to any other input. I did the CICS mods to XP altho I have not tried linear power supplies or modding the motherboard. This is much better in my opinion. Cheers!!!

RE: Ive been very happy with the dual pc and server 2012, posted on March 31, 2014 at 05:31:32

theob
Audiophile

Posts: 3180
Location: ann arbor michigan
Joined: November 4, 2000

I don't doubt your experience. From all that I have heard 2012 Windows Server and further slimming thereof is the way to go. I personally believe Cplay has been bested also . But the slimming of XP was the breakthrough brought about by pioneers like Steppe, Jack Wong and others and it did go far. XP was only so capable though along with its associated hardware. Now others are following suit. Lets give credit where credit is due.

RE: It depends on the DAC, posted on March 31, 2014 at 07:58:21

AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46302
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
Since: February 2, 2002

Scrith makes a very valid point. Not sure why you can't accept that.

And why are you so confrontational and defensive? You're starting to sound like another inmate here who lashes out if someone's opinion isn't in perfect alignment with his.

"What DACs and what technology in the last two years? How have they made these difference? Who in this conversation is using a bad DAC?"

Improved interfaces including async USB i/o, improved clocks, galvanic isolation, better power supplies. You can read about it here on the Asylum if you take the time. A lot of folks who are on the DAC of the month merry-go-round.

"You keep saying exactly the same thing without ever actually listening. You "hear significant differences" without listening... Very talented..."

B.S., I've listened to several DACs over the years and a few OS's.

"How do different analog stages factor into the discussion?"

Scrith commented on DACs. I commented DAC analog output stages. That's how it factors into this discussion. I'll explain it for you. Different analog output stages in various DACs can sound very different, therefor altering the overall sound of a system. I thought that was pretty basic and something most folks would understand and take into consideration. Maybe not.

"Again... What does this mean? Does the computer need crutches to play music?"

Have you not read some of the disaster stories here about people 'slimming' their PC's to oblivion? Some have been willy nilly slimmed to crippled status affecting the playback of music and basic operation of the computer. I won't name names but one of these boneheads is very active here and many of us know who it is. He also likes to defragment his SSD and recommends it highly to others. A real wiz! ;-)

"You repeat this over and over again. What is the point? What does this have to do with playing music?"

Ah, who's chest beating and repeating over and over again about the virtues of Windows Server 2012 and AudioPhil's Optimizer? Seems we hear about it from you on a weekly basis, at least. We get it. You love Windows Server 2012 and AudioPhil.

By show of hands or a reply post since we're on an internet forum, who here is running Windows Server 2012?

smh, and LOL back at you. Peace.

RE: It depends on the DAC, posted on March 31, 2014 at 09:15:02

Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007

"If the OS does make a major difference you should be able to easily tell if something was recorded using SADiE (Windows) or Logic (MacOS)."

Not necessarily so. Here's why.

Capturing analog signals in digital form is fundamentally different from converting a digital stream back to analog. The reason is the information flow from the ADC to the computer is strictly one way. There is no information flow needed from the converter to the workstation and there could be an isolation barrier that allowed signals to flow in only one way to the workstation. (Some of the optical interfaces have this property.) Assuming that there is physical separation from the analog preamps and ADC and power isolation (as could be done by battery power or other means) then there is no way the computer can affect the analog circuitry and the converter, which fully determines the bits that are sent to the work station and recorded on storage.

Going the other way, the situation is different. Information must flow from the digital domain to the analog domain, namely the bits in the computer have to somehow make it to the DAC so they can be converted into analog. Since these bits are in reality an analog waveform, unwanted information is passed on this connection in addition to the desired stream of 0's and 1's. There is an "ideal" waveform that is a function of the 0's and 1's in the file that is being played back, but in addition to this there are timing variations and amplitude variations and (depending on the physical signalling) there may be other signal paths in which unwanted information (noise) can make it from the computer to the DAC (example: common mode noise). It is difficult to isolate the desired bits from the unwanted noise and doing so well requires a high level of engineering skill across multiple disciplines.

One way to remove the digital noise of the workstation from the playback equation is to capture the digital output of the workstation in a file. At that point the workstation can be powered down or playback moved a continent away from the source of digital noise. You may hear differences between the different workstations and operating systems, but only when playing back on them, not when playing back the recordings made on them on a different system.

Here are two exceptions.

Many recordings are processed through multiple levels of analog to digital conversion. For example mic pre to ADC to file, file to DAC to analog mixer, analog mixer to ADC to file, file to DAC to analog mastering chain, analog mastering chain to ADC to final file. In this case, it may be possible to hear differences as a function of the workstations that are running DACs in the production chain. However, the best recordings are going to be made without unnecessary conversions and these are the gold standard for audiophile recordings. These recordings are either made with one microphone per channel or passed through an analog mixing desk prior to the initial analog to digital conversion. As a result, none of the effects you mention will be operative.

If the workstations are used to do anything more than straight capture and "razor blade" edits then any digital signal processing will affect the results. Here the issue is not the underlying operating system but the specific digital plugins that are used and the settings the engineer has chosen. Again, this is a sub-optimal case when it comes to recording quality, since the need for this processing has already shown that something was less than ideal in the original recording. (This is the norm for non-acoustic music, but with the better record labels it is the exception for classical music.)

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

Glad you think so, posted on March 31, 2014 at 11:03:58

rickmcinnis@dogwoodfabrics.com
Audiophile

Posts: 3040
Location: Atlanta
Joined: December 15, 2003

I have played around with SERVER quite a bit. I know what you can and cannot do with it

TO REPEAT: There is nothing in OPTIMIZER you could not do for yourself and that means no reduction in size. Beyond adjustments the next big step, as found previously with XP, is file deletions.

Are you saying you know how to disable FILE PROTECTION? Are you saying the OPTIMIZER has discovered a way to disable FILE PROTECTION?

What is the size of your WINDOWS folder? How much smaller is it than it was to begin with, before OPTIMIZER? I suspect it is the same size. In fact, I am sure it is.

You need to look at other FORUMS and you will see there is not universal agreement that the OPTIMIZER is so optimum.

What modifications/improvements had you done to XP? Are you talking about XP as installed? If so, you have no ideal what XP could do.

Glad you are happy.

RE: It depends on the DAC-It's, posted on March 31, 2014 at 11:54:41

AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46302
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
Since: February 2, 2002

"IT guys are basically technicians who install, operate, repair and provide support for computing installations."

Really? Most of the "IT guys" I know in my IT line of work have computer science degrees, electrical engineering degrees, mathematics degrees, many with advanced Masters degrees, a handful combined with MBA, plus some Ph.D.'s. And they usually make more money than the typical back-office engineers who you would never place in front of a customer. ;-)

RE: It depends on the DAC-It's, posted on March 31, 2014 at 12:03:13
Tony Lauck Audiophile Posts: 13629 Location: Vermont Joined: November 12, 2007	What kind of company do you work for? Probably not the kind that Fred is constantly dismissing. Tony Lauck "Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: It depends on the DAC-It's, posted on March 31, 2014 at 12:18:39

AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46302
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
Since: February 2, 2002

I work for a 100,000+ employee true 'systems company' with solutions developed in house and through acquisitions ranging from disk, filesystems, flash memory, tape heads, tape drives, tape libraries, microprocessors, servers, advanced networking infrastructure, operating systems, virtualization technologies, compilers, integrated development environments, databases, middleware, applications, and complete purpose built, repeatable and scalable turnkey 'engineered systems'. ;-)

RE: It depends on the DAC, posted on March 31, 2014 at 13:47:40

Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000

"Scrith makes a very valid point. Not sure why you can't accept that."

Because it is not a valid point IMO sorry. It is just a clueless assumption, or theoretical assertion. No fact, just fiction. Until you have this DAC in hand, why bother?

"And why are you so confrontational and defensive? You're starting to sound like another inmate here who lashes out if someone's opinion isn't in perfect alignment with his."

You tend to do the same thing over and over again when it comes to something you do not WANT to understand. You are entitled to your closed minded opinion, but please state them as such.

"Improved interfaces including async USB i/o, improved clocks, galvanic isolation, better power supplies. You can read about it here on the Asylum if you take the time. A lot of folks who are on the DAC of the month merry-go-round."

This has been longer that two years, and who HERE is using a DAC that is not pretty up to date? You are not using a Sound Blaster card. The DAC you think you are hoping for does not exist.

"Ah, who's chest beating and repeating over and over again about the virtues of Windows Server 2012 and AudioPhil's Optimizer? Seems we hear about it from you on a weekly basis, at least. We get it. You love Windows Server 2012 and AudioPhil."

Forgive me if I like progress. This is a hobby and should be fun and actually exciting. I have been doing this for a long time and still fondly remember great innovations I have listened to over the years.

"By show of hands or a reply post since we're on an internet forum, who here is running Windows Server 2012?"

Well actually allot of users, 500 all over the world. Pretty impressive IMO in such a short time. See link post #409. There is nothing wrong with progress. Some things are actually breakthroughs. IMO this one actually is.

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f10-music-servers/whos-use

RE: It depends on the DAC, posted on March 31, 2014 at 14:07:05

AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46302
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
Since: February 2, 2002

"You tend to do the same thing over and over again when it comes to something you do not WANT to understand."

Please tell me what it is that I do not understand that you apparently do.

I made the simple statement in my post to Scrith, "...one will hear significant differences among various DACs, more so than the differences among various computers and operating systems...", and that was enough to trigger your endless ranting.

Do you not agree with my comment above? If not, lets agree to disagree. It's really quite simple. No need to lose your mind and go ballistic.

RE: Glad you think so, posted on March 31, 2014 at 14:45:47

Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000

"I have played around with SERVER quite a bit. I know what you can and cannot do with it"

Do you think that there are actual OS professionals that might know more than you. Not everyone is "PLAYING AROUND"...

"TO REPEAT: There is nothing in OPTIMIZER you could not do for yourself and that means no reduction in size. Beyond adjustments the next big step, as found previously with XP, is file deletions."

Thank you oh omnipotent one, we now know all we need to know. BTW, WTF does size on the disk have to do with anything??? smh... You really think DISK size matters... Are we in the dark ages? Should I be putting leaches on my computer also???

"Are you saying you know how to disable FILE PROTECTION? Are you saying the OPTIMIZER has discovered a way to disable FILE PROTECTION?"

I would always recommend using protection... :)

Try it yourself and see...

"What is the size of your WINDOWS folder? How much smaller is it than it was to begin with, before OPTIMIZER? I suspect it is the same size. In fact, I am sure it is."

Again... Why does that matter. It is what is running and how stable the OS is not how small.

"You need to look at other FORUMS and you will see there is not universal agreement that the OPTIMIZER is so optimum."

Really... Where is this???

"What modifications/improvements had you done to XP? Are you talking about XP as installed? If so, you have no ideal what XP could do."

Many moons ago, I have moved on. Sometime progress in a good thing. Until you have ACTUALLY done something and not just "played around" it would be nice if you don't insist you are correct. In this instance IMO you are not.

RE: It depends on the DAC, posted on March 31, 2014 at 14:55:34

Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000

"Do you not agree with my comment above? If not, lets agree to disagree. It's really quite simple. No need to lose your mind and go ballistic."

I disagree. With the DACs that most of us have, the better OS will make a serious difference. IMO these are differences that no DAC can add to the equation.

It is not that serious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCSoN1tqmgU

Are you in pearl-growing (or mining) business, Bob?, posted on March 31, 2014 at 15:16:26
carcass93 Audiophile Posts: 7181 Location: NJ Joined: September 20, 2006	Because that's the only way I see that you can afford wasting them in such quantities, casting them in this manner before you know whom.

In other words, if 2x2=4 - you're wrong. In all other cases, you're correct., posted on March 31, 2014 at 15:25:24
carcass93 Audiophile Posts: 7181 Location: NJ Joined: September 20, 2006	In the line for "perfect DAC", take the number, and stand behind Tony Lauck.

Sorry, couldn't resist ..., posted on March 31, 2014 at 17:09:59

EmailTim

BS - Bull Sh*t
MS - More of the Same
PHD - Piled Higher and Deeper

Sorry, couldn't resist ...

Wish I had a math major(and then some).

RE: It depends on the DAC, posted on March 31, 2014 at 17:11:13

AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46302
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
Since: February 2, 2002

Restating what I said for clarity:

"...one will hear significant differences among various DACs, more so than the differences among various computers and operating systems..."

And your response:

"I disagree. With the DACs that most of us have, the better OS will make a serious difference."

I stand by statement above that the DAC itself will make a more significant difference. That's all.

M.A.D.

RE: Sorry, couldn't resist ..., posted on March 31, 2014 at 17:33:54

AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46302
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
Since: February 2, 2002

You don't need a BS, MS, or PhD around here... just a pair of good boots for when it gets really deep.

Don't lose sight of the big picture

RE: It depends on the DAC, posted on March 31, 2014 at 17:45:44
Bob_C Audiophile Posts: 2667 Location: NY Joined: July 31, 2000	"I stand by statement above that the DAC itself will make a more significant difference. That's all." You are entitled to your opinion. But... What have you done to ASScertain this?

RE: In other words, if 2x2=4 - you're wrong. In all other cases, you're correct., posted on March 31, 2014 at 19:58:35

Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007

I never claimed that a perfect DAC would provide magical transportation to the original recording sesssion (assuming that such a thing even existed). All I said was that it was possible to build a DAC whose sound would be not be dependent on the computer equipment upstream. By this definition two possible (not necessarily convenient or practical) solutions come to mind, but these serve as an existence proof of the concept:

1. The Brick DAC™. This product is 100% guaranteed to provide complete transport independence. All computer transports sound the same. Indeed, all recordings sound the same, whether Debussy or Death Metal. One can purchase these inexpensively at one's local Home Depot, but some skill is required to understand how to (not) attach appropriate cables to the device. It is likely that this product is also "cable independent" but YMMV.

2. The SDcard buffered DAC. The data from the computer is recorded on SDcard. The link to the computer is disconnected and the computer is powered down. Then the SDcard DAC plays the data stored in the SDcard. It is reasonably certain that what you hear will not depend on anything in the computer that happened other than the bits that were sent to the SDcard. Whether or not what you hear sounds good will depend on the specific product. You might try the Mirus if you are a fan of SABRE chip based DACs. Some people say that the USB input and the SD card on this DAC sound the same, but this could be nothing more than marketing hype. The Mirus does not include an SD card writer, but these and SD cards are available at Amazon.com. You can use Win32DiskImager.exe to write your audio files onto SD cards. There may be some user interface and latency issues, but I think it reasonably likely that this approach will achieve computer independence, although I don't have hands on experience with this the Mirus so I can't say how good it might sound.

Personally, I recommend The Brick DAC™. It has two great advantages: there is no need to spend tens of thousands of dollars on amplifiers, speakers and room treatments. Also, if installed properly (there is no other way) one can be assured that neighbors will not complain about loud music. :-)

By the way, in GF(3) 2 + 2 = 1.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

http://www.resonessencelabs.com/about-mirus/

RE: It depends on the DAC, posted on March 31, 2014 at 20:17:14

Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007

I hear differences when I tweak my computer. The ones I find convenient I do when I am listening seriously. But I've not found a single one of them that makes more difference than adjusting the volume control up or down a 1 dB step, angling my speakers a degree or two clockwise or counter clockwise, or moving my listening position half a foot forward or back. These are at most a few percent of sonic changes, vs. comparing a good recording or a poor recording. And if one wastes money or time chasing useless tweaks one will miss lots of wonderful music that could be enjoyed even on the proverbial AM table radio. Just my opinion. My DAC is relatively independent of what happens in my computer. YMMV.

At the danger of sticking my head in a wrong place, I will say that if your experience is much different, then your equipment has some serious problems, or you are not a music lover, or you are seriously over qualified at making yourself miserable by worrying excessively about irrelevant details.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: Ive been very happy with the dual pc and server 2012, posted on April 1, 2014 at 05:22:29
panhead Audiophile Posts: 920 Location: chicago Joined: January 20, 2007	I do greatly appreciate the efforts of the pioneers here in the CICS threads. Just going in another direction these days. Cheers!

RE: Ive been very happy with the dual pc and server 2012, posted on April 1, 2014 at 07:36:19
theob Audiophile Posts: 3180 Location: ann arbor michigan Joined: November 4, 2000	How much for the hardware, software,Server os ?

Dream On, posted on April 1, 2014 at 07:51:43
fmak Audiophile Posts: 13158 Location: Kent Joined: June 1, 2002	nt

Indeed as you said, posted on April 1, 2014 at 09:12:32
fmak Audiophile Posts: 13158 Location: Kent Joined: June 1, 2002	you have stuck your head in the wrong place. To equate the sonic effect a a few degrees movement of your speakers, to the effects of using a top notch dac with the right ancilliaries (cabling, placement, isolation) and an OS/player that is not doing upsampling, room correction etc etc is just downright 'in the wrong place)!

RE: In other words, if 2x2=4 - you're wrong. In all other cases, you're correct., posted on April 1, 2014 at 10:14:20
AbeCollins Audiophile Posts: 46302 Location: USA Joined: June 22, 2001 Contributor Since: February 2, 2002	Resonessence Labs has some interesting DACs. On one of their webpages they show a 256GB SDXC card which is a good amount of capacity in such a small package, but still rather expensive at around $450 +/-. If I had an extra $5000 USD it might be fun to give it try:

"sticking my head in a wrong place" - may be you did, may be not. Depends..., posted on April 1, 2014 at 10:49:06

carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006

... on what this place - PC Audio forum - is, exactly.

If, as some of us assumed - probably erroneously - that this is the place where audiophiles, interested in computer audio, gather in pursuit of higher sound quality, then you certainly did. Not just today - you are doing it for quite some time now, just not as obnoxiously as some others.

If, on the other hand, this is the place (and I'm getting this impression a lot lately, thanks to posts by 1-2 VERY vocal and obnoxious individuals) where clueless, stubborn and hearing-impaired come, to put down anyone who dares to strive for better sound (and doesn't own 6 iPods) - you stuck your head just in the right place.

I sincerely hope you're being serious only about option #1, The Brick DAC™. , posted on April 1, 2014 at 11:05:06

carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006

BTW, that name is taken by a real DAC already, so better come up with a different name, let's say The Dumbbell DAC™.

Regarding SD card player - I'm sure you realize, better than many, that combining transport and DAC in one chassis does NOT make DAC independent of transport, and doesn't tell you anything about resulting sound quality. Not too different from a stand-alone CD player - how many "perfect" ones have you encountered?

One Day special on the Brick DAC™, posted on April 1, 2014 at 11:17:33

Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007

Resonessence Labs claimed a while back on their web site that only a few audiophiles had been able to hear a difference between the SD card and the USB interface, with an older firmware rev. They also claimed that after a certain firmware rev, none of these people could hear a difference. I don't doubt this, but I'm sure that several of the vocal inmates here have yet to hear this product. Personally, I'm a bit suspicious of SD cards themselves. There may be the same "bits" stored in them from the normal user interface, but these bits may be physically stored in different places due to wear management algorithms. SD cards contain a microprocessor and some hackers have found how to program this processor for nefarious purposes. It would not surprise me that two "bit identical" files on an SD card might sound different, unless there's been a very good job isolating the SDcard reader and processing from the clock, DAC, IV and analog output circuits.

Another DAC that some customers report is immune to its digital input is PeterSt's Phasure NOS-1. Its physical construction lends credence to this being a design goal. This is another DAC that I'd like to hear.

Today, I am having a one day special on an audiophile edition of the Brick DAC™. I am taking pre-orders on this product. The product is priced in bitcoin and will be a bargain at 4.2 BTC. Payment in bitcoin must be received no later than 12:01 AM, EDST, April 2, 2014 to reserve your place in the first production batch. Payment should be sent to 1M2AntDLHvmshSHge5DBL2v4sVHCS45hUv

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: "sticking my head in a wrong place" - may be you did, may be not. Depends..., posted on April 1, 2014 at 11:32:58

Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007

If the goal is to get better sound in a computer audio system, there are two ways to go about doing it: 1. to tweak the computer, 2. to select and configure the DAC and auxiliary cables and isolation devices. All are means for achieving the same goal. Personally, I believe that some of the computer tweaks discussed here ought better to be discussed in the Tweaks/DIY.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: I sincerely hope you're being serious only about option #1, The Brick DAC™. , posted on April 1, 2014 at 11:56:30

Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007

The definition of "transport" is arbitrary, which is why I believe my post used the word "computer". As I mentioned in a later post, an SD card itself might be said to contain a "computer" and for that matter my Mytek DAC (which does not contain a transport) also contains a computer.

Obviously, what matters is how the system sounds. If DAC 1 scores a 3 on sound quality with transport A and a 3 on sound quality with transport B, then it is transport independent. One would definitely prefer DAC 2, which scores a 5 with transport A and a 9 with transport B, even though it is not transport independent. And, depending on pricing, one might even prefer DAC 3, which scores a 1 with transport A and a 10 with transport B.

I have no way to evaluate CD players as being perfect, as I do not work in the marketing department of either Sony or Philips. I do not believe it is possible to achieve perfect sound with any PCM format of lower resolution than 768/20 or DSD of lower resolution than DSD128. However, I have heard 192/24 and DSD64 recordings that sound excellent, certainly better than any consumer level tape or LP playback that I've heard.

The gold standard for converter perfection is comparison of a live microphone feed, vs. a live microphone feed passed through an ADC -storage- DAC loop. (The storage part is needed because without it it is possible for jitter in the ADC clock and DAC clock to cancel each other out. For evaluating other qualities of the DAC it may be more convenient to eliminate the storage portion.) The problem with this approach is that the ranking of DACs will differ if the ADCs used are different. There is no technical standard or specification of which is correct, and seldom does one get to even know what the equipment used was in making a recording. Because of the lack of these standards, the entire concept of perfection in a DAC is pretty much empty. So I would say, forget about "perfect" DACs. However, it would be possible to tell if a great sounding DAC has "perfect" isolation, by garnering a large collection of poor to excellent transports and listening to how the DAC sounds with these. Of course one would need a suitable set of recordings that would provoke various artifacts that less than stellar performing products might produce and a sufficiently good analog and acoustic back end.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: "sticking my head in a wrong place" - may be you did, may be not. Depends..., posted on April 1, 2014 at 12:09:54

Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000

"If the goal is to get better sound in a computer audio system, there are two ways to go about doing it: 1. to tweak the computer, 2. to select and configure the DAC and auxiliary cables and isolation devices. All are means for achieving the same goal. Personally, I believe that some of the computer tweaks discussed here ought better to be discussed in the Tweaks/DIY."

You are really not what many would call serious when it comes to computer audio. Maybe you are just not curious enough, or just can't be bothered.

None of this is life and death.

It is perfectly fine if you are happy playing music on your one home computer.

But... You tend to make judgments which you are not qualified to do.

RE: "sticking my head in a wrong place" - may be you did, may be not. Depends..., posted on April 1, 2014 at 12:21:38
Dynobot	None of this is life and death ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ People need to let that echo for awhile. Its a freakin HOBBY, everything is fair game. This may be a good time for some to self diagnose and read DSM-V guildlines for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Listen to music and stop analyzing sound.

RE: "sticking my head in a wrong place" - may be you did, may be not. Depends..., posted on April 1, 2014 at 12:32:14

Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007

Indeed, some people do not consider me serious. And there are some people here who are doing things that I think are foolish. If they are happy with their system, then good for them. Some do not seem to be such, however, as they are constantly swapping out components, making new tweaks, etc., and this leaves me wondering if they have any time or even interest in listening to music.

I haven't seen many here who are qualified to make judgements outside a very narrow context of their personal experience. In their posts, most people show themselves to be hobbyists or dilettantes. In their posts, few show any understanding of the scientific method and what is needed to reach conclusions that go beyond anecdotal. Most people appear to me to be just puttering around, but perhaps they aren't and there's a lot they've done that doesn't appear in their posts. Far be it for me to judge their qualifications without meeting them in person and without hearing their systems. (The latter is the gold standard test for me.)

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: "sticking my head in a wrong place" - may be you did, may be not. Depends..., posted on April 1, 2014 at 18:33:14
AbeCollins Audiophile Posts: 46302 Location: USA Joined: June 22, 2001 Contributor Since: February 2, 2002	I enjoy music daily, and I don't even tweak my system to death daily. ;-)

RE: "sticking my head in a wrong place" - may be you did, may be not. Depends..., posted on April 1, 2014 at 23:50:58
Old Listener Audiophile Posts: 2090 Location: SF Bay area Joined: February 6, 2005	"Finally – Beautiful Digital Sound" Is this an audiophile version of the slogan "Perfect Sound Forever"? It is sad that it takes some audiophiles so long with so much grief to get beautiful sound. my blog: http://carsmusicandnature.blogspot.com/

No there are 3 ways, posted on April 2, 2014 at 07:52:24
fmak Audiophile Posts: 13158 Location: Kent Joined: June 1, 2002	1,2 and combination of 1 and 2

RE: "sticking my head in a wrong place" - may be you did, may be not. Depends..., posted on April 2, 2014 at 11:02:36
AbeCollins Audiophile Posts: 46302 Location: USA Joined: June 22, 2001 Contributor Since: February 2, 2002	I agree. The implication being that over 99% of Asylum inmates cannot be enjoying 'beautiful digital sound' because they are not running Windows Server 2012 with AudioPhil's optimizer. Sheesh, gimme a break already! I bet less than 1% (far less!) of Asylum inmates run Windows Server 2012 so I guess that means none of our systems produce 'beautiful digital sound'. ;-)

RE: "sticking my head in a wrong place" - may be you did, may be not. Depends..., posted on April 2, 2014 at 12:14:33

Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007

I'm sure there are some who are running Cplay on a modified WXP system who will tell us they are "enjoying beautiful digital sound".

I would say that I also hear "beautiful digital sound" on a large majority of my recordings, especially the hi-res ones, but there are people here who have concluded (or at least posted) that I am deaf and fooling myself, because I am not running preferred software in my computer. I would go farther and say that I enjoy "beautiful sound" with out adding any (potentially damning) qualifier such as "digital".

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: "sticking my head in a wrong place" - may be you did, may be not. Depends..., posted on April 2, 2014 at 13:14:57
Bob_C Audiophile Posts: 2667 Location: NY Joined: July 31, 2000	"It is sad that it takes some audiophiles so long with so much grief to get beautiful sound." Where do you see grief, or any time frame???

"Beautiful Digital Sound" is highly subjective, isn't it?, posted on April 2, 2014 at 13:28:30

carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006

I'm sure you personally can stick one end of generic USB cable into generic PC, another into cheap DAC, and declare the result "Beautiful Digital Sound".

Someone more discerning would call that "mediocre digital sound" - and would be entirely correct, IMO. Someone else might call your attitude very non-audiophile-like, and also an impediment on the way to better sound - and would be entirely correct, too.

Not to mention that you have no idea how long it took someone to arrive at the solution he's comfortable with, or how much grief it caused (none, I suspect).

RE: "sticking my head in a wrong place" - may be you did, may be not. Depends..., posted on April 2, 2014 at 13:30:44

Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000

"The implication being that over 99% of Asylum inmates cannot be enjoying 'beautiful digital sound' because they are not running Windows Server 2012 with AudioPhil's optimizer. Sheesh, gimme a break already!"

Where was that the implication? That was just the title of someones blog? Do you have serious issues of comprehension? Nobody is allowed to discuss anything progressive without you coming back with the SOS regarding PCs and operating systems.

"I bet less than 1% (far less!) of Asylum inmates run Windows Server 2012 so I guess that means none of our systems produce 'beautiful digital sound'. ;-)"

The world is much larger than just the AA, maybe you need to check it out.

Why don't you put the video back up of your empty room, it would be more useful interesting and than what you are posting...

RE: "Beautiful Digital Sound" is highly subjective, isn't it?, posted on April 2, 2014 at 14:07:02

Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007

Personally, I am looking for "beautiful sound" like what I hear at live acoustic concerts. When I hear reproduced sound that is quite close to what I hear at live concerts and provides similar musical enjoyment, I'm not going to consider it "mediocre". The problem with digital sound, at least until fairly recently, is that most of it wasn't even "mediocre" it was more like "disgusting". (Or going way back to the 1980's, the word might even have been "vile".)

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

Here's beautiful - and certainly digital - sound, with equally beautiful video, for you., posted on April 2, 2014 at 14:17:27
carcass93 Audiophile Posts: 7181 Location: NJ Joined: September 20, 2006

+ 1 there -t, posted on April 2, 2014 at 14:25:37
Sordidman Audiophile Posts: 13665 Location: San Francisco Joined: May 14, 2001	. "Asylums with doors open wide, Where people had paid to see inside, For entertainment they watch his body twist Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"

RE: Here's beautiful - and certainly digital - sound, with equally beautiful video, for you., posted on April 2, 2014 at 14:55:25

Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007

Thanks for the video. I enjoyed it and, fortunately, my neighbors were out of town so I could play it at a suitable volume level. I would say that the music has certain similarities to the work of Carl Orff, as in this video:

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmina_Burana

RE: "Beautiful Digital Sound" is highly subjective, isn't it?, posted on April 2, 2014 at 15:44:48

Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000

"The problem with digital sound, at least until fairly recently, is that most of it wasn't even "mediocre" it was more like "disgusting". (Or going way back to the 1980's, the word might even have been "vile".)"

I felt pretty much the same, never cared for digital until I started with computer audio. Even then I still preferred analog, but digital convenience was just too appealing for all but the most serious listening.

With my current system I do not miss analog. Quite an accomplishment IMO.

For fun I sill enjoy trying different things. I recently tried a new Linux program Daphile. It is actually a pretty nice program Very good Linux audio but IMO not as good as my current system or a maybe good MAC system. Worth giving a listen, the developer has done a very nice job.

Everyone has different a mindset, some technologists and inquisitive and others complacent.

Either one can enjoy music equally. One can be whomever they like, but IMO most "computer people" I know enjoy tech and still find it interesting even after all these years. Maybe some of us are still just young at heart.

RE: "Beautiful Digital Sound" is highly subjective, isn't it?, posted on April 2, 2014 at 16:59:45

Dynobot

Yeah he did a good job, but its still your standard Linux/Squeeze (Play/Lite) under the hood.

He won't budge on tweaks being a bits-r-bits guy, but strangely enough he uses a real time kernel....which is said 'not' to have any benefit in play back.

Either way, if someone wants an effortless setup of Squeeze... Daphile is the way to go.

MpdPup is an abandoned puppy, already obsolete.

Still there are lots of options for every OS, so no worries.

Its been awhile since I played with Windows audio, I might give W-Server a spin, seeing I have an extra SSD laying around.

RE: "Beautiful Digital Sound" is highly subjective, isn't it?, posted on April 2, 2014 at 20:57:53

Old Listener
Audiophile

Posts: 2090
Location: SF Bay area
Joined: February 6, 2005

It is a subjective judgement. For me, that judgement has nothing with the cost of the components or the amount of tweaking that I did.

I do my homework before I buy audio gear and expect to use it a long time. During that time I'm listening to music with only occasional thought about the sound of the gear.

> Not to mention that you have no idea how long it took someone to arrive
> at the solution he's comfortable with, or how much grief it caused
> (none, I suspect).

I remarked on the title of the OP. It is an audiophile ritual to talk about how terrible digital audio (or computer audio) sounded through various gear changes until the magic formula was found. I'm not surprised that humor is lost on you.
my blog: http://carsmusicandnature.blogspot.com/

When AUDIOPHILE OPTIMIZER discovers it ..., posted on April 3, 2014 at 14:48:52
rickmcinnis@dogwoodfabrics.com Audiophile Posts: 3040 Location: Atlanta Joined: December 15, 2003	it will be true.

RE: Glad you think so, posted on April 3, 2014 at 15:47:34

riboge
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Joined: June 25, 2008

Rick, you know I participated from nearly the first in the evolution of cMP, regard it highly and still use it. But these developments for the first time seem possibly an advance over that, which may involve a better alternative to rampant slimming. File removal is not a belief system but a rather crude though effective way of making improvements in the windows jungle. It's like using a machete. It seems logical to me that a more surgical and informed optimization could do better.

However, I would be very interested in links to forums where skeptical and negative reviews of AO and server 2012 can be considered to round out a take on these developments.

RE: "Beautiful Digital Sound" is highly subjective, isn't it?, posted on April 3, 2014 at 16:53:25
Bob_C Audiophile Posts: 2667 Location: NY Joined: July 31, 2000	"Its been awhile since I played with Windows audio, I might give W-Server a spin, seeing I have an extra SSD laying around." That is funny, since last week you said you already did... Does MPD.... pup stand for multiple personality disorder?

RE: "Beautiful Digital Sound" is highly subjective, isn't it?, posted on April 3, 2014 at 17:08:42

Old Listener
Audiophile

Posts: 2090
Location: SF Bay area
Joined: February 6, 2005

> Does MPD.... pup stand for multiple personality disorder?

No, but there are daemons at work.

my blog: http://carsmusicandnature.blogspot.com/

Music Player Daemon Community Wiki

RE: LoL nt, posted on April 3, 2014 at 17:14:58
Bob_C Audiophile Posts: 2667 Location: NY Joined: July 31, 2000	nt

RE: Glad you think so, posted on April 3, 2014 at 21:10:28

Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000

"It seems logical to me that a more surgical and informed optimization could do better."

It really is better.

It is hard to understand how anyone who have never used the software can know so much about it. It is also is rather weird that he is using server 2012 which was first recommended by Phil. Phil is a very talented professional programer and a serious audiophile, not just someone fooling with software. He actually supports his product and goes the extra mile to insure AO users get their systems up and running. Read the testimonials on Computer Audiophile.

"However, I would be very interested in links to forums where skeptical and negative reviews of AO and server 2012 can be considered to round out a take on these developments."

There aren't any...

I was talking about AO not SERVER, posted on April 5, 2014 at 08:05:30

rickmcinnis@dogwoodfabrics.com
Audiophile

Posts: 3040
Location: Atlanta
Joined: December 15, 2003

Since I am using MQN which I thought I had made clear I have to use something other than XP, which I also thought I had made clear. My point was THE PLAYER is the most important thing and then you use an OS the player requires.

There are many good things about SERVER and many bad things. What a surprise. My point was this batch file which could be duplicated and likely even improved by an intrepid hobbyist is not the last word on making SERVER work its best since, I suspect, it does little more than duplicate cics's initial setting for using XP. Based upon what I have read in other forums and the authors own paper.

The stumbling block for getting the best out of SERVER and the players that need a 64 bit platform is finding out how to rid the thing of file protection so we can calm the thing down.

As I said earlier - it could well be that this, if done, will not make any difference. Who knows until we have tried it?

I am amused when someone thinks an OS made for a wide range of uses cannot be improved by customizing it for a very specific use. But then I have not spent 100 euros on a batch file so I have not got my ego entangled in my audio system.

I have not used XP for over a year. I am not entangled in XP in any way. I have deleted all of my old installs. No going back. Nonetheless, there was intimation that minimized XP was not stable and that was not the case. My XP install started and stopped or stayed on for days with no glitches at all once finalized.

Conversations end quick when you invent language & terms, posted on April 6, 2014 at 10:52:01

Sordidman
Audiophile

Posts: 13665
Location: San Francisco
Joined: May 14, 2001

That are your own inventions.

A transport is not arbitrary, it is clear & defined to everyone but you. The computer is a transport. The SBT is a transport. There are different kinds of transports; a PC is a different kind of transport than a disc spinner. Transports can have the qualities of goodness & badness. Anything that delivers a digital signal, (no matter what the delivery process is), to the DAC section, (no matter where that DAC section is located), is a transport.

As we/they violate computers into exclusive music playback devices, we limit the computer to a music playback, digital file transport.

Once we stop agreeing on the meanings of our words, conversation & language breaks down & becomes meaningless.

"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"

Sorry; there are about 33.6 more choices Tony, posted on April 6, 2014 at 11:00:44
Sordidman Audiophile Posts: 13665 Location: San Francisco Joined: May 14, 2001	and a tiny bit more open-minded-ness & forethought would allow you to see this. "Asylums with doors open wide, Where people had paid to see inside, For entertainment they watch his body twist Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"

RE: Conversations end quick when you invent language & terms, posted on April 6, 2014 at 11:56:56

Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007

Sorry you were confused. Unfortunately, computer audio technology is complicated.

The definition of "transport" and "DAC" represent the division of commercial products into components, e.g. a one box "CD player" became a two box "tranport" and "DAC processor". Such definition evolves over time with the development of technology. For example, back in the days of reel to reel tape machines, a tape deck often consisted of a "transport" and the electronics, This was the start of definition and it carried over into CD players and later two box CD players. With solid state storage electronics this mechanical-electronic division becomes inoperative since there may be no moving parts at all associated with media storage. When one starts talking about more complex networked systems then it becomes even more complex because the control function of the traditional transport (e.g. start/stop, ff/rew) may be completely separated from the device that is generating the bit stream and there may be distant devices that hold media storage that are serving as file storage, not media transport.

Given this situation, I think it best not to niggle about details. The context of my post was to make it clear that my understanding of computer audio was that it included all of the components that would affect good quality sound out of a computer based audio system and hence that my comments suggesting one would be better advised to concentrate on making a DAC immune (or installing reclockers or other isolation devices) properly belonged in this asylum, and not some other one such as Hi-Res or Digital. My intent has been to discuss getting good sound out of computer based systems and not to disparage them, so I do not believe my comments are out of place, as some people have implied.

There is also a question of what constitutes a "DAC section". One needs to be quite precise about the engineering details of this if one wants to have a system that is immune to jitter. Since the clock that maps the digital bit stream into an analog waveform is obviously part of the DAC then it should count as part of the DAC. However, if this clock actually controls the rate (timing and pitch) of the music one could say that the clock is actually part of the transport. So the definition of "DAC section" gets complicated and subject to debate unless there is a precise definition (which many non-technical audiophiles probably wouldn't understand) and detailed engineering design details (which are seldom if even available for commercial products).

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: Sorry; there are about 33.6 more choices Tony, posted on April 6, 2014 at 12:16:59

Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007

There are at least 57 other factors that affect the sound of an audio system other than the digital and mixed analog/digital portions normally discussed in this forum, e.g. computer plus DAC in the simplest form. However most of these also affect the sound quality of other sources, e.g. preamp, amp, speakers, room in their myriad aspects and are often not relevant to the discussion here except on occasion. (Examples where these are relevant are where the high frequency output of a DAC. espiacially a DSD DAC or a NOS DAC interacts with the downstream amplification, etc.) There are also examples where the noisy computer affects the preamplifier and amplifier (or obviously in some cases the listener's ears). But by and large, and particularly in the thread where people are talking about improving sound by tweaking the computer and associated digital equipment, I think my division was fairly comprehensive, if not detailed, namely, tweaking the computer and tweaking all the other digital devices in the audio system.

It is certainly possible that I left something out or that there are other interactions that are possible whereby the computer affects the sound even if the DAC is "perfect". So I would be quite open to a more detailed list. It is possible to consider various experiments that may make it obvious if there are other paths of "leakage" through the computer other than through the DAC (plus any adapters/reclockers). However, no one to my knowledge has conducted these. (Example: comparing the quality of playback from analog sources when the computer and DAC are powered down, powered up but idle, and powered up and "playing" but not driving the preamp.

There is also the question of whether the computer software (including driver and O/S) are even sending the correct bits onward. Years ago, people used to worry about this big time, because the usual operating systems mangled the bits. But today, one doesn't hear much about these problems and it has been quite a while where someone has discussed how to ascertain whether the software is actually sending the correct bits. Since there has been a lot of software releases that have gone back in the past few years, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if there are new bugs that are subtly corrupting the sound in some cases.

IMO, if someone tweaks a computer system and hears better sound, then they ought to verify that their "improved" transport is sending the same bits on to the DAC. Somethings remain an unnecessary mystery. For example, there has been continual discussion of "integer mode" in various versions of Apple operating systems. However, if there's been any discussion of whether the bits going to the DAC are the same in integer mode as in the other mode, I've seen no discussion of this. This is something that can be easily measured by someone who has a second computer with a digital input on the sound card. I know for a fact that conversion between 24 bit audio and 32 bit floating point and back to 24 bit can change the bits (e.g. low order bits). I also know for a fact that this difference is subtle but heard by some audiophiles on resolving systems. So these are all important details. But I don't see discussion of them.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: Ive been very happy with the dual pc and server 2012, posted on April 7, 2014 at 11:45:06
panhead Audiophile Posts: 920 Location: chicago Joined: January 20, 2007	I probably have about $1200 in the setup. Found 2012 license on fleabay for $100

RE: Conversations end quick when you invent language & terms, posted on April 8, 2014 at 10:18:42

Sordidman
Audiophile

Posts: 13665
Location: San Francisco
Joined: May 14, 2001

Definitions really don't evolve that much. They can improve, by further excluding the possibiity of other things.

You make some good points. But, as with the clock, there are players that have no master clock, but clocks built into the DAC(s).

Being precise about engineering details has nothing to do about whether something is a DAC or not. "Immune to jitter" is a laudable goal: but has nothing to do with being a DAC or not. But it has something to do with being a good DAC. There is nothing complicated at all about the definition of a DAC. It either converts the digital signal to analog, - or it does not. How good it does this, or where the Master clock is located, has nothing to do with it. DACs were around a while before computer transports.

If developers are having issues with computer transports to their, (or a), external DACs, then they have issues with the computer as a different kind of transport. Or, the type of "older" DACs that were optmized for motorized disc spinning transports, have to be modified to accept the different kind of digital signal that comes from a PC. This is the reality that we've seen from Wavelength, Ayre, etc. DACs sounded GREAT (better) before designers/people used them with computers.
Blaming the DAC for a noisy mainboard, power supply, hard drives, bus, etc. is misplaced blame.

We talk about all of this stuff in a context. That context, IMO, should include different experiences that will help us develop a better reference. Getting a wide range of viewpoints and perspectives, only helps. If you have listened to a 6 box Wadia disc transport with separate DACs, (for example), you will have the ability to make comparisons between a fully optimized computer based transport and DAC. Especially if you take away the Wadia disc spinner and plug your PC in.

Computers are commercial products too. And those products have never been optimized for audio. So therefore it is up to us. Since DACs have been a part of excellent audio playback for years before PCs, it stands to reason, that we cannot cavalierly place blame on the DAC as being the stop-gap to good sound. This is especially true given the validity of point to point wiring in the high end. The experience from manufacturers, and consumers has been, (rightly), to tweak the computer to the point where it is no longer one: making it even more of a "transport." No matter the quality of the DAC, Pure Music is still going to sound different than Amarra.

"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"

RE: Conversations end quick when you invent language & terms, posted on April 8, 2014 at 11:16:32

Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007

I mostly agree with what you said. As to the computer creating noise in the motherboard and affecting the DAC, it might also affect the preamp and amplifier. One can consider this possibility by running the computer while playing analog source material and seeing if there is an adverse effect. One can also try various combinations of how these effects might get coupled, e.g. signal cables out of the computer, power cables (if one has some long extension cords that can go to other circuits), etc...

Ordinarily, the signals on the motherboard are supposed to remain inside the computer and not appear on the outside. We know that this is not the case, as can be easily seen by using a battery powered portable AM radio. This is another useful diagnostic tool that can be used to trace down these effects. I also know that these signals vary according to what the computer does, e.g. the frequency of interference alters according to the loop timing (e.g. as controlled by buffer sizes). In decades gone by people used to play music on AM radios by running special software that timed these loops.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: Excellent post nt, posted on April 9, 2014 at 21:35:57
Bob_C Audiophile Posts: 2667 Location: NY Joined: July 31, 2000	nt

RE: I was talking about AO not SERVER, posted on April 10, 2014 at 21:04:50

Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000

Pretty much everything you posted above is inaccurate, and some actual fiction.

It is all good though.

It would be nice if we talk more about what we really know, and do first hand without bias, assumption and innuendo.

But no problem. Some people still like wearing polyester... lol

Computer Audio Asylum

Finally – Beautiful Digital Sound

108.27.250.147