|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
50.67.253.53
I am quite new at this, on the older side, and trying to decide whether to go with a dedicated PC in the near future or wait for one of those Pono players. If it takes off I am wondering if down loading from their proposed store and running the hi rez files through the Pono player and onto my pre amplifier will be just as good as using a PC. A good basic from what I have seen can be put together for a bit more than the Pono, which will be 400.00 initially. Since I have not dedicated myself either way ( and coming from cd play back - plus various blu ray concerts on the home theater set up in 5.1 playback )they both look up to the task. Of course, I will be looking at the audio only blu ray releases forth coming as well which is another source. Any thoughts on the merits of either option?
Edits: 04/06/14Follow Ups:
no. The contraption looks awkward to carry as in not pocket friendly. Most kids are listening via their phone either by itunes or streaming service and are not going to carry this thing-a-ma-job around with them. I don't know of a single non audiophile that will re-download their entire music collection so they can play 96/24 files through their Beats headphones. At home, I have nothing less than redbook quality file and are you going to tell me the things going to sound even close to my QB9? Seriously doubt it. And where are they going to get 96/24 files from? Upsample from existing MP3 and redbook or are they going to remaster, which they have not hinted at...I don't think. Hopefully, I'm proven wrong, but me don't think so.
As something that will allow me to carry with me and be able to play 24/96 files so that I don't have to carry a laptop, USB drive and a USB DAC. The headphones I'll still need.
At home I'll keep using a dedicated laptop as a music server connected to the home system.
Like some others I have issues with paying up to $25.00 for a single album, but am looking forward to listening to my own HD recordings while on the road. I tend to use 24/96 as I couldn't hear any difference from 24/192.
I'm sure I'll download a couple of albums, and who knows? Maybe the price will someday drop below the cost of a new CD, my $10.00 decision point for buy a hard copy or download.
Of course, having a PC will be a required element: to download music, keeping music organized and backed up, and for synchronizing playlists to the Pono.
I don't think anyone can say which should be your primary music playing device, however. We have to wait until the production version of the Pono is delivered at the end of the year. I mean, I'm very hopeful about it... but to get to the heart of your question we'll need to hear from Pono buyers comparing it against their high end computer systems.
In my opinion, you'll be better off in the long run setting up a more versatile PC. I see the Pono as an 'accessory'. Just my 2-cents.
"In my opinion, you'll be better off in the long run setting up a more versatile PC."
Possibly, depending on how the Pono turns out. However, be warned. If you post about your "versatile PC" you may be denigrated for having a computer that is not "audiophile approved" no matter how it sounds. You may be denigrated as "ignorant" of how audiophile approved computers sound, no matter how close your system may sound to live music. You may even be denigrated for being "deaf" as evidenced by your continued use of such a denigrated system.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
The majority of people who optimized their - dedicated to audio playback - computers, started with a general purpose ( non-optimized ) computer, so they really have a point of reference. They use optimized setups, because it sounds better than non-optimized - simple as that.What you, and some other excessively prolific (albeit devoid of relevant experience) poster here, have - is just a non-optimized setup, without optimized alternative to compare against.
Considering that you seemingly pride yourself, among other things, on being motivated by logic - the stuff that you post sometimes sounds truly bizarre.
Edits: 04/07/14
Check your reading comprehension. I am not denigrating myself. I may be opening other people to denigrating me, but what do I care if they do.
Incidentally, I have optimized my computer, at least to the point of what I considered diminishing returns. I did this when I got the new Windows 7 machine and until I did that I did not find that it sounded as good as the older PIV WXP system. In the end, it sounded at least as good, and eventually better after I got a new DAC. When I got the new DAC I also did considerably more testing and optimization of the computer.
I also do things which improves the sound further by having the computer do more than just be a transport. This includes a modest amount of digital room correction. This is something that some people have denigrated as degrading the sound. The fact of the matter is that it is quite possible to compare the sound with and without digital room correction (and was something that I did very extensively when setting up the convolution file). I found two large benefits to enabling this, the first being that it evens up the bass, as can be heard with a walking bass line of a plucked string bass. (It also makes drums sound considerably more realistic with the drum head vibration modes easier to discern.) The other difference appears with large scale acoustic recordings such as symphony orchestras, where the room walls appear to disappear and the sound stage goes beyond the boundaries of the room. It is easy to do comparisons by turning this correction on and off. There is no doubt that the degradation caused by the extra DSP processing is less than the overall acoustic benefits. Alternate ways of doing things might be better, such as adding a serious amount of bass traps (not practical in this room) or adding a hardware parametric equalizer (which might itself degrade sound quality). There are always tradeoffs.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
but why consistently question and downplay the efforts of those who get better results by lowering the influences of their computers, their hardware and their Operating Systems?
" This includes a modest amount of digital room correction. This is something that some people have denigrated as degrading the sound."
Not a bad idea.
"There is no doubt that the degradation caused by the extra DSP processing is less than the overall acoustic benefits. Alternate ways of doing things might be better, such as adding a serious amount of bass traps (not practical in this room) or adding a hardware parametric equalizer (which might itself degrade sound quality). There are always tradeoffs."
Like you say there always trade offs. The room does cause more problems that many people realize. I was never big on tone controls. I do use room treatment, but it is not practical for everybody. I think DSP is not a bad idea at all.
the best results are down in separate hardware. It also depends on the room.
"the best results are down in separate hardware."
I think you are correct where DSD is involved, because the software approach requires a second level of delta-sigma modulation with extra high frequency noise. I'm not sure that this applies for PCM files, where the 24 bit PCM file can be converted to 32 bits and processed with very high accuracy by the convolution engine and then the 32 bit PCM sent to the DAC.
When I get a chance I will try running the Room EQ convolution off line and playing the convoluted files directly. That way there won't be any real-time processing affects of the computer to affect sound quality.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Obviously, there's a trade-off - but I don't see a reason why, as is your experience, in a particular room/system flattening of frequency response wouldn't outweigh the "impurities" introduced.However, it's entirely separate issue from having an optimized, dedicated to audio playback computer. It potentially introduces higher (not by much, I'd bet) requirements for processing power and memory, nothing else.
Edits: 04/07/14
Actually the room EQ raises the processing anti quite a bit as a function of the sampling rate. Not such a problem when running PCM up to 192/24, but doing the room EQ at DSD sampling rates (without down sampling) uses major amounts of processing power and makes it essential that the computer is completely dedicated to audio otherwise there will be glitches. (This is because I have a second generation core i5. With a faster processor this might not be such a problem.) Again, the tradeoff is is between (1) no room EQ, (2) downsampling to 352.8 for room EQ, and (3) doing room EQ at 2822.4. The latter sounds best if it's a cool day, but not on a hot summer day because I have yet to solve the CPU fan problem, where the RPMs reach audible levels on hot conditions.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Have you tried a high performance heatsink-fan?
Several years ago I replaced a stock Intel HSF with a Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus. I think the Plus has been replaced with EVO but it's the same idea - a monster heatsink with heat pipes and a large fan that will revolve slowly.
The downside is size, you need a case that is large enough since the HSF sticks out quite a bit.
There are better ones available but for less than $30 it's doing a good job.
not picking up on the sarcasm are we?
Did you notice that there's someone in this forum, who combines two precious qualities - being clueless, and being unable to learn in principle? Even after 2 week-long suspensions in recent months?
Have you ever noticed that people who are predisposed toward anger and rage often miss the sarcasm?
N/T
Yeah, I've heard it all before Tony. The funny thing is, it is so simple to 'optimize' my computer for audio-only playback, then change it back to 'normal' status. The player software allows me to disable several services at a push of a button when playing audio only, then restore them back to 'normal' the same way.
But in all honesty, there is not a huge difference either way. I hear much bigger sonic differences between different DACs but that simple comment is incomprehensible by a couple inmates causing them to go ballistic with anger and lose their minds.
"Yeah, I've heard it all before Tony. The funny thing is, it is so simple to 'optimize' my computer for audio-only playback, then change it back to 'normal' status. The player software allows me to disable several services at a push of a button when playing audio only, then restore them back to 'normal' the same way."
What you are doing with AA+ is rather minimal, some do allot more. You can do wherever you want but please do not think what you are doing is optimal, and fault others who do more.
"But in all honesty, there is not a huge difference either way."
Because what you are doing is pretty inconsequential.
"I hear much bigger sonic differences between different DACs but that simple comment is incomprehensible by a couple inmates causing them to go ballistic with anger and lose their minds."
So you heard a big difference between your W4S and PS DAC?
No one is angry.
But it is rather annoying that you crap on every thread when people discuss things that you do not do or have no interest in.
Do you realize how stupid it sounds when you keep talking about crippling a computer. If someone's OS does get, worse case, scrambled, just reinstall it!!! WTF it is not like they stuck a PB&J sandwich in the CD player drawer!!!
"What you are doing with AA+ is rather minimal, some do allot more."
I've gone beyond just using AA+ to include UNIX command line to disable various services. Did you conveniently miss that in my last post?
"You can do wherever you want but please do not think what you are doing is optimal, and fault others who do more."
I never implied that my system is 100% optimal but it is sounding fantastic and I enjoy it daily. Who here is uniquely qualified to define what is optimal? Is that you?
I am not faulting anyone who wants to do more.
I do fault those who insist that others aren't serious about computer audio because they haven't tried every flavor of OS under the sun, every player, and can't be bothered to try every new tweak of the week. Some of us actually spend more time enjoying music on our systems while others appear to be engaged in endless computer head banging.
"But in all honesty, there is not a huge difference either way."
"Because what you are doing is pretty inconsequential."
Of course! As I've been saying all along, a properly functioning computer makes a difference but not huge relative to downstream components. Much bigger differences can be found elsewhere.
"So you heard a big difference between your W4S and PS DAC?"
Differences between the PS Audio NuWave and W4S DAC-2 are plainly audible but whether one is an improvement over the other is a matter of personal preference and system synergy. I find it hard to believe that every new computer tweak of the week has positive benefit, as some here will have you believe.
In a nutshell, the W4S is slightly warmer and richer. The PS is more resolving, transparent, and extended. I have heard huge differences between the Wavelength Brick v3, Luxman DA-06, and Prism Orpheus. Much bigger differences BTW than any OS tweaks I've tried in Mac OS and a couple flavors of Windows.
No one is angry.
I beg to differ. I'm not suggesting that YOU are angry but at least one inmate is predisposed to anger and rage, and often lashes out by cursing others. He's toned it down lately after being recently reprimanded (a couple weeks ago) and his comments removed in another AA forum.
But it is rather annoying that you crap on every thread when people discuss things that you do not do or have no interest in.
This thread was about the Pono and I replied to it. I then responded to a comment that was directed at me . If anything, a couple others are guilty of highjacking and 'crapping' on this thread. Who might they be Bob?
Do you realize how stupid it sounds when you keep talking about crippling a computer.
Do you realize how pompous it sounds as you judge what is stupid and what is optimal for computer audio?
Way before your time Bob as an active AA inmate, but what I find stupid (or rather, blatantly wrong) is that one of our most vocal 'experts' here makes it a point to belittle "IT Guys". Yet he is the one who habitually does the most stupid and damaging things on his computer and suggests them to others.
I could list several examples but a couple of the more comical ones include #1)defgramenting SSDs for better performance, and #2)partitioning an SSD to localize wear and minimize it in the other partition. Any "IT Guy" knows that #1) will have very little to zero effect on performance but unnecessarily accelerate wear on the SSD. #2)will have no benefit on SSD wear at all.
"I've gone beyond just using AA+ to include UNIX command line to disable various services. Did you conveniently miss that in my last post?"Since I emailed you the free PDF I guess I am aware of the OS settings.
"I never implied that my system is 100% optimal but it is sounding fantastic and I enjoy it daily. Who here is uniquely qualified to define what is optimal? Is that you?"
There are hundreds of processes and threads, common sense would dictate, the more you can stop the better. The ideal would be the OS doing nothing other then processing the audio stream, the closer to this the better. Actually a pretty simple concept. Do you disagree with this?
"I am not faulting anyone who wants to do more."
That's nice.
"I do fault those who insist that others aren't serious about computer audio because they haven't tried every flavor of OS under the sun, every player, and can't be bothered to try every new tweak of the week. Some of us actually spend more time enjoying music on our systems while others appear to be engaged in endless computer head banging."
I have not touched my main system in the longest, other that upgrading Audiophile Optimizer versions. It is amazing how good computer audio can actually sound. My MAC system was very good also, this just happens to be much better. Experimenting with different hardware and or software does not affect my main system.
"Of course! As I've been saying all along, a properly functioning computer makes a difference but not huge relative to downstream components. Much bigger differences can be found elsewhere."
But you have not actually heard what can be done with a better OS. This is still just your assumption. You never have to, makes no difference to me.
"In a nutshell, the W4S is slightly warmer and richer. The PS is more resolving, transparent, and extended. I have heard huge differences between the Wavelength Brick v3, Luxman DA-06, and Prism Orpheus. Much bigger differences BTW than any OS tweaks I've tried in Mac OS and a couple flavors of Windows."
Since I have been using my current system I have not desire to try different DACs. Before I always had the feeling I needed to, something was missing. I do not any more. It was the music server, not the DAC. Everything I play sounds analogue, not digital. Hi-res, redbook, good recordings and less than stellar recordings sound amazing. This is suppose to be fun...
Edits: 04/08/14
Since I emailed you the free PDF I guess I am aware of the OS settings.
Sorry but you'll have to refresh my memory as I don't recall If you're talking about those little Mac OS optimization guides for audio, I've seen those and they are very limited in scope.
There are hundreds of processes and threads, common sense would dictate, the more you can stop the better. The ideal would be the OS doing nothing other then processing the audio stream, the closer to this the better. Actually a pretty simple concept. Do you disagree with this?
It's a simple concept but no definitive proof that it is always true. There are too many variables and modern computers are designed to easily handle thousands of processes and threads w/o breaking a sweat. Running the full blown OS and a music player use so little resources.
But you have not actually heard what can be done with a better OS. This is still just your assumption.
I have heard what can be done with various OS's but not all of them of course. Of all the OS's in use by Asylum inmates, which are the better OS's? Which is the best OS?
I have my reasons for not wanting to use Windows Server 2012, or any other Windows OS for that matter. Been there done that with many MS OS's and prefer not being there anymore.
I have not touched my main system in the longest, other that upgrading Audiophile Optimizer versions.
I know. When I'm talking about 'tweak of the week' I'm referring to some other inmates who can apparently hear a gnat's fart, and every new minor tweak is an improvement.
"Since I have been using my current system I have not desire to try different DACs. Before I always had the feeling I needed to, something was missing. I do not any more. It was the music server, not the DAC. Everything I play sounds analogue, not digital. Hi-res, redbook, good recordings and less than stellar recordings sound amazing."
Well, all I can say about your last sentence above is that less than stellar recordings should sound less than stellar, not amazing.
You haven't been around here long enough to know that I always enjoy trying new components even though I'm very satisfied with my system. It has nothing to do with a feeling that I need to.
Since you seem to have arrived at the perfect computer setup for your needs, you might give a couple different DACs a try just for grins. They can sound very different. For example, I found the very well reviewed Wavelength Brick v3 DAC to be almost the polar opposite of my PS Audio NuWave DAC. The difference in sound is HUGE, not something you need to concentrate on or pay close attention to hear. Same for the Luxman DAC vs PS Audio NuWave.
Inability to learn - in principle.
2 week-long suspensions in recent months - and still continues doing the same crap that caused those suspensions.
How many "restraining orders" have to be given (there are 2 now), until the moderator realizes that this inmate is a cancer, and there's only one cure?
" The player software allows me to disable several services at a push of a button when playing audio only, then restore them back to 'normal' the same way."
Do you know which services are being disabled and what, if anything, task manager shows about their typical usage while they are enabled?
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"Do you know which services are being disabled and what, if anything, task manager shows about their typical usage while they are enabled?"
See page 16...
http://www.wiebel.nl/zut/Audirvana%20Plus%20User%20Manual.pdf
Actually does very little. The other settings he uses are from he $5 ITune books that Steve N. always hawks. The info mostly came from the CA forums and at one time was posted for free on a certain website.
the CAD script for MAC is more extensive and more effective.
There is also a CAD PC script.
That CAD script was pretty buggy. I just looked at it again and it appears to be more extensive than previous versions with (hopefully) some of the bugs fixed. In any case, I've tried many of the more relevant script lines manually on my Mac.
Thanks. That's about what I would have expected. I'm not an OSX person, but there are similar items on Windows, e.g. System Restore. I've not seen problems on my system with system restore interfering with audio, because it is tracking file system changes. Normally during playback (assuming no other applications that shouldn't be running or evil background processing that also shouldn't be running) there won't be any file system writes, nor any file system operations at all except reads and writes. The bit about USB scanning might be a good one for other systems as well, as it is working the interrupt system and thereby interfering with latency. But I don't know how often it happens on Windows. In any event, the optimizations on page 16 seemed directed toward avoiding clicks or other buffer over/underruns, and not focusing on subtle sound quality. And not focusing on the potential benefits of small buffer sizes, which of course will create clicks if latency isn't low.
As an explanation for why the changes didn't affect sound quality: if the system is running with ample timing margins so as to avoid any clicks then the background processes will have little affect on sound quality, e.g. essentially none when they aren't running. And if they do run every few seconds they will degrade sound quality ephemerally, making it very hard to hear the effects. (For example, most of the subtle sonic affects work by affecting sound staging, and isolated events are perceived by the mind as acoustic events appearing in the sound stage, e.g. a snake rattling in the grass.) However, when these processes hit they may cause interrupt scheduling overhead (latency) or steal cycles from the audio application (depending on priority, but even if there is priority for the critical audio inner loop it can hit OS critical sections and cause priority inversions).
If you reduce the buffer size and this improves sound quality (when there aren't any clicks) then it may be essential to kill off all these background processes when listening to music. However, if you don't like being annoyed by clicks, etc., and don't want to do your homework cleaning up the system then you will have to run with larger buffers. (And at least on Windows 7, windows intensive programs that scroll large windows (such as Firefox) can still cause clicks with the largest available buffers when I am playing DSD).
So I suggest minimizing buffer sizes as much as possible and comparing the sound quality vs. larger buffer sizes. IMO the only software changes more likely to affect sound quality than buffer sizes are things directly on the audio path, which means the player, the interface from the player to the driver, any OS audio stack interposed between the player and the driver, and the driver that sends the signal to the DAC. At least, this has been my experience.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Tony,
Please read the linked page for an idea of what I have been talking about.
It does make a significant difference.
Yes, the player software settings pane has several check boxes for which services I want disabled when the player is launched, then renabled when the player is closed.
I can also view the impact of those services with various UNIX utilities or the Mac's Activity Monitor, which is similar to the Windows Task Manager.
The resource impact of those services are tiny relative to the capabilities of the music server, and any audible differences are also minute.
I've gone beyond the check boxes in the player software and have manually killed some processes and compared. Again, the sonic differences are small and not necessarily 'better' or 'worse'. I find much bigger sonic differences with components downstream from the computer itself.
You might post foolishness like you just did Tony.
Really it is not a problem that your system sounds "good". But... You cannot fault people who have different a perspective. You tend too when you become extremely technical. One might think that a person espouses extreme tech might be a bit more curious.
What ever gave you the impression that I'm not curious? I seem to be in trouble with some inmates because of my belief (well founded based on my experience) that DACs make a bigger difference in sound quality than computer tweaks. It's not that I don't use computer tweaks, some of the times at least, but I don't believe that extreme measures to cripple the system are really needed because, again in my experience, there are other ways of getting good results. I would probably have a different opinion if I were using my computer just to listen to music in a dedicated listening room.
I also believe that tweaking software (and hardware, also) without a fair amount of technical understanding is likely to be extremely frustrating, except for people with lots of patience and/or luck. Of course if you enjoy playing with this equipment and consider them "toys" then, fine. For me my audio equipment is more of a "tool" to listen to music and to transfer, edit and remaster recordings.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"(well founded based on my experience) that DACs make a bigger difference in sound quality than computer tweaks."
Bigger is a relative term. Bigger than what? If you are saying less significant... I will disagree...
For this discussion most of us are pretty much using a similar level of DAC. So why keep bring up this theoretical DAC? It does not exist. Even if it did I am not totally sure the theory "THE" DAC will fix whatever you send to it is correct. I feel that the source is sill important. The better the bits are to start, the better they will be in the end.
"It's not that I don't use computer tweaks, some of the times at least, but I don't believe that extreme measures to cripple the system are really needed because, again in my experience, there are other ways of getting good results."
I do not use "tweaks" I use a dedicated PC with a server OS and a professional application, the Audiophile Optimizer which configures the OS for best sound.
" I would probably have a different opinion if I were using my computer just to listen to music in a dedicated listening room."
You can have more than one computer. :) How about a NUC if space is an issue.
"For me my audio equipment is more of a "tool" to listen to music and to transfer, edit and remaster recordings."
You can have more than one tool in your box. :)
Hypothetical gear always sound better.
my blog: http://carsmusicandnature.blogspot.com/
If you have Hypothetical hearing.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: