|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
209.95.36.61
In Reply to: RE: You're right: it's your conclusions that are exaggerated posted by Sordidman on October 17, 2014 at 13:48:44
Thorten's typical MO is long meandering, cutesy replies that rarely, if ever, address the main topic, or question, filled with technical blather and theoretical BS.And again, rarely, IF EVER, any real world experience passed along with regards to modern products.
I told him to stick to DACs because having heard the iFI stuff, is it very good, especially considering the price and features.
As far as front ends, he does not have a clue taking into consideration his position.
Edits: 10/17/14Follow Ups:
You miss the essential point: Thorsten knows what he is talking about. Some others do not. Some don't know or won't admit to their ignorance. BTW, I don't always happen to agree with Thorsten, make of that what you will. He contributes a lot of useful ideas and information and is, unlike some others, rather easy to interact with.
For those who don't understand him, perhaps you don't know enough about the underlying technology. That's not to say you can't get good sound out of your computers. It is also possible to find one's car keys searching in the dark if one is sufficiently persistent and lucky. Actually, if one is sufficiently organized and methodical the technical knowledge isn't really necessary. Unfortunately, not many seem to be organized and methodical.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Much of what he says about computers has little to do with quality audio.
Using an SD Card? Only people with little to do would bother with the procedure and process (or perhaps gadget addicts).
Hi,
> Using an SD Card? Only people with little to do would bother with
> the procedure and process (or perhaps gadget addicts).
It is clear tome that you have no idea how the SD Card players I refer to are designed and operate. They simply play the file (Wave or DSD - something that contains the raw master, no compression etc. supported) directly, using very basic logic (no complex OS,no large scale MCU, I have even seen this done 100% in discrete logic). The data is extracted from the SD Card with the timing of main audio clock and directly send to the DAC Chip, no buffering, reclocking etc, all minimal, even more minimal that CD-Playersever were..
I will readily own that this kind of system has a usability score of minus one million, but that is not the point here. What it delivers is a File player with non of the problems normal Computer based systems (streamersor general purpose) have.
So if I need an "in house reference" as a "stalking horse" strictly for soundquality, such a system would be more likely to be on my list than a "Streamer".
And I still think if someone were to solve the usability issues with such a system, say by having a big SSD Pack internal and by having some form control from an App running on a tablet or PC that offers the same rich interface and ease of use as real PC via ultimately an optical isolated serial I/O, then we would have something that makes the whole debate going on here pointless.
And that is what it has to do with Computer Audio. It is about removing the computer from the equation of audio playback completely.
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
that the card needs to have music copied to it; needs to be of a large size, and needs to be changed if there is a large library (unless you erase and recopy which is a hassle). If one wants to be masochistic ,go for the arrangement. This also counters your arguments for a 'convenient' system.
There are so many offers made for SD cards and the like, and so many fakes that I would not, for one, spend a lot of money for a large card. You don't seem to have understood this either.
Hi,
> What you seem unable to comprehend is that the card needs to
> have music copied to it; needs to be of a large size, and needs
> to be changed if there is a large library (unless you erase and
> recopy which is a hassle).
I comprehend this fine. You still do not get my point. I donot recommend such a system as it exists now for general use. It may however be used as a kind of "absolute reference" against which other systems are judged.
Further, your arguments are not really making much of a point.
If using a computer HDD the music also needs to be copied to them.
To work around the size limits (256GB max at the moment) a multi-slot reader may be integrated. An 8-Socket reader can right now hold 2TB.
To make filling the player easier, simply have a USB Interface for a PC. Add a manager app that also adds all the required meta data (Playlist files, coverart etc.) with the music files, you can fill those 2T quite easily, with the player acting as USB SDCard reader.
If one where to add a small wireless bridge (bluetooth?), one would be able to retrieve the meta data from the SD Card and store it in the the control apps local cache (e.g. on an Tablet). Then you have all the rich interface, searching etc. we get on a Computer, but a playback device which in playback mode is a very basic serial memory reader that then sends the data on.
A USB DAC would not be supportable, but there is no point why a DAC should not be included.
> There are so many offers made for SD cards and the like, and so
> many fakes that I would not, for one, spend a lot of money for
> a large card. You don't seem to have understood this either.
I recently bought a large number of 64G SD Cardsfor my Sony Phone, to take along music in HD (yes, I have to swap cards by hand). Other than having to swap cards the whole arrangements is very convenient and quite easy to use.
I had no problem getting genuine cards at a good price. Maybe you are just too greedy and going for the lowest price ends you up with fakes?
Anyway, I am considering right now buing the Tablet version of my Phone and using this as dedicated music playback/streamer, it sure is cheap enough. Of course, that is still using Computer, even if it is in effect the same platform as a fair few "streamers".
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
spell it right in your post.
You posted as though it was a general thing to do and your reply simply demeans your status as an 'expert'.
SD cards costs at least $2500; more in the UK.
Oh but it were so simple.. :-) That SD card itself already is a computer, albeit a minimal one. SD cards can be hacked. However, it's definitely a very low power computer and its small size probably makes it a poor radiator.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Tony,
SD Cards contain a Microcontroller (usually 8 Bit 8051) for some housekeeping jobs. They operate synchronous with the card operation.
Past that an SD card is just a giant serial flash memory chip. Reading is fully synchronous. All in all an SD Card makes a fine facsimile of a CD in mst areas of operation.
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
I'm not familiar with the instruction set of the 8051, but I am familiar with the similar 6502, which was the processor in the Apple II personal computer. I even programmed it to do digital signal processing (LPC compression of telephone quality voice), and this worked after a fashion, but the processing ran at 10 times slower than real time after I speeded up my original Basic code by changing the data encoding, rewriting the math library routines and doing all the processing in assembler. The 64 kb RAM allowed storage of only a few seconds of voice. My friends and I built a sound card out of a free sample 64 kb Motorola CODEC chip. This was around 1980. I also made the Apple II speaker (connected to a programmable flip-flop) play a mix of square waves of two different frequencies by using pulse density modulation.
While the SD card runs in one clock domain, I'd be surprised if the number of clock cycles required per data transfer is fixed. I'm certain that is not the case when it comes to writes, which can become very slow, particularly if the card has a lot of wear from many writes. I use one of these SD cards with my Raspberry Pi, and I have gone through about six cards in 18 months due to wear-out, from doing system updates, etc..
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Tony,Nothing stops you fixing the clock...
I cannot say I had any flash memory fail on me (despite being machine - washed in my trouser pockets), but my normal use of Flash memory is VERY static (I almost use them in WORM mode), except in my Digital Camera, but even there I tend to pile pictures untilnearly full, then I copy them off and after that format the card.
8051 based MCU are the mainstay of primitive embedded systems, think Fridge, CD-Player etc. and I have used them quite a bit. Though for my recent designs I have switched to ARM2 based Freescale Kinetis 32 Bit processors, which are incredibly more flexible and competetive price wise.
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
Edits: 10/19/14
Are they, and their receptacles shielded? How good is the power supply to them. How big do they need to be in capacity for a system that is convenient to use? What is the price of a 256G card? How do know know before buying that they work as claimed?
For a 256G SD card, I can buy a much larger ssd; may be 1.8 in although these are a nuisance as well by way of some connectors.
This is indeed fascinating. What are the ways that one could realistically be vulnerable or harmed? I only use SD cards for my portable digital recorder and digital cameras.
The main take-home is that these cards can hold hidden information that can not be discovered by the user using only normal access to their pins. This means:
1. If they contain illicit material or malware, they may retain this unwanted information after you think you have "sterilized" the card. This information may remain accessible to anyone who knows a secret code, but otherwise inaccessible by a normal user.
2. This capability makes it easier for the card to serve as a vector for malware or spy ware, etc...
3. If you do not trust the supply chain for the card or if the card has ever been connected to an untrusted computer then it is not to be trusted, and should not be connected to any computer that you wish to continue to trust.
Of course, this depends on how paranoid you are, what information you have and who might want to know it, if you are a person of interest, etc... Probably not a problem for cards used in computers that are never used for anything but audio, but if you have a file server that holds personal material as well as music then there may be a risk.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Thanks for the information.
I guess we have to define a person of interest.:)
Wow! I'd never really considered that. Stupid I suppose but somehow even knowing about wear leveling and defect detection and correction didn't quite ring the bell that there might be a hackable controller on board.
Obviously time to take the dog for a walk, that seems safe and untechnical. Now where's my cell phone...
Rick
I am more concerned with the fact that many won't work reliably in PCs and some can't even be formatted in ntfs.
They seem to work more reliably in cameras.
I have to heavily junk my inbox against sd card and usb thumb drive promotions as I am now very discerning about what removable media devices I buy.
By coincidence, I discovered that SLC thumb drives work best and fastest.
My Raspberry Pi runs off an 8 GB micro SD card. After too many failures I switched to the more expensive cards. These seem to be somewhat better. Operating system updates and software builds are particularly hard in terms of write overhead. Running my embedded system is not a problem, because it is designed to write very little data to the card, and that only on system shut down.
Based on my track record with smaller cards, I'm not likely to shell out the money for a larger SD card. It probably would work OK for holding a small library of reference tracks, but to use it to shuttle daily listening music seems risky, in addition to inconvenient as you pointed out earlier.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Class 10, Ultra, 45MB/s are just labels. In reality none of these shape up to claims and this is buying from major names and large retailers.
Some cards just don't like PCs and Windows. I actually think that it is the controllers which are not sorted.
There are many cheapish Chinese SD card players but there is no telling what player software is embedded. I may try a few at shops when I visit and see what they can do. It is still unwise to pay for large cards for hires music.
On my modified Korg MR1, I actually chose to use a 1.8 in ssd and not a sd card because of the number of modders who had trouble getting them to work with brands other than Photofast .
"Thorsten knows what he talking about" is a very general statement.
If you mean concerning DAC technology and digital processing related to, then yes.
The topic(s)he clearly is not experienced with is the market for audio grade file players or streamers. Nobody with a modicum of first hand use of these components could possibly post what he does.
When he doubted out loud if there was a streamer that does DSD with USB output for less than $1500 and had to be told about the SOtM Mini Server for $449, and others, is pretty conclusive proof he had not spent five minutes researching the market.
Quite frankly there plenty on this board who are very technical with degrees, and some related engineering experience who don't have the first clue how to set up an audio system to stream files and make it sound great, not just good because they are of the spec sheet mentality.
Market knowledge (of the latest "in" products) is at best ephemeral. If one is in the market for purchasing new audio equipment it may be valuable to have this information, and it is certainly important if one is planning a business strategy in a market area. Apart from that it is generally worthless.
I am quite certain that Thorsten could take a collection of mid-fi components and set them up well, so well that they would probably blow away many of the systems put together by high budget dilettantes and poseurs. If you will read Thorsten's posts and learn of his history you will see that he did not come up from the "spec sheet mentality". No one who went that route makes inexpensive good sounding products.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
They stand as firm evidence & Thorsten's erroneous contradictory statements clearly indicate that he didn't bother to look at them.
Since it's never possible to know how equipment can sound on the basis of it's specs, he clearly has very limited, cursory, knowledge.
1. Wrong conclusions about the internal components
2. Hasn't heard the device
3. Wrong about the price
4. Refuses to conduct further research
"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.'"
"Wrong conclusions about the internal components"
Are you joking??? If you look at it, it is in no way a hi end design. It is just a tablet in pretty dress. He is not going to say anything about it. smh... Enough already...
uh no.....
Are you the moderator?
My claim is that it is different: and that is most true.
My claim also is that it is more high-end than a commercial, mult-purpose, computer main-board, - which is also true.
"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.'"
"Are you the moderator?"
I do not think I said that..
"My claim is that it is different: and that is most true.
My claim also is that it is more high-end than a commercial, mult-purpose, computer main-board, - which is also true."
This is a total waste... They are the same, but you will never, or do not want to know. A mother board is a mother board. When you see an audio motherboard please tell us...
Bob, you must know that each brand and issue of motherboard is different.
I tend to like using the same brand and issue for general use because I can migrate w/o hassle. But going Gigabyte to Intel on XP with the same HDD? Different ball game.
"Bob, you must know that each brand and issue of motherboard is different."
Hi Fred,
Yes actually I do. I was making the comment in an attempt to eventually to get the streamer guys to think regarding the "boards" in their pleasure devices.
Slots, ports or the lack of them, does not make a good board, or bad board for audio (as you also already know) and IMO.
The boards they they are using are nothing special. Often off the shelf, an even if custom as in the Aries, still using mainstream parts.
The Intel server board I am using is a good board. The board you are using is a good board also. As you know because it is kind of dumb it can successfully be used with multi-rail linear supplies. Something that cannot be done with many boards.
1. (if you're referring to me) I am not a streamer guy.
I am running a MAC Mini. Sprezza also, is BOTH.
2. Slots, ports or the lack of them, does not make a good board, or bad board for audio (as you also already know) and IMO.
Unless you've tested, them, - how do you? How can you formulate an opinion about something that you have not tested? (hidden answer spelled out): you can't. In several instances: as seen with other types of mainboards, - removing components from the signal path DOES indeed help SQ. Now how much, and if in this case, - is still speculation: with the specific board the we're talking about: (Aries).
3. ""The boards they they are using are nothing special."" What does that mean? How do you define special? Off of what shelf? Are you talking about the Aries? If so, - then of course you are wrong. The gold plated connectors, and the hard soldered in gold plated SPDIF connector clearly shows that the board is not off the shelf. Is it made by AMD, ASUS, INTEL, AnTec, IMicro: from whom's "shelf" does this come?
If you are on some kind of crazy agendae to prove that all transports sound the same, and that a streaming device is the same, and therefore sounds the same: you really should get your facts straight first.
Why not open up that closed mind and back up your speculation with some experience? Or at least admit that you don't know. This is serious dogma regurgitation. Same thing as the VRDS-NEO. Claiming that the VRDS-NEO sounds the same as all other transports because on your own, you decided that the differences "shouldn't" make enough difference, - so you make your speculation into a certain fact. Why do you have such a huge investment in denigrating another approace? Are you that insecure in the one that you're engaged in?
I find this ironic outside the conversation of mainboards, - in that you "all the same" guys are also turning your commercial computer into an (audio only device) by pulling the fans, installing SSD drives, upgrading the HD cables, and installing linear power supplies, and then adding tweaks.
The best that we can say about the Aries is that we don't know if its mainboard differences make it sound any different, or any better.
"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.'"
As far as forming opinions, there are primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. These can be used and weighed accordingly.
I am not calling you a streamer guy or saying that all boards sound the same.What I really I wish you could understand is that what I use and what many of the "serious" people are using are nowhere close to commercial computers.
Please read some other boards such as Jplay and CA if you are interested. Many of these systems are as specialized or more specialized than the brand name streamer transports minus the fancy box and name plate.
I think you really might be missing this point of the discussion.
Edits: 10/22/14
The Bryston looks similar to some of the custom music server builds I've seen. Bryston focused on the quality of the SPDIF and AES/EBU outputs whereas many custom designs like CAPSv3 are focused on the quality of the USB output. I believe you can get the same or better SQ with your own build for less money, but you'll have to take the time to do it, and it will be hard to match Bryston's convenience and system integration features such as front panel display, IR remote, trigger inputs/outputs, RS232 control, and web interface. So I don't think it's a bad deal at all. The Bryston will be for people who want a well integrated, well packaged, turnkey solution. A DIY computer based music server will be for people who enjoy the process of building, configuring, learning, and tweaking as much as the final result. I don't see why there needs to be a pissing contest between people who have taken one approach vs. another.
The Auralic Aries is a bit of a different animal. It is a streaming audio renderer and is designed specifically to receive audio streams over the network and output them to a DAC, with only the minimum hardware necessary to do that. It doesn't have internal storage for your music, it doesn't support attached storage, it doesn't access a remote filesystem, it doesn't manage or index a music library. Because it is more limited in function, and the hardware design is more narrowly focused, there is the potential for it to be a better sounding streamer than a custom DIY computer used as a streamer. But I think it's too soon to say whether it's going to deliver.
Hi Dave K:
I found the tone and content of your posts here to be most welcome.
Lots of thoughtful and neutral ideas.
On the Bryston, however, let me clarify a few things. I have talked extensively with the team there that developed and continues to develop the product.
First, their USB output is every bit the focus as is their AES/EBU and SPDIF outputs. As a matter of fact, they just released a BDP-USB, with USB output ONLY < and no soundcard.
Second, they strongly discourage the use of the display and the remote. The remote is really a system remote. There are several excellent control apps for iOS, and Android to control the BDPs. You can use a web browser too.
The product is based on Auraliti's architecture and was designed for local or ethernet file access.
Lastly, the BDP series can be used with internal storage, SS too, if you desire.
I have not needed support but when I monitor the message boards, the level of support is like nothing I have ever seen.
The Aries..yes a different animal but similar. They CLAIM it is not a streamer but it sure as heck is.
BTW, an upcoming firmware will unlock local file playback from directly connected storage.
"The Bryston looks similar to some of the custom music server builds I've seen. Bryston focused on the quality of the SPDIF and AES/EBU outputs whereas many custom designs like CAPSv3 are focused on the quality of the USB output. I believe you can get the same or better SQ with your own build for less money, but you'll have to take the time to do it, and it will be hard to match Bryston's convenience and system integration features such as front panel display, IR remote, trigger inputs/outputs, RS232 control, and web interface. So I don't think it's a bad deal at all. The Bryston will be for people who want a well integrated, well packaged, turnkey solution. A DIY computer based music server will be for people who enjoy the process of building, configuring, learning, and tweaking as much as the final result."
I agree with you 100%!!!
"I don't see why there needs to be a pissing contest between people who have taken one approach vs. another."
Good point, I agree also... This really does not happen to the same degree on other boards... For some reason when anyone talk about something they might not, or want not to understand the conversations here turn to garbage. There is a good thread on CA now regarding fans and RFI. Take a look back at what happened here when the same topic was mentioned.
Forget about audio for a moment. Are all motherboards equally stable? Are they equally tolerant of a sub-par power supply? Do they all overclock the same? Of course not. Just to pick on two fundamental things, consider power and ground. Power regulation has a large effect on performance, and grounding schemes have an effect on noise on the board and noise radiated from the board. I think it's unreasonable to believe that a small amount of CPU activity in the form of background processes will affect digital audio output but fundamental things like power regulation and grounding will not.
""Power regulation has a large effect on performance,""Very true. The main board is down the list, - for sure.
SOTA performance is of course, a different story.
When the team at Esoteric/TEAC thought that they'd try to see and see what happens when they used a much more precise, beefy, and overkill motor: and a magnesium disc clamping mechanism, - they probably weren't sure if it would improve SQ. And certainly that transport wouldn't sound as good if it had a crappy power supply, or the DAC that one used it with was not very good either.
When one moves up into the category of superior playback, removing unnecessary, (and sometimes what appears to be minutiae), components, can yield (however slight), positive results.
Do you think that a Rasberry Pi and the "slightly custom" board that the Bryston uses would sound the same in the same the case, with the same PSU?
Would the Aries sound the same as the Rasberry Pi running off of it's USB outs?
"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.'"
Edits: 10/22/14
"Do you think that a Rasberry Pi"
Why you keep using this as an example. The Pi is not really up to "audiophile" standards IMO.
If you are looking at ARM boards, there are better ones out there. No they would not the same, but if you took a similar class boards a put it in the system, you could obtain similar results. They did not necessarily select the board for it's "audio" qualities.
When the team at Esoteric/TEAC thought that they'd try to see and see what happens when they used a much more precise, beefy, and overkill motor: and a magnesium disc clamping mechanism, - they probably weren't sure if it would improve SQ. And certainly that transport wouldn't sound as good if it had a crappy power supply, or the DAC that one used it with was not very good either.
When one moves up into the category of superior playback, removing unnecessary, (and sometimes what appears to be minutiae), components, can yield (however slight), positive results.
With a design like the VRDS-NEO, I usually wonder whether the engineering team developed an optimum design through experimentation, data gathering, and analysis. Or did they simply try to make it as perfect as they knew how, hoping that it would improve things. The latter approach seems to be common in high end audio, and it usually does yield improvements, but often we can't pin down the specific design decisions that are most responsible for improvement.
Do you think that a Rasberry Pi and the "slightly custom" board that the Bryston uses would sound the same in the same the case, with the same PSU?
Would the Aries sound the same as the Rasberry Pi running off of it's USB outs?
That's the $100000 question. A problem with computer audio is that there are so many variables. You can optimize all kinds of things only to be let down by a grounding issue or one bad component choice.
From what I can tell based on their designs & the component selections visible in pictures, I would expect the Aries to be superior via USB output except in environments with a lot of RFI, in which case the Bryston might be superior. Regarding replacing the mainboard in the Bryston with a Raspberry Pi, I couldn't guess which would be better via USB output, but I'm certain they would have to cut the feature set if they used a Raspberry Pi. Via SPDIF or AES/EBU, it's really not obvious whether the Bryston or Aries would be better, but they have both spent effort trying to improve these outputs relative to what you would get from a typical sound card.
I am assuming that the differences in SQ between these transports are not due to different data being transmitted, or differences in data rate, or errors in transmission of the data. Restated another way, the hypothesis is that all three transports are equivalently functional as data interfaces.
A USB 2.0 cable contains 4 wires: +5V DC, ground, D+, and D-. The data is transmitted as a differential signal on D+/-.
Of these, the ground is probably most important to SQ. The Raspberry Pi is designed to have a floating ground, and from the pictures of the Aries I believe it is too. So no ground loops, but also no low impedance path out of the circuit for RFI. The Bryston, on the other hand, appears to be grounded to the mains equipment ground. Which is better will be system dependent.
Assuming that you're not powering the DAC via USB, the +5V DC output probably has the least impact on SQ because it will only be used by the transport to signal its presence to the DAC, and the DAC may not require it and might even leave it unconnected. The Aries has a dedicated regulator right next to the USB output, the Bryston has a modular MeanWell supply located on a separate power supply board providing +5V to the mainboard, and the Raspberry Pi also has a +5V input. From a design POV, I guess I would give the edge to Aries here because the dedicated regulator would isolate the +5V USB output from anything else on the board using +5V. But I doubt it makes much difference at all with most DACs.
The D+/D- signal lines could be important, and some of the things that might make a difference are clock stability, bandwidth (sharpness of edge transitions), noise, and possibly DC offset if these lines aren't transformer coupled at the receive end. In this case, I would expect the Aries to have an advantage because it has a dedicated high quality clock for the USB output right next to the controller and it looks like the outputs from the USB controller are buffered by line drivers. The Bryston is just using the USB outputs provided by the mainboard and same for the Raspberry Pi; I couldn't guess as to the quality of these.
Of course, all of this is conjecture. The Aries looks to be well designed for the purpose, but all it takes is one bad design decision or component choice to spoil the sound quality.
All it takes for you to look at the picture, - but you....just
can't
bring
yourself
to
do
it
""A mother board is a mother board""
yes, - you can say it twice: but it doesn't change the fact that not all motherboards are the same: or are you trying to say otherwise?
"When you see an audio motherboard please tell us."
I don't need to, - there's one posted above, so is the Rasberri Pi, goodness they're everywhere.... it's raining motherboards. Wait-a-minute, - we're in a drought, everything sounds the same, all of these streamers are just the same as my ASUS LGA2011 dual Xeon. Those aren't gold connectors: the PCI bus & the video port, and USB inputs are invisible.....
"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.'"
Edits: 10/20/14
So you are playing music on a dual Xeon board. OK..
no
I am arguing on the internet with people who do not understand basic, deductive logic.
"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.'"
So you are arguing with your self. Why bring up something unrelated. I do not think you really understand what the difference in board design might have in relation to improvements in sound? Do you?
Let's make believe that having a video port on a board makes a difference... You might think it would... What about no port, but a chip set with video, but no port? Thumbs up, or thumbs down? What really matters?
I am game......
""Why bring up something unrelated""
I am just responding to your post: which of course, was unrelated.
I made the assertion that they are not the same and they are not.
"" I do not think you really understand what the difference in board design might have in relation to improvements in sound?"
(That is a different statement than the fact that the boards are different). So you admit that there are differences? Good! We are making progress.
"""" I do not think you really understand what the difference in board design might have in relation to improvements in sound?"""
I am confident that you do not....
""Let's make believe that having a video port on a board makes a difference""
I do not know, it may or may not: the only way to tell is to listen to the device and compare it. In a typical audiophile design world, removing superfluous components from the single path usually helps. But either or any bit of speculation is just that.
Do you think that gold plated connectors will help SQ?
Do you think that the lack of a PCI bus will help SQ?
Do you think that the lack of fans on the CPU, a hard drive, or a fan in the case will help?
Do you think that the lack of USB inputs, and a multiport USB bus will help?
How would the (yet again), very different, Rasberry Pi mainboard pan out in listening tests? Would the case matter that you install the Pi in make a difference?
If the mainboards are different, (as you now have finally admitted), do they in fact not sound different? What did you think when you compared them?
Why is your speculation "better?"
"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.'"
"No one who went that route makes inexpensive good sounding products."
How about when they design $12,000 CD players..or paper weights depending how you see things.
You clearly read and believe what you want to.No one here is discussing "in" products, with the exception of the Auralic Aries, from a new company with only one well known product to its name.
However, Bryston, Naim, Linn, Pro-Ject, Marantz, and MANY others here that are discussed are companies that have long histories of making excellent products at all price points.
I have never discussed a digital product here that I have a personal interest in that cost more than $3500. My Bryston BDP-2 cost me $2500, which less than three audiophile local buddies spent on their cartridges, and heck, their tone arms.
One of the big mistakes very smart people in their field, and Thorsten clearly is, is that they think they can fake it in areas they have no first hand experience in. It rarely works.
Do your self a favor so you don't to be in the dark anymore as far as discussing computers versus purpose built audio products. Go and listen to several units you don't consider to be crazy expensive. You still may prefer your computer, that is fine. Those of us who have pursued both avenues have a reference.
Edits: 10/17/14
''stream DSD-512 and PCM-768 from local SD Card storage''
Direct quote from his post
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: