Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

Computer Audio Asylum

Most important component for a music server system

68.146.0.52

I'm new to this area of digital music. From a fidelity point of view, next to the software (e.g. the recording itself, and the lossless format), what is the most important part of a music server based system? Is it the DAC? And after that, is it the connections, interface cables? Or is it the server hardware?

Follow Ups:

Surely this is an impossibly question? - toasties 13:17:11 11/05/09 (1)
I don't think it's possible to give a one size fits all answer to such a question. It's too system dependent.

The ideal system would simply move the data from the computer to the DAC without any clocking at the PC end and suffers no ill effects caused by the PC (power issues etc). The DAC then buffers the data, and clocks it. In such a system, what comes before the DAC should not have any effect on the sound. Software, cables, PC and the rest would merely be able to transfer a relatively small amount of data (this is assuming that all you are interested in is bit perfect playback rather an using DSP). Theoretically such a system shouldn't be difficult since all we are talking about is the movement of data, something technology has become rather good at.

What systems do this? At present mine doesn't since it relies upon spdif. Apparently some firewire solutions do (I have heard not all do, but am not sure). Ethernet solutions do. I thought that async USB did, but given the reports of users and manufacturers, it looks like it fails.

I guess the question is, if your system fails to live up to the ideal, should you spend time and money to improve the PC end with expensive software and cables, or invest in a DAC that takes such things out of the equation. IMO, the latter seems to be the best option
- RE: Surely this is an impossibly question? - Tony Lauck 17:19:50 11/05/09 (0)
  I would not dismiss or accept any of the various solutions based on lack of data. In theory, the ASYNC USB approach should be immune to transport details, as should other clocking schemes that are controlled from the DAC. In practice, things don't necessarily work out that way. The Ethernet approaches may well do the trick. But there hasn't been the in depth experience with these, and the lack of reports that computers connected to network DACs matter should not be taken as proof that they don't matter.
  
  Other "perfect" clocking schemes, such as SPDIF or AES clocking at the transport driven from the DAC, have been shown to lack the "bits is bits" property in practice, although like ASYNC USB they enjoy it in theory.
  
  Tony Lauck
  
  "Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
RE: Most important component for a music server system - Phelonious Ponk 03:42:24 11/04/09 (12)
"From a fidelity point of view, next to the software (e.g. the recording itself, and the lossless format), what is the most important part of a music server based system? "
Transducers. On any music system. Assuming they are competently executed, the difference between the DAC built on your sound card and a very expensive one is small compared to the difference between a ribbon tweeter and a fabric dome. You can fine tune everything from your computer's power supply to the digital cables and what you'll accomplish will be little compared to the clarity and precision you'd get from eliminating passive crossovers. Given the appropriate impedance match and enough headroom, great headphones will sound better straight out of the headphone jack of a fairly quiet computer than average headphones will sound from a fully tricked-out audiophile setup.
Our desire to upgrade and tweak has overridden both our hearing and good sense, and has left us wagging the dog. MHO. YMMV. Etc.
P

Edits: 11/04/09
- RE: Most important component for a music server system - bryan 17:25:13 11/04/09 (1)
  My question was not related to any other part of the audio system, just the digital music server front end. Within that domain, I want to know what is ranking of importance for the different pieces. I think I know the DAC is probably the most important. And all the other things, like connection types between the server and the DAC, isolation of the music server from the rest of your system, are important too.
  
  I have good speakers, and I finally have room treatment. It is not headphone transducers, but it's still pretty good, and worth putting a well thought out and put together digital server in front of.
  - RE: Most important component for a music server system - Phelonious Ponk 18:43:00 11/04/09 (0)
    Ah...in that case, then, my opinion is that the DAC is the most important element by far. It may even be the only one that is clearly audible.
    
    P
- Welcome to Phantasy World, where... - carcass93 09:33:49 11/04/09 (3)
  ... expensive DACs we never heard rival computer's power supplies we never optimized, where great headphones can only be connected straight to the computer (and cannot to audiophile setup), and where digital cables, especially cheap Toslinks, happily transfer 0's and 1's, with no jitter to speak about...
  - RE: Welcome to Phantasy World, where... - Phelonious Ponk 10:26:00 11/04/09 (2)
    Ah, yes. Well of course I didn't say any of that, but enjoy your fantasy (spell checker is your friend) world in which you re-construct the positions of those you disagree with until they appear to be easily refutable, if not ridiculous.
    
    P
    - Yeah you did say that... and "Ph" is intentional. I'll leave the intention up to you to guess - - carcass93 10:37:49 11/04/09 (1)
      - but it shouldn't be too difficult.
      
      Even for you.
      - RE: Yeah you did say that... and "Ph" is intentional. I'll leave the intention up to you to guess - - Phelonious Ponk 10:40:13 11/04/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Yeah you did say that... and "Ph" is intentional. I'll leave the intention up to you to guess - posted by carcass93 on November 04, 2009 at 10:37:49
        
        I notice you didn't quote me saying that, which I'm sure was intentional, for obvious reasons.
        
        P
- RE: Most important component for a music server system - Tony Lauck 07:42:45 11/04/09 (5)
  "Transducers. On any music system. "
  
  While I generally agree, there are different opinions on this.
  
  Except for poor transducers, many of the distortions generated by transducers are natural, ones that the ear/brain/mind have evolved to ignore. On the other hand, many of the distortions generated by non-linear electronics (especially digital electronics which is non-linear by design) are unnatural and so may not be so immediately ignored by listeners.
  
  Some people are more sensitive to these effects than others, and some equipment has more defects of these kinds than others. And so, YMMV.
  
  Tony Lauck
  
  "Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
  - RE: Most important component for a music server system - Phelonious Ponk 09:36:14 11/04/09 (4)
    I agree with all of that, Tony. I suppose where I disagree with many audiophiles is about how common audible distortions are in electronics, and where they most often occur. I believe they are pretty uncommon in common electronics. I believe, on the other hand, that distortions, or colorations if you prefer, are far too common in far too much esoteric high-end gear.
    
    P
    - RE: Most important component for a music server system - racerxnet 10:09:40 11/04/09 (3)
      Tony and P,
      You both make good points. My position is that the speakers have the most effect on sound quality if components are matched well to each other. I have yet to hear any significant sonic differences with cabling or other tweaks. Of course I make sure that there is no impedance mismatch with the Pre-Amp-cables etc. Tuning sound with cable impedance is a no/no in my opinion.
      If you don't like the sound, audition new speakers and make sure your equipment matches up well. Don't forget that the room is as much a part of the equation as well.
      
      Edits: 11/04/09
      - RE: Most important component for a music server system - Phelonious Ponk 10:36:24 11/04/09 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Most important component for a music server system posted by racerxnet on November 04, 2009 at 10:09:40
        
        Agreed, although I do think the potential for mis-matched components has been greatly overestimated by people who have bought too much foo high-end that doesn't adhere to otherwise well-accepted standards.
        
        P
        
        RE: Most important component for a music server system - racerxnet 10:54:07 11/04/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Most important component for a music server system posted by Phelonious Ponk on November 04, 2009 at 10:36:24
        
        Some of the Pre to Amp impedance and speakers can have poor results. Take for instance my Kappa 9's. They have a whopper of needs from the amp on the top and bottom end. About 1.5ohm's if I am not mistaken. That is not the norm, but I tend to look at the whole package and not get caught up in the latest banter. On the other hand, the Genesis 200's are much easier to drive, as well as the RS1b's.
        
        People want to believe that they are getting value for the money spent.. If we would only hold our elected leaders to these same standards. And, we never question the engineering going across bridges, up to the 99th floor or the microwave heating our food, but by god,talk about cables and it instills hostility from certain people on this forum.
        
        RE: Most important component for a music server system - Phelonious Ponk 11:14:00 11/04/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Most important component for a music server system posted by racerxnet on November 04, 2009 at 10:54:07
        
        Yep. This is the reason why well-designed actives can deliver so much more for the money. They not only don't require all the expensive metal boxes, they don't require amplifiers over-designed and over-built to be able to accommodate whatever weird, random load they might be challenged with. The amps and the individual drivers are matched by design.
        
        P
You are likely to spend the most money on - audiozorro 11:03:35 11/03/09 (2)
a computer and DAC. So IMO in decreasing order of importance are:
1. Music
2. Computer
3. Lossless format (AIFF for Mac; WAV or FLAC for Windows)
4. Player software
5. DAC
6. Computer/DAC interface components
But everything matters. From a fidelity point of view most users will focus on the best DAC/interface they can afford and there are excellent choices in all price ranges.
Assuming you rip your CDs in all three formats (AIFF, WAV, and FLAC), which you can do simultaneously with dBpoweramp, you will have a firm and flexibility foundation for future computer audio changes or upgrades.
Hopefully you will spend most of your time listening to music, but ripping CDs or digitizing LPs will take a significant amount of time and if possible, you only want to do it once.
Future technological changes or personal upgrades should not consume much time or worry. Upgrade when the sonic improvement is more than justified by the price. If a simple iPod is all that you need for a music server, who am I to complain.

Edits: 11/03/09
- RE: You are likely to spend the most money on - bryan 14:36:27 11/03/09 (1)
  I am surprised the DAC is less important than the computer. A mac mini is only $600. A good DAC $1K and up.
  
  And your DAC ranking is less than the player software (itunes is basically free!). I'm confused by this ranking.
  - Future planning - audiozorro 11:02:16 11/04/09 (0)
    Tomorrow’s DACs will almost always be better than today’s DACs. My ideal DAC would have 24 bit PCM sample rates up to 192K and DSD sample rates at 64fs and 128fs like the Digital Audio Denmark DAC, sound at least as good as the Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC and cost no more than $3,500. So unless a receive a financial windfall my desired DAC is probably 2-3 years off in the future while I wait for DAC audio improvements and prices to be more reasonable.
    
    Thus in the meantime I am following the advice I give to others. Get an excellent DAC in your budget price range, whether less than $500 or less than $2000, and don’t belabor your purchase for another 3 years. There is much to do and think about when it comes to computer audio, assembling or buying a computer music server, and building a king’s treasure trove of music, without worrying about a DAC that will easily be better and cheaper 3 years from now. And if you build on a solid foundation you will be well suited to benefit from whatever the future brings.
    
    IMO you should hold no allegiance to any particular DAC since the future will bring superior DACs. You only want an excellent sounding DAC now, which is available in all price ranges. On the low end you have the HRT Music Streamer, devilsound DAC and Apogee Duet to name a few. If you’re willing to spend 2-4 times that amount you can buy a Wavelength Audio Proton, Benchmark USB DAC1, or Bryston BDA-1.
    
    But the other choices can lock you in or limit future choices especially if they are free or low cost. The most successful example of this strategy is Microsoft DOS and then Windows which was widely distributed and installed on 90% of the world’s personal computers at little or no cost, even if the no cost copying and installations were illegal.
Don't assume that what you get out of your USB computer port is good. - Norm 05:09:47 11/03/09 (7)
Remember also that the damn switching power supply is probably screwing up the signal within the computer.
- RE: Don't assume that what you get out of your USB computer port is good. - bryan 14:39:12 11/03/09 (6)
  As for the switching PS. Are you saying its noise is applicable to any output coming out, or just USB?
  
  And what do you mean I can't assume the USB out is any good? I have been reading a lot of posts on the computer audiophile board and a lot of people are using USB and Firewire out of a computer. Or putting in a card and using other outputs.
  - I just wish I could hear a computer digital source without a switching power supply. - Norm 07:57:27 11/06/09 (5)
    Some are using Mac Powerbook Pros running on batteries and reporting substantial improvement. I have yet to try it but will soon.
    - RE: I just wish I could hear a computer digital source without a switching power supply. - rick_m 13:56:55 11/06/09 (4)
      So... you don't think laptops use switchers???
      
      Rick
      - When charging their battery, yes. nt - Norm 14:10:17 11/06/09 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: I just wish I could hear a computer digital source without a switching power supply. posted by rick_m on November 06, 2009 at 13:56:55
        
        a
        
        RE: When charging their battery, yes. nt - rick_m 14:44:08 11/06/09 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: When charging their battery, yes. nt posted by Norm on November 06, 2009 at 14:10:17
        
        Well, when running, batteries or no, all of the various voltages are generated by switchers. Not that they necessarily cause anymore net ripple at a given node than would be there anyway due to load induced plane fluctuations, but there you go. Especially sensitive, or noisy circuits may be decoupled with an LC filter.
        
        Battery life and thermal management is King, Queen and Joker so it's switching power supplies and class D amplifiers.
        
        Rick
        
        I guess that this is why many prefer the Mini as the ps is further from the chip? - Norm 16:30:01 11/06/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: When charging their battery, yes. nt posted by rick_m on November 06, 2009 at 14:44:08
        
        I have not yet tried it as initially I am using my Imac24, but many have told me a Macbook Pro on batteries sound best. I will probably still buy a laptop as I need the portability.
        
        RE: I guess that this is why many prefer the Mini as the ps is further from the chip? - rick_m 17:00:23 11/06/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: I guess that this is why many prefer the Mini as the ps is further from the chip? posted by Norm on November 06, 2009 at 16:30:01
        
        Well, it may well sound better on batteries because it eliminates one leg of a potential ground loop. And, depending on how the power management is set up, may run the clock at a different speed and more aggressively manage peripheral power.
        
        It's really hard to generalize. For instance I discovered years ago that my old Compaq laptop just sounded wonderful when used as a CD player through it's internal A/D. Surprised me. Anyway after using it quite a while the battery was getting low so I reluctantly plugged in the charger and tried playing the last CD over to see how much worse it sounded. Well after a lot of passes and very careful listening I could not hear any difference whatsoever.
        
        A few years later it bit the dust and I bought a new one, but haven't really repeated the same test. Speculation is futile, but irresistible so I'd guess that this one won't sound as good plugged in as it has a three-wire grounded cable while the other was galvanicly isolated. But I wouldn't put any money on it...
        
        Rick
Depends on the type of system - J.Mac 01:22:14 11/03/09 (1)
For a networked player such as the Squeezebox, the server hardware matters little or not at all toward sound quality, as long as it can keep the player's buffers full enough not to have dropouts in the playback.

In a system using an internal sound card, the computer hardware and software matter the most. In this setup, the computer is the playback component, so many or all aspects of its electronics may play a part in sound quality.

For a system feeding an external S/PDIF, USB or Firewire DAC, the hardware within the computer connected to the DAC matters less. The DAC is mostly externalized, so it is somewhat isolated from the computer.

If you don't want to worry about tweaking computer hardware and optimizing software, it isn't hard to make a selection from the above. On the other hand, if you want the opportunity to play with a virtually infinite number of variables in the system, that's also an easy choice.
- RE: also Depends on the interface used - cfmsp 07:45:45 11/03/09 (0)
  "For a system feeding an external S/PDIF, USB or Firewire DAC, the hardware within the computer connected to the DAC matters less. The DAC is mostly externalized, so it is somewhat isolated from the computer."
  
  The type of interface used also has an impact. IME, high quality Firewire interfaces are impacted least of all by upstream components, i.e. computer, cables, etc. Next least impacted is Async USB, due to more apparent cable sensitivity.
  
  AES/EBU and Coax S/PDIF require an additional component in the signal path on most computers, specifically, a sound card to get the appropriate signal out of the computer, so there is additional cost, complexity, and opportunity for snafus here.
  
  caveat emptor
  clay
RE: Most important component for a music server system - David Clark 20:20:37 11/02/09 (0)
Everything is important... it is a system that has to work together.
Hierarchy - audioengr 19:05:46 11/02/09 (29)
1) the source must have low jitter
2) the D/A must be low-noise (power system) and low distortion - I prefer a minimum of digital and analog filtering
3) the preamp must be transparent

If you have a great DAC, but give it a high-jitter source, you might as well have bought a cheap DAC. You will not get the benefits of what it can deliver.

If you have a low jitter source and a great DAC, but a noisy preamp, it will "homogenize" the sound by adding noise and distortion. It will mask the great sound of your source and DAC.
- RE: Hierarchy - Squonk 02:39:46 11/03/09 (24)
  Why use a preamp?
  - RE: Hierarchy - audioengr 11:04:48 11/03/09 (23)
    I agree it is better without, but you have to control volume somehow, and changing the digital stream is not the answer. Neither is passive volume control.
    
    Steve N.
    - RE: Hierarchy - Squonk 15:48:52 11/03/09 (22)
      I disagree. My experience proves a passive volume control is exponentially superior to a preamp. On my system that is.
      - Take it from Bob - Dynaudio_Rules 16:54:13 11/03/09 (21)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Hierarchy posted by Squonk on November 03, 2009 at 15:48:52
        
        Passive preamps can never sound as good as an active preamp.
        
        You need Oomph in your music to give it life...passives can't do that...
        
        Scrutiny Strengthens The Truth and Breaks Down Lies 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
        
        RE: Take it from Bob - audioengr 10:56:46 11/04/09 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Take it from Bob posted by Dynaudio_Rules on November 03, 2009 at 16:54:13
        
        Transformer passives can deliver dynamics, but they suffer from magnetic distortion effects unless you pay the big bux. Good cores and silver wire etc..
        
        RE: Take it from Bob - Squonk 14:15:42 11/04/09 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Take it from Bob posted by audioengr on November 04, 2009 at 10:56:46
        
        Passives STILL sound MUCH better than hazy preamps. YUCK! Get that preamp outta here.
        
        I agree - audioengr 14:19:14 11/04/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Take it from Bob posted by Squonk on November 04, 2009 at 14:15:42
        
        But there are yet even other ways to skin a cat!
        
        RE: I agree - Squonk 14:37:28 11/04/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: I agree posted by audioengr on November 04, 2009 at 14:19:14
        
        Yes. lol. Sorry for being a bit obnoxious in my posts about this subject. Most of my posts generally are not because I also believe 'placebo' is real, so, most of the time, I admit, there could be placebo in effect. NOT regarding preamps. As far as preamps go, MY system HATES them, so, I don't mess with them anymore. I have tried some of the best and I HEAR HAZE. My next purchase will definitely be a DAC with balanced variable outs. To me, it just makes sense to have it integrated into the DAC. I know, the bass suffers a little bit (in my system it's not that big a deal) with a passive unit, but, the trade off is too huge for ME. And that's that. Only problem now is I now have a significant other so I now have to have permission before I make the purchase. It will happen though. lol
        
        RE: Take it from Bob - nycparamedic 17:38:58 11/03/09 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Take it from Bob posted by Dynaudio_Rules on November 03, 2009 at 16:54:13
        
        Passive preamps can never sound as good as an active preamp.
        You need Oomph in your music to give it life...passives can't do that...
        
        Well, you really can't say never , because then your going to have to say that you've heard *every* combo of passive pre-amp/amp & active pre-amp/amp and have come to that definitive conclusion.
        
        I have owned a Pass Aleph L and Pass Aleph 5 for a _very_ long time. The Aleph L (version 2) is a unique passive/active design. From the manual...
        
        "Unique to this preamp, patent pending, is a volume level control which combines the best qualities of a passive attenuator and active gain circuitry:
        
        At the 3 o’clock volume control position, the Aleph L offers a direct path from input to output.The only component in the signal path is wire and switch contacts.
        
        At positions below 3 o’clock, the volume control functions as a precision passive attenuator
        using discrete resistor ladders.
        
        Above 3 o’clock, active gain is added to the output signal in 2 decibel increments, for a maximum of 10 dB.
        
        As a result, you suffer the effects of active circuitry only when additional gain is necessary."
        
        I have heard the arguments that using a passive pre-amp "sucks the life" out of music or makes it sound "closed in". But I have also read that the reasons for this happening are because of impediance mismatches between passive-pre and amp.
        
        If you look at the specs (links to follow) of the Aleph L and the Aleph series amps, you'll see that they're designed to work very well together. I have spent many a night switching between passive, 3'oclock, and active gain in my Aleph L and the music has never sounded lifeless in the passive range. I have also substituted the L for borrowed ('cause I really want a remote!!) active pre-amps and have always gone back to the Aleph L. The actives don't sound any better to my ears; noisier, if anything.
        
        Link to Alpeh L manual: http://www.passlabs.com/pdf/old%20product%20manuals/alman.pdf
        Link to Aleph 5: http://www.passlabs.com/pdf/old%20product%20manuals/a5man.pdf
        
        If you happen to come across anyone who has this combo take a listen. You might be pleasantly surprised. Or if you're ever in New York, send me a PM.
        
        Cheers.
        
        RE: Take it from Bob - Dynaudio_Rules 18:26:47 11/03/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Take it from Bob posted by nycparamedic on November 03, 2009 at 17:38:58
        
        Wow thats good information, people tend to forget about impedance.
        
        If I am ever in or near NY, you bet I sure will give you a PM....thanks
        
        Scrutiny Strengthens The Truth and Breaks Down Lies 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
        
        RE: Take it from Bob - nycparamedic 18:34:39 11/03/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Take it from Bob posted by Dynaudio_Rules on November 03, 2009 at 18:26:47
        
        Wow thats good information, people tend to forget about impedance.
        
        If I am ever in or near NY, you bet I sure will give you a PM....thanks
        
        You're welcome.
        
        I just remembered about another paper that Mr. Pass wrote concerning passives and buffer gain stages. Gets more to the heart of the matter.
        
        Take a look-see here: http://www.passdiy.com/pdf/B1%20Buffer%20Preamp.pdf
        
        Enjoy.
        
        RE: Take it from Bob - Squonk 18:07:39 11/03/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Take it from Bob posted by nycparamedic on November 03, 2009 at 17:38:58
        
        My GFP-750 was designed by Nelson Pass. :)
        
        RE: Take it from Bob - Squonk 16:57:50 11/03/09 (12)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Take it from Bob posted by Dynaudio_Rules on November 03, 2009 at 16:54:13
        
        Nope, sorry. I do not like the haze preamps impart on the music. I prefer the openness of a passive. To each his own I guess. On my system, passive is the way to go. No question about it. Free yourself, go with passive, it will set you free. :) Trust me.
        
        Did you control for gain and polarity? - Tony Lauck 08:00:44 11/04/09 (5)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Take it from Bob posted by Squonk on November 03, 2009 at 16:57:50
        
        "I do not like the haze preamps impart on the music. I prefer the openness of a passive.
        
        Did you control for constant gain when you compared actives and passives? For a valid comparison, gain has to be balanced to within 0.1 dB, which can be difficult to achieve depending on your setup. If gain controls are continuous then there is the problem of repeatability. If gain controls are discrete then there is the problem there an accurate level match may be impossible. And if extra equipment is used to deal with gain leveling then this equipment may not be transparent and thus invalidate the entire comparison.
        
        Did you control for polarity when comparing active and passives? A passive is not going to invert polarity (except possibly a mis-wired balanced passive). Many active line stages will invert polarity. If you hear differences you may simply be hearing the difference between two ways of playing the same recording. With some recordings and speakers this can represent a significant difference, at least to some listeners. Unless you have controlled for this effect, any comparisons will be invalid. This situation is more an annoyance and PITA than a show stopper. There being only two possibilities, one can address these more or less conveniently. I used to deal with this by swapping speaker wires, and put up with the lower sonic performance of banana plugs to avoid the necessity of tools. Now I use cPlay, which has a built-in polarity switch.
        
        Tony Lauck
        
        "Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
        
        RE: Did you control for gain and polarity? - Squonk 14:14:14 11/04/09 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Did you control for gain and polarity? posted by Tony Lauck on November 04, 2009 at 08:00:44
        
        lol, no, gain or polarity didn't interfere with my opinion. ALL preamps impart haze. No thanks, pass, never again...
        
        RE: Did you control for gain and polarity? - Tony Lauck 14:44:11 11/04/09 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Did you control for gain and polarity? posted by Squonk on November 04, 2009 at 14:14:14
        
        What do you mean by "haze"? If it is a defocusing of the sound it probably wouldn't be caused by small gain change, but it might be caused by a polarity reversal. Many times when a polarity reversal is corrected, instruments will snap into focus and appear more real. The best way to deal with potential polarity problems is to train oneself to hear them. The first step is to get a convenient way of reversing polarity. Some player software has this capability built in (cPlay) or can be added as an option (Foobar). An alternate way if you're not a couch potato is to get up and reverse speaker wires all the time. (That's the way I used to do it before I got a computer audio system.)
        
        In general, I agree with you, there is little reason to use a preamp if your only program source is a computer system. A passive attenuator is a better option if it can be located close to the amplifier. Or you may get good results (assuming you have a 24 bit DAC) by using fixed attenuation coupled with a software volume control to adjust for overly loud recordings or background listening. (Software volume control should never be used to make up for excessive analog gain, otherwise a computer glitch could blow things up.)
        
        Tony Lauck
        
        "Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
        
        Software volume controls.. are risky - Audio Bling 16:38:20 11/04/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Did you control for gain and polarity? posted by Tony Lauck on November 04, 2009 at 14:44:11
        
        Re: “[..] a computer glitch could blow things up.”
        
        Tony,
        
        I think your warning doesn’t go far enough! People see a volume control in cPlay or Foobar, for example, and think: Gee, I don’t need a preamp or attenuator in the chain at all. But this is a risk for the reason that we know computers are not the most stable things. As you say, if there is a glitch.. Speakers, in particular, are very delicate things.
        
        RE: Software volume controls.. are risky - Tony Lauck 17:40:58 11/04/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Software volume controls.. are risky posted by Audio Bling on November 04, 2009 at 16:38:20
        
        "I think your warning doesn’t go far enough!"
        I won't disagree. All of my previous posts on this subject were more guarded. Over the years, I've blown my share of speaker drivers, some even while "protected" by fuses. Not yet, thankfully, with my computer audio setup, but that's perhaps because I am presently running only 25 watts and listening near field in a small room.
        I have my analog gain set so that the loudest possible digital track won't clip my amplifier, and this corresponds roughly to 103 db SPL at my listening position on peaks. Most material plays at about -8 dB digital gain except when playing background music. Audiophile recordings with no compression get the benefit of no digital volume reduction. The other recordings have to make do with 22 or 23 bits of resolution going to the DAC. I have enough gain for all of my CD rips and downloads. I used to run at a lower analog gain, but some recordings weren't quite loud enough to sound natural. Two examples that get played at 0 dB digital attenuation: Temirnakov Mahler 5 on Water Lilly (88/24 download) and "West of Oz" on Sheffield (CD rip).
        I can easily pass the "you've got mail" test, but I have some test files that have huge ultrasonic energy that would probably smoke my tweeters in a few seconds. It is also possible for heavy low bass to bottom my woofers but I've been able to stop this the few times I've had this happen before doing damage.
        
        Tony Lauck
        
        "Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
        
        Edits: 11/04/09
        
        RE: Did you control for gain and polarity? - Squonk 14:53:05 11/04/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Did you control for gain and polarity? posted by Tony Lauck on November 04, 2009 at 14:44:11
        
        The GFP-750 has polarity switch.
        
        Like This - Dynaudio_Rules 17:04:14 11/03/09 (5)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Take it from Bob posted by Squonk on November 03, 2009 at 16:57:50
        
        Scrutiny Strengthens The Truth and Breaks Down Lies 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
        
        RE: Like This - Squonk 17:12:53 11/03/09 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Like This posted by Dynaudio_Rules on November 03, 2009 at 17:04:14
        
        Hmmm, not familiar with that but it looks like a nice product. Hey DR, didn't you ever try hooking your Lavry directly into your active speakers? Surely you've tried that right? And you didn't like the sound? Wow, ok, again, to each his own. I wish you lived in my town, I would LOVE to try your Lavry into my Active 40s. I am DEFINITELY looking for a DAC/Volume control solution. Seems like the perfect solution for me.
        
        RE: Like This - Dynaudio_Rules 17:32:17 11/03/09 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Like This posted by Squonk on November 03, 2009 at 17:12:53
        
        Sure my Lavry lived connected to my active Dynaudio's, but ultimately the Lavry lacked emotion and life. Even a pre could not help, so I looked for something else and stumbled on an un-named NOS dac. No volume control though.
        
        BTW, Gold point makes the worlds best passive volume controls imo. Nothing is more transparent.
        
        I was thinking about buying a Twisted Pear Sabre DAC and building it with a Gold point volume pot. The whole thing can be accomplished for about 1K.
        
        For the record though, I am not totally hooked on preamps, I try every combination until I find something that works or sounds best to me...in my upstairs system for example I don't have a pre hooked up....Linux--> -DAC---> Amp---> speakers.
        
        Scrutiny Strengthens The Truth and Breaks Down Lies 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
        
        RE: Like This - Squonk 17:57:36 11/03/09 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Like This posted by Dynaudio_Rules on November 03, 2009 at 17:32:17
        
        Ooooo, sounds like a very interesting project there DR. If you go forward with that, keep me posted.
        Anyway, all I'm saying is, many years ago, I compared a couple different $6000.00 price range preamps just for shits and giggles. I didn't plan on buying them, but, I knew the guys working at the local pro shop so they let me borrow a couple top-of-the-line units to check out. My personal opinion was I did not like the 'haze' either unit parted on the sound. Sure, the bass was a little better, but, the trade off was too great. I have become so accustomed to no preamp that I can detect 'haze' very quickly and I don't like it. I REALLY like the openness a passive provides. Of course, this is MY opinion on MY system. For me, a perfect solution would be a unit with an active preamp section for the bass, and a passive for the mid-range and treble. lol However, I don't think a design like this would be possible.
        
        Passive mid and treble, active bass - Dynaudio_Rules 18:37:19 11/03/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Like This posted by Squonk on November 03, 2009 at 17:57:36
        
        Doesn't sound like you need such a design....if you are happy with a pure passive then so be it...but that sounds a lot like a passive system with an active sub.
        
        There are no absolutes as fas as I am concerned. Like with Linux, Music Player Daemon seems to be the reigning king of audio software but I happen to like the sound of ALSA player with certain settings. A player made by the very people who created the ALSA sound architecture that is built to fully exploit ALSA.
        
        Scrutiny Strengthens The Truth and Breaks Down Lies 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
        
        RE: Passive mid and treble, active bass - Squonk 05:58:54 11/04/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Passive mid and treble, active bass posted by Dynaudio_Rules on November 03, 2009 at 18:37:19
        
        Not quite the same there chief. A passive signal still would go to the subwoofer. And, don't forget about midbass.
- The software is a 'component' as well....it's not all about the gear. [nt] - alan m. kafton 19:31:08 11/02/09 (2)
  nt
  - RE: The software is a 'component' as well....it's not all about the gear. [nt] - rick_m 20:10:51 11/02/09 (1)
    Wouldn't the S/W just be a component of the source?
    
    R.
    - In my view.... - alan m. kafton 21:50:42 11/02/09 (0)
      ....the software IS the source. The computer is the host platform, or transport if you will. Different way of looking at it.
      
      Btw....I always enjoy your contributions. You *too* have a different way of looking at things.
- Don't forget the cables. - LarryK2 19:30:56 11/02/09 (0)
  I have a DacMagic and am using a generic USB cable - pretty sure I'm losing a bit here.
RE: Most important component for a music server system - AstroD 18:40:45 11/02/09 (1)
For me, going analog out from the PC with a 1212m, the most important thing would have to be the power quality - dedicated circuit for the PC, nice beefy power cable (10ga or bigger), low ripple PC power supply. Power supply quality is also important for low jitter with digital out to a DAC, but I can't really speak to that from experience. I just know I have nice low jitter with the 1212m DAC now that I have a sweet power set up for the PC.

Finally, make sure hard drives, fans, and CD/DVD drives are powered from a different circuit than the PC. I'm running with no fan on the CPU directly (just a Zalman HSF, heatsink only), but I get incredibly good cooling by attaching a quiet Nexus fan to the rear of the case and powering it externally. I also power the Bluray drive externally.

If you use a pro audio card with only 1/4" analog out, I can highly recommend the Mogami Gold 1/4" to RCA cables - huge bang for the buck.

Enjoy the music server journey!
- Mogami question... - glennw 09:46:52 11/05/09 (0)
  ...I also have a 1212m but I'm using Mogami "pure patch" 1/4" to RCA cables, which are less expensive than the Mogami Gold although I don't know whether the difference is just the connectors. (I wasn't aware of the "Gold" variant when I bought them.)
  
  Do you have an opinion on whether the "gold" model is a step up, sonically?
RE: Most important component for a music server system - play-mate 18:05:36 11/02/09 (2)
hey bryan,

there can be no doubt that the soundcard/DAC has the major impact, followed by the player used.
that said, there is a wide number of details to consider in computer audio, of which are most competently described by "cics".
just read through the project and you´ll be much wiser !

http://cplay.sourceforge.net/

kind regards
- RE: Most important component for a music server system - bryan 18:10:20 11/02/09 (1)
  Thanks for the info and link. I'll read that. When you say player, what is that? Is that the music server? Sorry, but I'm new to this type of digital audio and not up to speed on all the terms yet.
  - RE: Most important component for a music server system - play-mate 18:18:27 11/02/09 (0)
    hey bryan
    
    read the :
    
    http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/
    
    very first. that will give you all the basic understanding.
    when you have grasped that, the cMP/cplay thing by cics will make more sense and less confusion.
    
    welcome to the future high-end !
RE: Most important component for a music server system - Dynaudio_Rules 16:52:01 11/02/09 (5)
No one link can make the chain but any link can break it...

Its a synergy....

If you are lucky, you will be able to build a strong audio chain with minimal changes to the links at a minimal cost.

Scrutiny Strengthens The Truth and Breaks Down Lies 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
- RE: Most important component for a music server system - bryan 17:33:18 11/02/09 (4)
  Damn, synergy is at play with music servers too? Are we talking about synergy between different components like an amp/speaker type of synergy, but this is with the DAC etc? If so, what are the components that are critical with matching for synergy? Or is this an overall synergy thing and not directly related to specific pairs of components?
  - OK, the DAC is the most important - Dynaudio_Rules 16:56:56 11/03/09 (3)
    Given that you are satisfied with your software [nothing but trade offs anyways]. The DAC is going to be the first component upstream to feed the rest of your system....junk in junk out. So if your DAC is not up to the task it won't matter what preamps, amps or speakers you have, your music will only sound as good as what the DAC can feed it.
    
    Scrutiny Strengthens The Truth and Breaks Down Lies 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
    - RE: OK, the DAC is the most important - roscoeiii 10:00:53 11/07/09 (2)
      And there are some DAC options that would seem to lessen the importance of the components delivering the digital signal. Based on my research (but not personal experience...yet), it seems that Firewire DACs as well as DACs based on the ESS Sabre DAC chips are able to greatly reduce jitter that might be coming from a digital source. There are also jitter reducing devices that one can put between the digital source and the DAC, but these may be unnecessary or may have less of an effect for DACs based on the ESS Sabre Chip. ESS Sabre DAC chips are used in the Peachtree Nova (which is much more than just a DAC), the Twisted Pear Buffalo DAC (frequently sold out), and the forthcoming Eastern Electric DAC (which will have the ability to switch between a tube and op-amp based analog output stage). There may be other ESS Sabre DACs that I'm spacing on, but these are the ones that have caught my attention.
      - RE: OK, the DAC is the most important - Dynaudio_Rules 13:15:26 11/07/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: OK, the DAC is the most important posted by roscoeiii on November 07, 2009 at 10:00:53
        
        Cant go wrong with a Twisted Pear imo.
        
        I might just grab one just to have it [because I don't have any soldering skills] I probably will never build it.
        
        Scrutiny Strengthens The Truth and Breaks Down Lies 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
        
        RE: OK, the DAC is the most important - roscoeiii 13:20:33 11/07/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: OK, the DAC is the most important posted by Dynaudio_Rules on November 07, 2009 at 13:15:26
        
        For those that know such details, what is it about the Twisted Pear that makes it such a good DAC, in addition to the Sabre chip? Phrased differently, what should one in the market for a DAC based on the ESS Sabre also look for in addition to the DAC chip?

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.