Computer Audio Asylum

Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies.

Return to Computer Audio Asylum

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Update v0.3: The Art of building Computer Transports

198.54.202.234
Posted on September 14, 2007 at 15:07:18
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 Original version 0.1 can be found at http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/19242.html. I decided to skip version 0.2 which would’ve been a straight forward application of version 0.1’s change log (see http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/19575.html). Version 0.3 brings 3 new sections:

1. An explanation of how sound is digitally represented
2. A deep dive into upsampling
3. Guidance for HTPC users on which optimizations to change

Optimizations have grown extensively with version 0.3 (both subtle and significant). Summary:

Section 1: EAC – no changes. Use of ‘Process WAV’ utility is highlighted

Section 2: Foobar2000 – Use latest version 0.9.4.4 with other updates as well (UI and other components). Foobar’s ASIO component has been recently updated which must be used. Other subtle but important changes have been made.

Section 3: Hardware & BIOS – Major changes.

Section 4: Software – Major changes.

It’s definitely worth going through each optimization carefully! Sonic improvements are significant. The only benchmarks or worthy comparisons for this level of performance are the finest in high-end analogue turntables.

AA members have contributed handsomely to this new release: inputs from texastea006 (Mike), Edward & others have resulted in useful changes. Thank you.

Your findings, questions, comments and criticisms are welcome – it all helps!

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: Update v0.3: The Art of building Computer Transports, posted on September 15, 2007 at 09:10:05
artcheng@netvigator.com
Audiophile

Posts: 388
Joined: November 14, 2003
 Some of the hardware upsampler use this chip

http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/src4192.pdf

But doen't say which type of algorithm...

 

Thanks (nt), posted on September 15, 2007 at 22:16:49
edward


 
nt.

 

RE: Update v0.3: The Art of building Computer Transports, posted on September 16, 2007 at 07:53:13
artcheng@netvigator.com
Audiophile

Posts: 388
Joined: November 14, 2003
 There are 2 software that come across which may help further

Setaffinity - This allows you to specific which of the core CPU for each program. This is for the new multi core CPU. This way we can specific one core for foobar and music playback only

Process tamer - allows you to set the prority for each program

 

How does Setaffinity & Process tamer compare to Beyond Logic's process utility?, posted on September 16, 2007 at 23:58:36
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 In section 4.16, affinities, process priorities and suspensions are done for running foobar optimally. This uses above process utility.

 

Transport or Player?, posted on September 18, 2007 at 11:53:41
rickmcinnis@dogwoodfabrics.com
Audiophile

Posts: 3040
Location: Atlanta
Joined: December 15, 2003
 I am very interested in what you are doing.

YET, I am confused by what results. Is this a player or a device to provide a clean signal for an outboard processot.

I am sorry if I am missing something since my interest in this is outstripped by my knowledge!!!

I want to use an outboard processot so does one need a sound card?

I will start with the HAGERMAN USB board which will be connected to a DAC. The HAGERMAN board uses a transformer on its output and the DAC I will be using has a transformer on its input, which will give me the galvanic isolation you recommend. BNC's are used at both ends of this link. TOSLINK is not an option for me, at this point.

Am I missing something?

Any advice? Is TOSLINK extremely important for success?

Thanks,

Rick McInnis

 

Have you translated this to Vista?, posted on September 18, 2007 at 23:41:49
edward


 
Hey cics - just wondering if you've played around with these tweaks/optimizations with Windows Vista yet? I've started to, and it looks like a lot of these improvements we noticed with XP also apply to Vista. BTW, I've been testing this with a new music player: XXHighEnd (www.phasure.com)

And also, I wanted to let you know that I discovered a glitch with the .bat files we created. I don't think it's only specific to my setup, but let me know if you experience the same thing. In the line:

start /b /wait c:\process.exe -p svchost.exe Low

This only changes the first instance of svchost.exe (of which you can see there are multiple instances). Double check your Task Manager or Process Explorer and you'll see that not all instances of svchost have their priority set to LOW (only the first one). So the way I'm doing it, is by referencing the PID #s like this:

start /b /wait c:\process.exe -p 704 Low
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -p 760 Low
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -p 800 Low

This way I change every instance. The only problem is that the PIDs for the svchost processes are different every time you boot (which you can check with Process Explorer). So you can either manually enter it in the .bat file each time you boot or I have created an automatic process that does this for me.

 

RE: Transport or Player?, posted on September 19, 2007 at 00:29:17
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 This setup creates a transport (similar to CD Transport) which feeds a digital signal to an outboard processor (DAC). In your case, you don't need a soundcard as computer already provides USB outputs - I'm assuming HAGERMAN USB board has USB inputs and comes with usb sound drivers.

Toslink is preferred but not essential. On USB link, try using a TDK Ferrite Core (see section 3.7).

 

RE: Have you translated this to Vista?, posted on September 19, 2007 at 00:47:23
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 Vista:

I received an email on this subject. I haven't tried Vista and my readings on it seems to put me off (sorry). See link below. It has a lot more bloat/overheads (poorer performance benchmarks in site suggest this). I found best results when 'execution path' is minimal. Vista doesn't seem to support '/timeres=9800' switch which is an important requirement. My thinking would be in Linux direction...

Most optimizations should work for Vista with positive results.

XXHighEnd may be an alternative to foobar. I don't think it supports upsampling using SRC (which would be a big disadvantage if so). With Foobar, it must be tuned as suggested (this gets you to the purity of XXHighEnd). Looking into it... I would suggest first upgrading from Foobar 0.8 to 0.9 with latest ASIO components, etc..

It would be interesting to compare Vista with XP. For now, XP with all optimizations is very good and natural. I'm no longer trying to fix that 'something missing feeling' anymore.




Command for svchost:

Yes I'm aware of this and left it so deliberately. Ideally, you should only have one svchost process running RPC. My concern with downgrading other svchosts is that they may be related to sound or graphics software installations specific to computer and such downgrading may have negative impacts.

Your approach using PID to downgrade other svchosts is correct. Another way is using pskill utility that does all svchosts in one call (note I haven't tested this).

 

RE: Have you translated this to Vista?, posted on September 19, 2007 at 16:15:57
edward


 
Well, XXHighEnd does not use plug-in architecture so it does not support SRC, but indeed it does oversample (to 88.2) and upsample (to 96). The oversample option sounds very good on my DAC. It does not yet, however, support 24bit, but it's still in beta and hopefully that will change in the next month or two.

As for Vista. I was able to disable A LOT of services, so I don't really feel it's "bloated", but maybe I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Anyway, I can appreciate your hesitation and I respect that article with the benchmarks, but when it comes to music I wouldn't discount it until you've actually listened and compared. I know when you ventured on this "tweaks" path with XP, you verified everything you changed by listening to it. I hope you can do the same with Vista. And as for XXHighEnd, I believe it is the first player to use Vista's new "exclusive mode" which I believe replaces XP's "kernel streaming". Anyway, good things can happen with exclusive mode. The programmer says its better than ASIO.

 

Have you compared optimized Foobar 0.9.4.4 with XXHighEnd?, posted on September 19, 2007 at 22:37:52
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 I would be very interested in your findings.

In time I hope to test both Vista and Linux.

 

RE: Have you compared optimized Foobar 0.9.4.4 with XXHighEnd?, posted on September 20, 2007 at 03:38:30
edward


 
Yes, I tried foobar 0.9.4.4 (with ASIO) on the same Vista machine that I am running XXHighEnd and I prefer XXHighEnd.

 

RE: Update v0.3: The Art of building Computer Transports, posted on September 23, 2007 at 12:26:11
f.step@comcast.net


 
Hi, thank you so much for the detailed instructions on ripping as well as building an audio only pc. Because of your paper, I finally felt comfortable getting this process started: 30 CD's ripped, 270 more to go...OK, questions for you: The PC you've proposed. What user interface? keyboard, mouse, + monitor? Is there better way? I'd love to place the pc on my audio rack with some sort of remote interface without cables...any suggestions? Also, can the same computer or some variation on it be plugged into a router and stream music to say a squeezebox or transporter? How might this affect sound quality? Thanks!

 

RE: Update v0.3: The Art of building Computer Transports, posted on September 23, 2007 at 16:21:16
64 bit


 
cics

For HTPC I note you recommend the Intel E6300 Processor rather than the E2160 or E2180.

I this because of L2 cache specification or some other technical requirement?

Thanks

Frank

 

Re: Why E6300 and not lower spec E2160 or E2180?, posted on September 24, 2007 at 10:45:37
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 Biggest issue is the video decoder (FFDShow as installed with Zoomplayer). This requires CPU power when upsampling and applying other filters - hence higher clock speed.

Should E2160 or E2180 accommodate load then go for it - just make sure FSB:DRAM ratio is 1:1 (this means you may need to set RAM clock to 200MHz and lower latencies).

 

RE: What user interface, placement of PC and Networking., posted on September 24, 2007 at 11:00:53
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 Best is with least components connected which would mean a mouse and monitor. I use a wireless mouse which can be operated from my listening chair.

This means no keyboard or infrared remotes etc..

Placement: I have mine hidden in room next door with only wall mounted LCD monitor in music room. PC is not on equipment rack.

Networking: this is less optimal when used. See section 3.2 (last few paragraphs on page 18 explains this).


Let us know what results you get. Ripping is a long process but once you get through backlog adding new CDs is easy.

 

RE: Update v0.3: The Art of building Computer Transports, posted on September 26, 2007 at 06:47:16
soundchekk
Audiophile

Posts: 2426
Joined: July 11, 2007
 Hi.

You're doing a good job here.
I am running a similar exercise on a Linux based machine.

http://www.diyaudio.com/wiki/index.php?page=LINUX+Audio

A couple of comments:

PCI Latencies:

If you increase the pci latencies for your audio device (or the respective USB port)on the PCI bus and you lower the other latencies
you'll gain quite some improvements. (I know there are tools around for this under XP)

(This is not needed for PCI-E since these slots are point to point connections and don't interfere)

SRC:

As long as you do 32bit float SRC you'll get 1. a substantial error
on the signal and 2. you need to add dither to the signal.
By default this should make things worse.
Further if you do this in realtime you'll get huge latencies in the chain. You mentioned it - the lower the latencies in the chain the better
the sound quality.

The way I do it: I am upsampling the files off-line with SRC in highest
quality mode. This is by far superior over realtime slow, medium quality SRC.

Volume Control:

I am well aware of the drawbacks of SW volume control ( Loosing resultion asf ) but you might want to add a chapter about SW volume control.
If you e.g. use the internal JRiver volume control
(The best I am aware off under Windows and You can still use KS/ASIO) you can get rid of your pre-amp.
In case you run 24 bit matrerial it shouldn't be a big problem.
And even on 16 bit and -12db attenuation I regard the SW volume
control superior over any passive/active pre-amp out there.


(I am doing it with brutefir in 64bit)


Processor clock:

I've done some extensive testing on processor speed.
I do not buy your statement "the lower the speed the better."
It's IMO the other way around.

BUT

The higher speed generates much higher temperatures, thus heavy ACPI
interrupt activites and FAN noise.

My conclusion: You need to run a fanless PC at maximum performance.
or you need to find the best compromise between fan-activity and CPU speed (On my Thinkpad core duo 2.16 I get along very well with 1.66GHz)


USB-ports:

You might try different USB ports if you use a USB DAC, they can sound different.

OS: XP vs. 2000

Uusally Windows 2000 sounds better than XP. By default 2000 delivers
lower latencies then XP.

Application priority:

You're mentioning running foobar in Realtime.

Realtime priortiy gives mainly priortiy to the GUI,
which you actually don't want.
Try to set the application to lowest priority and listen.


So far so good.

Cheers

 

RE: Update v0.3: The Art of building Computer Transports, posted on September 26, 2007 at 12:15:38
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 Hello Soundchekk,

Thanks for the feedback. It’s truly amazing how good computers are able to perform! I plan to do an Ubuntu Linux project – thanks for the link (great timing BTW).

You raise very interesting points. Here’s my initial comments:

1. PCI Latencies – Which tool would be best for XP? I think lowering rest while increasing soundcard can be useful. I use a PCI based RME card.

2. SRC: I only use best sinc interpolator option (highest quality) upsampling to 24/96. Lower qualities must be avoided which I think you say cause substantial error and needs dither. I tried off-line processing and didn’t get improvement. I’ll check again. What I found however is in foobar 0.9, setting buffer length has impact (as larger buffers demand more processing). Hence, its set to lowest.

3. Volume Control. Yes it’s definitely worth expanding on this. I don’t use it but as you suggest you can get rid of preamp - an improvement. My DAC has built in high quality ladder based vc. No resolution loss and no need for preamp. Had opportunity to test the new dCS Scarlatti DAC with its digital vc. I was impressed how well it performed – pity about its high cost though. It bettered my AA Prestige SE with analogue based vc.

4. Processor Clock. Yes, ‘lower the better’ is not correct in general. What I’m saying is for E2140 processor, lower is best. Because on another lower spec CPU, lower speed may not adequately cope and will sound poor. Need for low clock speed is for:
a. Reducing RF radiation (higher speeds generate higher energy RF which is very bad)
b. Reducing power consumption: E2140 is very power efficient at lowest clock speed. This means we get much less ripple voltage from psu (there’s a direct correlation to ripple voltage and PSU load).
I found these to have impact on quality. Also by optimizing RAM, we get more throughput at this low clock speed - this helps.

Don’t use CPU Fan. In my setup, heat is drained using Zalman’s heat-pipe technology. Vibrations from CPU Fan has negative impact on quality – can you test this without fan (need case that provides alternative cooling). These vibrations could very likely negatively impact other optimizations.

5. USB ports can sound different. Yes this will be the case but can be minimized by reducing RF radiation – try using the TDK ferrite core.

6. XP vs 2000. Operating systems will have different results. On XP have you applied the kernel changes? These have large impact.

7. Application priority - you say "Realtime priority gives mainly priority to the GUI, which you actually don't want". Interesting - I will test lowest priority.

In setup suggested, I configure Windows graphics processor (csrss.exe) to lowest priority. Also in foobar dynamic video content is minimal (no time elapsed, no spectrum analyzer etc.). I like foobar’s multi-threaded approach and using Process Explorer, display/GUI thread has no CPU activity and minimal context switches. Can you try this and let me know what you get.


How does Linux compare with Vista, XP and 2000?

Once again, thanks for your post!

 

RE: Update v0.3: The Art of building Computer Transports, posted on September 27, 2007 at 08:49:02
soundcheckk


 
Some answers:

I can't support very much on any MS related questions. I left MS-OS behind me 10 month ago (after fiddling around with it as you're doing it right now).
I know there is a tool for setting latencies under MS. You need to google it. If you have PCI-E forget it anyhow.

# What's better?

It depends as usual. A standard Linux setup is not better compared to e.g. Vista and XX_HE setup - Linux needs quite some tweaking that's for sure.
If you follow the link I posted earlier and the thread " Linux Audio the way to go" ( very much at the end) you'll find a small
subjective review about an A/B testing of XXHighEnd and my Linux setup and my own brutefir-Player. You'll also find some comments about it in the BD-design forum. ( Right after that particular meeting I introduced the Secret Rabbit Code upsampler which substantially improved the situation. Today I am quite confident that there is nothing better out there than my Linux setup - in terms of feeding a USB-DAC based on a PCM270X chip such as the DDDAC!!!!)

Linux gives you all kind of options:
E.g.
I wrote my own temperature control and switch all my fans off during playback.
I can also switch off my screen and graphic card as well as the HDD off during playback.
MY system stays pretty cool all the time. Try that under Windows! ;)

I actually don't even start X-Windows any longer. Any kind of Windows is a performance killer. I run the player now from a character based terminal.

If you like tweaking the OS, as you obviously do, you'll love Linux ( of course after you got to know how Unix works).

Cheers






 

RE: Update v0.3: The Art of building Computer Transports, posted on September 27, 2007 at 14:09:38
texastea006@yahoo.com
Audiophile

Posts: 58
Location: gulf coast
Joined: March 22, 2006
 Did you get around to testing the sound after unchecking "Resolve Addresses" on the TCP/IP tab of a processes Properties in Process Explorer? I mentioned it a few weeks back but I don't know if you saw the post.
Ony problem is you have to keep process explorer running (although you can suspend it).
Let me know...
I'm looking into at least replacing my power supply with the Enermax you suggested. I'd like to also replace the heatsink/fan on my pentium D processor, but that I've never done before. The dell has this plastic airflow chamber that I think I have to unscrew from the motherboard, but I'd have to look at it.
Congrats on the latest version of your paper. I sure hope I can actually set aside some time to buy the parts and do it!

 

RE: Update v0.3: The Art of building Computer Transports, posted on September 27, 2007 at 14:12:37
texastea006@yahoo.com
Audiophile

Posts: 58
Location: gulf coast
Joined: March 22, 2006
 Did you get around to testing the sound after unchecking "Resolve Addresses" on the TCP/IP tab of a processes Properties in Process Explorer? I mentioned it a few weeks back but I don't know if you saw the post.
Ony problem is you have to keep process explorer running (although you can suspend it).
Let me know...
I'm looking into at least replacing my power supply with the Enermax you suggested, although I didn't find on their website a Noisetaker II that had a rear dislay for temperature and power usage. Can you be more specific on the model number? I'd like to also replace the heatsink/fan on my pentium D processor, but that I've never done before. The dell has this plastic airflow chamber that I think I have to unscrew from the motherboard, but I'd have to look at it.
Congrats on the latest version of your paper. I sure hope I can actually set aside some time to buy the parts and do it!

 

RE: Update v0.3: The Art of building Computer Transports, posted on September 27, 2007 at 14:13:11
texastea006@yahoo.com
Audiophile

Posts: 58
Location: gulf coast
Joined: March 22, 2006
 Did you get around to testing the sound after unchecking "Resolve Addresses" on the TCP/IP tab of a processes Properties in Process Explorer? I mentioned it a few weeks back but I don't know if you saw the post.
Ony problem is you have to keep process explorer running (although you can suspend it).
Let me know...
I'm looking into at least replacing my power supply with the Enermax you suggested, although I didn't find on their website a Noisetaker II that had a rear dislay for temperature and power usage. Can you be more specific on the model number? I'd like to also replace the heatsink/fan on my pentium D processor, but that I've never done before. The dell has this plastic airflow chamber that I think I have to unscrew from the motherboard, but I'd have to look at it.
Congrats on the latest version of your paper. I sure hope I can actually set aside some time to buy the parts and build it!

 

RE: Update v0.3: The Art of building Computer Transports, posted on September 27, 2007 at 14:15:00
texastea006@yahoo.com
Audiophile

Posts: 58
Location: gulf coast
Joined: March 22, 2006
 sorry about the extra posts.. :)

 

RE: Re: Why E6300 and not lower spec E2160 or E2180?, posted on September 27, 2007 at 15:14:08
nc
Audiophile

Posts: 324
Location: San Francisco, CA
Joined: November 19, 2003
 Have you tried overclocing the FSB? With 1:1 FSB:Ram ratio, I think you can try a 370FSB to 500FSB and see if you get a better result.

 

dCS Scarlatti VS Computer Transport, posted on September 27, 2007 at 22:52:10
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 I posted this on Audiogon. Interesting.

 

RE: Update v0.3: The Art of building Computer Transports, posted on September 27, 2007 at 23:04:34
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 Mike,

I haven't seen the "Resolve Addresses" post - had a look and it seems to change Process Explorer settings rather than process. Checked or unchecked I get no difference.

On PSU, Enermax Noisetaker II doesn't have display. Its with MGE XG Magnum 500 showing temperature and power - I haven't tested this but its been used by others with good results. Try the Magnum as Fan interference is avoided (it only starts under load).

Also, RAM makes a big difference. Try Kingston's 256MB DDR2 ValueRam. They use this range for servers which means low electrical interference. With this RAM I get stable performance at 3-2-2-9 + 1T and Trfc at 15T (specs are Tras min 40ns, Trfc 75ns & Trc 55ns).

 

RE: Update v0.3: The Art of building Computer Transports, posted on September 28, 2007 at 08:54:40
texastea006@yahoo.com
Audiophile

Posts: 58
Location: gulf coast
Joined: March 22, 2006
 I'll listen again without PE running and then with it running and that flag unset.I heard a noticeable difference and have been running that way ever since. Make sure you are not closing process explorer, because the effect of that setting goes away once you do. And it didn't matter what process I set that flag on. if you set it on the properties of one process it stays set on any of the others. But if you don't hear a difference than don't worry about it. I'm still trying to figure out what it does.
I should by a new power supply soon..it's way beyond time for that.
I had my rme digi96 set to 2048 buffer 16 bit, so I got a little improvement by changing back to 256 buffer and 32 bit. I'd changed that back and forth over the years, but this setting sounds best right now. I've always been curious if getting a newer RME card would make a big difference, but still happy with what I have. Also, I'm using a stealth Sextet coax digital cable. I've used the Audioquest Optilink 5 a while ago and it did sound very good, but I thought the conversion from electrical to light and back was not efficient enough to make optical a good enough choice. Are you using an optical cable?

 

RE: Re: Why E6300 and not lower spec E2160 or E2180?, posted on September 28, 2007 at 10:13:43
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 Haven't bumped up FSB - I see PCStats got it up to 336MHz.

I'm not to keen doing this as this overclocks CPU resulting in large power consumption - I want the opposite.

 

Still using Toslink with Audioquests Optilink-5, posted on September 28, 2007 at 10:18:20
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 I tried a few coax cables but preferred toslink.

I had PE running all the time when doing tests.

 

Going to test Linux, Vista & XP using Solid State Disk, posted on September 28, 2007 at 10:33:37
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 I want to get Sandisk's 64GB SSD SATA Drive and setup partitions.

Linux offers incredible control. What is its lowest timing resolution? XP offers 0.98ms (with default at highest 7.8ms).

 

RE: Going to test Linux, Vista & XP using Solid State Disk, posted on September 28, 2007 at 16:15:30
edward
Audiophile

Posts: 160
Joined: September 28, 2007
 The SanDisk UATA 5000 (1.8") has a power consumption of .53W (while reading) as opposed to the SATA 5000 (2.5") which consumes 1.04W (while reading). Sounds like the UATA 5000 would be the way to go, unless you think there is a benefit to using SATA?

 

RE: Going to test Linux, Vista & XP using Solid State Disk, posted on September 29, 2007 at 05:18:42
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 Either way reduces power by 50% or more on drives. My laptop Sata drives consume 2watts each. Challenge is buying one of these.

I'm more interested in doing away with moving parts - with SSD Drives, computer is free of this and its vibrations.

 

Note for Home Theatre setups, posted on September 29, 2007 at 05:28:02
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 This wasn't mentioned in paper. Home Theatre systems often use one or more subwoofers. Make sure:

1. Subs don't use AC circuit of other equipment. Its best to isolate these by using another AC circuit. Most subs use Class D amps which put back lots of AC noise.

2. Place far away from other electronics. Those drivers come with massive magnets and enclosures are not magnetically shielded causing interference to electronics.

Both 1 & 2 should give better video and audio quality.

 

RME Soundcards, posted on October 1, 2007 at 23:25:11
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 Yes lower buffer settings are best. Try updating to latest drivers and firmware (if possible with this card). RME has done a good job of further reducing playback buffers.

RME installs 2 processes with one for setup and another for mixing. During playback, I get best results with both these suspended. Mixer interferes with quality and generates some 30-70 context switches per second!

 

Connecting PSU to components in a better way, posted on October 4, 2007 at 03:31:51
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 This is not explained in paper. With careful attention, correctly connecting power to your components will improve sound.

All modern PSUs use 2 or more 12V rails. Mobo 24 pin connector and CPU 12V 4 pin connector run off different 12V rails. These are often seen as separate power harnesses. It’s vital that all peripheral components like HDD and ROM drives use power off the CPU 12V 4 pin cable harness. For more details visit weblink below.

Sata standard requires a 3.3V line (orange color) and this results in SATA power connectors from Mobo 24 pin cable harness. Note yellow is 12V and red is 5V. Rarely do Sata drives use this 3.3V line. DON’T use these connectors - powering Sata drives from here is a bad idea as power noise from HDD impacts mobo. Instead use this Molex to SATA adaptor:





Connect to non 24 pin mobo power harness. This way, HDD are powered from alternate 12v rail and less electrical noise is put into mobo. Note 3.3v rail is not present.

Although laptop HDDs are made with extreme precision, you’ll still hear sonic improvements. With standard desktop drives improvements should be greater.

Example: Zalman’s TNN-300 has two harnesses.





Top harness provides CPU power from 2nd 12V voltage rail (called 12V2). Peripherals (including HDDs) using 5 & 12 volts must be connected here. Bottom harness provides 24 pin connector to mobo from 1st 12V rail (called 12V1). The idea is to keep 12V1 as clean as possible.

 

RE: Update v0.3: The Art of building Computer Transports, posted on October 4, 2007 at 06:47:37
BFitz
Audiophile

Posts: 547
Joined: July 21, 2000
 I appreciate the effort you have documented here on PCs, as it has a lot of information I've never seen before. It may also be useful to people who are using PCs to do testing and measurement with PCI cards (audio frequencies and higher), you may want distribute the link people on those groups as well.

One thing I do want to bring up - you are making great efforts in the PC, only to then send out the digital data via SPDIF / toslink optical cable to a DAC.
It would seem to me that the efforts should be made in the DAC, where the data is converted to audio. If the DAC has a REALLY effective VCXO based 2 stage PLL, (with local crystal oscillator and reclocking at DAC), then the efforts on the transport side from the PC, especially with optical isolation *should* have little effect. If the DAC does not employ the above technique, (or a local master clock sent back to the soundcard), you are not close to optimizing what you can get in terms of low jitter at the DAC chip, especially using toslink. The process of converting electrical to optical and back again using the toslink connectors creates a lot of jitter, which can be easily measured. Because the SPDIF receiver needs to lock to many different frequency standards, it has a wide bandwidth PLL based on a VCO, that creates a lot of jitter in the process. In many popular receiver designs (CS8412 for instance) there is essentially no jitter reduction below 20kHz!

So efforts upstream may be audible, but the SPDIF receiver is still the weak link in the chain unless there are heroic efforts downstream that involve a local crystal and reclocking. In theory, at least, which in audio may not go too far sometimes :-)
Bob

 

RE: Update v0.3: The Art of building Computer Transports, posted on October 4, 2007 at 14:24:52
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 Hello Bob,

Like you, I find its much better doing this than vegetating by a TV. Besides, you know TV has lost the plot when ads are more entertaining!

I’m not aware of other sites that may find this useful – please feel free to share this.

For me, most optimal setup would not involve any soundcard whatsoever. Instead, I would prefer DACs to have standard computer interfaces (Ethernet, USB, Firewire) and do away with SPDIF or other proprietary audio interfaces. This enables bit perfect transfer of 24/192 or more. Thereafter, DAC internally manages clocking etc..

Anyway it’s a dream (for now).

With digital output, I aimed for proper galvanic isolation and was disappointed not to find any ST Glass based soundcards. So I grudgingly settled with toslink. My reading suggests toslink transmitters to be very simple and straight forward with minimal impact – rise and fall times are a function of voltage times (~ns as seen on my DSO).

Receivers are a different matter and can be very susceptible to jitter. Based on an article I read, I thought best way to do damage control here is to ensure toslink cable has extremely high bandwidth – hence my choice for going glass fibre (Audioquest’s Optilink-5). I setup computer to feed external DAC (AA Prestige SE). After a fair bit of optimizations and to my surprise, computer + toslink bettered AA’s internal Sony and Philips drives (which don’t suffer from SPDIF interfaces). This is not jitter distortion that sounds artificially good (for the most part I find jitter to have a horrible masking /veiling effect). By better I mean more detail, dynamics, etc..

Initially, I thought something was wrong and as a hard test, completely rebuilt the computer (i.e. format HDD and start afresh). Result was exactly the same – better!

Another test: With all my spares, I’ve built a 2nd computer for DVD. I consider this to be a dirty machine (WIFI connectivity, ROM drive, graphics card, normal desktop drives). With optimizations and DD/DTS audio delivery through toslink from mobo’s SPDIF out (i.e. no 3rd party soundcard) I get excellent results. My DVD setup is modest but I’m amazed at how much better audio quality is versus spinning it in DVD player. Of course video is likewise a big improvement (display is 50” Panasonic Plasma).

Why this is so I can only guess. You’ve rightly pointed out receiving end should dictate quality (or lack thereof). My observation seems to suggest soundcard (as in digital transmission) has less impact – it’s what happens before it that has much more significance and seems ‘beneficial’ to receiving end. Quality of how sound data from RAM is streamed to soundcard is critical. Hence the extent to which computer HW and SW is optimized (besides it’s largely free)!

You also raise a good point on changing DAC (as it could be a weak link). I connected dCS’s Scarlatti DAC & Clock. I clock slaved Computer Transport to dCS Clock with toslink to dCS Scarlatti DAC (also slaved to clock). Sound is better with this setup. However, I found this setup to better the full dCS stack. I was also pleased with the fact that my current AA setup is behind but still very very good. I posted my findings at Audiogon.

 

HDDs with NO power consumption!, posted on October 6, 2007 at 02:44:13
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 Spinning things is always a bad idea. In a Computer Transport, each HDD involves 2 motors for spinning disk platters and moving read/write heads. Although BLDC motors have come a long way, they still put back power noise into the system. Of course, as pointed out previously, this can be minimized by sourcing power from non-mobo 12V rail. However, not having such power pollution in computer is preferred.

I’ve been keen to get SSD technology (as no motors are involved) but found this to be difficult and in computer terms expensive – it’s still a few months away. I’ve been searching to find another way to eliminate such noise using conventional HDDs. SATA technology lends itself to external use (called eSATA) and this is where my journey started. I wanted to power my 2 laptop HDDs from another power source.

I didn’t have to look far at all! Here’s the solution (ViPowER’s VP-9101P):





For a princely sum of 2 x $33 this power supply unit connects directly to my laptop HDD. SATA cable in turn connects to mobo (it’s shielded and long - be careful routing within case making sure connectors don’t accidentally dislodge). Simple.





Each HDD requires a dedicated power unit. In my setup, these 2 tiny ‘bricks’ lie on floor with power lead going into Zalman case. All dirty power components (LCD screen, 2 HDDs) are isolated to a dedicated line filter (basic variety). Computer has its own same dedicated line filter.

This means computer PSU sees no HDD load, i.e. HDDs with NO power consumption! Finally, no more spinning things interfering with music playback (no PSU fans, no CPU fans and HDD motors powered externally).

After allowing for burn in time, it was time to play. Sound improved on what was already brilliant! Music is more involving & emotional with richer harmonics, improved micro dynamics, cleaner highs & mids, and tighter cleaner bass. If you have desktop drives, improvements would also be audible (although standard desktop drives are noisy and generate terrible vibrations which negatively impacts jitter).

I’m going to start a change log for version 0.3 as this is a must do!

 

RE: HDDs with NO power consumption!, posted on October 6, 2007 at 13:49:08
kana813
Audiophile

Posts: 135
Location: Maui
Joined: March 31, 2004
 Cics- what makes you think using a small separate SMPS to power the HDDs is going to be any better than the PC's main PSU?

From:www.playtool.com/pages/psumult...

"The real issue is whether the power supply provides enough total current at 12 volts (as well as the other rails) and not whether it has multiple 12 volt rails."

ViPowER doesn't give any specs for the VP-9101P on their website, have you measured the noise levels of the ViPowER’s VP-9101P, are they lower than the Zalman PSU?

Have you measured the current draw from your HDDs? Are you exceeding the current capacity of the Zalman PSU?

Without any proof that your feeding the HDDs with lower noise or exceeding the current capacity of the Zalman PSU, I think you're just imagining any improvements.

If you want to improve the power going to your HDDs, stop looking for plug & play solution like the ViPowER and try a linear PSU.

 

Also use less aggressive RAM latencies of 3-3-3-? @ 200MHz, posted on October 7, 2007 at 15:43:07
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 With motor power noise removed from transport, RAM electrical interference becomes more noticeable. Relaxing latencies from 3-2-2-? to 3-3-3-? complements this optimization nicely. Overall, I get a more musical experience.

Note all other RAM settings should be left as is (i.e. command rate 1T, 4 bank interleave etc.).

 

This is the same post on Audiogon., posted on October 7, 2007 at 15:46:21
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 See response at Audiogon thread.

 

RE: This is the same post on Audiogon., posted on October 7, 2007 at 18:06:57
kana813
Audiophile

Posts: 135
Location: Maui
Joined: March 31, 2004
 See response at Audiogon thread.



 

A look into HDD noise pollution, posted on October 8, 2007 at 13:09:35
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 These measurements were taken a few weeks ago.

To understand impact of HDD power interference, I used my DVD Computer (which I consider to be a dirty environment). This computer uses 2 standard SATA desktop drives which impacts both 5V & 12V lines. Measurements are done using Elab-80 DSO at 80MHz. Dynamic range is 48db (8 bits).

Scenarios tested:

1. Machine at idle
2. 500GB HDD spins down whilst remaining HDD continues
3. Same 500GB HDD removed whilst remaining HDD continues

Both 5V & 12V lines measured. Computer remains idle in all measures. Measures were repeated.

Left diagram shows ripple noise with spectral view on right. Both 5V and 12V lines show healthy reductions in interference. I plan to do similar measurements on my Computer Transport with and without VP-9101P.

----------------------------- 5 Volt line -----------------------------

5V @ idle (both HDDs spinning)





5V @ idle & 500GB HDD spinned down (i.e. no motor activity)





5V @ idle & No 500GB HDD (physically disconnected)





----------------------------- 12 Volt line -----------------------------

12V @ idle





12V @ idle & 500GB HDD spinned down





12V @ idle & No 500GB HDD (physically disconnected)




 

RE: A look into HDD noise pollution, posted on October 8, 2007 at 23:09:19
kana4813


 
You don't need VP-9101Ps to clean this up, just put a 470-1200uf cap across the 5V rail at the HDD end of the connection.

Try some Rubycon ZA,ZL or ZLGs.

 

Changes to Version 0.3, posted on October 10, 2007 at 21:05:55
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 More details on how to setup Computer Transport is shown as 'Info'.

Further refinements to version 0.3 is shown as 'Change' or 'New'.

 

1. [Info] Use of powered subs in Home Theatre systems, posted on October 10, 2007 at 21:08:07
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 see link below.

 

2. [Info] How 2 connect computer PSU to components, posted on October 10, 2007 at 21:11:33
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 see link below.

As a general guide, if PSU power harness carries orange power lead (3.3V) this must NOT be used (12V1) - often, this harness will have SATA and Molex connectors interleaved with Molex connector not using orange lead. Harnesses that do not carry orange lead is a good indicator that its being sourced from 12V2. All peripherals including HDDs must be connect to 12V2.

 

3. [Change] Reduce interference of Soundcard's Mixer process, posted on October 10, 2007 at 21:24:01
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 RME and other pro soundcard suppliers have software drivers that installs a mixer process. These cannot be uninstalled or removed (without having other problems). During playback, mixing is not needed but interferes with sound quality. RME's mixer process creates some 30-70 context switches per second!

To prevent this interference, suspend Mixer process on foobar startup and resume on exit. Here are updated .bat files that do this for RME based cards (see rem #2 of both .bat files). For other soundcards, replace HDSP32.EXE (configuration process) & HDSPMIX.EXE with correct soundcard mixer's process name. Test and confirm which version you prefer.

======= ?.bat (stored on desktop) =======

@echo off
rem #1 Kill UI
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -k explorer.exe

rem #2 Suspend Windows
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -p smss.exe Low
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -p winlogon.exe Low
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -a smss.exe 01
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -a winlogon.exe 01
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -s smss.exe
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -s winlogon.exe
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -s hdsp32.exe
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -s hdspmix.exe

rem #3 Start Foobar2000
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -a cmd.exe 01
start /Low /min c:\foobar.bat

rem #4 Adjust priorities, eg. High, RealTime, AboveNormal, BelowNormal, Low;
rem # and Set Affinities
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -p system Normal
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -p csrss.exe Low
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -p services.exe Low
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -p svchost.exe Low
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -p lsass.exe Low
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -a system 10
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -a csrss.exe 11
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -a services.exe 10
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -a svchost.exe 01
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -a lsass.exe 01
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -a foobar2000.exe 11

rem #5 Start Task Manager (remove ‘rem ’ prefix of next 2 lines) or Process Explorer
rem start /b C:\WINDOWS\system32\taskmgr.exe
rem start /b /wait c:\process.exe -p taskmgr.exe Normal
rem start /b c:\progra~1\proces~1\procexp.exe /p:n
exit

======= Foobar.bat (stored in root drive C:\) =======

@echo off
rem #1 Start Foobar2000 in RealTime
start /wait /RealTime c:\progra~1\foobar2000\foobar2000.exe

rem #2 Resume Windows, Restore affinities & priorities, and Start UI
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -r winlogon.exe
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -r smss.exe
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -r hdsp32.exe
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -r hdspmix.exe

start /b /wait c:\process.exe -p smss.exe AboveNormal
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -p winlogon.exe High
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -p system Normal
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -p csrss.exe High
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -p services.exe Normal
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -p svchost.exe Normal
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -p lsass.exe Normal

start /b /wait c:\process.exe -a smss.exe 11
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -a winlogon.exe 11
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -a system 11
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -a csrss.exe 11
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -a services.exe 11
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -a svchost.exe 11
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -a lsass.exe 11
start /b /wait c:\process.exe -a cmd.exe 11

start /b c:\windows\explorer.exe
exit

 

4. [Info] Schematics of normal PC vs Computer Transport, posted on October 10, 2007 at 21:36:57
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 This may be useful if you're familiar with PC hardware architectures. It's just documentation for IT Engineers so don't worry if you can't make any sense of it.

Schematic 1: Default Hardware Architecture as per VIA chipset (P4M890 and VT8732)





Schematic 2: Computer Transport at most optimal setup





Significant changes are made through BIOS and Windows. This creates a streamlined environment that's ideally suited for Audio.

 

5. [New] Powering HDDs externally removes significant internal electrical interference, posted on October 10, 2007 at 22:05:31
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 See weblink below, or alternatively goto http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/2/24417.html

Make sure power connector seats firmly and use industrial tape to secure. This applies when connection is made within chassis where more heat causes power connection to become loose. No or interrupted power to HDDs will cause a Windows crash (BSOD error).

Computer Transport 12V1 Measurements
------------------------------------

First voltage rail (called 12V1) provides 24-pin mobo connector and is most critical in a Computer Transport. This provides power to soundcard, RAM and mobo chipset responsible for sound data transmission to soundcard.

Using the VP-9101Ps, allows for largest noise component in computer to be externalized. There is significant sonic improvement compared to HDDs connected to 12V2 (which reduces noise to 12V1).

Using Elab-80 DSO with 48db dynamic range at 80MHz, a few reference power sources were measured prior to measuring Computer Transport. These reference sources provide cleaner power than a typical computer. Results are very interesting when compared to Computer Transport. Left shows snapshot of AC ripple voltage with more important spectral view on right.

This is what a reasonable quality wall wart gives (at no load):





Here’s an IBM Thinkpad Laptop (X41 tablet) external PSU (at no load).





Zalman’s 12V1 5V line under music playback load using Synergistic Research Designer’s Ref AC cord yielded results that surprised me. I repeated this many times rechecking if DC voltage was correct, setup etc.. Results were the same (with minor variations) but very impressive:





Notice how spectral scale changes to accommodate much lower noise levels (below -40db versus -36.5db & -34.5db). This easily betters wall wart and laptop PSU by a significant margin (which were under NO load)! Note Computer Transport was measured at full load of music playback.

Considering dynamic range for Elab-80 is 48db (8 bits), noise levels are very low (~1 bit or 6db level). Some noise shown may be a result of quantization error rather than 5V line - it would be interesting to see same with a 12 or 16 bit DSO.

This for me explains why jitter distortion has reduced to almost inaudible levels. It’s always wonderful to see measurements that exceeds ones own expectations.

 

RE: 5. [New] Powering HDDs externally removes significant internal electrical interference, posted on October 11, 2007 at 09:54:07
kana813
Audiophile

Posts: 135
Location: Maui
Joined: March 31, 2004
 "Make sure power connector seats firmly and use industrial tape to secure. This applies when connection is made within chassis where more heat causes power connection to become loose."

Did you ever think of using better connectors instead using tape(LOL)?

The laptop wall wart is a cheap SMPS just like the VP-9101Ps.

Run the laptop off it's battery and take the same measurements.

"This for me explains why jitter distortion has reduced to almost inaudible levels."

How do you know jitter has been reduce? Have you measured it?

"It’s always wonderful to see measurements that exceeds ones own expectations."

No, in your case you come up with measurements to fit your expectations.

 

RE: Changes to Version 0.3, posted on October 12, 2007 at 10:23:06
Audio Bling
Audiophile

Posts: 307
Location: Australia
Joined: October 9, 2007
 Curious to know why you chose a board using VIA 890 chipset and not what I presume is the up-spec VIA 900 chipset? Also, I assume that an ASUS or ??? equivalent of the BIOSTAR would be just as good? (I ask this because the BIOSTAR is not available in AUS).

Regards,

 

RE: 5. [New] Powering HDDs externally removes significant internal electrical interference, posted on October 12, 2007 at 20:57:22
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 See response at Audiogon.

 

Mobos based on VIA chipsets, posted on October 12, 2007 at 21:20:07
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 Why Biostar mobo with P4M890:

1. It received a good review from PC Stats
2. VIA chipset uses less power therefore runs cooler
3. Offers RAID so no need for separate RAID card
4. Micro ATX form factor
5. Can be overclocked - this is a good indication of mobo quality where more effort goes into ensuring stability (better management of signal reflections, etc.). Also, it means BIOS settings are very flexible and allows for fine tuning. I have 2 other types of mobos (Dell & Acer) and they don't come close.

It should be OK to use another manufacturers' mobo based on VIA chipset if they have same characteristics of above. It's just that I haven't tested those - let us know how it works out. P4M900 based mobos would also be a good choice and has high-throughput Ultra V-Link (@1GB/s vs 0.52GB/s).

 

RE: 5. [New] Powering HDDs externally removes significant internal electrical interference, posted on October 12, 2007 at 23:21:57
kana813
Audiophile

Posts: 135
Location: Maui
Joined: March 31, 2004
 audiogon response:

Cics-

You still haven't answered any of my questions, so I ask again:

If the SATA connections require tape, why don't you install better connectors?

Do you own a soldering iron?

Did you try the caps on the 5V rail I recommended?

I know it's probably very scary for a plug & play guy like you, but have you ever considered replacing all those noisy SMPS units feeding your "SOTA PC transport" with linear PSUs?

Jitter:

If the dCS Scarlatti Clock made an improvement, then why don't you upgrade the clock on your soundcard and power it with it with an external PSU like Racerxnet did with his?

Toslinks:

You claimed at 6.144mb/s glass Toslink is better than plastic, that's pure BS.

Why should I invest my time & money to build a PC transport to your specs to prove your "stupid unjustified sensational claims?"

If I did built one to exactly to your specs and told you it didn't outperform my transports would you believe me?

 

Toslink vs Coax, posted on October 16, 2007 at 09:31:25
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 Use of toslink is often considered a very bad thing. I thought I'd share my learnings on this subject.

ARTICLE 1: http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/toslink-interconnect-history-basics

Read above Audioholics article where the following observation is made:

"Today the TOSLINK optical interface has reached its sonic performance potential. What changed? There are three factors that draw the line separating mediocrity from excellence: purity of the optical conductor, clarity of the optical termination (lens), and flexibility without signal loss. When each of these parameters is optimized, and the interconnect is used with quality components, the TOSLINK connection is audibly indistinguishable from coaxial S/PDIF."

ARTICLE 2: http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1093jitter/

This article makes reference to above insightful article published in 1993 by Rémy Fourré which explains the importance of bandwidth in toslink cables. It’s a good read.

ARTICLE 3: http://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/weissmedea_e.html

Finally, above, review of the excellent Weiss Medea D/A converter by TNT-audio showing actual jitter measurements of toslink vs SPDIF. A quote:

"The jitter value measured at input 4 with Toslink connection resulted not so significantly different from the one at the same input with SPDIF connection, but in the first case the spectrum is much cleaner, due probably to problems in the measuring PC grounds. However, it seems evident that here (and in any case where the jitter has been adequately defeated) the use of a Toslink, which is normally considered a major cause of jitter, should have scarcely any drawback, at least for what regards this aspect."

 

RE: 5. [New] Powering HDDs externally removes significant internal electrical interference, posted on October 16, 2007 at 09:50:36
kana813
Audiophile

Posts: 135
Location: Maui
Joined: March 31, 2004
 Your Audiogon thread has been deleted.

 

RE: Toslink vs Coax, posted on October 16, 2007 at 14:14:01
BFitz
Audiophile

Posts: 547
Joined: July 21, 2000
 "However, it seems evident that here (and in any case where the jitter has been adequately defeated) the use of a Toslink, which is normally considered a major cause of jitter, should have scarcely any drawback, at least for what regards this aspect."

This only holds in cases where there is a VCXO based 2nd stage PLL after the input receiver.

The process of electrical to optical, and then optical to electrical otherwise introduces the possibility of power supply and ground bounce based jitter, in addition to random jitter due to noise in the conversion electronics. In the above case, this jitter is then removed downstream. But, that is not to say it was never there.

 

6. [Change] Use P4M900 based motherboard, posted on October 20, 2007 at 22:38:23
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 Audio Bling highlighted VIA's northbridge P4M900 chipset. Paper recommends P4M890, instead use Biostar's P4M900-M7 SE motherboard (Biostar P4M900 Micro 775 would also work).

Cost is equivalent of 3 CDs. After a fews days allowing for burn-in, I get further sonic refinements. This is not as significant as change 5 (HDD power externalized). If you have problems with ultra low latency playback, this mobo could resolve it as link speed increases from 0.5GB/s to 1.0GB/s (that's 8Gbits/s).

Replacing mobo requires reinstallation of Windows. BIOS is slightly different:

1. Cannot reduce Video RAM below 64MB. This means for initial Windows installation, use 512MB or more. When using 256MB RAM and after optimizations, available memory is ~130MB which is sufficient.
2. Under PCI devices, onboard sound is called Azalia HD - disable this.
3. DDR voltage increases in 0.10V increments. Set to +0.10V (instead of +0.07V as per paper) or to that as required by your RAM specifications.

Thanks Audio Bling.

 

RE: Mobos based on VIA chipsets, posted on October 30, 2007 at 13:53:25
seger


 
appreciating all your work - looking to build a computer transport, I happened on this Biostar motherboard: Biostar CN700-I7C board with 1GHz fanless C7 CPU - miniITX. It would answer for quietness, but is it is workable at 1GHz?

 

It's worth trying out, posted on November 1, 2007 at 06:07:41
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 I've looked at VIA's own mini-ITX mobos. Still prefer micro-ATX as:

1. BIOS is more flexible (this may have changed with Biostar's mobos)
2. Uses 2 power sources (separate 12v rails for CPU and mobo)
3. Prefer a minimum of 2 processors

Even so, its still worth a try especially with RME soundcard that does off-host ASIO processing (means less load on CPU).

 

RE: It's worth trying out, posted on November 1, 2007 at 14:26:15
seger


 
I understand your points. I'm trying to get to a fanless pc for this, or nearly, so wondering about the minimum speeds to make the player/soundcard do their work, with the minimum heat. At the moment I'm using an old socket A pc (well-silenced, but not good enough)with Audiophile 192, and while playing files cpu shows only 2% usage.
About power sources - No electronics expert, this may be a daft idea, but what about using 2 psu (smaller, fanless) for cpu and motherboard?
For processors - if the Via C7 is a bit iffy, the Intel mobile core2duo T series look great, only 34W, but pricey and hard to find just now.

 

RE: It's worth trying out, posted on November 5, 2007 at 11:57:28
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 Sorry, been away...

Mini-itx mobos don't make provision for dual power sources - it uses old style 20 pin mobo connector for all power needs. New standard uses 24 pin mobo connector and a 4 pin 12v cpu connector.

On fanless PSUs, try MGE's XG Magnum 500 - fan only operates under load (which shouldn't occur in a computer transport). Others like that used to power HDDs cannot provide the higher power needed.

Would be interesting to compare Intel's mobile core2duo T series against underclocked Pentium Dual Core E2140.

 

DDR2 400?, posted on November 6, 2007 at 10:53:59
edward
Audiophile

Posts: 160
Joined: September 28, 2007
 This is probably a dumb question, but I was looking at the link with the P4M900 specs and for memory it says "Support DDR2 533/667 MHz". Does that mean it does not support DDR2 400? Or are they simply listing the fastest that they support?

I know if you look at the specs for the P4M890-M7 SE, it specifically says "Support DDR2 400/533 MHz" for memory.

 

They're referring to maximum speed supported. 200MHz works fine..., posted on November 6, 2007 at 11:57:04
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 DRAM clock speed setting allows for 3 options: 200, 266 & 333.

Have you tried powering HDDs externally?

 

RE: HDDs with NO power consumption!, posted on November 6, 2007 at 13:41:19
edward
Audiophile

Posts: 160
Joined: September 28, 2007
 Well...I could not find the ViPower VP-9101P, but I did find another product here in California, so I ordered it. It's made by Addonics (see link below).

When I first plugged it in, I thought I was going to have to pick a specific passage in a song and listen real closely to discern a subtle difference. But then as I listened, I noticed a difference right away without even trying. I thought it must be a placebo effect, so I switched back and forth a couple of times and found that it was not subtle at all. The soundstage got bigger, the quiets got quieter, and there was more separation (or air) between vocals and instruments. In other words, the instruments did not interfere with the other instruments nor the vocals. Still, I figured I needed to do a blind test to be fair, so I asked my wife to listen. She had no idea what I bought or what I was doing, she just thought we were going to compare software settings or something. So without telling her which was which, I played a song with the external power adapter and without (with computer PSU). She typically gets frustrated doing listening comparisons for me and has trouble discerning differences most of the time, but this time was different. She was like WOW! She thought it was an entirely different song I was playing. She thought it was a different version or we were comparing low bitrate MP3 with WAV or something. It was that obvious.

So cics, good call! This is a definite improvement.

 

RE: They're referring to maximum speed supported. 200MHz works fine..., posted on November 6, 2007 at 13:44:35
edward
Audiophile

Posts: 160
Joined: September 28, 2007
 Wow!! Yes indeed I tried the external SATA power adapter. I was just planning on posting my observations, and since you brought it up. I posted it at the more appropriate location.

 

RE: HDDs with NO power consumption!, posted on November 6, 2007 at 19:48:46
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 Thanks - my experience is same. I'm most impressed with excellent micro-dynamics in vocals. I've never heard this level of clarity in vocals across any system including analog.

Its a significant improvement as jitter is substantially reduced.

Addonics looks very similar to ViPower's with same pin based power connection. Another alternative is Granite Digital (also based in California).

 

RE: It's worth trying out, posted on November 7, 2007 at 03:45:18
seger
 I meant use separate power supplies on a microatx board with the separate 4-pin 12v connection - one for the mboard and one for the cpu. I'll experiment with this if it isn't a mboard destroyer. Very tempted by itx route, but I don't think it's the time just yet - maybe next year boards and processors will be more available and cheaper. Mobile core2duo is a leap forward in efficiency - my son's new laptop with T5250 has fanless option and doesn't get very warm.
MGE psu looks very well built, but not available in UK as far as I can tell. Enermax is not for me - SPCR review not good at all, especially for noise. Impossible to tell if any psu really has separate rails - do you have a third option up your sleeve by any chance?

 

RE: It's worth trying out, posted on November 7, 2007 at 06:47:46
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 I'd definitely try for XG Magnum (I'm also finding it difficult to get one). Other quality ones are from OCZ, Corsair and CoolMaster (choose ones over 500watts and offers cable management) - only issue I have is fan noise. That's why I went with Zalman TNN-300.

MGE XG Magnum website shows a UK retailer. US sites are limited to US only.

 

RE: It's worth trying out, posted on November 13, 2007 at 07:10:33
texastea006@yahoo.com
Audiophile

Posts: 58
Location: gulf coast
Joined: March 22, 2006
 I wanted to share something that I discovered long ago, but since I am using new hard drives again I just remembered the impact that I hear, which I think is significant.
I'm now using this laptop hard drive.
Fujitsu 160GB 4200 RPM 8MB SATA/150 Mb/s HDD MHV2160BT,
It does sound better than my Western Digital WD5000YS, however I can't fit all my music on just one laptop drive.
Second,I purchased this: VANTEC CB-ISATAU2 SATA/IDE to USB 2.0 Adapter
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16812232002.
it works to good effect on my WD drves.
Sadly, it doesn't power my fujitsu properly. I can boot up and see the contents as an extra drive, but then when I try to access it, it repeatedly spins up and hangs my pc. Maybe someone can see why in the specs.

Anyway, the real reason I'm posting is because I think you'll hear a positive difference when you try these changes:
1. make a copy of your album (mine were in wav) and then compress the new folder. Right click--properties-general-advanced-Check compress contents to save disk space. and apply. I think with the amount of tweaking we've done, you should be able to hear a difference between tracks in the compressed folder and the original folder. I think compressed sounds a bit cleaner, as if the drive can find the bits a bit faster. I compressed my foobar folder also.

2. Right click on foobar.exe properties.compatibility. check compatibility mode and keep it on Windows 95 (you can experiment with other modes, but I liked this best). Also check Input settings, Turn off advanced text services for this program. I did this for my two .bat files also and heard even more of a difference. Then I did it to my rmedigi.exe file just for kicks.

Again, if you've kept up with all the the changes so far, you should at least hear a difference when you make these changes. I think there were large improvements made here, so please let me know if anyone has a similar experience or finds some other results.
Mike

 

RE: It's worth trying out, posted on November 16, 2007 at 10:01:28
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 Hello Mike,

I have a Vantec IDE to USB connector on another PC. Those Vantec PSUs may not have enough to power for your Western Digital HDD. Its specs show 5/12V at 1.5A - this is cutting very close to 3.5" drives and I suspect this is your problem. You can fix this by getting Granite Digital's PSU for $20 (it delivers 2A). Check on your HDD what power is needed and compare to Vantec.

I tested Windows compatibility settings and Advanced Text Services a long while ago - I didn't get definitive answers but with so much changes, I'll try again.

Folder compression - never tried this as yet.

 

7. [Change] Upgrade to Foobar2000 0.9.5 (ignore 0.9.4.5), posted on November 17, 2007 at 12:28:40
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 Foobar 0.9.5 is available as a beta release (see link below) and only supports XP. UI has improved - you don't need Columns UI including album list component.

UI aside, more importantly, playback quality has improved nicely. HF are cleaner and low level information improves with better clarity and more details.

Remove old foobar and do new install with minimal install option.

 

RE: 7. [Change] Upgrade to Foobar2000 0.9.5 (ignore 0.9.4.5), posted on November 17, 2007 at 13:37:34
db


 
I had trouble with the new version having occasion, brief skips, especially, it seemed, near the beginning of a track, so I went back to the old version.

Any one else encounter this problem? or should I try again.
db

 

RE: 7. [Change] Upgrade to Foobar2000 0.9.5 (ignore 0.9.4.5), posted on November 18, 2007 at 08:26:17
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 Could be soundcard driver causing this - it may help to get latest version. What soundcard are you using?

 

RE: It's worth trying out, posted on November 20, 2007 at 09:22:01
texastea006@yahoo.com
Audiophile

Posts: 58
Location: gulf coast
Joined: March 22, 2006
 The problem with the Vantc was not with the western digital, but the fujitsu.
I would think the WD drive should require more power and have a problem, not the Fujitsu, which I would think requires less power. I haven't tried it anymore, but maybe I'll get to try another brand like the Granite soon.

 

RE: Have you compared optimized Foobar 0.9.4.4 with XXHighEnd?, posted on November 20, 2007 at 12:59:59
Telstar
Audiophile

Posts: 250
Joined: November 17, 2007
 Yes, I tried foobar 0.9.4.4 (with ASIO) on the same Vista machine that I am running XXHighEnd and I prefer XXHighEnd.

I tried 0.9.5beta3 with ASIO and prefer XX too, by a slight margin. Margin that will improve when I get a DAC with a driver that allows for exclusive mode.

 

Disable 'High Precision Event Timer (HPET)' under System Devices, posted on November 24, 2007 at 22:22:03
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 HPET is part of VIA southbridge chipset and can be disabled in XP. Its meant to make audio / video software engineering easier by removing need for buffering...

Note on some VIA 8237A chipsets this must be disabled. To be sure use Biostar BIOS dated 2007/08/02 or more recent - you can confirm this date using CPU-Z under mainboard/BIOS.

This improves sound.

 

What about WDRT?, posted on November 26, 2007 at 14:41:26
edward
Audiophile

Posts: 160
Joined: September 28, 2007
 In Vista I also have the Microsoft Watchdog Timer (and in the BIOS it is enabled as WDRT). What do you think we should do here?

 

RE: HDDs with NO power consumption!, posted on November 27, 2007 at 16:36:43
n_vincent
Audiophile

Posts: 34
Joined: November 27, 2007
 Why not try a external Esata drive enclosure with a low noise drive, see
http://www.storagereview.com/Testbed4Compare.sr they do test noise, heat, power, etc and a 500Go 3.5" hdd can be lest noisy than a 2.5" hdd. The other advantage is the heat is outside the computer case, so cooling is easier.

 

RE: What about WDRT?, posted on November 29, 2007 at 00:40:15
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 I would prefer to disable this. It traps system / program lock situations and perform system restart (or something else if desired).

 

Bit Perfect Measurement & Analysis, posted on December 20, 2007 at 04:06:06
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 Bit perfect transfer measurements can be easily done using Computer Transports. I figured out a simple way to measure this. Only when I received an email recently on the Bit ‘Perfectness’ of XP over Vista for USB audio devices I decided to do the measurement. Reference is made to this manufacturer's web page.

Measuring Equipment

  • Source: Computer Transport as specified in this topic. (Mine has a few more enhancements which will be published soon).
  • Target: Computer with soundcard that acts like a DAC.


Source Computer (Transport) setup:

  1. Foobar2000 plays CD track @ 24/96 (giving bit rate of 6.144Mb/s) via SRC upsampler. Choose a loud track to ensure all 24 bits are tested.
  2. Digital SPDIF output via coax using breakout cable from RME’s HDSP 9652 soundcard
  3. Provides Master clock


Target Computer (DAC) setup:

  1. Slaved to Source
  2. Digital SPDIF input via ESI’s Juli@ soundcard (with clock set to External)
  3. Recording software: Steinberg’s Cubase LE (set for recording 24/96 stereo and its hard wired volume control set to 0.00db).


ASIO 2.0 is used in both Source and Target computers. For good measure, I chose the worst possible RCA cable for digital connection. Cable has no shielding and is 2m long with poor quality connectors (I doubt you could get anything worse).

Procedure

  1. Target: Start Recording in Cubase
  2. Source: Play Track (Target computer records nothing in first few seconds until Source starts playing).
  3. Target: Stop recording after 1 minute or less. Audio .wav file (~35MB) is created in Audio sub-folder of project folder.


Analysis

  1. Using foobar’s foo_convert.dll component, convert source track to .wav file (right-click track > select Convert). In converter’s settings, make sure SRC is set for 96k and foobar’s output resolution is 24 bits.
  2. You now have the source track in a .wav file and the target .wav file as recorded by Cubase via soundcard’s ASIO 2.0 drivers. Both at 24/96.
  3. Compare .wav files. My preference is not to use wave file analyzers (too much clutter) and instead prefer doing actual sample comparisons at 24 bit level for both channels. Using the cicsWave utility, I extract samples to a csv file which I can view in a spreadsheet. I’ve had to update cicsWave as Cubase uses a slightly different .wav file format and I also wanted more samples to view (increased from 32000 to 64000). (If you need this revised utility, let me know). Make sure source and target waveforms are aligned (as target's .wav has a few seconds of nothing recorded, i.e. the time it takes to hit play on source computer).


Results were brilliant. Plotting the source and target waveforms (overlays) will not reveal any differences! Here’s only the source left and right channels:





Comparing at actual sample level is best. Here’s a snapshot of source and target samples together with differences (delta):





As can be seen, the difference lies in the least significant bit. This I attribute to Cubase’s volume control which although set to 0.00db still has a minor rounding error. Cubase doesn’t offer a volume bypass option (if someone knows how this can be done please let me know). Otherwise, samples match perfectly – this snapshot is typical of the extracted 64000 samples.

Excluding this ‘rounding / volume’ issue, all other (including higher order) bits are absolutely perfect! That’s 23 of 24 bits delivered perfectly with only the least significant bit being compromised (say 50% of the time) due to other factors. IF bits were mangled, lost or just corrupted, then we would NOT gain this consistent level of accuracy. Put another way, mangled bits would cause any random bit to be inverted – this would result in vastly different signal amplitudes which is not the case.

Anyone with a spare computer and soundcard can do this. Much simpler recording software would be ideal (Cubase LE is ‘heavy’ and forces use of its volume control). Please test this for yourself and let us know!

 

RE: HDDs with NO power consumption!, posted on April 10, 2008 at 09:52:31
theob
Audiophile

Posts: 3180
Location: ann arbor michigan
Joined: November 4, 2000
 Can you please email me? I'm interested in replicating the use of these power souces for my internal hard drives. I am a newbie to pcaudio and would like to confirm some things before I tackle this. Thank you.

Theobetley@comcast.net

 

External 24 BIT/192KHz DAC, posted on March 25, 2009 at 09:03:01
sozeh
Audiophile

Posts: 2
Location: Central SP Brazil
Joined: March 19, 2009
 I know almost nothing about computers. I'm on the way of building myself a PC transport following cics' instructions and, in the process, trying to minimize blunders caused by my ignorance.
I have an EXTERNAL [24 BIT/192KHz] DAC/Preamp in my stereo set up. It has SPDIF inputs, optical and coaxial; no RCA inputs.
I couldn't find SPDIF outputs on the motherboards cics recommends.
Is there a micro ATX, VIA based, low cost, low power consuption motherboard, running cool, with SPDIF outputs which could meet cics' demands?
Prior to that: is a (PC motherboard) SPDIF output able to send its signal to my DAC so that the DAC processes that signal and feeds 24 BIT/192KHz to the Amp? In other words: do I run the risk of finding a bottleneck to 24/192 playback when using SPDIF outputs?
By the way: what kind of output(s) have the motherboards cics recommend (when using them with external DAC)? RCAs or 6.3 / 3.5mm for stereo jacks?
Thanks in advance for helping me and I apologize if my doubts cause derision.

 

It's best to post on cMP thread, posted on March 25, 2009 at 09:49:00
cics
Audiophile

Posts: 1320
Joined: November 9, 2006
 Also look at cPlay.

Re your questions: P4M900 VIA mobo does not offer digital out (strangely, P4M890 does via mobo header but is limited to 48k). These mobos have been updated to latest Gigabyte GA-G31M-S2C or GA-G31M-S2L which does not offer digital out. Instead, you need to install a soundcard - ESI's Juli@ is a good start and is capable of 24/192k SPDIF out via RCA.

 

Page processed in 0.083 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]