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

Fidelia VS Pure Music

70.181.190.222
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 14:05:07
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
 I thought I would do a brief comparison of the sound of Fidelia, Audiofile Engineering’s new OSX music player, with Pure Music.

First, a description of Fidlelia:

Fidelia comes in 2 versions. A basic version for $20, and an Advanced version for $50 additional that adds Exclusive Device Access (hog) and fine tuning of the iZotope SRC that one sees in AE’s Wave Editor.

Fidelia does not utilize the iTunes interface but automatically imports your iTunes library to its interface. The interface is basic and not hard to navigate. It lacks the visual art graphics and speed of navigation that iTunes offers. No album art is dilsplayed.

Fidelia can play flac files without any special loading as in Pure Music. What I consider an outstanding feature is the iPodTouch/iPad/iPhone app for remote control of Fidelia. The app does not show cover art, but is otherwise similar in feel to the app Remote, but much more responsive.

Like Pure Music, Fidelia can load au plugins,can add dither (iZotope) and can over sample on the fly. Fidelia handles gapless playback very well. The program seems solid and I did not encounter any problems when I used it.

The Advanced version is the one to get as Exclusive Device Access does improve the sound over the basic version. The sound becomes more three dimensional with a larger soundstage. The highs also become smoother and more relaxed when using hog.

Compared to Pure Music running Memory and hog, Fidelia sounds smaller and not quite as full or rich sounding. Pure Music has a bit more dynamics in the bass and midrange. If one turns off memory playback in Pure Music, the sound of Pure Music more closely resembles that of Fidelia, but Fidleia still does not quite match Pure Music’s sound quality.

Last night I watched the 2010 RMAF video of the computer audio presentation where Rob Robinson of Channel D (Pure Music, Pure Vinyl) talked about his approach to software. Rob strives for a steady state use of the CPU without bursts of activity. He feels that this results in less draw on the power supply with enhanced sound resulting. Both programs are bit perfect (no dither, SRC, etc.) but music occurs in real time. A music program can influence the CPU, power supply, etc. and thus contribute its own sonic signature to the sound. True memory playback of the entire file or title, while not easy to execute, can be most beneficial to the “steady state flow” that Rob discussed.

While I like Fidelia 1.03, I feel that it falls short of the sonic quality offered by Pure Music 1.74.

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music, posted on February 25, 2011 at 01:12:20
soundchekk
Audiophile

Posts: 2440
Joined: July 11, 2007
 What Rob Robinson tries to accomplish I pretty much accomplished more then 3 years ago on my Linux system. You can find all about it at my Linux Audio thread at DIY-Audio. (Cics has done it a bit later on XP and Peter Stordiau at the same time as I did with XX-Highend on Vista)

Just to make it clear: All this is nothing Sonic Studio with Amarra or Channel D with Pure Music have invented!

However. All this "audiophile" SW-player discussion should not be required, if those DAC manufacturers would built better audio interfaces. I find it almost emberassing that the majority of those manufacturers is not able to cope with the subject after all those years. Those manufacturers know very well about the issue.

If you as a manufacturer want to stick to e.g. USB you need better solutions then just async USB interfaces. I do see non to very little progress in that area. As long as as "audiophile" players makes a difference I'd say that the DAC manufactureres havn't done their
job jet. I'm looking foward to the first product which is immune
against PC induced distortions.


Cheers

P.S: As many of my Linux optimizations as possible went into my SB Touch Toolbox. These are open to public and free of charge.


 

RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music, posted on February 25, 2011 at 02:14:25
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
 Besser spät als nie

 

RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music, posted on February 25, 2011 at 03:17:10
soundchekk
Audiophile

Posts: 2440
Joined: July 11, 2007
 Hey -- 02.15 at night and you practice your German!?!? ;)

Of course you're right. It's a good thing that people implement those findings better late then never. ( And at least there are some people that smart to make good money with it ;) )

I consider it a bad thing if those "findings" are sold as own ideas.
(Take this as a general statement!)

Those things are openly discussed for years over here and elsewhere.
It's just a matter of getting them implemented under a specific OS.

Anyhow. The 3rd time I'm saying that today:

Dear manufacturers. Why don't you build better interfaces?? You guys
know that bit-perfect data should sound perfect! Which is obviously not the case even on highest-end products ( e.g. reference Mercmans gear).

I would like to see any bit-perfect playback software resulting in the same audio experience. Latency is not an issue in the consumer world.
It should be possible to decouple properly from the PC.




Cheers


 

RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music, posted on February 25, 2011 at 04:37:27
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 'All this "audiophile" SW-player discussion should not be required, if those DAC manufacturers would built better audio interfaces'

Turn it around:- if computer manufacturers will put in decent power isolation and PSs, plus robust interference free pipelines for audio. then xxxxxxx. Also drop these 'sexy' marketing terms like Azalia, Avivio and so on that no ordinary guy can understand.

There is no end to OS modiications as they are not originally designed for audio. People put in a 3 GH cpu powerd by a 30A smps, then scale it back to 800MHz to 'avoid' excessive power use. This is ridiculous, and actually a VIA C3 board can be made to sound as good as a cicsed duo core designed for video, office and what have you.

You say you did 'it' for Linux. Does it support up to 24/192 playback? Merman and I do embrace the higher quality playback from hirez.

I won't claim to have done anything, except that modifications to power rails can reap great benefits on top of minimising interefernce from computer processess and so forth.



 

RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music, posted on February 25, 2011 at 05:14:29
soundchekk
Audiophile

Posts: 2440
Joined: July 11, 2007
 >>You say you did 'it' for Linux. Does it support up to 24/192 playback? Merman and I do embrace the higher quality playback from hirez.

You can do it for any sample rate (as long as the Linux driver supports it), that's not the issue. ( the SB Touch runs 24/96)

Estimated 99,9% of all people around never even experienced the full potential of 44.1.

Estimated 99.9% of all material on all HDDs around is probably 44.1/16.

Another estimated 99.9% of HiRes material around I wouldn't consider "Art". It's HiRes material.

Conclusion: Me and some others have to live with 44.1/16 for quite some time to come. The good thing about it. There's plenty of space for improvement on 44.1/16.

>> Turn it around....

The only way to tackle the issue is IMO from the audio interface side.
Computers are rather "hopeless" devices. Ending up like Cics with all
his HW mods looks like a nightmare to me. (People like mercmann, who bet on Apple and SW mods only should have a look at Cics HW mods and the associated effects. They should consider that those mods would also work on Apple computers)

You know - as many others do - that properly slaving, isolating and reclocking the PC originated stream would most probably lead to satisfactory results. And that's IMO the only solution to run after.

The first manufacturer who can claim and prove that non of those audiophile players and tweaked computers have any effect on his
device, will have a real nice marketing story.


Cheers

 

RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music, posted on February 25, 2011 at 05:25:52
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 'Computers are rather "hopeless" devices.'

So why insist they are better?

We have no interest in the limited sound quality of red book. I am not interested in stats either.

You say that a medium with 94 dB dynamic range and 5% distortion at low signals levels, with massive hf phase distortion is 'adequate' and sounds best with whatever OS you care to use (however manipulated)?

If so, don't bother and buy a vintage high end CD player for not very much.

 

RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music, posted on February 25, 2011 at 05:51:50
soundchekk
Audiophile

Posts: 2440
Joined: July 11, 2007
 >>So why insist they are better?

Where did I say that?

For now my all time favourite in terms of lack of dirstortions is an SD-card player.

I enjoy my Squeezebox based solution because of its ease of use, flexibility, iPad control option and associated cost. Beside
that I brought that solution to a more then acceptable soundquality
level.


People who claim a computer-DAC based setup sounds better then
CDP A or B, doesn't mean that a PC based solution beats everything
out there.


>>We have no interest...

Who is we? The 0.1% I was talking about. You and two others!?!? Fair enough. ;)


Cheers

 

Alas, the power of low end audio expectations, posted on February 25, 2011 at 06:06:51
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 nt

 

RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music, posted on February 25, 2011 at 06:25:09
Ryelands
Audiophile

Posts: 1868
Location: Scotland
Joined: January 9, 2009
 if computer manufacturers will put in decent power isolation and PSs, plus robust interference free pipelines for audio. then xxxxxxx

This is true - but they don't and they aren't going to any time soon. So we cope.

There is no end to OS modiications as they are not originally designed for audio.

Bar a couple of minor tweaks, I haven't read of an innovative Windows config change for months if not years. There seems still to be scope for experimenting on the Mac (they came late to the party) but Win and Linux seem pretty settled. How far ones goes is of course a matter of taste.

People put in a 3 GH cpu powered by a 30A smps, then scale it back to 800MHz to 'avoid' excessive power use.

The procedure offers an easy way of exploiting the SSE4 instruction set. Those who don’t want to use the feature don't go this route. However, they seem not to feel the need endlessly to bang on about it.

This is ridiculous, and actually a VIA C3 board can be made to sound as good as a cicsed duo core designed for video, office and what have you.

The cMP shell is not designed for "office and what have you", it is, as the documentation explains, designed for audio only. As you've never heard a cMP^2 system, I'm at a loss as to why you feel competent to comment on it.

I won't claim to have done anything, except that modifications to power rails can reap great benefits on top of minimising interference from computer processes and so forth.

Every time you repeat this point without details or pictures of what you claim to have done, it becomes harder to believe that you have done it to the extent you say you have and harder still to find it interesting, given that details are provided for alternative approaches.

We have no interest in the limited sound quality of red book.

As RBCD offers the best available quality for 99.99 per cent of all recordings published over the last 30-odd years, you seem to have restricted musical tastes. Those with wider horizons just have to cope as best they can with what is out there.

 

RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music, posted on February 25, 2011 at 07:18:19
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 I have decided not to converse withis this inmate

 

RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music, posted on February 25, 2011 at 07:58:24
soundchekk
Audiophile

Posts: 2440
Joined: July 11, 2007
Will you ever grow up?

 

RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music, posted on February 25, 2011 at 08:10:11
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 "Dear manufacturers. Why don't you build better interfaces?? You guys know that bit-perfect data should sound perfect! Which is obviously not the case even on highest-end products ( e.g. reference Mercmans gear). I would like to see any bit-perfect playback software resulting in the same audio experience. Latency is not an issue in the consumer world. It should be possible to decouple properly from the PC."



Exactly. Instead we get a bunch of BS to the effect that "everything matters" or "we can hear stuff that we can't measure". The reply to these statements is: (1) In a poorly designed system everything does matter, so it's time to do a better job of design. (2) It's time to figure out what needs to be measured and how to measure it.

However, I suspect that even if everything were done up perfectly there would still be audiophiles complaining that they could hear differences, and when others don't report the same thing blame them for being deaf, close minded, or having a low resolution system. So perhaps from a business perspective the current situation makes sense, i.e. audiophiles get the equipment that they deserve.

Tony Lauck

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

 

RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music, posted on February 25, 2011 at 08:34:28
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 "Turn it around:- if computer manufacturers will put in decent power isolation and PSs, plus robust interference free pipelines for audio. then xxxxxxx. Also drop these 'sexy' marketing terms like Azalia, Avivio and so on that no ordinary guy can understand."

There are two ways to deal with the problem: reduce the garbage output by the PC or reduce the sensitivity of the DAC to extraneous garbage. It is a simple matter of economics where to do this. The whole purpose of using commercial off the shelf PC hardware and software is to get on, and stay on, the technology curves that the computer industry follows in accordance with "Moore's law".

Designing computers is a complex activity driven by many factors. Making digital waveforms meet certain "aesthetic" criteria is not one of them. The problem of cleaning up dirty digital waveforms is simple, requiring only a few dozen logic gates or flip flops, not billions of logic gates as exist in the typical modern PC. It does require that the people designing this circuitry have complete mastery of mixed signal design and implementation. It's not clear that there is a sufficient market to attract the needed talent and resources, and given this is the case there is absolutely zero chance that there will be sufficient talent and resources to solve the much harder (and utterly unnecessary) problem of cleaning up the PC.

Note that audio equipment needs to be designed to be immune to EMI transmitted over power wiring and through space even in a pure analog system, given the ubiquitous digital equipment in the typical household or apartment building. The only unique requirement of digital audio gear is the requirement that this immunity extend to an incoming digital signal.


Tony Lauck

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

 

RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music, posted on February 25, 2011 at 08:48:58
Dawnrazor
Audiophile

Posts: 12794
Location: N. California
Joined: April 9, 2004
 Hi Fred,

Please explain how you can comment thus:

There is no end to OS modiications as they are not originally designed for audio. People put in a 3 GH cpu powerd by a 30A smps, then scale it back to 800MHz to 'avoid' excessive power use. This is ridiculous, and actually a VIA C3 board can be made to sound as good as a cicsed duo core designed for video, office and what have you.


When did you do a cmp2 box?? By your own thoughts building one would be ridiculous. Almost IMHO as ridiculous as commenting on the sound of a system you never heard.

Just another FMAK speculation wrapped in a holier than though tone.

Have fun with your c3 :)


Cut to razor sounding violins

 

RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music, posted on February 25, 2011 at 10:16:27
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 I agree. The issue is:

there are limits to what can be done to improve on dac interfaces, granted that there are commercial interests at stake. As they say, garbage in garbage out. These clocking schemes that you seem to have faith in all have their own issues.

the no of computers being used for audio both professionally and by amateurs must be commercially significant. Yet all the focus by computer makers seem to be on video for games and other audio gimmicks.

There is a balance and both sets of comments need to be taken onboard.

 

The usual suspect, posted on February 25, 2011 at 10:17:04
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 nt

 

Typical fmak bailout , posted on February 25, 2011 at 10:29:03
Dawnrazor
Audiophile

Posts: 12794
Location: N. California
Joined: April 9, 2004
 runs away when anyone questions him.

So are you saying you actually built a cmp2 box????? Or that you just know about it's sound quality without actually hearing it?

Soundcheck is right.

Cut to razor sounding violins

 

RE: Typical fmak bailout , posted on February 25, 2011 at 10:46:09
barrows
Audiophile

Posts: 62
Location: Rocky Mountain
Joined: September 1, 2010
 Hmmm... Soundcheck, while I might agree with some of your points, we have heard these statements from manufacturers before: "our DAC is immune to transport quality." And in every case, the DAC in question performed differently with different transports. Now we have the same situation occuring with computers used as transports, whether the interface is USB, or Firewire. At this point the jury is out with network streamers as far as I can tell, but these are really a different category, as network streamers really place the "computer transport" inside the streaming device.
Certainly, in theory, with a galvanically isolated, asynchronous, USB interface, the computer should not matter (as long as its playback software is bit transparent). But, we still find that the computer does matter. I do not agree that DAC manufacturers know the reason for these sound differences, if they did, they would design interfaces to address the "problems". At this point, I believe those designers who accept that we/they do not understand everything about computer based playback.

 

RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music, posted on February 25, 2011 at 11:00:19
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
 I take a more optimistic view of the state of my equipment than some of the folks here are voicing. In the end, I find that I'm enjoying listening to music more than ever in spite of all my "tweaking".

I find it amusing that some of the biggest critics of my dac come from people who have never heard it. I prefer to focus on what it does well as opposed to what it doesn't do. I have no idea if it is the "best" and I don't really care. What matters to me is that the component provides a satisfying musical experience. One that wants to be repeated often.

For the future:

The new HS version of my dac will have a greater emphasis on isolation of the dac from the computer.

My wife needs a new computer, so she has graciously allowed me to order a new MacBook Pro and she will take over my present MacBook Pro now that Apple released their new products yesterday.

So what I am trying to say is that I am having more fun these days than I ever have had in my 30 plus years of being an audiophile.

 

RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music, posted on February 25, 2011 at 11:38:12
RBryant


 
Can you explain what a HS version is on your dac? What will it do and cost?

 

RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music, posted on February 25, 2011 at 11:55:25
Norm
Reviewer

Posts: 31024
Joined: September 6, 2000
 You say, "1) In a poorly designed system everything does matter, so it's time to do a better job of design. (2) It's time to figure out what needs to be measured and how to measure it. " I agree someone (you??) needs to get about it. Until then #1 applies although somethings matter more than others.

 

RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music, posted on February 25, 2011 at 12:19:04
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
 The HS version refers to High Speed USB interface that supports 24/192 or 32/192 depending on the dac module selected. All of the new Wavelength Audio Cosecant dacs and Crimson dacs will be HS. I have an older version that will need to be updated with a new mother board with the new USB receiver and several other updates.

The cost of the Wavelength Crimson with a Numerator dac module that supports 24/192 is $7500. I have the Denominator module that supports 32/192 (ESS Sabre 32) that adds an additional $1500.

One other upgrade is Silver wire transformers. This added an additional $7500 to the cost. Unfortunately, the cost of these transformers has spiraled up so that now the cost is quoted at the time of the order.

Yes this is an expensive dac. But as with all things, only the individual user can determine if it is worth the money. I feel it is.


 

And I would like to see Justice For All, while we're at it., posted on February 25, 2011 at 12:22:59
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 However, I'll settle for the first in existence component, whose sound is independent of the power cord used. So far, despite ridiculously overbuilt power supplies in some gear, there is NO single piece of equipment, that's not affected - rather significantly - by additional filtering provided by power cord.

In other words, why do we want to start with something as relatively complex as decoupling DAC from the computer? Why don't require to resolve relatively mundane tasks first?

 

RE: And I would like to see Justice For All, while we're at it., posted on February 25, 2011 at 13:50:05
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 How do you know it's the DAC that's affected by its power cord and not your preamplifier or amplifier that are affected by emissions from the DAC's power cord?

In any event, the problem of eliminating the effects related to power and ground anomalies are going to have to be addressed as part of any general clean up, especially since one of the most likely coupling means in the DAC input circuitry concerns power and ground.

Tony Lauck

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

 

RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music: correction..., posted on February 25, 2011 at 13:53:02
rsub8a
Manufacturer

Posts: 38
Location: Middle Delaware River Valley
Joined: July 29, 2006
 Thanks Mercman for your nice comments.

Soundchekk, I don’t know you, but I think I should set the record straight on incorrect information in your post.

Pure Vinyl (a superset of and direct progenitor of Pure Music) was released as a commercial product in July 2006. “more than 3 years ago.” By a good margin. We exhibited it at Rocky Mountain Audio Fest the same year. I believe that this is also before Amarra was even conceived, let alone released as a product. (Even before you had registered as an inmate here.)

And I note that I had a post removed a couple weeks ago because I chose to answer a direct question from another inmate about Pure Vinyl. Evidently someone complained about it, even though I thought the post was made in compliance with the Asylum rules. I was later allowed to repost it because it was later determined that I was, in fact, in compliance with the Asylum rules.

Essentially, the same rule is being flouted (I see no reference to the Squeezebox in Mercman’s post, and there it is, a link to something about the Squeezebox, following a post having nothing to do with it).

I guess the difference being that you aren't registered as a manufacturer.

Squeezebox could perhaps be considered a competing product. It isn’t being helped by the advent of computer audio software players. Your "product" is an add-on to the Squeezebox and will of course sink or float depending on the success of Squeezebox.

I note on your website you say "I do claim a copyright for my overall solution respectively the intellectual property behind it!!!" There is also a link where you solicit money. Treading a fine line here regarding status as a "manufacturer"?

Rob Robinson, Channel D

 

My remark was not DAC-specific - it's about equipment in general., posted on February 25, 2011 at 14:07:56
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 I was talking of what I see as generally utopian wishful thinking.

 

RE: My remark was not DAC-specific - it's about equipment in general., posted on February 25, 2011 at 14:25:54
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 If you're talking about components other than power amplifiers then there is a simple solution to the power cord problem, eliminate it. It is entirely possible to build components that have no power cord, i.e. they run entirely on internal battery power. This might be possible for amplifiers, also, but amplifiers are already heavy enough beasts, as is. I can run all of my computers for six hours off my backup batteries, but these aren't anything I would want to pick up carelessly.

The problem with consumer audio components is that they are not built to rigorous interface standards and hence there are all kinds of possible system interactions that make it extremely difficult to achieve consistent performance. The advantage of getting rid of power cords is primarily in this area, as it eliminates an entire category of variables from the equation. Once the battery is put inside the box the component designer/manufacturer has to take full responsibility for performance.


Tony Lauck

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

 

RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music: correction..., posted on February 25, 2011 at 21:56:46
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 I don't have a problem with your posts.

This forum has been permitting some balatant marketing type posts and statements aimed at misinforming less experienced inmates. May ne there are 6-8 of them.

There should also be a rule to limit what I call relay postings in which someone else other than the person at which a comment is directed interjects and steer the subject away from points that cannot be substantiated or argued.

 

RE: And I would like to see Justice For All, while we're at it., posted on February 25, 2011 at 22:01:51
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 'most likely coupling means in the DAC input circuitry concerns power and ground.'

How do you know this? There is no point in speculations that you cannot substain in reality. DAC design is constrained by physics and perhaps not as much as the politics in computer design and marketing.

I see nothing untowards in what has been said.


 

RE: My remark was not DAC-specific - it's about equipment in general., posted on February 25, 2011 at 22:05:31
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 'It is entirely possible to build components that have no power cord,' - like the Japnese audiophile who puts 100 car batteries under his listening room and risks being slowly poinsoned one way or another?

This is not a practical, widely adoptable solution. In any event, having used it in the past, it is just a constant hassle.

 

RE: Typical fmak bailout -especially, posted on February 25, 2011 at 22:07:03
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 when inmates simply base what they assert on listening to RED Book and with 16 bit replay equipment.

 

RE: My remark was not DAC-specific - it's about equipment in general., posted on February 26, 2011 at 00:34:59
untangle
Audiophile

Posts: 75
Location: No California
Joined: November 25, 2006
 Amen.

The cynic in me says the I/F madness is a conspiracy: half the money made in high-end audio is because the interfaces suck. This core morass has led to both the cable industry and the seemingly-normative behavior of swapping out $1000++ components b/c they lack 'synergy.'

(Another 40% of problems come from the lack of EQ ("tone controls"). What a canny move by manufacturers! We'll make consumers swap out whole components and cables to affect EQ.)

Getting back on track... While I have been and continue to be a fan and supporter of Rob and PM/PV, I am quite impressed with Fidelia. On redbook, it would appear to at least equal and possibly surpass PM. To my ears and on my system, the jury's still out on 176/192 between the two. Right now, I'd give the nod to PM at 3X.

Fidelia is also quite polished and very stable for a V1.0.x product. Only one crash - at 176.

Bob

 

RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music, posted on February 26, 2011 at 00:35:39
soundchekk
Audiophile

Posts: 2440
Joined: July 11, 2007
 Please don't consider my statements "as critics of your DAC". I know how a well implemented DAC sounds and I own a similar DAC of the same DAC family.

I prefer taking you as a reference because you probably got one the most exclusive chains at home.

And you're stiring the pot all the time. Every single tweak that any of those OSX player suppliers launches is being announced by you for quite some time. Most of those tweaks make a clearly audible difference on your gear. This speaks for its high resolution capabilties.
However. As long as the bits are identical you shouldn't hear any difference. (in a perfect world).
The piece of gear in charge is the DAC resp. its input/post-processing(re-clocker) section.

There is no need to listen to you gear.

1+1=? It's that easy. ;)


Cheers

 

RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music, posted on February 26, 2011 at 00:59:10
untangle
Audiophile

Posts: 75
Location: No California
Joined: November 25, 2006
 Be sure to 'renice' Fidelia - substantial improvement on my system.

Bob

 

RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music, posted on February 26, 2011 at 02:18:24
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
 I guess I don't share your view Klaus. But in the real world, I don't know of a single decent dac that allows all music programs to sound the same.

Theoretical wishes aren't necessarily reality. But I welcome your views and feel they are a positive contribution to the discussion.

Thanks

 

RE: My remark was not DAC-specific - it's about equipment in general., posted on February 26, 2011 at 02:24:14
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
 I also liked Fidelia Bob. It was remarkably stable for a first release. I also prefer this program over Amarra.

 

RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music, posted on February 26, 2011 at 02:47:05
soundchekk
Audiophile

Posts: 2440
Joined: July 11, 2007
 Of course every DAC sounds different! If we talk about DAC
we talk about input and output stages, we talk about clocks,
we talk about the DAC chip itself, we talk about ASRCs, filters and
clocks and we talk about powersupplies - not to forget choice of electronics, board layout etc..

All this makes those devices sound different. They all come with a different sound signature.

What they pretty much all have in common, doesn't matter what price tag we're looking at or what type of input you use, they all pick up PC
induced distortions on bit-perfect streams. You confirmed this behaviour for Wavelenght DACs more then once.

I'm not saying that the sound quality is bad of most of the quality DACs
out there. What I'm saying is that there is quite some space for improvement with those devices.
Instead of playing audiophile-SW-player-bingo or tweaking PCs and Squeezboxes and other peripherals to death i'd prefer better and
"immune" converters, which play anything I throw at them in the best possible quality.

If you don't share that view...

...to me it as easy as 1+1=?

 

RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music, posted on February 26, 2011 at 02:53:54
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
 Sure I share your view. All I was saying is that no dac I know of satisfies this premise. That's all I was trying to say.

 

RE: Typical fmak bailout , posted on February 26, 2011 at 03:06:28
soundchekk
Audiophile

Posts: 2440
Joined: July 11, 2007
 Yep. Quite some suppliers claimed "immunity". But that's marketing.
You can't blame them.

Those claims stopped with the invention of audiophile-SW-players.
In the beginning manufacturers tried to blame the "bit-perfection"
subject making the difference. Slowly but surely it became obvious
there is more to it.

Let see who's gonna be the first one who can prove immunity. I'm really looking forward to it.

Networking:

I'm currently analysing the network impact on my Squeezebox Touch.

So far I can tell, that the network ( every single part of it on all affected OSI layers 1-4) has a pretty obvious impact on my and some friends devices.


Cheers

 

RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music, posted on February 26, 2011 at 03:10:56
soundchekk
Audiophile

Posts: 2440
Joined: July 11, 2007
Finally. We got together.

I just avoided to say "No DAC", since I havn't listend to all of them. ;)



Cheers

 

RE: My remark was not DAC-specific - it's about equipment in general., posted on February 26, 2011 at 06:12:34
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 Many audiophile rituals are a constant hassle. None that I can imagine for digital could possibly equal the hassles associated with LPs, which include the constant fear of inadvertently damaging a precious recording.

Once the battery life is a few days then the hassle factor becomes entirely manageable, viz. cell phones.


Tony Lauck

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

 

RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music: correction..., posted on February 26, 2011 at 06:12:56
soundchekk
Audiophile

Posts: 2440
Joined: July 11, 2007
 You can twist it as you like.

Fact is that your product which is up for discussion over here in the
context of audiophile players dropped in even later then Amarra.
My guess Pure Vinyl popped up first mid of 2009. Pure Music not much before 2010. Just do a search in the forum. I couldn't find any older entries.
I clearly recall Amarras monopoly and pricetags for quite some time.
That changed rapidely when you showed up.

Before Amarra was a big black hole on the OSX side. There where just numerous claims over here that iTunes plays bit-perfect. No need to do anything about it.

So - you might be around since 2006 - maybe known for vinyl ripping - so what does that mean?!?!

Fact is all those sound quality related issues have been openly discussed over here since 2006 onwards.



Squeezebox:

It is just the next step on my evolutionary path. What Logitech offers for nowadays 200$ is just an amazing value. These guys are doing a great job.

I btw don't have a product. I don't sell anything. Don't try to put things into a wrong direction. Acting like that in public doesn't look good. I offer free advise and some little tools to the community that's about it.

I couldn't care less if my toolbox will be obsolete sooner or later. It's not a business and its non of your business.


Copyright is needed to avoid that my stuff gets stolen by commercial parties. To find out about it, will be not that easy, of course.

I put up a donation button to cover my add-on expenses which came up
because of numerous requests beyond my own project-scope. There is nothing commercial behind it. I even took the button off recently.









 

RE: And I would like to see Justice For All, while we're at it., posted on February 26, 2011 at 06:37:48
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 "How do you know this? There is no point in speculations that you cannot substain in reality. DAC design is constrained by physics and perhaps not as much as the politics in computer design and marketing."

This is what DAC designers report. It is also something that is obvious if one looks at some of the circuits involved (e.g. the circuitry associated with logic gates and flip flops considered as mix-signal devices). It is also consistent with the work you've been doing to clean up power wiring inside your PC based transport. More to the point, if several stages of logic buffering are used each stage will provide a certain amount of attenuation of the noise, which attenuation will be cumulative except for coupling means other than the intended signal path down the pipeline.

Note: I am considering only proper clock architectures, those in which the transport is slaved to the DAC clock and not the other way. These can be realized with separate clock wires going in the reverse direction using AES/EBU or SPDIF, with block mode USB, Firewire or Ethernet, or asynchronous USB. There is no need for variable frequency oscillators or any kind of phase locked loops in a proper clock architecture. (Even without this it is possible to build working systems that will run for a limited period of time without losing sync with a large enough buffer and sufficiently accurate clocks, but this is a separate subject.)

Tony Lauck

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

 

RE: And I would like to see Justice For All, while we're at it., posted on February 26, 2011 at 07:05:52
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 You keep repeating this; so why don't you run your system like so and post your finding?

I have used and tried ALL kinds of interfaces, clocks, clocking scheme and relocking. There is no perefct sonic solution which is cable independent as you wish to postulate..

 

RE: And I would like to see Justice For All, while we're at it., posted on February 26, 2011 at 08:11:37
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 "There is no perefct sonic solution which is cable independent as you wish to postulate.."

You have implied that it's a law of physics that makes this impossible. Prove it. (The deficiencies of existing products do not constitute a proof.)

As Arthur C. Clarke said: 'When an old scientist states that something is possible, more likely he is right. When he says that something is impossible, he is certainly wrong.'

Tony Lauck

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

 

RE: Typical fmak bailout - yes with 2 inmates, posted on February 26, 2011 at 08:13:34
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 nt

 

RE: And I would like to see Justice For All, while we're at it., posted on February 26, 2011 at 08:22:15
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 There is the ideal gas law and the real gas law, as an example.

Reality is not ideal in this world. No one can prove that the God particle exists, yet they are spending billions at CERN! Same with gravity waves.

Another example is the ideal infinite heat sink in Thermodynamics. It doesn't exist and is now shown to be the case with Global Warming. I never believed it when I was taught!

 

RE: My remark was not DAC-specific - it's about equipment in general., posted on February 26, 2011 at 09:36:31
untangle
Audiophile

Posts: 75
Location: No California
Joined: November 25, 2006
 IMO, the Amarra team has made *a lot* of progress with the program in the last release or two.

But I like Fidelia better too, Mercman.

Also, Fidelity feels kinda like a polished, more mature Decibel. (In fairness, sbooth works on Decibel part-time and the program is currently free.)

As Audiofile refines the look-and-feel of the "Library" window, it may emerge as the best track management solution too. Although I find that "convert to preferred format and add to library" functionality odd. Am I supposed to do that with my 1tb library, even if said library is already in my preferred format?

Bob

 

RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music, posted on February 26, 2011 at 12:58:27
shibu
Audiophile

Posts: 35
Location: so. california
Joined: March 19, 2005
 You can delete language resources using a shareware on a Mac.

Also, afplay command from Terminal bypasses iTunes' volume control (or whatever), thus supposed to improve SQ. There are scripts on a Japanese site.

 

RE: My remark was not DAC-specific - it's about equipment in general., posted on February 26, 2011 at 22:04:30
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 Have you used batteries for the lond run?

Are you still using it?

If so, fine. If not, why speculate?

 

RE: My remark was not DAC-specific - it's about equipment in general., posted on February 27, 2011 at 07:03:07
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 I have a lot of experience using batteries in sailplanes where there is no other source of power to run radios and instruments. They work fine, but require derating due to low temperatures and replacement every few years. At home I know that my computers will all run off of my UPS for six hours, thanks to a bad ice storm a year ago. I have a two box UPS, the second box containing 50 pounds of gel cell batteries in a 24 volt 1KVA system.

Most systems with small portable batteries are unreliable because they lack sufficient intelligence in the chargers and there is too much emphasis on size and weight as compared with functionality.

Tony Lauck

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

 

RE: My remark was not DAC-specific - it's about equipment in general., posted on February 27, 2011 at 08:53:01
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 Running PCs on UPS is not the same as running audio. UPSs' have a really nasty effect on high quality audio systems.

As I implied, unless you are prepared to have large nasty lead acids/gels in your home, it is not a good idea. Lithiums are just too expensive for large Ah use.

 

RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music, posted on February 27, 2011 at 11:56:02
Pondfish
 why didn't you market it? I would if I had your ability. PM sounds great compared to Itunes alone.

 

RE: Fidelia VS Pure Music, posted on February 27, 2011 at 11:57:16
Pondfish
 sind sie Deutcher?

 

Nope (nt), posted on February 27, 2011 at 12:51:13
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
 .

 

Page processed in 0.043 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]