|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.198.27.115
Initially, I used my desktop computer with Windows 7 (good overall sound) and then installed XP on this machine and did some CMP mods and achieved even better sound (excellent bass). Last week, I built a new CMP machine using the Asus C60M motherboard (dual core 1GHz) but it doesn't have the same bass definition at all... In fact, the bass is almost nonexistent on this machine.So, my original high-wattage desktop with a partial CMP conversion offered better sound than my low watt complete CMP machine. Even Windows 7 on the high-wattage desktop sounds more full. Of course, the mids on the new CMP machine are great... Perhaps even over-pronounced. What could I have missed?
Edit: Just had a thought... I am using the new Foobar2000 on the new CMP machine... Maybe they messed up the code.
Edits: 07/01/12Follow Ups:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128524
unfortunately it is out of stock at NEWEGG.
Jack Wong first noticed the goodness of this board. He instructs to remove unnecessary components from the board, also. Of course, you do not HAVE to do this but it helps.
I can assure you this one works very well. I have used two of them and they are consistently good.
Hope they are re-stocked.
Mr. Wong is using the CELERON processor. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116410 (also out of stock)
I am using this one
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116407
This was better than the currently recommended MB on the cMP website which is getting very hard to find.
n/t
Not sure how they would apply to Vista. Also you might try different usb ports as that can make a difference.
Good luck
If the new computer is running a 64 bit version of Windows 7 then there is your problem....assuming the old one had the 32 bit version.
I currently have two virtually identical computers except for the motherboard (because I could not get the same Gigabyte motherboard a few months later) and the OS (the first has XP, the other has Vista). Sonically the two computers couldn’t sound more different. IMO Vista sucks big time but maybe it’s the particular Gigabyte motherboard model that sucks. I have used cMP/cPlay, MediaMonkey, XXHighEnd, JRMC, Audiogate and perhaps some others, though these are my preferred players. They all suck on my Vista computer, though I could never get XXHighEnd to work on my XP computer. Fortunately I have another but significantly different Vista computer (stock Dell) and XXHighEnd sounds great.
If my only venture into computer audio was with my Gigabyte MB /Vista computer, I would rant that computer audio SUCKS BIGTIME and that CD players are superior. Since I have other computer music servers, I know better.
I don’t think that you missed anything. I would also say that the cMP/cPlay code is fantastic. My advice is to ditch the inferior sounding computer (use it for something else) and move on.
> > > > I would rant that computer audio SUCKS BIGTIME
Indeed the weak link in Computer-Audio is the Computer.
The computer has been retro-fitted to serve a purpose it was not designed for...
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
.
The computers are doing exactly what they were designed for.
Computers are designed to process data and deliver it to whatever device they are connected to. Since they do it with zero data errors it seems to me the weak link is the DAC. If the DAC is so sensitive that some of the minute changes made to the computer causes such drastic changes in sound even though the data stays the same then the DAC isn't doing its job properly.
My Mac and my PC and my iPad and the computers on the company network via the internet and all of us can send data back and forth and the computers involved make zero mistakes, but you change a register in your audio computer and the output of the DAC changes even though the data is the same. I blame the DAC.
.
.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
and the mother board hardware and software play a major part; otherwise there wouldn't be the large differences.
DACs are what they are and so are computers.
Saying that these differences are large is typical audiophool bluster. There are no large differences between sources that output the same bits unless there is something wrong with the system setup or components. The differences that exist are small and difficult to reliably confirm. They pale into insignificance compared to differences between good and excellent recordings. IMO money should be spent on the DAC and then on one's record library. After the computer has been made to produce consistent results one's time should be spent listening to music. IMO, if one is an audiophile and not a music lover one is a really big fool.
If reviewers for the major publications established a policy of only reviewing DACs in conjunction with known "bad" sources (e.g. electrically nosy and full of jitter within the outer limits of the appropriate specifications) then after a few years of consistently bad reviews, DAC manufacturers would get the message that they were going to have to build actual digital to analog converters, rather than non-linear noise and distortion couplers such as they are presently seem to be peddling.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
.
Everyone agrees that the differences exist. Arguing about whether or not those differences are large or small is pointless.
The fact that the computer setup makes a difference at all is what baffles me. Yes, when it first started out people looked at the computer as a replacement for the transport and expected the computer to deliver the data in real time. We should be past that by now. The computer should just be a way to store and process the files and then deliver the data that the listener has chosen to the DAC en masse.. The computer in the DAC should then take that data and decode it while being immune to how it arrived. That can't be an impossible task given the huge amount of solid state storage you can get for just a few dollars.
/.
.
I hear very little difference in the computer setup. That's not to say I hear no difference. However, the biggest difference for me has always been the DAC and the downstream components including the linestage, amp, speakers.
In the digital domain the computer and operating system are less significant in the grand scheme of things relative to the other components, mainly the DAC.
The computer is mainly a "transport" and a means of getting the bits out to the DAC. And since the DAC is the most important component in the digital domain, my choice of computer has more to do with stability, ease of operation, ease of maintenance, and overall convenience. I do not wish to spend a lot of time being a PC SysAdmin just to keep my music flowing. It shouldn't be rocket science and it isn't.
Person A says:
very little difference ---but you use PureMusic and paid extra for more RAM
-and-
Person B says:
differences that exist are small and difficult to reliably confirm. --- but you use a cMP machine
Interesting....
Sounds like a waste of money and time then...
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
Yes, I use Pure Music -and- the only reason I installed more RAM is because Pure Music takes advantage of it for 'memory play', i.e. pre-loading a number of tracks into RAM just prior to playing the music (so there is no disk access while the music is playing). Pure Music is cheap, RAM is cheap.
Before that, I had a whopping 3GB which was plenty with plenty of free RAM as there was no paging to disk.
As for improved sound, Pure Music and memory play help a little but not by a huge amount relative to upgrading the DAC and other downstream components. I have always said that the DAC and the downstream components play a much bigger role in the grand scheme of audio quality with the computer being fairly minor.
Interesting.... Sounds like a waste of money and time then...
I agree, as the money and time spent on the computer is mostly a waste as the big 'bang for the buck' and most noticeable differences are downstream of the computer itself.
I do not subscribe to the belief that the fastest CPUs with the most RAM and latest generation SSDs (or fastest disks) are necessary to build an outstanding music server.
For example, the data rates do not warrant anything more than a lowly (and quiet running) 5400rpm laptop style 2.5" disk. I use faster disks and I/O for backups but not for music playback.
I will qualify all of the above with the fact that none of my music files are greater than 96KHz/24-bit.
your assertion.
Remember your distaste of dsd? Now you convert to it.
If inmates find a big difference, I believe them instead of preach at them.
I do find significant differences due to computer hardware.
My distaste referred to DSD64 which has high frequency noise starting below 30 kHz. DSD128 has similar artifacts, but they are moved up the F-scale and are much easier to filter out during playback without degrading the music.
I pay little attention to reports of audible differences unless these come with a fairly complete description of what was heard and how the listening tests were conducted. My experience is that many people reporting differences are not careful experimenters and some are actively hostile toward conducting additional experiments that might isolate the cause of an effect that was heard. These reports do not rise very far above the level of "noise" and do not contribute knowledge to the community.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
> > > My distaste referred to DSD64 which has high frequency noise starting below 30 kHz.
As long as its above 20kHz it should not matter right??
In other News did you read about CERN....they found the Higgs Boson
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
As I remember it, he didn't want anything to do with unrippable Sony inspired formats, even though DSD64 has technical and sonic merits over PCM.
"..., even though DSD64 has technical and sonic merits over PCM."
This remark is logically inconsistent. DSD64 is a form of PCM, specifically it is 2822.4/1 PCM.
Because of its higher sampling rate, 2822.4/1 has technical and sonic benefits over 176.4/24. Because of its higher bit depth, 176/24 has technical and sonic benefits over D2822.4/1. Which is "better" is not provable, it is a matter of opinion.
It is possible to convert between multi-bit PCM formats in a lossless way, providing that the initial conversion is from a lower to a higher sampling rate and there is "sufficient" bit depth in the intermediate format. The final result in the original format will differ from the original by only a small multiple of the least significant bit. As far as I know, this does not apply to conversions from 44/16 to 2822/1 and back. None of the sigma delta modulators that I have tested manage to encode the original audio with 16 bit accuracy without putting noise in the frequency band below 20 kHz. Perhaps there is some way to do this, but I've not seen it. There are audiophiles who believe that Redbook is higher resolution than SACD and from their perspective they could be right.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Your 'arguments' are about 10 years behind.
"Your 'arguments' are about 10 years behind."
Sure. Right. And 2 + 2 is now equal to 5.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
nt
'I pay little attention to reports of audible differences unless these come with a fairly complete description of what was heard and how the listening tests were conducted'
That's fine, just don't belittle others' remarks because they do not fit your rubrick.
I, for one, can go to some length about your 'monitor type' setup in a small room, not having the benefit of early reflections etc. But this is not my role and I take your observations at face value, evaluating them in the light of my own experience. That's it.
There is no basis in fact to the statement that PC hardware does not affect SQ materially. The factors are well known in electronics and audio..
Really? I don't understand you. Early reflections from my speakers are present and causing me not to hear differences in computer hardware? Early reflections from my speakers are not present and their absence is causing me not to hear differences in computer hardware? Which is it?
I have no problem with remarks that people heard something on some occasion. I do have a problem when they reach a conclusion that does not logically follow from their observations, particularly when they are apparently intelligent people who are being willingly obtuse.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Get reading about room acoustics and you will see the relevance of what I said. Nearfield monitoring is fundamentally different acoustically to room and hall listening, where reflections pay a significant part in shaping 'the sound'. Thus you have DSPs built into processors to give different types of acoustic environments like Hall ... etc.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I tried quite hard to answer those misdirected questions.
Edits: 07/04/12
.
If you choose to engage him that is about as good as it gets.
Since my last exchange I've watched several threads deteriorate into the pissing contests we have come to expect. I'm not participating any more.
My advice.... Walk away and save yourself the aggravation.
.
.
nt
Therefore a real measure can not be established.
The differences that exist are small and difficult to reliably confirm.
In my last experiment the difference between 32bit and 64bit Linux was obvious [to me] which goes back to my subjective comment. Although I believe it would be obvious to others it might not be...however I have to build my system according to the reality that I sense.
They pale into insignificance compared to differences between good and excellent recordings.
Although I hate to bring up quality of gear. But the quality of gear can come into play here...surely low fidelity gear may not be able to bring forth the excellent attributes of an excellent recording. However the further two types of recording are from the apex of the bell curve the more difference between them can be heard even with low-fidelity gear [I suppose, don't know for sure because I don't have any low-fi gear:-)]
IMO money should be spent on the DAC and then on one's record library.
Absolutely, once you get a good Dac the search should be over and funds should be spent on music instead of pursuing endless [probably lateral] upgrade.
After the computer has been made to produce consistent results one's time should be spent listening to music.
Consistently good or consistently bad? I am sure you mean acceptable ie listenable. But even you use cMP correct, this is top notch music playback as supposed to iTunes on a Windows machine. However iTunes on Windows will give you consistent results.
IMO, if one is an audiophile and not a music lover one is a really big fool.
Ahhh, Audiophile vs. Stereophile. One loves music while the other has a compulsive addiction to satisfy.
Just my .02
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
If a difference can be reliably detected in blind tests it is large. This is a objective criteria, albeit limited to a particular listener, system, room, music and test conditions. If a difference is subtle it may exist but can't be detected easily, even if the music is carefully selected to maximize the probability of hearing differences. Most audiophiles claiming "large" differences would be ill advised to bet a substantial amount of money on their ability to pass a blind test based on their so-called "large" differences.
There are subtle differences that don't reliably rise to the level of conscious observance but these can hardly be considered "large". Compared to differences between two recordings of the same musical performance obtained with slightly different microphone locations these differences are utterly insignificant, as anyone who has some experience actually making live recordings will appreciate.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
For sure computer software/hardware can make a huge difference....as we have seen USB alone [latency/asych etc] can make a difference.
The computer has a large number of variables....but to the its all 1's and 0's camp none of it [should] make a difference therefore it does not.
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
,
It is all ones and zeros as far as a computer is concerned.
Computers process them flawlessly, mistakes with data are for all practical purposes non-existent.
Which brings us to the point I was trying to make.... none of it [should] make a difference .
IMO the fact that it does make a difference is the fault of the DAC.
As long as we have DACs that are sensitive to tiny changes in the timing of the data from the source then we will forever be plagued with this problem. Since computer hardware and software is constantly evolving trying to solve the problem from that end is pointless.
Computers are already perfect in their ability to deliver the proper data to the DAC so the only thing left is timing. All efforts to solve that problem should be going into DAC design.
.
It may be worth you while to get rid of all those features that are not necessary; there are just far too many services running with that OS.
Implement all the SSD configuration recommendations (see OCZ forum even though you have no SSD) and disable unused services.
You may find quite a difference.
I know many people aready are aware of and us Blackvipers web site on slimming services.
http://www.blackviper.com/service-configurations/black-vipers-windows-vista-service-pack-2-service-configurations/
For sure, getting rid of all the bloat-ware and removing unneeded programs is essential.
Dynobots Audio
Music is the Bridge between Heaven and Earth - 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
My next step (when I'm not pursuing some other aspect of this or some other hobby) is to install XP so the only difference between the seemingly identical computers will be the different Gigabyte motherboards.
If I can't get a sonic match, I may ditch the motherboard for whatever is currently produced and recommended on the cMP website.
I've heard wonderful SQ from Vista. Who knows how many variables there are but OS-wise it's crucial to set the Vista default sample rate to match your source, other things like power management settings and such also are audible but from my experience the default rate is the most important.
Just a thought...
Rick
OEM Vista Ult installs are aweful, full of gimmicks.
By slimming my son's Dell laptop, I was able to transorm it from a pain-in-the-xx to a responsive computer.
My version, Vista: Vista lite or Vista anorexic or something like that is probably the best then as it's the one that came with the computer almost as an advertisement for the one that they hope that you will "upgrade" to. Guess sometimes cheap is good...
Rick
I have also found this to be the most responsive version and on the same hardware and players, sounds better than Ultimate!
I can remove the 2GB Ram limit and get it working on 4G. At idle RAM use is 200MB lower.
We can't say why you are getting different sound. You have changed many things at once, making it difficult to logically isolate a cause. You haven't described all the components in your system, making it difficult to guess based on experience. At the absolute minimum we need to know what kind of DAC you are using and how you are connecting this DAC to the computer. Note that correctly configured software (OS, driver, player) does not have any sound by itself. It has sound only in conjunction with hardware, which includes all the electronics in your audio chain.
It is possible with more information that some of us might be able to come up with a SWAG that could save you time. Even so, you will still have to do some careful experimentation, i.e. a sequence of small changes to the system, each followed by careful observation.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
'So, my original high-wattage desktop with a partial CMP conversion offered better sound than my low watt complete CMP machine'As I and others have pointed out many times, the sonic outcome is as harwware dependent as the software. Your power supplies are different as are your MB drivers.
I assume that the audio output source and hardware are the same, and not MB audio hardware/software dependent.
When you compare, yo should use the same player (same version). Do you get the same result with cPlay?
Edits: 07/02/12
Can't believe I forgot my system details...
The new CMP machine is configured as follows:
Asus C60M mobo (under-clocked and under-volted)
2GB Kingston ValueRAM DDR3 (running at 800MHz)
OCZ Agility 3 240GB hard drive
PSU is similar to PicoPSU (12VDC input, 60 watts)
This is attached to my W4S DAC-2 via USB.
My initial thought (after someone suggested it above) is that the power supply is to blame since it is somewhat anemic and may not be as clean as the robust PSU in my other computer.
I will also track down the other version of foobar...
Check your usb drivers, connect only to a soldered one onto the MB, and cut V+ (Red strand in usb cable) and see what happens? Wyred does not need usb power.
You chose a mobo that it's rather untested...If I can assum that an AMD Fusion is similar to a Intel Atom cpu, let me tell you that normally in a cMP2 system you don't underclock/undervolt an Atom.
For an AMD Fusion you would need cPlay SSE2 version.
...I now realize that you cannot use cPlay because W4S DAC2 does NOT use ASIO protocol for USB :-/Test with the 1st aspect in place, no kind of slimming.
Gradually implement slimming of OS, and keep testing playback.
Then, eventually try a different PSU.
Edits: 07/02/12
I turned down the voltage a bit since the machine is totally fanless and was nearing 70 C in extended run tests. It helped somewhat...
I'll do some testing tomorrow.
I installed the same version of foobar as on my Windows 7 machine and the bass livened up again, but definitely at the expense of midrange presence. It sounds to me that the newest foobar (1.1.13, I think) emphasizes the mids quite a bit and is a tad light on bass. Interesting.
May have to try the old 0.8.3 I hear people raving about if my components will work with such an antique version.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: