|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
206.255.198.169
In Reply to: RE: Sound quality cd vs. computer. posted by lesleymorley@yahoo.com on January 19, 2017 at 13:04:39
Won't find it here! :)
I'm in the camp who finds that optimized playback with a galvanically isolated renderer driven by a disk drive or memory can meet the quality of a player spinning plastic disks very slowly. And provide far more in the way of convenience and flexibility than constantly shuffling jewel cases.
Using computer based workstations is how digital recordings are captured these days as well. I'm not aware of any "direct-to-CD burned" recordings.
Others disagree.
Follow Ups:
This has no meaning except to your ears and system
other than what you hear? Viewing a panel of charts on The Faerie Sorcerer's blog? :)I've ensured that my server is providing latency-free delivery of a WAV signal. No need to dink around with Windows multimedia settings in the registry. Unless that's how you get your jollies.
As for the microRendu player, Andrew Gillis has already stripped down Linux to provide only that which is necessary for renderer duty. And John Swenson took over a year fine tuning his hardware design. It's a simple, low powered device with signal isolation and EMI suppression at the Ethernet front door and a linear regulator on the USB port with a built in regenerator at the output. And fed by a linear power supply.
Edits: 01/20/17
is that you cannot claim to have an 'optimised' system. What you said about it being optimised is poppycock.
Fred,you have to be teasing us. The microRendu is not optimized especially when used with a good LPS?
Edits: 01/21/17
you must know that no one can claim that he/she has an 'optimised' system as E Sat claimed consistently for his own. The best that can be said of it is that it satisfies him.
I have no argument with anyone who feels that his/her system is optimal for him/her. But just don't come here and boast/berate others for different, more rational approaches such as yours.
Fred, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Fred has difficulty discussing any notion of specifics.
You have clearly not followed E Stat's many posts on his 'optimised' system. So why jump in?
You are correct that I have not followed all of E-Stat's posts. I was just commenting on the microRendu which is an optimized computer with modified Linux OS.
Edits: 01/22/17
Please explain what is meant by optimised computer. How does it compare with others like the Total system components and others? Are your other components 'optimised' also, and how?
When one goes around saying that this and that are 'optimised' and when this influences others, one has to be specific about the attributes and reasons. Otherwise it is just adding to hype and self declarations.
Anything done to improve the sonic performance of a computer is an optimization. Applying AudiophileOptimizer to Windows is an optimization. Using a computer that has specialized hardware and OS is an optimization. Placing a computer on a Synergistic Research Tranquility UEF Base is an optimization. Plugging a computer into a power conditioner is an optimization. Using a REGEN or an iFi iUSB 3.0 is an optimization. Using an upgrade USB cable or Ethernet cable is an optimization . Powering the optimized computer and or hard drives with a LPS is an optimization.Optimization
noun
the action of making the best or most effective use of a situation or resource.
Edits: 01/23/17 01/23/17
The microRendu is a single purpose computer for music playback only. Heck, you know this.
Check out this Fred. It's coming this week.
I thought it was just me. ;-)
if he pleases. He's like a friend of mine who once said "I don't hold Webster as an authority"
Everyone else here but the dour Brit understands improved efficiency and processing. In the fmakian dictionary, however, the word takes on a different meaning - one of an unattainable and single realization of some arcane concept.Fmakian dictionary for "opimised" . I confess that I don't understand this strange fetish.
Edits: 01/21/17 01/21/17
but don't try to generalise and mislead others.
I don't live in your alternative universe where language is "crafted" by the individual. :)
At the expense of further confusing the issue with more facts, I don't use a "PC (personal computer) system" for playback.
Do you understand? Most likely not. No one here actually expected you to answer the question about the microRendu that both Mercman and I use.
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. Right?
Too funny!
just tell us why, in simple terms, you have an optimised system that others should look up to. You have never been able to do so by hiding behind irrelevant remarks.
(I'm only too happy) to repeat everything I've already posted and add a few details. Despite the fact that you have not given me the courtesy of answering any of my questions.why, in simple terms, you have an optimised system that others should look up to
I've never, however, made the latter claim. At the expense of repetition (of which this post is mostly composed) I opine that I have:
1. A player that comes out of the box optimized
2. Taken additional steps in the system to optimize playbackLet's begin with a proper definition of the word "optimize" so that we are singing from the same hymnal. I posted that here.
Now, onto your post to which I first responded:I observe that with my microRendu, there's no need for arcane hacking of the registry. Andrew Gillis has already optimized a stripped down "audio toaster" version of Linux for the sole purpose of streaming a digital signal.
Previously, you have said :
"You can have a very good working system in windows with a lot of features disabled."
True. With a microRendu based system, however, any feature unnecessary to the task of streaming a digital signal simply isn't there. No need to disable anything Sherlock.
Why? Let's compare your general purpose Pipo computer with the uRendu
The Pipo contains a full version of Windows 8.1 and contains an HDMI port, four USB ports, a headphone jack and a 80211 b/g/n capable WiFi transmitter:
It is quite evident why you also found that output from one of the front USB ports is desirable to those on the back attached via additional cabling. So, what do we have that is unnecessary and should be disabled?
1. HDMI video output
2. Extra USB ports
3. Analog output from internal DAC/amplification
4. WiFi transmitterContrast that design with a device optimized solely for the purpose of streaming a digital signal. Pics courtesy of Abe who always does a splendid job of lighting:
What here requires removal or disabling? Nothing . One input. One output. One power jack. One SD memory card expansion slot. And it is fed by an HDPlex linear power supply (as found in my system profile) with an R-core transformer and lots of filtering.
You've also observed:
"To optimise a system, one adjusts parameters to a predetermined outcome."
Yes, that's what the Sonore team did for over a year in the development of the product.
Other parts of the system come into play as well. You mistakenly said:
"Below there is a post claiming that the poster has an 'optimised' high power system playing FLAC!"
No Virginia, in my system the microRendu plays WAV files. It is the file server that does the conversion. While you failed to answer my question about potential issues arising with FLAC, I understand the need to provide latency free delivery of a WAV File to the player. That's where using an i7-860 based unit with 16 GB of RAM solves the problem. Let's visually review the results of the server decoding a FLAC stream (in addition to all the other processes):
I'm thinking there is little concern that there will be latency given that the CPU rarely even blips 1% over any period of time. And with 16GB of memory, there are gigabytes available to cache the results (13263 MB to be exact). Now, how about isolation from this general purpose computer? The answer takes on several aspects:
1. It is physically located on a different floor of the house than the music system
2. It is connected to a separate mains fusebox than the music system. In my home, there is one for the downstairs and one for the upstairs.
3. The audio system uses two 20A dedicated lines to the upstairs box
4. The sources use aftermarket power cords and go through a conditioner
5. Shielded CAT7 ethernet cable is used. Arguably, something like Audioquest Vodka would be better but since a five foot run goes for $338 and mine is a fifty foot run, I'm not going to optimize that aspect of the system. :)Finally, the proof is in the pudding. You've also posted:
"Even in an average but well configured system, one can hear fine differences, though not as finely 'balanced' as in a high end system"
Do I have a high end system in your opinion? Remember details and pics are available in my profile.
This is an audio site devoted to enthusiasts who wish to learn from others and share their own experiences in good faith and good cheer. I have answered every question you've posed to me - sometimes on multiple occasions without your returning the favor.
Are you going to provide an adult response that provides any facsimile of constructive and specific observations about any of the details covered ? Or, will you continue to stand like Dorothy repeating your mantra to Toto - "There's no such thing as an optimised system, there's no such thing as an optimised system"?
Honestly, I don't know why I bother attempting to have a meaningful discussion with surly folks who are unwilling to engage in intelligent discourse.
Sheesh!
Edits: 01/22/17
...but I commend you for trying! Your graphic aides might help but he's not fond of pictures.
"Viewing a panel of charts on The Faerie Sorcerer's blog? :)"Ain't that the truth!
I have an SOtM SMS-200 coming to compare to my microRendu. Lots of fun here.
Edits: 01/20/17
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: