|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
80.133.175.184
In Reply to: RE: It's even worse than that posted by nycparamedic on December 01, 2010 at 18:39:43
If you're looking after best sound from your MPD setup you should try following:
If you're able to install ecasound on your Voyage Linux you should try the pipe output of mpd into ecasound and then to hw:0,0. Ecasound
comes with one of the best realtime-kernel allgined audio engines under
Linux.
I'm quite sure you'll hear a difference.
Something like below should do:
audio_output {
type "pipe"
name "pipe-eca-hw0-4416"
format "44100:16:2"
command "ecasound -q -B:rt -r:98 -b:64 -f:s16_le,2,44100,i -i:stdin -o:alsahw,0,0 2>/dev/null
enable "no"
}
Would be interesting to see how the Ayre DAC responds to that change.
Cheers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
soundcheck's audio@vise - Squeezebox Touch Modifications
Follow Ups:
Klaus,
I'll give it a try, but it might not be for a while. I don't understand why ecasound should sound better than mpd, but I'm willing to try the experiment.
Also, why "format "44100:16:2"?
Nick
Hi Nick.Just try it. It'll take you not even 5 minutes to get it going. ;)
> > I don't understand why ecasound should sound better than mpd
You might have followed some of my earlier excursions.
To be able to utilize the rt-kernel potential you need a proper setup
on the system. Just having the kernel in place won't change anything.1. You as a normal user have to have the permissions to apply rt priorities
2. The application should utilize the rt-scheduler SCHED_FIFO.Since MPD evolution goes very slow, I doubt that they've done
something about that matter during the last two years ( or since
0.15). Perhaps I'm wrong here.
ecasound is build for lowest latency operation using that SCHED_FIFO
scheduler. And that makes the difference.> > Also, why "format "44100:16:2"?
That's just an example. There won't be a header with the PCM stream.
As far as I recall you need a fixed setup per sample rate.
Advise: If you got access to the kernel config. try to avoid dynamic bandwidth allocation on USB. That should make an audible difference
on your DAC.
Cheers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
soundcheck's audio@vise - Squeezebox Touch Modifications
Edits: 12/02/10
> Just try it. It'll take you not even 5 minutes to get it going. ;)
The Hi-Fi is being moved to a new room, so everything is still in boxes. Once everything is settled in I'll give it a serious listen.
Though, I did wonder today if this all for naught when one has an Asynchronous USB DAC --the computer not having much say in the timing of things.
> Advise: If you got access to the kernel config. try to avoid dynamic bandwidth allocation on USB. That should make an audible difference
on your DAC.
I'll take a look when things are up and running.
Thanks, Klaus. Have a safe holiday.
Sincerely,
Nick
> > one has an Asynchronous USB DAC --the computer not having much say in the timing of things.
That's what marketing says. Yep.
If marketing would be right with those claims, Mercman wouldn't need Amarra,
Gordon and Steve wouldn't hear a difference between Flac and Wav. There wouldn't be a need for an Ayre player asf., asf.
Enjoy.
Cheers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
soundcheck's audio@vise - Squeezebox Touch Modifications
> > ...one has an Asynchronous USB DAC --the computer not having much say > > in the timing of things.
> That's what marketing says. Yep.
> If marketing would be right with those claims, Mercman wouldn't need > Amarra,
> Gordon and Steve wouldn't hear a difference between Flac and Wav. There > wouldn't be a need for an Ayre player asf., asf.
I _only_ mentioned timing, *not* the fact that OS X can't natively handle sample rate switching --something that Ayre player will do for you. And, even though Gordon and Steve (Empirical Steve?) might hear a difference between the two formats, it doesn't necessarily mean that the format is specifically at fault. Who's to say that a specific type of noise/defect is being generated when it's being decoded on a certain (Gordon loves Mac) platform?? We just don't know.
Also, I just reread Ayer's marketing material and they never claimed that Asynchronous USB solved every computer audio problem. They claim "lower" jitter than previous USB solutions, that's about it. And I've never heard Gordon (vie email and on forums) say his asynch solution was all that was needed to make a DAC sound great --and I say this as someone who finds Gordon someone who is stubborn and difficult to communicate with. Can you point me to specific marketing you find offensive?
Lastly, I am almost certain of 3 things thus far:
1. Different audiophiles have their own stubborn ideas of what sounds "better", and it might not jive with mine.
2.Computer audiophiles will (unconsciously) use different computers/software/DAC's, etc. as exotic "tone controls" to try and rectify sins of omission/commission elsewhere in their systems.
3.Using personal computer hardware and desktop operating systems is _absolutely_ not the right tool for audiophile grade 2 channel playback.
3 succinct points against Gordon/Steve, Amarra, and differences in FLAC/WAV.
sincerely,
nick
....slowly, gradually.BTW thus far I can clearly discern sonic differences between FLAC and WAV files on *all* hardware platforms and operating systems.
Agreed, in general, computers are not totally ideal for optimized audio playback. (There are intrinsic technical reasons that have already been well-elaborated many times on AA.)
Agreed, audio has always been, and shall remain, wholly subjective as the activity/process involves human physiology, perception and psycho-acoustics.
Recently I posted here regarding a surprise discovery in PC mainboard audio hardware:
"Another surprise was a VIA VT1708 sound chipset on a newly-installed ASUS M4A78LTMLE PC mainboard, powering a pair of Sennheiser HD-280 phones, and also stereo analogue outputs for amp and speakers. Entirely detailed, dynamic, unconstrained sound quality with remarkable imaging and separation. First integrated PC mainboard sound codec I've heard that warrants any recommendation.
VIA VT1708 Features
* Supports 44.1K/48K/96K/192KHz DAC Independent Sample Rate
* All ADCs Support 48K/192KHz Independent Sample Rate
* Built in High Quality Headphone Amplifier
Various Output Format
* 4 Stereo DACs Support 24-bit, 192KHz Samples
* DAC with 100dB S/N Ratio
* 2 Stereo ADCs Support 24-bit, 192KHz Samples
* ADC with 95dB S/N Ratio
* 8-Channels of DAC Support 16/20/24-bit PCM Format for 7.1 Audio Added-on Function
* High Quality Differential CD Input
* HPF In ADC Path for DC Removal
* Analog CD Input Path for Compatibility"Sounds great with Linux. (Though obviously not as 'wunnerful' as my stand-alone audio system.......)
-spindrifter-
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the (bleeding) obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." — George Orwell
Edits: 12/03/10
> thus far I can clearly discern sonic differences between FLAC and WAV files on *all* hardware platforms and operating systems.
Can you list *all* the hardware platforms and operating systems that you've critically listened to?
....just about all known hard disk partition and format types utilizing many audio apps. But will that affect your pre-emptive stance? Would you ever respect, or at least take seriously, the findings of another audio listener, when those findings differ from your own perceptions?
Nick stated:
"...Different audiophiles have their own stubborn ideas of what sounds "better", and it might not jive with mine...."
BTW may I ask (no offence intended) have you recorded, mixed and/or mastered live music? Are you a trained musician? A recording engineer? How many years experience do you have in high-end audio? Have you studied psycho-acoustics? Do you have relevant experience or other credentials in the field? (No, I'm not a self-anointed expert. Just curious to understand why you reckon FLAC is perfect and a few of us others are deaf. Did you program for the FLAC coding team perhaps?)
-spindrifter-
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the (bleeding) obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." — George Orwell
But will that affect your pre-emptive stance? Would you ever respect, or at least take seriously, the findings of another audio listener, when those findings differ from your own perceptions?
I never said I didn't take other people's findings serious. It's just very hard to understand (over email and forums) exactly what people mean when they report "better" or "worse" sound.
BTW may I ask (no offence intended) have you recorded, mixed and/or mastered live music?
No.
Are you a trained musician?
No.
A recording engineer?
No.
How many years experience do you have in high-end audio?
About 15. (But I don't think that makes me more of an authority on anything.)
Have you studied psycho-acoustics?
No.
Do you have relevant experience or other credentials in the field?
Linux user who (probably) first used the PC Engines embedded x86 boards in a serious attempt at an audiophile grade USB music server.
(No, I'm not a self-anointed expert. Just curious to understand why you reckon FLAC is perfect and a few of us others are deaf...
Did I say that? I'm rereading my post and wondering where the misunderstanding is. I don't think we're on the same page here. Or maybe a language barrier?
... Did you program for the FLAC coding team perhaps?)
No.
But I was sincere when I asked about all the different hardware platforms you've listened to. Have you listened to any embedded boards? Thanks.
Nick
Indeed, posting about audio perceptions is approximate at best. The descriptor "better" often refers to an overall impression rather than specifics. I prefer specifics and if other posters describe similar aspects of their listening experiences, then maybe we can progress the discussion.No, I haven't used "embedded boards" nor seriously considered a real-time USB-based audio signal source for my main system, owing to acknowledged technical shortcomings of USB throughput in a noisy, SMPS-powered PC environment. I feed my PC with a simple external USB HDD "music server". I enjoy good sonics while listening to WAV files with Sennheiser HD280s driven by that VIA VT1708S codec on the ASUS mainboard.
Naturally progress on the USB front is being made. One day I might well take the plunge when USB is ready. Maybe you feel that is feasible right now? But are we talking full-bandwidth, unimpaired, high-fidelity and no glitches whatsoever?
As to your emphatic comments about FLAC and those that can find sonic issues with it, perhaps I misunderstood or over-stated your position? Is FLAC your reference file format?
With HDD and SSD storage costs decreasing monthly is there really any point in ripping compressed music files? Why not stick with the original, uncompressed, "full-bandwidth" format?
-spindrifter-
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the (bleeding) obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." — George Orwell
Edits: 12/04/10 12/04/10
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: