|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
158.232.77.100
I'm still reading alot and trying to get my head around the various options and best audio quality set up for a PC audio system that I will have feeding my hi-fi chain.As I understand it there are two broad options for approaching this:
1. A PC with a high quality soundcard (DAC in soundcard)
2. A PC without a soundcard feeding a USB-DAC over a USB cableDespite the recent thread asking for comparisons between a USB-DAC and the Lynx l22 card (most of which seemed to favour the Lynx although few people seemed to have directly compared the two), the majority of what I have read here seems to favour the USB-DAC route as providing a better quality sound.
I understand that if I go with the soundcard route it is in my interest to use an ASIO solution to bypass the Windows audio stack.
My question now concerns my configuration if I go the USB-DAC route. From what I read about ASIO it is an interface between a sound application and a *soundcard*. So...if I go the USB-DAC route do I need to worry about ASIO at all?
Hope that's clear and thanks for comments on my understanding of all this,
Follow Ups:
Why does this kind of question always create more confusion than answers :)This question was asked here http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/17715.html
The answer was it depends on the USB DAC. So in purchasing a USB DAC, part of my decision would be based on what information the manufacturer provided for configuring his device for the best sound. After all if they are concerned with sound quality they would have experimented with different media players, plug ins and drivers right? And if they had experimented then they would have documented this on their web site right?
Hi there. What I would suggest is to do what many others including myself have done: don't limit yourself to a USB DAC, choose one on its merits and how it sounds. Then, get a cheap but good USB interface which has digital output and has true ASIO drivers.While ASIO4ALL/ASIO2KS are better than WDM output, they still touch the audio stack of the OS at some point, hence why I believe that true ASIO is superior.
Good examples of the USB audio interface include the likes of EMU, M-Audio, and Edirol. I personally use an Edirol UA-1EX. Edirol have very good, stable drivers. EMU does to, but have read about a few issues with M-Audio drivers as not being great. These interface can be realtively basic (at the end of the day all you need is USB in, ASIO support, digital out; aruond $70-$100) or larger, more robust devices which cost more ($150-$300, such as Edirol UA-5; EMU 0404 USB).
Dave,The KMIXER is the problem with XP. Vista we are still not sure of yet there is too many unanswered questions.
ASIO bypasses the KMIXER and therefore is better suited for PC output beit USB, PCI or other.
Best bet and several of my PC user's agree... if you are going to spend the money on this stuff. Why not just get a MAC and forget all the issues?
Feel free to call if you like.
Thanks
Gordon
J. Gordon Rankin
As distressing as this is for me, I have to admit I prefer my MacBook Pro for music over my PC. I am a PC guy who loves to build his own computers.What disturbs me most about PC audio and ASIO, is that the ASIO plugins for each program have thier own sonic signature.
The Mac sounds the most natural to me.
I will still try Windows Vista soon, but I have to agree with Gordon on this matter.
> . . .unless the unit comes with its own driver. . .Unless? The unit (DAC? soundcard? will certainly need
a driver, whether WDM (Microsoft Windows Driver Model) or
ASIO (Steinberg model). If a unit relies on a generic
Microsoft-provided driver, then that driver will **certainly**
NOT be ASIO!> The KMIXER is the problem with XP.
OK.
> ASIO bypasses the KMIXER and therefore is
> better suited for PC output. . .Yeah, and so does Kernel Streaming. So with an app
like Foobar2000, you can use one of the ASIO output
plug-ins (dll [thread] or exe [process]), OR you can
use the Kernel Streaming output option, OR you can
use ASIO output with a "bridge" program like ASIO4ALL
or ASIO2KS that "wraps" Kernel Streaming in an ASIO
"coat".None of these will help you get bit-perfect output if your
sound card insists on resampling to 48kHz (like, say, a
Creative Audigy). But this isn't a Windows problem
(is it a "PC Problem"? Ah, semantics.)> [I]f you are going to spend the money on this stuff. . .
> [w]hy not just get a MAC and forget all the issues?A Mac has no issues? Calgon, take me away!
The biggest issue with the Mac (apart from the added
expense) is that it limits your choices, of both
hardware and software.
First off, let me say thanks to both of you for trying to educate me.Second, let me say I'd really rather not see this thread become about the Mac vs. PC debate. For this time around I am going with a PC because it's what I know, I expect it will be cheaper, and a used machine that I repurpose as my headless music server seems pretty likely to me and there's simply more of a market for those in PC world.
Finally, a reminder of my overall goal here which is to build the PC part of the system (by which I mean PC and digital to audio conversion - whether soundcard or USB-DAC based - in other words, everything up to the analog outs running into the audio chain) for around $1,000 give or take.
Now let me see if I understand. I was originally trying to figure out if I needed to pay attention to all the ASIO threads if went with a USB cable output off the PC into an external USB-DAC. It is clear to me that I need to do so if I go with a soundcard, whether that is internal or external.
What I have understood from both of your posts is that the driver of my external USB-DAC (which at this point looks to me like it should be the Scott Nixon unit) needs to be equipped with some variant of ASIO. Is that correct and if so do either of you know if his driver is so equipped? I would assume it probably is as it seems to be squarely aimed at budget concious audiophiles, but I can always email him and ask. Haven't wanted to yet because I'm still on the learning curve and I know he's really busy.
Upstream from the DAC in the PC depending on the Windows based media player I use (still haven't made a decision on this but candidates are Foobar2000, Winamp, J River and iTunes) there also seem to be plugins and 'wrappers' for ASIO. Do I need ASIO at that stage as well if my intention is to go with an external USB-DAC that has ASIO in its driver?
Sorry if these questions sound lame and feel free to point me to a link that gives a clear explanation of all of this if needed.
Dave,Ok... some of my generalization in my above thread was due to the fact that I assumed you proabably would not use Foobar for your playback. Though Foobar is capable of many things, one of them is not intuitive usage and a complete package. You would be best to use Foobar with EAC and this would allow Kernel streaming which would bypass the KMIXER on some PC platforms.
That being said... I have had experience that using Kernel Streaming on some PC's causes XP to crash.
If you want a simpler interface with secure ripping I might suggest J River. In the case of J River it would be best too use ASIO for your output regardless of using a USB DAC or a Board Level Product (most come with an ASIO driver).
You cannot bypass the KMIXER using Windows media player. I am not that familar with Winamp but it does have the capabilities to run through ASIO for output. iTunes can bypass the KMIXER using a little convuluted plugin which passes the music through Foobar and out either by kernel streaming or ASIO to bypass the KMIXER.
> You cannot bypass the KMIXER using Windows media player.This, it turns out, isn't true either. There's a little
utility called ReClock ( http://reclock.free.fr/ ), which
is normally used with a software DVD player (WinDVD,
TheaterTek, etc.) to achieve glitch-free video playback
by making the video, rather than the audio, act as the "master
clock" (and resampling the audio as necessary to keep it
in sync with the picture).If ReClock is installed and set to be the "default DirectSound
renderer" for the system, then Windows Media Player
(which uses the DirectSound interface) will output via
ReClock, which in turn can be set to output via Kernel Streaming
(bypassing the K-Mixer). (ReClock does not resample audio
if there is no video stream.)> I have had experience that using Kernel Streaming on
> some PC's causes XP to crash.I guess I've been lucky; I've never seen this happen.
If I use JRiver with ASIO out in Vista, will it bypass all the internal windows drivers?For some reason when I compare the same file played with Foobar and JRiver, the file sounds better, more detail, more resolution with Foobar.
If I go ASIO out will I get the same 44.1Hz out that came in during the ripping process?
Dyna,Wait on Vista we are all unsure about the mixer and the thought that all applications going through the mixer will be converted to floating point and back to fixed.
If you are fine with Foobar then use it. I am suggesting J River for people who want a simple single application for listening to music.
ASIO should retain bit perfect results. Though with the PC there is more in the drivers and other crap to think about.
I'd like to wait, but I already have a Vista Laptop.I see a whole bunch of s/pdif drivers along with a Conexant HD Driver.
ASIO4ALL does not work, so I guess I am stuck with using the Conexant HD driver for s/pdif out.
I still use Foobar as it sounds better than JRiver to my ears....although JRiver has a host of features I like.
I used ASIO out with good results on my desktop XP edition.
This Vista seems to be locked down tight.....But its only a matter of time
Thanks Gordon. Thats my take on Foobar as well. I don't want to spend my life tweaking but I am willing to put in extra effort to get better sound if it pays.I had anticipated doing my ripping with EAC because of hearing that this was always considered the best but I mention you speak here of secure ripping with J River.
Does this mean the ripping facility of J River (in secure mode) is on a par with EAC?
Thanks again,
Dave,If Steve (Mercman) says so then he has more experience with this.
In the begginging EAC was it. Now pretty much all of these programs have spent sometime getting better at ripping.
I've done file comparisons between files ripped with J. River MC 11 and EAC. The short answer is that EAC is NO BETTER for accuracy. Details:- I use secure ripping for MC 11. I use secure ripping with the Test&Copy command for EAC. No C2, no Accurate Rip. Ripping speed is about the same for MC 11 and EAC. I have used 3 different DVD drives on 2 PCs.
- On CDs that MC 11 ripped with no extra re-reads, MC 11 and EAC produce identical WAV files. (~95% of my CDs.)
- On CDs that MC 11 requires extra re-reads but gets a result that it feels is reliable, EAC also requires re-reads and achieves a reliable result. MC 11 and EAC produce identical WAV files in those cases. (3-4% of my CDs.)
- On CDs that MC 11 can't achieve a reliable result on one or more tracks, EAC can't either. I have re-ripped with EAC for most of my problem CDs and NEVER found a CD that can be ripped reliably with EAC that could not be ripped reliably with EAC. (1-2% of my CDs. Some show visible spots or scratches, some don't. Sometimes blowing on the CD and then re-ripping produces a reliable result. Some times re-ripping with a different drive producesa reliable result.)
There are lots of options to try with EAC that may give accurate results with quicker ripping speed. You could use burst mode with the Test&Copy command. You could try using C2 information for detecting errors. You could use the AccurateRip.Dll add-on to compatre your results to those of other users in ripping the same CD.
A new version of dbPowerAmp was recently released that makes thorough use of C2 info for detecting and correcting errors and AccurateRip.Dll for comparing results. That might be worth a look for the best combination of speed and accuracy.
EAC isn't the only game in town. It just has the loudest cheerleaders.
Bill
One can become very fanatical about this ripping stuff. I have 2 Plextor 716A drives and a Plextor Premium in my PC. Using EAC, J.River, and PlexTools Pro XL, I could not detect a sonic difference between the same title ripped with these programs. I'm sure we may find some errors in one of these, but I couldn't hear it.
Thanks Mercman and Old Listener.Interesting to learn that on close comparison there doesn't seem to be any audible advantage to ripping through EAC as opposed to other programs like JRiver.
When I did rip through EAC many years ago I didn't run a machine connected to the internet so had to manually enter song track titles etc. Obviously now I would be re-ripping my collection and doing so on a connected computer. Do either JRiver or EAC offer capabilities to download album art either automatically or manually? Also, I assume they are both capable of retrieving the necessary tags to generate track titles etc. correct?
Thanks,
I can't tell the difference between J. River rips and EAC. Yes, J.River is on par with EAC in my opinion.
Thanks for that Steve.I have used EAC before although not for some time. Without question it gives great rips but the interface is a little clunky and I am not sure how it handles tags and cover art etc.
From what I've seen of J River I would imagine it would offer a little more of a polished package for its ripping and seamlessly include cover art options etc. I will check this out.
Thanks again,
The biggest issue with the Mac (apart from the added
expense) is that it limits your choices, of both
hardware and software.Not quite true any longer:
1) Software:
The new Macs with intel chips give you MORE software choices than any PC: You can run all three operating systems (Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X) and the corresponding software. Smartest move Apple ever did. Windows can run nativelyon these machines or parallel, giving you all the PC choices and more2) Hardware:
PC limit you too - There are not many nice light compact laptops around. If you are looking for a 12-13'' laptop Mac has the best choices. With standard desktops hardware choices are somewhat more limited, but even that goes away with the possiblitiy of running Windows in Parallels.3) Price:
Please show me a compact, smaller size laptop that has the latest Intel2Duo chips, 1GB of memory for Apple's prices. It is not going to be much lower, especially not if you go for quality laptops like IBM etc.Sorry but these generalized myths dont' quite work anymore.
Die gefährlichste Weltanschauung ist die Weltanschauung derjenigen, die die Welt nicht angeschaut haben.
Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859)
Thanks for this Gordon (and Crimson).Gord thanks for the offer but I won't call - I live in Switzerland actually, so I'm just a little ways away.
I have read the Macs handle audio so much better but absolutely all my sw is for PC. I'm aware that you can run PC softs on the newer Macs but my reading of the PC audio stuff is that a really low (as in P3 800 GHz and say a gig of RAM) end PC is all that is needed for pure audio streaming, which is all that I am going to have this PC do. I also want to control this PC through either VNC or the Remote Desktop facility of XP on one of those slick new ultramobile PC's (UMPC)....so my thinking is I may just buy some old box on the net and add new drives and upgrade the RAM and stick on XP. Noise is not an issue as this PC will be in the basement below my listening room.
So I am not looking to spend alot of money on the PC itself and I have a feeling I'd need to do that if I went the Mac route (aside from the loss of the UMPC remote).
My question about ASIO was just to straighten out one unknown for me in the chain. So even though I feel more inclined to go with something like the Scott Nixon USB DAC I now know that I need to download whatever ASIO files or plugins my system will need.
I'm quite at home with building my own PCs and futzing around with software etc. but I gotta say its a bit of a slog trying to grind out all the learning curve on these forums. I know every question has probably been addressed hundreds of times before but the search facility here on the AA boards doesn't really lend itself to zeroing in on the answers.
Heck, I just want to build a headless PC music server and equip it with the various softs/ASIO plugins that I'll need to do the best job I can do at getting bitperfect music data feeding into my audio chain. And I guess I want to stick to a budget of something around $1,000 including the USB-DAC (or soundcard as I am still not ruling out going that route). My reading is this should be possible but it seems to me there's lot's of little gotchas along the way.
Thanks again,
The Scott Nixon USB DACs don't have ASIO support. The only way to use ASIO with them is with ASIO4ALL or ASIO2KS. Has anyone ever used the USB-ASIO driver with the Scott Nixons? Is that a true ASIO driver that will only work with devices that have ASIO support or through a mapper like ASIO4ALL?
Scott Nixon's DAC does not come with an ASIO driver??So I assume that the many many people who are so happy with his DAC are not passing through Kmixer.
Does this mean everyone is using ASIO4ALL or ASIO2KS?
Even Gordon's DACs (Wavelength Brick & Cosecant) do not come with an ASIO driver. That's why he tells everyone to buy a MAC.
My Scott Nixon USB DAC did not come with an ASIO driver. It doesn't work with ASIO unless using ASIO2KS for me. I read recently that the USB-ASIO driver from usb-audio.com supposedly bypasses the Kmixer even though the Scott Nixon DAC doesn't support ASIO. The demo version of that driver that tried does indeed recognize and work with my Scott Nixon DAC. I would like to know more details about how this driver is interacting with the Scott Nixon DAC, and if it's really bypassing Kmixer.
Hi, it's me again. The answer to your question is yes if you use windows, and no if you use a Mac. An alternate option is to use an ethernet/wifi Squeezebox, or an Apple Airport Express (both work with Windows and Macs), plugged in to the dac of your choice. In this instance, with Windows, ASIO is not neccessary.
How about if you use ASIO -> Foobar -> ASIO2KS -> USB DAC compared to just using Direct Sound to a USB DAC in Foobar?
> How about if you use ASIO -> Foobar -> ASIO2KS -> USB DAC . . .How on earth would you do that? Presumably you meant:
Foobar -> ASIO -> ASIO2KS -> USB DACHowever, I did recently try the following:
WaveLab (ASIO) -> ASIO2KS -> Virtual Audio Cable -> Foobar (record://)
The "record://" playlist location (implemented by the diskwriter
component) lets you use Foobar (with its DSPs) as a pass-through.
Foobar 0.8 only, though. (It calls waveInOpen(), so it's going
through the Microsoft Sound Mapper).Virtual Audio Cable is an interesting item:
http://software.muzychenko.net/eng/vac.html
Oops! That was a typo. It's Foobar -> ASIO -> ASIO2KS -> USB DAC.
I'm getting good results with the USB-ASIO driver these days.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: