|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
89.217.32.15
In Reply to: No, it's not (Re: ASIO is required for a PC for anything unless the unit comes with its own driver) posted by Jim F. on February 8, 2007 at 13:57:35:
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.
Follow Ups:
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,
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: