Can you be more explicit? For me bit perfect has a clear meaning since long. IMHO the question is that we want more than bit perfect!
Help me beat my CD Transport
- Thread starter joeling
- Start date
Can you be more explicit? For me bit perfect has a clear meaning since long. IMHO the question is that we want more than bit perfect!
Francisco,
My point exactly. With a Nelson Pass design, there's a certain pedigree to it, even though it's DIY. With a lot of those "put-together" servers, there's no pedigree, yet people make random claims about them that are, frankly, offputting.
When digital became mainstream, with CDs, a dedicated mechanical device was created to play the new media. Through the years, that device kept improving in its ability to extract the bits out of the silver platters. Now, with file playback, no such device was "created", but computer technology was adapted for that use. With time, people realized that wasn't really the best tool for the job, as common PCs (Macs, whatever) are built to do a myriad of things, playing music being just one of them, and all that extra, unnecessary stuff, ends up hurting performance more than helping.
I think the future of "computer audio" so to speak is in bespoke, carefully written software, running on pared down, purposely-built (for quality audio) hardware. Today, we're only halfway there, as it's far easier to chop down a Linux installation than it is to create a whole new operating system from scratch.
Well there is Roon OS which I am hoping has more platforms it will support. The future is bright indeed
We are on the same page I suspect.
Order and flow of bits are important. Bit perfect just means they are all there, but likely out of order/sequence.
Last edited:
Only there are no specs, no fundamental principles, no understanding of cause and effect, at least not in any scientific way. It is all very similar to cabling - development is based entirely on empirical observations.
As for purpose written OS... it seems to have been done but never caused any significant ripples. Look at the SDTrans384 project from Japan: it has the best possible architecture and OS for digital sound reproduction. No issues with wretched USB, noisy ethernet, switches, cabling, water cooled upsamplers, monstrous linear power supplies. Perhaps it can benefit from a better clock. Yet, close to zero interest outside Japan.
Consumers demand a complicated, sonically compromised OS. It needs to have bells and whistles, cover art, animation, remote control by phone app. To read a lot of pointless file types, to do real time compression decoding, run room correction dsp... And then they complain it sounds worse than an old cd player
What Barry said:
Computer audiophiles love Music
Submitted by bdiament on February 14, 2018 - 10:54am
"Computer audiophiles like nothing better than to play around with computer audio files. (Sorry.) Take away their ability to manipulate those files and you destroy much of their hobby's appeal."
Sorry but this one stopped me. It reminds me of those who say audiophiles are only into gear and not into music. It misses the mark by just as wide a margin, and simultaneously does an injustice to a large group of listeners who just happen to enjoy their music in a way that might differ from how you enjoy yours.
My experience with computer audio has increased my appreciation of my music library by an *order of magnitude* -- note I'm talking about listening to music, not playing with files. I can hear a piece of music and with a few quick keystrokes, broaden my appreciation by say, finding other versions by other performers, or other music by the same composer. The search possibilities are endless and I get the results in less time than it would take me to walk to my library shelf, much less retrieve a given disc (or set of discs) and put one in the player, then press Play.
And for all this convenience, I trade not a wit of audio quality. Quite the contrary - playback from the computer (I use non-data-reduced, raw PCM for everything in the library) gives me the sound of the digital master. This is something I've never heard from any molded disc, played via any transport, player, or DAC, regardless of price or design. (I wrote about this a few years ago in an article on my blog, which was also reprinted in HiFi Critic.)
Properly rip a CD to the computer and play it back via a fine DAC and what you hear is indistinguishable from the CD master, something no player or transport has to this day, to my ears at least, yet achieved.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-contextualized#zoTRyh711XpvUtKu.99
Computer audiophiles love Music
Submitted by bdiament on February 14, 2018 - 10:54am
"Computer audiophiles like nothing better than to play around with computer audio files. (Sorry.) Take away their ability to manipulate those files and you destroy much of their hobby's appeal."
Sorry but this one stopped me. It reminds me of those who say audiophiles are only into gear and not into music. It misses the mark by just as wide a margin, and simultaneously does an injustice to a large group of listeners who just happen to enjoy their music in a way that might differ from how you enjoy yours.
My experience with computer audio has increased my appreciation of my music library by an *order of magnitude* -- note I'm talking about listening to music, not playing with files. I can hear a piece of music and with a few quick keystrokes, broaden my appreciation by say, finding other versions by other performers, or other music by the same composer. The search possibilities are endless and I get the results in less time than it would take me to walk to my library shelf, much less retrieve a given disc (or set of discs) and put one in the player, then press Play.
And for all this convenience, I trade not a wit of audio quality. Quite the contrary - playback from the computer (I use non-data-reduced, raw PCM for everything in the library) gives me the sound of the digital master. This is something I've never heard from any molded disc, played via any transport, player, or DAC, regardless of price or design. (I wrote about this a few years ago in an article on my blog, which was also reprinted in HiFi Critic.)
Properly rip a CD to the computer and play it back via a fine DAC and what you hear is indistinguishable from the CD master, something no player or transport has to this day, to my ears at least, yet achieved.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-contextualized#zoTRyh711XpvUtKu.99
Empirical observation IS experimental science!
SDTrans main leg up was not the IS, but rather the SD card medium, which is Superior to the other forms, including bog stanbdard SSD. It does not move data around for "storage optimization" purposes that just increases jitter by virtue of scrambled bits.
It IS very much possible to tweak/redesign commercial Hardware and OS to get the desired end results and it must be done via purpose built software derived from FUNDAMENTAL principles as you say. Define the problems (and root out cause/effect) and use intelligence to solve them. You can also tweak firmware and hardware assignments to get to desired goals.
What are the goals? What to change, how to change and finally, what to change to?
SDTrans main leg up was not the IS, but rather the SD card medium, which is Superior to the other forms, including bog stanbdard SSD. It does not move data around for "storage optimization" purposes that just increases jitter by virtue of scrambled bits.
It IS very much possible to tweak/redesign commercial Hardware and OS to get the desired end results and it must be done via purpose built software derived from FUNDAMENTAL principles as you say. Define the problems (and root out cause/effect) and use intelligence to solve them. You can also tweak firmware and hardware assignments to get to desired goals.
What are the goals? What to change, how to change and finally, what to change to?
Well, he just says that two bit perfect files - the CD master and the rip sound the same played in his system. And he loves the convenience of computer audio. Nothing new.
The fact that he says that CD payers or spinners sound different from the computer audio only confirms the findings of some of us - this difference is just why we prefer them!
Yup. Reminds me of "Perfect Sound Forever". Yawn.
Just another hype. Not to mention that different servers can sound different. So where's the CD master then? In one of those different sounds? Which one?
The best part I relate completely to is this.
"My experience with computer audio has increased my appreciation of my music library by an *order of magnitude* -- note I'm talking about listening to music, not playing with files. I can hear a piece of music and with a few quick keystrokes, broaden my appreciation by say, finding other versions by other performers, or other music by the same composer. The search possibilities are endless and I get the results in less time than it would take me to walk to my library shelf, much less retrieve a given disc (or set of discs) and put one in the player, then press Play."
This is the main reason I think people should not get into vinyl (which is sonically superior).. If someone wants both, they should get both. But CDs do neither the convenience or the vinyl sonics
"My experience with computer audio has increased my appreciation of my music library by an *order of magnitude* -- note I'm talking about listening to music, not playing with files. I can hear a piece of music and with a few quick keystrokes, broaden my appreciation by say, finding other versions by other performers, or other music by the same composer. The search possibilities are endless and I get the results in less time than it would take me to walk to my library shelf, much less retrieve a given disc (or set of discs) and put one in the player, then press Play."
This is the main reason I think people should not get into vinyl (which is sonically superior).. If someone wants both, they should get both. But CDs do neither the convenience or the vinyl sonics
He said ....Properly rip a CD... Reed/Solomon ECC need not apply.
Take 2 identical disks. Lightly scratch one CD surface with a fine grain sandpaper and play back, while comparing to the same CD in pristine condition afterwards. What difference do you observe?
Therein lies the rub.
Last edited:
Pardon my ignorance, but have not ethernet renderers put an end to file server optimization, both in hardware and software terms? No first hand experience, but those appear like an ultralight NAA device with no operating system a simple interface directly to dac chips. Very little opportunity to screw anything up provided ethernet isolation is good.
Yup. "Perfect Sound Forever".
Notwithstanding the fact that different ethernet renderers sound different.
No it doesnt. Order matters.
Reading a CD in real time and doing bit quantity correction (at the same time) is not the same as reconstucting the original data Stream in the right order. Have you examined the RS ECC code itself to see exactly what it does?
Lets agree to disagree.
What?
Ethernet is PACKETIZED data and in any case, the data likely got messed up BEFORE the packets are created.
This goes a LOT deeper.
It is reasonable that the renderers would sound different. The question is whether the server/player part still makes a difference.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |