I honestly don't know what any of this means. Checking data integrity is one of the simplest tasks. Assuming the renderer produces an I2S data stream it is really trivial to ascertain the sequence of bits is identical to whatever is in the file on the server.
Help me beat my CD Transport
- Thread starter joeling
- Start date
I honestly don't know what any of this means. Checking data integrity is one of the simplest tasks. Assuming the renderer produces an I2S data stream it is really trivial to ascertain the sequence of bits is identical to whatever is in the file on the server.
I do not understand your points and the purpose of damaging CD's.
Audio data in CD's have two levels of correction - one returns exacta data, the other interpolates between samples. I ( and many others in the 80's) have connected counters to the output of the digital decoders to check for CD quality and found that even less cared disks had less than 5 interpolation corrections per disk.
People have captured the SPDIF of good CD transports and found they were bit perfect.
I am not sure why, but you are intentionally commingling, as a technical matter, two of the theoretical instances where bits differ in play back from the master file. One is an infinitesimal error quantification which hasn't had an impact on SQ for years due to today's optimized ripping software and the other is extreme, intentional, file manipulation (upsampling) done for sport, personal taste or other reasons less understood because, to many, it clearly has a negative effect on SQ in high performance dacs.
In my experience the audiophile vernacular has long ago abandoned the term "bit perfect" as it relates to file ripping (even if it still has a theoretical application, it has no real world impact). Rather, when I see people referring to bit perfect these days they refer to the file manipulation from upsampling/dsp software. If you haven't ripped to the point where error has no impact on sound you can't even begin a conversation about SQ. To that end, your point, and, even more so, the condescension in your point, are lost on me.
Last edited:
Sure, and I see nothing wrong with that. If the desired objective is met, I don't really see a problem.
analogsa said: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
SD cards? You gotta be kidding me. That was a non-starter. You're almost better of sticking with CD players, as it's actually easier than popping SD cards and managing them.
Later on you hinted at what I think is the route going forward. Simple "computers" running bespoke OSes built *inside DACs* or, if external, employing bi-directional I2S interface. Those "endpoints", to use Roon parlance, can be made simple as the heavy computing (the bells and whistels you judge "pointless", but the vast majority of the world does not) can be done elsewhere, and the audio just piped over Ethernet directly into that little computer inside the DAC.
That server, sitting elsewhere on the network, will still require proper love and care in its build, but due to the interface (or lack of one, given the endpoint is built right next to the DAC), it'll be a lot less susceptible to the usual gremlins.
Another thing that the CD spinning brigade uses agains computer audio is how the servers sound different, and/or seemingly "get better" all the time (as if that is a bad thing in itself)... Well, I do remember an experiment, in the early stages of computer audio, where people would rip commercial CDs ("bit perfect"), then burn the music back onto good quality CD-Rs. And lo and behold, the burnt CD-R would sound better! I don't think the reason why was ever explain, but still, even spinning CDs come with its quirks and tricks.
Of course it's not a bad thing. But computer audio was perfect to begin with because allegedly there was no jitter to speak of. Remember? Perfect Sound Forever. Computer audio constantly seems to choke on its own hype.
I don't think any of those that are spinning CDs have ever claimed that doing so delivered a perfect result, only one that is hard to beat.
No, I don't remember any such claim.
If anything, there was nothing ever "perfect" about computer audio. There never was, and likely never will, as software fails, and there'll always be nagging bugs and improvements to be made.
Seems to me you're making those claims on behalf of computer audio advocates.
Pretty much. I don't care what computer I use. Sounds identical. Now it is still possible that some software might muck-up the data with DSP for volume control etc.. Roon users have said that earlier releases sounded "soft" compared to recent release.
Steve N.
***
Thanks, Steve, for confirming that I didn't make this up.
.
Absolutely. The reason is that the commercial CD pits are not as clean as the CD-R because it is "pressed" or molded rather than burned. Cleaner pits equals lower jitter.
There are lots of tweaks to CD's to lower their jitter. This is just one of them.
All of these tweaks are unnecessary if one uses a reclocker BTW.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio
The devil is in the details. If playback software did no DSP at all, or had a method to completely bypass all DSP, Ethernet servers should sound identical. It's just data, same as the document data you write to your disk. That is never changed.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio
Zeros are zeros and ones are ones. Making however many digital copies will not change that. A 440 Hz piano note will not suddendly become a violin note. Lossless decoding are absolutely bit perfect to the source. We ALL know that and it's been proven pretty much since day-one. Too bad we can't listen to zeros and ones.
For those of us who observe the differences listening to physical discs and prefer them over the ripped/downloaded file, we (at least in my part) are expressing what we observed. I still believe why that remained to be the case is because we still do not know enough of this more-complicated-than-imagined music streaming chain.
What about this? Has anyone downloaded the same music from several download providers and compare them? Technically all the files were bit perfect and shouldn't be any differences which computer servers the files were from, but I am willing to bet there are differences.
For those of us who observe the differences listening to physical discs and prefer them over the ripped/downloaded file, we (at least in my part) are expressing what we observed. I still believe why that remained to be the case is because we still do not know enough of this more-complicated-than-imagined music streaming chain.
What about this? Has anyone downloaded the same music from several download providers and compare them? Technically all the files were bit perfect and shouldn't be any differences which computer servers the files were from, but I am willing to bet there are differences.
Most Roon users use DSP and volume control in their systems, even inadvertently - it happened to me! These features surely varied with versions - it is why I think that these opinions are not relevant to what is being debated "bit perfect" and Ethernet connections.
I have ripped files with 2 different rippers and they are always checksum compared to many other rips other people have done. Always 100% bit-perfect. I think the main thing with playback software is DSP. If you use WMP, even the OS software stack comes into play further applying DSP. Most USB playback software has this problem, so different players sound different. Even different releases of the same software sound different.
This is why I changed to Ethernet. At least it has a chance of being bit-perfect if the playback software doesn't muck it up.
Another thing that can easily change audio quality is offset. If this is not properly calculated or transferred in the copy, the data will be identical but it will still sound different. I have several copies of the same track with different offsets and they all sound slightly different. At least with XLD on Mac and DBpoweramp, the offset is maintained and checked.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio
Don't forget CD transports where many claim a difference, even those on this thread (and many do not ironically). I also have numerous friends who have transports without sources of parts now - one had a Pioneer PD-65 and its now a doorstop. Look what the SCD1 went through as well. I'm not sure why a server is different or the point relevant.
I did tests years ago with an original Mac Mini + ATV1 vs. $1500 Denon SACD player and sold the CDP. Maybe that wasn't a good enough transport, I dunno but it had a pretty robust platter as I recall. To each their own.
re: computer audio, I think basically Roon has taken the audiophile world by storm - everyone I talk to is curious or already going in that direction. It seems like it is reducing the computer audio clutter and putting it on a single path as the software is superior to everything out there, integrates wonderfully with existing collections, and is so intuitive.
the biggest issue with computer audio historically has been burning large cd collections - and why i was reticent to begin despite even a smaller one. Now you have budding audiophiles without the need. stream and buy vinyl, best of both worlds.
Yes Steve, you are once again right here. In today's digital world, not being bit perfect relates much more to the use of DSP than the file transfer or ripping process. Unfortunately, there are still a few usb dacs and low-end dacs on the market that must use upsampling to sound good. I think some guys who are fans of these dacs make spurious comments trying to negate the superiority of bit perfect versus dsp. I try to avoid the stuff that is illogical on its face. In my experience, the future is most definitely ethernet to I2S (near the DAC clock) of bit perfect files (meaning no DSP). Trying to argue that a modern ripped file is somehow as flawed as a file that has been run through DSP is just silly IMO.
Except that streamed files often seem to be watermarked. Here is a pretty audible watermark:
http://www.mattmontag.com/music/universals-audible-watermark
So we buy expensive high-end gear only to be treated to this?
Here are other discussions:
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111198/topicseen.html
https://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=pcaudio&m=156004
If that's the streaming world I'm out, at least for serious listening (I can pick my music to buy on YouTube too).
A 25 years transport old CD transport is now a doorstop, although we can find the manual and the service manual on the net, but probably a 10 k server will also be a doorstop in 5 years ...
All the expensive CD players I have owned are still playing in other owners systems, except one disastrous unnamed player that had a SACD mechanism. But I have access to a good technician who manages to service most players.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |