Let's Talk Computer Audio

[edorr]

I'm not sure that the bits are bits argument is so discredited either, which is part of why guys like Charles Hansen and Jim Hillegas of JRiver don't ascribe any difference to the software. As for hardware, if you're using an asynchronous DAC that's controlling the timing, does the computer hardware matter? And does the noise in, say, a Macbook have any bearing on the digital stream coming out of it? Don't know the answer to #2 other than in a couple of albeit brief comparos between a purpose designed audio server and a Macbook, I didn't hear the difference. Could be I need to spend more time comparing and/or try other systems, but my gut is that it falls into the 'too subtle to matter if it exists' category, so it's low on the to-do list. Happy to be wrong, but haven't heard it yet.

I am sketical also, but open to persuasion based on listening. My MSB DAC is completely asynchonous and jitter of source component should be immaterial - but "noise" can still make a difference. I'll soon have another datapoint to add. I am using a CAPS 2.0, and have a CAPS 3.0 with battery power on its way. The 3.0 should have "less noise" (whatever that means). If I do not hear audible difference between the two, I just wasted a few grand.... We'll see.

 

[Julf]

I am sketical also, but open to persuasion based on listening. My MSB DAC is completely asynchonous and jitter of source component should be immaterial - but "noise" can still make a difference. I'll soon have another datapoint to add. I am using a CAPS 2.0, and have a CAPS 3.0 with battery power on its way. The 3.0 should have "less noise" (whatever that means). If I do not hear audible difference between the two, I just wasted a few grand.... We'll see.

But will you be able to compare the two side-by-side?

 

[edorr]

But will you be able to compare the two side-by-side?

I only have one USB input on my DAC, so I'll have to switch the USB cable so no real time switching, but otherwise - yes. I can play the exact same file on each server. If I had a USB switcher (do these exist?), I could do this in real time.

 

[rblnr]

how about waiting for end of year when JRiver will support Mac

Using it now and it works well.

 

[rblnr]

I only have one USB input on my DAC, so I'll have to switch the USB cable so no real time switching, but otherwise - yes. I can play the exact same file on each server. If I had a USB switcher (do these exist?), I could do this in real time.

Let us know what you find. Did you compare the CAPS 2.0 to a standard computer?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

For the purposes of detecting small differences a headphone is most certainly the right tool and one that is used massively in audio research. Dr. Toole's entire job and career is about speaker and room performance. In that regard, of course he will point out what we are missing when using headphones. No one for example will challenge the "in-head" reproduction we get with stereo headphones.

We can't take that concept and then say you can't use it to determine differences between say, low and high resolution audio. For one, we have to agree that such changes affect each channel independently. If so, then I should be able to listen to one channel alone and detect the difference. In that case then, the "in head" issue goes out the window since we are not talking about stereo imaging.

One of the things headphone does which speakers have a hard time doing is that it can provide isolation and ability to turn up the volume very high. Getting a room to be as quiet as a headphone will be hard if not impossible. And turning up the volume in a real speaker very high can lead to equipment limitations and or people around you complaining.

All of this said, sure, if the thing you are trying to determine has to do with interactions between channels and only those interactions, then speaker testing is important. Otherwise, and that certainly describes much of what is involved in testing different players, high-res audio, etc. all can be determined with headphones.

Thanks, Amir. Even the interaction between channels is, I think, better studied through very good headphones. The manifestation of that interaction is different, of course, but the interaction is all there, and more easily detected and observed with the isolation of headphones, once you know what to listen for.

Tim

 

[Julf]

I only have one USB input on my DAC, so I'll have to switch the USB cable so no real time switching, but otherwise - yes. I can play the exact same file on each server. If I had a USB switcher (do these exist?), I could do this in real time.

So you could do a blind ABX with the help of a friend.

USB switchers do exist - here is one.

 

[edorr]

Let us know what you find. Did you compare the CAPS 2.0 to a standard computer?

No. I did have an Asus media PC before the CAPS, but I was swapping out so many components at the time, I never did a comparison. I also have some (maybe misguided) confidence in the many users reporting the CAPS 2.0 sounds better than a standard PC, but this may be just anohter audiophile hoax.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I am sketical also, but open to persuasion based on listening. My MSB DAC is completely asynchonous and jitter of source component should be immaterial - but "noise" can still make a difference. I'll soon have another datapoint to add. I am using a CAPS 2.0, and have a CAPS 3.0 with battery power on its way. The 3.0 should have "less noise" (whatever that means). If I do not hear audible difference between the two, I just wasted a few grand.... We'll see.

FWIW, I use a little magic box made by Asian elves that takes USB from my MacBook, galvanically isolates the data from the current, re-clocks, then sends out optical, coax or AES/EBU. It's probably digital audio's answer to a belt with suspenders, but it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy and safe from the impure skies that always seem to be falling on the Chicken Littles of the audio world. It will run off of a wall wart, a battery pack or bus power; I don't have the wall wart. I obviously can't switch fast enough between the battery and bus power to do a good A/B, but I've used the slow method that takes a couple of minutes. If there's a difference there, it's subtle beyond meaningful. Which, of course, it should be. The thing galvanically isolates the current from the data. I need two belts? Two pair of suspenders?

Tim

 

[edorr]

FWIW, I use a little magic box made by Asian elves that takes USB from my MacBook, galvanically isolates the data from the current, re-clocks, then sends out optical, coax or AES/EBU. It's probably digital audio's answer to a belt with suspenders, but it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy and safe from the impure skies that always seem to be falling on the Chicken Littles of the audio world. It will run off of a wall wart, a battery pack or bus power; I don't have the wall wart. I obviously can't switch fast enough between the 2 to do a good A/B, but I've used the slow method that takes a couple of minutes. If there's a difference there, it's subtle beyond meaningful. Which, of course, it should be. The thing galvanically isolates the current from the data. I need two belts? Two pair of suspenders?

Tim

From what you're describing this is just another USB converter.....

 

[JackD201]

Why are you downconverting in iTunes? If you're playing hires why not leave it in its native format?

Because it does it for you. You have to go to audio midi set up and do it yourself.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

From what you're describing this is just another USB converter.....

"Just another" is a relative term, I suppose, though there are a number of "high-end" boutique manufacturers selling devices that perform this exact function for more than I paid for my Mac. But if you're right, if the average, simple, inexpensive, USB converter isolates the current from the data (there goes the noise...) and re-clocks the clean data after isolation (there goes the jitter...), one has to wonder what all the fuss is about. Just go get "another USB converter," put it between your computer and your DAC, and bits really is bits after all.

Tim

 

[edorr]

"Just another" is a relative term, I suppose, though there are a number of "high-end" boutique manufacturers selling devices that perform this exact function for more than I paid for my Mac. But if you're right, if the average, simple, inexpensive, USB converter isolates the current from the data (there goes the noise...) and re-clocks the clean data after isolation (there goes the jitter...), one has to wonder what all the fuss is about. Just go get "another USB converter," put it between your computer and your DAC, and bits really is bits after all.

Tim

Confessions of an audiophile: while for some components (like a DAC), I do serious A/B comparisons and buy the best sounding piece I can afford, I don't really bother to do this with digital source components. I buy top notch stuff (CAPS 3.0, Empirical Audio OR5, expensive digital cables) stictly as insurance; just in case it sounds (like many people say it does) better I don't want to miss out. I suspect the differences are relatively small, and I don't have the patience for extensive comparisons. I may do the CAPS 2.0 against CAPS 3.0 shootout, but realy what is the point? No matter what I conclude I will keep the CAPS 3.0 anyway.....

So there go my audiophile credentials on this forum .... Oh well.

 

[prerich]

As my HTPC is also my preamp, JRiver is one of the only logical choices I have (and I'm sonically and visually satisfied with it). Now if I were running my PC into a conventional prepro or receiver I might feel the same as many of you (although I can tell the difference between WMP and JRiver when played back very easily). All in all, I'll say this - if you are satisfied with your music - sit tight and enjoy it , however if you are not satisfied change what needs to be changed...it may be your equipment, software, or maybe even your mind . I for one use JRiver for music and BD playback so I really need the things provided in the program via VST (PEQ, Convolution, Room Correction). These are not available to me via iTunes - and I'm presently trying to get rid of gear (that's why I went HTPC as a prepro, replaced my receiver, DCX 2496, FBQ 2496, Bluray player, and my digital cable box....electric bill also went down ) .

 

[edorr]

As my HTPC is also my preamp, JRiver is one of the only logical choices I have (and I'm sonically and visually satisfied with it). Now if I were running my PC into a conventional prepro or receiver I might feel the same as many of you (although I can tell the difference between WMP and JRiver when played back very easily). All in all, I'll say this - if you are satisfied with your music - sit tight and enjoy it , however if you are not satisfied change what needs to be changed...it may be your equipment, software, or maybe even your mind . I for one use JRiver for music and BD playback so I really need the things provided in the program via VST (PEQ, Convolution, Room Correction). These are not available to me via iTunes - and I'm presently trying to get rid of gear (that's why I went HTPC as a prepro, replaced my receiver, DCX 2496, FBQ 2496, Bluray player, and my digital cable box....electric bill also went down ) .

JRiver is hands down the most feature rich. Throw in unsurpassed remote control through Jremote and it is a no brainer for me as well (and when I get the HTPC the only viable choice really).

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Confessions of an audiophile: while for some components (like a DAC), I do serious A/B comparisons and buy the best sounding piece I can afford, I don't really bother to do this with digital source components. I buy top notch stuff (CAPS 3.0, Empirical Audio OR5, expensive digital cables) stictly as insurance; just in case it sounds (like many people say it does) better I don't want to miss out. I suspect the differences are relatively small, and I don't have the patience for extensive comparisons. I may do the CAPS 2.0 against CAPS 3.0 shootout, but realy what is the point? No matter what I conclude I will keep the CAPS 3.0 anyway.....

So there go my audiophile credentials on this forum .... Oh well.

I suspect, with very good reason, that the difference between a good $200 - $500 USB converter and a CAPS or Emperical Audio are vanishingly small unless CAPS or Emperical are finding ways to get pleasant distortion into your zeros and ones , that at least some of the "top notch stuff" is tops at smoke and mirrors, and that your audiophile cred is quite safe, as many who can't hear, or be bothered to listen for the difference, buy thousands of dollars worth of insurance anyway, and then hear every dime spent, whether it is there or not.

There's a lot of disposable income in this hobby. Not all of it is disposed of well.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

For the purposes of detecting small differences a headphone is most certainly the right tool and one that is used massively in audio research. Dr. Toole's entire job and career is about speaker and room performance. In that regard, of course he will point out what we are missing when using headphones. No one for example will challenge the "in-head" reproduction we get with stereo headphones.

We can't take that concept and then say you can't use it to determine differences between say, low and high resolution audio. For one, we have to agree that such changes affect each channel independently. If so, then I should be able to listen to one channel alone and detect the difference. In that case then, the "in head" issue goes out the window since we are not talking about stereo imaging.

One of the things headphone does which speakers have a hard time doing is that it can provide isolation and ability to turn up the volume very high. Getting a room to be as quiet as a headphone will be hard if not impossible. And turning up the volume in a real speaker very high can lead to equipment limitations and or people around you complaining.

All of this said, sure, if the thing you are trying to determine has to do with interactions between channels and only those interactions, then speaker testing is important. Otherwise, and that certainly describes much of what is involved in testing different players, high-res audio, etc. all can be determined with headphones.

Thanks Amir. But IMHO your much also ignores most of the aspects that audiophiles praise a lot. My point is that if some type of listening misses fundamental aspects it is not appropriate for discerning them. If people who listen using speakers find noticeable differences and those using headphones do not I know whom I should believe. Perhaps privileged people with great experience listening in monaural feel otherwise, but not me. IMMV, as they say.

Also IMHO the critical point when comparing formats is mixing the intrinsic properties of the format with the DAC implementation.

 

[microstrip]

I suspect, with very good reason, that the difference between a good $200 - $500 USB converter and a CAPS or Emperical Audio are vanishingly small unless CAPS or Emperical are finding ways to get pleasant distortion into your zeros and ones (...)

Tim,

I hope you are right and CAPS or Emperical or others are finding ways to get what you call "pleasant distortion into your zeros and ones". It would mean that there is still hope for audiophiles in Computer Audio.

 

[jkeny]

I suspect one ot the reasons why Tim can't hear any differences that others can is because he is using that reclocker device in the signal path - it will mask any advantage that low jitter devices have (it will make them sound worse) while improving high jitter sources. That has been my experience with every reclocker I have heard. The other factor is using headphones exclusively, he will not be able to hear soundsatge depth which is another characteristic of high-end, low jitter sound.

Oh & just to say guys like Charles Hansen and Jim Hillegas of JRiver who don't ascribe any difference to the software.are wrong & will be shown to be wrong soon!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I suspect one ot the reasons why Tim can't hear any differences that others can is because he is using that reclocker device in the signal path - it will mask any advantage that low jitter devices have (it will make them sound worse) while improving high jitter sources. That has been my experience with every reclocker I have heard. The other factor is using headphones exclusively, he will not be able to hear soundsatge depth which is another characteristic of high-end, low jitter sound.

Oh & just to say guys like Charles Hansen and Jim Hillegas of JRiver who don't ascribe any difference to the software.are wrong & will be shown to be wrong soon!

I compared Amarra and Pure Audio to iTunes with and without the converter in the signal chain, John, but I'm sure you could find another flaw in my systems to dismiss my experience. And of course you're right. No one knows how players sound different. Know one has been able to measure a difference. But it's the guys who don't hear what can't be measured or explained who will be proven wrong.

Logical.

Asynchronous USB DACs re-clock. Do they make low-jitter devices sound worse too?

Tim

PS: How about this one, John? Does this battery-powered, re-clocking, USB to SPDIF converter mask the differences between digital players?

https://sites.google.com/site/jkciunas/converter

No, didn't think so. T