The sound when using the HDD was still very good, and probably still a bit better than using an optimised dedicated PC as a source. So dont be discouraged by this.
The HDD uses a SMPS. So far I have not tried a linear power supply on the HDD.
This will be the next thing I try.
I will post my findings.
Thanks
Last edited:
Hello Bas, I bought a little 7" monitor from ebay for $100. It is perfect for this application. I will eventually mount the monitor into a case with the DAC and then it will be an all in one solution. sort of like an olive media player
http://www.olive.us/
I just noticed this monitor it is even cheaper @ $40 and will do the same job:
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/OLIN-7-INCH-...CAM-/350320155427?pt=AU_Car_Parts_Accessories
Or this seller has other brands just as cheap:
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/7-TFT-LCD-He...lor-/230512563358?pt=AU_Car_Parts_Accessories
but I would not go smaller than 7" as the WD GUI has the writing a bit small, and even with good eyesight a 4" monitor, although very small and discreet, would not allow anyone to read the words on screen.
Last edited:
Other Ideas I have for this box that I have not yet tried...
I also want to have two USB ports. So I can have a HDD connected always (perhaps at the rear or inside the unit) and also a USB port on the front.
The early firmware allows a USB hub to be connected to the WD mini, but I have not tested this to see if the sound quality is affected when using a hub.
I also considered making a passive USB switch, but I am worried about data corruption with the interuption to the impedance of the USB cable.
I also thought of having controls on the front of the case. To do this I will have to buy antother remote control (whole unit - or learning remote?) and mount in on the front of the unit and instead of using the IR to transmit the button presses, just connect the signal line from the transmitter direct to the reciever.
The WD mini has a 27Mhz clock which drives the unit. I think a clock upgrade kit will work here.
Those are just some other ideas I have.
I also want to have two USB ports. So I can have a HDD connected always (perhaps at the rear or inside the unit) and also a USB port on the front.
The early firmware allows a USB hub to be connected to the WD mini, but I have not tested this to see if the sound quality is affected when using a hub.
I also considered making a passive USB switch, but I am worried about data corruption with the interuption to the impedance of the USB cable.
I also thought of having controls on the front of the case. To do this I will have to buy antother remote control (whole unit - or learning remote?) and mount in on the front of the unit and instead of using the IR to transmit the button presses, just connect the signal line from the transmitter direct to the reciever.
The WD mini has a 27Mhz clock which drives the unit. I think a clock upgrade kit will work here.
Those are just some other ideas I have.
Hi,
Not to put TOO fine a point on it. If your PC source sounds materially worse than a CDP or SACDP, something is seriously amiss on the computer side. So this comparison that rekon's the WD thingey 20 times better than your PC should indicate to you that more work on the PC side is needed.
Of course, if that WD Gizmo works for you, more power to you and on bealf of all that are looking for such a solution, thank you for your work. It certainly makes a DIY HDD based Source very easy.
Ciao T
Not to put TOO fine a point on it. If your PC source sounds materially worse than a CDP or SACDP, something is seriously amiss on the computer side. So this comparison that rekon's the WD thingey 20 times better than your PC should indicate to you that more work on the PC side is needed.
Of course, if that WD Gizmo works for you, more power to you and on bealf of all that are looking for such a solution, thank you for your work. It certainly makes a DIY HDD based Source very easy.
Ciao T
Hi Erin,
But 20 times worse than the WD Media Box which in turn with your TDA1541 sounds as good as most CD-Players and SACD-Players (and better then some) according to you.
Now based on what you write it would seem your PC source was much inferior to any serious Disk player. And this has not been my experience at all. So i am trying to find out what went wrong. That's all.
That is why i suspect that "pretty darn good" sounding PC source was from what it might have been capable of.
Ciao T
My PC sounded pretty darn good to me.
But 20 times worse than the WD Media Box which in turn with your TDA1541 sounds as good as most CD-Players and SACD-Players (and better then some) according to you.
Now based on what you write it would seem your PC source was much inferior to any serious Disk player. And this has not been my experience at all. So i am trying to find out what went wrong. That's all.
That is why i suspect that "pretty darn good" sounding PC source was from what it might have been capable of.
Ciao T
I agree with ThorstenL.
.wav files ripped directly to my Corsair Voyager GT, sound markedly better when played back from my Asus Xonar Soundcard 's SPDIF Coax out of my PC into my modified SC DAC,(or modified X-DAC V3) than even the original CD played from a Marantz SA11 into the same DAC via SPDIF. Analogue directly from the Marantz SA 11 is simply no comparison.
.wav files from the same Corsair Voyager GT sound even better again when the Corsair Voyager is plugged into my WD TV Live when using a 12V 2.5A Linear PSU with a JLH PSU addon, then the SC DAC via Optical Out.
SandyK
Last edited:
I think the problem you guys are having is with my personal rating system.
How i came up with 20x better is this:
I ask myself these questions:
How much better are the HF, LF, MID, overall detail/clarity.
For each of these I say 5% better so I add this up and come to 4x5 =20 times better.
You may interpret this to be 5% better. I dont know.
However I am sorry my personal rating system has caused you guys an issue.
I will refrain from using numbers to convey impressions of sound in the future as clearly its going to cause controversy. OK?
Thorsten, I know you are just trying to help. But I honestly believe that my PC source sounded very very good and the WD mini beats it. Perhaps there is more I could do with my PC? We can always do more cant we?
At the moment I am happy.
thanks
Erin
How i came up with 20x better is this:
I ask myself these questions:
How much better are the HF, LF, MID, overall detail/clarity.
For each of these I say 5% better so I add this up and come to 4x5 =20 times better.
You may interpret this to be 5% better. I dont know.
However I am sorry my personal rating system has caused you guys an issue.
I will refrain from using numbers to convey impressions of sound in the future as clearly its going to cause controversy. OK?
Thorsten, I know you are just trying to help. But I honestly believe that my PC source sounded very very good and the WD mini beats it. Perhaps there is more I could do with my PC? We can always do more cant we?
At the moment I am happy.
thanks
Erin
Hi,
Ahhhm, yes. I do have severe problems with this kind of calculation.
Even if we allow 4 * 5%, it makes 20% and not 20 Times.
I mean there is a HUGE difference between a raise of 20% (which is nice) and one of 20 Times.
Ah yes, this is more credible, even 20% would be. So next time please say 20% and not 20 times.
In fact, I'd expect at least that much improvement when cutting out badly designed SPDIF circuitry out and going directly to I2S (even on something like the BB PCM270X series).
Well, it was not so much an issue, but rather a misunderstanding.
I am sure few here would interpret if someone said "it was 20 times more after the change" as meaning it was 20% more or even only 5% more (depending on interpretation).
So please continue using numbers, I find them very helpful. But try to stick to the common understanding of numbers shared by all of us, if at all possible.
Sure. And now that we have cleared up the misunderstanding about what the numbers mean you will find me rather in agreement.
Enjoy it while it lasts...
Ciao T
Ahhhm, yes. I do have severe problems with this kind of calculation.
Even if we allow 4 * 5%, it makes 20% and not 20 Times.
I mean there is a HUGE difference between a raise of 20% (which is nice) and one of 20 Times.
Ah yes, this is more credible, even 20% would be. So next time please say 20% and not 20 times.
In fact, I'd expect at least that much improvement when cutting out badly designed SPDIF circuitry out and going directly to I2S (even on something like the BB PCM270X series).
Well, it was not so much an issue, but rather a misunderstanding.
I am sure few here would interpret if someone said "it was 20 times more after the change" as meaning it was 20% more or even only 5% more (depending on interpretation).
So please continue using numbers, I find them very helpful. But try to stick to the common understanding of numbers shared by all of us, if at all possible.
Sure. And now that we have cleared up the misunderstanding about what the numbers mean you will find me rather in agreement.
Enjoy it while it lasts...
Ciao T
Hi Thorsten,
I'm sorry. Perhaps I have a casual way of speaking and writing. I will try to be more technical and precise in future, and put more thought into how people may interpret my comments.
I'm very glad we are now on the same page.
Erin
I do have a question about the pc based stuff.
Were these listening test's based on standard spdif output used on the standard motherboards?
Were any of these motherboards spdif outputs transformer coupled?
I do agree that the standard intel D510mo's RCA based SPDIF output is not that good.
At least compared to an Auzentech Preludes SPDIF output.
Allan
I do have a question about the pc based stuff.
Were these listening test's based on standard spdif output used on the standard motherboards?
Were any of these motherboards spdif outputs transformer coupled?
I do agree that the standard intel D510mo's RCA based SPDIF output is not that good.
At least compared to an Auzentech Preludes SPDIF output.
Allan
Hi,
The chip this is based on is utter garbage (C-Media CM-108) and was never intended for anything but USB Internet Phone Handsets.
If you switched from that to I2S from a hardware player - I'd even be willing to credit a 20 Times figure
Well, maybe not quite 20 Times.
There are now several competent hardware sets that can produce good performance. Maybe time to seek out one such.
Ciao T
The chip this is based on is utter garbage (C-Media CM-108) and was never intended for anything but USB Internet Phone Handsets.
If you switched from that to I2S from a hardware player - I'd even be willing to credit a 20 Times figure
Well, maybe not quite 20 Times.
There are now several competent hardware sets that can produce good performance. Maybe time to seek out one such.
Ciao T
Then how was the "PC source (cPlay + CMP)" fully optimised?
If not "pulse transformer" or separate sound card, then usb?
Your not missing much with the standard onboard SPDIF on the D510MO motherboard.
Please go to the CMP website, go to the optimisations page, and I have followed all instructions there.
Sorry Thorsten, but have you actually heard this chip in the Teralink X ?
Well I have and it is actually sounds good-
Despite what some others may have you believe. Yes I too have read that It has poor jitter figures, but not actually seen any actual test results to back this up - just a flippant comment by Gordan Rankin!
Unless you have heard the Teralink X. Please keep your speculation to yourself. ( and even if you have heard it, what makes your comments any more valid than mine)
I am welcome to accept if someone else tries the WD mini as I have suggested and think it sounds like garbage. Then so be it. But I don't think this will be the case.
Remember sound is subjective. My system is good enough to hear minor subtle changes in components anywhere in the chain. I have been into hi fi / music and good sound since I was about 8 years old. I know what good sound is.
I would rather this thread be kept on topic, rather than drift off into a meaningless debate about speculative results, rather than real results from real listening.
At least I have actually gone forward and proposed and tested a solution to the topic of the thread and included instructions!
Hi, Erin!
I use the WD TV mini , and it sounds really good
, sure, connected to an external DAC by I2S ( by Toslink it sounds like garbage ).After yore posts I've tried the Cruzer Flash Drive instead of HDD WD My Passport 320Gb, and for my ears the Flash Drive sounds much more clear. If I understand correct, You have tried HDD only with the external PS and I think that PS is not a problem, the problem is HDD USB controller?
Hi,
Not in the Teralink.
I have however evaluated by listening and bench tests (which include an AP2 that I use among other uses for Jitter measurements) probably every USB audio solution under this sun, for my day job. Including the C-Media. Most of what I tested was under NDA (some extremely severe), so I cannot really say much, except older C-Media, Philips and Burr Brown stuff (e.g. generica).
The BB 270X chips among the generica where SOTA around 5 years ago. Correctly implemented they are the best that I can talk about. Compared to the really good stuff today they are barely okay. For 16/44.
The CM108 is among the poorest available, by a long stretch, both measured and sonically (feeding TDA1541 in Non-Os, I2S, no ASRC etc). Only Fhilips did worse.
I do not think the sound from the WD mini is bad. I have not tried it, nor shall I as I have solved my issues another ways*.
* viz. heavily modified VAI MB spdif that works correctly, has correct levels, exemplary wave patterns and an excellent clock or using an external async USB device. Either has low jitter etc. I combine this with a receiver side that still uses a Cirrus Chip highly optimised [not much longer] and frontend derived from Pat "Jocko Homo" DiGiaccomo's work. Add to this BNC connections AND a true 75 Ohm Cable (very non-audiophile Belden stuff, excellent wavepettern though)
With that I get about as low jitter as the Cirrus Chips manage (around 100...300ps), which is just about good enough for CD Audio.
I really need to upgrade this though, as it has fallen far behind the performance in my commercial solutions.
Sure.
And I am sure some like sound with jitter-levels around 3Kps (CM108) or in fact even with 3Mps (UDA1321).
Some measurements of the CM108:
DIYHiFi.org • View topic - The Price of Progress ? USB Jitter
Sure, no-one is disputing this. It is just that if you start with an I2S feed with a few nanoseconds worth of jitter (or in other words jitter levelks at around -70dB!), it is very easy to see massive improvement even when switching to something that in absolute terms is not THAT great.
Hence the point made by others that they did not consider your PC setup optimised much at all.
As said, I do not doubt your results in the least and I think the WD Mini is a good cheap way to get results. I'm also sure they can be bettered, though not for 40 Bucks a few pieces of wire.
Speculation does not enter into this I should say.
Yes and I very much appreciate this. I may even try it when I have more time, instead of hacking up my linksys wireless machine.
Ciao T
Not in the Teralink.
I have however evaluated by listening and bench tests (which include an AP2 that I use among other uses for Jitter measurements) probably every USB audio solution under this sun, for my day job. Including the C-Media. Most of what I tested was under NDA (some extremely severe), so I cannot really say much, except older C-Media, Philips and Burr Brown stuff (e.g. generica).
The BB 270X chips among the generica where SOTA around 5 years ago. Correctly implemented they are the best that I can talk about. Compared to the really good stuff today they are barely okay. For 16/44.
The CM108 is among the poorest available, by a long stretch, both measured and sonically (feeding TDA1541 in Non-Os, I2S, no ASRC etc). Only Fhilips did worse.
I do not think the sound from the WD mini is bad. I have not tried it, nor shall I as I have solved my issues another ways*.
* viz. heavily modified VAI MB spdif that works correctly, has correct levels, exemplary wave patterns and an excellent clock or using an external async USB device. Either has low jitter etc. I combine this with a receiver side that still uses a Cirrus Chip highly optimised [not much longer] and frontend derived from Pat "Jocko Homo" DiGiaccomo's work. Add to this BNC connections AND a true 75 Ohm Cable (very non-audiophile Belden stuff, excellent wavepettern though)
With that I get about as low jitter as the Cirrus Chips manage (around 100...300ps), which is just about good enough for CD Audio.
I really need to upgrade this though, as it has fallen far behind the performance in my commercial solutions.
Sure.
And I am sure some like sound with jitter-levels around 3Kps (CM108) or in fact even with 3Mps (UDA1321).
Some measurements of the CM108:
DIYHiFi.org • View topic - The Price of Progress ? USB Jitter
Sure, no-one is disputing this. It is just that if you start with an I2S feed with a few nanoseconds worth of jitter (or in other words jitter levelks at around -70dB!), it is very easy to see massive improvement even when switching to something that in absolute terms is not THAT great.
Hence the point made by others that they did not consider your PC setup optimised much at all.
As said, I do not doubt your results in the least and I think the WD Mini is a good cheap way to get results. I'm also sure they can be bettered, though not for 40 Bucks a few pieces of wire.
Speculation does not enter into this I should say.
Yes and I very much appreciate this. I may even try it when I have more time, instead of hacking up my linksys wireless machine.
Ciao T
Hi, Erin!
I use the WD TV mini , and it sounds really good
bekki
Careful there, or you will upset the "bits are bits" Brigade !
I bet if you compare the checksums from the HDD and the Flash Drive, that they are the same too ! Many people have also stated that SSD sounds better than HDD also, with exactly the same .wav files.
SandyK
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.