I dont understand the purpose of using high end CD player over a media PC server

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
that really doesnt mean anything though, even if you had a 16/44 AD input audacity would simply upsample the file and then downsample to playback if need be. the intel HD chipset is a digital format and the above spec is for playback over the intel HD bus, nothing to do with ADC

You are probably correct, I think the actual A/D converter is 'only' 96 khz, 24 bit.
 
Intel HD is just a digital spec. What you really have on the ADC side (codec) is what I was reffering to (maybe SigmaTel/IDT?):
Like AC'97, HD Audio is a specification that defines the architecture, link frame format, and programming interfaces used by the controller on the PCI bus and by the codec on the other side of the link. Implementations of the host controller are available from at least Intel, Nvidia, and AMD. Codecs which can be used with such controllers are available from many companies, including Realtek, Conexant, Analog Devices (SoundMAX), Integrated Device Technology (IDT) (acquired from SigmaTel), VIA, Wolfson Microelectronics, and formerly C-Media.
Its line of audio CoDec chips has been found in Dell laptops, several new Dell desktops, the Sony Vaio notebook, and numerous other audio playback devices. SigmaTel sold its PC audio business in mid-2006 to Integrated Device Technology, Inc[1] for approximately USD $80 million.
At one point, SigmaTel chips were found in over 70% of all MP3 devices sold on the market. However, SigmaTel lost its last iPod socket in 2006 when it was not found in the next generation iPod shuffle. PortalPlayer was their largest competitor, but were bought by Nvidia (NVDA) after PortalPlayer's chips lost their socket in the iPod.
 
Last edited:
Intel HD is just a digital spec. What you really have on the ADC side (codec) is what I was reffering to (maybe SigmaTel/IDT?):

The Apple developer site gives these specs:

Line Input

The line input operates independently from all other audio input ports and is always available. The line input supports recording at bit depths of 16, 20, or 24 bits per sample and at sample rates of 44.1 kHz, 48 kHz, or 96 kHz. Audio recorded from the line input is presented as a stereo data stream. The line input gain can be adjusted from 0.0 dB to +30 dB.

During input of a 1 kHz, full-scale 1 VRMS sine wave (44.1 kHz input sample rate, 24-bit sample depth, 0.0 dB input gain, no weighting) the audio line input has the following nominal specifications:

Jack type: 3.5 mm stereo
Maximum input voltage: 1 VRMS (+2.22 dBu)
Minimum voltage input for full scale output: 31 mVRMS (-27.95 dBu) at input gain = +30 dB
Input impedance: > 20 kΩ
Frequency response: 20 Hz to 20 kHz, +0.5 dB/-3 dB
Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR): > 90 dB
Total harmonic distortion + noise (THD+N): < -75 dB (0.02%)
Channel separation: > 80 dB

Your quote concerning SigmaTel makes no mention of their chips being used in Macbook Pros, which would suggest they aren't used, otherwise the fact would be included for bragging rights. It only mentions their use in some iPods. My iPod has a Wolfsen D/A converter I believe.
 
So back to my statement - the ADC in your macPro is not to be trusted when you make comparations between comressed and uncompressed audio signals. -75dB TDH+N is what regular integrated sound on any cheap PC has. It doesn't even rise to the 16 bit capability, but they tote about the "24 bit sample-depth". 24 bit of garbage that is...
 
You seem to have the wrong end of the stick. The file I was referring to had nothing to do with a lossless/lossy comparison. It was to compare the output of a CD player with that of my iPod. The track on the iPod was a lossless version of the same one on the CD. I only used the recording as a backup to live comparison of the two devices.

I did make another track containing lossy and lossless segments, but that was done entirely digitally without involving an A/D converter.

I guess one mans 'garbage' is anothers 2 inch 24 track studio tape recorder. :rolleyes:

mtr90iii.gif


Frequency Response (Rec/Rep) 50 Hz to 22 kHz +2, -3 dB (0 VU, 30 ips)
Distortion (THD) Less than 0.5% (@ 1 kHz, 320 nWb/m)

Signal-to-Noise Ratio (... UNWTD, with 30 Hz to 18 kHz BPF) AES 30 ips = 70 dB
IEC 15 ips = 69 dB, IEC 7.5 ips = 66 dB
NAB 15 ips = 67 dB, NAB 7.5 ips = 69 dB
Weight approx. 200 kg

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.


You have to wonder how they ever made records and CD's that didn't sound like garbage using pieces of junk like that.

It would seem my Macbook pro isn't that bad a recoding device - even with a 'garbage' A/D converter.

The original piece of music I used for the recording has a dynamic range of 78 db. I stand by my belief that the recordings I made are of sufficient quality to allow for discrimination between the two devices I recorded from.
 
You are wrong. That equipment had a S/N of 70dB for EACH track. When you mix two tracks together, the S/N rises with 3dB. So on, when you are mixing all 24 tracks you will gain some 15dB S/N on final stereo mix.

Anyway, that antique analog equipment posted is irrelevant for the discution. When I play a challenged original analog recoding, I don't want to add MORE grabage that it was originally there.
If you really like the compressed music, your Mac sound card and what ever speakers you have, it's your opinion. It doesn't mean that is an universal truth and we all should switch to iPods and Macs. Look at the specs that some audio cards have in PC world (M-Audio, E-MU) and you will see the difference.

I am all for lossless formats. I am playing my CD/HDCD via network with a digital receiver (that decodes HDCD too).
But the best quality of music doesn't come that way, comes on SACD. And that you cannot play on a PC/Mac.
 
Last edited:
But the best quality of music doesn't come that way, comes on SACD.

Nobody has reliably demonstrated that. Even if it is demonstrated the difference will be trivial. Of importance in terms of one-upmanship only. Not important to a music listener. Important to an equipment-listener. Or a salesman.

Increasing numbers of people prefer the sound of .mp3s over lossless.

And that you cannot play on a PC/Mac.

Just one more reason not to buy SACDs.

w

A difference that makes no difference is no difference at all...
 
Last edited:
besides its not even true, you can get SACD drives for mac, or you can play the 1 bit source files using software by korg for their 1bit 4mhz recorders. any onboard sound is garbage and I can tell you the majority of onboard on PCs is worse, sorry cheapskate, but those numbers are pretty horrendous and as both things you are comparing are higher spec, the result will be levelled off at the quality of the sound card.

macs are still the go to computer for protools systems, as with ANY computer, if you want serious audio capability, you'll need to get good audio hardware, be it internal PCI or outboard.

M-Audio are garbage too, emu are quite good, but IMO fade in comparison to RME, lynx and apogee. the apogee and cranesong/HEDD gear is as good as any hifi gear i've ever come across.
 
Last edited:
Nobody has reliably demonstrated that. Even if it is demonstrated the difference will be trivial.

Actually, it has been proven, or at least there is enough evidence from reliable and EXPERIENCED listeners. You know --folks who have actually heard for themselves, not just read about it on a few forums.

Besides, if there are small differences, doesn't that already prove that there is a difference, even if minute? In high end audio, sonic improvements really are quite tiny anyway. People expecting a $5,000 SACD player to be 200% better than a $1,000 DAC are being unrealistic and are reading too much hype/marketing.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.