There can still be jitter issues with network players / computers as well.
The question is if the PC DVD/CD Rom drive that read the music
cd in the first place is as accurate/correct as a high end cd player during the ripping process
A PC DVD/CD Rom drive will in most circumstances give an accurate copy, because it is not real time, so has the opportunity to re-read the CD in the event of a failed read.
However, a CD Player has to read the data in real time (with a few exceptions like some Meridian players that would cache the data).
So, you guys who are using media server run it 24-7? Or wait for 2~3 min. on every start up?
And, how do you deal with the discs? Ripping them into the HD and dump them? Or store at somewhere else? Is there any virtual media commercially avaible so no real disc is needed?
I use DVD player for playing CD for quite a while. Its power-up and disc detection is so slow. Faaaaaaar slower than the good old pure CD player Can't imagine using a PC...
And, how do you deal with the discs? Ripping them into the HD and dump them? Or store at somewhere else? Is there any virtual media commercially avaible so no real disc is needed?
I use DVD player for playing CD for quite a while. Its power-up and disc detection is so slow. Faaaaaaar slower than the good old pure CD player
Can't imagine using a PC...I have a dedicated server running 24 x 7, that streams to my Logitech Squeezebox.
I still prefer to use my CD player though
But I do like to use the Logitech for background music, when I usually set it to random play.
I also use it a lot for internet radio. I used to have DAB and FM tuners, but I don't use those anymore.
I still prefer to use my CD player though
But I do like to use the Logitech for background music, when I usually set it to random play.
I also use it a lot for internet radio. I used to have DAB and FM tuners, but I don't use those anymore.
Ok Analog ,what would you recommend? I think ,maybe I can still learn- heheh(main problem is, older I get harder it becomes to spend any moneyAnd especially one which recommends Itunes to a technically literate person
OK ,I give up
Forgot to ask: will you be listening from one PC or do you want distributed music (say multiple points across a house)?
If the latter then one possible solution is the Squeezebox server and receivers, which have been mentioned by others. The server software runs on multiple platforms and can read multiple file formats (even iTunes rips). And the server software can be remotely controlled by iPhone apps. I've used such a system for a couple of years and it works very well. I run the server software on the same main PC I use for day-to-day use and it works fine - no need for a separate server machine.
If its just single PC listening then there are heaps of programs that will rip CDs - iTunes is just one option. They are all converting one string of bits to another (CD to hard drive) so thats why its your choice to go with lossless compression or lossy compression depending on your needs.
Hope this helps.
Squeezebox
I have used Squeezebox for some time and am happy with it, both wired and wireless feed. One of the benefits over using USB is that the transmission of data is over ethernet protocols and the data is buffered or stored and then reclocked in the Squeezebox. This eliminates all the issues about type of storage, electrical interference form the computer, relying on the software generated computer clock and having to optimize the operating system. There is no adverse effect when running multiple devices and applications contemporaneously on the PC either, so long as the computer has enough processing speed. Galvanic isolation becomes a non issue as well. The biggest limitation is the quality of the clock and related circuitry in the Squeezebox, which is built for mass market. If it is an issue for you, there are ways to improve the clocking at the Squeezebox that minimize jitter.
I happen to use dbpoweramp, store everything in wav and then batch convert to flac for the Squeezebox and lossy formats for portable devices. It works for me.
I have used Squeezebox for some time and am happy with it, both wired and wireless feed. One of the benefits over using USB is that the transmission of data is over ethernet protocols and the data is buffered or stored and then reclocked in the Squeezebox. This eliminates all the issues about type of storage, electrical interference form the computer, relying on the software generated computer clock and having to optimize the operating system. There is no adverse effect when running multiple devices and applications contemporaneously on the PC either, so long as the computer has enough processing speed. Galvanic isolation becomes a non issue as well. The biggest limitation is the quality of the clock and related circuitry in the Squeezebox, which is built for mass market. If it is an issue for you, there are ways to improve the clocking at the Squeezebox that minimize jitter.
I happen to use dbpoweramp, store everything in wav and then batch convert to flac for the Squeezebox and lossy formats for portable devices. It works for me.
OK ,I give up
EAC (free), a nice hard disk (1TB, less than $100), and your computer (which you already have). Then burn CDs at your leisure- if you decide you need that format.
Interesting omission ...
Most comments concerning jitter and other problems with computer playback have missed the real culprit I think. The problems are not with the hardware I don't think. The data rates are easily high enough to get everything into a local buffer when you think about it. Problems in playback probably live in the OS that is running the show. Early on in Windows, it was found you couldn't use that platform for real time control because the kernel demands some time slices for itself just to check around. So the solution at that time was to load up a DOS box and forget it. The same situation must still exist with most OS offerings.
I use both a computer with decent sound cards, and actual CD players. There are real differences between CD players, and it's always seemed that you need to spend over $2K for a really good one. It's impossible to explain the difference to someone else unless they try it themselves. That's much like the differences between the way a car handles, or tires affect the handling. Just accept the fact that the really good CD players do a better job of reproducing music than a less expensive model. Mind you, there are plenty of expensive CD players around that are merely $100 machines in a nice box. I've done warranty work on many of those too. So, you have to go with a player that is actually worth the $2K +, it's not good enough to just spend the money. Another thing's for sure too. If you don't spend the money, you will not get that quality (as much as it's nice to imagine you got a great deal).
A stripped down machine running some flavor of Linux for a music server might be the easiest way to get into a decent music server. The clock speed shouldn't need to be that high either, only the operating system would demand high speeds to deliver a modest data stream (audio) with minimal jitter.
Hi limono,
The medium isn't important. If you are creating an audio format file, you may need to use a movie format, but to simply copy a CD, a CD burning drive is all you need. Again, drive quality means more than format choice I think. If you store them as a data format (as on a hard drive), the operating system probably makes most of any differences - all other things held equal.
SY's comment (above) is right on the money.
-Chris
Most comments concerning jitter and other problems with computer playback have missed the real culprit I think. The problems are not with the hardware I don't think. The data rates are easily high enough to get everything into a local buffer when you think about it. Problems in playback probably live in the OS that is running the show. Early on in Windows, it was found you couldn't use that platform for real time control because the kernel demands some time slices for itself just to check around. So the solution at that time was to load up a DOS box and forget it. The same situation must still exist with most OS offerings.
I use both a computer with decent sound cards, and actual CD players. There are real differences between CD players, and it's always seemed that you need to spend over $2K for a really good one. It's impossible to explain the difference to someone else unless they try it themselves. That's much like the differences between the way a car handles, or tires affect the handling. Just accept the fact that the really good CD players do a better job of reproducing music than a less expensive model. Mind you, there are plenty of expensive CD players around that are merely $100 machines in a nice box. I've done warranty work on many of those too. So, you have to go with a player that is actually worth the $2K +, it's not good enough to just spend the money. Another thing's for sure too. If you don't spend the money, you will not get that quality (as much as it's nice to imagine you got a great deal).
A stripped down machine running some flavor of Linux for a music server might be the easiest way to get into a decent music server. The clock speed shouldn't need to be that high either, only the operating system would demand high speeds to deliver a modest data stream (audio) with minimal jitter.
Hi limono,
The medium isn't important. If you are creating an audio format file, you may need to use a movie format, but to simply copy a CD, a CD burning drive is all you need. Again, drive quality means more than format choice I think. If you store them as a data format (as on a hard drive), the operating system probably makes most of any differences - all other things held equal.
SY's comment (above) is right on the money.
-Chris
Chris,
I presume you're familiar with the following?
Windows XP
Windows XP provides a number of layers of software to process computer audio. This software architecture can/does impact the quality of the sound reaching the soundcard.
For example, Windows XP will support a number of concurrently running applications. Each of these applications may produce sounds. These sounds need to be merged together and sent to your soundcard for broadcasting. The software responsible for mixing of audio streams is the Kernal Mixer (or KMixer).
To simplify the job of mixing lots of sounds from different application, the KMixer resamples everything to 48kHz even if it is already at 48kHz (and doesn't make the best job of it). So your 44.1kHz audio stream from your media player is no longer bit perfect.
To get round this (and the latency introduced by all the operating system software) you need to enable your media player to connect directly to your sound card. To do this is you use Audio Stream Input/Output (ASIO) or Kernel Streaming.
To use either ASIO or Kernel streaming you need to have a plugin available for your media player of choice. These are available for Foobar2000 and WinAmp (ASIO, Kernel Streaming ).
Windows Vista
The audio software architecture is different in Vista. It has been completely rewritten to address some of the issues with Windows XP (see here). There is no Kernel Mixer in Vista.
The architecture provides an Application Programmers Interface (API) to support bit perfect streaming to the sound card. This is the Windows Audio Session API (WASAPI). It provides capability which is similar to kernel streaming but does not require the programmer to write complex kernel streaming code.
WASAPI supports two modes of use: shared and exclusive. In shared mode, audio streams are mixed and global effects (if specified) are applied before the stream hits your sound card. In exclusive mode the audio streams are not mixed and no effects are applied i.e. the audio stream from your media player is passed directly to the sound card.
To use WASAPI you will need a plugin for your media player and your sound card will need drivers to support it. Currently, I only know of Foobar2000 that has a WASAPI plugin. This operates in WASAPI exclusive mode only. The Creative Soundblaster XFi range supports WASAPI (but please check your specific model).
See this thread if you want to use ASIO4ALL or find out a little more about the audio architecture in Windows (XP & Vista).
Note: My apologies if this is covering old ground.
You clearly hold very strong beliefs about this. But I really think that you are not correct.
CD transports and associated DAC circuitry are now commodity items manufactured across the planet. The engineering is such that there is little (if any) audible difference in the analog output produced by competently manufactured CD/DAC units. Measurements bare this out, as well as the results of double-blind tests.
And as you stated there is a lot of re-badging that goes on: simply because the underlying unit is competently engineered and provides high-quality results, independent of the cosmetic box it is placed in.
There may be some benefit in spending more dollars to get a highly reliable unit but I doubt that anyone needs to spend $2000 on a CD player - it won't be audibly superior to units costing a 10th as much.
For WinXP users there's an ASIO plugin for Windows Media Player (works with WMP11) available from sourceforge.net: ASIO Window Media Player Plugin | Download ASIO Window Media Player Plugin software for free at SourceForge.net
w
w
Ok Analog ,what would you recommend? I think ,maybe I can still learn- heheh(main problem is, older I get harder it becomes to spend any money
Strangely enough i am with SY on this
Maybe time to re-examine it.
Hi audio_tony,
The less running that demands time slices, the better the performance should be. Also, moving the processing to the D/A device, card or USB, will really help.
Not all software converts sound files to a different sampling rate. Some sound cards do, older Creative Soundblaster cards for example. The new ones beginning with the X-Fi Extreme Music do not re-sample the audio files (happy day!). These work really very well for testing other devices, as does the EMU 1212 I was lucky enough to get some time earlier. Latency is really important for mixing and manipulating sound files. For straight on playback, it's a non-issue. This equates to the access time an electromechanical system needs to start pulling data down. No biggie unless you are mixing.
-Chris
Certainly. All of them, including the disaster called Vista (hate it). XP was the first really stable thing that Micro$oft charged us to beta test. They curiously call this a production ready release, it eventually got there. I use XP as the most stable Windows platform, although "7" is looking good.
I am familiar with how Windows handles sound, but by no means an expert. I have also found that Windows Update breaks stuff that is out of the ordinary. Most things I have made work under Windows have been broken, and it takes far too long to figure out how to fix them again. I now use Windows for non-lab related things, and no longer for server duty either.
Well, that's advertising speak I suspect. The OS neither knows or cares what is "bit perfect". That entire "bit perfect" thing is all about how you get the data from wherever it was and onto your media. HD or solid state memory matters not as the transfer speeds and buffering should look after the needs required for simply playback. There is one thing that the OS does control, and that is how many slices your audio application gets. The OS is going to use some time slices for housekeeping. That's why an embedded OS solution is probably the best for audio. That means a bit of audio hardware, like an MP3 player or CD player. Failing that, if you want to serve music files, your best bet might very well be a trimmed down and optimized system. Some flavor of Linux would be my suggestion, and have it running a command line interface only. etho and your basic devices as required is all you need running. You will find you could very probably use a slow processor that can accept the newer storage devices.
The less running that demands time slices, the better the performance should be. Also, moving the processing to the D/A device, card or USB, will really help.
Not all software converts sound files to a different sampling rate. Some sound cards do, older Creative Soundblaster cards for example. The new ones beginning with the X-Fi Extreme Music do not re-sample the audio files (happy day!). These work really very well for testing other devices, as does the EMU 1212 I was lucky enough to get some time earlier. Latency is really important for mixing and manipulating sound files. For straight on playback, it's a non-issue. This equates to the access time an electromechanical system needs to start pulling data down. No biggie unless you are mixing.
-Chris
I'm not sure, but here I think maybe you're not quite up to speed on how audio is handled. The slices given to the application by the OS will affect things like screen updates, but they won't have anything to do with the streaming of the audio as that's done by interrupts, not by time-slicing. Time slicing is far too coarse. Then performance (in terms of getting drop-outs in the audio) is a matter of how low an interrupt latency is consistently achievable. There are free software tools available to check this. Note interrupt latency is a separate thing from audio latency.
The performance of a digital system from the point of view of audio quality is really down to delivering the right bits, on time.
But perhaps you were referring to performance in terms of responsiveness to the user, in which case I agree with what you've written.
Do please tell us which manufacturers and models are competently manufactured. Also which DBTs are you speaking of?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.