Totally agree with you here. I can't understand it so personally I have avoided it. I tend to do this alot with tons of audio tweaks. The whole 'confusion' starts because it is supposed to be digital and bits are bits..

Let's take a step back. Looking at CD playback, I think it is more accepted that different CDs can sound different and demag/destatic and other tweaks do make a difference. Now, think about it - what is really altering, given that the CDP is also reading digital bits? If the bits are read wrongly, then no sound or static should come out - but sound IS coming out, just altered in some way. If we are 'reading the bits in a different way', who is to say this is considered an error or more accurate?

To look more into detail - what exactly is the change? Is it information (e.g. missing notes/details), or is it something else like openness, liveliness, dynamics? Is this really additional bits being read, or the same bits being read differently/more clearly? Or something else?

The 'something else' to think about it is if the tweaks are actually affecting the CDP differently, rather than allowing it to read CD better. If destatic works, it does not only make the CD easier to read but maybe lowers static effects on the CDP which may give better sound. Onto ripping, this means what information is being read could be transferred better to the harddisk? Just a hypothesis.

Hope someone more experienced can chime in on this.

I think the answer is simple. There is no conversion involved and it is more direct. Even the best DACs are still trying to piece together what was originally analog. I too prefer vinyl. Resolution is also higher than CD. Of course as usual this depends on the press.

Thanks for sharing. Is there any audible benefit from placing your harddisk externally this way?
I too prefer internal but have done it the other way - by just damping the casing which is already quite heavy.

Unfortunately I have to put in my 2 cents on WindowsX's side on this one.

1. Power cord/conditioning is proven to enhance benchmark speeds on my PC and friends' PC compared to stock cord (I urged everyone who own these products to do this test). Not huge but like maybe 10%. IMO I also take this as sign of better stability which can only be better.

2. Power cord does alter the sound of the PC during playback. Big difference. It's as sensitive as a power cord to cd transport. Details and dynamics can get choked otherwise. I also believe in importance of low ripple PSU.

3. For ripping, we did not test via different power cord, but the tweaks found to work are:
   - de-static and de-mag (biggest difference)
   - footers and weights does work as well, for external drives, but i prefer internal
   - usb cable for the external drive (i did not verify this - but based on friend's testimonial)
   - external power supply for external drive
   - add cd-mat

Someone even told me if ripping fresh (after reboot) it sounds better.

However, at the opposite end there are users who claim no difference, including Kent Poon. When asked about the Plextor Premium2 drive which he feels is very good, what he actually said was it makes a difference for direct playback. However, for ripping, he felt that it makes no difference as software should sort it out. He did however, note that some drives give poor ripping, but that is an exception. Of course, I feel if a drive is good for playback, it should be more stable for ripping which can only be good - so up to you if you want to part with the money! And put it this way, this is a small cost.

About the tweaks used, I had discussed this in another forum extensively. One interesting point was that sometimes these tweak result in measurably more errors that are within correctable margins, but the reviewer heard an "improvement" in the sound. So the forumer then said this "leads back to the age-old question of "what kind of errors sound good"."

Maybe I don't have very high-end system, I feel the differences for ripping are there but rather small (other than power related or static). I can't tell what method result in better rip either.. if a power cord can influence sound of the rip, that is actually worrying cos I find each power cord has different character!

My last comment is on the comparison which makes this even tougher to note if there is really a difference or not. I personally find there are many variables on playback and therefore even if you playback 2 identical files (just copied), there is possibility you can hear a difference (e.g. in different drive, or even in different directory ). Give it a try. Of course, with ram buffering/drives I guess this issue is less now.

Well, I did give quite a few examples, but maybe you are not familiar with them or reject them because they perform more than 1 function (e.g. Bladelius which is a ripper as well), or just because you feel they are not built from ground up (e.g. Bryston which is on linux), or because a manufacturer has taken a different view (non hd player but streamer instead). That's fine. You are entitled to your view.

Honestly if you think stuff like Apple ipod is the best and simplest device, built from ground up for audio.. you can just mod it to have a larger harddisk, and mod it for a clean digital output into a DAC. Many portable rig owners have done this and I've heard quite a few. But please, give it a try yourself and let me know if you think it still sounds better than a CD transport of equivalent cost. I personally don't find portable players to be built for audio really - they are mobile entertainment devices (with video) and built to a cost and size requirement.

Funnily enough, since we are talking about ipod, latest trend seems to be adding on usb devices to it which acts as the host to reduce jitter. Like this:
http://www.aloaudio.com/algorhythm-solo/

To me, end of the day, we are pursuing this for the end goal of getting to better sound from computer files vs cd transport, and that was what I thought the whole purpose of this thread is about - especially in hi-end playback. I'm sure your suggestion is one way we can get there, but I'm also sure it isn't the only way we can get there.

Chris, I am really not sure why we aren't getting anywhere with this. Will try to quote you and answer directly as I really think I have covered all of this before! Hope this helps.

The latest version of squeezebox (touch) allows you to hook up an external harddisk to it directly via usb. Is this simple enough? So does any of those media boxes like an ac ryan or popcorn hour.

So does an Auraliti or Bryston BDP-1.. but you will say this is linux and not built from ground up.

Just mentioned some examples above.
I do agree with you that in the past, typically they are either streamers or server types.
iPod is a server type imo, so I don't see what's wrong with stuff like the Bladelius Embla (which also allow hook-up of external harddisks).. it sounds good but of course comes at a high price tag.

Don't mind me saying but you don't seem to be getting the fact that performance comes at a cost. This is how a entry level Linn DS streamer can cost a few thousand but the Linn Klimax DS is $20k. How a squeezebox is like $200-300 but a transporter costs $2k? You certainly aren't paying that much more just for more features.

As PeterSt mentions, somehow there is no way we can escape the environment. Even with async usb, the OS matters, the usb cable matters, the power cord of your PC matters, etc.. if only we could.

ipod is at its current price because of economies of scale. It is also because of this economy of scale that enables them to work so much on the software. The only way I see this being possible for us is open source.

As for your comment on idecco, if you have heard one, maybe you won't be so influenced by all the hype.. the simplest interface like wadia ipod dock also doesn't sound better than a squeezebox to be honest. it's the implementation that counts.

Linn's software is open source. http://oss.linn.co.uk/trac
So are many of the linux iteriations.

Chris, thanks for elaborating. You are right, we were abit on a tangent as I didn't understand you were providing a development suggestion.

Taken your point, but I do think some people have tried from ground-up, e.g.:
1. PS Audio bridge - streamer card
2. Linn DS series - streamer
3. Squeezebox (including the dated transporter) - streamer
3. Bladelius Embla - server
4. Olive Opus - server

Now, I might be wrong, but I believe most of these guys have tried the approach you mention. Most of these have their own proprietary software and some level of hardware. Personally I like joint effort like what PS Audio and Linn have done, to build on a common platform so progress can be made on a community level, at least on software side.

Chris, I do understand what you are talking about and tried to address it, but rather I think you have missed my point which Flecko has tried to elaborate. My point is - adding features is cheap. Getting audiophile quality is not. This was why I made the point on the auraliti ($799 for PC version, optimised but 'not audiophile enough', and $2k for bryston bdp-1).

My point about talking about AVR is due to you making an example of it. My point in this instance is that they are adding features in expense of sound quality - smaller or lower spec toroid transformers, lower power output (and fudging the numbers), higher SNR, going class d, etc). It's not just 'adding 5% to get more features' IMO.

The minimalistic digital player you are asking for exists at <$500. From a simple ipod + dock, streamers like squeezebox, and the myraid of media boxes out there (e.g. popcorn hour, ac ryan, etc) which can stream from NAS. All these have no moving parts (assuming your ipod is not harddisk based). They do the job but do they overcome the thread starter's concern - about challenging hi-end transports? IMO, no. I have tried all these and they don't even come close to a async usb interface used on a standard PC (where such interfaces like wavelink can cost $1k). Can a squeezebox beat a cd player worth $300? Possibly yes.

Just think why a wavelink can cost $1k when it's just a usb to bnc converter, when you can get a full PC (e.g. auraliti with bnc out) for that cost? What do you think we are really paying for? Or is the whole audiophile community full of suckers.

Btw since you mention no moving parts, I think as long as it has a transformer in it, there are moving parts. So far all DACs and even some PC interface that I have tried benefit from isolation. My gf even found when listening to ipod placed on one of my isolation footers (she tried it for fun), it makes a difference.

Hi Chris, auraliti costs $799, which i think its in the affordable range. a sonore starts from $999 to $1649 with lynx card. the sonore is higher priced (imo) just because it uses a passive cooling chassis and has more heat. i have not heard the auraliti but the sonore already sounds better than mac with puremusic imo. i have not compared directly to xxhighend or jrmc.

i have also not done a bdp-1 comparison (but i have heard the unit). i expect it to be of a good performance level too, given that it is basically a modified auraliti with better PSU, stripped video section, better chassis, etc. these 'upgrades' can be said to be in the audiophile range and as u know, do not come cheap. $2k is not alot honestly, if it manages to convince me it can better a $2-3k cd transport. don't forget an interface like a weiss int202 is already about $2k. however, i rather go the weiss way as i did not like the idea of a pure audio standalone pc, but as Flecko mentioned - this may be the only way to get further with performance.

what u mention about AVR and CDP costing $500 that give u plenty of features.. i may not be technical but i think things like chips can cost very low, enabling lots of good features, but good quality parts used for audio can cost alot. if u look at dacs, some high end dacs may be using the same chips as found in lower priced dacs, but yet the sound is so different.. if u look at AVRs in the past 5 years alone, the sound quality is honestly dropping every year for the same $. but now u have things like audyssey eq, hdmi, video in/out, upscaling, dsp, more channels, etc.

usb badly implemented can sound very bad actually. just like how it sounds like on some dacs.. i guess u have not heard how bad it can sound. this is why devices like m2tech hiface got popular in this price segment imo.

crisnee, i totally agree with what you are suggesting, and that is where some small PCs have come in to fill the gap. i have been keeping tabs of PCs like auraliti, the bryston bdp-1 (based on it), sonore, modded mac mini, etc.. honestly think we are still quite abit away from a perfect PC, but we are moving.. seems like many choose to exist on linux due to its low latency and simplicity. another way is to go for streaming but i'm not entirely convinced by streaming yet (in terms of SQ - e.g. ps audio pwd bridge) though technically it seems to move away from all the traditional PC related issues.

just to add my 2 cents on this topic in general, i have heard the difference between decent transports and PC fed into the same DAC many times, and unfortunately i feel transports still win as of now. it isn't a matter of detail level, soundstage, etc which seems obtainable. somehow it's the level of engagement or musicality and possibly this has to do with the timing and noise.

but as with all audio things, it is very subjective. the last time i did such a comparison at my home, even the visitors/listeners were split in opinion. out of 5 parties - 2 felt it was a preference and that there was no difference between PC and transport (tweakable difference), while 3 said 'PC is 90% of transport'. where it fell short are the areas i highlighted above. everyone's ear looks out for different things sometimes. my setup is not high end but difference is already discernible. we plan to host a round 2 session once i sort out my interface (with int202 or rme aes32). for high end, i can imagine that cdp is just hard to beat simply cos there are no equivalently priced PC u can spend on (e.g. vs $30k cdp, even if u want to put $30k into audio PC, i am not sure where that money will go).

i think if u were to plot performance/value on a chart, PCs would start at a higher point at the beginning but with a slow rising curve, whereas cd transports would start at a lower point and have a faster rising curve. where it intersects in terms of $$ is anyone's guess.. this mark is constantly moving due to the fast pace of evolution in PC music.

2010 seemed to be the year of async usb (i know, doesn't seem to help you guys who already using rme aes32 and weiss af1). i am hoping that 2011 will be the age of new interfaces, streamers or 'audiophile PCs' to solve the core fundamental issues..