Challenging hiend cd player/transport result

[Windows X]

I use atom board to make least degrading from motherboard parts. I changed tons of capacitors to reduce noise/ripple/EMI/RFI. I spent $300 making hiend grade linear toroidal power supply with parts better than most $10k equipments use. I use good resonance control aluminium casing. I also treated hardware a lot more seriously in other fields. Do you think this is proper hardware configuration?

[Windows X]

Digging down to technical terms. It's impossible because:

1. Hardware buffer couldn't get lower than 1ms while Esoteric VRDS-Neo 5 and better works hundred times lower
2. Motherboard doesn't use high precision clock to ppm level (Esoteric generally have 5ppm for transport and 3ppm DAC/Player without mentioning its 0.00005ppm external rubidium clock)
3. Internal clock rate can get at best for 50-100ns even with 6 core high spec ones with standard grade clock that works like most common equipments.
4. kernel clock timer resolution can set down to 0.5ms at best which isn't even close to highend CD Transport that can go down that level we can't compete against

But that's for hardware/software architecture point of view. In most listening systems, difference will be degraded by imperfection of system configuration. The difference of 40-60% in design may get trimmed down to 5-10% for listening and some aspects may perceive differently. In higher resolving system may increase the gap of this difference.

[arvind]

Hi WindowX,

I have an EMM Labs CDSD SE & DAC 6e SE (using 2 channels only) & my CA is a Sony laptop connected (via USB) to Empirical Audio, Off Ramp 3 (sound card) & Empirical Audio, Overdrive NOS DAC. Like you, there was a time, I could not believe that CA could be as good as CD, Until I finally got the hang of fine tuning XXHE correctly for my system. Having achieved this, on numerous occasions, I have compared CDT vs XXHE & believe me XXHE sounds much more pleasing. I am also one of those who is fanatical about sound quality & will not listen to anything which is inferior, even if it is more convenient. In your case you probably need to fine tune XXHE. I am not a technical expert so I cant give you any opinion or explanation on why XXHE is better than CDT, but I do know when I hear better SQ.

Arvind

[Windows X]

To be honest, I could say my CA is almost as good as my Esoteric P-05. As I stated that difference between CA and CD transport depends on system configuration, it wouldn't be surprised if most of you guys here including me use CA instead of CD Transport. But in wider bandwidth, more resolving and revealing system will increase the difference to point where CD and SACD sounds like different system.

Also, please add this note in your consideration that "more pleasing sound in my system doesn't necessary mean it has better sound quality". It may sound easier to my ears with my configuration but doesn't mean I fully utilize both transports to over 95% overall performance. CA may attain 95% while CD get only 60% or so.

Unless we're dead serious on using ultra high fidelity system, CA may not sound that bad for pleasure listening if properly optimized but not everyone can accept that CA wins over in every way.

[arvind]

Also, please add this note in your consideration that "more pleasing sound in my system doesn't necessary mean it has better sound quality".

I DO mean better sound quality in comparison to my cdt/dac front end, with the amps/speakers being common factor in both.

Arvind

[phantomax]

This is a very interesting question from a theoretical point of view. But it seems to me like a byzantine argument. Like Gods talking about their issues.
Let´s go dawn to earth and focus on the ugly main problem: MONEY.
My experience with hifi over the years is that you pay more and more money for less and less difference. And this at best ( so may times dissapointed ). Of course, even when my system sounded OK.,  I always knew that out there were better sounding systems (most of them). But I knew also that I did not have the possibility to get them.
And then came Peter with the XXHighend (sounds biblical). And this broke the rules (Commandments): with a ridiculous investment you got and unbelievable improvement.
Furthermore, if you have not a wealthy budget to get a super high end DAC, you have many options avalaible. This is my case and I had to build my own DAC and my system never sounded so good by far. Of course you always are looking for improvements but not at that prices please. That is why I am so grateful to Peter (and all of you guys for those ideas in the forum).
Probably I am off topic but I felt the need to say it.

Max

[PeterSt]

kernel clock timer resolution can set down to 0.5ms at best which isn't even close to highend CD Transport that can go down that level we can't compete against

People in here will know that we all don't like copying other's words and shout it is the truth. You are just doing that here. Stop it. Stop it, unless you really know what you are talking about, which I'm afraid will not happen ever. Not with this attitude.

If people say something, we trust that. Only then we can proceed. In other words, how can we proceed with near 100% rubbish coming from your hand. And it *is* rubbish because I know what I'm talking about, and it is 180 degrees different from what you heard elsewhere yesterday and try to use to your "benefit" (). All your theories make no sense at all, and the only thing you may be right in is your better sounding CDP system against the PC transport. And if you continue like this, it will ever be so, virtually striving for the better in the mean time.

Like this all started (CA), you have in your mind that low latency is for the better. I agree. We all might agree. The foolish part on your side though, is that you are deaf or without memory, because now suddenly your newly heard 0.5ms does some anti-trick.
Also, you were told sufficiently enough (by me) not to use a Weiss product for your low latency objective, and *thus* you do just that. Deaf ? no memory ? ignorant somehow ? maybe you think I wouldn't notice ?

Over at CA I explained to you (with math) how low latency is or can be. You actually asked for that, but never responded and kept trolling anyway; You *know* that people can achieve 1 sample of latency, and might you have read it yesterday, I can do it myself now ( 32/352.8 ). You *know* it, but you found some argument (the 0.5ms) "prooving" we ly. In the mean time you have one - and only one argument against all only : you can't achieve it yourself most probably because you don't know where to start. Again, using that Weiss is the very first wrong base, and you knew it.

Let me add this, before things come over wrongly to others :

There is no way anyone, including me, including Suteetat, can ever jump into a random room with some (or all) of his gear, and make something out of it. You may have read about my own experience 2 weeks back. Same gear, total failure - and 4 hours of preparation. The only "advantage" I had, is that some of the attendees know the sound from my room, and/or know the sound of my partner there in his room. So, they knew things were completely wrong and completely unintended. This is not much different from Suteetat swinging with his albums of which he knew they could show something (which doesn't show everywhere), not getting the chance anyway. At that show similar happened; the system doesn't perform anyway, and next some guy with an USB stick wants to listen to "a track" which is a 10 minute stupid violin which wouldn't sound in that room anyway - and which we knew. 10 minutes !

So, to be clear about what I want to say with this : such a "failure" tells nothing. Just nothing at all. Similarly I'm not saying that the Weiss shouldn't have been used because remember, it is you hunting for low latency, and I can't tell how things turn out back at Suteetat's home. Also you know that I don't use the ultra low latency stuff myself.
In the very end I really like that you two took the challenge of comparing, but that Suteetat was the underdog, the guy in the showroom being prepared for a long time. FWIW, I also like the whole "project" itself, were this be about PC transports against the best CD transports. So, nothing wrong with that really, but keep in mind the stupidity of one person shouting outloud it can't be done, in the mean time suggesting that our systems are not $$ enough to know, or that we may be deaf otherwise (the latter you never said, but should be a conclusion, because the $$$ systems are all over the place (I know)).

So, please continue the subject and project, but please try to stay out of theories you don't know much about.
Lastly, you may be right on it all. But that isn't going to happen as long as you use OS DACs to compare (about SQ that is, against some pleasing sound).

Peter

[Eric]

Hello Peter,
yesterday you kindly shared your to-do list with us on the forum. Looks like all the items on the list do serve a purpose. And setting the right priorities seems to be the challenge. Now I am getting curious what your intention is spending so much of your precious time and attention on your response above.
P.S. No need to reply, just an observation.

Cheers,
Eric

[Marcin_gps]

Peter, Windows X referred to system timer interval, when he wrote 0.5ms, it's not playback latency and it matters a lot. I hear the difference immediately in my system and I'm sure that OS is currently the biggest limitation when it comes to PC audio.

Regarding recording vs. playback, correct me if I'm wrong but there's no jitter involved when it comes to recording, while there's plenty during playback. What is it if not jitter that makes different pc-audio systems perform better or worse? Assuming that they're all bit-perfect. And I mean PC -> S/PDIF (AES) -> DAC route only (power supply stuff aside)

[PeterSt]

Hi Marcin,

Peter, Windows X referred to system timer interval, when he wrote 0.5ms, it's not playback latency and it matters a lot.

You are correct on this. I mean the "it matters". But *I* am not relating this to latency, while Windows X does. And this is the whole point.

So, that the timer again influences is just another matter, and -as usual- a great finding (from you ).
But once this is out, it is ridiculous to immediately use that as an argument ("way too high") by someone who doesn't have a single clue about the (real) impact.

And FYI (and confusement otherwise), while this (better timer resolution) may help me with my 1 sample stuff as I can have it now, it really is not. It is something else I applied, in fact some weeks back already (about the "mutual exclusive" thing; you will remember). I only didn't try since then, did yesterday because I thought the ms thing might help, after which I realized it really was something else. Also FYI : with KS this *can't* help, because no timers are involved in the first place ... which is exactly why it is latency unrelated.

That is matters for SQ is quite another thing. Think about the driver ...

[Windows X]

If you can write app to count times with clock rate better than 2000hz (0.5ms), let me know. For me, action comes before theory. And if something goes wrong from action, I must be able to use theory with knowledge to reach acceptable conclusion, not delusion

[Windows X]

Also, please add this note in your consideration that "more pleasing sound in my system doesn't necessary mean it has better sound quality".

I DO mean better sound quality in comparison to my cdt/dac front end, with the amps/speakers being common factor in both.

Arvind

My music server may sound better than emm labs sacd se/dcs puccani and esoteric x-03 transport in other room doesn't mean its sound quality is better. Are you sure your system can fully utilize your cd transport with enough system bandwidth to tell the difference?

[Windows X]

I also need to add that there're only handful of real reference system in this world. Less than 10 in my country and may not even 1000 worldwide. But for average consumer level, it can easily get in for most systems.

And peter, before you boast about 1 sample, make aure you know kernel resolution timer how can you archive 1 sample while Windows system can fetch only 2 instructions per ms at best?

Do I have to reveal everything I know to you to go try making better xxhighend and sell to us? Sorry bur I don't like to share it with this attitude.

[PeterSt]

Sorry bur I don't like to share it with this attitude.

Haha, I can understand that allright. But then :

And peter, before you boast about 1 sample, make aure you know kernel resolution timer how can you archive 1 sample while Windows system can fetch only 2 instructions per ms at best?

... as I said, you don't have a clue. And besides you imply I'm a lyar.

Now tell me, who starts the "attitude" ?

[Windows X]

Of course, you with all theory analogy talk and im sick of it. I wouldn't try to find acceptable explanation why cd is still superior if I actually heard ones being superior to CD.

Today I made another attempt between mine and Esoteric K-01 with its Rubidium clock. Rubidium clock made my music server sound pretty impressice to point that none could tell it's not from CD but doesn't sound close to decent ones. At least Emm labs sacd se still performs better in reference system as people who used to auditon it can clearly point why they're inferior. They even treated mine like car audio system for comparing to super high end reference level lol. But K-01 is like giants and wolf thingy.

I understand money plays significant role in investment but stating computer can out class all CD isn't what I can get right now. How do hiend audio store treat your project? Did they praise your machine or point out right where it went wrong?

If you care enough to check my statements, I never make fun of people's opinions and state out right to point I found as truly honest and ignorant ones.