Challenging hiend cd player/transport result

[PeterSt]

I am sorry. I just think we are running in circles, and as soon you start to suggest that it is impossible to achieve the latency you're after -while others just have that- it all ends.

I mean well though, just as you. But there's no end. Maybe later.

Peter

[Windows X]

That's all right as long as you understand. It's possible to archive 1 sample design from software algorithm but in hardware level will not work like we expected. You can find good reference from here.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163996.aspx

If software can run below 0.5ms, we would have seen 0.5 0.01 and so on by now but no. Software just can't be there. You mistook coding 1 samples to work in 0.5ms application latency (or higher) with 1ms hardware manner. It's not real below 1ms as long as hardware buffer couldn't go below that. It may has less delay, less induced jitter and less total harmonic distortions but it doesn't expand dynamics,harmonics and bandwidth of the sound which is still far from hiend CD transport.

Luckily, most system couldn't fully utilize what hiend CD transport can give and most systems couldn't handle the amount of information to the point where computer even sound better or more pleasant in some systems. Some can manage to trim down bandwidth from preamp, interconnects, room acoustics or speaker placements to make sound in control. My system is also ones among these lines that CD couldn't outshine music server completely.

[juanpmar]

I´ve never felt comfortable talking about $$$ versus SQ, and I feel a little ashamed doing it but I think that I must add my humble part:
 
My system just have three components: The Cd player, a pair of monoblocks and the speakers. $$$ is around $135.000. The parts are:

-Cd Player: EMM Labs CDSD SE transport and DCC2 SE dac. ($25.000)
-Amplifier: A pair of Spectron monoblocks with V-Cap capacitors and Bybee Purifiers ($10.000)
-Speakers: Von Schweikert VR-9SE ($90.000)
 
The system is as optimized as possible and the room is also acoustically prepared. I have to say that the sound is fantastic.
 
On the PC side, I use a Sony laptop connected to the EMM Labs dac through a 4 mt. USB cable ($20) to a Musiland adapter ($60) and a Wireworld glass optical digital cable ($160).
 
XXHighEnd is in Ramdisk and you can see my configuration below.
 
Well, what I can say is that even with such a poor PC configuration the sound is "better" than using the EMM Labs transport. I wont talk about latency or jitter because besides I don´t understand enough about it I don´t care either.
 
Of course "better" or "worse" are always subjective but I can a see some pseudo objective parameters using my PC as transport that I´d like to point out:

- The sound is fuller, and not because of more accurate bass and upper bass but also because there is more body in the music.
- There are more details. At the beginning could appear that the sound is someway thicker but after a couple of minutes you can distinguish perfectly more details in the music envelope.
- The sound stage is bigger in all the dimensions, high, wide and deep.
- The musicians in the sound stage are much better placed and defined in a more three-dimensional way.
- The highs are more extended with a natural smoothness.
- The deeper bass is tight although in this case I have to say that so far the PC transport it´s not  better than the EMM Labs transport.

In resume: The music is more emotional  and get me much more involved with the PC and XXHighEnd as transport than with the EMM Labs. That´s at the end what I´m looking for as a music lover.

A final word: If I can get this kind of music with such a humble PC parts I can easily think that could be better with a more consistent PC configuration. This is why I´m on the Peter´s waiting list for the Phasure NOS1 dac.

Happy Christmas to all.

[Windows X]

I´ve never felt comfortable talking about $$$ versus SQ, and I feel a little ashamed doing it but I think that I must add my humble part:
 
My system just have three components: The Cd player, a pair of monoblocks and the speakers. $$$ is around $135.000. The parts are:

-Cd Player: EMM Labs CDSD SE transport and DCC2 SE dac. ($25.000)
-Amplifier: A pair of Spectron monoblocks with V-Cap capacitors and Bybee Purifiers ($10.000)
-Speakers: Von Schweikert VR-9SE ($90.000)
 
The system is as optimized as possible and the room is also acoustically prepared. I have to say that the sound is fantastic.
 
On the PC side, I use a Sony laptop connected to the EMM Labs dac through a 4 mt. USB cable ($20) to a Musiland adapter ($60) and a Wireworld glass optical digital cable ($160).
 
XXHighEnd is in Ramdisk and you can see my configuration below.
 
Well, what I can say is that even with such a poor PC configuration the sound is "better" than using the EMM Labs transport. I wont talk about latency or jitter because besides I don´t understand enough about it I don´t care either.
 
Of course "better" or "worse" are always subjective but I can a see some pseudo objective parameters using my PC as transport that I´d like to point out:

- The sound is fuller, and not because of more accurate bass and upper bass but also because there is more body in the music.
- There are more details. At the beginning could appear that the sound is someway thicker but after a couple of minutes you can distinguish perfectly more details in the music envelope.
- The sound stage is bigger in all the dimensions, high, wide and deep.
- The musicians in the sound stage are much better placed and defined in a more three-dimensional way.
- The highs are more extended with a natural smoothness.
- The deeper bass is tight although in this case I have to say that so far the PC transport it´s not  better than the EMM Labs transport.

In resume: The music is more emotional  and get me much more involved with the PC and XXHighEnd as transport than with the EMM Labs. That´s at the end what I´m looking for as a music lover.

A final word: If I can get this kind of music with such a humble PC parts I can easily think that could be better with a more consistent PC configuration. This is why I´m on the Peter´s waiting list for the Phasure NOS1 dac.

Happy Christmas to all.

I don't like throwing money as subject too but explanation is a waste without actual experiences like how I see my past self being on mid way from hiend audiophile delusion to hiend sound reproduction. I used to have debate with tons of dealer about computer audio being hiend and got shallow-minded responses. Up to some points, good parts comes at good price and setting things right comes with great effort so it all comes to money to make better sound and we must prove that amount of money we shall spend will worth it. If we can't use $$$ analogy then please bear with I'm going to say then. This will happen when $$$ gives what we can't expect and it's a scam like you got pwned right now.

For example, you failed at being reference system from using something like bybee in your equipments. It absorbed harmonics and dynamics to great degree for silky and smoothy sound that many people believe it was audiophile with something like quantum blablabla.....burrr. I even made better stuff than bybee and made better result than it but I ended up not using both because it's lame trick and reduce fidelity of sound quality. Plus, you use bybee to absorb harmonics and compress dynamics for leaner sound and use VCap to boost details and more midrange? I can completely understand why cr*ppy PC with something like musiland USB can sound better than CD transport like Emm Labs SACD SE. It's like a fight in lightweight match between people who's suited for lightweight and people who's suited for heavyweight.

 I'd like to note certain parts that caused delusional sound and very misleading from sound reproduction but that wouldn't be in the the topic but bashing equipments. Also. Emm Labs I reference to is good transport from SACD SE is quite great and signficantly better than some models about the same price. If I have configuration like you, I wouldn't be surprised to see mine being better than most CD transport because there're only handful people who can set hiend cd transport to work out right in the system. You need very wide bandwidth equipments and avoid all dynamic and harmonic compression accessories to hear the most out of harmonics and inner details that transport can give.

But seriously, if I never have heard about < 1ppm masterclock configuration with quite OK configuration that can make transport works as it should be, I wouldn't be able to hear harmonics and inner details to great degree why transport really matters. Sadly, Emm labs DAC forbid word clock input. Well, real better equipments are harder to play with though. If $300 computer transport is better in your system, maybe you should find media player and use its digital output. It may sound very close to your reference computer transport and can play movies too.

I'm not saying you should change your way of listening since it's your money so it's your own right to pay for what you're happy for. I've been trying to avoid complain people systems since they bought it and they should be happy with it without my concern but proper reason is flaws in system so I can't avoid it without $$$ analogy. If that's too offensive then you have my apology but that configuration shouldn't be qualified as reference system. I heard tons of $50-100k systems and none come close to my recent $100k reference system. Setting things right in this may even out shine some systems cost 2-3 times more in general.

[Suteetat]

Window X, please be a bit careful. Esoteric even with Rubidium master clock, while considered one of the best digital front end is by no mean, the only reference or absolute best (there is no such thing). Other people find dCS with inferior clock (according to Esoteric dealer), EMM XDS1 (with no master clock), MSB, and a handful of other digital front end superior. Much will depend on personal preference as well. Esoteric has its own house sound that some like a lot and that other prefer other. Same goes for Rockports, Karan, Spectral, etc etc. The gap that you hear as significant between computer and CD transport is there but is it neccessarily the deal breaker for everybody? Wilson Maxx3 does something better than Rockport that we heard the other day but I would not presume that just because I like Maxx3 better, it automatically means that Wilson is absolutely better than Rockport in every way.

I heard what you and Esoteric dealer tried to point out as deficit for computer music server. Unfortunately, I dont hear that as big a deal and I heard other quality in music server that I prefer over CD but you and Esoteric dealer does not seem to hear or care. Does that mean that I have no clue because I don't appreciate what you hear as much? I will not impose my exposure to live acoustic instrument and say that I hear the real thing everyday so I really know  what is best or accurate music reproduction kind of argument (even though it happens to be true) because I don't think it will serve anything much nor should I try to tell you how to listen to your own music system.

Your knowledge is very impressive but when you start imposing your own reference/standard/taste/perception as the absolute and try to forcibily shove it down everybody's throat, that is not going to create a friendly and productive discussion.

I think you have a lot to contribute but your way of delivering the message is rather counter productive. If you approach the discussion in a different way, I really think that we could get something going in a very useful way here.

[Windows X]

Thank you for your kind suggestions. It appears I'm leaving wrong impressions again. As I said that preferences in sound and potentials of sound quality is difference story. Like Emm labs transport having wider bandwidth than all DCS models doesn't mean Emm labs sounds better than DCS. I'm talking about parts where computer audio can't be better than hiend CD transport which are height of dynamics and width of harmonics. I'm not talking about overall sound quality. It depends on people's skills how to utilize its potentials to reach good sound quality. I also know where are Esoteric/Rockport weak points but that doesn't mean being weak at something will make it sounds inferior. If you read carefully, I didn't frame any products being bad ones at all. I may frame the whole system but that's for the sake of pointing out why that system can play CD transport and music server to the same stage and I've been trying to avoid it till now.

There're also parts where music server sound better than CD transport like its cleanness and continuous midrange as well but with insufficient harmonics and depth, it could be careless like listening compressed sound. But some systems with compressed dynamics and bandwidth may find CD transport being inferior to music server. Also, I found something rather insufficient in that system too like weak impact and midrange of my preferences but I may like sound that doesn't reach level of real sound though. But there're also people with $300-500k system who doesn't really be bothered by compressed dynamics or harmonics at all too. So it comes down to preferences to pass judgement.

I don't know how music server will sound in system with Wilson MAXX3 but in that system, I heard no one saying music server is better. It's way beyond years to win CD in every aspects. Please keep in mind that sound quality I'm just trying to explain why it sounds better or worse in different systems in direct way. Some statements may sound harsh but that's the reality where most people including me couldn't bring out the best of equipments. Some people might give out honest opinions outside my ears like they don't like how my system sound or my system can't reference anything at all but why bother? I paid for it and I'm enjoying it.

I'm here to find facts not to make friends and I don't believe compromising difference beliefs can bring out anything productive though. If I were to leave some facts here, I need to say there's no one including various dealers Mr. Suteetat showed his music server to actually prefer sound of music server over CD. But compromising still keep us believing it could win some days sooner or later but sorry it won't come that soon or it may not come at all like digital winning analog. Digital may win for most cases but some points of reference system may not have any chance to win.

The important part is we must know why people like hiend dealers prefer CD as reference digital source not music server. Is it because of money or actually sound? If it's sound, we need to findout where music server lacks at and improve it to level it can compete against. But if you guys still keep on going with music server being superior to CD now, how can we improve it? Up to some points you may improve your system along with music server and findout that CD is actually better some days like me too. Like how I'm thinking music server is almost impossible task to win now but people who experienced something with greater effort than me said it maybe not long like I think so he could mean something very important from his experiences. That's also another possibility.

[Klinnilk]

- what do you wanna achieve with this kind of discussion windowsX?

bringing it a little together:

- only reference systems are able to confirm your point of view (100k and above)
- made a test at a dealer where the CD Player won over the PC System, by dynamics and bass reproduction
- a lot of knowledge over Digital music reproduction mixed wild up
- taken only the arguments that increased your point of view, other argument simply ignored
i can go on with this list.

When you go to to experimental physics for example, and you create an experiment, the most important thing is:
does this experiment help me to ealuate the theory  or does it not.

This means i am only allowed changing one simple parameter whe i compare different test setups.
And when i see your test at the dealer and your whole argumentation, sorry , you are lightyears away from serious work.

How do you know that more dynamics (define dynamics), more spacing (more noise?), more bass or less (do you know at which level bass had been recorded, less bass can be more accurate than more bass) are parameters for judging accuracy of reproduction?

I just wanna gentle remind you that the SPDIF specifications that you have to rely on when you build a CD Player
are based on a Digital Standard that is at least 30 years old. And on the cornerpoints of  these specifications no Company can change something.

As i mentioned before, it is impossible getting all the DATA off from a CD with a CD Player, because of the limitations you have in in Time DATA reading.
And again, when you work seriously in science, how will you compare a system that has original DATA and the other has not?
You know that on a CD there are no Audio bits and bytes that contain the Audio Data, there are Digital words and in this words we have Audio DATA, the information of the music track (Time, Track) the information for error recovery and information for the speed of the motor for example. These words have to be read out and the information has to be distributed to the different sections of the CD Player and all this in real time.
Again I respect your listening experience and it is absolute O.K. that your prefer it and everybody here respects it but your argumentation like Peter said leads to nothing.
In Computer based reproduction systems is a potential that is far away from completely understood and it is young to the  30 years i mentioned above. So lets do it positive and constructive to bring it forward to come closer to a real music reproduction.
Best regards
Andreas

[Windows X]

does this experiment help me to ealuate the theory  or does it not.
: It does help with my theory "Can music server actually be better than old-fashioned CD transport?". I know now where the boundaries of music server is. I may not get into the best ones but I'm pretty sure I came pretty close to to by now.

This means i am only allowed changing one simple parameter whe i compare different test setups.
: If you enjoying testing in your room where your so called good CD transport may work at 50% + (-20% for bad harmonic distortion)  while 90% of music server can get better with far less disturbance from harmonic distortion then fine. Don't just stick what we can preceive or prefer to in limited system.

And when i see your test at the dealer and your whole argumentation, sorry , you are lightyears away from serious work.
: And what did you do to frame me this? Sorry, everyone can be good at talking without proving something and I know LOTS of people who only do good at talking like you and be laughed at behind your own back. It's not just testing in one system or two but lots.....LOTS to come down to conclusion that CD transport is still superior source comparing to trendy and DIY music server.

How do you know that more dynamics (define dynamics), more spacing (more noise?), more bass or less (do you know at which level bass had been recorded, less bass can be more accurate than more bass) are parameters for judging accuracy of reproduction?
: There're tons of materials to test. The same song from different medias like file/CD/vinyl version. I doubt if you actually have heard of real reference system to pose such question like this. We're playing in hiend field and yet you ask like we don't know how to deal or measure with something like this? There're tons of expert sound engineers, respected critical listeners and system experts who maintains everything to perform as close as possible to real performance though some of them may leave their own preferences in system.

I just wanna gentle remind you that the SPDIF specifications that you have to rely on when you build a CD Player are based on a Digital Standard that is at least 30 years old.
: I also want to remind you vinyl has been made for 60 years and now top level of studio mastering is going back to analog now. Why not 32/384 or DSD2 for mastering on Pyramix? Or yeah old tech 60 years as pure analog is acceptable to be better than CD but same digital is improving like computer? Go study data communications, computer architecture and operating system courses at least before prejudging something without complete knowledge of how they work at all ranging from entry to hiend level.



The rest I read are all misleading information where I feel too bothered to correct it so here I'm proclaiming again that

1. music server actually didn't sound better than CD in reference highend system. And I didn't test with old-tech SPDIF but AES/EBU digital system.
2. XXHighEnd isn't actually better generic WASAPI when properly optimized. I'm waiting for rematch with Mr. Suteetat if we can improve our system to get better and change the outcome. Though tons of people in here already switching to jplay over xxhighend with some wasapi tweak enhancements (and it's free too).

Also, data and not data? I already explained that CD read bits by scanning from plastic layer with laser for 0101 and storage read stream of wave audio for 0101. They just use different ways of recording. I've been on this projects for 3 years already and I'm honored student from Software and Knowledge Engineering knowing sound engineer and play hiend system well with all these information. So please don't act like I'm don't really know such common term like 30 years CD or old-tech SPDIF specifications. It's annoying.

To sum it short, I understand that it may pain some of you guys here seeing someone telling CD transport is actually better and there's no way to beat it now. Without enough knowledge and experiences, I would be frustrated too. But this is what I found from walking in various dealer shops with my music server and testing, hearing, perceiving and discussions with people in there. They started to open up with me over times as I improve my system to the point I and some shops trying this experiments with me to see if there's chance for CD to lose.

At least it should take about another decade for computer to be as good as CD if someone willing to design a new platform for hiend DAW system. It should be 5 years for fastest approach of new architecture for DAW to work as solid as hiend CD transport and another 5 years for possibility to adapt in audiophile industry. Let's say Mykerinos for example that even I wouldn't dare to buy ones anew with this cr*ppy motherboard without chance to win teflon plating with shortest circuit design and high quality parts ones.

For this argument to lead to something, I need to give out real information for open-minded people here to understand that we need lots of work to do and I'm telling now that music server sounds smaller than highend CD transport but the reason why some found it better because they narrowed down the scale of sound in their system to make it pleasing to ears with less THD breakdown. In highly resolving and revealing system, doing something like this is a taboo and we can't get real result from that method.

So what we should do next? Find a way to improve harmonics of sound reproduction from computer system and lengthen the depth of dynamics to make stage becoming more fuller with scale comparing to hiend CD transport. It may lose for inner-details due to inferior parts and hardware design but it can advance over time.

[Telstar]

But seriously, if I never have heard about < 1ppm masterclock configuration with quite OK configuration that can make transport works as it should be, I wouldn't be able to hear harmonics and inner details to great degree why transport really matters.

I'll say once and for last, since you keep repeating this.
The PPM of an oscillator means only the capacity of keep the same timing over time, that is 1ppm it will take a year (IIRC) before it changes the timing.
It doesnt say A WORD about the jitter, which should be as low as possible, and it is measured in picoseconds (ps).

[Calibrator]

I'm here to find facts not to make friends ....

Well at least you've achieved one out of two of your objectives   

[Windows X]

Telstar, that's quite something to say from believable theory but they don't work like your believing theory at all. I suggest you to try making comparison if clock under 1ppm actually make no difference in any proper system first and then we can discuss this in details. Anyway, do you know that changing BNC cable, putting resonance control items and power conditioning like outlet and powercord in masterclock affacts sound in system?

Calibrator, quit trolling aside, I'm not that lonely enough to resort having to make friends in online community. So it seems none of people like you is brave enough to show up and admit that my XX machine is actually far from claiming hiend transport like the name XXHighEnd. I hope some of you will reconsider and make proper measurements again.

I'm done here as no matter how optimistic I am, I always get sarcastic remarks if I say some facts like inferior to CD which hurt a lot of people here to stand still. But I'm using music server as primary source though. It sounds good enough in my system to take CD transport's place.

[PeterSt]

I'm done here

[manisandher]

WindowsX,

I believe you. In your experience the best CD players outperform the best computer-based music servers that you've heard.

However, you are obviously open to the possibility that the Mykerinos card, that you have not yet heard, may prove to be CD's equal (or better even). Let me ask you to remain open to another contender.

There is an interface just to be released that some of us feel will be a game-changer for music servers. Yes, it's the interface that is included as part of the whole NOS1 package. Until it is released, I won't disclose any details, but it really seems a revolutionary way of interfacing the DAC to the PC. Unfortunately when mine arrives, I won't be able to use the NOS1 interface with my DAC. But I will be able to compare the NOS1 interface/DAC to my current interface/DAC (using either the RME AES-32 or modified Weiss AFI1 as interface, with DAC-as-master in both cases). If the NOS1 interface/DAC is better than my current interface/DAC, then based on my own experience and that of others who use a Mykerinos card with my DAC, I think that the NOS1 would be worthy of putting up against the best CD transports.

Mani.

[Windows X]

Besides Mykerinos, I could hardly think of the rest I haven't tried to be on challenge. You're right that Mykerinos with best possible assemble with ultimate modification may have chance to compete against but thanks to cr*ppy motherboard and lack of generic player compatibilities comments, I'm afraid to give this a try. What if I invest $12k more and end up finding it doesn't work out smooth like I expect it to be anyway?

By giving notion best cd is still better than best computer audio, it doesn't mean computer audio can't be on stage like CD at least most people couldn't really tell if they're inferior in my system for first impressions. NOS1 interface directly from computer is interesting and I would like to give it a shot too but I'm not that hurry so I can wait till it's released and see how it works from screenshots if someone is kind enough to post what's inside.

If you run into people using Mykerinos card, please ask them if it's compatible with common audio player like foobar/j river/xxhighend/hqplayer.

[PeterSt]

Hey !

I'm done here