Challenging hiend cd player/transport result

[Flecko]

A pc that is optimised for audio, can not be a pc anymore. It has to be a unit that like chrisnee said, is stripped of everything. Everything that induces rf noise to the circuits. And striped of software, that makes the performance inferrior like windows or every OS that is meant to do a lot of different stuff. It needs speciallized circiuts to do the audio processing at best. Non the less, the pc is still a very inexpensive approach to get good quality sound. Windows x said he could not outperform his CDP and I realy beleave him. Maybe his system can be made better but I know from listening sessions with CDT's that it is not easy to beat even a moderate priced CDT. For example my old usb interface(hoerwege usb-spdif) sounds better than a 12 year old Pioneer PDS06. And that is possible since the newest and best xx configuration. A better CDP, the modified (10 years old) Pioneer PDS707 can keep it up with my hiface and maybe sounds better in some aspects. It is a good drive but there are a lot drives that are much better. I would not bet money, if there was a head to head comparison between best CDP+DAC and best PC+DAC. The classical CDP has the big advantage, not beeing a computer. And I think it should be possible for a good CDP to read the CD accurate, when my CD-ROM can do that with 7Xspeed. Goining back to CDP is no real option because there are so much more possibilities (hires, downloads,...) you have with the "pure" digital playback. Peters NOS1 might be the first approach that has the techniques to outperform any CDP. A comparison would be really illuminating.

[Quest]

i have been keeping tabs of PCs like auraliti, the bryston bdp-1 (based on it), sonore, modded mac mini, etc..

Quest,

The problem with Bryston Bpd-1 for instance, it's over $2000. At the same time mid-fi companies are able to incorporate usb disk drive playback in Avr receivers and cd players that cost less then $500, and the usb playback is only an after thought. Have you listened to any of them? I haven't so I can't say anything about the sound quality. But it can't be awful. Some can even play flac and other better formats. So how are they producing it so inexpensively without using a pc?

Chris

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 have been keeping tabs of PCs like auraliti, the bryston bdp-1 (based on it), sonore, modded mac mini, etc..

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.

I think you guys are missing my point and question. I'm not interested in the myriad features of an AVR or the cd playing of a CDP. What I am interested in is how the companies that make them can add on software/hardware at almost no expense (I would think that 95% or more of their money goes into the main features of an AVR or CDP) that decodes mp3, flac, wav, wma from an usb or esata attached hard drive and outputs it via spdif and optical.

And my further point is why is no one developing such an obviously inexpensive concept, as a stand alone device. I'm not looking for anything but a digital file player--no moving parts, no dac, only a spdif out and a video out to view the player/file management. Think Ipod with a video out instead of screen, an external esata disk instead of internal disk, no headphone out just the spdif, no controls except on/off and add a remote for the file management software (like the Ipod's controls for instance) and good psu and enlarge into black box. Viola. Very inexpensive (less than $300 and less than $150 with a wallwart psu) and should sound at least as good as say the Ipod through an Idecco (assuming a good stand alone dac).

Chris

[PeterSt]

no dac, only a spdif out

Maybe I overlook something, but it would be a strange kind of "explicit" excercition for such a developer / manufacturer;
Without "DAC" there would be no control over anything. Of course this is not really about the DAC as such, but what would logically be in there in order to control the stream. A clock ? yes, but acting as a reclocker because what goes in ? should be some audio stream, no matter it comes from an USB stick or anything. "Or anything" ? SPDIF again ? asynchronous ethernet ? (quite some more possibilities here). Well, that just all exists.

Let's put it differently ... what would that $500 (or less) DVDP lack regarding this ?
I think the latest DVDP I ever bought was a $100 thingy - including Ethernet connection. It nicely passes through SPDIF.

So, there *must* be more to it (to what you want, that is).
One could also say that SPDIF is not "it" of course ... and that I was only responding to your remark about *that*.

Generally let's not forget that the "cheap hardware" (if that would ever exist - with fine quality at the same time) will need drivers (for the device you see), or otherwise will need software (and a GUI etc.) to control it by means of some decent fashion. All adds up fast !
And oh, leave that all out and you'd have a CDP again. Or maybe a box which can play a preloaded pen only ... (btw, these exist too by now).

Peter

[crisnee]

Peter,

I don't get DVDP. Why this?

Just imagine in your head a stripped down Ipod--NO MOVING PARTS. Instead of the mini screen you have a video out to your tv or monitor. You can leave the little dac in it if you want but you use the Ipod's digital out. The point is to use it with a better dac as for instance the dac in the Idecco (which is supposedly very good) and to access an external Hard drive instead of its internal. All the software and hardware is already there, it's just accessing internal mini components instead of the external regular size hardware I'm suggesting. And it does all this without a formal pc or Mac and no internal moving parts.

No wonder no one is building this, no one understands what the hell I'm talking about.   

Chris

[PeterSt]

I don't get DVDP. Why this?

Possibly *I* don't understand Chris. But I thought that does everything you actually ask for, though in a large format. And my messages intended to be : you'd have nothing for good sound. It just takes more for getting that. And then the "infrastructure" doesn't match. Well, sort of.

But let's say I don't get it at this moment.
Maybe look at all those devices actually doing what you want ... they won't even let through hires. That's "interface" stuff. And before you know it is will have a price similar to what I calculated yesterday (for something which would do what you want in a too large box).

??

[Flecko]

Just imagine in your head a stripped down Ipod--NO MOVING PARTS. Instead of the mini screen you have a video out to your tv or monitor. You can leave the little dac in it if you want but you use the Ipod's digital out. The point is to use it with a better dac as for instance the dac in the Idecco (which is supposedly very good) and to access an external Hard drive instead of its internal. All the software and hardware is already there, it's just accessing internal mini components instead of the external regular size hardware I'm suggesting. And it does all this without a formal pc or Mac and no internal moving parts.

I think the point is, it is not that simple. You need at first hardware that doesn't mess up the sound. Then you need an interface, software to control the unit and all that in an audiophile quality. No easy task, if you ask me. Linn majik might be close to what you are looking for but the price...and you get no good quality hardware. What you (we) want, can be done but it wont be cheap. You need people that know it all, from the software to hardware and with listening experience (if you want top quality).

[Quest]

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.

[crisnee]

Alright Everybody of late, one more time.

There truly is some kind of misunderstanding going on here. So let me be very specific and maybe we can come to an understanding.

1. To start with, I don't care if I'm right or wrong, I just want to be sure we've communicated and that what I'm envisioning is either possible or not possible. So far I feel we've spoken on different wave lengths, so that criterian has not been met.

2. My point here is not to create the best ever player that competes with $50,000 players. What I'm really asking is "Should we be starting with a pc or Mac, a product that certainly wasn't made for sound, and then strip it, rebuild it, try to understand it, try to clean up its inherent noise and myriad weaknesses, hope Microsoft comes up with a more Audio friendly OS etc. forever. It doesn't seem to make sense. Everyone's argument with me is --don't start with an AVR or an Ipod-- well at least they were made with audio in mind as their primary goal. By the way they were just examples to help readers to imagine what I'm getting at--that obviously didn't work. The point was that both of those include a little computer that is optimized for audio.

3. What do I envision? An inexpensive player (less $ than a computer with XX and usb -spdif converter) that can be connected to components that are already part of ones audio setup--like a dac. Think minimalist player, like Jplay, well maybe not quite that spartan.

(Can we agree that the new Oppo 93 is considered a pretty high quality player, especially where it comes to it's digital outs, definitely better than the Squeezebox). This is not a cheap stuff it with features kind of company. This player sells for $499. Less than a pc and already has a better functioning and sounding digital file playback system than any standard pc. And it was built with high quality audio in mind--that is key!

4. Now, take that Oppo and in your mind strip away all the non-computer parts, the disk playing apparatus and all the fancy video processors, the audio dac. Strip away streaming. Leave their excellent digital outs, the 2 GB of memory, their software which allows for wav, flac, mp3 etc. playback from external usb and esata drives, and rudimentary interface software who's images are ported to a tv. Redesign their remote, shrink the enclosure. 

5. Now what remains is a pretty good audio computer with a proprietary operating system of some sort. Why shouldn't someone start here instead of from a random Dell or Hp. Everything else is already better than a pc, after all it was built for sound. Just the software may need some tweaking.

6. Now the above was just for imagining. Why not build that imagining from the ground up? It seems so simple--not for me of course, but for any company that is already involved in audio players. Or maybe a couple of diyers could give it a go, or even Peter and Josef, both minimalists, both software guys, and Peter at least a some hardware guy too.

Chris

[Quest]

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.

[crisnee]

Quest, I don't know the Linn or PS Audio bridge. I do own the Squeezebox 3 which is a fine little thing for what it is. But all this stuff is too complex. Even the Squeezebox. I almost never use it because it's a streamer and has to access a hard drive via a network. I prefer to avoid all unnecessary complications particularly when it comes to network stuff. I think all the equipment you mention is relatively complex and therefore unnecessarily expensive compared to what I'm thinking.

You could think of "my," idea as very similar to a cd player, the difference, it gets its files from an external hard drive instead of a disc. That's what I haven't seen, everything available is either a network/streamer type, or a whole system with built in drives, proprietary of course (the Olive and other more expensive pieces), or portable music player like the Ipod.

The Ipod is really the closest to what I'm suggesting because of its digital out, however it's obviously limited in other areas and too proprietary. I mentioned the IDecco previously. That company has taken advantage of the Ipod's digital out. For those who don't know what the Idecco is: It's a very nice "digital" Ipod ready integrated amp which includes the now hot Saber Dac. It sells for $1000 sans Ipod. It's gotten rave reviews from the audiophile community as has their normal integrated for high quality at a very reasonable price. Here's a quote from Peachtree Audio the Idecco producer: "Not so with the iDecco. We use the “Pure Digital” 1’s & 0’s from your iPod directly into our Super DAC with 11 regulated power supplies, so for the first time your iPod can really perform like a high-end CD player." So if a 32 GB Ipod can be sold for under $300 and can sound like a high-end Cd player, a much more complex player than what I'm suggesting then... Why start with a pc?

Open source development should be do-able, particularly where it concerns such a straight forward and simple concept. But either no one has thought of this, or it doesn't interest anyone. I don't get. I guess it's just too simple.

Chris


 

[PeterSt]

Hi Chris,

It may be just that technical thing why you are (or may be) confused about the possibilities.

As repeated, what you want exists, but you think it is too large, complex and/or expensive (or maybe don't know partiular ones, but looking at the price may tell you enough);

As far as I can think about it, it is the "lacking" environment which will make it expensive, or uncontrollable (for the pilot) otherwise. For example, your idea about "just reading from disk" (without network, server, PC, etc. ?) ... how to do that ? Where is the software enabling that ? And ehm, maybe you didn't see it, but your TY is running on Linux, the washing machine is, the micro wave, your amplifier ... This has a reason.
Without this, there is nothing much to do, *or* write software that can read from e.g. a disk without further help. Doable. Next there's the selection (control). I know, it can be simple. But all what is provided by Squeezebox stuff already it too simple to my likings. Uhoh. So, doable ? maybe not.
I know you said that it could be very simple, so no MP3 etc. But maybe FLAC ? Hmm ... not all that much doable.

Anyway, that is why I said the environment isn't right. There are no tools, maybe chips, much programming to do in an environment without real memory, no OS so ALL has to be done, and while you'd dedicate something like this to me, I wouldn't know where to start really, if that indeed would be without an OS.

For further backround ... Things may not be as they seem. And, to let you know that people like me *are* thinking about this :
5 or 6 years back I got involved in the development of the first DAC which we now call asynchronous USB. Yes, the first, and you will not know it. It was based on the exact same principe you want, but the choice was made to let it use the OS to provide the disk data. Great choice, because it only needed a proprietary driver and all was done. It worked (and still works btw). It's even NOS.
Now who could have thought that even that matters, as do all today's asynchronous means. And what is the difference ? Or what MAKES the difference.
As you will also know, I started out with the "NOS1" to explicitly eliminate any difference. In fact it would eliminate XXHighEnd, right ? I did all I could, all was completely under my control, but up to today the differences remain, and I didn't even see them decrease.

Now tell me ... what makes you (or anyone) think that without something like an OS behind it (think asynchronous if you want) would suddenly eliminate those differences ? Wy actually sound CDPs different in the first place ? what actually does it take to get to that Walhalla which perveiveably can only be reached by means of that little box ? Personally I don't see that, although there indeed are some "means" which will contribute for the better. But further ? further I think it is the other way around. I think it is better to have some tweaks possible, which otherwise certainly would not be there at all.
In the end I know what it takes to get something like the NOS1 performing like it does, and I don't see any relation to its environment. Still though -and sadly- its environment influences. I also know how, but I would not know how to eliminate it. Yes, this all sounds way contradictionary, and I guess it is. But all this stuff -in the end- operates SO much at the micro level - while at the same time it is so hard to test and check and improve - that it may take a while before it's under our control. But also : it may well be that nobody recognizes what really is going on and what to look for. I mean, if you only look at the enormeous difference for the resulting wave for OS and NOS - while the WHOLE world develops around OS (what did you say ? Sabre ?) it must be clear that we are way way way (WAY) far from anything that is optimal. Or if you look at my plots in the other topic. I listened to that too for quite some years, but it is the most obvious how "wrong" it is. Still not all *that* audible. But so much is wrong, and so much the smallest micro details matter.

I think it needs time. But it also needs the industry to get another attitude. Today almost without exception everybody is "copying" asnync USB. Why ? because a few years back nobody could reason that it would be no good afterall. So, everybody is wrong AGAIN. It just doesn't help, and the approach is wrong.

But before this is all blahblah only ... I started with this all very explicitly (meaning like : XX was no accident and the first to "influence" this all ... the NOS1 was born to do something about it (but failed)), and I guess I am long from ready. There will be more ...

Peter

PS: Sorry for typos; didn't read back.

[pedal]

Thanks for another great read, Peter. I love it when someone with (enough) knowledge puts things in perspective. It's quite funny/sad that the Hi-Fi industry majority is running down that USB alley, without knowing it's a dead end.

BTW: Why not licence your technology to Linn or some US company, enabling them to incorporate XX and your NOS DAC in a one-box music media server? I guess it all can fit on a pre-programed Sharc chip, providing State Of The Art SQ in an easy to use box. (Just a thought).

[Quest]

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.

Quest, I don't know the Linn or PS Audio bridge. I do own the Squeezebox 3 which is a fine little thing for what it is. But all this stuff is too complex. Even the Squeezebox. I almost never use it because it's a streamer and has to access a hard drive via a network. I prefer to avoid all unnecessary complications particularly when it comes to network stuff. I think all the equipment you mention is relatively complex and therefore unnecessarily expensive compared to what I'm thinking.

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.

You could think of "my," idea as very similar to a cd player, the difference, it gets its files from an external hard drive instead of a disc. That's what I haven't seen, everything available is either a network/streamer type, or a whole system with built in drives, proprietary of course (the Olive and other more expensive pieces), or portable music player like the Ipod.

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.

The Ipod is really the closest to what I'm suggesting because of its digital out, however it's obviously limited in other areas and too proprietary. I mentioned the IDecco previously. That company has taken advantage of the Ipod's digital out. For those who don't know what the Idecco is: It's a very nice "digital" Ipod ready integrated amp which includes the now hot Saber Dac. It sells for $1000 sans Ipod. It's gotten rave reviews from the audiophile community as has their normal integrated for high quality at a very reasonable price. Here's a quote from Peachtree Audio the Idecco producer: "Not so with the iDecco. We use the “Pure Digital” 1’s & 0’s from your iPod directly into our Super DAC with 11 regulated power supplies, so for the first time your iPod can really perform like a high-end CD player." So if a 32 GB Ipod can be sold for under $300 and can sound like a high-end Cd player, a much more complex player than what I'm suggesting then... Why start with a pc?

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.

Open source development should be do-able, particularly where it concerns such a straight forward and simple concept. But either no one has thought of this, or it doesn't interest anyone. I don't get. I guess it's just too simple.

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

[crisnee]

Peter, Quest, etc.

I do think we understand each other to a degree. However I think my original reason for posting either wasn't clear or has just been forgotten. I do see much of what you are saying, and don't think I ever disagreed with it (at least in my mind).

My original objective was either to find a simple digital file player (files from a hard-drive) with just a digital out (for sound) and video out (for visible file management), (no dac initially, just simple and inexpensive) or to suggest someone build one. It could the take place of the ubiquitous cd player and become the new ubiquitous player. It need not be perfect. It would probably be tweaked along it's way to higher ends as was the cd player.

Peter, I realize a player of this type would need an os of a sort, as does every mp3 player (When I mentioned the problem of dealing with os's, I was referring to Windows or Linux, basically jack of all trade os's (which is probably part of the problem). But wouldn't starting with a simple os such as found in high quality portable players with digital outs (Cowon, Hifiman, Ipod) be much easier to deal with, than with a pc, it's os and environment? I'm not saying that you would be able to (I don't know enough about this type of thing or you), but I mean in principle.

Quest, As to the Ipod/Idecco, I read several private user comments and they basically said the once sometime fatiguing nature of the Ipod's sound was now gone. As to the Squeezebox, I think the same still holds, although I'm not sure. I know that lot's of devices can play music from hard drives. The problem, it's not their only or most important function, not their raison d'etre.

Cd players were pretty much a one function component initially, and at least in part because they were simple, they evolved over time into better  devices. It's just curious to me that someone hasn't done the same by producing an Hd player or licensed their technology to do so. Someone like Apple, or Cowon or Hifiman (a couple of "highish end" portable players).  I understand why the specialty high-end producers like Bryston haven't, it would undermine their more esoteric products.

Peter, I'm sorry to say that I didn't understand quite a few parts of your post; I wish I had as they seemed to be telling interesting things about your start with your audio/XX projects. Most forum members seem to have no trouble understanding you. Perhaps non-native English speakers understand each other better than native/non-native combinations--or maybe I'm just too literal, but whatever the case I sure have a hell of a difficult time I'm very sorry to say. I mention this in case I'm asking something that you just answered or answered earlier that I didn't decipher properly.  Having said all that, please don't let it stop you answering my posts, because I do still get the gist of some of your explanations, etc.

Quest, There's no reason to go on with this topic other than to point out an Hd-player if you run across one, or to speculate on why one hasn't been produced, or why you believe one will not or cannot be produced. Other than that I think we understand each other well enough--although that may not be obvious at first glance.

Chris