Newbie asking general advice about starting up as a computer audiophile

[rentaghost]

It seems there are two high-end (maybe three if you include Foobar) players available to an audiophile (for want of a better word) who wants to try moving across from standard CD player digital playback to computer file digital playback.

Now I have a netbook kicking around with an Atom processor running Windows 7 with an available asynchronous USB DAC and this is perhaps where I begin my mystical 'geeky' computer audiophile journey.

Firstly I am very much hoping that using a computer as a source will reap benefits above and beyond a CD player SQ wise.

I will only bother using 16/44 ripped files from CDs as my test - and not bothing with all this 24 bit malarky as of yet - I just want to test the computer for it's other possible strengths (if any SQ wise).

So which one - JPlay or XXHighEnd (or something else)? And any other useful advice would be welcomed.

Oh and what does Features the proprietary "Arc Prediction" filtering for NOS DACs, with THD figures as good as any filtering means, but without ringing and 100% equal phase - mean? It sounds interesting because my Goldenote DAC-7 is a NOS DAC as far as I understand. Or does this not apply to all forms of NOS DACs?

[PeterSt]

First of all this is your own choice of course. This is about listening. Well, an open door, right ?
But your question on a forum about XXHighEnd looks similar to me. So what shall I say to keep in honest ?
This is what I can can up with :

What's in JPlay came from XXHighEnd. I'm not saying it is or works the same, but the base comes from here (you can search for the posts from the authors in here). Not only an easy start, but also not the best opportunity to do somethijng really different. I said "opportunity" and nothing more or else.

It is fair to say that all the features for good sound (or at leat by far the most of them)  are fully developed for XXHighEnd (since 2006-2007) with as a bonus a GUI for all the control needed. No, not the most nice or with the most convenience, but maybe better than nothing.

Both use "GUI-less" for the best sonic quality, which for XXHighEnd means "Unattended Playback" and its facilities to indeed remove the controlling GUI from memory, but which is there at your command again, and as said, keeping it all under control as needed.

A more or less major difference is that XXHighEnd doesn't obtain its very best sonic qualities while in demo mode. So, it needs a licence to squeeze all out of it which is there at the moment, with the sort of upshot that you can use the demo version forever.

Another "reason" to find out that XXHighEnd is for the better, are the -in general- stepless controls which are there to get the best sonic results from your DAC. Remember, it is about that only, for a bit perfect player in the base (it can't be about something else). There is a downside too though : it will be inherently more complicated to dial in your best setting. The combinations are sheer infinite.

... Which brings me to the "open community" development under which XXHighEnd evolves, and all the ears contributing to that. For that reason it still happens regularly that someone finds a combination of settings which brings Walhalla once again, and which brings us further and further; It is only me with one pair of ears, and all the others are needed. I do the development though and this happens on your "command".

There are a few other players and features for explicit sonic quality out there, and all came from being an XXHighEnd user at first. Just go your own way with the experiences so far, and ... why not. The exception to that is cics' cPlay which is as genuine as XXHighend herself is. That cPlay was a little later is unrelated to this.

Ok, I could add that XXHighEnd was (beginning of 2007 although not public then) the first WASAPI player, with XMPlay being a second one year later. Foobar followed way after that, but notice that Foobar doesn't hunt the better sonic qualities (that can't exist by their ideas, and otherwise you are cicked out right away).
So, what I want to say is that much of it is about experience, which should allow for keeping ahead. But again, please judge for yourself. It's a free world.

Anything else ?
Well, maybe that I went as far as developing a "mosty special" and "ignorant" D/A converter along with it. That it turned out to be the best ever ? maybe think about that. 24/768 for input ? maybe it says something, but otherwise it *does* something.
All is in the same realm : create the best playback possible.

The subject is huge, and it is not easy to step from CD Playback to Computer Playback. Often it fails at first. It did with me too, which is why I developed the software in the first place. By itself it won't go, which is the reason that something like Foobar and the other general players don't sound "at all" anymore these days. The distance has become fairly large.

I think I'll stop right here, because the subject is a strange one. Maybe you better hadn't ask it in here, or maybe I should have removed your post but answer in private.
Anyway, this is what I could make of it.

Best regards,
Peter

[rentaghost]

Wow thanks - so will my humble netbook using an Atom processor and XXHighEndAudio in Demo mode allow me to get better SQ than foobar at least, so that I am able to start things off on the right foot and experience 'better than CD transport' sound?

Are there any quick and easy settings that will see me in good stead considering the NOS DAC I am using?

[Robert]

Start with what you have even Foobar so you can get your head around this new scene. Foobar is better than CD playback and is where I started.
As you gain confidence you can try different things.

I went from Foobar to J River(demo) to XXhighend. Each was a step up in SQ. In fact the demo XXhighend was noticeably better than both but I found tricky to operate so bought the software and then you start on another steep learning curve which I have to say doesn't stop and I'm only a beginner.

The potential for an improved sound with XXhighend is huge and ultimately matching with the NOS1 Dac is the goal plus putting together a dedicated PC. I've yet to attain these last two. And live in wonder at the further sound improvements to be had.

My current sound over Christmas with my tweaked XXhighend has been a revelation. I'm hearing a natural, easy, precise dynamic sound like I have never heard on my system ever. I'm listening to old ripped CD's that I discarded as not good enough to listen to in there entirety.

Amazing whats on those CD's that we still havn't heard yet?

[rentaghost]

Reading more into XXHighEnd - am I able to evaluate it using its full sound potential at least for a limited period? I like the idea that XXHighEnd can transform the sound to such an extent that the room acoustics may not be a problem any more. I would like to be able to evaluate that aspect at least. And will my Netbook be up to it processor wise?

[Robert]

I like the idea that XXHighEnd can transform the sound to such an extent that the room acoustics may not be a problem any more.

This is a tall order for any Hi-Fi software or hardware. Unfortunately it will not overcome any major room issues.

The room is a whole separate topic and compromise unless you are lucky or have built one especially. You can of course attempt to tame a room by various means documented online.

The room is no less, a very large part of the end resulting sound.

Just buy XXhighend, that's what I did after playing with the demo for an hour and work from there. Its not an easy road but it does work consistently in my system and is improving all the time as I learn more.

[rentaghost]

I would like to buy something that works no doubt about it - but I can't do that if I don't hear significant improvements (not just little improvements). I tried JPlay (and you can try their full optimised version if you can put up with the pauses) and I could not hear a significant improvement in sound (if any) so would not part with 99 Euros - and I was told that I was the only one who could not hear improvements. So bearing that in mind the same could be the case with XXHighEnd. To make matters worse (and to perhaps discredit myself here - sorry) I couldn't readily discern the difference between Spotify Premium and the CD's I had ripped using EAC! And of course Spotify gives me all the music in the world without be having to do any hard work. But I would love to hear significant improvements from the digital realm and thought that XXHighEnds upsampling with my DAC might actually allow me to hear a significant change for the better.

I can however hear differences between amplifiers - pre-amps  and loudspeakers. Now I am looking for a jump in improvement from those digital bits (to my ears anyway - and my families for that matter who help me prove it is not just me).

[PeterSt]

Ok. So, supposed it is about the upsampling ...

If you look at the sigs of people, you can see that actually without exception (but of course you may find one) they all use Arc Prediction Upsampling). This is because it really works, but let me add also that this means works totally different from all what exists. So, not just another algortithm, but one without any ringing (pre or post) while all normal "filters" (which is what upsampling actually implies) do.
It is supposed to overrule the ringing behaviour of your DAC, and whether it really will in your case is to be seen. But again, looking at people's sigs it should statistically.

This is what the demo version just allows for, and it is not at the level of inherent sonic qualities I talked about before. It is unrelated to optimizing the OS, although the (latest) demo version will do that the same as versions of 6 months back and older allowed for in general, but licensed. So, I made the old means available under the demo version, just because the licensed version now goes further (sounds way better again).

Thus, there are two main approaches within XXHighEnd : getting Redbook as right as possible by means of upsampling, and tweaking the environment where XXHighEnd runs in as far as possible for something we'd call "sonic performance". Microphonic performances would almost be a better way to express it.

All what the demo version does not allow for at this moment is :

1. Core Appointment optimalization;
2. Play an infinite time per session;
3. Output more than 100 albums in the Library Area (totally unimportanmt);
4. Minimze the Operating system to core audio functions only.

Ad 4.
It does in the demo version as it did in the half year back versions, so it can't be *that* bad. But, may it tell you something, it *had* to be done better because of the NOS1-USB, which doesn't sound good at all otherwise (there's so much devil in the detail).

Ad 1.
This is a tricky one, because it might help you getting your Netbook optimized, where "optimized" in this case implies quite some things. To name one :
The Split File Size (SFS) is one of the major parameters for better SQ, and the higher you can set it (in general) the better SQ will be. However, your Netbook with a slow processor to begin with, will not allow for the higher SFS sizes because it will take it too long to prepare the tracks "per SFS size" in memory and you will receive drop outs once per length of the SFS (could be 2 minutes, but still unbearable of course).

To make it more complicated, one of the features of the MinimizeOS functionalitity (which is not available under demo) is the sheer possibility for the higher SFS. This is related to memory organization and what MinimizeOS does about it.

So yuo see ? you have a few very indirect and unexpected reasons why your Netbook may not be on par for the best SQ.
Please also read this : 9-6-1c FLAC messing with core appointment scheme?; It will tell you in some more words what will be going on. But also read the last post from Coen as how it is in there right now, where he a sort of says "ok, fed up with the stupid squeezing - let's now do it right".
It just tells that there are sufficient reasons to get yourself a dedicated and on par audio PC where you have plenty of headroom to dial in all the parameters the way YOU like. Not the way your Netbook limits them, with the result of you never being able to hear what the lot potentitals are. You'd just never know. And it is such a waste.

Lastly, please notice that these are all deviates from what XXHighEnd offers on the conveniency side. Sounds strange maybe, but this is the "all control" part. I mean, what good is it to  stuff a couple of tracks into the memory available (ehm, via an USB stick ) with the immediate restriction that upsampling must bve out of order because it will consume too much memory ... that this by itself is cause by "us" being pure memory players, and worse - very special memory players utilizing contigious memory which of course again contibutes to SQ ... while it also can go without your attention. So, albums can be infinitely long, no USB sticks are needed to get the sound right, no external GUI is needed to sort out what you ever want to play, but ...

but still some prerequisites exist just for that conveniency again. So, load a complete FLAC album in 1 second or so, or wait 25 seconds because you like your Netbook.
Want the SFS higher for better sound, but experience gaps at the file splits because of the slow processor.
Want better core appointment, but have no cores to diverge to.

There's so much more that I better stop right away because it already is enough. You can use the Netbook for sure but it will be toe squeezing and suboptimal for SQ. And the thing is : for Foobar it won't matter a thing.

Stupid playback software ...
 
Here is some general info about this stuff : A Guide to Glitchless Playback. Don't try to understand it all, but try to get the phenomena involved. Later you can always go back to it when it is needed.

Peter

[rentaghost]

OK, so it's more likely the netbook is stopping the significant SQ upgrade I am seeking - fair enough - and it makes sense due to its lack of power and memory.

I do have a more powerful computer upstairs - but I would rather keep it upstairs because big computers do not look good in the lounge (netbooks are at least small).

To make the most of the far more powerful PC upstairs and to keep it out of sight - can I use a wireless DAC I have in my possession? The particular DAC I have for that is a NAD DAC 1 which streams wirelessly "in the native digital format" for the best quality sound (analogue conversion uses premium BurrBrown OPAmps and 24/192 DACs with selected passive components).

Hopefully the wireless link won't be a significant weak link in the chain when used with your software (because I can still upsample on the PC before it transmits). And of course being wireless bypasses all that noisy analogue circuitry in any PC thus conveniently isolating it.

The NAD DAC also has the option for me to connect via COAX to the Goldenote DAC-7 (so I would stream to the NAD which will pass on the DAC function to the Goldenote).

Yes this might not be perfect - but will this be better due to the more powerful PC upfront in the first place (with the added bonus of complete PC isolation)?

[rentaghost]

Hmmm - the wireless DAC does not support the byte sequence when using XXHighEnd ??

[PeterSt]

It will, but you will have to find out what it wants to have.

Always start with normal 16/44.1 (Redbook CD) material. Do not upsample.

If it now gives you the message you can start setting the "Needs 24 bits" (the choice out of 32 and 24). But for this you have to tell what it can accept. So, e.g. 24/96. This is the "DAC Is" setting.

Your next "problem" may be that it won't accept anything *lower* than e.g. 24/96, and now it becomes more fussy. Now you'd *need* to upsample.

Lastly there's the possibility that it doens't accept the 88.2 (or 176.4) rates, and when that is the case you start to be in bad luck, because now you'd have to engage "96/192 Only" and this doesn't allow Arc Prediction Upsampling. It will play, but only through Anti Imaging (AI).

Always keep in mind that the "DAC Needs" is the confusing one. So, with all you try, you'd always have to flip this one back and forth (unless you already know of course). Keep the volume low with this, because when 32 is actually needed while 24 is engaged you will receive "static" (loud noise).

Notice that the "DAC Is" setting does nothing other than self protection. So, set it to 16/44.1 and you can't play anything higher. Set it to 24/384 and you can try all. Of course it will still be so that you can only do things for real (playback) which the DAC allows for.

Questions ? shoot.
Peter

[rentaghost]

Peter - I have tried all the DAC settings (leaving all the other settings as default - and default does not have the UpSmp selected) and I keep getting this error - I also get 'Engine #3 did not start within the expected time' - and XXHighEnd stops working when trying to select 24 bits (untested).

I have a utilitiy where you can take over my PC and take a look if you wish - if you think that's a good idea them PM me.

I am using Windows Vista Professional.

[PeterSt]

When I look at the specs from the NAD DAC 1 from somewhere on this (stupidly behaving) page http://www.google.nl/url?q=http://nadelectronics.com/products/digital-music/DAC-1-Wireless-USB-Digital-to-Analogue-Converter&sa=U&ei=5dMCT6G2I4S0-QbW7J1S&ved=0CBcQFjAA&sig2=cLxLhDC4YTEl2aBhC7FeZA&usg=AFQjCNGUS7BXjDvLEOiGEelmYDmbJn8lQQ
I see 16/48 as the (only) possible sample rate. So let's say you didn't try that one. But also : you can't with 16/44.1 material ...

I am sorry to say it, but this DAC is useless. It will only go with resampling, which is probably why you never noticed. So, many players allow for this (XXHighEnd did too in the past), but then "bit perfect" playback is nowhere.
It won't go with XXHighEnd because it plays in Exclusive Mode only, meaning the OS can't interfere (with her resampling).

Of course you can try it with 16/48 material, but this actually won't exist, unless "MP3" from movies. But then still no upsampling is possible.

If I looked at the wrong specs, let me know ...
Peter


PS: A small hint :
It is obvious that conveniency is an argument at playing audio. Wireless seems one of them. But please don't think this will work ever, when hunting for the best sound. Even Wifi on the audio PC is not allowed ...

[rentaghost]

OK - I am currently in a garage waiting for my car to be MOT'd - so thought I would take the opportunity to reply while waiting...

If I use the Coax out on the NAD DAC 1 this give me the chance to use my other DAC which is a NOS DAC - the Goldenote DAC-7, perhaps then I will not get any failures? What do you think?

Obviously I am using the same wireless link to connect via NADs coax connection - but the DAC that I will actually use will be the Goldenote.

There again - I expect it won't work because the link over wireless to the DAC will not allow the OS to interfere again no matter what DAC I piggy-back it to..

Conceptually I suppose - from NADs point of view - not allowing the OS to interfere is a good thing. And of course wireless means you can bypass all that noisy PC architecture too.

[PeterSt]

Maybe I don't have the time to sort it all out really, but what I recall from what I saw earlier, was that the through-air link was via USB and 2.4GHz (which is an audio/video connection which can be digital). Now it depends on whether this is anynchronous, because when not, all you will get is super-high jitter. When it is (which I don't expect) it can be OK.

Still I think the transmission will allow for 16/48 only, no matter what DAC is behind it. Also notice that when your DAC 1 is used as an interface, it doesn't matter what is behind it (your Goldenote) because nothing on the software side will see it. So, that won't change things. Only connecting the DAC 1 wired might (and I didn't see explicit specs about that). The strange thing is that somewhere else I saw that it is 24/192. But how ? output only (after resampling itself) ?

Maybe it can help when you call the instance where you bought it ?

One more thing :
All looks like it is going to be the other option to direct connect your Goldenote DAC. But how ? to the motherboard. Now be careful again, because most motherboards don't allow 16/44.1 again. It will be a "bad" connection anyway, but just saying, befre you again think it doesn't work.

Hope you get something done ...
Peter