2. misc-audio
  3. 1333029308

CD Player? PC Music? Naaa Flash Memory Music.

Do you have a CD Player? Throw it away!
I wouldn’t rest until I’ll share this with the rest of you, audiophiles in the world!
First of all forgive my English. My native language it’s Portuguese.
Second, If your source of music is the analog LP (you know, turntables and needles, etc.) this article it´s not for you.
Do you enjoy hear music? You consider yourself an Audiophile?
Are you an Audio CD based system? Ok. Nothing wrong whit it.
Do you have a decent Amplifier and Speakers? Ok.
Do you have already a separate DAC (Digital to Analogic Converter)? Great.
If not, I’m sorry but you must buy one. No big thing, two or three hundred dollars and you will buy a decent one (Cambridge DacMagic ?).
If you comply with the requirements above then…
Throw away your CD Player!
Or you CD Transport!
PC Music, USB cables, firewire, etc? forget it
I’ll guarantee you that, whatever is your CD based system is, this will sound better! (Much better)
And I’ll promise you that you wouldn’t miss him anymore (the CD player or CD transport, not any one you love, although after this I cannot guarantee that you will not find some troubles with your other half, if you have one)
Hoops, I forgot one thing. You must have at least one or two hundred dollars more. But it will be the most well employed money you ever spend (in music, of course).
So, what you need to replace is your devil machine (the CD player or transport) with 3 things:
• A Media Player (yes, it works with the PS3) that reads wav files. The ones I know are the O!Play from Asus and the WD TV Live from Western Digital;
• A flash drive. Could be a USB flash drive or a SD card or similar (depends on the media player interface). With a 32 Gb pen (or card) you can store aprox. 50 albums.
• A digital interconnect cable (SPDIF). Here, it depends on the media player. Most of all work with the optical Toslink. But I’ll guess that with the coaxial it also works fine (even better?)
Note: It must be a flash card, not a HDD.
So, you are ready for your most rewarding audiophile change you ever made.
Connect this all (if you are an audiophile guy I don’t need to explain how, right? ) and…ENJOY.
Beautiful, quasi-analogic music, coherent, smooth, detailed, you name it, the best sound you ever had hear with your own system (digital). Of course, if you have a friend that have better amplifier, speakers (and DAC) and also did the something you did, probably his system will sound better than your own.
But in the same system, this solution will play better than any other solution Transport+DAC ,CD Player or PC Music. Promise.
Now you ask: Hey! Are you crazy? Where do I put my dears CD’s in, to play?
Nowhere!
Hey. Wait, don’t go away. I mean, you don’t need, no more, to introduce the CD’s in any machine at all. Except one time, in your PC, in is CD drive.
Here I must introduce you to that beautiful program named EAC – Exact Audio Copy by http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/
Maybe there are others CD grabbers out there that work fine. But this one I know and I love him. It also let you access a free data base with track names and covers.
Install it and rip your entire CD collection in an UNCOMPRESSED way. This will create a wav file (*.wav) for each track. Put them in a folder with the album name.
Copy your collection for the Flash Drive( or several, if you have a lot of CD’s) , insert it in the media player and you’re on!
And another thing: You never always need to get up to change CD’s (or even change the volume, because most of the media players have their one volume, although I don’t recommend it for sonic reasons)
You don’t need to thanks me. Just spread the word. Maybe this way we can change the format they sell us the music.
CD (16 bit 44.1KHz) it’s not bad. But it could be sold in flash drives, not in cd disks.
HR Music (24 bit) it’s better than CD. Yes but, it could be sold in flash drives, not in sacd disks.
Why flash drives, not CD’s?
Because the big problem with the Digital Music is one thing called jitter. And with this solution you throw away the major source of problems in this matter. Optical drives and their Digital MASTER internal clock’s. (read this site http://www.lessloss.com )
With Flash Drives and Media Players you don´t have those problems. And you can let your DAC do what it was meant to do. Convert Music not garbage.
Enjoy and ear the most music you can.
Fernando Pereira
fmnp

Showing 6 responses by almarg

almarg's avatar
almarg
9,670 posts
 
Although their prices have come down substantially, Tom, SSD's are still quite expensive. They are generally still upwards of a dollar per gigabyte, and somewhat more expensive on that basis than the separate flash memory cards or USB flash drives that were discussed above. Whereas a 1,000 gigabyte HDD can be had for not much more than $100, and that is likely to come down significantly later in the year when the supply shortfall that resulted from flooding in Asia last year improves.

The major technical difference between what the OP has described and use of an SSD is of course the need for a computer, rather than a "media player," to run an SSD, at least if one of the few available USB external SSD's is not being used. And of course there are lots of tradeoffs between the many possible computer-based approaches and approaches that don't use computers, which as you've seen have been the subject of many threads here.

Best regards,
-- Al
almarg's avatar
almarg
9,670 posts
 
Fernando, my statement that a S/PDIF interface, whether coax or Toslink, is inherently prone to levels of jitter that may often be audibly significant is a statement of fact. I could provide a lengthy technical explanation of the reasons for that, but you seem to have sufficient technical knowledge for that to be unnecessary.

My statement that the jitter levels associated with that interface will often be more significant than the jitter that occurs internally within a WELL DESIGNED cd player is admittedly debatable, and is a question that probably cannot be easily settled. Notice that I qualified my statement with the word "arguably."

In any event, as I said I don't doubt that the approach you have described can, if well implemented, yield excellent results.

It should be noted, though, that the two specific media players you indicated you are familiar with sell at NewEgg.com for $59.99 and $99.99 respectively. And each device provides many functions and interfaces in addition to playback of flash media to an optical S/PDIF output. It therefore stands to reason that the production cost of the optical S/PDIF interface and associated circuitry in those units is miniscule. While I don't question the quality of the results you obtained in the particular setups you used, some skepticism as to how universally applicable your findings may be would seem to be warranted.

Regards,
-- Al
almarg's avatar
almarg
9,670 posts
 
04-01-12: Fmnp
I don´t know what are the technical reason's that you mentioned but I'll be glad to read them.
From this white paper by the noted audio designer Charles Hansen of Ayre:
... the standard S/PDIF (Sony/Philips Digital Interface Format) digital connection used with two-box solutions is flawed, unavoidably and needlessly introducing jitter into the audio playback system.

A low-jitter master audio clock is essential for attaining high performance levels of digital audio reproduction. But that low jitter only matters at one critical point—at the D/A chip itself. Jitter-induced timing errors create artifacts that audibly degrade the music signal. Therefore a well-designed one-box disc player places a fixed-frequency master audio clock right next to the D/A chip for the best possible performance.

In contrast, a two-box system splits the system into a disc transport box and a D/A converter box. The two are normally connected with the industry-standard S/PDIF connection which places the master audio clock in the transport box, where it is mixed together with synchronization codes and the audio data and transmitted to the D/A converter box. The D/A converter box must then attempt to recover the critical master audio clock from this jumble of signals for delivery to the D/A chip itself.

The standard solution for a two-box disc player is to use a PLL (Phase-Locked Loop) to control a VCO (Voltage-Controlled Oscillator) in the D/A box, generating the master audio clock. The VCO varies its frequency in order to lock onto the incoming signal sent from the transport box. Unfortunately, a variable-frequency oscillator simply cannot achieve the low-jitter performance of a fixed-frequency crystal oscillator.

Over the years many schemes have been implemented by various manufacturers in attempts to improve the jitter performance of the S/PDIF connection, including dual PLL’s, VCXO’s (Voltage-Controlled Crystal Oscillators), frequency synthesizers, FIFO (First-In, First-Out) buffers for the audio data, external re-clocking (”jitter reduction”) devices, and so forth. While all of these methods are able to reduce the jitter levels, they cannot eliminate the jitter that is inherently added by the S/PDIF connection.

Another approach to reduce jitter that has become increasingly popular in recent years is to use an ASRC (Asynchronous Sample Rate Converter) chip. The idea is that the original audio data is replaced with newly calculated data that represents what the audio data would have been if the incoming signal had most of the jitter filtered out. The technical theory behind this method is sound, as demonstrated by the measured performance, which is generally quite good. However the audible performance of these devices is controversial, and Ayre has avoided this approach as it completely discards the original audio data.
Also see the following paper by the distinguished authority and academician Malcolm Hawksford:

Is The AESEBU/SPDIF Digital Audio Interface Flawed?

And these articles as well:

The Jitter Game

Jitter in Digital Audio Data Streams

In addition to the problems that are inherent in extracting a jitter-free clock from the single S/PDIF signal that combines clock and data and other information, the precision with which the DAC can detect the timing of the signal transitions (between the voltage states corresponding to 0's and 1's) that ultimately are used to perform that extraction will be limited by noise on the signal waveform, by distortion of the waveform, and by the bandwidth limitations of the interface (resulting in slow risetimes and falltimes). All of these things will contribute, to some degree, to fluctuations from one clock interval to the next in the timing with which the start and end of the interval is sensed by the DAC.

Toslink has inherently limited bandwidth, and correspondingly slow risetimes and falltimes. Risetimes and falltimes of electrical S/PDIF signals are intentionally limited in order to reduce RFI emissions. Noise is always present to some degree on electrical signals, and in the case of coaxial S/PDIF will be contributed to by ground loop effects between the connected components, as well as by noise generated in the connected components which couples onto the signal, and by pickup in the cabling. Waveform distortion will arise in coaxial S/PDIF connections as a result of reflections caused by impedance mismatches between the cable and the components that it connects. Also, anecdotal indications seem to be that Toslink commonly suffers from low transducer quality, which contributes to jitter.

Regards,
-- Al
almarg's avatar
almarg
9,670 posts
 
04-01-12: Fmnp
I don't dispute that the s/pdif could introduce some jitter. But it will much, much less then that introduced by the optical device, mechanical parts and vibrations, Power supply, correction errors, angular velocity corrections, etc, etc. and time misalignment.
I don't think that either of us is in a position to conclusively assert which jitter source is generally worse. But here is a relevant quote from the Charles Hansen white paper I referenced, referring to his highly respected firm Ayre Acoustics:
Since introducing the radically innovative Ayre D-1 DVD Player in 1999, we’ve been a leader in digital audio technology for the succeeding ten years. Yet in all that time Ayre has never offered an outboard D/A converter box, instead concentrating on one-box disc players. The reason for this is quite simple — the standard S/PDIF (Sony/Philips Digital Interface Format) digital connection used with two-box solutions is flawed, unavoidably and needlessly introducing jitter into the audio playback system.
Ayre did not introduce a standalone DAC until the development of asynchronous USB technology, enabling an essentially jitter-free interface to be established between the DAC and a computer.

And previously, when they presumably considered and rejected the idea of introducing a two-box transport + DAC combination linked via S/PDIF, they most certainly would not have felt constrained by the need to design the transport such that it could be sold at the sub-$100 price point of your media players!
And it would be something to prove that the toslink S/PDIF introduce jitter (at lest, audible). Why? there's no RF interference (unlike coaxial).
Ask what the studios use in there's SPDIF connections.
The only losses could be the quality of the fiber or the lengh. But with so small lenght's (1 to 2 m)...
As I understand it professional equipment generally doesn't use S/PDIF at all. It uses AES/EBU, which while subject to some of the downsides of coaxial S/PDIF, will generally be subject to those effects to a considerably smaller degree, as a result of its balanced configuration, presumably faster risetimes and falltimes, and larger signal amplitudes.

With respect to Toslink, I agree that glass is highly preferable to plastic. But although Toslink is not subject to a number of the jitter-related effects that can occur with coaxial S/PDIF, Toslink is arguably even more prone to jitter, as a result of its limited bandwidth, slow risetimes and falltimes, and questionable transducer quality, all of which can cause jitter when the optical signal is transformed to or created from the corresponding electrical signal. And, furthermore, BOTH Toslink and coaxial S/PDIF face the problem of extracting a clock having minimal jitter from the conglomeration of data, clock, and other information that is combined into the single S/PDIF signal.

I'm just about certain that if you were to research posts by audiophiles who have systems in which either Toslink or coaxial S/PDIF could be chosen, with everything else remaining the same, you would find that more often than not their listening assessments resulted in coax being chosen.

Finally, quoting from the last of the four references I provided:
Another interesting thing about audibility of jitter is it's ability to mask other sibilance in a system. Sometimes, when the jitter is reduced in a system, other component sibilance is now obvious and even more objectionable than the original jitter was. Removing the jitter is the right thing to do however, and then replace the objectionable component. The end result will be much more enjoyable.

Jitter can even be euphonic in nature if it has the right frequency content. Some audiophiles like the effect of even-order harmonics in tubes, and like tubes, jitter distortion can in some systems "smooth" vocals. Again, the right thing to do is reduce the jitter and replace the objectionable components. It is fairly easy to become convinced that reducing jitter is not necessarily a positive step, however this is definitely going down the garden path and will ultimately limit your achievement of audio nirvana.
It would therefore seem possible that the reason your media players, costing less than $100, provided subjectively better results than the expensive Meridian transport you compared them to was that the media players caused an INCREASE in jitter, whose spectral characteristics happened to be pleasing.

Regards,
-- Al
almarg's avatar
almarg
9,670 posts
 
Why flash drives, not CD’s? Because the big problem with the Digital Music is one thing called jitter. And with this solution you throw away the major source of problems in this matter. Optical drives and their Digital MASTER internal clock’s.
While I don't doubt that the approach you have described can yield excellent results if well implemented, it will by no means necessarily eliminate jitter.

The S/PDIF interface itself is inherently prone to jitter, to a greater or lesser degree depending on many component-specific and cable-specific variables, including of course the jitter rejection capability of the DAC. Arguably the jitter introduced by that interface is in general a considerably more significant issue than the jitter that may occur internally within a well designed CD player.

The idea of storing the music in flash memory is intriguing, nevertheless, although a considerable number of memory cards would be required to hold even a modestly sized collection. And as a rough approximation, flash storage is around ten times as expensive per gigabyte as hard drive storage is these days.

Regards,
-- Al
almarg's avatar
almarg
9,670 posts
 
04-01-12: Fmnp
I believe that this article shows that I'm right.
Hi Fernando,

No, what he is saying is that if a S/PDIF interface is in the path between the source of the signal and the DAC, the presence of the S/PDIF interface will significantly add to the jitter on the signal that is ultimately applied to the D/A chip itself (unless ASRC technology, which some people consider to have issues of its own, is used in the DAC). A one-box CD player does not have a S/PDIF interface and the issues that go with it. It may, of course, have other problems that contribute to jitter, especially if it is not well designed.

In any event, as I said a couple of times I don't doubt that the approach you have suggested can provide excellent results, certainly if it is implemented with good quality components, and I'm glad that it has worked out well for you. And thanks for the offer :-)

Regards,
-- Al
More to discover