I'm about to delve into this stuff as well so am very interested in this thread. From what I understand you can run your lossless digital file (WAV or AIFF) from your hard drive via a USB to SPDIF convertor into virtually any DAC with an S/PDIF input. Assuming it was recorded as a lossless file at the appropriate sample rate (or greater), it would seem to me that the quality of the output signal will then be solely dependent upon the DAC and not at all on the hard drive. Am I incorrect in assuming this? By the way, You could further convert the signal from S/PDIF to Toslink with yet another simple converter if your DAC only has a Toslink input. All these converters are available through RAM Electronics, or some other favorite electronics retailer or etailer. I would like to put the most listened-to part of my CD collection on an external drive that I can bring from home to work. Anyone figure out how big a drive you'd need to hold, say, 200 CD's as WAV files? Are those files indeed "lossless"?
Marco |
Thanks Rsbeck. RAM Electronicssells all kinds of convertors to go either direction. If you are just buying a single-purpose digital convertor they're pretty inexpensive should you want to try your EMM labs. Multi-use converters like M-Audio's CO2 and CO3 are more expensive but can convert to almost any cable. Check them out. Marco |
Jwglista - I think you may have misunderstood some of my points, or perhaps my communications skills are lacking here. Regardless I will try to clarify:
As Rsbeck indicates, the link to the Internet makes ripping CD's oh so much easier than manually inserting all the information. But I was not even suggesting that, though it is a very good point. I don't use any of my three computers as dedicated music streaming devices, and I'd hazzard to guess not many folks do. I do use a large, external hard drive as a dedicated storage device for my music. Would not think of storing them on the internal drive since I do listen in more than one location. I therefore don't agree with you on that point. Certainly with even a modest Mac you can stream music seamlessly and perform many other functions simultaneously. I see no particular reason to dedicate a computer to just streaming music. Perhaps it will compromise a PC, but I haven't had any problems on a Mac. I routinely do very RAM/Processor intensive image editing in Photoshop on the same computer that is streaming music without a single hiccup.
I was not referring to the Windows XP operating system when I said "chop-shop". I was referring to chop shop PC builders that assemble PC's at lower costs according to the users needs and budget. I'm not speaking of Dell, but of Cuss-Tum Computer in downtown Anywhere, U.S.A.
I don't think I was contradicting myself. If you outfit, for instance, a Dell computer with the same speed processor, same amount of RAM and same basic features as a Mac you will not be saving much money buying the PC. The fact is that Mac just doesn't make any real cheapy, bargain basement computers like those abundantly available in the PC platform. If you're only doing word processing and streaming music you can get a cheap PC and it will do the job fine, yes. But it will have it's faults as I indicated in my previous post. Even the low end MacMini, or the iBooks are faster and more capable than a 'cheap PC', and, as you suggested yourself, have a superior operating system which is very intuitive and will not ruin your afternoon if a program crashes or freezes up - you can just 'force quit' the specific program and the entire operating system and all other open programs remain stable and unaffected. Has Windows figured that one out yet? Last time I checked, which may have been over a year now, if your program crashes or freezes in Windows you are SOL as far as anything else that is running.
EXCELLENT point on the RAM suggestion with the MacMini: Definitely spring for at least double the stock 256mb as OSX is a glutten for RAM and will indeed slow down with only the minimum. Fortunately RAM is cheap.
I'm coming from the opposite end of the spectrum. Spent a few years on PC's and hated them. I've been on a Mac platform since 94 and much prefer their system overall. Customer support is excellent. FWIW if you look at Consumer Reports, Apple is consistently ranking at the top in customer satisfaction and overall performance. They just keep getting it right, and aren't much on compromise.
Now did I understand you correctly; did you imply that for $400 you can buy a PC laptop that will give you better overall performance than an iBook? Could you point me at that particular laptop? In what ways will it give you better performance? How reliable is it? I'm truly curious...I'm not challenging you, believe it or not. If that is true I'm just not aware of it. Most of the folks I know using computers are working professionals in one field or another and none tend to compromise much on their computers. All the PC laptops I've seen may be a bit cheaper than Mac overall, but certainly don't seem to be profoundly so if you compare apples to...er, that's a bad choice of words...oranges to oranges (same speed processor, same RAM, same features, same size).
The bottom line, in my view, is that streaming music is an effortless task for most modern computers. I would tend to choose the actual computer for the other factors you may use it for, and either way I'd still choose a Mac, if only for the stability and operating system. If I were a gamer I'd choose a PC only for the fact that more software and hardware exists to play games on PC's than on Macs.
Marco |
Hey, is anyone currently using either of the Wavelength USB DACs? Either the Cosecant or The Brick? I'd be interested to hear some comments and comparisons if so. How about the Apogee Mini with USB?
Marco |
Thanks Rsbeck - I checked out your comments on your system page. I appreciate the input!
Marco |
An even less expensive option, if you are running a Mac, is to use an AirportExpress module (about $120) which has an optical output that streams raw data and bypasses the DAC (you'll need a toslink cable). You can stream your music from your computer via either an Airport card or other wireless device, or via an ethernet cord directly to the AirportExpress. The optical output of the AE runs to your DAC and VIOLA! If you are looking for an inexpensive way to experiment and see if it suits you, that might be an alternative worth considering.
Marco |
(snip)hey cost more money, and PCs can read digital music exactly the same I suppose if you want to deal with an inferior operating system, vastly increased vulnerabiltiy to viruses (if you use the same computer to surf the Net), general instability, chop-shop reliability (should you choose that direction to save money), and worst of all the likes of Microsoft software, well then yes; you'd save a bit of coin with a PC. They certainly are capable of streaming music just as good as a Mac, and indeed do cost less money in general, though I find that, as in most things in life, you get just what you pay for. Fast PC's tend to cost just as much as fast Macs. Cheap computers indeed have limited capabilities, and streaming music does not take any sophisticated for ultra-fast processor, nor an abundance of RAM. The Mac-Mini is a great suggestion by Rsbeck. At $599 with a free keyboard, all you really need is a small monitor and external drive. For a grand you'll have a dead reliable computer interface that's as easy as pie to use and will be more than useful at other applications, and not take up much room to boot. A used or factory refurbed Mac iBook will set you back about the same but you won't need to spring for the monitor. I work with an old 12 inch G3 iBook which typically go on eBay for around $400. It does everything I need it to, is very portable and streams music effortlessly through iTunes. Just my highly biased opinion. I find nothing appealing about PC's whatsoever. If I played games on my computer, or I needed it for my dental practice, or other specialized small biz application I may feel differently I suppose. Marco |
Thanks for the update on the current PC's and Windows OS. It has been a while since I last played around on one, so that's all news to me indeed. Glad to hear the OS has improved. This
particular site puts a G4 Mac Laptop against a Dell Inspiron Powerbook. The Mac is $288 cheaper, has a 1.33ghz g4 processor vs a 1.6ghz pentium M processor, yet was "cheaper, faster and more powerful" in comparison. I have read the same kinds of results in Consumer reports over the years as well. The same URL pits a bargain priced eMac against a similarly priced ($799) Dell desktop and once again the Mac wins. What your telling me is this has changed since these reports. Can you point me over to a resource that supports your claim? Regarding the long digital connection; yep, I suppose that's true. Digital cables, however, are not nearly as expensive as analog runs. You may alternatively use a bluetooth keyboard and mouse, and all you'd need then would be a longer cord to your monitor. You can also use Airtunes if you don't mind the optical Toslink connection which is arguably the weak link there. Though technically it is, I wouldn't really call the MacMini a " Desktop" except for it's umbilical cord to the AC. Granted, it ain't a laptop either. Finally, and once again, I routinely stream music from an old Mac G4/400 via iTunes/Ethernet/AirportExpress/Toslink while the same computer is processing very RAM/Processor intensive files and do not experience any hiccups. So obviously I'd disagree with your conclusions. Marco |
Just to give you some idea of what is possible of just a modest computer in
terms of streaming music. As I write and send this I am simultaneously
listening to Mindy Smith streaming from my external hard drive to my
system, while a CD drive is ripping a Bright Eyes CD to the very same hard
drive that is streaming Mindy Smith. The buffer is set to "high" so
it is taking advantage of my abundant RAM on this machine. Not a single
hiccup in the stream of music. The full CD is burned as rather large .WAV
files in about 2-3 minutes. If I changed the iTunes preferences to rip Apple
Lossless files (smaller, but still lossless) the time it would take to rip the file
would be more than doubled on my machine, but it would save a lot of space
on the hard drive allowing me to save twice as many CD's on the drive.
Marco |
No I did not miss your first paragraph. I did ignore it however, but since you bring it to task:
Regarding the inexpensive Dell you mention:
It relies upon allocating a good part of it's RAM for graphics (states 64mb). The iMac has an excellent graphics card and does not need to rely upon RAM for graphics. The Mac can easily support an external monitors with its dedicated 32mb of RAM on the graphics card.
It has a slower Celeron processor (as you point out), while the Macs G4 processor is very fast indeed.
Wireless card is an option on the PC and standard on the Mac.
The Dell has no firewire ports at all, while the iBook has both USB 2.0 and Firewire.
As far as the smaller screen I actually prefer a 12 inch screen and compact size and weight. The iBook weighs 4.9 lbs while the bigger Dell is 6.3lbs.
I won't go through looking up the same details on the desktop example you sited as I'm sure it would come out the same: you get what you pay for.
Marco |
My guess is music coming off the hard drive looses it timing? As I understand it, this is the advantage of using a USB DAC (I think the DigiDesign unit is just a processor that upsamples(?) and sends the digital feed to the DAC - much like a soundcard). Since USB is bidirectional, using a USB DAC with a direct USB connection to the HD allows timing errors to be addressed both at the HD and at the DAC. Using optical, or S/PDIF output to the DAC you are limited as these are both unidirectional feeds. I don't know much about the Digidesign unit, but just looking at the specs it would occur to me that is using the USB for power, but I'm not getting how it is providing 24-bit S/PDIF output unless it is upsampling. Standard USB is only capable of passing 16-bit data. USB 2.0 may pass more. Check out the basic information on the Wavelength Website. You may contact Gordon Rankin via that site and inquire further. I just notice that the specs on the DigiDesign unit says "100% USB Powered"....does that mean it is passing information as well, or are you getting your digital output elsewhere? I believe you on the timing errors making or breaking the reproduction of music. Marco |
Hey Ghunter - I have a question for you about the i-Tunes settings: Can you explain further the "Use Error Correction" setting. I've had it checked, but always wondered just exactly what it was doing. I was under the impression that it only kicked in if there was an error in reading the CD being ripped, and not so much in the frequency for instance. Once the music is ripped to the drive, checking the error correction would have no bearing on playback, correct? I'm learning this stuff too, so your clarifications are much appreciated.
Nickway - you'll use up that 80mb drive pretty fast for uncompressed music, especially if it is holding your OS as well. I'd guess 80mb would only hold about 140 music CD's if there were nothing else on it. Once you figure out what's going on with your set up, I'd encourage you to do a comparison between your uncompressed .WAV or AIFF file and a compressed Apple Lossless file which takes up half the space. I'm not claiming golden ears, but I certainly could not tell the difference. I've read reviews (I think one may have been by Gordon Rankin either on AA or the Wavelength site), which confirm Apple's claim of a bit-for-bit reproduction of an audio file using Apple Lossless. I noticed Empirical Audio ranked them differently. I'd give it a try yourself and see what difference it may or may not make to your ears. Let us know too!
Marco |
Nick - Did you reference the Wavelength link I provided? Here's some info from that link: Basically the DAC has a single digital USB input. USB unlike SPDIF is bidirectional and therefore has error correction and buffering on both sides. This happens automatically so the data on the disk is identical to what is going out all the time. Also since this interface is asynchronous the clocking problems associated with SPDIF go away. What happens is... On power up of the computer the 2 devices negotiate services. In this case the Cosecant tells the computer it can do 16 bit audio at 32K, 44.1K and 48K. Since the USB receiver only has to handle these 3 frequencies, the clocking to the separate DAC IC has almost no jitter. SPDIF actually has to be synched to the exact frequency of the transport (i.e. if the transport is working at say 44.0896K instead of 44.1K the dac has to sync to that frequency). Therefore the jitter problems of SPDIF almost go away using USB. So using USB we have a zero error protocol to link the computer to the DAC and very low jitter what else..... The Cosecant is platform independent also OS independent. Any computer that has USB output will be able to hook up to the Cosecant without software drivers. Just select the Cosecant for Audio Output in your system preferences or control panel and your done. I believe your Digitech is acting as an upsampling soundcard. Regardless of upsampling it is processign the data from the HD and sending it on to the DAC via S/PDIF (unidirectional). My guess is that the 'compromise' lies in the Digitech. Marco |
...furthermore, you may also want to reference this page for optimum setup for Mac and see if the information corresponds to what you've been using. Marco |
Thanks for the clarification Nick. I'm not familiar with the Digitech unit. It's too bad it doesn't work for you as PC audio can be oh so convenient (having your entire collection at your fingertips to mix and match as you please). If I were you I would indeed try a different route. I really doubt it is the hard drive itself, but instead I'd think it was the interface between hard-drive, Digitech, and or DAC. Somewhere in the loop it sounds like the timing is getting lost.
Marco |
Pardales - There are also the two USB DAC's offered by Wavelength, The Cosecant and The Brick, as well as the Grace M902. Of those, the Apogee is certainly the least expensive. I'm pretty sure there are a few others as well.
Marco |
Ah, thank you Ghunter. That explains the extra time it takes. So it's essentially double-checking that the data read on the first scan was correct, and if not, I assume it does a third and possibly a fourth till it gets some consistancy? Other than the possibility of actually missing some data, or adding some that isn't there, such an error as error-correction seeks to correct would not be an error that effects overall PRAT, as Nickway seems to be experiencing a problem with..true? In other words, the error-correction is not going to help with a frequency mismatch - wouldn't that be a function of the interface/communication between hard drive and card (in this case the Mbox), and DAC...or, alternatively, harddrive and DAC depending upon your set up? If the harddrive feeds the data at something less than 44.1KHz are the components downstream able to correct for that using a unidirectional connection such as S/PDIF, or Toslink? Or am I mistaken? Is there information sent with the data/signal, that tells the receiving end at what frequency it is sent? Sorry if my questions are pretty fundamental, but I'm just trying to understand all this stuff better.
Marco |
Thank you Ghunter. Both excellent links. The first one did help me understand it better and is well-written...the Benchmark data was a bit more 'academic content-rich' and I need to read it again with more time. I guess I've got the basics down, but mine is far from an authorative knowledge on the subject. That simple illustration of amplitude error caused by jitter in the first link says a lot. I wasn't getting that clocking information is sent with the signal via S/PDIF. I didn't see Toslink mentioned in my quick read of the first link, though they do mention S/PDIF optical...are they one and the same? Here's a passage from that first link: Remember that you can synchronise clocks in digital equipment with more than just the classic BNC cable. Both AES-EBU and S/PDIF (coax and optical) signals carry clock information within the audio data stream, for example, and so recorders can often be synchronised using their input signals, rather than having to use dedicated word-clock cables. My understanding is that Toslink is the least desirable of the ways to transfer digital information...would the clocking have something to do with that? If not, what is it about Toslink that is frowned upon? Seems like it would be favored being so inexpensive. Or am I just wrong there? Marco |
