Music from hard drive better than CD?

(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

Those 12 inch G3 iBooks are a great solution if you need a screen.

I'm thinking the Mac Mini would be good if you were using it near a video screen -- you just use the video screen as your monitor.

You *will* want to scroll through your tunes on a screen.

At the price of a used G3 ibook or Mac Mini no reason to go PC.

I was anything but an Apple fan--I've got four Win XP computers in the house and a NAS running Win Storage Server software--but still ended up hanging a Mac Mini on the stereo to do music duty. I looked at SFF PCs, but the cost to get to something in the same form factor as the mini was expensive. The Mac Mini is also pretty quiet, which is a factor to consider for us retentive audiophiles.

Jax2: I can appreciate your argument, however several points in your argument are inaccurate. Having used PCs for years and always wanting a Mac, I recently purchased one about 6 months ago; this has given me sufficient time to gather an evaluation on the Apple platform.

Yes, there is absolutely no doubt that OS X provides a better user experience than Windows XP. It looks nicer yet seems to be equally intuitive. I can’t say that OS X is more intuitive than Windows XP, because this all depends on which type of interface a user is used to. There are other points of your argument I’d like to address:

“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.”

In my opinion, if you are going to use this computer as a dedicated music transport, it should not even be on the Internet. Regardless, OS X is more secure overall than Windows XP, mainly because of the OS design and the fact that Windows is a bigger target for hackers. However, your statement that Windows XP is unstable is not true. I’ve used Windows XP just about every day since it came out back in 2001 and consider its reliability to be far from “chop-shop.” If you were referring to an earlier version of Windows, I would have to agree; but Windows XP has proven to be extremely stable in my experience and the experiences of other computer users that I know.

“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.”

These first two sentences appear to be contradicting in that you first say that PCs cost less in general, but that a fast PC will tend to cost just as much as a fast Mac. This also is untrue. Anyone who follows the prices of PCs and Macintosh computers will be able to tell you that Mac hardware costs more. Period. There have been dozens and dozens of arguments on Tech sites between Mac Zealots and PC owners, and one topic I see repeatedly is “I would buy a Mac, but I can get a PC that’s just as fast for much less.” Now, you won’t be getting the great experience that OS X can provide, but you will get an equally fast PC at a much lower cost.

“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.”

This is definitely a good idea. The Mac Mini is very affordable, and it will do fine for simply playing music. The unit should also run pretty quietly, and should integrate nicely into a system with its sleek look. Keep in mind that you will want to upgrade the RAM from 256, unless you don’t mind OS X running very sluggish.

“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.”

A PC laptop purchased for around that same price will give you much better performance.

So yes, you are right in saying that you get what you pay for—but only to a certain extent. I believe that this is limited to the experience of using the operating system itself and the sleek look of Apple hardware. So if you aren’t going to be surfing the web, editing photos, or creating web pages on this machine, the user interface may not be as much of a factor when considering price.

>>if you are going to use this computer as a dedicated music transport, it
should not even be on the Internet.<<

No. You want internet connectivity -- you'll be ripping CD's to your hard drive
and you'll be downloading all of the titles and other information from an
internet site. This will all happen with a couple of clicks if you are connected
to the internet. If you are not connected to the internet, you'll have to enter
all of that information manually, that would be tedious as hell, and would
slow the ripping process to a crawl. By the tenth or eleventh CD, you'd be
ready to hurt someone.

If you're going to be adding an external hard drive anyway, why not opt for the $499 Mac Mini? I don't think you need a keyboard, but if you connect the Mac Mini to a video monitor, a wireless mouse would be real handy. I would also opt for more RAM.

If you are computer and tech savvy, prefer PC, and if you want to get really deep into using your computer for not only music, but an entire home entertainment hub, here is a forum that might interest you --

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=26

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

I’m not quite sure how easy it would be to use a computer as a digital transport while using it to do other things. The main topic being discussed in this thread is that one would use an external DAC along with a computer as the transport (be it a Mac or a PC). If I were to go down this path and use a computer as the transport, I would want the computer to be an integrated part of the system. This means I would have the Mac Mini, or PC laptop, sitting on the stop shelf of an audio rack using a short, high quality digital cable to go from the computer to the DAC. I suppose you could have the computer located across the room on a desk, but then you would need a very long digital cable; this can get costly. I may have misinterpreted your meaning of a “dedicated” machine for streaming, but if I were to use my current laptop I certainly wouldn’t format the drive and reinstall everything just to have a clean install of the OS for streaming music. However, I would not use the laptop for other things during times when it is streaming music to the DAC just because it would require a longer digital cable; shorter cables always yield better sound quality, so I would not consider that option. Without this longer cable, it would be inconvenient to use the laptop as it’s sitting on top of the audio rack. So in my setup, laptops wouldn’t necessarily have to be “dedicated,” but a desktop system like a Mac Mini would be.

Rsbeck did make a good point on being connected to the Internet to get song names from the CDDB. I had not thought of this previously.

As for the chop-shop PCs—you don’t have to go to the cheapest manufacturer to get a good deal on a PC. You mentioned Dell, which you implied has higher quality standards than the chop-shop manufacturers. From Dell.com you can get an entry-level Inspiron 1200 laptop for $549. This gives you a Celeron M 1.3 GHz processor, 256 MB RAM, a 14.1 inch screen, 30 gig hard drive, and a CD burner—perfectly suitable for streaming digital music. Granted, the Celeron processor is not the greatest, but I would compare this with the processor in the cheapest iBook available—a 1.2 GHz G4. The hard drive and RAM are the same at 30 GB and 256 MB, respectively, but the screen is a measly 12 inches. The price for this iBook is $999. So for almost double the price, you a get a much smaller screen, same amount of ram, same size hard disk, and a slightly faster processor—and most importantly, the ability to run OS X. Is it worth it? Well that’s up to the user. As for custom built PCs, they’re they only type I’ve owned, except I built them myself. Luckily I’ve never had any problems with the hardware. For that reason I don’t think that custom built PCs are necessarily low quality; you just have to be careful where you shop, if you are looking for a “too good to be true” deal.

The PC will not suffer from all the faults mentioned in your previous post, as I already addressed those in my previous post. The only things you mentioned that hold any substance are the claims that OS X is more secure. I wouldn’t necessarily consider Windows XP to be “inferior” to OS X either.

Windows XP does allow you to quit individual applications if they do freeze, very similar to the force quit function in OS X. This function of the OS has been very effective since Windows 2000, although this version of the OS was run mostly by businesses. It’s quite possible that you were using Windows 98 or ME the last time you checked for this function. Both of those operating systems are laughable.

So my bottom line is that either platform will work flawlessly for the task mentioned in the initial post of this thread, and that is to send a digital stream to an external DAC for use in a hi quality stereo system. Jazzdax asked if a G5 would outperform a conventional transport/DAC setup. My purpose in posting my message was not to debate which platform is better for all tasks in general, but to state the fact that a PC will stream music as good as a Mac, and will cost less money. So there are two final scenarios: 1) the computer is not a dedicated part of the audio system, and 2) the system is a dedicated part of the audio system. In a dedicated setup, my opinion is that it would be impractical to spend more money on a Mac for the ability to run OS X when the computer will not even be used for other tasks. In a non-dedicated setup, a Mac could make more sense, if a user is willing to spend more money for the benefit of OS X (this includes lowered vulnerability to viruses, and a better user experience).

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

Perhaps you missed the paragraph from my last post, so I will paraphrase:

“You mentioned Dell, which you implied has higher quality standards than the chop-shop manufacturers. From Dell.com you can get an entry-level Inspiron 1200 laptop for $549. This gives you a Celeron M 1.3 GHz processor, 256 MB RAM, a 14.1 inch screen, 30 gig hard drive, and a CD burner—perfectly suitable for streaming digital music. Granted, the Celeron processor is not the greatest, but I would compare this with the processor in the cheapest iBook available—a 1.2 GHz G4. The hard drive and RAM are the same at 30 GB and 256 MB, respectively, but the screen is a measly 12 inches. The price for this iBook is $999. So for almost double the price, you a get a much smaller screen, same amount of ram, same size hard disk, and a slightly faster processor—and most importantly, the ability to run OS X. Is it worth it? Well that’s up to the user.”

Now, I will not disregard the rebates as the person did in the article you posted, because they are a critical factor for the final price, and as the person incorrectly states, they do not always fall through. The laptops I compared in my last post are very comparable, the only difference being the size of the screen and the processor (in terms of hardware). This research I did myself instead of quoting another Internet source, as those may not always be the most reliable.

As for the desktop systems, I will make my own comparison once again so that the most recent prices are compared. For the Mac system, I will evaluate an eMac system at $799. This gives you a 1.42 GHz G4 processor, 256 MB DDR333 ram, 80 GB hard drive, a combo drive, and a 17 inch CRT display, all in one unit—with the standard 90 day warranty. In the other corner we have a Dell Dimension 3000 desktop. This system features a P4 2.8 GHz processor with 533 MHz front side bus, 512 MB DDR400 RAM, an 80 GB hard drive, a DVD-ROM drive and CD burner, 15 inch LCD display, a satellite/subwoofer speaker system, and an extended 2 year warranty—all for $696. The Dell system beats the Apple system in every way: more ram, better display, faster processor, faster ram, and two separate optical drives instead of a combo drive. Plus you have the ability to upgrade the system since it isn’t all in one unit like the eMac. If you’d like me to send you screen shots of the web page from Dell.com, I can do that; I have them saved on my PC. So this is the source that I can provide at your request.

Bluetooth would be a very good idea for a system like this. The range is about 10 meters, so you’d have to watch out for that. It should do just fine for most listening rooms. It’s true that the digital cable won’t cost as much as an analog run, but I would much rather use the longer monitor cable and Bluetooth input devices as you mentioned.

Also, in your last paragraph you say that you use your G4/400 to perform multiple tasks without a hiccup while listening to music. I never debated the fact that a Mac of that caliber would be unable to do so. I was simply stating my opinion that in a dedicated setup, a Mac that costs more (as I will continue to debate doing my own research) is less practical than a cheaper PC for the devoted task of playing music in a high quality audio system.

C'mon guys, Apple is better/worse than Win in *some* circumstances. For HT/audio use, I think the Mac fits great--I bought a mini. Relevant decisional included:

1. Form Factor. Apple wins on this count hands down. I'm not ashamed to have it in my living room. Most Win boxes are ugly and, while there are some competitive SFF PCs, you are pretty much stuck with rolling your own guts for those. That gets costly and requires some technical savvy I'd rather apply somewhere else.

2. Ambient Noise. The mini is quieter, hands down, than any Win box I've run. Yeah, you can invest in heat pipe technology for a Win box or try to upgrade components, but why? The Apple is perfect for this kind of duty. Yes, you could also go with a quieter laptop, but I have to believe (unmitigated opinion based on use of desktops and laptops for 20 years) the reliability of the mini is better than any Win or Apple laptop in the long run.

3. Screen size. Tongue in cheek. I've got a 61" pioneer elite plasma on the wall behind the stereo. Why do I need a display, whether it be laptop or otherwise. (Ever see the visualizer in HD?). I think a lot of folks attaching a PC to a stereo are in the same boat. The Apple has a DVI out, which makes the connection pretty simple. None of the four Win XP boxes in my house have DVI out and, while you can get a new video card, its an upgrade. DVI on the Apple is standard. Yeah, you can lose the monitor while ordering a Dell, but the "refund" you get really isn't commensurate.

Bluetooth on the Mac was a bonus--I can sit on my couch, surf the web on a large screen with a keyboard and mouse that don't cause a walking hazard. Very cool. Now, if someone will only make a really good Bluetooth trackball, I'll be all set.

What didn't count was the lack of coax digital out. I'm heavily biased in favor of USB audio output devices, and that works great with either the Mac or the Win. In the case of the Win boxes, I feel like I'm paying for something I'm not using, since they always seem to want to sell you some fancy schmantzy audio card that is blown out of the water by my Waveterminal U24.

Downstairs, on the other hand, my workhorse is a Win box. Compatibility with work computers is a bigger issue for my home office. So, I've upgraded some bits to keep it quieter, and it works just fine serving up audio to the stereo down there even while I'm photoshopping something or surfing the web.

I will note that the Win box seems to require a lot more fiddling whenever I install something. Apple is much more plug-n-play. I spend 10x more time troubleshooting network and device driver issues with the Win box than I do the Apple.

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

Why the back and forth on Apple vs. MS. I use Linux with a USB sound card and USB hard drives, the sound card is only to connect to my very satisfactory Audio Mirror DAC. This Linux system runs on a fanless VIA chip (mini itx). No virus possibilities and is internet connected a CDDB data base that automatically sets up folders with titles etc. just before ripping to the hard drive. So get a cheap PC and free Linux. PC audio can be had very inexpensively.
~tom

noise issues, see www.silentpcreview.com

I just tried doing this today for the first time in my system.
I must say overall that I did not like it. I really hoped I would. I wanted to like, I tried to like it. But for me it just didn't cut it.

I used a iBook with a Digidesign Mbox and my Wadia DAC.
All files were uncompress and in Raw AIFF form.

Technically speaking everything sounded better. The soundstage and imagining and depth were great. They were in fact better than I have ever heard them. But the PRAT was gone!

I just could not get involved in the music. When we tried a disc strait from the CD drive it sound better (PRAT wise). My guess is music coming off the hard drive looses it timing?

It's hard to describe, and you kinda have to hear it. It should of been great. Every aspect was better (bass, clarity, soundstaging, etc), but the music was lost. It sounded more like hifi and less like music. Over all it was a let down.

A friend was with me when we did this test. He has about a 10K 2 channel system. In the end we both felt the same way.

Has anyone else experience this?

Of course YMMV, but for me I am going to stick with my CD player. I won't be adopting HD playback any time soon.

Happy listening,
Nick

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

Nickway - If timing errors occur it would be on the digital output. I'm not familiar with the apple OS. Does apple OS have mixer issues like WinXP? Is there something in the apple OS that would approximate kernel streaming or ASIO in WinXP. When I first went to a DigAudPC the increase in dynamic range was fantastic.

Hi Guys,

To answer some of your questions. The Mbox, takes its power over the USB cable as well as passing the information via it. I used the SPDIF digital out on the mbox to go to my Wadia.

On the laptop we set everything up for the best sound quality as recommended by Steve Nugget of Empirical Audio in his posts.

What it sounded like was the timing of the music was destroyed when coming off the hard drive. There was nothing else on the laptop running when we were doing this. We even turned off the screen to help keep noise down. We tried different file formats and nothing seemed to help.

When we tried to listed to the same disc playing in the CD drive it sounded better. It did not have the all of the virtues (dynamics, staging, etc..) of the harddrive, but it did have timing (although not that great).
But what good is everything else if the music is lacking timing?

So the fact that it sounded better of the CD drive then the HD makes me believe their was nothing wrong with the Mbox. It makes me think that music coming off the HD itself is the problem. Like I said, everything (and I mean everything, detail, depth etc...) was better when coming off the HD, BUT the timing was nowhere to be found. If the timing could be made right I would be a believer. Like I said, I really wanted it to work. I guess the old saying is right: There is no free lunch.

Have you guys ever personally tried doing this? If so what were your results?
Please tell me I am wrong, as I would really like to be. However somehow I doubt the timing issues will be fixed anytime soon.

Cheers,
Nick

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

Hello Jax.

I read over the links you sent me. I did indeed set everything up correctly.

I would be willing to give computer playback another chance. But until I hear it with good PRAT, will not be investing it it. It's really a shame. I was so close, but yet ever so far away.

Also, just a side note. I don't think the Mbox will upsample the outgoing signal. The Mbox is capable of 24/96 but thats more a function for the inputs. It is actually more of a pro-audio tool for two channel recording. I believe the digial output is non upsampled.

Happy Listening.
Nick

Wow, quite a long thread here. Glad I wandered over from the other forums.

I've been fully hard-drive based for about a year. The system is based around an Apple iBook G4-1.1Ghz with just under a terabyte of firewire hard drives holding approx. 1500 CD's in Apple Lossless format. I tried the Airport Express spdif out, but in the end I preferred a USB extender cable running along the baseboards feeding an M-Audio Audiophile USB then into a Musical Fidelity A32.24 DAC.

The Airport Express didn't maintain digital sync which inserted a 2-3 second space every time you accessed a new track (nothing when playing sequentially). That's really the only reason I went the USB route.

Can it work? Absolutely!

Can it sound great? This setup replaced a Naim CDX2 with XPS2 (over $10k list price) and my wife and I both agree that the sound quality is just different, neither better nor worse than the Naim. That's saying something given the huge price difference.

Graham

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

Nick,

A few suggestions:

1. Set the buffer for the MBox to the highest setting. (why don't you report all of the settings back here and we can maybe see if something else is up)

2. Unsure which Wadia you're using, but what settings are available on it? Upsampling all the way to 192k on my MF DAC destroys the PRaT and makes everything overanalytical as well, so I leave it at 96k.

Graham

Hi Guys,

All the settings are at the default. It does not give me an option for the buffer size. I get the default option of 512 (which I presume is Kilobytes.)

You can view the unit on the Digidesign site:
http://www.digidesign.com/products/mbox/

Digidesign makes some VERY high quality expensive gear.
They are a world class company used by many famous studios.
The Mbox is the cheapest item they make and it costs $500.

I very much doubt the Mbox is the weak link.
My reasoning for that is:
1. Music sounded better coming off the CD laptop drive rather than the HD.
- I believe point 1 rules out the mbox as the culprit as well as everything forward in the chain. Which only leaves the computer and data files themselves.
2. The Mbox is of a high caliber and is used by major recording professionals world round.

I would be willing to try another unit. But based off of point 1, I think the timing of the music is lost coming off the HD. It just does not have PRaT. I really did want this to work.
Absolutely EVERYTHING other than the PRAT is world class and I have NOT heard better period. Just the PRat is missing in action. I am most disappointed in this. I really wanted to go down this road.

I am going to give it another shot tomorrow. Seeing as I believe the HD is the culprit I am going to try all the formats. Before I was using an uncompressed AIFF along with some Apple loss-less.
But seeing as that is what is recommended by Steve at Empirical as well as Wavelength audio I don't think it's going to fix it.

I also have a Parasound (CEC) transport coming. If I am lucky I will get it tomorrow.
My hope was because my Wadia has multiple inputs. I was going to use the Parasound for discs when needed and the computer for most playback, But due to my experimenting I will probably end up using the Parasound elusively.

I will post my results tomorrow.
Cheers,
Nick

If someone want to PM me their number maybe I can call them tomorrow and double check everything over the phone. Please also include you time zone. I am in the Mountain Standard zone.

First, you're falling for the marketing that Digidesign wants you to. True, their high-end gear is used in pro studios around the world. Does this mean that their low-end gear sounds as good? (nope) The mbox is NOT used in pro studios around the world, as it's a prosumer device at best.

Second, the mbox has a horrible reputation amongst Mac musicians for driver issues (and being overpriced).

Third, every audio interface worth more than a hundred dollars has a driver configuration process. Nick, looks like it's time for you to RTFM :) If you want to use toys that come from the studio world, you should learn how to use them before knocking them.

Hello Ghunter

I have read the manual and I am not knocking it. Please don't get me wrong, I think its great for the price. I should also point out that while it is expensive it does come with a full version of Pro Tools which is worth quite a few hundred in itself.

I don't think it's as good as their more expensive equipment. You of course get what you pay for. But it's a great tool as part of a home studio on the cheap.
I know many pro sound techs that take them on tour. They use them for making a personal 2 ch mix of concert in order to help them get better sound the next time around.

So I am not sure where you got the idea that I am knocking it or I don't know how to use it.

All I am saying is, I am not convinced about using a PC based audio system.
If you re-read my above post, I have come to the conclusion thats the Mbox is not the weak link. I think its a problem with computer HD itself.

Everyones milage with very, just for me with the equipment I had it was not working.
Great sound, but no music (lack of PRaT). I would really like to hear your system because like I said, I want this to work.

On a side note: My wadia does not upsample past 44.1 or 48 but it is 18 bit.

Just out of curiosity, what other equipment are you using?

Cheers,
Nick

At first it sounded to me like a jitter problem. Your DAC isn't correcting for it, so that's going to be the only difference between a cdp out and your mbox out, all other things equal.

Now, when you say that there is a difference through the mbox between music from the hard drive and a cd in the tray of the same computer then that points to a setting in itunes that somehow doesn't affect direct playback (which I didn't think existed). In the audio tab in iTunes Preferences do you have "Sound Enhancer" or "Sound Check" turned on? In the importing tab are you selecting "Use error correction"? Beyond that, the most important settings are going to be for the mbox.

Perhaps you should run Norton Utilities on your hard drive to see if there are any physical problems? I've done this test with a number of computers, several audio interfaces, multiple DAC's, and in studio and living room scenarios. They've always sounded equal to my ears (and barring any physical defects in your equipment) they should be. Technically, there are well-defined validity checks built in to hard drives so that things like this don't happen.

By the way, if a studio "pro" goes on the road to mix (quite a rare occurence as live and studio mixing are quite different animals) then they mostly take a part of their ProTools rig with them on the road and capture multitrack. These people are obsessive about sound, so stereo wouldn't be enough to capture what they'd be after. If it's just a matter of two channel, they'd just ask a roadie to pop in a DAT to capture the FOH mix and focus on the job at hand.

If they are doing it themselves on the cheap and don't want to move away from ProTools, they'd also more than likely use a rackmount interface like the Digi001 or Digi002 Rack instead of the mbox. Being on the road is a rough place and being tucked away in a rack means it will survive a tour while being on the desk means it is going to get destroyed.

Nick, I just want to make sure that you're not fooling yourself into thinking the mbox is any different than any of the other sub-$1000 interfaces out there.

Thanks G,

I am going to try it again tonight. As far as the itunes setting goes, I had them exactly how people recommend. I am a nut about proper ripping.
I have a 80 drive in my Powermac just for uncompress music.

Cheers,
Nick

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

Hey Jax,

The 80 gig drive is just for music. My system and files are on another drive.

My power mac is not hooked up to my stereo. I just use it for listening when I am on the computer and for loading up my ipod. My computer speakers are Monsoon Audio's, which were made under license from Eminent Technology. I also use my Grado 225 headphones.

I tried using listening for differences between Apple lossless and AIFF with my ipod and my Grado's and I could not tell a difference. I could also not tell the difference between them on my computer speakers.

I can tell the difference between AAC and AIFF. I find that if I must use compression AAC at 256kbps is much better than MP3 of the same bit rate.

On my main stereo I might be able to hear the difference between AIFF and Apple lossless. I will have to give it a try.

Also the 80 gigs just hold my favorite music for loading up my ipod. I have about 400 CD's (and growing) so there is not room for all of them.

Also my Parasound (CEC) 2000 belt drive transport came in this morning. I was using it over lunch and initial impressions are really good. It's very smooth and has plenty of dynamics. I did find that an after-market cord made a big difference. I can't wait for tonight so I can listen more.

Cheers,
Nick

Using error correction when extracting information from a CD is just an extra level of validation that you're getting a bit-accurate copy of the media. It takes longer, but worth it when you're looking for the best possible reproduction. You can think of it as a second scan of every ring, and you're right in thinking it has nothing to do with playback.

Apple Lossless Compression is bit-accurate and just involves a storage compression routine. Compression has gotten a bad rap from the audiophile community (sometimes for good reason) because of the inherent loss in mp3 and other compression schemes. When ALC tracks are played back, you get the same 16-bit 44.1 KHz signal that would be coming from a cd or wav/aiff file. Just like using winzip or stuffit to compress a Word document then uncompressing it later.

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

Marco, for someone who's learning you've got a pretty good grasp of this!

What you're talking about here is also known as jitter. Here are a few articles that explain what's going on:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Apr03/articles/digitalclocking.asp

http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/appnotes-d/jittercu.html

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

Are there any good hard disk dedicated players? Rather not use a PC or Apple w/ full screen. What about the new McIntosh player? Any body tried it yet?

To address your question about toslink vs. coaxial: they both transmit the same spdif standard information so it's a matter of preference and what your equipment has. Some say that optical is more prone to jitter, but with jitter correction circuitry I'm sure you can see how any differences would be minimized to insignificant levels. A bit is a bit is a bit.

Two other commonly found digital audio transmission protocols are AES/EBU (which uses a balanced cable) and ADAT (which uses the exact same toslink fiber optic cable but has capacity for up to 8 audio channels).

Make sense?

Now to confuse matters even more, to get the ABSOLUTE best performance out of a digital audio setup you should use a master clock device such as the Apogee Big Ben:

http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/bigben.php

Yep, all that $1500 device does is generate ultra-accurate clock signals. Not many consumer DAC's offer word clock sync, perhaps because it's easy to reclock a single source more accurately than to synchronize multiple bidirectional audio streams that one might see in the studio. That's part of the home audio design I've never seen.

Henryhk, if you think about how quickly audio standards and software updates are happening, would you really want to be locked in to one manufacturer's way of doing things? The Linn and McIntosh units are definitely for people with massive disposable incomes that aren't familiar with computers. If that's you, then go for it and let us know. There's a lot more power and flexibility in going with a more open system, though.

Henryhk: I have heard good things about the McIntosh (thought it is priced at around ($5500). Yamaha has a hard disk player coming out soon (HD 1500 -- I think) that will cost substanitally less than the MAC (under 1K). They have one out right now as well (HD1300, I think -- it is referenced earlier in this thread).

I am still trying to decide between a computer based system and a hard drive system like the Yamaha.

Okay, I think I figured out what I am going to do. I am going to use a Macintosh Powerbook as my interface and drive, and add a firewire hardrive to store my music in a lossless format. The only thing left to consider is, how do I connect the computer to the pre-amp portion of my integrated, with good D/A conversion in between? Thus far the Apogee mini-dac with USB seems like the only (and possibly best) way to connect straight from the computer into my pre-amp while maintaining a very high quality of sound. Any other ideas?

Pardales, my quick check of i-retailers indicates the Apogee mini-DAC will set you back about $1.2K. I use a Waveterminal U24 ($160). If you went that route, it would leave you a cool $1K to find a good DAC that could also be used for other things... $1K on the used market almost gives you a Theta Gen Va, for example, or a Birdland. I haven't A/B'd my Waveterminal/dCS set-up against the Apogee, but I still think the U24 route gives you more ultimate flexibility. The USB input of the U24 will let you put the device right next to the DAC and limit the length of your coax digital interconnect...

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

Thanks Edesilva and Jax2. I might go with the inexpensive wavelength to begin with and see how it sounds. This is all a bit of an experiment to see if I even like interfacing with my music in this way. If I like it I may then go for a more serious DAC.

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

The Apogee Mini-Dac has a Big Ben clock in it. I used an M-Audio Audiophile USB Dac before the Apogee and the Apogee Mini-Dac is many jumps in quality better than something like the M-Audio. Completely different ball-park. I also used the M-Audio just to convert the signal to SPiF so I could plug the computer into a Proceed AVP2 and use the Proceed's DAC. Again -- the Apogee USB Mini-Dac sounds way better. The computer plus Apogee just sounds great. Natural, detailed, organic, not digital sounding at all. I am extremely happy with it.

Jax2: You are right that the Airpot Express would work, but, I don't currently have a DAC. So, I do need a DAC of some sort first.

Rsbeck: If I decide I like interfacing with my music in this way, I will probably go with something like the Apogee. I might trying something a bit less expensive first though. If I get to the point of auditioning DAC's I will definitely give the Apogee a try.

It will be a few weeks before I get everything set up and I will report on my experiences throughout the process. Great thread! Thanks everyone.

Question, you rip a CD to whatever file format desired. What happens to songs that flow one into the other, such as the 1st two tracks on Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon? Can the CD be ripped as one image (WAV) and played back through iTunes or Foobar2000 and still have access to a track list?

Rsbeck: Do you run the Apogee mini Dac into a pre-amp or straing into a set of powered monitors? Can it be run into a preamp (like any DAC)? Thanks,