Let's talk digital!
- Thread starter ranjeetrain
- Start date
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
I wonder how that would compare with spending 12,000 [?] on an ODAC? or 20,000 on another DAC entirely? I wonder --- but I have not heard any of the Asus stuff.
I have an ordinary PC...
Except that, by a happy chance I bought a cabinet and power supply which is said to be very good. And I spent some time and money swapping fans and installing a monster CPU cooler. It is not silent, but it is pretty quiet.
I run Linux, because I decided, in the end, to give Microsoft the final boot. That was a practical/financial/ideological decision, but I won't go back on it even if somebody could show that Windows sounds better --- which it probably doesn't.
I use Ubuntu, with software from KXStudio, which I needed to make a firewire device work. I've described my tortuous route to get there on another thread. The firewire device is an Echo Audiofire2. It is (or can be) used for recording as well as playback.
I also have an ODAC (USB), which is my primary playback device these days, ODAC-->ifi iCAN headphone amp-->AT ADH900 'phones.
I do not believe in the audiophilisation of PCs. PCs work the way they always have: audiophilia does not change that. Audio data is audio data: until it reaches the DAC, there is nothing special about it, and no special way that it needs to be treated.
True, one can tweak to one's heart's content, and, why not, it's fun --- but the results are probably mostly psychological. Keep stuff simple: it just works. A PC will play from a CD in an optical disk reader, so why would anyone claim that fast hdd, fast memory, etc etc is needed?
But, if one is building a PC specifically for audio, then stuff like physical silence matters, and electrical silence at least means one thing not to worry about. In these days, I don't really know if cutting stuff out of the OS that is not needed makes much difference, but hey, it wasn't needed so it won't be missed!
Having said all that, my audio playback is still not technically perfect, with memory management issues occasionally rearing their heads. It's probably easier with Windows, and you never have to ask, "Will this interface even work with Linux!"
ranjeetrain
New Member
HSK, I'll cover that aspect too. I am a man of experiments. I'll post my analysis when I have it ready for public consumption. I'll dedicate one post only about file formats.
Totally, Rahul. Atom serves just great. I have had good success with many low processing horse power CPUs. For media upto 24x96 there is no need to look beyond Intel Atom, so long as it's a dedicated music PC. If for multipurpose use, it makes sense to buy a more capable unit.
My vote goes to Windows 7. Windows 8 is acceptable too. But if you have a choice, go for 7.
Hi Helium,
As a discerning listener I am quite positive your hearing can't be beat. So my guess is that it's the DAC section of your sound-card (or some minor set up gotchas). We don't live too far apart. I'll be happy to lend you my transport(s) to try if you like and see if your sound-card is the weak link or the PC.
Amen to that
Mani, I read about your Win8 exploits in the other thread. Honestly, I haven't had the chance to try out that solution yet. However, what I am getting out of this setup leaves me cold in the bed. I get shocked at what I hear out of this transport. I suspect very much Win8 will beat it, but I will do try that solution in due course and post my findings.
One point I want to make here however is that, all my tweakings are done by hand. Here in this thread I will list all the steps one-by-one, step-by-step. It will be a tremendous learning for everyone who tries. Besides, my steps would be modular, as in, it will have a solution for everyone.
Do you want to access your media from NAS? - I have a solution.
Do you want to utilize an SSD? - I have a solution.
I mean, mine is not a one-click script that does things to your PC you don't want/need/understand. It will be everything you will understand. And you can only apply the tweaks you want.
koushik
Well-Known Member
Ranjeet, please chip in with next part of the story - Many of us are very eagerly waiting.
In fact, this is the first and only thread I ever subscribed to in this forum
In fact, this is the first and only thread I ever subscribed to in this forum
Last edited:
bobbyprajan
Active Member
Delete this please !!!
ranjeetrain
New Member
Both are hooked currently, GTM. I prefer the sound signature of Windows. Here is my take on Windows vs Mac.
I prefer Windows because I can (personally) arm-twist Windows any which way I want. It's primarily because while with Mac I have been an off-an-on guy, Windows has been regularly with me. Mac has been the neighborhood girl for me, whom I have been ogling at, asking for a coffee and watching movies together. Windows has been my wife. She cooks for me. :lol:
Sorry about that analogy, just wanted a bit of humor.
I feel I can tweak Windows to a lot more extent compared to Mac OS. Though, this is just a matter of personal expertise. Mac OS, however good an OS it is, is not really a tweakers' toy.
Another aspect, which should be more appealing to most, is that - Mac sounds colored to me. Okay, colored sounds a tad negative. Let me put it this way; the sound from Mac is sweet. Male vocals are absolutely adorable, highs are sharp, lows are extended. However, this all only sounds good on entry level systems. On a revealing system, it will quickly be discovered that:
(1) Mac is boosting the lows (which makes it wobbly and robs it of definition).
(2) Highs tend to become shrill (specially high-res files, 24/96 and higher) start sounding unbearable.
(3) Mid-range is forward (pleasingly) but is not clean. You can actually hear distortion, unless you keep the volume from Mac very low (less than 50%).
Overall sound signature of Mac is pleasing (musical), but on revealing systems these strengths become weaknesses. Mac sounds awesome for Jazz, Country, Reggae, Male vocals. But it's aweful for Rock, Classical. My biggest dissatisfaction with Mac is - it's very noisy. I switch the Mac on when I have to hear people like Bob Marley and Boz Scaggs. But switch back to Windows immediately after that.
However, I am not throwing it out just yet. I would like to give it more chance. I am waiting to acquire a good USB-SPDIF converter. Who knows there is something I don't know. I will add more when I learn something new.
Last edited:
ranjeetrain
New Member
Ranjeet, please chip in with next part of the story - Many of us are very eagerly waiting.
In fact, this is the first and only thread I ever subscribed to in this forum
Thanks Koushik, I will certainly be posting about all the major aspects I have experimented with. In fact I have started it already. GerryTheMerry asked about Mac, this was one of the topics on my mind too. I would have covered that in due course anyway. Good thing he asked, and the topic came out earlier than I planned.
However, contributing to the knowledge in this thread is absolutely welcome. My attempt would be to make it "the reference" thread for digital playback. Any contribution from FMs towards the same is totally welcome.
Good for sure eagerly waiting for your hands on tweaks and experience. All the tweaks that I have done either on Win 7 or 8 are based on the standalone scripts (one click setup) but I think your hands one experience will enrich everybody including me to enhance and experience more joy of using a digital transport. I am very happy with my current setup Music-PC + ODAC, so with your inputs I should really enhance over and above what I have. If it does go good I would not hesitate to go back to Win 7 as I have needed backup of my Foobar setup along with the playlists
hyeah:ranjeetrain
New Member
Arjun, deep thinking that. Allow me to build upon that.
PC playback is already superior to anything but expensive CDPs. What does one stand to gain by tweaking?
Simple answer: All the tweakings one does with respect to enhance the PC playback is two-dimensional. One dimension is decreasing the CPU load. Decreasing the CPU load is often done by upgrading the hardware. Cutting edge Mobos, CPUs etc are all the attempts towards decreasing the CPU load.
The other dimension is reducing the latency. Buying fastest memory chips, investing in SSD, complete RAM based operations, are all the steps people take towards reducing the latency.
Now, here is my take: I'd say the CPU frequency is not as big a deal as the latency is. As will become evident, most of the steps I have taken are geared towards reducing the latency (my example PC is among the lowest spec one can buy new today). And the reason for that is, if you plot CPU load and Lateny versus audible performance gain on a graph, the performance gain line would be a much steep angle for Latency compared to CPU load. Audio performance improves much rapidly with reduction in latency compared to reduction in CPU load.
An example: a person would stand to gain a lot more simple by changing to SSD than going from 1 GHz to 3 GHz processor. (This is assuming the computer is not crammed enough to not be able to benefit from faster disc access).
Also, as you rightly figured, lower processor speed means lower temperature, less cooling needs. Less cooling need means you can do with a low rpm cooling fan or completely do away with it. Not to mention low powered processors are more green environmentally (just something good to keep in mind).
The tweaks I will illustrate would work in both dimensions to improve the audio-fidelity.
>> Also Is there any case available with a built in LCD screen maybe 6-7 inches , or any LCD monitor which is really small ?
Look at SP road. I had seen some such products in Lajpat Rai Market (Old Delhi). Am sure they would also have it in SP road. Ask for monitors for security cameras. They usually have D-pin as well as video connector.
A Happy New Year to you too!!
This looks promising for folks who, like me, do think about going digital to some extent at least, but hold back for the fear of the unknown.
Was this late in the night or early in the morning?
Waiting for more.
Exactly my intent. If I can show a way, I would consider it my privilege.
I was listening to the dark side of the moon at the moment. So really no idea whether it was day or night :lol:
Welcome! Second installment is being gift-wrapped currently
I would like to try Hiface. Anyone from Delhi has one?
koushik
Well-Known Member
What is your current connection from PC to DAC?
darshanjoshi
Active Member
Nice Thread !!
I also use my Basic PC for HTPC - Movies & Music purpose.
1 GB RAM
80 HDD
Core 2 Duo
GT 440 GPU
Movies & Music works flawless on XBMC/ Potplayer & Foobar.
I would like to add a Coaxial DAC and IA in the chain and hence recently build a DIY Spdif (Coaxial) Out from MoBo for Rs.40/-.
inspired by Santy's Thread. Music SQ was as same as from HMDI on an AVR for 16 Bit / 44.1 files played thru Foobar.
Would be interesting to explore more options....
I also use my Basic PC for HTPC - Movies & Music purpose.
1 GB RAM
80 HDD
Core 2 Duo
GT 440 GPU
Movies & Music works flawless on XBMC/ Potplayer & Foobar.
I would like to add a Coaxial DAC and IA in the chain and hence recently build a DIY Spdif (Coaxial) Out from MoBo for Rs.40/-.
inspired by Santy's Thread. Music SQ was as same as from HMDI on an AVR for 16 Bit / 44.1 files played thru Foobar.Would be interesting to explore more options....
ranjeetrain
New Member
USB cables. One is an off the shelf cable that came with a printer. The other one I ordered from Amazon, Nuforce USB cable.
To keep things equal I compared only USB connectivity. Though Mac also does SPDIF out. In due course I will see if SP-DIF out from Mac is any cleaner. I do have the SP-DIF connector for the Mac but can't find it now.
Nice Thread !!
I also use my Basic PC for HTPC - Movies & Music purpose.
1 GB RAM
80 HDD
Core 2 Duo
GT 440 GPU
Movies & Music works flawless on XBMC/ Potplayer & Foobar.
I would like to add a Coaxial DAC and IA in the chain and hence recently build a DIY Spdif (Coaxial) Out from MoBo for Rs.40/-.
Would be interesting to explore more options....
Yeah, saw the thread by Santy. It was a good one.
This is a nice experiment you did. Unfortunately, I don't even a like touching the desktop now (too cumbersome). I will try and give that a shot at some point if I can. However, I have a feeling feeding USB to an outbound DAC has advantages. May be you need it, may be you don't. Anyway, stay tuned. May be you will find some tweaking ideas to try.
Last edited:
koushik
Well-Known Member
Ok ... thank you.
Unfortunately I don't have a usb dac. So will buy a cm6631a based usb-to-spdif converter soon.
Unfortunately I don't have a usb dac. So will buy a cm6631a based usb-to-spdif converter soon.
panditji
Well-Known Member
Ranjeet, are you in Delhi for some time? If yes, pls PM your mobile number where I can reach you...
I did try the ODAC of FM Blasto and it was pretty good. However, I found the laid back sound of opa627 more favourable with my monitor audio speakers which are slightly bright and forward. The ODAC is definitely more value for money although not necessarily better (or inferior). I will be buying the ODAC board in near future for my DIY tube + tripath amp. On the other hand, buying another DAC for 20K would have been a lateral move at best. For 45K (price of asus and opamps), the most popular and well received DAC I could have bought was the MF M1 which in my opinion is inferior to what I currently have so I feel the money on opamps was well spent
. I would like to hear the Schiit Gungnir though, which is in that price range and compare against it as I heard Schiit Modi and it sounded pretty good. Perhaps next time I visit my native Calcutta, I will take my XEO and visit the FM who has it :licklips: Completely agree. I swear I wrote about my "audiophilisation" attempts after reading some of the posts here and their results in my earlier post. I don't know how it got lost. Here they are again.
a) SSD + more RAM - no change.
b) Soft real time kernel - no change. Am seeing some delay with ssh/cli but no changes for audio.
c) Tried mplayer with audio out to DAC's alsa hw device which guarantees no processing in software stack i.e. bitperfect playback. Tried this as the latest xbmc resamples all audio streams
. The difference was night and day with mplayer sounding vastly superior. The only problem is controlling playback with a remote .Interesting .... Could you elaborate on the mm issues.
ranjeetrain
New Member
Computer-based Playback 101
I had initially planned to present the topic in a very sequential manner (keeping in mind someone who has never used digital, or who has just started into digital) so that the thread could be useful for a wider audience. But since there is a lot of anticipation build-up let me jump right into the middle and start with the customization/optimization/tweaking process. Other topics (more useful for people not already into digital) will be added later.
Basics of Computer based music playback
In order to understand the optimization process (rather than just follow steps/recipe from a cookbook to optimize) it is important to understand various aspects of PC playback. So, we will be covering some ground theoretically before jumping into the optimization steps.
Okay, lets begin with the fundamentals!
Most of the people think of digital playback as a mere PC+DAC topic. I want to humbly point out they are only scratching the surface. There are so many things that matter when it comes to digital playback. Since the entire topic is quite complex, allow me to break it down into logical parts and present them one by one. Here comes the part about basics of computer based playback.
Anatomy of digital playback
Broadly speaking, a digital playback system has three components.
The digital source
The digital source here refers to the hardware that stores the media. Please don't confuse this with the resolution of digital files or storage formats or file formats. This is strictly about the hardware part and paying attention to what we discuss here will benefit you regardless of what your storage format/file format/resolution.
This section is also irrelevant for people who use physical media (a red book CD/an SACD/DVD-A) with a hardware transport. This is for people who are into 'file-based playback'. I.e. this thread is not about digital playback in truest sense, but about computer based playback.
Digital playback vs. Computer based playback
Music can be stored digitally in one of the many industry standard formats. Most common format for storing digital music is known as Audio Compact Disc, which is often abbreviated CD. It can also be abbreviated more accurately as ACD or CD-DA depending on the context. Whereas they all refer to a Red Book CD, the specific meaning is slightly different and used in a specific context. CD-DA stands for Compact Disc Digital Audio, which is the original term used by Sony and Philips, the inventors of Red Book CD format. CD is a much more generic term which stands for Compact Disk. The distinction among these terms can be easily made by understanding that every CD-DA is an ACD and every ACD is a CD, but the reverse need not always be true. A CD can also be an SA-CD, an MP3 CD and so on.
In short, CD is a colloquial term to refer to a CD-DA (an audio CD based on Red Book format). However, a CD can also refer to any physical optical disc, including discs that contain no music at all. A CD can be a Data Disc, a CD-DA, an SA-CD, an MP3 CD, a DVD-A etc. Digital playback is an umbrella term used for playback of digitally stored music regardless of format and resolution of the music on the physical media.
A digital playback system often consists of two hardware components; a digital transport and a digital-to-analogue converter. The Transport component is responsible for reading the digital data from the physical media and digital-to-analogue converter component is responsible for converting it into analogue signal. In entry to mid-level systems these two hardware components are often built together and clubbed in one physical casing. In such a case this is referred to as a CD Player. Depending on what formats of a CD it can play it can be termed as a CD Player, SACD player, a DVD-Player, a Universal disk player and so on. Any CD player however is typically restricted to playing only the formats it is designed to play. In other words, a CD player generally has a fixed functionality and is not upgradable in terms of capability, making it a non-upgradable, non-future proof playback mechanism.
Computer based playback is digital playback as well. However, it offers a much better user experience. A computer based playback system is usually a universal player, i.e. it can play almost every format and resolution subject to certain conditions. Additionally, a computer based playback system can play even video formats and serve as a general purpose computer for household or office work. It is much easily upgradable in terms of hardware and software capabilities. A computer based playback system frees a user from upgrade woes and is 99% future proof. A computer based playback system doesnt make use of physical media such as a CD. That makes cataloging, maintaining and playing music order of magnitude easy with computer based playback compared to traditional digital playback with a CD player and physical media.
Here is an at-a-glance summary of Digital vs computer based playback.
[IMG2]http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5544/11839217355_dc2bd2e06e_o.gif[/IMG2]
Computer based playback is not much different from traditional digital playback except that traditional digital playback (using a CD player and physical discs) still retains the analogue time feel; in the sense that audiophiles can still connect to their music system in a physical way. They can still touch and feel their music albums, cherish gazing at the cover-art that might remind them to the recording venue and induce an emotional wave making them nostalgic. Computer based playback is slightly different. Though it is very much possible to still have the emotional connect with Computer based playback (many people do, I know I do), Computer based playback is primarily about economy, ergonomics, sophistication.
The biggest advantage of computer based playback, however, is yet to be discussed. A computer takes digital playback to a very high level with very little investment. Not till long ago, a reference level playback was not possible without spending a 5-digit sum in USD, regardless of digital or analogue. But the advances in digital hardware and software technology has brought reference level sound reproduction within the reach of every audiophile. Today it is possible to get a very high quality digital playback source for as little as USD 1000 and reference level playback from USD 2500-3000 onwards. It cant get much better than this.
A subtle but important difference between traditional digital playback and Computer based playback is that the every track being played in a computer is a computer file. This has two important bearing on Computer based playback. One, every computer file needs to be stored somehow in a way it is equivalent to storing on a physical media (such as an Audio CD). Two, it must be retrieved from the media and loaded into memory for playback as it would happen in case of a commercial disc spinner.
Some of you might be wondering what does all this theory have got to do with a simple matter of DAC+PC thing. But stay right with me while I explain the importance of understanding this. As you would soon realize, this storage and retrieval is as much at the key of good music re-production as the processing (Digital to analogue conversion part).
Please go a bit back and look at the section where I described the anatomy of digital playback. The storage and retrieval from a computer file system and loading into computer memory equates to "the source" and "the transport" part. And in order to get most out of computer based playback, it is critical to get the storage, retrieval and loading into computer memory right. That is, unless you get the storage and retrieval right (the source and the transport) you can't expect the DAC (the converter) to make a magic. Most people who start into digital make this mistake. They go on upgrading their DACs spending ridiculous amounts. Whereas the problem really lies before the data reaches the DAC.
What we are discussing in this thread is - how to sort out "the source" and "the transport" and supply the optimized data to your "converter" for the perfect digital playback. You are absolutely right about it if you figured we are going to achieve that by optimizing the storage and retrieval of digital content.
Coming up next: Optimizing the storage and retrieval of digital content
Thanks for staying with me through these long posts.
I had initially planned to present the topic in a very sequential manner (keeping in mind someone who has never used digital, or who has just started into digital) so that the thread could be useful for a wider audience. But since there is a lot of anticipation build-up let me jump right into the middle and start with the customization/optimization/tweaking process. Other topics (more useful for people not already into digital) will be added later.
Basics of Computer based music playback
In order to understand the optimization process (rather than just follow steps/recipe from a cookbook to optimize) it is important to understand various aspects of PC playback. So, we will be covering some ground theoretically before jumping into the optimization steps.
Okay, lets begin with the fundamentals!
Most of the people think of digital playback as a mere PC+DAC topic. I want to humbly point out they are only scratching the surface. There are so many things that matter when it comes to digital playback. Since the entire topic is quite complex, allow me to break it down into logical parts and present them one by one. Here comes the part about basics of computer based playback.
Anatomy of digital playback
Broadly speaking, a digital playback system has three components.
1. The source
2. The transport
3. The Digital-to-analogue conversion
The reason for touching upon this aspect is that most people often ignore the first part or subconsciously combine the first two parts into one. At least for the purpose of this thread we will make a distinction between the two components and discuss why they are different and how it makes sense to think of and pay attention to each as two discrete components. Another reason for discussing this is to understand how much impact each component has on the overall sound quality.2. The transport
3. The Digital-to-analogue conversion
The digital source
The digital source here refers to the hardware that stores the media. Please don't confuse this with the resolution of digital files or storage formats or file formats. This is strictly about the hardware part and paying attention to what we discuss here will benefit you regardless of what your storage format/file format/resolution.
This section is also irrelevant for people who use physical media (a red book CD/an SACD/DVD-A) with a hardware transport. This is for people who are into 'file-based playback'. I.e. this thread is not about digital playback in truest sense, but about computer based playback.
Digital playback vs. Computer based playback
Music can be stored digitally in one of the many industry standard formats. Most common format for storing digital music is known as Audio Compact Disc, which is often abbreviated CD. It can also be abbreviated more accurately as ACD or CD-DA depending on the context. Whereas they all refer to a Red Book CD, the specific meaning is slightly different and used in a specific context. CD-DA stands for Compact Disc Digital Audio, which is the original term used by Sony and Philips, the inventors of Red Book CD format. CD is a much more generic term which stands for Compact Disk. The distinction among these terms can be easily made by understanding that every CD-DA is an ACD and every ACD is a CD, but the reverse need not always be true. A CD can also be an SA-CD, an MP3 CD and so on.
In short, CD is a colloquial term to refer to a CD-DA (an audio CD based on Red Book format). However, a CD can also refer to any physical optical disc, including discs that contain no music at all. A CD can be a Data Disc, a CD-DA, an SA-CD, an MP3 CD, a DVD-A etc. Digital playback is an umbrella term used for playback of digitally stored music regardless of format and resolution of the music on the physical media.
A digital playback system often consists of two hardware components; a digital transport and a digital-to-analogue converter. The Transport component is responsible for reading the digital data from the physical media and digital-to-analogue converter component is responsible for converting it into analogue signal. In entry to mid-level systems these two hardware components are often built together and clubbed in one physical casing. In such a case this is referred to as a CD Player. Depending on what formats of a CD it can play it can be termed as a CD Player, SACD player, a DVD-Player, a Universal disk player and so on. Any CD player however is typically restricted to playing only the formats it is designed to play. In other words, a CD player generally has a fixed functionality and is not upgradable in terms of capability, making it a non-upgradable, non-future proof playback mechanism.
Computer based playback is digital playback as well. However, it offers a much better user experience. A computer based playback system is usually a universal player, i.e. it can play almost every format and resolution subject to certain conditions. Additionally, a computer based playback system can play even video formats and serve as a general purpose computer for household or office work. It is much easily upgradable in terms of hardware and software capabilities. A computer based playback system frees a user from upgrade woes and is 99% future proof. A computer based playback system doesnt make use of physical media such as a CD. That makes cataloging, maintaining and playing music order of magnitude easy with computer based playback compared to traditional digital playback with a CD player and physical media.
Here is an at-a-glance summary of Digital vs computer based playback.
[IMG2]http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5544/11839217355_dc2bd2e06e_o.gif[/IMG2]
Computer based playback is not much different from traditional digital playback except that traditional digital playback (using a CD player and physical discs) still retains the analogue time feel; in the sense that audiophiles can still connect to their music system in a physical way. They can still touch and feel their music albums, cherish gazing at the cover-art that might remind them to the recording venue and induce an emotional wave making them nostalgic. Computer based playback is slightly different. Though it is very much possible to still have the emotional connect with Computer based playback (many people do, I know I do), Computer based playback is primarily about economy, ergonomics, sophistication.
The biggest advantage of computer based playback, however, is yet to be discussed. A computer takes digital playback to a very high level with very little investment. Not till long ago, a reference level playback was not possible without spending a 5-digit sum in USD, regardless of digital or analogue. But the advances in digital hardware and software technology has brought reference level sound reproduction within the reach of every audiophile. Today it is possible to get a very high quality digital playback source for as little as USD 1000 and reference level playback from USD 2500-3000 onwards. It cant get much better than this.
A subtle but important difference between traditional digital playback and Computer based playback is that the every track being played in a computer is a computer file. This has two important bearing on Computer based playback. One, every computer file needs to be stored somehow in a way it is equivalent to storing on a physical media (such as an Audio CD). Two, it must be retrieved from the media and loaded into memory for playback as it would happen in case of a commercial disc spinner.
Some of you might be wondering what does all this theory have got to do with a simple matter of DAC+PC thing. But stay right with me while I explain the importance of understanding this. As you would soon realize, this storage and retrieval is as much at the key of good music re-production as the processing (Digital to analogue conversion part).
Please go a bit back and look at the section where I described the anatomy of digital playback. The storage and retrieval from a computer file system and loading into computer memory equates to "the source" and "the transport" part. And in order to get most out of computer based playback, it is critical to get the storage, retrieval and loading into computer memory right. That is, unless you get the storage and retrieval right (the source and the transport) you can't expect the DAC (the converter) to make a magic. Most people who start into digital make this mistake. They go on upgrading their DACs spending ridiculous amounts. Whereas the problem really lies before the data reaches the DAC.
What we are discussing in this thread is - how to sort out "the source" and "the transport" and supply the optimized data to your "converter" for the perfect digital playback. You are absolutely right about it if you figured we are going to achieve that by optimizing the storage and retrieval of digital content.
Coming up next: Optimizing the storage and retrieval of digital content
Thanks for staying with me through these long posts.
Last edited:
Vinod.R
Well-Known Member
I would request mods to remove all posts including this one except Ranjeetrain's as it looks like it is going to be a fantastic know how and I would love this thread to be clean and uncluttered. So any post which is not really contributing to this thread can be safely removed including this one.
Many thanks to Ranjeetrain for this lovely thread.
Vinod
Many thanks to Ranjeetrain for this lovely thread.
Vinod
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Yes, but I think it is peculiar to me, and would distract from the thread
It all contributes. Ranjeet has said that all are welcome ... but if he chooses to follow a more article-type format, then I'm happy with any such decision.
At least, given the way Ranjeet is developing it, we should stick with the flow and timing. I'll try
We can talk about anything, anytime, some other thread.
Last edited:
ranjeetrain
New Member
Hi Vinod, Thad,
All discussions here are in the spirit of contributing to the knowledge. Some discussion will facilitate understanding or certain points I forgot/overlooked or didn't elaborate upon enough. It is very possible I might overlook stuff or mis-communicate some. I hope discussions will add to the learning
All discussions here are in the spirit of contributing to the knowledge. Some discussion will facilitate understanding or certain points I forgot/overlooked or didn't elaborate upon enough. It is very possible I might overlook stuff or mis-communicate some. I hope discussions will add to the learning
Purchase the Audiolab 6000A Integrated Amplifier at a special offer price.
