![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
82.123.65.183
I seek to use a computer based solution to better my dCS stack running through Harmonic Tech P2A cables into ATC SCM50ASL speakers. Is this possible?
I've paid attention to some threads re Benchmark and DEQX and Empirical etc., which suggest this is possible.
So, for those with experience or insight comparing and/or replacing a dCS stack with Benchmark or DEQX or Empirical or others please reply with detail as to your experience and suggestions.
FWIW over the past few years I have used a Verdi, Purcell and Elgar Plus. Then, I replaced the Verdi with a Verdi Encore (which I am not so sure was an improvement) in an attempt to simplify a bit by removing the Purcell. I have not used but have considered using the dCS Verona to improve matters but suspect the time is now past for doing so, given recent developments in computer based USB or I2S solutions.
I currently upsample from all inputs to dsd, whether from the Verdi Encore to the Elgar Plus, or from my Mac PowerBook G4 via iTunes through an 802.11g Airport Express connected toslink to the dsd enabled Purcell (ironically I still use the Purcell).
Before my attempts to simplify I had been using the dCS stack to run various Lamm amps through Avalon Eidolon (and other) speakers. Unfortunately, I never realised the full potential of the Eidolon (though they were still very satisfying). I changed to the ATC to simplify my system, and have been pleased with them.
I enjoy the active ATC and want to keep them. If necessary I can add a beloved Lamm L1 preamp into the chain using a computer based input, but would prefer not to do so; the reasons being my 5 meter length Harmonic Tech P2A cables run on 1.25v which pose isssues to the variable output L1 and I prefer to keep my source/pramps far from the speakers (though with a small computer based solution this may not be necessary).
Please help with suggestions/opinions!! Thanks in advance.
Follow Ups:
Here is an interesting post on the DCS stand alone player versus some other SOTA DAC/players:
The five CD Players selected for evaluation were: 1) a Resolution Audio Opus 21 (modified by Great Northern Sound), 2) the dcs standalone player, 3) a Meridian 808 Signature, 4) a EMM Labs Signature configuration (CDSD/DCC2 combo), and 5) an APL NWO 2.5T (the 2.5T is a 2.5 featuring a redesigned tube output stage.
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ddgtl&1172688055&read&keyw&zzapl=nwo
Thanks for all the comments in this thread!!
Looks like I'll go ahead and buy a Big Ben. I've heard others with dCS say they did not hear any difference between a BB and a Verona, and it looks to me like the BB is more flexible with digital inputs. I've read of modifications to the Big Ben. Can anyone recommend someone, and detail the mods and cost? I've looked at mauimods', Empirical's, and Black Lion's etc. sites for info. re this and do not see any.
Then, I guess I'll try to improve upon my Airport Express and replace it with something better to drive into the dCS/Big Ben stuff. Any suggestions?
Then, I'll start to tinker with ripping CDs onto NAS and feed that into the system via AES or s/pdif or USB. Then, I'll revisit the attempt to replace the dCS stuff, or at least the Verdi Encore anyway. I suspect it will be hard to beat the DSD from the Elgar Plus, but I'll try.
Thanks again to everyone who has posted comments!! (sorry for the doublepost of this comment. I always mess up my thread postings- hope that does not bode ill for my PC/Mac experiemntation).
Empirical Audio does not mod the Big Ben anymore. I have my own reclocker now, the Pace-Car. This could be used to reclock the AE.
Steve N.
And jeesh now that I am catching up with audio advancements the past few years, that EMM Labs DCC2 sure looks tempting . . . too bad my budget is no longer what it was when I splurged for the dCS or I'd try to test one against the dCS . . .
I've had good success with the RME audio converters, especially the RME Firefac 800 using a Firewire 800 connection to a Quad core PC (PCI-E 1394b card). I use the Spdif out of the Rme to feed a tubed APL DAC. I've had great results using Foobar 9.5 and the SSRC upsampler.The RME can change sampling rates on the fly and can handle sample rate up to 196K. The best sound I have achieved is using SSRC to upsample to 196k , which then feeds the APL DAC. The APL can handle the 196K input from the Spdif input. The RME Fireface 800 is a remarkable unit, it is the only proaudio solution that uses the Firewire 800 connection between PC and box. The 1394b allows much higher through put then either 1394a or USB 2.0. It is the only solution that allowed noise free upsampled rates at 176k or 196k throught the Spdif connection. This allows you to choose the DAC of choice, I'm using Alex's APL modded 3910 which incorporates an ECC99 tubed output and the AKM 32bit DACS (using 6 per channel in parallel).
I'm using this setup in two systems:
My Main systems uses Talon Firebirds fed by Response Audio moded (teflon caps) ASL Hurricanes driven by a Conrad Johnson ACT2.
Second System uses Proarc Ref Signature 2000 Monitors driven by Dared 300B SET amps and a Dared 2000 tubed pre.
Good Luck!
If you believe SSRC is a good upsampler, you aint heard nothing yet. I listened to it for about 2 minutes and that was enough....
You said you listened to it for two minutes and that was enough. It seems like two minutes is not really a fair evaluation. I have spent weeks comparing No Upsampling, SRC, Wavelab 6.0 Crystal Upsampler and SSRC. I worked hard to optimize each to achieve the best results to give them their best chance. I experimented with the same album on LP, CD, SACD and a WAV file off of the hard drive. Like I mentioned I even compared LPs recorded at high resolution and at 16/44 upsampled.I did this with many recordings of different types; Classical, Jazz, Rock, Alt, etc...
There is no question SSRC on my systems was far superior to the others or without Upsampling.
Interesting to note the APL upsamples to 211K from the disc, and the sound was superior coming from the PC upsampled to 192K fed to the APL's digital input.
One note you have to use a recent version of ASIO and the highest upsampling rates. These will require the latest PC hardware. In my experimentation a Core 2 Duo won't cut it, only the latest Quad core processors could achieve noiseless upsampling at these high rates. These have only been available for less then a year.So your 2 minute demo may have been on an older processor at a lower Upsampling rate. Again my experience has been not all DACs can handle these high rates of sampling.
As we've debated in the past Firewire 800 is far superior for audio data then USB 2.0, achieving significantly higher real time (not theoretical) throughput.
The APL DAC also uses a unique Spdif curcuit and clocking. RME uses a proprietary DSP based 1394b solution, not the off the shelf chip based solution.
I might give it a more extensive try with a faster PC.
I listened to SSRC much longer and at 24/96. I actually realized how inferior it was just a few seconds of listening. I have no customers using this to my knowledge. Like myself, they all found it inferior to SRC with Foobar 0.8.3.
If you are using Foobar 0.9.x, then this is a different story. The SRC for this version is not good.
I do not use ASIO, ASIO4ALL or Kernel Streaming with my products anymore. These are not necessary with my products, even with XP.
Steve N.
I agree on SSRC. However, ASIO sounds better than Direct Sound xx. If KS works with the card, then I prefer it as there does not seem to be as much of a buffer size dependency issue.
with a lower jitter source i'm now finding directsound under vista is superior to ASIO and even more so to KS. ASIO sounds good with cplay and with the pro editors but my best results of late have been with xmplay's wasapi in exclusive mode, noticeably smoother and less grainy than ASIO, less fatiguing and most importantly just sounds more musical. with this setup i'm also finding upsampling benefits far less obvious, a different sound rather than a better one even with a dcs974 doing the SRC. right now straight 44.1 via an m-audio box -> pace car -> dcs954 is giving me the most enjoyment of my cd's. i'll probably change my mind next week :)
Which ASIO do you like? Is is for Foobar 0.9.x?
Blind tests on multiple systems with multiple subjects have confirmed for me that it sounds exactly the same as 0.9.x. Have you ever tried blind testing the two versions yourself?
The only major code change to SRC in the past 4 years happened a few months ago and will hopefully soon be available in a new version for 0.9.x (there were no significant changes in the various versions for 0.8.3, despite claims to the contrary by "audiophiles" who were amusingly ignorant of what was really changing in the code between versions while making fantastic claims about the amazing differences they were imagining to hear between the versions).
I have tried virtually every version of Foobar 8.x and 9.x, with so many versions of ASIO I lost count, I've not heard much difference between versions.From another time (a couple of years ago) when PCs had much lower processing power this may have been true. Computing power has grown exponentially over the last year alone, this may have changed things.
There are folks who cling to those things from the past that they become accustom to and in their mind these will always remain superior.
I prefer to keep an open mind and let my ears be the deciding factor.
A month or so ago, fmak posted that he had conversion errors trying to decode a FLAC file that had been encoded with a newer FLAC version than that of his decoder. I don't remember the exact details, but I believe it was a high res file.
Well, just recently I lent a friend of mine a data CD of FLAC files, encoded with FLAC version, 1.2.1, which was the latest the last time I checked. These were all 16/44.1k files. He tried burning an assortment music CD with some of the files I sent him, but had a decoding error when converting some of the FLAC files to WAV. It turns out that he was using an older version of flac.exe than what I encoded them with. I told him to update to the latest flac.exe, and that fixed his decoding problem.
So now you have old foobar versions floating around with old libFLAC libraries statically linked to the executable. Guess what? There is now no longer a guarantee that the old libFLAC will properly decode FLAC files created with the latest FLAC encoder. So I suppose you could maintain both old and new versions of flac.exe. Decode with the newest, and re-encode with a version no newer than that used by the libFLAC of foobar 0.8.3. Have fun with that one.
Flac or Foobar 08. So many better players and codecs out there.
I didn't need blind tests. It was obvious to me. Like I said, many of my customers have confirmed this as well. Maybe you dont hear any difference in your system. I hear a difference in my system.
Your lack of using ASIO maybe one of the factors in your poor experience with SSRC using XP. I have tried the 8.x versions of Foobar and most of the older build versions of ASIO, I was not able to tell much of a difference. Also you where running a much lower upsampling rate. The improvement going from 96k to 196k in detail and dynamics was impressive. Even moving from 176k to 192k made a noticeable improvement.One advantage of Foobar 9.x is the compatability with the newer version of ASIO that allow channel mapping, critical if you are using an external interface and Spdif fed DAC.
The other nice features of 9.x is the customizable interface.
But if what you have is working for you...great enjoy!
Frankly, ASIO has problems too. Buffer dependency and different sound for different versions. All the major pro software players also sound different using ASIO (other programming factors also??)
What's the point? Every power cord and interconnect I've heard sounds different - but some sound better then others. Because Nordost or Synergistic Research cables sound different doesn't make them bad.
If ASIO has such major problems why does every major ProAudio equipment maker and most recording studios use ASIO on their PCs? The Buffer dependency issue affects latency which for recording session is a major pain, but for ordinary listening it really doesn't have much impact (other then slowing the response of the control commands).
Many would argue (see other threads) that ASIO is far superior to XP K-mixer and even the new audio stack in Vista. The best part is ASIO is independent from MIcrosoft and allows improvement and adaptation over time. I'm sure MS would love to get rid of ASIO, but the user base is just to large and many would move to AAPL or LINUX.
IMO, if you follow the lead of the "pro audio" guys, you will never reach audio nirvana IME. I've modded a few of their products - not impressed frankly.
I would agree the analog outputs of even the higher end equipment leaves a lot to be desired; switched power supplies, SS opamps, lower quality caps, ics and wiring.
This is the reason for using an external DAC. There are few companies that make decent equipment Apogee, RME, Digitools, Pyramix (with the excellent DXD standard). One benefit of using seperate equipment for the computer conversion and DAC allows greater flexiblity.
It may be on your equipment and the way it interfaces with the PC may very well sound best with the 8.x versions of Foobar.
I have tried SSRC with all different ASIO versions. My older products used M-Audio drivers, so they needed ASIO to bypass Kmixer. This was with XP. Now with Vista, the story may be entirely different, although even with Vista I doubt if SRC will outperform the older SRC.
SSRC is more sharp sounding, maybe even more detailed, but vocals are just too nasal and edgy to sound natural IME.
nt
read above. I have made tens of posts like this.
This is what led me to buy a TwinDac. I figured if it was better than a full dcs stack.....
Go to the response from Takman
He had more posts in the BD forum, but I'm not sure if the older forum is searchable.
Steve
Avkmusic:
Like our member "Fmak", we value users that have high-end cutting edge front ends and are willing to compare them with a PC audio solution.
Whatever you "go through" in your PC audio journey, we appreciate your involvement.
Not everyone can afford those particular components, yet a PC Audio solution that compares might be within reach. But you have the gear to compare to and most of us do not.
So, welcome! I honestly hope you can find a satisfying PC Audio solution - I find PC Audio has great potential for sound quality, but it really shines in how in manages music and makes access to ones collection so darned fast and simple.
Cheers,
Presto
I agree Presto, I too find the ease of access the greatest feature of HTPC. I use Foobar 2000 and FLAC frontend w/ EAC in my Vista setup, 0.9.5 or whatever,Cheers, Alan
Vista Ultimate 32bit/Diamond XS Dac/ Sterovox coaxial line in to Insignia Amp/Cambridge SoundWorks& Infinity RS 1001 Speakers
... solution to his Dcs gear, and seems generally content. ;-) You might search on his user name.
There is no one who knows more about dCS gear then fmak, and the use of this equipment with computer audio.
i use dCS 954 and 974 wired direct to ATC150ASL's so not too far off your system. i've never used a dCS transport though, i'm using an empirical pace car at the moment. i've used lynx cards, m-audio cheap stuff, empirical offramp, the pace car sounds better than the other computer 'drives' i've tried. my real nit-pick with pc-audio though is the massive influence of the computer, the OS, the software, power supply, cable etc etc. software especially makes a massive difference. i mean it's nice to know in a way that you can tweak these things and wring some extra performance out but actually it gets in the way of the simplicity and spontaneity of computer-based audio.
i've heard your set-up with a verona in there and it does make a big difference. if i use the WC out on the pace car to sync my dac and use the AES for data then that makes a big difference too. i think the problem is there is a certain amount of jitter in picking apart the AES data and clock, using wordclock sync does improve that.
i still think theres a lot of room for improvement in computer audio, to me the big one is how the bits are delivered to the dac rather than the actual conversion itself. i havent heard a Linn DS yet but something about that system instinctively makes sense, where data is pulled from the network rather than pushed at the dac. having tried a few high end dacs i am a fan of dCS converters though, i'd say it's worth trying a pc-based digital source with the elgar.
I am in agreement. PC stuff is hit and miss and even more difficult to set up well than the dCS stack.
I would have two parallel systems. Side by side, the PC system can come close, but the dCS system, also with UA2192 and Big Ben (modified with much lower noise 3.3V regulator) sounds better and operates more smoothly as a hifi system. The PC system tends to be set and forget for very long periods of playback. This system has many more mods and tweaks than the fixed boxes.
Word clocks, I have had many supposedly 'superior' clocks and have had mixed success. Sometimes it is better without them and I tend to use relockers.
I prefer 176.4/192k. Here PC systems can be a hassle when it comes to playing mixed resolution files, especially if one uses word clocks and have to chenge sample rates.
IMO theres no way you are going to get specific answers to your questions. If I may suggestd do as I did, start small, if you have a pc d/l windows media player 11. Rip some cd's, burn some cdr's play them back and be shocked as I was, then eventually migrate in smaller steps to a pc audio system. I had an scd1 modded by kern that was very very good but even the wmp11 beat it in some areas (upper bass, lower mids). Once you id the kind of veiling that rotating spindle cd players / real time playback of cd's overlays on your system there's no turning back. I don't know what is the best but I can tell you I have never heard soundstaging, midrange openess, extended clean highs as I do now (dell sp2-> cicsplay-> asio-> benchmark usb). The dynamic range of 16/44 is unbelievable when played from either ssd or a ram playback system.
You can only map your own journey don't take my word or anybody else's, try it. I am convinced of pc playback after some 30 years of vinyl/sacd, good cd playback experience. A lot of my ripped dual layer sacd's (ripped from the cd layer) are sounding better than sacd's in many areas and are about even in some other areas of the frequency spectrum when played back on my pc system.
I second this approach, you can wet your feet without too much commitment.
I went through a simular process, I was using a ML360S DAC andI had no plans in changing the CD payback chain at all, until last year I was requested to move for my work, I then started ripping my CD's (MAC + Apogee Mini DAC, see my system description) in order to have the convenience to travel with a scaled-down system, and my 2000 or-so CD's on a HDD.
To make the story short, in the end I did not move for my work as the project got canceled, and I ended up scaling down on audio, the Levinson went out, and the MAC/Apogee stayed.
I have discovered that RBCD could not unlock the potential of my system, and luckily there are now hi-rez sources for computer audio (Linn amongst others). I concluded that all tweaking was futile, as long as you did not improve the source material. The Hi-Rez downloads of Linn are a real eye-opener! Personally I find the bit depth more important than the sampling rate of the recording.
So, when it comes to accurate playback, 96/24 is the most natural and correct reproduction I have here, and the Allaerts cartridge on a SME V is the most enjoyable... Red Book CD (ripped in MP4A Apple Lossless) is a dinstant third.
The MAC/Apogee Mini DAC outperforms my previous Mark Levinson 360S/Linn Ikemi combination.
Paul
Here are some links:http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ddgtl&1199206353&read&3&4&
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/2/20591.html
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/3/32627.html
Thanks for all the comments in this thread!!
Looks like I'll go ahead and buy a Big Ben. I've heard others with dCS say they did not hear any difference between a BB and a Verona, and it looks to me like the BB is more flexible with digital inputs. I've read of modifications to the Big Ben. Can anyone recommend someone, and detail the mods and cost? I've looked at mauimods', Empirical's, and Black Lion's etc. sites for info. re this and do not see any.
Then, I guess I'll try to improve upon my Airport Express and replace it with something better to drive into the dCS/Big Ben stuff. Any suggestions?
Then, I'll start to tinker with ripping CDs onto NAS and feed that into the system via AES or s/pdif or USB. Then, I'll revisit the attempt to replace the dCS stuff, or at least the Verdi Encore anyway. I suspect it will be hard to beat the DSD from the Elgar Plus, but I'll try.
Thanks again to everyone who has posted comments!!
Any suggestions I will make will be construed as advertising, so lets take it off-line please.
Steve N.
Steve, thanks much for the links.
But I had read those threads and hoped someone here with experience replacing or comparing the dCS stack vs the Empirical Audio Spoiler, Benchmark DAC1, DEQX, Northstar DAC192 or Extremo, etc. can provide more detail.
I guess I'd also be curious if anyone has compared theh dCS stack to the EMM Labs CD/SACD Player which supposedly upsamples to twice the rate of DSD (though I'd have to use the Lamm L1 in the chain which, as i indicated in the original post, is something I'd rather not do, and it also does not move me to a PC/MAC based solution allowing me to put my thousands of cds in storage).
So, rather than resurrect old threads separately I decided to create this new thread for the purpose of detailed comments regarding replacement of the dCS stack.
And with regard to those threads above, the first thread mentions the dCS in comparison to the Spoiler DAC was "only found pleasing with SACD." I wonder if that includes the dCS upsampling to DSD and, if so, wheher the dCS upsampling to DSD was preferable to the Spoiler DAC.
And the other two threads do not provide much detail regarding a direct comparison to the dCS.
Brucemck2, if you are reading this I would appreciate if you could provide detail as to the DEQX being "stunning". Did you find it much better than your dCS stack? Or was it stunning performance for the money, but still not up to the dCS? Any detail as to other components (amps/speakers/cables, etc.) that you used at the time would also be appreciated.
And, if anyone else has any comments please chime in.
Thanks again.
avkmusic,
regarding your original query:
I never really liked the dcs stack with redbook cds, much prefering the Zanden chain, which seemed more natural, whereas the dcs stack especially when listened to in DSD mode, gave the music a somehwat unnatural, sort of bloated note. Not so with SACD, where I found it to be excellent. The Spoiler now, with internal pace-car through my Toshiba easily bettered the Zanden, not to speak of the dcs, especially in the soundsage and the placing of instruments. Dynamics where more or less the same. If you think of the cost of the Zanden chain or the dcs stack, the SPOILER is a steal!
I owned a dCS stack prior to their release of the firewire and SACD upsampling. For D/A I had the two box Elgar+Purcell unit that up converted to 24/96. Transports were a dCS and a Meridian 800.The dCS is a very nice unit. I preferred the Meridian transport to the dCS transport: it had more "rhythm" and was more coherent, albeit not a huge difference.
The modded DEQX is very nice. It's got tremendous slam and impact; it just never runs out of gas on high impact / transient passages. And it's got a very nice "liquidity" -- a quality I really seek out -- that's pretty rare. It's more like a tight tube preamp than a solid state preamp (more like my old Ref2 than my new 861v4); it's more like a dipole speaker than a sealed box speaker; it's more like a high end Koetsu cartridge than a typical high end moving coil cartridge. Hard to describe, but easy to hear.
Finally, I replaced my Meridian 800 transport with Steve's Off Ramp Turbo2 feeding a Pace Car. Even without the Pace Car the Off Ramp sounded better. Not a lot better, but better, and the amazing user interface of PC based audio over traditional CD made the switch a no brainer. I can't imagine going back.
I've not heard the Meitner gear and so can't comment on it.
Brucemck2,
Do you still have your modded DEQX and Offramp combo. If so, has the honeymoon wore off or have you moved onto something else?
I have a DEQX version 3 and am considering the OffRamp 3.
Thanks,
Tim
Interesting posts, off-ramp? I'll google it,I built an AMD duo-core 4200 with a Micro Star International Mainboard onboard Reltek 888 soundcard, I run Foobar 2000, w/ASIO 4 free Driver thru 2.1 Altec Lansing $75.00 and it sounds pretty good!
Now I Understand
re: your built athlon, go into the bios and play with the spread spectrum control. It may be on or off, its supposed to reduce EMI but it throttles the processor, so it may adversely effect the sound quality, not sure which is better, I have a mac.
8086: Thanks, I went into the bios and the spread spectrum was off, I did turn on the AMD "Cool an Quiet" function, the athlonx2 did quiet down some, I have a Nvidia monitor I'll watch for the difference, thanks again,audioAl
Now I Understand
I would be suspicious of the cool and quiet - anything that throttles the cpu (which is what that does) is going to create switching noise. There is a function on the mac which does this called napping, turning that off made a big gain.
If you want to reduce noise go to quietpc.com lots of great stuff on fans etc. Personally I use a laptop that specifically picked out for audio as I can turn off napping (its a g4 mac) and one that the fans pretty much never come on. The results are spectacular if your willing to dial it in.
I bet you could come out even better than the mac if you tweak your pc, I believe while the mac offers a great bit-perfect playbaack, that the software (foodbar and cplay) for the pc is much more mature and high end. Maybe some day i'll try out the pc, but for now im just enjoying the music.
8086, would you please tell me what you mean by "napping"? It sounds like the snooze in System Preferences. (My Mac is a PowerBook G4 and its OS X Leopard 10.5.3 is in French so the translation may be confusing me).
Before I switched back to a Mac I built my own PCs and one of the few things I miss is all the component and BIOS flexibility I used to have.
FWIW I think I have heard some people now install Linux on their Macs.
Also, my wife has a Mac too, a MacBook. I installed VMWare Fusion and Windows XP Pro on her MacBook, mainly because she needed just one Windows program and I was curious as to how well the virtualization would work.
Anyhoo, I will eventually try to test a music setup with Linux on a Mac and/or Windows on a Mac via VMWare/Windows.
if you install the CHUD tools, and then go to "developer" and extras there is a preference pane called processor. It allows you to turn off "napping" which throttles the CPU somewhat, It was a big problem with g5's and recording studios introducing noise. It really smoothes out the sound and gives a lot of extra finesse.
- https://connect.apple.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/MemberSite.woa/wa/getSoftware?bundleID=19886 (Open in New Window)
8086, thanks much !!!
I had a Developer's account when Apple switched to Intel but then forgot all about it. I'll install the CHUD tools and look for other stuff too.
Thanks again.
If your PC desktop or laptop has spread-spectrum and you can turn it off, by all means do so. This modulates the clock adding jitter in order to pass FCC emissions testing. You dont care about this. You just want the most stable clock you can get.
Thanks to both of you, I dont want to fry my processor,audioAl
Now I Understand
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: