bhr1439;375769 Wrote: > I had read claims in Stereophile and (I think) The Absolute Sound that > music sourced from a hard drive sounds better than music sourced off a > CD player. I was skeptical of these claims, and am skeptical of my own > ears, which seems to confirm the fact. > > As soon as I started listening to music served by my new SB Duet > system, I detected a certain more lively and engaging aspect to the > music. I did an A/B comparison to assure myself levels are matched > (they are), and on close A/B listening, I cannot identify any > difference. Yet, the fact remains that my impression of music played > back via SB is more favorable, and this is not a subtle impression, it > is a definite emotional "wow". > > Here are the two different music paths: > > path A: Nakamichi MB-10 CD player digital out --> Tact 2.1S digital > processor --> Mark Levinson 360S DAC > > path B: Netgear ReadyNAS Duo --> SB Receiver digital output --> Tact > 2.1S digital processor --> Mark Levinson 360S DAC > > I cannot pin down any good reason why path B, with the Squeezebox, > should sound better. Both paths use the same, very high quality DAC. > Up to there, bits is bits, one would think. > > The audio mags claim music servers sound better because lack of jitter > on hard drive playback; that doesn't make sense for two reasons. First > the Levinson DAC has sophisticated dejitter circuitry, but more > fundamentally, the problem with jitter arises with the nature of clock > recovery from the S-PDIF waveform content. Both path A and path B use > S/PDIF digital signal to transfer the music data. > > The other potential reason is the effect of error correction on CD > playback. This would imply that the cheapie CD-ROM drive in my laptop > computer does a better job of reading music data (i.e., lower raw error > rate) than my CD player, giving rise to fewer uncorrectable errors > (uncorrectable errors cause the software to "fake it" by throwing the > data out and interpolating across the gap). > > Anybody know of comparisons in raw error rate in playback on CD player > vs playback on a computer CD-ROM drive? > > --Steve
Personally, I don't buy into all the hype. It is funny how Stereophile and TAS didn't start talking about better until big name companies like McIntosh and Linn released streaming media players. Sure there were good reviews of the Transporter and Sonos, but if memory serves me, the word better did not come about until big dollar equipment hit the stage. As for any differences, I hold the following opinion (YMMV). A NMP with a DAC as good as or better then $5000 CDPs (DAC being either internal or outboard) will sound better and be true to the music then a CDP can. The file from a hard drive is the same every time. And if that file is a bit perfect lossless copy of the original processed though a decent DAC, then yes it has the ability to be as good or better then the CDP. One of the most important issues for me is that a NMP doesnt have error correction. The file gets played the same way each and every time. This doesnt have to be true with a CDP. A CDP has error correction which enables it to change the bits as it sees fit. The CDP might be seeing the exact same bit perfect file as the NMP, but if there is dirt, dust, surface issues, even a fingerprint; the CDP can actually adjust/change the bits. I hold the opinion that devices that use error correction dont have perfect repeatable playback. CDPs have all sorts of things to deal with each and every time a CD is played. There are the mechanical issues of the transport, spinning disc, and moving laser head. The changing condition of the disc as it is handled each time it is used. In a nut shell, there are too many constantly changing variables with CDPs. The NMP eliminates all of these by feeding the DAC the exact same file from the hard drive each time. If hardware helps anybody to determine the likelihood of my opinion and conclusions, I came to this opinion after listening to CDs on an Esoteric Transport with a Dodson DA-217 MK2-D Digital Processor. On everyday Red Book CDs, I found the Transporter was as good as or better then my CD transport and DAC. What was amazing was listening to an SB3 driving the Dodson DAC. I have since sold my Esoteric Transport, but cant bring myself to sell the Dodson DA-217 MK2-D Digital Processor. It is just a really nice DAC and makes a great demo with a Duet or SB3. And if somebody is just starting out on the digital road and wants a killer minimum component system, they might listen to a Duet, SBR, or Classic driving a Bel Canto e.One DAC3 D/A processor. Yes this is more money then buying just a Transporter, but one gets a pre-amp and in my opinion a slightly better sounding DAC. The Transporter IMHO is really hard to beat, but if I was just starting out, I would get an SBR, the DAC3, a nice high current amp, and a pair of Vandersteen or Thiel Speakers. -- iPhone *iPhone* 'Last.FM' (http://www.last.fm/user/mephone) Media Room: Transporter, VTL TL-6.5 Signature Pre-Amp, Ayre MX-R Mono's, Vandersteen Quatro, VeraStarr 6.4SE 6-channel Amp, VCC-5 Reference Center, four VSM-1 Signatures, Runco RS 900 CineWide AutoScope 2.35:1 Living Room: Duet, ADCOM GTP-870HD, Cinepro 3K6SE III Gold, Vandersteen Model 3A Signature, Two 2Wq subs, VCC-2, Two VSM-1 Kitchen: Squeezebox BOOM Bedroom: SB3, GFR-700HD, Thiel 2.3, Second Boom Home Office: SB3, NAD C370, two VSM-1 Home Gym: SB3, Parasound Vamp v.3, Thiel PowerPoint 1.2 Mobile: SB3, Audioengine A5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ iPhone's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13622 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57173
_______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
