Computer based audio vs. dedicated CD transport?
Discussion
Curious for some 'computer type' opinions rather than purely audio people.
Lately as I'm sure most people are aware there has been an increase in the number of high end music servers, you know the sort of thing, rip CD to NAS/hard drive, stream it to hi-fi.
The likes of Linn and Naim are bringing out systems that cost a pretty substantial amount of money, Apple do a £60 Airport Express.
Both routes assume you already have a computer, and both routes rely on the same £20 ROM drive in the computer to do the ripping.
So, assuming you're ripping to lossless format, what is the benefit in spending thousands on a "high end" solution in sound terms (vs. nice integration and a professional interface)?
I can appreciate why different dedicated CD players may perform differently, different circuits, it's doing its thing in real-time etc. but when you get down to the level of sticking a disc in a computer, telling it "take as long as you like just make a bit perfect image" and then "now send those bits across the network or via this toslink cable" etc. I can't see why there should be a difference.
If I have a CD full of computer data (executables, spreadsheets etc.) a single mis-read bit would render it useless, yet nobody suggests using a high end power or network cable or a "pro quality" hard drive and so on.
Lately as I'm sure most people are aware there has been an increase in the number of high end music servers, you know the sort of thing, rip CD to NAS/hard drive, stream it to hi-fi.
The likes of Linn and Naim are bringing out systems that cost a pretty substantial amount of money, Apple do a £60 Airport Express.
Both routes assume you already have a computer, and both routes rely on the same £20 ROM drive in the computer to do the ripping.
So, assuming you're ripping to lossless format, what is the benefit in spending thousands on a "high end" solution in sound terms (vs. nice integration and a professional interface)?
I can appreciate why different dedicated CD players may perform differently, different circuits, it's doing its thing in real-time etc. but when you get down to the level of sticking a disc in a computer, telling it "take as long as you like just make a bit perfect image" and then "now send those bits across the network or via this toslink cable" etc. I can't see why there should be a difference.
If I have a CD full of computer data (executables, spreadsheets etc.) a single mis-read bit would render it useless, yet nobody suggests using a high end power or network cable or a "pro quality" hard drive and so on.
Got a friend who writes for a few of the UK HiFi magazines (well, he gets paid to give his opinion on some ludicrously expensive kit).
He's actually been putting something like this together himself. A few terabytes of raid array, rip via el-cheapo CD transport in the PC, he's got some nice media center type front end, a decent digital output board on the PC, pipes the sound through to some nice'n'expensive DAC, and he can't tell the difference between that and some stupidly expensive transports.
He's actually been putting something like this together himself. A few terabytes of raid array, rip via el-cheapo CD transport in the PC, he's got some nice media center type front end, a decent digital output board on the PC, pipes the sound through to some nice'n'expensive DAC, and he can't tell the difference between that and some stupidly expensive transports.
The Naim kit is going to be good.
They not only have RAID based servers that will also trawl your network for other music, but also play out devices that will receive the lossless stream and play it, video distribution devices and Quad Radio tuners.
The system is based on the Netstreams - Streamnet technology which although IP based gives you significant level of two way control over other systems, Lights, Heating, CCTV Cameras as will as being able to control any other IR or RS232 device.
V.
They not only have RAID based servers that will also trawl your network for other music, but also play out devices that will receive the lossless stream and play it, video distribution devices and Quad Radio tuners.
The system is based on the Netstreams - Streamnet technology which although IP based gives you significant level of two way control over other systems, Lights, Heating, CCTV Cameras as will as being able to control any other IR or RS232 device.
V.
The Naim kit is quite a good example of what I'm trying to understand though.
Lots of automation and "lifestyle" features, but what makes it better than a Squeezebox/Airport Express at the music stuff, considering that with either it's still dependent on a $20 CD transport in your PC?
Lots of automation and "lifestyle" features, but what makes it better than a Squeezebox/Airport Express at the music stuff, considering that with either it's still dependent on a $20 CD transport in your PC?
High end digital media servers are (practically) universally powered by Linux.
As such they use either open or licensed codecs.
A PC will provide the same if not better quality.
The USP with media servers, certaintly in the multiroom audio market, is their control is compatible with the multiroom matrix switches.
So it makes sense to buy a Russound Media Server (for example) if you have a Russound matrix switch as it provides metadata from the server onto the keypads.
This can be done with PCs using a more capable control system but the price ramps up sharply so theres a choice.
Use a PC and sacrifice useability control
Use a propritary server and pay
Use a PC and a control system and pay lots more
If its single room use control is again key.
Something like a squeezebox is an ideal blend of price and control capability on playing MP3s from a central location. Something like the SQB Transporter is higher quality than very high end CD players for example.
As such they use either open or licensed codecs.
A PC will provide the same if not better quality.
The USP with media servers, certaintly in the multiroom audio market, is their control is compatible with the multiroom matrix switches.
So it makes sense to buy a Russound Media Server (for example) if you have a Russound matrix switch as it provides metadata from the server onto the keypads.
This can be done with PCs using a more capable control system but the price ramps up sharply so theres a choice.
Use a PC and sacrifice useability control
Use a propritary server and pay
Use a PC and a control system and pay lots more
If its single room use control is again key.
Something like a squeezebox is an ideal blend of price and control capability on playing MP3s from a central location. Something like the SQB Transporter is higher quality than very high end CD players for example.
Makes sense.
Specifically I was reading a thread about Meridian and whether or not they would jump on the bandwagon.
Of course nearly all Meridian kit already has DACs galore and optical inputs etc. so there was a question of whether if they came up with a high end solution, would there be any sonic benefits as (again) all you'd expect it to be doing beyond lifestyle/control stuff is shifting bits from PC/NAS/Mac to DAC.
It's a bit of a strange subject tbh, as it seems hard facts are thin on the ground, those who've spent thousands on a high end solution are sure it's better, those who've spent £60 on an Airport sound like they're simply poo-poohing the other end of the spectrum.
Specifically I was reading a thread about Meridian and whether or not they would jump on the bandwagon.
Of course nearly all Meridian kit already has DACs galore and optical inputs etc. so there was a question of whether if they came up with a high end solution, would there be any sonic benefits as (again) all you'd expect it to be doing beyond lifestyle/control stuff is shifting bits from PC/NAS/Mac to DAC.
It's a bit of a strange subject tbh, as it seems hard facts are thin on the ground, those who've spent thousands on a high end solution are sure it's better, those who've spent £60 on an Airport sound like they're simply poo-poohing the other end of the spectrum.
I dont have huge experience with a range of media servers, we tend to concentrate on the ones that integrate with multiroom gear and the SQB Transporter because it is so damned good.
Some time ago I had the good fortune to be sat in front of about £28Ks worth of Linn stereo equipment. Specifically a CD Transport/DAC, an amp and a pair of their highest end speakers.
We listened to some music, it was great, as you would expect.
We then swapped out the CD/DAC and replaced it with a Transporter playing a FLAC version of the same track.
The result?
Utterly astonishing, genuinely, the level of presence and depth was massively increased. I was agog and it very quickly got put on the products list. If you have someone locally to you who can demonstrate it, its most definitely worth a punt.
Some time ago I had the good fortune to be sat in front of about £28Ks worth of Linn stereo equipment. Specifically a CD Transport/DAC, an amp and a pair of their highest end speakers.
We listened to some music, it was great, as you would expect.
We then swapped out the CD/DAC and replaced it with a Transporter playing a FLAC version of the same track.
The result?
Utterly astonishing, genuinely, the level of presence and depth was massively increased. I was agog and it very quickly got put on the products list. If you have someone locally to you who can demonstrate it, its most definitely worth a punt.
I had the same when listening to a £3K record deck, then a £3K CD player using the same track through the same amp.
The difference between the old vinyl was far superior to the CD play back.
Then I was treated to NAIM's 555 CD transport with seperate PSU and Pre-Amp stage, again through the same amps a speakers, and WOW! As good as the vinyl.
Certainly a massive difference, but worth the £15K, certainly, if you could afford it. The question is how many can?
V.
The difference between the old vinyl was far superior to the CD play back.
Then I was treated to NAIM's 555 CD transport with seperate PSU and Pre-Amp stage, again through the same amps a speakers, and WOW! As good as the vinyl.
Certainly a massive difference, but worth the £15K, certainly, if you could afford it. The question is how many can?
V.
paddyhasneeds said:
Curious for some 'computer type' opinions rather than purely audio people.
Lately as I'm sure most people are aware there has been an increase in the number of high end music servers, you know the sort of thing, rip CD to NAS/hard drive, stream it to hi-fi.
The likes of Linn and Naim are bringing out systems that cost a pretty substantial amount of money, Apple do a £60 Airport Express.
Both routes assume you already have a computer, and both routes rely on the same £20 ROM drive in the computer to do the ripping.
So, assuming you're ripping to lossless format, what is the benefit in spending thousands on a "high end" solution in sound terms (vs. nice integration and a professional interface)?
I can appreciate why different dedicated CD players may perform differently, different circuits, it's doing its thing in real-time etc. but when you get down to the level of sticking a disc in a computer, telling it "take as long as you like just make a bit perfect image" and then "now send those bits across the network or via this toslink cable" etc. I can't see why there should be a difference.
If I have a CD full of computer data (executables, spreadsheets etc.) a single mis-read bit would render it useless, yet nobody suggests using a high end power or network cable or a "pro quality" hard drive and so on.
Interesting quandry, and one that I have looked at myself.Lately as I'm sure most people are aware there has been an increase in the number of high end music servers, you know the sort of thing, rip CD to NAS/hard drive, stream it to hi-fi.
The likes of Linn and Naim are bringing out systems that cost a pretty substantial amount of money, Apple do a £60 Airport Express.
Both routes assume you already have a computer, and both routes rely on the same £20 ROM drive in the computer to do the ripping.
So, assuming you're ripping to lossless format, what is the benefit in spending thousands on a "high end" solution in sound terms (vs. nice integration and a professional interface)?
I can appreciate why different dedicated CD players may perform differently, different circuits, it's doing its thing in real-time etc. but when you get down to the level of sticking a disc in a computer, telling it "take as long as you like just make a bit perfect image" and then "now send those bits across the network or via this toslink cable" etc. I can't see why there should be a difference.
If I have a CD full of computer data (executables, spreadsheets etc.) a single mis-read bit would render it useless, yet nobody suggests using a high end power or network cable or a "pro quality" hard drive and so on.
I think the answers to some of your questions only really make an audible difference if you are looking for something to match an audiophile quality CD player and setup.
Where I have come unstuck is I am an audio engineer and use my very substantial home system for work a few hours a day so I can tell the difference in what cables are used to connect the bits together let alone the sound of the individual parts!
I think the most misunderstood thing about CDs and playing and ripping them is that they are NOT a digital media.
There is no digital information on them, they are just an analogue series of grooves and peaks and troughs. Thus the production and playback quality of them will be dependant on the quality of the CD transport playing - or ripping them. I hasten to add that if you are looking at a system of less than £1000 these type of issues don't come into play. However, on my £25k system to literally get the best out of even the most minor issues do make the overall sound quite different.
The way that theoretically to get the best sound would be to completely bypass the CD mechanical process altogether. In theory if you can do this you will get a better sound repoduction than from a CD. In upgrading my system I had a Chord DAC64 which effectively upsampled and took all of the digital timing 'jitter' out of the signal.
It had three settings where it would play the digital signal direct, or with the oversampling with the data coming buffered from the RAM with a 1 second delay, and the data being retimed and 'unjittered' with a 4 second buffer.
I did not expect this option to have a huge difference, but it really did in terms of instrument separation and depth. It literally sounded like the speakers were moving backwards and forwards between settings. So, in a nutshell the non-CD systems should in theory be of the same standard.
However... the system I have now does NOT have this DAC in it any more. My CD transport and DAC/preamp do have the same very high end Apogee digital clocks in which make more difference that the 'upgrade' that the Chord system with the digital signal coming from the RAM made. Simply, the new transport is better so reads the disc more accurately in the first place and as the clocks are matched there is negligable jitter to be solved.
So, the issues I can see with the cheaper servers and even the mid-range systems at the moment are:
1) You are still having to rip the CD in the first place. A £1000 dedicated transport will output a better digital reproduction of the CD then a £20 CD-ROM drive.
2) The internal circuitry of the unit will not match the high-end systems. The 'digital is always perfect' argument is a fallacy. The digital signal chain still has to have the correct integrity and impedances in order to send the digital signal without errors. For example the co-ax digital cable in my system was about £300 - and yes it IS audibly different to a £10 one. The internal circuitry of a £200 server will not have the same performance of a more expensive one.
3) If you are sending the information out digitally, for this to work the devices as both ends need to be sending and accepting the digital data at precisely the same timing. If they are slightly out there will be errors which will degrade the integrity of the signal and thus the audio quality.
Thus, from what I can see a £200 server will simply not be a replacement for my CD transport. For me anyway the loss of sound quality will not justify the convenience.
I am interested that Plotloss has heard a high-end system with a server in and I am only guessing that it was a very good (and thus expensive) server - and would genuinley be interested which one it is!
IMHO by recommendations are that for a sub £1000 system all this talk of jitter won't make an audible difference. For a good few thousand quid system I think it would lose sound quality by going to a server - unless it was one with a good digital closk and connectivity.
In a perfect world the gear is out there to bodge your own system though. The mac-mini or the iTV or whatever it is called is a great front end which connects to your TV with a cool wireless controller. That has digital out too. If you were looking something more high end I still think that the Apple stuff is a good front end. To get the best out of it you could get a pro or semi-pro Apogee or similar audio interface which will have a hugely better DAC, or if you wanted to use your existing DAC the Apogee clocking will also be hugely better than the Apple internal clock.
A very informative reply, very useful thanks.
I have to admit I still can't get my head around the technical side of how a £20 CD/DVD Rom transport, as found in a PC, is sufficient to deal with critical file and program data, yet a transport in a high end audio CD player is better?
Are you saying that is the case outright, or when it comes to real-time reading of CD's, which sounds feasible?
My own setup is an Airport Express into the optical input on a Meridian F80, so low end by many standards, but given Meridian's dependence on all things digital it's still a capable bit of kit.
I have to admit I still can't get my head around the technical side of how a £20 CD/DVD Rom transport, as found in a PC, is sufficient to deal with critical file and program data, yet a transport in a high end audio CD player is better?
Are you saying that is the case outright, or when it comes to real-time reading of CD's, which sounds feasible?
My own setup is an Airport Express into the optical input on a Meridian F80, so low end by many standards, but given Meridian's dependence on all things digital it's still a capable bit of kit.
JustinP1 said:
I am interested that Plotloss has heard a high-end system with a server in and I am only guessing that it was a very good (and thus expensive) server - and would genuinley be interested which one it is!
It was a Squeezebox Transporter, retails at around £1300.Currently the only true audiophile 'mp3' player.
Very very much recommended. Integrates with SlimServer/SoftSqueeze etc as you would expect.
Cheers Plotloss, had a good look at the specs of that. Seems to do the job, but not heard of the DAC though.
For those that are still interested I spent a good few hours over the weekend doing some pseudo-scientific testing.
Out of interest and to try and guage what I would be losing moving from my audiophile CD transport I ripped a few test tracks to my laptop with in optical output.
The comparison was the optical digital out of my Apple Macbook Pro down a £10 cable compared to a £3000 universal disc player currently also used as a transport down a £300 co-ax digital cable.
The reason the testing took so long is that I had to *really* listen to make out any kind of differences. I was really surprised. This will of course come as good news for people like myself who are looking to get a hard-drive based server.
After a lot of listening - like literally listening to the first 60 seconds of a few test tracks back and forth about 20 times (much to the annoyance of my girlfriend!). After this I can say that the performance of the two systems is pretty much identical. There *possibly* may be the slightest difference between the two but it literally is so close I coulnd't categorically say that there is one. That is that the computer system seems to have a tiny bit more presence - however this could be construed that it is a slight amount of digital harshness but it is really so tiny it is negligable, this is if it is there at all.
There is a caveat here, that is I was so surprised that I looked over the specs of my pre-amp which was doing the DAC and I did find out that the top-end Apogee clocking there actually actively retimes and removes the jitter from inperfect incoming signals.
Thus, I have three hypotheses:
1) All digital 'front ends' are of the same quality - something I seriously doubt
2) The pre-amp was so effective that any loss of quality in the clocking was retimed anyway.
3) The fact that running the WAV file from RAM removed a mechanical step from the transport process had a sonic benefit. However, there was a loss due to the lesser quality ripping, playing, clocking and cable effectively nullified performance to a simlar standard as with the CD transport.
I think what this means for most people is that if they already have a clever DAC such as the Apogee or one like the Chord DAC64 they should be able to feed it with a bog standard front end such as a Mac Mini and get the same quality as a CD transport which costs a few grand!
The other 'upgrade' option I can see would be to go for another unit which would reclock or another DAC for the system. Apogee do something called Big Ben which basically is a very accurate clocking device which actively reclocks inputs to the highest level possible. I have heard great things about it in the pro-audio world, and there is no reason why it shouldn't work in Hi-Fi though. Its about a grand.
The next step I can see above that would be a Mac Mini with something like the Apogee DA16. Thats about £2500 all in, but for that you will get something which will be the very slick front end of the Apple with literally a unit which is the best clocking and DA conversion available in pro-audio anywhere. My guess is that would essentially be better than my £3k transport and £3k preamp. Ill have to speak to Santa...
For those that are still interested I spent a good few hours over the weekend doing some pseudo-scientific testing.
Out of interest and to try and guage what I would be losing moving from my audiophile CD transport I ripped a few test tracks to my laptop with in optical output.
The comparison was the optical digital out of my Apple Macbook Pro down a £10 cable compared to a £3000 universal disc player currently also used as a transport down a £300 co-ax digital cable.
The reason the testing took so long is that I had to *really* listen to make out any kind of differences. I was really surprised. This will of course come as good news for people like myself who are looking to get a hard-drive based server.
After a lot of listening - like literally listening to the first 60 seconds of a few test tracks back and forth about 20 times (much to the annoyance of my girlfriend!). After this I can say that the performance of the two systems is pretty much identical. There *possibly* may be the slightest difference between the two but it literally is so close I coulnd't categorically say that there is one. That is that the computer system seems to have a tiny bit more presence - however this could be construed that it is a slight amount of digital harshness but it is really so tiny it is negligable, this is if it is there at all.
There is a caveat here, that is I was so surprised that I looked over the specs of my pre-amp which was doing the DAC and I did find out that the top-end Apogee clocking there actually actively retimes and removes the jitter from inperfect incoming signals.
Thus, I have three hypotheses:
1) All digital 'front ends' are of the same quality - something I seriously doubt
2) The pre-amp was so effective that any loss of quality in the clocking was retimed anyway.
3) The fact that running the WAV file from RAM removed a mechanical step from the transport process had a sonic benefit. However, there was a loss due to the lesser quality ripping, playing, clocking and cable effectively nullified performance to a simlar standard as with the CD transport.
I think what this means for most people is that if they already have a clever DAC such as the Apogee or one like the Chord DAC64 they should be able to feed it with a bog standard front end such as a Mac Mini and get the same quality as a CD transport which costs a few grand!
The other 'upgrade' option I can see would be to go for another unit which would reclock or another DAC for the system. Apogee do something called Big Ben which basically is a very accurate clocking device which actively reclocks inputs to the highest level possible. I have heard great things about it in the pro-audio world, and there is no reason why it shouldn't work in Hi-Fi though. Its about a grand.
The next step I can see above that would be a Mac Mini with something like the Apogee DA16. Thats about £2500 all in, but for that you will get something which will be the very slick front end of the Apple with literally a unit which is the best clocking and DA conversion available in pro-audio anywhere. My guess is that would essentially be better than my £3k transport and £3k preamp. Ill have to speak to Santa...
paddyhasneeds said:
I have to admit I still can't get my head around the technical side of how a £20 CD/DVD Rom transport, as found in a PC, is sufficient to deal with critical file and program data, yet a transport in a high end audio CD player is better?
Basically shows that spending thousands on dedicated transports is a load of bo**ocks. They do NOT do a better job of pulling the bits of the disc.clonmult said:
paddyhasneeds said:
I have to admit I still can't get my head around the technical side of how a £20 CD/DVD Rom transport, as found in a PC, is sufficient to deal with critical file and program data, yet a transport in a high end audio CD player is better?
Basically shows that spending thousands on dedicated transports is a load of bo**ocks. They do NOT do a better job of pulling the bits of the disc.An error rate of 1 bit in a program file will mean the program will not work, your photograph will be corrupted at best, unreadable etc.
The difference that high end kit makes is at DA conversion and even then differences tend to be subjective and dependent on the listener's ability to analyse the music they are hearing.
"I think the most misunderstood thing about CDs and playing and ripping them is that they are NOT a digital media.
There is no digital information on them, they are just an analogue series of grooves and peaks and troughs. Thus the production and playback quality of them will be dependant on the quality of the CD transport playing - or ripping them. I hasten to add that if you are looking at a system of less than £1000 these type of issues don't come into play. However, on my £25k system to literally get the best out of even the most minor issues do make the overall sound quite different."
I don't get this, sorry I really dont - the difference between a one and zero on the surface of the CD is indeed a physical thing but were not talking about vinyl here, were talking about a laser obtaining a 1 or 0 depending on the peak/trough.
Now there's now way you can convince me that some systems interpret these differently and that where a cheap system may see a 1 an expensive one sees a 0 or perhaps 1*
I don't doubt that your system sounds fabulous but I also don't doubt that at the level it closely matches your idea of a perfect system - it appears that audiophile level kit is very, very subjective and is often much more about finding a system that reproduces music the way the listener wishes to hear it rather than as the final word in absolute and faithful reproduction of the source.
There is no digital information on them, they are just an analogue series of grooves and peaks and troughs. Thus the production and playback quality of them will be dependant on the quality of the CD transport playing - or ripping them. I hasten to add that if you are looking at a system of less than £1000 these type of issues don't come into play. However, on my £25k system to literally get the best out of even the most minor issues do make the overall sound quite different."
I don't get this, sorry I really dont - the difference between a one and zero on the surface of the CD is indeed a physical thing but were not talking about vinyl here, were talking about a laser obtaining a 1 or 0 depending on the peak/trough.
Now there's now way you can convince me that some systems interpret these differently and that where a cheap system may see a 1 an expensive one sees a 0 or perhaps 1*
I don't doubt that your system sounds fabulous but I also don't doubt that at the level it closely matches your idea of a perfect system - it appears that audiophile level kit is very, very subjective and is often much more about finding a system that reproduces music the way the listener wishes to hear it rather than as the final word in absolute and faithful reproduction of the source.
Interesting thread
I'm an avid Squeezebox user, having 3 in the house. I think that the biggest gain over a HD based audio system over CD is the accessibility (my wife loves it), it has meant that more music is played in the house. The one in my main system has displayed a Meridian CD Transport, and is used into Meridian Processor. The others use the analogue outputs (internal DACs) into budget amps/speakers.
Over the past couple of years I have compared extensively SB analogue outputs against a variety of DACs (NOS, Meridian 203, 566, 568, Arcam) etc and I feel that in standard form the DAC part of the SB lets the side down for true audio quality. I haven't heard the Transporter though and would be unlikely to get one as in my mind it's mainly the analogue output that has been improved and as I already have an expensive processor in the form of a Meridian 568.
I have also played around with Modding SBs, fully regulated linear supplies, additional regulators inside on the SPDIF output circuitry etc. These all make a small difference, but the best SB version that I have heard is Patrick Dixon's SB+. Patrick's an ex-broadcast engineer and knows his stuff, and has taken the humble SB to new heights. His analogue output is exceptional. If you are considering a transporter (the SB+ costs less) then I would strongly suggest you get a listen to his unit. Look for SB+ in the products section of his website http://www.at-tunes.co.uk/ - There is also a 30 day trial option.
I heard the SB+ before it was made into a full production version and it kocked a standard SB with Meridian 566 DAC into touch. If I wanted a high quality two channel audio system it would be on my shopping list.
By the way all of my CDs were ripped using Exact Audio Copy and reside on my server in WAV or FLAC files (no lossy compression here!)
davidy
I'm an avid Squeezebox user, having 3 in the house. I think that the biggest gain over a HD based audio system over CD is the accessibility (my wife loves it), it has meant that more music is played in the house. The one in my main system has displayed a Meridian CD Transport, and is used into Meridian Processor. The others use the analogue outputs (internal DACs) into budget amps/speakers.
Over the past couple of years I have compared extensively SB analogue outputs against a variety of DACs (NOS, Meridian 203, 566, 568, Arcam) etc and I feel that in standard form the DAC part of the SB lets the side down for true audio quality. I haven't heard the Transporter though and would be unlikely to get one as in my mind it's mainly the analogue output that has been improved and as I already have an expensive processor in the form of a Meridian 568.
I have also played around with Modding SBs, fully regulated linear supplies, additional regulators inside on the SPDIF output circuitry etc. These all make a small difference, but the best SB version that I have heard is Patrick Dixon's SB+. Patrick's an ex-broadcast engineer and knows his stuff, and has taken the humble SB to new heights. His analogue output is exceptional. If you are considering a transporter (the SB+ costs less) then I would strongly suggest you get a listen to his unit. Look for SB+ in the products section of his website http://www.at-tunes.co.uk/ - There is also a 30 day trial option.
I heard the SB+ before it was made into a full production version and it kocked a standard SB with Meridian 566 DAC into touch. If I wanted a high quality two channel audio system it would be on my shopping list.
By the way all of my CDs were ripped using Exact Audio Copy and reside on my server in WAV or FLAC files (no lossy compression here!)
davidy
http://xiph.org/paranoia/
As used by Max (Mac CD ripper).
"Cdparanoia is a bit different than most other CDDA extration tools. It contains few-to-no 'extra' features, concentrating only on the ripping process and knowing as much as possible about the hardware performing it. Cdparanoia will read correct, rock-solid audio data from inexpensive drives prone to misalignment, frame jitter and loss of streaming during atomic reads. Cdparanoia will also read and repair data from CDs that have been damaged in some way."
As used by Max (Mac CD ripper).
"Cdparanoia is a bit different than most other CDDA extration tools. It contains few-to-no 'extra' features, concentrating only on the ripping process and knowing as much as possible about the hardware performing it. Cdparanoia will read correct, rock-solid audio data from inexpensive drives prone to misalignment, frame jitter and loss of streaming during atomic reads. Cdparanoia will also read and repair data from CDs that have been damaged in some way."
The Dude said:
http://xiph.org/paranoia/
As used by Max (Mac CD ripper).
"Cdparanoia is a bit different than most other CDDA extration tools. It contains few-to-no 'extra' features, concentrating only on the ripping process and knowing as much as possible about the hardware performing it. Cdparanoia will read correct, rock-solid audio data from inexpensive drives prone to misalignment, frame jitter and loss of streaming during atomic reads. Cdparanoia will also read and repair data from CDs that have been damaged in some way."
Can't be any good, its Mac only :PAs used by Max (Mac CD ripper).
"Cdparanoia is a bit different than most other CDDA extration tools. It contains few-to-no 'extra' features, concentrating only on the ripping process and knowing as much as possible about the hardware performing it. Cdparanoia will read correct, rock-solid audio data from inexpensive drives prone to misalignment, frame jitter and loss of streaming during atomic reads. Cdparanoia will also read and repair data from CDs that have been damaged in some way."
GregE240 said:
The Dude said:
http://xiph.org/paranoia/
As used by Max (Mac CD ripper).
"Cdparanoia is a bit different than most other CDDA extration tools. It contains few-to-no 'extra' features, concentrating only on the ripping process and knowing as much as possible about the hardware performing it. Cdparanoia will read correct, rock-solid audio data from inexpensive drives prone to misalignment, frame jitter and loss of streaming during atomic reads. Cdparanoia will also read and repair data from CDs that have been damaged in some way."
Can't be any good, its Mac only :PAs used by Max (Mac CD ripper).
"Cdparanoia is a bit different than most other CDDA extration tools. It contains few-to-no 'extra' features, concentrating only on the ripping process and knowing as much as possible about the hardware performing it. Cdparanoia will read correct, rock-solid audio data from inexpensive drives prone to misalignment, frame jitter and loss of streaming during atomic reads. Cdparanoia will also read and repair data from CDs that have been damaged in some way."
EAC (Exact Audio Copy) does the same job on PC.
Only not as cuddly.
The Dude said:
GregE240 said:
The Dude said:
http://xiph.org/paranoia/
As used by Max (Mac CD ripper).
"Cdparanoia is a bit different than most other CDDA extration tools. It contains few-to-no 'extra' features, concentrating only on the ripping process and knowing as much as possible about the hardware performing it. Cdparanoia will read correct, rock-solid audio data from inexpensive drives prone to misalignment, frame jitter and loss of streaming during atomic reads. Cdparanoia will also read and repair data from CDs that have been damaged in some way."
Can't be any good, its Mac only :PAs used by Max (Mac CD ripper).
"Cdparanoia is a bit different than most other CDDA extration tools. It contains few-to-no 'extra' features, concentrating only on the ripping process and knowing as much as possible about the hardware performing it. Cdparanoia will read correct, rock-solid audio data from inexpensive drives prone to misalignment, frame jitter and loss of streaming during atomic reads. Cdparanoia will also read and repair data from CDs that have been damaged in some way."
EAC (Exact Audio Copy) does the same job on PC.
Only not as
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff