The audio output from my DAC sounds identical to me whether I provide a data stream to it via coax from my Oppo CD player or via USB from the same CD ripped to my MAC Mini computer. The DAC reclocks both data streams before conversion to analog so it seems to me that both sources sound the same because the data actually is the same, and the subsequent reclocking of that data eliminates any timing variations. This is all good because it simplifies my life by not having to chase imaginary white rabbits down infinitely deep holes.
Yes, precisely. Unless your files/transmission get corrupted, the bits will always be exactly the same. What isn't the same is the actual timing/physics of analog signal generation, which is where the quality comes in.
Yes it is exactly the same. Two identical data streams go through the same reclocker which eliminates the only possible variable left - the timing. Both identical re-timed data streams get converted to analog by the exact same hardware. Not surprisingly I cannot hear any difference between the two.
As a commercial photogpraher of 40 years and self confessed self inflicted audiophile of 45 years I appreciate that you use a Cambo Ultima 35 as it is exactly what I use as well - I use the Fujifilm GFX 100. Respect just grew a little more. As for the question. I can relate a photographic reference when asked "Which camera should I buy?" My reply is always the same. "I don't care what camera you have; I only care what you put in front of it! "And it's the same same with audio.
In my recording studio I bypass the Windows audio driver for the driver used by my audio interface, the difference is very noticeable to me so I agree with you.
I'm thought USB for audio does not include a clock and the data is just streamed to a buffer on the DAC where the DAC can produce it's own clock so I'm not sure how the "computers are bad at clocks" thing would affect things. Could you maybe do a bit of a deep dive into how data gets from the PC to the DAC? I've only got some basic idea but would love to get a more technical explanation and maybe a comparison to SP/DIF. I've ripped flac for stuff that I care about because I assumed that the buffers along the way would mean that that data arrived in the DAC in near perfect condition and so it's down to the DAC for sound quality but are there some devices that are not buffering the stream and clocking direct from the USB chip? Does the quality of the USB chip in the PC matter? Are there many errors on the USB transmission for a normal session? So many questions :) Thanks for doing these talks I'm learning more with each one.
There are indeed a number of long standing misconceptions about digitized audio signals. The first and most commonly recited is that somehow noise is transmitted to the DAC that finds it's way into the audio output. Straight up, digital signalling has been developed for very high levels of noise immunity. Analog noise on a digital signal line is both eliminated and ignored, so long as it is not of sufficient amplitude to actually alter the bits in the data stream... AND... even then the signalling protocols will include error correction to allow "re-gets" of altered information. Jitter can be an issue in unbuffered DACs and SP/DIF lines but newer equipment always has the means to correct for that. In my player software there are settings that allow for both Jitter correction and rate corrections to take place. However, as Paul pointed out the software engines in computers do impose a number of compromising elements. In the "shared engine" that all sound filters through to get to your DAC, Headphones etc. all streams have to be resampled to the specified rate and bit depth... that means that every single sound to come out of your DAC has been modified to fit the common settings of the shared engine. Good software (and even some of the free stuff) allows access to the "Exclusive Mode" to bypass that shared engine. If your software has this feature, use it... if it doesn't, get software that does. This will make a noticeable difference in playback quality.
@Choffee: I agree. USB is asynchronous, meaning that the (clock in the) receiving DAC decides the timing and requests data when needed from the source. So, in this case I disagree with Paul about 'the clock in the source deciding the timing'.
@@andymill8552What you say aligns with my understanding of USB Audio 2.0: data is not (can’t be) clocked at the source so it must be clocked by the DAC or a DDC. The jitter performance is therefore in the hands of the DAC (or DDC) and not the computer or transport source. I think this is not necessarily true for SPDIF. There the source is clocking the data and can introduce jitter. Perhaps some modern SPDIF implementations in DACs are able to bandaid this inherent SPDIF weakness by buffering and reclocking. As such, I think any perceived differences between FLAC and CDs are not inherent in either of these media, but instead can be explained by details of the digital audio “stack” (source, communication transport, DAC).
I use an Innuos Zen with predominantly ripped cd"s and it sounds brilliant. Surely the mechanical interface between laser, spinning platter and vibration have great potential for errors, like turntables do.
Well, the difference is that the CD player operates in the digital domain with a buffer and applies error correction to the bits. So not really the same thing.
I should have gone into the hifi business; perpetuating antiquated fears regarding digital audio and scaring aging audiophiles back into vinyl and insane streaming/transport setups appears to be quite lucrative.
Not really. Jitter is a real phenomenon and can be measured and heard in a revealing system. Whether or not someone wants to get rid of it is up to them.
@@Douglas_Blake_579hopefully most "good" DACs reclock the data stream well enough. Some people are buying DDCs to add though to take over that function from their DACs. Personally, I'd rather just buy a DAC that was already good enough in that regard.
I’ve been using a PC based system via USB and yet to hear a CD player out perform it. I will add, I do use bit perfect software, a dedicated audio USB card plus a stripped version of windows with software like audiophile optimizer and fidelizer..if you’ve never experienced them, it’s time too. The Asynchronous DAC also requires a ASIO driver and bypasses the PC's clock and to my ears, it sounds amazing. I’ve also believe in subwoofer for music too. I enjoy watching your stuff although I’m not sure I agree a CD player can outperform a well built PC, I gave up on that thought 7 years ago. To replace its performance, I’d need to look at above £10k plus even though the PC has about £3k in it. It’s also fanless and uses SSD, so it’s whisper quiet and as most of the background processor have been stopped or removed, that noise if further reduced
But they always say a PC is so noisy! You should believe that and not your ears! 😆 Anyway, I use it as well, any software that can do exclusive mode has no issues, even free ones like Musicbee.
It’s just a case of reducing the processing systems as windows has so much going on in the background which for musical playback, it’s just not necessary. It just places the operating system in its core optimum operating mode which is what good hifi does
@@Max0r847 There is a notion of software jitter. Multiple processes issuing interrupts to take control of the processor produce an impact on sound. In early Windows days we stripped down Win98 to the bare minimum and observed audible improvements. Today in a Linux environment some people will use a light distribution to accomplish the same, and further isolate MPD on a single dedicated processor. In my experience this last step produces a barely audible improvement in sound quality but it is there.
Very correctly and concisely explained. Even assuming that when ripping a CD to .flac or .wav , you know to have c2c error correction off, certainly should never have Normalize on, and the multitude of other settings in EAC that let the term ' perfect rip' be used... it's all about the playing, the signal / processing path. In a strange way, it's actually much more complicated getting the best( or near) sound from a perfect rip on a computer, than it is to get near with a cd player / transport... there's more things in the chain. Sidenote, would love to see a collaboration sometime in the future with a channel like LTT, who don't do much audio, but have done a few on things like 'audiophile ssd' or 'audiophile network switch.' Spoiler alert - those products don't seem to be anything but snake oil, but it would be so interesting to see with their testing and your rather high end kit.
Yes, but transfer of bits is different thing. Why everybody think that digital data are transferred like 1s and 0s? They are transferred through USB cable as a constantly changing voltage and as we all knows electric signal is prone to noise etc. It is bit more complicated than 0s nd 1s. If the signal is distorted during the transfer the receiver (which is input stage of DAC in this case) will transfer electric signal to 0s and 1s wrongly and thus - music could sound differently. Somebody will say that there is error correction in transfer protocol - not really on this case ad USB audio is asynchronous transfer. Therefore, source send data and dont care how the are delivered to receiver. A very simple explanation of very hard topic.
I rip all my CD's to hard disk and then from the hard disk to a DDC and then to the DAC. This eliminates the clock problem because all the data is reclocked and jitter removed. Also through optical isolation the usb noise is greatly removed. The improvement was audible. By using a DDC I can enjoy the comfort of accessing my entire collection easily and still have audiophile quality.
Wait what does jitter sound like? So it’s better to copy the closest thing to the master copy, then run it through a bunch of shit to get the best sound?
@@unicornharry7995 Not that it's better, but preferable for some. I for example prefer not to pay thousands of dollars for a good CD player, but pay about 500$ for a good DDC. I have a computer at home anyway. So not necessarily better. A matter of choice and budget.
@@unicornharry7995 Two points here... 1. What does jitter sound like? Depending on how much, it sounds like the old digital cdps with a harsh irritating sound. As phase noise goes down the image improves, bass tightens up and sounds deeper and overall things sound natural. In a well resolved system micro details come through that carry ambient noises and a sense of emotion. 2. Every digital system has a bunch of shit to create the sound. It is that last little bit that we hear. Basically a source of the bits and the clocking to ensure they arrive at the DAC at precisely the right time. Now it does not make any difference what happens to the bits upstream. They might sit on optical media like a cd or dvd. They may come across WWW or sit on your hard drive. There may be a network router, wifi or all kinds of shit. It is that last little bit. Some memory, a clock and a DAC that determines the sound. Same if it is on your iPhone or if it is a $1m audiophile rig. If they arrive at exactly 44.1 sample rate, without noise, darned near any old dac will sound very good.
@@unicornharry7995Digital copies are the same data. But how that signal hits the equipment that converts into actual sound matters, so it's the playback mechanism that matters, not the source, unless the source has become corrupted! All that matters is the actual playback equipment/software that is responsible for how that digital data is converted into the analog audio signal.
back in the day i used to copy cd’s on my toshiba laptop and the sound quality was terrible compared to the original but in my mind made no sense why. my system was ml 390s, ml 333 power amp and revel studios nordost valhalla/tyr cabling so i had a revealing system to play them on.
Not just the bits, but the timing of them. That is the key to success. Most DACs will reclock the data. Some are better than others. Some people even buy DDCs that have "better" clock circuits than their DACs. Can they perceive a sonic difference using them? Well, maybe.
The key is to have a buffer on the cd players. One who don't have one skip some bits. And bit 17th of 24 become bit 19th. and so forth. Until the unit resync.
So for what I understand in the video... It's not about the USB connection itself, but about the clock, the DAC, power transformers and all that staff that comes after the USB cable.....So as long the sound card, is really good quality and is doing the clocking, there will be not a problem at all, right? Like with my Antelope Goliath HD2 with Atomic Clock, or my Sound Devices staff (by the way, much much better sounding and a third of the price of the Antelope). I never experience the $500.000 audiophile equipment, so I'm just trying to get some ideas right.
As a collector of music I've been doing thie for decades. EAC is a must when ripping. I can choose the output with foobar2k to the DAC straight with no post processing BS.
Hello. I have compared and played a bit with settings and software on a computer. You make a lossless copy of an original store bought music CD. and plays it through the same dac. and compares with a CD player through the same dac. then you won't hear much difference. Yes USB. has a lot of current noise through 5v and GND. But if you use optic cable, you eliminate this. you must remember that the sound card and optical output are set to 44.1 and 16 bit. You can also use a program called AIMP which is a sound player for windows and set settings on WASPI to eliminate the windows sound engine.
You don't have to play the FLAC file on a noisy computer, I don't. I've listened to FLAC played with optical isolation on a dedicated FLAC player through a high quality DAC vs. live CD using balanced headphones in a blind A/B comparison. I can't tell the difference. Paul, you really need to do blind listening tests to support your claims. Without those tests you're just pontificating.
Paul, I have always gone off your bits are bits are bits advice. With that in mind, when I rip a CD to ALAC and play it via Airplay to an Airport Express v2 receiver with firmware downgraded to Airplay 1, this ensures it is 16/44 (Airplay 2 is another story). Then run that via Toslink to amp, it sounds identical to CD. Actually, often better as I only have old CD players that sound best via RCA and builtin DACs. Those 1990s Phillips and 2000s JVC engineers knew their stuff. Also, I think this is ultimately more to do with *exclusive* mode. Which Apple has not done the user experience with very well. (Only iOS is exclusive mode but comes with some caveats for Airplay 2 receivers.) But I think Tidal, for example, is exclusive. So when you play Tidal via Airplay, it forces Airplay (1) to be used and you get a cleaner lossless version for sure. My little firmware downgrade trick forces iOS to play Airplay (1). I also send this via ethernet and have wi-fi on the Express turned off. The other services you mention are also exclusive. I think this is key. Working around the Apple or whatever streaming DSP and allowing the service or tricky user (me) to send clean rips as ALACs or FLACs to a system that will cleanly accept it. BTW: I also do same to another downgraded firmware Airport Express v2 in my office but from a Mac. So it is for sure ALAC strait to the DAC, as the Mac via system finder Sound menu will output exclusive mode Apple Music (my ALAC rip library or Apple) to Airplay. But I think in a recent update, Apple has allowed this choice to be exclusive in the Music app or, it might just be AAC 256 which just that darn good!
A strange thing that I noticed in the late 90's, perhaps 1997, is that when I compared a copied CD-R, that I've burned in 2x, it sounded better than the original. I thought it was so strange so I let a "Hi-Fi Friend" also listen and say which one he thought had the best sound and he thought like me, that my newly burned CD-R sounded better than the original.
The key as to the difference in sound quality, between a rip played on a computer vs. that same CD played directly on the CD player is the "transport". Every device that can play a digital file has, as part of its components, a section that is designed for transporting the data from the storage device (hard drive, SSD, CD) and delivering those data to the DAC. If you have a quality CD player, then it probably has a quality transport. As such, your CDs will sound great (assuming the songs were mixed and mastered properly). If you rip that CD to a file, and have your computer feed that file to your CD player, then you will likely be using a lesser quality transport, resulting in lesser sound quality. If, however, you use a stand-alone, purpose built, quality transport (such as the Innuos Statement -- which they call a Music Player -- which it does, but it is a transport), then that digital output from your computer, traversing the Innuous Statement, will ensure that those bits get re-clocked with state-of-the-art precision (jitter free, to the best that technology has to offer), and noise filtered out, resulting in your CD player sounding better being fed by the Innuos Statement than compared to your CD player using its own CD tray. Transports are rarely discussed. Transports are not known to most folks. Transports are key to getting the most out of your digital music. With a quality transport, your digital music will have noticeably better focus, darker backgrounds, better separation, better soundstaging. Your music will blossom. Alas, quality transports are between somewhat expensive to wildly expensive. Price does not always dictate quality. But the ones with quality will be expensive.
A 'transport' is the mechanical component that spins and reads a CD and sends it to a DAC. A physical hard disk is also a mechanical device, so it too can be considered a 'transport'. The feed from non-mechanical (electronic storage: SSD or RAM) has no mechanical component. It is not, by definition, a 'transport'. I believe you are calling the act of sending the bitstream from any source to a DAC a 'transport'.
I have all my CDs ripped to my iMac hard drive, and high res files there as well, and use Roon. No comparison. Well, the CD is nice and has its place, but I never use my CDP and it is a TOTL Denon. The treble is better, more refined and has more clarity. I have been explained that the fact the CDP has only one pass to get it right compared to a HD which has all the time in the world (it has a buffer system) makes the difference. And my computer is not audio specific, and I wonder how much better if it were. And my iMac is stock, no upgrades or hardware changes. Once I tried computer audio (and Mac has the edge here) and added Roon, I don't see ever going back. I will always have the disc as a backup, but the days of a CDP as my core source are over.
Taking a cd out of its case and loading it in a good quality player is almost as much fun as pulling a record from a sleeve and dropping a needle. I have thousands of cd's loaded in my laptop... and I never listen to them. Physical media all the way, every time
I've never heard a PS Audio component. In fact, I've never seen one. But when I started playing "ripped" files through a Bryston BDP-pi streamer/digital player into a dedicated DAC (an Emotiva XDA-2 Gen II at that time), it was my distinct impression that the ripped files -- FLAC in most cases -- sounded "better" than the original CDs played with a CD player (Oppo BDP-83se). Some people told me this was nonsense: "bits are bits." But I thought I heard an improvement. I now have a new DAC, a Schiit Audio Bifrost 2/64, and I'm convinced that I hear a further improvement in the sound.
If a CD player outputs analog signals (RCA, etc) - then it would need a better DAC inside it than your own dedicated units to have a chance at outperforming them. If a CD player outputs digital (toslink, coax) then ideally it should be able to give your DAC exactly the same signal that a FLAC decoded in a streamer does. However there are many players where the engineers have just got it wrong, there's massive jitter or dithering, re-encoding (yes... re-encoding) errors in the digital signal where there simply shouldn't be. And this is products costing many hundreds of dollars. You usually need professional level equipment to see it happening, and sometimes its basically inaudible anyway (so people still buy the product). But a CD player from 20 years ago that got its DSP (or... proper lack thereof) correct should be able to give you exactly the same quality as any modern day file, because the bits are the bits are the bits.
I was of the understanding that the Bryston (which is a superb piece of kit regardless) upsamples everything as standard. If that's correct maybe that's why it sounds better?
I don't think Bryston's streamers/players upsample anything. Their DACs do, since -- as far as I can tell -- Bryston's DACs use standard delta-sigma DAC chips. Delta-sigma DACs upsample everything, since upsampling is intrinsic to their functioning. However, I can't find anything about this in Bryston's literature or manuals. I don't see specific DAC chips identified for PS Audio's products, either, but Paul has already said that he considers anything other than delta-sigma to be obsolete. In fact, it appears that he is unaware that anything else is possible.@@analogueman5364
BTW, can someone tell me what is the best program to rip CD’s on a Mac? I assume that playing ripped CD’s from a good streamer would equal the one of a good CD transport.
Paul, you didn't really answer the viewer's question. If I have a high quality network streamer pushing a ripped flac to my DAC, would it be of less quality than the CD itself played on a reasonable CD transport? The question was not about playing via a computer
"ripped FLAC" is not a valid input to a DAC. In between, the stream should be decoding it and translating to x-bit, NNkhz PCM or some DSD. This is exactly the same digital bitstream that decoding a CD will give you. If the CD transport is sending analog output (RCA) then its doing its own DAC work, so the two chains you are asking about are not really comparable. Usually a DAC inside a CD player won't be quite the same quality as any modern discrete unit. In the case you are getting a digital stream from both devices, then they should essentially be identical, unless one of them is fucking it up from bad hardware design inside that product. The biggest bogeyman left for a digital audio source (computer, digital cd transport, streamer) is if it has jitter in the clock source of its audio stream. Instead of keeping a really steady beat to send the bits on, its speeding up and slowing down. For modern DACs even this should not be a problem because most of them should be able to buffer and re-clock the data, essentially sending any error from that kind of problem into the noise floor of the DAC.
@@ivolol Yup, both digital in my case (toslink from CD transport and USB from streamer). So the answer is CD vs ripped FLAC of the CD is essentially equal in quality in that case. Thanks for that 🙂
I think the Cross Interleaved Reed-Solomon Coding (CIRC) is a big part of different sound from CD vs Computer file. Less work for CIRC equals better sound. For me a CD played from my drive (Marantz SACDM3) always sounds better than a ripped.
@@craigaust3306 A ripped file done on a computer using EAC in Paranoid mode does not sound at all as good through the DAC in the Marantz as the same CD played directly in the Marantz. However a CD ripped at 16bit 44.1kHz on a Melco D100 does sound the same when the file is played in the Marantz from a Usb flash drive, to me anyway. So I think an "ordinary" computer and reader is "making things up" just to make the files work that's why it does not sound so good. (most of my music is classical).
It is so complicated and time consuming to listen to digital audio. But I am not giving up. I am quitting my job and devote my time to learn about digital audio
Or just plop a cd into a 50 dollar wallyworld dvd player hooked up with hdmi cable (only connection available) and let receiver decode it and enjoy it. Or you could buy overpriced records playing on 40 year old redone turntables with a 1500 dollar cartridge and 1500 dollar preamp and listen to all the wow and flutter and inner groove distortion and pops and clicks and tell yourself your're listening to the best the world has to offer in 2023.
@@keithwiebe1787CD is convenient. AAD CDs sound excellent. The problem with digital audio is that they all sound the same because the process is a computerised technology based on data from binary digits, fuzzy logic and electronic chips that corrects anomalies. Playing music on turntables and tapes players is a simple process and the sound is natural and unprocessed from the machines. Do not to copy those people on UA-cam who have more money than sense to use analog gear. You get beautiful music on vintage equipment made in USA, Japan UK. You can get superb sound on something like $1500 to $3000 or less. Music on digital audio get very boring. Not many people listen to a whole cd. Let alone sit through a whole streamed song without flicking to the next one
It really shouldn't any more - if you don't have a DAC that regenerates its own clock with buffered data, then you probably haven't bought a good DAC in the last decade or so.
Computers have far less jitter and noise than any CD transport, there is no way a HiFi product can compare to the kind of clock stability that you have with a modern CPU. It is just that most people do not get the benefit of this because they use Windows or MacOS. Any audio software will communicate with the computer operating system to send the data to an external DAC (at the this point your are at the mercy of the OS and driver software). As you correctly say the computer controls the clock and delivery of the data stream but Windows and and MacOS do a poor job of this. I would highly recommend using Linux and the ALSA sound system (not Pulse or Pipewire) - you will be amazed. Strawberry is my music player of choice and I tend to store all my rips in Apple lossless codec format.
Have u tried ripping in AIFF ? Also, I think computers are a magnet forEMI EFI; I have experienced sound quality improvement when I unplugged everything in the surrounding area, including USB, chargers, cheap power bars, etc etc.
@@rosswarren436 I have a MacBook Pro I7; after numerous experiments, I have found that when I unplug everything in the surrounding area and I mean everything USB chargers, cheap power bars, Cable box, TV, etc. etc. that the sound quality improves greatly!! This can only mean EFI and EMI is playing havoc with MacBook Pro.
@@mikeeygauthier2959I'm sure most PCs are even worse than your Mac. Other than cleaning it all up as well as possible, it makes the case for a "quieter" standalone streamer that can pull from your database. I just love using Tidal Connect such that the stream's URL is passed off to my streamer and no longer has anything to do with my PC (or phone) other than getting that stream started.
Some of the best digital audio you will hear comes from early 90s minimal CD portable players...limited buffers no antiskip shortest signal path fewest connections.
But a very miniaturized too small for any realism sound, from such a tiny transformer. Big transformers= Big sounding instruments. Also beefier bass and more dynamics.
Can anyone help me with getting my music from my iPod classic year 2009 to play through an external DAC? I don’t want to make a mistake because the music on it is a very good library of mine. Thx ! Oh ya I haven’t purchased the DAC yet but maybe how I need to connect the iPod may narrow my choices. Running a Denon 4800 avr.
As @chungang mentions, get your data copied off that iPod and into iTunes and back it up on one or two external hard drives for safety if you really care about it. All devices break sooner or later.
I can't tell you for sure. I only can tell you that I do this with my iPAD. I bought Apple's "Camera Connection Kit" which is just really a special cable that allows a USB connection (and one version of it allows you to plug in power too, so I can keep the iPAD charged while using it). I take the data from my iPAD using this "Camera Connection Kit" cable into my DAC via a USB cable. This works well. I would think that *maybe* it would work for an iPod. Note that some DACs use older USB connections that look like the ones on printers, while newer DACs use USB-C, so you'd need to buy the USB cable that works with your DAC.
I have no experience of listening to ripped files played via a PC but I would imagine that it’s not the best way to listen to music for the reasons Paul has explained. Ripping CD’s to a dedicated audio server and using a good quality network player is a different story, in my experience. I had a high end CD transport and my system didn’t sound anywhere near as good as it does now with the server and player in place.
I agree with you, that's exactly my same experience. I rip my CD's to FLAC and play them directly through my Cary Audio DMS-700 (Network Audio Player with a high quality DAC) via directly connected 4TB SSD's. I also have a high quality CD transport connect via digital coax to the DMS-700 and my ripped FLAC files just sound better.
But the difference in what we hear is due to the quality of the DAC and not the CD/DVD player itself, correct? Meaning a CD played through a cheap CD player or an expensive player will sound almost no different when sent through a great DAC, yes?
If the DAC has its own buffer and reclocking circuit that eliminates jitter as much as possible, then yes. But of course, a "cheap" CD player likely doesn't offer as good error correction as a better one in assigning values to the bits, so for "accuracy" a better player is well, better on average. Figure transports by Audiolab, NAD, and others should be fine.
I am curious if ripped music played through a separate computer running Roon connected to a streamer will sound any different than running an HDD directly to the streamer
Some softwares like "dBpoweramp CD Ripper" let's you rip FLAC files without this compression (this results in FLAC files with the same files size as Wave files).
Allman Bros. and Supertramp to name two, sound better recorded to analog tape from the cd. Tape generally tends to add warmth when you play it back. A slight alteration of frequency response caused by an infinite number of things in his recording chain (all the things the signal passes through), could have done the same thing, and he preferred it.
As a Hi-Fi enthusiast of 44 years listening experience, the BEST sound I've ever heard came from the PC and through a valve / tube amp! It was mind-blowingly true to life, smooth, with bass and vocals to die for! Who cares about the technical specs, when it sounds that good?
I call that tube distortion (even harmonic distortion) and I agree it can make magic to some music. There is nothing bad about this if you really enjoy it. Likewise, there is nothing bad about using EQ (I do) to optimize the tonal balance, if you enjoy that.
@@marcse7en Yes, it's indeed all about enjoyment. A smart phone with a pair of well engineered US$20 earbuds playing EDM can be as enjoying for some as a US$100,000 system trying to make you think Diana Krall is in the room, for some other people. Personally I'm a bit tired of this pursuit of being at the live concert. I actually prefer going to real live concerts and when home enjoy music as it was produced to sound like in the studio.
Why no DSP like Legacy Audio has in their DAC DSP Preamp called Wavelet. Also they have speakers that inclued teh wavelt, for teh same price as your FR30 Hmm and they have built in amplification for bass. Legacy is a better deal for superb quality speakers
But isn’t this just something to solve in the DAC? Every self respecting pro interface has a buffer anyway and an internal clock source, so why can’t hifi audio DACs do the same?
I like and admire Paul, but he now consistently contracticts himself and IMHO should (mostly) give way to the more knowledgeable engineers on his staff, or elsewhere. Paul states that a file ripped to a computer and played through USB will sound different (i.e., worse) on a high resolving DAC than the CD spinning on the tranport directly into the DAC. This is generally true. Paul then states that the way to solve this problem is via Roon/JRiver and an electrically isolated buffer, before passing the bits to the DAC, which is definitely true, and is implemented in the vast majority of high end solutions today. This step solves the sonic delta between the two. Unless you thoroughly enjoy the process of searching for, handling and loading the physical media, i.e., CDs, into your player, the difference in SQ between that and a ripped file, properly isolated and properly served, is no longer significant/measurable.
This nonsense is why people wont buy into stuff that genuinely does make a difference to SQ, like Cables. Trying to pretend that there is any difference between o's and 1's is a huge smoke screen. When you can physically bit compare the data on a CD with the data as it enters your Dac and see its exactly the same (of course as the transmission protocol ensures there's no errors), then any suggestion that there's errors is simply not borne out by simple testing. Whilst we can talk about jitter errors, almost any good DAC will reclock the data bits, and many will use very accurate clocks to do so, so as long as the bits are the same (which they are), then they will be re-clocked and used for conversion the same. Buying into any of this nonsense leads to people selling you $500 network switches - its prime stupidity to bamboozle the stupid or vulnerable out of their money. I use a very good ripping program which bit compares and tripple checks my data is bit for bit as it is on the CD. When I use roon to serve this data from my server to my DAC I am absolutely getting exactly the same bits delivered to my DAC that a CD player will deliver. My Auralic DAC will reclock the data to ensure no jitter before passing to the conversion chips. Not surprisingly, my ripped files sound EXACTLY the same as if they were playing on any one of the CD players I still have lying around. I can hear huge difference in cables, in well isolated equipment and in cleaner power. But I've never heard a shred of difference between a well ripped flac and a CD. Because there is no difference, definitively. People who try to argue something that, for once, is black and white are doing the whole audio industry a huge disservice and showing the many people that suspect as much that yes, HIFI stalwarts are happy to peddle stupidity and sell snake oil if it makes a quick buck.
FLAC is noise compared to uncompressed files. When I switch to uncompressed sessions, I fall asleep, because it's so relaxing. Make sure your player software is using ASIO, too. Otherwise, even kernel streaming will sound like it's fake, although still only to a minimum compared to WASAPI. Oh, and good luck unless you're player is Audirvana. The rest sound wrong. Especially the default software player of your streaming service. The guy who thought it should be musicians, and created the ASIO hardware interface because of it, makes all other programmers geeks about audio playback. OS creators should make all audio output through ASIO by default.
@UCKoaJMXhM07xXUqeZrdK0yg Oh no, I wasn't going for an award for myself. The programmers at MS wanted jobs to write stuff to make everything after it work, they're not bad guys, because of that. They're better at it than me, too. It's just that the ASIO creator knew that the audio people would want their interface that bypasses all software, so he wins. After trying ASIO instead of continuing to think that kernel streaming is the least wrong, it kind of seems like something is missing somehow, and yet the electric band playing sounds more like they're trying to make a racket, just like musicians are always going on about. In fact, since the something that's missing must actually be noise and software coloration, I can even turn it up louder to hear it better, the way I like it sounding better. There's somehow less there, but what's left is pure instrument sounds. Compared to ks, that is. The way things have been with pc audio so far, someone will write an interface that's more transparent than ASIO, and a player that shows that Audirvana is still coloring your tracks, and you've been wasting all your time listening to stuff this way, so far. If people haven't put at least a big fat $50 from Amazon cable on their pc's yet, they have no depth or soundstage, yet. Of course, if your pc is in a cheap $20 power bar, you have it plugged into a "performance diminishing" outlet. Then, if you get a $200 power distributor, it will work so much better that you have to wonder how PS Audio's Dectet power center for 3x as much might be designed even better. Forget the cost of actual power conditioning, on my budget. But Paul's setup video's are like holy stone tablets for us people without the best gear that exists, also. Seriously, that's exactly the type of riff-raff his advice sounds like he's clearing up for us! Thanks, Paul!
Bypassing in the PC can be worse sometimes, it depends on the quality/design of the DAC. Sometimes it's better to just shut every other sound down (windows and softwares) and use the PC to up sample and slightly reduce the peak volume.
Ummm... No. WASAPI aka "Exclusive Mode" in windows is bit exact reproduction of the contents of a file. The modem's rate is changed to match the file and the file contents are sent without alteration ... trust me, it's a *lot* better.
@@Douglas_Blake_579 There's a lot more to it than that. And no, the last thing I would do is to trust someone who says it, especially in this case where I've seen several explanations for the different scenarios and tried/experienced them myself.
@@PSA78 Actually, no, it is not more complex than that. If you want accurate reproduction of your digital files, Exclusive Mode is the only way to get it. If, on the other hand you want to mess with things, use unpredictable algorithms and play with unreliable softwares ... sure, have at it.
@@Douglas_Blake_579 You're ten miles behind and don't have a map, as evident by other responses as well. I have neither time or energy to start explaining it to someone who says people should trust them.
This company should be named BS Audio. It’s staggering that in 2023 so many audiophiles can still be suckered into this stuff. It’s easy to educate yourselves on these topics. There is a World Wide Web with so much scientific data and evidence out there to truthfully answer every question that gets asked on here. Why ask a story telling salesman about technical questions? Does anyone really take what is said in these videos literally?
There is no such thing as perfectly ripped pcm audio. All those cheap drives you mentioned have no real support for the cd red Standard. They are cd yello book standard. By definition the are compatible but not even close to the same. There is a reason apps like eac exist, that also compare your rip quality to online Library to make sure you get as close to what's on cd as possible. There are only a handful of drives that can fully support cd red Standard on pc and they are far and few in between the rest of stuff. There is a recommended drive list on Poweramp and eac both for this purpose and can promise a direct copy of the file bought from a digital retailer will always be superior to your ripped cd copy.
There's never any talk of isolation from vibration, when using a computer to play music. Are computers immune to external vibration degrading the sound? I myself & others have gone to great lengths and thought over what to place our cd players on, and it has paid big dividends. Probably more % of improvement in sound quality than you are likely to make with upgraded electronics. Do we really need to move our music around from one thing to another like musical chairs? For me a cd player and a turntable to come home to is enough, and tape deck hooked up sometimes. Listening to music here there and everywhere; doesn't that take away the "specialness" of sitting down in the evening and devoting an hour and a half of attentive listening to and enjoying music? Does music have to be with you everywhere? All the time? When it came out that Mofi was digitally recording master tapes and making digital lps, some said "why not just get the SACD instead!" Having no understanding that Mofi's digital recorder has a sampling rate many many times the sampling rate of SACD. If there is something to mis-understand about audio, you can count on it like clockwork, that there will be people that will mis-understand it. I don't understand everything, but at least I make sure to not mis-understand "everything". As Jerry Seinfeld would say ,"Who Are These People?" Toothpaste has been new and improved for over 70 years now.
Depends on how good the one in the DAC is. Denafrips sells their Iris DDC to use with their Ares II DACs, but if you move up stream to one of their better DACs having a better internal clock circuit, it is unlikely that adding the Iris is necessary.
I dont think there has been any proof showing any extra jitter playing out of a computer vs not.
The audio output from my DAC sounds identical to me whether I provide a data stream to it via coax from my Oppo CD player or via USB from the same CD ripped to my MAC Mini computer. The DAC reclocks both data streams before conversion to analog so it seems to me that both sources sound the same because the data actually is the same, and the subsequent reclocking of that data eliminates any timing variations. This is all good because it simplifies my life by not having to chase imaginary white rabbits down infinitely deep holes.
Yes, precisely. Unless your files/transmission get corrupted, the bits will always be exactly the same. What isn't the same is the actual timing/physics of analog signal generation, which is where the quality comes in.
Yes it is exactly the same. Two identical data streams go through the same reclocker which eliminates the only possible variable left - the timing. Both identical re-timed data streams get converted to analog by the exact same hardware. Not surprisingly I cannot hear any difference between the two.
As a commercial photogpraher of 40 years and self confessed self inflicted audiophile of 45 years I appreciate that you use a Cambo Ultima 35 as it is exactly what I use as well - I use the Fujifilm GFX 100. Respect just grew a little more. As for the question. I can relate a photographic reference when asked "Which camera should I buy?" My reply is always the same. "I don't care what camera you have; I only care what you put in front of it! "And it's the same same with audio.
I am a beginner photographer with a Fujifilm Xs10 and also a audiophile for a few years my story just like yours first audio then photography
Fujifilm cameras are great....and so much fun to use. Have the XT-3.
In my recording studio I bypass the Windows audio driver for the driver used by my audio interface, the difference is very noticeable to me so I agree with you.
I'm thought USB for audio does not include a clock and the data is just streamed to a buffer on the DAC where the DAC can produce it's own clock so I'm not sure how the "computers are bad at clocks" thing would affect things. Could you maybe do a bit of a deep dive into how data gets from the PC to the DAC? I've only got some basic idea but would love to get a more technical explanation and maybe a comparison to SP/DIF. I've ripped flac for stuff that I care about because I assumed that the buffers along the way would mean that that data arrived in the DAC in near perfect condition and so it's down to the DAC for sound quality but are there some devices that are not buffering the stream and clocking direct from the USB chip? Does the quality of the USB chip in the PC matter? Are there many errors on the USB transmission for a normal session? So many questions :) Thanks for doing these talks I'm learning more with each one.
There are indeed a number of long standing misconceptions about digitized audio signals.
The first and most commonly recited is that somehow noise is transmitted to the DAC that finds it's way into the audio output. Straight up, digital signalling has been developed for very high levels of noise immunity. Analog noise on a digital signal line is both eliminated and ignored, so long as it is not of sufficient amplitude to actually alter the bits in the data stream... AND... even then the signalling protocols will include error correction to allow "re-gets" of altered information.
Jitter can be an issue in unbuffered DACs and SP/DIF lines but newer equipment always has the means to correct for that. In my player software there are settings that allow for both Jitter correction and rate corrections to take place.
However, as Paul pointed out the software engines in computers do impose a number of compromising elements. In the "shared engine" that all sound filters through to get to your DAC, Headphones etc. all streams have to be resampled to the specified rate and bit depth... that means that every single sound to come out of your DAC has been modified to fit the common settings of the shared engine. Good software (and even some of the free stuff) allows access to the "Exclusive Mode" to bypass that shared engine. If your software has this feature, use it... if it doesn't, get software that does. This will make a noticeable difference in playback quality.
@Choffee: I agree. USB is asynchronous, meaning that the (clock in the) receiving DAC decides the timing and requests data when needed from the source. So, in this case I disagree with Paul about 'the clock in the source deciding the timing'.
Hans Beekhuyzen has done a good job of explaining this.
ua-cam.com/video/B-StTplQZys/v-deo.html&
ua-cam.com/video/lLcLWBcIH0o/v-deo.html
@@andymill8552What you say aligns with my understanding of USB Audio 2.0: data is not (can’t be) clocked at the source so it must be clocked by the DAC or a DDC. The jitter performance is therefore in the hands of the DAC (or DDC) and not the computer or transport source. I think this is not necessarily true for SPDIF. There the source is clocking the data and can introduce jitter. Perhaps some modern SPDIF implementations in DACs are able to bandaid this inherent SPDIF weakness by buffering and reclocking. As such, I think any perceived differences between FLAC and CDs are not inherent in either of these media, but instead can be explained by details of the digital audio “stack” (source, communication transport, DAC).
I use an Innuos Zen with predominantly ripped cd"s and it sounds brilliant. Surely the mechanical interface between laser, spinning platter and vibration have great potential for errors, like turntables do.
Well, the difference is that the CD player operates in the digital domain with a buffer and applies error correction to the bits. So not really the same thing.
Paul, if you are looking for for your glasses they are in the latest product shots of the Stellar Gold 😂
I should have gone into the hifi business; perpetuating antiquated fears regarding digital audio and scaring aging audiophiles back into vinyl and insane streaming/transport setups appears to be quite lucrative.
Snake oil turns out to be a multi-billion dollar a year industry ... who knew?
Exactly
Not really. Jitter is a real phenomenon and can be measured and heard in a revealing system. Whether or not someone wants to get rid of it is up to them.
@@rosswarren436
Severe jitter can be audible ... but the couple of microseconds that is typical of clock/data rate misalignment most certainly is not.
@@Douglas_Blake_579hopefully most "good" DACs reclock the data stream well enough. Some people are buying DDCs to add though to take over that function from their DACs. Personally, I'd rather just buy a DAC that was already good enough in that regard.
I’ve been using a PC based system via USB and yet to hear a CD player out perform it. I will add, I do use bit perfect software, a dedicated audio USB card plus a stripped version of windows with software like audiophile optimizer and fidelizer..if you’ve never experienced them, it’s time too. The Asynchronous DAC also requires a ASIO driver and bypasses the PC's clock and to my ears, it sounds amazing. I’ve also believe in subwoofer for music too. I enjoy watching your stuff although I’m not sure I agree a CD player can outperform a well built PC, I gave up on that thought 7 years ago. To replace its performance, I’d need to look at above £10k plus even though the PC has about £3k in it. It’s also fanless and uses SSD, so it’s whisper quiet and as most of the background processor have been stopped or removed, that noise if further reduced
Agreed. I have used a similar approach and the sound can be excellent. Did you follow the CICS/CMP threads by any chance?
Mine was all based on trial and error over many years, so I haven’t seen the thread, but I’ll have a look out for it cheers
But they always say a PC is so noisy! You should believe that and not your ears! 😆 Anyway, I use it as well, any software that can do exclusive mode has no issues, even free ones like Musicbee.
It’s just a case of reducing the processing systems as windows has so much going on in the background which for musical playback, it’s just not necessary. It just places the operating system in its core optimum operating mode which is what good hifi does
@@Max0r847 There is a notion of software jitter. Multiple processes issuing interrupts to take control of the processor produce an impact on sound. In early Windows days we stripped down Win98 to the bare minimum and observed audible improvements. Today in a Linux environment some people will use a light distribution to accomplish the same, and further isolate MPD on a single dedicated processor. In my experience this last step produces a barely audible improvement in sound quality but it is there.
Very correctly and concisely explained. Even assuming that when ripping a CD to .flac or .wav , you know to have c2c error correction off, certainly should never have Normalize on, and the multitude of other settings in EAC that let the term ' perfect rip' be used... it's all about the playing, the signal / processing path.
In a strange way, it's actually much more complicated getting the best( or near) sound from a perfect rip on a computer, than it is to get near with a cd player / transport... there's more things in the chain.
Sidenote, would love to see a collaboration sometime in the future with a channel like LTT, who don't do much audio, but have done a few on things like 'audiophile ssd' or 'audiophile network switch.' Spoiler alert - those products don't seem to be anything but snake oil, but it would be so interesting to see with their testing and your rather high end kit.
Bits is bits
Yes, but transfer of bits is different thing. Why everybody think that digital data are transferred like 1s and 0s? They are transferred through USB cable as a constantly changing voltage and as we all knows electric signal is prone to noise etc. It is bit more complicated than 0s nd 1s. If the signal is distorted during the transfer the receiver (which is input stage of DAC in this case) will transfer electric signal to 0s and 1s wrongly and thus - music could sound differently. Somebody will say that there is error correction in transfer protocol - not really on this case ad USB audio is asynchronous transfer. Therefore, source send data and dont care how the are delivered to receiver.
A very simple explanation of very hard topic.
Why you always mention USB from PC?
I use optical when I bother turning on the PC.
I rip all my CD's to hard disk and then from the hard disk to a DDC and then to the DAC. This eliminates the clock problem because all the data is reclocked and jitter removed. Also through optical isolation the usb noise is greatly removed. The improvement was audible. By using a DDC I can enjoy the comfort of accessing my entire collection easily and still have audiophile quality.
Wait what does jitter sound like? So it’s better to copy the closest thing to the master copy, then run it through a bunch of shit to get the best sound?
@@unicornharry7995
Not that it's better, but preferable for some. I for example prefer not to pay thousands of dollars for a good CD player, but pay about 500$ for a good DDC. I have a computer at home anyway.
So not necessarily better. A matter of choice and budget.
I believe that AirLens (that Paul mentioned) is a kind of DDC 😊
@@unicornharry7995 Two points here...
1. What does jitter sound like? Depending on how much, it sounds like the old digital cdps with a harsh irritating sound. As phase noise goes down the image improves, bass tightens up and sounds deeper and overall things sound natural. In a well resolved system micro details come through that carry ambient noises and a sense of emotion.
2. Every digital system has a bunch of shit to create the sound. It is that last little bit that we hear. Basically a source of the bits and the clocking to ensure they arrive at the DAC at precisely the right time. Now it does not make any difference what happens to the bits upstream. They might sit on optical media like a cd or dvd. They may come across WWW or sit on your hard drive. There may be a network router, wifi or all kinds of shit. It is that last little bit. Some memory, a clock and a DAC that determines the sound. Same if it is on your iPhone or if it is a $1m audiophile rig. If they arrive at exactly 44.1 sample rate, without noise, darned near any old dac will sound very good.
@@unicornharry7995Digital copies are the same data. But how that signal hits the equipment that converts into actual sound matters, so it's the playback mechanism that matters, not the source, unless the source has become corrupted! All that matters is the actual playback equipment/software that is responsible for how that digital data is converted into the analog audio signal.
back in the day i used to copy cd’s on my toshiba laptop and the sound quality was terrible compared to the original but in my mind made no sense why. my system was ml 390s, ml 333 power amp and revel studios nordost valhalla/tyr cabling so i had a revealing system to play them on.
Ooooh the stellar gold. Fancy
If the bits are exactly the same...im thinking the same mystery as speaker cables...yeah ..
Not just the bits, but the timing of them. That is the key to success. Most DACs will reclock the data. Some are better than others. Some people even buy DDCs that have "better" clock circuits than their DACs. Can they perceive a sonic difference using them? Well, maybe.
The key is to have a buffer on the cd players. One who don't have one skip some bits. And bit 17th of 24 become bit 19th. and so forth.
Until the unit resync.
So for what I understand in the video... It's not about the USB connection itself, but about the clock, the DAC, power transformers and all that staff that comes after the USB cable.....So as long the sound card, is really good quality and is doing the clocking, there will be not a problem at all, right? Like with my Antelope Goliath HD2 with Atomic Clock, or my Sound Devices staff (by the way, much much better sounding and a third of the price of the Antelope). I never experience the $500.000 audiophile equipment, so I'm just trying to get some ideas right.
As a collector of music I've been doing thie for decades. EAC is a must when ripping. I can choose the output with foobar2k to the DAC straight with no post processing BS.
Hello. I have compared and played a bit with settings and software on a computer.
You make a lossless copy of an original store bought music CD.
and plays it through the same dac. and compares with a CD player through the same dac. then you won't hear much difference.
Yes USB. has a lot of current noise through 5v and GND. But if you use optic cable, you eliminate this.
you must remember that the sound card and optical output are set to 44.1 and 16 bit.
You can also use a program called
AIMP which is a sound player for windows and set settings on WASPI to eliminate the windows sound engine.
You don't have to play the FLAC file on a noisy computer, I don't. I've listened to FLAC played with optical isolation on a dedicated FLAC player through a high quality DAC vs. live CD using balanced headphones in a blind A/B comparison. I can't tell the difference. Paul, you really need to do blind listening tests to support your claims. Without those tests you're just pontificating.
Paul, I have always gone off your bits are bits are bits advice. With that in mind, when I rip a CD to ALAC and play it via Airplay to an Airport Express v2 receiver with firmware downgraded to Airplay 1, this ensures it is 16/44 (Airplay 2 is another story). Then run that via Toslink to amp, it sounds identical to CD. Actually, often better as I only have old CD players that sound best via RCA and builtin DACs. Those 1990s Phillips and 2000s JVC engineers knew their stuff.
Also, I think this is ultimately more to do with *exclusive* mode. Which Apple has not done the user experience with very well. (Only iOS is exclusive mode but comes with some caveats for Airplay 2 receivers.) But I think Tidal, for example, is exclusive. So when you play Tidal via Airplay, it forces Airplay (1) to be used and you get a cleaner lossless version for sure. My little firmware downgrade trick forces iOS to play Airplay (1). I also send this via ethernet and have wi-fi on the Express turned off. The other services you mention are also exclusive. I think this is key. Working around the Apple or whatever streaming DSP and allowing the service or tricky user (me) to send clean rips as ALACs or FLACs to a system that will cleanly accept it.
BTW: I also do same to another downgraded firmware Airport Express v2 in my office but from a Mac. So it is for sure ALAC strait to the DAC, as the Mac via system finder Sound menu will output exclusive mode Apple Music (my ALAC rip library or Apple) to Airplay. But I think in a recent update, Apple has allowed this choice to be exclusive in the Music app or, it might just be AAC 256 which just that darn good!
A strange thing that I noticed in the late 90's, perhaps 1997, is that when I compared a copied CD-R, that I've burned in 2x, it sounded better than the original.
I thought it was so strange so I let a "Hi-Fi Friend" also listen and say which one he thought had the best sound and he thought like me, that my newly burned CD-R sounded better than the original.
This is EXACTLY my experience, using a basic Tascam cd-r recorder, from a very high end cartridge, table, and phono stage.
The key as to the difference in sound quality, between a rip played on a computer vs. that same CD played directly on the CD player is the "transport".
Every device that can play a digital file has, as part of its components, a section that is designed for transporting the data from the storage device (hard drive, SSD, CD) and delivering those data to the DAC.
If you have a quality CD player, then it probably has a quality transport. As such, your CDs will sound great (assuming the songs were mixed and mastered properly).
If you rip that CD to a file, and have your computer feed that file to your CD player, then you will likely be using a lesser quality transport, resulting in lesser sound quality.
If, however, you use a stand-alone, purpose built, quality transport (such as the Innuos Statement -- which they call a Music Player -- which it does, but it is a transport), then that digital output from your computer, traversing the Innuous Statement, will ensure that those bits get re-clocked with state-of-the-art precision (jitter free, to the best that technology has to offer), and noise filtered out, resulting in your CD player sounding better being fed by the Innuos Statement than compared to your CD player using its own CD tray.
Transports are rarely discussed.
Transports are not known to most folks.
Transports are key to getting the most out of your digital music.
With a quality transport, your digital music will have noticeably better focus, darker backgrounds, better separation, better soundstaging. Your music will blossom.
Alas, quality transports are between somewhat expensive to wildly expensive. Price does not always dictate quality. But the ones with quality will be expensive.
"transports" are most often computer CD or DVD drives repurposed for the task.
A 'transport' is the mechanical component that spins and reads a CD and sends it to a DAC. A physical hard disk is also a mechanical device, so it too can be considered a 'transport'. The feed from non-mechanical (electronic storage: SSD or RAM) has no mechanical component. It is not, by definition, a 'transport'.
I believe you are calling the act of sending the bitstream from any source to a DAC a 'transport'.
I have all my CDs ripped to my iMac hard drive, and high res files there as well, and use Roon. No comparison. Well, the CD is nice and has its place, but I never use my CDP and it is a TOTL Denon. The treble is better, more refined and has more clarity. I have been explained that the fact the CDP has only one pass to get it right compared to a HD which has all the time in the world (it has a buffer system) makes the difference. And my computer is not audio specific, and I wonder how much better if it were. And my iMac is stock, no upgrades or hardware changes. Once I tried computer audio (and Mac has the edge here) and added Roon, I don't see ever going back. I will always have the disc as a backup, but the days of a CDP as my core source are over.
Taking a cd out of its case and loading it in a good quality player is almost as much fun as pulling a record from a sleeve and dropping a needle. I have thousands of cd's loaded in my laptop... and I never listen to them. Physical media all the way, every time
I've never heard a PS Audio component. In fact, I've never seen one. But when I started playing "ripped" files through a Bryston BDP-pi streamer/digital player into a dedicated DAC (an Emotiva XDA-2 Gen II at that time), it was my distinct impression that the ripped files -- FLAC in most cases -- sounded "better" than the original CDs played with a CD player (Oppo BDP-83se). Some people told me this was nonsense: "bits are bits." But I thought I heard an improvement. I now have a new DAC, a Schiit Audio Bifrost 2/64, and I'm convinced that I hear a further improvement in the sound.
If a CD player outputs analog signals (RCA, etc) - then it would need a better DAC inside it than your own dedicated units to have a chance at outperforming them.
If a CD player outputs digital (toslink, coax) then ideally it should be able to give your DAC exactly the same signal that a FLAC decoded in a streamer does. However there are many players where the engineers have just got it wrong, there's massive jitter or dithering, re-encoding (yes... re-encoding) errors in the digital signal where there simply shouldn't be. And this is products costing many hundreds of dollars. You usually need professional level equipment to see it happening, and sometimes its basically inaudible anyway (so people still buy the product). But a CD player from 20 years ago that got its DSP (or... proper lack thereof) correct should be able to give you exactly the same quality as any modern day file, because the bits are the bits are the bits.
You are probably playing the ripped files through a better DAC than in your CD player
I was of the understanding that the Bryston (which is a superb piece of kit regardless) upsamples everything as standard. If that's correct maybe that's why it sounds better?
I don't think Bryston's streamers/players upsample anything. Their DACs do, since -- as far as I can tell -- Bryston's DACs use standard delta-sigma DAC chips. Delta-sigma DACs upsample everything, since upsampling is intrinsic to their functioning. However, I can't find anything about this in Bryston's literature or manuals. I don't see specific DAC chips identified for PS Audio's products, either, but Paul has already said that he considers anything other than delta-sigma to be obsolete. In fact, it appears that he is unaware that anything else is possible.@@analogueman5364
I would visit but I'm on the other side of the world to Boulder, USA.
BTW, can someone tell me what is the best program to rip CD’s on a Mac? I assume that playing ripped CD’s from a good streamer would equal the one of a good CD transport.
I use dbpoweramp to rip my cd s on Windows but I think is available on Mac as well.
Good luck.
Thank you! I’ll try it!
Paul, you didn't really answer the viewer's question. If I have a high quality network streamer pushing a ripped flac to my DAC, would it be of less quality than the CD itself played on a reasonable CD transport? The question was not about playing via a computer
"ripped FLAC" is not a valid input to a DAC. In between, the stream should be decoding it and translating to x-bit, NNkhz PCM or some DSD. This is exactly the same digital bitstream that decoding a CD will give you.
If the CD transport is sending analog output (RCA) then its doing its own DAC work, so the two chains you are asking about are not really comparable. Usually a DAC inside a CD player won't be quite the same quality as any modern discrete unit.
In the case you are getting a digital stream from both devices, then they should essentially be identical, unless one of them is fucking it up from bad hardware design inside that product.
The biggest bogeyman left for a digital audio source (computer, digital cd transport, streamer) is if it has jitter in the clock source of its audio stream. Instead of keeping a really steady beat to send the bits on, its speeding up and slowing down. For modern DACs even this should not be a problem because most of them should be able to buffer and re-clock the data, essentially sending any error from that kind of problem into the noise floor of the DAC.
@@ivolol Yup, both digital in my case (toslink from CD transport and USB from streamer).
So the answer is CD vs ripped FLAC of the CD is essentially equal in quality in that case. Thanks for that 🙂
I think the Cross Interleaved Reed-Solomon Coding (CIRC) is a big part of different sound from CD vs Computer file. Less work for CIRC equals better sound. For me a CD played from my drive (Marantz SACDM3) always sounds better than a ripped.
If you play the ripped file through the DAC in the Marantz, it should sound identical (unless you are comparing the SACD layer to the ripped file).
@@craigaust3306 A ripped file done on a computer using EAC in Paranoid mode does not sound at all as good through the DAC in the Marantz as the same CD played directly in the Marantz. However a CD ripped at 16bit 44.1kHz on a Melco D100 does sound the same when the file is played in the Marantz from a Usb flash drive, to me anyway. So I think an "ordinary" computer and reader is "making things up" just to make the files work that's why it does not sound so good. (most of my music is classical).
I’d I use an Airlens do i still need to use Audirvana?
Hi paul ,the preamp is available in italy as soon??
It is so complicated and time consuming to listen to digital audio. But I am not giving up. I am quitting my job and devote my time to learn about digital audio
LOL!🤣
Or just plop a cd into a 50 dollar wallyworld dvd player hooked up with hdmi cable (only connection available) and let receiver decode it and enjoy it. Or you could buy overpriced records playing on 40 year old redone turntables with a 1500 dollar cartridge and 1500 dollar preamp and listen to all the wow and flutter and inner groove distortion and pops and clicks and tell yourself your're listening to the best the world has to offer in 2023.
@@keithwiebe1787CD is convenient. AAD CDs sound excellent. The problem with digital audio is that they all sound the same because the process is a computerised technology based on data from binary digits, fuzzy logic and electronic chips that corrects anomalies. Playing music on turntables and tapes players is a simple process and the sound is natural and unprocessed from the machines. Do not to copy those people on UA-cam who have more money than sense to use analog gear. You get beautiful music on vintage equipment made in USA, Japan UK. You can get superb sound on something like $1500 to $3000 or less. Music on digital audio get very boring. Not many people listen to a whole cd. Let alone sit through a whole streamed song without flicking to the next one
@@artyfhartie2269 I get way more enjoyment playing my cds than I ever did playing my vintage turntable.
@0:13 "Not to interrupt old Velabor..."
...and goes on to interrupt old Velabor for a 54 second sale's pitch.
Thanks for noticing that on my question hehe😂
All depends on the quality of the clock in the transport, whether that clock is in a CD transport or a PC.
It really shouldn't any more - if you don't have a DAC that regenerates its own clock with buffered data, then you probably haven't bought a good DAC in the last decade or so.
Yes, but the clocks in PCs pretty much suck.
Laptops are notorious EMI and EFI absorbers!!
I ripped my music to the Innuos server, and I couldn’t be more pleased
NOT AGAIN......
What of you play a ripped Cd in a good transport and not a computer?
Hi Paul, can you buy ( not ripped your self) music on Micro SD cards?
thank you
Computers have far less jitter and noise than any CD transport, there is no way a HiFi product can compare to the kind of clock stability that you have with a modern CPU. It is just that most people do not get the benefit of this because they use Windows or MacOS. Any audio software will communicate with the computer operating system to send the data to an external DAC (at the this point your are at the mercy of the OS and driver software). As you correctly say the computer controls the clock and delivery of the data stream but Windows and and MacOS do a poor job of this. I would highly recommend using Linux and the ALSA sound system (not Pulse or Pipewire) - you will be amazed. Strawberry is my music player of choice and I tend to store all my rips in Apple lossless codec format.
Have u tried ripping in AIFF ? Also, I think computers are a magnet forEMI EFI; I have experienced sound quality improvement when I unplugged everything in the surrounding area, including USB, chargers, cheap power bars, etc etc.
"Computers have far less jitter and noise than any CD transport"...Uh, where did you get that bit of data from, a PC manufacturer?
@@rosswarren436 I have a MacBook Pro I7; after numerous experiments, I have found that when I unplug everything in the surrounding area and I mean everything USB chargers, cheap power bars, Cable box, TV, etc. etc. that the sound quality improves greatly!! This can only mean EFI and EMI is playing havoc with MacBook Pro.
@@mikeeygauthier2959I'm sure most PCs are even worse than your Mac. Other than cleaning it all up as well as possible, it makes the case for a "quieter" standalone streamer that can pull from your database.
I just love using Tidal Connect such that the stream's URL is passed off to my streamer and no longer has anything to do with my PC (or phone) other than getting that stream started.
The copies were made in the late eighties/early nineties when everybody thought digital was digital. Amazing people still think that way.
i completely agree...
Velibor, pozdrav, jaz sem isto iz SLO in spremljam ta kanal :)
Some of the best digital audio you will hear comes from early 90s minimal CD portable players...limited buffers no antiskip shortest signal path fewest connections.
But a very miniaturized too small for any realism sound, from such a tiny transformer. Big transformers= Big sounding instruments. Also beefier bass and more dynamics.
obviously only on headphones @@sidesup8286 size does matter in the amps .
Can anyone help me with getting my music from my iPod classic year 2009 to play through an external DAC?
I don’t want to make a mistake because the music on it is a very good library of mine.
Thx !
Oh ya I haven’t purchased the DAC yet but maybe how I need to connect the iPod may narrow my choices. Running a Denon 4800 avr.
I would be looking into getting that music off the iPod before it kicks the bucket.
As @chungang mentions, get your data copied off that iPod and into iTunes and back it up on one or two external hard drives for safety if you really care about it. All devices break sooner or later.
@@rosswarren436 I went with dropbox, my house can burn down and lose all my gear but I'll still have my music again, eventually...
I can't tell you for sure. I only can tell you that I do this with my iPAD. I bought Apple's "Camera Connection Kit" which is just really a special cable that allows a USB connection (and one version of it allows you to plug in power too, so I can keep the iPAD charged while using it). I take the data from my iPAD using this "Camera Connection Kit" cable into my DAC via a USB cable. This works well. I would think that *maybe* it would work for an iPod. Note that some DACs use older USB connections that look like the ones on printers, while newer DACs use USB-C, so you'd need to buy the USB cable that works with your DAC.
@@chungang7037
Yes that true , be nice if a DAC had storage capabilities.
I have no experience of listening to ripped files played via a PC but I would imagine that it’s not the best way to listen to music for the reasons Paul has explained.
Ripping CD’s to a dedicated audio server and using a good quality network player is a different story, in my experience. I had a high end CD transport and my system didn’t sound anywhere near as good as it does now with the server and player in place.
Exact Audio Copy, ripped to wav files or flac.
I agree with you, that's exactly my same experience. I rip my CD's to FLAC and play them directly through my Cary Audio DMS-700 (Network Audio Player with a high quality DAC) via directly connected 4TB SSD's. I also have a high quality CD transport connect via digital coax to the DMS-700 and my ripped FLAC files just sound better.
But the difference in what we hear is due to the quality of the DAC and not the CD/DVD player itself, correct? Meaning a CD played through a cheap CD player or an expensive player will sound almost no different when sent through a great DAC, yes?
If the DAC has its own buffer and reclocking circuit that eliminates jitter as much as possible, then yes. But of course, a "cheap" CD player likely doesn't offer as good error correction as a better one in assigning values to the bits, so for "accuracy" a better player is well, better on average. Figure transports by Audiolab, NAD, and others should be fine.
I am curious if ripped music played through a separate computer running Roon connected to a streamer will sound any different than running an HDD directly to the streamer
💯
Not to mention that FLAC is a compressed, lossless but compressed nonetheless. That means there is decompression latency introduced into the stream
Modern computers handle decompressing FLAC with ease.
Some softwares like "dBpoweramp CD Ripper" let's you rip FLAC files without this compression
(this results in FLAC files with the same files size as Wave files).
Its very easy to fix. Simply start your player 20 ms before you want it to start and then the 20 ms latency is nullified..
@@davebing11😮😂😂😂🎉
Will there be a Sprout Gold?😂
I remember a while back that a person believed that a ripped CD sounded better than the original CD.
Allman Bros. and Supertramp to name two, sound better recorded to analog tape from the cd. Tape generally tends to add warmth when you play it back. A slight alteration of frequency response caused by an infinite number of things in his recording chain (all the things the signal passes through), could have done the same thing, and he preferred it.
See some of the comments
@@craigaust3306 I think the person that said that was talking about a copy of a CD.
You just explained how MQA works.
As a Hi-Fi enthusiast of 44 years listening experience, the BEST sound I've ever heard came from the PC and through a valve / tube amp! It was mind-blowingly true to life, smooth, with bass and vocals to die for! Who cares about the technical specs, when it sounds that good?
@PaulMcGowanPsAudioofficial01. You're the FIRST SCAMMER I've seen in PS Audio's comments section! ... Not today, thank you! 👎🤣
I call that tube distortion (even harmonic distortion) and I agree it can make magic to some music. There is nothing bad about this if you really enjoy it. Likewise, there is nothing bad about using EQ (I do) to optimize the tonal balance, if you enjoy that.
@@ThinkingBetter As long as people enjoy their Hi-Fi, it doesn't really matter if they listen with a feather stuck up their backside! 🤣
@@marcse7en Yes, it's indeed all about enjoyment. A smart phone with a pair of well engineered US$20 earbuds playing EDM can be as enjoying for some as a US$100,000 system trying to make you think Diana Krall is in the room, for some other people. Personally I'm a bit tired of this pursuit of being at the live concert. I actually prefer going to real live concerts and when home enjoy music as it was produced to sound like in the studio.
Why no DSP like Legacy Audio has in their DAC DSP Preamp called Wavelet. Also they have speakers that inclued teh wavelt, for teh same price as your FR30 Hmm and they have built in amplification for bass. Legacy is a better deal for superb quality speakers
And now we have all the comments from the Experts 🤣🤣
Wonder how many would fail the blindfold test ?
But isn’t this just something to solve in the DAC? Every self respecting pro interface has a buffer anyway and an internal clock source, so why can’t hifi audio DACs do the same?
I like and admire Paul, but he now consistently contracticts himself and IMHO should (mostly) give way to the more knowledgeable engineers on his staff, or elsewhere. Paul states that a file ripped to a computer and played through USB will sound different (i.e., worse) on a high resolving DAC than the CD spinning on the tranport directly into the DAC. This is generally true. Paul then states that the way to solve this problem is via Roon/JRiver and an electrically isolated buffer, before passing the bits to the DAC, which is definitely true, and is implemented in the vast majority of high end solutions today. This step solves the sonic delta between the two. Unless you thoroughly enjoy the process of searching for, handling and loading the physical media, i.e., CDs, into your player, the difference in SQ between that and a ripped file, properly isolated and properly served, is no longer significant/measurable.
Prefiro gravar uma fita normal em um deck manutenido por mim, é o melhor som para os meus ouvidos.
what about good streamer and some DACs are asynch
Bits are indeed identical... Sound is analog hence the analog circuit matters.
This nonsense is why people wont buy into stuff that genuinely does make a difference to SQ, like Cables.
Trying to pretend that there is any difference between o's and 1's is a huge smoke screen. When you can physically bit compare the data on a CD with the data as it enters your Dac and see its exactly the same (of course as the transmission protocol ensures there's no errors), then any suggestion that there's errors is simply not borne out by simple testing.
Whilst we can talk about jitter errors, almost any good DAC will reclock the data bits, and many will use very accurate clocks to do so, so as long as the bits are the same (which they are), then they will be re-clocked and used for conversion the same.
Buying into any of this nonsense leads to people selling you $500 network switches - its prime stupidity to bamboozle the stupid or vulnerable out of their money.
I use a very good ripping program which bit compares and tripple checks my data is bit for bit as it is on the CD. When I use roon to serve this data from my server to my DAC I am absolutely getting exactly the same bits delivered to my DAC that a CD player will deliver. My Auralic DAC will reclock the data to ensure no jitter before passing to the conversion chips.
Not surprisingly, my ripped files sound EXACTLY the same as if they were playing on any one of the CD players I still have lying around.
I can hear huge difference in cables, in well isolated equipment and in cleaner power. But I've never heard a shred of difference between a well ripped flac and a CD. Because there is no difference, definitively. People who try to argue something that, for once, is black and white are doing the whole audio industry a huge disservice and showing the many people that suspect as much that yes, HIFI stalwarts are happy to peddle stupidity and sell snake oil if it makes a quick buck.
Are you being sarcastic with the cable remarks?
You need a $30,000 CD Transport.
FLAC is noise compared to uncompressed files. When I switch to uncompressed sessions, I fall asleep, because it's so relaxing.
Make sure your player software is using ASIO, too. Otherwise, even kernel streaming will sound like it's fake, although still only to a minimum compared to WASAPI. Oh, and good luck unless you're player is Audirvana. The rest sound wrong. Especially the default software player of your streaming service.
The guy who thought it should be musicians, and created the ASIO hardware interface because of it, makes all other programmers geeks about audio playback.
OS creators should make all audio output through ASIO by default.
@UCKoaJMXhM07xXUqeZrdK0yg Oh no, I wasn't going for an award for myself. The programmers at MS wanted jobs to write stuff to make everything after it work, they're not bad guys, because of that. They're better at it than me, too. It's just that the ASIO creator knew that the audio people would want their interface that bypasses all software, so he wins. After trying ASIO instead of continuing to think that kernel streaming is the least wrong, it kind of seems like something is missing somehow, and yet the electric band playing sounds more like they're trying to make a racket, just like musicians are always going on about. In fact, since the something that's missing must actually be noise and software coloration, I can even turn it up louder to hear it better, the way I like it sounding better. There's somehow less there, but what's left is pure instrument sounds. Compared to ks, that is. The way things have been with pc audio so far, someone will write an interface that's more transparent than ASIO, and a player that shows that Audirvana is still coloring your tracks, and you've been wasting all your time listening to stuff this way, so far. If people haven't put at least a big fat $50 from Amazon cable on their pc's yet, they have no depth or soundstage, yet. Of course, if your pc is in a cheap $20 power bar, you have it plugged into a "performance diminishing" outlet. Then, if you get a $200 power distributor, it will work so much better that you have to wonder how PS Audio's Dectet power center for 3x as much might be designed even better. Forget the cost of actual power conditioning, on my budget. But Paul's setup video's are like holy stone tablets for us people without the best gear that exists, also. Seriously, that's exactly the type of riff-raff his advice sounds like he's clearing up for us! Thanks, Paul!
Bypassing in the PC can be worse sometimes, it depends on the quality/design of the DAC. Sometimes it's better to just shut every other sound down (windows and softwares) and use the PC to up sample and slightly reduce the peak volume.
Ummm... No.
WASAPI aka "Exclusive Mode" in windows is bit exact reproduction of the contents of a file. The modem's rate is changed to match the file and the file contents are sent without alteration ... trust me, it's a *lot* better.
@@Douglas_Blake_579 There's a lot more to it than that.
And no, the last thing I would do is to trust someone who says it, especially in this case where I've seen several explanations for the different scenarios and tried/experienced them myself.
@@PSA78
Actually, no, it is not more complex than that.
If you want accurate reproduction of your digital files, Exclusive Mode is the only way to get it.
If, on the other hand you want to mess with things, use unpredictable algorithms and play with unreliable softwares ... sure, have at it.
@@Douglas_Blake_579 You're ten miles behind and don't have a map, as evident by other responses as well. I have neither time or energy to start explaining it to someone who says people should trust them.
@@PSA78
Sure thing, make a blanket condemnation, declare victory.... take your ball and go home.
See ya!
Cd’s
I have a oppo 203,my rega saturn r blows it out of water
This company should be named BS Audio.
It’s staggering that in 2023 so many audiophiles can still be suckered into this stuff.
It’s easy to educate yourselves on these topics. There is a World Wide Web with so much scientific data and evidence out there to truthfully answer every question that gets asked on here.
Why ask a story telling salesman about technical questions? Does anyone really take what is said in these videos literally?
There is no such thing as perfectly ripped pcm audio. All those cheap drives you mentioned have no real support for the cd red Standard. They are cd yello book standard. By definition the are compatible but not even close to the same. There is a reason apps like eac exist, that also compare your rip quality to online Library to make sure you get as close to what's on cd as possible. There are only a handful of drives that can fully support cd red Standard on pc and they are far and few in between the rest of stuff. There is a recommended drive list on Poweramp and eac both for this purpose and can promise a direct copy of the file bought from a digital retailer will always be superior to your ripped cd copy.
Would you be able to notice the difference though?
There's never any talk of isolation from vibration, when using a computer to play music. Are computers immune to external vibration degrading the sound? I myself & others have gone to great lengths and thought over what to place our cd players on, and it has paid big dividends. Probably more % of improvement in sound quality than you are likely to make with upgraded electronics.
Do we really need to move our music around from one thing to another like musical chairs? For me a cd player and a turntable to come home to is enough, and tape deck hooked up sometimes.
Listening to music here there and everywhere; doesn't that take away the "specialness" of sitting down in the evening and devoting an hour and a half of attentive listening to and enjoying music? Does music have to be with you everywhere? All the time? When it came out that Mofi was digitally recording master tapes and making digital lps, some said "why not just get the SACD instead!" Having no understanding that Mofi's digital recorder has a sampling rate many many times the sampling rate of SACD. If there is something to mis-understand about audio, you can count on it like clockwork, that there will be people that will mis-understand it. I don't understand everything, but at least I make sure to not mis-understand "everything". As Jerry Seinfeld would say ,"Who Are These People?"
Toothpaste has been new and improved for over 70 years now.
Exclusive mode through TOSLINK. Problem solved.
Is better to use external clocks or internal ?
Depends on how good the one in the DAC is. Denafrips sells their Iris DDC to use with their Ares II DACs, but if you move up stream to one of their better DACs having a better internal clock circuit, it is unlikely that adding the Iris is necessary.