Playing Music via iTunes

Thats what i thought when u mentioned bluetooth DAC. It is a gem DAC. Was on my list as well when i was about to shop for DAC. but still waiting for MF CLIC.

Trebla brought out a good option as well with touch logitech. All these new tech stuff can be overwhelming. My advice is to stay focus on what you need for your PC based music.

First, decide whether you want wireless or not between mac and dac/hifi?
Secondly, do you need streaming to multiple rooms or not?

Once firmed, then you can list down various options to get the best SQ.

Once you have the list, the thirds step is......












..... Increase your credit card limit and start spending

I don't intend to spend too much going into computer audio and that is the reason I need to weigh in all my priorities. For folks who have unlimited budget that prioritise on ultimate sound quality, non-wireless is the best option(Ipad+Macbook=>DAC).

The Logitech SqueezeBox looks good if it can be connected to 1TB/2TB external hard drives. That eliminates the Macbook. However, for the same amount of money I can get a laptop, which comes up to be almost the same. The advantage of the Squeezebox is it comes with additional features of a built-in DAC and internet radio stations among other things.

When I went into streaming last year, i faced the same predicament between sonos, squeezebox and AE.

My targets at that time were:

1. A system that can play music 24/7 throughout the house wirelessly
2. No need to have the laptop on all the time
3. SQ need not be the best but must still deliver as the idea is just to use this systemas background music

I forgot now why I didnt go for squeezebox. If i am not mistaken, it still needed the laptop to be on as well. I may be wrong. Just recheck before you purchase if u decide to go with logitech. Oh maybr because at that time I was living in miri and could not get the sonos nor the logitech.

http://desray.dyndns.org/Joomla/reviews/iPad-review.pdf

An informative review of the Ipad by one of the Xtremeplace's moderator. Still trying to digest all the write-up.

The chordette gem should cost about RM2 - 3k. It has only usb and bluetooth input, no coaxial nor optical. It looks cute and compact. SQ wise, I am not so sure.

However, I did have the opportunity to hear its bigger brother, the QBD76 (can't remember the exact name but definitely newer than the 64) strutting its stuff via bluetooth from my macbook vs an Audio Research cdp playing the same song, using the same amp and speaker (using different onputs on the pre-amp, thus allowing us to switch back and forth between the 2 sources within seconds).

The SQ from the chord sounds cleaner, more detailed and has a wider soundstage. The AR cdp sounded a bit muddier but has the distinct tubey sound. 90% of those in the room prefer the chord's sound rather than the AR cdp.

ryder wrote:http://desray.dyndns.org/Joomla/reviews/iPad-review.pdf

An informative review of the Ipad by one of the Xtremeplace's moderator. Still trying to digest all the write-up.

I have a 64Gb one which I only use to play games.

Have a 16gb non 3G ipad. Really a handy tool, this ipad. It impressed me so much that I actually searched the net for ways to incorporate the ipad to my hifi system (i normally stream music from my macbook to the amp via squeezebox).

However, after much hardwork, i could not find a way to stream music to my amp via squeezebox without first, booting up my macbook.

That was last month. Now, my 5 year old son is the 'official' owner of the ipad

-deleted-

Eh ryder, why delete the posting? I read it last night and planning to reply this morning. I am not sure of how you will connect 1TB hard disk Squeezebox Touch. Does it have a USB input? I would have thought u will need a NAS with a preinstalled music player. Do share your findings on this. Thanks.

Elhefe, from what I gather we can connect 1TB/2TB hard drives directly to the Squeezebox Touch as the unit has USB inputs. It also has an Ethernet input. We can then use the iPad to control the Squeezebox Touch. Anyway best if someone who is familiar with the Touch can clarify or confirm.

I plan to go Mac Mini + iPad route instead.

Back panel of the Squeezebox Touch shows the USB input.

I am tempted to go for Mac mini as well and hook it up to a TV so that can browse internet as well.

But have to wait till June next year. Why u ask?

For income tax relief heheheh. Curret laptop bought in june 2008. Complete 3 years then only can buy mac mini.

I didn't know we need to complete 3 years before we are eligible for the income tax relief for computers. Just buy and put it in the next income tax declaration. :-) BTW iPad is also considered an IT gadget isn't it since it is another kind of laptop, an advanced touch-screen laptop without a keyboard that is.

I was told that one can configure the Mac Mini to automatically open iTunes on start up, hence a monitor is not necessary/required. An iteleport can be installed which enables the user to use the iphone or iPad to monitor and control the Mac Mini from either device. Pretty nifty.

Computer for tax relied only once every 3 years. Whats yr IC number? I am working LHDN. Hhhehheheh. Joking only.

Not sure wheter ipad can be considered or not. But then rugi lah. Max relief is rm3000. ipad lesser value.

Waaahh goodlah if there is a way to use macmini without TV. Keep me updated with your choice.

Can't really recall when I bought my last computer when it was declared for income tax relief. I think it was more than 7 years ago. I guess it's about time for me to get a new one..

Not too sure if the RM3,000 maximum relief is applicable for a total combined value of two items(Mac Mini + iPad) or only for one item. Need to read up the guidelines on the next upcoming income tax declaration.

By the way, where can purchase Logitech Squeezebox here locally? One of the reason I didnt go for it last year was because dont know where to get it.

That is one of the reasons that deter folks from considering the Logitech Squeezebox, the absence of local dealers. From the Logitech website it seems that there aren't any Logitech distributors/dealers in Malaysia. I'm not sure if there is a local dealer who brought in the Logitech products to sell.

Nearest is Singapore. Another option is to ship directly from US. A brand new factory sealed Squeezebox Touch is being sold on Audiogon for US$270 only. Need to find out if they have the 240V versions though. The only problem with shipping to Malaysia is customs tax. This can be avoided if the item is shipped to Singapore(provided there is someone over there who can help bring the thing in).

Thats what I thought. There are some Logitech dealers here willing to bring in but mark up the price like crazy. Plus dont want to be responsible for warranty.

I bought my remote control model 1000 in Perth last year for about RM750 equivalent. I saw the unit being sold in an IT hypermarket in Ikano for RM1799. WTH????

ryder wrote: BTW iPad is also considered an IT gadget isn't it since it is another kind of laptop, an advanced touch-screen laptop without a keyboard that is.

I believe the classification should be a tablet PC.

ryder wrote:
I was told that one can configure the Mac Mini to automatically open iTunes on start up, hence a monitor is not necessary/required. An iteleport can be installed which enables the user to use the iphone or iPad to monitor and control the Mac Mini from either device. Pretty nifty.

My Window based player can be booted automatically to player. I believe the Mac can do that likewise.

Sudah keluar sudah keluar !!!!
The Star
Tuesday November 30, 2010
Apple’s wonder tablet on sale in Malaysia from today


KUALA LUMPUR: After months of waiting, the iPad will be sold at selected stores in Malaysia today at a rate that is said to be one of the cheapest in the world.

The official price list provided to The Star by authorised reseller Machines, via Apple, showed iPads in US stores going at RM1,573.10 to RM2,613.42 (US$499 to US$829).

The price range for the iPads in Malaysia is RM1,549 to RM2,599.


In demand: Cheng rolling out the iPads which will go on sale in Malaysia Tuesday.

Long queues are expected at all Apple premium reseller stores in major shopping malls in the country.

Machines director Andrew Cheng said the “lifestyle changing” device was expected to sell like hot cakes, along with the wide range of accessories available for the iPad.

“The iPad had been sold in small-time booths at IT centres over the past few months – mostly brought in from overseas.

“Now, consumers can buy the iPads at official Apple-commissioned stores,” Cheng said.

“By doing so, users can enjoy better customer service and warranties by Apple Malaysia, making their buy a much safer and assured experience.”Cheng said the light and portable device had been significant in changing the way he worked as well as his entertainment experience.

“I can easily do an impressive business presentation with this device. When I go for short working trips, my laptop, which I used to lug around, is now left at the office. I just take my iPad out,” he said.

Telcos in the country will also begin to roll out various dedicated data plans for iPad with Wi-Fi + 3G with the launch of the iPad.

DiGi, Maxis and Celcom have introduced the micro SIM card, made 52% smaller for both the iPhone 4 and the iPad.

With a 3G connection, users can browse the Web, read and send e-mail, and enjoy and share photos from anywhere in the country with network coverage.

The official price list for the iPad with Wi-Fi only is RM1,549 (16GB); RM1,849 (32GB); RM2,149 (64GB); iPad with Wi-Fi + 3G RM1,999 (16GB); RM2,299 (32GB) and RM2,599 (64GB).

Maxis Bhd said it was offering data plans for iPad with Wi-Fi + 3G in Malaysia from today.

All data plans would be available without a contract and users would have the freedom to activate or cancel a plan at any time, the company said in a statement here yesterday.

“The plans are designed to enable Maxis customers to enjoy more Internet connectivity and the growing number of applications for the rich interface in a more affordable way,” Maxis chief operating officer Jean-Pascal van Overbeke said.

The iPad with Wi-Fi + 3G models is 1.27cm thick and weighs just 0.726kg. It has a single-charge battery life of 10 hours for surfing the Web on Wi-Fi, watching videos or listening to music and up to nine hours of surfing the Web using a 3G data network.

PCFair is a short few weeks away. Should be very interesting offers at the fair.

I thought these are controlled items. Price never go down unless Apple say so. Few times already i went pc fair, price unchanged. But too late for me. Bought already hehehe.

I think probably similar to iPhone, the telco packages it and in theory, 'subsidizes' the standard list price so that to us consumers we get it cheaper - i.e. we pay less, in exchange for some sort of 'loyalty'. This is how I got my iPhone, subsidized almost RM800 from a Digi business package tied to my employer. In return I am tied to a 2 years plan.

Dea All,

I do not wish to pour cold water over you, but have anyone here concerned over possible of excessive compromises using computer for digital music playback? Is the use of none dedicated playback like laptop, itune, ipad, Macbook, etc... streaming high RES digital music file into DAC that accept 96kHz, 192kHz and 24bits word length is a "2 steps forward 1 step back" attempt?

I tried Antilope Zodiac+ in my system receiving digital singal from my 47 Lab, and eventhough I am pleased with the improvements, it was nothing when compared to Bryston combo BDP-1 + BDA-1, its digital music player and dac respectively,can do in my system! I believe Zodiac+ or any high resolution dac will greatly benefited with dedicated media player meant for this purpose.

I was blown away literally and voluntarily submitting myself to the fidelity it offers especially with the 192kHz classical music files.

I am converted since.

Jo Ki

joki,

i use a toshiba laptop to stream via usb to my benchmark dac1 pre. i use music players like winamp, j river and media monkey and i hv not encountered any compromises.

purpose built ds players and laptops perform the same function - send the 24bit/88.2, 96, 176.4 or 192kHz data to the dac.

the way i see it, the compromises are encountered at the usb interfaces and how well jitter is controlled by the dac.

when u used the 47 lab cd player connected to the antelope zodiac dac, the dac received and decoded only 16bit/44.1 kHz data.

a well recorded native 24/88.2, 96 or 192 music file will always sound better than a native 16/44.1 file.

Jo,

You asked a question I have hesitated to ask because of the number of people who are indulging into this format. But remember I already told you a couple of weeks ago how I feel about switching on a computer anywhere near my hifi system ? I even try not to bring my handphone in. I have seen all sorts of effects induced even by a simple computer monitor on other electronics equipment nearby. The warnings about using handphones in the banking hall and banning of handphones in an airplane are not made without any basis. However, one fact is true that modern monitors and computers are much improved in their radiation. But they still exist.

But in theory, if we disregard the issue of radiation, then there is no THEORETICAL difference between using a dedicated source like the Bryston BDP-1 versus a simple but powerful enough laptop that can extract the contents of the source file and build the bitstream to send to the DAC because the bulk of the hard work is done in the DAC. But I capitalized the word 'THEORETICAL because as I have been trying so hard to point out recently, in our human knowledge and theory, a lot of things we are not supposed to find a difference, like how we are not supposed to be good enough to hear any issue with 16/44.2 playback but I for one, certainly have yet to hear any system based on this standard beat a well set up LP12/Ittok combo. So there are surely lots of dependencies that we will eventually find out about using computers and its derivative (like media players and so forth) as the 'source' into the DAC.

The Bryston BDP-1 is a "high-end" digital media player. How does it compare with other mainstream digital media players? Is there a sonic difference between different grade of digital media players?

Anyone tried the US$100 Western Digital WD TV Live Plus HD Media Player? The Bryston BDP-1 can connect to an Apple iPad. Can the Western Digital connect to an iPad?

I definitely can hear the difference between CDP and streaming digital music wirelessly from laptop to a DAC. But I cannot hear difference between CDP and digital music from laptop linked to DAC via USB.

I still believe there is some difference, partially due to our conscious saying that.

The switching power supply, LCD display power module, CPU noise...etc in a laptop and PC contributes a lot of unwanted noise into the system. Remember when you remove noise from incoming power supply, how the system sound a lot better. Now when this noise is introduced into the system path....it degrades the sonics.

Consider using Firewire SPDIF converter instead of the USB....much more jitter free.

>>>> like how we are not supposed to be good enough to hear any issue with 16/44.2 playback but I for one, certainly have yet to hear any system based on this standard beat a well set up LP12/Ittok combo. <<<<

That's because the 16/44.1 standard, although theoretically adequate, really isn't high enough resolution.

sflam wrote:joki,

i use a toshiba laptop to stream via usb to my benchmark dac1 pre. i use music players like winamp, j river and media monkey and i hv not encountered any compromises.

purpose built ds players and laptops perform the same function - send the 24bit/88.2, 96, 176.4 or 192kHz data to the dac.

the way i see it, the compromises are encountered at the usb interfaces and how well jitter is controlled by the dac.

when u used the 47 lab cd player connected to the antelope zodiac dac, the dac received and decoded only 16bit/44.1 kHz data.

a well recorded native 24/88.2, 96 or 192 music file will always sound better than a native 16/44.1 file.

Hi Lam,

I totally agree with you and I also believe that 24/88.2, 96 or 192 music files will sound better than standard CD redbook format; my post draws on how much better it can be if it is streamed from a dedicated player, which is purposely built for it, as compare the same to computer based component.

My past experiences listening to 96, 192kHz played through Macbook, HP laptop, CPU, Ipad cannot, in anyway near to or, to be more precisely said, worthwhile a mention when compared to what I heard with the aforesaid Bryston(s).

I am Macbook user, and if it is all good, I am already half way there. But I merely find this option questionable speaking in the capacity of hifi. I do not mean to be-little anyone here, and I am being sincere about this belief of mine.

Jo Ki

joki,

i hv heard the linn klimax ds player and it sounded very good, but i did not compare it with a laptop.
the linn uses the ethernet connection rather than usb connection. some people say the usb connection itself is the factor that compromises performance.

Have it ever been explained what are the technical factors that enables the USB connection to give superior performance, according to those 'some people'. With a certain format, we can actually calculate the bandwidth required. And all the standard connections have their specific bandwidth so there would be solid technical basis for one connection being superior to the other.

there are many factors to digital music transmission.

Some are timing critical, some are timing-insensitive.

Timing critical would be S/PDIF, AES/EBU, Toslink and any DACs with an external clock interface. Not forgetting also, noise in the timing critical paths that wreck havoc on the jitter specs as well.

Timing-insensitive would be like streaming music via WiFi, USB , the HDD's IDE or SATA cable, which carries "cooked" data and its all buffered somewhere before really being sent to the timing-critical path feeding the DAC chips.

aka Jitter sensitive or Jitter tolerant.


Then there's the payload capacity ... like Toslink optical is only able the carry perhaps up to DTS but not DTS-HD or Dolby TrueHD because it just doesnt have enouggh bandwidth to carry the bits and sampling rates required for TrueHD.

Correct, I know all that, plus even a bit more (of course knowledge is never enough).

But what I am asking is what are the technical arguements of using USB versus some other 'lesser' connection ? In this case, the other connection is ethernet aka LAN type cables. Those I deal with are Gigabit LANs and are being used in institutions which moves trillions of ringgits a day and yet they trust it. So there must be some technical basis for saying USB is better.

Technically the USB 2.0 transfer rate is up to 480Mbps. The one I am using in my office which is to me is embarassing, is -not- Gigabit LAN status is only 100Mbps. So there is a factor of 4.8 times in raw speed between a standard wired LAN like the one I use and USB 2.0 (though Gigabit LAN is a lot faster). Plus there are also several other considerations like network protocol and such which leads to the considerations above. However, what is the calculated transfer rate required for hi-res music ?

Using simple raw basic I/T understanding, a 24/192kHz in raw music form translates to about 9.2Mbps. There are additional overheads required for control bits but even if we make it 10Mbps, any standard ethernet connection should be enough (cases like TrueHD is different since they deal with multi-channel which increases the transfer rate tremendously, here we talk about stereo 2-channel only).

So USB being mentioned is better piques my curiosity and tells me if ever I am to buy a DAC it must have USB connection. But I am computer guy by qualification, training and profession. So it is natural I want to know what -are- the basis for USB being superior to, in this case, ethernet LAN connections.

I have read people saying Firewire is supposedly the best. Firewire 800T supports 800Mbps. Future enhancements supposedly boosts this up to about 2GBps. That is getting into Gigabit LAN territory (though in mainframe computers we deal with several orders higher in terms of internal data transfer rate. Actually we talk in terms of bytes - 8 bits - or even full-words - 24 bits - as units of data, not bits). What are the technical basis for the statement ? What about HDMI ? Older HDMI is around 5Gbps, HDMI 1.3 is 10.2 Gbps, higher than future Firewire. Shouldn't manufacturers be using HDMI instead ?

Sorry, the thought process we use in the professional I/T world sometimes does not intuitively translate to that used in the consumer world. Plus I have not been following digital audio progress (as in real up to date, not as and when I am free to read up) for some years now. So rest assured, it is a genuine intention to want to know.

wongkn,

actually, many people think the usb is the inferior connection, not superior.

linn's gilad tiefenbrun told me that linn opted for the ethernet-based TCP/IP protocol because it is a "pull" system compared with the S/PDIF protocol "push" system.

He said the TCP/IP implementation cuts off clock jitter and that the ethernet connection is superior to the USB connection.

Sadly my knowledge of all this technical stuff is limited and i can only tell u what he told me.

also, weiss prefers the firewire connection while berkeley prefers the AES/EBU connection because they feel the usb is inferior.

however, more and more dacs now feature usb connections simply because it is a commonly used connection and external disk drives and thumbdrives also use usb connectors.

Sflam,

Many thanks for the frank but nevertheless very useful answer. Let me do some research into how they do clocking for audio streaming, then talk to some of my hardware engineers about it. If I do find anything interesting, I will let you know. But I suspect my hardware engineers would be more fluent in professional computing and not so much into consumers. USB is not used in mainframe computers so there could be a reason. I just don't know (my area is software and systems design and consulting). I will try to find someone who is also a gadget geek. That would give the best chance of success.

from weiss:

Firewire vs USB

Firewire is a peer-to-peer protocol, meaning that every device on a Firewire network is equally capable of talking to every other device. Two video cameras on a Firewire network can share data with each other.
A Firewire audio interface could save sound data directly to a Firewire hard drive. Your computer is just another peer on this network and has no inherent special status.
Firewire is alwys implemented in hardware with a special controller chip on every device. So the load it puts on your CPU is lighter than USB communications load and you're much less likely to lose any sound data just because you're running 15 things at once. Specialized hardware usually makes things faster and more reliable and this is one of those times.
But the real reason Firewire is more reliable than USB is more fundamental than that. It's because Firewire allows two operating modes. One is asynchronous, similar to what USB uses. The other is isochronous mode, and it lets a device carve out a certain dedicated amount of bandwidth that other devices can't touch. It gets a certain number of time slices each second all its own. The advantages for audio should be obvious: that stream of data can just keep on flowing, and as long as there isn't more bandwidth demand than the wire can handle (not very likely) nothing will interfere with it. No collisions, no glitches. From a practical perspective, this also makes it safer to send a lot more audio via Firewire. That's why most of the multichannel interfaces (18 channels, 24 channels, etc) are Firewire devices, and USB devices usually just send a two channel stereo signal. For hooking up your mouse, keyboard or thumbdrive, USB is plenty fast and plenty cheap. For hard drives, either one will do (although Firewire is somewhat more reliable). For audio devices USB will do fine if no other devices are competing with it and if you have processor room to spare. But Firewire will always be able to handle more load with lower latency and no glitches because it has resources it can set aside to make sure your audio gets where it needs to go.

just to make one thing clear. Both Firewire and USB are carrying jitter-insensitive and sequentially-correct data streams. And they are built such that they are suppose to maintain complete bit (data) integrity as computer data links have zero tolerances for unrecoverable errors.

However, there have been reports of people having heard sonic improvements by using boutique USB cables over generics. I haven't experimented with these personally so I can't vouch or disprove such claims. But my gut feel is that since USB is also a power carrying cable, the improvements could be due to the outboard USB DAC receiving better power sources, or reduced noise pollution via the cable as digital circuitry in general is notorious for switching noises, EMI, RF emissions and other junk that can creep into any wire.

Same goes for Firewire.

As for firewire sounding superior over USB (or vice versa), has anyone done a true apple-2-apple comparison before ? Not me ...

I receive this from AV Designs, which was from From Bryston: -

BDA-1 DAC:
On the Bryston BDA-1 External DAC if you use USB from your computer out it is capable of resolutions up to 48K/16Bit. The way USB works is it handshakes with your computer and tells the computer what resolution the BDA-1 is capable of. On the Bryston BDA-1 USB input we use what is called I2S instead of SPDIF (which eliminates one interface step) at the USB input on the BDA-1 and then we use a very high quality state of the art up-sample chip in the BDA-1 to do the upsampling rather than allowing the unknown computer up-sampler to do it.

Standard USB inputs are only capable of 96/24 at this point and then only with companies writing proprietary software to implement it. When native USB chips become available that can do 192/24 (as all the other inputs on the BDA-1 DAC are capable of) then we will certainly look at adding higher ‘RES’ capability to the BDA-1 USB input. Also remember that the quality of the soundcards digital output on the computers motherboard- laptop etc. affects the sound quality of your system.

Also, in Brystons opinion, if you want the highest quality playback, you are going to use SPDIF, BNC or AES-EBU inputs with a quality soundcard. Just because a specific DAC can do hi-resolution it does not automatically mean it has superior performance. We have found that things like sophisticated power supply design, independent ground plains for digital and analog signals, separate circuit paths for digital and analog signals, Class A discrete analog circuits etc. far outweigh whether a specific file is 44.1 or 96K. Hopefully the customer will judge the BDA-1 on the sound quality first and foremost.

BDP-1 Digital Player:
We have introduced a Bryston Digital Player (BDP-1) which is designed to mate with the BDA-1 DAC and it utilizes USB (Thumb-drive or Hard-drive) inputs and will be capable of offering full 192k/24bit playback. Plug the BDP-1 into our BDA-1 DAC and you have a multi-input high performance digital playback system. The current discussion over asynchonous versus synchronous USB implementation and sound quality has to do with the use of the USB to stream audio class one or two from a ‘Source’ to a ‘DAC’. These concerns do not have any effect on the use of USB to transfer ‘DATA’ from a storage device, thumb drive or hard drive, to the CPU in the Bryston BDP-1 Digital Player over a USB bus.

A really important point to make about the USB inputs on the Bryston BDP-1 we need to make clear is that when a disc volume (USB Hard-drive or USB Thumbdrive) is connected to one of our BDP-1 Digital Players USB inputs we are ‘transferring computer data’ and ‘not streaming’ audio from that USB drive. In other words, we are extracting bits from a thumb drive without worry over file corruption or inducement of ‘jitter’ to the file.

Frankly Jo, what they are trying to say is nothing new.

I do not believe that their media player is better than a purpose built fanless PC(somebody in this forum has one).

Good quality motherboard, min. dual core processor, good power supply, at least 4 gb RAM memory, fanless or liquid cooled and most importantly, optimised the USB hub(no sharing). Make it barebone w/o wifi, DVD drive etc etc ie things which you do not use.

You can probably do it below 3K.

Most important again is the DAC which shd be asyncronous.
24/192 capable DAC like Weiss, Wyred, Ayre, Zodiac, DCS are all the big player in this game.

Also Wavelength Audio,

VS126 wrote:
I do not believe that their media player is better than a purpose built fanless PC(somebody in this forum has one).

Got to be joeling with the Zalman TNN300.

Totally No Noise. But expensive at above RM2000.

VS126 wrote:Frankly Jo, what they are trying to say is nothing new.

I do not believe that their media player is better than a purpose built fanless PC(somebody in this forum has one).

Good quality motherboard, min. dual core processor, good power supply, at least 4 gb RAM memory, fanless or liquid cooled and most importantly, optimised the USB hub(no sharing). Make it barebone w/o wifi, DVD drive etc etc ie things which you do not use.

You can probably do it below 3K.

Most important again is the DAC which shd be asyncronous.
24/192 capable DAC like Weiss, Wyred, Ayre, Zodiac, DCS are all the big player in this game.

You could be right that PC could be better than dedicated media player, what do I know? I have not tried all of them and considered myself rather green in this field. However, from my past experiences of listening to high RES music playback, none given me such convincing sonic quality.

If anyone who think that I could get one that sound as good for lesser money, PLEASE, I want to know. And how shall I secure one? Roughly the cost? Remember also that Wong KN and I did has extensive discussion on this...

Thanks,
Jo Ki

Most important again is the DAC which shd be asyncronous.

I am surprised at this statement. However this is based on the I/T angle. In the professional I/T world, we prefer synchronous whenever possible because it is a lot more reliable plus it is easier to ensure data integrity and accuracy. But a synchronous communications protocol like IBM SNA is very costly in terms of network bandwidth. TCP/IP which has gained dominance in the I/T world is asynchronous by nature and the problems customers are having with it sometimes gets them to think why it was adopted in the first place. But the original marketing ploy that caused many customers to switch from say, IBM SNA to TCP/IP was benchmarks which showed the superior throughput of TCP/IP but which hid its disadvantages, some of which unfortunately incurred penalties in business operations.

If I look at it 'innocently', I would think that if there is a syncrhonous connection between the source/player and the DAC, then it would be a lot better because issues of jitter affecting sound quality would be minimized. I am interested to understand what are the technical 'arguements' that support an async connection being better for music reproduction.

here .... more mental-masturbations for everyone to read and enjoy...

http://www.lessloss.com/faq.html?q=asynchronous-reclocking


BTW WongKN, SNA and TCP/IP are data transmission protocol stacks which are not quite applicable as an analogy here really.

Perhaps u can compare an SNA header stack and a TCP stack with an AES/EBU or SPDIF format of bits as arranged for some chip to encode / decode.

It sits much higher in the OSI layer model (layer 3 onwards). OK, while SNA could encompass the layers 1,2,3.... but definitely not TCP/IP. TCP/IP can be sent via Ethernet, GSM-EDGE, WCDMA, or IBM Token-Ring, etc etc...


But the issue of Jitter, sync or async transmissions would be a more layer-1 or layer-2 equivalent of the OSI layer model.

there are essentially two types of usb modes for audio dacs.

from www.computeraudiophile.com

Adaptive Mode USB

Currently almost all USB DACs use Adaptive Mode USB Audio. Even the latest native 24/96 USB DACs using CEntrance code like the Benchmark DAC1 HDR, the PS Audio Perfect Wave DAC, and a host of Empirical Audio products use Adaptive USB Mode. "In Adaptive mode the computer controls the audio transfer rate, and the USB device has to follow along updating the Master Clock (MCLK) every one millisecond. The USB bus runs at 12MHz, which is unrelated to the audio sample rate of any digital audio format (i.e. 44.1K requires a MCLK = 11.2896MHz). Therefore Adaptive Mode USB DACs must derive the critical master audio clock by use of a complex Frequency Synthesizer. Since the computer is handling many tasks at once, the timing of the USB audio transfers has variations. This leads to jitter in the derived clock, which means you are not getting the maximum sonic potential available from computer-based audio." (Adaptive USB description courtesy of Wavelength Audio)

Asynchronous USB Mode

Wavelength Audio's Streamlength Asynchronous Mode USB enables the USB DAC to control the computer. According to some experts Asynchronous Mode USB is a necessity for good D to A conversion. Asynchronous Mode works by using an ultra low jitter master clock in the DAC that controls the audio transfer rate from the computer. According to Wavelength Audio, "Jitter is reduced by a factor of greater than 100 times." Current DACs using similar Asynchronous implementations are the Ayre QB-9, which uses code licensed from Wavelength Audio, and the USB products from dCS. My guess as to why more manufacturers are not using Asynchronous USB is that the learning curve is very steep and it takes someone with the knowhow of Gordon Rankin or a company like dCS to bring this type of product to market.

Hmmm... dCS huh .... i'd rather use that money as downpayment for the new Model year 2011 Nissan GT-R .... a 520+HP 3second roadhugging monster that can eat a 911 Turbo-S for breakfast lunch & dinner.

Yeah Mugen,
Get a 2011 Nissan GT-R and sapu all the girls rather than be like a hermit sitting at home listening to improvements from yr newly acquired DCS.

That comparison between IBM SNA and TCP/IP is to illustrate the difference between a syncrhonous communications protocol and an asynchronous communications protocol and why I am asking the question. It is so that people don't think I am ridiculing them. Actually SNA 'rides on top' of a data-comm layer called IBM SDLC which rides on top of the raw network infrastructure. But I wasn't trying to bring up the OS architectural layers, just trying to explain the difference between synchronous and asynchronous and why it doesn't make sense to me. Once again sflam's references makes interesting reading, some counterpoints for consideration.