Linn Magik DS - the next itch

XP barely survive with 1gb not to mention 512mb. You already have a fast enuf processor. Given the very low price of DDR3 RAM today, there's no reason not to have at least 2gb installed.

Add your memory you'll see the huge performance improvement.....unless you are a very very patient guy

I agree that non-compressed audio are better than compressed lossless ones, jitter does occur during the processing thus i believe it require higher processing power too (at today's pc performance, i think it should be no problem for the given task "but i give no chance" as i hear differences via an old ipod nano between compress vs non-compress loseless files for the jitter with Amping). Wav files could be the best choice, but i opted for Aiff Non-Compress as it supports feature like Cover Art, Tags and syncs with my ipod.

I am a HTPC user & not sure if anyone else encountered this. Computer Audio are not only prone to jitter, but also processing noise or sound pollution from the Fan, Harddisk etc.
So, linn magik or laptop mod as mentioned by bro VS126 would be the better alternatives?

The noise can even go pass via the USB cable to the DAC. Are better USB cable capable to counter the noise problems?

PS. Bro Arremie, can borrow me your usb cable to test?

TechMy wrote:


The noise can even go pass via the USB cable to the DAC.

Most important is yr DAC must be capable of ascyn mode where the data are reclocked in the DAC to minimised jitter.

Itunes have good interface but sound quality is poor. To counter this, you must use itunes with pure music or amarra.

Wav files played thru Jrivers or other media offers as good or better interface than itunes. But if you are using Mac, best option is itunes.

TechMy wrote:
The noise can even go pass via the USB cable to the DAC.

some dacs feature galvanic isolation which isolates computer noise from the dac.

vs126 wrote:
Most important is yr DAC must be capable of ascyn mode where the data are reclocked in the DAC to minimised jitter.

whether asynchronous mode is better than adaptive mode is debatable. from my experience they offer different sonic signatures.

In theory, synchronous still offers the best chance of most accurate data transfer. Most receivers have input buffers. Once the received data gets loaded into the buffer, then all vestige of timing will have been stripped out and the data sits there in the buffer in 'chronological sequence' (i.e. only in terms of which bit comes after which). From there, when the data buffer is read, the receiver does its own timing, using a very accurate internal clock (I understand atomic clocks are starting to make their way into high-end digital gear nowadays). As I understand it, this is the way the Brystons are designed to work anyway. However if there is no buffering on the input stream, then theoretically async mode allows the receiver to re-clock the input stream because there is no real timing info to speak of in an async stream.

Just thinking aloud in general....