Does the source PC make any real difference?

admin_exported

New member
Aug 10, 2019
2,556
4
0
Visit site
Hi

When using a USB DAC and a PC for playing FLAC or WAV files, does the PC make any real difference to the sound?

Surely the data stream output is the same and it's the DAC that does the hard work?
 

amcluesent

New member
Mar 8, 2009
25
0
0
Visit site
SHould be the same, so long as you're 100% certain you've bypassed the sound mixer in the OS. That's the achilles heel of any system based on a PC, unless you work hard on the config
 

Jason36

New member
Jul 23, 2008
427
0
0
Visit site
I use a PC and Netbook (depending where I am) extensively at the moment for my main system. I have a combination of Apple Lossless files and HiRes FLAC files as well as using Spotify via a NuForce uDAC2. I use iTunes for Apple Lossless and Foobar 2K for FLAC files.

My netbook is an Asus 1.6Ghz with 1Gb RAM running Windows XP, my Laptop is 2.1Ghz with 4 GB Ram running Windows 7 I can hear no difference in the music with either of these machines....so I would personally say it doesnt really make a difference at the end of a day it just a Storage Device.

Definately make sure that whatever the computer you are using you have it configured so that the DAC does the processing rather than using the PC sound card and DSP settings.

There are a number of plugins you can get (ASIO / WASAPI) that you can add in to things like Media Monkey / Foobar / JRiver etc that allow you to set various DSP settings for input and output.....just takes a bit of time setting these but its quick enough and ensures that you get Bit Perfect transfer to the DAC so it can do the processing.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
amcluesent said:
SHould be the same, so long as you're 100% certain you've bypassed the sound mixer in the OS. That's the achilles heel of any system based on a PC, unless you work hard on the config

If you set the sound rate of the playback device (in it's advanced properties page) to the same as the material you are playing (typically 16/44.1), it doesn't go through windows mixer anyway.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
snivilisationism said:
amcluesent said:
SHould be the same, so long as you're 100% certain you've bypassed the sound mixer in the OS. That's the achilles heel of any system based on a PC, unless you work hard on the config

If you set the sound rate of the playback device (in it's advanced properties page) to the same as the material you are playing (typically 16/44.1), it doesn't go through windows mixer anyway.

Sadly on Windows Vista/7 this is not true. All this does is tell the mixer how to the output the PCM data when running in shared mode (i.e mixed with everything else) . So in your case the audio goes into the mixer at 16/44.1 and is resampled to 32floating bit mixed with all the other sounds and then converted back to 16/44.1 for output. Everything goes through the mixer unless you use an WASAPI exclusive mode or ASIO based audio renderer.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
bendrummond said:
snivilisationism said:
amcluesent said:
SHould be the same, so long as you're 100% certain you've bypassed the sound mixer in the OS. That's the achilles heel of any system based on a PC, unless you work hard on the config

If you set the sound rate of the playback device (in it's advanced properties page) to the same as the material you are playing (typically 16/44.1), it doesn't go through windows mixer anyway.

Sadly on Windows Vista/7 this is not true. All this does is tell the mixer how to the output the PCM data when running in shared mode (i.e mixed with everything else) . So in your case the audio goes into the mixer at 16/44.1 and is resampled to 32floating bit mixed with all the other sounds and then converted back to 16/44.1 for output. Everything goes through the mixer unless you use an WASAPI exclusive mode or ASIO based audio renderer.

According to Hydrogen Audio it isn't resampled in this case.

Not that it worries me one jot, it sounds identical to me.
 

Jason36

New member
Jul 23, 2008
427
0
0
Visit site
snivilisationism said:
bendrummond said:
snivilisationism said:
amcluesent said:
SHould be the same, so long as you're 100% certain you've bypassed the sound mixer in the OS. That's the achilles heel of any system based on a PC, unless you work hard on the config

If you set the sound rate of the playback device (in it's advanced properties page) to the same as the material you are playing (typically 16/44.1), it doesn't go through windows mixer anyway.

Sadly on Windows Vista/7 this is not true. All this does is tell the mixer how to the output the PCM data when running in shared mode (i.e mixed with everything else) . So in your case the audio goes into the mixer at 16/44.1 and is resampled to 32floating bit mixed with all the other sounds and then converted back to 16/44.1 for output. Everything goes through the mixer unless you use an WASAPI exclusive mode or ASIO based audio renderer.

According to Hydrogen Audio it isn't resampled in this case.

Not that it worries me one jot, it sounds identical to me.

My understanding from discussing this on a more computer based music site, is that it really hardly makes any recognisable difference to the sound being produced...i.e. using WASPI or ASIO doesnt improve or change the sound.........however what these apps have is "Lower Latency" (in other words less delay when sending the data to the DAC)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
http://www.classeaudio.com/downloads/pdfs/preamps/CP-800_WhitePaper-final2.pdf

Some interesting technical explainations - amazing product!
 

SteveR750

Well-known member
tinitus said:
http://www.classeaudio.com/downloads/pdfs/preamps/CP-800_WhitePaper-final2.pdf

Some interesting technical explainations - amazing product!

Interesting, but comes across a little too gee whizz for me. SMPS..it's like writing CRX Idti on the back of your car, or TURBO on your vacuum cleaner.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hi Steve,

Mark's asked a straightforward question. The answer is contained within Classe's explaination of how data is accessed via sychronous and asychronous USB. Classe's bold claim that a Cd ripped to a computer and fed via USB to its preamp sounds better than the same CD played on a high end CD player allegedly has foundation - sadly its products are beyond my budget. The innovative engineering excellence that delivers binary data to our ears is possibly undeserving of comparison to the dumbed-down marketing hype of certain vacuum cleaner manufacturers.
 

SteveR750

Well-known member
Maybe I was being a little too harsh, but it's still obviously, though admitedly refreshingly open and candid; a sales pitch. An independant technical report it is not. I agree though, it is interesting, if what they say is indeed true.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
tinitus said:
Mark's asked a straightforward question. The answer is contained within Classe's explaination of how data is accessed via sychronous and asychronous USB.
I'll have to agree with SteveR.

I read it, and decided not to comment on it, but here is my 2c anyway: that whole section is a straw man. There is not a single USB DAC that uses the computer's clock for data processing, so the "synchronous USB" is a thought exercise only -- it is only used to highlight the difference between S/PDIF, a synchronous, self-clocking signal, and USB. To be entirely technically correct, the USB protocol itself is asynchronous, which implies that there is no common clock at all.

Similarly, switched-mode power supplies and power factor correction have been around for ages (well, over 40 years).The issues they raise are valid, but are as old as the technologies themselves (many PC power supplies are also marketed as "Active PFC"). For me, it's almost like they've written this specifically for the technophobic audiofile, not for an engineer.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hi Tremon,

Wasn't aware that power supply issues were being discused. Although relatively new to this forum, I've been a member of my professional forum for many years and one of the many benefits is gleaning knowledge from the collective technical expertise of others. I am grateful for your input as I am one of many on the steep learning curve of computer - based music and that is why I posted a link to what I thought was a reasonable explanation. If those Canadian purveyors of high-end Hi Fi are publishing self-promotional BS, then all I can say are they are probably not the only ones. I believe that we are on the threshold of a new era in HiFi which will feature HiDef music accessed from the "Cloud" - CES next month might reveal more. At the monent there appears to be the usual dangers for early adopters similar to previous "format wars" - once bitten, twice shy - and why I bought the excellent SqueezeBox Touch as an interim solution until the dust settles. I will appreciate future inputs from experts such as yourself as increased knowledge can mitigate expensive mistakes.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
tinitus said:
If those Canadian purveyors of high-end Hi Fi are publishing self-promotional BS
That was not what I intended to say, although I'll admit I'm not the most tactfully skilled with words -- plus, there's nothing wrong with self-promotion :)

Most of what is said in the brief is technically correct (I haven't done a thorough reading except for the USB section). And I'm sure they've done the necessary optimizations to the technology, but SMPS isn't as new as they make it out to be. It could still be new in the context of HiFi, though, my expertise is with microprocessors not audio.

At the monent there appears to be the usual dangers for early adopters similar to previous "format wars" - once bitten, twice shy - and why I bought the excellent SqueezeBox Touch as an interim solution until the dust settles
From what I've read on this forum, I believe the squeezebox could be more than just an interim solution. But it's quite sensible to wait out and see, or at least to use a separate source device for all those new formats; I'd hate to have my all-in-one device turned into an expensive amp simply because it won't understand next year's fad-of-the-day.

Finally, regarding formats: as long as you're using an open format (MP3 because of its ubiquity, FLAC, Vorbis, ALAC since recently) I don't think you'll have to worry about losing your current music, but I guess that's not your immediate problem.

I will appreciate future inputs from experts such as yourself as increased knowledge can mitigate expensive mistakes.
Lol. Please take my words with the customary grain of salt. I do have quite some background in electrical theory, but like I said the audio world is not my field. Besides, sound quality is still the most important aspect...
 

SteveR750

Well-known member
I'd agree with the above, and I'm not qualified to definitively comment on the technical accuracy of the article, other than to caution that it is not an independat report, it's a sales brochure. I have spent half my working life writing similar documents designed to promote a business, rather than a concept or idea. So long as the reader realises what the article is trying to achieve then it's perfectly legitmate.

Caveat Emptor and all that.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
There are two questions here:

1. It's important to ensure that the same noughts-and-ones living on the CD end up at the DAC. All manner of software can screw this up, but it's fixable.

2. It's important to ensure that the computer doesn't degrade the performance of the DAC by misbehaving electrically, or creating high levels of jitter. All manner of software and hardware can screw this up, and it's not easily fixable. Computers vary in terms of their audio performance for all the same reasons that CD transports varied . . . with some novel variations. To err is human; to foul things up completely requires a computer.

So, yes, the source PC does make a real difference. Everything about the local playback environment of the DAC makes a difference to some extent. Any old computer will work, but most computers don't sound too good. It's quite a rabbit hole . . .
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Adding another thought to the mix. Why are manufacturers persisting with USB? My Pioneer DVD/AV amp's audio has been connected by Firewire for seven years. My back up WD storage is via Firewire. Apple have launched Thunderbolt, but so far little use. Long runs of USB cable can create problems making CAT5/6 ethernet to a router a better bet for some setups. All IMHO.
 

SteveR750

Well-known member
I suspect USB atracts investment because it's ewasy to use even for a non computer literate person, plus every pc has at least one USB port, whilst ery few have optical outputs.

I still cant see why the specific PC affects the sound. If the software disables anything that can interfere, including background windows programmes, and can take exclusive control over the soundcard, and is able to stream the data accurately then the remote DAC will see the same data whatever make of machine you use. It's the software, not necessarily the hardware, (until someone is going to claim that the internal cabling / solder joints in the motherboard have an audible effect); that is the important consideration.
 

kevinJ

New member
Nov 2, 2008
51
0
0
Visit site
My guess is because USB is widely used for connecting everything to a pc. The flexibility is one of it's best features. And everyone knows what usb is. But as an audio link to a dac, it's not the best option. The best way could be to use the optical out, if one is available.

I use an old HP laptop (with remote!) as music server and use Jriver media center. It's not for free, but it comes with wasapi, asio, kernell streaming built in. The laptop has an optical output (combined with the headphones output), but that can't be used with asio or kernell streaming, so I'm also stuck with usb.

If you need to use usb as output, you might want to opt for a dac that uses an asynchronous usb connection.
 

Cpt.Issues

New member
Oct 17, 2010
22
0
0
Visit site
In modes which bypass further audio processing from the computer i.e. WASAPI then I wouldn't have thought the source makes any difference. Having said this not all soundcards support WASAPI / 24-bit output etc. I found the Creative Labs X-FI series can support the requried modes fine.

I have WASAPI set up with Foobar2000 but I don't think its possible to enable this mode always on for everything? Besides, with some things hardware sound processing is actually required.

When listening to music via a player with WASAPI mode enabled a nice little feature is that it knocks out any tampering with the sound from the PC, no other program is able to play sound, not even the volume control in the windows sound mixer can change the volume etc.

Does anyone know if there is a WASAPI plugin for Spotify premium?
 

SteveR750

Well-known member
The the originla question, I am changing my opinion. The PSU on my Viao is audible when you stick your ear close to the speakers, as a burbling hum. Remove the PSU from the PC and it vanishes; I suspect that some PCs are noisier than others.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
If you're old enough to remember the early 90's, the discussion about how/whether CD transports differ will be ringing bells . . .

It wasn't generally understood initially that there was anything more to the transport than delivering bits to the DAC: therefore they should all sound the same. Bit by bit (pun intended) it became more widely known (as it was in pro audio for years) that vibration, EM/RF interference and power supply ripple/noise all affected the performance of the DAC and even amplifier. Partly this was because these factors influenced the performance of the SPDIF clock, which is extremely sensitive to its environment.

The best CD transports produced demonstrably better sound by very careful engineering and seriously up-market clocking.

Fast forward to the computer age, and we're dealing with all the same issues: everything about the local playback environment of the DAC and amplifier change the way it performs, and even async USB DACs seem to be sensitive to timing, filtering and processing imperfections.

We've lost the spinning optical disc, but gained hard drives, with powerful neodymium magnets and three spinning platters: they're at least as 'toxic'.

We still have SPDIF - which still means the need for a very well implemented master clock driving the bistream - but now we need two clocks to handle all 44.1 / 88.2 / 176.4 and 48 / 96 / 192Hz sample rates. Often, these are low-rent devices in the worst possible place: attached conductively to the maelstrom of high frequency noise inside the laptop or desktop case.

Instead of beautiful high performance power supplies, we're using the cheapest, nastiest type imaginable: very much not designed for attachment to an audio system. This even includes battery-powered laptops, which derive most of their required voltages from grotty switching processes - and have monitors attached.

Then there's a world of interaction between the hundreds of threads and dozens of processes your computer is running in the background right now, that create impossibly complex patterns of electrical noise . . . all of which ends up hurtling down the 5V rail embedded in your USB cable, right into the heart of the DAC.

So yes, computers sound surprisingly different: in fact, they have far greater potential to screw things up than any old-school disc spinner. I would strongly recommend auditioning a few different computers to check this out for yourself.
 

CnoEvil

New member
Aug 21, 2009
556
13
0
Visit site
item_audio said:
If you're old enough to remember the early 90's, the discussion about how/whether CD transports differ will be ringing bells . . .

It wasn't generally understood initially that there was anything more to the transport than delivering bits to the DAC: therefore they should all sound the same. Bit by bit (pun intended) it became more widely known (as it was in pro audio for years) that vibration, EM/RF interference and power supply ripple/noise all affected the performance of the DAC and even amplifier. Partly this was because these factors influenced the performance of the SPDIF clock, which is extremely sensitive to its environment.

The best CD transports produced demonstrably better sound by very careful engineering and seriously up-market clocking.

Fast forward to the computer age, and we're dealing with all the same issues: everything about the local playback environment of the DAC and amplifier change the way it performs, and even async USB DACs seem to be sensitive to timing, filtering and processing imperfections.

We've lost the spinning optical disc, but gained hard drives, with powerful neodymium magnets and three spinning platters: they're at least as 'toxic'.

We still have SPDIF - which still means the need for a very well implemented master clock driving the bistream - but now we need two clocks to handle all 44.1 / 88.2 / 176.4 and 48 / 96 / 192Hz sample rates. Often, these are low-rent devices in the worst possible place: attached conductively to the maelstrom of high frequency noise inside the laptop or desktop case.

Instead of beautiful high performance power supplies, we're using the cheapest, nastiest type imaginable: very much not designed for attachment to an audio system. This even includes battery-powered laptops, which derive most of their required voltages from grotty switching processes - and have monitors attached.

Then there's a world of interaction between the hundreds of threads and dozens of processes your computer is running in the background right now, that create impossibly complex patterns of electrical noise . . . all of which ends up hurtling down the 5V rail embedded in your USB cable, right into the heart of the DAC.

So yes, computers sound surprisingly different: in fact, they have far greater potential to screw things up than any old-school disc spinner. I would strongly recommend auditioning a few different computers to check this out for yourself.

I have been pushing the importance of a decent transport on here, but without the eloquence and knowledge of the above description. So thank you for putting into words, what my ears have been telling me. :)
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts