doug2507

iTrader: (6)

Hi,

I've recently upgraded my Hi'Fi setup and am tending to use my laptop more than my CD player for convenience. I seem to remember reading somewhere that a DAC would greatly benefit music played from an mp3 source. Has anyone got a bit of insight into this or use this type of setup??

Currently using audiolab 8000c pre/8000p power/laptop with audigy2 zs pcmcia/tannoy m1 speakers (next upgrade!).

Cheers,
Doug.

P.S. Have a Roksan Kandy KA-1 (mk1) integrated amp for sale if anyones interested before it goes on ebay.

ScoobyDoo555

TBH, kinda defeats the object of using a better DAC when using such a sh1te format as MP3......
Best upgrade would be a better soundcard (perhaps something like an M-Audio Audiophile USB) but again, unless you've got a high quality UNCOMPRESSED audio format, a bit pointless

Dan

doug2507

iTrader: (6)

Well, i think if my mp3's were uncompressed i'd need 3 or 4 1TB drives hooked up!

I found a thread in some hi-fi forum and the guy was on about how a dac improved the quality of his mp3's through his hi-fi. Wasnt too sure about it obviously due to the nature of the source being fairly crap anyway. Maybe a wasted expense for a new 'toy'. Think its time to wipe the mp3 folder and import them at 320kbps and see how that goes.......(back to the drawing board!)

Cheers.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

I currently use my Archos MP3 player with SPDIF output directly into my Technics X901 amp (which has a built in DAC ).

Audiophile-wise (spits ) there is no distinguishable difference between a CD and a high bit rate MP3 that's been ripped using decent ripping software (i.e NOT Windows media player ).

As my main gripe was noise gained from the analogue output of the mp3 player (or the crappy PC sound card in your case), and also colouration of the source signal from the buffer amplifier that drive the line outputs (and also any independent tone/bass/treble controls - as offered on analogue outputs on PCs and mp3 players). Outputting a raw digital signal and using the technics amp to process it removes much of the issues associated with using your typical headphone/analogue line outs, giving a more original and less molested representation of the source music.

I'm yet to get round to getting SPDIF straight from the PC (I dont have a long enough coax lead....but I suppose that will add "colouration" to the digital signal ).

doug2507

iTrader: (6)

So, what i need to do is.......

Purchase a M-Audio Audiophile USB, connect to laptop through USB, get a decent phono lead (RCA), connect it to the RCA output of the M-Audio Audiophile USB and input on the preamp. And import all my cd's again at a higher bit rate..(currently 192vbr, using itunes).....

Whats the deal with the S/PDIF input/output? where do they come into play? Sorry, not a techy audiophile..

And do i need to put in a DAC after the Audiophile??

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

SPDIF is a digital format for sending audio along a cable. So no analogue signal is involved from the audio source right through to the main amplifier (or DAC).

Basically it replaces RCA phono leads and eliminates issues with all the noise and distortion associated with anologue processing, naff sound cards/line level amps and crap cable.

It's an alternative route to buying a top notch sound card to get decent quality RCA outputs. Especially if you happend to have an amp with a built in DAC (i.e me )

doug2507

iTrader: (6)

Ah, gotcha. My laptop's S/PDIF output is a 3.5 jack so that cant be too good. Plus the built in soundcard's probably one of the worst going. If i were to get the audiophile and a DAC, there would still be an RCA connection from the DAC to my pre-amp.

So, i could send what i imagine would be a high (depending on bit-rate) quality digital signal all the way through from laptop to audiophile (getting the signal out of the pc and providing a direct digital route to the DAC) to the DAC then it'll be changed to analogue before getting to the amp...The connection from the DAC to pre-amp needing to be of a high quality...

I've also noticed "Coherent Systems tweaked" on an 8000P. What exactly does that mean/involve?

(Thanks for answering the 'bone' questions... )

ScoobyDoo555

The Audiophile is a DAC. Also got SPDIF on it (RCA)

Just be aware that whilst MP3 is a handy format, doesn't matter what sort of compression you use, it is still compressed. I have this arguement with my students every year (I'm in Pro Audio) It's OK, but certainly nothing special.

The 3.5mm spdif jack will be fine - the jack/socket has nothing to do with the quality of the digital signal. The only downside is that it isn't exactly a substantial jack (bit flimsy!) and it's unbalanced (not shielded enough to protect over a longer distance from RF)

Hope this helps

Dan

ScoobyDoo555

PS the Audiophile isn't the only option

Have a look around - I only use Audiophiles with my Macs coz they're 192KHz/24Bit. Bit better than MP3 but file size is a major factor

Dan

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Audiophile wise listening to an MP3 player is like listening to a proper CD player with socks stuffed into the loudspeaker drivers

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

I pity your pathetic ears - or your mp3 ripping software/player

And if you have a pair of transmission line speakers, you'd fair well to stuff a few pairs of socks in the cabinets to change the backwave dampening to suit the natural "room gain".

doug2507

iTrader: (6)

Thanks guys. Head got a bit fried at points but i get the jist of it!

ScoobyDoo555

Ali-B, are you actually saying that MP3 is as good as the raw audio file?
If so, I would genuinely like to hear why you think so.......

Regardless of how good the conversion/ripping software is and the kit being use to play it on, it's still compressed, ergo the sound will change.

Not starting an arguement, just really interested as to why MP3 has become this apparent great successor to proper audio files

Dan

Iain Young

It would also be interesting to hear what sort of music you are listening to Ali-B.

If you are listening to metal / rock (for example), the differences between a high quality mp3 and a cd are not that obvious. However, if you try to listen to something with a much broader dynamic range (such as classical, jazz etc), then the differences are very noticeable. As dan said, when you compress the audio, you lose a lot of the information, (especially at the far bass and treble ends of the audio spectrum).

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Sorry, this is going to be a long one, as I'll have to digress,

This thread isn't about CD vs MP3, it's about some bloke wanting to listen to mp3s through his Hi-Fi, and not about the use of compressed audio. So apologies to Doug if I have happend to trigger a response that should belong on A/V forums

But anyway:

IMO, the quality of an Mp3 can be high enough to a level that it is literally indisinguishable to the average listener....That is, unless you intentionally sit and purposely listen for a difference - which of course you'll notice. Likewise with comparing the difference between various ripping software, even with the same identical bitrate there is a noticable difference - which even suprised me. Also the mp3 download market (legal and illegal) just doesn't do it any justice either as most of limited to 128 or 192bps, which is severly compromised.

I should note than most of my collection has a bitrate of 512kbps, but generally I find 320kpbs acceptable if space is at a premium. And granted that using more compression will lead to lower quality - there are limits, of course. But no need to tar mp3 as totally inferior full stop.

I could add: Listening for differences and listening to music is two different things Of course, to fully appreciate music you'll need a perfect listening environment, In a perefctly shaped room with perfect room accousitics, with studio quality speaker monitors, perfectly positioned, on high quality fixings, whilst sat in a central listening position to make sure the music you listen to on a CD is a "true" representation and doesn't attain any unwanted noise gain or colouration.

With the above, you have to compromise, a home setup will never be close to a pro studio, but I shouldn't need to tell you that. Well imo, even with a decent home system, you can lose alot more than what would be missed with an Mp3 source by just sitting in a different place in the room!!!

Finally, a point I mentioned in an above post and the thread topic, is the equipment used to output Mp3 music. Be it an PC, iPod or my Archos, can make a noticeable difference, which is what I thought this thread is about. The analogue line-output amplifiers found on many PC soundcards are often truely appauling. Likewise the headphone ouputs on portable players is also a compromise. Compounded by seperate tonal controls integrated in the mp3 player, or sound effects provided by the soundcard in a PC - all of which is unwanted, as all that should be left to the pre-amp (or main amp, if integrated). So, addressing these matters can only be a good thing, surely?

Compressed digital audio is the great sucessor due to its flexibilty. Why mess round with rack upon racks of CDs all in cumbersome boxes in a single loading Player and then find it skips because your son/daughter got his/her greasy fingerprints on it?

When you could have a whole CD collection stuffed within 10gig on a hard disc, and then play the entire collection with just a few clicks of a mouse. The price for a slight loss in quality - especially when you don't have the perfect listening arrangement or equipment makes up for it.

Of course, it doesn't have to be mp3, we could go on about the merits of wma, ogg (lossless - alledgedly) etc. I'm quite liking m4a/mp4 which allows to use of lower bitrates but still retain quality.

Iain Young

That is true for some forms of music. But for others it is not. You don't say what sort of music you are listening to.

I know that if I encode a mp3, wma, ogg, mp4 etc, even at high bitrates (512kbs for example) I can easily tell the difference between that and the original cd. Especially when listening to a Mahler symphony for example.

My ear may be more finely tuned I suppose, (I'm a musician and have been playing in orchestras for years), but to be the sound quality difference is very noticeable. I use mp3 etc for the car, but I'd never want it in a home hifi setup.

No matter what DAC device you use, none can compensate for the fact that half the audio information has been lost through compression before it even gets to the converter. If you want to playback stuff from the pc I think you'd be better off investing in an improved sound card...

doug2507

iTrader: (6)

Turned into a bit of a long one this..but worth it. The reason i started this thread was to find out about DAC's and whether they would improve the sound quality of my mp3's. From all the information supplied, i would say yes, and something like the M-Audio audiophile usb will be on my shopping list very soon.

Unfortunately i live between 2 countrys at the moment so it would be a pain in the **** having to hump all my cd's around (not keen on wallets, cd's get scratched). So, my only alternative is to use my laptop. Apart from being a portable musical database, i find the lack in quality of recording is made up by the ease of use or in another word, convienient.

When i'm abroad i dont have the time for sitting down for a good listen and normally its just background which the surround system/dvd player handles fine.

When back in the U.K, for no more than 4 weeks at a time, i stay at my folks house. I listen to my music constantly (unless intoxicated/sleeping) and have a set up in my old bedroom. I could go into the main livingroom and use my old mans set-up but 1.he's very touchy about it (£££), and 2. thats where my folks watch t.v in the evening. The setup in my old room is an audiolab 8000c pre/8000p power/tannoy m1's with my mother of a Rock laptop providing the source (and heating the room!).

I wouldnt class the Audiolab as high end units, more in the middle of things. The reason i went for an audiolab setup is firstly, the Roksan KA-1 i have does not have any tone controls. I know tone controls are not 'in fashion' but i like having the ability to get my music sounding the way i like it. Secondly, the Audiolab stuff is probably the best on the market with this feature.

I'm not an audiophile and i think it's bollocks about having a 'pure' sound'. Everyone has their own preference for the way music should sound, and this includes the engineers that make the recordings in the first place! Each to their own.


The M-1's are budget speakers and retail for only £120 but are the best budget speakers going and outperform any other in their class. Maybe my dad will be willing to part with his Roger's LS3's at somepoint, hopefully for the price of a good pint.

So, before i loose myself waffling on, i want to get the best possible sound from what i have, which is why i was asking about a DAC. I dont listen to classical/jazz stuff and dont need to hear exactly where the 5th violinist in the second row is...

The built in sound card is absolute sh1te. The SB one is an improvement but obviously does its own thing with the music. I've a decent set of amps and want to use them for what they were intended and cut out the b.s sound card and eliminate the need for using crap computer equalizers.

The answer? Get a DAC....M-Audio Audiophile USB...£105 from fleabay.

doug2507

iTrader: (6)

Is there something better than itunes for importing? Max bit rate is 320 even with vbr at its highest.....

ScoobyDoo555

Windows Media player is just as good mate. IIRC got access to ripping at higer bit rates.
Sorry, your thread seems to have opend up into a slightly wider debate
If you want I'll copy and paste the un-related posts into a new topic.....


However, I can now see where you're coming from Ali-B. I don't agree with you, as I'm a producer/mixing engineer by trade. I also lecture in Pro-Audio. Not that this makes me the the "fountain of knowledge" by any means

The Audio Industry's been having this debate for a few years now as to where this is all going to end.
The one side being "pro-compression" and the other being "anti-compression". I'm pretty well based in the latter camp.

The reason?

As a producer engineer, I will spend on average about 20 hours per mix (minimum of 48 track digital - 96Khz/24Bit )
It is somewhat soul destroying when the public then effectively "undo" all that hard work, all for the sake of having their music collection on something the size of a postage stamp I work my hardest to give the music buying public the BEST possible sounding product I can (regardless of the actual music!).
I accept that MP3 is quick and convenient - I've got an Ipod, with most of my music collection ripped at the highest possible rate. I use it on the train, mountain bike, on holiday and in the car. However, when I'm at home I listen to either CD or Minidisc(!) MD is great even though it's heavily compressed, because it sounds "analogue" - warm.
The MP3 "sound" isn't very nice - what it actually does to the sound is shocking!!

Please don't think that I'm trying to convert people over from MP3, as it has it's place, but in the grand scheme of things, audio-wise, it's a blip. My wish would be to open people's eyes to what MP3 is and what it actually does to the audio. (don't even get me started on DVD compression!!! )
However, my concern is that in the public's aims to get music onto smaller more convenient formats, the quality will suffer. (It already has with photos/camera phones.) This will have an adverse effect on how music is produced in the future, and I fear that the quality we strived to acheive (remember vinyl scratches and tape hiss?) will not improve any further, as nobody will be interested.....
Like I said though, it's ok. In it's place.

Dan

doug2507

iTrader: (6)

"Windows Media player is just as good mate. IIRC got access to ripping at higer bit rates.
Sorry, your thread seems to have opend up into a slightly wider debate
If you want I'll copy and paste the un-related posts into a new topic....."

Nah, dont bother mate. Its a good read and explains a bit about the whole affair for us lesser mortals..

Might start a debate on the quality of RCA/speaker cables next...

ScoobyDoo555

LOL!!

Dan

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

I use twin and earth for both


<joke...just incase somebody believes me >

I'm leaving this one to rest - it's the weekend so I'll spend it listening to anything and everything (preferably live)