Windows Media Lossless = Cuss word here?

[RacerChris]

Ok, my music collection kept growing and growing. Had a 200CD changer Sony 90ES which sounded great. :T But ran out of room. So I added the 70ES to make it 400 CDs, then ran out there too! :M

So I am thinking of getting a Windows Media Center PC, burn all the discs using WMA Lossless (200-300MB/Disk), then use the digital output to my system.

What do you guys think? Anyone doing this? Would this source be able to drive my Nautilus 804s to nirvana? :B Close?

[Chris D]

I think this would be great for you, Chris. Of course, realize that by doing this, you're talking about 120GB or more of hard drive space, just for your music! Wow!

[David Meek]

Chris ol' buddy, if you can get around the associated possible issues, disk space is CHEAP. Go for it!

It's funny you should post this. I was thinking about the same things on the drive in this morning. My big concern is even using a lossless digital storage format, what does that do to issues such as jitter? Is jitter still an issue? Is re-clocking even possible in this environment? I like the idea of the convenience of on-demand music, BUT is it going to sound as good?

My bottom line: If I can't get as good a sound out of it, it isn't worth it, especially for the listening room. Now, for travel (hmmm, do pilots do any of that? ) - that's a whole separate issue.

[Bruce]

David,

Current methodology says jitter is minimized by using a disk-based lossless format (take your pick, FLAC, AAC, others, excluding windows lossless) with a USB output connection (also firewire) to a quality DAC like the Benchmark with buffer re-clocking.

This helps eliminate the SPDIF, cable, and PC noise issues related to jitter.

A number of discussions on the web discuss this in detail.

I'd be interested in more discussions and experiences here.

[Kevin P]

Like Bruce said, jitter is more a function of the sound card/SPDIF output on your computer than the source format. PCs have more than enough speed and memory to buffer the uncompressed result so decompression shouldn't cause any timing or jitter issues. A high quality sound card or USB SPDIF port, especially one with on-board reclocking, should be at least as good in terms of jitter as a quality piece of audio gear.

[RacerChris]

I think this would be great for you, Chris. Of course, realize that by doing this, you're talking about 120GB or more of hard drive space, just for your music! Wow!

I actually have a 250GB drive reserved exclusively for Music.... Hard Drive space is cheap these days! :T

[RacerChris]

Like Bruce said, jitter is more a function of the sound card/SPDIF output on your computer than the source format. PCs have more than enough speed and memory to buffer the uncompressed result so decompression shouldn't cause any timing or jitter issues. A high quality sound card or USB SPDIF port, especially one with on-board reclocking, should be at least as good in terms of jitter as a quality piece of audio gear.

I use the sound card that is on my Intel Motherboard and the digital out on the MB to my Yamaha RX-V1 which has Brown-Burr DACs. The result is very nice indeed and sounded great on my B&W 602s. However, I recently upgraded to Nautilus 805s and am afraid the bottleneck may have moved from the speaker to either the Receiver or the source.

Anyways, not sure how to understand the improvements provided by the use of quality soundcard and/or whether the CD/DVD drive has any affect on things... Anyone in a similar state?

[David Meek]

Hi ya Chris! Nice to see a fellow RX-V1 owner around. :later:

I recently upgraded to Nautilus 805s and am afraid the bottleneck may have moved from the speaker to either the Receiver or the source.

IIRC the 805's are about moderately insensitive at 88db or so (into 8 ohms?), right? Well, when I moved from 91db Boston Acoustics VR mains to my current (also fairly insensitive) Aerial Acoustics 7B's (86db @ 6ohms) I noticed a major improvement in SQ, which went even further with the addition of an external DAC. However, for serious 2-channel music, the limiting factor has become my beloved RX-V1. I have to crank it higher to get the 7B's into their sweet-spot and on some complex/large passages I can sense it starting to run out of steam and compress a bit.

[Chris D]

Ah, I thought you were talking to me, for a minute, David. I've also got a RX-V2095 in addition to my Parasound Halo stuff. Many similarities to the RX-V1

[Bruce]

Quote by RacerChris
digital out on the MB to my Yamaha RX-V1 which has Brown-Burr DACs.

That S/PDIF out from the soundcard or MB (either coax or optical) to the digital input receiver chip and then to the Burr-Brown DACs is the area for the most jitter problems.

That is why I recommend a USB or firewire digital connection scheme rather than a S/PDIF digital connection scheme. It separates the clock signal data stream from the music signal data stream which allows for the least amount of jitter and highest sound quality.

[chrispy35]

That S/PDIF out from the soundcard or MB (either coax or optical) to the digital input receiver chip and then to the Burr-Brown DACs is the area for the most jitter problems.

That is why I recommend a USB or firewire digital connection scheme rather than a S/PDIF digital connection scheme. It separates the clock signal data stream from the music signal data stream which allows for the least amount of jitter and highest sound quality.

Are you sure about clock/data being separate in USB? The USB plug only has a differential-pair for data, a bus power line and a ground. Clock must be derived from the data at the receiving end as far as I can tell.

I think it all comes down to the clock mechanism at the rx end regardless of whether it's USB or S/PDIF. I would guess there are some USB implementations that exhibit worse jitter than S/PDIF and vice versa.

[Bruce]

chrispy35,

Are you sure about clock/data being separate in USB?

You make a good point. The way I said it is likely incorrect. A better description is that the USB protocol structure preserves clock timing info (not allowing timing errors to pollute the signal), while the embedded clock info in a S/PDIF data stream is subject to timing error (jitter) pollution form S/PDIF tx chips, cable, and S/PDIF rx chips, because S/PDIF is a one-way streaming protocol.

I would guess there are some USB implementations that exhibit worse jitter than S/PDIF

I'm not sure I believe that is possible.

[mkozlows]

I'm doing the WMA Lossless thing now, and it works great. If you're running it straight from your computer, of course, you'll have to make sure you have a good soundcard, a quiet fan, and all that; but if you're using something like Slim Device's Squeezebox (http://www.slimdevices.com ), which I am, then you're pretty much ignoring your computer's audio capabilities altogether and just streaming media across the network to a device. The Squeezebox has digital outputs, so you can run it straight into the DAC of your preference if you wish, and you're all set.

[RacerChris]

chrispy35,



You make a good point. The way I said it is likely incorrect. A better description is that the USB protocol structure preserves clock timing info (not allowing timing errors to pollute the signal), while the embedded clock info in a S/PDIF data stream is subject to timing error (jitter) pollution form S/PDIF tx chips, cable, and S/PDIF rx chips, because S/PDIF is a one-way streaming protocol.

I'm not sure I believe that is possible.

Bruce,

You guys seem to know what you are talking about. I am simply an end user looking to maximize the quality of a WMA lossless source. I am currently using the optical output built into my Motherboard direct to a Yamaha RX-V1 Receiver. Should I expect better sound if I use highend sound card like a Soundblaster Augidy?

Thanks!

[Bruce]

Chris,

I am currently using the optical output built into my Motherboard direct to a Yamaha RX-V1 Receiver. Should I expect better sound if I use highend sound card like a Soundblaster Augidy?

Hard to say.

Does either sound card/chip convert to a 48kHz signal inside the PC for WMA use?

Since I haven't used any of the stuff you are talking about I don't know the answer.

I would expect all of the Soundblaster stuff to just be so-so quality-wise though. It depends on how each solution manipulates the signal.

The higher quality sound cards are from Lynx, M-Audio and others.

[David Meek]

Hmmm, this month's Stereophile just showed up in the mailbox. It's spouting a review of the Echo Indigo soundcard. No info yet - I'll get back with more info after I get a chance to read the article.

[Gordon Moore]

All Creative, Soundstorm (Nvidia), Hercules, etc... reclock to 48kHz.

WindowsXP/2000 Kmixer is another problem in that it reclocks 2 channel PCM....a quick test is to see if the volume goes up or down when you move the volume slider in WIndows.

M-Audio, RME, Audiotrack, Lynx (read expensive) are better choices.

Should I expect better sound if I use highend sound card like a Soundblaster Augidy?

More expensive doesn't always mean better quality....for example:

A good choice on the cheap is this card

http://www.chaintechusa.com/tw/eng/product_spec.asp?MPSNo=16&PISNo=199

which is all the rage because it supports ASIO (bypasses Kmixer and remains bit-perfect) and is only $30

Interestingly enough...it's on sale here for $30CDN :E

http://www.ncix.com/forums/index.php?mode=showthread&msg_id=601234&threadid=601234&forum=101&product_id=12624&overclockid=0#msg601234

well till midnight tonight anyway.

This card:http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/...rak-prodigy71/ is apparantly money well spent and is the most headache free with respect to ASIO


Try this link:

http://htpcnews.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3616

For a fun article on jitter:

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1290jitter/