[nospaam]

I am using a Toshiba laptop to feed WMP, Pandora, online movies,
YouTube, etc into my Yamaha HTR-5650 6.1 receiver (only using 5.1). I'm
going from the headphone jack to RCA in. The sound quality on this
current laptop doesn't seem near as good as previous laptops. What kind
of external equipment or plug-in card can I use to get high quality
audio? USB, Express Card, i-Link are available on laptop and optical/RCA
inputs available on amp.

Many thanks for any help.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 2 May 2010 07:00:21 -0700, nospaam wrote
(in article ):

I am using a Toshiba laptop to feed WMP, Pandora, online movies,
YouTube, etc into my Yamaha HTR-5650 6.1 receiver (only using 5.1). I'm
going from the headphone jack to RCA in. The sound quality on this
current laptop doesn't seem near as good as previous laptops. What kind
of external equipment or plug-in card can I use to get high quality
audio? USB, Express Card, i-Link are available on laptop and optical/RCA
inputs available on amp.

Many thanks for any help.

Try a USB connected external 24/96 KHz DAC. There are usually a lot of them
available on E-Bay for a reasonable price. The Beresford (or TET as it is
sometimes named) 7520 has an especially decent reputation and sounds damned
good and is pretty cheap at around $120 street (if you can find one).

I have recently received one of these:

http://tinyurl.com/28xrjdr

And it sounds fine. Be advised though that you are unlikely to find a USB DAC
that will work at sampling rates higher than 96KHz. The above mentioned DAC
is sold as a 24-bit, 192KHz DAC, but it will only cinvert 192 KHz from a
coaxial or optical digital input. The USB is limited to 96 Khz. One nice
thing about this one, is that the USB port on your computer will power it -
no wall wart required. Another nice frature is that it is small and light and
will either drive an amplifier from a pair of RCAs or a pair of headphones
from the decent built-in headphone amp. Like most of these things, these are
OEM'ed from China or Tiawan and may have almost any brand name stamped on
them.

When searching E-Bay for alternatives, be sure to try all the permutations:
DAC, digital-to-analog converter, digital to analog converter (without the
hyphens), D/A converter, etc. Each permutations will bring up a different
list of available devices.

[UnsteadyKen]

nospaam said...

What kind
of external equipment or plug-in card can I use to get high quality
audio? USB, Express Card, i-Link are available on laptop and optical/RCA
inputs available on amp.

One solution would be a USB to optical S/PDIf adaptor similar to these:
http://www.turtlebeach.com/products/microII/home.aspx
http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/UCA202.aspx

I use a no name cheapo from eBay for 2 channel audio with very good
results.

This has two benefits;

1. It bypasses the internal DAC in the PC/laptop allowing the use of a
higher quality external DAC.

2. It avoids having a direct electrical connection from the computer,
thus avoiding noise/interference and ground loop problems. This is the
reason I originally obtained mine, the noticeably improved sound using
the DAC in my MiniDisc was a side benefit.

--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

[bob]

On May 2, 10:00=A0am, nospaam wrote:
I am using a Toshiba laptop to feed WMP, Pandora, online movies,
YouTube, etc into my Yamaha HTR-5650 6.1 receiver (only using 5.1). I'm
going from the headphone jack to RCA in. The sound quality on this
current laptop doesn't seem near as good as previous laptops. What kind
of external equipment or plug-in card can I use to get high quality
audio? USB, Express Card, i-Link are available on laptop and optical/RCA
inputs available on amp.

Many thanks for any help.

Just get something like an M-Audio Transit. It's USB with an optical
output to your receiver.

bob

[Steven Sullivan]

nospaam wrote:
I am using a Toshiba laptop to feed WMP, Pandora, online movies,
YouTube, etc into my Yamaha HTR-5650 6.1 receiver (only using 5.1). I'm
going from the headphone jack to RCA in. The sound quality on this
current laptop doesn't seem near as good as previous laptops. What kind
of external equipment or plug-in card can I use to get high quality
audio? USB, Express Card, i-Link are available on laptop and optical/RCA
inputs available on amp.

Many thanks for any help.

The suggestions so far are all excellent; another (pricier) alternative is a new
laptop or netbook that has optical and/or HDMI out.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[nospaam]

I thanked everybody for their replies a couple of days ago, but the post
never appeared.

In researching the recommended M-Audio Transit, I came across the
Behringer U Control UCA202 USB Audio Interface. It's only 48 kHz but has
optical out. The price is $33 vs $80 for the Transit. User ratings are
pretty high. Any thoughts, anyone?

Again, thanks to all for your comments.

Paul

[bob]

On May 4, 9:10=A0pm, nospaam wrote:

In researching the recommended M-Audio Transit, I came across the
Behringer U Control UCA202 USB Audio Interface. It's only 48 kHz but has
=A0 optical out. The price is $33 vs $80 for the Transit. User ratings ar=
e
pretty high. Any thoughts, anyone?

Should work. The important thing is that you're going to connect it
digitally to your receiver, so the DAC in the Behringer is irrelevant.

bob

[nospaam]

It's also usable for turntable input to PC. I've got vinyl that I've
collected for over 50 years and have not heard in over 20 years. I'll
probably be looking for a program to clean up these stereo discs for
conversion to CD. Thanks for your input.

Paul

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 4 May 2010 18:10:35 -0700, nospaam wrote
(in article ):

I thanked everybody for their replies a couple of days ago, but the post
never appeared.

In researching the recommended M-Audio Transit, I came across the
Behringer U Control UCA202 USB Audio Interface. It's only 48 kHz but has
optical out. The price is $33 vs $80 for the Transit. User ratings are
pretty high. Any thoughts, anyone?

Again, thanks to all for your comments.

Paul


I actually have two of those. One I bought to play with, the second one came
with a new Behringer mixer I bought (I needed more microphone inputs than I
had). I've used it. It works OK and sounds OK in that I I have noticed
nothing untoward in the recordings I've made with it. Frequency response and
headroom all seem more than adequate for the task and the recordings it males
are clean sounding and quiet.

However, a better unit is the Behringer FCA-202. It does up to 24/96 and is
superb. Built like a tank with high-quality components. Of course, It has a
Firewire interface, and you'll have to deal with that, but if you can, it's a
lot more processor for not a lot more money. Of course, You can't beat the
UCA-202's $35 street price. That's less than a tank of gas, for goodness
sake!

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 4 May 2010 19:21:02 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On May 4, 9:10=A0pm, nospaam wrote:

In researching the recommended M-Audio Transit, I came across the
Behringer U Control UCA202 USB Audio Interface. It's only 48 kHz but has
=A0 optical out. The price is $33 vs $80 for the Transit. User ratings ar=
e
pretty high. Any thoughts, anyone?

Should work. The important thing is that you're going to connect it
digitally to your receiver, so the DAC in the Behringer is irrelevant.

bob


Oh, yeah. That's true. I'd forgotten that. Ignore my earlier post about the
UCA-202 vs the FCA-202.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 5 May 2010 08:07:53 -0700, nospaam wrote
(in article ):

It's also usable for turntable input to PC. I've got vinyl that I've
collected for over 50 years and have not heard in over 20 years. I'll
probably be looking for a program to clean up these stereo discs for
conversion to CD. Thanks for your input.

Paul


You might try Audacity. Just Google it. It's FREE, available for Windows, Mac
and Linux, and ships with some pretty fair tools for eliminating noise, ticks
and pops, etc. It's manual, of course (as opposed to automatic) but with the
entire waveform of the record (or cut) arrayed out in front of you and
expandable, it's easy to see the tics and pops and then to zap em!

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

However, a better unit is the Behringer FCA-202. It does up to 24/96 and
is
superb. Built like a tank with high-quality components. Of course, It has
a
Firewire interface, and you'll have to deal with that, but if you can,
it's a
lot more processor for not a lot more money. Of course, You can't beat the
UCA-202's $35 street price. That's less than a tank of gas, for goodness
sake!

There is an extant test of the FCA 202 that suggests that it has rather
exceptionally high THD and IM distortion:

http://www.hardware.no/artikler/fem_...ydkort/24639/9

The THD and IM are high enough (just below 0.1%) that they might even be
audible.

[nospaam]

Thanks Arnie. I've decided to give the UCA-202 a try. Can't go too wrong
for $33.

Paul

[nospaam]

I've used Audacity to edit long applause and lead-ins from tracks. I
don't think I'd want to use anything that would require a lot of
individual attention to each track, but rather a program where I could
find a happy medium adjustment to remove scratches but not clip the
musical highs. Are there programs that do this or do I expect too much?

Paul

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 6 May 2010 09:06:54 -0700, nospaam wrote
(in article ):

I've used Audacity to edit long applause and lead-ins from tracks. I
don't think I'd want to use anything that would require a lot of
individual attention to each track, but rather a program where I could
find a happy medium adjustment to remove scratches but not clip the
musical highs. Are there programs that do this or do I expect too much?

Paul


It depends upon how nit-picky you are. If one is truly obsessed with getting
the bast transfer possible, then no amount of work is too much, right?

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 6 May 2010 07:32:51 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

However, a better unit is the Behringer FCA-202. It does up to 24/96 and
is
superb. Built like a tank with high-quality components. Of course, It has
a
Firewire interface, and you'll have to deal with that, but if you can,
it's a
lot more processor for not a lot more money. Of course, You can't beat the
UCA-202's $35 street price. That's less than a tank of gas, for goodness
sake!

There is an extant test of the FCA 202 that suggests that it has rather
exceptionally high THD and IM distortion:

http://www.hardware.no/artikler/fem_...ydkort/24639/9

The THD and IM are high enough (just below 0.1%) that they might even be
audible.


They aren't.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 May 2010 07:32:51 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

However, a better unit is the Behringer FCA-202. It does up to 24/96 and
is
superb. Built like a tank with high-quality components. Of course, It
has
a
Firewire interface, and you'll have to deal with that, but if you can,
it's a
lot more processor for not a lot more money. Of course, You can't beat
the
UCA-202's $35 street price. That's less than a tank of gas, for goodness
sake!

There is an extant test of the FCA 202 that suggests that it has rather
exceptionally high THD and IM distortion:

http://www.hardware.no/artikler/fem_...ydkort/24639/9

The THD and IM are high enough (just below 0.1%) that they might even be
audible.

They aren't.

The right answer is: "it depends".

The audibility of 0.1% nonlinear distortion is all about picking your test
signals.

Here is a test signal that makes 0.1% nonlinear distortion very easy to
hear:

Pick just about any kind of wide band music and high pass filter it at about
10 KHz.

Of if you will, use two tones that are about 4 KHz apart, 10 KHz.

The ear is most sensitive around 4 KHz. By using a signal that combined with
nonlinearity creates spurious responses at or around this frequency, and by
using a test signal that lacks components at this frequency, the spurious
responses are pretty easy to hear. ABX slam dunk!

Of course not all music fits this detailed description, but there are
musical instruments and situations that can come pretty close.

In my book 0.1 nonlinear distortion should not be tolerated given that there
is a lot of reasonbly-priced equipment that performs far better.

However if your goal is "demonstrating the audibility of 20 KHz audio",
then audio gear with ca. 0.1 nonlinear distortion is your tool of choise.
;-) Unfortunately, it only provides test results that support your
hypothesis, it doesn't actually prove anything about the human ear.

[Dave Cook]

On May 6, 9:06=A0am, nospaam wrote:
find a happy medium adjustment to remove scratches but not clip the
musical highs. Are there programs that do this or do I expect too much?

I've gotten excellent results with Clickrepair. You may want to start
out with a lighter declick setting than its default, though (I use a
setting of 20).

Dave Cook

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 6 May 2010 18:29:26 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
The THD and IM are high enough (just below 0.1%) that they might even be
audible.


They aren't.


Then by Nyquist and Shannon, high-res audio is NOT better.
0.1% distortion represents on the order of 60 dB of linear
operation. Let's say it's really more like 0.01%. That's
80 dB, and that represents on the order of 1 bit less than
bits of linear operation equivalent.

If you want to argue that 0,1% distortion is not audible,
then go for it and, largely, I would agree with you on
some pretty well-researched physiological foundations.

But for basically the same phsyiological basis by which
you would sucessfully make that argument, you can make
exactly the same argument high-res audio is similarily
not audible.

The sword, she cuts both ways.



Let me clarify. I can send you recordings made with that little Behringer
FCA-202 that will knock your socks off, they sound so good. I HEAR nothing
that resembles distortion. If every CD, SACD, DVD-A or phonograph record I
played sounded as good, I'd say we could stop developing the recording end of
the chain right now. Send me an e-mail at:



Include your mailing address and I'll post a rehearsal CD (16/44.1) recorded
with the Behringer right back at 'cha.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 7 May 2010 06:35:11 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 May 2010 07:32:51 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

However, a better unit is the Behringer FCA-202. It does up to 24/96 and
is
superb. Built like a tank with high-quality components. Of course, It
has
a
Firewire interface, and you'll have to deal with that, but if you can,
it's a
lot more processor for not a lot more money. Of course, You can't beat
the
UCA-202's $35 street price. That's less than a tank of gas, for goodness
sake!

There is an extant test of the FCA 202 that suggests that it has rather
exceptionally high THD and IM distortion:

http://www.hardware.no/artikler/fem_...ydkort/24639/9

The THD and IM are high enough (just below 0.1%) that they might even be
audible.

They aren't.

The right answer is: "it depends".

The audibility of 0.1% nonlinear distortion is all about picking your test
signals.

Here is a test signal that makes 0.1% nonlinear distortion very easy to
hear:

Pick just about any kind of wide band music and high pass filter it at about
10 KHz.

Of if you will, use two tones that are about 4 KHz apart, 10 KHz.

The ear is most sensitive around 4 KHz. By using a signal that combined with
nonlinearity creates spurious responses at or around this frequency, and by
using a test signal that lacks components at this frequency, the spurious
responses are pretty easy to hear. ABX slam dunk!

Of course not all music fits this detailed description, but there are
musical instruments and situations that can come pretty close.

In my book 0.1 nonlinear distortion should not be tolerated given that there
is a lot of reasonbly-priced equipment that performs far better.

However if your goal is "demonstrating the audibility of 20 KHz audio",
then audio gear with ca. 0.1 nonlinear distortion is your tool of choise.
;-) Unfortunately, it only provides test results that support your
hypothesis, it doesn't actually prove anything about the human ear.




Like I said in another post, I don't use the FCA-202 any more, but while I
was using it back in 2008, I was making some damn great sounding recordings
with it. While the distortion figures in that Scandinavian review look
damning, it's a pretty expanded scale. 0.068% THD and 0.088% IM aren't too
shabby in my estimation. Of course, the others are much better, but I doubt
that in the normal course of things that anybody would be able to hear the
difference. One also has to keep in mind how little the Behringer costs.
Street price is less than $80. I paid $1200 for my Apogee Rosetta 200 (and I
got that price as an accommodation), and 24/96 recordings made with it don't
sound that much different.

I'll extend to you the same courtesy that I extended to Dick. Send me an
e-mail with your address



and I'll send you a CD of a rehearsal of a jazz "big-band" that I made with
the FCA-202 and my laptop using Audacity. I think you'll agree that it sounds
spectacularly good.