[Robert Peirce]

I have been fascinated by the idea of music servers but unwilling to pay
the price. Then it occurred to me I already had the nucleus of a music
server in iTunes on my MacBook Pro. Adding a DroboS backup system gave
me all the space I needed and an Apple TV, with its optical output,
provided the way to pass the music to my DAC.

Folks have said that music played from an HD is superior to all but the
most expensive CD players. Let me say it isn't subtle.

I have a fairly good system but I never got into the $40,000 CD players.
I have used a DVD transport with optical output and that is pretty good,
but HD via optical really is superior.

I think the biggest thing I noticed was the sense of space. I was
listening to one recording made in a fairly large, open hall with which
I am familiar, and I could hear the hall and the instruments in it! I
had heard some of this sense of space from my previous system, but not
like this. Recordings made in booths and multi-tracked, sound that way.
It is quite amazing.

This kind of stuff isn't important to a lot of folks, and frankly, I can
listen through a lot of crap if I like the music, but if you have bad
CDs, you will really be able to tell. Unless you really like the music,
you may not want to listen to them anymore.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:43:55 -0700, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ):

I have been fascinated by the idea of music servers but unwilling to pay
the price. Then it occurred to me I already had the nucleus of a music
server in iTunes on my MacBook Pro. Adding a DroboS backup system gave
me all the space I needed and an Apple TV, with its optical output,
provided the way to pass the music to my DAC.

Folks have said that music played from an HD is superior to all but the
most expensive CD players. Let me say it isn't subtle.

I have a fairly good system but I never got into the $40,000 CD players.
I have used a DVD transport with optical output and that is pretty good,
but HD via optical really is superior.

I think the biggest thing I noticed was the sense of space. I was
listening to one recording made in a fairly large, open hall with which
I am familiar, and I could hear the hall and the instruments in it! I
had heard some of this sense of space from my previous system, but not
like this. Recordings made in booths and multi-tracked, sound that way.
It is quite amazing.

This kind of stuff isn't important to a lot of folks, and frankly, I can
listen through a lot of crap if I like the music, but if you have bad
CDs, you will really be able to tell. Unless you really like the music,
you may not want to listen to them anymore.

Your experience tallies with mine. I too use an AppleTV box connected to my
Mac Pro tower via 802.11n Wi-Fi. From the Apple TV box, I feed my outboard
DAC via TosLink. Using Apple Lossless Compression, and playing the music from
the AppleTV's HDD, I hear the same sense of space (well described, BTW) that
you are talking about and I agree that it is superior. I can switch between a
ripped CD on AppleTV and and the original CD itself played on my excellent
Sony XA777ES SACD player. When I switch to the AppleTV through my outboard
DAC, I hear the ambience on the recording "open up." Everything sounds more
palpably real. This is similar to what I hear when playing a 24/192 master
next to a Redbook CD made from that master. The difference is not all that
apparent on some types of music, but on stuff that *I* recorded, the high-res
playback sounds much more like my memory of the original space than does the
CD of the same performance/recording. I see people post here all the time
that CD is so perfect that there is simply no reason to record at anything
greater than 16/44.1. I say that people who maintain that opinion must not be
listening to or for the same things I'm listening to and for. Because if they
were, they'd hear the superiority of the high-resolution formats too.

[ZeeTso[_2_]]

"Robert Peirce" wrote in message
...

I think the biggest thing I noticed was the sense of space. I was
listening to one recording made in a fairly large, open hall with which
I am familiar, and I could hear the hall and the instruments in it! I
had heard some of this sense of space from my previous system, but not
like this. Recordings made in booths and multi-tracked, sound that way.
It is quite amazing.

cd players have only one 'plate' and one head for reading data, while hard
disks have multiple 'plates' and heads.

that's where you get that extra space

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Peirce" wrote in message


I have been fascinated by the idea of music servers but
unwilling to pay the price. Then it occurred to me I
already had the nucleus of a music server in iTunes on my
MacBook Pro. Adding a DroboS backup system gave me all
the space I needed and an Apple TV, with its optical
output, provided the way to pass the music to my DAC.

Folks have said that music played from an HD is superior
to all but the most expensive CD players. Let me say it
isn't subtle.

In terms of signal purity, hard drives are practically speaking far more
accurate than CD players. CD discs can and often will develop uncorrectable
data errors that are only partially concealed during the normal playback
process. Their number may be low or even vanishing, depending on the disc
and the player.

The bit error rate (BER) of a hard drive is vastly lower than that related
to playback from an audio CD. Compared to hard drives audio CDs are so
deficient that an entirely new data format called CD ROM had to be developed
to improve on the data accuracy of the audio CD format and make them
suitable for use with computers.

Other than that, properly operating digital is properly operating digital
and critical performance characteristics such as linear distortion,
nonlinear distortion, and noise are the same for comparable data formats,
depending on the quality of the final conversion to analog, etc. Unlike
audio CDs, data format choices are essentially free. A CD formated to store
computer data can handle any file format that is suitable for use on read
only storage. Sample rates and word lengths can be anything that fits.

I have a fairly good system but I never got into the
$40,000 CD players. I have used a DVD transport with
optical output and that is pretty good, but HD via
optical really is superior.

DVDs are unlike CDs in that their data storage accuracy is comparable to
hard drives, aside from issues common to removable computer media such as
mechanical damage. Data stored on DVDs is stored in normal computer data
files, whether the data is an audio file, a video file, a computer data
file or or a computer program. Errors are either fully corrected and
recovered, or the data stream is obviously defective and reported back to
the host system as such. Unlike audio CDs, DVDs have no such thing as a
physical data format with more room for data, and fewer bits for data error
detection and recovery. All information that is stored on a DVD meets the
BER standards for computer data files, which is to say that the practical
equivalent of absolute perfection is required of all correctly operating
equipment. There is no such thing as data error concealment.

Moving forward, blu-ray discs are emerging as the new mainstream removable
optical medium. Like the DVD format, Blu Ray discs all provide the potential
of computer data levels of freedom from data errors.

Up until recently one significant convenience problem with blu-ray discs and
players was the relatively lengthy time required to simply load the disc -
often on the order a minute or at least a substantial fraction of one.
Selecting chapters, fast forward and backward operations have been
relatively awkward as well. I recently obtained a new Blu Ray player that
seems to have solved those problems.

I have only limitied experience with Blu Ray discs, but already I've had
severe problems with Blu-Ray media that were worse than I have ever
experienced with CDs or DVDs. Not surprisingly, Blu Ray discs seem to be far
less tolerant of mechanical damage. The Blu Ray format seems to spread the
data around the disc more thinly, which probably means that reasonably small
errors are more recoverable because the data is more decentralized.
Unfortunately this also means that if the amount of damaged data exceeds a
certain threshold, larger fractions of the recorded program are lost. In one
case about 3/4 of a 2 hour movie were made inaccessible to me by 4 scratches
that were less than 1/4" long.

I think the biggest thing I noticed was the sense of
space. I was listening to one recording made in a fairly
large, open hall with which I am familiar, and I could
hear the hall and the instruments in it! I had heard
some of this sense of space from my previous system, but
not like this. Recordings made in booths and
multi-tracked, sound that way. It is quite amazing.

There is no technical justification for the reliable perception of that kind
of audible difference given that the media is in reasonably good condition
and the players are operating properly. Good accurate digital reproduction
all sounds the same, subject only to the possible relevance of inherent
differences in data formats such as MP3 versus .wav, etc. The CD audio disc
format is data-wise the same as 44/16 stereo digital data files on a hard
drive. Aside from the possibility of the usually very few unrecovered errors
on the CD audio disc, they are the same.

This kind of stuff isn't important to a lot of folks, and
frankly, I can listen through a lot of crap if I like the
music, but if you have bad CDs, you will really be able
to tell. Unless you really like the music, you may not
want to listen to them anymore.

Most people find that the convenience of aggregating a large number of
recordings on a digital player is a major convenience factor. Relatively
small digital music players can economically store the music from 100s or
thousands of CDs in a relatively small space, and provide convenient
indexing and access options. A 1 teabyte hard drive that you can buy in a
local office supply store for $80 can store about 1,500 hours of CD quality
audio files without lossy or lossless compression. Whether you use that to
store 1500 symphonies or 3,000 popular CDs is up to you. If you have a
portable digital player, you can usually exchange music from your server
with your portable player, greatly expanding its convenience.

[Robert Peirce]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

There is no technical justification for the reliable perception of that kind
of audible difference given that the media is in reasonably good condition
and the players are operating properly. Good accurate digital reproduction
all sounds the same, subject only to the possible relevance of inherent
differences in data formats such as MP3 versus .wav, etc. The CD audio disc
format is data-wise the same as 44/16 stereo digital data files on a hard
drive. Aside from the possibility of the usually very few unrecovered errors
on the CD audio disc, they are the same.


I have to agree with your argument, but you did leave an out. *I don't
know if the players are operating properly. *I used a DVD player to play
CDs, which ought to be better than a run-of-the-mill CD player but
possibly not as good as multi-thousand dollar players. *I just noticed I
could much more clearly hear the space in which the performance was
taking place from the HD source then I could from a CD played on a DVD
player. *Maybe my DVD player wasn't up to snuff.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:41:05 -0700, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
=20
There is no technical justification for the reliable perception of tha=
t=20
kind=20
of audible difference given that the media is in reasonably good condi=
tion=20
and the players are operating properly. Good accurate digital reproduc=
tion=20
all sounds the same, subject only to the possible relevance of inheren=
t=20
differences in data formats such as MP3 versus .wav, etc. The CD audi=
o=20
disc=20
format is data-wise the same as 44/16 stereo digital data files on a h=
ard=20
drive. Aside from the possibility of the usually very few unrecovered=20
errors=20
on the CD audio disc, they are the same.
=20
=20
I have to agree with your argument, but you did leave an out. =A0I don'=
t=20
know if the players are operating properly. =A0I used a DVD player to p=
lay=20
CDs, which ought to be better than a run-of-the-mill CD player but=20
possibly not as good as multi-thousand dollar players. =A0I just notice=
d I=20
could much more clearly hear the space in which the performance was=20
taking place from the HD source then I could from a CD played on a DVD=20
player. =A0Maybe my DVD player wasn't up to snuff.
=20

I question Mr. Kruger's assertion that "good accurate digital reproducti=
on=20
all sounds the same".I think that It would IF all players had exactly the=
=20
same analog circuitry after the D/A, but they don't. If stand-alone DACs=
all=20
sound different in DBTs, why shouldn't CD players?

[bob]

On Aug 30, 7:13=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

I =A0question Mr. Kruger's assertion that "good accurate digital reproduc=
tion
all sounds the same".I think that It would IF all players had exactly the
same analog circuitry after the D/A, but they don't. If stand-alone DACs=
all
sound different in DBTs, why shouldn't CD players?

It doesn't matter how many times you say this. It's still untrue.
Every documented DBT ever published, either in print or online, has
found that DACs are distinguishable in only rare (and easily
explained) cases. The occasional undocumented claims of one or another
anonymous Internet poster cannot stand up to this.

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:58:42 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Aug 30, 7:13=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

I =A0question Mr. Kruger's assertion that "good accurate digital reproduc=
tion
all sounds the same".I think that It would IF all players had exactly the
same analog circuitry after the D/A, but they don't. If stand-alone DACs=
all
sound different in DBTs, why shouldn't CD players?

It doesn't matter how many times you say this. It's still untrue.
Every documented DBT ever published, either in print or online, has
found that DACs are distinguishable in only rare (and easily
explained) cases. The occasional undocumented claims of one or another
anonymous Internet poster cannot stand up to this.

bob


I've been involved in DBTs of DACs and they DO sound different. I cannot
account for why "Every documented DBT ever published, either in print or
online" has found that DACs all sound the same. because they just DON'T, and
no matter how many times you say that I'm wrong, it will not change my mind
on this subject until I am involved personally in a DBT that proves me wrong.

[Robert Peirce]

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

I question Mr. Kruger's assertion that "good accurate digital reproduction
all sounds the same".I think that It would IF all players had exactly the
same analog circuitry after the D/A, but they don't. If stand-alone DACs all
sound different in DBTs, why shouldn't CD players?

Except I am using the same DAC. The optical out from my DVD player went
and the optical out from my Apple TV goes to this device. Since I
really do believe bits are bits, it has to be the differences in the
transports, DVD/CD vs. HD.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:00:35 -0700, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

I question Mr. Kruger's assertion that "good accurate digital reproduction
all sounds the same".I think that It would IF all players had exactly the
same analog circuitry after the D/A, but they don't. If stand-alone DACs
all
sound different in DBTs, why shouldn't CD players?

Except I am using the same DAC. The optical out from my DVD player went
and the optical out from my Apple TV goes to this device. Since I
really do believe bits are bits, it has to be the differences in the
transports, DVD/CD vs. HD.


That's possible, I guess, but I always have to wonder. AFAIK, most
transports use a FIFO for the data stream. So even if the transport is
jitter-prone, and the bits enter the FIFO in a somewhat helter-skelter
fashion, They certainly march out of the FIFO re-clocked to a level of
precision that is dictated by the accuracy of the system clock. Would that
not be so? I suspect that the capacity of most of these FIFOs is finite and
that one for a DVD drive would be larger than one for a simple CD player due
to the increased data density of DVD. Therefore, it stands to reason that a
CD played in a DVD drive might be less prone to overrun that drive's FIFO
than it would a FIFO in a CD player, but I don't know that for a fact. But if
so, it MIGHT explain why DVD drives make CD transports that are less jitter
and error prone, but I don't know enough about that end of the playback
process to say one way or another.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


I question Mr. Kruger's assertion that "good accurate
digital reproduction all sounds the same".I think that It
would IF all players had exactly the same analog
circuitry after the D/A, but they don't.

The absence of reliable, unbiased supporting evidence needs to be noted.

The existance of considerable reliable, unbiased contrary evidence is also
noted.

If stand-alone DACs all sound different in DBTs,

Ditto. I know of no reliable, unbiased supporting evidence for this
assertion and I also know of considerable evicence that is contrary to this
assertion.

[David[_20_]]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 08:12:52 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


I question Mr. Kruger's assertion that "good accurate
digital reproduction all sounds the same".I think that It
would IF all players had exactly the same analog
circuitry after the D/A, but they don't.

The absence of reliable, unbiased supporting evidence needs to be noted.

The existance of considerable reliable, unbiased contrary evidence is also
noted.

If stand-alone DACs all sound different in DBTs,

Ditto. I know of no reliable, unbiased supporting evidence for this
assertion and I also know of considerable evicence that is contrary to this
assertion.


I would think that this would be your problem. I have no such qualms.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 08:12:52 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


I question Mr. Kruger's assertion that "good accurate
digital reproduction all sounds the same".I think that It
would IF all players had exactly the same analog
circuitry after the D/A, but they don't.

The absence of reliable, unbiased supporting evidence needs to be noted.

The existance of considerable reliable, unbiased contrary evidence is also
noted.

If stand-alone DACs all sound different in DBTs,

Ditto. I know of no reliable, unbiased supporting evidence for this
assertion and I also know of considerable evicence that is contrary to this
assertion.


I would think that this would be your problem. I have no such qualms.

[Edmund[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Peirce" wrote in message


I have been fascinated by the idea of music servers but
unwilling to pay the price. Then it occurred to me I
already had the nucleus of a music server in iTunes on my
MacBook Pro. Adding a DroboS backup system gave me all
the space I needed and an Apple TV, with its optical
output, provided the way to pass the music to my DAC.

Folks have said that music played from an HD is superior
to all but the most expensive CD players. Let me say it
isn't subtle.

In terms of signal purity, hard drives are practically speaking
far more
accurate than CD players. CD discs can and often will develop
uncorrectable
data errors that are only partially concealed during the normal
playback
process. Their number may be low or even vanishing, depending
on the disc
and the player.

Is that so? explain to me how I can copy a CD with 1 hour music
in 2 minutes,
( on a 20 Euro CD player/burner ) do a bit compare and find both
the CD and
the copy to be equal.

Edmund

[Arny Krueger]

"Edmund" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Peirce" wrote in message


I have been fascinated by the idea of music servers but
unwilling to pay the price. Then it occurred to me I
already had the nucleus of a music server in iTunes on
my MacBook Pro. Adding a DroboS backup system gave me
all the space I needed and an Apple TV, with its optical
output, provided the way to pass the music to my DAC.

Folks have said that music played from an HD is superior
to all but the most expensive CD players. Let me say it
isn't subtle.

In terms of signal purity, hard drives are practically
speaking far more
accurate than CD players. CD discs can and often will
develop uncorrectable
data errors that are only partially concealed during the
normal playback
process. Their number may be low or even vanishing,
depending on the disc
and the player.

Is that so?

Yes.

explain to me how I can copy a CD with 1 hour
music in 2 minutes,
( on a 20 Euro CD player/burner ) do a bit compare and
find both the CD and the copy to be equal.


Every competent CD copy program I am aware of monitors the DVD drive for
uncorrected errors and retries any failed read operation(s). A standard
audio CD player does not do this.

Secondly, I said "Their number (number of uncorrected errors) may be low or
even vanishing, depending on the disc and the player.

I don't discount the possibility that you have been copying discs in such
good shape that the number of uncorrected read errors was indeed
"vanishing". I allowed for the possibility of a *vanishing number of
errors*, which is just another way of saying "No errors at all during the
processing of one or more discs".

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 09:02:16 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Edmund" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Peirce" wrote in message


I have been fascinated by the idea of music servers but
unwilling to pay the price. Then it occurred to me I
already had the nucleus of a music server in iTunes on
my MacBook Pro. Adding a DroboS backup system gave me
all the space I needed and an Apple TV, with its optical
output, provided the way to pass the music to my DAC.

Folks have said that music played from an HD is superior
to all but the most expensive CD players. Let me say it
isn't subtle.

In terms of signal purity, hard drives are practically
speaking far more
accurate than CD players. CD discs can and often will
develop uncorrectable
data errors that are only partially concealed during the
normal playback
process. Their number may be low or even vanishing,
depending on the disc
and the player.

Is that so?

Yes.

explain to me how I can copy a CD with 1 hour
music in 2 minutes,
( on a 20 Euro CD player/burner ) do a bit compare and
find both the CD and the copy to be equal.


Every competent CD copy program I am aware of monitors the DVD drive for
uncorrected errors and retries any failed read operation(s). A standard
audio CD player does not do this.

This is correct. most ripping programs will retry a digital word from the CD
until it is transfered error free. CD's error correction does not (and
cannot) do this because its PLAYING the CD in real time, not simply
transferring the data from one media to another.

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 09:02:16 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Edmund" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Peirce" wrote in message


I have been fascinated by the idea of music servers but
unwilling to pay the price. Then it occurred to me I
already had the nucleus of a music server in iTunes on
my MacBook Pro. Adding a DroboS backup system gave me
all the space I needed and an Apple TV, with its optical
output, provided the way to pass the music to my DAC.
Folks have said that music played from an HD is superior
to all but the most expensive CD players. Let me say it
isn't subtle.
In terms of signal purity, hard drives are practically
speaking far more
accurate than CD players. CD discs can and often will
develop uncorrectable
data errors that are only partially concealed during the
normal playback
process. Their number may be low or even vanishing,
depending on the disc
and the player.
Is that so?
Yes.

explain to me how I can copy a CD with 1 hour
music in 2 minutes,
( on a 20 Euro CD player/burner ) do a bit compare and
find both the CD and the copy to be equal.

Every competent CD copy program I am aware of monitors the DVD drive for
uncorrected errors and retries any failed read operation(s). A standard
audio CD player does not do this.

This is correct. most ripping programs will retry a digital word from the CD
until it is transfered error free. CD's error correction does not (and
cannot) do this because its PLAYING the CD in real time, not simply
transferring the data from one media to another.

Well, to be exact, there were some CD palyers which had significant read
ahead buffer and read CD at higher speed and in case of errors could
reread the same fragment. That was used mainly in portable (and maybe
some car) players.

rgds
\SK

--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)