A nice PC upgrade

"08-16-14: Cerrot
It's a custom gateway, intel quad core, 16 gigs ram. PCI sound card and three internal 10,000 rpm drives. 10 meter apogee spdif cable ifrom pc (in next room) and into esoteric G25u clock/upsampler and into esoteric k03sacdplayer for dac. Jrivrr19 and I'm pinching myself."

Does having a powerful computer like the one you list really offer better sound quality? I never thought playing music on a PC was very resource intensive. What about AMD processors? Do you think it would really sound different than an Intel?

Getting back to your original topic, have you ever considered upgrading your case? If the brass feet and wood blocks really make a noticeable difference, I don't see why a better case wouldn't be an upgrade as well. Have a look at Corsair's Obsidian series cases. Not only is it very well built, but its actually designed to be quiet. I have one myself, and if anything ever happened to it, I would definitely buy it again. Its not too expensive (150-175), and Tiger Direct usually has them in their stores. Everything's standardized, so whatever you have in your Gateway will fit in a new case.

08-22-14: Zd542
Does having a powerful computer like the one you list really offer better sound quality? I never thought playing music on a PC was very resource intensive. What about AMD processors? Do you think it would really sound different than an Intel?

It depends. Playing music is not resource intensive, unless you do digital signal processing. But even for just playing music, it also depends. For example, for JPlay people have found quad-cores sound better than dual-cores, which in turn sound better than single-cores, but none of these was running hard to start with. So don't know why, but that is what is being reported.

For most applications, however, a low-processing power processor is enough. Example: Intel DM2800, like in CAPS v3 Lagoon.
I think the ability to use an audiophile USB card is more important than processing power in a mobo.

I believe you need as powerful a computer as possible (set up properly, isolated, keep away from USB) for computer audio. Kind of like big powerful amps. They do make small scale music sound btter, even though you dont think you need the power. In puter audio, you need all the help you can get. I'm sure I can get good results from an AMD chip (if it decides to behave) but I'm an Intel guy, and no need to save a few bucks to go over to AMD. I did look at the case but the way I would go is actually just putting everything on a wooden board (hey, violins are made from wood) and replace all the power supplies. Not sure if I will take that on as I am really enjoying the sound from my computer right now. I dont believe playing music is necessarilly resource intensive, but it is a dedicated resource and you need to make sure you have alternate resources available to do all the other things a computer does while you are playing music. Even turning off all "unnecesssary programs" leaves a bunch on that will take resources away from what you want to do, so, more heavy lifting requires a stronger computer.

If using a more powerful computer results in better sonics in some or many systems than using a less powerful computer, I would not assume that the reason has anything to do with computing power in itself.

The details of the designs of more powerful vs. less powerful computers will differ from each other in a vast number of ways, a great many of which might cause differences in jitter on the S/PDIF output that is being used in this case; and differences in the amplitude and frequency characteristics of noise that may be riding on that signal, or coupled into the AC wiring, or radiated through the air from the computer or the cable to other parts of the system; and differences in ground loop effects that might occur between the computer and whatever it is connected to in the system.

So chances are that whatever sonic differences may result between the two kinds of computers in a given application have nothing to do with computing power per se. IMO.

Regards,
-- Al

I would agree, Al. I think the chipset and the bandwith on
any applicable busses (I don't think Intel uses a frontside
bus any longer) (and USB bus, if one was unfortunate enough to
use it) and implementation of everything else are more
critical, assuming, of course, you do have a CPU fast enough
to handle the maximum tasks at hand effectively, without lag,
to begin with. These small atom boards, I don't believe do,
if they are running a standard windows OS, due to its bloat.
Problem is puters start running more and more processes (and
other things) in the background if not constantly maintained
which tax the CPU, which is why I recommend the biggest you
can afford - and constant cleaning! The larger, faster CPU's
come with the faster (better) chipsets. The motherboard is as
important as the cpu and its relationship (chipset) is
critical.