Can a PC match the quality of the best CD players?


Okay, if an audiophile CD player can run you anywhere from $1,000 to $10,000, how do you build a PC that is in the same league? With the audiophile CD players you have to figure that every part of them is maximized to be the best that it can be: Transport, circuit designs, DACs, power supply, signal path, power cable...

How can a PC compete when you're stuck buying consumer grade CD burners, power supplies, motherboards etc.? Even if they are the most expensive that you can find. Is there a way to build a PC that rivals a $5,000 CD player? Of course you can add an audiophile power cable to your PC, but I have to believe that it's just throwing good money after bad when you consider the rest of the non-audiophile components used (and non-audiophile components are the only ones available as far as I know).

Does anyone know the answer to this? I know that the better CD players use great DAC's, but I am not so concerned with that as I use an RME sound card which is indeed a beautiful sounding converter. But I can't help wondering about the rest of the machine... What separates this $1000 computer from a $5000 CD player???
studioray
Sorry, a CD burner is the lingo used to describe a drive that "burns" CD blanks--i.e., writes to them. To rip a CD, you need a CD reader.

A CD transport gets to read the data on a CD once and, even if there is some buffering, the bits read off the CD are basically what goes to the DAC. So, a transport is subject to the vagaries of power supplies, glitches, whatever. The disk has to be spun precisely, because it just gets one chance.

On the other hand, the software that controls a CD reader on a computer can tell the reader to read the same block of data over and over again. A good ripper--like EAC--does that and compares the data it gets, over and over again, until it is statistically satisfied that the copy created is a complete and accurate duplicate of what is on the CD. Because a computer can read the data created off a hard driver--where much more sophisticated error correction can be employed--timing sort of ceases to matter. The data is spit out asynchronously over USB--no timing information.

That is why I say everything behind the USB cable is irrelevant. The timing is supplied by the USB audio device, which buffers the data and outputs it based on its own clock.

To give you a very concrete example, I've got several "unplayable" CDs--stuff that won't read in my DV50S, my Theta David, my Sony SACD player... But, I can rip those with EAC and get a perfect set of .wav audio files off of it. Takes forever, and I wonder if replicating a bad CD is worth the wear and tear on a CD ROM that is basically running for 24 hours straight, but it works...
I think Edesilva explained many issues effectively. I just want to "amplify" that what PC replaces is just the transport. The big change is from reading a CD in real time to reading the hard drigve (much faster and error free) with plenty of time to spare; and hence, much better chance to obtain a low jitter, bit perfect digital stream.

The digital IC and the DAC in the final set-up are still subject to the same issues as a conventional transport and DAC set-up.

To evaluate a PC audio set-up is to evaluate whether it is a good tranpsort, but not whether it is a good CD players.
Aha... Edesilva, Kenn39, the fog around my head is slowly beginning to clear. Thank you, I now "get it". So I guess to answer my own question that started this thread - "Can a PC match the quality of the best CD players?" - the answer is a definite YES, even surpassing, ***provided that*** on the other end of the USB cable is the best DAC/cabling/power.
Hmm... I think I've made some blanket statements in the past that USB was effectively jitter-free; that was based on my understanding that USB was an async protocol that had to be buffered and reclocked. I conceded, however, that jitter could be introduced in reclocking the stream.

Looks like the serious tech-heads at the Asylum have looked at some measurements and are concluding that USB may not be the panacea... Check out this thread:

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/9640.html

I am not sure I quite understand this, and I'll still stand by my statement that my PC-based rig sounds as good as several different transports I've used. Just thought I'd make sure the record was a correct as possible...
the HUSH PC looks nice... sort of what I was looking for... but the price is little too steep for me...

for a less expensive alternative to the hush pc, check out the via epia based serener gd-L01 at logicsupply.com, in the "fanless systems" section. it has room for one pci card, plus a firewire port, 4 usb 2.0 ports, and onboard sata raid0. using external hdd enclosures with esata connections, it is possible to rig up an external raid0 volume, currently up to 1 terabyte. very nice looks and function... fits right in with other stereo components.

i use this with an m-audio firewire transport and an external dac. i use a samsung notebook (2.5") hard drive for the system drive, mounted in the case on soborthane pads. for music storage, i use a 250gb samsung sata hard drive in an external enclosure, connected via esata. it's taken me a several years to arrive at this setup, and it's awesome...

you can put together a great system, with 2.5" system hard drive and 250-500gb esata external hard drive, for under $1000. i would highly recommend soft-mounting a 2.5" hdd inside to minimize noise levels from hard drive seeking and also to reduce heat build-up inside the case. from my experience with a 3.5" seagate hard disk installed inside the case, i would say it runs too hot (mid - high 50's C, occasionally peaking over 60!). by comparison, the 2.5" runs in the high 30's or low 40's, never reaching over 44 or 45 under the heaviest loads. it has the added benefit of being virtually silent.

another recommendation, if you have a laptop and windows xp pro, use "remote desktop" to connect to your audio pc and control foobar2000 remotely.