2. pc-audio
  3. 1232064736

First Steps into Computer Audio


Hi

I have shifted from traditional rig (first Vandy HT system w/ Arcam receiver, to Acoustat 2+2 with Belles 400 amp), to computer audio.

My main system is a desktop Dell Dimension P4 system, that has a SB Audigy 2 card. Will be listening to lots of classical, jazz, etc, as well as movies. Room is a very small 8 by 5 or 8 by 6 room

I just bought Audioengine A5's with the 25% off coupon, and likely will also buy some Quad 11L's to compare and sell the one I don't like as much.

So chain will be P4 w/ SB audigy 2 to A5 or Quad 11L (I assume the Quad 11L will be way better but will review and let folks know).

Now the question is what next to improve sound (and I will of course wait to do my next upgrade but already planning as most everyone says Audigy 2 is not very good.

I don't need a headphone amp (ok if it comes with) as 95% or more of listening will be done with speakers so I guess I could

1. Buy a better soundcard to output analog to speakers (say Chaintech low end, or 1212M higher end, or Xonar STX not sure my mobo is PCI E)

2. Use a USB dac from the usb ports, and feed speakers

3. Use the CB Audigy 2 digital out (SPDIF) to a DAC, or use the better sound card's digital out to the DAC to speakers.

I think would want very good SQ, but also keep price relatively reasonable.

Thoughts? Opinions welcome

Shriram
shriramosu
cerrot's avatar
cerrot
1,700 posts
 
http://www.sweetwater.com/expert-center/techtips/d--03/26/2002

http://www.usb-ware.com/firewire-vs-usb.htm

Above are just two links I had from recent searches. I had spent a bit of time on this before I went with firewire. I understand most of the PC audio offerings out there are USB-and I'm not a Mac guy but, again, technology wise, Firewire is, well, better. I'm sure all your USB systems sound wonderful, and I have heard quite a few USB systems that sound great. I tried a few different USB set ups (utrends to spdif; benchmark dac w/usb) and, even with a pretty highpower PC, 10,000 rpm hard drives, I had some hiccups w/usb and sound stage was not as wide or deep, and have better resolution and retrieval of low level detail, and system is MUCH more transparent with the Firewire. Before you dismiss is, give it a try. I have tried both.
reubent
7,005 posts
 
Cerrot,

Do the new asyncronous USB DACs like Wavelength and UltraFi overcome the USB issues you mention? I've heard the new UltraFi MusicStream DAC connected directly to a Mac Mini via USB and it was outstanding.

Enjoy,

TIC
cerrot's avatar
cerrot
1,700 posts
 
I'm not sure, Reubent. My issues aren't with the DAC, just the architecture of the PC interface. I'm sure it sounds great. My only thought would be that using firewire out, the PC would perform better. If the PC performs better, I would think all would sound better as well.

Again, historically, USB was never intended to passthrough audio, just attach peripherals. I'm not sure why PC audio adopted USB as it did. I predict that within two years, all will be using firewire.
jax2
3,031 posts
 
Cerrot - I guess I'm missing your logic here. Though I can understand that firewire delivers more information, faster than USB 1.1 (I'm pretty sure most USB DACs are using the older version), if it's delivering the info to a buffer where it is then passed on and reclocked by the DAC, how is delivering it any faster going to make the music sound better? Perhaps I'm missing something, and if so, somebody 'splain it to me. If a grocery store needs a steady supply of three cases of Spam every day it won't matter much if it's delivered every morning by a man in a delivery truck or two race car drivers in a Ferarri - the Spam still arrives each morning in time to be sold. The Ferarri may be a better vehicle to get the Spam to the store faster, but what's the point if the truck can get the same Spam there every morning as well? If firewire is a better interface for DACs then why are some of the best PC DACs using USB?I'd be interested to hear from someone like Steve Nugent who actually designs this stuff and makes that decision.
ckorody
643 posts
 
Guys - just for history. Apple introduced FW400 - it was very cool at the time since we were living in the bad old days of SCSI.

But the WinTel world (remember that) didn't like it (OK they hated it) because they had to pay a royalty for each computer equipped with FW.

So they backed USB. And pretty soon USB was ubiquitous and FW a niche product. Remember we are talking a global market here which is what put USB over the top. I suspect there are a 1,000 USB machines for every FW machine and that might be conservative.

Later USB 1.1 begat 2.0 and soon there will be a 3.0. There are also five iterations of FW by now.

As long as we are using RedBook and 24/96; speed is not an issue - the audio files are very small, while cache, RAM and busses are very fast. To be sure an old PC which is asked to do some other processor intensive tasks at the same time or whose HD is an overloaded nasty mess may have some trouble keeping up. Same for a 386 PC that is being asked to upsample. This is one of those fascinating things that the bit biters like to bring up over and over but one never finds a concrete example of... YMMV

FWIW the general consensus seems to be that while we can agree that FW is a much better format then USB for some things, the war is long over and FW is and will remain a niche product.

Consider that many of the newer Apple Notebooks like the MacBook, the MacBook Air and the Mac Mini don't come with FW. No argument that its a way to control costs - but it reflects the fact that no one uses it.

There is a reason that Steve, Gordon and most everyone else designs for USB - it's what people use. Which is why that is most likely where the innovations will occur. And is most certainly the choices are.
More to discover