What is my digital path weak link?

[Ex_Vintage]

I currently am using a PC with iTunes playing ALAC files. The digital HDMI output of the PC is shipped over to my Emo MC-700 HDMI input and processed for Stereo playback. To my ear the music played on iTunes is very (very) close in music quality to either a CD-100 used as a transport with an optical connection or a TT connected to an analog input. With the MC-700 as my "pre-pro" is there anything else I should consider in getting the best music quality in my digital playback?  Thanks!

[brubacca]

If you are happy with the sound there is nothing to be changed.

If you are not happy with the sound establish a budget and we will spend your money.

[Ex_Vintage]

Not looking to burn cash, just want to make sure I'm getting the best out of the stuff I have. If I need someone to spend my cash, the job is already taken!

[drtrey3]

When the DC-2 comes out, the point of the unit will be that it is a better DAC than the MC-700. Right? I would perhaps order one and give it a listen.

Trey

[pknaz]

At this point, without knowing anything about your environment or your speakers, I'd suggest starting here, in this order:

1) Acoustically treat your room correctly
2) Try out different speakers

#1 is crucial to establishing a good environment to be able to discern the nuanced differences in #2
#2 is highly subjective, and most likely the the "link" that will make the largest difference in sound (not necessarily quality, but differences) that you hear.

[vcautokid]

First and foremost this hobby is famous at looking for problems that don't exist. We tend to create them in the guise of "improvement". Do you find yourself in the state? What are the current strengths and what are things you want different. Note I didn't say "better". I stay out of that conversation for great reason. My, yours and everyone else here has different expectations and tastes. To ask if I could get something more than what I have. Of course you can. Many of thousands of dollars says you can. How much of that is realized in your day to day listening. I agree with pknaz that is be sure your room is setup correctly. It is mostly free, and easy to do. It just takes some time and maybe some material. This too can get very expensive if you want it to.

I would say, save the money and broaden your horizons with more new music, and go where you have not gone before. It is the exploration that truly makes our hobby fun. Not just the acquisition of black boxes. Yeah you can do that forever and you could chase gear forever. Should you??? Your call. Mine? Set my expectations. Got the basics the way I want. Go after all manner of music I want to explore. Most of us here have gear so amazing it would make the average lay person blown away. But that is not to say you shouldn't explore options. Only do so if you feel there is a legitimate reason too. Not what anybody anywhere tells you necessarily, but your ears and heart and then mind tell you. It is your music, your gear, your money. Make it count. Invest in something real for you. Not for someone else's flavor of the month, or the "in" thing. Your music enjoyment is your private and unique experience. Be certain it always stays that way, and change things on your terms, and when you feel you need to.

[Boomzilla]

Good suggestions above, but may I say that I don't like the ALAC codec. I had two files of the same song - one ALAC and the other WAV. The WAV file trounced the ALAC one in every aspect (and on an Apple computer).

I had a LOT of music in ALAC format... But because ALAC is a lossless codec, I was able to convert the files from ALAC to WAV and the converted files sounded better. Really.

So for zero $$$, you may be able to get a MAJOR upgrade in sound quality. Try it with a file or two. If you don't like the result, you've still got your original ALAC file.

Cordially - Boomzilla

[vcautokid]

Hmmm, that is an interesting point. All of my music is .wav. I never use any of the compression codecs. Why? Because hard drive space is cheap, and I only live once!

[garbulky]

I didn't think the MC700 sounded all that good imo for two channel music. But if it sounds good to you, that's all that matters

[Ex_Vintage]

pknaz - Good points. The room is always in play. Since this is not a dedicated listening room (its a 5.1 set-up in my family room) I have a relatively immovable object living with me that is picky about decorations. As far as the speakers go, I am quite pleased with the Elac UF5's and just want to make sure the digital path from my PC is as good as what I am getting from my CD transport.
vcautokid - I admit that I "like" the hardware, but the best part is sitting back, closing my eyes and enjoying the music. Do I want more stuff? Not necessarily, I just want to assure I am getting the most out of what I have. If I had more imaging, and greater soundstage, would I object? Probably not.
boomzilla - That I can take action with. Like I said, the music from my PC is very (very) close to the same quality as my CD. I will try a few .wav files and see if there is a difference. The biggest noticeable sound difference is rooted in the quality of the initial recording, so that is a major factor as well.
garbulky - I have noted that you have expressed several times your dislike of the Gen3 amps, I will include the MC-700 on that list as well.

Thanks to all.

[monkumonku]

Nov 27, 2018 2:19:51 GMT -5 vcautokid said:

First and foremost this hobby is famous at looking for problems that don't exist. We tend to create them in the guise of "improvement". Do you find yourself in the state? What are the current strengths and what are things you want different. Note I didn't say "better". I stay out of that conversation for great reason. My, yours and everyone else here has different expectations and tastes. To ask if I could get something more than what I have. Of course you can. Many of thousands of dollars says you can. How much of that is realized in your day to day listening. I agree with pknaz that is be sure your room is setup correctly. It is mostly free, and easy to do. It just takes some time and maybe some material. This too can get very expensive if you want it to.

I would say, save the money and broaden your horizons with more new music, and go where you have not gone before. It is the exploration that truly makes our hobby fun. Not just the acquisition of black boxes. Yeah you can do that forever and you could chase gear forever. Should you??? Your call. Mine? Set my expectations. Got the basics the way I want. Go after all manner of music I want to explore. Most of us here have gear so amazing it would make the average lay person blown away. But that is not to say you shouldn't explore options. Only do so if you feel there is a legitimate reason too. Not what anybody anywhere tells you necessarily, but your ears and heart and then mind tell you. It is your music, your gear, your money. Make it count. Invest in something real for you. Not for someone else's flavor of the month, or the "in" thing. Your music enjoyment is your private and unique experience. Be certain it always stays that way, and change things on your terms, and when you feel you need to.

I agree with you although I think for some folks the thrill has nothing to do with music. Or even the performance of the equipment. It is in BUYING new stuff. If they ever had a system that left no room for improvement, they would be totally miserable.

[klinemj]

I'd say your digital weak paths are 2 things: using a PC + relying on the DAC in the MC-700. Personally, I'd use a proper network player (like a microRendu, ultraRendu, SOtM, etc) and run USB out to a good DAC.

Mark

[Ex_Vintage]

Klinemj - What about the PC is the weak link? I get your comment on the DAC, but for now, I am satisfied with the sound quality of the MC-700 and its internal DAC's. I was trying to focus on the PC, ITunes, ALAC files and the HDMI path as the area for potential improvement and/or issues. Thanks

[vcautokid]

Yes most computer DACs are not so hot. They are barely competent inside that digital soup called a computer. Isolating it from all else in there is like not getting stung as an intruder in a bee hive. External to another DAC is preferable. So if you want to know the weakest link to say goodbye to, the DAC in the computer would be it. Also how much money and effort do you think most computer companies spend on those DACs? Exceptions as always but mostly, not so hot in there. So if you got upgrade-itis, getting the DAC duties out of the computer is first thing. Choose your favorite, it is tough to miss on this one.

[Ex_Vintage]

Nov 27, 2018 17:04:22 GMT -5 vcautokid said:

Yes most computer DACs are not so hot. They are barely competent inside that digital soup called a computer. Isolating it from all else in there is like not getting stung as an intruder in a bee hive. External to another DAC is preferable. So if you want to know the weakest link to say goodbye to, the DAC in the computer would be it. Also how much money and effort do you think most computer companies spend on those DACs? Exceptions as always but mostly, not so hot in there. So if you got upgrade-itis, getting the DAC duties out of the computer is first thing. Choose your favorite, it is tough to miss on this one.

The computer DAC is  not in use. The PC sends PCM over HDMI. The MC-700 DAC's are in play.

[garbulky]

I haven't heard the Microrendu, however I haven't heard a massive difference between digital transports in general. Though most times I have tended to prefer anything NOT USB. But I have a heard one very good USB implementation on the Mytek Liberty.

[vcautokid]

Nov 27, 2018 21:16:39 GMT -5 Ex_Vintage said:

Nov 27, 2018 17:04:22 GMT -5 vcautokid said:

Yes most computer DACs are not so hot. They are barely competent inside that digital soup called a computer. Isolating it from all else in there is like not getting stung as an intruder in a bee hive. External to another DAC is preferable. So if you want to know the weakest link to say goodbye to, the DAC in the computer would be it. Also how much money and effort do you think most computer companies spend on those DACs? Exceptions as always but mostly, not so hot in there. So if you got upgrade-itis, getting the DAC duties out of the computer is first thing. Choose your favorite, it is tough to miss on this one.

The computer DAC is  not in use. The PC sends PCM over HDMI. The MC-700 DAC's are in play.

True that but the DACs in most computers themselves are an afterthought.

[klinemj]

Nov 27, 2018 16:29:36 GMT -5 Ex_Vintage said:

Klinemj - What about the PC is the weak link? I get your comment on the DAC, but for now, I am satisfied with the sound quality of the MC-700 and its internal DAC's. I was trying to focus on the PC, ITunes, ALAC files and the HDMI path as the area for potential improvement and/or issues. Thanks

That is a very good question. Until July of this year, I was skeptical that a PC would have any negative impact on sound. Then, I tried a microRendu - see review here...-->CLICK HERE<--. That led me to buy an ultraRendu - see review here...-->CLICK HERE<--

The big question is "why" there's a difference, and even though I am an engineer who prides himself on knowing how things work - I can't answer the question.

What I can tell you is that some companies have figured out some "magic sauce" formula that works and they are selling products with real and significant improvements in sounds over a PC...like Sonore and SOtM and others. The members at Computer Audiophile are all chasing after them trying to create their own solutions. Their focus is reducing noise, jitter, and latency. Latency is getting a lot of press, and I think that's likely because they suspect that is the magic sauce that Sonore/others have found. They also talk a lot about noise in power supply, better clocking for jitter, and better components in their devices (for noise and speed/latency). They also talk about reducing instruction sets via their software to the bare bones. I saw a comparison somewhere that I can't find now but wish I had...someone compared the number of processes and instructions being done in a Windows PC to one of these things, and the difference was staggering. Their theory is that this reduces latency in converting the incoming signal to the outgoing and reduces smear.

I don't know if they are right or not - but that's what they are thinking. But, I do know this...sound can be a LOT better than from a PC.

More and more are discovering this, including many on this forum like me, sahmen, dyohn, novisnick, brubacca, and most recently - boomzilla (who like me was quite a skeptic!).

Mark

[novisnick]

Nov 28, 2018 10:10:21 GMT -5 klinemj said:

Nov 27, 2018 16:29:36 GMT -5 Ex_Vintage said:

Klinemj - What about the PC is the weak link? I get your comment on the DAC, but for now, I am satisfied with the sound quality of the MC-700 and its internal DAC's. I was trying to focus on the PC, ITunes, ALAC files and the HDMI path as the area for potential improvement and/or issues. Thanks

That is a very good question. Until July of this year, I was skeptical that a PC would have any negative impact on sound. Then, I tried a microRendu - see review here...-->CLICK HERE<--. That led me to buy an ultraRendu - see review here...-->CLICK HERE<--

The big question is "why" there's a difference, and even though I am an engineer who prides himself on knowing how things work - I can't answer the question.

What I can tell you is that some companies have figured out some "magic sauce" formula that works and they are selling products with real and significant improvements in sounds over a PC...like Sonore and SOtM and others. The members at Computer Audiophile are all chasing after them trying to create their own solutions. Their focus is reducing noise, jitter, and latency. Latency is getting a lot of press, and I think that's likely because they suspect that is the magic sauce that Sonore/others have found. They also talk a lot about noise in power supply, better clocking for jitter, and better components in their devices (for noise and speed/latency). They also talk about reducing instruction sets via their software to the bare bones. I saw a comparison somewhere that I can't find now but wish I had...someone compared the number of processes and instructions being done in a Windows PC to one of these things, and the difference was staggering. Their theory is that this reduces latency in converting the incoming signal to the outgoing and reduces smear.

I don't know if they are right or not - but that's what they are thinking. But, I do know this...sound can be a LOT better than from a PC.

More and more are discovering this, including many on this forum like me, sahmen, dyohn, novisnick, brubacca, and most recently - boomzilla (who like me was quite a skeptic!).

Mark

So true Mark, klinemj Ive been saying from the begining of my networking journey that the PC is a really noisy place and should be combatted first. IE; internal clocks, monitor, fan, keyboard, mouse are amongst the biggest culprits. Add on the work of the CPU itself and its a mess of bad noise.

Using that PC to do most of the heavy lifting we can send the music via packets over a network (ethernet). In my case the sotm sms-200 has its own purpose built computer to deal with everything the PC doesn’t handle. I advocate a Mac Mini because it is headless, ie; no attached monitors keyboard or mouse once its configured. Doing so eliminates that noise.

Great strides have been made in the implementation of the USB connection but not every manufacturer has it done right yet. Every point Mark has made about jitter, timing etc is most important. I opted for an internal word clock of my sotm so it would be the master over the others and makemthe timing much more accurate. Getting the information to your DAC is one thing but getting it there in a timely manner and int the correct order is even more important. If it doesn’t get there in timemthe word clock must request the info again. It all happens so fast you may think that it doesn’t effect the system, oh nut it does, thats the noise and impurity’s you hear. Its all in the brain and why the same track on the same system can sound so different.


Less noise and better timing, (word clock) will produce better sound.

must run,Ill be back. Sorry for the rambling but its more intertwined then appears. 

[Deleted]

PC oem power supplies are (electrically) noisy, generally. Never use a PC DAC if you have other options- which you do.
Room acoustic treatments, Room acoustic treatments, Room acoustic treatments.
Get R.E.W. (FREE to download & use) your only cost is a USB microphone.
REW will show you what the room is doing to your sound and then you can build custom curves into EmoQ option fields.

As someone mentioned, people here have better equipment than most of society.
A society listening to 128 mp3s with $ Dr Dre's cans off their cellphone and are quite happy.

I had 2 Escient Music servers that I really like. D&M discontinues Escient and shut down the proxy servers rendering them boat anchors.
They were very nice sounding units. I have not been as happy with music streaming since. Need to get that fixed asap.