CD vs HD Playback vs External Yamaha CD Changer

[incurablegeek]

Imbecilic Newbie Questions at best:

1) Sometime back you had some posts, hardware advances possibly having negated their meaning, about "Skips" when playing music from a Computer Hard Drive versus playing from a CD Drive/Player. Given the relatively crappy quality of PC internal CD/DVD Burners/Players compared to stand-alone audiophile externals, I naturally assumed that I might be wiser to play directly from the Hard Drive. Yeh or Nay on that one?

2) My system (the one dedicated to music and internet): AMD 4-Core, 8 GB DDR2, 4 TB Western Digital Hard Drives (internal); HT Omega Claro Series Audiophile Card (for sound quality, not video game boom-box). 2 Klipsch floor-standing Icon series speakers, Klipsch subwoofer; 2 Sony Bookshelf speakers (humongous) - all Optic cable from sound card to Sony 5.1 Amp (Ok but not spectacular quality) and Monster Cable to speakers

3) "Fly in the Ointment": I am now learning about stereo conversion to 5.1 surround sound at www.surroundbyus.com

4) Final Questions:

A) Should I stay with internal music source, i.e. Hard Drive or CD Player?
B) Should I burn a gazillion CD's from my hard drive FLAC files and invest in a relatively high quality external CD Player like the Yamaha CDC-697BL? And then feed that into the HT?

See, I warned you the questions would be Newbie-esque. Your thoughts and suggestions, though, would be much appreciated.

[Peke]

First off all welcome to MediaMonkey and I wish you lots of Happy Monkeying

Now Answers:
1. Yes external Audio players have better sound quality due the better hardware DAC when reading CDs, but as most quality CD rippers today (MediaMonkey as of V4.0) support Accurate/BitPerfect RIP quality which results in much slower speed but 99.999% insurance that lossless output file (eg. FLAC, WAV,...) will be identical to CD source.
2. System is more than OK. Not Studio quality, but home/work enjoyment rig is excellent.

3. Manually converting thousands of tracks from stereo to 5.1 hard approach and keep in mind that you will never be ably to do quality Remaster of already arranged studio recordings to end product. Personally I think it is not worth the the involved time (I would have 120K of tracks remastered into 5.1). But I guess that you are not satisfied how Stereo sound on 5.1 equipment (I'm not satisfied either). I'll see to make some blind tests with regular MP3s converted to 5.1 using different stereo expander algorithms

4a. Due the my explanation of 1 I would say stay with HDD
4b. Stay with FLAC and use Bit Perfect outputs (ASIO/WASAPI). MM 4.0 will support WASAPI natively

I hope I helped.

[incurablegeek]

Thank you so much. I'm impressed with the technical detail of your answer in a field which I am quite new to. More simply put, I need to read and study more and then, if I might, annoy you again later.

I'm trying to be overly philosophical but there are some really good people in the world. Unfortunately, on the net we rarely have a chance for a face-to-face meeting. I am grateful.

In conclusion, I gather that you are not impressed with the efforts described at http://www.surroundbyus.com, your reasons being both specific and compelling:

1) Time investment not worth it
2) The effort is inherently futile, because of so much being pre-set in the studio

By way of IMHO criticism, I think your "I'll see to make some blind tests with regular MP3s converted to 5.1 using different stereo expander algorithms" approach is flawed. MP3 as you know is unlike FLAC which is lossless. MP3 compression is up to 10 times while FLAC might be 2 times or double. With MP3 too much is just tossed aside that cannot be gotten back ever again.

With LP's (long before your time I'm sure) we use to have dynamic range expanders because 33 1/3 rpm vinyl was compressed, but compressed in a lossless way to my understanding.

Regards,

Dennis - IncurableGeek

[Peke]

I agree on MP3s, but lossy formats are most used and due their nature that even not profane ears should be able to hear the difference I decided to use them in testing.

I'm waiting daylight so that I could do tests on high volume, but for now at low volume difference is more than noticeable so If I'm correct and MM would be capable to do that real-time on any Stereo format I'll be one happy monkey.

[Peke]

Ok Here it is what I've done for testing purposes.

I tested using various upscale algorithm to extend stereo to 5.1 speakers using three files:
Stereo.wav = Original Stereo source file DOWNLOAD LINK
5.1 v1.wav = 5.1 representation of original file using Clone Surround Algorithm DOWNLOAD LINK
5.1 v2.wav = 5.1 representation of original file using Clone Surround Algorithm with Inverted phase model on Rear Speakers DOWNLOAD LINK

Cloned Surround Channel Mapping

2 to 5.1 small.jpg (11.69 KiB) Viewed 2353 times

For those that have 5.1 receivers that do not support playback of Multi Channel PCM files Sample Files in AC3 Format.zip contains all of above files saved in Dolby AC3 format for playback on any DVD player (Both Software and Standalone).

I suggest you to use blind test and mix playback order of all three and be honest which one have better sounding.

NOTE: Most receivers are capable to upscale Stereo -> 5.1 if stereo file is played and I encourage you to listen it with enabled feature when listening original Sample File.

FINALLY: DO NOT compare these files quality with real 5.1 Audio Files as these files are NOT TRUE 5.1 tracks but simulated ones.

P.S. incurablegeek I hope you do not mind that I created pool for this testing?

[incurablegeek]

So Peke, what do you suggest? Should I go the "convert to 5.1 surround sound" way or just play my FLAC files directly from the HD, through the HT Claro audiophile card and let the 5.1 amp sort it all out - save time which I don't have so much of with all my other projects.

If my English is too complex, please let me know. I can break it down for you. After all, you are kind enough to engage me in English and not require me to speak Croatian.

[Peke]

I would suggest that you play FLAC off the HDD as personally Simulated/Guessed 5.1 from stereo is not quality enough for me (Hardware upscale is better but not perfect) and thus I sent these samples for testing. They use Cloned Surround technique which most audiophiles prefer.

Test my files and let me know which one sounds best.