HiFi vs. Computer

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Hi,

I'm wondering, how a good computer with a good graphic card + good
speakers can compare to a good HiFi System?

Since good soundcards can be quite expensive, and that only for the card
itself, I would suspect, that that good computer/soundcard and good
speaker combo can be as good as a good HiFi System?

So I really don't know much about these things.


Thanks for any hints.

calmar

--
calmar
(o_ It rocks: LINUX + Command-Line-Interface
//\
V_/_ http://www.calmar.ws
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"calmar" wrote ...
> I'm wondering, how a good computer with a good graphic card

The graphic card will have no effect on how the system sounds.

+ good speakers can compare to a good HiFi System?

Likely the speakers themselves will be the most critical part of
any music playback system.

> Since good soundcards can be quite expensive,

Your average-to-good sound card is likely as good as your
average CD players in "sound quality".

> and that only for the card itself, I would suspect, that that good
> computer/soundcard and good speaker combo can be as good
> as a good HiFi System?

Are you asking about just the computer as a SOURCE? Or are
you asking about your typical computer "multi-media" little
plastic speakers with built-in amplifier?

A computer as a sound SOURCE is roughly equivalent to a
consumer CD player.

Computer speakers are generally lousy to horrible compared
to average name-brand stereo speakers.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Sun, 29 May 2005 20:42:07 +0200, calmar <calmar@calmar.ws> wrote:

>I'm wondering, how a good computer with a good graphic card + good
>speakers can compare to a good HiFi System?
>
>Since good soundcards can be quite expensive, and that only for the card
>itself, I would suspect, that that good computer/soundcard and good
>speaker combo can be as good as a good HiFi System?

For serious music use, you'd choose exactly the same amplifier and
speakers as you would for a hi-fi system. So the only difference is
the source. Computer v. stand-alone CD player or other source.

If you're playing CDs and your computer has a digital output (and your
amp has a digital input) you're just swapping one utility-standard CD
mechanism for another. No difference.

If you're playing MP3 or other format sound files, quality is down to
the quality of the file. MP3 ranges from pretty good to pretty
awful, depending on degree of compression.

If you're making an analogue link from computer to amplifier, a rather
better sound card than what is usually built in to computers is a good
idea. But this doesn't have to be expensive.

If you're into audiophile foolery, continue to believe what you want
to believe. :)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On 2005-05-29, calmar <calmar@calmar.ws> wrote:

Hi again,

when I'm already asking, how is the difference between:

- computer + sundcard
- mp3 player (let's say on 320kbps)
- cd player playing mp3's (e.g 320kbps)
- Hi-Fi system player those mp3's or cd

These systems connected all to the same speakers

Maybe it's possible to say some general things about these ways to play
musik quality related?

thx and cheers
calmar


--
calmar
(o_ It rocks: LINUX + Command-Line-Interface
//\
V_/_ http://www.calmar.ws
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"calmar" wrote ...
> when I'm already asking, how is the difference between:
>
> - computer + sundcard
> - mp3 player (let's say on 320kbps)
> - cd player playing mp3's (e.g 320kbps)
> - Hi-Fi system player those mp3's or cd
>
> These systems connected all to the same speakers
>
> Maybe it's possible to say some general things about these
> ways to play musik quality related?

WHAT speakers? WHAT amplifier?

If you are talking about little plastic "computer speakers" they
will all sound lousy.

If you are talking about real stereo amplifier and speakers,
they will quite possibly be indistinguishable playing MP3
files. On a decent system, you should be able to hear that a
real CD sounds better than MP3. Regardless of whether it
is played on a computer or on a CD/MP3 player.

The sound will be much more affected by the speakers than
by the source (computer vs. CD/MP3 player).
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

calmar wrote:

> I'm wondering, how a good computer with a good graphic card + good
> speakers can compare to a good HiFi System?

If loudspeakers and amp are kept constant this is mainly about the
actual quality of the DA conversion.

> Since good soundcards can be quite expensive,

Some soundcards made for the gamers can be as costly as or costlier than
cards made for the listener.

> and that only for the card itself, I would suspect, that
> that good computer/soundcard and good speaker combo
> can be as good as a good HiFi System?

The quality of the computer doesn't really come in to this, a Pentium
"640" equipped box or a Pentium II equipped box sound the same with the
same soundcard, and if you connect the output of the sound card via a
passive attenuator (to get the coarse level matching right) to a
poweramp or to active high quality loudspeakers then it can be very
good. This however is not about the loudspeakers from the "Yonder Corner
Olde Computer Shoppe". nor about a sound card it is likely to retail.

5+1 gets to be somewhat more complicated, but the general principles
above still apply, there is no "vs." - all things equal there only is
"how good is the DA conversion", because it will end up being about
comparing DA converter, as for the rest of the reproduction most people
would be better off connecting the sound output from the computer to
their stereo anyway.

> So I really don't know much about these things.

We all have a frontier of learning, it is beyond the practical to cover
the issue completely here.

> calmar


Kind regards

Peter Larsen


*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"calmar" <calmar@calmar.ws> wrote in message
news:slrnd9k37v.4ve.calmar@news.calmar.ws...
> Hi,
>
> I'm wondering, how a good computer with a good graphic card + good
> speakers can compare to a good HiFi System?
>
> Since good soundcards can be quite expensive, and that only for the card
> itself, I would suspect, that that good computer/soundcard and good
> speaker combo can be as good as a good HiFi System?
>
> So I really don't know much about these things.


Rather depends on what you are going to use fo an amplifier and speakers.


Also a computer doesn't generally look so great in the lounge, and doesn't
have a remote control.

geoff
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Geoff Wood wrote:
> Also a computer doesn't generally look so great in the lounge, and doesn't
> have a remote control.

Depends on the model/accessories/software. Some are marketed as
multimedia machines, and you can get remotes as peripherals, and the
laptop I have dedicated to my stereo system is set up for remote control
via the network.

But that's offtopic for the question as asked. The real answer is: Given
a good soundcard, and given non-compressed data (or losslessly
compressed data), a PC can certainly be a "hi-fi" recording/playback system.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In article <slrnd9k37v.4ve.calmar@news.calmar.ws>, calmar@calmar.ws says...

>Hi,
>I'm wondering, how a good computer with a good graphic card + good
>speakers can compare to a good HiFi System?
>Since good soundcards can be quite expensive, and that only for the card
>itself, I would suspect, that that good computer/soundcard and good
>speaker combo can be as good as a good HiFi System?
>So I really don't know much about these things.

For word processing, the computer easily wins. For music reproduction, the
good HiFi will easily win.
------------
Alex
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"calmar" <calmar@calmar.ws> wrote in message
news:slrnd9k37v.4ve.calmar@news.calmar.ws...
> Hi,
>
> I'm wondering, how a good computer with a good graphic card + good
> speakers can compare to a good HiFi System?

The graphic card will have no effect on the sound unless it is interfering
with the soundcard.

> Since good soundcards can be quite expensive, and that only for the card
> itself, I would suspect, that that good computer/soundcard and good
> speaker combo can be as good as a good HiFi System?

Yep, but the only part of a HiFi system that is different is the source.
Many soundcards exceed CD quality, but you still need HiFi amplification and
Speakers.

MrT.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Mon, 30 May 2005 16:08:09 -0400, Alex Rodriguez <adr5@columbia.edu>
wrote:

>In article <slrnd9k37v.4ve.calmar@news.calmar.ws>, calmar@calmar.ws says...
>
>>Hi,
>>I'm wondering, how a good computer with a good graphic card + good
>>speakers can compare to a good HiFi System?
>>Since good soundcards can be quite expensive, and that only for the card
>>itself, I would suspect, that that good computer/soundcard and good
>>speaker combo can be as good as a good HiFi System?
>>So I really don't know much about these things.
>
>For word processing, the computer easily wins. For music reproduction, the
>good HiFi will easily win.

And your evidence for this is, what, exactly?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"calmar" <calmar@calmar.ws> wrote in message
news:slrnd9k81l.ei1.calmar@news.calmar.ws...

> Maybe it's possible to say some general things about these ways to play
> musik quality related?

Well, yes. With a computer-based system, you can play the audio files
directly, without first having to convert them to a hi-fi-friendly format
(eg CD), thus omitting the accompany audio degradation. Whether the
difference is detectable is debatable, of course.

Also, the computer-based system can use software processing. So you can,
for example, compensate for speaker driver impedance variations, without
having to build it into the speaker crossover or install a hardware EQ or
DSP system.

Tim
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Joe Kesselman schreef:
> Geoff Wood wrote:
> > Also a computer doesn't generally look so great in the lounge, and doesn't
> > have a remote control.
>
> Depends on the model/accessories/software. Some are marketed as
> multimedia machines, and you can get remotes as peripherals, and the
> laptop I have dedicated to my stereo system is set up for remote control
> via the network.
>
> But that's offtopic for the question as asked. The real answer is: Given
> a good soundcard, and given non-compressed data (or losslessly
> compressed data), a PC can certainly be a "hi-fi" recording/playback system.

IMO, a computer using something like a Lynx studio technology soundcard
will compete with even the most expensive CD player and preamp. I run
my Lynx 2 direct to the poweramps and have never looked back. I sold my
Audio Research pre-amp. I used to be very reluctant to believe that
lossless compression would really work although rationally you know it
has to. I can't tell the difference even being blinded to comparisons.
I think the marriage of computer and hi-fi are here to stay; and that's
a good thing.

Wessel
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In article <8i0n91pgla3bg5i5kc0khls4t42p5453nh@4ax.com>, patent3@dircon.co.uk
says...
>
>
>On Mon, 30 May 2005 16:08:09 -0400, Alex Rodriguez <adr5@columbia.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <slrnd9k37v.4ve.calmar@news.calmar.ws>, calmar@calmar.ws says...
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>I'm wondering, how a good computer with a good graphic card + good
>>>speakers can compare to a good HiFi System?
>>>Since good soundcards can be quite expensive, and that only for the card
>>>itself, I would suspect, that that good computer/soundcard and good
>>>speaker combo can be as good as a good HiFi System?
>>>So I really don't know much about these things.
>>
>>For word processing, the computer easily wins. For music reproduction, the
>>good HiFi will easily win.
>
>And your evidence for this is, what, exactly?

No keyboard on the HiFI.
------------
Alex
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> In article <8i0n91pgla3bg5i5kc0khls4t42p5453nh@4ax.com>,
> patent3@dircon.co.uk says...
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 30 May 2005 16:08:09 -0400, Alex Rodriguez
>> <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <slrnd9k37v.4ve.calmar@news.calmar.ws>,
calmar@calmar.ws
>>> says...
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I'm wondering, how a good computer with a good graphic
card + good
>>>> speakers can compare to a good HiFi System?
>>>> Since good soundcards can be quite expensive, and that
only for
>>>> the card itself, I would suspect, that that good
>>>> computer/soundcard and good speaker combo can be as
good as a good
>>>> HiFi System?
>>>> So I really don't know much about these things.
>>>
>>> For word processing, the computer easily wins. For
music
>>> reproduction, the good HiFi will easily win.
>>
>> And your evidence for this is, what, exactly?
>
> No keyboard on the HiFI.

How does the keyboard detract from music reproduction on the
computer?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Wessel Dirksen" <wdirksen@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117531748.282381.35020@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> I used to be very reluctant to believe that
> lossless compression would really work although rationally you know it
> has to.

Any digital storage of an analog signal compresses it.

That is, for any method of storing an analog signal in x bits, it is
possible to devise a digital storage mechanism using >x bits which can be
used to reproduce a more accurate rendition of the original analog signal.

Tim
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Tim Martin wrote:

> "Wessel Dirksen" <wdirksen@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
news:1117531748.282381.35020@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

>> I used to be very reluctant to believe that
>> lossless compression would really work although
rationally you know
>> it has to.

> Any digital storage of an analog signal compresses it.

However to be fair we must say that the best commonly-used
(e.g. CD audio) digital storage almost always compresses the
signal less than analog storage.

> That is, for any method of storing an analog signal in x
bits, it is
> possible to devise a digital storage mechanism using >x
bits which
> can be used to reproduce a more accurate rendition of the
original
> analog signal.

In general the better digital storage formats (e.g. CD
audio) have far greater resolution than the analog signals
they store.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 10:59:23 GMT, "Tim Martin"
<tim2718281@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>"Wessel Dirksen" <wdirksen@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1117531748.282381.35020@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>> I used to be very reluctant to believe that
>> lossless compression would really work although rationally you know it
>> has to.
>
>Any digital storage of an analog signal compresses it.

No, it doesn't. This is utter nonsense, but a persistent urban myth.

>That is, for any method of storing an analog signal in x bits, it is
>possible to devise a digital storage mechanism using >x bits which can be
>used to reproduce a more accurate rendition of the original analog signal.

That's not even theoretically true. Provided that the dynamic range of
the analogue signal, i.e. the range from peak level to noise floor,
can be accommodated within the quoted number of bits, then adding bits
will provide *zero* extra accuracy.

For example, no known music *master* tape hasa dynamic range exceeding
85dB, due to microphone self-noise among other factors, which may be
represented by a fraction more than 14 bits. Hence, 16-bit sampling is
more than adequate for any musical *replay* medium. You'll ideally
have a little more at the recording end, to cater for EQ and
accidental microphone overloads on some tracks, so the ubiquitous
24/96 is useful here, but 16 bits will be more than adequate for the
final mixdown master, and hence for the replay medium.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

TIm Martin intoned:
>Any digital storage of an analog signal compresses it.

You want to bet on that? If you do, consider who's going to be
wagering against you:

Blesser, B.A., "Digitization of Audio: A Comprehensive
Examination of Theory, Implementation, and Current
Practice," JAES, vol. 26, no. 10, October, 1978.
"Elementary and Basic Aspects of Digital Audio," AES
Digital Audio Collected Papers, Rye, 1983.
Nyquist, H., "Certain Factors Affecting Telegraph Speed,"
Bell Sys. Tech. Journal, vol. 3, no. 2, April, 1924.
"Certain Topics in Telegraph Transmission Theory," Trans.
AIEE, vol. 47, no. 2, April, 1928
Shannon, C.E., "A Mathematical Theory of Communication,"
Bell Sys. Tech. Journal, vol. 27, October, 1948.
Vanderkooy, J., and S.P. Lipshitz, "Dither in Digital Audio,"
JAES, vol. 35, no. 12, December, 1987.
"Resolution Below the Least Significant Bit in Digital Audio
Systems with Dither," JAES, vol. 32, no. 3, March, 1984,
Erratum, JAES, vol. 32, no. 11, November, 1984.

There are probably 12-15 other articles that you'll want to study
before you lose your hard earned money betting on an ill-advised
position.

>That is, for any method of storing an analog signal in x bits,
>it is possible to devise a digital storage mechanism using >x bits
>which can be used to reproduce a more accurate rendition of the
>original analog signal.

Your assertion directly infers that you can measure any signal
with arbitrary accuracy. To do that requires a system that has
infinite bandwidth and infinite dynamic range. The practical
requirements for that is the necessity of infinite time and
energy.

Beyond what may seem to be a philosphical discussion (it isn't:
it's a direct and inevitable consequence of the your basic
assertion and is proven rigorously in work cited above by Nyquist
and Shannon), the simplem fact is that ANY system of a finite
bandwidth and limited dynamic range can be EXACTLY represented
by a quantized system of finite accuracy.

Nyquist and Shannon show that for a bandwidth of Fb, a sample
rate in excess of 2*Fb is necessary AND sufficient to sample
the signal in the time domain with NO loss in information. In
a similar fashion, they rigorously showed that to fully capture
with NO loss, a signal with a dynamic range of x dB, a sample
size of x/6.02 bits is required (since in binary representation,
the resolution is 6.02 dB/bit.

Assume that a bandwidth of 20 kHz, a sample rate in excess of
2*20 kHz is sufficient to capture the information in the time
with NO loss. Assume a dynamic range (noise floor to maximum
possible level) of 80 dB (VERY generous for LPs), 80/6.02 or
13.3 bits is needed to sufficiently sample in the amplitude
domain with NO loss of accuracy. Increasing the sample rate
or the word size, contrary to your assertion, will NOT produce
any more accuracy.

Thus, a sample rate of 44.1 kHz and a word size of 16 bits can
be shown to be more than sufficient to encode LPs with no loss
or compression at all.

Them's the facts. Do with them what you will.

But I would recommend you not bet against them and I would
also recommend that you not continue to spread misinformation
of the sort:

"Any digital storage of an analog signal compresses it."
 

mc

Distinguished
Apr 8, 2004
74
0
18,580
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

>>Any digital storage of an analog signal compresses it.
>
> No, it doesn't. This is utter nonsense, but a persistent urban myth.

No storage of any analog signal is perfect, whether you digitize it or not.
There are errors with digital storage but there are also errors with analog
storage.

With digital, once you've encoded the signal, you can store and retrieve it
with no further change. Not with analog.

Getting back to the question of whether there is such a thing as lossless
compression of digital signals: Yes, certainly. The simplest is run-length
encoding. Whenever a value recurs (e.g., a long series of zeroes for a
period of silence), instead of repeating the value over and over, you
precede it with a code that means "repeat this value such-and-such number of
times."