Great Television. I still love the design - the BeoVision 5 was the first BeoVision I remember watching...

Puncher:

wonderfulelectric:

beoberlin:

Alex:

think of a product to compliment the BeoLab 5 (hence the '5' moniker)

Afaik this is not true for the product now released. Their were several incarnations of the bs5 while developing it. Hence the long time til finishing the project. The first one(s) being true high-end systems to complement the bl5. But not this one. This product is definitely not specially intended for use with bl5. Sorry. The "5" is just a free number here.

Kind regards, beoberlin 

..................The most popular comment for a hard disk server is " it is so analogue like".

I'm sorry to appear argumentative but I can't think of any reason why this would be true. If your digital data is available at the D/A when required by a (local and stable) D/A clock then the transport can have no effect on the quality of the music, either subjective or quantative.

Again. Not all transports are bit perfect plus there isn't a clock out there yet that is 100% immune to jitter. If you are referring to low-fi stuff than okay maybe no difference but when you go high end, you can hear the difference between a good transport and bad transport. Ever wonder why professionals and the super high end believes in $10,000 clocking machines? Jitter can only be theoretically eliminated via a professional 2 way communication between a D/A converter and a pc. Again, theoretically cos it has not been quite achieved yet. 

wonderfulelectric:

Puncher:

wonderfulelectric:

beoberlin:

Alex:

think of a product to compliment the BeoLab 5 (hence the '5' moniker)

Afaik this is not true for the product now released. Their were several incarnations of the bs5 while developing it. Hence the long time til finishing the project. The first one(s) being true high-end systems to complement the bl5. But not this one. This product is definitely not specially intended for use with bl5. Sorry. The "5" is just a free number here.

Kind regards, beoberlin 

..................The most popular comment for a hard disk server is " it is so analogue like".

I'm sorry to appear argumentative but I can't think of any reason why this would be true. If your digital data is available at the D/A when required by a (local and stable) D/A clock then the transport can have no effect on the quality of the music, either subjective or quantative.

 

Again. Not all transports are bit perfect plus there isn't a clock out there yet that is 100% immune to jitter. If you are referring to low-fi stuff than okay maybe no difference but when you go high end, you can hear the difference between a good transport and bad transport. Ever wonder why professionals and the super high end believes in $10,000 clocking machines? Jitter can only be theoretically eliminated via a professional 2 way communication between a D/A converter and a pc. Again, theoretically cos it has not been quite achieved yet. 

If the data stream to the D/A is buffered in local memory then only the D/A clock counts, the data transfer from the source to the buffer is irrelevant (as long as the buffer doesn't under-run).

I recognise that the D/A clock has a (very small) timing instability, everything has a tolerance. My point was that, with a stable, well behaved and buffered D/A (and D/A clock) I don't see how a hard disk server can sound any more "analogue" than a CD transport.

To be abrupt - I'd say it's psychological! I've fallen for a similar thing before, and wasted money on it. It could happen to anyone, unless they really understood the science behind how it works. If someone tells you you're expecting it to be better, then that's what you'll find!

A 1 is a 1, it cannot be mistaken for a 0, as they are very different. The same goes for a 0, it cannot be mistaken for a 1. A 1 coming from your hard drive is exactly the same as a 1 coming from a CD.

The only way there could be any 'confusion' of 1s and 0s is if 49.9r% of the signal was lost to noise, which does not happen. Syncing clocks can make a different, but at the sample rates we're talking about (96 kHz and below for anything in the domestic audio world), this is completely unnecessary as anything could stay in sync at this kind of sample rate.

wonderfulelectric:

Ermmm... So why is there usually a lot less jitter when using a 24bit/96khz source on the same DAC? You have also forgotten one thing. Data retrieval from a hard disk is much easier. There's like a buffer before ripping cds on to a hard disk and a buffer upon retrieval of music info from a hard disk. Also again, cd players don't all have bit perfect outputs. 

There are ram buffers or FIFO registers in the CD reading process (the "fullness" of one of them generally drives the CD motor spindle speed to ensure the buffer is kept nice and full) to prevent data dropouts so that the data can be passed onto the A/D as and when required - why is this any different or more difficult than a hard disk? The audio data is also interleaved and buried in error correction schemes that can easily cope with any odd serial bit error, in fact most CD transports can sucessfully recover the audio data at significantly higher speeds than that required to play a CD in real time (hence being able to losslessy rip audio at 10X speed or more).

We shouldn't try to make this any more difficult or mystical than it really is - my starting point in these types of discussions is;

1. be wary of any technical "papers" published by equipment manufacturers, they generally turn out to be glorified sales bumf. There is normally plenty of other independant sources of information available on any given subject. Note the source of the information if possible, there could be just as much chance that they're wrong as there is that they're right.

2. As a general rule take no notice at all of anything published in a hifi magazine (that may be a slight exageration, I may use one to narrow down a list of candidates but I certainly wouldn't base any purchase decision on a hifi mag review).

Following my rules, there's no way for anyone to know if anything I've said is true or not - always the start of a good debate

wonderfulelectric:

Ermmm... So why is there usually a lot less jitter when using a 24bit/96khz source on the same DAC? You have also forgotten one thing. Data retrieval from a hard disk is much easier. There's like a buffer before ripping cds on to a hard disk and a buffer upon retrieval of music info from a hard disk. Also again, cd players don't all have bit perfect outputs. 

True, not every CD player has a bit perfect output, but practically every one I've used does, and the same goes for most DVD players - my budget Philips DVD player for example. As I've said before, jitter is not an issue! It hasn't been since the late 70s to mid 80s when digital recording was still in it's infancy.

Not to 'poke the bear' WE...but if you're insisting that we go from CD to hard drive before playback through the high-quality DA's...what does the HDD do with the jitter from the CD drive?

And why can't I find an article on jitter  dated after 1995?

RussR:

And why can't I find an article on jitter  dated after 1995?

Here's a recent(ish) one.

OK Puncher,

Just getting started, but 2 things jump out at me.

1)  I did my Google search on 'CD jitter'  as I thought that was rather the central issue here.  The article you found is a psycho-accoustical study regarding what minimum level of jitter is perceptible to the ears of trained professionals.  Fair enough, but....

2)  Right at the beginning of the second paragraph we find the following: 

It is pointed that the contents in the next-generation audio that contain more high frequency components than conventional CDs may be more susceptible to jitter, as the jitter-introduced distortion is directly proportional to the frequency of the signal [1,2].

 Again, its a lazy Sunday, and the brain isn't really at full power, but doesn't that remark, fly in the face of WE's point concerning 24/95 signals? 

RussR:

OK Puncher,

 

Just getting started, but 2 things jump out at me.

1)  I did my Google search on 'CD jitter'  as I thought that was rather the central issue here.  The article you found is a psycho-accoustical study regarding what minimum level of jitter is perceptible to the ears of trained professionals.  Fair enough, but....

2)  Right at the beginning of the second paragraph we find the following: 

It is pointed that the contents in the next-generation audio that contain more high frequency components than conventional CDs may be more susceptible to jitter, as the jitter-introduced distortion is directly proportional to the frequency of the signal [1,2].

 Again, its a lazy Sunday, and the brain isn't really at full power, but doesn't that remark, fly in the face of WE's point concerning 24/95 signals? 

Hey - I'm not here to start a bun fight - you read (all) the papers and then decide whether you agree with their findings.

My point earlier on was, to read everything you can find (supporting both sides) and decide what you believe is true from the evidence (although I also warned against gathering this evidence from "audiophile" sources without (at least) double checking everything).

Enjoy

Hi Puncher,

I know you're not simply trying to stast a fight (Not Irish are you?)  I just find Wonderful's fixation on jitter from cd drives curious....  Of course I don't believe in Sterling Silver speaker cables, the beneficial effects of green markers, or global warming.

 It could be just me.  

Russ 

You are correct in that the higher the sample rate, the more susceptible to jitter the system is, although even at 192 kHz (reserved for professional audio only) jitter isn't really an issue, to the extend that a lot of engineers don't bother to synchronize word clocks (which makes jitter impossible). Jitter will never be an issue, and has absolutely no affect on the sound quality whatsoever.

Peter :

To be completely fair, I imagine the sound is just as good as the Beocenter 2 and BS9000 especially if the files are stored as lossless or very high bit rate if compressed. You cannot really make it better as the sound is coming from the original CD and if using the digital out of the BC2 and BS9000 with Beolab 5s, there is nothing you can really do except mess around with the sound! So will it sound better than CD? No, because at present it cannot! I suppose the DAC in it could be particularly good so using it with non digital speakers may have an advantage.

Better dac - better pre-amp - maybe a better sound!

koning:

Peter :

To be completely fair, I imagine the sound is just as good as the Beocenter 2 and BS9000 especially if the files are stored as lossless or very high bit rate if compressed. You cannot really make it better as the sound is coming from the original CD and if using the digital out of the BC2 and BS9000 with Beolab 5s, there is nothing you can really do except mess around with the sound! So will it sound better than CD? No, because at present it cannot! I suppose the DAC in it could be particularly good so using it with non digital speakers may have an advantage.

Better dac - better pre-amp - maybe a better sound!

True enough, but you've missed out the most important element in the chain - the speakers! You'll need really good speakers to be in with any sort of chance of picking up any subtle DAC improvents!

Many are happy to worry over minor, mostly inaudible effects (I'm sure you can compile your own list of audiophilia) but are then quite happy for their speakers to colour the sound.

Jitter is not an issue. Jitter is not an issue. Jitter is not an issue -  unless the components are defect. Today's off-the-shelf El Cheapo cd-transport from any OEM manufacturer will handle the signal perfectly, as far as human perception is concerned.

Jitter is only a carry-over from the wow&flutter days of record players, and it's the HiFi industry's way of creating the kind of insecurities that get people to spend one hundred thousand dollars on a cd-transport.

If you have a dolphin's acoustic perception, coupled with a bat's ranging ability and high-frequency sensitivity, then you might be able to perceive the infinitesimal distortions at issue here. But if jitter's a problem on that level, then the high frequency oscillations of the filament in your lightbulbs should be absolute torture for you.
Here's how little concern jitter should be to us. This is the interior of a cd-transport which has been lauded to high heaven by audiophiles as a near optimal playback system, the result of the acutely cutting-edge engineering of the company behind it, appropriately named Edge.

When the lid was taken off, a completely regular DVD-transport was found inside, quite tackily attached to the cosmetic casing provided by Edge. Note how the DVD's display has been attached to the casing with tape - and yes, the remote for this unit had DVD-control buttons on it, that should have revealed the game early. The audio s/pdif and analog audio signals were taken straight off the motherboard on the DVD-player - the transport itself is a bog standard plastic one. An OEM manufacturer estimated that the cost of the interior unit, from an OEM manufacturer, was probably in the region of USD16.

The Edge G-Series cd-transport sells for about USD9000.

Jitter is not a problem. People's willingness to believe nonsense is.
A letter to the editor of The Absolute Sound (which by the way has reviewed this cd-player most favorably) indicates what an infinitesimal problem jitter is: http://forum.beoworld.org/forums/post/148967.aspx

koning:

is it possible to get the same sound Quality with beoport ( as the bs-5 ) by using a laptop with a Creative x-fi soundcard  and a cambrige magicdac audio converter.

Not sure of the specifics of the hardware you mention but I suspect you may not need the soundcard. Why not just an good quality external USB DAC?

p.s. I've had a glance at the Cambridge device and it doesn't appear to handle the HD audio formats.

No, the quality of the pre-amps will not be as good, as the volume scaling will be handled by Windows' own sound-system, which also doesn't allow pass-through.

Alex:

No, the quality of the pre-amps will not be as good, as the volume scaling will be handled by Windows' own sound-system, which also doesn't allow pass-through.

Assuming Beomedia is based on Windows Media Player and assuming your external DAC has ASIO drivers then you can bypass the windows mixing system (using an ASIO plugin for WMP) and output bit-perfect digital audio from WMP to your DAC. It does mean of course that the volume control will be in the DAC.

What for good quality external USB DAC do you use puncher?

Is this better then a good quality soundcard.

koning:

is it possible to get the same sound Quality with beoport ( as the bs-5 ) by using a laptop with a Creative x-fi soundcard  and a cambrige magicdac audio converter.

If you're going to your BL5s, then I would just get the digital signal out of the laptop, and then pass that on to the speakers, without any modification.

If you're going to "regular" B&O speakers (no digital IN), then I would get a DAC that can handle USB or FireWire output (if your laptop doesn't have digital out optical or coax). Then you avoid any conversions.
There are several USB enabled DACs on the market.

The Cambridge MagicDAC is a step down from their processing in the 840C cd-player, and has been compared to their 740C cd-player. It's a good basic DAC, and has received excellent reviews. I use the 840C cd-player, which has optical Toslink IN, and which passes the digital signal unprocessed straight to my BL5s.

But there are a variety of solutions out there. Most DACs don't do pass-through, though - that is, the output is usually analog. The 840C from Cambridge is fairly unique in that it has two digital IN channels, both with the option of optical or coax signal; and one digital OUT, also with optical or coax.