2. pc-audio
  3. 1345663121

67 yrs. old computer audio

I've recently have become interested computer audio... at 67 I'm not very computer savvy. Have a ASUS Eee PC 1000HE XP netbook (2 GB upgrade, 1.66 GHz and 1.75 GHz in super high power mode)... don't use except for internet radio. Would like to start downloading cd's and using computer as source sometimes. Read, you can upgrade this computer to Windows 7 and 64 bits... can I use this computer or buy something else? (50's 60's Be-Bop jazz, old rock, movie scores)

ASUS Eee PC 1000HE netbook (2 GB upgrade, 1.66 GHz and 1.75 GHz in super high power mode)
Microsoft Windows XP (32-bit)
Digital to Analog Converter: Musical Fidelity M1 A
Preamp: Quicksilver Line Stage (non-remote) 2010 new model
Amps: Quicksilver 90 watt silver monos
Loudspeakers: 12x15x9 room... Fritz Rev 5 (with upgraded drivers: Scanspeak Illuminator 5 inch woofer, Revelator tweeter)
Interconnects: Kimber KCAG (amp to pre)
Kimber Silver Streak (dac to pre)
DH Labs digital (Theta Miles CD player as transport to dac)
DH Labs usb
Loudspeaker Cables: WyWires Blue
Power Cables: Kimber PK 10 Gold (pre to API Power Wedge 1)
DH Labs Encore (from dac and CD transport)
Amps: hard wired
zoot45
mapman's avatar
mapman
15,679 posts
 
Dtc,

Yes, I recall that feature of DBpoweramp which sounds useful.

With WMP, the only tools available to determine quality are my ears. I trust them so that is where I have stayed despite thinking about giving more elaborate tools a try.

I do get solace in knowing that it takes WMP a lot longer to rip a CD in poor condition generally than one that appears pretty good. That tells me that when I configure it for best quality possible rather than speed it is actually trying to accomplish that.

I can't imagine that most here would not be quite satisfied with the resulting sound quality I have gotten consistently using WMP over the years, but who knows, maybe there are other tools that are really better and can make a difference. My digital sound quality is already at all time highs off my music server so hard for me to complain really.
dtc's avatar
dtc
1,024 posts
 
Mapman - unless a CD is damaged, I do not seen see any difference between using J River and dBpoweramp for ripping. I ripped several CDs on both and did bit compares on the files and they were the same. So, I only go to dBpoweramp for questionable CDs. My guess is that the same is true with WMP. Even if the disk is damaged, it is unusual for more than few sectors to be questionable, which means the effect is typically a very small part of a track. Of course, some will say the rips sound different even if they are identical, bit by bit. I am not in that camp, but some are.
audioengr
3,282 posts
 
Mapman wrote: "Steve, can you quantify in any way the shortcomings you believe exist with WMP versus dmpoweramp?"

Certainly sound quality is better with dbpoweramp rips, due to Accurate Rip verification of the dataset as well as the offset. Both are important. It also has very good read algorithms to get clean reads and makes use of C2 error correction when needed.

It's even better than EAC IME. Does a great job of converting FLAC to .wav etc..

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
More to discover