What audio system do you have, or plan on getting?

[Coopmv]

I tend to like Yamaha receivers. You don't need to spend a lot to get a good one. Spend the money you save on speakers. I have a nice set of Klipsch bookshelves, but speakers are a personal taste. Best to audition them before buying.

Among the mass-produced Japanese audio electronics, Yamaha has been consistently more innovative without causing one to break his bank.  Yeah, Luxman and Accuphase are higher-end but they will also cost you considerably more ...

[jlaurson]

So I'm considering buying some book shelf speakers for my PC. These were recommended, as they have a built in amplifier:

http://www.amazon.com/Audioengine-A5-Black-Powered-Speaker/dp/B000OABTPQ

Supposing I eschew this and opt for actual bookshelf speakers + amplifier, what would you guys for a total max budget of $1k?

If you will use them for a PC, getting good active speakers and a D/AC that's also a de-facto pre-amp is very likely to get you the best bang for your buck.

Of course one SHOULD absolutely, necessarily audition one's speakers before buying it, but since you won't (nothing against you -- I'm just taking my cues from the laws of average) you might be well advised in that direction. (As opposed to finding passive speakers that better suit your taste within the same budget and get an amp to suit them. The advantage of passive speakers being that there are more to choose from in any given price range.)

[DavidRoss]

If you will use them for a PC, getting good active speakers and a D/AC that's also a de-facto pre-amp is very likely to get the best bang for your buck.

Of course one SHOULD absolutely, necessarily audition one's speakers before buying it, but since you won't (nothing against you -- I'm just taking my cues from the laws of average) you might be well advised in that direction. (As opposed to finding passive speakers that better suit your taste within the same budget and get an amp to suit them. The advantage of passive speakers being that there are more to choose from in any given price range.)

One of the selling points for audioengine is that shipping's included in the price and they offer a 30-day in home audition and if you don't like them, send 'em back for a full refund:

30 Day Audition
We feel we've created products with the sound, features, and overall quality of systems priced much higher. Purchase any Audioengine product from our online store, try it out, and if you're not completely satisfied with the great sound and excellent looks just contact us at support@audioengineusa.com within 30 days of delivery for return instructions. After you receive an email back from us, return the product in its original packaging in like-new, undamaged condition with all included accessories and we'll give you a full refund of your product purchase price. Please note that the Audioengine 30-day audition applies to products purchased directly from our US online web store only.

[jlaurson]

One of the selling points for audioengine is that shipping's included in the price and they offer a 30-day in home audition and if you don't like them, send 'em back for a full refund:

From the rather convincing negative reviews of those speakers, that might well be necessary.

Incidentally, I wasn't in any way trying to recommend the above speakers with my general point about active speakers being a logical, suitable solution to PC-based sound systems.

[DavidRoss]

From the rather convincing negative reviews of those speakers, that might well be necessary.

Incidentally, I wasn't in any way trying to recommend the above speakers with my general point about active speakers being a logical, suitable solution to PC-based sound systems.

Not at all. I thought your point was sound and your advice good, as usual.

After seeing rave reviews of the Audioengine 2 in TAS & Stereophile a few years back, I was sorely tempted to try a pair for my desktop PC, but never got around to it.

[Gurn Blanston]

Not at all. I thought your point was sound and your advice good, as usual.

After seeing rave reviews of the Audioengine 2 in TAS & Stereophile a few years back, I was sorely tempted to try a pair for my desktop PC, but never got around to it.

David,
While I was looking at those speakers last night, I followed a link and found this DAC:

[asin]B006IPH5H2[/asin]


Any thoughts on this? Rave reviews on Amazon don't convince me any more....

[Scarpia]

For sound from a PC, the most important concept is Optical.

I find it critical to eliminate any electrical connection between the PC and the electronics that generates an audio signal because a PC is filled with unspeakable electrical noise, and even the most elaborate means to filter it out are fraught with difficulty.  Even if the engineers come up with a system that works perfectly in their lab, it might not work perfectly with your particular setup.   An external USB DAC is better than an internal DAC, but there is still an electrical connection (the USB cable) which can propagate digital noise.



Therefore, rather than a USB coupled DAC, I use a USB coupled TOSLINK adapter.   It generates optical signals which go to the DAC.  You can get cheaper ones and more expensive ones, but I have the Musical Fidelity V-link.  (Getting a good TOSLINK converter is good, because in the TOSLINK format, the clocking of your DAC coupled to the data flow, and irregular data flow can affect your sound quality.)  I used to send the output to the digital input of my receiver, but now I route it to a CD player which has a digital input.  The optical digital signal can also be sent to a headphone amp or external DAC with an appropriate input, like the one that GB referenced above.  What I like about the optical digital output is that it allows you to leverage the audio equipment that you already have, without contaminating it with an electrical connection to a computer.

[Fëanor]

For sound from a PC, the most important concept is Optical.

I find it critical to eliminate any electrical connection between the PC and the electronics that generates an audio signal because a PC is filled with unspeakable electrical noise, and even the most elaborate means to filter it out are fraught with difficulty.  Even if the engineers come up with a system that works perfectly in their lab, it might not work perfectly with your particular setup.   An external USB DAC is better than an internal DAC, but there is still an electrical connection (the USB cable) which can propagate digital noise.



Therefore, rather than a USB coupled DAC, I use a USB coupled TOSLINK adapter.   It generates optical signals which go to the DAC.  You can get cheaper ones and more expensive ones, but I have the Musical Fidelity V-link.  (Getting a good TOSLINK converter is good, because in the TOSLINK format, the clocking of your DAC coupled to the data flow, and irregular data flow can affect your sound quality.)...

I've heard your argument for optical S/PDIF connection from various sources, but opinions aren't unanimous.  Other people argue that TOSLINK optical induces more of the "irregular data flow", (a.k.a. "jitter"), than does coaxial S/PDIF, (obviating the lower noising advantage of optical).

Personally I use coax S/PDIF using a long, (30 foot), cable.  Here again with relation to "jitter", the longer cable reduces it by eliminating the effect of electrical signal reflections caused by impedance mismatching between source (computer) and target (DAC). (There is plenty of discussion of this at www.audioasylum.com in Digital and PC Audio forums.)

Other people recommend USB for computer-to-DAC connection provided the connection is "asynchronous", i.e. the data flow is controlled at the DAC end rather than at the computer end.  Again the goal is to reduce "jitter".  Of course many computers don't have S/PDIF output, whether optical or coaxial, so USB is the only option.  BTW, the newer, Musical Fidelity V-LINK II provides asynchronous USB connection. USB potentially solves other digital transmission issues that S/PDIF cannot, such as independent clocking -- don't ask me! search for more detailed discussion at AudioAsylum.

[DavidRoss]

Any thoughts on this? Rave reviews on Amazon don't convince me any more....

I've never heard it, Gurn, but if I were in the market I would probably consider it, especially because of their in-home audition policy, its handling of 24/192 files, and acceptance of both optical and USB input.

Links to favorable reviews on their site here: http://audioengineusa.com/Store/audioengine-d1-reviews#.UFyKpI2PVyw

[Gurn Blanston]

I've never heard it, Gurn, but if I were in the market I would probably consider it, especially because of their in-home audition policy, its handling of 24/192 files, and acceptance of both optical and USB input.

Links to favorable reviews on their site here: http://audioengineusa.com/Store/audioengine-d1-reviews#.UFyKpI2PVyw

OK, thanks, David. I have already heard and given some thought to the issue that Scarpia raises. But as Fëanor points out, you have to work with what you have, and I am not going to replace a year-old computer just for that. I have been getting decent sound with the crap I already have, so it's hard to see where a solid upgrade is not going to help out somehow.  More than anything, I am curious about that company, and also if the specs on this unit are as good as or better than comparably priced ones. We'll see what the reviewers have to say.

Thanks,

[Scarpia]

I've heard your argument for optical S/PDIF connection from various sources, but opinions aren't unanimous.  Other people argue that TOSLINK optical induces more of the "irregular data flow", (a.k.a. "jitter"), than does coaxial S/PDIF, (obviating the lower noising advantage of optical).

Personally I use coax S/PDIF using a long, (30 foot), cable.  Here again with relation to "jitter", the longer cable reduces it by eliminating the effect of electrical signal reflections caused by impedance mismatching between source (computer) and target (DAC). (There is plenty of discussion of this at www.audioasylum.com in Digital and PC Audio forums.)

Other people recommend USB for computer-to-DAC connection provided the connection is "asynchronous", i.e. the data flow is controlled at the DAC end rather than at the computer end.  Again the goal is to reduce "jitter".  Of course many computers don't have S/PDIF output, whether optical or coaxial, so USB is the only option.  BTW, the newer, Musical Fidelity V-LINK II provides asynchronous USB connection. USB potentially solves other digital transmission issues that S/PDIF cannot, such as independent clocking -- don't ask me! search for more detailed discussion at AudioAsylum.

Jitter is one of the biggest red-herrings is the audiophile universe, where the inability of actually measure an effect causes it to be obsessed about even more.  My CD player and multimedia receivers both have phase locked loops which clock the DAC with immeasurably low jitter even if there is some jitter in the input digital stream.   

I have absolutely no concerns about data flow through USB.  USB is much much faster than necessary than any audio stream required, and data would be sent in very short bursts to replenish the data buffer, allowing the data to be clocked by a separate circuit, hopefully at uniform rate.   What I am concerned about is you have your $1000 headphones, connect to your $1000 amplifier, and the ground wire of that amplifier is coupled to a $0.50 switching power regulator in the USB driver in your computer that is zapping it with large voltage spikes.   I have found that the resulting noise can be quite audible.  The optical coupling means there is no electrical connection, and the electronics in the amplifier are uncoupled from whatever is going on in the computer power supply.

As to why you think the longer cable reduces jitter, I can't make heads nor tails of it.  The reflection comes at the attachment point, making the cable longer will not reduce reflection.  It will make the reflection come after a longer delay, which can only make jitter worse. 

[Scarpia]

OK, thanks, David. I have already heard and given some thought to the issue that Scarpia raises. But as Fëanor points out, you have to work with what you have, and I am not going to replace a year-old computer just for that.

The optical output would not require you to replace your computer, just add a modest external USB peripheral.  Actually, your computer might even have optical output.  The Intel motherboard on my old Pentium 4 has one, and is always putting out an optical version of whatever sound is being processed.

[DavidW]

I swear I told you Gurn to just optical out from your pc to your receiver awhile back...

[Fëanor]

Jitter is one of the biggest red-herrings is the audiophile universe, where the inability of actually measure an effect causes it to be obsessed about even more.  My CD player and multimedia receivers both have phase locked loops which clock the DAC with immeasurably low jitter even if there is some jitter in the input digital stream.  ...

As I understand, full reclocking will eliminate jitter caused by transmission problems, however phase-locked loop doesn't do this, (again, as I've construed from the experts -- which I personally am not).  By the way, asynchronous up (versus over) sampling necessarily requires full reclocking which might account for why some DACs with this feature sound good.  In any case I agree that jitter has become a bugaboo, blamed for all shortcoming people hear or think they hear.

...
As to why you think the longer cable reduces jitter, I can't make heads nor tails of it.  The reflection comes at the attachment point, making the cable longer will not reduce reflection.  It will make the reflection come after a longer delay, which can only make jitter worse.

Apparently longer delays don't make reflections worse. It's the almost simultaneous arrivals of the prime signal and reflection that's the problem and which longer cable prevents.

[DavidRoss]

Now here's a fellow who takes his anti-jitter devices seriously:



Anyone we know?

[Scarpia]

Apparently longer delays don't make reflections worse. It's the almost simultaneous arrivals of the prime signal and reflection that's the problem and which longer cable prevents.

This is an example of audiophile weirdness.  If reflection in the transmission line is a problem, the standard engineering solution is to switch to a balanced cable with appropriate termination.  It costs a few bucks more, but it completely suppresses reflections.  Why screw around with the cable length to manipulate reflection when the effect can be abolished with a simple measure?

The same goes for those enormous cables they want us to put on our speakers.  Due to resistance, the voltage delivered to the load is not the same as the voltage at the output of the driver.  But this is also a common problem in scientific measurements.  The answer is a four-lead configuration.  One pair of leads delivers the current, the other pair of sensor leads monitors the voltage on the load.  That way the monitor can be designed to control the signal on the load, and not just on its output terminals.  Why will audiophiles tell us we need $1000 cables, instead of designing an amplifier with a four-lead output, which would completely solve the problem?

[bigshot]

Jitter is one of the biggest red-herrings is the audiophile universe

Listen to Scarpia. He's right. Jitter as it occurs in even the cheapest audio equipment is 100 times below the threshold of audibility. It flat out is not an issue to worry about.

When someone who is trying to sell you something starts talking about jitter, you can be sure they don't knowwhat they're talking about. They just want to sell you something.

[mahler10th]

I remember days when an mp3 converter might report 'avoiding' 1,232 Jitter Errors.  Jitters is a word that prompts me to swear, as it begins with J and had two T's in it, something I find most abhorrent in what should be a harmonious lexical arrangement...  My dislike for 'Jitter' goes way beyond hatred...that word 'Jitter' drives me round the bend.    (wtf?  **seeks David Lynch out for 'Jitters' movie contract**)
Thread Duty:
I got some 2.1 Logitech speakers for my static computer unit and for what they are, they are surprisingly good.

[Fëanor]

This is an example of audiophile weirdness.  If reflection in the transmission line is a problem, the standard engineering solution is to switch to a balanced cable with appropriate termination.  It costs a few bucks more, but it completely suppresses reflections.  Why screw around with the cable length to manipulate reflection when the effect can be abolished with a simple measure?

The same goes for those enormous cables they want us to put on our speakers.  Due to resistance, the voltage delivered to the load is not the same as the voltage at the output of the driver.  But this is also a common problem in scientific measurements.  The answer is a four-lead configuration.  One pair of leads delivers the current, the other pair of sensor leads monitors the voltage on the load.  That way the monitor can be designed to control the signal on the load, and not just on its output terminals.  Why will audiophiles tell us we need $1000 cables, instead of designing an amplifier with a four-lead output, which would completely solve the problem?

Why don't they do these things? Beats me. But the fact is, in the case of consumer digital equipment, that a coaxial S/PDIF connection is the most common type and the most likely to be available on both the source and target ends.

[Fëanor]

Listen to Scarpia. He's right. Jitter as it occurs in even the cheapest audio equipment is 100 times below the threshold of audibility. It flat out is not an issue to worry about.

When someone who is trying to sell you something starts talking about jitter, you can be sure they don't knowwhat they're talking about. They just want to sell you something.

Likely so.  I've saved myself a lot of money by not springing for audiophile trends. You don't have to look far to find outrageous examples, e.g ...

Machina Dynamica's Brilliant Pebbles, HERE