Hey guys,

didn't find a post for this in Axiom's forum so I thought I'd ask and see if anybody's in the Cplay/cMP2 community or has created a custom computer for playing music using their guide.

Essentially the idea is to create a dedicated audiophile grade music player/transport out of a PC. Audiophile purists rejoice!

The documentation is interesting and since I'd like to get the best out of my flac files (and besides being the nerd and amateur PC audiophile that I am) will start building one in short order. It looks promising in theory, although I don't quite understand any of the electrical stuff they talk about.

Here's a couple of links to the community and I'll keep y'all posted on my setup.

http://cicsmemoryplayer.com/index.php?n=Main.HomePage#cPlay

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/2/27041.html

fLuid

That looks like a great project. I look forward to your updates!

I don't understand this part...
from the parts list on audioasylum link they list this


"Only use a single RAM module."


They also didn't really list any high end audio cards, not that i saw anyhow....

It doesn't use a sound card, but (I'm assuming from the pic of a wire exiting through an expansion slot) the onboard S/PDIF interface to send the bits to an external DAC.

So tempted to get into the whole 'but if it's sending binary all the way to an outside DAC, how does it make it sound like all those fluffy words' discussion.......

But I won't. But I will provoke someone else to. muhuhhahahahahaha

Hey Dakkon,

good questions. First, the "single ram module" refers to the number of sticks of ram you place in the computer. Most computers have at least two. The intention of using just one module is to limit the number of components in the computer therefore eliminating any additional "noise" or electrical interference that may be caused by that extra piece - just like you would with electrical components attached to your audio system. The fewer the better correct? A module can also be referred to as a channel and most modern computers use dual module/channel ram with the exception of some intel cpu's which can handle triple and quad channel ram. The more channels, theoretically, the more work can be done in less amount of time. But because we want quality over speed and efficiency, we sacrifice any additional modules/channels by eliminating those components.

As for the sound card, I presume that as long as the specifications include ASIO driver support then it's ok. I've decided on using the Asus Essence STX as it's probably the most well received sound card in the ~$200 range (my current budget). I checked the link below and it does indeed include ASIO support.

http://usa.asus.com/Multimedia/Audio_Cards/Xonar_Essence_STX/

Hope this helps!

fLuid

ClubNeon,

this is the part I'm most confused with. If I'm sending the signal to my Emotiva USP-1 preamp, do I really need a sound card other than for the ASIO support? Why would I then need an Essence STX, when I could go for the Asus Xonar DS at a quarter of the cost?

I'm going to pose the question to the cMP2/Cplay forumers (is that even a word?) and see what they think.

Geez, I wish there were an easier way to search through and view forums! The internet has changed so much, yet forum structure and design is still archaic!

fLuid

If you think having more than one DIMM is going to have an effect on the sound, then surely a lower end card assembling the S/PDIF stream is going to have a massive impact.

Honestly, beyond the nice interface, I think this whole build is a waste. If you have a nice external DAC that can reclock the stream, it doesn't matter how much jitter enters before there.

I have a small project studio in my bedroom. I have an external Focusrite sound interface. I can't imagine anything sounding better than it. Or more precisely, I highly doubt I would ever be able to hear any improvement above it (heck, I could probably go down a couple levels and not hear any change, but this one had all the actually useful features I needed). This goes for any very well designed audio interface.

Hey ClubNeon,

maybe I should’ve clarified the intent of my project in my initial post to give a better idea of what I wanted to achieve in the end. The main reason for exploring the project is to eventually have my computer become the central piece of a total tv/home office/audio/home theatre solution.

I don't believe the traditional setup that includes a dvd player, cd player, blu-ray player, Xbox or any number of other media devices is the most efficient and ideal way of setting up things. At the very least, I feel a computer can be much more competent media source and player, but maintain a high enough standard of quality in its output as to be imperceptible in a double blind test scenario.

Now, I realize the instructions for the Cplay/CICs build is specific to a computer as an audio player, but the lessons learned in that build can be used and applied to developing the complete system.

I definitely don’t intend to follow all the instructions to the letter because I agree that some of the info is dated and may be incorrect, but there are definitely things that I can take from their guide.

I've read many articles trashing PC audio as subpar, but I disagree that it can never be good, and this build will either support this belief or give credence to the "PC is a bad way to go" approach. Either way, it'll be a good learning experience, and one which I already find very enjoyable. Maybe I’ll even convince some other people to go my route once my system is complete.

To me, the project is just like any other hobbyist build, but I think an automobile analogy will help summarize why I don’t believe it will be a waste. I could buy a BMW M3 and be very content with the performance and features, or I could buy a Mustang at half the cost and modify it the way I want to and get similar performance. Now, I like bimmers, but I know I’d be more interested in building up that Mustang.

Stay tuned for more updates!

b7fLuid

In my experience the worst things about using a PC for media playback are:

1. The fan noise.
2. The optical drive noise.
3. The hard drive noise.
and way down the list
4. The quality of the internal soundcard.

Solutions:
1. Build a fanless computer. It's possible to get enough processing power to decode 1080p video with 7.1 lossless audio, that does not require any active cooling.

2. The easiest solution is to only use the optical drive for initial ripping, and play back from the hard drive instead. But in some cases (e.g. Blu-ray discs), it is difficult to rip and preserve enough quality. So secondly make sure the drive has a quiet mode for streaming playback.

3. The ideal solution solid state drives. But that can get expensive when backing up movies. So make sure the drives are quiet. Or you can locate them in another room, and access the larger stuff via network, with a small SSD for the OS.

4. I've never splurged on a "hi-fi" internal soundcard. By the time I started messing with the idea of having a small studio, just jumped to a card with an external interface. The problems with the internal cards, is they almost always have tiny 3.5mm phone jack. I find those to be noisy, or to get noisy if left to oxidize (the contact point is just too small). Also a lot of the internal stuff isn't shielded very well, but I see the hi-end cards do offer that protection. My solution been to get the bits out of the computer in digital form, and turn them to analog with a dedicated device. The easiest way to do this with a modern setup is via HDMI, and you're done. If you're mostly interested in audio, which you've said you're not, then an audio interface connected by USB or Firewire, with XLR jacks is ideal (and not that expensive).

So to reiterate: Build a quiet PC, and connect it via HDMI to a receiver. Or you can get an external audio interface with at least 8 output channels and connect them directly to power amps. Add a network server as an option.

PCs can't be bad for audio, because every CD/DVD/BD released these days is mixed and mastered on a PC (or Mac).

Solution: turn the music up a little more. Seriously. I can not hear my pc from 8' away and this is with a stock cpu fan. Once the music is playing, its a non - issue

Now, if I were using an Intel CPU with stock fan, that might be another story, though nothing a $40 tower cooler with a quiet 12 cm fan could not solve.

For many years now I've only had a PC, AVR, TV and speakers in my HT.

I can record TV (cable card), play CD's and audio files, play DVD's and BD's (physical or mounted ISO), other video files, home videos, display pictures, etc etc. In fact the only thing I can't do with it is SACD.

I think the audio/video quality of it is great and I just run Media Center (and PowerDVD for BD playback). No sound card, just send the audio over HDMI.

Agreed, If my receiver is already receiving the direct 1080p and the pure HD audio tracks via digital HDMI, what else can more expensive components do to improve it. Even with ripped CDs or CDs themselves, it stays as digital data until it hits my receiver. It's either 100% accurate digital data or it's broken.

I would agree that care in component choosing becomes very important for heat, noise, compatibility etc. This takes time and research and it sounds like you are doing a good job and being very meticulous. Great work.

Also, if you are designing in analog outputs, well that is whole other discussion and I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment.

I'm very happy with ambient sound levels on my unit. The Antec Fusion case seemed very smartly designed for air flow and it's fans were very quiet on low to medium. I've tested heat levels at low speed to be surprisingly good with my new MB and chip coolers but I keep the fans at medium, just cause I can, without any additional noise. I considered upgrading the fans to MB controlled units but after several months of usage now, I don't see the need.

The Bell Expresvue HD receiver/PVR is the only annoyingly loud item on my AV shelves. Works fine but very poorly designed for heat and noise. The engineers probably had a budget, but I'm sure they could have done better.

FYI for any who are interested. The Antec Fusion Remote case I bought came with adjustable air flow dividers that allowed you to fit them according to the parts you put in it. Although that's not the interesting part. Lots do.

For fun, I tested the box with these removed and opened the adjustable baffle that closes over any remaining space in the cabling hole between the PSU section and the MB section. After roughly 15 minutes of playing a BluRay, this resulted in a 7 degree increase on the CPU and an 11 degree increase on the GPU that put it into the yellow, caution, range on low fan settings.

See Bell Expressvue! A few pieces of inexpensive plastic and a good idea and you get a quieter box. You may want to headhunt some Antec engineers.

Hey INANE,

I think you have the same line of thinking as I do. I think the computer can do it all...er, I think some blu-ray players can play SACD or am I wrong?

I'd love to run a cable card, but that's only for you guys in the States. Canada is slow with the uptake. Damn you bell/rogers! =(

Whereas I like my music to be flawless (i.e. lossless), I can live with blu-rays compressed to 4.37gb. Heck 1.4gb is ok as well. Maybe I just have a greater appreciation for music?

We are talking about Bell so there's no incentive to be better since they're pretty much in cahoots with Rogers to bring the lowest common denominator to the Canadian public.

I can probably toast bread on the roger's box at my mother's place. I can't believe how hot that thing gets!

Thanks ClubNeon,

my intention is to build a very quiet PC. I'd like to use a passive cooler, but this may not be the best option for the Intel CPU that I use. I've got a Fractal Design XLT case and things are pretty quiet and acceptable. On a side note, those Playstation 3's and Xbox's are much louder than any PC I've built. Don't know why that's the case.

I agree that everything is pretty much mastered on a computer these days, but man there's a lot of PC audio bashers out there. Those guys also tend to have the most expensive audio equipment. Correlation coincidence?

I believe the word you're looking for is "snob."

Great resource for silent computing.

Some stand-alone BD players can do SACD, but there's nothing on the PC that can read a SACD.

You'd think they could open it up at this point. It's not like it's ever going to be the relevant format they were hoping for.

Any drive that can read a DVD is physically able to read a SACD, but the copy protection is built into the data structure, so it would take a custom firmware for the DVD drive.

Someone did write a ripping app for the (modded) PS3. It can extract the DSD data, and looks like Foobar can now play the format.

There's no reason even bother with SACD, not only is it irrelevant, but the format is flawed with it's ability to reproduce high frequency audio with a reasonable signal to noise ratio.

I'd support Blu-ray releases of albums if they became more popular and bands I actually listen to started releasing on it. I still like to buy CDs simply so I can have the physical copy... and because it allows me to easily rip my music, but honestly, I'd switch from CDs to downloads if they offered high-res lossless multichannel versions of releases. Buying downloadable tracks at less-than-CD-quality always feels like a step backward to me, and even buying CD-quality FLAC makes me wish I was getting a physical copy since I'm usually spending the same amount that I'd spend on an actual disc that I could then rip as FLAC.

lol, agreed!

The one positive is that there seems to be much more care put into mastering (most?) SACD's. I think it's likely SACD enthusiasts are mistaken in their belief that it's a far superior format to CD's simply because of this.