Tír Na HiFi

nige2000 wrote: looked at that too interesting website but jplay on 2gb ram cant see it working as a standalone unit, as an audio pc im sure it would be fine and the cheaper case isn't as pretty.

but it is an audioPC that is being talked about so it's right on spec. T2 case is exactly the same as Zuma, AFAIK. I like the linear power supply & 64Gb SSD. Priced it up with T2 case (+£190) + Win 8 & Jplay(+£168) - comes to £707 including VAT - how does that compare to Zuma pricing? Edit: Just checked out the Caps V3 Zuma pricing on Computer Audiophile - when removed $400 for SOTM card - comes to about $1,200 or £780 - so equivalent in pricing apart from shipping & customs charges from USA, I guess?

these motherboards will have built in cpus and maybe ram, and will only be upgradable by replacing mother board cpu and ram together

Yes, good point but I guess the MBs would be cheap to replace & using a linear supply is important, I reckon so only a few MBs will qualify

downloading amarra now bloody slow download for a small file

I had a final chance (before I had to give back the MAC Air) to directly compare Amarra on Mac Air to Jplay on standalone netbook (HP as before). Amarra sounds good & I could probably live with it but Jplay (standalone) has just so much more sound stage & presence. So I guess, it's PC + Jplay for best sound - for now anyway.

And given my experience with linux - which to my ears isn't at the races at all - it really does seem windows + jplay is the way to go.

FWIW, I have seen user windowsX - he what made fideliser software - say that he thinks that a single core processor sounds better than dual/quads.

Figure that one out for me.....


Fran

Fran wrote:And given my experience with linux - which to my ears isn't at the races at all - it really does seem windows + jplay is the way to go.

FWIW, I have seen user windowsX - he what made fideliser software - say that he thinks that a single core processor sounds better than dual/quads.

Figure that one out for me.....


Fran

i read that three times thought i was reading it wrong!!!!

jkeny wrote:

nige2000 wrote: looked at that too interesting website but jplay on 2gb ram cant see it working as a standalone unit, as an audio pc im sure it would be fine and the cheaper case isn't as pretty.

but it is an audioPC that is being talked about so it's right on spec. T2 case is exactly the same as Zuma, AFAIK. I like the linear power supply & 64Gb SSD. Priced it up with T2 case (+£190) + Win 8 & Jplay(+£168) - comes to £707 including VAT - how does that compare to Zuma pricing? Edit: Just checked out the Caps V3 Zuma pricing on Computer Audiophile - when removed $400 for SOTM card - comes to about $1,200 or £780 - so equivalent in pricing apart from shipping & customs charges from USA, I guess?

these motherboards will have built in cpus and maybe ram, and will only be upgradable by replacing mother board cpu and ram together

Yes, good point but I guess the MBs would be cheap to replace & using a linear supply is important, I reckon so only a few MBs will qualify

downloading amarra now bloody slow download for a small file

I had a final chance (before I had to give back the MAC Air) to directly compare Amarra on Mac Air to Jplay on standalone netbook (HP as before). Amarra sounds good & I could probably live with it but Jplay (standalone) has just so much more sound stage & presence. So I guess, it's PC + Jplay for best sound - for now anyway.

was unimpressed by amarra even though i didn't spend long testing it tonight, i compared it to jplay streamed and it couldnt touch it.

does the SOTM card and sata noise filter make much difference?
as it adds a lot to the price

nige2000 wrote:
was unimpressed by amarra even though i didn't spend long testing it tonight, i compared it to jplay streamed and it couldnt touch it.

But in what ways did you find it lacking when compared to Jplay? it's always good to hear what elements are different.

the SOTM card and sata noise filter make much difference as it adds a lot to the price

I don't understand - do you mean SOTM DON'T make much difference or DO?

john

sorry about that fixed the post

just wondered what you thought of these SOTM components

thanks nige

Sorry, Nige
I haven't got this PC - I was just pricing it to see what it came out at.
I don't reckon that the SOTM will have much significance to SQ with my USB devices anyway as they are self-powered & use asynchronous USB.

jkeny wrote:Sorry, Nige
I haven't got this PC - I was just pricing it to see what it came out at.
I don't reckon that the SOTM will have much significance to SQ with my USB devices anyway as they are self-powered & use asynchronous USB.

ya that makes sense all right

Fran wrote: FWIW, I have seen user windowsX - he what made fideliser software - say that he thinks that a single core processor sounds better than dual/quads.

Figure that one out for me.....

Hmmm, that wouldn't surprise me too much. If Jplay isn't written to use multi-threading then a (recent) single core is probably more powerful than one quarter of a quad. AssumingJplay can actually use the multi-threading possibilities (can it, has anyone checked?) then that aspect may not be implemented well in terms of splitting the job. After all, if things like contiguous memory are making a difference, then cache sharing across cores could make similar differences perhaps?

We come across such problems in work cos we're using a language that doesn't have multi-threading implemented properly. Our IT is always complaining that multi core processors are actually a step back for us in terms of the raw power needed for running one single job.

Diapason wrote:

Fran wrote: FWIW, I have seen user windowsX - he what made fideliser software - say that he thinks that a single core processor sounds better than dual/quads.

Figure that one out for me.....

Hmmm, that wouldn't surprise me too much. If Jplay isn't written to use multi-threading then a (recent) single core is probably more powerful than one quarter of a quad. AssumingJplay can actually use the multi-threading possibilities (can it, has anyone checked?) then that aspect may not be implemented well in terms of splitting the job. After all, if things like contiguous memory are making a difference, then cache sharing across cores could make similar differences perhaps?

We come across such problems in work cos we're using a language that doesn't have multi-threading implemented properly. Our IT is always complaining that multi core processors are actually a step back for us in terms of the raw power needed for running one single job.

theres very little that even utilises two cores nearly none that use four. the only benefit of multi cores for most users is multitasking sharing out the processes over the two or four or whatever cores, which greatly reduce the impact on performance of ~( play) while u are say browsing the web or on a email client.
two cores is enough for most users, unless u like running everything on the computer at the same time like i do.

nige