67 yrs. old computer audio

With existing computer, as OP asks, I think it best to offload the player function to a separate device and run server only. I have done this with SB server (now called Logitech media server) on older more limited PCs with similar good results as with newer more powerful PCs.

Using a wireless connection from server to player then also keeps computer noise artifacts out of the picture completely helping insure the sound quality. So this is the happy path that I would recommend anyone use to avoid potential sound quality issues associated with using a general purpose computer to produce excellent sound quality.

Steve, can you quantify in any way the shortcomings you believe exist with WMP versus dmpoweramp? I don't doubt db poweramp to be a very solid and safe choice, but the results I have been getting using WMP and .wav is quite good. If there is loss occurring, I have not been able to hear it so far, though I have never done any valid a/b compaarisons.

Mapman - my Netbook runs at less than 5% CPU usage when playing through J River. I have 2 GB of memory, but there is always plenty free. If you can keep the number of extraneous processes down, then a player like JRMC uses very little CPU or disk time. I know that everyone wants a very fast CPU and lots of memory, but I find that a small system with a small number of processes running is a very effective server. That's why I like Windows 7 Starter. You can also turn of the network if you want to. And I do not run anti-virus software when playing music.I have actually had more problems with my i5/8 GB desktop than with my Netbook.

The MF M1 DAC using async USB and has (I believe - need to check) galvanic isolation, which means the noise issues from the PC are minimal. Obviously, this topic is one of endless debate, but with the M1 I really do not think computer noise is a major issue.

I like the simplicity of a one box solution, but you can get excellent results either way. One advantage of a software player solution, is that the OP can try it without any cost and then decide which way to go if he likes the system.

The real advantage of dBpoweramp is that it does a checksum on the rip and then compares that checksum to a database from others who have ripped the same track. Matching checksums is a strong indication that the rip was accurate.

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.

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.

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