Interesting article Nonoise. It reads a little like a quantum physics paperback book: part science and part philosophy, and thus the "facts" are open to interpretation. The Boston audio society study appears condemning at first blush (60 people subjected to a total of 554 blinded tests over the course of a year were not able to distinguish between CD and SACD). However, if you read the primary article found here: http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling//index.html the author does bring up some more nuanced points towards the end, including this: Moorer noted that humans can distinguish time delays  when they involve the difference between their two ears  of 15 microseconds or less. Do the math, and you can see that while the sampling interval at 48 kHz is longer than 15 µs, the sampling interval at 96 kHz is shorter. Therefore, he says, we prefer higher sampling rates because “probably [my emphasis] some kind of time-domain resolution between the left- and right-ear signals is more accurately preserved at 96 kHz. and In an article on his Website (www.ethanwiner.com), Winer points out that in a typical room, moving one's head or listening position as little as four inches can result in huge changes in the frequency-response curves one is hearing. What could be a 10dB dip in one spot at one frequency could be a 6dB boost a couple of inches away. These wide variations are caused primarily by comb-filtering effects from the speakers and from the various reflections bouncing around the room, which are present no matter how well the room is acoustically treated. Winer blames this phenomenon for most of the unquantifiable differences people report hearing when they are testing high-end gear. In particular, the time domain issue may explain "some" people's preferences for hi rez and DSD. I know this is a real phenomenon in the world of speakers and even amplifiers if you believe Golmund's research. |
07-15-14: Clio09
Wired Ethernet network has had the most impact on sonics by far of any other computer-based configurations. Tony, I presume you are talking NAS here. What other configs have you tried and what was added by Ethernet? |
07-15-14: Brownsfan
I suspect that for most people, an approach like the HAPZ1 may be a better approach. I agree and I have eyeballed that unit. From reading yours and other reviews, I know there is a little bugginess. However, if you let outfits like Modwright or Redwine audio hack them, it could be a destination source sans computer. |
07-15-14: Bcgator
Computer audio is a passing fad, just like sex and marijuana (not necessarily together, but not necessarily not together). You wait - in 5 years, nobody will want any of the three. You heard it here first. Nice. One would suspect that thc consumption would blunt our OCD audio impulses. Less hand wringing (and blogging) and more listening perchance? |
A network connection from computer server to sound making device/streamer is usually a good idea to help isolate sound making components from noisy computers. My approach to since 07. Quarantining the electromagnetic radiation and other nasties from the computer is the "theoretical" advantage although people make arguments about similar issues with wireless. 07-14-14: Lindisfarne
Computer-driven audio is convenient, nothing more, nothing less. I really enjoy streaming Spotify but I'm not fooled into believing that it will ever replace a record played on a decent TT. And, yes, I also like physical CDs better than ripping.
Lindisfarne (Threads | Answers | This Thread) I am in the same camp. Call me lazy but I listen to a lot more music than the laborious CD or LP spinning days.
07-14-14: Jfrech
I've bailed on it for now...the promise of DSD or DXD downloads might change my mind soon...
Why did you bail? I am about to take the DSD plunge myself. Am looking into the Auralic Aries for wireless transport duties. 07-14-14: Ghosthouse
Don't know your frame of reference. They might not be "high end"
enough for credibility with you but computer audio is working for me. I have heard a lot of cheese whiz systems sound better than more blinged out systems simply due to proper implementation and setup.... 07-14-14: Kr4
No promise. Running two server systems, both with full, multichannel DSD/DXD capabilities and files. The convenience is a given but the sound quality amazes. What servers platforms are you using and what is your source materials for multi-channel tunes? |
07-15-14: Audiolabyrinth
I believe computer audio is a passing fad, computers do not have quality capacitors, transformers, power supplies,not balanced, no real analog section,then there is the endless Rabit hole of having this and that software etc.., I know many that have returned to Dacs and cd-players., computer audio will go in the way of sacd! Lord have mercy. That will start the ball rolling....lol. |
Andrew, it was what was subtracted by adding Ethernet that made the difference in my opinion.
No more reliance on Mac Mini and all the tweaks/upgrades.
No more reliance on JRiver or other music software packages to play music.
No more reliance on USB converters or USB in general (which I never really embraced).
No more computer next to my system. That's where my head is at. I went with the Zardoz French WIFi front end in 2007 for similar reasons (extrication from computer) and preferred it to my Granite Audio 657 CDP at the time. I just moved on for the sake of newer format streaming. I am considering the Auralic Aries but time will tell. I am still interested in trying the Lampizator transport with my Lessloss DAC for comparative purposes because I am told the wifi is superior to wired Ethernet. Not sure I buy that statement completely though as Resolution Audio states the opposite. I have heard contradictory info as well. Dan at dbsystems (maker of Zardoz/LaRosita and a computer engineer) said wireless was better than the Ethernet port on his units. I had a friend who tested this and could not hear much of a difference. According to Steve Nugent, wireless/ethernet is supposedly a superior interface in terns of jitter: http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/manufacture/0509/ I have always suspicions about cheesewhiz Ehternet cables and jitter but I don't honestly know. The Lampi transport into the Lessloss would be intriguing. I would go that route if the Lampi piece could handle more formats. As you know, Mr. Lessloss has his contrarian angle on all this, and I very much respect his thoughts. This is his new gizmo: http://www.lessloss.com/laminar-streamer-ultimate-sd-card-player-development-a-65.html It looks stunning, but again, there are logistical issues with the size of SD cards and the burgeoning world of DSD/DXD, etc. |
07-14-14: Redfuneral
I'm beyond happy with my computer transport but I couldn't listen to it before I got JPLAY. Could you go more in depth about what your/your friends' computers give up to the transports? If it's that digital glare or grain I'd recommend trying the demo of the aforementioned program. Analog density, ease, and diminished glare. Their computer setups (which included all the usual tricks and aftermarket mods within a Mac platform) was thinner and more "digital" sounding. JPLAY was not the software used. It was either Puremusic or Audinirvana. |
07-16-14: Foster_9
Agear, many of the posts in this thread clearly demonstrate
the convoluted nature of computer audio, the lack of consensus
on best practices, and some of the reasons computer
audiophiles will remain a niche group within this audiophile
niche group. I agree 100%. In my optimism, I wanted to see if people had nailed down variables that had the biggest impact on SQ in hopes of understanding better why my audio friends (with good ears and systems) bailed. It was not due to the inherent complexity of computer audio. The SQ of their CDPs was just clearly better. It would be interesting to do a blinded shootout with a unit like the Aesthetix Pandora using either its digital input or the CD section. |
07-16-14: Gocubs999
Still cannot deny the benefits a Computer Audio System brings:
- Hanging out on the Terrace and being able to change music at will (60 ft. away) with an iPad.....without spilling my drink This is the most compelling argument I have read so far regarding computer audio.... |
Still my digital transport is better - it is richer, more extended top to bottom, more refined and silky smooth. This is, to my ears, much closer to my reference vinyl setup that is amongst the best money can buy.
The computer audio is very convenient, but it takes lots of knowledge to make it sound even close to a well designed disc spinner.
Jut my two cents as usual.
Best wishes,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi Alex, this mirrors what my audio acquaintances (one of whom was using a top of the line Offramp) have discovered. What are the reasons for this? |
07-19-14: Electroslacker
That said, a quality USB cable can do a phenomenal job of delivering a digital stream from a computer to a DAC, where the final quality and subjective preference is determined by the chosen DAC. slacker, what cable do u use? I am in the process of researching one.... |
Very interesting Nonoise. It is limited to Redbook, but that's 99% of most music libraries. I have other industry friends who argue the problem is not source material but hardware. Redbook done right is more than good enough. DSD and hi rez are not a necessary parachute in their minds. Just better transports. That is honestly the logic behind this thread. |
07-19-14: Mapman
I'll be steering clear of proprietary hardware and software as much as possible moving forward, especially any computer hardware from one off companies.
This stuff is still changing to rapidly. I think Android makes a versatile platform for companies to build high quality digital A/V applications on.
A standardized digital output that can feed a high quality DAC of ones choice is all that is really needed. I agree with most of that except the last sentence. I would like that to be true in theory, but modding your Bestbuy grade streamer can make dramatic improvements. Depends on your goals and level of audio OCDness.... |
07-18-14: Mapman
PLEX media server and player appliations is a very good place for anyone to start with that is looking for good sounding computer audio without a major investment in a lot of proprietary hardware, like SOnos, BlueSound, or Squeezebox in the past. I agree. That was the platform I started with in 2006. The paradox is (for me) computer audio is best with no computer. You need a disembodied, streaming entity (that is ideally designed with audio in mind). As stated earlier in the thread, spinning plastic is plain silly after you experience the joy of music navigation provided by "computer audio." You are baptized into a much larger world of music (at least I have). That being said, WHY ARE SOME PEOPLE STILL RETURNING TO CDPs? We have had several responders who have posted as much (and have been ignored). WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT VARIABLES FOR SQ IN COMPUTER AUDIO? |
07-17-14: Audioengr
Audiolabyrinth, I have a nice 1905 Gramaphone, which is really easy to use. Does not even require power. I dont listen to it much though because the SQ sucks.
Your CDP will also be relegated to the other antiques soon, trust me.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio Steve, people have been saying that about CDPs since the birth of "computer audio," and yet here people are with contrarian opinions. Steve, I have always enjoyed and learned a lot from your posts. That being said, can you state in specific terms what measurable variables are responsible for the improved SQ you perceive? Black and white statements like the one you made above make for good ad copy, but don't reveal anything. Reminds me a little of Roger Sanders. A stark, old Testament prophetic mindset. |
07-20-14: Wisnon
Sorry, but DSD128 trounces any RBCD equivalent out there. Depends entirely on hardware implementation and thus the logic of this thread. As for up sampling, it again depends on implementation. There is no shortage of DSD-upsampling dacs out there now (DSD sells boxes), and once again, its not always sonic salvation. While natively recorded DSD128 can be the shizzle, you can only listen to that Swedish avant guard jazz trio so many times....:/ |
07-19-14: Bhobba
The improved SQ has to do with reduced jitter which is easier to accomplish without the moving parts of a mechanical transport being involved.
The real value of computer audio is not that is SQ is inherently better - transports can sound as good - but its rare - its the paradigm shift it engenders of being able to tap into you entire music library from your litening position with something like an iPad. Agreed.... |
7-25-14: Audiolabyrinth
Enjoy the music, I believe I have made a valid point about usb cables and what is and is not true computer audio, gentleman, enjoy the thread, I have said all I can here, carry on.
Audiolabyrinth (Threads | Answers | This Thread) labyrinth, what does your system consist of? What % of expenditure do your cables comprise? I do agree that cables can have a major impact on a system, but the impact can vary based on other variables such as noise floor. Does anyone have experience regarding the optimal way to process and transmit DSD and hi rez files. On the contrary, does anyone their "computer" optimized to the point where file resolution is of no importance? |
07-22-14: Jbny The whole not doing Computer Audio is really just a generational thing, like it or not it is the future. Ouch. Sadly, there is some truth to that. 07-22-14: Jbny I have pretty good analog setup and am very capable of making good hires vinyl transfers. The vinyl rips sound identical to the analog on my setup so I know that the CA is working right in my system. John Atkinson, when reviewing the Ayre QB-9 also noted digital transfers and the native vinyl indistinguishable. That being said, I still find top drawer vinyl (and master tape) to have a fluidity and density that is missing in all the digital I have heard. |
No response from Audiolabyrinth regarding his system??? No two anything perform exactly the same, but to date difference from one SPDIF digital cable to another is not significant to me. Differences with many analog wires I try are. Mapman, I have heard sizable differences with digital cabling. Some cable manufacturers tell me it can be the most sensitive of all. The best RCA SPDIF cabling I have owned were the Teos liquid cables. I have heard others say Rick Schultz's stuff is the shizzle. Who knows. USB digital connections is the one type I suspect will tend towards more noticeable variation in sound quality case by case depending on implementation, which is why I am happy I have mostly been able to avoid having to deal much with those to-date. USB, unlike SPDIF is not designed solely for audio, so many outcomes are possible. Agreed. I am in the middle of muddling through that. WHen the time comes, I will shoot for an asynchronous USB implementation where DAC-side clock rather than general purpose computer manages timing and required bandwidth reliably and use a USB wire of good quality from a reputable maker like I do with most things and expect that to do the job quite well. I also agree. I have heard that the Trinity dac's USB implementation is impervious to source, reclockers, etc. That is really the ideal. I think its a weakness of many current designs that you need all this extra crap... |
08-01-14: Audiolabyrinth
Agear, I'm sorry, I said goodby in my last post, If you like, you can find me on the Tara Labs cable thread, I will accomadate all your questions there, I'm done here! That makes about as much as much sense as rambling about Tara labs cables on a computer audio thread... |
08-03-14: Guidocorona
Uhrn... Children... please do chill out and start making nice PDQ, lest the Agon proctors get wind of the emerging electrobrawl and shut down this lovely thread *grins!*
Guido, it was not meant to be inflammatory. I invited him to contribute more specifics relevant to this thread. He refused and instead offered an invitation to the very thing that multiple other posters deemed a distraction. C'est la vie. |
08-04-14: Guidocorona
Lighten up AGear... audiophilia is seldom that serious. G. Stop reading into this Guido. This is not some high tension drama that warrants commentary or policing. Go spend some time at the asylum to back the focus out even further and you can laugh at your own solemn pronouncements too.....;) |
Humor is a balm, yes, but so is logic. :/ 07-23-14: Onhwy61
Audiolabyrinth, you're becoming overwrought and approaching troll like comments. You're just another person with a profound tweak. It speaks for itself.
Onhwy61 (System | Threads | Answers | This Thread) For those not in the know, the definition of troll taken from the Urban dictionary is: 07-23-14: Onhwy61
Audiolabyrinth, you're becoming overwrought and approaching troll like comments. You're just another person with a profound tweak. It speaks for itself.
Onhwy61 (System | Threads | Answers | This Thread)
So, one last time: labyrinth, what does your system consist of? What % of expenditure do your cables comprise? I do agree that cables can have a major impact on a system, but the impact can vary based on other variables such as noise floor. |
Oops. Here is the definition from Urban dictionary:
troll
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument |
08-06-14: Joecasey
Are you trying to be kind??? You're giving him way too much credit. Now you're the one being bad Joecasey (but also funny...) |
08-06-14: Audiolabyrinth
one more time!, computer audio is a bust! Ha! At least your a good natured troll with a sense of humor.... For the record, I agree with your statements about the influence of cabling. I have experienced it too. Happy listening.... |
08-06-14: Cerrot
Computer audio via USB is an absolute BUST! USB is for connecting peripherials - not for music! I know a lot of people who feel that way including an engineer who designs outstanding digital front ends (Exemplar Audio)..... So, that begs the question as to WHAT IS NECESSARY to make USB work? Galvanic isolation? Asynchronous streaming? Isolation of power and data within cabling (Light Harmonic, etc) Active reconstruction after the fact (BMC Pure USB cable) What???? |
Gadawg, just like vinyl, the devil is in the details....in some ways even more so. I believe this is part of the motivation for some moving back to plastic spinners. |
08-07-14: Bcgator
We've had this discussion with him in another thread, explaining that I'm getting great audio quality over USB, and to him this is all a fig newton of my imagination. He doesn't care if aliens from 5000 years into the future show up with some nanoo-nanoo technology that makes USB sound like angels caroling in your ears - he'll tell the aliens the same thing, "you aliens need to use SPDIF". The fact that, just for example, the Oppo BDP-105 (which I don't own, but may buy for a 2nd system) is getting rave upon rave reviews, including for its sound quality over USB (it has XMOS chip + asynch USB), has no bearing in Cerrot's thinking. To him, all those reviews are a USB conspiracy, not unlike the Loch Ness conspiracy. The ONLY thing USB should be used for, other than computer mice, is to put some marinara sauce on top and to be enjoyed with a nice Chianti. You get a gold star for using creative writing to rant.... BTW, while back in MN for a wedding, I heard a top dollar system fronted by Magico S5s that had as its digital source an Exemplar Audio modded Oppo 105. I brought a USB flash drive of music to use as test tracks, plugged it in, and it gave the Brinkmann turntable a run for its money. So yes, its a matter of IMPLEMENTATION. That aside, my system is without a dedicated digital transport at present, and I succumbed to using an unmodded Mini with a Belkin USB cable, and it sounded liked rat piss. I understand why the naysayers nay.... |
08-09-14: Cerrot
Get a sound card. ESI juli@ for $149. Spdif out. All you need, plus a coax cable into your dac. That is an option, and one that the Alpha Berkley crowd runs with.... |
08-09-14: Twb2
"Is computer Audio a Bust?"
Is this a serious question?? If so, the one asking is grossly uninformed and/or naive. No, just a rhetorical question to stimulate discussion. As you can see, some people do actually feel that way, and its still a valid opinion... |
08-09-14: Twb2
I should add that the PC or Mac/DAC combo introduces variables that can result in inferior SQ. The Lumin eliminates these variable by combining the computer and the DAC in one housing, with the power supply in another, thereby eliminating the USB or other interface and clocking problems. The designer has total control of the results. Indeed. I actually looked at one. It does however take away some of your own control over SQ. I would rather have a dedicated digital transport and a DAC of my choosing.... |
If you do not believe me, research all that you can about the Tara Labs Zero Gold with HFX grounding station and get back to me, likly, your tone will change with inverasment! Grounding does indeed make a difference. I have some of Mosaic Audio's (aka Dale Pitcher from Intuitive Design and Essence) reference cables and they have a grounding element as well. Tripoint audio has opened a lot of eyeballs in reference to grounding. It think it is particularly efficacious in regards to digital. That and power filtering whether it be batteries or a dedicated conditioner.... |
labyrinth, your mad ramblings about Tara Labs would be better received in Asia. Spend some time on the Audioexotics site and you will see. That audio community always seems to be chasing the lunatic fringe (where cost is no object). Sadly, we in the US have become coupon cutters and deal seekers. Its just where the economy is. They are going up and we are going down. |
Another way to ask the central question of the thread is "what takes computer audio over the top as a source"? What single tweak relegated your turntable to the sidelines? |
08-21-14: Tbg
Agear, I have continually wondered about the fundamental question in this thread, which frankly I think is absurd. Now with your new restatement, I can comment more. Tbg, I find you are spending more and more in the irritable professor mode as of late (going off on brain dead cyber students). :) My Dad was a prof and I come from a long line of profs so I am VERY familiar with said behavior. As I have stated before, the question is a rhetorical device or quasi-Socractic in nature to generate discussion. Taken literally, yes, the question is absurd. |
08-22-14: Mapman
My turntable started to be mostly relegated to the sidelines when I started using old Roku Soundbridge to my current DACs a few years back prior to moving to Squeezebox. Now with nothing new happening with Squeezebox, I am forging ahead for now with PLEX. That has been my paradigm since 06. It does help he enduser bypass the computer silliness and the inherent Brownian motion of faux programing with nominal changes in SQ that would fail any good A+B test. I just got an Aries, and so far, so good. |
Agear --
My findings are the complete opposite, and can summarized in the following (by another author):
Ever since I mastered my first CD back in 1983 and compared what came back from the replication plants with the masters used to make those CDs, IÂve found that CDs from different plants (sometimes different lines within the same plant) all sound different from each other and none sounds indistinguishable from the master used to create it. This is true regardless of the CD player or transport used, regardless of price or design. To my ears, comparing playback from disc with playback of the master used to create said disc, there are always losses of focus and fine detail, sometimes subtle, other times not so subtle at all.
Interestingly, when those same CDs are ripped to computer as raw PCM files and then compared with the masters, all the differences go away. In other words, with playback of these files via a good server, for the first time in my experience, the user can have the sound of the CD master at home. So, the convenience of a music server not only does not exact a sonic price, the results actually sound better than playback from a disc player or transport. (It might not beat good vinyl playback in some ways but that is a subject for another day. And besides, what IÂve outlined above is only the beginning. Read on.)
...
https://soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/listening-to-tomorrow/
I have dialogued with Barry D. online. Good man and very knowledgable. He has a unique frame of reference that we don't have though with access to said masters, but I think burning a CD and then spitting out the master is obviously a little optimistic. |
08-24-14: Tbg
....this thread is not different from any othersÂthere is never any consensus. and 08-24-14: Mitch4t
Finally, this thread is not different from any othersÂthere is never any consensus.
I think that is the beauty of this forum. Differing opinions are what drives everything here. I read them all, try a few, throw out most or them and form my own opinions. Audio is no different than automotive in that vein....there are fifty ways to get from 0-60 mph. We all choose our own route. Its just information Tbg that can be used or not used at Mitch stated. As I have said before, Audiophiles are fickle creatures like cats, and you cannot predict or explain their choices. That being said, we are all unique creations, and cannot or should not be ground into some homogenous, fascist consensus. |
08-24-14: Charles1dad
Hi Agear,
Have the Aries and Lampizator level 7 met or exceeded your lofty expectations? A DHT(EML 45 tube) DAC is very interesting.Congratulations. above average....;) |
08-31-14: Jesusa0
Matt,
I celebrate you´re going to try the DACs with a superior transport (Esoteric). My experience taught me that my Esoteric UX-1 plus the Yamamoto YDA-01 DAC beat, by a large margin, a MacBook Pro plus the same Yamamoto. Conclusion: I quit computer audio.
My SPDIF cable is an Antipodes Audio Kokiri.
Regards,
Daniel Yet again on another thread. So, is unmodded computer audio a bust? |
09-01-14: Raymonda
I'll say it again.....computer audio is how 99.9999 percent of all music is recorded.....mixed and mastered today. Playing back files on your computer has the potential to be as close to the final mix as possible.... Raymond, philistines like Charlesdad, Jesusa0, Granngyring, and Audiolabyrinth inspired me to start this thread.... |
09-03-14: Phusis
Joecasey --
If I completely misread you reply, I'm sorry. Just forget my first one to you if I did.. This more recent dialogue is an half empty affair thanks to Joe audio jihadist Casey. |
09-03-14: Phusis
Joecasey --
If I completely misread you reply, I'm sorry. Just forget my first one to you if I did.. This more recent dialogue is an half empty affair thanks to Joe-audio-jihadist-Casey. I am now thoroughly annoyed.... |
So there...posted twice for emphasis.
In all seriousness, it still intrigues me that plastic remains in the game due to perceptions of SQ superiority. I have been reading about the Devaliet stuff recently (thanks Erik), and even a reviewer type admitted to preferring the slightly more analog presentation of a Wadia spinner.
Again, for the record, I respect and believe my fellow philes who still cling to plastic (JesusaO/Danaiel, I was not trying to out you as a rube) in the name of SQ. I am not a true computer devotee but rather a lazy streamer type (Auralic Aries). Streaming technology can put you in the same ballpark as a computer and/or plastic spinner minus the hassles of either platform. Just my two cents. Arguably, it can still require modding or tweaking to to this, but I like to leave that up to people who feed their kids designing audio equipment rather than thumb my way through things as Joe DIY. |
09-02-14: Raymonda
Charles....I find both done right to sound fantastic and I'm not trying to convince anyone one is better but rather that the premise that computer audio is bad....wrong or dead is way off base. Again..computer audio is the way most recording are created and sound fantastic.
Let me put it this way; a recent recording project did for a client, consisting of the group Spyro Gyra was a 26 track recording. If you were afforded the hardware....software....and tracks....would you like to have total control of your mix and afterwards would you burn it to a disc for playback in a cd player or would you save a 2 track file and use this as your playback reference? My guess is the later.....which is how most engineers keep and listen to their 2 track master mixes. Not that it doesn't get burned to a disc but that the file is saved, archived and referenced on a computer and a hard drive. A dedicated computer based system for sure but today, for most people, it is not hard to put together a dedicated computer based system.....and can cost a whole lot less than a sota cd player.
My point about Spyro Gyra was made because...In the not too distant future this might be possible.....at first I can see it starting with the ambient mix....then surround....then limited track mix....and then total mix. The variables that would need to be reconciled is distribution. ..royalies...and artist creative control. The latter is the biggest...but doable.
You might think that it could never happen but it could....copy protection of some sort could be applied...everything could be save in a cloud and payment could be fee for access. Your home hardware could be the restriction point for protection through software loaded on your computer.
Sound crazy...but so was the light
bulb....telephone....radio...and lp. All this can happen..and nd someday will. Sorry to take off an a tangent....but this is along way of saying computer audio ain't dead but rather just beginning. Ray, I appreciate your input. You highlight the harsh reality of the situation and that is that plastic is going away. This thread is really an academic exercise. If anyone is paying attention, CD sales are lagging significantly due to the phenomenon of streamed content and downloads. Its a good thing as Ray insinuates since you have control over your own content choices in terms of resolution, etc. Ray, for personal listening, what gets you closest to the master? RB, 24/96, what? Thoughts on DSD? |
09-06-14: Mapman
Tortilla is right about the value of using a network to get the data to the player. I agree 100%. It makes what you use as the computer essentially irrelevant in regards to sound quality. As long as there is enough storage and processing power streaming is a trivial task for most any computer made in the last 10 years. I have tried many configurations this way and the sound quality does not vary into same DAC. Whereas sound quality with computer based play software is all over the place. USB implementation is a significant factor as well, but software used to play seems to be the biggest variable I hear to-date. +1 |
My mind keeps floating back to what is the optimal digital interface for connecting your "computer" to a dac. As Clio suggested earlier in the thread, I am wondering whether Ethernet is inherently superior to other options such as USB. More technical heads out there than moi please chime in.... |
