Is computer audio a bust?


In recent months, I have had several audio acquaintances return to CDPs claiming improved SQ versus their highly optimized computer transports (SS drives, external power supplies, etc, etc).

I wanted to poll people on their experiences with computer "transports." What variables have had the most impact on sonics? If you bailed on computers, why?

I personally have always believed that the transport, whether its a plastic disc spinner or computer, is as or more important than the dac itself and thus considerable thought and energy is required.

agear

Showing 5 responses by nonoise

I know LessLoss is late getting their product out for us to see and hear what the promise is but there is another reader/streamer out there and I'd like to know if anyone has heard it yet or can enlighten us on what they claim. The company is EC Designs and here's their link:

http://www.ecdesigns.nl/?p=87&lang=en

Their pricing is relatively affordable ($2300) and they have software for album art, playlist and remote operation with an iPhone or other similar device.

Thanks in advance, and as always, all the best,
Nonoise
I dunno.

Has this been shot down hereabouts yet?
http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
&
http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

All of this reminds me of the horsepower wars that any conversation about cars engenders.

All the best,
Nonoise
My ears tell me that my CDs sound a lot better played in an SACD player and that SACDs don't necessarily sound better at all. Is this due to the fact that most SACD players are more robustly built with better power supplies and regulation?

It's only 16 bits going in and despite all the oversampling going on it's still 16 bits coming out and it sounds great. Same goes for the best "computer" audio I've heard: it was an MSB player that I thought was some high rez PC job and it was just playing CDs. It was the most analogue sounding device I've heard that wasn't a TT.

I've also heard demos at shows where I was told what to listen for and lo and behold, it was there: that leading edge, that trailing off, etc. but I'm not sure that it wasn't at the expense of something else since it was a short demo. These small samples of demos I've heard all had that same, sharp, almost glasslike quality to them that was not quite natural and may have not pleased over the long haul. Was I getting something at the expense of something else?

There are still DACs presently being made that are 16 bit and some audiophiles just love them. Maybe it's all in the implementation and we're chasing just another dragons tail.

The article goes on to state that the best they could achieve on a A/BX test was less than 50% on identifying 16 bit playback from higher rez. That boils down to just chance.

I just don't believe it's all settled matter.
Who really knows?

All the best,
Nonoise
Nice link Agear. There seems to be a lot going on that we simply don't take into account. I, for one, am not keen on putting my head in a vise in order to eliminate the comb effect from moving my head around :-)

What I also found interesting is the section devoted to the extra care and TLC engineers go to to make a SACD or DVD-A or DSD recording since it's more a labor of love and the end product is meant for a more discerning audience.

Could it be that labels like ECM, MA Recordings, and Mapleshade, who "just" make CDs, put that extra TLC into their product, resulting in a CD that sounds better than other CDs and almost as good as high rez?

The whole thing about eliminating time domain errors is one of the driving themes behind the EC Designs SD card reader, which they say is of more importance than sampling and playback rates, which is why they linked the articles I linked to in my earlier post. If those time domain errors can be lessened to the point that makes them negligible to human hearing, then moving one's head around won't be a factor anymore.

I'm quite keen on reading some reviews when they come out.

All the best,
Nonoise