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
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!
I use it but feel kind of negative about it as though it were a bust, because it's so difficult to understand all the jargon/ information required. You want to be sure you're optimizing your setup to get the best sound quality, but there's always someone more knowledgeable coming along making you feel like you don't know enough. Or there is too much techno babble going on, or someone is posting like every person working with computer audio all know the technical language, meaning, and definitions and we don't. So for me it's sort of a bust, but it works to an extent.
Interesting question and a good sample of perspectives supplied so far.

My take is: it's still too far away from easy adoption when considering cost, technical complexity (either to set up or in terms of ease of use), and performance.

It's more like pick any 2 of the 3 above.

I'm not technically expert nor technically dumb, but it is vexing to me how many barriers there are to getting a turnkey system topology that performs well and is integrated well, that does not cost like Linn or Meridian prices.

From ripping, encoding, format conversion, format support and playback, remote control, library integration, metadata organization, storage, effectiveness of digital transport, power supply noise, cabling, platform diversion - it can all be overwhelming and bewildering!

Seems to me the critical space is the hardware side of things upstream of the DAC, effectively what Squeezebox tried to solve, and needing lower cost turnkey solutions to addressing that. I'm hopeful that the Auralic Aries streamer will usher in a new wave of more affordable devices that address these tasks without overly compromized engineering.
Computer audio is no different than CD players. There is a large range of performance depending on price and manufacturer.

Because USB and networked streaming is new to most manufacturers, the majority of them use off-the-shelf USB modules from one or two third-parties rather than designing their own. The performance is therefore limited to how good these OEM Modules are. I have evaluated some of these and IME, they are fairly poor as a rule.

The experience you have with computer audio is therefore completely a function of the manufacturer/designer that you choose. Choose the right one and you will dump the CDP.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio