Is computer audio a bust?

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.

Sorry, but DSD128 trounces any RBCD equivalent out there. And now the trend is to upsample even RBCD to DSD256 and higher and playback on a capable Dac. Q Player is the upsampler/converter of choice at the moment.

Yes, Transport is important, but Dac filters choice is just as important (Check out the timing tech of the Chord Hugo, for example). Dac circuit design and implementation is also key.

CDP is just too limited and if one wants to go there, the AMR CD77 with the vintage TDA chip would be be an obvious choice.

The improved SQ has to do with reduced jitter which is easier to accomplish without the moving parts of a mechanical transport being involved.

In my experience very few transports match the best computer audio such as the Off-Ramp. In fact I know only of one and it is really wild, but even then its not universally thought by everyone that heard the difference the transport was better.

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.

Thanks
Bill