Is computer audio a bust?

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

Audioengr, The reason I bought the cables I have is based on pure performance, Price had NOTHING to do with it, if it did, I would not have Bought them, I do not agree with cable pricing, or alot of the cost of High-end audio, there is a 600% to 1000% mark-up on the retail prices out there any way, also, I wanted to point out that you said, your cd-player will become an antique, no disrespect steve, I like alot of your products, I am perplexed on why you said that,, Computers are obsolete before you can get them out the store after purchase, most Dacs, Transports, CD-players have a much longer shelf life than a computer, all audio will become an antique in a matter of time, and if you were meaning that cd-players, Transports, Dacs, will go the way of becoming antiques, that's funny, you sale dacs, It will be a long time before spinning disc is over, If ever, an example of what I am saying is the analog turntable, still around, cheers to you steve.

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....:/