2. digital
  3. 1405364620

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
nonoise's avatar
nonoise
10,552 posts
 
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
raymonda
855 posts
 
I believe my ears. I have listen to an analog signal converted on the fly from all sample rates and bit depths. The difference for me is obvious, with higher res always sounding closer to the source. Attack and decay of notes are almost always an indicator with space and timbre also playing a big part.

This article can make a statement and say it is settled science but to my ears it ain't so.
nonoise's avatar
nonoise
10,552 posts
 
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
electroslacker
375 posts
 
Agear, I'm using the Wireworld Starlight 7. Nothing exotic. It had good street buzz, and I was pleased with the results. It's connecting an HP laptop to a Benchmark.

To digress, I configured JRiver to cache the entire file into memory, up to a gigabyte at a time, which mitigates the "spinning media" issues, or at least moves them to a error-free source.
agear OP
1,362 posts
 
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.
More to discover