Is computer audio a bust?

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

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.

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.

you should remove your Dac as well, it's not part of computer audio!, you are running half computer audio, I already stated that cd-players, Dacs, transports are all in the same family to me.

Interesting article Nonoise. It reads a little like a quantum physics paperback book: part science and part philosophy, and thus the "facts" are open to interpretation. The Boston audio society study appears condemning at first blush (60 people subjected to a total of 554 blinded tests over the course of a year were not able to distinguish between CD and SACD). However, if you read the primary article found here:

http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling//index.html

the author does bring up some more nuanced points towards the end, including this:

Moorer noted that humans can distinguish time delays — when they involve the difference between their two ears — of 15 microseconds or less. Do the math, and you can see that while the sampling interval at 48 kHz is longer than 15 µs, the sampling interval at 96 kHz is shorter. Therefore, he says, we prefer higher sampling rates because “probably [my emphasis] some kind of time-domain resolution between the left- and right-ear signals is more accurately preserved at 96 kHz.”

and

In an article on his Website (www.ethanwiner.com), Winer points out that in a typical room, moving one's head or listening position as little as four inches can result in huge changes in the frequency-response curves one is hearing. What could be a 10dB dip in one spot at one frequency could be a 6dB boost a couple of inches away. These wide variations are caused primarily by comb-filtering effects from the speakers and from the various reflections bouncing around the room, which are present no matter how well the room is acoustically treated. Winer blames this phenomenon for most of the unquantifiable differences people report hearing when they are testing high-end gear.

In particular, the time domain issue may explain "some" people's preferences for hi rez and DSD. I know this is a real phenomenon in the world of speakers and even amplifiers if you believe Golmund's research.