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). Agear -- My findings are the complete opposite, and can summarized in the following (by another author): Ever since I mastered my first CD back in 1983 and compared what came back from the replication plants with the masters used to make those CDs, IÂve found that CDs from different plants (sometimes different lines within the same plant) all sound different from each other and none sounds indistinguishable from the master used to create it. This is true regardless of the CD player or transport used, regardless of price or design. To my ears, comparing playback from disc with playback of the master used to create said disc, there are always losses of focus and fine detail, sometimes subtle, other times not so subtle at all. https://soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/listening-to-tomorrow/ |
Charles1dad -- ... I certainly get your point and I don't believe computers are bad or wrong. I just find in its current state of development they aren't worth the trouble or hassle for me. Grannyring's post above summarized it so well. We do agree, to each their own. "in its current state of development" - intesting, and quite contrary to my own experience. To my ears the "state of developement" in regards to PC-audio was mature many years ago in trumping the sound of CD players easily (more on that below). What kind of "trouble or hassle" are you referring to - technical issues? Some six years ago I borrowed a bunch of CD players in the $2-3k range for evaluation being that I was about to invest in a new digital front end. None of them really floated my boat, so to speak, so in my further search and more or less by accident I came across a dealer who was into selling studio-based equipment, and he recommended that I tried out harddrive-based playback. Just to get a bearing on the potential of PC-based playback he then sent me a ~$250 Carat D/A-converter, which I hooked up to my bare bones Acer laptop. Playing files from Windows Media Player (simply plug 'n play - no soft- or hardware optimization, whatsoever) what followed was hard to fathom; as witnessed by a couple of friends I invited over for the shoot-out - all of them very much into high quality audio playback - there was unequivocal consensus that the Carat/Acer combo sonically flew right right past all the CD players I had borrowed (C.E.C, Jungson, Rega among them) - and that, mind you, at under 1/10 of the cost compared to the most expensive of the polycarbonate disc spinners, and through the most basic of setups. Trying other DAC's via my then Acer laptop only cemented initial impressions. As an added bonus I felt (the outlook of) having the whole of my music library at my fingertips extremely freeing, indeed a relief, so this sealed the deal for me - as it has ever since. Any glitches that may be primarily software-related here can occur, albeit rarely, but it depends on the specific implementation. To me it's a non-issue. That is to say: I definately concur with poster Raymonda here as his impresssions and views reflect my own as well. But indeed, to each his own. |
Joecasey -- It's a personal decision to live life half full or half empty. If half empty, you are missing out on lots of good stuff. There will always be failures with the simplest task. What exactly are you implying here, and how does that relate to the above? I simply stated that I agree with Raymonda on this subject (a particular area in which he and I seem to be in the minority) - namely, that computer audio is rather a blessing than a bust - and inquired on the nature of what Charles1dad found to be a "hassle." It seems to me you're bitter; it must be sad living life "half empty" - mine is certainly joyous as in "half full to the brim." |
It seems this discussion veers into the overly academic. To my mind computer audio is certainly not a bust, on the contrary it's here to stay and to my ears trumps CD-playback (where same CD is ripped to harrdrive) in a pretty obvious fashion. Not to speak of the advantages of high-res downloads in various forms. Unless CD-playback has advanced radically these last years, while computer audio had strangely not(i.e.: its implemtations via software and hardware optimizations), even the most basic of PC-setups (laptop - USB - DAC) with very cheap DAC's (~$200) will better CD-players up to and even beyond $2.000 - at least that's my experience. Moreover: going to lengths trying to bash either USB or S/PDIF as interfaces seems an utter waste of time and completely robbed of any sense of pragmatism. I mean, come on - both interfaces can sound great. Any exclusive investment in one or the other seems to be a limiting and, sorry for putting this bluntly, stupid decision. |
On the contrary, I know quite a few philes who would argue with you after having done both. I have heard computer fronted systems sound like crap even with whizbang dacs and big money ancillary pieces. There could be many reasons why setups with "whizbang dacs and big money ancillary pieces" would sound less than desirable, and that'd hardly fall back on it being computer fronted. I bailed on CD-players (and realized the importance of transports) precisely because ripped CD's or downloaded files played back from harddrives bettered any CD-player solution we tried, at almost a fraction of the cost (easily by factor ~10, as per above). With a variety DAC's USB-connected to a laptop what shone through in each instanse was a markedly added sense of resolution, natural warmth, organic flow and clarity. CD-transports may have advanced (though I doubt they have in any significant way), but the optimization of PC-audio has evolved even more so. Spinning a CD leaves you with a single sonic option, 16/44.1, via a physical disc that needs handling for each album; playing back from harddrive/PC/Mac potentially gives you all formats to choose from, and the whole of your music library at your fingertip. In all and in more than one sense that's hardly a "bust," and a whole community of computer audiophiles would likely agree. I'd wager PC-audio can sometimes be a daunting undertaking to set up (though it certainly doesn't have to), but that's relative to ones need for tweaking. |
"State-of-the-art CD transports vs USB/SPDIF converter shootout:" http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/state-art-cd-transports-vs-universal-serial-bus-industry-standard-cables-connectors-and-communications-protocols-between-computers-and-electronic-devices-spdif-converter-shootout-15193/ The results of above comprehensive comparison perfectly reflect my own impressions as well, albeit via different equipment and interface (but that'd only underline the generality of the matter at hand). Notice the difference in price between the CD-transports and USB to S/PDIF converter + server used.. |
Agear -- Yet another BADA advert....:) That's a matter to be taken up with the OP's author alone - it's certainly not my agenda. And even if it is a "BADA advert" it's of no consequence to what the comparison is trying to tell in general terms (more on that later). Indeed I did (and still do) consider pointing out to the OP (to linked article) that the prevalent, and more or less sole focus on the USB to S/PDIF converter as a "transport" is partially misleading, since the harddrive/server appears to be the more "logical" and relevant mention as such. An equally integral part, at least :) Needs to blind a bunch of philes at an audio society meeting and do the same test. It would not be as black and white as one reviewer making pronouncements from the mountaintop.... Actually this is one area I'd feel no qualms about labeling as black and white. To be perhaps somewhat provocative about it: the prevalence (i.e.: enertia?) to ackowledge a (more or less) visibly spinning object as what's qualitatively desirable bleeds, in this case, into struggling to find the few cases where astronomically priced CD-transports would turn out victorious, yet still end up falling short compared to their computer-based alternatives - with the latter costing significantly less, that is. This, from what I can tell, is not about the frequency of CD-transport devotees tipping the boat, so to speak, and wanting to find the "evidence" for it, but instead bears the scent of a stubborn hunt for the instance where a group of individuals unanimously deems a CD-transport the winner over a computer ditto. No doubt a group, or groups of people have done so already, but... to be provocative about it :) |
