Resampling is never bit-perfect. There are good resamplers and poor resamplers. I use a good one. It has gotten lots of glowing reviews. I actually used to sell a non-resampling reclocker, the Pace-Car, but the source had to be synchronized to it. This means that the source had to have a word-clock input or have a master clock driven from the reclocker using mods to the source device. It is a complicated matter to do reclocking of S/PDIF without resampling, not as simple as you allude to. Even though the Synchro-Mesh resamples and is not bit-perfect, it still beats the older Pace-Car, which was bit-perfect.
Reasampling is a lot like EQ. EQ has always been a dirty word for high-end audio, primarily because the graphic equalizers that were first introduced were such low quality. With the advent of Amarra software, EQ is now not only good, it can elevate your system significantly.
Likewise, the Synchro-Mesh uses new technology that makes the non-bit-perfectness a non-issue. Lots of folks are using it with their CD transports and Sonos in particular, but even with their Squeezebox.
I'll bet it would make even your Juli@t sound better.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
ah... Kevin... I have not communicated with you at all. Hi Guido, my issues with Steve go back an old conversatoion where he had advised someone here to add this synchr mesh in their system but Steve neglected to advise it was not bit perfect, which I believe he shuld have. When I had pointed it out, Steve than advised bit perfect just didnt matter. I think having manufacturers and engineers here is an increadible asset BUT if you look at how the others behave, they DON'T use these forums to promote their products. Steves threads always have an "you need my..." . The other guys NEVER say that. Steve decided to not make the unit bit perfect in order to keep the price dwn and he says it is not as important as reducing jitter. All I have said is the better unit would be bit perfect and his leaving it out is not because is is a better design. |
He's just never heard a Synchro-Mesh with a good power supply, or a recent Off-Ramp for that matter.
These don't continue winning shootouts for no reason.
Yes, I've heard the Bryston with the same PCI Juli@t board that Carrot uses. Its very good, but my USB interface still beats it and so does Synchro-Mesh.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
"Please explain in detail. G."
Guido, Cerrot has asked me to ask you to "shut up." He would have asked you himself, but he cannot spell "shut up." |
Cerrot, you obviously hold a strong opinion about the evils of bitwise imperfections versus those of jitter in this context... Please explain in detail. G. |
Steve - what you spew is absolutely REDICULOUS. |
Because it will sound better with the Synchro-Mesh, that's why.
Bit-perfect is less important than low-jitter, and the resampling in the Synchro-Mesh is the best available now. Minimal impact on SQ.
It's 30-day money-back, less shipping, so the risk is low. If your system is resolving, it will make a big difference.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
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. |
The synchro mesh is not bit perfect. why would you add that before a $4,000 dac? shoot me! |
"If you analyze people's opinions on SQ superiority of WAV versus AIFF or any other format, its a coin toss statistically. What does that tell us?"
Not if you are selective about who does the listening and on what systems. I do these comparisons at virtually every show I exhibit at. The differences are always obvious. Usually the listener that has ripped his entire library in AIFF or FLAC just leaves in disgust because he now knows that he has worked hard to produce something suboptimal.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
"Interesting. In your opinion, is jitter management or the lack thereof the stumbling block to true analog reproduction? "
Absolutely, #1 cause. Also digital filtering is a big offender, #2.
Also, what are your thoughts on grounding and jitter production?
Grounding is a multifaceted issue. There is the issue of earth ground and where this is connected to DC common. This is what star-grounding is used for. Many designers don't understand this. Then there is the issue of ground-return paths. It is generally poor ground return paths that add jitter in most designs. Then there is the issue of the power supply currents in the ground planes and how these affect the signal currents in the ground planes. These can also affect jitter. One must understand the physics of how currents flow in digital systems. This is not intuitive. Creative solutions are required to overcome these issues. This is what sets apart really creative designers from well-schooled designers.
This is a lot like talking about power supplies. Power supplies are only the start of a much more complicated system that I refer to as "power distribution" that exists in all components. Its like saying that Hoover dam creates really clean power, but ignoring all of the transmission-lines and transformers and shared loads that are in between your outlet and Hoover dam.
I applaud any actions like the Vertex/Nordost tools for making better audio measurements. The field has historically been lacking of sufficient measurements to characterize these effects. I have myself tried to do exactly what they are doing, with limited success, when I used to design cables from 1996 to 2000. Correlating analog before and after signals in perfect sync is a difficult task for sure. This demonstrates differences in dynamics, which is the foremost problem with most consumer audio gear. Most gear compresses due to deficiencies in the component power distribution system as well as slow reacting DC power supplies. Cables can also be at fault, but to a lesser degree. More difficult to measure cable effects IME.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
10-23-14: Phusis
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 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. |
10-22-14: Audioengr
Current DACs have difficulty reducing jitter to inaudible levels because this is a difficult engineering challenge, even for seasoned designers. It always has been. The jitter on S/PDIF inputs on DACs is generally reduced somewhat by the receive chip, which uses a PLL to recover the clock from the datastream, but a low jitter input to this receiver chip is still beneficial. Other DAC designs use resampling chips and circuits to establish a new master clock. These can reduce jitter even more than the receiver chip, but there are two downsides: 1) they inpart their own kind of distortion due to way that the resampling algorithm is implemented 2) the new master clock and associated circuitry/power supply adds its own jitter.
Thes best solution for reducing jitter in a DAC is to put a master clock front-end on the DAC. There are two types of these available now, the Async USB interface and the network renderer. Both of these effectively discard the clock in the source computer or device and generate a NEW master clock.
if the power, circuit design and clock selection is optimized, the jitter can be extremely low with these input circuits.
The thing to understand is that these are not easy to design and its really esy for lots of jitter to creep back into the circuit, even if you u a Femtoclock etc..
also, jitter is never reduced to zero as some manufacturers would have you believe.
Jitter when characterized by a single number, such as RMS jitter is an inadequate measurement. Jitter has a spectral component as well as a distribution of amplitude. these are actually more important than any single number to predict if one jitter is more audible than another. Interesting. In your opinion, is jitter management or the lack thereof the stumbling block to true analog reproduction? Also, what are your thoughts on grounding and jitter production? I know someone in the industry who says a lot of standard grounding schemes are woefully inadequate. Finally, do you have any thoughts on the software codeveloped by Vertex/Nordost that supposedly measured system jitter? http://www.stereophile.com/rmaf2010/nordost_and_vertex_measurements/index.html |
10-22-14: Audioengr
What does that tell us? Its obvious to me based on 15 years of listening to systems at trade shows and in salons. Most systems are not resolving enough or low noise and distortion enough to make these differences obvious. I have heard a number of reviewers systems as well. Same thing, unfortunately. Most systems simply have a preamp that creates so much masking and compression that these differences cannot possibly be heard. Good active preamps are like hens teeth. That is most likely true although I know that Barry Diament did uses the Metrum Halo ULN-8 as a dac/preamp. That's a pretty ruthless unit. |
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. |
Current DACs have difficulty reducing jitter to inaudible levels because this is a difficult engineering challenge, even for seasoned designers. It always has been. The jitter on S/PDIF inputs on DACs is generally reduced somewhat by the receive chip, which uses a PLL to recover the clock from the datastream, but a low jitter input to this receiver chip is still beneficial. Other DAC designs use resampling chips and circuits to establish a new master clock. These can reduce jitter even more than the receiver chip, but there are two downsides: 1) they inpart their own kind of distortion due to way that the resampling algorithm is implemented 2) the new master clock and associated circuitry/power supply adds its own jitter.
Thes best solution for reducing jitter in a DAC is to put a master clock front-end on the DAC. There are two types of these available now, the Async USB interface and the network renderer. Both of these effectively discard the clock in the source computer or device and generate a NEW master clock.
if the power, circuit design and clock selection is optimized, the jitter can be extremely low with these input circuits.
The thing to understand is that these are not easy to design and its really esy for lots of jitter to creep back into the circuit, even if you u a Femtoclock etc..
also, jitter is never reduced to zero as some manufacturers would have you believe.
Jitter when characterized by a single number, such as RMS jitter is an inadequate measurement. Jitter has a spectral component as well as a distribution of amplitude. these are actually more important than any single number to predict if one jitter is more audible than another.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
What does that tell us? Its obvious to me based on 15 years of listening to systems at trade shows and in salons. Most systems are not resolving enough or low noise and distortion enough to make these differences obvious. I have heard a number of reviewers systems as well. Same thing, unfortunately. Most systems simply have a preamp that creates so much masking and compression that these differences cannot possibly be heard. Good active preamps are like hens teeth.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
|
0-21-14: Ptss
Agear I did not intend to be confrontational or flip. I had considered your question as serious I assumed that but wanted to make sure... I am hopeful the best is yet to come from computer audio I feel the same. Sky is the limit, but much of it is embryonic. Again I ask "would adding an original Alpha Dac make a worthwhile improvement to an Oppo 105D?" (And what would be the ideal interface?) There's only one way to find out. I assume it would. I heard an Exemplar Audio modded Oppo and it was very good. John Tucker, like Steve at Empirical, does very good work and is an actual engineer. One question I have for Mr. Nugent is why are current dacs overwhelmed by incoming jitter. Overcoming jitter is their raison d'etre. Is this an engineering shortcoming that we even need Overdrives, etc? |
10-21-14: Audioengr
"Barry Diament (recording engineer of some renown) did blinded comparisons of master files in either AIFF or WAV, and there was no discernible difference"
So what? Steve Nugent did the same comparison and found a significant difference.
This is entirely system and track dependent. Recording studios are notorious for compression and using inferior playback systems for their mixing.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio Barry is an audiophile/engineer so that does not necessarily apply to him. His current hi rez recordings are some of the best I have heard. I myself go back and forth on this issue. I think AIFF is better than Apple lossless, and depending on my mood, I also think WAV is a little better than AIFF. If you analyze people's opinions on SQ superiority of WAV versus AIFF or any other format, its a coin toss statistically. What does that tell us? The next time you have a dinner party, do a blinded test for your guests and see what you get. I trust non-audiophile ears more.... |
I have an Oppo, but I only use it for DVD and 3-D movies, and occasionally for VUDU streamed movies. My reference system is driven by USB from a customized Mac Mini.
If you want the Oppo to sound better for audio, then improve the source jitter. Adding an Alpha and using Oppo as a transport will not help IME. You have not solved the fundamental jitter issue.
There are a couple of ways to do this:
1) use the CD transport output from the Oppo or another transport spinning CD's to drive a Synchro-Mesh reclocker, located between the transport output and the Oppo coax digital input. If you can loop the transport output from the Oppo back into the coax input with a cable and that works, then this will work too. Its kind of like a tape-loop for digital that allows you to reduce jitter.
2) use an Off-Ramp 5 USB converter driven by a computer using USB to drive the S/PDIF coax input on the Oppo. It goes from USB to S/PDIF coax. This will allow you to play up to 24/192 tracks, unlike the system above. This requires a bit more work, but the SQ will be even better than the Synchro-Mesh. The work involves careful choice of computer, power supply for the computer, ripping software and playback software. More expensive, but worth it IMO.
Here are some tips on rippers and playback software, as well as the computer:
http://www.empiricalaudio.com/computer-audio/
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
Agear I did not intend to be confrontational or flip. I had considered your question as serious--and then thought of pimply faced teens who make faces or frown for family pictures; who go through that faze (phase) (are they out of phase at that time?) and move on to eventual maturity. I am hopeful the best is yet to come from computer audio-as I have yet to even bother with compressed audio in any form. So yes; I too bark at today's average computer quality but take encouragement from the AUDIOENGINEER contributing on the positive side from a seriously knowledgeable vantage point. Again I ask "would adding an original Alpha Dac make a worthwhile improvement to an Oppo 105D?" (And what would be the ideal interface?) |
"Barry Diament (recording engineer of some renown) did blinded comparisons of master files in either AIFF or WAV, and there was no discernible difference"
So what? Steve Nugent did the same comparison and found a significant difference.
This is entirely system and track dependent. Recording studios are notorious for compression and using inferior playback systems for their mixing.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
I use Squeezebox Touch for example and started out with .wav for several years and recently converted to FLAC. I do not hear much difference there. I'm pretty sure SB system converts .way source files to lossless compressed .flac anyhow for greater bandwidth under the covers, so it does quite well with those. I am also hearing good results so far with FLAC and newer Plex system I have started to implement alongside aging Squeezebox.
Computer audio works with .wav but flac and other formats designed for dynamic tagging make things more fun and cut storage and network bandwidth requirements roughly in half, adding a lot of flexibility there as well. I do not anticipate ever going back to .wav, rather sticking with gear that works well with FLAC, like PLEX. |
How can 'computer audio' be a bust? The audio world has barely scratched the surface of what is possible with digital recording, much less storage and reproduction from computers. Its a rhetorical question for the sake of discussion. Its a bust to some people based on perceived SQ deficits.... |
10-20-14: Audioengr
Also avoid ALAC, AIFF and FLAC files. Only the Antipodes server plays these as well as .wav. On all other servers and computers I have heard, the SQ is inferior to wav.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio I have tried to convince myself of that. Barry Diament (recording engineer of some renown) did blinded comparisons of master files in either AIFF or WAV, and there was no discernible difference. |
Also avoid ALAC, AIFF and FLAC files. Only the Antipodes server plays these as well as .wav. On all other servers and computers I have heard, the SQ is inferior to wav.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
Does anyone remember the sound of the reel to reels? Remember the density? Mmm. and Any analogue source (if done right) gives you warmth and emotion your brain needs to "make up" when listening to digital. Cheers, mate. Density and fluidity with detail. That is indeed missing from most digital front ends. If master tape is not a sonic frame of reference, you don't miss it. Perfect sound forever....:/ |
How can 'computer audio' be a bust? The audio world has barely scratched the surface of what is possible with digital recording, much less storage and reproduction from computers. Upsampling dacs are in their infancy. Is it not true that the ALPHA DAC surpassed everything up to its creation (dramatically according to experienced serious reviewers) and in basically no time has been superceded- at least twice?? Why won't the same happen with computer audio? I think we're not at a 'bust' but instead a "breakout" period... (And I hope so.) Listening to dedicated classical stations, on line without advertisements, has me seriously considering an OPPO 105D that can upsample all. (I do have another post asking if the original ALPHA DAC would improve the sound from an OPPO 105D and am disappointed with the lack of response) |
Db, I didn't mean to infer reel to reels were perfect; just that, in a high end system, a well recorded tape-on a properly functioning machine- "blew away" the sound from a perfectly cleaned and treated new record- on a very high end record player/cartridge combination-for the fullness/density of sound. The tapes seemed, to my ears, to simply have more information than the record provided. With the cost and exclusivity/rarity of pre-recorded tapes I remember feeling disappointed I couldn't have all my records sound as good as tapes. |
cerrot, man, I envy you for the reel to reel player you have,you got a damn good deal from the record store,I did not know that new reel to reel tapes are the prices you specified,wow!, I also agree on your take on good analog done right, amen brother, warmth and emotion!, I finally found some one that has something I really like to have, cheers. |
A-L - most differential signaling uses a ground, just to insure that the source and destination ground potentials are close, including firewire. The problem with most of these is that the common-mode noise rejection provided by the receiver chips is not stellar. Therefore, it is still an issue. Its not that USB is inferior, just that most receiver chips are not great designs. Some are worse than others. Case in point is the XMOS chipset, which uses a really poor receiver chip IMO. Very sensitive to cables.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio
Steve N. |
Audiolabyrinth, I picked up an Akai GX 625 (probbaly form the 1980's). It is 7 1/2 IPS (not 15) but still have incredible sound. I have been eyeing the new 15 IPS machines, just investing $8,000 - $16,000 for limited library (and $150 - $300 a tape) puts that behind my hopeful turntable upgrade, which I am hoping to do next year. I have purchased some tapes on Ebay but I walked into a used record store last month and walked out with 16 AWESOME tapes in great condition! ($5 each!). I love my vinyl and ...FM. Any analogue source (if done right) gives you warmth and emotion your brain needs to "make up" when listening to digital. Cheers, mate. |
Computer Audio is getting better every day the secret is a great DAC and player software.
That and avoid MP3 files like the plague. |
cerrot, about the reel to reel, Awsome, is it old?,what do you have?, they are now making new very high tech one's for some reason, I suppose like record players, people love good analog sound, cheers. |
steve, I was not aware that usb cables have a common ground like balanced analog cables?, never heard of that, if they do not, usb cables are inferrior, having an interface to help or force the usb cable to work better, still does not change the fact a usb cable is inferrior, I am not talking about interfacees, just the usb cable period, thankyou steve.
Audiolabyrinth (Threads | Answers | This Thread) WHY is it inferior, period?? |
psst... yep. I actually have a reel to reel! |
Hi Audioengr, I agree with some of what you said totally!, great explanation, Steve wrote,- Its not the cable that is usually the limiter here. Its the USB interface design and associated clocking circuitry. Most USB DACs have inferior USB interface designs, but a few are world-class. Its a lot like vinyl cartridges.,In addition to the USB cable, the common-mode noise must be addressed on the USB cable. This is the noise on the ground wire, not the signal wires.The question of whether computer audio can be great or not is silly. The answer is that there are no technical roadblocks that cannot be overcome, just like other technologies, Just requires a clever, experienced designer.,end quote,,,steve, I was not aware that usb cables have a common ground like balanced analog cables?, never heard of that, if they do not, usb cables are inferrior, having an interface to help or force the usb cable to work better, still does not change the fact a usb cable is inferrior, I am not talking about interfacees, just the usb cable period, thankyou steve. |
a properly set up computer audio system can sound absolutely superb and transend most analogue and cd/sacd based systems..it's all about synergy and component selection. |
Audiolab.. wrote:"most world class dacs sound best with transports that you do not use an inferior cable like usb"
Its not the cable that is usually the limiter here. Its the USB interface design and associated clocking circuitry. Most USB DACs have inferior USB interface designs, but a few are world-class. Its a lot like vinyl cartridges. Some are great and most are just mediocre. The Empirical Audio USB interface has won many shootouts and best of shows, including this latest shootout:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ddgtl&1398132150&&&/Absolute-top-tier-DAC-for-standard-res-R
Good cables for USB include the Revelation Audio Labs and the TotalDAC. Not cheap, but great performance. Buying a good USB cable alone, is not sufficient however. In addition to the USB cable, the common-mode noise must be addressed on the USB cable. This is the noise on the ground wire, not the signal wires. This can be addressed with a USB cable filter like the Empirical Audio Short-Block, or for USB interfaces that use the power in the cable, a filter/supply like the Power Block from Empirical Audio.
BTW, an excellent cable for S/PDIF coax is the Empirical Audio BNC-BNC with RCA adapters. Beats all comers at only $250.
Several of my DAC customers have actually sold their vinyl setups when they got my Overdrive SE DAC. Its only a matter of choosing the right equipment.
The question of whether computer audio can be great or not is silly. The answer is that there are no technical roadblocks that cannot be overcome, just like other technologies. Just requires a clever, experienced designer.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
10-15-14: Knownothing
The fact that the original topic merits 6 pages of discussions verifies that this is an important issue in modern HiFi, and still very unsettled. The fact that it has morphed into a discussion about critically important implementation of somewhat arcane data standards, transfer and management techniques indicates that getting data off a computer HD has attained a level of complication for our community on a par with tracking force and tonearm-cartridge compliance. Welcome to the new Black Hole Source. precisely.... |
Ptss, Hi, believe it or not, I believe they still make some reel to reel units, brand new very high-end ones!, I always wanted one and have liked the analog sound that I heard many years ago, I bet the new ones are spectacular and could compete well against any music media today, I recently watched a youtube video of a reel to reel set-up of one of the recent CES shows, I was astonishied of the sound, all the equipment that was used with the reel to reel was top equipment, cheers |
"Does anyone remember the sound of the reel to reels? Remember the density?"
As in 15 ips with 1/2" tape on an Ampex 350, with need for periodic careful head alignment, controlled tape storage, and print through? I do. |
Naturally the 'manufacturers', or those who upgrade them, must go to what's new. Just like they mainly jumped to CD (perfect sound forever) in the early 80's --although any of us with an ear, or decent system, heard the s*****t sound CD replay gave then. That's when I bought my Goldmund; knowing it was already an antique--but my ears have thanked me ever since. Somehow I just cant put low res ahead of CD; after working all these years to get my CD sound to "acceptable". Does anyone remember the sound of the reel to reels? Remember the density? Mmm. |
Mitch2, I was only asking, I thought you were there to tell us what was most used,I still believe spinners will be around for along time to come, most world class dacs sound best with transports that you do not use an inferrior cable like usb,I may very well set up a comuter audio, or streamer set up in the second system I will build, however, I will not pay all the money for numerous cables to do it like I have with my main system that has one I/C, one pair of speaker cables, can you imagine how much that would cost? at the end of the day, with computer audio, it may be fun, may sound very good, will never surpass the sound quality of such world class cables that I have on main system, if it could, Man!, I would sell all of it off and buy some cheap $2,000.00 a meter usb cable, and buy lots of them and gladly jump onto the computer audio band wagan for main system, and be able to buy brand new automobile with money left over! |
I suspect its much harder (and likely more expensive as well) to get optimal performance out of a turntable system than it is out of computer audio these days for most. ALso one will likely listen differently and in a less constrained manner with computer audio not bound by content or song order of individual releases, location, etc. You get a lot more versatility with computer audio and sound quality these days when done right (does not cost much) is top notch.
The two advantages of records I see are that good sounding used ones can be had for next to nothing and the large physical format and packaging of 33 1/3 lps as a product you can hold in your hands and enjoy may never be matched again. Also some (like me) might just think that turntables are cool and maybe even fun. |
I believe it would be crazy to have a computer set-up with all that is involved to have one on a system I am curious why you think that? A computer source is quite portable and probably easier to set up than a turntable. I was not at RMAF'14 but the pictures I have seen seem to show more than a few computer or digital server sources with DACs, and a good number of turntables too. IMO, vinyl will be around for awhile because people still enjoy the presentation, and computer audio is definitely NOT a bust, but rather a better method of achieving the same goal as a compact disc...playing music from digital media. |
Hi Mitch2, what was the most used sources at RMAF 2014?, and second most used?, I do not know, since this was a show, I believe it would be crazy to have a computer set-up with all that is involved to have one on a system, you think? |
... disc spinners will be here for a very, very, long time..
One major advantage of computer audio is that it takes the spin out. Ripped discs can play directly from memory...and you can have endless bit-perfect copies as backup...and you can delete tracks that are cringe-worthy, or reorder tracks. |
AUdiolab,
Might the dealers viewpoint be skewed by the fact that these traditional "audio" only devices is their bread and butter whereas one can build a very good computer audio system with a little know-how without ever having to visit those traditional shops?
Most larger local B&M shops in my area that are still around have major inventory and floorspace dedicated to computer audio related gizmos. As always, they sell the gear that is of better quality and easier to integrate perhaps than what one might put together themselves otherwise.
Myself, I make a living from understanding and applying computer technology, so I have not bought anything for that from an audio store to-date becasue frankly I will pay a premium there for nothing better than what I might assemble myself otherwise, but, as has always been the case, there is value in going to someone with that special expertise needed to deliver good sound still for many, though there are many other options out there these days than ever before. Overall, its a win win for everyone. |
