Is computer audio a bust?

I was going to ignore the last post to me, I cannot bring myself to do it, saying there is an error in my logic was very incredibly wrong, so I will attemt to get you to understand again, I have a $25.00 RCA interconnect made by-for vincent audio that came with the digital player, Then I have and use a $15,950.00 retail balanced 1-meter interconnect, I gurantee you there is a HUGE difference in performance between the two cables on my digital player, I also have a $3,000.00 balanced interconect 1-meter, The most exspensive cable is a Tara labs Zero Gold with HFX grounding station, The next exspensive cable is a Tara labs The One cable, To my ears the zero cable makes the model called the One sound broken, now I got that out of the way, The most exspensive USB cables made are very inexspensive and the performance is about the same as the vincent RCA interconnect, there is some USB cables that are $300.00 under $1,000.00 period, ask your self why is that?, lets see here, USB is NOT for audio, it is for data, and the usb termination is way to small for a world class cable to be terminated with, Tara Labs sales a usb cable, it's not much money at all, so At the end of the day, It does not matter if you have a live band cabled to your system through a USB cable, this is not logic, It is a astonishing FACT, by useing the usb cable even with a live band, the out come is so inferrior because the cable cannot reproduce performance as close to the real thing as possible, I understand that some computer audio is better than my cd-player for a source, My fact here is that with the cables I have on my player versus comuter audio's best with a usb cable used for audio, there is absolutly no way possible for the sound out come to be better than what I have, if that were possible, the cable companys would go out of bussiness, that would be saying my cables are worthless, get a $25.00 usb cable, that works better, LOL!, I also understand computer audio can sound very good, and may give user perks such as a menu to walk around with, that's great, I get it, But as I said before, I am tring to get the best sound possible, to be in the realm of world class audio, I cannot achieve that with such inadequete very poor cables such as usb, if you cannot understand this, then I am lost for words and give up, best of luck to you.

We understand what you are saying, Audiolabyrinth, it's is just than some of us don't accept your arguments about cables and find them irrelevant to this topic.

And best of luck to you, too.

7-16-14: Mapman:
"do wonder if anyone considering computer audio "a bust" have ever done such an apples and apples comparison into same DAC of course feeding the same system?

That's a valid apples/apples test. Otherwise, it is not apples/apples and highly DAC dependent and all bets should be off."

I have been able to do such a comparison when originally considering investing in a computer audio system utilizing the Esoteric K-03. Three different scenarios where reviewed:

- Spinning Discs in Esoteric K-03
- Playing via Esoteric K-03 Async USB input from headless (modified) Mac Mini
- Playing same titles via USB > Bel Canto RefLink USB Converter > SPDIF out to K-03 SPDIF input.
(Utilizing Amarra 3.0 for music playback)

I can only confirm, to my ears, option 3 here has finally provided me SQ equivalent to playing RDCD's via the K-03 transport....not without many modifications along the way.

Alex, this mirrors what my audio acquaintances (one of whom was using a top of the line Offramp) have discovered. What are the reasons for this?

Agear, In my experience, the biggest enemy of computer audio is the multiple switching power supplies used inside.

In my opinion, any audio equipment using switching power lacks the naturalness, refinement and richness of pure analog in comparison. The two most pronounced artifacts of gear using swathing power is the reduced low octave bass and also strained/metallic/glared upper mids and highs (high piano notes hurt my ears).

As mentioned on these threads earlier, we designed and build a computer that runs on all-linear power (with external linear power supply) that sounds very close to my digital transport. Yesterday I installed a linear power on my USB to PCIe card that made another change in the right direction. Next will be to run the memory on linear power as well, leaving just the processor core on switching.

Such computer is indeed very very good sounding with a hair-splitting difference compared to my DTR. However, we are talking about something quite expensive, so why not just spin your favorite discs. :-)

Best wishes,
Alex Peychev
APL Hi-Fi

I bemoan the unintended consequences of digital technology--from the idling of workers, to looking at a screen instead of being in the physical world. There is also something elegant and beautiful about analog solutions, be they fascinating tonearms, exotic cables, are engineering monuments for spinning a CD.

That said, a quality USB cable can do a phenomenal job of delivering a digital stream from a computer to a DAC, where the final quality and subjective preference is determined by the chosen DAC.

Audiolabyrinth - S/PDIF and USB cables run the gamut and the price is no indication of the sound quality you will achieve IME. I make a S/PDIF cable that is closely matched to 75 ohms, uses silver and expanded Teflon and only costs $250. No customer of mine has found a better cable, and they have tried. Based on my experiments, I believe that it is the termination of the coax to the plug connector that is most critical, not so much the plug-jack interface. The termination of my 75 ohm cable to the 75 ohm BNC is virtually flawless.

The USB cable is another thing however. There are a lot of companies making exotic versions and most don't match the 90 ohm spec. With new XMOS-based USB interfaces on a number of DACs (I'm doing one as well), I have found that the cable makes an even bigger difference. The signal integrity and power delivery are both important for XMOS interfaces.

Gordon Rankin claims that the error rate is high on many USB cables, and this shows up in SQ degradation. I believe that the SQ is mostly impacted by the power in the cable based on my experimentation, at least for XMOS based interfaces. I have a software tool now that logs errors over USB that I can use to compare cables. I have several USB cables and I'll be testing these over the next month or so to see which ones cause a lot of errors.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

That's good stuff from AE.

For every grey haired old audiophile there are 100 kids listening to music on computers. And which one do we think is headed for extinction?

Audiolabyrinth "The most exspensive USB cables made are very inexspensive and the performance is about the same as the vincent RCA interconnect, there is some USB cables that are $300.00 under $1,000.00 period, ask your self why is that?, lets see here, USB is NOT for audio, it is for data...."

Well you answered your own question. One cable carries analog and the other data (or 1's and 0's anyway). An analog cable is way more specialized due to the fact that it is carrying the analog waveform. The USB cable just dumps the data and the equipment interface does the rest. It doesn't have to be "designed for audio". You are comparing apples to, well,not even another fruit.

.....not to say the USB cable doesn't have to be designed well, but it just has to get the data from A to B with no errors. But it's a no-brainer why it can cost so much less.

I know LessLoss is late getting their product out for us to see and hear what the promise is but there is another reader/streamer out there and I'd like to know if anyone has heard it yet or can enlighten us on what they claim. The company is EC Designs and here's their link:

http://www.ecdesigns.nl/?p=87&lang=en

Their pricing is relatively affordable ($2300) and they have software for album art, playlist and remote operation with an iPhone or other similar device.

Thanks in advance, and as always, all the best,
Nonoise

I'll be steering clear of proprietary hardware and software as much as possible moving forward, especially any computer hardware from one off companies.

This stuff is still changing to rapidly. I think Android makes a versatile platform for companies to build high quality digital A/V applications on.

A standardized digital output that can feed a high quality DAC of ones choice is all that is really needed.

Very interesting Nonoise. It is limited to Redbook, but that's 99% of most music libraries. I have other industry friends who argue the problem is not source material but hardware. Redbook done right is more than good enough. DSD and hi rez are not a necessary parachute in their minds. Just better transports. That is honestly the logic behind this thread.

07-19-14: Mapman
I'll be steering clear of proprietary hardware and software as much as possible moving forward, especially any computer hardware from one off companies.

This stuff is still changing to rapidly. I think Android makes a versatile platform for companies to build high quality digital A/V applications on.

A standardized digital output that can feed a high quality DAC of ones choice is all that is really needed.

I agree with most of that except the last sentence. I would like that to be true in theory, but modding your Bestbuy grade streamer can make dramatic improvements. Depends on your goals and level of audio OCDness....

07-18-14: Mapman
PLEX media server and player appliations is a very good place for anyone to start with that is looking for good sounding computer audio without a major investment in a lot of proprietary hardware, like SOnos, BlueSound, or Squeezebox in the past.

I agree. That was the platform I started with in 2006. The paradox is (for me) computer audio is best with no computer. You need a disembodied, streaming entity (that is ideally designed with audio in mind).

As stated earlier in the thread, spinning plastic is plain silly after you experience the joy of music navigation provided by "computer audio." You are baptized into a much larger world of music (at least I have). That being said, WHY ARE SOME PEOPLE STILL RETURNING TO CDPs? We have had several responders who have posted as much (and have been ignored).

WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT VARIABLES FOR SQ IN COMPUTER AUDIO?

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.

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

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.

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....:/

"That being said, can you state in specific terms what measurable variables are responsible for the improved SQ you perceive?"

Differences in digital sources are primarily due to jitter in the digital source, however reduction in common-mode noise and RFI can impact the DAC or interface indirectly by adding jitter. To fix the latter, one needs either common-mode filters like the Short-Block or galvanically isolated interfaces like many XMOS USB interfaces.

Galvanic isolation is not a panacea however. To do this, you need separate power for the input section of the USB interface, either power from the cable or another isolated AC supply. If this power is not really perfect (di/dt, regulation and noise), then it may actually sound worse than the non-galvanically isolated interface. I have experienced this myself. Therefore, with my new Off-Ramp 6, which is based on XMOS, I will be offering a "Long-Block" combination linear Hynes technology power supply and filter. The long-block can improve the performance of virtually ANY XMOS interface with galvanic isolation.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

"there is a 600% to 1000% mark-up on the retail prices out there anyway"

That may be true from a few big companies, but most of these high-performance cables require huge investments to get the first batch made or they are completely hand-made and very labor intensive. Exotic materials like silver and expanded Teflon are generally not available in off-the-shelf cabling from any manufacturer. Certainly not in a USB cable. I know because I have looked. The designer must actually custom order 10,000 feet just to get these made. Fabricators will not even touch a 1000 foot order.

Computers are not obsolete either by any means. I actually use a win2000 workstation now for 15 years with the same hard-disk drive. The likes of Intel and the PC makers would have you believe that you MUST HAVE the latest technology and operating systems. They actually have marketing/development groups dedicated to developing apps and uses that require more powerful CPU's, more memory etc.. in order to get you to upgrade your PC.

The fact that most peoples PCs are fine for what they use them for and therefore they are not upgrading is a testament to the fact that they are not obsolete. This is precisely why PC sales are down.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

AGear, yes, correct...I only have 15 DSD128 albums BUT they sound so good, i want to hear them from time to time and CDP is useless for that.

Also, it went without saying that the implementation of BOTH would be top notch, otherwise it would not be a fair fight.

As for upsampling, again, I would recommend and did specify a top notch application like HQ Player with adjustable parameters.

Sorry, but its not pleasant to descend for the HiRez bubble to RBCD land and no my collection is at most 80% RBCD. LoL

Native DSD128 rules! Hehehehe

@ Audioengr, Hi Steve, your last post about computers was really what you do, most people buy, as you said, the newest greatest whatever computer, then, like I said, when they go to walk out the store, another computer is better before the door hits them in the ass, however, my desk-top computer works great for me, kinda old, your intel chip you developed is one tuff proccessor, it's the Intel core 2,,, you did have a hand in the development of this proccessor??, of course I am running windows 7 on it instead of the vista that was on it originally.

07-19-14: Bhobba
The improved SQ has to do with reduced jitter which is easier to accomplish without the moving parts of a mechanical transport being involved.

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.

Agreed....

07-19-14: Electroslacker
That said, a quality USB cable can do a phenomenal job of delivering a digital stream from a computer to a DAC, where the final quality and subjective preference is determined by the chosen DAC.

slacker, what cable do u use? I am in the process of researching one....

Audiolabyrinth - I was a design team lead on the Pentium 2 many years ago. It was a "slot 1" processor.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

Joecasey, There is some world class transports out there that computer audio cannot touch period, if computer audio could, then this is the biggest fleasing in american history of audio!, look at DCS for an example, LOL!, to get this straight here, I am saying transports, Dacs, cd-players are all in the same catorgory, that is NOT computer audio, though I agree, cd-players,dacs, transports are computers, no doubt, however, they are dedicated to audio!

I would say that Computer Audio is definitely not a bust, with friends that I know from various age groups, people under 30 only use CA and probably don't have a CDP and never intend to buy one, it's not until you hit higher age groups where you find people reluctant to make the switch, or even try it. I have been playing with CA since about 1998 and completely removed my CDP from my system sometime around 2006. I would not even think of putting a CDP back in the system at this point. All music is in FLAC on a NAS drive over wired Ethernet to a small mini pc that plays the music over async USB to a galvanically isolated DAC that goes to my preamp. It sounds very good, 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.

Ripping and tagging, once you get the hang of it is remarkably easy to do. Organizing classical music is fine, you just need to settle on a way to organize it and stick to it.

The whole not doing Computer Audio is really just a generational thing, like it or not it is the future.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

LOL!, If you want to suffer real computer audio, hook your computer straight to you amp, your computer has a volume control, useing a dac is essentially a cd-player cut in half, thus a dac is part of the family of cd-players!, true computer audio without a dac is a BUST!

Just because comb filter effects exist , that there are such things, doesn't necessarily mean that all results of listening tests for CDs and SACDs can be written off to comb filter effects any more than results can be written off to psychological biases like expectation bias or the placebo effect. To eliminate the differences in sound pressure level from overwhelming the results simply keep them in mind when doing the test. It's not brain surgery.

07-22-14: Audiolabyrinth
Joecasey, There is some world class transports out there that computer audio cannot touch period,

Why? How did you derive to this conclusion? Price? LOLs?

if computer audio could, then this is the biggest fleasing in american history of audio!, look at DCS for an example, LOL!,

Degree of "fleasing" is tied to one's level of obsession to this crazy hobby.

IMO, you got FLEASED spending $15,950.00 retail for the balanced 1-meter interconnect.

Performance has nothing to do with price of a component. Price is dictated by markets. This is a cottage industry so demand is low and price will be high in order for companies to stay in business. IMO, DCS and Esoteric understand demographics of their customers so why release computer base products and jeapolized their tradition line.

to get this straight here, I am saying transports, Dacs, cd-players are all in the same catorgory, that is NOT computer audio, though I agree, cd-players,dacs, transports are computers, no doubt, however, they are dedicated to audio!

That's the definition of embedded system but still a computer. Like I said earlier, the debate boils down to storage medium. CD, hdd, sdd, usb drive ...

From Lamp Web Site:

Once again - how can a "stupid" computer modem sound better than reputable real CD transport ? Computers are supposed to be BAD.
I will try to explain how I see it:

Just imagine: It thakes 70 minutes for the Philips CDM2-Pro mechanism to read all data from CD disk. The same amount of data is read by DVD drive in 2 minutes. Blue Ray reads it in half minute. Hard drive reads it in 4 seconds. RAM buffer reads it in less than a second. MY LampizatOr Transport plays from own FIFO RAM Buffer.

The Data from CD must be read by a laser, which constantly needs to adjust focus, servo adjusts linear speed of motor, and track tracking. The data is demodulated from laser waves, and missing bits or errors are interpolated and corrected. Vibrations make reading difficult.

The HDD Lampizator Transport player needs nothing of that. Perfect, 100% accurate data is fed to RAM buffer and just (FIFO) - sent out to DAC according to external precision clock.
This scenario is 100 x more simple, errofr free and accurate. I am surprized that CD players play anything at all ;-)

These are benchmarks, not subjective #, not system dependent ... If starting from scratch, which storage medium would you choose?

The whole not doing Computer Audio is really just a generational thing, like it or not it is the future.

Agree! My attorney, an intelligent elderly gentleman, doesn't understand or trust computers so still uses hard currency. I grew up with technology and can't wait for the next great thing to improve quality of life.

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.

Bingo! Cache is agnostic with storage medium as long as read in before play.

They actually have marketing/development groups dedicated to developing apps and uses that require more powerful CPU's, more memory etc.. in order to get you to upgrade your PC.

IMO, one major reason for increase foot print is due to managed code such as Java and .NET. It's a pig and slow. C or C++ is still use if fast and lightweight are priorities but need competent engineers to develop them.

I suggest when shopping for a new computer, get the maximum of RAM. I bought a laptop for one of my consultant gig years ago and has 2GB of RAM. CPU is fine but not enough to RAM to run some applications that requires 4+ GB.

Nice link Agear. There seems to be a lot going on that we simply don't take into account. I, for one, am not keen on putting my head in a vise in order to eliminate the comb effect from moving my head around :-)

What I also found interesting is the section devoted to the extra care and TLC engineers go to to make a SACD or DVD-A or DSD recording since it's more a labor of love and the end product is meant for a more discerning audience.

Could it be that labels like ECM, MA Recordings, and Mapleshade, who "just" make CDs, put that extra TLC into their product, resulting in a CD that sounds better than other CDs and almost as good as high rez?

The whole thing about eliminating time domain errors is one of the driving themes behind the EC Designs SD card reader, which they say is of more importance than sampling and playback rates, which is why they linked the articles I linked to in my earlier post. If those time domain errors can be lessened to the point that makes them negligible to human hearing, then moving one's head around won't be a factor anymore.

I'm quite keen on reading some reviews when they come out.

All the best,
Nonoise

very funny, The exspensive interconnect is one of the most profound pieces of audio I have EVER heard in my life!, then, I never said I paid the retail price, I never pay retail for anything in audio.

07-22-14: Agear 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.

I felt the exact same way, till I was able to make the recording myself.

I have a LOT of customers comparing USB cables. Some have had literally 10 of them. The best one currently reported is the TotalDAC USB cable/filter.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

Audiolabyrinth, you're becoming overwrought and approaching troll like comments. You're just another person with a profound tweak. It speaks for itself.

onhwy61, you are correct on my cable profound tweek, I am sorry,I am tired at this point at tring to get my point across, I have discussed this same issue on other threads, they understand and agree with my findings, tring to express the truth here is like talking to the deaf, BTW, FWIW, I have done computer audio with a usb cable before to a dac and cd-player, I also have used a computer straight to a reciever, not using a dac or cd-player before I ever posted my statements, neitherless, I believe I have said all that I can here.

07-24-14: Audiolabyrinth
onhwy61, you are correct on my cable profound tweek, I am sorry,I am tired at this point at tring to get my point across, I have discussed this same issue on other threads, they understand and agree with my findings, tring to express the truth here is like talking to the deaf, BTW, FWIW, I have done computer audio with a usb cable before to a dac and cd-player, I also have used a computer straight to a reciever, not using a dac or cd-player before I ever posted my statements, neitherless, I believe I have said all that I can here.

You're the poster boy for failing in computer audio. CLUELESS! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

whatever you believe, I am saying cables make a difference, regardless of the source, you are clueless, you can come to hear my system if you do not believe me!computer audio is a Bust!

Audiolabyrinth, why dont you head on over to the Tesla forums and try to convince them that electric automobiles are a bust. You may have better luck there - too many of us are enjoying the music here.

Enjoy the music, I believe I have made a valid point about usb cables and what is and is not true computer audio, gentleman, enjoy the thread, I have said all I can here, carry on.

7-25-14: Audiolabyrinth
Enjoy the music, I believe I have made a valid point about usb cables and what is and is not true computer audio, gentleman, enjoy the thread, I have said all I can here, carry on.
Audiolabyrinth (Threads | Answers | This Thread)

labyrinth, what does your system consist of? What % of expenditure do your cables comprise? I do agree that cables can have a major impact on a system, but the impact can vary based on other variables such as noise floor.

Does anyone have experience regarding the optimal way to process and transmit DSD and hi rez files. On the contrary, does anyone their "computer" optimized to the point where file resolution is of no importance?