Thank you guys... I do in fact chuckle at my own audiophrenic scribblings every day of the week... Pepto-bismol anyone? ... Heard it does wonders when one feels a little corrosively inclined *grins!*
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.
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.
411 responses Add your response
08-04-14: Guidocorona Stop reading into this Guido. This is not some high tension drama that warrants commentary or policing. Go spend some time at the asylum to back the focus out even further and you can laugh at your own solemn pronouncements too.....;) |
08-03-14: Guidocorona Guido, it was not meant to be inflammatory. I invited him to contribute more specifics relevant to this thread. He refused and instead offered an invitation to the very thing that multiple other posters deemed a distraction. C'est la vie. |
No response from Audiolabyrinth regarding his system??? No two anything perform exactly the same, but to date difference from one SPDIF digital cable to another is not significant to me. Differences with many analog wires I try are.Mapman, I have heard sizable differences with digital cabling. Some cable manufacturers tell me it can be the most sensitive of all. The best RCA SPDIF cabling I have owned were the Teos liquid cables. I have heard others say Rick Schultz's stuff is the shizzle. Who knows. USB digital connections is the one type I suspect will tend towards more noticeable variation in sound quality case by case depending on implementation, which is why I am happy I have mostly been able to avoid having to deal much with those to-date. USB, unlike SPDIF is not designed solely for audio, so many outcomes are possible. Agreed. I am in the middle of muddling through that. WHen the time comes, I will shoot for an asynchronous USB implementation where DAC-side clock rather than general purpose computer manages timing and required bandwidth reliably and use a USB wire of good quality from a reputable maker like I do with most things and expect that to do the job quite well. I also agree. I have heard that the Trinity dac's USB implementation is impervious to source, reclockers, etc. That is really the ideal. I think its a weakness of many current designs that you need all this extra crap... |
No two anything perform exactly the same, but to date difference from one SPDIF digital cable to another is not significant to me. Differences with many analog wires I try are. Many other things that have much more significant effects on the sound, in practice as well as in theory it seems, and are much better places for one to invest their time getting the sound just right. Not to say all digital wires always sound the same....just that I do not hear enough difference to date in general to be concerned about it when things are already sounding excellent on the grand scale of things. My mistake maybe, but one I can live with easily. USB digital connections is the one type I suspect will tend towards more noticeable variation in sound quality case by case depending on implementation, which is why I am happy I have mostly been able to avoid having to deal much with those to-date. USB, unlike SPDIF is not designed solely for audio, so many outcomes are possible. WHen the time comes, I will shoot for an asynchronous USB implementation where DAC-side clock rather than general purpose computer manages timing and required bandwidth reliably and use a USB wire of good quality from a reputable maker like I do with most things and expect that to do the job quite well. |
7-25-14: Audiolabyrinth 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? |
07-24-14: AudiolabyrinthYou're the poster boy for failing in computer audio. CLUELESS! LOL!!!!!!!!!!! |
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. |
07-22-14: 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. |
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 |
07-22-14: AudiolabyrinthWhy? 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: 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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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. |
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! |
07-19-14: Bhobba Agreed.... |
@ 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. |
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 |
"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 |
"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 |
07-20-14: Wisnon 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....:/ |
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. |
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. |
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 |
07-17-14: Audioengr 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. |
07-18-14: Mapman 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? |
07-19-14: Mapman 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.... |
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. |
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. |