Foster_9 and Tomcy6 - I used to have the same belief and attitude about computer audio but my visit to the most recent RMAF really highlighted the format's potential. My current system (optimized mac mini into Wavelength Cosecant) easily outperforms my previous more expensive disc spinner (Ayre C5xeMP) - it's shocking, really.
I'm primarily a vinyl listener - this is honestly the first digital system I've had (including SACD played back on the Ayre) that satisfies me. |
Tomcy6: Using a Mac Mini with 64gig SSD and 8 gigs ram. Altogether came in at under $1K. Using XLD or iTunes for ripping and Amara MINI for playback. In terms of optimization, not too difficult - lots of info out there on disabling what can be disabled in order to maximize processor speed. All music is stored on external thunderbolt drive although you could do it for cheaper on a firewire drive.
Running the Mini headless and controlling it with screen sharing from my macbook pro. Initial set-up required a dedicated screen so I plugged its HDMI out into my TV.
Any time computers are involved there will be considerable effort required. Pettyofficer mentioned the old convenience vs. sound quality conundrum and it applies here - to do computer audio right and at a reasonable budget requires considerable effort - it is most definitely NOT plug and play. But in the process I have learned a lot and have found it ultimately rewarding to have so much control over the proceedings. And I can tell you that the sound on some of the better recordings - both standard 16/44 and high resolution, is downright jaw dropping - the first digital front end I've had that actually CAN give my vinyl a run for its money (although my best records still sound quite a bit better!).
All I can say is that for a total bill of under $6K I have a great (dare I say "state of the art") digital front end capable of playing high resolution files. No way I could have accomplished this with an optical player! |
Audioengr: outperforming vinyl? My personal opinion is that by far the best sound I've heard has been the classic analogue jazz recordings from the 50's and 60's played back on state of the art analogue systems. As far as I'm concerned that was the golden age of audio recording and there have really been no advances in recording technology since then if one judges purely on sound quality. Furthermore, no digital transfer I have ever heard comes close to capturing the naturally detailed and organic sound of these works played back on a state of the art analogue system.
However, I do think that some of the more recent high quality recordings from the digital age can sound great on high end digital players - server and optical player alike. |
Audioengr: of course there will be all kinds of people with all kinds of opinions - you have quoted one of them. I've heard tons of systems at all kinds of shows etc and MY opinion is that vinyl is still the gold standard. I still have a fine digital system and I do think that digital has improved by leaps and bounds to where we are today - but there's a reason that vinyl has outlived anyone's expectations and is still so commonly seen in audio shops and at the shows.
I don't think there's any way around the fact that sound is analogue. Again just my opinion. |
I agree, it's probably just a matter of time until digital is unequivocally better than analogue but that day is obviously not here yet. Even today, calling a digital component "analogue sounding" remains one of the highest forms of praise. |
Tomcy6 - a bit presumptuous and condescending of you and a common misconception on the part of the digital crowd. That would be like me saying that the people who prefer digital just are not sensitive to things like truth of timbre and natural life-like, room-filling sound - they just prefer it because it's cheaper and easier.
In terms of what is truer to the master tape - hey, we heard those types of arguments before in the early '80s - "perfect sound forever", right?
Perhaps there are some of us who actually prefer vinyl because we think it sounds better?
I think it's folly to presume any reasons for anyone's personal taste.
Sorry but you've hit a nerve here, I've heard this line of reasoning before and it smacks of elitism. |
It would be nice if HDTracks would specify the source of the high rez downloads - i.e. which ones are upsampled and which are true high rez masters - of course this would defeat the purpose of upsamples but most of us have no problem with that! |
My goodness Pettyofficer, I'm not quite sure exactly what you are expecting. No new format releases with a huge selection immediately available. Name me one that has. CD, DVD and Blue-Ray launched with precious few selections but they caught on and became dominant in the marketplace. Whether a new format sticks depends purely on whether the market buys into it. Computer audio is here to stay - the only question is whether high resolution computer audio will become and remain a thriving market. The only way it will is if the record companies see profit to be made. That is the way the world works.
My prediction is that it will remain a niche market - just like pretty much all high resolution music. The sad truth is that only a tiny minority of the general population actually cares about sound quality - and it has always been thus.
In the meantime, you can go on with your silly little protests and continue your brow-beating and repetitive arguments, none of us really cares. Some of us will take advantage of high res downloads and some won't. It likely will never be a mainstream market but many of us will enjoy it nonetheless. |
Pettyofficer - I'm beginning to think that your name is very appropriate! Every format "succeeds for some and fails for others" - including vinyl. Every format has to start somewhere. Whether it is designed for audio from ground up or not, all that matters is ultimate sound quality. Because of the fact that computers are complex multifunctional beasts, computer audio necessarily takes some effort to get right - optimizing your computer for audio and adding the appropriate ancillary equipment do require some research. In my case, I researched it for months before setting about to design a digital front end which easily bests my previous more expensive optical player.
Obviously it appears that you may lack either the necessary patience or mental capacity to get involved in this endeavour.
You've made your point and many of us who enjoy great performance from our server-based systems disagree. As someone who obviously is not interested in exploring computer-based audio, I would suggest you start hanging out on some other forums which might interest you more. |
Once again Pettyofficer your opinions show that you just don't completely grasp the basic concepts here. Let me clarify:
(1) The computers used in recording studios are not magical in any way - they are the very computers that can be purchased from Apple, Dell etc. Yes they have way more processing power than the typical computer used in a home stereo because they are running much more complicated software. They might employ a powerful Mac tower whereas I choose to run a Mac Mini. But there is nothing stopping me from buying a big tower for my home stereo. The difference in sound quality would likely be negligible, the massive tower would look odd in my room and I'd just be wasting all that processing power. A powermac is no more "designed for audio" than is a mac mini.
(2) Yes the sound files have to pass through the computer but in a properly implemented system it only passes raw digital files from an external hard drive to the DAC. You don't need more than an optimized Mac Mini or comparable to accomplish this small task. It's all in the implementation, and this would in large part describe the varied results amongst different users. Patience and research are required to do this right - as well as a DAC capable of taking the processing out of the computer's hands and rejecting jitter.
(3) Computer audio is not really a "new format" in the strictest sense of the word. In a properly implemented system the raw files being played are no different than those on your shiny silver discs. The exception of course being high res downloads which are theoretically capable of higher fidelity than redbook spec. However, with proper implementation jitter can be reduced vs. optical systems and error correction is a non-factor by isolating the reading of the discs from the recreation of the stored sound files. |
Pettyofficer - I never claimed that we can listen to studio quality recordings in our listening room - this is not unique to computer audio nor is it a function of the hardware. Are you listening to studio quality on your turntable or CDP? Do you even have access to test pressings on these other formats? This is no more the fault of computer audio than it is the turntable or any other source.
Why don't you make similar rants against the CD format? That's an even more compromised format and should be held even more accountable by your standards.
And I'm not trying to make a believer out of your or anyone. I couldn't care less if you like computer audio or not. I'm also not one to be overly sensitive about criticisms of computer audio and will be the first to admit that it is most definitely NOT plug and play. I respect your desire for computer audio, or any format for that matter, to improve in fidelity. I just think your opinions are misguided.
If it is studio quality you desire then computer audio can certainly get you closer to that goal than can redbook CD. We can only hope that high res downloads continue to grow so we can have access to something closer to the master tape than we are afforded by CD!
I'm currently listening to a 24/96 master of the latest Dream Theater album downloaded from HDTracks and let me tell you - it absolutely kills my CD! The sound is startlingly good! |
There's also no standard for turntables or CD players. The former can use all kinds of different designs - direct drive, belt drive, idler wheel, suspended sub chassis, linear tonearms, pivoted tonearms, unipivots, MM/MC cartridges...CDP employ a wide, wide range of DACs, some are balanced and others single-ended...solid state, tube, SET...box speakers, planar speakers....the list goes on and on...but no standards!
We can decide for ourselves what we think sounds good and is designed properly.
And I don't exactly see anyone here "shaming" those who don't find satisfaction in "computer audio". But you've been trying to shame us for two pages now - as if those of us who adopt this "new format" are responsible for the varying results others may obtain.
"Computer audio" is no different from any other format. It has wrinkles. It ain't perfect. Consumers will ultimately decide if it affords them something as good as or better than what they already have. In my case it is in the process of replacing my CDP because it sounds better. Others like yourself may disagree. That's the beauty of a free society, we can all choose what works for us.
Again, I would suspect not many around here really care whether you adopt "computer audio" or not. I certainly don't. But your disorganized rants are becoming tiresome. |
Hey Pettyofficer, if even a Mac is too complicated for you and you'd prefer to spend more money on a "made for audio" computer, check this out:
http://www.wyred4sound.com/webapps/p/74030/117839/650382
Looks like your dreams have come true!!! I think that EVEN YOU could figure out how to use it!!! No need for you to go without music when those of us adopters of this New Format (sic), Computer Audio (sic), conspire to eliminate all other Formats (sic).
You're welcome! |
Huh?? This response does not compute... |
Wow - North Korean concentration camps, Mobs, stray bullets. Them's fighting words!
Petty, it's very simple. Either you adopt computer audio or you don't - if you don't then that's fine. It doesn't matter what your reasoning is. Honestly, it almost sounds like you are trying to rationalize your choice. Believe it or not we don't care what your opinion is, it's just annoying to be accused of ruining music as we know it.
As I stated in the other thread, show me the proof. Where are these ultimatums? The people trying to wipe out all other formats? Where are they? Who are they? Let me take care of them for you so you can sleep at night! |
Petty, I seriously think you need to give up this audio hobby, sounds like it's stressing you out too much... |
"What Consumer dreams of imposing a Single Audio Format Monopoly on all other Consumers."
Answer - none that I have come across.
"It is not like the Manufacturer's will be sharing their sharply increased Profits with you, they will be keeping those. You are a Consumer. They are Sharks in a Feeding Frenzy, and you are the Bait."
Again, if there is profit to be made, product will be made. Nothing is new here. Industry, including the recording industry, has been made up of sharks for centuries. Human nature, free enterprise, market forces etc. Get a grip - this is nothing new. It has nothing to do with computer audio or any other format. Sounds to me like your latest beef is with capitalist society in general.
So, let me get this straight - I shouldn't buy a toaster because the manufacturer is absolutely swimming in profits? They're not sharing these profits with me, I am the Consumer!!! |
