I'm always a little surprised to hear 'goners lamenting the complexity of computer-based audio, given that so much of what goes on around here *celebrates* complexity.
Sgr's got a statement computer based system, which I've enjoyed many times. It's complex, and he puts the hours in. But that was true *before* he went to CBA, just as for the many tri-amping, room treating, active cross-overing, subwoofing, analog-tinkering hobbyists around here. They *already* have an IT problem, and it sure looks like it brings them a lot of pleasure.
I work in front of a computer all day, but I'm a complete klutz, who hasn't memorized a single shortcut key. At this point, I don't want complexity in my music playback, and I don't have it: hard drive --> MAC/Pure Music --> DAC --> integrated --> speakers. I'm guessing that puts me on the low end of complexity around here.
Do I have the occasional IT hassle? Yes. Does this mean I spend a lot of time tinkering with my rig. No? And while I can't speak to convenienvce for a 3k CD collection, I certainly have better access to my 700 CD collection than I did with hard media. And personally, I found it fun to do the ripping. If I didn't, I'd find a kid to do it for 25-50 cents a pop, and spend a lot less than people spend on an interconnect.
How does it sound? Not as good as Sgr's big rig, as one would expect, given the investment. But to my ears, better than a lot I've heard, and miles better than the pretty ambitious CDP I replaced. (I agree with CHarles1dad that CBA is not inherently superior on sonics, but I do wonder what the people who think CBA can't compete sonically have listened to.)
No doubt, from the perspective of an IT professional, the SOTA for CBA is pretty kludgy, given what's technically possible. But that doesn't mean that the end user can't have something pretty lean and easy if that is what they desire (unlike a lot of audiophiles).
My2c,
John
