"Audioengr: outperforming vinyl?"
You bet, here is an exerpt from a review posted on one of the forums:
"Specifically, there are three areas where the XXXX is superior to my vinyl playback: vocal presentation, drum sound and bass articulation.
The bass that the XXXX delivers is stunning. Bass lines are clear and articulate. Kick drums nearly have the thump of standing next to a parade when a marching band goes by. Vocals, as well, are nothing short of amazing. The vocal inflections and nuances that are suddenly audible make the singers eerily present. Drums literally come to life. Play some latin/carribean music with a busy percussion section  youÂll be blown away by what you hear."
I also have my share of Sinatra, Duke Ellington, Ella Fitzgerald and Count Basie. It's fantastic sounding, even CD rips. Maybe not quite as good as some newer remastered tracks, but no ticks and very dynamic and live. Some of the Verve Ella is wonderful. I have even used it at shows. The Count Basie from highdeftapetransfers.com is remarkable in 24/96. This is a R-R tape transfer.
There are certainly poorly transferred CD's from the early days of the CD, but more and more of them are being remastered and sound amazing. The Let it Bleed from the Stones on HDTracks at 24/176.4 is amazing. So is the remastered Led Zeppelin box set. Sounds like a modern recording. It takes a Computer Audio system with low jitter, noise and distortion to deliver this, and many dont qualify. One must choose the right ripper and playback software too, not just WMP or iTunes.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
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. |
Hfisher, I am not qualified to comment on the sonic aspects of the vinyl/digital debate, but keep in mind that by the time sound comes out of your speaker, "digital" is just as "analog" as vinyl. The issue is whether transcoding an analog signal into a digital signal, and processing that signal digitally through some stages of the signal path is a net benefit or net harm to the signal, relative to staying in the analog domain end to end. The answer to this is a function of the state of technology. One thing we do know - the state of digital is on a vastly steeper price/performance improvement curve, and I have no doubt that at some point analog will be obsolute. How many professional photograpers are still using film???? |
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. |
Just don't want Computer Audio traveling down the same path as CD ( More Convenience, MP3 Style Sound Quality ).
Not alot of selection in High Rez. alternative, and it
appears that this will NOT be changing anytime soon. I
certainly don't want to be investing in CD Format Part
Deux ( Computer Audio ). Certainly don't appreciate the
Market dead set on making it so! Certainly don't appreciate
the Market eliminating all other competing alternatives
to force everyone down this path. Don't want short term
CD Format all over again!!! Not another rerun- PLEASE! |
Pettyofficer, what other format do you propose? CDs have been around for a few decades with probably another decade of life left, which is a pretty good run in the digital age. Certainly beats floppy discs. 10 years out, 90% of content will probably be stored in the cloud and streamed to whereever you want to listen. In the interim, there is cheap local storage. Welcome to the 21st century. |
I find it shocking how many dinosaurs there are still going on about vinyl & CD transports/players. It's over. The finest sound I have ever had is via a server via FireWire into modern DAC. Zero jitter is the key & attention to detail in your set up.
If you want a version of the recording then carry on with your TT. Computer systems are by far the best way to enjoy your collection. |
Edorr: That's just it! Is Computer Audio a new proposed
Format, or is it just a clone of CD Format. Both Formats
value convenience over Sound Quality. Are we trading up, or
are we trading down? Right now there are Pop Artists whose
Music is available as Downloads, but not available as CD.
So much for the extra decade! Cheap local storage? MP3 with
less than CD resolution? Minimum High Resolution Selection-
almost strictly Classical/Jazz. Like both, but I don't live
by bread alone! Without Selection- kind of hard to see a step up. What is the Format I propose? A Computer Audio
Format that puts Sound Quality above convenience, with
adequate Music Selection- and is a clear step up in S.Q.
above CD. Computer Audio today is a partial Format- one foot in lower than CD MP3, and one toe in severely limited
selection of High Rez. Downloads. A few short of a six
pack for a real replacement Format? Not firing on all four
cylinders? Computer Audio desperately needs to get its ducks in a row, or else it will be out the door sooner than
CD. Shoot me if I propose that Computer Audio failure is not an option! Being a CD Format clone is surest way in
following in CD Formats failure! If convenience isn't
saving CD, it sure as hell isn't going to save Computer Audio. Computer Audio can, and should do better- if you
want to keep it longer than CD. Man (And Formats) do not
live by convenience alone! Formats (CD) apparently do
eventually die by convenience alone! Ditto Computer Audio??? I dare Computer Audio to do better than CD to save
it, and not let it suffer the same fate! Minimum Selection
in High Rez., and S.Q. of lower than CD MP3- two anchors
that will sink Computer Audio faster than the Titannic.
Definitely a ship built for convenience, but what was the point??? |
Hi Pettyofficer,
I understand your point. It can be confusing out there. My experience is that you have to do the basics 1st with computer audio. Obviously crap in crap out.
So choose your format. Let's forget MP3s. Let's forget lossy data compression. Have enough memory to run the operating system & whatever software you use.
Then let's get into software. iTunes to me is the best library front end for convience, but for sonics you do need something like Amarra or Puremusic etc to get the best signal to your DAC. I like the sound running from RAM.
Keep your computer power away from the systems power & get good cables.
From there you have a hope in hell of getting good sound, but the DAC is really important. The finest I know is the new Weiss Medea + FW. It is utterly amazing. Making the finest digital from only a few years ago sound metallic & confused. Even the glorious DCS which at the time was smooth & natural when compared to the other reference DACs.
For old school vinyl guys & people who love a coloured sound or rolled off
warm sounding systems, you will need to match your amp etc carefully as the sound from the DAC is pure & untouched. Nothing added nothing taken away.
But I get the impression many here like sound touched & different to the master. If you are that guy, you will need to play around. But what came from your HD is what came out of the recording studio. That was the dream...
The tweaking is another story, but if your system is good & balanced you don't need anything else. Sit back & enjoy record after record from the hit seat. |
Pettyoffice, like all industries the primary driver in music publishing is money. As soon as a large enough number of folks that want high quality audio and are willing to pay for jump on the computer audio bandwagon, it will become commercially viable for studios to (a) remaster their catalogues in high resolution that will exceed CD quality and (b) release all new material in downloadable high rez.
So rather than lamenting the state of the industry, get yourself a PC, tell all your audiophile buddies to ditch their turntables and start buying high rez tracks on line. If HD tracks and the likes can show the industry there is booming demand, more labels will join the audiophile quality computer audio fray. |
If I saw one High Rez. Download available of any of the following groups, I would do exactly that- Edorr! Heart, ABBA, Pink Floyd, Carpenters, John Barry, Ennio Morricone, Jerry Goldsmith, Howard Hanson, Bernard Herrmann, Gerry Rafferty, Enya, Bangles, Juice Newton, Kate Bush, Norah Jones, Nancy Sinatra, Henri Mancini, Liza Minelli......
etc.etc! Have seen High Rez. Downloads of Fleetwood Mac-Rumors, Eagles-Hotel California, Megadeath, Dianna Krall, and Ringo Star. I check what is available everyday. With this limited Selection in Pop Music, it is obvious that High Rez. Download Computer Audio is nowhere near serious in becoming the next Format. What is it then? A Format that cherry picks what Music everyone will be allowed to listen to? That is not a New Format! People will not buy something that is not there, under the empty promise that it will soon be there. We did that with SACD, spending tens of thousands on the equipment only to never see our Music available on SACD! This time you will have to show everyone the Music Selection first before everyone will buy into it! That has been the cost of every New Format for the last 50 years. Prove it to me that you are serious! |
Chadeffect, I hate to tell you this but even if the signal coming out of your DAC is as pure as the driven snow the rest of your system is coloring it. And for that matter, the file on your server is a pale reflection of what was heard by the musicians in the recording studio. Get rid of that junk you're listening to and make friends with some good musicians. |
Tomcy6,
You seem to be forgetting that the musicians in the studio are hearing the output from a computer. I know of few people who still record totally in the analogue domain. Trust me as that is my profession.
Also my point is that the rest of the system is where you would do your tuning. As I said in an earlier post, the output of the DAC is pretty much the same as the master "tape". Unlike in days gone by.
If you feel some vinyl is closer your are kidding yourself. That's not to say it cannot sound good, but not as the original. |
Pettyofficer, I repeat, it is simply a commercial issue. The studio went to the effor to remaster the Beatles collection and sold an X number of sets. Dark Side of the Moon was remastered for SACD and sold Y. If the industry thinks it is commercially interesting to remaster a release as high rez downloads it will. It chicken and egg - as long as many the audiophiles hold out on computer based audio there is no market and no content. Look at video - everyone has a blu ray player so many, many popular movies are being released on blu ray - a commercial boon to the industry. The same could happend with computer audio. I would rebuy a few hundred titles as $20 a pop in high rez in a heartbeat if they were available, and I am not alone. |
I got stuck with the "Dark Side of the Moon" SACD Hybrid.
SACD side sounded awful, CD side sounded worse! I had to
go back to CD only Remastered version of this release.
If 50 years of Audio history is any model, it has always
been the egg (Format/Music Selection) that comes before
buying the Chicken (Equipment that plays Format). A Format Player with nothing to play on it, except for type of Music that perhaps 20% listen to (Minimum High Rez. Download Selection), is the epithany of how "Not to market a New Format". You are not even tickling the Dragons Tale of the Audio Market with that limited selection. Fifty years of Audio History in changing Formats, shows that only those Formats with a large cross section of Music Selection ever had the Market penetration for the chance to become successful. You are robbing Computer Audio Format of that opportunity with a Format crippling minimum selection in High Rez. It is so intuitive based on 50 years of Audio History in changing Formats. Can you atleast try to repeat the successes learned in Audio History, instead of repeating the failures (SACD/DVD-Audio)? I would still like to have Computer Audio around for awhile, but you are SACD'ing it to death with this minimum selection! Not interested in buying vacuum today! |
Chadeffect,
I think the attraction of vinyl is that it's the way that people listened when they developed their taste in music, not that it's a superior format. Maybe a couple of decades ago, but digital is more accurate to the master tape or file now or will be soon.
I do think that people should listen to what sounds good to them though, not what is called accurate or what they are supposed to like. |
Tomcy6,
that is probably true for a generation, but remember there are generations now who have never heard vinyl. I have a friend who's son stayed with his brother (a vinyl nut) & came back saying he had all these big black CDs!
Very soon DACs will come with not only room correction, but filters that copy this sound or that at uber bandwidths. You will be able to have your cake & eat it. But don't forget all this is recording dependant. I have great sounding 44.1/16 recordings as well as 24/192.
In the pro market many of the plug ins that have copied classic kit are pretty good. They have come a long way. Things like tape saturation, limiting, compression, reverbs, distortion etc. The well heeled will notice, but as it develops it gets harder & harder to tell the difference between the real kit and the algorithm.
All modern pro studio hardware is at least 24/192. So it is no big deal to make available downloads of high bandwidth recordings. It's only a file. Not a disk reading issue.
Soon your whole library will be on a cloud accessible from anywhere at anytime. It will be great. It's damn good now! Embrace it.
If love to fiddle with your kit you will still be able to play with cables, tubes etc if you wish. At least you will know the source is as good as the original master. |
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. |
Just going through an old thread that I posted on. I love my mini with Ayre Dac. The problem is that I can't find any consistent high resolution downloads that are worth listening to.
My dac supports up to 192khz and some are great and others I delete or try to get a refund after downloading. I guess it's like any other medium where the recording matters. Just a bummer that most of the time you pay for magnified ass. |
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! |
Would be nice to get back to original issue raised at the
creation of this Thread. I say you need Music Selection
first to sell the idea of High Rez. Downloads to a larger
Customer base. Also need to technically resolve contradictory Sound Quality issues with Computer Audio-
make it more consistent reliable sound quality. Computer
Manufacturer's definitely not interested in this, High End
Manufacturer's have to fill in the Vacuum. It is time to
get serious (Not more convenient) with Computer Audio. You
are going to have work to make Computer Audio into the Format that "Someday all New Music will only be available as Music Downloads"! Hard work is not popular, neither is
buying into a Format that is not ready- make it so or lose
it! Failure is not an option- it is that simple! You have
already lost Alessandro1, the way you are going isn't working! CD wasn't ready, neither was SACD, nor DVD-Audio.
Plenty of examples there of how "NOT" to create a New Format! None of it having anything to do with convenience! |
I had my Mac Mini upgraded by Mach2Music 2 months ago. I've made many enquiries regarding their battery power upgrade, with no reply. I have even tried emailing them with an alternate email thinking perhaps they didn't appreciate my initial enquiry?
Still no answer after 6 weeks of emailing.
I can only assume they are out of businees, or don't appreciate return business?
I can only hope a post like this will wake them up and realize decent customer service will bring them repeat business? Or the lack of customer service will scare people away?
I find it particularly frustrating that all my emails were answered promptly when I was in the market to go the initial Mach2Music route. Since then, nothing!
I could not even entice any acknowledgement with some more business, ie. the battery upgrade.
What's the deal? Anyone have any ideas?
Mach2Music....Is there anybody out there? |
It is unfortunate, but the Computer Audio Market has bought
into the idea of the Microsoft "Auto-Pilot" version of
Customer Service- with the Customer doing the driving alone. Microsofts first instinct is to refer you to another
Customer to resolve your issue, that way save money where
you are not bugging them. This mentality is the main reason
everyone comes here for their Computer Audio issues- mainly
because the Manufacturer is an absentee landlord in Customer Service, and everyone knows it! I have tilted
against THAT Windmill enough times! Paper Masche Customer
Service, with big research on how to make it a hundred times thinner. What can you do, live with it! |
I think their web site mentions paying them for service, what were you thinking...they'd answer a call after the sale |
The fundamental problem is that computers were never designed to play back high end SQ music, so designers have to jump through hoops to get them to do so. And since computers are prone to viruses, bugs, worms, bots, crashes and all other manner of affliction, and many users don't really know what they're doing, and the software is not intuitive in the least and often unstable, and the hardware is often made with cheap parts, so-o-o-o ..... you got to pay for service, Mon.
If you want computer audio, get a Bryston BDP-1 and use your computer to compute, not play music.
Neal |
So when are we going to actually start DESIGNING a New
Format known as Computer Audio? Taking all of your
complaints with Computers- it looks like Computer Audio is
an ad hock conglomerate held together with Bandaids, Rubber
Bands, and Chewing Gum. NOW you figure there is something
wrong with it, ONLY AFTER leading us down this path! A Tool
not designed for High End Sound Quality? New Formats (And
their equipment) ARE designed for Sound Quality- if not High End! Manufacturer's design it FIRST for Sound Quality,
only then do we listen- only then do we buy it = SUCCESS!
Your way = FAILURE! No more bandaids from Bryston, or anyone else! Design the Format right the first time- for
once! No more AD HOCK PIECEMEAL FORMAT FAILURE!!! You don't
have a New Format - DESIGN ONE, GET ONE!!! |
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 don't quite understand your rambling about formats. Existing lossless formats (Flac, Wav etc.) are capable of storing and transfering information at exactly the same resoltion as in the recording studio. There may be issues with computer based audio, and lack of high rez content, but the "format" is not part of the problem. |
Computer Audio fails for some, and succeeds for others, is
because of an inconsistency in design. Computers were never designed to reproduce High End S.Q. Every single
Music Format was designed for Music from the ground up:
Analog Records, Analog Tape, Cassette, 8-Track, CD, SACD,
DVD-Audio, and Blue-Ray Audio. Ditto for the Equipment to
playback these Formats- Computer Audio not so much!
Computers designed for Mastering at Recording Studios- NOT
THE SAME! Same as a DELL or an ASUS, or even an APPLE- who
are you kidding? New Format, only one NOT designed for Music- to replace all other Music Formats? Using a Tool
for other than it was designed for- absurd! Using it to
replace the rest of your Tools- insane! Failure inevitable! |
I have no idea why pettyofficer keeps on about the format?The file is the format. If the file is copied from the "master" it is the same whether it's a flac,aiff,wav.
I think your gripe is about hardware. But thats just as it has always been. it's about which hardware you choose. Forget the format issue. The file can be any resolution you ask for. It makes little difference to download 16/44.1 or 24/96 or 24/196. The record label won't care how many bits it is!
Your problem seems to be about the hardwares tonal qualities. I would not worry about that. A little research & set up is all thats needed. Think of all those phono stages, arms,motors & cartridges people complain about. It's the same issue, Just its a computer & operating system this time |
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. |
Hfisher3380,
thanks for your comments on Pettyofficer. A forum to improve people's experience with digital audio may be a good place for him to get his kicks but he certainly is getting them at the expense of everybody. Alas, that considerate thought probably hasn't occured to him. |
Hfisher nailed it. optimization is the key....just like anything else audio. computer's bring another element into the equation that requires additional research/effort/work to get right. if you don't care to go there...then don't. why you would try to talk others out of it is beyond me. i just don't get it
similar to the vinyl debate....what ever floats your boat. what works for some might not be your cup-o-tea. doesn't mean anyone is wrong or right. i'm not a vinyl guy but couldn't care less if anyone else is or is not. i have no dog in these types of fights.
reminds me of the debate i had with my sister a while back. she couldn't believe that i don't like chicken. she loves it and was amazed at how i didn't. she was trying to understand why and just kept pressing me. talk about a silly conversation/debate!.
Petty....do you like chicken?? =)
cheers all |
If you ignore him he will move on to something else. It's his M.O., check the threads he's posted in. |
Personally I'm glad Pettyofficer can post his opinions & share ideas here. Many died & suffered for us to have free speech. Let's not forget that.
The problems start when no one listens to each others points & ignores the experiences of others. Especially to those who have wide experience & knowledge in these fields. There are many here.
It would seem Pettyofficer has not heard a nicely set up server system. Remember it is what music today is actually recorded & mainly mixed on!
So unlike in any other period in history, the file/format you are playing on your system is that that was recorded in the studio(as long as it is not data compressed). So this format argument is kind of irrelevant.
Surely his issue is with some dodgy DAC/amp/speaker/cables combination? Or just a love for the short comings of an old format which he has gotten used to & likes the sound of. Not the reading of the data.
If you want tips please ask, don't just say its not as good as my TT or even as good as my old CDP! The joy in this hobby is to search & experience to find the right sound for you.
Digital playback is here to stay. It can do anything you want sonically. It gets better,cheaper,smaller and more flexible by the year. What's not to love about that? Let's look forwards not backwards. If you like the past so much we can digitise it for you so you can take into the future! Lol. |
I appreciate the kind words, Chadeffect. I do use Computer
Audio! I have had success with it in S.Q. Computer Audio
may be what Music today is actually recorded & mainly
mixed on. These are still Studio designed, your Mac Mini
not quite in the same league. It is the Personnal Computer
that is the actual funnel that this Data has to pass through. A Tool not primarily designed for Music, unlike those being used in Mastering Studio's. Where are the
Personnal Computers designed for Music, and why aren't they here? Why are there no Audio Standards to maintain
some consistency in S.Q. for personnal Computers? It is no
accident that so many have such a varied result with
Computer Audio. Would like to keep it around for awhile,
but THIS does not bode well! I think that we deserve our
money's worth out of Computer Audio, that includes actually
designing the Personnal Computer FOR Audio in Computer Audio. If this is an oxymoron New Format, forgive me! I stand corrected. I don't really think it is though! |
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. |
Hfisher3380- excuse me, I stand corrected. Perhaps you can
clarify for me what DXD is? I believe it is the Format that
has been used in Mastering Studio's. I believe that it even has a higher sampling rate than SACD. Hey, my tower
only cost me $700.00. Can I still use it to mix multiple
DXD Music Files? No, something like that would cost atleast
5 digits or more. I know that it gives everyone a warm fuzzy thinking that their own home little personal Computer
is on the same playing field as the big boy's in the Mastering Studio's. Warm Fuzzies, Old Wives Tales, and the
Old Lock Ness Monster! Any consulation Hfisher3380- hey you
made a believer out of me, Nessie too! |
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! |
I'm upgrading my DAC, and have temporarily gone back to a CDP from computer based audio. My DAC (PSA Perfect Wave) handily beats my CDP (Jolida JD 100) on sonics, but I'd have to have sound on a CDP that was WAY better to contemplate a permanent return. Piles of discs: constantly changing discs, misplaced discs, damaged discs, defective discs, and (my personal favorite) broken jewel cases. I'd forgotten what a mess it is. YUK! YUK! YUK!
And did I mention, the sonics are a lot better on my astronomically more user friendly and convenient computer set up?
Take that Petty! I'm glad you're here too.:)
John |
Hi pettyofficer,
The main reason there aren't more computers designed for music is there is no need. There are some laptops that are said to be for music, but they are only an attempt to have a built in sound card & reasonable ins & outs on the go for recording etc.
Nearly every studio I have been in uses a standard powerful mac as a brain. The converters etc are external hardware devices. I.e protools, Apogee, UAD,RME,Weiss, Prism sound, metric halo. Mainly FireWire.
Some have specially set up PCs. I use both PC & Mac.
The question should be why are there no standards in Hifi? Not just computer audio. Choice is a good thing until there is too much. Then there is only confusion.
Hifi is full of confusion due to many many opinions about what is good or best. Mainly by people who don't know what the original sound of the record they are playing actually was! So then we get into taste. Not an exact reproduction of the master.
Computers are great levellers. My computer replaced elitist über transports. I have never looked back. Just the thought of browsing through all those disks now seems so alien. Before you leap in with " oh but the SQ..." at worst it's the same and at best it's better in SQ. By "better" i mean like the master. In my case SQ is better due to this & its more convenient & its cheaper!
A great leveller... How can you complain? If you want the finest SQ with a computer based system there are just some procedures to follow. Just workout what you want in SQ. |
Chadeffect- does it ever occur to you that this lack of
Standard in the Operating System for Computer Audio- can
only lead to mixed results when used for High End Audio?
You are not going to win listeners that way, neither are
you gonna win by shaming those who have problems with varying S.Q. issues with Computer Audio. Since it isn't
designed for any consistency at all, how can you possibly
measure what is good, or best? I fail to see any planning
(Design) here at all! |
Pettyofficer,
any Hifi system will have variable results. Computer based or not. My understanding of your complaint is shifting slightly now over a couple of different threads.
I think your complaint still is about set up. But it's about which version of which software you can run on what operating system. If this is the issue, then I understand.
So with that in mind you fall into a couple of camps.
1 latest version of everything. So update regularly. This is easy although a pain in the butt sometimes.
2 get it all to a point where you are happy & do not update. Just enjoy.
I must admit with a PC I recommend the later point. Although keep Security updated.
The SQ differences are pretty slight once you have set up the main software issues although functionality is probably better.
Hope this helps. |
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. |
Hfisher3380- there is no Audio Format that has a more
fluid Standard than Computer Audio, and you KNOW IT!
You are using "WHAT" to replace all other Audio Formats-
a high pressure Firehouse? Well, I guess that will "BLOW"
alot of people away. This is supposed to help in Sound
Quality, and Musicality- open a Firehose directly into the
ear canal point blank range? Yeah, o-kay...an Audio experience to replace all other Audio Formats. Maybe if you
reduce the fluidity, and pressure a tad more people might be more receptive to your forcefullness in Computer Audio. |
Petty,
my last words on the subject...
A fluid format is good. It is developing & while it is developing, it still is MORE capable than any other format so far.
You do not need to do anything once you have SET UP your computer system of choice. If anything meaningful changes in the future all you will need to do is update the software.
Please read the above posts & really think about what they are saying. Stop listening to your own argument long enough to take them in.
Music is a small aspect of a much larger picture. All the arts are coming together. Film, music, photography, gaming etc will all be stored on a single system at the highest quality enabling possiblities you can only dream about now, so you better get used to an open approach. The computer will look after all the formats.
For now get yourself a Mac & bypass your current complaints about ASIO etc.
Anyway good luck. If you really actually do need some help drop me a PM. But more drivel in these threads is tedious. Sort yourself out.
Happy listening. |
Sorry Chadeffect. The only thing you are doing is making
Audio irrelevant, replacing it with Computer bells and
whistles. It won't be long before Microsoft/Apple/Mac...
etc, start to wonder why they even bother to include such
an insignificant thing like Music Audio. It just wastes
processing from other more successful/popular Programs/
toys. It is not like you, or anyone else here would
complain. Trust me, they KNOW this already. You don't really need Music Audio, or Computer Audio, or High Rez.
Downloads- do you? You will be spending all of your time
watching Movies, Playing Games, Doing your Taxes...etc.
You won't even remember what Computer Audio was...other
than drivel that was very tedious! You will be proud! |
Ok so not quite my last word on the subject! Thank you Pettyofficer,
Nothing is making audio irrelivant especially not me. You have been given choice these days to have everything in 1 place. Easy to control & use.
There is nothing to suggest a computer, cannot cope with processing many things. Especially something as small as processing audio. You are just plain wrong with your premiss.
We are talking about getting fine technology tuned to do what we want it to do. Maybe one OS is more stable than another or easier to use, but that's it.
You seem to have a paranoid idea that Microsoft or apple want to destroy your entertainment & make things worse. I have seen little evidence for that. I would say I have evidence it's making it better. (replacing expensive boxes while sounding even better!)
Are you the kind of guy that would go back to a model T Ford once things like the Bugatti Veyron have been invented? Or does your hair shirt just fit so well that it doesn't itch anymore?
I have not noticed technology gradually getting worse as it evolves just yet.
As a test try listening to some recordings from the 1920s & then listen to a recording from this year. Try an example from ECM. Now compare the quality. After that come back and discuss. |
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! |
This thread sucks! If you want to discuss religion, go elsewhere. Otherwise try and stay factual |
