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. |
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 |
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! |
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. |
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. |
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!!! |
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 |
I think their web site mentions paying them for service, what were you thinking...they'd answer a call after the sale |
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 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? |
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! |
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! |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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! |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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! |
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. |
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. |
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??? |
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. |
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. |
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! |
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. |
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???? |
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. |
"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 – you’ll 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 |
My own experience with mach2music is actually excellent. Kevin Burke was very helpful in getting me up and running and the result is a very musical system. PureMusic is really very transparent and harmony-rich and via my Zodiac Gold + Voltikus I am amazed at the improvement over CD via AudioAero Capitole 24/192 SE, in both cases direct to my Wavac EC 300B. The amount of tweaking in computer audio still is an issue; for the record in my system I prefer memory play in hog-mode WITHOUT upsampling on less-is-more. switching off all I/O intensive OSX features such as screensaver, spotlight, etc. is important. Furthermore using a dedicated rather than shared USB bus is a must and linking the hard disks via firewire is preferable. All of this obviously goes beyond what a 30 min session, which mach2music offers can convey. |
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. |
"It will just report what is stored on the hard drive and many people won't like this non-editorialized sound."
This is not the defect with most digital playback, and I mean both CD transports and Computer Audio. The real defect with both is simply jitter.
Once you deal with this properly, then computer audio can beat both CD transports and Vinyl. There is no way in hell that vinyl can achieve the dynamics possible with digital audio, even 44.1. Its physically impossible. The original digital samples should not be "editorialized" either, just played back with the lowest possible jitter.
I'm not saying that there are not poor computer audio systems and CD transports because there are, lots. But how many people need to post that their computer digital systems outperform their vinyl before your mind is opened?
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
Hfisher, It's good to hear another report of great sound quality on a server system. I'm sure it's especially satisfying when you put some hard work into acheiving it.
I am a lazy audiophile though. I am happy playing discs and although I'm sure my system produces well below SOTA sound, I still enjoy it. I will wait until some audio engineer comes up with a server system aimed at the less ambitious audiophile. Thanks for your replies and enjoy your music! |
"...a hard drive system won't be musical, sweet, airy, or possess any other audiophile desired flavors. It will just report what is stored on the hard drive and many people won't like this non-editorialized sound."
Onhwy61: Are you comparing music on a hard drive to cd or vinyl? I'm assuming vinyl. If not, please tell us how ones and zeros on a hard drive will sound inferior to ones and zeros on a cd. |
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! |
Hi Hfisher, I'm not saying that computer audio doesn't sound good, there are plenty of people raving about it. It's just that when I start looking into it, it gets complicated and buggy fast. Also, my stereo is not close to my router. Is that a problem?
What kind of Mac mini do you have, how do you control it and how hard was it to set it all up? I've been spinning lps and cds for quite a while so I can continue to do that until music servers get real user friendly. |
Levy03: Just want one of two things. Either Computer Audio
follow the non-CD path of Sound Quality over convenience
( And not end up with a really short life span like outgoing CD Format ), or just point me in the right direction for replacement Format for Computer Audio. Don't
waste my time, money, and effort on Computer Audio ( Tens
of thousands of $$$ on audio Equipment ) just to have it
go flat ( Like CD ) due to lack of Sound Quality. Tired of going in circles, aren't you? Convenience over Sound Quality, what is different between CD and Computer Audio? |
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. |
Foster9, I think you will just have to be patient a while longer unless you're computer inclined. Server based audio still needs time to develop.
I've been hearing that hi res downloads are almost here since the late 90s and they are still almost here. We are a lot closer now but still not there. Cd sound is steadily improving and SACDs are seeing some reissue action.
We'll know when servers are ready. Until then, there is a lot of music available on disc to enjoy. |
I will be receiving the CAPS 2.0 as a music server tomorrow ($1,400). I have a HiFace EVO with Bolder powersupply USB converter. No basis to compare to Mach2Music - my baseline performance is streamed I2S through the PS Audio bridge. If I continue down this path I may get an offramp 5 USB converter. |
Steve: i never did get your email. Petty...you can demand what ever you want. best of luck with that. my pc based system sounds outstanding and i enjoy it greatly. love the sound my transport produces as well. thanks for your concern but i'm fine and in a happy place =). |
I have considered the Mini not more expensive Mach2Music machine. I had a laptop and several dacs before which I sold.
I want to get back into computer audio but it's hard to know what to do. It's confusing trying to figure what to buy to get the quality of sound that betters a quality cd player. And I sure don't want to spend 3k on a failed experiment.
I'd like to see a few manuf put together computer audio packages that reproduce quality sound streaming from the net or high rez or lower rez- and not cost so much money. I figure $3k for everything ought to get anyone there. |
As everyone knows, I am a Critic of Computer Audio. I know
it may seem that I want Computer Audio to fail, actually I
want Computer Audio to succeed. CD is failing, it could never stand up to Analog despite being more Convenient-
still having mediocre sound. Those that complained about
it's Sound Quality were quickly dismissed. The Market decided on the convenience and mediocre Sound Quality of CD. Now CD is a failure, and on its way out. This marketing
strategy did not succeed in the long run. Why do we want to
repeat this History with Computer Audio, going down the same road sacrificing Sound Quality for Convenience?
People, we are just going to end up exactly where we
started from- just going in circles. You want to break the
cycle, demand better Sound Quality from Computer Audio.
You deserve it, and Computer Audio might be around just a little bit longer than CD. Accept the mediocre Sound Quality of Computer Audio, and you will end up just putting another nail in it's coffin- CD all over again!
Learn from History, instead of just endlessly repeating it!
Mediocracy is the death knell of any Format, no matter how
immediately exciting it's convenience may be at first appeal. The End is never the less the End, unless you take steps to avoid it! |
I'll email you.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
I have a few hunderd hours on the MKII board and it is absolutely amazing. I would not be surprised if it creams the DCS, but only a proper shootout will tell. If the turn-key PS audio silent server delivers the goods, in theory you should have a plug and play computer based system, without the head-aches of doing your own integration. Reality is, this is an ongoing R&D project, which will have some frustrating bumps in the road. |
Steve: yes...i've read it and posted in it several times. is there something specific you'd like to point out?
i do have the mk2 upgrade. |
The bridge is very good, but have you read this:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ddgtl&1320430393&openflup&74&4#74
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
Pettyofficer,
As you may know from previous posts, for the most part I share your disdain for computer audio. But the compromise I found was the Bryston BDP-1. I had all this music on my computer already for my iPod, so it was a simple matter of backing it up on a HDD, plugging the HDD into the BDP-1, connecting the DAC and off you go. Pretty much the same as a transport to a DAC, except instead of CD's you have a HDD containing all the CD's. Works for me and the sound is astonishingly good.
Neal |
