PC audio is it the best next thing????

In my view, it's the next best thing to having no music at all... No, wait, possibly having no music at all would be better. I could always go outside and beat my garbage cans with a bat if I just need to hear some noise. Then, if I stepped on the cat's tail at the same time, well, I'd have a symphony.

Herman, it simply means that at this time I'm skeptical that a computer-based medium will offer anything significantly better than standard redbook CDs provide. Lately, I've gone back to listening to my analog sources (vinyl and reel-to-reel tape). After years of trying every tweak and some very highly rated digital gear, I find I'm missing something with digital sound. Analog seems to fill in the blanks for me.

I also know that the recording industry marketing folks are looking for new ideas to boost sagging sales. Their decision on what media formats to push will be based on low cost and convenience features -- whatever they think will appeal to the masses and help sell new music. It will have nothing whatever to do with "sound quality".

Historically, a new audio format(s) have emerged every couple of decades and have supplanted the previous media of choice. Sadly, I think now more than ever "sound quality" will not figure into the industry's marketing plans... And I find that upsetting...

Guys,

I really have nothing against using a USB DAC setup. But in my case, my computer is not close to either of my audio systems, and I don't want to set up a computer in either of those rooms just for that purpose.

I think I'm annoyed that we have stuck with the 44.1kHz sampling rate all these years. Heck, back in the early '80s when the standards were decided, many thought the rate was too low -- and that's when a state-of-the-art computer was running about a 100MHz processor. How far has computer technology evolved since then, and why has this redbook standard not been changed/updated in 25 years??? It makes no sense at all to me.

The only explanation is that it would have taken money for recording studios to change the recording standard, and no one (that mattered) was complaining about it.

How many audiophiles would buy a digital amplifier that sampled at 44.1kHz? Virtually Nobody!

Maybe if enough of us sent letters and complained to Sony and Philips they'd change the standard to something suitable. But we all seem to be content to sit back with the attitude that we've got to make that old, inadequate standard work. Why??? If we doubled or tripled that standard rate even cheapo players would sound fantastic.

Herman,

Yes, I know all about SACD, and DVD-A. The problem there was that they gave the consumer a choice and charged appreciably more for those higher-res formats.

But what they should have done was just upgrade the standards and kept the price the same. Heck, if they can sell DVD's cheaper than CD's (in many cases) they could have done that. The problem is that everyone becomes greedy if they sense that there could be an extra dollar to be made. If a little company like Chesky Records could do it, how hard could it be for Sony or Philips to get the job done?

On second thought, I've been doing a bit of reading. It appears that Sony's Blu-Ray Disc might be the next best thing... It looks very promising as a hi-def format and should be backward compatible to play CD, DVD, SACD, and other current disc formats. The dual-layer Blu-ray discs are capable of holding a whopping 50GB of data (a regular DVD holds about 4.6GB).