Is computer audio a bust?


In recent months, I have had several audio acquaintances return to CDPs claiming improved SQ versus their highly optimized computer transports (SS drives, external power supplies, etc, etc).

I wanted to poll people on their experiences with computer "transports." What variables have had the most impact on sonics? If you bailed on computers, why?

I personally have always believed that the transport, whether its a plastic disc spinner or computer, is as or more important than the dac itself and thus considerable thought and energy is required.

agear
"Interesting. In your opinion, is jitter management or the lack thereof the stumbling block to true analog reproduction? "

Absolutely, #1 cause. Also digital filtering is a big offender, #2.

Also, what are your thoughts on grounding and jitter production?

Grounding is a multifaceted issue. There is the issue of earth ground and where this is connected to DC common. This is what star-grounding is used for. Many designers don't understand this. Then there is the issue of ground-return paths. It is generally poor ground return paths that add jitter in most designs. Then there is the issue of the power supply currents in the ground planes and how these affect the signal currents in the ground planes. These can also affect jitter. One must understand the physics of how currents flow in digital systems. This is not intuitive. Creative solutions are required to overcome these issues. This is what sets apart really creative designers from well-schooled designers.

This is a lot like talking about power supplies. Power supplies are only the start of a much more complicated system that I refer to as "power distribution" that exists in all components. Its like saying that Hoover dam creates really clean power, but ignoring all of the transmission-lines and transformers and shared loads that are in between your outlet and Hoover dam.

I applaud any actions like the Vertex/Nordost tools for making better audio measurements. The field has historically been lacking of sufficient measurements to characterize these effects. I have myself tried to do exactly what they are doing, with limited success, when I used to design cables from 1996 to 2000. Correlating analog before and after signals in perfect sync is a difficult task for sure. This demonstrates differences in dynamics, which is the foremost problem with most consumer audio gear. Most gear compresses due to deficiencies in the component power distribution system as well as slow reacting DC power supplies. Cables can also be at fault, but to a lesser degree. More difficult to measure cable effects IME.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
"If you analyze people's opinions on SQ superiority of WAV versus AIFF or any other format, its a coin toss statistically. What does that tell us?"

Not if you are selective about who does the listening and on what systems. I do these comparisons at virtually every show I exhibit at. The differences are always obvious. Usually the listener that has ripped his entire library in AIFF or FLAC just leaves in disgust because he now knows that he has worked hard to produce something suboptimal.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
The synchro mesh is not bit perfect. why would you add that before a $4,000 dac? shoot me!
On the contrary, I know quite a few philes who would argue with you after having done both. I have heard computer fronted systems sound like crap even with whizbang dacs and big money ancillary pieces.

There could be many reasons why setups with "whizbang dacs and big money ancillary pieces" would sound less than desirable, and that'd hardly fall back on it being computer fronted. I bailed on CD-players (and realized the importance of transports) precisely because ripped CD's or downloaded files played back from harddrives bettered any CD-player solution we tried, at almost a fraction of the cost (easily by factor ~10, as per above). With a variety DAC's USB-connected to a laptop what shone through in each instanse was a markedly added sense of resolution, natural warmth, organic flow and clarity. CD-transports may have advanced (though I doubt they have in any significant way), but the optimization of PC-audio has evolved even more so.

Spinning a CD leaves you with a single sonic option, 16/44.1, via a physical disc that needs handling for each album; playing back from harddrive/PC/Mac potentially gives you all formats to choose from, and the whole of your music library at your fingertip. In all and in more than one sense that's hardly a "bust," and a whole community of computer audiophiles would likely agree. I'd wager PC-audio can sometimes be a daunting undertaking to set up (though it certainly doesn't have to), but that's relative to ones need for tweaking.
Because it will sound better with the Synchro-Mesh, that's why.

Bit-perfect is less important than low-jitter, and the resampling in the Synchro-Mesh is the best available now. Minimal impact on SQ.

It's 30-day money-back, less shipping, so the risk is low. If your system is resolving, it will make a big difference.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio