Is computer audio a bust?

I find no worthy points being made on this thread. I see the computer as the wave of the future with data coming from internet downloads.

Agear - I have an "about AE" page that describes my system and has a photo. It is not up to date though, since I now have custom 805A SE monoblocks. Soon to get Vapor Audio Nimbus speakers too.

The best way to play files is probably wired Ethernet. I am currently designing a network renderer for this purpose. My products, including the Overdrive SE can be upgraded to change out the USB interface for this network renderer, called the "Interchange".

Storing files depends on the playback. Generally the best way is to have them local to the computer, not NAS, and not USB if you are using USB interface. If you use network interface, then USB or firewire access to the drives is fine. IF you use USB, then Firewire to the drives is best IME.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

Agear --

Yet another BADA advert....:)

That's a matter to be taken up with the OP's author alone - it's certainly not my agenda. And even if it is a "BADA advert" it's of no consequence to what the comparison is trying to tell in general terms (more on that later).

Indeed I did (and still do) consider pointing out to the OP (to linked article) that the prevalent, and more or less sole focus on the USB to S/PDIF converter as a "transport" is partially misleading, since the harddrive/server appears to be the more "logical" and relevant mention as such. An equally integral part, at least :)

Needs to blind a bunch of philes at an audio society meeting and do the same test. It would not be as black and white as one reviewer making pronouncements from the mountaintop....

Actually this is one area I'd feel no qualms about labeling as black and white. To be perhaps somewhat provocative about it: the prevalence (i.e.: enertia?) to ackowledge a (more or less) visibly spinning object as what's qualitatively desirable bleeds, in this case, into struggling to find the few cases where astronomically priced CD-transports would turn out victorious, yet still end up falling short compared to their computer-based alternatives - with the latter costing significantly less, that is. This, from what I can tell, is not about the frequency of CD-transport devotees tipping the boat, so to speak, and wanting to find the "evidence" for it, but instead bears the scent of a stubborn hunt for the instance where a group of individuals unanimously deems a CD-transport the winner over a computer ditto. No doubt a group, or groups of people have done so already, but... to be provocative about it :)

Tag, I am with you. While I follow this thread with amusement, it's value, not so much. I am a lover of all that is vinyl(records). Digital always turned me off. Enter the computer. Voila! Now I am in love with digital as well. Quality of sound. Convents. Ease of usage. You name it. Computer not just the future but the best digital was, is or will be.

I asked this question in another thread and didn't get an answer, so am trying here, since the conversation has touched on cable use.

"... Let me make sure I am tracking with you. You are saying that jitter is important. That jitter can also result from cable induced errors. That re-clocking at the DAC does not necessarily correct for all/any errors related to jitter that could occur during delivery of the raw digital signal through a cable. Does it follow that some digital cables are better at delivering digital signals free of or with less added jitter?

On a related note, in theory or in measurement, can a digital signal be corrupted in a cable, say due to exposure to strong EMF, to the point where 1s and 0s are actually deleted or unreadable at the DAC. I.E. outright data loss?"

Your thoughts appreciated, even if you think this is a non-issue.

kn