Will computer to DAC replace transports and cdp's?

Aplhifi, your beliefs don't gel with my experience. Sure, computer to DAC sound can sound poor, just as CDP's can. But equally I have been able to get computer stored audio to match or better good transports from Meridian, Teac, Audiolab and Theta. I am not saying that these are the best there is, but nor are they poor.

Far from being classy I thought that put-down was rude and somewhat childish. But perhaps I should put that down to cultural differences.

So that I can have more respect for you beliefs, can you explain the experiences you have had with computer to DAC sound that have led to those beliefs?

Before this thread goes to the dogs. I would like to thank everyone that has posted, it has been very informative. I choose the Roku SoundBridge over the SB for one reason only. I am feeding SPDIF out to a DAC using iTunes. The Roku integrates flawlessly with the iTunes library using .WAV files. The only issue is you have to choose your music from the Roku interface using the remote provided. Now you are susposed to be able to control the Roku from a web interface some times I can see the interface under my network connections and some times I can't. :(

So here is the current setup computer, ethernet cable to Roku, SPDIF out of the Roku to a Musical Fidelity Tri-Vista DAC. This equals sonic bliss. I honestly can't tell the difference in this setup and using my Theta Digital Data Basic II transport.

Alex P. wrote:
"The answer is NO, if superior audio quality is desired of course. Otherwise we might as well get I-PODs."

I cannot understand this statement. The fact is that computer-driven audio is intrinsically superior to reading of optical disks. The only way CD's can compete is if they are read into a FIFO buffer and then read out with a precision clock, which is essentially just equivalent to computer-driven anyway. I wrote this white paper on the subject for Positive-feedback:
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue22/nugent.htm

Even my own best modded transports playing rewritten low-jitter CD-R disks (similar to Reality Check) are no match for well-designed computer driven audio. The jitter can be extremely low using the computer, particularly with I2S interface or with the right clock topology. It is superior audio quality and it is available today, not in the future...

Steve N.

Steve,

.....The fact is that computer-driven audio is intrinsically superior to reading of optical disks. The only way CD's can compete is if they are read into a FIFO buffer and then read out with a precision clock, which is essentially just equivalent to computer-driven anyway....

Again, even a 15 years old CD player has a built in FIFO buffer as well as C1 and C2 error correctors. I am not sure about your “modded CD transport”, but ALL of today's universal players also feature large RAM buffers and spin the disc at x2 to x10. The data output is free of error and jitter. So, as you see, the statement that computer audio is "intrinsically superior" is not exactly true. Not to talk about the fact that computer audio is not even remotely close to the reading accuracy of the Esoteric's VRDS-NEO transport, or even some of the older Sony and Philips top line CD transports.

There are many, many factors that come into play for best digital reproduction. The computer audio has the potential combined with great convenience. Sonically, it is very good, but still not quite there yet compared to well engineered "classic" digital boxes. Well, may be some day. :)

Regards,
Alex

Alex - I agree that if the entire track is read into RAM and then played back from RAM, then it has the same flow-control and clocking advantages of a computer, but to my knowledge, none of the available CD players do this, except for maybe the Meridian, which is evidently just a CD-ROM drive and a computer anyway.

If you go to all this trouble, then why not just put the tracks on hard disk, where you have complete control over them in software, unlike the tracks on an optical disk?

Steve N.