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 question and a good sample of perspectives supplied so far.

My take is: it's still too far away from easy adoption when considering cost, technical complexity (either to set up or in terms of ease of use), and performance.

It's more like pick any 2 of the 3 above.

I'm not technically expert nor technically dumb, but it is vexing to me how many barriers there are to getting a turnkey system topology that performs well and is integrated well, that does not cost like Linn or Meridian prices.

From ripping, encoding, format conversion, format support and playback, remote control, library integration, metadata organization, storage, effectiveness of digital transport, power supply noise, cabling, platform diversion - it can all be overwhelming and bewildering!

Seems to me the critical space is the hardware side of things upstream of the DAC, effectively what Squeezebox tried to solve, and needing lower cost turnkey solutions to addressing that. I'm hopeful that the Auralic Aries streamer will usher in a new wave of more affordable devices that address these tasks without overly compromized engineering.
Computer audio is no different than CD players. There is a large range of performance depending on price and manufacturer.

Because USB and networked streaming is new to most manufacturers, the majority of them use off-the-shelf USB modules from one or two third-parties rather than designing their own. The performance is therefore limited to how good these OEM Modules are. I have evaluated some of these and IME, they are fairly poor as a rule.

The experience you have with computer audio is therefore completely a function of the manufacturer/designer that you choose. Choose the right one and you will dump the CDP.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
07-15-14: Clio09
Wired Ethernet network has had the most impact on sonics by far of any other computer-based configurations.

Tony, I presume you are talking NAS here. What other configs have you tried and what was added by Ethernet?
Being an audio dinosaur, I am happily feeding redbooks from the SPDIF coax of my Esoteric X-01 into a Rowland Aeris DAC/pre, which upsamples the signal to 192K.

Eventually, if the techno-dust settles, I might become persuaded to migrate to a dedicated music server, such as the Bryston BDP-2, or hypothetical follow-on device that supports data rates higher than 192K... and a large internal solid-state storage option.

"eventually" means that I am not experiencing any kind of obsessive compulsion to do so in the short term.

G.
Andrew, it was what was subtracted by adding Ethernet that made the difference in my opinion.

No more reliance on Mac Mini and all the tweaks/upgrades.
No more reliance on JRiver or other music software packages to play music.
No more reliance on USB converters or USB in general (which I never really embraced).
No more computer next to my system.

In exchange I have a NAS now loaded with about 500GB of music. I run MinimServer on the NAS. The NAS is connected to my router (which I have always had). I run a 35 ft. Ethernet cable to my Resolution Audio Cantata. Music streamed from NAS to Cantata using iPad and PlugPlayer control point.

I am still interested in trying the Lampizator transport with my Lessloss DAC for comparative purposes because I am told the wifi is superior to wired Ethernet. Not sure I buy that statement completely though as Resolution Audio states the opposite with their Cantata.