Is computer audio a bust?

Joecasey, There is some world class transports out there that computer audio cannot touch period, if computer audio could, then this is the biggest fleasing in american history of audio!, look at DCS for an example, LOL!, to get this straight here, I am saying transports, Dacs, cd-players are all in the same catorgory, that is NOT computer audio, though I agree, cd-players,dacs, transports are computers, no doubt, however, they are dedicated to audio!

I would say that Computer Audio is definitely not a bust, with friends that I know from various age groups, people under 30 only use CA and probably don't have a CDP and never intend to buy one, it's not until you hit higher age groups where you find people reluctant to make the switch, or even try it. I have been playing with CA since about 1998 and completely removed my CDP from my system sometime around 2006. I would not even think of putting a CDP back in the system at this point. All music is in FLAC on a NAS drive over wired Ethernet to a small mini pc that plays the music over async USB to a galvanically isolated DAC that goes to my preamp. It sounds very good, I have pretty good analog setup and am very capable of making good hires vinyl transfers. The vinyl rips sound identical to the analog on my setup so I know that the CA is working right in my system.

Ripping and tagging, once you get the hang of it is remarkably easy to do. Organizing classical music is fine, you just need to settle on a way to organize it and stick to it.

The whole not doing Computer Audio is really just a generational thing, like it or not it is the future.

I dunno.

Has this been shot down hereabouts yet?
http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
&
http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

All of this reminds me of the horsepower wars that any conversation about cars engenders.

All the best,
Nonoise

I believe my ears. I have listen to an analog signal converted on the fly from all sample rates and bit depths. The difference for me is obvious, with higher res always sounding closer to the source. Attack and decay of notes are almost always an indicator with space and timbre also playing a big part.

This article can make a statement and say it is settled science but to my ears it ain't so.

My ears tell me that my CDs sound a lot better played in an SACD player and that SACDs don't necessarily sound better at all. Is this due to the fact that most SACD players are more robustly built with better power supplies and regulation?

It's only 16 bits going in and despite all the oversampling going on it's still 16 bits coming out and it sounds great. Same goes for the best "computer" audio I've heard: it was an MSB player that I thought was some high rez PC job and it was just playing CDs. It was the most analogue sounding device I've heard that wasn't a TT.

I've also heard demos at shows where I was told what to listen for and lo and behold, it was there: that leading edge, that trailing off, etc. but I'm not sure that it wasn't at the expense of something else since it was a short demo. These small samples of demos I've heard all had that same, sharp, almost glasslike quality to them that was not quite natural and may have not pleased over the long haul. Was I getting something at the expense of something else?

There are still DACs presently being made that are 16 bit and some audiophiles just love them. Maybe it's all in the implementation and we're chasing just another dragons tail.

The article goes on to state that the best they could achieve on a A/BX test was less than 50% on identifying 16 bit playback from higher rez. That boils down to just chance.

I just don't believe it's all settled matter.
Who really knows?

All the best,
Nonoise