Is computer audio a bust?

labyrinth, your mad ramblings about Tara Labs would be better received in Asia. Spend some time on the Audioexotics site and you will see. That audio community always seems to be chasing the lunatic fringe (where cost is no object). Sadly, we in the US have become coupon cutters and deal seekers. Its just where the economy is. They are going up and we are going down.

Agear, come on, I know better than that, I know many audiophiles that do not talk on the audiogon forums because they do not want to be bashed for what they own, I was warned about talking about some of my equipment, Agear, I'm a guppie compaired to some people I talk to with super systems right here in the u.s.a., and I know you are kidding anyway, cheers.

Another way to ask the central question of the thread is "what takes computer audio over the top as a source"? What single tweak relegated your turntable to the sidelines?

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).

Agear --

My findings are the complete opposite, and can summarized in the following (by another author):

Ever since I mastered my first CD back in 1983 and compared what came back from the replication plants with the masters used to make those CDs, I’ve found that CDs from different plants (sometimes different lines within the same plant) all sound different from each other and none sounds indistinguishable from the master used to create it. This is true regardless of the CD player or transport used, regardless of price or design. To my ears, comparing playback from disc with playback of the master used to create said disc, there are always losses of focus and fine detail, sometimes subtle, other times not so subtle at all.

Interestingly, when those same CDs are ripped to computer as raw PCM files and then compared with the masters, all the differences go away. In other words, with playback of these files via a good server, for the first time in my experience, the user can have the sound of the CD master at home. So, the convenience of a music server not only does not exact a sonic price, the results actually sound better than playback from a disc player or transport. (It might not beat good vinyl playback in some ways but that is a subject for another day. And besides, what I’ve outlined above is only the beginning. Read on.)

...

https://soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/listening-to-tomorrow/

Agear, I have continually wondered about the fundamental question in this thread, which frankly I think is absurd. Now with your new restatement, I can comment more.

Does computer audio that digital over the top relative to vinyl something for which I have an opinion. No! I still greatly prefer vinyl, except for its great inconvenience. I was moving to prepare to put many of my 45 rpm reissues on the hard drive in double DSD, but have stopped as I suspect that I may get them that way directly off master tapes, although SONY is using a device that has many opamps which really are terrible.

Presently, I'm using a Mac Mini running JRiver MC19 out via USB to my dac that can play double DSD. USB and Firewire are the only outputs I have. With JRiver MC19, I can play cds in 44.1/16 on up to double DSD and the differences are striking.

I am told by a friend that single native DSD sounds better than double DSD but I'm not at all convinced that this is true. But double DSD through USB asynchronous is the best digital I've ever heard. High resolution is the wave of the future and I suspect there is no way to get such high definition is other than through downloads off the internet.