Is computer audio a bust?

Network-based audio playback is definitely the future as it is for multimedia in general. Just as there has been an explosion of manufacturers jumping into the DAC business, more network players are right around the corner.

If you're using your PC or MAC as a DAC or digital source hardwired to a DAC then sure you can argue all day and night about the pros/cons of USB, firewire or any other physical interface, quality of PSU's, fan noise or whatever. But if you're streaming your music over wifi (not bluetooth in its current state) then it won't take long for those variables to be made irrelevant by the very nature of how networked computers work - hardware and software layer abstraction.

So long as your network is up to par, a $200 chromebook will feed your networked DAC the same file as a $2,000 gaming rig. And home based networks have been more than capable of doing this for a long time with minimal router tweaking by users.

Additionally, you can't talk about computer based audio in terms of quality without admitting that in terms for, DISCOVERY, computer-based audio is already unparalleled and getting even better.

For the record, I've been building gaming PC's from scratch for years. All the music I buy nowadays is vinyl (new or used) and I use Rdio extensively.

Tortilladc, I agree with you that a $200 chromebook would sound as good as a $2000 game rig. Both would be little better than MP3.

I am not interested in such noise.

I record in either 24/48 or 24/96 for my multi track gigs. Admittedly I'm a small fish in the world or recording engineering. The beauty of digital is that once I mix down to track and master the mix a file copy of that 2 track will sound the same as the master. The only difference will be in sound will occur due to the difference in playback hardware. I've never worked in DSD but many rave it's sound.

When I archive and transfer analog tape I use 24/96. Believe it or not there is a current argument claiming that properly dithered 16/44 or less, is all that is needed to to maximize the transfer resolution of any analog tape. I've been involve in some of these discussion and don't subscribe to this belief and argue that my own listening test tell my ears otherwise but these folks are smarter than me and throw all kinds of math and science at me telling me I'm buying snake oil and only gilding the lily by using anything beyond 16/44.

If anyone is interested in my work, which is all on location live concert recording, I would point you to Frank Vignola Trio with Bucky Pizzarelli, Live Standards or Felipe Salles, Timeline, or Ronnie Leigh, live at Apple Jazz...to name a few. These are only available in cd but I do have the hi res 2 track master mix. I also have 3 more releases coming out next month.... 1 is a limited run surround mix, the second is a blue ray dvd....which will have 24/48 audio and the 3 will be a mostly acoustic jazz concert on cd. All of these will be released on the Apple Jazz lable.

I'm not trying to pedal my wares but give you a frame of reference from which I speak, albeit, just a very small part of a much larger industry.

Raymonda,
Thanks, I look forward to finding these CDs of yours and listening, I love jazz.
Charles,

Tortilla is right about the value of using a network to get the data to the player. I agree 100%. It makes what you use as the computer essentially irrelevant in regards to sound quality. As long as there is enough storage and processing power streaming is a trivial task for most any computer made in the last 10 years. I have tried many configurations this way and the sound quality does not vary into same DAC. Whereas sound quality with computer based play software is all over the place. USB implementation is a significant factor as well, but software used to play seems to be the biggest variable I hear to-date.