Is computer audio a bust?

I had always been very skeptical about the sound quality of computer-based digital playback. It seemed convenient but not very musical. After hearing a Wavelength Brick driven by a Mac Mini at a show a few years ago, my perspective changed.
I have had a Sony 5400ES, a modwright-modded Sony 9000ES, an Ayre CX-7 and many other highly regarded disc players that retail for up to $3500, but none of them compared to what I heard at this show (where they won the best of show award).

Since then, I purchased the Mac Mini and Wavelength Brick and was loving it. About a year ago I upgraded to the Ayre QB-9. In many ways, it sounded better than the Brick, but something was missing.

A few months ago, I upgraded to the Wavelength Cosecant V3 with their best DAC module - Denominator - and their high speed motherboard. This DAC now plays digital files up to 24/192 and sounds incredible. The Cosecant is probably the most musical and enjoyable component I have ever purchased, and I started buying audiophile gear in 1980. In fact, there are some high resolution discs that in many ways actually sound better via my Mac Mini/Amarra/Cosecant than they do on my vinyl rig (see system).

Computer Audio IS very convenient, but this DAC has the lowest measured jitter of any DAC (according to John Atkinson), and many have found that ripped files played back via computer are reproduced better than $10,000 transports. Another great benefit is that my wife finds it so convenient amd enjoyable, that she listens to music a lot more and does not object to upgrading my gear.

I HIGHLY recommend trying one if these Wavelength DACs with a computer. I never knew digital files could sound so musical.

09-06-14: Mapman
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.

+1

Hi Joecasey, and every one, I have on my computer Ashampoo studio 8, I burn cds to computer to blank cds for recording, full format, no compressed files, and yes, down loads to, and un compress them to normal format to go on cd for play back, I just do not know if the soft ware I have that my computer repair friend put on this computer he built for me is High-end, I know fellas, Do Not laugh here at me, Though I still believe computer audio cannot match a good digital or analog cable on a profound dac or cd-player, I would like to learn from all of you!, I do need to be with the times!, maybe a state of the art music server would be great, like I believe TBG may be getting?,currently, I would like to attempt to do my best with little money to achieve best results for recording?, I am going to write down the three software recommendations thus far, how much money does something like this cost, what do any of you think about the Ashampoo studio 8 I mentioned?, cheers.

09-07-14: Tbg
My music server comes with a TEAC optical drive with Linux program for ripping with many checks for errors. I have found that ripping is much faster when the cds are treated with the Essence of Music cd treatment and clearly sound better also.

Does the time to treat a cd negate the shorter ripped time of a treated cd?

Since ripping is not real-time, it really doesn't matter IMO.

Joecasey, I agree but it does suggest that the longer time means that errors are more common, that Essence of Music reduces them. It probably does not mean much in ripping, but the ripping with the treatment sounds noticeably better, and I suspect that on a universal player would be quite a good deal better.