2. digital
  3. 1405364620

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
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,472 posts
 
I use Squeezebox Touch for example and started out with .wav for several years and recently converted to FLAC. I do not hear much difference there. I'm pretty sure SB system converts .way source files to lossless compressed .flac anyhow for greater bandwidth under the covers, so it does quite well with those. I am also hearing good results so far with FLAC and newer Plex system I have started to implement alongside aging Squeezebox.

Computer audio works with .wav but flac and other formats designed for dynamic tagging make things more fun and cut storage and network bandwidth requirements roughly in half, adding a lot of flexibility there as well. I do not anticipate ever going back to .wav, rather sticking with gear that works well with FLAC, like PLEX.
agear OP
1,362 posts
 
Does anyone remember the sound of the reel to reels? Remember the density? Mmm.

and

Any analogue source (if done right) gives you warmth and emotion your brain needs to "make up" when listening to digital. Cheers, mate.

Density and fluidity with detail. That is indeed missing from most digital front ends. If master tape is not a sonic frame of reference, you don't miss it. Perfect sound forever....:/
agear OP
1,362 posts
 
10-20-14: Audioengr
Also avoid ALAC, AIFF and FLAC files. Only the Antipodes server plays these as well as .wav. On all other servers and computers I have heard, the SQ is inferior to wav.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

I have tried to convince myself of that. Barry Diament (recording engineer of some renown) did blinded comparisons of master files in either AIFF or WAV, and there was no discernible difference.
agear OP
1,362 posts
 
How can 'computer audio' be a bust? The audio world has barely scratched the surface of what is possible with digital recording, much less storage and reproduction from computers.

Its a rhetorical question for the sake of discussion. Its a bust to some people based on perceived SQ deficits....
audioengr
3,282 posts
 
"Barry Diament (recording engineer of some renown) did blinded comparisons of master files in either AIFF or WAV, and there was no discernible difference"

So what? Steve Nugent did the same comparison and found a significant difference.

This is entirely system and track dependent. Recording studios are notorious for compression and using inferior playback systems for their mixing.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
More to discover