Should Sound Quality of Computer Audio be improved

Petty, once again, failure to actually listen to and process what is being said. "The other guy understands me perfectly and is extremely annoyed as a result" - which is referring to me. But if you took the time to actually read and more importantly UNDERSTAND what is being written then you would realize that what I ACTUALLY said is that I am annoyed because you are not listening - which makes your response all the more ironic.

As I said, I could not care less what you think about computer audio. What I find ANNOYING is you putting words in our mouths.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything and you certainly are failing to convince me of anything. Personally, I think computer audio done right can easily beat an optical player in the same price range, based on my experience and what I have heard (which is a ton). I also believe that computer audio done wrong can sound horrible.

As I said (and I'm getting tired of repeating myself), I don't actually care what you think on the subject. If you can't even listen to and understand what we're saying, I don't really trust your hearing anyways. You obviously have your agenda - which appears to be to discredit computer audio and to somehow characterize all those who have adopted it as attempting to kill music and all other formats. It's ludicrous, really. Believe it or not, we're just music lovers who have adopted the format, pure and simple!

Once again, please stop putting words in my mouth - THAT is what I find annoying!

"I think Computer Audio done right can easily beat an optical player in the same price range, based on my
experience and what I have heard (which is a ton). I also
believe that Computer Audio done wrong can sound horrible."
These are your words, I am not putting ANY words in your
mouth! Based on your experience (which is a ton), why not
tell us about your experience when Computer Audio has been
done wrong and sounded horrible? If for no other reason, to
give fair warning to any novice getting into Computer Audio. Nobody here (including yourself) will do this
because "YOU" are the one with the agenda! Even if doing so
would help promote Computer Audio by helping others to avoid pitfalls! No- you wont do this! You are Computer Audio's worst enemy, by not allowing it to progress- and
improve. You wont admit Computer Audio's weaknesses, block
any correction, and enable it to remain stagnate! You are
the reason why no one should get involved in Computer Audio, and others like you. You are shoving your version of
"Perfect Sound Forever" down everyone's throat. Only after
you get over yourself (and others) can Computer Audio
correct itself, and progress to be concidered the only Audio Format. You are just dead weight holding it down. So
long as this continues Computer Audio "CANNOT" be concidered ready to become the only Format! You get nothing
for free from this Audio Market- "EARN IT"! Grow up and
accept it! You can't seem to get others to adopt this Format, pure and simple! Maybe "YOU" are the problem, not
Computer Audio!

Petty, I have left many suggestions and details of my set-up in the other thread - I refer you there. And unlike you I have actually POSTED my set-up on this site so you can refer to my system to see how I have things set up. There's also tons of info out there on the internet which any reasonably intelligent person should be able to sift through. It's all way easier to set up than a turntable, let me assure you.

I have never, EVER said that computer audio has NO WEAKNESSES - again you are completely misquoting me. I have said REPEATEDLY that computer audio is most definitely NOT plug and play and much effort is required. And I think there is general agreement on this. I would think that anyone with enough interest in audio to frequent a forum like this is used to putting in some effort in getting great sound - in fact I'd think most find this fun.

And again, I am not shoving "perfect sound forever" down your or anyone's throat. I have merely said that I have put considerable effort into my computer audio set-up and as a result its fidelity has exceeded the performance of any optical player I've had in my system.

Again, perhaps I need to shout but hopefully you'll listen this time: I am not trying to get anyone to adopt this format. I have no agenda. I could not care less if you adopt computer audio. Like you, I hope that computer audio does not eliminate all other formats - and if you truly believe that its adopters like me are responsible for something like this then you need your head checked.

I have adopted it because in my experience it has given me better fidelity than optical players. Pure and simple.

I am listening, Hfisher3380. Your last response was an
honest assessment of Computer Audio. Still, like pulling teeth to get this honest assessment. Others "DO" believe
that Computer Audio should replace all other Audio Formats.
Creating a Monopoly will never establish an alternate High
End Sound Quality Audio Format. Once other Audio Formats
are gone, the temptation to dumb down Sound Quality for the
sake of profit will be too great. Why would they do it,
because they can, you enabled them to do so, not a damn
thing anyone will be able to do about it, they know that,
you've painted everyone else into a corner, and it is the most profitable- so why not? They wouldn't because they love us? Way too thin for Alpha Format Status. You are
placing your valuable Music in the hands of used car
salesmen. They will lie, cheat, and steal to give you less-
and charge you more for it. You haven't given them any reason "NOT" to do so! This is very troubling to many other
Audiophiles. Need some guarantee, like larger High Rez.
Downloads Music Selection, TO-KEEP-THEM-HONEST! Not another
SACD, not another DVD-Audio! Short Selection List (SACD.DVD-Audio), something is definitely crooked for the third time in a row now. BUYER BEWARE- Computer Audio is no exception! Show me the Music Selection first, last, and
always! Why work harder, and pay more for my Audio Format-
so that we can progress backwards?

Petttyofficer,

You say you listened, but it is obvious from you're last answer you have not. You are just repeating some paranoid idea you have that computers will kill off high quality audio or other quality formats. Please show me the evidence.

No one is dumbing down, cheating or lying if you stick with the established retailers. Piracy is a problem, but I'm sure you can tell the difference.

No one is progressing backwards. You will find everything is available at 16/44.1 (CD quality). Now you will find some 24/44.1 and higher recordings. All the way up to 24/192. At a push you will find higher.

As time goes by there will be more. Give it time to appear. In the meantime you have the recording history upto today available for your listening pleasure. Not enough for you I guess?

Monopoly is an interesting word for you to use. People are using downloads because it's easy, and compatable with all modern equipment, and sounds as good as the orignal recording if kept at original sample rate. i.e. non data compressed.

For portable convenience some use data compression (MP3) to fit numerous albums on their phones/iPods etc. Still sounding way better than the Sony Walkman of the early 80s. But as we are talking about audiophile quality we won't count MP3s. Remember you could keep the original non compressed file in your library, & convert to MP3s to your portable device.

From a technical standpoint some recording masters used to create the glass master for CD manufacture are different to the masters for creating vinyl. This is not because of Microsoft or Apple. Its just the radio loudness war effecting things.

You see Petty, there is no standard anything. Besides you could probably find the masters used for creating the vinyl. After all they too were probably a wav or aiff file anyway...