What's the musical state of Computer Audio? For gear heads or Music Lovers?

[caesar]

Everyone is talking about the gear. Dacs, Shmacks, in every magazine! If you don't have great roads, no point having great cars. Where are we musically with high res. recordings?

I hit the hdtracks.com site, and I already happen to have the music tagged as "audiophile grade" on sacd's. The rest of the albums they are selling (from the ones I'm interested in) I already have.

Am I missing something? Or is this high res business for guys who are bored with a lot of time on their hands and want to play with new toys by downloading the music they already have or transferring their CD collection to a digital server?

Or is there really something new and special musically?

 

[opus111]

From my (admittedly totally subjective) perspective, its for people who're not musically satisfied with RBCD coz they're not using the right DAC. They're barking up the tree of more bits, more kHz when they could be entering the Kingdom of Musical Satisfaction with the software they already have if they'd only get themselves a decent DAC This is assuming they do want something that sounds like live music, rather than supermarket muzak.

 

[mep]

From my (admittedly totally subjective) perspective, its for people who're not musically satisfied with RBCD coz they're not using the right DAC. They're barking up the tree of more bits, more kHz when they could be entering the Kingdom of Musical Satisfaction with the software they already have if they'd only get themselves a decent DAC This is assuming they do want something that sounds like live music, rather than supermarket muzak.

So when are you going to offer something for sale that doesn't look like a guy with ten thumbs built it?

 

[opus111]

I'm not going into the manufacturing business - I'm a designer. If someone wants to commission a custom DAC to their own specifications I'd be interested to discuss that - then they can call the shots as to the number of thumbs used to build it. But mass production isn't where I'm at.

 

[bbb]

IMO, the younger audiophiles or audiophiles to-be are fully vested in the format as most of their musics are probably rips or downloads, with a smattering venturing into vinyl. The older ones are getting into this format as an archiving tool or as an entry to Hires downloads and eventually succumbs to the convenience of it. From the manufacturers POV, this is how things are going to be. Physical formats will diminish as time goes by as it'll be much more cost effective to distribute over the air.

However, as a whole, I have been perplexed by the overwhelming number of people claiming the superiority of CA over a proper transport-DAC setup, especially with bog standard PC's or laptops. IME, I have always heard noise issues from CA which are absent from a good transport. Even ripping CD's is fraught with noise issues. I have encountered different sounding rips of the same files ripped through various equipments, worse of which was a bog standard laptop. All were ripped with EAC with accuraterip with the same settings and all were bit perfect. We did not null the various files though just checked against the CD. Please spare me the "a bit is a bit" argument. I am just reporting what I heard. YMMV.

I have heard only 2 acceptable CA, one is an Atom based Win7 linear PS computer running just barebone Jplay and a bryston BDP-1 based system but I am not able to form an opinion on the BDP-1 as the system have 4 top of the line Torus power conditioners in it. This is not a put down on CA. I am just hoping to understand the divide between my experience and others.

<edit> when I say bog standard, I mean hardware not software. Most machines I heard are software optimised.

 

[opus111]

Computers and their power supplies are noisy - most DACs that I've seen the innards of aren't designed explicitly to reject such noise. Its only a minority of designers that seem aware of it - the ones going to the greatest length to isolate the digital aspects from the analog. Ayre springs to mind as one of the few who has taken trouble with isolation and even then Charles Hansen says his QB-9 sounds different with things changed on the digital side (USB cables I think it was). So what hope with the others who don't put much (if any) effort into isolation?

 

[prerich]

From my (admittedly totally subjective) perspective, its for people who're not musically satisfied with RBCD coz they're not using the right DAC. They're barking up the tree of more bits, more kHz when they could be entering the Kingdom of Musical Satisfaction with the software they already have if they'd only get themselves a decent DAC This is assuming they do want something that sounds like live music, rather than supermarket muzak.

IMHO, I went to one source (PC) for convenience while maintaining quality. I was satisfied with my cd player, however I didn't like getting up multiple times or I wanted different tracks from different CD's - this is why I gravitated to PC (albeit - I'm also a computer tech). Having my music collection in the palm of my hand is quite satisfiying. I don't go out and re-purchase the RBCD's I already have - I just rip them in lossless format and listen to them via my PC that's attached to my system.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

There are a couple of active threads here right now that discuss actual studies/evidence of the ill effects of CA and the efficacy of "optimized" systems, and the actual audible effects of hi-res files vs 16/44.1. They are not what anyone would call proof, but make pretty interesting reading.

Tim

 

[edorr]

IMHO, I went to one source (PC) for convenience while maintaining quality. I was satisfied with my cd player, however I didn't like getting up multiple times or I wanted different tracks from different CD's - this is why I gravitated to PC (albeit - I'm also a computer tech). Having my music collection in the palm of my hand is quite satisfiying. I don't go out and re-purchase the RBCD's I already have - I just rip them in lossless format and listen to them via my PC that's attached to my system.

Same here. If SQ is at par with CD or close, CA is by far preferrable based on convenience. As it stands, I think SQ is better in most cases, unless you have $10K to spend on a transport. A good DAC will the great equalizer anyway. I even find myself listening less to my glorious MCH SACD (which I still spin) based on (in)convenience factor. Availability of High rez is a complete afterthought for me.

 

[prerich]

IMO, the younger audiophiles or audiophiles to-be are fully vested in the format as most of their musics are probably rips or downloads, with a smattering venturing into vinyl. The older ones are getting into this format as an archiving tool or as an entry to Hires downloads and eventually succumbs to the convenience of it. From the manufacturers POV, this is how things are going to be. Physical formats will diminish as time goes by as it'll be much more cost effective to distribute over the air.

However, as a whole, I have been perplexed by the overwhelming number of people claiming the superiority of CA over a proper transport-DAC setup, especially with bog standard PC's or laptops. IME, I have always heard noise issues from CA which are absent from a good transport. Even ripping CD's is fraught with noise issues. I have encountered different sounding rips of the same files ripped through various equipments, worse of which was a bog standard laptop. All were ripped with EAC with accuraterip with the same settings and all were bit perfect. We did not null the various files though just checked against the CD. Please spare me the "a bit is a bit" argument. I am just reporting what I heard. YMMV.

I have heard only 2 acceptable CA, one is an Atom based Win7 linear PS computer running just barebone Jplay and a bryston BDP-1 based system but I am not able to form an opinion on the BDP-1 as the system have 4 top of the line Torus power conditioners in it. This is not a put down on CA. I am just hoping to understand the divide between my experience and others.

<edit> when I say bog standard, I mean hardware not software. Most machines I heard are software optimised.

You are correct in most of your comments. However - (not all) but most of the CA people that I know custom build their own machines and generally use some type of power conditioning due to the fact that EMI does exist. Many will use chokes on their cabling along with power conditioning. CA I would say is in it's adolesence - earily HTPC and Music Server adopters have gone through and found the things that hinder playback. We must also thank the recording industry as well, because so much of our music is mastered on a Mac or PC - it's becoming natural to use it as a source as well (you'd be suprised as to how many people use pro soundcards such as the Lynx and RME's in their systems).

I love the gear, but the end is to enjoy the music. Anything that gets in the way of enjoying the music is just.....wrong

 

[rblnr]

I've haven't spun 2 channel discs for about six years now, I have a few Squeezeboxes around the house. The convenience of streaming and the enjoyment of being able to access my whole collection easily and play it back in various non-linear ways trumped all other concerns when I was satisfied that you give up absolutely nothing in SQ vs. spinning a disc.

Periodically, I've tested an iTunes/Squeezebox Server system against discs and other CA stuff. First, several years ago, w/a Cary 303/200 CD player (great piece btw) that has a digital input. It was easy enough to sync the song coming thru on the SB into the digital input with the spinning disc in the machine. A button on the remote switched instantly from one to the other. Listened myself, couldn't hear a difference. Did it for others -- no one could detect which was playing with any regularity. This was on a very revealing ATC active -based system.

Other CA stuff experimented with includes Bit Perfect, Amarra, and some of the others vs. SB server and iTunes, usually ALAC and AIFF files, but with some FLAC as well. Mostly through very good DACs such as the Berkeley, Bel Canto 3.5VB, NAD M51 and some others. I personally am not hearing any difference with the add-on programs, though I do appreciate the on-the-fly sample rate switching some provide. When I setup an A/B for others, no one has been able to ID which is playing. It's worth noting that neither Charles Hansen nor Jim Hillegas, designer of JRiver, thinks that anything is better than the output of, say, iTunes either. But of course, there's no money to be made if iTunes does it as well as anything.

A good friend and super smart guy who's an engineer is going to pass me the dedicated music server he designed -- I'll give it run. One of the nice things about CA is that it's usually easy to sync outputs among devices which makes A/B comparisons on-the-fly possible. Sonic memory is somewhat off the table.

The point I'm laboring toward is that AFAIC, CA has been here for both music lovers and gearheads for quite awhile. I will note that for some recordings, I hear improvement going from 16/44.1 to higher rez versions.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I've haven't spun 2 channel discs for about six years now, I have a few Squeezeboxes around the house. The convenience of streaming and the enjoyment of being able to access my whole collection easily and play it back in various non-linear ways trumped all other concerns when I was satisfied that you give up absolutely nothing in SQ vs. spinning a disc.

Periodically, I've tested an iTunes/Squeezebox Server system against discs and other CA stuff. First, several years ago, w/a Cary 303/200 CD player (great piece btw) that has a digital input. It was easy enough to sync the song coming thru on the SB into the digital input with the spinning disc in the machine. A button on the remote switched instantly from one to the other. Listened myself, couldn't hear a difference. Did it for others -- no one could detect which was playing with any regularity. This was on a very revealing ATC active -based system.

Other CA stuff experimented with includes Bit Perfect, Amarra, and some of the others vs. SB server and iTunes, usually ALAC and AIFF files, but with some FLAC as well. Mostly through very good DACs such as the Berkeley, Bel Canto 3.5VB, NAD M51 and some others. I personally am not hearing any difference with the add-on programs, though I do appreciate the on-the-fly sample rate switching some provide. When I setup an A/B for others, no one has been able to ID which is playing. It's worth noting that neither Charles Hansen nor Jim Hillegas, designer of JRiver, thinks that anything is better than the output of, say, iTunes either. But of course, there's no money to be made if iTunes does it as well as anything.

A good friend and super smart guy who's an engineer is going to pass me the dedicated music server he designed -- I'll give it run. One of the nice things about CA is that it's usually easy to sync outputs among devices which makes A/B comparisons on-the-fly possible. Sonic memory is somewhat off the table.

The point I'm laboring toward is that AFAIC, CA has been here for both music lovers and gearheads for quite awhile. I will note that for some recordings, I hear improvement going from 16/44.1 to higher rez versions.

I've run many of the same tests to the same results (not Squeezebox). I've compared CD to iTunes running from an un-optimized MacBook; I've compared the iTunes add-ons to naked iTunes, I've compared hi-res files to 16/44.1, rarely heard a difference and, therefore, assumed what differences I have heard have been in the mastering (and I've confirmed this a couple of times). I've also compared high bit rate MP3s to 16/44.1 with similar results.

I understand that my hearing is impaired, my gear sucks, that my auditory memory is too short, that I haven't listened long enough, that I am a victim of expectation bias who expects to hear no differences. I'll cop to the last, but it didn't start out that way and I've done my listening blind, on many occasions, with my expectations diconnected. The results have not changed.

So it's my ears. And my gear. Or I just need to keep listening until I hear what I'm supposed to hear. I'm going with this last one. It's a pleasant task.

Tim

 

[rblnr]

I understand that my hearing is impaired, my gear sucks, that my auditory memory is too short, that I haven't listened long enough,

Yeah well, at least you realize this going in

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Yeah well, at least you realize this going in

The real key to contentment is self-awareness.

Tim

 

[mep]

The real key to contentment is self-awareness.

Tim

Unless it's self-awareness that you aren't content.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Unless it's self-awareness that you aren't content.

But I am, in spite of the fact that you all keep telling me I can't be.

Tim

 

[mep]

I wasn't directing that comment towards you Tim. It was a weak attempt at humor.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Me too. We roll on.

Tim

 

[rblnr]

The real key to contentment is self-awareness.

Tim

Dunno, I think for a lot of people contentment comes from a lack thereof. Easier to find it that way though not as earned maybe.