|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
87.166.54.48
Well, it really comes down to which format doesn't make my ears bleed, and there's no slam dunk answer.
Laptop/streamer to DAC or standard CD player? The difference between the two sonically, is so small, that I venture to suggest that having different AA categories for the two options, is stretching it a bit...........especially when I can get a decent CD player on ebay for $40 and now am asked to spend $50-$500 on a tweak for PC audio.
I didn't post this on PC Audio for fear of flames!! Cheers all.
Follow Ups:
I just sold my Rega CD player which had been unused for years. "Putting on a CD" seems light years away, almost like "putting a record on the turntable"..... Something people did in the past, like ride horses.
I'll go straight between a film, BBC TV, Youtube, a streaming website, iTunes, Spotify and many other sources. All on My Mac Mini.
These days Raspberry Pi is more sensible than a CD player, but it doesn't have the versatility of my Mac for sources.
You are NOT going to get a great sounding CDP for $40. But you can get
one that will make your ears bleed. Arguably the best sounding inexpensive
CDP is a Rega, which will run you about $1200 msrp, I believe. If you
want a really good sounding one, be prepared to spend substantially more.
Mike, IMO you CAN get a 'great sounding' CD player for $40, if you know what you're looking for, and the person selling it doesn't recognize it for what it is (and the price doesn't keep you from enjoying it).
In my post, I said you can get a 'decent sounding' CD player on ebay for $40. No one said it had to be new or made in the last 25 years for that matter.
Part of my point was also that the CD format, when correctly implemented, is simpler and arguably better than going to ever higher resolution/formats/reproduction technologies, and if the industry had stuck with trying to get the best out of an existing standard instead of going in five different directions chasing some or other form of higher resolution (for film and music), we might have better sound for less money today. Instead everyone's trying to stay buzzword compliant, sapping resources all around. For that matter, they could have stayed with tape and 33 rpm vinyl.
At some point in the late 90s, the defacto DVD standard (24/96) took over in the recording realm, which was a poor decision from the consumer's standpoint, because it wasn't compatible with redbook, even though it could of course be downmixed. At the time, someone at Stereophile said, please go with something that is mathematically compatible with then-current redbook oversampling technology, that way nobody has to radically retool.
In the meantime, a lot of other things happened, like DVD-A, SACD, there were innovations for recording redbook, etc., the PC market boomed for 15 years, but IMO the move away from an existing standard just made everything more expensive by spreading resources between video and audio, CD and SACD, etc.
But these standards are owned by companies, so there's no 'higher authority' which governs what should be done about anything. Sony, the coinventor of CD, had every reason to want to move to SACD because after a certain time, patents are up, the big boys still have to make money, etc., and so it's guerrilla warfare time in the market. Meanwhile, I've only heard convincing SACD (multichannel) once: at an audio show in Montreral in 2001.
Consumer grade D/A conversion (and A/D conversion in budget studios) is simply not up to the task, whether its 16/44 or 24/96. You want to throw $30,000-$100,000 at a CD player? Neither do I. If the industry had stuck to 16/44 for reproduction, they could have gotten similar sound for less.
SOTA recordings mastered to vinyl on the best D/A converters and played through a $600 vinyl setup trump some cheap USB DAC played through a computer playing the same recording. Why? Because the D/A conversion in the mastering process uses far better equipment than you can generally get for home use.
And 'high resolution' PC Audio is not automatically better, just because some marketing person sells a 24/96 USB compatible DAC to get music out of your PC via USB. Getting good sound is much more complicated than just adhering to one buzzword statistic.
Home CD, as well as home PC Audio, will only be really really good if the CD or file being played is really really good, and all the intervening DA conversion is excellent. These days, for PC Audio, you can't do that for under $500 for the DAC alone, but for $40 you can buy a used CD player that will make a well recorded CD sound pretty darned good.
If the industry had stuck with a standard, by now we might have unbeatable 16/44 sound in a $500 (new price) CD player; instead many of the manufacturers are forced to buy buzzword compliance and cover their bases, chasing their tails and going bankrupt.
Better yet, the industry could have just done a better and better job of D/Aing to vinyl, saving everybody the headache of 25 years of hit or miss home CD playback technology. The big boys (sony, philips, the chipmakers, etc.) made money that way, and we spent lots of it trying not to hate CDs, but that didn't improve the end result.
30 years later.
I like to build my own PCs. Right now, I am just using a headphone amplifier and the PC sound is actually rivaling my DAC setup, which is probably not particularly high-end. Still, for the average person, not a bad choice. However, a CD player is still cheaper than a music server, but I presume a lot of folks use a laptop to get their music.
This player made my CD collection listenable... finally.
nt
We can have one clock near the DAC chip govern all things for the digital playback, including transport control logic circuit (if the CD player is a Redbook CD only machine). We cannot have such simplicity in a PC & external DAC system.
Also a typical CDP generates less RF radiation than a typical PC. That might have some subconscious effect.
and a decent PC and a great DAC will beat a crappy CD player all day long as well.
Attend a few Audio Trade Shows (CES/T.H.E., RMAF, etc.)and see what people are using to sell speakers and amps.
Why would anyone trying to foist a $30,000 set of speakers or $20,000 amps purposely use crappy sources, especially if they don't manufacture or sell said crappy sources?
Well?
OK, as it turns out some will be showing their systems with a Computer/DAC and some will be showing their wares with a $$multi$$ CD spinner, so the answer is...
If you spend enough money, it don't matter!
Of course, the REEEEEAAAAALLLLYYYYY great systems will be showing their stuff off with vinyl. ;-)
+ 1. I agree with your comments 100% Ivan. I have a good pair of speakers, but behind that I use the latest Vitus Signature series cd player which has a very good dac. And I agree with earlier comments about the fragility of PC-based audio.One day I will add a server transport connected to my Vitus dac for convenience, though I still enjoy spinning cd's :-).
Vitus SCD025MkII, SIA025, Oppo BPD-103AU, Magico S5's, Taoc ASR racks + SCB-RS50g, Stillpoints Ultra 6's/Mini's/LPI's, Furutech GTX-D(G), Gigawatt PC-3 SE Evo, Jorma Prime pc's + xlr's/Statement sc's/Unity pc, Siltech Classic Anniversary rcas + HDMI
Edits: 09/27/15 09/27/15
The trade shows are out of hand. Sure they want to show what's possible in terms of components, but usually, the system results at home are at least as good for MUCH less if you know what you're doing.
But why you one purposely use a compromised front-end that they don't even sell when showing off a $30K set of speakers or a 20K pair of amps?
My guess is that they would either select a front-end that makes their system sound like it's worth the money they are asking, or perhaps a front-end that meets the expectations of the people they are targeting as customers, for example...
VINYL! ;-)
but you had to listen through headphones. Didn't do much for me, but nice turntable to look at. I would be playing with it all day, if I owned one!
But it might have been the cables and the little spikes scattered around the room. ;-)
Maybe it will happen in the future, but I've yet to hear a PC/DAC combo that made me want to consider a PC/DAC combo.....
Same goes for an SACD rig, for that matter.......
.
I certainly don't
and so far that to be my experience, so I am sticking with it for now. :)
I am hoping my friend would show up one day with his PC/DAC as he claims his new set up is the best digital he ever heard even on redbook. So hoping I get to compare it with my CD player in my system.
You're right tho, probably my CD player has no leg to stand on against *properly done* high res. files but a few high res. files purchased from HD Tracks have been poor and those even at 24/96 or some times 24/192, lowly 16/44 CDs played on my CD player sounded miles better.
While there is still this sort of digital chicanery taking place , I'm afraid that properly audited and guaranteed hi-res music purchase has a loooooog way to go before getting acceptance in this house:
Track from Beck/Morning Phase (supposedly hi-res download, MP3 compression applied)> > >
Track from Beck/Morning Phase CD> > >
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
I read the article.... This may seem whacked, but I believe a lot of producers and engineers reduce the music to "MP3" simply because it sounds better that way to them......... (And it might sound better that way to me.)
Edits: 09/19/15
Even digital producers. Visual and auditory. After too much time staring at pixels or listening to bits, my brain hurts and my soul sulks!
Baudrillard would have a field-day...
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
I think too many producers/engineers have been trying to put out stuff that fits the stereotypical mainstream audience instead of the best sound possible. And although I think going analog would help, a lot of these people would believe the target audience might get "bored" with it, relative to the loud, overprocessed products they're used to dealing with.
The problem isn't necessarily the target audience itself..... But the monolithic entertainment media, not the target audience, actually chooses what's "good" and what's not. (This problem started around 1969, and has gotten worse and worse, up to today. This is why a lot of garbage has been popular in recent time, while the truly good acts remain obscure.) And a lot of producers know what sounds good, but they know the mainstream entertainment culture would reject it. The audiophile community might scream until it's blue in the face, but that audience is just a drop in the bucket, relative to the mainstream.
that they might try something new (or old, like vinyl). But I've been wrong before! :^)
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
Someone recently told me he was dumbfounded that rap music has remained popular..... I told him, as long as the network media touts how "great" something is, it will remain popular indefinitely..... It can be something even more hideous, it doesn't matter. (In social media, people take pride in their "rapping"..... Including a lot of people I like.... This is a real-life Emperor's New Clothes if there ever was one.)
Entertainment is closely related to politics..... People tend to believe consensus, whether real or contrived by the media. A lot of the garbage we hear is popular not because it sounds nice to the masses, but because the masses have been conditioned to believe if consensus likes it, it just *has* to be good. But as I stated many times, the popularity is being seeded by media execs, not consumers hearing it and liking it. And as I stated elsewhere, this was a shift in entertainment that took place around 1969. (I think the orchestral concerts off being taken off the air and Westerns being taken off the air is NOT a coincidence. I truly believe this was the start of a plan by the media to shape opinion, rather than merely reflect it.)
And like politics, what the entertainment community needs is its own version of Donald Trump..... Calling out the phonies for who they are, and getting real music back in the mainstream.
Thanks for the link. I like that site.
I will have this software by the end of the weekend. I'll update some album reviews I posted on Hi-Rez.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
More examination can only be a good thing.
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
Why would they put an MP3 compression on a High res file?
Another thing I have noticed on recent remastered reissue is that often, it's worse than the original release. Why would they mess with the original balance when they are good?
I know where I am with AAA vinyl recordings. I even know where I am with AAD/ADD/DDD CD recordings. But hi-res files? I have no faith in the model at all - especially as there are so many CDs and records to collect.
Count me out.
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
Like it or not, a PC is a 'compromised source'.
The fact that the REGEN actually worked in your system albeit while its performance was marred by it being the wrong color...
But the best DAC in the world could be incorporated into a world class disk spinner with a bit of smart re-read/buffering and you've just eliminated the 'compromised source'.
Leastwise that's what the folks at Meridian would like you to believe.
Me? I'd likely have no idea how to even load a CD into the piece above. ;-)
Sennheiser used it to show case their new headphone ( HD 800 ) at a local Headfi show.
Almost everyone else was running a cobbled together PC and DAC and or cheap DVD player for a source. They all sounded poor, high-res. file or otherwise, on the HD 800 I was puzzled to see why this headphone was anything special.
Until I stopped by at the Sennheiser booth where I was shocked to hear how great the HD800 sounded.
But can a 'spinner' play hi-res music files? I'm not talking dead formats like SACD. ;-)
Yes, if it's a universal player such as the Cambridge Audio 751 BD like of which I have!
is that it doesn't stream QOBUZ, TIDAL or DEEZER Elite.
OK, there's the color but you CAN order it in silver. ;-)
I thought that it was ridiculous when Wilson was showing off their 100K speakers with an IPOD. Yes, - the IPOD did sound much better than with a boombox dock. But, the competition for the SPEAKERS were other commensurately priced speakers in other rooms. Next to those SYSTEMS, the Wilson's didn't sound so good.
Yes, the speakers made the IPOD sound better: but no one is interested in "better" IPODs, when they can have incredible sound with a commensurate source, that makes it part of an amazing SYSTEM.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
There's nothing inherently wrong with using an iPod source if set up correctly. They can play 'hi-res' or even DSD files and output the digital signal via "Lightning" connector to an external DAC. This bypasses the iPod's internal DAC and cheapie analog output stage. I run a similar setup in my car using my iPhone 5s with 'hi-res' files played 'direct digital' to my car's audio system DAC.Remember back several years ago when a handful of high-end manufacturers made iPod docks (older 30-pin style) to interface the iPod digitally with outboard DACs? I have one from Wadia that sounds fine with the older iPod Classic (160GB) but I no longer use it.
That being said, most rooms at audio shows these days and for the past handful of years have used computer based playback sources rather than CD 'spinners' or iPods.
Edits: 09/16/15
Yeah,.....
I said us much in my post. Nothing wrong at all with using an IPOD, especially if you're comparing it with another source, that shows off your gear. In the aforementioned case, people were not walking away wow'd. The point is context.
At that time, digital file playback wasn't so prevalent.
And although the Wadia dock/DAC was pretty OK: Wilson wasn't using one. And certainly, throwing in a high end CD player to compare would've really given their audience a more realistic impression of their gear.
Outside the scope of my post, everyone is using digital file playback these past few years at shows. It certainly is getting better, still lots of bad sound, but then, there are many reasons for bad sound at a show, not just the source. Hopefully, that aspect will also come under some comparitive scrutiny before loading the van. Just two years ago the Salk speaker room was using reel-to-reel tape: this can also send great, but in their case, - not.
From a system perspective, no one is ever going to actually use an IPOD with $100K speakers. But, they may be impressed with a speaker's flexibility.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
it's been about a third each of Computer, HIGH End Disk Spinner and Vinyl.
I do think the reason it may be even be up to half computers now is two fold. First, a LOT of vendors are using computerized room correction a shows and need a way to hide it! Plus it allows them to control the room sound by playing only REALLY good recordings.
OTOH, some welcome folks who have their own media to play.
The last third, of course, is obvious.
Vinyl rules! =:-0
Most CD playback doesn't sound good to me, either way..... The CD playback that does sound good to me, I've only heard from a CD player or transport/DAC.
Whenever I do hear good CD playback, playing a nice recording, I will sometimes say, "You cannot get sound like that from a computer."
Apples and Oranges comparison.
Many people move to PC audio for the extreme convenience of having thousands of tracks or even thousands of albums available at their fingertips w/o having to manually go thru a stack of CDs or vinyl records.
If all you want to do is hear a single CD album or record, by all means just pull the media of choice from your pile, play it (flip it over if it's vinyl), and put it back when you're done.
My computer audio setup was as good as my CD player and that was before adding any 'tweaks'. It actually sounds even better these days especially with 'hi-res' files - that a CD player cannot play.
Computer, DAC, Integrated Amp, iPad Remote Control
The ability to instantly access anything from your digital library across multiple players is a music lover's dream come true. :)
With 11055 albums on the HD (145269 songs) I rarely ever play a CD anymore, just once while I rip it to the HD. I do listen to SACDs however.
What is best is to choose a genre or ever a mix of 2 or 3 or 4 genres and listen in a random shuffle mode. Sooner or later a tune will play that is on a CD I had forgotten about and with a couple of clicks from my sweet spot on the IPAD controller I will have that album up and playing.
The SQ is very, very good.
Thanks! for sharing- Tom.
Bad recordings, mixes and masters do. Some of my best "sounding" stuff is Redbook.
Not for me.
I have a Sony HAP Z1, Mytek Dac, soon an exaSound DAC,
Sony 5400/VSE, Sony XA7 ES as Transport to McIntosh DAC.
No $40 CD Player is anywhere near as good as these.
Computer Audio is great, but many just don't get it.
Speakers/Amp matter too, regarding Ear Comfort.
I use no tweeks, except Jitterbug/Dragonfly for Korg Audiogate Ds Dac 100, for my own Live Recordings, and Navcom Silencers Footers under Equipment.
It would be impossible to make such a statement if using a different DAC
I went the PC audio route last year and I am most happy with the final results. My sound is so much better than it use to be but my CD player
was a few years old and I am sure that the new DAC made a difference.
I now upgraded my DAC to even a more sophisticated one and again the sound is better.
In general you pay for what you get!!
/
I think you're asking the wrong question. After all, we're talking about digital so both methods should sound the same assuming you're using the same DAC for both.
I switched to digital streaming because it's so much more convenient than playing physical CDs. That's the real advantage. You can use free software (Exact Audio Copy) to rip your CDs and there is also free software (Foobar2000) to stream digital to a DAC, so it really doesn't cost anything to experiment as long as you have a DAC with a USB input.
If your CD player's DAC has only a coax or AES/EBU input, you can buy a component that converts the USB digital stream from your computer to coax or AES/EBU. That's what I did . It will let you test which method sounds better, but I suspect they should both sound the same when using the same DAC.
Best regards,
John Elison
I'm aware of the archiving possibilites and the product palette. My point was that the sonic advantages are still not obvious. There's a slightly different sound, but not necessarily better.
Of course, technically, it's like comparing applies and oranges. Hard drive plus USB vs optical disc playback.
IMO it would be better for 'consumers' if manufacturers stuck to agreed standards and didn't have to pretend every innovation were an improvement.
Then again, true high resolution reproduction has never been a mass market proposition.
CD players are still more cost effective (read: better) than the PC Audio route.
Marantz CD 5005: about $350
PC Audio setup that sounds as good: at least $800.
It's more about format and delivery method than about sound improvement.
as well as the amount of effort needed to get the best out of computer audio. Audit the amount of time spent on ripping, getting correct meta data, and the number of key strokes to find an album, and complicated computer audio for background music is simply not worth it.
Are you suggesting that you are giving up on computer audio?I don't find it all that complicated or inconvenient. Like I've been saying for years, it's not rocket science (although some make it out to be). Keystrokes? I just use a 'visual interface' on the iPad to remotely find and control the tunes I want to play. No 'keystrokes'. Ripping? Insert CD and let her rip. The meta data and album art are automatically pulled from the internet.
If my computer audio setup were that much of a pain to use as yours, I would give up on it too. But quite the contrary. It sounds awesome, easy to use, and very convenient.
Edits: 09/16/15
> It's more about format and delivery method than about sound improvement.
I agree to an extent. The part involving sound improvement results from higher resolution formats, better mastering and better sounding DACs. Of course, I began streaming high-resolution PCM before I ever heard my first SACD. I didn't have SACD capability until about a year of more after I switched to computer audio streaming. Therefore, for me it was all about the convenience of the delivery method. My CDs sounded the same to me when played from my computer or my CD transport using the same DAC. On the other hand, I have no desire to go back to playing CDs or even SACDs for that matter because I prefer the convenience of streaming PCM and DSD.
For over a year I had an April Music Stello DP1 DAC in my system and it was absolutely the best sounding DAC I had ever heard. It was accurate and detailed yet also very musically pleasing. It made my CDs sound better regardless of whether I played physical CDs from my Stello transport or streamed ripped CDs from my computer. I have yet to hear a better sounding DAC. The only problem is that the Stello DP1 does not convert DSD and I have now fallen in love with the sound of DSD.
I firmly believe DSD is the best sounding digital format and I now have the capability to play SACD and DSD from my Oppo BDP-105D and DSD from my TASCAM DA-3000. The Oppo basically replace my computer music streamer although the first thing I noticed was the Oppo did not sound as good as my Eximus DP1. The Oppo is very musically pleasing but it is not as accurate or as detailed as the Eximus DP1. I got used to the sound quality of the Oppo and came to enjoy it very much. Then, I bought a TASCAM DA-3000 digital recorder to replace my aging Alesis Masterlink.
The TASCAM DA-3000 can be used as a DAC and will convert PCM up to 24/192 and DSD up to 5.6-MHz. It also sounds as good to me as the April Music Eximus DP1. The only problem is the TASCAM does not have a USB DAC input for computer streaming. Therefore, I bought a Stello U3 USB Link to convert the USB output from my computer to AES/EBU for the TASCAM. Now, I can stream PCM digital up to 24/192 from my computer and I can play DSD files directly from a USB flash drive connected to the TASCAM's front USB port. Moreover, the digital sound quality from the TASCAM equals the best I have heard.
Best regards,
John Elison
Hi there, I've never been impressed with DSD. What I have heard sounds phasey, hollow, lack of punch, smooth but boring, you name it.
24/88 and arguably 16/44 correctly done, correctly filtered and when the CD is well recorded and mastered, is adequate in terms of information.
When people are excited about 'hires', what they're hearing is a whole new unfamiliar palette of sonic signatures that may be less irritating in some ways, but on the whole, to my ears, not very interesting.
CD, HDCD, XRD, etc. are perfectly adequate and DSD is and was unnecessary.
It was of course a calculated gamble by Sony. And these day most DACs are DeltaSigma type which does theoretically accommodate DSD. So there is a meeting in the middle in terms of designs, but the computing power and hardware and lack of format consensus, on the whole, is unnecessarily expensive IMO.
Your post is a perfect example. Always buying new equipment to keep up with the format wars is just an exercise in futility. Swiss audio knife solutions also always sound worse than purpose built solutions.
Too much energy wasted.
Too much money.
Mature, and maturing, technologies work, and work well.
Not to mention that consumer grade will always be inferior, unless it costs a fortune. Incredibly, one can still spend $100,000 on a CD playback system, when with less market fracture, unnecessary upgrade-itis, and poor value for money 'hope for better' the problem could have been solved (and arguably has been) for something like $2000, even at a mass consumer level. Even that is an insane amount of money to spend on only one chain in the system.
Great post Tom, I agree 100%. I have only about a dozen SACD's that I hardly ever listen too and feel most of my over 500 CD's I have surpass them in SQ. I wish though more HDCD's were made. My reference one that I have and is probably one of my all time favorites is Stephen Stills Manassas album. Still sounds incredible all these years later! Anyone who wants to hear HDCD's capabilities should listen to this great album, the music and sound quality is second to none. I have regulated my PC set up to my headphone system after trying it in my big rig a couple of times using different dacs and tweaks. I always felt I was missing something when I had it as my source and when playing Hi-res file's, they didn't really impress me either. So now I only use CD spinners in my main system and plan on keeping it that way for a long time to come.
HDCDs do sound nice, and I wish they had more of them too.
-------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
Then there was something seriously wrong with what you heard.
There is just so much MORE there in DSD, and especially 2x DSD.
Maybe "Believing" it's "Un-necessary" gets in the way of hearing.
maybe in the midrange, but the integration with treble and bass never seemed right.
There is of course the possibility that I did not hear an optimum setup :) But that's the point.
Each time the posts move, so much energy and engineering needed to make something sound right.
The fact that a whole new recording technology is necessary to record DSD is of course another strike against it.
Like I said, PCM done right is adequate in my opinion, but the as usual it does take a lot of optimization to get it right.
posted in error
Edits: 09/13/15
What problem are you referring to? I'm not following you.
On lots of stuff and CD players die to soon
I think there is something to be said about the quality of the transport in digital, as a separate link in the chain. Power supply, stability of chassis, quality of motor- do they make a difference? does the speed of digital sampling not get affected by these mechanical issues? Is there any chatter between digital processes within a computer that a dedicated transport does not have to be burdened/affected by?
I use a 2000 Sony 777ES with clock and cap mods. My other digital set up is a mac mini on to a Wavelength Brick (latest version)thru decibel.
The Sony seems more detailed and airy, more defined, could be said it sounds more controlled, may be more accurate. The PC to Brick sounds good too; more fluid but darker, more bass impact but the percussion sounds more recessed, less dynamic. I know the DACs are different, so I have run the 777es to another DAC- an NOS 47 labs Shigaraki (no USB to go to the Brick). It traded detailed accuracy for a slightly more fluid presentation, you can hear the decacys and overlaops of notes and instruments better, yet less air between the instruments. Not something my wife could hear, you really have to listen for it.
Anyway I have struggled with the notion of selling the 777ES, simplify, but then- this is a 15 year old, 55 pound transport, sounds better than most digital, and I can run a coax or toslink to an outboard dac.
/
I kind of wish I kept mine. The Sony XA7ES was built like a tank, top loading, and sounded great!
I have a Cd player from 1991 that still plays fine.
My Macbook 190 cost over $2000 in 1995 maybe still works, but is not 'supported' in terms of software or I/O capability.
Tell me again why anyone should go to PC Audio besides the 'cool' aspect. Every few years you have to make sure the hard drive is replaced, and the software still runs.
Same here.I have a Atoll,10years old,works fine
its nice not having to process a CD in and out of its case and transport for each any every selection?
As for me, I'd much rather spend time listening than disk shuffling. Perhaps you find Redbook adequate, but many don't - certainly not any recording engineers.
Enjoy your "cheap as possible" system objective. :)
It's not the sample rate per se, the rest of the chain has to be right. I find upsampled to be perhaps smoother and more airy, but has less punch.
But like I said, there's been almost no 'all other things being equal' scenarios/studies done, because arguably (from a hardware point of view), you cannot JUST change the sample rate and keep everything equal. Unless you're already in the digital domain.
> Tell me again why anyone should go to PC Audio
I went to PC audio because I got tired of playing individual CDs in a top loading transport. However, after going there, I greatly appreciate the capability to play other higher resolution digital formats.
Now, my desire is to be able to play all digital formats, especially DSD. You don't need PC audio to do that, though. There are universal players available that provide this capability. I bought an Oppo BDP-105D, which plays all the digital formats without the need for a computer.
I just received the latest issue of Stereophile and the Oppo BDP-105D is rated Class A.
Best regards,
John Elison
Ok, maybe the laptopDAC makes my ears bleed a little less. Anyone?
Broadly speaking my CD replay compared to PC is pretty much identical (it uses the same DAC). Not absolutely identical but the minute differences that exist are insignificant IMO.
I won't comment yet on the convenience aspect of PC replay as I am still in the process of building (ripping) my music library. However I am pretty sure that supporters of this aspect in this thread like John Ellison are correct.
There are two points that have pursuaded me to bite the PC bullet:
1. I have long term doubts about the continued availabilty of CD/DVD drives. The large OEM manufacturers of CD drives have mostly pulled out meanng that most new CD players have to use DVD drives. That's OK for the moment but the trend in computing is away from optical drives and I expect that at some point the necessary lasers will be diffult to ource if the chip manufacturers pull out. Chipsets cannot be manufactured at a cottage industry level so "big" economics will define the future. Bear in mind the tiny size of the market for our hobby. So even the ability to rip CDs using computer optical drives is likely to be eventually curtailed as the industry abandons the format.
In the above respect SACD is already experiencing a slow death.Not only are there now few plants that can press the discs but the major (sole?) OEM supplier of SACD decoding chips (Sony) ceased their production some years ago and the back stocks are now virtually exhausted. This has meant that previously available OEM SACD mechanisms can no longer be produced. So the future of hi-rez will surely lie outside of any optical drive solution.
2. Computer audio gives access to music formats not available via CD or SACD. As an example I recently bought an SACD which sounded fine. However I was able to buy and download the same recording in 24/44.1 format which was the original format of the master recording. It sounds better than the SACD leaving open to query the sample rate conversion process used for transfer to DSD. NB : most SACDs are transfers from non-DSD original recording formats.
So the future is PC/Mac audio or the equivalent "turnkey" proprietory solutions which are also computer based.
pc audio seems little bit less harsh, but for pure performance CD can't be beat, especially nowadays. of course talking 16bit 44.1khz, hi-res I prefer SACD.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: