|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.47.202.254
In Reply to: RE: Is it or isn't it a computer??? posted by Bob_C on October 14, 2014 at 12:09:21
It's pretty clear by now that their "reference" computer transports - pretty much uniformly Macs - are not much of a reference. When your "reference" is consistently beaten by the item under review, it's probably time to ditch it - in favor of one of those items, for instance.I get the concepts of "ease of use", "slick and attractive", "sounds better than CD transport from 90's", "ability to play hi-rez" etc., that attract users with beginner-to-moderate computer skills to Apple - but the time to move on was, like, yesterday.
Edits: 10/14/14Follow Ups:
"It's pretty clear by now that their "reference" computer transports - pretty much uniformly Macs - are not much of a reference. When your "reference" is consistently beaten by the item under review, it's probably time to ditch it - in favor of one of those items, for instance."
More of a point of reference than an absolute reference... The point is to stay somewhat mainstream so most can relate properly to the review. Most of the attractive commercial boxes are much just like Mr.T says can be duplicated for very little $$ with a small Linux device. Common sense for some here, but not all.
As a reviewer, you need to have something that most of the readers can relate to. I use OSX Mavericks and Windows 8.1 64 Pro. Slimming the OS does make a difference.
Now, what if I were to built a highly modified PC using Server 2012? I guess I could tweak higher performance, but many of my readers would feel left out. So I tweak the "transport" in other ways like the Tranquility Base, etc.
There is no way I know of to keep everyone happy. There are just too many options. And the performance I'm presently getting is damn good. I have yet to be blown out of the water with any of these dedicated designs. When and if that day occurs, I'll buy it!
I've never heard anyone making an argument that reviewer's reference system (amp, pre, speakers etc.) has to consist of the most common, readily available components - so more readers can relate to his opinion.
In fact, the absolute performance seems to be the goal they're trying to achieve - and I wouldn't subject the computer transport part of the system to different rules.
Let me answer you another way. What I'm running is damn good. I know this since I try many of the other options out there.
Talking about digital file playback: (and I would add to your point) from a NAS device.
So, if the reviewer or experimenter is comparing the Mind/Sonore/Aries/Accustic Arts, - they better compare it to more than just one transport, and one transport type. This includes PCs, MACs, PCs running linux. AND, - optimized computers as well. If you're not optimizing the computer and changing it into mostly a "single-use" computer, - it's akin to creating a straw man.
And for that matter, it can only bring insight to the reviewer to also compare it to a traditional disc spinning transport as well.
Is that hard to do? Are they going to have this stuff lying around? If not, - they should. As digital file playback from a NAS is so rapidly becoming the norm, and is now so ubiquitous, - it's a rapidly becoming almost mandatory to run such comparisons.
Cheers,
"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.'"
....digital file playback from a NAS. However, I was driven to it by necessity because none of the dedicated audiophile solutions, until recently*, could accommodate multichannel. It was not something I wanted to do but, now that it is done, I am very happy with it and pleased that it does not lock me into a fixed solution.
All this stuff is so new. And, there are only a few companies who've (finally) started to adopt the high end audio manufacturing philosophy of trickle down instead of the (IMO: poorer) model of "trickle-up."
Every digital file playback reviewer should have a VRDS-NEO on hand, as well as an optimized Linux PC based transport, a Windows based transport, & a MAC based transport, (and then whatever streamer: Sonore, Bryston, Squeezebox, Mind), all running into the same DAC, - with at least a similar brand of cable(ing) coming into SPDIF of the DAC.
Optimized PCs/MACs are likely around $5000, which is also the cost of the Esoteric.
If you think about it, - it's not out of line with traditional processes of having a reference pair of speakers, cabling, and amplification on hand. Great digital SQ has never been cheap. Great sources are not cheap. Computer based transports are NOT a cheap way to "cut corners" to superior, (SOTA), sound. That does not mean that we can't very, very, good sound from highly optimized computers: it just doesn't come cheap. AND (FWIW), I totally agree with Carcass that we have not yet found a reference point.
IME, everything falls short of the Esoteric: but that at least lets you know that you're hearing the best, and you're getting a great reference point to see where you're at.
I recall one Mind review I read where they compared it to a SBT. But they didn't specify whether they had a Teradak PSU unit, the same SPDIF cable coming out of the SBT, or if they defeated the LCD screen.
The SBT without an external PSU is of course not going to stack up to the Mind...
"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 are also commercial interests for reviewers to sometimes consider.
We are not in Sea Cliff anymore Dorthy...
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: