Computer-based audio is junk?
Robert Harley -- Wed, 08/06/2008 - 11:59
This letter was submitted by a reader of TAS:
Gentlemen, you have me at a loss. The August issue has a well written and informative segment about digital servers by Steven Stone. I read it but was left with a few questions and comments. Earlier in the magazine the in the letters section there was considerable indignation about letter writers who defended the mass media's idea that absurdly expensive audio gear was not simply a scam. RH noted that his use of MIT Oracle cables was both 'extraordinarily expensive' and 'indispensible' in his first rate system. $40K, $60K and $100K components are not scams because they are built like fine watches using top flight and costly components and are well worth the price because of the audio results they produce. It is a 'good value'. OK, buying into that argument, really good gear needs really good build quality, engineering, components, and really good systems wiring. Mass market circuit boards, cheesy low budget internal wiring cannot compete with silver point to point construction, exotic capacitors and resistors, and simple elegance. Why, if they could produce quality sound, the entire premise of high end mega buck audio would be that mass media sham. I agree with all that. So, how does a mass market computer, cobbled together with the cheapest parts the computer company can find, a $1 fan, all connected with wire no audiophile would consider for his IPOD much less his primary audio driver, compare? How can cheap computer junk be an audiophile system without all the primo parts and exotic wires we expect in our systems? Why is such a God awful collection of scrap metal and plastic considered to rival Krell, or BAT, or Prima Luna components? There is simply no way anything built around my crappy computer can rival a dedicated, quality component. I understand the purpose of the response to the letters was to note that it is possible to build a decent system around more mundane components, but even those have a pretty hefty cost and can be greatly improved by the infusion of ever more cash. How can a system built around mass market junk, as ALL computers essentially are, compare in sound quality. The answer is, they cannot, for if they could, the high end would be a canard for fools. As I can hear the differences as I step up the audio food chain, taking a giant step backwards in build quality cannot result in really good sound. When Apple builds a computer of the quality of a Wilson speaker, then talk to me about server based systems. Come on folks...give us a break. Server based systems are convenient and trendy, not audiophile.
Jim Verdolini
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Another letter from a TAS reader on this subject:
I admire your path towards explaining the imminent future of audio
reproduction with your issue somewhat dedicated to digital (August
2008). What you failed to mention in your "Music servers for
audiophiles" is the absolute end all (in my opinion) of PC high end
music servers, that is a GNU/Linux based music server. Granted creating
a high-end Linux transport system is not for the faint hearted, you
could serve your hardcore readers well in the future by at least
mentioning the possibility of using a Linux based operating system to
aid in their quest for high end playback using the personal computer as
a source component. I myself have fiddled with not only the vast
amount of music players available for the operating system, but with the
kernel (the heart of the operating system so to speak) itself for a
fully controlled and let me say "high-end" software environment which to
my ears is unmatched by any redbook compact disk player at any cost .
Thank you as well for mentioning the Logitech products in addition to
Apple's offerings. I admit I was frightened when Mr. Stone admitted he
was a "Mac guy", but as I turned the page I was relieved to see at least
two alternatives to Apple based products. Excellent issue yet again,
thank you for being on the cutting edge of the scene so to speak.
Regards,
Stephen Varga
Thanks for your note, Mr. Varga. The next issue (October cover date, August 30 mail date) includes a letter from a reader who has built a Linux-based music server, and who shares your sentiments about the Macintosh. The letter is juxtaposed with another reader letter, this one from a Mac user who was enraged that I could recommend any computer-based music system (my review of the QSonix system and MusicGiants downloads) that is PC-based.
I'm about to get a PC that's purpose-built for audio so that I can listen to Reference Recordings HRx files, download high-res music, and review the Berkeley Audio Designs Alpha DAC. That review will appear in the January issue. It runs on XP.
Here's a link to information on the computer:
[url]http://www.goodwinshighend.com/productpages/alphadac.htm [/url]
Thanks again for writing.
Robert Harley
harley, in your eyes, if it doesn't cost $100k, it must be junk! all you talk about is scrap metal and plastic to build computers so they must be junk. there is so much more smarts in computers than in any amp/preamp/cdp, regardless of price. you remind me of someone who would look at computers back in the 60's that took up a whole room, have a couple of megabytes of storage, heat up a whole town, ran at .000001 ghz, that would cost multi million $$$ and indicate these units must be better than current computers.
my point is this: higher price doesn't always make it the best. get over the price thing.
as for operating systems: i use windows, linux, solaris, aix, and macintosh leopard and the mac has the most advanced OS of them all.
i'll try to explain my prior rant. IMO, the important parts of getting a quality sound in an audio setup is reading from the source (cdp, computer disk drive, reel to reel tape, LP), and then taking that data and running it thru some type of conversion (DAC in case of digital) or phono stage for LP analog. computers do an excelent job at reading bits off a source drive, be it a hard disk drive, cd, dvd, etc... if there were problems with this, we would not be able to load software onto our machines or corporations would have corrupt data in their databases, which they do not. Computers have all of the basic and advanced error correcting mechanisms in place to read every bit off of disk and if it can't, it will return an error after so many retries. same goes for networked traffic. if the bits coming down the net would get corrupted, you would not be able to read any of this or other content on the web. you would have corruption again, which we do not. so if the bits read are intact, the next phase is to get it to the DAC or phono stage. as far as digital, i clean up the signal using a jitter reduction device which feeds an external dac. the dac can only process from the quality of the bits being sent to it.
so bottom line, if the bits are the same (good quality cdp or a computer hard drive), the important devices are the jitter and external dac devices, and of course the cables that hook them up.
rs350z wrote:
as for operating systems: i use windows, linux, solaris, aix, and macintosh leopard and the mac has the most advanced OS of them all.
I don't want to thread-crap here, but I feel I must correct this observation. Solaris is much more advanced than the BSD that MacOS is based on. Perhaps you are making the common mistake of confusing an OS with the GUI which runs on top of it?
rs350z misread the post. I was posting a reader letter (see the name at the bottom of the letter), not expressing my opinion.
I disagree with Mr. Verdolini; computer-based audio can exceed the performance of traditional gear, in my experience.
I'll have a full report on a state-of-the-art PC-based music server in an upcoming issue. The server has solid-state memory (no disk-drive noise) and internal heat pipes (no fans), and will play Reference Recordings HRx 176.4kHz/24-bit files. I expect it to be the best source extant.
richteer: according to Wikipedia, the Mac OS X's core is a Unix operating system (OS) built on top of the XNU kernel, with standard Unix facilities available from the command line interface (Apple released this core as a free and open source operating system named Darwin). Over this core, Apple layered a number of components, including the Aqua interface and the Finder, to complete the GUI-based operating system which is Mac OS X.
i do agree with you on some unix based OS's are better than others. some people prefer RH, others AIX.
Also, MAC OS X, the OS means Operating System.
I find the use of computers in audio liberating. Fact is the information on a cd is a digital file, and can be transferred from one storage device to another with complete accuracy through the application of data transfer protocols (for example TCPIP) on a bit by bit perfect basis. You don't need $50k computers to do this, just sound application of the existing well developed knowledge base, and what you will obtain will be the equal or superior of anything obtained by a multi kilobuck CD turntable.
Much of the mythology about the need for heroic measure to extract sound stems from the old days when the sound of a vinyl record could be affected by the slightest vibration in the environment in which it played. That is not the case with digital reproduction at all.
I have no doubt some people will find this disappointing because they want the solution to be something elaborate and expensive, but it simply is not. Whether you decide to proceed with a wireless solution using something like a squeezebox, roku soundbridge, or Airport Express and transfer your lossless data using flawless TCPIP protocols or whether you use a computer soundcard and run your pc straight into your preamp or whether you use a USB or firewire connection to a USB DAC, superb sound, fully the equal of the information extracted from $10k+ Cd Transports of yore will be available to you, so take off the hair shirt and if you must spend more money look into something like a great DAC like the Berkley Alpha which together with any lossless data computer based data transfer system will give you state of the art digital sound for a fraction of what you paid in the past.
phoenix, addressing another forum as to pairing a squeezebox with the Berkley Alpha yielded a silly boy beginner assault. can I confirm an endorsement here? I really like what the squeezebox does and find myself temptingly close to making that Berkley Alpha a home. peechus
Don't see how you could go wrong with that combo, Paul. Except you should hold out for the squeezebox Touch which will work with native 24/96 files. Also lest you think I am working for Berkely Alpha I can also tell you the Weiss Minerva, the Bryston, or if you want to spend a little less, the Benchmark Dacs will all make you very happy.
I agree with Phoenix. Nicely put!
I have recently compledted extensive comparative listening to a hard disk vs two highly regarded transports. Specifically, I used the musicvault server (white label pc; lynx/aes sound card, 3 TB of hard disc: mirror imaged) against the dCs Scarlatti Transport and the Zanden Transport. The hard disc sounds better. I know bits are bits; the transports might be challenged by timing issues or error correction issues (?) related to a laser pickup.
It is possible that further audiophile "treatment" (chassis, wiring, isolation etc) could provide further improvements. Fior now, IMHO the laser based transport is pretty much obsolete. At least for me.
On the user experience front, there really is no contest. A computer offers way more browsing power and convenience. I can now instantly access any track from the more than 5,000 CDs I have loaded onto the server. This has resulted in my listening to a significantly wider range of music than with a cd player or vinyl turntable. In many ways, this has enabled a lossless switch from "audio" to "music", at least in my case.
Gentlemen,please also if possible listen to PS Audio PWD DAC with the bridge.wou will be surprised in quality of sound especially in native playback from PS Audio PWT. Simply a great combo that is highly recommended in my book.as good Berkley Audio yet also a UPNP player allowing wireless 32 bit playback. Well worth the price of admission ($2999) plus around $500 for bridge which gives it the lazy mans dream machine ,soon to increase In price by $1000 due to USB upgraded allowing direct upsampling from USB input upto 24 / 192.. very very good sound for digital.So far PWD has been my reference DAC.
Kevin Saffari