2. pc-audio
  3. 1332713870

Should Sound Quality of Computer Audio be improved

Unable to respond to, "Mach2Music and Amarra: Huge Disappointment"- Thread. Other Members take free pop-shots!
Apparently some have more Freedom Of Speech than others! I
don't know how many times I have said it, I want Computer
Audio to succeed! It will only succeed if Computers are designed from the ground up to reproduce Music (Same minimum standard applied for Equipment of ALL Audio Formats)! This is common sense Audio Engineering Design. Bandaid Modifications cannot be substituted for absence in design to produce Music! Design it right to EARN the right to become a New Audio Format- same as all other Audio Formats! No Freebee's, No Cutting Corners! Lack of design is what's causing such varied results in S.Q. between
listeners of Computer Audio. I see about 50% negative
responses here on these Threads. It will continue to happen unless you fix it! Blaming me won't help! I am an
Engineer, and I can read results! 50/50 success/ failure
rate- you have an inherit Engineering Design Flaw for the
reproduction of Music via Computers! Shock! Suprise- since
they were never designed for Music! So when is someone finally going to properly design the Equipment/Computer
(From the ground up) for Computer Audio? Do we continue
to treat any real criticism as "HERESY" in the lack of
design in Computer Audio for Music? You tell me what I am
allowed to talk about, and we will both know!
pettyofficer
timlub
1,649 posts
 
Well guys, I'll be gone tuesday - friday. Going on a buying trip... Computers ...I have appointments with Acer, Asus & HP. Too bad, Pettyofficer didn't answer my questions back on page 2 about taking this to manufacturers and I as I stated a couple post ago, I don't think that petty has done anything but complain to us.
Keep at it, I'll check in on my phone.
Tim
hfisher3380
167 posts
 
Oh I wouldn't hold my breath Timlub! I think by post 235 or so and page 5 it is quite obvious that Petty is not the least bit interested in anything but posting a litany of complaints, blaming us for his problems and pushing his own misguided agenda. Same thing over and over..."soon all new music will only be available as downloads", "impending doom" etc. Doesn't matter what anyone says because our words just get twisted around and other words put back in our mouths.

Brace yourselves...here it comes again...
timlub
1,649 posts
 
Hfisher, Are you a church boy, for some reason when I read your last post, I have an uncontrollable desire to say
"amen brother"
dover
1,165 posts
 
My current DAC is 32-bit so all I need is the download resolution and voila - I'll have true 32-bit resolution in my system.
Sorry mate, all your 32 bit Sabre DAC is capable of is reading a 32 bit word. What comes out the other end is not 32 bit even if you could download 32 bit music.
The current 32 bit "DACS", as in chips, are really computer/video chips that have been touted for use in audio - mid-fi at best.
hfisher3380
167 posts
 
Dover...I might stand to be corrected regarding 32-bit, not sure, haven't really looked into it because 32-bit recordings aren't yet available - regardless, my point stands that computer audio and my digital front end is capable of far higher resolution than any redbook CD player. There is no such thing as the 32-bit CD that Petty keeps talking about. Likely never will be.

If you want to call my DAC mid-fi - well that is a matter of opinion and we're all entitled to our own opinion. The sound I get from my current digital front end certainly does not sound like "mid-fi" to me. I have had a number of high end CDP in my system, including the >$6K Ayre universal, and this sounds better to my ears.

I notice that you don't have your system listed, so it's hard for me to have a frame of reference for your opinion. But thanks for your comments on mine.

May I ask what DACs you have heard that have allowed you to come to the conclusion that they all represent "mid-fi"?
More to discover