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
Wow Petty - looks like the light bulb finally came on. No reasonable person is trying to wipe out any format. Whether or not I listen to SACD I derive absolutely no benefit from it being wiped off the face of the earth. I do believe that eventually optical discs may be a thing of the past but this doesn't mean I wish it to be so. I still buy the odd CD from time to time - and tons of vinyl.

Anyways, looks like cooler heads have prevailed. Surely the love-fest can't be far behind!

Enjoy the music - on whatever format you choose!
PO,

Regarding DSD and DXD in recording studios as a format the jury is still out. I think the ability to manipulate that amount of data has many technical problems today. Many manufactures do not support it (hense my above post) and have no immediate intention to support it. So to use DXD is difficult impractical and expensive for most studios. Obviously that will change if it becomes more widely used.

The guys that are using it, as I mentioned, are remastering/mastering guys. So the multitrack and stereo master are recorded using the usual suspects. Its only the end stages of the production process where DXD or DSD may be used. Live recordings could be different be even these are recorded via multitrack mainly so unlikely to be what I would call "real" DXD. I.e used through out the whole process rather than just at the end.

There are those who say 192k is fine and those who say DXD is the first recording format to COMPLETELY DISAPPEAR sonically.

But as no one can really deal with it, what seems to be happening is engineers are bouncing between analogue and digital to make it work. I.e playing the output of the DXD capable DAC up the mixing desk manipulating in analogue then rerecording those manipulations back to digital!

It's a bit of a mess and while there are some amazing sounding pro AD-DA DSD DXD capable processors, how they integrate with standard studio equipment is a hassle for now.

I hear Linx are about to release a pro soundcard which is compatible and "cheap". But I have not seen it.

One day if it can be used all the way through the process we will have the finest recordings in history. But in a climate where there is no money to be made from music, it is unlikely many will retool at vast expense on the pro side to adopt it fully. (mastering aside)
I was on the Supratek website the other night.Mick has a blog that has some interesting info on his work with computer audio.Good reading.