Should Sound Quality of Computer Audio be improved

Oh give me a break Petty - just when I think you're verging on a breakthrough and making a bit of sense you start talking in circles again. Obviously a better master will lead to better sound quality - no matter what the format. You have to look no further than the latest Rush album - which I downloaded in 24/96 but is well nigh unlistenable on my system due to ridiculous compression. Output resolution does not always correlate with ultimate sound quality.

But you are being ignorant and hypocritical if you have the nerve to criticize - well I'm not sure who you're criticizing, sometimes it appears to be us - for downsampling the original recording to lower resolution downloadable files. At least with computer audio there is always a possibility that they'll make available a higher resolution master - and they are starting to with increasing frequency. With CD you'll always be limited to a 16/44 downsample - HDCD, XRCD, XRCD2...whatever, there is no way of getting better than 16/44. You're criticism here is nothing more than ignorant hypocrisy - and I would hope that deep down you know it.

In the end, I frankly don't really care what you think, as I've said before. Sometimes I just wish you would actually pay attention and stop double-talking out of your you-know-what.

Ivan - computer audio ain't for everyone - it most definitely is not plug and play if you want to do it right - at least in my opinion. In this area I would admit that Pettyofficer does have a point - there is some effort required to reap the benefits and there can be some frustration along the way. However, don't let his disorganized and paranoid meanderings make you think that any of this is insurmountable, futile or bound to go the way of SACD/DVDa.

In life, sometimes the best things require effort. This would include my two current favourite music formats - vinyl and computer audio. The effort just makes it all that much sweeter when you're sitting in your listening chair reaping the benefits of your work.

Chadeffect, I do trust my ears; however, don't I need the
ability to listen to it first? Will I ever be able to
truly listen for myself to a 24/196 Download compared to
a Remaster utilizing DXD (Disk, Downsampled, or not)? This will not happen in a Universe of "Soon all New Music will only be available as Downloads". I lose the ability to listen, compare, and judge the sound quality myself in a
proposed single Format Download Universe. I lose the ability to listen, or sample with my own ears. With the
lack of my ability to listen and judge for myself (In this
proposed Universe), who determines for me what level of
sound quality I am allowed to listen to. High Res.
Computer Audio Downloads become the new glass ceiling in
Sound Quality. In a Single Format Download World, how
would you even be allowed to discover anything else that
might possibly sound better? I want to be able to listen
for myself, not have my sound quality dictated to me
through limited 24/192 Downloading ceiling. Even the Music
Selection in 24/192 Downloading is another glass ceiling.
You limit your options for better sounding Formats in
limiting (or eliminating) other Formats. Only way to break
this glass ceiling is to concider that there might be
something out there that might still sound better than even
High Res. Downloads. Listen, and judge for yourself. Don't
allow someone else to dictate to you that "24/192 High Res.
Downloads is as good as it gets" through "Soon all New Music will only be available as Downloads". You certainly
wouldn't limit yourself to only one Format in "Soon all
New Music will only be available on Cassette". Would you
exclude yourself from all other Formats that came after the Cassette? Would you sandbag their possible development? If this had been done, even for the sake of
Manufacturers Profit (No competing Formats), the Manufacturers would certainly be shooting themselves in
their profitable foot! That is why I say Single Format is
horrible for Consumer, Manufacturer, and the Audio Market.
It becomes an irreversable LOSE, LOSE, LOSE situation.
There won't be any second chances! The Consumer loses his
authority, and his ability to compare quality in a single
Format Monopoly. You don't get it back afterwards, therefore don't paint yourself into that corner to begin with. You need the ability to listen first to be able to
judge "Music First" in comparing Formats. Only then can you determine if Recording Process/ Format was helpful, or
a hinderance. "Listen First" before "Music First" if you
want to do a fair comparison based on Sound Quality.
Otherwise, what exactly ARE you doing besides burning
money? Having a deaf man judge sound quality for you?

PO,

There are download sites that allow you to hear before you buy, including iTunes itself. (not sure about the res though).

Can you watch a film and decide if you would rather buy the blue ray or DVD version first? No.

These points are mute. Again I find myself repeating what I said before regarding formats and competition. The file is the format.

So it will be down to the recording studio/record company/producers/artists to decide on the level of quality of the file.

It is they who will find the funds to use facilities that can record fully in a new "format" like DXD or whether they prefer to stay working with 24/192 etc.

It is not down to you! Can I decide if I'd like the latest porn film to be in real 3d? No I cannot. Can I decide if the next Star Wars movie is released in Omnimax or Imax? No I cannot. Does it matter? Probably not.

Do you see my point? The only competition is in the pro market now. As consumers you can play any format you wish. Your computer can, with the correct software, decode any of them.

I wouldn't be so concerned. Nothing stands still. The studio guys are dying to play with the next toy especially if it's better. It would seem DXD is the finest recording medium yet. But PCM at high samples rates isn't to be sniffed at either! What is best is as consumers we are not stuck with cassette, minidisk, vinyl, CDs etc. Those half way formats are now defunct and unnessassary should you choose. I'll just have the master thanks and play it any where.

In my opinion - a little bit of know-how and setup is involved but this is as good as digital audio gets:

take any recent, decently-powered desktop PC with quiet, cool-running chassis fans.

Install Windows 7. Install EAC Exact Audio Copy, use that to rip CDs to FLAC files with a log proving 100% bit-match to the digital on the CD. Install Foobar2000 or any other audio-player front end which supports WASAPI for bit-perfect audio playback. Ensure all sound effects, EQ, replaygain, etc is disabled. Set volume in player to 0dB.

If you are feeling especially careful, set the Foobar2000 -> preferences -> advanced -> playback -> full file buffering up to (Kb) value to a number greater than the size of any of your audio files. This will ensure that playback is entirely from RAM and if something happens during playback that makes excessive use of your HDD, it will have no impact audible or measurable, on the playback of your music.

Play these 100% bit-perfect FLAC tracks via WASAPI (rather than directsound).

Use USB or toslink or spdif digital to get the signal from your PC to the DAC of your choice, and it's good old analog from there.

This is absolute perfect source, true *exactly* to whatever arrangement of 1s and 0s were on the CD you ripped from. and I don't believe you can improve from this until the day comes that recording/mastering studios start putting out higher than 192KHz, 24-bit audio and we need better computer hardware to process it and output it unmolested to a DAC.