My Summary about Computer Audio Music Server

[tmtomh]

5 hours ago, amir57bs said:

 

it is simple : Because I should share my experience to audiophile.

 

Except you're not sharing your experience: you're making absolutist, factual assertions that lack evidence to support them, and at times are contradictory.

 

On 6/26/2018 at 1:40 AM, amir57bs said:

I think my things is not midrange quality or ambience , I believe right sound do not come from PC.

 

I am sorry about computer audio market with tons of buzz without any positive result.

 

Midrange quality and ambience are "not your thing" - but you know what the "right sound" is? That's not going to persuade many people to put any stock in what you say.

 

On 6/20/2018 at 5:23 PM, amir57bs said:

 

I am 100% sure there is no good sound from Computer. It sounds un- natural and compress.

if you like upsample dac then you will like sound of PC .

i do not like upsample DACs , i like minimalist zero oversample , no jitter correction , true multibit , bit perfect DAC.

ypsilon , Audio note are good.

 

You cannot e 100% sure there is no good sound from a computer, since you haven't tried nearly all the possibilities or scenarios involving computer audio. If you think that all computer-based audio sounds unnatural and compressed, that reinforces the idea that you don't have enough experience to know what you're talking about.

 

In addition, you've made not one single offer of evidence that a digital signal going into a DAC from a computer sounds any different than a digital signal going into a DAC from a CD/SACD/DVD-A disc and player. So unless you're "100% certain" that all digital playback sounds "unnatural and compressed," and you're exclusively into vinyl and other all-analogue media, then once again, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Finally, you do realize that "no jitter correction" and "bit-perfect" are mutually contradictory, yes?

 

[tmtomh]

3 hours ago, amir57bs said:

please consider this market destroyed good sound (for those audiophiles are less than 5%) and online magazines online forums just guide us to hell. I just followed Romaz in this forum and I bought CAD gc3 ground control. the GC3 was recommended by roy Gregory and Romaz had a good experience with another ground control (I guess it was from Norway) . GC3 killed my sound and I put it on recycle bin . I am sorry about that. I lost 4500$ (GC3 price is 4500$) after following this forum.

you know Romaz , he is very active and have tested many configurations.

 

CEC just make 44.1kz 16bit transport. market hype is about higher sample rates higher FIR filter higher bit depth and ...

when you play CEC TL0-X it kills every other transports that play high sample rate .

 

I just write here for those who think like me to not lost their money on PC Audio.

 

If you prefer the sound of low-wattage tube amps feeding high-efficiency speakers, that's fine - and it's got nothing to do with computer audio vs non-computer audio.

 

If you feel 16/44.1 redbook quality digital audio is sufficient and that high-res is a waste of time and money, that's fine too - and you'll probably get a good number of people here who agree with you, or who (like me) are at least somewhat sympathetic to that point of view.

 

But when we talk about "computer audio," all we're talking about is the digital source going into the DAC that feeds the analogue portion of a stereo system. So if your claim is that we should all be using high-end CD transports and outboard DACs instead of computer-based sources with outboard DACs, that's just silly. There's no evidence that a computer-based source is inferior to a disc-transport based source. And none of it has anything to do with amp wattage or design, or speaker efficiency. 

 

This thread you've started is not "your summary of computer audio" - it's "your personal taste in the sonic character of a stereo system."

[tmtomh]

On 9/6/2018 at 2:01 AM, amir57bs said:

I think I could not describe my ideas to you , misunderstanding of my ideas may be result of my bad English writing .

 

if I prefer horn/low power amps it means I like micro dynamics of sound and it relates to PC audio because you can not get micro dynamics from computer Audio in 2018.

what is micro dynamics? it is volume resolution of a system and when you turn down the volume the sound is still full .

this is subjective and I may could not describe it to you.

 

I never told red book quality is sufficient , I just say todays high Rez files and high Rez records are not better than pure AAD 44.1/16bit records. high Rez format may be better if they implement it in better way, I do not know but in 2018 we hear bad sound from high Rez media.

 

if I say I like pure 44.1/16bit PCM actually I am helping you what sound type is good to me and I am not discussing about PCM 16bit subject.

 

I think you misunderstood my observation .

please go out of theory and speak about real life , in theory many thing in audio could be ideal like flat frequency response of speakers or zero distortion amplifiers but in real world those ideal measurement speakers/amplifiers sounds crap to my ears.

 

in real world PC audio do not sound as good as a CEC Transport in 2018 . I don not know about future but now the PC audio in my idea is waste of money.

 

audio industry changed Analog Vinyl to CD and now is going to Files . CD never sounded better than Vinyl in real world (you know dynamic range of CD is far better than LP in theory) and I doubt those files sound better .

 

we just pay more for new format but we gain less.

 

It is clear that English is not your first/native language - but you write English perfectly well, and in my experience you have expressed your views very clearly.

 

So it's not that I (or anyone else) misunderstands you. No - it's that we disagree with you. I don't agree, for example, that a 100-watt solid state amplifier and 88dB efficiency speakers are incapable of producing micro-dynamics. And I don't agree with your blanket assertion that computer-based audio also is incapable of producing this.

 

And my understanding is that most of the other folks taking issue with your comments here would feel similarly.

[tmtomh]

9 hours ago, amir57bs said:

 

Thank you

if you believe 88db efficiency speakers with 100w solid-state amplifiers are capable of producing micro-dynamics please let me know which speaker or amplifier is capable of that?

do you believe most 88db speakers are capable or just very few 88db speakers are capable?

 

I have heard many many many audio systems in Tehran , all expensive (over 200k) brands like kharma marten Wilson focal dynaudio TAD Gryphon krell Vitus ASR CJ AR  and  so but none of them sounded like tanoy red (old model) or audio note uk speaker.

when you hear low efficiency speakers with high power ss amplifiers you just have macro dynamics not micro dynamics.

for checking micro dynamics you can check these items:

- decay of sound when it goes to hide

- liveness and fullness of sound when you decrease the volume

- Volume resolution when you change the volume very very slow

- fuller sound similar to LP playback

 

micro dynamics in music inject energy and without it the sound has no soul.

listen to FM Acoustics or Vitus Audio , they are king of transparency resolution smoothness and pinnacle of every audiophile but where is the soul ? where is the emotion? me and some guys (may be 5% of audiophiles think like me)  do not like these sounds. it is boring to us.

 

listen to Audio Note Kondo Japan with Living Voice horn they are not in super resolution category but they give you true life true music true enjoyment. 

 

I just say Computer audio is not in the same direction we would like to be. I spend over 20k or 30k I do not remember but I had no gain when I compare it to CEC TL0 -X.

 

Thanks for your reply. This is good, because we are making progress in getting more clearly and more directly to the reason we are disagreeing.

 

In the four items bolded above, my view is that you are mixing together different sonic characteristics. First off, there are plenty of high quality stereo components and setups, of all different designs, that excel when it comes to transient decay, reverb tails, and so on. And there are plenty of systems, of different designs, that maintain impactful, detailed "lively and full" sound at lower volumes. Similarly, volume resolution has much more to do with the design and style of the system's volume control and how a system's components match  up (or don't match up) when it comes to gain and impedance.

 

Finally. "fuller sound similar to LP playback" has nothing to do with micro-dynamics or with increased fidelity compared to digital. Among its many variable and potentially euphonic (distorted but pleasant) factors, vinyl playback is known for mid-bass warmth from resonance in the system, and for a "cohesive" (maybe "full") soundstage because of frequency-variable channel crosstalk from the cartridge. These two qualities do often produce a different sonic character from LP, and lots of people like that. But it's got nothing to do with micro-dynamics, and it's certainly not objectively better.

 

It seems clear from your comments that you prize what you call LP-style sound, and what you call (inaccurately in my view) micro-dynamics. From this latest comment, it also seems clear that you don't care as much about resolution and micro-detail. And this leads you - as it leads many folks in the audiophile press - to make the same old argument: Not only do measurements not tell the whole story, but also that measurements specifically are the opposite of good sound - equipment that measures well doesn't sound truly good.

As a personal preference of yours, I have no problem with that - you should enjoy what you enjoy. But when you try to explain and justify your personal preference with factual-sounding claims that are demonstrably untrue and muddled, then I will take issue with that.