Popular Post sdolezalek Posted December 16, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted December 16, 2018 This thread once again highlights one of the challenges of Internet acquired knowledge. Because it is accessible to all, it also generally means that all can add their own two cents. Thereafter, figuring out whose comments and advice are worth paying attention to are largely a function of how long you have been reading Computer Audiophile -- the longer you have been here the more you get a sense of whose content is backed by sound logic, learning and expertise. The problem is that there is always a new generation of readers and commentators -- who typically don't know who to pay attention to and who to ignore; often those new visitors add content of their own, which the rest of us then need to determine whether it is worth paying attention to. The end result is that there is a ton of information here, but it isn't easy to find the really good stuff.... As to the topic at hand, we should really separate Computer Audio Playback into three separate layers: 1. Recording. How it was recorded, quality of the artists, performance, venue, recording devices, recording medium and mastering and more; 2. Data Storage. How it is stored (which is where all the "format wars" occur) -- LP, CD, 16/44, Hi-Res and so forth 3. Playback Hardware/Software. How it is played back (which is what many of the really interested threads here are about) -- not just the hardware (computers, cables, power supplies, DACs, etc.) but also the software and what the software does with the recorded "format" and how those format "changes" interact with the users hardware; Some general rules that I have learned from five years of hanging around CA: 1. Nothing you do in Data Storage or Playback can make a bad Recording into a good one -- so start with good recordings and make that your highest priority 2. Higher resolution can, but does not have to, improve the ability to retain the quality of what was recorded; as resolution increases, the gains tend to become smaller 3. Most of the gains of higher resolution, or better Data Storage formats, have little to do with capturing or preserving music content above 20kHz -- what they do add is something most here still disagree about -- I, for one, believe higher resolution has its benefits, but not enough to justify starting with a poor recording 4. The gains to be had through software upsampling or PCM to DSD conversions can't add something that wasn't there in the original Data Storage format; that isn't what they are about -- they are about sharing workload between computer and DAC hardware, and about using software to deliver to the DAC the format that makes the hardware work best. Because these benefits are very equipment dependent, it is hard to make any generalizations. 5. There are things people say they can hear, but lack the ability to show data that would substantiate the improvement. There are also things that data suggests are better, but critical listening suggests may be focusing on the wrong measurable, or may be improving something our ears pay little attention to while worsening something else that matters more to our ears. The improvements worth paying attention to are those where both listening and data suggests a step forward. 6. Everyone has their own unique set of ears and their own unique brain for processing music content -- so just because it sounds great to someone else doesn't mean it will (or should) sound great to you. gdpr, Don Hills, coleb13 and 4 others 4 3 Synology NAS>i7-6700/32GB/NVIDIA QUADRO P4000 Win10>Qobuz+Tidal>Roon>HQPlayer>DSD512> Fiber Switch>Ultrarendu (NAA)>Holo Audio May KTE DAC> Bryston SP3 pre>Levinson No. 432 amps>Magnepan (MG20.1x2, CCR and MMC2x6) Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now