Jump to content
IGNORED

What do you want from PC Audio


Abstraction
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am interested in music, not audio. If I would never have to think of audio issues again, I would be happy, but loving music, one is stuck with audio. It is a tool. If you treat it as an end in itself, how do you know if it is good or not? One sound is better than another only if it means something.

 

I am lucky to hear many of the musicians I listen to on record in person. I heard the Keith Jarrett trio at Carnegie Hall a couple of months back. The music was live, but the sound was not. I was not hearing the instruments on stage, but the massive arrays of Meyer speakers. It was not even analog. The sound was being processed through a Yamaha PM1D digital mixing board. Here is a description of the system in the Isaac Stern Auditorium:

 

http://www.giles.com/yamaha1/pressreleases/ProAudio/carnegiePM1D.htm

 

The music ones hear in Carnegie Hall is processed by digital gain controls and equilizers, both of which are generally contemned by PC audio geeks. Could it be that what one hears in Carnegie Hall is not bit perfect?

 

I also hear a lot of music in a place called the Stone, on Manhattan's Lower East Side. John Zorn funds it, and does monthly benefits, at which people like Lou Reed sometimes show up. Six nights a week there are two sets by the most interesting experimental musicians in, or passing through, New York. It is a concrete block building on Avenue C that hold perhaps 60 or 70 people if you all the standing room is filled. The first time I went I missed the little sign on the door, and the people at the Pizza Parlor half way down the block didn’t even know it was there.

 

You have to try to figure out where the musicians are going to be when you pick your seat. One night I heard a punk fusion band--don't recall their name-- and I got stuck behind the very energetic drummer. I didn't hear much else. But I have also heard some of the most amazing music I have ever heard there. Many of the jazz venues in New York--and, I believe, music venues the world over--are lousy. There are people eating, talking, drinking; house acoustics are bad and the sound systems are lousy. I heard Bob Dylan in a hockey rink in Albany, NY, not long ago, and I sometimes had to wait for the echo to come off the back wall before I could recognize familiar songs. One would have heard Dylan’s music better on a discount-store boom box than in the Times-Union Center. But, of course, I was there for the music and something else.

 

There is a limit to how good music reproduction can get. What in the music are you wanting to hear? I heard Keith Jarrett’s music wonderfully in Carnegie Hall. The music, however, didn’t seem to be coming from the instruments. In fact (I was in the first tier balcony), there seemed to be a disconnect between the guys down there with a piano, bass, and drums, and the music. It was the space of Carnegie Hall, I think, that I was hearing, and the space of Carnegie Hall digitally tweaked until most of the people in the audience, thought they were hearing Keith Jarrett's piano, Gary Peacock's bass, and Jack Dejohnette's drums. It was in a sense not live music at all, but unless I really looked at the musicians, the illusion was extremely convincing.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi abstraction - Very interesting post, thank you very much for writing it up for us. I do agree with much of what you said, but not all of it. I think great music on a bad boombox is much better than audiophile music on a very resolving system. But, when I can make great music sound close what the artist intended it to sound like then the experience is even better.

 

Given the choice of these three options I would select #3 every time. To me the music experience is that much better when it sounds closer to how the artists intended it to sound.

 

1. Great performance on bad boom box

2. Great performance on mid-fi stereo

3. Great performance on hi-fi, very resolving system

 

 

Back to the title of your post, "What do you want from PC Audio." It is very possible to obtain the sound quality in #3 above using a computer based system than it was a few years ago using a traditional hi-end system. So, from PC audio I want #3.

 

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing The Audiophile Style Podcast

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abstraction,

 

I've been asking myself many of the same questions lately.

 

Some thoughtful stuff about all this, here, under

the 'Concepts' heading in the left column part-way down the page.

Not a quick read by any means -- but this is obviously a person

who has thought about these things carefully and creatively

for decades: How to make music sound 'live' -- as it did when it was.

 

( Consider the source ) ...

 

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usually there is a strong connection between music and audio. What does a drum sound like, or a horn, bass or guitar? What does an ensemble sound like performing in a cathedral, or a club or outdoors?

 

Can the reproduction of live music sound better than the live event? Could a live music performance be superior if the right instruments or environment were used? Maybe your question is too philosophical for me. Definitions of what is music http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music or what is audio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio?

 

What I want from computer audio as a source is the same thing I want from any excellent analog or digital source – high level music fidelity that gives the illusion of coming close to and in some cases of being better than some of the best musical performances ever given.

 

Impossible – maybe, maybe not – all I know we all blessed to have a King’s Treasure of Music at our fingertips. And I do consider myself to be blessed to be an audiophile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiophile, though when I started in this hobby, high-end audio equipment was a lot more affordable. Fortunately there are some bargains and DIY options to help achieve the same levels of performance.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that I prefer your #3--great performances on hi-fi very resolving systems--costs me a lot of money and some considerable irritation. In fact, I even prefer not great performances on hi-fi very resolving systems. I am interested in the music even if it is not great, but if it has something interesting going on it. There is a lot of interesting new music in New York at the present (and I hope other places). A lot of the people I hear these days are 20-somethings (these are mostly jazz groups) playing really amazing stuff that is not great yet--but is fresh and promises a lot more. One of the biggest problems is that the music gets horribly mangled in the recordings and there isn't much playback gear can do about it. High resolving systems resolve the mess. One of my favorite bands now is a fairly, little known group called Burnt Sugar--very inventive, high energy stuff, and even though there are several recordings none of them even get close to the live performance.

 

I agree with you about the quality of PC audio, but I don't think PC Audio people should be reticent about the fact that computers are also important to audio because they give you access to your music collections that you cannot begin to have with 1000s of CDs in jewel boxes (or vinyl records, of which I also have a large collection). I think we need a category for discussion here that might be called "Work Flow and Organization." And it would be worth people putting their heads together to talk about how the data bases might best be done.

 

I guess the real point of my earlier post was to say that the reason for audio gear is to hear the music. This seems to me forgotten in many discussions, particularly when the technology is still as unsettled as it is in using PCs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that I prefer your #3--great performances on hi-fi very resolving systems--costs me a lot of money and some considerable irritation. In fact, I even prefer not great performances on hi-fi very resolving systems. I am interested in the music even if it is not great, but if it has something interesting going on it. There is a lot of interesting new music in New York at the present (and I hope other places). A lot of the people I hear these days are 20-somethings (these are mostly jazz groups) playing really amazing stuff that is not great yet--but is fresh and promises a lot more. One of the biggest problems is that the music gets horribly mangled in the recordings and there isn't much playback gear can do about it. High resolving systems resolve the mess. One of my favorite bands now is a fairly, little known group called Burnt Sugar--very inventive, high energy stuff, and even though there are several recordings none of them even get close to the live performance.

 

I agree with you about the quality of PC audio, but I don't think PC Audio people should be reticent about the fact that computers are also important to audio because they give you access to your music collections that you cannot begin to have with 1000s of CDs in jewel boxes (or vinyl records, of which I also have a large collection). I think we need a category for discussion here that might be called "Work Flow and Organization." And it would be worth people putting their heads together to talk about how the data bases might best be done.

 

I guess the real point of my earlier post was to say that the reason for audio gear is to hear the music. This seems to me forgotten in many discussions, particularly when the technology is still as unsettled as it is in using PCs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I guess the real point of my earlier post was to say that the reason for audio gear is to hear the music."

 

Yes indeed. My Mac Mini music 'server' has allowed me to listen

to so much more music, more often, with a click of that tiny remote --

cruddy recordings, Reference Recordings®, at 44k or 96k or 125,000,000k.

Splitting hairs -- to get the last bit of bit-perfect resolution from any recording -- and has very little to do with the big picture. Living in an anechoic chamber is not what I had in mind, but to each their own. The cat stomps across the floor, and the audio-philia freaks

while listening to her bit-perfect DAC. The HVAC cycles on and then what?

The darn birds chirp outside! Wikipedia: obsessive compulsive.

 

Find a nicely remastered Sam Cooke conglomeration, and call me please, right away.

But if Sam Cooke is only to be had as a murky/muddy/genius click away,

and that's the best we can do, and the roommate feels like dancing ...

I would think: get the best speakers you can afford and have space for,

get a Mac, get some cheap but functional electronics in-betrween,

and dance all night with the roommate. ;-) Unless you need to be up

for work the next morning. Even then, life is short and

perspective and balance are everything.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

improve the electronics in between.

 

You sometimes hear equipment described as being musical. I have been trying to find a DAC with hep new technology to replace my ancient DAC, but I can't find anything that is as musical.

 

What exactly makes musicality. Resolution is necessary to it, but high-resolution systems can be very unmusical. It is not tubiness and warmth (unless the music is tubey and warm). Some DACs I have been listening to may fail musicality for lack of speed. At least it has something to do with the ability to register the attack and decay of a sound, which is not exactly the same as resolution. It has something to do with space, but the biggest sound stage I ever heard was not big enough to hold a jazz trio, to say nothing of a medium-sized chamber orchestra. Musicians on my very good speakers, which are about 4 feet tall, never sound to be more than about four and a half feet tall, but space isn't really what I find missing most of the time.

 

I would like to hear the Berkeley DAC and the Crimson, but with banks and markets crumbling all around us 5 bills is a lot of bread. Though they must be good as they rarely show up used.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....is that many will tell you that you need to spend a lot to get good PC audio.

 

You dont!

 

IMO its pretty much 98.5% there already on a $500 laptop with an ASIO plugin and a lossless file. The rest can be got to within 99% by spending a little more or a fortune.

 

Choice is yours.

 

Meridian 551 amp / Meridian 507 CD / Zune Mk1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been through a ton of speakers over the past year, and while I set out to get a set that would resolve every nuance of the music I put through them, ultimately I settled on speakers that were just resolving enough to be musically meaningful. I find that many high-end speakers these days pull up details that I don't think were meant to be heard, making the sound unnatural and clinical. I miss some of the resolution of the prior speakers, but I was turning into a neurotic audiophile with speakers that laid it all bare. There is always a compromise, and I'll take less a less resolving system over one that forces you to listen to only the best recordings. You can have too much of a good thing.

 

Cheers,[br] - Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having spent 10 years on the Pro side, I'm all too familiar with recorded performances sounding far better than the live ones, even on a recording session you could often walk into the control room and hear a much clearer, more accurate representation of a Classical Orchestra than was possible where they were playing. I was told that very reverberant acoustics make it difficult for the musicians to hear what others are doing, but if they could get it right, it made a better CD.

 

With Jazz, most live performances seem to be spoiled by PA, but better for having an audience to encourage the Musicians.

 

IMO the best sound engineers produce a better result than you'd get from a live performance, but that it can often be sterile and bland compared with being there on the day.

 

I don't agree that high resolution systems can be fatiguing, in fact I'm certain the opposite is true because anything that reduces resolution is taking us further away from the musical performance. However we need to understand the difference between real and artificially created resolution. The problem is that although they measured flat old loudspeakers were all boom and tiz and didn't have much mid. This was because they cones were not well controlled for large excursions, there were all sorts of resonances in the mid and the tweeters often had more sizzle than music. Loudspeakers are much better than they were, but they still have some of these problems. Crossovers for instance, invariably add a little extra sizzle at the top which gives an illusion of extra clarity in the short term and extreme irritation in the long one. Therefore I'd recommend looking for the best possible resolution but making sure that the sound is smooth because smoothness is an indicator of low distortion and that's what's needed.

 

For me, Computers are perfect for audio. Who'd have thought that an Apple TV would make the ideal source or that a PS3 could be nearly as good and both stream video as well. One of our dealers modifies one of these tiny new PCs, so that it runs Leopard and has a 500 Gig HD, so all you need is an Airport Express and a pair of Active Speakers with a DAC and preamp in them and your old hi fi can go in the bin! You can walk around selecting whatever you want in seconds.

 

I'm sure that this is the future.

 

Ash

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abstraction made a wonderful example of todays live music. This processing of signals in order to make the music sound good for everyone in the auditorium is quite common today, even in major concert halls. Another example would be the Musikvereinssaal in Vienna. They can adjust the reverbaration time according to the number of people sitting in the room, they can even add artificial reverbaration if the hall is packed.

 

I think High Enders tend to not using DSP which is a bit prejudiced. For sure, many (cheap) DSPs are crap and I believe that is where this comes from. But what people sometimes fail to see is that nearly every recording today is processed at least in some way. However, what one must see is that the end product (the CD or Vinyl) is sounding the way the artist or the producer intended. So one shouldn´t doctor with the sound if he or she wants to keep the intended sound. Another thing is room correction. If you play your music in a difficult room a room correction DSP would be a good method of improving this. Which, by the way, is much better and efficient than using cables and other tweaking stuff.

 

As a basic rule: if the DSP is good enough (sadly it normally means high priced) it should work transparent. I love using DSP if they are able to improve the sound. Of course even with good DSP one can spoil a good sound. It takes knowledge and experience to use something like this. For me, the computer is the perfect tool for playing & improving audio. It offers better sound for the same price compared to e.g. a cd player. I doubt that I´ll ever use anything else in the future.

 

E-MU 0202 USB wired with Monster USB Cable --> Audioquest King Cobra --> (sometimes) Corda Arietta --> Sennheiser HD-600

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashley -

 

I may have spoken in terms that were too general when I said that I have experienced speaker systems that were "too resolving". I agree with you that what I heard could have been the illusion of resolution due to some overlooked or even intentional character in the drivers or the crossover. The equivalent of false contouring in a video display, for instance. But isn't it also possible that if you purchase speakers that are more resolving that the monitors the music was mixed on, that you could be hearing things that the engineer did not? I've also heard that some engineers (mainly for Pop, Rock, and R&B) will EQ recordings to sound good on the average low resolution car stereo / boom box so that when you put this music through a highly resolving / accurate system, it sounds like garbage.

 

It doesn't make sense to me how a crossover can add sizzle to the treble. I can see the speaker designer choosing to let the tweeter run a little hot by not padding down its output to match the midrange, but are you saying that there is something other than this that a crossover can do to the signal to make the treble sizzley?

 

I'm also not quite clear on your point that "smoothness" is and indicator of resolution. It seems to me that if a speaker driver has relatively poor transient response, that this would smooth out the sound while lowering the resolution. Likewise, you can achieve the illusion of smoothness by rolling off the treble I would think.

 

Your thoughts?

 

Cheers,[br] - Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim

 

The History of loudspeaker development is full of stories of Sound Engineers being shamed into buying new monitors because customers were complaining about things they couldn't hear! The BBC developed its own Loudspeakers as a response because if this and later on the major Classical Record Labels, rather late in the day, had to admit their old horn loaded monitors were not doing a good job and they upgraded to B & W 801s.

 

However IMO there is only advantage in hearing all that was committed to tape (or HD now) and only disadvantage in spoiling music by choosing a replay system that adds more distortion. Contrary to the claims of certain companies it is not "musical involving!"

 

It is true that commercial pop is brightened up, compressed, has the bass boosted and may even have some added distortion to make it more "exciting". A lot of it still sounds better on a good system and some of it sounds so dreadful that even non audiophile fans are up in arms. The actions of some sectors of the music industry are difficult to understand, but this shouldn't deter us from striving for perfection. We will still be better off with a system that does justice to everything else recorded in the previous hundred years or more.

 

As I've explained in numerous previous postings, when most people talk about treble they actually mean the 1.5 kHz - 3 kHz region where our ears are more sensitive, they roll off above this. Crossovers are in this region and the cause of the sizzle because energy from both drive units is usually audible for about an octave each side of them. This applies particularly to the tweeter which is unhappy with low frequencies, so is distorting and almost certainly out of phase too. If the drive units aren't very well behaved in this region, and they often aren't, things can be worse and in three way speakers, it's likely that the low crossover's out of band stuff will be adding to the tweeter's crossover problems and audible through the mid driver too. Sadly, even in active designs all this is not yet fully understood by many, so although they are generally better, most don't fully overcome these issues. The result is that large numbers speakers tend to sound a little rough, clarity isn't quite what it might be and low level detail is obscured by "noise" in the system. Rolling off a tweeter won't make things smoother, but it will make the sound duller. Incidentally the quality of the stereo image is crucial to sussing all this out, because the better the drive units are integrated and these out of band artefacts are dealt with, the better it will be.

 

Distortion in electronics and loudspeakers manifests itself as harshness and a tendency to brightness (not always, you can have dull harshness too) and if it's not too bad, it can make simple recordings seem more clear, but usually complex ones sound congested and unpleasant and things get worse with increased volume, till it all becomes an irritating blur. However if there is less distortion (which CAN all be measured) you'll get the better clarity and it'll be lovely and smooth and won't deteriorate on the loud bits. It may be brighter too, but not unpleasant in the way that distortion is.

 

I hope this is understandable and that it helps.

 

Ashley

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do I want from Computer Audio?

 

Firstly convenience, with reasonable audio quality a close second.

 

The greatest advantage of Computer Audio is the near-instantaneous access to all music in your collection, and even music not in your collection e.g. via internet radio streams.

 

Its second advantage is that acceptable or even very good quality audio is available at a reasonable price compared to legacy systems, although this is also a function of increased quality vs price in consumer electronics for the rest of the reproduction chain (amps etc.) in general.

 

A third advantage would be the increased portability of quality music (high capacity personal music players that handle lossless formats), although this ties in with the convenience aspect first mentioned.

 

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, you essentially described the sound of my former speakers (Focal, Monitor Audio, and Revel) at the start of your last paragraph, and my current speakers (Wilson Benesch) at the end of the paragraph.

 

There seems to be this trend to push the tweeter cross-over lower and lower and I can't say that I have heard one of these designs that sounds pleasant with extended listening. I frequent another AV forum, where flat frequency response is considered king above all other speaker parameters. When I tried to explain to my peers over there that even though the FR was commendably flat on many of the speakers I had auditioned I was hearing an etched, harsh, wiry sound in the lower treble on most of them. They thought I was crazy because anything the speaker was doing wrong would show up on an FR graph.

 

I digress. ;)

 

The Wilson Benesch speakers sound completely natural to these ears, and they exhibit none of the etch I heard on several other top brands (all of which use Be metal tweeters). I am into detail as much as the next audiophile (seeking more and more resolution seems to be a common desire among us), and the WB's have that rare combination of smoothness and detail that I have been after for a while. I think the WB's may even use the same tweeter as in your speakers -- a ScanSpeak Revelator.

 

Surprisingly, it does take a little while to adjust to the smooth natural sound after being subjected to so many etched sounding speakers. At least it has for me. Even though I hated that sound, now that it is gone, it sometimes feels like something is missing. Similar to adjusting to a TV that has been ISF calibrated from one that was in "dynamic" mode.

 

Pleasure speaking with you.

 

Cheers,[br] - Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loudspeaker companies have been producing, by a variety of means, flat amplitude responses for decades and for just as long, enthusiasts have been attributing sound characteristics to minute irregularities. IMO very few people have properly understood what's going on.

 

For a start you can't hear quite significant changes in amplitude, but you can suffer discomfort from phase problems and

how many people realise that the sound of the metal tweeter they don't like is coming from below the crossover point and not above it. Think about a 1st order filter; It means that 1 Octave below the crossover point the tweeter output will only be 6 dB less loud than the Bass driver. And 12 dB from second order filter isn't hugely better in this respect.

 

There is a tendency for crossover frequencies to move up as the technology improves. For instance, the B & W Nautilus range used 3 kHz and the Diamond Series 5 kHz, because they were lucky enough to be able to design drive units that reach such high frequencies. Most get to about 2 kHz and start to break up or go into resonance and although this may not be too obvious in an amplitude response measurement, it may sound nasty and dictate the use of a much lower crossover point.

 

Most of the above faults (and many more) are audible in a brief visit to a hi fi shop with an acceptable listening room and yet most go unnoticed by reviewers in the UK.

 

When we talk about computer audio we need to remember that audio has been in computers for more than 20 years and if anything, it's a far better place to be than on a CD. We also need to be aware that the market is driven first by TV and second and more recently by computers. PCs have been decidedly home unfriendly for years, but even they are beginning to change because of Apple's unparalleled growth. It's now the largest online Music retailer and Movie and TV show rental and sales outlet in the World! Over 160 Million iPods have sold and many who've bought them have found that they sound better than Legacy hi Fi. TV adverts are a turn off and it's costing the companies their audience, so On Demand TV via a Broadband connection will increase computer usage. Modern people also watch Youtube for music, they like to see their Photos on TVs and they watch more movies than Music, which is all good for us because we have to make difficult choices like deciding whether the noughts and ones from a £200 Apple TV will sound worse than from a music only super server from a specialist hi fi company at up to fifty times the price.

 

Tim was right to point out that the difference between hi end DACs and cheap ones had narrowed to almost nothing, I've added that we don't need to lose too much sleep over sample rates and now I've pointed out some of the problems with what is by far the weakest link in the audio chain, the loudspeakers! You do need a good DAC, but more importantly you need good loudspeakers and they are much harder to find IMO.

 

Ashley

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't exist either Tim, which is why everything is a least a Two-Way and Three-Way in big rooms where you're farther away from them and don't hear the compromises so easily.

 

The reason your present speakers are a little "shouty" is the additional energy caused by the crossover and possibly the Bass driver acting up at its upper frequencies.

 

Speakers are improving all the time and the best are pretty good. The problem I see is in the quality of reviewing, which is bad in the UK. It would help if they understood at least some of the theory, but they don't and they seem to treat each product they see as another exciting musical interpretation, rather than as the buying public do. Most people buy something and get used to ignoring it's faults, and they do it pretty well provided there aren't too many and they aren't serious.

 

Ash

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashley wrote: "we have to make difficult choices like deciding whether the noughts and ones from a £200 Apple TV will sound worse than from a music only super server from a specialist hi fi company at up to fifty times the price."

 

This article from a nearby high end shop, which is

nominally about the Alpha DAC only -- regarding the subject at hand,

sums it up. They have yet to hear of Macs. I wonder why? ;-)

 

Unless I was an IT geek, facing the Windoze ordeal, as they describe it,

and as a mere mortal ... I would just keep my CD player.

 

http://www.goodwinshighend.com/productpages/alphadac.htm

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi mpmct - I've actually talked to Alan Goodwin about what they are doing in terms of music servers. I'm pretty sure Goodwin's has looked at Mac solutions, but decided on the silent Windows option.

 

I do like the Apple TV for certain things. But I think dedicated music servers and Apple TVs are like apple and oranges (no pun intended). The both offer vastly different feature sets.

 

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing The Audiophile Style Podcast

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I rack my brain attempting to understand what, at a normal room temperature (at which the fan never comes on) could be more "silent" than my Mac laptop. Even with the speakers turned off, if my head is more than a few feet away from my external hard drive, the system is silent. If I bend over it and put my head to the drive I hear the quietest spinning. Now, my wife's old Dell hums like a furnace...

 

The silent server strikes me as another elaborate audiophile solution to a problem that doesn't have to exist in the first place if one just picks the right, and much less expensive solution. Caveat emptor...

 

Tim

 

I confess. I\'m an audiophool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep using that word.

 

I have a Mac Mini that I sometimes hear, or think I hear, at the quietist moments in my favorite Brahms string quintet: Opus 88.

 

I moved the Mini behind a cabinet door!

 

The fan on my MacBook Air is all but impossible to hear,

and entirely easy to ignore, in the face of ...

as I've written before, my HVAC makes all manner of noise,

winter spring summer and fall. Am I the only one with that issue?

The cat stomps across the floor, a plane flies overhead.

Should I shoot the cat and close the airport?

 

I lived only a few miles from the very nice and helpful folks

at Goodwins for many years. It's a great shop, great fun to visit,

and they are really nice people, all of them I've met over the years.

 

But my gosh, you can't find 'silence' anywhere near their shop

in Waltham, unless you build an anechoic chamber in the basement of your

necessarily 100+ year-old house!

 

They don't mention Macs because it's not in their interest.

There's nothing wrong with that. But the overpriced and overwrought

Windoze machine is crazy by comparison: a ton of headaches, an IT consultant on-call, and a big old piece of industrial detritus to live with.

Versus an elegant Mac Mini for less than a third the price? And add-on hard drives for near-nothing?

 

Perspective.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting comments guys.

 

I'm certainly not speaking for Goodwin's here, but I don't agree with the comment about Macs not being in their interest. Goodwin's is a high end shop, not a computer dealer. I think they want to provide the best sound for their customers and they've decided the silent PC is the best sounding option. I'm guessing they would rather not have anything to do with computers PC or Mac. Also note that Goodwin's does not sell these computers, they work with EndPCNoise.com who builds and sells them. Goodwin's only installs the Lynx card and configures the card.

 

I guess noise is all relative as well.

 

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing The Audiophile Style Podcast

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...