|
Computer Audio Asylum Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies. |
|
|
|
Computer Audio Asylum Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies. |
|
In Reply to: See my question to you about Spread Spectrum below. posted by carcass93 on September 22, 2014 at 09:00:35:
You said he was "totally wrong". That can't be, since he has already admitted that his system might lack resolution. Had you left out the word "totally" I would not have replied. :-)
There is a question, though and that concerns the meaning of "resolution". This is a very ambiguous audiophile term. I am immediately suspicious of people who use this term because for me, at least, the purpose of an audio system is to enjoy music or to review and critique recordings. It is easy to increase the ability of a system to "resolve" certain differences in recordings, such as to increase high frequency response making it easier to hear artifacts of poor digital recordings, etc., but such systems will not make music enjoyable. There is also a question of whether a device "resolves" differences in its input that it is supposed to resolve. So, for example, a balanced interconnect does a poor job of "resolving" ground loops. So if one is using such a system it will not be very "resolving" of certain types of power problems, yet it will almost certainly sound better than a similar single ended system. I used these two examples because they are both analog and easier for audiophiles to understand who don't understand digital electronics, computers and software.
So, if a DAC and downstream analog components "resolves" differences in a computer involving tweaking (not DSP) to me this is an indictment of the DAC and/or amplifiers, not an indictment of an untweaked computer. Sure, I tweak my computer software if it consistently makes a difference in what I hear, but if remaining differences were such as to be consistently and significantly audible then I would get another DAC.
In the "What's Best" and "AVS Forum" threads, amir was able to consistently hear differences between different digital formats. His "resolving" system was nothing but a stock laptop with built-in sound card and a pair of headphones. I don't buy the "resolving system" argument at all unless a system is seriously lacking in an essential musical aspect, e.g. audible noise, lack of or uneven bass, unnaturally truncated highs or audible distortion and commonly used playback levels. Such a system must be rejected for poor ability to play music, not for any lack of "resolution".
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- "Resolution" a typical audiophile ploy - Tony Lauck 09/22/1410:23:48 09/22/14 (5)
- So many assumptions in your post - Sordidman 15:34:01 09/22/14 (2)
- RE: So many assumptions in your post - Tony Lauck 18:05:53 09/22/14 (1)
- We are all so fortunate - Sordidman 22:13:34 09/22/14 (0)
- Besides being "a typical audiophile ploy", resolution is also a qualitative attribute. - carcass93 11:27:58 09/22/14 (1)
- RE: Besides being "a typical audiophile ploy", resolution is also a qualitative attribute. - Tony Lauck 18:24:20 09/22/14 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
