Computer Audio Reviewing Challenges

[Craig]

The TAS issue #198 is now hitting the shelves. Not nearly as many Audio "How-To" articles as their last issue but they did have an in depth article on Computer Audio. I got the impression from their article that they really over emphasize the point that Computer Audio is very complex and difficult to do and even harder to get god sound from it. I don't find that to be the case with my Squeezebox and iTUnes systems but I'm sure it is for anyone who is not savvy with computers and network systems.

A very interesting point they make is that Computer Audio is proving to be a very difficult area for Audio Reviewers to evaluate and compare the various components and aspects that go into a Computer Audio system. I have to agree with them that are way too many variables to make a determination of what "thing" (USB, FireWire cable, software, computer component, USB DAC, etc works and sounds better than something else.

A big part of their problem is that they are digging way too deep with computer audio and already trying to review things like computer power cords, usb cables, computer power supplies, which software sounds better. Maybe they're better off leaving these sort of reviews up to the computer geek/propeller head crowd.

 

[sleepysurf]

Absolute Sound took a lot of FLAC (pun intended) after their recent review panning USB-DAC's, and are probably trying to make amends. It is complicated, but like everything else in high-end audio, there is a tendancy for manufacturers/reviewers to add prose which makes it even more complicated. I think the current debates are being driven more by (marketing) $$, than science, in the rush to sell the "best" solution in this rapidly growing niche. It's interesting how many "high-end" manufacturers are now poo-poo'ing the (relatively inexepensive) streaming audio gear (Squeezebox, Benchmark DAC, iPod, etc) that made this a viable segment in the first place. The good news (I hope) is that 1) computer audio will save this hobby, and 2) we'll all benefit in the end. However, I'm not surprised to already see the snake oil salesmen at work!

 

[Craig]

I'm just not ready to install expensive power cords on my computer! Of course, I say that now.

 

[amey01]

I too, don't find it very complex with my Squeezebox setup. And likewise, I am not surprised to see the unscrupulous snake oil salesmen trying to cash in on this new and growing niche.

Now I'm usually prepared to give the benefit of the doubt, but if you have even the slightest understanding of how computers work (they transfer data differently to S/PDIF) you'll know that computer power cords and expensive USB cables can make diddly-squat difference to the sound you hear.

I don't agree with the mag that there are more variables - there aren't. If not, there are actually less because a CD ripped is probably more uniform than the varying quality control of physical discs played in real-time!

And that gets me to my last point - I wish the magazines would take the time to understand computer audio rather than just blurt sh1t about it. Even some of the good articles I've read, they smack of limited understanding being blurted out as gospel. Just as you say above Craig - Oh, it's so hard reviewing computer audio because the power cord attached to my computer has such a profound effect on the sound of my Squeezebox.......my ar5e! It's not hard to see through that, and it irks me - don't say anything at all if you don't fully understand!

 

[amey01]

To support my previous post, something I noticed recently. If anyone has Stereophile Volume 32, No 8 with regard to the review of the T+A Musik Player:

In specifications, it lits the fomats of which this player is capable of playing. Nothing wrong with this, however it lists WMA, WMA Lossless and AAC. No mention is made of Apple Lossless (even though this is technically AAC). The writer specifically mentions WMA Lossless, indicating this player might not support Apple Lossless even though it supports AAC. Intensely annoying!

On page 53, column 2, mention is made of the bitrates and bit depths supported over the "network processor". In any event, "network processor" is not a standard term - are they talking about the network interface controller or the digital interface in general, because it appears the USB port has been lumped in this category, even though it has nothing to do with network. Do they understand this? Is USB or is USB not included? More importantly, when the "network processor" is upgraded to support 24/96, will the USB support that too? That is up in the air?

Why even raise these points if they are not going to be closed off? If the topic is not covered in its entirety then the space used (and my time spent reading) is wasted. No questions are answered.

The other thing I see all the time is comments about how .WAV is better than .FLAC and it "takes it that last step toward [insert audiophile journalist BS here]".

The way I see it, if you don't understand it, don't write about it. But..... it is their duty/job to write about computer audio so please take the time to understand it before you just make a fool of yourselves!

 

[JonFo]

Interesting that there is a lack of focus on the fact that many new receivers and preamps now do streaming in the box. Some of the UI's are not up to scratch, but a good DLNA control point will soon fix that.

the audio performance of my Denon pre-amp (A1HD) from streamed FLAC or WAV's is nothing short of spectacular.

There is no external doo-dad that will ever match a fully clock-synched decoding and streaming to the internal DAC's.

They still need to catch up to SqueezeBox and others on usability though. But audio performance is superb.