Spodnji citati so vzeti iz http://www.high-endaudio.com/RECENT.html#Jan, kjer je bil povzet zanimiv preizkus primerjave serverja in CD playerja. Na Audio Asylum se debata bojda nadaljuje....
"MUSIC SERVER VS. CD
Two of my associates, who have considerable experience with the best of today's Digital Source components, made some interesting comparisons at a recent audio show. These are the results that they sent me on my request, with only minor editing and my bold:
"To anyone following the trend in digital playback, it is quite clear that computer based systems are in vogue with CD players being viewed much like turntables were in the early 90's. The argument in favor of computers is that not only are they more convenient in use, they are less costly AND sound better. When have we heard this before? Oh yes, when CD players hit the market and when they were compared to vinyl. We all remember the notorious slogan of "Perfect Sound Forever". Fans of computer based digital seem to be making very similar claims.
To analogue devotees, listening to music using a CD/SACD player is sufficiently difficult to reconcile, but actually having music processed through a computer is tantamount to heresy. Conversely, the generation brought up with computers not only completely embraces the concept, it proclaims its inherent superiority. So much so, that the compelling sentiment is that CD/SACD players are on the brink of extinction since they are obsolete technology.
All this talk about computer based digital reproduction peaked this writer's curiosity. With so much hoopla about music servers and computers being the gateway to a new revolution in digital sound reproduction, with no downside on any level to current systems, one would have to be an idiot not to pursue its acquisition and implementation. To determine the real differences between the two methodologies, and in order to make a valid comparison between a computer based system and a CD player, all the variables have to remain constant. The only variable should be the music server versus the CD transport. The same DAC, cables, musical sources and audio system, at the same time, in the same room, must be used. A/B comparisons using the same music burned from a CD onto the music server, and hi rez files downloaded directly to the music server, compared to the same hi rez discs played back on the transport, are required. Well, this is exactly what we undertook.
The music server used in the test is sold direct from the manufacturer, and costs $5,000, and is considered by many as state of the art. Its identity is reluctantly being concealed as part of the agreement in being able to use it in the comparison. The manufacturer of the unit optimized it implementing all the upgraded audiophile options available. He personally burned the CDs supplied to him, and downloaded the hi rez files. He downloaded all the finest music programs currently being used, and proclaimed his system absolute state of the art, and easily capable of outperforming any CD transport in existence. An ipad was used as the monitor and remote.
The comparison was now ready to proceed. Seeing all the music that I have downloaded over the years from the internet and burned from CDs on the ipad was thrilling. At my finger tips in excess of 4,000 tunes were easily and conveniently accessible. I, and my significant other, who has golden ears, passionately were rooting for the server to sound at least as good as the transport. If it outperformed the transport, we considered this a huge bonus. The CD transport being used was the latest MSB Technology ($4,000 retail), which was connected with their matching Signature DAC ($ 25,000) with all the options, including 24/192 USB input and hi rez capability.
We, meaning the manufacturer of the music server, my significant other and myself, first listened to a Redbook CD, John Klemmer "Touch", burned onto the music server. Within 20 seconds of auditioning, my partner and I went from eager anticipation and excitement to puzzlement and disappointment. Being intimately familiar with the sonics of this excellent recording, we became immediately aware that much was missing. The purity and air of the high frequencies, the transparency and immediacy of Klemmer's saxophone were severely compromised. The highs were darker and dirtier, and a slight veil was apparent over the entire sonic presentation.
On the server, we then listened to the RR Rachmaninoff "Symphonic Dances". This was * directly from the internet in hi rez. While it still sounded excellent overall, we sensed that bottom end weight, dynamics and the complete rendering of harmonics seemed compromised. We then switched to the MSB transport and listened to both cuts again. It was painfully obvious how much better the sound became. Music played on the transport was more transparent, immediate, with wider dynamics. The soundstage was more open and focussed and the musical rhythmic flow was simply more natural. The differences were not subtle. It literally took the three of us seconds to hear the deleterious affects imposed by the server.
What does all this mean? As far as I am aware, this comparative test is the only one where all the variables remained constant. The server was purported to be amongst the best, and was set up by the manufacturer himself, who was present and confirmed our findings. There might be a superior music server in existence, but the fact is clear that computer based digital reproduction cannot be considered a priori superior to transports. Indeed, based on this experience, it would appear that computers have a LONG way to go before they are competitive with good transports. Cost is not really a benefit when using a computer, since the price of a top quality DAC is the same whether it is connected to a server, computer or transport. The price differential between a competent transport and laptop or server may or may not be of significance.
Furthermore, the budget DACS, those selling for under $1,000, can sound anywhere from, well budget to pretty good. None are close to state of the art, and do not be fooled into believing that they are. I assume that an audiophile, who is financially restricted, can assemble a computer based digital front end for reasonable cost, and those with unlimited funds can purchase an all out similar set up. Both will provide a plethora of convenience features, but what they will not do is playback music competitively to the finest transport based systems.
Admittedly, based on this single experiment, albeit tightly controlled and in a high resolution audio system, with 3 very acute listeners, the conclusion to be drawn is that it must not be assumed that computer based digital reproduction is inherently superior to transports. The test, at the very least, demonstrates that more controlled testing is necessary before definitive conclusions may be made. The test does demonstrate that simply because a server, or a computer, is your method of choice, do not assume that a CD transport must be inferior. It may or may not be. Start listening and comparing with your own ears."
My Associate's Addendum
"The connection from the server to the DAC was optimized by manufacturer of the server for AES/EBU connection. The same connection was used for the Transport to DAC. The manufacturer of the server was very aware that this was going to be a shoot-out to determine the best sound. He did everything in the building of his unit, and in the ripping of the music, to ensure the highest fidelity: Non compressed wav files. However, not the identical cable, since the cable from the server to the DAC was hardwired from the server. The exact audio show can also not be mentioned, because it may help identify the server."
Important Note- See "Readers Letters" (this month below) for more on this subject, including letters from a manufacturer of Computer Audio.
We Receive Some Correspondence...
MUSIC SERVER VS. CD
The article posted above was mentioned on "Computer Audio Asylum" (along with a link), and some "controversy" was quickly generated (mainly based on a misinterpretation of what was written, which I will respond to below). I have now received two letters from Steve Nugent, of Empirical Audio, which specializes in "Computer Audio", which I felt must be posted. I do this to display the thinking, assumptions and reading "skills" of someone in the Computer Audio business, as well as a prolific poster (4775, and counting).
Here is Mr. Nugent's first letter, without any edits (but my bold), followed by a reply by myself:
"I read your article "MUSIC SERVER VS. CD" which was linked from Audio Asylum.
Your article is very biased and furthermore draws conclusions on a technology based upon tests with a single so called 'best' music server.
What you must understand is that this is a competitive business, and like the Republican campaigns, there are a lot of lies un (sic) untruths published in order to sell more products.
I will agree however that most all-in-one music servers are junk. I have had some of the best names here, because my customers want me to reclock them with my products and make them sound good. This does not mean that computer audio is not superior to CD Transports. It is with certain products. Computer Audio and all-in-on (sic) servers are two different animals, and one should distinguish this difference.
'Cost is not really a benefit when using a computer, since the price of a top quality DAC is the same whether it is connected to a server, computer or transport.'
This is not true either. Good clocking and power supply technology is expensive and you pay for this in a computer audio device. Its (sic) just like buying a really high quality cartridge for your turntable.
I guarantee that there are other computer audio solutions out there that will beat every single transport you put up against them. If you are going to publish such experiements (sic), please do not draw general conclusions from these tests, unless you have tested a broad swath of these types of devices. Doing this just degrades your credibilty (sic).
If computer audio,(not music servers) was not outperforming CD transports, then the likes of John Atkinson and Steven Stone would not be using it. They both use my Off-Ramp 4 product. It recieved (sic) best of show from TAS at RMAF 2010 and 2011, Editors Choice Award, Golden Ear Award from TAS and Recommended Components from Stereophile in 2012.
I recommend that you choose more carefully next time and draw a more realistic conclusion."
My (Unedited) Personal Response to the Reader
Dear Steve,
I don't believe that you did "read your article", or, if you did, not very closely, because in the first sentence you would have noticed that it was NOT I that actually wrote it, but instead the two associates who conducted the comparisons.
Even the manufacturer of the Music Server agreed to the results that were posted. Unlike other comparisons, everything was exactly the same and the manufacturer had all the time in the world to optimize his component.
Frankly, I don't care what John Atkinson (or almost anyone else from a commercial audio magazine) feels about any particular component. You shouldn't either. Why? The reasons are countless...Atkinson has more than 50 amplifiers, at the same time, all described as "the best available"; he has "recommended" more than 60 components in a row; he has more Class A+ (an absurdity in itself) components in certain categories than Class C, etc. etc.
However...
I freely admit that I am no digital expert by any means. Further, I wasn't even there for the actual comparisons, so I will forward your letter to the appropriate parties. If they send me a reply, I promise to send it to you. If I also feel it is worth it, for further edification, I will post your letter and the reply on my website. If I decide to do so, I will inform you beforehand to find out if you would prefer to remain anonymous or not.
Personally speaking, and my two associates agree with me, I can't imagine any audiophile NOT wanting the computer solution to be superior. This was also true when CDs became available, and transistors before them. Audiophiles should be excused for being sceptical of the latest "advance". However, if there is a better method to achieve the best results, as you claim, we would all be interested in hearing it for ourselves.
What we have done so far is report accurately on one direct and fair shoot-out, which proved that the claim of the universal superiority of servers to transports is not justified. We are interested in taking it to the "next level", if such a level exists, as you again claim.
The people involved in these comparisons, with the obvious exception of the Music Server manufacturer, had no financial or emotional stake in the results. I feel that this is not* true in your case. If there was any "bias", as you claim, it was IN FAVOR of the Music Server.
This is clear if you read the article closely: "With so much hoopla about music servers and computers being the gateway to a new revolution in digital sound reproduction, with no downside on any level to current systems, one would have to be an idiot not to pursue its acquisition and implementation".
Finally, my website, in stark contrast to Stereophile and TAS, does not exist "to sell more products".
*Mr. Nugent designs and sells a DAC, reclocker, converter and power supply, all of which he claims are requirements when optimizing Computer Audio. This conclusively demonstrates that Mr. Nugent has a vested financial interest in Computer Audio, while we have none, for either option. Here's the proof, plus a small favor to Mr. Nugent...
Link to Empirical Audio
Steve Nugent's Second Letter
"I dont (sic) object to shootouts, but this was not one of them. The products were not mentioned. The conclusion was that Computer Audio was inferior to CD's. This was the wrong conclusion IMO.
This particular all-in-one server, brand name XXX was inferior to the particular CD transport. This is the real conclusion.
BTW, you are getting a lot of flac (sic) on Asylum for this. Not good for business."
Important Note- Because of the last sentence in Steve Nugent's second letter, my original offer of anonymity is now revoked.
My Response to Steve Nugent's Second Letter
This is a very ignorant letter, which is literally depressing to contemplate. Even worse, the last sentence is both comedic and despicable at the same time. Fortunately, it is short:
Nugent- The products were not mentioned.
My Reply- Yes they were; the MSB Transport and DAC. It was the ($ 5,000) Music Server which was not mentioned, because of a promise we refuse to break. If the manufacturer gives us permission, I can assure you it will be mentioned.
Nugent- The conclusion was that Computer Audio was inferior to CD's. This was the wrong conclusion IMO.
My Reply- Complete nonsense. We never claimed that "Computer Audio was inferior to CD's" was our "conclusion". This interpretation can only be the result of poor reading skills and/or some misplaced fear.
Nugent- This particular all-in-one server, brand name XXX was inferior to the particular CD transport. This is the real conclusion.
My Reply- True (finally!). This may be the first (and only) correct interpretation that was made of the entire article. Anyone, with average reading skills, understood that conclusion from the beginning. However, this particular comparison also proves that it can not be assumed that computers are always superior to good quality transports. That is the main point of the article.
Nugent- BTW, you are getting a lot of flac on Asylum for this. Not good for business.
My Reply- I don't care what kind and amount "of flac" I'm getting on "Asylum". As for "not good for business", this may be the single most ignorant comment I've yet read about my website, which is saying a lot. Why?
I haven't been in the audio business since Fall 2001, more than 10 years ago now. I have a totally non-commercial and independent website, dedicated exclusively to home audio journalism. I also see this remark as some sort of veiled threat. To be clear, I won't be intimidated, because I have no finances at stake. Others (Michael Fremer and Charles Hansen/Ayre) have tried to do so in the past, and they too have failed.
This leads me to an issue I should have addressed a long time ago...
Why I Do Not Participate in Audio "Chat Groups"
saf.si
Slovenski avdiofilski forum