Shibboleth

This is all true. The biggest differences we see between computers stem from all aspects of their power delivery: in particular, grounding and isolation. When someone finds an improvement in moving to a two-PC system, or 'separating' the OS from the library drive . . . again, the most likely explanation is improving on-board noise and separating the supplies. It's important to stress, too, that any power supply needs to be kept well under its headroom for real-world low-noise performance. There's little point powering a modestly sized SSD which will idle at 50-150mA but occasionally need up to 750mA with a 1A supply - it should be over-rated by 200% of peak demand . . . which is why a good, big SMPS can work surprisingly well with a properly implemented low-demand computer. On the same subject, it's vital not to forget the other half of the 'stream' . . . ATX power filtering - for instance - might be fine to minimise the injection of downstream noise into the board and USB, but of course the PSU is still merrily pumping grunge into the (likely shared) AC . . .

Those Wesena cases seem to be popping up in a number of guises: is it the same as the Origen ae?

Tumbleweed . . . whistling wind . . . . . . Looking at the Aurender and Linn boxes, its evidently the Gold standard for a machine of this type, so surprising there isn't more out there. Chris says the on-board switching noise makes it not worthwhile, though.

This looks like a nice computer - thanks for your efforts, Chris. The PCI/USB trick looks interesting: will have to try me one of those! Not so sure about Win 7/64, DDR2 memory, or the on-board power, but the card might be a winner. Any drivers needed? Presumably you're recommending USB to Whatever converters for coax, optical or AES/EBU output?

Actually, I just listened to some FLACs and WAVs again and WAVs are definitely better, proving beyond doubt, once and for all, that it does make a difference, and everyone can stop arguing about it.

I just listened to some AIFFs and ALACs, and they sounded the same, proving beyond doubt, once and for all, that it makes no difference and everyone can stop arguing about it.

For the benefit of those struggling to make it into the 21st century: Q. Do all CD transports sound the same? If 'yes', perhaps you haven't heard many. If 'no', why? They're all 'bit-perfect', right? There's plenty of old-fashioned, common knowledge proof that there's more to digital audio than the binary data. Please, can we end this nonsense about exact bit transmission being the only factor in play: a DAC is not a printer.

Remarkably similar Mac + PC playback we have . . . but rumours persist of differences between differently ripped and converted files. This one is easier to test, though: bits are bits - right? I had thought that a systemic or characteristic alteration was impossible, although its self-evident that drop-out or error correction flaws might have a very small, time-localised effect. But, crucially, I'd not really conducted a test: you don't, do you, when you think something is impossible? I've not gone looking for the Loch Ness monster, either. For similar reasons. But then someone says 'fragmentation'. Overlooking a single variable can change everything: sometimes from an impossibility to a certainty. And that's the problem. Very few people are qualified sufficiently well as engineers, physicists, metallurgists and IT systems experts (and by 'expert', I mean really top-100 in their field expert, not the bloke at the local PC Shack) to qualify the claim: ‘I have accounted for all the variables'. We should be slow to dismiss firsthand evidence in favour of pre-formed theories, especially when, in all honesty, they're built on an inadequate intellectual foundation. If I can't hear a difference between rips, I won't rule it out on that evidence alone. But if I can hear a difference, I'd be tempted to believe it. I'm only human. Perhaps we should do the rip test and report back?

When people get hung up on a test method, it's often because they failed the test. Obsessing over methodology, and giving house-room to naysayers seems a pointless distraction: the interesting questions are: Why do these factors make a difference? And what can we learn that will make our computers sound better? If you really believe none of this stuff matters, say your piece, return your head into the sand, and let others get on with progress.

The reasonable and well-informed of among us understand that as far as what data goes into the DAC, it really doesn't matter how it got there If this forum is to be a place for intelligent debate about computer audio, nonsense like this can't be allowed to stand unchallenged, and should be moderated. Among digital audio naifs and the vinyl-supportive, the belief is understandable, but we've known for decades that transports DO NOT SOUND IDENTICAL, let alone computers. Many, many factors influence their performance. Claiming in 2010 that 'it doesn't matter how data gets to a DAC' is ludicrous, and disguising such misinformation as rationalism is inexcusable. It's particularly pernicious and misleading to those who come here to learn the basics of computer audio.

I have been wowed by all the new Adams: my system is currently completely 'Adam-ised': A3X in the little 'background music' system and S3X-H (truly fantastic) in the proper computer audio system in my listening room. I auditioned many of the Focals (up to and including the almost equally fantastic Beryllium Twins) and both AudioEngines, but the I couldn't live without sheer transparency and the resolution of the Adams. They're a bit lean tonally, but even the baby A3X is a star: so much better than the older models whose gratingly bright ribbon tweeter was way OTT. Where else can you get 4x amps and 2x ribbon tweeters for £350. I've also had the AudioEngine A2s and think they're about as much fun as you can have for £150 or whatever they are these days. When you think what the same budget buys you in terms of an amplifier and passive speakers, it's a no-brainer.

I know it's unrealistically peverse: there would also be complaints if you never improved the product! But 24/192 is a true benchmark for the foreseeable future of digital audio: as a high-ticket item, I guess a buyer feels the right to have the best if they spent the most. I see the Diverter is now available from somewhere in the UK, but the page link seems to be broken: http://www.itemaudio.co.uk/usb_spdif_converters.html When the upgrade is available, should I go through Item or come to you for the upgrade direct? And do you have any idea when the 24/192 version will be available? Thanks in advance!

I auditioned all available USB > SPDIF converters and came to the conclusion that the SonicWeld was indeed the best available (although it wasn't easy to obtain one in the UK). So kudos where due: thanks Josh. However, I would really have loved a 24/192 version: will there be an upgrade path, or concessionary pricing for those who thought they were investing in lifetime ownership of such a lovely thing?

Looking to snag one of these next week, but has anyone tested it with different PSUs? Obviously 9V rechargeable batteries are cheap, or there's the Paul Hynes route, or (cheaper) the KingRex 9V PSU II: if I'm going to splash out on something expensive, what's the best bet?

Perhaps like the old joke about the most dangerous nut on a car: the one behind the wheel?