Is high end computer audio worth it

[soundguruman]

This thread is an attempt to draw off the discussion of this subject from another thread in the cpu and other component's section. It is therefore open to all opinions, so long as they are defended reasonably.

Of course it's worth it.

 

[davcon]

I'm relatively new to tom's but i honestly think most people here have no clue what high-end audio is.
All i see is ignorant(the uninitiated)people trolling imo.
I don't consider pc audio high-end in the first place.
Yes i do agree that onboard sound can be improved with a decent audio card.
My high-end system consist of:
Heybrook TT2 turntable with an Alphason tonearm and a Denon MC cartridge
Quad 34 Pre-amp
Quad 405-2 amp
Audioquest speaker wire 8 gauge
Energy 22 CBC Reference Speakers bought from Paul Barton
I also have a Nakamichi tape deck and cd player
Has served me well since the 80's.
That's the thing about real high-end it can serve you pretty much a lifetime.
I may add another 405 and bi-wire.

 

[MEgamer]

well i dont think audio itself has improved greatly over teh years, but teh technology is improving hugely, as digital is becoming more practical for real high end users, i think audio will start to develop has very early computers, and eventrually start to become cheaper.

 

[astrallite]

well i dont think audio itself has improved greatly over teh years, but teh technology is improving hugely, as digital is becoming more practical for real high end users, i think audio will start to develop has very early computers, and eventrually start to become cheaper.

Measurement techniques have improved and mainly you've seen is a change in the materials used. Back in the early 2000s most of the high end speakers were using aluminum dome tweeters. But when everyone realized they had distortion from HF resonance, they moved to titanium (and also diamond, and beryllium).

 

[MEgamer]

I'm relatively new to tom's but i honestly think most people here have no clue what high-end audio is.
All i see is ignorant(the uninitiated)people trolling imo.
I don't consider pc audio high-end in the first place.
Yes i do agree that onboard sound can be improved with a decent audio card.
My high-end system consist of:
Heybrook TT2 turntable with an Alphason tonearm and a Denon MC cartridge
Quad 34 Pre-amp
Quad 405-2 amp
Audioquest speaker wire 8 gauge
Energy 22 CBC Reference Speakers bought from Paul Barton
I also have a Nakamichi tape deck and cd player
Has served me well since the 80's.
That's the thing about real high-end it can serve you pretty much a lifetime.
I may add another 405 and bi-wire.

thats got nothing to do with computer audio.... but fair enough.

 

[MEgamer]

Measurement techniques have improved and mainly you've seen is a change in the materials used. Back in the early 2000s most of the high end speakers were using aluminum dome tweeters. But when everyone realized they had distortion from HF resonance, they moved to titanium (and also diamond, and beryllium).

and most reference monitors use cloth/textile dome tweeter.

 

[astrallite]

and most reference monitors use cloth/textile dome tweeter.

Studio monitors are for mixing engineers to tweak sound, not for accurate playback

If you have to sit in front of speakers for 12 hours a day at high SPL, you need a to limit the frequencies you are exposed to in to limit fatigue. In the professional audio industry it's called the X-Curve.

 

[MEgamer]

studio monitors are obviously designed for accurate playback, or else how on earth would recording artists know they chose the right desired settings, effects and the way it sounds to up a lvl.

 

[MEgamer]

Studio monitors, also called reference monitors, are loudspeakers specifically designed for audio production applications such as recording, film, television and radio studios where accurate audio reproduction is crucial
When the term 'monitor speaker' is used among audio engineers, there is likely to be an assumption that the speaker will be designed to produce relatively flat (linear) phase and frequency responses. In other words, there will be no emphasis or de-emphasis of particular frequencies so that the loudspeaker gives an accurate reproduction of the tonal qualities of the source audio ("uncolored" or "transparent" are synonyms), and there will be no relative phase shift of particular frequencies meaning no distortion in sound stage perspective for stereo recordings.

other words they need to be accurate in the first place...

 

[MEgamer]

i thought x-curve is just an eq settings that deviates within the room size

 

[astrallite]

90% of the industry uses use Yamaha or B&W monitors, no mixing engineer is would tell you their monitor's are "accurate."

 

[astrallite]

It also comes down to cost. Good metal drivers are much more expensive than soft domes, which are readily available. Most of the studio mixing monitors use cheap gear. The high end studios you will find using stuff like Revel or Wilson--all end metal drivers, usually Be or Ti. They maintain composure under SPL much better than cloth/soft domes.

 

[MEgamer]

yet, the companies advertise saying that their monitors are very accurate,
i have no idea, how they would put effects in music, choosing levels of sound and panning at there desired lvl... if there monitors arent accurate.

 

[astrallite]

 

[MEgamer]

what speaker?

but ye i have to afmit that is a little.. u know

 

[astrallite]

The Yammy NS-10s. I would say pretty much every mixing engineer in a major studio has worked on these. Probably 80% of the music in the last 20 years were mixed on these.

 

[astrallite]

This is what I would consider an accurate speaker. Revel Ultima2 series are used by some of the high end studios now. Concave Ti woofers and Inverted Be tweets.

 

[MEgamer]

but for the same price, im sure an active monitor could come close or even better.

 

[astrallite]

For example?...

 

[MEgamer]

the thing is yamahas dont even make very good speakers anyway, but if there was frequency response for M & K, and K & H...