Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

item wrote:

Part of the reason we call our computers 'transports' is to encourage people to think of the number-crunching part of an audio system in the same already familiar terms as a CD player - because all the same things matter: CD transports vary according to the quality of their clocking, board design, EM and RF rejection, (crucially) power supplies and distribution, and vibration control. Computer transports are no different: it's helpful to forget about where the music is stored, and consider very carefully the local playback environment.

Item, it is incorrect, the definition of 'transports' is something the read disks. My vacuum cleaner use the same underlying principles as your devise and “all the same things matter”: electricity, board design, current-carrying conductors, magnetic fields, Faraday effect. So, why don’t you call your devise a “vacuum cleaner”? In reality what you do looks has absolutely nothing to do with media transport. You do PC-based file players, so call it this way. Uses DAW - digital audio workstation term used for such machines in the pro audio industry. I do not object what you do but I very much object how you call your DAW machines as 'transports' – it is misleading as I do look for PC-based transports and what you do has as much use in my field as a vacuum cleaner in a field cancer treatment.

item wrote:

It's then possible to have a computer that sounds better than a high quality CD transport, even with Red Book material (see December 2011 HiFi World).

I do not read the HiFi World. The people who work they are as much idiots as single-minded everywhere else. Do you make a claim that your devise is able to read CD disk and output it to a DAC with resulting Sound better then a CD transport of my choice? If you insist that it is the fact then what other formats your transport is able to read?

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site