Does nobody actually check what is put out then?
The problem here I think is that the person writing it has taken the
possible quality idea, and assumed that because the quality you could get
could be much better, it in fact will be. Most mp3s are knackerd as soon as
they are made which is obvious to us of course, but are adaquate for some
purposes. it is also true that the speed of the computer improves the speed
that mp3 files are decoded, but this should not matter as all h you get is a
bit more latency as the sound is buffered in any case. Same thing for
retrieval speed of drives and networks etc, but the writer misses completely
that the die is cast by the way the file was made.
If however you are wanting to run a multi track recording studio using raw
digital streams all running at the same time you will need a fast maching
with the correct hardware, maybe a Scsci interfaced professional card.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"RJH" wrote in message
...
Not sure where to start with this. Audioquest:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02...thernet_cable/

On their web site, they do a 'Computer audio demystified' report:

http://www.audioquest.com/computer-audio/

page 24:

"More CPU processing power and more RAM make your music playback sound
better. Additionally, newer 64-bit operating systems like Windows 7 and
Mac OS X tend to offer better sound quality than older 32-bit operating
systems. Whether the hard drive you store your music on is internal or
external, the quality of the hard drive and how itâ?Ts connected to your
computer impacts your computer audio sound. Higher transfer speeds sound
better, so faster spinning hard drives sound better. A 7200RPM drive
offers better audio performance than a 5400RPM drive. Solid-state drives
with no spinning discs sound better still, but before purchasing a
solid-state drive check the specifications for speed and get the fastest
transfer speed you can afford."

And it goes on.

--
Cheers, Rob