Serious Question: How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent? Are that many confused?

[Brian Hall]

None of those will be any better than a Wiim Pro Plus at $220.

 

[Basic Channel]

It will also require a monster of a DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) to handle very many tracks at those crazy high sampling rates for no extra benefit. There is benefit to 24 bits and maybe up to 96khz, but going over that will bring most PCs to a crawl. 24/48khz is plenty when working on recorded tracks.

There is no benefit to higher than 16/44.1 for playback after the other work/mixing is done.

Edited to define DAW.

There is a difference in recording and processing too. Lots of VSTs benefit from oversampling internally and the latest DAWs run at 32bit floating point (at least). I suppose it's a bit analogous to old tape or something, a little bit of noise/hiss matters if you have 80 tape machines running.

I think you could probably make an argument for running higher bit/sample rates if you are doing some processing on playback. I'd argue that 12 bits would be inaudible in most cases. And 13 bits is twice the size of 12 bits.

 

[Basic Channel]

Are you joking? It exists a 25.000 $ DAC?

There was a DAC posted here (for a laugh) that cost about 150,000 USD, and you then had to buy a power supply and other bits I couldn't get my head around for about the same again. I think the power supply was 75k or something.

I thought it was like buying a car for 1,000,000 and then having to buy the engine and stuff.

 

[AdrianusG]

None of those will be any better than a Wiim Pro Plus at $220.

Quite right,

The only things that MIGHT be better with these Uber expensive DAC's is built Quality, durability and reliability over a longer time, perhaps product support as well, however even that is not always a given.
As for performance, well, they seldomly perform any better than a 200$ DAC , and in many cases worse or slightly worse, see the many reviews here.

So basically you pay for better looks and/or materials (subjective of course!) and some bragging rights, but not much else.
anyways 25.000 for a DAC is criminal!, speakers perhaps, but electronics that were essentially perfected some 30 years ago (when well implemented)...

 

[Brian Hall]

There is a difference in recording and processing too. Lots of VSTs benefit from oversampling internally and the latest DAWs run at 32bit floating point (at least). I suppose it's a bit analogous to old tape or something, a little bit of noise/hiss matters if you have 80 tape machines running.

I think you could probably make an argument for running higher bit/sample rates if you are doing some processing on playback. I'd argue that 12 bits would be inaudible in most cases. And 13 bits is twice the size of 12 bits.

It isn't the bit rate (32 vs 28) that brings a DAW to a crawl so much as insane sample rates (over 96khz). More than 96,000 samples per second with each sample requiring a 32 bit float is a ton of unneeded data.

24 tracks of audio captured at 768,000 samples per second at 32 bit float? That is over 18 million 32 bit float (4 bytes each) values per second to process and playback simultaneously. Complicated processing on ~72 million bytes per second. Really hard to do in real time. Overkill for no benefit.

 

[AdrianusG]

There was a DAC posted here (for a laugh) that cost about 150,000 USD, and you then had to buy a power supply and other bits I couldn't get my head around for about the same again. I think the power supply was 75k or something.

I thought it was like buying a car for 1,000,000 and then having to buy the engine and stuff.

Apparently there are still a lot people with enough money around to fall for this crap., fools and their money...
The companies that sell this kind of snake oil know very well that their clientele will probably never read or visit ASR., and even if they did they wouldn't care, no way they are going to show their friends a Topping or an SMSL DAC.

 

[Basic Channel]

It isn't the bit rate (32 vs 28) that brings a DAW to a crawl so much as insane sample rates (over 96khz). More than 96,000 samples per second with each sample requiring a 32 bit float is a ton of unneeded data.

24 tracks of audio captured at 768,000 samples per second at 32 bit float? That is over 18 million 32 bit float (4 bytes each) values per second to process and playback simultaneously. Complicated processing on ~72 million bytes per second. Really hard to do in real time. Overkill for no benefit.

Yeah I agree, my old laptop struggles massively with ableton sampling rate above 48k. Doubling the sampling rate chokes the system by more than double, I go from being able to have many tracks all generating in real time to struggling to get 2 going without jitters.

PS. I suppose I can't really change the bit rate to compare the difference.

 

[Brian Hall]

Quite right,

The only things that MIGHT be better with these Uber expensive DAC's is built Quality, durability and reliability over a longer time, perhaps product support as well, however even that is not always a given.
As for performance, well, they seldomly perform any better than a 200$ DAC , and in many cases worse or slightly worse, see the many reviews here.

So basically you pay for better looks and/or materials (subjective of course!) and some bragging rights, but not much else.
anyways 25.000 for a DAC is criminal!, speakers perhaps, but electronics that were essentially perfected some 30 years ago (when well implemented)...

I don't even think any speakers are worth $25,000. Above about $5000, you are paying for looks (usually bad), weight and size, more than sound quality.

 

[antcollinet]

built Quality, durability and reliability over a longer time,

You can replace a $200 DAC every year for 100 years, and still save $5000

 

[Brian Hall]

Yeah I agree, my old laptop struggles massively with ableton sampling rate above 48k. Doubling the sampling rate chokes the system by more than double, I go from being able to have many tracks all generating in real time to struggling to get 2 going without jitters.

PS. I suppose I can't really change the bit rate to compare the difference.

Really hard (impossible) to get a good mix if you can't hear all the tracks and effects played back together in real time.

 

[Basic Channel]

Really hard (impossible) to get a good mix if you can't hear all the tracks and effects played back together in real time.

Ha ha, yeah. I actually like the idea of having it too high to stop the constant tweating and as a sort of restriction. The two guys my username is making a nod to, had a prophet synth, 2 plate reverbs, a digital FX unit, an old phaser pedal, and I suppose some other stuff. Whereas I can (thereotically) use the same VST 1000 times, with the PC grinding I am restricted like I would be with my guitar and some pedals.

There is a lot of chasing of "analogue sound" but I think what people want is a bit more "analogue workflow". Apologies for using the term workflow.

 

[Brian Hall]

Ha ha, yeah. I actually like the idea of having it too high to stop the constant tweating and as a sort of restriction. The two guys my username is making a nod to, had a prophet synth, 2 plate reverbs, a digital FX unit, an old phaser pedal, and I suppose some other stuff. Whereas I can (thereotically) use the same VST 1000 times, with the PC grinding I am restricted like I would be with my guitar and some pedals.

There is a lot of chasing of "analogue sound" but I think what people want is a bit more "analogue workflow". Apologies for using the term workflow.

Analog "workflow" can really suck. With my first band in the early 80s, we only had two cassette decks and a crappy mixer. Had to build up tracks by playing along with the first deck while recording on the second and then reversing. Terrible sound and it took forever. I am happy with all digital now.

 

[Miguelón]

I don't even think any speakers are worth $25,000. Above about $5000, you are paying for looks (usually bad), weight and size, more than sound quality.

I hope I did a good decision with my Genelecs 8030 1100€ the pair, for my modest budget.

At least was not an influenced one: I red Amir reviews from monitors in my price range, bought 5 different under trial period from different retailers and final keep the one that sounded best for me.

No measurements at home, but the more I listen to my Genelecs the more I like how they sound: if is a placebo effect at least is going well…

I am shamed to spent in the past 6.000€ on Bang Olufsen beolab 8000
My new Genelecs 1/4 the price sound waaaaaay better

 

[Basic Channel]

Analog "workflow" can really suck. With my first band in the early 80s, we only had two cassette decks and a crappy mixer. Had to build up tracks by playing along with the first deck while recording on the second and then reversing. Terrible sound and it took forever. I am happy with all digital now.

For sure, and I think recording stuff is entirely different. Digital workflow when you are generating all the sounds in real time (can) leave you with so many options and very little recording or commitment. I have very little interest in recording a live mix to tape and editing, but I think there is something better about editing the mix on a computer as if it were a tape recording, rather than tinkering with automation envelopes.

I suppose I am probably sympathetic to the idea of analogue sound, when it comes to synths and 'airless' stuff. Similar to subtly randomising midi velocity/swing to humanise, I'll add volume and frequency modulation at random rates dialled back to a point where I cannot hear it in order to give some "life" to stuff. Or turn off the sync for the waves on the synth. Such stuff also sounds better to me with an artificial noise floor, which is probably sacrilege to say on here but I'll mention it.

 

[Brian Hall]

For sure, and I think recording stuff is entirely different. Digital workflow when you are generating all the sounds in real time (can) leave you with so many options and very little recording or commitment. I have very little interest in recording a live mix to tape and editing, but I think there is something better about editing the mix on a computer as if it were a tape recording, rather than tinkering with automation envelopes.

I suppose I am probably sympathetic to the idea of analogue sound, when it comes to synths and 'airless' stuff. Similar to subtly randomising midi velocity/swing to humanise, I'll add volume and frequency modulation at random rates dialled back to a point where I cannot hear it in order to give some "life" to stuff. Or turn off the sync for the waves on the synth. Such stuff also sounds better to me with an artificial noise floor, which is probably sacrilege to say on here but I'll mention it.

All is fine when recording to capture the sound you want. If you want to add a phase shifter and wah wah pedal effect to a tuba or kazoo pad, go for it.

Darn it, now I'm tempted to try to do something like a symphony with tubas, kazoos and kettle drums.

 

[BDWoody]

Many DACs descriptions enhance in capital letters 32/768 kHz resolution. Is there any domain when such a resolution may be justified?

Can you think of a circumstance where you'd even want a dynamic range of over 190dB and/or a frequency response up to 384kHz?

Apparently the Gray Moth can hear up to about 300kHz (gotta get away from those bats with that pesky echolocation thing), so there is that to consider if you want to record those sounds, but otherwise it doesn't seem to be useful for listening to music.

 

[Miguelón]

Can you think of a circumstances where you'd even want a dynamic range of over 190dB and/or a frequency response up to 384kHz?

Apparently the Gray Moth can hear up to about 300kHz (gotta get away from those bats with that pesky echolocation thing), so there is that to consider if you want to record those sounds, but otherwise it doesn't seem to be useful for listening to music.

Bah, the gray moth… my ultrasound echograph uses 1.500.000 Hz and I perceived it (sarcasm).

Yes is true that I perceive it by eyes not by ears, but who cares about these details

 

[Basic Channel]

@Brian Hall I think you should add an ultrasound echograph to your new symphony. Behringer surely make a cheap one.

 

[Miguelón]

@Brian Hall I think you should add an ultrasound echograph to your new symphony. Behringer surely make a cheap one.

I hope yes!

Medical gear suffer from the same overprice than audiphiles DACs, perhaps here I can find an expert to explain me the mystery of radiofrequency therapy machines.

The apparatus provide a single frequency electric current at 488 kHz. It has a power knob to regulate the dose, a “neutral” big plate which currents flows at low density and some little applying electrodes where the current density cause deep heat under the skin.

Remember, a single frequency (488 kHz) and a power knob, two electrodes.

It costs 20.000€

No matter the brand you ask (three or four) the same cost: 20.000€

Even if it’s not an audio question is an electronic one, perhaps I can open a thread to ask if generate a 488 kHz variable current at (I don’t know the exact power but can consult the manual) watts could justify that amount of money…

 

[Jim Taylor]

Thanks a lot again for all members that had the patience to persist on changing my perception on dacs and human listening.

That's really nice to hear!
For my part, I apologize for thinking that you were a troll. This site is a target for a great number of persistent trolls, and I have a tendency to dismiss some people, perhaps too early.

Enjoy the sunshine!

Jim