Tubes and Solid State <$600 DACs: Same Sonic Qualities as Tube/SS Amps, or Different?

[crazyface]

Thank you everyone!

Tfarney, when you reply to Golden Monkey's reccommendation with the name "Tim," what significance does this have? Do you agree with the DAC he reccommends?

I listen from within 3 feet of my speakers. At home and at school, I must keep all of my belongings in a single room - I own no house yet, only my room at home and a small apartment. I think it is a good idea for any speakers I have to be "analytical" and "revealing" as you say - if I do not like it for listening to music, then I can always soften things, but it will be very useful for when I produce audio tracks myself. I also like details very much. As you describe tubes as a warming, softening "color," I begin to think that a speaker that is perhaps more analytical would actually be a good balance in terms of listening to music, not to mention increased utility for my projects - and it can image in a small area from the speakers themselves, which is good because it is better for me to listen relatively quietly and close-up at home and in my apartment.

But I can always just use headphones for now, until I can afford a good nearfield monitor pair. I hear HV626 is very good.

I listen to all kinds of music!

Except, very little rap. Mostly classical and jazz.

But I think that first I should understand what DAC to get.

If you agree with Monkey, then I will get that one.

 

[Golden Monkey]

Tim is his "real" name, I believe, lol...
I think he was illustrating his own point about transparency, which I agree with. He was quoting me (actually, quoting my quote, lol) because they (pacific valve) were renforcing his own statement. FYI - I almost went with this DAC myself, but didn't need XLRs and all the other bells and whistles. My OMZ was quite a bit more ($529), but it's strength lies in accuracy and naturalness...although transparency is also one of it's strong points.

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyface /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thank you everyone! Tfarney, when you reply to Golden Monkey's reccommendation with the name "Tim," what significance does this have? Do you agree with the DAC he reccommends? I listen from within 3 feet of my speakers. At home and at school, I must keep all of my belongings in a single room - I own no house yet, only my room at home and a small apartment. I think it is a good idea for any speakers I have to be "analytical" and "revealing" as you say - if I do not like it for listening to music, then I can always soften things, but it will be very useful for when I produce audio tracks myself. I also like details very much. As you describe tubes as a warming, softening "color," I begin to think that a speaker that is perhaps more analytical would actually be a good balance in terms of listening to music, not to mention increased utility for my projects - and it can image in a small area from the speakers themselves, which is good because it is better for me to listen relatively quietly and close-up at home and in my apartment. But I can always just use headphones for now, until I can afford a good nearfield monitor pair. I hear HV626 is very good. I listen to all kinds of music! Except, very little rap. Mostly classical and jazz. But I think that first I should understand what DAC to get. If you agree with Monkey, then I will get that one.

I replied with the name "Tim" because that's my name. It's with the T in TFarney stands for. I don't know the DAC Golden Monkey recommended, but I just read the blurb on it at Pacific Electric and it reads well.

What kind of amp do you have? What kind of music do you listen to? If is very common for near field monitors to be "powered." That means the amps are built in to the speakers, and in most cases, they are bi-amped, meaning separate amps feed the woofers and tweeters. This is a good thing. But if you already have a good amp, un-powered monitors are available as well, and can save you some money. Last but not least, there are a lot of consumer audio speakers that are not designed as studio tools, but will work well in a nearfield configuration.

What is your budget? That's usually a good place to start, but in the meantime, for true nearfield studio monitors, look up Tannoy, JBL, Mackie, Alesis, Dynaudio...heck, just go to sweetwater.com and look around. Let me know what you think.

Tim

 

[Golden Monkey]

X2 on the JBL's...nice and compact, and very detailed and accurate.

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golden Monkey /img/forum/go_quote.gif X2 on the JBL's...nice and compact, and very detailed and accurate.

Yep, JBLs, often maligned for their consumer products, have never ceased to make great studio monitors. If you have enough money, they make a pair of nearfields (I think their is a set of mid-fields as well) that are not only powered they come with the processing to read your room acoustics from a remote and balance themselves to be flat in your listening environment. Not that's a great trick.

Crazyface -- what are you editing those programs on? Computer? What kind of computer?

Tim

 

[crazyface]

Hello!

My computer is a PC. It has Windows XP SP3 on it. I use Vegas, I use FL Studio, I use other music creation and MIDI programs, I use animations programs, video editing programs, etc., etc. It has onboard motherboard sound, very bad. And the left channel disappears all the time from playback. So, I hope that with a DAC, everything will improve, and I can use it too with my CDP, a Sony CDP-CE245.

My music that I listen to changes very often. I can listen to psychadellic music - or to recordings of old cylinder-based music. I listen to everything!

To listen to only one or two types of music would be like to read only one or two authors; everything can be good. So I listen to many different kinds, I can not name them all.

I still must learn to play piano, and learn musical theory, if I am to compose very well myself, but I try to do, say, classical type music, but with synthesized instruments. My experiments are very simple now because I am not educated yet. It is not entirely different from Wendy/Walter Carlos (I think this is his/her name?) but I would say less analog quality.
I think I would, for speakers, save up a long time to buy the HV626, just because "626" reminds me of Mozart's Requiem code.

I have about $400 for a DAC at the moment.

My only amp is my headphone amp, made by Precide for their Ergo2. My only speaker amp is inside of my receiver, a Technics SA-AX540.

One thing I wonder about speakers, is that they all say to keep them away from walls...but how is this managed, practically? Everywhere I go, everyone has their furniture arranged to put the speakers against the wall, and this seems easiest.

Ok, thank you, goodbye!

 

[mikeg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tfarney /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yep, JBLs, often maligned for their consumer products, have never ceased to make great studio monitors. If you have enough money, they make a pair of nearfields (I think their is a set of mid-fields as well) that are not only powered they come with the processing to read your room acoustics from a remote and balance themselves to be flat in your listening environment. Not that's a great trick. Crazyface -- what are you editing those programs on? Computer? What kind of computer? Tim

I do most of my listening on these JBL nearfield monitors and they are wonderful. Best speakers that I've ever heard.

 

[tfarney]

Crazyface, you came here looking for advice, so I'm going to give you some. It borders on the radical, so take it in that context. If you are a student, and you already understand that what you want to do is make movies and score music, I'd look down the road and make today's decisions based on tomorrow's needs. By that, I mean I'd buy an inexpensive DAC today. Something like a SuperPro 707 if your PC puts out optical or digital coax or a SuperPro 707 USB, if you need USB. They're cheap and very competent. I'd use the receiver and speakers you have now, for now. And I'd start saving my money for an Apple Macintosh computer. The Mac, and particularly its operating system, OSX, is simply a better environment for making and editing music and video. Studios and editing suites are full of the things, for good reason. First things first. Getting on the right platform will make everything easier going forward.

Tim

 

[regal]

You guys are all wrong about a proper tube DAC. A "tube" source with a tube after an opamp I/V is not a true tube DAC or CDP. Opamps in DAC's color the sound more than a tube because of all the feedback employed. If you had ever heard a well designed class A zero feedback tube DAC you would change your tune.

The best sound I have gotten is by eliminating all silicon (SS) in the signal path after the DAC chip. My current setup is a highly modified DAC60 (tube) to a Bijou(all tube). There are no opamps or transistors in the signal path.
The sound is unbelieveable.

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tfarney /img/forum/go_quote.gif The recording studios of the world are filled with exceptionally expensive equipment,.... the objective of which is transparency, not coloration. And it does not sound "exceptionally digital." When you play it back, it sounds like your instrument. Unwarmed.

That's not entirely true. The fashion for valve/tube gear pervades recording studios as much as it does domestic audio and has done for about the same amount of time. Roughly coincident with when people began to question the 'sound' of digital.

ProTools the industry standard digital mixing environment commonly employs Focusrite microphone preamplification based on valves. Another company in the same Avid group, Novation, were the pioneers of virtual "analogue modelling" of vintage analogue synthesisers like the classic Roland TB-303 and TR series drum machines.

I am not a big fan of tube amplification either generally but a lot of very prominent people both in the recording industry and domestic Hi-Fi would agree with what Nikongod says above.

Namely that modern valve amps can be made to measure almost as well as their solid state counterparts in the areas which matter and just do certain things better than solid state. The expense of is often justified by the fact that valves require very high quality Power supplies usually wound by hand etc etc.

As far as "transparency" goes, to my ear the Dire Straits stuff you are holding up as the paragon of recording practice sounds very much of it's time (the early 1980s). It could be the music but to me this equates to over produced to the point of blandness.

 

[regal]

A lot of the high quality recordings were monitored by the engineers with tube amps, so to hear it as they intend you need tube equipment.

Also there is no such thing as a transperent uncolored commercial rock or pop recording, they don't exist.

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's not entirely true. The fashion for valve/tube gear pervades recording studios as much as it does domestic audio and has done for about the same amount of time. Roughly coincident with when people began to question the 'sound' of digital. ProTools the industry standard digital mixing environment commonly employs Focusrite microphone preamplification based on valves. Another company in the same Avid group, Novation, were the pioneers of virtual "analogue modelling" of vintage analogue synthesisers like the classic Roland TB-303 and TR series drum machines. I am not a big fan of tube amplification either generally but a lot of very prominent people both in the recording industry and domestic Hi-Fi would agree with what Nikongod says above. Namely that modern valve amps can be made to measure almost as well as their solid state counterparts in the areas which matter and just do certain things better than solid state. The expense of is often justified by the fact that valves require very high quality Power supplies usually wound by hand etc etc. As far as "transparency" goes, to my ear the Dire Straits stuff you are holding up as the paragon of recording practice sounds very much of it's time (the early 1980s). It could be the music but to me this equates to over produced to the point of blandness.

What I was responding to in Nikon God's post was his thesis that all the good stuff - SS or tubes, is designed to subtly color the sound and that if it wasn't, our music would sound bad.

I understand that tubes are popular in the studio, that tube mic pres, vintage tube signal processing gear, even vintage boards, decks and amps are used to get a "sound." But when a tube mic preamp is used in the studio, it is understood that they are going for a "sound. It is an effect and no one expects to get a relatively transparent reflection of what the mic picked up in the room. That would miss the point. And the fact that these tube devices are used in the studio does not change the accuracy of my statement. The studios of the world are still full of expensive equipment the objective of which is transparency, not color.

And don't get me wrong, I think tube amps can sound absolutely beautiful. But when someone tries to tell me that they hear a huge difference in tubes and that they are more accurate, I can smell the kool aid on their breath. If your tube amp is good enough to be as accurate as good SS (ie: not "tubey"), the difference will be pretty doggone subtle.

Tim

ON EDT: Dire Straits and Steely Dan may be over-produced. There are times when I like a more spartan approach myself. The point is that they are cds that are readily available, that are well-mastered. They haven't been "improved" in re-mastering to the point of having all the dynamics compressed from them or the trebles goosed to get that oh-so-popular "in your face" sound. These are discs that don't need to be softened. They will not sound harsh played back on SS, or even pure digital equipment.

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tfarney /img/forum/go_quote.gif But when a tube mic preamp is used in the studio, it is understood that they are going for a "sound. It is an effect and no one expects to get a relatively transparent reflection of what the mic picked up in the room. That would miss the point. And the fact that these tube devices are used in the studio does not change the accuracy of my statement. The studios of the world are still full of expensive equipment the objective of which is transparency, not color. .

The crux of the argument I think is whether you believe that there is such a thing as perfect sound (forever

) or whether you think that all forms of reproduction are coloured to a greater or lesser degree.

Dire Straits Brothers in Arms is a good example, almost the example of over polished 80s production on it's original sparkly polished 80s format. It's a historic recording.

I'm sure when you look back in 20 years to what we consider 'neutral' now it will sound just as quaint.



Quote:

Originally Posted by tfarney /img/forum/go_quote.gif Dire Straits and Steely Dan may be over-produced. There are times when I like a more spartan approach myself. The point is that they are cds that are readily available, that are well-mastered. They haven't been "improved" in re-mastering to the point of having all the dynamics compressed from them or the trebles goosed to get that oh-so-popular "in your face" sound. These are discs that don't need to be softened. They will not sound harsh played back on SS, or even pure digital equipment.

I've found actually that recent remasterings of stuff from this period is pretty good, better in many cases than the first CD releases. Try Blondie's Parallel Lines, sounds almost as good as my old LP

 

[crazyface]

You all have such good replies!

Thank you!

I think regal's point makes sense? The less between the DAC and output, the more natural it must be, so a DAC without OPAMP would be best - and this is only possible with tubes? I think that the DAC60 is also in my price range. I wonder, Regal, do you think there is a better tube DAC than DAC60 in my price range?

Ok, thank you everyone, goodbye!

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyface /img/forum/go_quote.gif You all have such good replies! Thank you! I think regal's point makes sense? The less between the DAC and output, the more natural it must be, so a DAC without OPAMP would be best - and this is only possible with tubes? I think that the DAC60 is also in my price range. I wonder, Regal, do you think there is a better tube DAC than DAC60 in my price range? Ok, thank you everyone, goodbye!

yes, in general a tubeamp in the same pricerange sounds better because the amp is simpler and has less parts...also some tubes sound more realistic then transistors...

The best would be a non oversampling dac?! No opamps, oversampling or filters in the signal path, but just the signal comming in from the player, translated as clean as possible...