[Staxton]

I see that the recording industry has unveiled a new Hi Res Logo for High Resolution Music, which is officially defined as "lossless audio capable of reproducing the full spectrum of sound from recordings which have been mastered from better than CD quality (48kHz/20-bit or higher) music sources which represent what the artists, producers and engineers originally intended."
 
Since listeners are being offered the chance to obtain music "that retains the highest quality captured during the creative process," this leads me to ask: What equipment (in particular what DAC or DAC-species) do those recording professionals use to listen to the music at the end of that creative process? Do they use the same equipment they used to produce it, or do they take that digital file and cue it up on some audio system and play it, just like you and me? To put it in the context of one particular thread on Head-fi: Do music professionals use delta sigma or R2R DACs when they produce their music, do they care, and aren't their answers highly relevant to the issue? (To be clear, I am not talking about the desirability or ability of using audio equipment to change that production in any way, such as by eq, upsampling, down-sampling, etc., even if doing so might result in a superior production (at least to someone's taste) than the one released by the artist, producer, etc., nor am I asking what audio equipment an artist or producer happens to use in his or her own home, although that might be good to know anyway.)
 
Is there some reason that the DACs used by recording professionals in the studio to listen to the music they've created are not good for consumers at home to listen to that same music, and are therefore irrelevant to the issue of which DAC is best for faithfully reproducing the music those professionals originally intended? Is it a matter of expense? (But since one can easily spend $500,000 or more for a high end audio system, I assume that if people who play in that realm heard that there was something better, even if it did cost more, they would go out and get it.) Is it that such equipment does other things than simply play back music that are unnecessary for home music consumption (if so, then couldn't the DAC chip, at least, be used?) Is it because such equipment is unattractive for a home audio system (in other words, it's not showy enough). Is it that DACs professionals use don't "sound" as good as consumer audio equipment? (If so, what exactly would it mean to say that a music production, without any modification at all, sounds better through a home system than it sounded to the people who produced it when they produced it? I guess we'd say the producers created more than even they knew they did; kind of like Beethoven not being able to hear his own music (ah, but he heard it in his mind, but I digress).
 
Thoughts?

 

[jcx]

Pros aren't afraid of EQ in playback for a start - already have lost a big fraction of the "Audiophile" crowd right there
 
of course even using EQ doesn't seem to fix what EQ could be expected to fix in studio monitoring rooms: http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html
 
some claim they even go to deliberately poor "consumer" systems to hear if their mix comes through - I recall one Classical Music producer saying he listened to the mix in his car!

 

[PurpleAngel]

My two cents.
I would assume professional studios use DACs that cost way more then what the average home audio person would have.
If your spending several million dollars for a music studio, a DAC costing a few thousand dollars is no big deal.
And as it's for business, it's tax deductible.

 

[jcx]

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/gears.php?catid=3 might be a place to look for what's out there
 
 
 
and the "Loudness War" hasn't gone away yet - DAC choices are way down on the list of studio practices compromising music
Quote:

Perceived loudness wins over musical quality

at a recent talk at a mastering studio we were told that several candidate mixes with differing levels of compression were provided for their projects and the most heavily compressed was always selected by the clients - even after it was explained what the compression was doing to the music and that the world renown mix engineer recommended the lesser compressed mix

 

[alpha80]

Lavry & Benchmark used to be very popular, but the converters inside most Apogee, Universal Audio, and AVID HD interfaces are quite good now, that boutique converter firms are a slimmer segment of the market lately.  my UA interfaces for instance, use Sabre DAC.

 

[paradoxper]

Why only focus on the DAC? Welcoming coloration I'd surmise means EQ. So if not transparency - to our ears limits. Then what else? Feature set?
It'd be interesting getting a engineers insider view on this topic. I think often it's assumed they care so much more for the entire chain and the process.
 
 
To me, audiophiles are the real neurotics who will try anything to improve fidelity. 

 

[alpha80]

  It'd be interesting getting a engineers insider view on this topic. I think often it's assumed they care so much more for the entire chain and the process.
 
 
To me, audiophiles are the real neurotics who will try anything to improve fidelity. 

Yes on these points. 
I work in this field, and every friend or colleage in it as well, without exception, is less picky about headphones than I am.
I, for instance, am commiting audiophile sin, when using my K812, directly out of the 1/8" outpout on my MacBook Pro.
But guess what ?  That is my favorite way to listen to it.
 
And when at work, do I use a custom-cabled Abyss run thru a several thousand dollar tube amp the size of an old cathode ray tube television ?
no lol
 
I use a Beyerdynamic Tesla T-90, run out of the headphone output of an Apogee Symphony interface.
(which uses ESS Sabre32 DAC to stay on topic)
And I'm more than happy to use an MDR-V6 out of an AVID HD omni as well, when working with my closest colleague.
 
 
So to further come back around to the point, We know that A/D and D/A are the least impactful thing in the recording chain compared to pre-amp/mic/etc.  Audiophiles and engineers alike, value a great speaker, headphone, or IEM.  And we like Mogami cables, and the like.  But only audiophiles will spend ridiculous amounts of a money on aftermarket headphone cables for a flagship headphone which already includes a quality oxygen free cable (even ., or buy some really nice Mytek convertors, just to listen to cd-or-less-quality audio, thru extremely colored headphones like Audeze or Abyss. 
 
It begins to get ridiculous pretty quickly, this hobby, at it's most extreme.
 
And I think the underlying cause of some of the it on the consumer side, are people who are psychologically unable to enjoy anything, because of brain chemistry problems. where no matter how great the music is, they cannot enjoy it, and always seek to find a problem.  And of the supply side, For every true audiophile who actually does want to better the current state of the art, to get that last fraction of a percentile closer to audible perfection..................there seems to be 50-fold snake-oil selling shills, charging ridiculous prices for components which make very modest improvements, if at all, to perceivable fidelity.
 
Enjoy the music, people!

 

[paradoxper]

  Yes on these points. 
I work in this field, and every friend or colleage in it as well, without exception, is less picky about headphones than I am.
I, for instance, am commiting audiophile sin, when using my K812, directly out of the 1/8" outpout on my MacBook Pro.
But guess what ?  That is my favorite way to listen to it.
 

It'd be cool if you could provide context to you being in this field. 
 
I think it's obvious but perhaps not known that audiophiles are way more passionate about greater playback. More interesting, as Jcx aluded to,
the engineers are the one's completely gimping things from the source.
 
What does a high res master matter if it's compressed all to hell? And in that, what does any "high end" gear matter if the material is optimized for radio?

 

[edstrelow]

  Yes on these points. 
I work in this field, and every friend or colleage in it as well, without exception, is less picky about headphones than I am.
I, for instance, am commiting audiophile sin, when using my K812, directly out of the 1/8" outpout on my MacBook Pro.
But guess what ?  That is my favorite way to listen to it.
 
And when at work, do I use a custom-cabled Abyss run thru a several thousand dollar tube amp the size of an old cathode ray tube television ?
no lol
 
I use a Beyerdynamic Tesla T-90, run out of the headphone output of an Apogee Symphony interface.
(which uses ESS Sabre32 DAC to stay on topic)
And I'm more than happy to use an MDR-V6 out of an AVID HD omni as well, when working with my closest colleague.
 
 
So to further come back around to the point, We know that A/D and D/A are the least impactful thing in the recording chain compared to pre-amp/mic/etc.  Audiophiles and engineers alike, value a great speaker, headphone, or IEM.  And we like Mogami cables, and the like.  But only audiophiles will spend ridiculous amounts of a money on aftermarket headphone cables for a flagship headphone which already includes a quality oxygen free cable (even ., or buy some really nice Mytek convertors, just to listen to cd-or-less-quality audio, thru extremely colored headphones like Audeze or Abyss. 
 
It begins to get ridiculous pretty quickly, this hobby, at it's most extreme.
 
And I think the underlying cause of some of the it on the consumer side, are people who are psychologically unable to enjoy anything, because of brain chemistry problems. where no matter how great the music is, they cannot enjoy it, and always seek to find a problem.  And of the supply side, For every true audiophile who actually does want to better the current state of the art, to get that last fraction of a percentile closer to audible perfection..................there seems to be 50-fold snake-oil selling shills, charging ridiculous prices for components which make very modest improvements, if at all, to perceivable fidelity.
 
Enjoy the music, people!

"In this field" But most of the field is crap, so what you say hardly surprises me. There are good and bad recordings out there.  If yuo had been listed as recording engineer for something like the Chicago Symphony I would be more inclined to accept what you say. 
 
 
 
.

 

[alpha80]

  It'd be cool if you could provide context to you being in this field. 

I've worked at several studios around chicagoland, the biggest records perhaps being at Hinge.
I also write and produce on my own, which is on the gear I have listed on my profile.
(I think it'd be dishonest to list employer's "sources", that I only work with lol)
 
And there are plenty of guys in the industry who absolutely must have the newest thing.
So in that regard its somewhat like a more informed audiophile circle.
And I love benefitting from eavesdropping on such convos
 
I was salivating at the Lynx Hilo for awhile, and wanted one for my home setup, but why?
 
The huge strides that lower priced things, from Apogee and UA have taken, in the last year or two, has closed the gap quality wise, for tracking small acts, or just vocals.  And they have definitely closed the gap regarding playback.  Any last little tiny bit of clarity and fidelity is barely perceptible to even trained ears at 384khz.  Much less by an untrained ear at 44khz.  And since you cant buy the 384 or 192khz masters from the contemporary artists you like......many of these exotic extras are really, in all brutal honesty, not worth much, in any real sense, especially with dynamic headphones with a 250ohm or lower impedance.  What will make the biggest difference for people, is source material quality, followed very closely by the actual headphone, speaker, or IEM itself.  But maybe I'm spoiled since i havent used what most consumers may use to play music.
 
And this may come as a surpise to many, but the difference between listening to a K812 or HD800 on a high end solid state amp, thru highest end DAC, and a K812 thru an 1/8" ouput on a laptop, is not worth more than $100.

 

[alpha80]

  "In this field" But most of the field is crap, so what you say hardly surprises me. There are good and bad recordings out there.  If yuo had been listed as recording engineer for something like the Chicago Symphony I would be more inclined to accept what you say. 
 
 
 
.

Well, you're entitled to base your own opinion on whatever you like.
I've never done any symphony work, or remastered any classical.
But I listen to plenty of it.
Orff and Wagner being my favorites.
 
I work mostly in urban genres, primarily hip hop and reggae.
But I've done quite a bit of remastering in 20th century western music of all genres.

 

[ubs28]

Depends on what types of professionals you are talking about. Bedroom producers who are signed to small labels (and thus are professionals) sometimes even use cheap M-audio soundcards. 

 

[Yoga]

Don't assume music producers are audiophiles. A close friend of mine is a music producer who uses top equipment. He travels the world performing his art.
 
When he sat down in my study and listened to music he knew through the Moon 430 + Abyss combo, including his own music, his jaw dropped open.
 
Literally :¬)

 

[Staxton]

I've been doing a little poking around the internet concerning what audio equipment pros use, and I see a lot of comments like what alpha80 has said. A lot of people use Apogee, Benchmark, Universal Audio, Pro Tools interfaces. Some think that there isn't that much difference between DACs, and others have personal favorites that are almost as widely varied as the personal favorites of consumer DACs.

I happen to listen to mostly classical, and some electronic/ambient, and so I checked the back of some CD/download literature from a couple of the labels that are generally well-respected for sound quality to see what they used.

From several Challenge Classics recordings, I see that they used Northstar Recordings to produce their recordings, and that Northstar in turn used dCS Dacs. I checked Northstar's website, and they list a number of dCS DACs, including the 954 and 955 D/A converters. Of course, I'm familiar with the dCS line-up of audiophile DACs, but I didn't know about these professional DACs. Some more searching turned up that dCS no longer is in the professional business, and as one person put it, they switched to the "audiophool" line. Now we all know how much dCS DACs cost today, and I am very curious to know what the DACs they sold to the professionals cost, and what, if anything, are the major differences between their old professional lineup of DACs and their current consumer DACs.

I also see that on one BIS recording, they used, among other pieces of equipment (including Stax headphones), a Yamaha 02R96 production console. Now this is where my lack of experience will show, but I am assuming that this unit contains the DAC the engineers and producers use to monitor the recording as they edit and mix it down to the stereo master. I note that this whole unit, which contains much more than a DAC chip, costs in the $10,000-$11,000 range--not cheap by any standard, but I note that some consumers DACs -- that truly are only DACs (or, at most, preamps and DACs), cost many times that much.

I would be very interested to know what other labels use, such as Chandos, or any of the other specialty labels that don't have the resources of the giants like Sony, etc.

Now the intent of this information is not to start a debate about the cost of DACs, but rather an attempt to simply understand what the differences are between them. I understand that engineering a DAC for an exclusive audience will require much more expense and know-how than creating a DAC that will be more widely distributed to a broader clientele, to be used for a variety of purposes, the chief one of which may not be simply an attempt to squeeze out the last drop of sound excellence. What I want to know is simply what DACs the pros use when they make recordings, and what they think about the importance of DACs generally, to be used as another piece of information in the overall process of trying to decide which DAC is best for a home audio system.

PS. I am interested in the entire chain the pros use, but personally I found it much easier to come to grips with the headphones and headphone amplifiers that best suit my needs, and as for speakers, I was afraid that there were too many other variables involved, such as the acoustics of the listening space, size of the room, etc. that made comparison difficult. But the DAC to me seems to be the slipperiest element of the chain, with a huge range in price (from $2 chips to  $100,000 dCS Vivaldi rigs), and opinions ranging from "All DACs are alike" to "so and so DAC is unsurpassed at any price range," that I was more interested in the pros' opinions on the DACS they use when they listen in the studio to the music they've created.

Also, I have nothing against EQ, compression or any effect as a matter of principle; I just only want to hear the EQ, compression, etc. that the producer has used, and not add or subtract anything myself. That's just my personal preference. 

 

[momiiiiiji]

Interesting that we've mentioned EQs.
 
The thing is, the scenarios of EQs on the most popular equipment, which include mostly lower end ones, do not usually look or sound good.
 
Well, IMHO EQs and all different filters are acceptable as long as we, as the listeners are pleased with them.
 
I used to be "strict" or rather I would now call that "paranoid" about these "distortions"; but now that I know it, I will just play with them as long as it keeps me happy.