[gregorio]

I am not familiar with these pro audio dacs and I would find it easier to understand the differences between pro audio and consumer if you could give some examples of typical Pro Audio DACs?

A typical DAC used in commercial studios would be the AVID HD I/O or the Apogee Symphony. However, these are typical big ADC/DAC units with 16/32 ins and outs, all the bells and whistles, price tags well into the 4 figures and not really applicable to audiophiles. However, there is a large range of pro audio ADC/DACs which are designed for musicians and smaller project studios, fewer ins and outs and great value for money. A typical one would be the (apparently) best selling USB audio interface in the world, the Focurite Scarlett but surprisingly competently designed for the price is the Behringer UMC204HD, actually it's performance is almost shocking considering the quality of conversion and the amount of functionality you get for just $80.

G

 

[theorist]

All computers, servers and laptops produce significant noise

Some interesting points raised on both sides of the debate in the last day or so. Perhaps one 'component' of this debate , since Gregorio agrees that USB inputs of DACs need to address noisy data sources in the digital reproduction of recordings is the standards to which this issue has to be addressed. Perhaps a certain amount of noise and the impact that it has on the latter data chain can be pragmatically ignored (hence it is not even 'heard') in a professional studio environment as it has no significant eventual impact on, or is not even retained, in the finished digital product -- the recording -- while for audiofiles and their interests in the actual immediate reproduced very detailed sound of the performance (live or 'created' in and by the studio) created by this data stream in real time, playing back the clean studio recording, the impact of this in-home computer/server noise on the downstream reproduction system equipment (analogue output circuit of the DAC, HP amp, etc) is much more important.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Perhaps a certain amount of noise and the impact that it has on the latter data chain can be pragmatically ignored (hence it is not even 'heard') in a professional studio environment as it has no significant eventual impact on, or is not even retained, in the finished digital product -- the recording -- [2] while for audiofiles and their interests in the actual immediate reproduced very detailed sound of the performance (live or 'created' in and by the studio) created by this data stream in real time, playing back the clean studio recording, the impact of this in-home computer/server noise on the downstream reproduction system equipment (analogue output circuit of the DAC, HP amp, etc) is much more important.

1. I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're saying/asking. Noise is certainly not something that can be "pragmatically ignored" and can/does have a significant impact in the finished product but it depends on where in the chain we're talking about. In the analogue days, even with no signal, just having an open channel on an analogue mixing desk would add noise, each processor employed (such as EQs, compressors, etc.) on each of those channels added it's own noise and sub-mixing and bouncing added still more noise. Admittedly we're talking very small amounts of noise with top of the line analogue mixing equipment but it's cumulative and typically we were dealing with 24 channels + sub-mix channels and at least one or more processors on each of those channels. Today's 64bit digital mixing environments means that all those sources of noise present in analogue mixing, even the cumulative noise from many hundreds of channels with multiple processors on each, is maintained way below what any reproduction system could resolve (even in theory) and way below audibility. So yes, today we can effectively ignore this source of noise, which is virtually the opposite to the days of analogue mixing, when noise from the mixing process was often the most significant noise in the entire chain and a constant worry/battle. However, before we can start mixing, we obviously have to record something to mix and that means dealing with acoustic noise, the noise floor which exists in every environment (studio live room, concert venue, etc.) and analogue noise from the equipment before we enter the digital realm (microphones and mic pre-amps) and this noise we do have to concern ourselves with. While we're getting insignificant "self" noise from the digital processing itself, the recorded acoustic and analogue noise is ever present throughout the rest of the production chain and completely dwarfs (by a factor of at least 100) any noise from the conversion of the digital data, by our DACs, for monitoring. So we are very mindful of noise, even during mixing because many of the mixing processes will exacerbate that recorded acoustic and analogue noise.

2. No, not even close, in fact almost the exact opposite of what you're suggesting! I know that what you're suggesting forms the basis of most/much audiophile marketing and is the firmly held belief of many audiophiles themselves but in reality it's nonsense. As implied in the point above, professionally we're very carefully considering and prioritising the sources of noise, the areas and parts of the entire chain (from performer to listener) where the most significant noise occurs/exists and spending our money according to those priorities. This is typically NOT the case in the audiophile world, in fact audiophiles often do the exact opposite, spend very significant sums of money dealing with the least significant issues and sources of noise, while spending very little or completely ignoring the most significant! If we're talking about high fidelity reproduction in it's true sense, then the priority is noise floor and acoustic response of the listening/monitoring environment, then comes the positioning of the transducers (speakers) within that environment, then comes the transducers themselves and their amplification and then there's a very large gap to the DAC, so big a gap that the differences between modern pro audio DACs is completely insignificant in all but the finest monitoring environments and even then, the differences between very cheap and most expensive are relatively tiny. Differences between USB cables, power cables and other types of cables do not even figure on this list because we're assuming competently designed DACs and other equipment and therefore no differences even vaguely close to audible in even the best monitoring environments. The end result of all this is pretty much the opposite of what you appear to be suggesting, we are hearing details significantly more accurately than any audiophile system is capable of, details which few, if any, audiophiles are even consciously aware exist and we're not just hearing those details but actively working/processing/manipulating them!

G

 

[Clive101]

1. Ah but it is the case! I'm not talking about an ideal theoretical world, I'm talking about the real world of actual products which have been on the market for years and achieve exactly that level of immunity as standard and for peanuts! Again, ANY pro-audio DAC (ADC/DAC) which did not achieve that level of immunity would be instantly slammed/shunned by the pro audio community and for that reason no manufacturer would even bother releasing a DAC to the pro audio community which doesn't achieve that level of immunity.
1a. But apparently, from what you describe, the "long way" you mention is not nearly as long a way as pro audio DAC manufacturers achieved years ago and for a tiny fraction of the price! How come you believe that this "long way" to achieving audible immunity really is a long way and that actual audible immunity is only some sort of "ideal theoretical" concept, rather than an already solved issue in practise, to the point of it being a standard expectation even in very cheap pro audio units? Maybe there's another explanation but the one that jumps out at me is audiophile marketing.

2. We can look at this issue the other way around. If the use of mains power really is so unsolvably problematic but these problems don't exist with battery power, then why don't audiophile DAC manufacturers simply put a battery in their DACs? Buffer the mains power through a battery and hey presto all the problems vanish! Likewise with your power conditioner, if a DAC performs so much better with conditioned power then why doesn't the manufacturer simply put that power conditioning circuitry in their DAC in the first place, the trade price for that circuitry is peanuts?! That's effectively what pro audio ADC/DACs do and hence why feeding conditioned power to such a DAC does not make any difference.

So we disagree.
Dave used at Metropolis Studios so they have that wrong ..? Noise does exist in studios http://www.toruspower.com/torus-power-videos/ oh yes it does. Never seen a battery power source for HiFi although the Hugo TT is battery powered, I had one, still noise got though it from the source and USB cable which makes the battery no use at all, apart from the DAC it's self. Again a faulty DAC..! ( Dave responded better than Hugo TT but on mains )
http://www.toruspower.com/gallery/p...os-into-showrooms-with-help-from-torus-power/

Some interesting points raised on both sides of the debate in the last day or so. Perhaps one 'component' of this debate , since Gregorio agrees that USB inputs of DACs need to address noisy data sources in the digital reproduction of recordings is the standards to which this issue has to be addressed. Perhaps a certain amount of noise and the impact that it has on the latter data chain can be pragmatically ignored (hence it is not even 'heard') in a professional studio environment as it has no significant eventual impact on, or is not even retained, in the finished digital product -- the recording -- while for audiofiles and their interests in the actual immediate reproduced very detailed sound of the performance (live or 'created' in and by the studio) created by this data stream in real time, playing back the clean studio recording, the impact of this in-home computer/server noise on the downstream reproduction system equipment (analogue output circuit of the DAC, HP amp, etc) is much more important.

Interesting had the same theory "Audio Studio" people listen in a different way and for different reasons..? I have a very long and detailed discussion with high end manufacture that make monitors for studio and consumer use, long story short same speakers tweaked for different reasons, end story the studio grade and consumer grade sound different. Then went onto cables Studio Grade for my system £200.00 Consumer Grade £16,000.00. Both Studio and Consumer departments of the company were correct, which left me quite puzzled..!

I wanted to purchase the studio equipment as thought it would be best after all it's what the professionals use and cheaper and with the £200.00 cables music to my ears ( no pun intended ) but it lead to the above conversation demo etc.

Consumer product did sound better to my ear.

So perhaps Studio People listen for a different sound..?

 

[gregorio]

[1] Dave used at Metropolis Studios so they have that wrong ..? [2] Noise does exist in studios http://www.toruspower.com/torus-power-videos/ oh yes it does.

I don't believe you thought through your response very carefully!

1. You're joking right? Are you really saying that Metropolis studios do all their tracking and mixing on headphones (through a Dave) and don't use studio monitors? I don't doubt that Metropolis have the odd bit of consumer hifi equipment which is occasionally used for reference purposes, most decent studios do. I have some Senn HD650s for exactly the same reason but all my work is done on my studio monitors and I plug in the HD650s at the end, just to quickly check that typical higher end consumer cans are not doing anything too unexpected to my mix.

2. Again, you seem to have missed the point. I too have UPS/Conditioner in my studio and so do pretty much all the commercial studios I've worked in but it's to protect against lost work from a total power cut or brown out, it's got nothing to do with noise!

Never seen a battery power source for HiFi although the Hugo TT is battery powered ...

You seem to be missing the point again. I'm not suggesting that a battery actually be used, there's better ways to achieve that end result without actually using a battery. I was just using that example to demonstrate some simple logic regarding the audiophile claims/marketing; that mains power issues are unsolvable but battery power doesn't suffer those issues.

Consumer product did sound better to my ear. ... So perhaps Studio People listen for a different sound..?

Yes, us "studio people" are listening for a different sound compared to many/most audiophiles! The sound we're after is the highest fidelity attainable but that's NOT what the vast majority of audiophiles are after. If that sounds strange it's because many audiophiles don't really understand what the term "hifi" means, which is largely due to deliberate audiophile marketing practises. The term "HiFi" is typically used in the audiophile world to mean an expensive bit of audio kit which sounds good but the word "fidelity" actually means faithfulness. Therefore, a "high fidelity" reproduction system is a system which very accurately/faithfully reproduces a input signal ... and whether or not a system or piece of equipment "sounds better to your ear" is irrelevant, as is it's price!

Over the years I've had a number of audiophiles in my various studios, a few of them hardcore audiophiles with over 6 figure systems. A summary of their collective impressions would be something along the lines of: "Yes, quite impressive but far too clinical/analytical, I prefer my system". Although typically they'd have a slightly troubled expression while delivering that verdict! In reality, descriptions such as too clinical or analytical are effectively meaningless, my various studios have been very accurate/high fidelity and therefore have a faithful amount of "clinical" or "analytical". What they're really saying is that they are used to/prefer a system with a less faithful amount of "clinicality", a less accurate/lower fidelity system, although of course they'd never put it that way because they're totally convinced they own a "hifi" system. I want to make it clear that I'm not making any judgement about this fact, many people for example like a bit more bass, there's nothing at all wrong with that preference, but of course that's lower fidelity (less faithful) reproduction, not higher fidelity just because they like it better with additional bass!

G

 

[theorist]

If we're talking about high fidelity reproduction in it's true sense, then the priority is noise floor and acoustic response of the listening/monitoring environment, then comes the positioning of the transducers (speakers) within that environment

Thanks Gregorio for your detailed and, as always, very informative post. I do note however that I only listen to music at home with HPs, so perhaps in doing so I am largely negating this area you identify at most in need of adequate audiophile address.

So perhaps Studio People listen for a different sound..?

As Gregorio actually implies in his post. He is listening as a skilled crafts-person/engineer to produce the best finished product that he can -- for the needs of his client -- so he is paying great attention to all the details, even those that may be below our noise floor. We, on the other hand, have the luxury to simply listen to music for our enjoyment and pleasure, so indeed, we may not necessarily be seeking the same sound, particularly if, as audiophiles, we are listening for particular aspects in our music, such as lots of dynamic range, that that vast majority of the listening market, ie MP3 streaming listeners or in-car listeners, actually don't want -- as Gregorio pointed out in a prior post -- hence the need for compression as well as other production effects wanted by the non-audiophile listener incorporated in many recordings.

I look forward to both your responses, in these regards.

 

[Clive101]

I don't believe you thought through your response very carefully!

1. You're joking right? Are you really saying that Metropolis studios do all their tracking and mixing on headphones (through a Dave) and don't use studio monitors? I don't doubt that Metropolis have the odd bit of consumer hifi equipment which is occasionally used for reference purposes, most decent studios do. I have some Senn HD650s for exactly the same reason but all my work is done on my studio monitors and I plug in the HD650s at the end, just to quickly check that typical higher end consumer cans are not doing anything too unexpected to my mix.

2. Again, you seem to have missed the point. I too have UPS/Conditioner in my studio and so do pretty much all the commercial studios I've worked in but it's to protect against lost work from a total power cut or brown out, it's got nothing to do with noise!



You seem to be missing the point again. I'm not suggesting that a battery actually be used, there's better ways to achieve that end result without actually using a battery. I was just using that example to demonstrate some simple logic regarding the audiophile claims/marketing; that mains power issues are unsolvable but battery power doesn't suffer those issues.



Yes, us "studio people" are listening for a different sound compared to many/most audiophiles! The sound we're after is the highest fidelity attainable but that's NOT what the vast majority of audiophiles are after. If that sounds strange it's because many audiophiles don't really understand what the term "hifi" means, which is largely due to deliberate audiophile marketing practises. The term "HiFi" is typically used in the audiophile world to mean an expensive bit of audio kit which sounds good but the word "fidelity" actually means faithfulness. Therefore, a "high fidelity" reproduction system is a system which very accurately/faithfully reproduces a input signal ... and whether or not a system or piece of equipment "sounds better to your ear" is irrelevant, as is it's price!

Over the years I've had a number of audiophiles in my various studios, a few of them hardcore audiophiles with over 6 figure systems. A summary of their collective impressions would be something along the lines of: "Yes, quite impressive but far too clinical/analytical, I prefer my system". Although typically they'd have a slightly troubled expression while delivering that verdict! In reality, descriptions such as too clinical or analytical are effectively meaningless, my various studios have been very accurate/high fidelity and therefore have a faithful amount of "clinical" or "analytical". What they're really saying is that they are used to/prefer a system with a less faithful amount of "clinicality", a less accurate/lower fidelity system, although of course they'd never put it that way because they're totally convinced they own a "hifi" system. I want to make it clear that I'm not making any judgement about this fact, many people for example like a bit more bass, there's nothing at all wrong with that preference, but of course that's lower fidelity (less faithful) reproduction, not higher fidelity just because they like it better with additional bass!

G

No Joking and well thought through.
1. I was Told Dave was used, I assumed it was to play music what Dave was designed for.
2. Tours power supply was used in a Studio for noise read the link, if you have no issue with noise good. ( Note Torus is not a UPS and hence used for noise only )

You seem to be missing the point again. I'm not suggesting that a battery actually be used, there's better ways to achieve that end result without actually using a battery. I was just using that example to demonstrate some simple logic regarding the audiophile claims/marketing; that mains power issues are unsolvable but battery power doesn't suffer those issues.

Well that was the point I was making.!

Yes, us "studio people" are listening for a different sound compared to many/most audiophiles! The sound we're after is the highest fidelity attainable but that's NOT what the vast majority of audiophiles are after. If that sounds strange it's because many audiophiles don't really understand what the term "hifi" means, which is largely due to deliberate audiophile marketing practises. The term "HiFi" is typically used in the audiophile world to mean an expensive bit of audio kit which sounds good but the word "fidelity" actually means faithfulness. Therefore, a "high fidelity" reproduction system is a system which very accurately/faithfully reproduces a input signal ... and whether or not a system or piece of equipment "sounds better to your ear" is irrelevant, as is it's price!

Over the years I've had a number of audiophiles in my various studios, a few of them hardcore audiophiles with over 6 figure systems. A summary of their collective impressions would be something along the lines of: "Yes, quite impressive but far too clinical/analytical, I prefer my system". Although typically they'd have a slightly troubled expression while delivering that verdict! In reality, descriptions such as too clinical or analytical are effectively meaningless, my various studios have been very accurate/high fidelity and therefore have a faithful amount of "clinical" or "analytical". What they're really saying is that they are used to/prefer a system with a less faithful amount of "clinicality", a less accurate/lower fidelity system, although of course they'd never put it that way because they're totally convinced they own a "hifi" system. I want to make it clear that I'm not making any judgement about this fact, many people for example like a bit more bass, there's nothing at all wrong with that preference, but of course that's lower fidelity (less faithful) reproduction, not higher fidelity just because they like it better with additional bass!

As Gregorio actually implies in his post. He is listening as a skilled crafts-person/engineer to produce the best finished product that he can -- for the needs of his client -- so he is paying great attention to all the details, even those that may be below our noise floor. We, on the other hand, have the luxury to simply listen to music for our enjoyment and pleasure, so indeed, we may not necessarily be seeking the same sound, particularly if, as audiophiles, we are listening for particular aspects in our music, such as lots of dynamic range, that that vast majority of the listening market, ie MP3 streaming listeners or in-car listeners, actually don't want -- as Gregorio pointed out in a prior post -- hence the need for compression as well as other production effects wanted by the non-audiophile listener incorporated in many recordings.

I look forward to both your responses, in these regards.

The goal, One word "Transparency" .

 

[gregorio]

No Joking and well thought through.
1. I was Told Dave was used, I assumed it was to play music what Dave was designed for.
2. Tours power supply was used in a Studio for noise read the link, if you have no issue with noise good. ( Note Torus is not a UPS and hence used for noise only )
3. The goal, One word "Transparency" .

1. I'm sure a Dave is used on occasion, for the purpose I described. Another example of this sort of thing (reference use) would be the Auratone speaker. The Auratone was a truly horrendous speaker, hence why we affectionately called them horror-tones and at one time most commercial studios had one, for reference purposes. Auratone advertised them as being used by many/most of the top recording studios but of course they didn't mention that we only used them for reference purposes precisely because they were so bad! Over a decade ago they updated it and improved the design, so we all stopped using them! I'm not saying the Dave is equally as horrendous, just pointing out that being told something is used by a top studio (and the term "reference") does not necessarily mean what you think it means, it could mean anything, from world class to the absolute opposite!

2. I did read the link, did you? The whole thing is of course marketing but you seemed to have missed this:
"The studio included a 16-channel Neve 5088 console, a Burl Mothership, Lynx Aurora, and a substantial amount of outboard equipment, all running on a 20 amp circuit that came dangerously close to overloading on a regular basis. In addition, the studio experienced a lot of noise on the power lines, resulting in less than optimal sound quality for recordings. Kelm recommended a Torus Power AVR-45, Toroidal Isolation power transformer with automatic voltage regulation to protect equipment against voltage sags, brownouts, and surges."
I assume that you don't know what a Neve console is or how it worked? The Neve consoles (along with one or two others, such as SSL) were really the epitome of analogue mixing desk design but they had very demanding power supply requirements and came with a massive power supply unit which had to be located in another room. You had to turn them on and let them warm up for half an hour or more before you could use the desk and many studios never turned them off for that reason. This is all a completely different scenario from the relatively minuscule power requirements of a consumer DAC!

3. Yes, and an interesting word it is, considering how it's often misused in the audiophile world! ...

I do note however that I only listen to music at home with HPs, so perhaps in doing so I am largely negating this area you identify at most in need of adequate audiophile address.

Yes, the substantial reduction of environmental listening noise and acoustic issues is of course the great advantage of HPs, but along with that great advantage comes a great disadvantage! I went to considerable lengths to explain what "fidelity" means in my last post and even in the post you quoted, I chose my words carefully when I said "high fidelity reproduction in it's true sense". In it's true sense, HPs are incapable of high fidelity reproduction! Virtually all commercial music is mixed and mastered on speakers (studio monitors) and obviously therefore in the presence of room acoustics. HPs have little/no room acoustics interaction and are therefore not being "faithful" (do not have high fidelity) in their reproduction of what was intended. The only time when HPs could be high fidelity is when reproducing a mix/master specifically made for headphones (such as a binaural recording for example) but those are few and far between. Again, I'm not talking about preference here but about fidelity. I know that some/many prefer the exaggerated soundstage and other consequences of headphone presentation and that's absolutely fine but an exaggerated soundstage is exaggerated, not a faithful, transparent, accurate or therefore high fidelity reproduction. There have been moves to compensate for this, the development of HRTFs for example but it's not quite there yet IMO and the take up of the technology hasn't been great and maybe it never will be, especially among those who prefer traditional HP presentation.

... we may not necessarily be seeking the same sound, particularly if, as audiophiles, we are listening for particular aspects in our music, such as lots of dynamic range, that that vast majority of the listening market, ie MP3 streaming listeners or in-car listeners, actually don't want -- as Gregorio pointed out in a prior post -- hence the need for compression as well as other production effects wanted by the non-audiophile listener incorporated in many recordings.

Although true within a certain context, there's rather more to it, as is often the case with music/audio, due to the advances in technology and the billions per year up for grabs for those who employ it artistically. While compression is certainly used (and sometimes abused) for the purpose you are quoting, in the 1960's it started being used as an artistic transient sculpting tool. Without going into too much detail and too far off topic, you absolutely do want compression! For example the sound of the rock kit by the 1970s is quite different to what a drum kit really sounds like and the use compression as a sculpting tool is largely responsible for that. Pretty much all modern popular music genres rely on compression to a significant extent and would not exist as they do without it.

G

 

[theorist]

Virtually all commercial music is mixed and mastered on speakers (studio monitors) and obviously therefore in the presence of room acoustics. HPs have little/no room acoustics interaction and are therefore not being "faithful" (do not have high fidelity) in their reproduction of what was intended.

Thanks as always for the insightful knowledge you impart in your posts! Agree with your comments about the limitations of HPs and the compromises that go with them, but they can still provide a very hi-quality playback, perhaps sound stage imagining aside, for relatively small expenditure, at least compared to 5 or 6 figure amps/speaker stereo systems. Not to mention, much more easily accommodating the 'spousal-turn-down-that-noise-factor'.

While you undoubtedly strive for the highest fidelity in your recordings -- thank you -- is this really the case for all studio recordings? Even if mixing is no longer done on the ubiquitous Yamaha NS10 (showing my age here), a lot of mixing still appears to be being done based on near-field monitoring and with a core concern for translation so as to sound as good as possible on mass-market playback platforms, with a resultant reduction in "high fidelity reproduction in it's true sense".

 

[Clive101]

1. I'm sure a Dave is used on occasion, for the purpose I described. Another example of this sort of thing (reference use) would be the Auratone speaker. The Auratone was a truly horrendous speaker, hence why we affectionately called them horror-tones and at one time most commercial studios had one, for reference purposes. Auratone advertised them as being used by many/most of the top recording studios but of course they didn't mention that we only used them for reference purposes precisely because they were so bad! Over a decade ago they updated it and improved the design, so we all stopped using them! I'm not saying the Dave is equally as horrendous, just pointing out that being told something is used by a top studio (and the term "reference") does not necessarily mean what you think it means, it could mean anything, from world class to the absolute opposite!

Yes I assumed this from the start, I assumed you would as you are used to Studio practices more so than me, but at least we agree.

2. I did read the link, did you? The whole thing is of course marketing but you seemed to have missed this:
"The studio included a 16-channel Neve 5088 console, a Burl Mothership, Lynx Aurora, and a substantial amount of outboard equipment, all running on a 20 amp circuit that came dangerously close to overloading on a regular basis. In addition, the studio experienced a lot of noise on the power lines, resulting in less than optimal sound quality for recordings. Kelm recommended a Torus Power AVR-45, Toroidal Isolation power transformer with automatic voltage regulation to protect equipment against voltage sags, brownouts, and surges."
I assume that you don't know what a Neve console is or how it worked? The Neve consoles (along with one or two others, such as SSL) were really the epitome of analogue mixing desk design but they had very demanding power supply requirements and came with a massive power supply unit which had to be located in another room. You had to turn them on and let them warm up for half an hour or more before you could use the desk and many studios never turned them off for that reason. This is all a completely different scenario from the relatively minuscule power requirements of a consumer DAC!

Marketing, the world is full of it.

The amount of Power has nothing to do with noise, the studio had noise ( quoted "In addition," ), I raised the issue to demonstrate that a Studio had noise and how they dealt with it.

Edit A low powered DAC will still be affected by noise.

3. Yes, and an interesting word it is, considering how it's often misused in the audiophile world! ...

Well many words are often miss quoted nothing new there, but I was asked I replied.

 

[gregorio]

Agree with your comments about the limitations of HPs and the compromises that go with them, but they can still provide a very hi-quality playback, perhaps sound stage imagining aside, for relatively small expenditure, at least compared to 5 or 6 figure amps/speaker stereo systems.

With HPs, sound stage issues is a relatively severe problem for stereo width and depth, and indeed pretty much every aspect of stereo positioning. In addition we have a problem with the amount of reverb and lastly, low frequency reproduction which even when correctly balanced has no physical impact with HPs, often leading to a requirement/desire to over-balance low freqs. None of this means that HP reproduction cannot be enjoyable, just that it cannot be high fidelity. BTW, I myself sometimes use HPs and IEMs for enjoyment. I also agree that there is significant audible variation between different HPs and therefore there most certainly can be very low and very high quality HPs. I directly implied that previously with the position I gave transducers in general in my list of most important factors. I would though dispute the 5 or 6 figure requirement for amp/speaker systems. Following my list of issue prioritisation, a 4 figure system will almost certainly out perform (provide higher fidelity) than most/all 5 or 6 figure audiophile systems. However, I agree that HPs are relatively cheap in comparison, although a direct comparison is impossible, except in terms of individual preference, because effectively we're trying to compare completely different "infidelities".

[1] While you undoubtedly strive for the highest fidelity in your recordings -- thank you -- is this really the case for all studio recordings? [2] Even if mixing is no longer done on the ubiquitous Yamaha NS10 (showing my age here), a lot of mixing still appears to be being done based on near-field monitoring and with a core concern for translation so as to sound as good as possible on mass-market playback platforms, with a resultant reduction in "high fidelity reproduction in it's true sense".

1. Woah, hold your horses! Certainly I strive for high fidelity in my studio reproduction/monitoring, so I can hear exactly what's going on but not so much with the final product itself. This brings us back to the true definition of "hifi" and you rather falling into the impression which has been marketed to audiophiles for decades. As I mentioned previously, you really don't want me to strive for high fidelity in it's true sense, you do not want a faithful representation of what a drum kit really sounds like and you certainly don't want to hear the pathetic twang that an electric guitar really makes, you want to hear it with the tons of added distortion. In fact, this is always true, to a greater or lesser extent, of pretty much all recordings of all music genres, even classical music recordings!

2. True to an extent, although typically in commercial studios the nearfeilds are used some of the time and some of the time the main monitors. Additionally, once mixing is complete that final mix would be typically sent for mastering, in an exceptionally high fidelity monitoring environment. However, while technology has been advancing and quality should have been improving, over the last 15 years or so we have not really seen this and if anything, in general, quality has been static or even reducing. This is effectively what consumers have (unwittingly) demanded! How consumers now expect to consume and how much they are willing to pay for that consumption has resulted in the investment in making music recordings being a fraction of what it once was. The amount of time, expertise and quality of facilities used to create a recording are all greatly reduced and indeed, the vast majority of world class recording facilities have ceased to exist over the last 20 years and much of the music production process, if not all in most cases, is carried out in project studios. All this is an inevitable consequence of consumers choosing lower cost over higher quality. Maybe the situation will turn around at some point but for the foreseeable future those world class facilities are gone, along with their many decades of accumulated equipment and expertise and it seems likely that history's highest quality recordings are in the past rather than the future.

I raised the issue to demonstrate that a Studio had noise and how they dealt with it. ... Edit A low powered DAC will still be affected by noise.

Yes it will, as I mentioned, acoustic and analogue noise are unavoidable. And therefore both a studio and a consumer DAC will always have noise, that's not in question, what's in question is how difficult it is to manage that noise! The answer to that question is entirely different for a studio running a large format analogue mixing console vs running a consumer DAC, surely you can appreciate that fact? As per the quote, does a consumer DAC get anywhere near overloading a 20 amp circuit? Hardly, it probably doesn't require much more than a hundred or so milli-amps! In this age of micro-electronics, managing power and noise issues and keeping noise below audibility is cheap and relatively trivial! Which is not the case with analogue recording/mixing studios, and is essentially why digital audio was invented in the first place!

G

 

[Clive101]

Yes it will, as I mentioned, acoustic and analogue noise are unavoidable. And therefore both a studio and a consumer DAC will always have noise, that's not in question, what's in question is how difficult it is to manage that noise! The answer to that question is entirely different for a studio running a large format analogue mixing console vs running a consumer DAC, surely you can appreciate that fact? As per the quote, does a consumer DAC get anywhere near overloading a 20 amp circuit? Hardly, it probably doesn't require much more than a hundred or so milli-amps! In this age of micro-electronics, managing power and noise issues and keeping noise below audibility is cheap and relatively trivial! Which is not the case with analogue recording/mixing studios, and is essentially why digital audio was invented in the first place!

I have no idea regarding an acoustic or analogue noise or studio equipment for that matter.

I would assume more equipment, more noise, more power used with regard to mains noise (and other noise for that matter) in the case of studio equipment it all adds up I guess, as I said before I am no expert and not technical but it makes sense. I am aware why digital was invented thank you. I still do not think the problem is with the how much power being used rather than the amount of equipment being used, either way I am only interested in a DAC and Server not a studio setup.

I only know that my mains electric carries noise and impacts my DAC and Server and found if I treat for noise on the mains electric the noise is reduced and hence the music sounds cleaner.

Certain USB cables reduce this noise to a greater or lesser extent ( for me ), and when I treated for noise the USB cables have less of an effect ( no comments on the placebo effect please had that one before )

I also found noise to come from the server via cat5e although Melco has an isolated port ( go figure, perhaps not ) all getting though the chain.

Low power, a number of people are spending quite a lot of money to reduce server and DAC ( combined systems ) with power supplies perhaps you could enlighten them ( not me I have found my own solution ).

Now back I thread I hope and no more about studios however interesting it may be.

I conclude in my experience mains noise is causing my USB cables to sound different, although shielding may play a role ( I have no easy way of testing for shielding ) which possibly explains why they still sound different ( less so ) when the mains is being treated.

It's my experience and posted to help people, consider my experience or not, either way, no issues with me.

 

[gregorio]

[1] I would assume more equipment, more noise, more power used with regard to mains noise (and other noise for that matter) in the case of studio equipment it all adds up I guess, as I said before I am no expert and not technical but it makes sense.
[2] ... either way I am only interested in a DAC and Server not a studio setup.
[3] It's my experience and posted to help people, consider my experience or not, either way, no issues with me.

1. Broadly, yes this is the case. However, in reality mains power doesn't have any noise, it is after all just power not an audio signal but it does have the potential to cause noise if it isn't properly/competently handled by any particular device. Even if it is competently handled there will still always be some noise but it should be well below audibility. The important part of your statement is: "it all adds up", which is absolutely true. In an analogue studio with a large format desk we're drawing hundreds of times more mains power than your DAC and even though the resultant noise is below audibility we were typically "adding up" 24 or more channels of that noise and each of those channel had at least one if not several processors (such as EQ, etc.), each of which adds more inaudible noise. By the time we're finished we could easily have: inaudible noise x 100 (or more) and the noise is no longer inaudible! ...

2. Absolutely agreed! The situation in an analogue mix studio, of inaudible noise being multiplied many times over, is simply not applicable to consumer playback. Indeed, it's not even applicable to studios, because the vast majority now mix digitally! So, you are completely right not to be "interested" in an analogue studio setup, which begs the question of why you decided to quote an analogue studio setup to support your argument in the first place?! Unfortunately, this happens frequently in the audiophile world, inapplicable studio practises being used to justify/market something to consumers. That's why for example we now have 24bit consumer audio and so called HRA.

3. I've got no problem with you posting your experiences to help people. In fact, you've helped me! Not that I'm currently in the market for a Dave but if your experiences are accurate, then your Dave is either faulty or incompetently designed and I now wouldn't consider getting one without considerable testing. However, your statement is not exactly true, you haven't just posted your experience, you've posted your assumptions/conclusions of those experiences, along with the implication that audiophile USB cables make a difference and are therefore valid. This is, albeit contrary to your intent, the very opposite of helping people!

G

 

[Triode User]

1. Broadly, yes this is the case. However, in reality mains power doesn't have any noise, it is after all just power not an audio signal but it does have the potential to cause noise if it isn't properly/competently handled by any particular device. Even if it is competently handled there will still always be some noise but it should be well below audibility. The important part of your statement is: "it all adds up", which is absolutely true. In an analogue studio with a large format desk we're drawing hundreds of times more mains power than your DAC and even though the resultant noise is below audibility we were typically "adding up" 24 or more channels of that noise and each of those channel had at least one if not several processors (such as EQ, etc.), each of which adds more inaudible noise. By the time we're finished we could easily have: inaudible noise x 100 (or more) and the noise is no longer inaudible! ...

2. Absolutely agreed! The situation in an analogue mix studio, of inaudible noise being multiplied many times over, is simply not applicable to consumer playback. Indeed, it's not even applicable to studios, because the vast majority now mix digitally! So, you are completely right not to be "interested" in an analogue studio setup, which begs the question of why you decided to quote an analogue studio setup to support your argument in the first place?! Unfortunately, this happens frequently in the audiophile world, inapplicable studio practises being used to justify/market something to consumers. That's why for example we now have 24bit consumer audio and so called HRA.

3. I've got no problem with you posting your experiences to help people. In fact, you've helped me! Not that I'm currently in the market for a Dave but if your experiences are accurate, then your Dave is either faulty or incompetently designed and I now wouldn't consider getting one without considerable testing. However, your statement is not exactly true, you haven't just posted your experience, you've posted your assumptions/conclusions of those experiences, along with the implication that audiophile USB cables make a difference and are therefore valid. This is, albeit contrary to your intent, the very opposite of helping people!

G

G, I hope you will not mind paraphrasing.

YOU SAY - You are professional sound engineers and you know what you are doing. If there was any RF or EMF noise issue you would have noticed it in the studio playback.
I SAY - Really? Are you sure? It can be subtle and the music still sounds pretty good. Fantastic even. My Dave sounds fantastic. I just happen to think it sounds even better if I put RF filters on the input cables. When you are listening to playback I am assuming you have a job in hand concerning the mixing etc and if truth be told, the absolute quality of the sound is not going to affect your ability to do that job. I am sure the sound in your studio sounds magnificent but are you sure it is not a case of near enough is good enough?

YOU SAY - designing a DAC to be RF noise tolerant is ridiculously easy and cheap to do and any competently designed DAC should cope with this. You therefore say the professional DACs are not affected by any RF noise coming into them.
I SAY - How do you know this is the case with the DACs you use? In any case is it not better practice to filter out the RF noise before it gets into a DAC or other equipment?

YOU SAY - If the Dave is affected by RF on it's inputs then it is either broken or badly designed.
I SAY - It would be interesting to take one of the professional DACs you mention and see if filtering the inputs for RF noise makes any difference.

 

[Clive101]

1. Broadly, yes this is the case. However, in reality mains power doesn't have any noise, it is after all just power not an audio signal but it does have the potential to cause noise if it isn't properly/competently handled by any particular device. Even if it is competently handled there will still always be some noise but it should be well below audibility. The important part of your statement is: "it all adds up", which is absolutely true. In an analogue studio with a large format desk we're drawing hundreds of times more mains power than your DAC and even though the resultant noise is below audibility we were typically "adding up" 24 or more channels of that noise and each of those channel had at least one if not several processors (such as EQ, etc.), each of which adds more inaudible noise. By the time we're finished we could easily have: inaudible noise x 100 (or more) and the noise is no longer inaudible! ...

2. Absolutely agreed! The situation in an analogue mix studio, of inaudible noise being multiplied many times over, is simply not applicable to consumer playback. Indeed, it's not even applicable to studios, because the vast majority now mix digitally! So, you are completely right not to be "interested" in an analogue studio setup, which begs the question of why you decided to quote an analogue studio setup to support your argument in the first place?! Unfortunately, this happens frequently in the audiophile world, inapplicable studio practises being used to justify/market something to consumers. That's why for example we now have 24bit consumer audio and so called HRA.

3. I've got no problem with you posting your experiences to help people. In fact, you've helped me! Not that I'm currently in the market for a Dave but if your experiences are accurate, then your Dave is either faulty or incompetently designed and I now wouldn't consider getting one without considerable testing. However, your statement is not exactly true, you haven't just posted your experience, you've posted your assumptions/conclusions of those experiences, along with the implication that audiophile USB cables make a difference and are therefore valid. This is, albeit contrary to your intent, the very opposite of helping people!

G

Analogue quoted to represent my situation. The Analogue part of my chain is amplifying the mains noise !
Noise is often used but it's a term that is misleading as you cannot technically hear the noise but you notice when it has been reduced.
I am surprised you had not realised this coming from a Studio background.

Quote "It's my experience and posted to help people, consider my experience or not, either way, no issues with me." does not imply what you suggest.