|
|
Post by audiobill on Feb 21, 2023 18:07:25 GMT -5
Whatever happened to the "All out assault on the high end"?
Or "Rethinking the High End"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 22, 2023 0:27:10 GMT -5
I’d say that it WAS rethought - and morphed into home theater.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,256
Member is Online
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 22, 2023 12:43:38 GMT -5
In case you didn't know... when you use Tidal the first unfold is done by the client software... So, since you CAN'T use Tidal without a Tidal client, you CAN'T use Tidal without support for the first unfold. (The Tidal client does the first unfold and delivers the result to any standard PCM 24/96k DAC.) I guess, if your DAC didn't support 24/96k, the client might not be able to work properly.... and so might be unable to do the unfold. However, to be fair, I'm not sure if that's actually true, and I don't know of many modern DACs that can't do 24/96k. (And, of course, the few really expensive boutique DACs that don't do 24/96k probably don't do MQA either.) I guess your fears might be true for an MQA file or an MQA CD... but those are really few and far between. To be quite honest I personally have mixed feelings on this issue... On the one hand I agree that it would be convenient to have a DAC "that can play whatever I throw at it"... But, on the other hand, I do understand the idea of "doing one thing very well" or "being able to do many things but being a master of none"... But, either way, as I've said before, we are certainly aware that at least some folks would really like to see DoP in our new DAC... (And, as I also said, I don't even have a final status on that at the moment.) I'm also going to point something out... Virtually anyone who has actual SACD discs also has some sort of "universal disc player"... And most of those do in fact support the ability to output DSD via HDMI... In fact, the SACD disc standard, which does allows SACD discs to be played as DSD via HDMI, actually forbids playing them as DSD via DoP. So the only DSD content that you can play via DoP is from DSD files. (And, unlike SACD discs, it's trivial to convert DSD files to PCM.) That is also my personal opinion... My impression of the MQA files I've heard is distinctly mixed... and about on a par with other "remasters"... Some I've heard sounded slightly better... some slightly worse... and a lot about the same... Also, to be quite blunt, the only place I know of that actually offers wide support for MQA is Tidal. And, for one thing, I still do not find that Tidal has the best selection of the music I want to listen to... And, from what I've been reading recently, Tidal also has some issues with not having non-MQA versions of albums available... (In the cases where you would actually specifically prefer to listen to a certain non-MQA version of a certain album). And, at the moment, I don't have any SACD discs that I listen to. And, while I definitely have some DSD versions of albums I prefer, I find that a properly converted PCM version of those albums sounds equally good to me. And, in the context of "just playing music", standardizing on PCM and FLAC has certainly made my life at home a lot simpler. (I play with lots of file formats.... but I only keep PCM files on my server... almost always in FLAC format.) To me it really doesn’t matter if a format is widely used or not. If you release a DAC or streamer it should support most (if not all) sound formats available. This does certainly include MQA and DSD/SACD. It has nothing to do with SQ.. It’s the same argument as why your processors should have a sleek and fast GUI. CONVINIENCE.. Even if I use it once a month it should simply not be a hassle to use. Regarding MQA.. It can be quite different results depending on wether the DAC does support the full unfold, just the first or even no unfold. You would not want to use TIDAL without support for atleast the first unfold. If you do then because of how the format is set up it leaves you with 13bits of effective bit depth. So less than CD. |
|
|
|
Post by hsamwel on Feb 22, 2023 16:46:57 GMT -5
In case you didn't know... when you use Tidal the first unfold is done by the client software... So, since you CAN'T use Tidal without a Tidal client, you CAN'T use Tidal without support for the first unfold. (The Tidal client does the first unfold and delivers the result to any standard PCM 24/96k DAC.) I guess, if your DAC didn't support 24/96k, the client might not be able to work properly.... and so might be unable to do the unfold. However, to be fair, I'm not sure if that's actually true, and I don't know of many modern DACs that can't do 24/96k. (And, of course, the few really expensive boutique DACs that don't do 24/96k probably don't do MQA either.) I guess your fears might be true for an MQA file or an MQA CD... but those are really few and far between. To be quite honest I personally have mixed feelings on this issue... On the one hand I agree that it would be convenient to have a DAC "that can play whatever I throw at it"... But, on the other hand, I do understand the idea of "doing one thing very well" or "being able to do many things but being a master of none"... But, either way, as I've said before, we are certainly aware that at least some folks would really like to see DoP in our new DAC... (And, as I also said, I don't even have a final status on that at the moment.) I'm also going to point something out... Virtually anyone who has actual SACD discs also has some sort of "universal disc player"... And most of those do in fact support the ability to output DSD via HDMI... In fact, the SACD disc standard, which does allows SACD discs to be played as DSD via HDMI, actually forbids playing them as DSD via DoP. So the only DSD content that you can play via DoP is from DSD files. (And, unlike SACD discs, it's trivial to convert DSD files to PCM.) To me it really doesn’t matter if a format is widely used or not. If you release a DAC or streamer it should support most (if not all) sound formats available. This does certainly include MQA and DSD/SACD. It has nothing to do with SQ.. It’s the same argument as why your processors should have a sleek and fast GUI. CONVINIENCE.. Even if I use it once a month it should simply not be a hassle to use. Regarding MQA.. It can be quite different results depending on wether the DAC does support the full unfold, just the first or even no unfold. You would not want to use TIDAL without support for atleast the first unfold. If you do then because of how the format is set up it leaves you with 13bits of effective bit depth. So less than CD. Yes, I do know about the TIDAL app doing to first unfold. Also Roon does it. But the tidal app is very seldom used with streamers because then you’ll have to use wifi with chromecast. To get the best result your streamer has to have Roon support, native TIDAL control or the relatively new TIDAL connect. Almost certainly connected thru wired connection. You would want the streamer to ”stream” the audio, not your phone or pad. The phone or pad should optimally just be a ”remote”. MQA files.. If no unfold is done then a non-MQA DAC will see the audio as PCM 44/16 but with the drawback of loosing 3 bits due to the folding technique. I don’t know of any modern DACs that won’t support atleast 96/24. Again, if the DAC can’t support hi-res then it should fallback to 44/16. Supporting many audio formats does not exclude having superb SQ and build quality. It does however exclude some customers wanting the device due to it ”missing that format” just they wanred or needed. More so than processors which are so Atmos/Dolby and DTS centric. While many want Auro3D and other formats it still won’t stop them from buying your processors. Streamers and DACs are different though. There are a lot more to choose from. Usually the difference with streamers are the native app and how good it is. If you accept chromecasting then pretty much any streamer will do. I don’t play files myself but.. I would guess most are talking about DSD files from local storage rather than SACD discs when talking about DACs or streamers. Yes, most of us that have SACDs have a universal disc player to have the ability to play the multi channel tracks as well. Some don’t care about that and have a stereo CD/SACD player which only output analog. These are usually highend players with a great DAC built in. |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Feb 23, 2023 8:06:15 GMT -5
IMO, a streaming dac that doesn't support Roon these days is a non starter.
But then the streaming dac manufacturer needs to "man up" and pay a fee.....
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
Member is Online
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 23, 2023 10:30:00 GMT -5
All we're talking about here is pretty much software and apps. Tidal uses a proprietary streaming format (as does every other streaming service). Whether you call it "a Tidal app" or "Tidal connect" or "native Tidal support" what you're describing is "a version of the Tidal streaming client". And since, as far as I know, Tidal still used MQA as their transport protocol, that app must support MQA, at least as a transport protocol. I can tell you for sure that the Windows and Apple computer versions of that software do in fact support "the first unfold"... Unfortunately, when it comes to low-end streaming solutions, there is a confusing mish-mash of features and capabilities. And, just as with being able to connect to Tidal or Amazon Music using an internal client, trying to decipher what a specific streamer is capable of can be difficult. They tend to like to show a long trophy wall of logos of "services they support" - but put the details about which ones have to have a phone or computer connected when you use them in very small print. (Almost everybody supports "Spotify connect", a lot offer "Tidal connect", but precious few offer an internal client for Amazon Music.) To be quite honest I don't know a lot of the more intricate details about what Roon can and cannot do. I do know that it is well liked by those who use it... I also know that it requires a bit of a commitment - both in terms of cost and setup and of pretty much requiring you to set up a dedicated server. I don't use Roon simply because I don't care about most of the cool features it offers... (From everything I've heard, if I did want those features, Roon seems to be the clear choice at this point.) It also follows that, if you're using Roon as the "Tidal client", and Roon "supports MQA", and is running on a reasonably powerful platform, that Roon would be doing the "first unfold"... (Also, since Roon works with virtually all DACs, and there are no special requirement, their "certification" is pretty much a rubber stamp and the right to use their logo.) I would also have to say that MQA (the company) deserves a significant part of the blame for at least part of the confusion about MQA... Rather than simply offer the various capabilities of MQA as such they chose to swirl them together into a confusing and rather complex "ecosystem"... They then managed to make it all even more incomprehensible, and piss a lot of people off, with misleading marketing claims. It's still sometimes difficult to get a straight answer to the question of "whether MQA is actually lossless" (it is NOT). Obviously they made this choice with the hope that "everyone would just buy into the entire MQA ecosystem rather than try to sort out the details". (However, since, after years, MQA hasn't really been widely embraced by anyone except Tidal, that seems not to have been a great choice.) To be absolutely blunt the main reason we don't support MQA is simply that they've made the licensing a bit of a nuisance... And there just isn't enough market interest to justify it for us. (At this point, when you talk about MQA, in purely practical terms, you're basically talking about "a special DAC just for Tidal".) Incidentally, when we initially decided not to support Auro3D, it was for very much the same reason - although their licensing was also somewhat expensive. And, in case you weren't aware, apparently the market felt the same way. According to the latest information I have, while "the technology is still being licensed", Auro3D is now officially "out of business". I absolutely agree that there are a LOT of streamers to choose from, with a lot of different options and capabilities, and an incredibly wide range of prices. It's also quite complicated to support a streamer - because each separate app has to be updated frequently and streaming services tend to come and go. However, just for the record, our new DAC, which we're discussing here, is an audiophile DAC... and not a streamer.  There are some DACs out there that are both a DAC and a streamer - but this is not one of them. (We do have a streamer in the works, but it is an entirely separate product, and is still a ways off.) In case you didn't know... when you use Tidal the first unfold is done by the client software... So, since you CAN'T use Tidal without a Tidal client, you CAN'T use Tidal without support for the first unfold. (The Tidal client does the first unfold and delivers the result to any standard PCM 24/96k DAC.) I guess, if your DAC didn't support 24/96k, the client might not be able to work properly.... and so might be unable to do the unfold. However, to be fair, I'm not sure if that's actually true, and I don't know of many modern DACs that can't do 24/96k. (And, of course, the few really expensive boutique DACs that don't do 24/96k probably don't do MQA either.) I guess your fears might be true for an MQA file or an MQA CD... but those are really few and far between. To be quite honest I personally have mixed feelings on this issue... On the one hand I agree that it would be convenient to have a DAC "that can play whatever I throw at it"... But, on the other hand, I do understand the idea of "doing one thing very well" or "being able to do many things but being a master of none"... But, either way, as I've said before, we are certainly aware that at least some folks would really like to see DoP in our new DAC... (And, as I also said, I don't even have a final status on that at the moment.) I'm also going to point something out... Virtually anyone who has actual SACD discs also has some sort of "universal disc player"... And most of those do in fact support the ability to output DSD via HDMI... In fact, the SACD disc standard, which does allows SACD discs to be played as DSD via HDMI, actually forbids playing them as DSD via DoP. So the only DSD content that you can play via DoP is from DSD files. (And, unlike SACD discs, it's trivial to convert DSD files to PCM.) Yes, I do know about the TIDAL app doing to first unfold. Also Roon does it. But the tidal app is very seldom used with streamers because then you’ll have to use wifi with chromecast. To get the best result your streamer has to have Roon support, native TIDAL control or the relatively new TIDAL connect. Almost certainly connected thru wired connection. You would want the streamer to ”stream” the audio, not your phone or pad. The phone or pad should optimally just be a ”remote”. MQA files.. If no unfold is done then a non-MQA DAC will see the audio as PCM 44/16 but with the drawback of loosing 3 bits due to the folding technique. I don’t know of any modern DACs that won’t support atleast 96/24. Again, if the DAC can’t support hi-res then it should fallback to 44/16. Supporting many audio formats does not exclude having superb SQ and build quality. It does however exclude some customers wanting the device due to it ”missing that format” just they wanred or needed. More so than processors which are so Atmos/Dolby and DTS centric. While many want Auro3D and other formats it still won’t stop them from buying your processors. Streamers and DACs are different though. There are a lot more to choose from. Usually the difference with streamers are the native app and how good it is. If you accept chromecasting then pretty much any streamer will do. I don’t play files myself but.. I would guess most are talking about DSD files from local storage rather than SACD discs when talking about DACs or streamers. Yes, most of us that have SACDs have a universal disc player to have the ability to play the multi channel tracks as well. Some don’t care about that and have a stereo CD/SACD player which only output analog. These are usually highend players with a great DAC built in. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 23, 2023 11:48:21 GMT -5
IMO, a streaming dac that doesn't support Roon these days is a non starter. But then the streaming dac manufacturer needs to "man up" and pay a fee..... Since my DAC isn't in direct contact with Roon (only the streamer is), then Roon support doesn't really matter. IF the DAC was also serving as a streamer (had its own Ethernet connection), then Roon support would be of greater concern. Now for those who don't use a streamer and, instead, connect their sources (usually a computer) directly to the DAC by USB, TOSLINK, coaxial, etc. - then I still don't know if Roon support would be critical so long as the source device and Roon would recognize the DAC as a destination. Every DAC that I've yet tried (and it's been more than a few) were recognized by Roon as legit destinations despite the fact that many (most?) of them did not specifically support Roon. So, audiobill, I'd agree with you that while a streaming DAC should have Roon support, I'm not sure that a non-streaming DAC would need it. As I understand it, Emotiva's upcoming DAC has no streaming capabilities - it's just a DAC. Glenn |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Feb 23, 2023 11:54:23 GMT -5
And I guess that’s my point, the world seems to have enough great chesp dacs….
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 23, 2023 13:08:57 GMT -5
And I guess that’s my point, the world seems to have enough great cheap dacs…. Yes, there are a LOT of cheap DACs that measure great. Topping and SMSL come immediately to mind. And there are a lot of DACs that may not measure as well, but that pay a LOT more attention to their analog sections. Despite their poorer measurements, these DACs are reputed to sound better. The Schiit Yggdrasil comes to mind... The DACs that pay more attention to their analog sections seem to cost more than those that don't (for whatever reason). Some of the more expensive DACs are Roon-compatible via certification, some aren't. Where will the new Emotiva DAC fall in the price and sound quality continuums? We'll have to wait and see. Some will buy the DAC just because it's an Emotiva offering. But most won't. Unless the DAC offers either exceptional sound quality and/or exceptional value, then it'll be considered an "also ran" by the market. But there will be a LOT of initial interest in it because Emotiva has a history and reputation of offering both high performance and high value. The previous sentence applies specifically to Emotiva stereo equipment - I can't comment on their HT gear. Until the new DAC is released, I'll take a wait and see attitude. Glenn |
|
|
|
Post by brutiarti on Feb 23, 2023 13:15:04 GMT -5
That question is, will it last more than 3 or 5 years? Certainly my XPR-1, XSP-1. Airmotiv5, ERC-2 did not.
|
|
|
|
Post by routlaw on Feb 23, 2023 13:35:54 GMT -5
It is worth pointing out that not all audiophiles love Roon, for instance below is a link to a very well regarded audio forum where peoples hatred of the app or program what ever you call it have turn into 31+ pages of negative comments. Between this and its pricing structure it is plenty enough to steer me away from ever using it. Mind you this isn't the only place where people have vented their frustration at this company and their app. One doesn't have to luck too far to find many who have abandoned it. To top it off I don't know of anyone who thinks Roon has sound quality that matches Audirvana or HQ Player and probably a few others, in fact most people think of it as poor quality sound but great library content. audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/63366-i-have-had-it-with-roon-their-lack-of-support-their-user-forum-and-its-users/Another thing worth considering, the hifi world can be fickle. What is considered the be all end all today will become a thing of the past tomorrow. If this isn't enough the digital world moves quickly, things change quickly and also become outdated far more quickly than say amps and other analog devices. Effectively a DAC/Streamer combo will be a race to the bottom to see which one becomes outdated quicker than the other. In this regard I applaud Emotiva for designing nothing more than a stand alone DAC, even though my current DAC does have limited streaming capability. Whether or not it ever gets used this way is doubtful. |
|
|
|
Post by routlaw on Feb 23, 2023 13:45:31 GMT -5
Quote below from a recording and mastering engineer Mark Robinson, all I need to know.
"For example, I have a few thousand masters on Tidal that have been MQA'd after my delivery to the client. The MQA process represents a clear deviation from the sound I delivered to the artist or label who hired me. Im allowed to object to what MQA is doing because they are altering my work after the fact. In a similar way, this is what is happening to my masters when they are massively oversampled for playback - the sound deviates from the engineer's intention."
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 23, 2023 14:19:37 GMT -5
Hmmm… since when did “the engineer’s intention” become the measure of audio fidelity? I’d rather wonder what the performing artist thought of the version.
Having listened to recorded music my whole life, I’d conclude that many recording engineers are either deaf or else mastered their recordings to sound best over AM radio.
Just sayin’…
|
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Feb 23, 2023 14:42:33 GMT -5
Routlaw, we’d be interested in your personal experience with Roon, which is unique in integrating Tidal, Qobuz and your local library. HQplayer, Audirvsna, etc have different functions. Except for optional Roon features, Roon makes no pretense of altering audio quality. Suggest you try it out in your system, not by reading internet opinions.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
Member is Online
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 23, 2023 14:56:09 GMT -5
That is the major distinction in a nutshell... If you are streaming from Roon to a client device, over an Ethernet network, then that audio is being sent using Roon's streaming protocol. Basically, at that point, as far as the client device is concerned, Roon is "the streaming service". And that isn't going to work unless that client device supports Roon and their streaming protocol (RAAT). (Essentially the Roon Client is joining Roon's streaming network... and must work properly with it.) However, if you are streaming to a Roon client, which is then sending the audio it receives to an external DAC... Or, if you only have one "Roon box", which is acting as both the Core and the Client, but is connected to an external DAC... Then that external DAC is just going to be a normal PCM DAC. However it isn't all quite as simple as it may at first seem... Bear in mind that, for someone who sells a streaming box, they must "maintain and support" ALL of the streaming clients their box offers. I'm not sure exactly how many customers Roon has... But I agree that, from the point of view of someone who manufactures a streamer, there is justification for a streaming product to support as many different streaming services as it can. The only catch there is that this multiplies the number of clients that need to be maintained (installed, supported, updated, added, and removed). And, if you look at it from the other direction, since Roon supports the other streaming services, folks who use Roon don't need their streaming client to support the others. Which means that, for them, they really only need a relatively simple client box that supports Roon (because Roon will take care of the rest). (So, from the manufacturer's point of view, this suggests that a separate "Roon streaming client" might make more sense.) IMO, a streaming dac that doesn't support Roon these days is a non starter. But then the streaming dac manufacturer needs to "man up" and pay a fee..... Since my DAC isn't in direct contact with Roon (only the streamer is), then Roon support doesn't really matter. IF the DAC was also serving as a streamer (had its own Ethernet connection), then Roon support would be of greater concern. Now for those who don't use a streamer and, instead, connect their sources (usually a computer) directly to the DAC by USB, TOSLINK, coaxial, etc. - then I still don't know if Roon support would be critical so long as the source device and Roon would recognize the DAC as a destination. Every DAC that I've yet tried (and it's been more than a few) were recognized by Roon as legit destinations despite the fact that many (most?) of them did not specifically support Roon. So, audiobill , I'd agree with you that while a streaming DAC should have Roon support, I'm not sure that a non-streaming DAC would need it. As I understand it, Emotiva's upcoming DAC has no streaming capabilities - it's just a DAC. Glenn |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
Member is Online
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 23, 2023 15:12:44 GMT -5
That is always an interesting discussion... It's also worth noting that, these days, the "performing artist" may simply be one of several people who contributes tracks to the final mix. Or even that, if the artist has a say, it should occur before the final mix is output... not after. In business terms it is generally agree ahead of time "whether the artist is going to have input, when, and how much"... However, most people in the industry tend to agree that "the final mix that comes off the mastering board is 'the product' ". And that the output of that mixing board, the feed that gets recorded as the production master, marks the line between "making the product" and "delivering the product". I'm pretty sure that, if you purchased a copy of a commercial CD from me, you would not be happy if I'd "fixed it to sound the way I like" before I sent it to you... And, in this context, "getting a copy of that CD" from Tidal or Amazon Music is no different... (Unless you really do want to give them a blanket license to remaster everything you stream through them as they see fit...) You may also be surprised to know that not every artist even owns the albums they've participated in... and they sure don't all have a final review and say in what Tidal streams to you... I hope you don't honestly imagine that the little green light really means that "the lead singer actually listened to and approved this mix"... or, at best, more than once in a while. The reality is more like that the studio who owns the content sends "a master copy" to MQA (or Tidal)... who "runs it through the process and sends it out"... Yes, in specific cases, someone or other may actually manage to have a listen to it first, or may even actually have their opinion heard... (Read a few interviews and see how many artists actually say that Tidal "presented the MQA mix to them for comment and review".... and "held it if they didn't like it".) To be quite fair - actually doing that would be totally impractical - and virtually nothing would ever get released. However, that being the case, I'd rather have an exact copy of the production master, or at least have that option, rather than yet another "remaster" that I may or may not like better. Hmmm… since when did “the engineer’s intention” become the measure of audio fidelity? I’d rather wonder what the performing artist thought of the version. Having listened to recorded music my whole life, I’d conclude that many recording engineers are either deaf or else mastered their recordings to sound best over AM radio. Just sayin’… |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 23, 2023 15:33:01 GMT -5
That is the major distinction in a nutshell. If you are streaming from Roon to a client device, over an Ethernet network, then that audio is being sent using Roon's streaming protocol. Basically, at that point, as far as the client device is concerned, Roon is "the streaming service". And that isn't going to work unless that client device supports Roon and their streaming protocol (RAAT). (Essentially the Roon Client is joining Roon's streaming network... and must work properly with it.)... Are you sure about this, KeithL? I think that I've used a LOT of streaming gear that wasn't RAAT compatible, and it all worked fine with Roon from a remote server. I've streamed (among others) to the following: Oppo 105 Oppo 205 Apple TV3 iFi Zen (in "all-in-one" mode) To my knowledge, none of these (except the Zen) support RAAT - and even the Zen needed to be in "Roon mode" before it would RAAT with Roon. My impression was that all the items above were using DLNA, not RAAT. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 23, 2023 15:43:35 GMT -5
...I'm pretty sure that, if you purchased a copy of a commercial CD from me, you would not be happy if I'd "fixed it to sound the way I like" before I sent it to you... And, in this context, "getting a copy of that CD" from Tidal or Amazon Music is no different... (Unless you really do want to give them a blanket license to remaster everything you stream through them as they see fit...) But WAIT - Isn't that EXACTLY what the mastering engineer is doing? "Fixing the recording to sound the way (s)he likes it?" Ignoring the artist's intent for the moment, who's to say that I might not have preferred your editing to that of the studio mastering engineer's? As a consumer, I want the recording that sounds best to my ears. Whether that recording came from TIDAL, Qobuz, MQA, a CD, a SACD, or from the "Saturday Night KeithL remastering studio" means naught to me. I'm willing to pay for the version that I find most enjoyable. If TIDAL, Qobuz, MQA or any other source offers the sound quality that I prefer, then that's who I'll patronize. Just is what it is... Glenn |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Feb 23, 2023 15:48:24 GMT -5
...I'm pretty sure that, if you purchased a copy of a commercial CD from me, you would not be happy if I'd "fixed it to sound the way I like" before I sent it to you... And, in this context, "getting a copy of that CD" from Tidal or Amazon Music is no different... (Unless you really do want to give them a blanket license to remaster everything you stream through them as they see fit...) But WAIT - Isn't that EXACTLY what the mastering engineer is doing? "Fixing the recording to sound the way (s)he likes it?" Ignoring the artist's intent for the moment, who's to say that I might not have preferred your editing to that of the studio mastering engineer's? As a consumer, I want the recording that sounds best to my ears. Whether that recording came from TIDAL, Qobuz, MQA, a CD, a SACD, or from the "Saturday Night KeithL remastering studio" means naught to me. I'm willing to pay for the version that I find most enjoyable. If TIDAL, Qobuz, MQA or any other source offers the sound quality that I prefer, then that's who I'll patronize. Just is what it is... Glenn Remember that the record company and Producer representing them have the ultimate say in the "product" .... in most cases. I've listened to interviews with recording engineers and mastering engineers and usually the way it goes is the artist has some say in the mix ... then the record company tells the mastering engineer how to master the "product" and that's where we get loudness wars, etc. More than one engineer has told stories of doing the job only to have the record company or Producer send it back to him 2, 3, 5 times saying "make it louder". |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
Member is Online
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 23, 2023 15:50:51 GMT -5
The "whatever reason" is pretty simple... Apparently a lot of manufacturers have either forgotten how to design a good analog section that actually sounds good... Or they just plain aren't willing to bother... Or someone somewhere said "it measures good so it must sound good - so let's not bother to listen to it"... Or someone said "I don't care what it measures but I know some of our customers will like the way it sounds"... Designing a really simple DAC, with no actual analog section, or a really simple analog section, is actually pretty easy. The DAC manufacturers will even give you schematics and board layouts you can use (for free). And, if you don't have much of an analog section, then there's less to get wrong... I also feel obliged to mention something else... The actual "technology of DACs" has gotten VERY good in the last few years... As a result a lot of DACs actually do "sound darn near perfect" if by "perfect" you mean "accurate"... As a result, DACs are one area in particular where many of the differences people hear are just plain imaginary... And a lot of the differences that really exist are intentional rather than unavoidable... Many expensive DACs, especially certain boutique designs, really do have significant performance flaws... However, to put it bluntly, if it sounds different than the cheap DAC, as long as someone likes the way it sounds better, you've made a sale. And, since the actual DAC technology has gotten so good, the analog section is one area where designers still get to "exercise a little artistic license". This is why, for example, you see DACs with tube buffers on them... because the tube buffer adds some coloration that sounds pleasant to some people. (Since the tube isn't actually a functional part of the DAC, and so cannot affect the way the DAC itself sounds either way, this is all it can do.) And I guess that’s my point, the world seems to have enough great cheap dacs…. Yes, there are a LOT of cheap DACs that measure great. Topping and SMSL come immediately to mind. And there are a lot of DACs that may not measure as well, but that pay a LOT more attention to their analog sections. Despite their poorer measurements, these DACs are reputed to sound better. The Schiit Yggdrasil comes to mind... The DACs that pay more attention to their analog sections seem to cost more than those that don't (for whatever reason). Some of the more expensive DACs are Roon-compatible via certification, some aren't. Where will the new Emotiva DAC fall in the price and sound quality continuums? We'll have to wait and see. Some will buy the DAC just because it's an Emotiva offering. But most won't. Unless the DAC offers either exceptional sound quality and/or exceptional value, then it'll be considered an "also ran" by the market. But there will be a LOT of initial interest in it because Emotiva has a history and reputation of offering both high performance and high value. The previous sentence applies specifically to Emotiva stereo equipment - I can't comment on their HT gear. Until the new DAC is released, I'll take a wait and see attitude. Glenn |
|
