Jump to content
IGNORED

Where Are We Going From Here?


Recommended Posts

I have already mentioned my thinking on how much sample rate is enough.

 

Other thoughts on this are what type DAC? NOS, Multi-bit, sigma delta PCM, DSD single bit or DSD multi-bit or DXD 32 bit. Which is the true holy grail path to full transparency? All have adherents. They can't all be right can they or can they? If they are all right then any of those will do.

 

Does the true audiophile need multiple DACs for all these types or one unit with multiple approaches built in? I think that path is lunacy.

 

Further as to where we go, the innovation which definitely has the potential to improve fidelity and enjoyment is multi-channel. Yet I also would rank it with those having had ample chance and gotten nowhere in the market. Extra channels vs a new stereo format is far more beneficial and that it is beneficial is very clear. There simply is no catalogue for it.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
I have already mentioned my thinking on how much sample rate is enough.

 

Other thoughts on this are what type DAC? NOS, Multi-bit, sigma delta PCM, DSD single bit or DSD multi-bit or DXD 32 bit. Which is the true holy grail path to full transparency? All have adherents. They can't all be right can they or can they? If they are all right then any of those will do.

 

Does the true audiophile need multiple DACs for all these types or one unit with multiple approaches built in? I think that path is lunacy.

 

 

I think that's where letting the filtering happen in software really helps. As already noted, hardware for a very good DSD DAC (that can take pretty much any DSD sample rate the computer will allow and more - I believe it's capable of at least DSD1024 if not more) runs around $400. If PCM hardware was also wanted, I imagine that might cost more, but perhaps not a fortune? And sox can easily do the conversion/filtering for both, or one can pay for inline/offline conversion software if desired.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment

The Achilles heel is our reliance on operating systems and PCs to support the software and file types we have invested in. I recently bought a new PC and learned that two of my favorite programs wouldn't run on Windows 10, and there is no driver available for my film scanner. This makes me wonder if, as a niche, high-res audio files will get left in the dustbin after the next major innovation in PC development. And innovation in audiophile technology is as much about choice as it is improvement unless you have a lot of money to play with. Most of what we see now as a proliferation of media types and players is simply driven by free market capitalism.

That I ask questions? I am more concerned about being stupid than looking like I might be.

Link to comment
I have already mentioned my thinking on how much sample rate is enough.

 

Other thoughts on this are what type DAC? NOS, Multi-bit, sigma delta PCM, DSD single bit or DSD multi-bit or DXD 32 bit. Which is the true holy grail path to full transparency? All have adherents. They can't all be right can they or can they? If they are all right then any of those will do.

 

Does the true audiophile need multiple DACs for all these types or one unit with multiple approaches built in? I think that path is lunacy.

 

Further as to where we go, the innovation which definitely has the potential to improve fidelity and enjoyment is multi-channel. Yet I also would rank it with those having had ample chance and gotten nowhere in the market. Extra channels vs a new stereo format is far more beneficial and that it is beneficial is very clear. There simply is no catalogue for it.

 

Multichannel - simply not practical for most, from both space and expense considerations - especially if we are talking about quality equipment. I'd love to have a 5.1 system, but I can barely find space for 2 channel.

 

Can "they all be right"? Well, they sort of can - because we don't all hear the same thing when we listen. My "natural sounding" might be your "rounded off and flabby". So multiple different sounding technologies will continue to exist.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
Other thoughts on this are what type DAC? NOS, Multi-bit, sigma delta PCM, DSD single bit or DSD multi-bit or DXD 32 bit. Which is the true holy grail path to full transparency? All have adherents. They can't all be right can they or can they? If they are all right then any of those will do.

 

Does the true audiophile need multiple DACs for all these types or one unit with multiple approaches built in? I think that path is lunacy.

 

Further as to where we go, the innovation which definitely has the potential to improve fidelity and enjoyment is multi-channel. Yet I also would rank it with those having had ample chance and gotten nowhere in the market. Extra channels vs a new stereo format is far more beneficial and that it is beneficial is very clear. There simply is no catalogue for it.

 

I think that filtering should be made by the playback software feeding a non-oversampling filterless DAC.

But are audio manufacturers willing to take the risk of producing a DAC that requires specialised software to run?

 

As for resistor-ladder vs. SDM, I don't think it's even up for discussion since hardly any r2r chips are being manufactured nowadays.

 

I think that a large number of audiophiles tend to fall in love with certain concepts like single-driver, point-source, coaxial, time-coherent, DSD, r2r, NOS, S.E.T., PRaT, etc.

The press generates the fad and the industry takes advantage of the market niche.

In a way, the industry is driven by demand, which is why you see more and more manufacturers offering DSD ability (even when in the past they criticised it's performance).

 

 

Personally I have little interest in multi-channel; it's expensive, more difficult to setup and requires more floorspace, a problem for those of us living in Europe where living rooms are generally much smaller the North American ones.

 

I would much rather see the standardisation of minimal, adequately distanced mic'ing in 2 channel stereo recording of acoustic, non-amplified music.

 

R

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
The Achilles heel is our reliance on operating systems and PCs to support the software and file types we have invested in. I recently bought a new PC and learned that two of my favorite programs wouldn't run on Windows 10, and there is no driver available for my film scanner. This makes me wonder if, as a niche, high-res audio files will get left in the dustbin after the next major innovation in PC development. And innovation in audiophile technology is as much about choice as it is improvement unless you have a lot of money to play with. Most of what we see now as a proliferation of media types and players is simply driven by free market capitalism.

 

That's a good reason to run multiple OSs, or just Linux/Unix if that's your preference. Standards on Linux/Unix tend to remain very stable and backward-compatible over time, and older hardware is supported longer.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
A year or two I saw figures that showed jazz and classical together were about 5-6% of the total sales of music. Now take that hi-res is a small part of that....

 

edit: quick look for figures showed this. Not exact agreement, but the overall picture is clear:

• U.S. music album sales by genre 2014 | Statistic

Nielson Study Reveals Rock Prevails As Most Popular Genre In The US - hypebot

• UK album sales: genre breakdown 2014 | Statistic

 

I think what I saw earlier included Europe, where Jazz and Classical are small, but a much larger percentage than in the US.

 

I'm surprised rock still leads. I would have thought it was past its prime/heday. I mainly listen to rock from the 60s and 70s - Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Deep Purple, Rainbow, Queen, The Who, The Doors, etc. Those pretty much died out by the 80s and since then its all been rap/hip-hop with a brief period of pop/disco. Very surprising rock still leads the musical charge.

Next to the Word of God, the noble art of music is the greatest treasure in the world - Martin Luther

Link to comment

Hirez, Pono, DSD, MQA just have not reached escape velocity. I really would hate for most DACs to end up like AVRs. All having to support a couple dozen formats instead of one good one : PCM.

 

Virtually all music in studios is being recorded in 44/24. Videos in 48/24. A DAC doing this only and very well with good facilities to interface with software and networked sources is all that is needed. I'll throw in 96/24 for good measure.

 

I see the same set of facts, but draw a different conclusion, especially as in regard to AVRs.

 

AVRs have been handling DSD for quite some time now, as well as pushing the boundaries on sound and video processing. Consumers want better and better fidelity and the AVR manufacturers routinely do what the high end DAC manufacturers decry. They deliver high fidelity and good sound to anyone who wants it.

 

I think the greatest hue and cry from the high end audio industry is not about the technical merits of this or that format, but rather than many are crying foul because the technology went past them so quickly. They have a whole bunch of development costs to amortize off their books, and so yeah, they automatically say PCM is the best.

 

It wasn't but a scant half dozen years ago that a lot of DAC makers were decrying anything above 16/44.1 as useless. Then it 24/96, then 24/192, now it is ultra high rate PCM and DSD. A few of course, really did know what they were talking about, and it was not uncommon six years ago for a 24/96 DAC to sound better than 24/192 DAC.

 

But the AVR manufacturers just say - yep. And included the capabilities in their devices.

 

Many folks in our hobby swear at AVR's, but I think they are misguided. Just listen to a good AVR, even one that isn't that expensive, and you can hear amazing things. A good PrePro hooked to capable amps is even better. That's before you even begin to consider multi-channel sound.

 

-Paul

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

Here is where I struggle, I'm not a tech savy person. I have a hard enough time wading through all the acronyms and minutia of detail that's discussed here in CA much less learn Linux.

 

If audiophilia is to thrive it will have to rise to the top as a simple, affordable and superior form of music listening.

That I ask questions? I am more concerned about being stupid than looking like I might be.

Link to comment

Higher config rigs with specialized playback s/w, feeding NOS DACs, etc. is one end of the spectrum. I've not dug in deep, but I've played with the likes of Bug Head Emperor and feel its too much hassle even with the pronounced improvement in SQ.

 

That said there is also another spectrum that's completely overlooked in the SOC/SBC segment. I've moved to a $35 Raspberry Pi and found it beat my $2500 PC hands down in every department. Better dynamics, detail, lower noise floor, etc. In fact it made my speakers disappear. I've since added multiple $35 Chromecast Audios and have never had it so good - relative since I'm all redbook and not high res or even remotely DSD. But the improvement, even for redbook, has been so startling that I've finally found myself accepting of computers (SBC/SOC in particular) as serious devices for music playback. Otherwise even with multiple PCs, multiple configs, playback s/w, etc. all ranging from $2000 to $4000 I always felt something was lacking/missing in computer playback... my $3500 Ayon CDP would walk over all of my PCs.

 

The Pi (and others of its ilk) are however serious contenders for audio playback. I've run into scores of people using everything from the likes of moOde, Rune, etc. to Squeezebox/LMS distros and finding a huge improvement over the traditional PC. Of course not without the traditional snake oil coming to the fore... now we are beginning to see Linear Power Supplies for the Pi, heatsinks, etc., but still it bodes well for quality audio on the cheap for new entrants into this hobby of ours who are not willing to put down $2000 for a PC build just to play music. Pi DACs (HiFiBerry, IQAudio) are also good budget options.

 

PS: Just wanted to mention that a NAS is the preferred way to go with a Pi, so that's not exactly $35 for a new mini computer to play your music on, but even a $500-$600 Synology NAS with NAS grade hard drives still works out a lot cheaper than a custom PC build with the likes of Windows for music playback.

Next to the Word of God, the noble art of music is the greatest treasure in the world - Martin Luther

Link to comment
The Achilles heel is our reliance on operating systems and PCs to support the software and file types we have invested in. I recently bought a new PC and learned that two of my favorite programs wouldn't run on Windows 10, and there is no driver available for my film scanner. This makes me wonder if, as a niche, high-res audio files will get left in the dustbin after the next major innovation in PC development.

 

I think you're conflating apples with oranges here. Application software is one thing; file formats are another. I'm not saying file formats never become obsolete (tried to open any dBase or PhotoCD files lately?), but there's usually plenty of warning and conversion options are available, at least during the transitional period. We have a number of fairly standard audio file formats (FLAC, ALAC, WAV, AIFF, and sometimes DSF) that serve most people well, and there's no particular reason to think these will suddenly become unusable because you install a new version of Windows … although you might need to update your playback or transcoding software.

 

That said, I feel your pain with respect to beloved software that won't run any more: Where are the Claris Emailers of yesteryear?

 

--David

Listening Room: Mac mini (Roon Core) > iMac (HQP) > exaSound PlayPoint (as NAA) > exaSound e32 > W4S STP-SE > Benchmark AHB2 > Wilson Sophia Series 2 (Details)

Office: Mac Pro >  AudioQuest DragonFly Red > JBL LSR305

Mobile: iPhone 6S > AudioQuest DragonFly Black > JH Audio JH5

Link to comment
Multichannel - simply not practical for most, from both space and expense considerations - especially if we are talking about quality equipment. I'd love to have a 5.1 system, but I can barely find space for 2 channel.

 

IMO, it's neither expensive, nor does it take a lot of space. The gist of the expense is in the sub and it's amplification (but assuming you already have a good AVR, the amp part is covered). Another way you can do it from the computer is use a multi-channel card first before getting into the amp (it must have multiple simultaneous inputs like mine has for DVD analogue).

 

The back speakers only need to make a diffuse sound, not a super precise one. They need not be big either.

 

So, in fact, if you can try putting in spare speakers at the back you may find you get great results already.

 

Of course, expenses can ratchet up very fast: two subs and their amp/filters, stands for placement, mounting brackets for more advanced (whatever that means) back/surround speakers.

Dedicated Line DSD/DXD | Audirvana+ | iFi iDSD Nano | SET Tube Amp | Totem Mites

Surround: VLC | M-Audio FastTrack Pro | Mac Opt | Panasonic SA-HE100 | Logitech Z623

DIY: SET Tube Amp | Low-Noise Linear Regulated Power Supply | USB, Power, Speaker Cables | Speaker Stands | Acoustic Panels

Link to comment

Jud: In thinking about your question, I think it is helpful to both separate technological innovation between hardware and software and to look at how similar changes have or have not occurred in adjacent industries. So here are a number of fairly broad assertions:

 

1. The difference must be noticeable to all. Any new media format that requires both new software and hardware is particularly challenged and probably DOA unless it both rapidly offers the "full catalog" and offers a qualitative sound differs virtually all can hear. A good example from an adjacent industry is the difference between 1080P (hi-res) TV's and Blu-ray/streaming hi-res content (a success) and the move to 3D and 4K televisions (probably failures).

 

2. Simplify the Upgrade path. Separating the software from the hardware to allow separate upgrade paths increases survival chances. The personal computer industry has learned that lesson and although many do not, many of us do individually upgrade components like graphics cards, disc drives, hard disks and, of course, software without upgrading the whole system.

 

3. Don't ignore the subscription model. In theory a major player could do what software companies like Adobe are doing and offer you a content license that gives you access to the latest and greatest media format for as long as you are a subscriber. To some extent the progression from iTunes to Tidal/Qobuz are already taking us in that direction.

 

4. Products often get torn up before they get put back together. By this I mean that we are in the tearing apart phase, creating lots of new product niches and offerings that explore new directions and possibilities. Some of those will be dead ends, but others will get adopted broadly. Over time the industry will converge on the stuff that gets broad adoption and consolidate more and more of it into complete single product offerings.

 

5. Might PCM and DSD be like Apple and PC? We don't really need two separate computing platforms, but Microsoft and Apple have found ways to sufficiently separate the consumer experience such that enough of us continue to choose each to keep them both healthy. In a streaming world that offered hi-res streams in both formats why would you insist on only one? Same could be true of MQA. Only problem is when they require new hardware -- that may become MQA's biggest limitation and as DACs begin to specialize on being really good with hi-res PCM or hi-res DSD (but not both) whoever wins that technical war may dictate which format wins.

Synology NAS>i7-6700/32GB/NVIDIA QUADRO P4000 Win10>Qobuz+Tidal>Roon>HQPlayer>DSD512> Fiber Switch>Ultrarendu (NAA)>Holo Audio May KTE DAC> Bryston SP3 pre>Levinson No. 432 amps>Magnepan (MG20.1x2, CCR and MMC2x6)

Link to comment
I'm surprised rock still leads. I would have thought it was past its prime/heday. I mainly listen to rock from the 60s and 70s - Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Deep Purple, Rainbow, Queen, The Who, The Doors, etc. Those pretty much died out by the 80s and since then its all been rap/hip-hop with a brief period of pop/disco. Very surprising rock still leads the musical charge.

 

I guess pop is mostly streamed (youtubed) or stolen (downloaded for "free").

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment

orgel: I will tamp down my fear and hang on for the ride. My concern is that I have to spend a lot of time keeping up with the changes in my technology just to maintain status quo with the functions that I use. This is really a timely discussion. Last week I started writing a summary of how and why my CA music system works; not for myself, for anybody else who might be interested, like my son. The first page was almost identical to the first post, here. If I were to disassemble all the components and leave no clue as how to configure Foobar or JRiver, the music would never play again at my house. Should it really be that difficult? It wasn't that many years ago that we were waiting for the SACD HDCD war to settle. If one of those formats had actually dominated the market I might not even be playing with a PC right now. My music system would be plug and play and I would have a pile of either SACDs HDCDs.

 

In the meantime, I bought a outboard DAC and ripped my CD and started downloading .flac format and, and, . . . . . . . well, in my opinion, there hasn't been any durable solution to achieving really good affordable sound. I just don't take a lot of pleasure anymore investing a lot of time in learning new technology when there are so many other things filling my time.

That I ask questions? I am more concerned about being stupid than looking like I might be.

Link to comment
I'm surprised rock still leads. I would have thought it was past its prime/heday. I mainly listen to rock from the 60s and 70s - Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Deep Purple, Rainbow, Queen, The Who, The Doors, etc. Those pretty much died out by the 80s and since then its all been rap/hip-hop with a brief period of pop/disco. Very surprising rock still leads the musical charge.

 

I'm a little suspicious of some of the categories. I'd guess that some of what they define as dance, pop, rock, and R&B may be closer to hip-hop. But the big picture stays the same: jazz and classical - really small.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment

Where I am going from here:

 

1. My preferred output stage format for the DAC is SDM.

 

2. I want this to be as simple as possible for the D/A, i.e. I like the simple discrete filter with very high rate DSD approach, or the chip-less DAC approach.

 

3. I like it paired with tube amplifier, so if the DAC itself has a tubed output stage, then that's even better.

 

4. For all the audiophile tweaking we do every where in the chain, we still have crossovers boxed in the same cabinet with drivers which are intermediates between the amp power and the drivers. I want my setup to be active crossover -> amp -> drivers directly.

 

5. Balanced Power and Balanced Interconnect will be implemented and many more audio projects for SQ as well.

 

Where the market is going:

 

1. It will probably fluctuate little for a good while: the masses are still indulging in lossy files.

 

2. The flawed boxed crossover design will still be the norm. It could be that one day there is a massive paradigm shift into the better architecture, who knows.

 

3. The market still lags behind for me in terms of available downloads of native DSD music, especially in the genre I am mostly likely to enjoy: pop/electronic music. It will probably still be the case for a while.

 

4. Getting more pop/electronic and generally more music in DSD requires some recording/mixing/mastering engineers to put on their old analogue hats again. It's worthwhile for SQ, but many are heavily invested in digital gear and it a heavily digital-processing based workflow.

 

Thoughts on the discrepancy of what I chose as architecture and how the market is and will be:

 

1. I am not too concerned about the actual direction of the mass market. I am in a niche within a niche within a niche: I record my own music and I often build my own equipment. I am a DIY Audiophile/Systems Engineer coupled with a music maker and recording/mixing/mastering engineer all in one (is coupled even a good term here?). So I am not waiting for the masses to wake up or anything like that. I want the best for what I listen to, and I will make it if I need to.

 

2. The lack of native DSD or DSD derived from otherwise high-res recordings in my preferred style of music doesn't perturb me much. Yes, I would like to have official, high-rate DSD downloads of my favourite bands like Depeche Mode, Erasure, Jean-Michel Jarre, etc... etc..., but the current solutions for real-time upsampling to very high-rate DSD (HQ Player + NAA or direct, offline conversion) and the growing number of solutions for the DAC side (I prefer native DSD or chip-less + tube) make the potential wait all too easy!

 

3. The various formats and plethora of solutions isn't something to be sad or mad about. Instead, it is something to be appreciated and even revered. It is healthy competition which brings us the superlative.

 

I have years of enjoyment with my current setup and I'm in no hurry. But if there's an itch, I can scratch it by building things myself (to take the term from the Open Source software world).

 

With the Internet, we are able to meld powerful minds from across the world and from across time to create new, unheard of devices of untold quality.

 

There's never been a better time to be an audiophile, and engineer, a learner and a builder, and there's nothing to be afraid of, and every reason to revel and rejoice.

Dedicated Line DSD/DXD | Audirvana+ | iFi iDSD Nano | SET Tube Amp | Totem Mites

Surround: VLC | M-Audio FastTrack Pro | Mac Opt | Panasonic SA-HE100 | Logitech Z623

DIY: SET Tube Amp | Low-Noise Linear Regulated Power Supply | USB, Power, Speaker Cables | Speaker Stands | Acoustic Panels

Link to comment
IMO, it's neither expensive, nor does it take a lot of space. The gist of the expense is in the sub and it's amplification (but assuming you already have a good AVR, the amp part is covered). Another way you can do it from the computer is use a multi-channel card first before getting into the amp (it must have multiple simultaneous inputs like mine has for DVD analogue).

 

The back speakers only need to make a diffuse sound, not a super precise one. They need not be big either.

 

So, in fact, if you can try putting in spare speakers at the back you may find you get great results already.

 

Of course, expenses can ratchet up very fast: two subs and their amp/filters, stands for placement, mounting brackets for more advanced (whatever that means) back/surround speakers.

 

I have no doubts that I can get better performance with an integrated and a single pair of speakers for a given budget than if I have to spread that amount over a 5+1 speaker set and a multichannel amplifier.

I also doubt that an AV amplifier can compete with a dedicated two channel amplifier.

 

And I can assure you that you'd have a hard time setting up 5 speakers and a sub in an average UK room, let alone placing them in and adequate position.

 

R

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
I just don't take a lot of pleasure anymore investing a lot of time in
[fill in the blank]
when there are so many other things filling my time.

 

I'm sure most of us could say this.

 

When did we all get so dang busy?

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
[fill in the blank]

 

I'm sure most of us could say this.

 

When did we all get so dang busy?

 

When I was blessed with a brace of grandchildren and the free time in retirement to spend leisure time with my wife.

That I ask questions? I am more concerned about being stupid than looking like I might be.

Link to comment

1. The difference must be noticeable to all. Any new media format that requires both new software and hardware is particularly challenged and probably DOA unless it both rapidly offers the "full catalog" and offers a qualitative sound differs virtually all can hear. A good example from an adjacent industry is the difference between 1080P (hi-res) TV's and Blu-ray/streaming hi-res content (a success) and the move to 3D and 4K televisions (probably failures).

 

3D agreed, but I'm thinking 4K could be a success. (In some ways it's too bad about 3D. I bought one because Best Buy had a deal that made financial sense even if I never used the 3D capability. In the early days, sporting events like the Masters were rebroadcast in 3D. You haven't really seen the layout of one of the Masters greens unless you've seen it in 3D or been to Augusta.)

 

4. Products often get torn up before they get put back together. By this I mean that we are in the tearing apart phase, creating lots of new product niches and offerings that explore new directions and possibilities. Some of those will be dead ends, but others will get adopted broadly. Over time the industry will converge on the stuff that gets broad adoption and consolidate more and more of it into complete single product offerings.

 

We don't really think much about the fact that computers themselves are in the very early "fiddly" stages. When my dad used to get aggravated at his computer I'd ask him if he remembered the old crystal radio sets and how much fiddling around they took to work decently (not that I knew first hand, but I'd read about it). A tremendous amount of the aggravation in this hobby is directly attributable to that. But as you point out, this leaves the door open for a great deal of hardware and software experimentation that couldn't take place otherwise.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment

4. Products often get torn up before they get put back together. By this I mean that we are in the tearing apart phase, creating lots of new product niches and offerings that explore new directions and possibilities. Some of those will be dead ends, but others will get adopted broadly. Over time the industry will converge on the stuff that gets broad adoption and consolidate more and more of it into complete single product offerings.

 

I agree. These are golden days of innovation in digital audio. And they are far from over.

 

 

I think that filtering should be made by the playback software feeding a non-oversampling filterless DAC.

But are audio manufacturers willing to take the risk of producing a DAC that requires specialised software to run?

 

Yes, that is very much a dilemma. Really good SRC and SDM in a DAC takes a lot of human and silicon resources.

The recent coordination between the HQ Player engine and ROON--if it really builds a user base--might take some of the risk out for a DAC maker to produce a product that accepts very high rates but which does not necessarily upsample itself.

 

 

Consumers want better and better fidelity and the AVR manufacturers routinely do what the high end DAC manufacturers decry. They deliver high fidelity and good sound to anyone who wants it.

 

Sorry Paul, I disagree:

a) I don't think buyers of AVRs are demanding better fidelity (really? from what, their DVDs or Netflix streams?). I doubt they are even demanding more features, though better switching capability and decipherable interfaces are often welcomed.

 

b) The AVR manufacturers are under pressure (from their parent corporations) to keep selling units, and they get stuck in the same specs/features race as car makers do. So they come out with new versions of all their models each year, putting in whatever are the latest chips they are offered. Atmos, DTS:X, AURO-3D? Lots of formats and buzzwords to support with very titles available. All packed in a $500-600 receiver (the most popular price range).

 

 

Where might all these threads start coming together? Anybody remember - or build - Heathkits? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathkit) It seems to me something like that approach, though more Web-based, is very possible now for DACs. The instructions for building the kit, as well as how to make your own filters with sox, along with suggested parameters for typical filters, could easily be provided via the Web, and printed down by anyone wanting a hard copy.

 

Will this take over the market from pre-built audio equipment? Hardly. What it may help do, though, is two things:

 

- De-mystify and perhaps lower the price of pre-built DACs.

 

- Like the old Heathkits, inspire a new generation of audio entrepreneurs and enthusiasts.

 

This is an area that I really like. As an entrepreneur working with a gifted engineer, it is important to me that the enthusiast market stays vibrant, curious, and educated. For every dozen DIYers, there a hundreds who lurk, learn, and long for someone to offer a cutting--edge product at a terrific price.

 

 

Oh, the phone is ringing, the dog is barking, and UPS is driving up. That's all for now. Fun thread!

 

--Alex C.

Link to comment
Sorry Paul, I disagree:

a) I don't think buyers of AVRs are demanding better fidelity (really? from what, their DVDs or Netflix streams?). I doubt they are even demanding more features, though better switching capability and decipherable interfaces are often welcomed.

 

b) The AVR manufacturers are under pressure (from their parent corporations) to keep selling units, and they get stuck in the same specs/features race as car makers do. So they come out with new versions of all their models each year, putting in whatever are the latest chips they are offered. Atmos, DTS:X, AURO-3D? Lots of formats and buzzwords to support with very titles available. All packed in a $500-600 receiver (the most popular price range).

 

Plenty of room to disagree. But consider, have you listened to an Atmos system playing back a high res movie? Have you seen the difference a 4K display makes?

Did you know you can stream 4K content from Netflix, Youtube, Amazon, Vudu, and other providers? You can. For $12.99/month. :)

 

The audio that goes with hi-res video today is often just purely awesome as well.

 

Those AVR's are using a lot of what the high end audio industry decries to reproduce that video and hi-res music. That's indisputable.

 

I will point out that $500 for an AVR is a big expense for most people, but they are paying it not only for the switching, but for the quality of output it provides. Which is astonishingly good. Especially since models in the $500 range typically include room correction. The more expensive models, in the $5K range and above, easily compete with most high end systems. (grin)

 

-Paul

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
Where I am going from here:

 

snip, snip…

 

I have years of enjoyment with my current setup and I'm in no hurry. But if there's an itch, I can scratch it by building things myself (to take the term from the Open Source software world).

 

With the Internet, we are able to meld powerful minds from across the world and from across time to create new, unheard of devices of untold quality.

 

There's never been a better time to be an audiophile, and engineer, a learner and a builder, and there's nothing to be afraid of, and every reason to revel and rejoice.

 

 

Terrific, thoughtful, and honest post YashN. Good fuel for this interesting discussion. :)

Link to comment
I also doubt that an AV amplifier can compete with a dedicated two channel amplifier.

 

You are right on the money, but with the right source/transport, a good DAC, and the AVR in direct mode (processing turned off) you can get pretty decent sound. Of course no head to head comparison to a stereo amp (not right now at least), but for the money AVRs actually do everything quite well... especially these days. The other day I heard a Marantz AVR with a good DAC chip that actually sounded very good with FLAC rips, nothing amiss, excellent transparency and detail, and the separation and placement was spot on. I had a similar experience with a Cambridge CXR200 playing audio.

 

The Oppo (though not an amp) is another example of a multi-solution unit actually performing really well in a particular department (DAC in this case).

 

Eventually I think that's how the future is going to look... everything in a single box solution. I mean how many of us really want multiple DACs even if we can afford them. I'd rather upsample/downsample/transcode my music or simply go with something like Naim Mu-so for the simplicity.

Next to the Word of God, the noble art of music is the greatest treasure in the world - Martin Luther

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...