Pro gear = digital nirvana

[fahadm]

I don't understand these cryptic questions, nonetheless, I'll attempt to answer as best as I can: Consoles are used to listen to various input lines. Example of an analog Neve console at a 5.1 studio below:

 

http://www.ams-neve.com/Products/Music/88RS/88RS.aspx

 

 

 

There are 'simpler' analog consoles for 2.0 mixing.

 

(1) The signal is heard first-hand in the analog domain; then

(2) Signal is digitized using a a/d; then

(3) Signal is monitored using a d/a

 

FWIW, distribution occurs in the digital domain "stage (2)" (e.g. redbook, mp3, wav, flac).

 

The test: stage (3) should yield the closest reproduction of stage (1). This can be ascertained by software and/or actual listening.

 

I suggest you read a bit about mixing and monitoring to get a feel of this, or ask a professional who has done studio work.

 

If any reader wishes to add anything I missed please go ahead.

 

[barrows]

This much is clear:

 

"I don't understand..."

 

I am well aware of common studio techniques. I am willing to explain my point of view of the flaw in the test methodology you reference. The reference "mic feed" as played back through the board is already flawed, due to its playback through less than state of the art circuitry, and in many cases poor speakers, poor amplifiers, poorly setup, etc, etc, etc.

I have nothing against the Prism Orpheus, in fact I suspect that is a very good ADC, DAC. But a test done as described here does not prove much. Now comparisons between a live piano sound, and a recorded piano sound via the Orpheus vs. another converter would tell one much more of what the Orpheus sounds like.

Starting with the assumption that audio performance in the studio environment is beyond reproach is a flawed point of view.

 

 

[firedog]

I don't think it's a given that one is a better value than the other.

As others noted, pro equipment often has "unnecessary" features or is lacking features an audiophile may see as a deal breaker.

 

For instance, I wouldn't buy the MH products, as they are firewire/MAC based, and that's a route I just don't want to go.

 

The cosmetic factor shouldn't be overlooked either. In terms of retail cost, the high end cosmetics of audiophile gear can actually be the source of most of the cost paid by the consumer at retail. Pro gear can be plain looking or even ugly, and sales don't suffer for it. Definitely not true with audiophile gear, which often has to be on display in a living room, and often needs to satisfy interior decorating needs. Without that it won't sell in significant numbers.

 

The different marketing methods and channels involved are also significant. The cost involved in support and distribution to audiophile dealers are large. As such, when you buy audiophile gear, you aren't just paying for what's in the box, you are also paying for showroom, demos, dealer support, trade in opportunities with the dealer, etc. If that means nothing to you, then the burgeoning number of Internet only audio companies are probably your best bet for value.

 

[icebreaker]

fahadm wrote:"These products are being used by professionals in studios for a reason, and only now, do I know the reason why. Engineers have so much exposure to live music recording, it must be very hard to sell them poor value products. I’ve learned a valuable lesson: buy pro gear for best value/performance ratio. "

 

If these engineering professionals have such a monopoly on sound quality, audio nirvana, objectivity, facts, and truth Vs. the irrational, cryptic audiophiles and the companies that sell products to them then why are the vast majority of CDs recorded so poorly? It might be hard to sell them poor value products but they sure aren't using those products very well and they don't seem to mind selling poor value CD recordings to audiophiles/consumers. I've thrown enough in the garbage.

 

BTW, don't worry about "stepping on anyone's toes" with this tired stereoptype.

 

[souptin]

To be fair to the recording industry, the quality they achieve is constrained or dictated by perceived market forces. For example high compression to give a punchy sound to music that will mostly be listened to at low bitrates and so on. Not to mention the technical limitations of certain *cough* artists - if your main problem is getting the talent sobered up enough to perform half decently before you bankrupt yourself paying for studio time you might not care so much about having your lovingly warmed up / run in snakeskin and camel hair interconnects perfectly balanced on their unobtainum cable risers.

 

"Professional" in this context to me only means that you or the equipment is able to be used to earn some money. Sure, sound quality is obviously a part of that but it isn't the only factor.

 

I agree with the original proposition that some professional gear also works well for home use, but not so much with the "pro-gear = digital nirvana" headline. Cosmetics, the value for money equation, complexity and features having already been discussed here. One thing that hasn't been mentioned so much is whether there are any generalisations we can make about the sound quality of pro vs 'amateur' equipment. "Analytical" vs "euphonic" for example (please forgive me for re-using the cliches, I tried and failed to think of anything better).

 

From a selfish point of view, I'd be interested in different people's approaches to shopping. It's always been the case that pro audio has had completely separate shops / distribution. You can get to see and try a big variety of kit, but given that everyone else in the shop is doing the same it's far from an ideal listening environment. Big difference from a higher end hifi dealer, and obviously both are very different from the internet experience where you can browse around endlessly but at the end of the day you've basically got to throw down your money and hope for the best.

 

[BEEMB]

 

My brother replaced his Naim and Pro-Ac setup with a less expensive Sonos Firebox and pair of Mackie Studio monitors. For less money he has definately achieved better sound.

 

Matt.

 

[barrows]

I mostly agree with your comments regarding recording and recording engineers, but I do think that they get into some "bad" habits because of the situations you describe, and then tend to then apply these "bad" habits to recording situations where they are unnecessary. It seems that it is all to common for everything to go through Protools, to be "fixed", and that the recording process relies on this ability to "fix" things (and it seems many engineers believe these fixes to be transparent as well) rather than getting the tracks down clean in the first place. Of course there are exceptions to this. It continues to be a source of amazement to me how much better many old (late 50s through 60s) Jazz and Classical recordings sound vs. many contemporary recordings (despite tape hiss, etc)-these older recordings, when carefully mastered to digital often have qualities of tone and presence which very few contemporary recordings share.

I read an article in TAS where reviewer Neil Gader attended a "direct to digital" recording session. As I recall this was a minimally miked band, playing live in the studio, going direct to ADC in two channels and then direct (no dsp/equalization, etc) to hard disc. He reported astounding recording quality, both from the hard disc, and from CDR burned from the session (I do not remember the sampling rate, and the SRC used to create the CD version). In fact, Neil, a vinyl lover, considered the sound even of the 16/44.1 CDR to be better than vinyl. I think that many contemporary recording engineers believe that digital recording allows for many levels of processing in a transparent nature, without damage to the original track, it appears to me that this assumption is flawed, even though we may not know the technical reason for the degradation that occurs in DAW processing. In the analog days, recording engineers knew that every process degraded the purity of the original track, and acted accordingly, trying to limit the number of steps in the recording chain to preserve sonic quality.

 

[souptin]

No argument from me on any of those points. It's not at all uncommon in many professions to think that poor initial work can somehow be fixed further along the chain.

 

The digital age plays to these habits with it's promise of perfect copies, which promotes the illusion that you can tinker endlessly without compromise.

 

[f1eng]

Pro companies are very helpful. Prism sent me a demo unit to try at home for a couple of weeks. If I was to buy it would be from a local dealer, but the demo unit was straight from Cambridge. Brilliant.

On the price of stuff, normally retail is about 10x piece part and assembly cost ( in the hifi and car manufacturing business) shocking if you ignore all the other costs. When I worked for Garrard in the '70s the dealer margin was way more than ours, despite the design, tooling and risk costs not to mention hundreds of salaries.

Another reason domestic kit is dear is the cost of the box. A nicely made machined and anodised case is probably 50x more expensive than a painted steel box. Linear power supplies are -much- more expensive than switched mode too. The Prism has a much nicer and more expensive box than the Metric Halo...

Cheers

Frank

 

[Audio_ELF]

@f1eng...

 

You comment that Prism was able to supply you a unit to demo... Great.

 

But I assume you found the Resolution Audio Cantata Music Center (@£5,995 UK Price) superior over the Prism Orpheus (£3,225) and worth the extra money?

 

Not a ringing enforcement for "Pro gear = digital nirvana".

 

[audiozorro]

That it is relatively easy for experienced and inexperienced persons to manipulate digital files. Perhaps a both a blessing and a curse. We can clean up digital audio files. We can enhance digital audio files. We can even create musical performances that never occurred in real life. And yes, we can muck up digital audio files.

 

And perhaps perfection, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. As good (or as bad) as digital or analog are now, there's always room for improvement. Which goes to explain why the march to audio nirvana is never ending. Though at some point many stop trying to reach pinnacle of perfection and instead just enjoy what they have.

 

[mitchos98]

After having tried and used numerous audio equipment from the Hi-Fi world, I tried to think about what was used to master the cd's and record we like to listen to.

 

Then, why not using the same, or at least some of those equipment.

 

I can now say that i've found what I was looking for. Awesome sound quality, very detailed, for me the top !

 

I'm using a PC, firewire to a Weiss INT202, then to a Cranesong Avocet Studio Controller, as DAC and preamplifier, feeding audio to a pair of Studer A5 active speakers.

 

OK, the look of the Avocet is questionable in a private environment, but the goal is reached, music as I like it. For me, pro gear = audio nirvana.

 

Michel

 

[lowprofile]

Is there digital nirvana with pro gear under $2500US?

 

It seems like a 2-to-1 ratio of value is being proposed in the posts above. So a $2500 pro DAC should equal a $5000 consumer DAC.

 

And there are some big ticket price DACs being referenced above. If I were to change DACs, I'd consider Firewire under $2500. Currently using mac/itunes connected to either a) Brick DAC V2($1800) via WW Starlight USB, and b) Monarchy NM24 DAC w/ TOSLink in my office. I only need(want) 44.1/16 output capability.

 

 

 

 

[bixby]

What an interesting thread. The usual suspects have put up lots of good reasons why one can find ones nirvana in both camps. You do simply have to "listen" and sort your way through the maze.

 

I often see posts about how one can suggest to do an objective test tyo sort it out and make it all black and white. Then I wonder how long the one asking for the test has been in this "game". It is a hobby that really has no end. At least for many of us. There is no objective answer!

 

I have found very nice gear in both camps. I use a relatively modest "pro" dac with Audiophile speakers and it works for me, for now.......

 

As for value, there are tons of everyday "engineers" working on what I would call substandard pro gear that I would not use for listening in even my most budget system. The audiophile versions of small speakers and an amp for example that cost let's say about $600 vs $300 for the pro amped stuff in many cases just walk all over it for neutrality. Yet many pairs of cheap powered monitors get sold every day.

 

So I think value really is in the eye and ear of the beholder. I have tried the budget dacs on the pro side and many are no better and in many cases worse than some decent mass marketed hi fi alternatives. Lots of the midrange pro Dacs are no better than good midrange audiophile dacs (subjective example Apogee Mini Dac vs PS Audio DLIII.)

 

I am still on my own journey and have really tight budgets so no blind $4500 buys for me. But at the end of the day when a piece of gear blows ones skirt up and makes them happy (old TX saying, you have to appreciate ones enthusiasm for that part of their system.

 

[bixby]

Is there digital nirvana with pro gear under $2500US?

It seems like a 2-to-1 ratio of value is being proposed in the posts above. So a $2500 pro DAC should equal a $5000 consumer DAC.

 

It really depends on what you like. For example, given your 2 to 1 ratio of consumer vs pro, I recently spent time listening to an Ayre QB-9 @ $2500 vs a Apogee Mini DAC w/ firewire at about $1k. To me they are not even in the same league. The Ayre was that much better to my ears. I also would put the Ayre up against the Antelope Zodiac Plus at $2500 and bet you could get a split decision at that price point. And that would totally mess up the 2 to 1 reference.

 

 

 

[fahadm]

"Is there digital nirvana with pro gear under $2500US?"

 

Before I pulled the trigger on the Orpheus, the dealer suggested the Apogee Rosetta 200 ($1795). He told me that a lot of radio and television broadcasting stations are using Apogee gear (the dealer is doing installations and training for broadcasters). I believe you can add a firewire card (to get rid of the jitter 'demons'). The dealer wanted to save me some money by getting an Apogee as Prism doesn't have a similarly-targeted offering (yes, they're nice people).

 

Otherwise, the Lavry Blue at $850 sounds very neutral and non-fatiguing. Can't compare it to others though because it wasn't in my system.

 

[barrows]

Thanks for posting those observations. I would also offer up the Wyred 4 Sound DAC2, at $1500.00 this is going to blow the Apogee stuff away, and offers tremendous value.

 

[lowprofile]

thanks for the apogee recommendation.

 

[lowprofile]

Of course my 2-to-1 ratio is just a generalization of the costs tossed around above but you all get my point. If someone things there is a better ratio speak up.

 

@ Bixby: The Antelope Zodiac offering looks interesting. Not much on it. Have you listened to it? And the Type B USB input is an odd choice.

 

 

@ Barrows: While the Wyred 4 Sound DAC2 is not pro gear, I coincidentally plan to listen to it in my own system tomorrow.

 

[bixby]

Yes I have listened to it and it is in fine company with the Ayre. A bit too bright a flavor for me but resolving nonetheless.

 

I am curious to hear the Wyred DAC2 and some friends plan on acquiring as soon as the backlog is filled. But it may be months or after RMAF before I get to hear it.

 

I hope someone is going to surprise us at RMAF with some under $1k async USB dac that steps up the race in that category.

 

As usual though, I do not expect any pro companies to be in attendance.

 

I can't believe less than 30 days away til RMAF!

 

Anyone in Denver have a Halide bridge or ART Legato they care to bring over before that?

 

[fahadm]

I like the business model of Wyred 4 Sound DAC2. Direct sales, no advertising, no dealer commissions, efficient distribution. Not to mention high quality electronics.

 

This DAC may well be a giant killer.

 

Can anyone share their experiences please?

 

[audiozorro]

A strong definite yes. I can't remember who first told me about the Korg MR-2000S but I'm convinced that I would have to spend at least $5K, if not $10K, to find something better. Of course the Korg MR-2000S is primarily a PCM and DSD recorder, but with A/D and D/A it can be used as a DAC. A few comments from highly respected "Pros" in response to inexpensive master stereo digital recorders are below.

 

 

Originally Posted by Thor

"We have the Korg MR-2000S, it sounds really good for the price, and will do DSD if you're into that.

 

Cheers,

Thor

_________________

Sonovo mastering

stereo + 5.1 mastering, editing and restoration

Stavanger, Norway

www.sonovo.no"

 

 

Originally Posted by Bruce A. Brown

"Same thing here. It's the best recorder I've heard under $10k!! We get DSD files from a lot of studios.

__________________

Bruce A. Brown

Puget Sound Studios

Seattle, Washington"

 

[f1eng]

I auditioned several units at home in my system in comparison to my existing dCs P8i player and Goldmund Mimesis 36+/20 combination.

I tried:

Weiss DAC2

Metric Halo MIO-2

Sonic Studio Model 4 (same as Metric Halo LIO-8)

Sonic Studio Model 5 (same as Metric Halo ULN-8)

Prism Orpheus

Resolution Audio Cantata

Linn Klimax DS

I would say that my preference probably was more or less in the order of price. All were preferable to the dCs, which has a hard edge on CD, probably in its analogue electronics of which I know nothing (I use it uniquely for SACDs because of this). None matched the old but much more expensive Goldmund until I got to the Cantata, which was quite a lot better than the Linn. I was very surprised by how much better than the others the Cantata was. A demo unit was rather late coming and I had impatiently already bought the LIO-8 which I slightly preferred to the Orpheus, despite much preferring the Orpheus cosmetics. The Ayre DX-5 was also on my list to evaluate but a demo unit never became available, and the video side would have been wasted.

cheers,

Frank

 

[f1eng]

I learned in the 70s that listening to an item oneself was the only way to choose. The fact that somebody else likes the sound of an item is, IME, no guarantee it will match what I like in my system. If one likes the Wyred 4 Sound unit when you have bought it, fine, but if not it is not so cheap any more.

cheers,

Frank

 

[fahadm]

@ Frank: Thank you for sharing the results of your shoot-out. I'm intrigued by the Cantata. Does Resolution Audio sell pro gear through a subsidiary/sister company?

 

@ Audio_ELF: I still believe that pro gear offers superior sonic performance. Prism sell high(er)-end converters for mastering (superior to the Orpheus which was designed to achieve a more 'affordable' price point).

 

FWIW, I got the Orpheus for GBP 2,780 ($4,170) as I don't have to pay VAT (export goods).