Pro gear = digital nirvana

[Always.Learning]

I just happened to read through this thread and caught Clay's earlier comment: "Perhaps Charles will have an all out assault soon, but as cost effective (of an audiophile implementation) as his QB-9 is, I don't recall anyone reporting that they preferred it to MH/Prism/Weiss boxes." Well, I went on the record in an earlier post as preferring the QB-9 to the Weiss DAC2. Here is the link: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/One-Persons-Journey-Choosing-DAC.

Maybe I'm the exception, and I will concede that the Weiss unit was not fully burned in when I auditioned it, but the verdict, according to my ears, was decisive in favor of the Ayre product.

 

 

[f1eng]

They take great care over earths power supplies etc..

BTW I tried a linear power supply with the Metric Halo and heard no improvement.

Cheers Frank

 

[barrows]

I believe I mentioned earlier in this thread that I have read reports of at least a couple of people preferring the QB-9 to Metric Halo and Sonic DACs. Of course, other's opinions may vary.

These experiences just emphasize the importance of listening to these products in your own system, and not relying on other's "feelings" about how DACs sound.

 

[Audio_ELF]

Generally agreeing with Barrows here: one big element of the DACs we're talking about is that there is a big element of taste to which is the "best" to a particular listener. One user prefers Naim DAC; another the MH ULN8; a third the Chord QBD76 and yet another prefers the QB-9 to them all.

 

Eloise

 

[f1eng]

It is important to listen to everything you may buy at home in your own system. Certainly where preferences for tonal balance are concerned.

Better spatial and detail resolution may be absolute, but something with a fabulous stereo image which resolves detail you have never heard from your discs before is not much use to you if it is too bright in your room/system, for example.

The big gain of the Cantata over the others is in spatial and detail resolution. And it is a -big- difference believe me. Mind you I am listening to my favourite recording of Prokofiev's 1st violin concerto just now and the tonal balance and clarity is truly stunning too...

In my room, with my system, of course.

Frank

 

[Purite Audio]

True to an extent, but some dacs are clearly just better than others irrespective of taste, dynamics, resolution, tone and timbre and spacial resolution.

Keith.

 

[fahadm]

I agree with Keith.

 

David Manley, who's a very good friend and a respected analog designer, told me that an audio component shouldn't have any particular sound; it should be absolutely neutral across the entire frequency spectrum from 20 Hz to 20 kHz. Any change to the sound at, say a particular frequency, no matter how pleasing to the ear, is considered distortion; an alteration to the original signal.

 

To give an example, some of the Harbeth domestic/home speakers have an artificial 'dip' in specific frequencies to better suit home users; a characteristic not shared with the Harbeth professional line. Mr. Manley does not approve of such 'alteration' and considers it a form of distortion. He prefers the Harbeth Monitor 30 over the SHL5 (but I'm a sucker for big boxes).

 

Applying this principle to DACs: a 'proper' DAC should faithfully reproduce the digital stream of bits it receives as faithfully as possible. A DAC shouldn't sound warm, or bright, or laid-back, or whatever description/jargon one reads in magazines.

 

I'm going to get crucified for saying this but: a neutral DAC shouldn't be system dependent (e.g. brighten a warm system or whatever); a DAC is NOT an equalizer.

 

IMO, synergy, or lack of, may be an indicator to something more serious (e.g. impedance mismatch between components or other problems).

 

[Audio_ELF]

But (IMO) a completely neutral system (a) does not exist and (b) if it did exist would (IMO) sound completely unnatural.

 

Pro audio devices are also designed for a different purpose (i.e. analysis rather than pleasure) and for a different environment (i.e. studio rather than domestic environment). Thats not to say each can't suit the alternative environment* and some cross the boundaries, e.g. are B&W 800D "pro" speakers which work well in domestic environment or domestic speakers which happen to work well in a studio environment?

 

Eloise

 

*monitoring a piece of music and listening (for pleasure) are two difference activities, though different people do listen in different ways which (for some) may mean Pro equipment is more appropriate for their preference than HiFi equipment.

 

[cfmsp]

 

"But (IMO) a completely neutral system (a) does not exist and (b) if it did exist would (IMO) sound completely unnatural."

 

I disagree with this statement.

 

A neutral component, i.e. DAC, would sound especially natural.

 

 

Indeed, how does one define a component's neutrality, if not based on it's sounding natural?

 

FWIW, I"m not talking about Freq Response specs - I'm talking about aspects such as the bass response of the '8 series MH boxes, which is a frequently noted attribute - the naturalness of its bass.

 

 

Re your distinction between Pro and Audiophile sound, I follow the same beliefs there as I do with the Tube/Solid State dichotomy.

 

The gear that sounds the best (to me) sounds like both and neither.

 

 

clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Audio_ELF]

"But (IMO) a completely neutral system (a) does not exist and (b) if it did exist would (IMO) sound completely unnatural."

As clay disagree's with my statement, maybe I can clarify it with an example.

 

Take a single female voice. Recorded in a good studio there will be little to no resonance from the room and captured through a good microphone there will be little distrotion provided there their. A (good) recording engineer listening in his booth will listen through good (neutral) headphone or monitor speakers. That voice will NOT sound the same as if the same singer was performing an accoustic set in a normal environment. The recording engineer has to provide some manipulation of that audio so that when played back the voice is pleasing to the listener, just as the concert venue provides resonances, etc which "manipulates" the voice for the listeners.

 

To my mind the original unprocessed voice (which is completely neutral) is going to sound unnatural without such "added" resonances, etc.

 

So to me sounding neutral and sounding natural are two different things but maybe thats my use of language.

 

Eloise

 

[barrows]

While neutrality is an admirable goal, and I believe we should try to approach neutrality in our audio systems, the fact is that neutral components do not exist. Of course, some components may be considered more neutral than others, but none are actually neutral, and it is wrong to not consider system balance when changing/adding a component to one's system.

Also, perhaps of even more importance, is that recordings are definitely not neutral, some are terribly bright, others are dark, some are horribly compressed. Additionally, no two rooms are identical, and matching systems to rooms must be considered as well.

In any case, my point is that moving in a neutral direction (which is difficult to define as well, what is the "neutral" reference?) can be desirable, we must consider the above points, and that gets us back to system/room matching.

BTW: those people who I have heard compare the Prism Orpheus to a number of other "pro" converters, usually report that the Prism is more "musical" and less "analytical/neutral" than most "pro" converters.

 

[cfmsp]

 

"In any case, my point is that moving in a neutral direction (which is difficult to define as well, what is the "neutral" reference?) can be desirable, we must consider the above points, and that gets us back to system/room matching."

 

I've offered my description of neutral, what's yours?

 

 

"BTW: those people who I have heard compare the Prism Orpheus to a number of other "pro" converters, usually report that the Prism is more "musical" and less "analytical/neutral" than most "pro" converters."

 

yes, that's my understanding as well. I could easily live with the Orpheus, and if not for getting into MH gear more cheaply, and then upgrading (for total cost much less than the Orpheus), I'd likely have one (if not a Weiss, for the same reason, lower entry level products, such as the DAC2 at only $2500).

 

The best Orpheus description I've heard (from multiple sources) is that of having a silky sound as compared to the ULN-8 (& brethren). The Weiss DACs also are often characterized as being slightly on the warm/sweet side of neutral. Certainly these two DACs might sound better with bad recordings (than say my LIO-8).

 

OTOH, the Benchmark DAC-1 is well known for being (overly, IMO) analytical, yet it has received countless accolades from the audiophile press, way more than all the other purely Pro audio DACs combined.

 

GO figure. Must be down to system matching, as you've said, Barrows.

Or perhaps there's no accounting for taste? ;0

 

IMO, the top echelon ADC/DACs more likely approach neutrality (and lose the 'house' sound), just as with audiophile gear.

 

The Orpheus, ULN/LIO-8 (and Amarra equivalents), along with the more expensive Weiss DACs are my standard (i.e. at the top of my price limits for consideration) for Pro audio ADC/DAC/mic pres, although there are certainly much more expensive gear that must sound better to someone!

 

Given my desire for Firewire interface, these are my favored options for DACs.

 

clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[earflappin]

F1eng, what linear PSU did you try with your LIO-8?

 

[jonmarsh]

I think our concepts of "neutral" are different, particularly as applied to reproduction of recordings-

 

A neutral piece of gear in principle doesn't modify the timbre, the transient amplitude envelope, or small sounds in the presence of louder sounds to the greatest extent possible- like Barry says, it retains the sound and character of the mic feed. What ever is done in the studio itself, or more appropriately, in the live venue, neutrality is the faithful retrieval of that sound without emphasis, mangling, veiling, etc. Rather a difficult thing to do, particularly with digital- my trust in that regards tends more towards high speed wide tape. It's only in the last few years that I have access to digital finally that is getting fairly close to that target; for me, the MH LIO-8 is a revelation. Haven't heard the Weiss 202, though I have a friend in Munich auditioning it now, who is quite pleased so far.

 

There's a rightness to many instruments coming out of the MH that I really appreciate and haven't heard before in digital except at ludicrous prices (dCS). With all the things you can do with a LIO-8, the value proposition is substantial, and I give a tip of the hat to Barry, Steve, and others bringing their experience of it to this board.

 

[fahadm]

@ barrows:

BTW: those people who I have heard compare the Prism Orpheus to a number of other "pro" converters, usually report that the Prism is more "musical" and less "analytical/neutral" than most "pro" converters.

 

I can't compare with the Weiss or MH, but I can tell you one thing: the Orpheus is FAR less forgiving than my Monarchy M24. It reveals everything, to the extent I feel at times 'information overload'. Very in-your-face presentation with all the nuances and detail.

 

The M24 in comparison is more 'accommodating', less revealing and can be more forgiving of poorly recorded and/or compressed tracks. Some may refer to this quality as 'warmth'. The M24 allows one to relax when hearing music. The Orpheus is the opposite, it constantly grabs your attention/focus with information, especially in the frequency extremes (both treble and bass).

 

The question is: what defines 'musical'? Is it the presentation? Frequency response? Dynamic range? Other qualities (e.g. smoothness)?

 

[barrows]

"I've offered my description of neutral, what's yours?"

 

As I think I alluded to this is very hard to define, as having an accurate reference is difficult to impossible. I guess my reference is my experience listening to many systems, as part of my background in the industry, and also that I listen to a very wide variety of music (everything from the loudest rock to the the most ephemeral jazz and classical). While this background is certainly not definitive, I hope to have a system that can sound at least listenable with all the music I care to hear-to this end I prefer my home system to be highly resolute, but to err a little on the side of what I would consider warm, otherwise some recordings would be unlistenable. How would my preferences relate to "true neutrality"? I can only speculate...

 

[f1eng]

It was supplied as an alternative to listen to by the dealer who let me audition the DAC, don't know the make, it was big and heavy as one would expect.

I was surprised to hear no difference at all.

There are persistent rants on the web about how awful switched mode power supplies are, whilst there are well regarded components by Chord and Linn which have them. I suppose, as always, it is the implementation rather than the technology which counts, the MH power supply and the box design obviously work well.

OTOH all my analogue components are connected to a Goldmund AC-Curator, so maybe if the switched mode supply is inferior due to hash it feeds to the mains (one of the much discussed possibilities), I would not hear it.

Frank

 

[audiozorro]

Perhaps there is too much jargon or too many reviews that are biased or exaggerated. If a manufacturer, reviewer, or user wants to praise or promote a units there are a list of code words to use. Likewise is one wants to diss or be critical of a product there are another set of words to use. Don’t some people ever tire of hearing descriptions of flavor of the month or year products only to be succeeded later by something better than sliced bread? I’m not really complaining since that has been the nature of our hobby for decades, but I guess I am ranting. Anyone care to add to the jargon?

 

Natural, unnatural, neutral, exciting, fatiguing, non-fatiguing, warm, cold, sterile, detailed, analytical, muddy, resolving, analog, digital, harsh, bright, rolled-off, limited, expanded, awful, wonderful, inferior, accurate, forgiving, unlistenable, linear, nonlinear, harmonic, overrated, underrated, dark, light, forward, laid-back, recessed, expansive, transparent, shallow, three dimensional, clear, congested, edgy, sharp, dull, boring, authority, weak, narrow, wide, precise, tinny, fuzzy, overpriced, giant killer.

 

How about musical?

 

[Audio_ELF]

"How about musical?"

Nahhh ... thats how everyone describes their iPod!

 

[ted_b]

just like almost everything else in this hobby (except the music). What if I postulated that each of us have different hearing abilities, not just frequency extremes, but also biases in certain frequency bands, ability to hear/not hear phase and other timing issues, etc. I mean, I have a very good friend (not naming names or locales so as to protect the innocent) who occasionally visits a reknown audio reviewer (a Hall of Fame type candidate) at his home. My friend is consistently amazed at the very high SPL's coming out of that room, as well as the significant treble peaks (read: bright) that the system produces. This revelation has huge consequences, in that it is quite possible that our terms and standards are being defined by folks who can't hear well..or at least by folks who's hearing is WAYYY different than ours. So, what is neutrality? To many, it's the ability of a piece of equipment to tone back down their system to a level of balance (be it too bright or too warm). I mean, how can one discern one piece of the signal path from the entirety (including room, etc) and call it neutral. However, if that signal path, quantifying with huge generalities, encounters a +6 (room) to -3 (cables) to -7 (preamp) to a -1 (amp), then a +5 DAC would sound "neutral" in that room. That certainly ain't neutral to the next guy/girl!!

 

Net/net, it's so very important to inhome demo any/all equipment, and if documenting or publishing one's comments, to describe ones listening tastes, habbits and system makeup in some detail so we can try to guess what his/her hearing biases are...and then extrapolate from there. Good luck, and good listening.

 

P.S. Another MH LIO-8 fan here.

 

P.P.S. "neutra" is not one of my favorite review adjectives. it makes the piece sound as if it's bland and not noteworthy. I realize that's not the intent, but it's a bias I have.

 

[barrows]

SMPS. Yes, they are evil. Most manufacturers that use SMPS use them because they are cheap and easy, they do not require large transformers (an expensive part of a power supply, even for low current components like DACs) and the entire SMPS can be purchased as a unit from a Chinese electronics parts supplier for low $$. This allows the manufacturer to not even bother with designing a power supply, as if power supply design has no influence on the quality of sound. The worst offenders are the really cheap wall wart SMPS supplies often supplied with pro gear, and with budget DACs. SMPS produce a lot of self noise, and their switching frequency is high enough for them to become broadcast RF generators as well-so the RF becomes airborne, and can then find its way into the system through many pathways.

OK, SMPS do not have to be evil (but as above, most are). Chord and Linn, for example, design their own SMPS in house (I believe the president of Chord's background is specifically in advanced SMPS design and not audio) and they design very sophisticated SMPS, with very careful attention paid to eliminate the problems inherent in poorer SMPS implementations. Anyone who sees the prices of Chord and Linn gear can see that cost savings is not the reason they use SMPS-and they design their SMPS accordingly. SMPS design is very high tech, and very complicated, and requires a complete understanding of RF design-most audio companies do not have the resources to design high performance switching supplies in house so they rely on traditional linear supplies which are proven to offer very high performance when properly implemented, or they purchase cheap SMPS from China for budget products.

With a few exceptions (Chord and Linn as examples) audiophiles are well advised to avoid products with SMPS, or to replace SMPS with high quality linear supplies.

 

[manisandher]

Another high quality SMPS manufacturer is David Berning - about as wacky a manufacturer as you're likely to find out there.

 

(Apologies for the totally OT post...)

 

Mani.

 

[souptin]

"Net/net, it's so very important to inhome demo any/all equipment, and if documenting or publishing one's comments, to describe ones listening tastes, habbits and system makeup in some detail so we can try to guess what his/her hearing biases are...and then extrapolate from there. Good luck, and good listening. :)"

 

Amen to that. Without any points of reference it's virtually impossible to work out whether the reviewer's "revealing and involving" would equate to your "who locked the cat in the tumble dryer again".

 

[audiozorro]

Something else I love about the Korg MR2000S but is rarely discussed, is that it is dead quiet. For the ultimate in listening you can forgo any noisy computers or fans since the Korg has an internal 80GB drive. That drive capacity provides over 14 hours of DSD128, 17 hours of 24/192, or if you're slumming, 120 hours of 16/44.1.

 

With dimensions of less than 17"x7"x2" and weighing less than 7 pounds, it's also very transportable.

 

[cfmsp]

 

 

"With a few exceptions (Chord and Linn as examples) audiophiles are well advised to avoid products with SMPS, or to replace SMPS with high quality linear supplies."

 

Barrows,

since this thread is about (the relative value of) Pro Audio versus Audiophile DACs, I'm wondering if your "expection" applies to great sounding pro audio boxes (MH LIO-8/ULN-8 or Prism Orpheus) that use SMPS (internal, in the case of the Prism)?

 

I ask because the only exceptions you noted are audiophile firms.

 

clay