Home Digital Drive

Upsamplers, DACs, jitter, shakes and analogue withdrawals, this is it.

Subjective opinions of DACs

Prompted by the recent threads on the preference for old DACs which then deviated on to quality of old Digital Filters and the evils of upsampling....
I was wondering how many people do their own digital recordings and have compared the recordings to the original through their DAC when assessing the quality. I have a Benchmark ADC1 USB clocked from a Grimm CC1 and do my own recordings. I also have several DACs. So I can make an objective comparison between the DACs and the original source.

I am often amused when I hear subjective opinions where words like "air", "ambience", "emotion" and "rhythm and pace" are thrown around when listening to a commercial recording. Yet, unless said reviewers were present in the mixing room that produced the recording, I fail to see how any of these judgements can be made!

Mic placement, mastering etc all play a role in the final product you play so how can anyone realistically comment on the amount of "air" "ambience" , "emotion" without ever having been present at the recording session!

I'm both a musician and an electronic engineer so I know what realism actually is... and I know how to engineer the equipment to do so. I actually find that the technical capabilities of a well engineered DAC to be essentially transparent even at very reasonable prices (with the lateset advancements in technology). Certainly any deficiencies are nowhere near as obvious as some of the comments I read would suggest. Even on very modest equipment.

I read one comment where it was stated that the individual had yet to hear a DAC that could reproduce an orchestra properly.

In response to this, I would say that a recording of an orchestra has an artificially enhanced detail of the solo instruments. If you are sitting in the audience you won't hear the first clarinet or first violin with the same clarity. Also every hall has its own specific acoustic signature. Some of which needs to be tamed (churches for example!). If the recording was made "as you would hear it" I'm sure people would complain that the DAC lacked detail...or had a diffuse soundstage...so in fact it is customer expectation that drives the mastering process!
In reality, opinions are being based on artificially created effects and a synthetic soundstage.

Live recordings of Stan Getz can make his horn sound terribly bright - after seeing videos I now see why! The idiotic engineer placed the mic right at the bell opening. Sound does NOT come "out" of the bell people! A standing wave is set up in the instrument and the bell shape of a saxophone or clarinet is to correct for pipe end effects.

Which makes this endless search for "realism" (based on a commercial recording) whether it be from an analogue source or digital a bit Quixotic..

Fair comment?
Regards Anthony

"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Sonic Craft  


Topic - Subjective opinions of DACs - flood2 16:39:36 04/16/14 (47)

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.