DACs: Cheap vs Expensive

[spark1]

That’s a better question for our host or other professionals who contribute here… because those are the sources for my comment.

Sorry.. I am a member on the Steve Hoffman forum and forgot where I was lol.. Lots of recording engineers over there and that’s what they say.

The smart guys over there can probably address all you questions. Quit wasting your time here with us idiots. I was going to suggest that you just stick with vinyl (since you are a "vinyl guy", but apparently a lot of it sucks as bad as digital. Maybe take up the saxophone and record your own tunes?

There isn’t generally a recording for vinyl or digital. They take it recording, usually digital, and then create a mix and a master for the media that will be playing it. It’s not the media of vinyl that is the problem. Is somebody taking a master prepared for earbuds typically MP3 or at best usually CD-quality and then using that to cut the vinyl.

Can you direct me to any threads there discussing the use of MP3 masters for vinyl? Never head of such a thing. Obviously, it can be done, and I assume that amateur artists doing self production may submit MP3 files for mastering...but its hard to imagine it being done in any kind of professional environment.

Do you really think audio engineers hang out at the Hoffman forum? I've always had the impression, perhaps incorrect, that the self-promoting Hoffman is not well regarded by most in the profession.

 

[Funky54]

The smart guys over there can probably address all you questions. Quit wasting your time here with us idiots. I was going to suggest that you just stick with vinyl (since you are a "vinyl guy", but apparently a lot of it sucks as bad as digital. Maybe take up the saxophone and record your own tunes?




Can you direct me to any threads there discussing the use of MP3 masters for vinyl? Never head of such a thing. Obviously, it can be done, and I assume that amateur artists doing self production may submit MP3 files for mastering...but its hard to imagine it being done in any kind of professional environment.

Do you really think audio engineers hang out at the Hoffman forum? I've always had the impression, perhaps incorrect, that the self-promoting Hoffman is not well regarded by most in the profession.

Sorry but I don’t find your post conversational or like dudes discussing music or gear to produce it. I find your post argument and confrontational and like you just want to debate. I’m not interested in that. There is a large portion of modern music in all genres that a master has been made to sound its best on tiny speakers and ear buds. A lot of what is sold as Hi-Rez and vinyl is actually taken from or made from these masters. They up-convert it and then measure and say “see, hi-Rez ” or they take it and cut vinyl from it and then that vinyl is bad sounding. The “good” stuff is when they make more than one master so each media sees its full potential.

Yes there are a lot of true sound engineers who frequently pop in and out of the SHF. I personal know two of them and later found out they were members there.

 

[Funky54]

Maybe more genre dependent ?? I help out (troubleshooting, sound treatments and such) at a couple studios and they do not do that. Not saying it does not happen, just think it’s maybe closer to a generalization, but who knows.

For example Wildflowers is a great sounding album. It really doesn’t matter what media you hear it on, it sounds great. It was recorded once. Just one time.. but there was a master for radio, a master for vinyl, a master for CD and a master for digital.

So if someone goes back to the recording tapes and makes a new master for vinyl that’s great.. but imagine if there was a compressed brick walled version of an artists album made for Cd/ and tiny speakers.. it’s the only master made (this is VERY common) then years later a “Re-Mastered” vinyl version is cut… did they go back to the recording and make a new master for vinyl.. sometimes, often they take that same crap compressed horrible master made for mp3 playback and brick walled cd’s and upconvert it with software and market it as re-mastered for a cash grab. Then what we get is NOT the full potential of what it could have been.

 

[spark1]

It is my understanding that in most professional settings, the norm has been a separate master for vinyl vs CD/digital. I have read that there are certainly cases in which the CD master is sent to the cutting engineer, but it would NOT be in a lossy format (eg MP3), by definition. The cutting engineer will make the changes required for vinyl, but cannot do anything about dynamic compression (other than drop overall level).

And of course, over-use of dynamic range compression in the production of popular music has been a scourge for a long time now...in both digital and vinyl media.

Popular music has always been mastered for the gear that will most commonly be used to play it...this only makes sense.

 

[Funky54]

Actually there is NOT a master for radio, vinyl and CD, there was one master, period. That master was then used to make the mother copy for vinyl. Most radio stations use compression algorithms - to make the tracks louder, while compressing the dynamic range. Record companies would not spend the coin to have separate masters.

I don’t know… I was told by the guy WHO supposedly did wild flowers. He said in a thread he created 4 versions. Others said they sometimes are asked to do one or two and then another guy might do one or two all from the same recording… sometimes analog (old ones usually) and sometimes a digital recording… but different masters based on media.. unless the artist or production label won’t pay for more than one.. sometimes the artist actually prefers the compressed crappy one because he demos them in stud-duo using tiny speakers or headphones. I’ve heard these statements many many times from multiple engineers… so I don’t know if your right or there is a massive conspiracy against funky54.

 

[spark1]

I don’t know… I was told by the guy WHO supposedly did wild flowers. He said in a thread he created 4 versions. Others said they sometimes are asked to do one or two and then another guy might do one or two all from the same recording… sometimes analog (old ones usually) and sometimes a digital recording… but different masters based on media.. unless the artist or production label won’t pay for more than one.. sometimes the artist actually prefers the compressed crappy one because he demos them in stud-duo using tiny speakers or headphones. I’ve heard these statements many many times from multiple engineers… so I don’t know if your right or there is a massive conspiracy against funky54.

Regardless of the number of masters/remasters produced, they are ALL from the same recording.

You continue to conflate file format, dynamic range compression, and media. They are three different things. On a related note, the vast majority of vinyl produced since the mid 80s has been recorded and engineered in the digital domain, notwithstanding the "boutique" use of analog tape by some producers. And most masters sent to cutting engineers are in digital form (and not processed by any codec, be it lossless or lossy).

 

[Funky54]

Regardless of the number of masters/remasters produced, they are ALL from the same recording.

You continue to conflate file format, dynamic range compression, and media. They are three different things. On a related note, the vast majority of vinyl produced since the mid 80s has been recorded and engineered in the digital domain, notwithstanding the "boutique" use of analog tape by some producers. And most masters sent to cutting engineers are in digital form (and not processed by any codec, be it lossless or lossy).

We’re saying the exact same thing now. I am the one who originally said that there is one recording and that different masters are made from the one recording.

of course the original recording has a lot to do with the sound quality of what can be made from there. But whether or not a recording is done digitally or analog you can still produce a fantastic vinyl and a fantastic digital copy from it. My whole point from the very beginning that I have not wavered from is that I don’t want to buy vinyl that they didn’t make a nice master for. I don’t want the same master that they made for a bunch of EarPods or crappy tiny little speakers being sent and used to cut vinyl from. That sucks. Example: I love Billy Gibbons and I was really really stoked about getting hardware. It is absolutely barn on the worst vinyl I have ever heard in my life. It is obviously a cash grab. It obviously was cut from the same stupid master that was made for earbuds. It’s horrible. And this intern is the reason why I am starting to wish that I had a decent digital playback system in addition to my vinyl system. Simply because sometimes I can’t good good vinyl of some thing. And there might be a good digital copy.

 

[rudolfo]

If you wanna go $200.00 . The most decent one youll get is going interface with built-in DAC The MOTU M2 or M4 is what you need. or the focusrite scarlett. If youre just using a soundcard from your PC, interface is the way to go connected to your USB. The built-in sound card tends to degrade the sound due to the lag and can produce more noise and distortion.

 

[rudolfo]

It seems like my .wav files sound better than Tidal Hi Res - sometimes a lot better, sometimes, like with the "master" files, almost the same. If the source is a .wav, then it can only go downhill from there, yes?

I recorded tons of music to magnetic media. I'll always use wav file as my master. Not just they sound good but its the right format to edit or re-master then transfer to analog. It gives you a glorious digalog sound.

 

[spark1]

We’re saying the exact same thing now. I am the one who originally said that there is one recording and that different masters are made from the one recording.

of course the original recording has a lot to do with the sound quality of what can be made from there. But whether or not a recording is done digitally or analog you can still produce a fantastic vinyl and a fantastic digital copy from it. My whole point from the very beginning that I have not wavered from is that I don’t want to buy vinyl that they didn’t make a nice master for. I don’t want the same master that they made for a bunch of EarPods or crappy tiny little speakers being sent and used to cut vinyl from. That sucks. Example: I love Billy Gibbons and I was really really stoked about getting hardware. It is absolutely barn on the worst vinyl I have ever heard in my life. It is obviously a cash grab. It obviously was cut from the same stupid master that was made for earbuds. It’s horrible. And this intern is the reason why I am starting to wish that I had a decent digital playback system in addition to my vinyl system. Simply because sometimes I can’t good good vinyl of some thing. And there might be a good digital copy.

If the vinyl suffers from over use of DRC, so will the digital version...until someone remasters it.

Originally, you were talking about masters being created in MP3 format, a contention with which I disagree. And your view that a lot recordings marketed as high-resolution are upsampled CD files, from which you seemed to conclude that there is little reason to pay for lossless streaming (with which I also disagree).

No one has disputed that there is only one recording. It can be remixed, remastered or otherwise re-engineered, but the underlying recording tracks are the same.

 

[Funky54]

If the vinyl suffers from over use of DRC, so will the digital version...until someone remasters it.

Originally, you were talking about masters being created in MP3 format, a contention with which I disagree. And your view that a lot recordings marketed as high-resolution are upsampled CD files, from which you seemed to conclude that there is little reason to pay for lossless streaming (with which I also disagree).

No one has disputed that there is only one recording. It can be remixed, remastered or otherwise re-engineered, but the underlying recording tracks are the same.

No.. I said masters we’re made… for MP3 format. And yes… that’s very true. If your audience is likely going to be people listening through ear buds… your engineer may make it for the majority. I’m sorry if how I said it left you thinking I was saying it was an mp3 master. I simply meant a master engineered for those who listen through compressed mp3 formats. So in way of speech.. the mp3 master, the vinyl master ….

And YES.. a lot of HDTracks & tidals declared hi-Rez is made from compressed low Rez masters that they enhanced through software. I NEVER commented in any way in regards to lossless. I have NEVER owned a single mp3 in my entire life. I only own Lossless period. Why would I say lossless is bad.

 

[doctor fuse]

My good DAC is a PS Audio Digital Link III. Discrete components, no Op-Amps, hefty torroidal transformer.

It was out of commission, so I substituted a FX-Audio DAC 6 I had in a secondary system, and I was surprised how good it sounded. A bit more "electronic" sounding, maybe, and a tad less heft in the bass. But nowhere near the difference between an $80 new turntable and a $350 used turntable.

 

[NH-MAN]

This thread was informative till the bickering started

 

[Funky54]

Ask the gent who ACTUALLY engineered it - he hangs out on Audiophile Style forum, not Hoffmanns.

Cool

 

[louisjames]

Funky54 is right. Mastering is done with the intended audience in mind. There is typically a 2-track master (Wav, etc, though there can be different mixes the client wants you to work from) that the audio is sourced from. From there it can be mastered in a variety of ways.

My mastering jobs were for indie pop bands so low-distribution in general. But there would always be versions for vinyl (45 being different from 33), digital downloads (typically a high-bitrate MP3 ), streaming (where you make it as loud as possible w/o killing the track in order for it to compete sound / level wise with other bands), bass-emphasized for club, best possible for listening over earbuds which is a huge audience, etc.

And it isn't just a matter of cutting or adding some eq, compression, etc. You have to approach each version with the end game in mind. It's like getting the best sound when live tracks are being recorded. It all starts with mic placement which is the difference between run-of-the-mill engineers and great ones. Because you can fix just so much in the mix.

Then the skilled mastering engineer takes that and creates the end products (not discounting the vinyl cutter who can also make or break a recording). And no, I'm not anywhere near the great ones. But I have been doing this since the early 90's and it's both an art and a science. And can make or break the end result. As we've seen from horrible re-mastering jobs over the years.

 

[Capitol C]

The point is - people need to be educated before they actually post.

You don't like my post - fine. but remember, in all things audio, saying things like 'Always, etc.' are wrong because there are exceptions in audio. Why there is so many different manufacturers and designs.

On the contrary, I liked your post very much. The (apparent) lack of irony is extremely entertaining!

 

[louisjames]

Re: Steven H's. audio site, like most things there are those who like it and those who don't. Same with AK. Many consider Steven to be an excellent mastering engineer and he has worked on many releases. Again, you might not like the end results but most things in life are subjective so as I always say, just my 2c's, YMMV.

For Audio Fidelity, Steve remastered some of the greatest Pop and Rock albums of all time for 24 Karat Gold CDs, SACDs and 180 gram LPs. America "Homecoming", Beach Boys "Pet Sounds", Alice Cooper "Killer", Deep Purple "Machine Head", Linda Ronstadt "Heart Like A Wheel", Yes "Close To The Edge", Spirit "Spirit", Warren Zevon "Excitable Boy" among many others.

Steve has worked on 180 gram audiophile vinyl record releases from Tom Petty, Donald Fagen, The White Stripes and Red Hot Chili Peppers. He has remastered the classics "Fragile" by Yes and "Blue" by Joni Mitchell. In addition, for Warner Bros./Rhino Records he has mastered on vinyl the classic Van Morrison "Moondance", James Taylor "Sweet Baby James", Frank Sinatra and a host of others. Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray remastered some of the greatest Blue Note albums of all time for the definitive 45 RPM Blue Note Reissue Series by Music Matters, Ltd. and Analogue Productions, pressed on Virgin 180 gram vinyl at RTI and SACD.

For Analogue Productions, Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray remastered the back catalog of Creedence Clearwater Revival and over 100 of the greatest Jazz and Blues albums at 45 RPM. Steve's remixing and mastering of the important works of Nat King Cole on both 45 RPM vinyl and surround sound SACD have been the most challenging of Steve's career, over a year in the making.

 

[Jim Creek]

This post will get me in trouble. I think DACs, even cheap ones, have gotten so good that audiophiles have become jaded. We are always looking to upgrade to something better but there really isn't a lot of sonic differences between DACs. Mostly I've noticed that some DACs are more bass focused than others. These minor sonic differences can be mitigated by tone tone controls. In fact room acoustics and speakers have a much bigger impact. I have a Modi Multibit, an old FIIO E7 and an old PS Audio Digital Link. They all sound good. The E7 is quite bassy so I use tone controls to flatten it out a tad.

In fact I tried streaming using the 3.5mm phone jack on my MacBook Air M1. It has no fans and a digital HD so that electronic noise is nonexistent. It sounded really good once I turned up the bass a couple of notches on the tone controls of my amp. That's been my experience.

 

[Jim Creek]

This post will get me in trouble. I think DACs, even cheap ones, have gotten so good that audiophiles have become jaded. We are always looking to upgrade to something better but there really isn't a lot of sonic differences between DACs. Mostly I've noticed that some DACs are more bass focused than others. These minor sonic differences can be mitigated by tone tone controls. In fact room acoustics and speakers have a much bigger impact. I have a Modi Multibit, an old FIIO E7 and an old PS Audio Digital Link. They all sound good. The E7 is quite bassy so I use tone controls to flatten it out a tad.

In fact I tried streaming using the 3.5mm phone jack on my MacBook Air M1. It has no fans and a digital HD so that electronic noise is nonexistent. It sounded really good once I turned up the bass a couple of notches on the tone controls of my amp. That's been my experience.

I'm going to modify my opinion after spending most of today comparing all three of my DACS and my MacBook Air M1..... sorry about that.

The E7 is not only more bassy it has a bit of a piercing quality to the upper midrange compared to the Modi Multibit and PS Audio Digital Link. I never noticed that before until I focused on the comparison of the three DACS. The Digital Link and MultiBit sounded very close and were the best. The MacBook sounded quite good, maybe slightly thinner. I turned up the bass on the MacBook and that improved it. But the Digital Link and MultiBit were still better.

I over stated my opinion in my previous post that all DACS lacked sonic differences after doing a focused comparison. I’m a bit embarrassed

 

[mcgjohn]

@Jim Creek brings up a valid point. Cheap DACs have gotten much better than cheap DACs even a few years ago. But more expensive DACs have also improved over more expensive DACs from a few years ago. These improvements have occurred on both the consumer side (hifi and hi end) and the pro audio side. Folks need to remember its not just the improvements in chip sets that have led to this. Also the improvements in clock accuracy. With better DACs you get a clearer image and better focusing. I record live to 2 track both analogue and hi rez digital. Its really amazing how much A to D and D to A conversions have improved over the last 8-10 years. As an example, with older DACS, I used to record at 24/192. The newer DACs with a new outboard clock, are so much better that 24/96 on the new DAC/outboard clock sounds better (more clearly defined) than 24 /192 on the old A to D, DAC combo. At a certain price level (maybe 2k and up), a person should expect an outboard Clock input, since that will really improve the focus on both record and playback.

Many knock the DCS stuff as being way over priced. Its true it certainly not cheap, but once you hear it, its tough to return to normal man's DAC land. The DCS Scarlatti system is truly amazing.