What does a "high end" D/A converter do better than my sound card?

[muzician21]

For example, I've got an M-Audio 24/96 card. Seems to record and
playback with excellent sound. What would a top of the line D/A
converter do noticeably better?

[Arny Krueger]

"muzician21" > wrote in message


> For example, I've got an M-Audio 24/96 card. Seems to
> record and playback with excellent sound. What would a
> top of the line D/A converter do noticeably better?

Precious little of practical use. It would be more impressive in bench
tests.

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On Sep 13, 12:48 am, muzician21 > wrote:
> For example, I've got an M-Audio 24/96 card. Seems to record and
> playback with excellent sound.

Yes, your 24/96 card is perfectly fine, and capable of seriously high
quality. If you're looking to take your recordings and mixes to the
next level, your sound card is not holding you back. As Arny said, a
more expensive card might measure better - or not - but it certainly
won't sound any better. The issue is audio transparency. Once all
noise is 90+ dB down, and distortion and other artifacts are similarly
below the music, and the frequency response is within half a dB from
20 Hz to 20 KHz, an audio device is considered transparent. One
transparent device sounds exactly the same as every other transparent
device.

The bottlenecks in every audio playback system are microphones,
loudspeakers, and of course the room you record and listen in.

--Ethan

[Misifus[_2_]]

Ethan Winer wrote:

>
> The bottlenecks in every audio playback system are microphones,
> loudspeakers, and of course the room you record and listen in.
>
>

All true, but... sooner or later we produce a mix which is destined
to go out and be heard by many people under many circumstances. Isn't
it necessary to tailor the mix to these varying conditions?

Back in the day, many mix down studios would have a pair of inexpensive
speakers to enable the engineer to check that the mix that sounded so
good on the big monitors would also come across on car speakers and home
record players. Is there a modern, digital equivalent of this process?

-Raf

--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rafiii
home: http://www.rafandsioux.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Misifus" > wrote in message

> Ethan Winer wrote:
>
>>
>> The bottlenecks in every audio playback system are
>> microphones, loudspeakers, and of course the room you
>> record and listen in.

> All true, but... sooner or later we produce a mix
> which is destined to go out and be heard by many people
> under many circumstances.

OK

> Isn't it necessary to tailor
> the mix to these varying conditions?

That's called mastering, right?

> Back in the day, many mix down studios would have a pair
> of inexpensive speakers to enable the engineer to check
> that the mix that sounded so good on the big monitors
> would also come across on car speakers and home record
> players.

I don't know about you, but my version of that involves burning a CD and
playing it in my car.

But I've got to warn you, a modern car audio, even a base OEM system can be
(but not all are) incredibly better than they once were. A car is a small
dead room, and that can lead to relatively deep bass, lots of SPL and
pinpoint imaging with a relatively small investment in speakers and amps.

> Is there a modern, digital equivalent of this process?

IME, not so much.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 15:05:51 -0500, Misifus >
wrote:

>Back in the day, many mix down studios would have a pair of inexpensive
>speakers to enable the engineer to check that the mix that sounded so
>good on the big monitors would also come across on car speakers and home
>record players. Is there a modern, digital equivalent of this process?

We still burn a CD and play it in the car. And (my favourite) listen
to it from the next room to the studio, with the door closed.

What we have to do in addition, these days, is dump it to an iPod.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
muzician21 > wrote:
>For example, I've got an M-Audio 24/96 card. Seems to record and
>playback with excellent sound. What would a top of the line D/A
>converter do noticeably better?

Depends on the converters involved, but in general you'll hear differences
in reverb tails and in more impulsive noises.

These days, though, the average small studio doesn't have monitors that
will show up the problems with their converters. Converters at all levels
today are far better than they were a decade ago, and studio monitoring
systems today are generally much more shoddy.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Misifus > wrote:
>
>All true, but... sooner or later we produce a mix which is destined
>to go out and be heard by many people under many circumstances. Isn't
>it necessary to tailor the mix to these varying conditions?

It's impossible to do so. You can make some assumptions based on the
audience for the album and how it will be marketed, though.

>Back in the day, many mix down studios would have a pair of inexpensive
>speakers to enable the engineer to check that the mix that sounded so
>good on the big monitors would also come across on car speakers and home
>record players. Is there a modern, digital equivalent of this process?

Yes, folks still use NS-10s and Auratones and the like. No more
Close 'N Plays for checking tracking on 45s, though.

Classical records, though, I think should avoid that treatment. Jazz
should too. Some people disagree with me, though.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[vdubreeze]

On Sep 13, 8:12*pm, Laurence Payne > wrote:

> We still burn a CD and play it in the car.


Can't do that anymore. My '99 Camry, which is great in all other
respects, has a crazy hyped stock system. Dial lows halfway down and
it gets close.

The Magic Shop downtown here actually has a VW bug inside the studio
to go inside and check mixes in!


*>And (my favourite) listen
> to it from the next room to the studio, with the door closed.


Seconded : ) though we crack the door. Got this tip 25 years ago
and it's still the best mix advice I ever got.

[philicorda[_7_]]

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 06:55:01 -0700, vdubreeze wrote:

> On Sep 13, 8:12Â*pm, Laurence Payne > wrote:
>
>> We still burn a CD and play it in the car.
>
>
> Can't do that anymore. My '99 Camry, which is great in all other
> respects, has a crazy hyped stock system. Dial lows halfway down and it
> gets close.

Crazy hyped is a normal reference nowadays.
I'm thinking of getting one of those stereos with loudness, mega bass,
super sub enhancement and extra fizzy spatial surround features.

Some people have that stuff switched on all the time, and it's worth
hearing what a mix does when subjected to it.

[Tom Paul]

> Seconded *: *) *though we crack the door. * Got this tip 25 years ago
> and it's still the best mix advice I ever got.

Wow, I started doing this on my own. Maybe there is hope for my
mixes. I find that listening from the next room is the best way to
get the bass and kick levels right. The bass sounds different in
every part of my mixing room and I find the "next room" sounds about
right in my car.

Tom

[mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH [email protected]]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 15:05:51 -0500, Misifus >
> wrote:
>
>> Back in the day, many mix down studios would have a pair of inexpensive
>> speakers to enable the engineer to check that the mix that sounded so
>> good on the big monitors would also come across on car speakers and home
>> record players. Is there a modern, digital equivalent of this process?
>
> We still burn a CD and play it in the car. And (my favourite) listen
> to it from the next room to the studio, with the door closed.
>
> What we have to do in addition, these days, is dump it to an iPod.

What's the point of that last one? iPods have no "sound". They merely
output electricity. Perhaps you meant to say "play it on earbuds".

But who cares? What a piece of music sounds like on inferior apparatus
like a car stereo or earbuds is immaterial. It should sound correct
on first rate speakers and headphones.

And, if it is properly recorded, it WILL do so.

Doug McDonald

[Mike Rivers]

"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH wrote:

> What's the point of that last one? iPods have no "sound". They merely
> output electricity. Perhaps you meant to say "play it on earbuds".

Doesn't the iPod have some frequency response shaping designed to
give some "wow" character to cheap earbuds? If so, that's a "sound" if
it's something you can't turn off, or (more likely for the majority of
users)
don't know how to turn it off or access an alternate "flat" output.

There must be an OK mode, though, since both Alesis and Belkin, and
maybe others, make an I/O dock adapter with moderately "pro" performance
specs. That's not what we're talking about here, though.

> But who cares? What a piece of music sounds like on inferior apparatus
> like a car stereo or earbuds is immaterial. It should sound correct
> on first rate speakers and headphones.

That, too. But the problem is that people are learning the sound of cheap
earbuds and data compression. If they haven't been exposed to first rate
recording and reproduction, they think that what they hear is the way it's
supposed to be, thereby becoming the baseline for "wow."


As for me, while I prefer good sound to bad sound, the only bad sound that
spoils a listening experience for me is high harmonic distortion (like
clipping).
That will make me turn it off. But since I wasn't there when the
recording was
made, I don't know if the fact that I think the snare drum sounds like a
hitting
a garbage can lid isn't just what the artist wanted. Unfortunately,
there's so
much of what I consider bad music that I wouldn't enjoy listening to even on
a very high fidelity system that is also distorted by an inadequate
delivery
medium.

[Anahata]

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:57:30 -0500, mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME
wrote:

> But who cares? What a piece of music sounds like on inferior apparatus
> like a car stereo or earbuds is immaterial.

Why? That's where the real world customer is going to hear it, and it can
sound bad on such systems if you're not careful.

> It should sound correct on
> first rate speakers and headphones.

"correct" is not a single sound but a spectrum of possible sounds. Good
playback equipment can be quite tolerant of some errors, which become
apparent on lesser equipment.

> And, if it is properly recorded, it WILL do so.

Yes, but with further adjustment it can sound right on both good and
mediocre systems. Surely that's not a bad thing?

--
Anahata
==//== 01638 720444
http://www.treewind.co.uk ==//== http://www.myspace.com/maryanahata

[Scott Dorsey]

vdubreeze > wrote:
>On Sep 13, 8:12=A0pm, Laurence Payne > wrote:
>
>> We still burn a CD and play it in the car.
>
>Can't do that anymore. My '99 Camry, which is great in all other
>respects, has a crazy hyped stock system. Dial lows halfway down and
>it gets close.

Unfortunately this IS actually representative of the kind of thing the
average listener is hearing things on.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:57:30 -0500, "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH
wrote:

>> What we have to do in addition, these days, is dump it to an iPod.
>
>What's the point of that last one? iPods have no "sound". They merely
>output electricity. Perhaps you meant to say "play it on earbuds".

Just because you despise iPods (so do I, in many ways) there's no
point in pretending you don't understand what I'm saying, and why.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message


> Doesn't the iPod have some frequency response shaping
> designed to give some "wow" character to cheap earbuds?

One online test report from a fairly reliable source of techical (but not
subjective) tests says:

http://www.stereophile.com/mediaservers/934/index5.html

"The iPod's frequency response was flat (fig.1)"

Of course there have been several newer versions of that particular model,
and many other kinds of iPods.

However, their default frequency response has generally remained quite flat.

http://homepage.mac.com/marc.heijligers/audio/ipod/comparison/measurements/measurements.html

There are digital players that have built-in user selectable eq, but every
one I know of has a "flat" position that is pretty "flat"

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message

>
>> Doesn't the iPod have some frequency response shaping
>> designed to give some "wow" character to cheap earbuds?
>
>One online test report from a fairly reliable source of techical (but not
>subjective) tests says:
>
>http://www.stereophile.com/mediaservers/934/index5.html
>
>"The iPod's frequency response was flat (fig.1)"

However, sadly the iTunes package has some kind of nonlinear transform
called the "sound enhancer" which is turned on by default. So if you
are ripping CDs to play on the iPod and you don't know in advance to turn
this off, the overall response is not going to be so flat.

Don't blame the iPod for this.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

"Laurence Payne" wrote ...
> "mcdonald" wrote:
>>> What we have to do in addition, these days, is dump it to an iPod.
>>
>>What's the point of that last one? iPods have no "sound". They merely
>>output electricity. Perhaps you meant to say "play it on earbuds".
>
> Just because you despise iPods (so do I, in many ways) there's no
> point in pretending you don't understand what I'm saying, and why.

Back in the day they used "Auratones" which were terrible-sounding
little speakers. Their only claim to fame that I could discern was that
they were unformly awful, so everyone could "tune" their mix to the
same lousy speakers. Perhaps iPod earbuds are the new Auratones.

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Crowley > wrote:
>"Laurence Payne" wrote ...
>> "mcdonald" wrote:
>>>> What we have to do in addition, these days, is dump it to an iPod.
>>>
>>>What's the point of that last one? iPods have no "sound". They merely
>>>output electricity. Perhaps you meant to say "play it on earbuds".
>>
>> Just because you despise iPods (so do I, in many ways) there's no
>> point in pretending you don't understand what I'm saying, and why.
>
>Back in the day they used "Auratones" which were terrible-sounding
>little speakers. Their only claim to fame that I could discern was that
>they were unformly awful, so everyone could "tune" their mix to the
>same lousy speakers. Perhaps iPod earbuds are the new Auratones.

The thing about Auratones is that they first had no low end, and secondly
the cone would bottom out if you had a lot of low end in your mix. So the
goal was to mix the bass and kick so that they had enough upper harmonics
in them that you could hear them on the Horrotones, and they didn't have so
much real low end on them that they bottomed them out.

If it sounded okay on the Horrortones, it would sound okay on 3" TV set
speakers and on 16mm classroom projectors.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH [email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH wrote:
>
>> What's the point of that last one? iPods have no "sound". They merely
>> output electricity. Perhaps you meant to say "play it on earbuds".
>
> Doesn't the iPod have some frequency response shaping designed to
> give some "wow" character to cheap earbuds?

No.

> If so, that's a "sound" if
> it's something you can't turn off, or (more likely for the majority of
> users)
> don't know how to turn it off or access an alternate "flat" output.

The iPod has a plethora of different possible equalizations, all
easily accessible from the menus. It comes "flat" out of the box.


Doug

[mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH [email protected]]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:57:30 -0500, "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH
> wrote:
>
>>> What we have to do in addition, these days, is dump it to an iPod.
>> What's the point of that last one? iPods have no "sound". They merely
>> output electricity. Perhaps you meant to say "play it on earbuds".
>
> Just because you despise iPods (so do I, in many ways) there's no
> point in pretending you don't understand what I'm saying, and why.

I don't despise my iPod. I love it dearly, as least as a music
playing device (the user interface sucks.) I think you must mean
earbuds. I not only dispise them, I literally cannot wear them,
as they both hurt my ears and fall out all the time. I use a $30
pair of "closed" Sony earphones on my iPod.

Doug McDonald