2. analog
  3. 174446-161121

Do hi-end DACs offer true value or diminishing return...

These two hi-fedelity recordings posted on Youtube allow one to audition the state-of-the-art, highly raved R2R DACs with values ranging from $850 all the way to $6,500. Please use headphone or, play back to your stereo system if you think your system is revealing enough. The question to ask to yourself is that the true hi-end (w/ high price tag) gears offer you true values or just a diminishing-return foolproof. In my system, I do hear the differences but, to me, the differences might not be that significant to justify the luxious spending. Maybe my system is not revealing enough.  Maybe the recording quality through the on-line broadcasting degrades.  How about you? Do you hear major differences? 

Terminator Plus ($6.5k), Venus II ($3k)

Terminator $4.5k, Ares II ($850)

fadfd

 

 

lanx0003
Post removed 
mihorn
519 posts
 
mahgister  
Here three examples:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQR2RJwoZ2Q   *This is the original recording. Not a reproduction audio. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR33bL5aNTk&t=1225s  *This is dubbed. There is no sound from speakers. This video sounds same with the original music. Die Dreigroschenoper: Ouvertüre

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFjQ77ol2DI&t=1205s  *This is the original recording. Not a reproduction audio. 

Simply, every reproduction audio systems sound veiled, bright, and un-natural.

Even many original recordings have veils/brightness depends on quality of microphones and recording machines. The idea of mic is similar to loudspeakers. Few great sounding mics are made by people who had made mics all their life in 1930~60's and found some work routines for good sound. Still they didn't know what makes good sounds. They just knew some work routines.   Alex/Wavetouch

mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,191 posts
 

Ok i understand you point now...

You are right for sure... The quality of classical recordings depend on microphone expertise by design and by the way they are used...

You are right for the "work routines"...

 

Simply, every reproduction audio systems sound veiled, bright, and un-natural.

Even many original recordings have veils/brightness depends on quality of microphones and recording machines. The idea of mic is similar to loudspeakers. Few great sounding mics are made by people who had made mics all their life in 1930~60's and found some work routines for good sound. Still they didn't know what makes good sounds. They just knew some work routines.   Alex/Wavetouch

lanx0003 OP
872 posts
 

I wish the quality of recording for live classic music can be enhanced. Often time, you could observe only one microphone hanging from the ceiling in the middle of stage is used to record the entire orchestra.  That is simply inadequate for hi fidelity sound recording and reproduction.  Periodically, if you found multiple microphones were placed for each group of instruments and individuals, the quality of recording usually turns out much better in terms of separation, soundstage and clarity.  

ghdprentice
7,161 posts
 

OP,

By one microphone hanging… I assume you actually mean two… stereo.
 

 But!  Multi-mixing completely screws up the acoutics of the space and hence the essence of the orchestra… when playing multiple instrument. Completely destroys the acoustics.

I have had season tickets to the symphony for over ten years. This is how I learned what real acoustic music sounds like (along with some smaller venue jazz and classical). I have spent hours carefully listening to how the reflections from the venue and the multiple instrument interact to cause the experience. The careful location of the different instruments and the composer has orchestrated those frequently to form huge waves of intense sound that can wash from left to right or otherwise complex pattern. 
 

The very worst recordings I have heard have been those multimiked jobs, the very best late 1950’s with two microphones.

 

More to discover