What digital evolution?


I posted this as a reply in another thread, but believe it's thought-provoking enough to warrant its own post:

Is it really accurate that digital processing technology is evoloving (depreciating) quickly? The economics of technology don't seem to support this.

Unlike computer hardware which benefits from Moore's Law, and can therefore process more software at a given price point due to falling prices of memory and processor power, DACs are still processing the same 44.1 kHz software that is over 20 years old (not talking about high-res formats like SACD and DVD-A). DACs are not challenged with processing bigger programs at faster speeds that need more computer memory. Aside from upsampling, are there really improvements in D/A algorithms or other techniques that benefit from Moore's Law economics?

If this is true, good DAC design should remain competitive over time. Aren't the "best" DACs (Meitner, DCS, Weiss, etc) still competitive years after release? What technology is evoloving so quickly in D/A conversion?
skushino
Skushino, I didn't intend to attack your opinion. I guess I would point you to some of the minimalist DACs around that eschew most of the so-called advances in DACs - ones with no over sampling or up sampling or with no digital filter, which by being minimalist have a certain life to them that the arguably over-engineered DACs don't. In some ways the new DACs are better and in other ways they are not. You are quite right to question the hype.
Most are perfectly happy with CeeDee.Hi-end getting better? I really do not know for sure,maybe any improvements I think I hear are attributable to speakers,amplification,the removal of a pre-amp or inclusion of new design(digital).I can't afford the upgrades to judge long term if it is indeed "better".
Sorry,I had to bring in Hi rez & Multi-channel because it's the next logical evolution the industry has chosen(not all& not me yet) to hang thier hat on.Concerning upscale reproduction of redbook is a matter of the past to a large contingent of the audio parade.A big part of traditional music consumers are on wheels,computors,portable devices,or double duty dvd/HT with music inclusive.So the die hard "I want the best damn redbook playback" group is a minority now,and within' that minority are different camps regarding implementation schemes for redbook. Marketing to a small contingent requires hype to drive us to buy the"new". Buzzwords such as "giantkiller","best redbook","sounds as good as SACD","Wolfson","Burr-Brown","Tube-like","Analog sound".To me I hear all this like "results may vary-not all may expierience same results" ;^)In the July review of a $2K Arcam 33,JA in ever so careful words eluded to the maturity of digital gear,characterizing differences yet able to like various perspectives in playback as state of the art in redbook.I have read numerous times of difficult to discern playback differences as to overall quality of the sound.I can agree in my "Limited" experience.Now if everybody where buying good ol' cd like 85'-95'and there weren't video,games,mp-3,dvd,computer competing for the wallet/purse$$$,then I hazard a guess there would be engineers in large #'s cooking up tech envelope busters on a regular basis.But those best of the best are in other pursuits.
I tend to agree great mid 90's digital is still great.
What I've heard and read is that $1,500-3,000(loose #'s)performance is available for much much less now.The exiting thing is small label cd mastering is quite good while downside is majors are providing mostly crap production.I suppose I could've just said folks who value cutting edge digital playback of redbook data in a 2 channel music dedicated system are in the same boat as Analog enthusiests
but at least the analog guys got to enjoy analog sound all along :))
Based upon some responses, my words must be as clear as mud... Regrets on my ambiguity.

Redkiwi- Absolutely no offense taken. Don't know why my post came across as taking offense, but none taken. I refer to Moore's Law (processor power doubling every 18 months at a given price point) because that is one of the drivers of evolving computer performance advances, and the reason that PCs have relatively short life-cycles.

I am questioning the digital hype as it applies to high-end audio. Specifically, the claim that DAC technology evolves quickly. If this claim is accurate, I simply want to understand why, and am soliciting input from other Audiogoners. On the other hand, if DAC technology isn't evolving so quickly, than why the pressure to upgrade at computer life-cycles rather than amp life-cycles?

So far, there is no input to explain why DACs and CDPs should have such a short life spans relative to other components in the audio chain.
Redkiwi - just reread your post, and I actually concur with your version of the future of digital media, being downloaded in digital format, via broadband, to a high-end device (a type of specialized media PC). Many of my 20-something friends with a love of music, but not high-end audio enthusiasts, are already doing this (PC-based music input into stereo systems). As high-enders, we are still waiting for the manufacturers to catch-up with a suitable high-end grade device.