Just bought an audio dac, on reading up on this it states best results using Flac or wav so I was just wondering if I will get any benefit using it through the pc to enhance the sound of Real tracks etc.

And well it lead me to the question about the format we play and hear in biab ?.

P.S. Hope this is posted in the right place.

FLAC uses compression but is supposed to be lossless. WAV files are uncompressed.

Your signature says you use a PC. Your BIAB therefore is either the audiophile version that uses WAV files of CD quality, or you have one of the ‘regular’ versions that uses WMA files. For a description of the difference, read my sticky post in the Tips and Tricks Forum.

Matt

Thanks very much, that answers it all for me.

I am right on saying, when I render for my daw it is then wav ?.

Beatmaster,

Yes, when rendered, BIAB tracks are rendered as wav. The wav is created by converting wma files. This conversion does not enhance the audio quality, it simply changes its format.

Regards,
Noel

That's great Noel thanks, wav is supposed to be when an audio dac shines.

Hopefully.

DACs do a fine job with FLAC and WAV but the shine will depend on the content of the file. You can convert a 192MP3 to wav & it will still sounds like a 192 MP3.
A little research related..
"WMA stands for Windows Media Audio. It was first released in 1999 and has gone through several evolutions since then, all while keeping the same WMA name and extension. As you might expect, it’s a proprietary format created by Microsoft.
Not unlike AAC and OGG, WMA was meant to address some of the flaws in the MP3 compression method — and as such, WMA’s approach to compression is pretty similar to AAC and OGG. In other words, in terms of objective quality, WMA is better than MP3 .It also doesn’t offer any real benefits over AAC or OGG..."
BUT>>>>
"WMA stands for Windows Media Audio. We covered it above in the lossy compression section, but we mention it here because there’s a lossless alternative called WMA Lossless that uses the same extension. Confusing, I know.
Compared to FLAC and ALAC, WMA Lossless is the worst in terms of compression efficiency but only slightly. It’s a proprietary format so it’s no good for fans of open source software, but it is supported natively on both Windows and Mac systems.
The biggest issue with WMA Lossless is the limited hardware support. If you want lossless audio across multiple devices, you should stick with FLAC unless all of your devices are of the Windows variety."
I don't know if BIAB uses WMA Lossless. I've spent some time searching but there's no reference to WMA Lossless except as a rendering option.

Hi rayc

Thanks for posting, I have had a wee bit of time to get used to the dac and experiment, it is absolutely unbelievable on cd discs played through my arcam cd player.


The flac, mp3, and cd discs ripped to the pc and played through the pc to the audio dac, have a lot more presence and body to the music that I always remember getting from a good stack hi fi.

I am enjoying it, best thing I have bought in a long time to enhance my music, even going through the songs posted on the user showcase, doing an a to b comparison with a flick of a switch on the amp you hear a Big difference.

Can we drop back a moment and make sure we are saying the same thing? What did you buy when you say audio dac? Digital to analog converter? Anything that plays digital files converts them to analog that you can hear.

Matt

No problem yes your pc has a dac, cd player has a dac, etc. But these are high class superior dacs.

Here is what I bought hope this helps https://www.richersounds.com/camb-dacmagic-plus-b.html

Thanks. I looked at that and read reviews. Aside from it doing enhanced stereo separation, I’m at a loss to understand technically how upsampling improves sound. I guess I’ll have to hear it.

you should do that, I have listened to my fav cd discs for years.

And all been on good stack hi fi systems, I now hear instruments that I never heard on my so called top of the range systems I bought then.

I'm a bit at a loss here. I run all my PC's sound through my MOTU 828MK3 audio interface. If I understand all of this correctly, the 828 would then handle all of the DAC...is this correct? Would the Cambridge unit be that much better?

Jeff

Yes you are correct Jeff. The MOTU handles all of the DAC functions and is probably just as good as the Cambridge ones. However for anyone used to listening to audio from compressed format audio sources through a PC's built in soundcard I would think that it would be a revelation.

Yes you are correct Jeff. The MOTU handles all of the DAC functions and is probably just as good as the Cambridge ones.

Good as Cambridge ..You are wrong.

However for anyone used to listening to audio from compressed format audio sources through a PC's built in soundcard I would think that it would be a revelation.

I have already stated that I own, and always have owned a good high end hi fi, so used to a high quality sound.


More info here https://www.whathifi.com/advice/dacs-everything-you-need-to-know

To kind of back up Beatmaster, I went to Axpona last year and learned a lot about DACs.
Prism also makes some fine DACs if you have the money ($2500+).

Expensive, but hearing a collection of familiar songs go from a notebook through that DAC and into nothing more than self powered 2 way monitors convinced me there was some kind of magic to it.
http://www.prismsound.com/hifi/products_subs/dac1/dac1_home.php
http://www.prismsound.com/hifi/reviews.php

We have 3 DACs at work and they all sound better than any sound card I've heard to date.

The first part of my reply was directed to Jeff's question. And I did say probably but it would be very difficult to prove either way IMHO.

The second part was a general reply to others reading this thread and wondering what DACs were all about. It was not directed to you.

ryclark

No problem I just did not want anyone reading the post thinking an audio dac would not improve pc sound, They are all equipped with usb connection now.

A decent DAC will blow away most sound cards any day.
I'm not a believer in "Upsampling" - to work as describes it'd have to use an enhancer or exciter to replace the missing information to make it sound better.

I suppose it could be a matter of the DAC adding some of the things we like to hear from tube amps etc - still a bit of smoke n mirrors.

I have a Cambridge Audio Topaz amp and it's excellent quality: build and sound.

rayc

A decent DAC will blow away most sound cards any day.
I'm not a believer in "Upsampling" - to work as describes it'd have to use an enhancer or exciter to replace the missing information to make it sound better.


Yes I believe it does have an enhancer, the different dac chip Sabre, Wolfson etc. enhance the sound with each having there own individual sound .

I have the arcam alpha 7 amp , it also is of a good quality sound and I was happy with the sound.

Then I got to wonder about the a dac and how it would be linked to the arcam, And I was amazed at the sound when I got one, night and day.

This is getting more interesting. We are in agreement that upsampling makes no difference in the sound. First, stereo separation was mentioned. Yes, this would change the sound but can also be done in software (Ozone, for example). Now this last post mentions "enhancing the sound".

So I have to wonder, what are these DAC units doing, especially when they sound different from each other, and is that a good thing? I don't think so.

This reminds me of the old SoundBlaster cards. They had their own sound enhancement - I forget the exact term they used - and it was critical to turn that off if you wanted to make a good mix. For just listening, sure, enhance away and buy what sounds good to you. But I still don't understand why anyone would use this to mix or create music. What am I missing?

Matt

More for mixing, mastering but I use this for sound quality on my cd player, mp3 and wav from pc, listening to all music in general.

Matt
So I have to wonder, what are these DAC units doing, especially when they sound different from each other, and is that a good thing? I don't think so.

The dac units are not a new concept you have a dac chip in all cd players etc, or there would be no sound coming from the cd separate player to amp.

The individual dac units have more capability to give a better quality sound than most of the stock dac chips added to cd players etc.


Just like amps , speakers and cd decks , tape decks, sound bars, ipods etc, they all have a unique sound it would be a stagnant world for music if they all sounded the same.

Because all systems don’t sound the same (which is fine), one must mix and master on a system as flat or realistic as possible, with no ‘enhancement’. Then you or others can listen on anything you want and it should sound ok.

Matt,
Being a 'math guy' I hope this makes sense to you.
It pushes my boundaries (grin)

DACs often have internal clocks/methods that can handle any jitters in time code better.
This is just one aspect where 'enhancement' isn't needed, just accuracy.
Some DAC units may discard info, some may adjust the info, some may do nothing in this regard, but there is always an AD/DA conversion taking place when using digital audio.
Where/when that happens and using which equipment to do so always makes a difference.

That's the only way I could explain the difference using science (or math) with my meager understanding.

Some sound cards use their own clocks to handle this jitter, some use the system clock, but many DACs excel at the actual reading of the audio data to real time conversion either way, so the audio signal that gets sent to the monitors (or computer) is not as jittery (is that even a word?).

I'm not really qualified to explain 'how' it happens, but I know I can hear it. The above info simply explains how *I* have come to think of it.
So even on a perfectly flat system it can still sound better, yet still be true.

No citation comes to mind offhand, so take with a grain of salt.

Thanks, Bob. Yes, I’m familiar with jitter, can hear it, and do experience problems from it when I take my computer’s scratch tracks into a studio. But some sound cards have or support word clocks and are rock-solid on spec with no jitter. I agree, if a stand-alone DAC can overcome this, that’s great.

The OP is making claims about better sound. I hope that’s true and I would love to hear why. I doubt many people could hear the difference in jitter between a DAC and a typical sound card, and even if they can, it’s not in the category of stereo widening or some sort of tonal enhancement (or whatever the enhancement actually is).

Sorry, not yet convinced this is a good thing for mixing and mastering except for less jitter if in fact that’s the case.

Again, it reminds me of an old SoundBlaster running that horrid EAX, or the dubious claims made about BBE hardware. I do hope I’m wrong.

I read all this and it is interesting but I ask for the average person what is the advantage. In my case with the level of tinnitus blasting away and most folk I play to having issues with hearing aids I question the need for 100% clarity or accuracy. Years ago I read an article that suggested most people’s hearing distorts or reduces what we are capable of hearing.

I question the need for a $2000+ device to really bring sound back as close as we can to the original. If recording into the box are you not constrained by the analog to digital converter or does the dac work both ways (in and out).

Just some thoughts
Tony

Spot on.

When Quincy Jones produced Thriller, the studio had the best sound system the world could offer. Quincy said "now play it back on a pair of small speakers". When asked why, he stated that it had to sound good on them also. This was what most people would be listening with.

True, but the lower frequencies you can only check on a better class speaker set ...

I really liked my Soundblaster Audigy ZS2 with all the extras it had via the connected break out box. Headphones, SPDIF. Alas it had the old PCI slot connection, and of which my new ASUS board has none. It has 64bit windows drivers, only you cannot use the internal software and hardware chips for Soundblaster FX processing anymore, which i never did anyway, but the very good internal GM sounds and eventual soundfont import possibilities makes it a worthwhile system setup too for a stand alone dekstop PC. Far better than all the current mainboard Realtek HD audio chips everybody switches off in BIAS if they're serious about audio quality from a PC. -- My Soundblaster ZS2 set is still for sale BTW, as i was forced to change horses.

A difference you'll notice if the whole system is driven by a decent master wordclock like my RME UFX provides.

I noticed that after a change to a Yamaha 01v96i USB audio interface using it's own wordclock. The yamaha desk wordclock sync slaved to an RME sounded quite better. Good testers for digital sound quality are decent piano recordings or cymbals. -F

So there is no good hi fi and no bad hi fi sounds, we are pretty much approaching an era when there will be no hi fi period.

I remember my first hi fi with a cd player I went to a record shop after receiving it that morning and I had 6 cd discs to choose from.

I cannot remember the artist or titles, but I choose Graceland Paul Simon.

I remember going home and being astounded by the sound after years of records and tapes.

Arrived the Philips dac TDA1541A chip, it was in a lot of cd player after a while, my point is I now am hearing music again like I did then, how, why, where and when, I could not tell you in too much detail as even my wife who does not really listen to music much noticed/heard the difference.


Amazed that forum members on here have a doubt, about this as I always assumed that music would be as one lecturer said to me .. in the blood..?.

Video track you mentioned about the Quincy Jones produced Thriller,

Yes he listened on small speakers for the results, but he still used and had the top of the range sound system available .. Mmmm womder why that was !!.

Just to add I was working on a new song and adding vocals as I was monitoring on my Headphones.

I heard the real tracks with more body and feel, as though the guitar was next to me and not a distance away.

That made me sing more openly and get a feel for the recording that I have never had when recording , like a live feel, a gig etc.


All I am saying it works for me and I am just giving feed back.

Now there’s a good reason: the sound quality inspires you so you sing better. Absolutely.