I have been seeking advice from the experts on the RME Forum about power supplies for the RME Pro which has been most interesting.
Now I have a more general question about powering dacs and the cost/benefit equation of elaborate internal power stages which is probably more appropriate for this forum. The measurements have proven that DACs such as the RME, and others at the top end of the league table are able to accurately reproduce the digital input in analog form. Some makes have sophisticated, and expensive, internal power sections with huge and heavy components, and others do not, yet output measurements are near identical. How is this possible? A layman, such as me, might conclude that those big, shielded power stages are not required. In other words, if 2 DACs have similar DSP producing similar measurements with noise and jitter etc well below audible threshold, yet one has a power stage that doubles the cost of the unit, should we not always opt for the cheaper model, functionally and ascetics apart. OR, is there another factor, other than the measurements that might make the more expensive dac sound better, excluding any downstream equipment? I am just interested in what the dac produces, as Armin says, what the designer does inside the box should not concern us, it is only the end result in which we are interested? I quote a popular reviewer on Utube: ‘ the RME is a great sounding dac, but not as good of course than dac …. at twice the price, as you would expect’. Well is that what we should expect? What I have learned from this excellent site is that maybe we should not. But am I correct?
Ultimately this decision affects buying choices. I want a new dac, and I am prepared to spend to get a high performance one, but on the other hand, I do not want to spend on what is not necessary! I am very attracted by the RME Pro, and it is at least half the price of my other contenders, some of which have slightly worse measurements. But am I missing something? Is the old adage of ‘you need to double the price you pay for a component to get noticeably better performance’ correct - it is a revalation to me, after 50 years or buying hi fi, that it might not be. I have found through my own blind testing that I cannot tell the difference between good quality professional interconnects and high end audiophile cables - hence I use the far cheaper professional products. From what I have learned so far, the same may well apply to DACs such as the RME as well??
An obvious example of what I mean would be to compare the 2 DACs at the very top of the league table: the Mola Mola and the Topping. They have near identical performance, yet vastly different prices. If any one was in the fortunate position to have access to both, and could carry out a proper blind test that was repeatable, what would be the result in terms of sound quality (ignoring things like ascetics and functionality). For instance if one was found to be better than the other, surely we must ask why, when they have the same measured performance. If, on the other hand, they were the same, what about all the pundits who go on endlessly about sound stage depth etc, etc? Would they then be out of business?
Sorry for this rambling post, but after a long time in this hobby I may be at a crossroads, mainly because of the compelling arguments of Armin. I just hope I have interpreted those arguments correctly.
Thanks, Mitch
Now I have a more general question about powering dacs and the cost/benefit equation of elaborate internal power stages which is probably more appropriate for this forum. The measurements have proven that DACs such as the RME, and others at the top end of the league table are able to accurately reproduce the digital input in analog form. Some makes have sophisticated, and expensive, internal power sections with huge and heavy components, and others do not, yet output measurements are near identical. How is this possible? A layman, such as me, might conclude that those big, shielded power stages are not required. In other words, if 2 DACs have similar DSP producing similar measurements with noise and jitter etc well below audible threshold, yet one has a power stage that doubles the cost of the unit, should we not always opt for the cheaper model, functionally and ascetics apart. OR, is there another factor, other than the measurements that might make the more expensive dac sound better, excluding any downstream equipment? I am just interested in what the dac produces, as Armin says, what the designer does inside the box should not concern us, it is only the end result in which we are interested? I quote a popular reviewer on Utube: ‘ the RME is a great sounding dac, but not as good of course than dac …. at twice the price, as you would expect’. Well is that what we should expect? What I have learned from this excellent site is that maybe we should not. But am I correct?
Ultimately this decision affects buying choices. I want a new dac, and I am prepared to spend to get a high performance one, but on the other hand, I do not want to spend on what is not necessary! I am very attracted by the RME Pro, and it is at least half the price of my other contenders, some of which have slightly worse measurements. But am I missing something? Is the old adage of ‘you need to double the price you pay for a component to get noticeably better performance’ correct - it is a revalation to me, after 50 years or buying hi fi, that it might not be. I have found through my own blind testing that I cannot tell the difference between good quality professional interconnects and high end audiophile cables - hence I use the far cheaper professional products. From what I have learned so far, the same may well apply to DACs such as the RME as well??
An obvious example of what I mean would be to compare the 2 DACs at the very top of the league table: the Mola Mola and the Topping. They have near identical performance, yet vastly different prices. If any one was in the fortunate position to have access to both, and could carry out a proper blind test that was repeatable, what would be the result in terms of sound quality (ignoring things like ascetics and functionality). For instance if one was found to be better than the other, surely we must ask why, when they have the same measured performance. If, on the other hand, they were the same, what about all the pundits who go on endlessly about sound stage depth etc, etc? Would they then be out of business?
Sorry for this rambling post, but after a long time in this hobby I may be at a crossroads, mainly because of the compelling arguments of Armin. I just hope I have interpreted those arguments correctly.
Thanks, Mitch