Please help me choose controller monitor/DAC

[audio4life]

Hello guys. I used to have the Avocet (1st version) with a Lynx AES16e. I had to downgrade due to financial troubles, of course.
I've been using an Audient ID14 (mki) but I also took a break from serious mixing work. I want to start up again and I need to upgrade from the ID14, but I still can't unfortunately spend what I was able to before.

So for about $1000, give or take, what would you all consider an upgrade from the ID14? In other words, what's really worth it at this budget? I'm out of the loop in terms of expertise on DAC/monitor controllers. I know a lot of the whats considered "high end" in the audio world. So now I'm hoping then, you excellent people could help me with a neutral and transparent DAC/controller for audio work that no longer needs to be in those super expensive tiers. I'd like a headphone amp built-in, however it isn't priority to be top notch, just there. The DAC part is the critical part. Feeding powered/active monitors made by HEDD.

I've researched Topping., ADI-2 DAC, Dangerous Source, and even considered putting ID14 mkii on the list. Any help is appreciated.

 

[staticV3]

Do you need an ADC to record stuff as well?
If yes, then you're looking for an audio interface.
If not, then you're looking for a DAC+Amp with line out.

It helps to set your requirements first.

 

[audio4life]

Hi, I thought the preamble about the Avocet made it implicit, but to answer the question directly, no I have no recording requirements. I only need neutral monitoring. So no ADC required.

 

[audio4life]

lol well this didn't get any where...

After researching, I think I want to go with ADI-2 DAC FS. There is just no good comparisons/ADA captured loops that would allow me to compare the difference from an ID14. I'm getting back into the swing, so I want to ensure the ADI-2 is very different than the ID14. And that difference as I've posted earlier should be more transparency, neutrality, and fidelity vs ID14. So, anybody have direct experience with both of these and/or have audio files to compare, that would be amazing.

 

[Blumlein 88]

The ADI 2 DAC FS is among the most accurate you can get. Now I'm not sure that means you'll hear much difference verses the ID14 as it probably is close to transparent itself. One good thing about the ADI-2 is you can select among several maximum output levels and get a near optimum match to your HEDD speakers. The 5 band parametric EQ may also be very handy for taming room modes or similar. I would probably prefer the user interface of the ID14 with the top mounted volume control, but that may or may not matter to you depending upon how you will use it. The RME has a remote which the ID14 doesn't.

You also might consider the SMSL SP400. Excellent DAC, excellent powerful headphone amp built in, resistor based ladder relay switched volume control. This one has a remote too. $630.

SMSL SP400 Review (headphone amp)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the SMSL SP400 balanced THX headphone amplifier. It was kindly sent to me by one of their dealers, shenzhenaudio. It costs US $630 from them. The SP400 makes an attempt at luxury with glossy plexiglass top and digital display: As you see, there...

www.audiosciencereview.com

SP400

Foshan ShuangMuSanLin electronics Co., LTD. founded in 2009 which located in Shenzhen, China. And our branch company VMV Technology(HK) Company Limited registered in HK in 2013. Our company is specialized in the audio DAC, stereo headphone amplifier, power amplifier, and with own R&D...

www.smsl-audio.com

 

[audio4life]

Thanks Blumlein 88. The SMSL is definitely not shabby at all, impressive. Unless I missed it, I didn't see a USB connection. Now I have an interfacing card, a damn good one by Lynx, but I like having a USB option. I'm positive, as an apples to apples comparison, the SMSL is essentially just as good as the RME. But why not go for the RME right Well, I suppose the price is enticing! The mystery however of how much "better" adi-2 dac is than the ID14 has me stumped. It's certainly not like I couldn't get work done with the Audient.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Thanks Blumlein 88. The SMSL is definitely not shabby at all, impressive. Unless I missed it, I didn't see a USB connection. Now I have an interfacing card, a damn good one by Lynx, but I like having a USB option. I'm positive, as an apples to apples comparison, the SMSL is essentially just as good as the RME. But why not go for the RME right Well, I suppose the price is enticing! The mystery however of how much "better" adi-2 dac is than the ID14 has me stumped. It's certainly not like I couldn't get work done with the Audient.

Sorry a big oops. The SP400 isn't even a DAC. I had in mind the SMSL M400 which is a DAC.

SMSL M400 Balanced USB MQA DAC Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the SMSL M400 balanced and unbalanced DAC. It was kindly sent to me by the company. The M400 costs US $810 from prices I see online. The M400 design has been upgraded with a larger, more clear display and a Plexiglas upper cover: There is the...

www.audiosciencereview.com

And while plenty of digital inputs including USB doesn't include a headphone amp. Plus it costs $810. For that difference I'd stick with the RME.

I honestly doubt there is a sound difference in the Audient vs the RME. Not one you could hear if the identities were hidden from you.

I have posted a couple threads where I sent music to a DAC, recorded it with an ADC, and then repeated for 8 generations. I then allowed you to download the original and an 8th gen copy to choose from without knowing which was which. You might be surprised how hard that is. I can link to them if you are interested. It might make it easier to go with the Audient and not worry. One thread used gear of less measured quality than you are considering, and the other used gear near the quality of what you are considering.

Certainly no worries going with the RME, it has a ton of useful features and top notch performance. If you go with the Audient you may always wonder what might have been.

 

[audio4life]

Sorry a big oops. The SP400 isn't even a DAC. I had in mind the SMSL M400 which is a DAC.

SMSL M400 Balanced USB MQA DAC Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the SMSL M400 balanced and unbalanced DAC. It was kindly sent to me by the company. The M400 costs US $810 from prices I see online. The M400 design has been upgraded with a larger, more clear display and a Plexiglas upper cover: There is the...

www.audiosciencereview.com

And while plenty of digital inputs including USB doesn't include a headphone amp. Plus it costs $810. For that difference I'd stick with the RME.

I honestly doubt there is a sound difference in the Audient vs the RME. Not one you could hear if the identities were hidden from you.

I have posted a couple threads where I sent music to a DAC, recorded it with an ADC, and then repeated for 8 generations. I then allowed you to download the original and an 8th gen copy to choose from without knowing which was which. You might be surprised how hard that is. I can link to them if you are interested. It might make it easier to go with the Audient and not worry. One thread used gear of less measured quality than you are considering, and the other used gear near the quality of what you are considering.

Certainly no worries going with the RME, it has a ton of useful features and top notch performance. If you go with the Audient you may always wonder what might have been.

I would love to hear those files. I'm a bit of a A/B'er, sort of known for it in my audio circles lol. I've posted many as well over the years, usually like plugins vs one another or vs their hardware counterpart, which was always fun. I think the multi-generational pass is great. I also like simply, 1 pass as well to see if there truly a difference, hence why I'd be ecstatic to hear audient vs RME with such files. But yes, if you have those files you mentioned along with the original, I am allllllll ears. And I'd gladly report back as to what I think is what.

 

[Blumlein 88]

8th generation ADC/DAC loop vs the original.....can you hear it?

Download this zip file. It will unzip into a folder with three 30 second snippets of a Fiona Apple song. Two are the original digital file. One is an 8th generation loop thru DAC/ADC. Pick the odd file out on the poll...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Listen and choose the 8th generation digital copy.

Each of these zip files will open into three wav files. One is labeled Reference, one is A and one is B. These are 30 second snippets of full songs. The originals were from CD so all 44.1 khz and 16 bit. Either A or B has been thru 8 generations of DA to AD copying. The other is identical...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I did post the results, but they are under a Spoiler tag so you will not see them until you click on it once you've made your selections. So give a listen and see what you think. I listed which gear was used in the second link above. The older first link the DAC was the output of a Tact RCS 2.0 room correction preamp. All DSP turned off and unity gain. So a device from around 2000 or 2001. The ADC was a 1st gen Focusrite Scarlett 18i20. correction the ADC was a Focusrite Forte. So not a super high end device though it performs reasonably well.

 

[audio4life]

8th generation ADC/DAC loop vs the original.....can you hear it?

Download this zip file. It will unzip into a folder with three 30 second snippets of a Fiona Apple song. Two are the original digital file. One is an 8th generation loop thru DAC/ADC. Pick the odd file out on the poll...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Listen and choose the 8th generation digital copy.

Each of these zip files will open into three wav files. One is labeled Reference, one is A and one is B. These are 30 second snippets of full songs. The originals were from CD so all 44.1 khz and 16 bit. Either A or B has been thru 8 generations of DA to AD copying. The other is identical...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I did post the results, but they are under a Spoiler tag so you will not see them until you click on it once you've made your selections. So give a listen and see what you think. I listed which gear was used in the second link above. The older first link the DAC was the output of a Tact RCS 2.0 room correction preamp. All DSP turned off and unity gain. So a device from around 2000 or 2001. The ADC was a 1st gen Focusrite Scarlett 18i20. So not a super high end device though it performs reasonably well.

Excellent, thanks! I will take a listen sometime tomorrow evening, looking forward to it.
BTW, what the hell is with the post above mine! SPAMilicious (EDIT: SPAM was removed)

 

[AnalogSteph]

From what I can tell, there is no reason to be acutely concerned about a MkI iD14.

Spoiler: Review & Specs

Specs

It may not be a chart-topper, but good enough for just about any speaker to be the bottleneck, now that it probably is. (Which HEDDs are they?) Distortion performance is a bit so-so, but at 117 dB(A) you've got enough dynamic range to trade off a few dB of output level if need be. Not like I think you need to, given that average digital playback levels on the creation side of things tend to be quite moderate and even -1 dBFS should only be hit once in a blue moon. The PCM4104's digital filter is quite good, with passband ripple mostly within +/-0.001 dB (the most critical periodic component being less than half that) and stopband attenuation generally past 80 dB.

If your monitors are similar to the HEDD Type 07 Mk2 or Type 20 Mk2, the best match to the iD14's +12 dBu @ 0 dBFS output level should be the -4 dB input sensitivity setting, as 0 dB seems to equate to ~2 Vrms = +8 dBu ADC input sensitivity.

IMHO an upgrade only makes sense if you need extra features (higher output level or sample rates, DSP functionality, extra connections, whatever), you absolutely hate the drivers or something is broken. Otherwise you'd just be spending money on performance you literally can't hear.

At least the current HEDDs have AES/EBU digital inputs. There might be benefits to be had by going that route, although something like the AES16e seems way overkill. That being said, there basically aren't any devices with AES output that don't cost at least twice the price of an iD14, so I wouldn't consider that route to be cost-effective.

 

[audio4life]

From what I can tell, there is no reason to be acutely concerned about a MkI iD14.

Spoiler: Review & Specs

Specs

It may not be a chart-topper, but good enough for just about any speaker to be the bottleneck, now that it probably is. (Which HEDDs are they?) Distortion performance is a bit so-so, but at 117 dB(A) you've got enough dynamic range to trade off a few dB of output level if need be. Not like I think you need to, given that average digital playback levels on the creation side of things tend to be quite moderate and even -1 dBFS should only be hit once in a blue moon. The PCM4104's digital filter is quite good, with passband ripple mostly within +/-0.001 dB (the most critical periodic component being less than half that) and stopband attenuation generally past 80 dB.

If your monitors are similar to the HEDD Type 07 Mk2 or Type 20 Mk2, the best match to the iD14's +12 dBu @ 0 dBFS output level should be the -4 dB input sensitivity setting, as 0 dB seems to equate to ~2 Vrms = +8 dBu ADC input sensitivity.

IMHO an upgrade only makes sense if you need extra features (higher output level or sample rates, DSP functionality, extra connections, whatever), you absolutely hate the drivers or something is broken. Otherwise you'd just be spending money on performance you literally can't hear.

At least the current HEDDs have AES/EBU digital inputs. There might be benefits to be had by going that route, although something like the AES16e seems way overkill. That being said, there basically aren't any devices with AES output that don't cost at least twice the price of an iD14, so I wouldn't consider that route to be cost-effective.

Thank you, it's a reasonable conclusion and it sort of sparked the idea, well why not then shell out a little money for the "best version" of the ID14, the mkii. This could be perhaps the compromising decision with perhaps peace-of-mind specs of something I have already versus something completely new that I may not totally benefit from at a much higher cost. I have to look into it but then again I think I read the mkii isn't much better however lol Regarding the digital playback, in the mastering side of things, one can be at -0.3 dBFS up to digital 0. Thanks for that video too by the way.

 

[AnalogSteph]

Regarding the digital playback, in the mastering side of things, one can be at -0.3 dBFS up to digital 0.

I rather assume that the iD14 only has digital volume control (its DAC is just about good enough for that). Thus, if your monitor input sensitivity and output volume are set sensibly, 0 dBFS at the DAC should correspond to some ludicrous kind of output level like 110 dB SPL. You've got enough dynamic range to pull this off without output noise becoming an issue.

Do you already have Sonarworks or the like? That plus perhaps some tweaks to acoustic treatment stands a much better chance of actually resulting in audible improvements.

 

[audio4life]

I rather assume that the iD14 only has digital volume control (its DAC is just about good enough for that). Thus, if your monitor input sensitivity and output volume are set sensibly, 0 dBFS at the DAC should correspond to some ludicrous kind of output level like 110 dB SPL. You've got enough dynamic range to pull this off without output noise becoming an issue.

Do you already have Sonarworks or the like? That plus perhaps some tweaks to acoustic treatment stands a much better chance of actually resulting in audible improvements.

Indeed, Sonarworks as well as superb room treatment. I was doing mixing professionally for a long time, so those classic disciplines like room acoustics were drilled into me at audio school 20 + years ago, and I am thankful for that haha.

 

[audio4life]

8th generation ADC/DAC loop vs the original.....can you hear it?

Download this zip file. It will unzip into a folder with three 30 second snippets of a Fiona Apple song. Two are the original digital file. One is an 8th generation loop thru DAC/ADC. Pick the odd file out on the poll...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Listen and choose the 8th generation digital copy.

Each of these zip files will open into three wav files. One is labeled Reference, one is A and one is B. These are 30 second snippets of full songs. The originals were from CD so all 44.1 khz and 16 bit. Either A or B has been thru 8 generations of DA to AD copying. The other is identical...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I did post the results, but they are under a Spoiler tag so you will not see them until you click on it once you've made your selections. So give a listen and see what you think. I listed which gear was used in the second link above. The older first link the DAC was the output of a Tact RCS 2.0 room correction preamp. All DSP turned off and unity gain. So a device from around 2000 or 2001. The ADC was a 1st gen Focusrite Scarlett 18i20. So not a super high end device though it performs reasonably well.

Ok here are my answers and my analysis as to why I picked what I picked...

Fiona Apple - Z is the 8th gen.
Marley - A
Cowboy - B
Jennifer - B
Woods - A
Ry Cooder - B

Surprisingly, for 8 passes or so, they don't sound as bad as they should. Essentially the 8 gen passes have less stereo "space" and energy. There is a tendency to collapse towards the center a tad, rather than the width in the original file. The 8th passes also "sink" a bit in total imaging. This always tells me there are instruments that are low end types, such as a kick drum OR there is high frequency loss, and so there is an auditory sinking towards the floor. Dynamics wise, there is generally less liveliness and dynamic energy in the 8th gen ones. They become almost like imposters of the original, but more 2D, a smeared together representation of what was the original. Finally that brings me to transient quality. The transients become less thrusting forward energy, and more of a blend into the background, rather than proud and tall, jutting forward as in the originals. Those are my mine criteria typically, the trifecta.

I have to reiterate, the fact that these differences, although there, are not more overtly noticeable in the sense one would expect with 8 friggin' passes, it really makes me question how much better could higher priced DAC's be for monitoring audio! If somebody can make those loopback tests of both of these devices along with the original, much like Blumlein 88's comparisons, although just 1 pass, that would be the final judge.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Well I can't do a 1st gen copy for the DACs you want. I can provide the 1st gen copies from the 8th gen thread. Here they are. They are labeled 1st gen when you open the zip file. So you'll need to obfuscate their identity somehow or maybe use them in Foobar ABX and see if you can discern them.

So these were 1st gen copies using a March Audio Dac-1 and Antelope Audio Zen Tour ADC.

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com