What's the point of a sound card?

[RedCharles]

I've had Creative sound cards in my pc since 2002. I've owned Grado headphones since 2002. And back in the days of EAX (which was awesome), sound cards added directional audio that was unique to sound cards, but EAX has been gone for over a decade. I got a ZXR in 2013 to replace my Audigy 2zs. I wanted more SNR and it looked cool. And it was better.

I just sold my Grado 500e's because I didn't listen to them after I got a real surround system hooked up to my computer (SM45's/DA2ES/ZXR ). The DA2 is a DVD era receiver, so I used rca multi channel in and a sound card. And I don't go to LANs anymore, so I don't need headphones. I might go to Lan someday, but it seemed weird to keep an expensive set of headphones around for an occasion that will likely never happen again. I host a LAN about once a year, but only a few die hards show up. The days of a dozen sweaty nerds setting up shitty computers in someone's garage for an all night gaming session are long gone.

I told my friend that we might go to PDXLan again some day. He told me that was pipedream and reminded me that I have a family. And he's right, I can't leave my family for three days of hardcore gaming. My wife would kill me. It might be a stretch to say that my kids would miss me, but they might.

I recently bought a 94TXH. And I just tested RCA vs HDMI. I don't think I could tell them apart in a blind test.

I don't use the ZXR's beam-forming mic anymore either. I bought a Shure mic and Rolls preamp, which are connected to the ZXR's mic input. I suppose I could use the ZXR's software to modify the signal. Perhaps clean up some noise, but I haven't tested the motherboard against the ZXR, and I should.

It really seems like receivers are a much, much better option than sound cards because they open a whole world of speaker options. But it's virtually unheard of to connect a receiver to a computer. Getting a sound card and a set of tweeterless Logitech Z906's is the audio end game for most PC gamers. Which is sad.

Am I wrong here? Is there some feature of sound cards I'm forgetting about?

 

[lovinthehd]

Sound card quality/computer environment varies somewhat. Somewhat depends on noise the computer environment might contribute to the card's function as a dac and many prefer to simply export the digital stream rather than process it with a sound card at all (even tho the dac in the sound card may be fine).

 

[GrimSurfer]

Agree with @lovinthehd. To his post, I'd add the following:

1. There are a lot of stray RF emanations inside a computer chassis. This is no big deal, however, because digital processors is relatively immune to it. Because of this, computer manufacturers pay very little attention to internal RF emanations.

2. Computers are designed for number crunching, not sound reproduction. That's why so little attention is paid to sound reproduction... and why the sound card business is booming;

3. There are more great sound cards out there than I can count. Provided one pays a reasonable amount of money, they'll likely get one with a great capability to decode the excellent digital signals generated by the CPU (digital crunching is, after all, what computers are really good at). But if you've ever looked at a sound card, you will notice that it is just that -- a card with circuit traces and electronic components clearly visible;

4. Potential problems arise from the location of the analog stage of a sound card (inside the computer chassis). The intensity of RF energy over distance obeys the inverse-square law, which states that intensity is inversly proportional to the square of the distance from a source. So halving the distance increases the RF signal by a factor of two.

5. Now consider the differences in strength of stray RF signals reaching an unshielded sound card (remember those visible circuit traces and components) that is located anywhere between 1 and 6 inches from high energy computer components and the strength of these same emanations reaching an off-board DAC (after passing through a computer chassis and DAC chassis) that might be anywhere from 2-6 times further away.

Things for an audioholic to think about because sound quality, and not computing or packaging, is our priority...

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Agree with @lovinthehd. To his post, I'd add the following:

1. There are a lot of stray RF emanations inside a computer chassis. This is no big deal, however, because digital processors ARE relatively immune to it. Because of this, computer manufacturers pay very little attention to internal RF emanations.

2. Computers are designed for number crunching, not sound reproduction. That's why so little attention is paid to sound reproduction... and why the sound card business WAS booming;

3. There very few great sound cards out there than I can count. Provided one pays a reasonable amount of money, they'll likely get one with a great capability to decode the excellent digital signals generated by the CPU (digital crunching is, after all, what computers are really good at). But if you've ever looked at a sound card, you will notice that it is just that -- a card with circuit traces and electronic components clearly visible;

4. Potential problems arise from the location of the analog stage of a sound card (inside the computer chassis). The intensity of RF energy over distance obeys the inverse-square law, which states that intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from a source. So halving the distance increases the RF signal by a factor of two.

5. Now consider the differences in strength of stray RF signals reaching an unshielded sound card (remember those visible circuit traces and components) that is located anywhere between 1 and 6 inches from high energy computer components and the strength of these same emanations reaching an off-board DAC (after passing through a computer chassis and DAC chassis) that might be anywhere from 2-6 times further away.

Things for an audioholic to think about because of sound quality, and not computing or packaging, is our priority...

Added some grammar and tense fixes to your post to address inaccuracies and grammar/spelling.
To @RedCharles
Just like you, I used to be very much interested in internal sound cards and Creative was my go-to brand for many years. That changed after Creative couldn't be bothered to release a proper drivers support for Windows 7 for Audigy 2 zs card.
GrimSurfer isn't wrong about lots of RF noise inside a typical PC case, but looking for a specially engineered shielded analog stage sound card is not the right solution.
My suggestion would to fix the issue at the root - get an external "sound card" aka DAC, aka audio interface in the pro audio world. I changed from audioengine d1 (very good DAC with few minor issues) to fully balanced output on my current PC audio interface Behringer UMC404HD.
Another way would be to use HDMI out to a surround pre-amp or A/V receiver.
both options would sound equally as good.
EAX is no longer really supported by modern games, you'd much more likely to see support for A/V worlds audio formats like Dolby or DTS.
Offloading sound processing to sound card is again a non-issue. any modern CPU could easily do 3d sound and not sweat about it. GPU is where typical performance bottleneck is,
Besides, I'm in the same boat as OP - married and with young kids - I barely have time to watch 1-2 hours of TV at most.

 

[GrimSurfer]

Added some grammar and tense fixes to your post to address inaccuracies and grammar/spelling.
To @RedCharles
Just like you, I used to be very much interested in internal sound cards and Creative was my go-to brand for many years. That changed after Creative couldn't be bothered to release a proper drivers support for Windows 7 for Audigy 2 zs card.
GrimSurfer isn't wrong about lots of RF noise inside a typical PC case, but looking for a specially engineered shielded analog stage sound card is not the right solution.
My suggestion would to fix the issue at the root - get an external "sound card" aka DAC, aka audio interface in the pro audio world. I changed from audioengine d1 (very good DAC with few minor issues) to fully balanced output on my current PC audio interface Behringer UMC404HD.
Another way would be to use HDMI out to a surround pre-amp or A/V receiver.
both options would sound equally as good.
EAX is no longer really supported by modern games, you'd much more likely to see support for A/V worlds audio formats like Dolby or DTS.
Offloading sound processing to sound card is again a non-issue. any modern CPU could easily do 3d sound and not sweat about it. GPU is where typical performance bottleneck is,
Besides, I'm in the same boat as OP - married and with young kids - I barely have time to watch 1-2 hours of TV at most.

LOL. Fair enough... one grammatical error (my bad) and a fundamental point that you disagree with... though I can't for the life of me figure out why!

I get the whole "audiophiles are nuts" thing. I really do. I also get the "law of diminishing returns" that one can encounter when exchanging money for performance. I even get the fact that there are times when enormous sums of money are exchanged for crap.

But the fact of the matter is that good R&D costs money. Good engineering costs money. Good components cost money. Good manufacturing and strict quality control costs money. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't being realistic.

You seem to understand this because you didn't select a RaspberryPi for your DAC. Doing so would have saved money but you seem to have subconsciously embraced all those truisms that I listed above to the extent that your budget and good sense allowed.

You'll note that I qualified my statement about sound card purchasing with the phrase "reasonable amount of money". While this is a subjective term, it does force the reader to think about what that might mean.

I would apply the same phrase as a guide for a DAC purchase. After all, good stuff costs good money but it is reasoning that will prevent us from losing our heads (one way or another) as we finalize our decision.

So, within reason, you DO get what you pay for.

PS. I never suggested that the OP look for a shielded analog stage sound card. Easier and cheaper to increase the distance with an off board DAC (as the inverse square law allows us to do for free).

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Fair enough.
USB connected could still carry RF noise, but if properly engineered it's usually none issue.
RasPi isn't DAC , but an analog stage on RasPi is notoriously bad. This is a good reason for many DAC "hats" for RasPI which some of these are quite good.
If you're interested in DACs and RasPI (regarding Audio) this guy knows a lot about both:
http://archimago.blogspot.com/

 

[GrimSurfer]

Fair enough.
USB connected could still carry RF noise, but if properly engineered it's usually none issue.
RasPi isn't DAC , but an analog stage on RasPi is notoriously bad. This is a good reason for many DAC "hats" for RasPI which some of these are quite good.
If you're interested in DACs and RasPI (regarding Audio) this guy knows a lot about both:
http://archimago.blogspot.com/

USB is pretty immune to RF noise because the signal riding over it is, as you know, digital (except for the voltage signal, when used). So unless the RF is coming in a coherent digital form (0s, 1s, packets), then it will be filtered out. That's the great thing about digital!

Your point about RasPi (and they are used in DIY DACs) is a good one. It touches on something more important than money -- performance specs.

If an audioholic is agnostic about performance and can accept noise, then the RasPi might be an option. If a other audioholic wants something that delivers THD in the -120 dB range, then that's going to cost a few thousand dollars.

Despite both being of much different cost, neither is an unreasonable choice. The reason is a defined performance objective.

Now if an audiophile chooses a DAC costing thousands of dollars that performs no better than the RasPi, then that is an unreasonable choice on objective grounds. If they made that choice because they really liked the machined faceplate and colored tubes on the analog stage of their hyper expensive DAC, then that is a reasonable choice made purely on subjective grounds.

I would offer that the thing that bothers audoholics the most about audiophiles is that the latter rely on subjective reasoning as the primary discriminator for justifying the absurd prices they're willing to spend on gear of middling performance. If given the choice, I would be in the audioholics' camp. But I wouldn't necessarily be happy there...

A lack of clear thinking is driving audioholics and audiophiles in opposite directions at equal velocity. Things have reached the point where both seem to be in absurd positions of under appreciating (or outright ignoring) performance... one because it costs too much and the other because it isn't pretty enough.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Agree with @lovinthehd. The intensity of RF energy over distance obeys the inverse-square law, which states that intensity is inversly proportional to the square of the distance from a source. So halving the distance increases the RF signal by a factor of two.

At the risk of starting an incredibly nerdy argument, I think you meant a factor of four? (one half squared is one quarter, and the inverse of one quarter is four)

 

[GrimSurfer]

Absolutely right. My bad... good catch.

Here's a good visualization...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

 

[GrimSurfer]

Going down the rabbit hole further...

If we apply the inverse square law to inductance, where radiated energy escaping from the dielectric of one conductor influences another conductor, then simple and free solution is to increase distance between conductors.

Those seeking cables with really low inductance just need to separate the conductors (or use one wire cables kept a small distance apart). This does away with the need to buy expensive cables with crazy inductance specs.

Maybe a clever entrepreneur is wire separators, similar to the screw on separators for spark plug wires -- noting this is done to minimize inductance in wires carrying several thousand volts. Doing so would be technically correct but I don't think it's practical effect would add up to a great deal...

Resistance is minimized by the use of simple ETP copper of sufficient gauge.

As for capacitance, I personally wouldn't waste that much sleep over it because higher capacitance exists elsewhere in the audio chain.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

@GrimSurfer I'm an IT engineer by trade and I strongly believe that you need to have the right tool for a job, not too big and not too small. Sized just right.
Few cases in point:
My "HTPC" (or media client) is running ARM-based processor, sipping power at only 1-2 watts of electricity. (I've bought it much cheaper than this price) It supports hardware decoding for all video formats I need for streaming.
My media server (Plex) is running on a quite low-end Celeron processor, but still able to do the heavy lifting of HD video compression in real-time for 3 (possibly more) different streams at the same time.
Secret? again - hardware feature (Quicksync)
I am planning (sort of in the process) to switch to software router/firewall based on pfSense and expect to see very high VPN performance but use very low power. The key is the usage of CPU hardware feature AES-NI which significantly accelerates encryption for common methods.
See the pattern?
My point is if you look for typical hardware recommendation for all of these devices, you'll see significantly higher spec/power/price hardware than I've used.

Same for audio stuff. If a DAC/Speaker/Pre-Amp/Media device or whatever could deliver the functionality I need at satisfactory levels, then that's it. Spending more is unlikely to yield any noticeable improvements.
Nothing is truly new with audio. Speakers have small but gradual improvements in designs. Electronics are mostly for newer Home Theater stuff. Until it's time to switch my main TV to UHD model, I'll still be using my ancient Onkyo avr.

 

[GrimSurfer]

@GrimSurfer I'm an IT engineer by trade and I strongly believe that you need to have the right tool for a job, not too big and not too small. Sized just right.
Few cases in point:
My "HTPC" (or media client) is running ARM-based processor, sipping power at only 1-2 watts of electricity. (I've bought it much cheaper than this price) It supports hardware decoding for all video formats I need for streaming.
My media server (Plex) is running on a quite low-end Celeron processor, but still able to do the heavy lifting of HD video compression in real-time for 3 (possibly more) different streams at the same time.
Secret? again - hardware feature (Quicksync)
I am planning/sort of in the process) to switch to software router/firewall based on pfSense and expect to see very high VPN performance but use very low power. The key is the usage of CPU hardware feature AES-NI which significantly accelerates encryption for common methods.
See the pattern?
Same for audio stuff. If a DAC/Speaker/Pre-Amp/Media device or whatever could deliver the functionality I need at satisfactory levels, then that's it. Spending more is unlikely to yield any noticeable improvements.
Nothing is truly new with audio. Speakers have small but gradual improvements in designs. Electronics are mostly for newer Home Theater stuff. Until it's time to switch my main TV to UHD model, I'll still be using my ancient Onkyo avr.

I'm not an IT engineer so cannot comment on the example you've provided. So no, I'm afraid I can't see the pattern. Apologies.

I'd suggest that anyone's needs can be efficiently met by:

1. clearly defining the general requirement ("x" loudness, "y" accuracy, "z" reliability, etc.). Example: I want to play my music/movies really loud, with as lifelike sound as I can get, using gear that will last a long time

2. identifying performance specifications needed to meet those requirements. For example: A calculated spl @ "n" distance through a given number of loudspeakers with "s" sensitivity = "x" watts. A THD of "v" -dB. Gear that either comes with a warranty of "y" or a reputation of "r"...

3. factoring restraints and constraints (such as size, cost, future proofing, scalability etc)

3. identifying available products, that were designed for as close to your intended purpose as possible (home, dance hall, burning man) that could meet those requirements, restraints/constraints;

4. auditioning; and

5. purchasing accordingly.

This isn't about spending more money than you need to. It's about spending what money you have to get as close to the requirement as possible.

Nor should this be an exercise in auditory delusion, which is another way of saying that saying that having to pass on something unobtainable is no crime... Nor is it a crime to admit that something more expensive is better... as long as it can be reasonably demonstrated as such.

I see a lot of people on the list avoid discussions on performance... because it leads them to a place in which they may have to admit that their gear isn't that great. I find this nonsensical because the perfect gear doesn't exist... but you can find great gear and not so great gear to meet carefully defined requirements.

But if you don't define those requirements to begin with, you're on a very slippery slope to buying something that could disappoint...

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Ok, apologies if I went too much nerd on you. The pattern is using the cheapest and/or lowest power usage components using their built-in hardware features to archive the target goal.

 

[GrimSurfer]

Just deleted my last post.

I now know how you're looking at the issue... as an IT guy.

IT continues to change. This is because many of the technologies arent fully mature... they're moving to fast. As aresult, there's no real advantage to buying high quality because the qualitative advantages it brings will be overtaken by qualitative advances in the next product cycle.

That's why, intuitively, I didn't question your choice of DAC other than to compare it to a grossly underperforming one (RasPi) or one subjected to very high RF (sound card).

DACs aren't yet fully mature. They're getting better and better with each new product cycle (~1-3 years). So why pay a lot for quality today when technology will overtake it a short time from now? Doesn't make sense, right?

This is no different than AV Controllers. Why buy a high quality one? The preamp circuit is mature, but the input and processing standards change on a very frequent basis (as per ever evolving USB standards 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 etc).

But amps ARE different. So are conventional loudspeakers. Why? Because those technologies ARE mature. That's why it takes years for a new design to come out that may out-perform a really well built amp or loudspeaker from 20 years ago. (Really, the only thing we've seen in terms of improvement, other than room correction (which isn't necessarily a feature that has to be put into an amp chassis) is power consumption. And when was the last time anyone had a raucous debate about saving a few watts in power consumption?).

Since amps and loudspeakers are mature technologies, it pays to buy quality. Why? Because a good amp or set of loudspeakers will perform very well over several product cycles.

 

[Joe B]

Just deleted my last post.

I now know how you're looking at the issue... as an IT guy.

IT continues to change. This is because the technology isn't fully mature. It's developing so fast, that there's no real advantage to buying high quality because the qualitative advantages it brings will be overtaken by qualitative advances in the next product cycle.

That's why, intuitively, I didn't question your choice of DAC other than to compare it to a grossly underperforming one (RasPi) or one subjected to very high RF (sound card).

DACs aren't yet fully mature. They're getting better and better with each new product cycle (~1-3 years). So why pay a lot for quality today when technology will overtake it a short time from now? Doesn't make sense, right?

This is no different than AV Controllers. Why buy a high quality one? The preamp circuit is mature, but the input and processing standards change on a very frequent basis (as per ever evolving USB standards 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 etc).

But amps ARE different. So are conventional loudspeakers. Why? Because those technologies ARE mature. That's why it takes years for a new design to come out that may out-perform a really well built amp or loudspeaker from 20 years ago. (Really, the only thing we've seen in terms of improvement, other than room correction (which isn't necessarily a feature that has to be put into an amp chassis) is power consumption. And when was the last time anyone had a raucous debate about saving a few watts in power consumption?).

Since amps and loudspeakers are mature technologies, it pays to buy quality. Why? Because a good amp or set of loudspeakers will perform very well over several product cycles.

I question that DAC technology is not mature at this point. Mature technology is technology for which any improvements in deployment are evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Since the introduction of DSD, DAC technology has advanced in an evolutionary manner.

I do not see purchasing a good, stand alone, quality DAC as a risky investment for someone trying to improve their audio system. Of course changes occur over time, but I don't think everyone is going to be replacing their stand alone DAC's, or wishing they could afford to, because of yet another breaking development in the technology in the next 1-3 years.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

@GrimSurfer DACs are very VERY mature. Its audio decoders keep on changing to support latest surround codec or another lossless version. Basic principles of converting digital to analog haven't changed much in 20 years. Think about it then upgrading your DAC next time . Yes, DSD/MQA are new DAC features, but again - these audio formats requiring decoding, so DSD/MQA amps are doing essentially processing or PRE-AMP first.

 

[GrimSurfer]

@GrimSurfer DACs are very VERY mature. Its audio decoders keep on changing to support latest surround codec or another lossless version. Basic principles of converting digital to analog haven't changed much in 20 years. Think about it then upgrading your DAC next time . Yes, DSD/MQA are new DAC features, but again - these audio formats requiring decoding, so DSD/MQA amps are doing essentially processing or PRE-AMP first.

LOL. My previous DAC I had (in my old HK CD player) was of the one bit variety... it wasn't of the bitstream variety. It decoded digital signals one bit without oversampling. That was the best that 1998 had to offer, which is why I ditched it a few years back.

So, DACs have come a long way in 20 years. Heck, they've come a long way in five years since buying my first off board DAC.

Do they have much further to go? Probably. Not just to keep up to standards (a very good point you make) but to derive the smoothest and most accurate waveform possible from the data stream, timing accuracy to eliminate clocking errors (without having to resort to buying an atomic clock (being funny here),like high end users do to achieve the same effect) and reduce jitter and THD below -120 dB.

As a point of reference, it's acknowledged that the best DACs have today is 21 bits of resolution. There are some technical reasons for this, but there's still a bit of juice (some of it artificial) to be extracted from that lemon before calling the technology "mature" to the point where few advancements in performance are likely inside of a decade (which is where A, AB amps and conventional moving coil loudspeakers are at).

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

@GrimSurfer
I am still not entirely convinced that you fully grasp this content well. SACD uses a variety of 1-bit DAC.
In fact, 1bit DAC without noise shaping is not practical, certainly not on a CD player of any kind.
1bit DAC started to appear on the first CD players dating back 30, not 20 years ago.
1999 Offered us already 24bit/96khz DAC which even then were very affordable:
http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/revequip/db08.htm
Here are a few pages I've found for you (and others) to read and learn, sorted from easy to hard.
https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question620.htm
https://www.stereophile.com/content/pdm-pwm-delta-sigma-1-bit-dacs
https://web.archive.org/web/20061205023230/http://www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/CE/kuhn/onebit/primer.htm

 

[GrimSurfer]

@GrimSurfer
I am still not entirely convinced that you fully grasp this content well. SACD uses a variety of 1-bit DAC.
In fact, 1bit DAC without noise shaping is not practical, certainly not on a CD player of any kind.
1bit DAC started to appear on the first CD players dating back 30, not 20 years ago.
1999 Offered us already 24bit/96khz DAC which even then were very affordable:
http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/revequip/db08.htm
Here are a few pages I've found for you (and others) to read and learn, sorted from easy to hard.
https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question620.htm
https://www.stereophile.com/content/pdm-pwm-delta-sigma-1-bit-dacs
https://web.archive.org/web/20061205023230/http://www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/CE/kuhn/onebit/primer.htm

Entirely possible.

If you're saying that significant improvements in DACs haven't happened in the past 5-10 years, then I'll believe you that the technology is mature.

Is that what you're saying? Because if it is, then I don't expect to read about you buying a DAC ever again, unless your existing unit fails. To do so would be pointless. Your current DAC is as good as a DAC will ever be, not counting changes to encoding standards.

SACDs came out in 1999. The CD player I bought in 1998 first hit the market a year or so before that. On what do I base this? Certainly not an encyclopedic memory of audio products.... I bought it in Feb 98, after having shopped around for a few months prior to that. So it would have been on the floor in 97, possibly earlier.

SACD was developed by Sony and Philips, and I very much doubt they were licensing the tech to competing companies years before it was released. I guess that's why my HK CD changer had a PCM DAC. The clue was that it could not read DVD-A or SACDs.

Re: MSB Link DAC. Clearly, a lot has changed since then. 192 kBps isn't a "to be developed" capability any more. THD and S/N ratios are improved... not quite inaudible (-120 dB),but getting there. Why? Because the tech wasn't mature in 1999, and continues to mature today... albeit at a slower rate, as things do as they approach maturity.

As an older guy, I find it funny when people start saying that a piece of tech has fully matured. That means that it's as good as it's going to get. I usually make this determination after seeing that meaningful advances havent happened for a decade or more. I do this with the understanding that hindsight is much more reliable than foresight.

Conservative or cautious? Yes, very. Wrong? Sometimes, but generally less often than those who don't wait for solid evidence.

 

[GrimSurfer]

I question that DAC technology is not mature at this point. Mature technology is technology for which any improvements in deployment are evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Since the introduction of DSD, DAC technology has advanced in an evolutionary manner.

I do not see purchasing a good, stand alone, quality DAC as a risky investment for someone trying to improve their audio system. Of course changes occur over time, but I don't think everyone is going to be replacing their stand alone DAC's, or wishing they could afford to, because of yet another breaking development in the technology in the next 1-3 years.

That's a good point, Joe. (Evolutionary vs revolutionary). Revolutionary change would be from analog to digital. PCM to DSD seems more evolutionary because it is based on digital technology, which is the real revolutionary piece. Agree/disagree?

I acknowledge your point about people sticking to old tech. The only potential flaw in this is that if the digital formatting changes in a streaming environment, people will have no choice but to replace their DACs.

I wish this wouldn't be the case, but there are things that could happen relatively quickly. I believe that the vast majority of DACs are still hardware defined. Perhaps software defined DACs is the next evolutionary step? If it is, then such a change would represent a pretty significant change (maybe not revolutionary, but a high order evolutionary change),

(Note: We've seen a transition from hardware to software defined tech in radio and radar communications. The transition has been happening for some time now. If it hasn't already done so, it will overtake and completely displace hardware driven devices.

I can see this happening to DACs, as it is a way to better future proof devices and shift marketing further towards the far more profitable pay-to-subscribe or pay-to-upgrade models.

The underlying technologies are in place for this to happen: Streaming services, almost ubiquitous access to high speed IP services, cheaper processing power, automated billing, societal acceptance of technical penetration into home and property, etc.)

It would seem that our planning horizons are different. I see 1-3 years as a typical product cycle... and 10-20 years as a reasonable contemporary technology cycle. Obviously, the tech cycle is much harder to gauge accurately because of technological compression (historically, tech cycles were much longer but have been decreasing during the Information Age).

If this holds, then DACs as we currently know them could be reaching the end of their life cycle. While this is not a given, I think that we could at least agree that the current DACs on the market will not have the technological lifespan of, say, the record player because the latter is an example of technological stagnation whereas digital continues to move forward.

This is far-out thinking, to be sure. But it does touch on issues that audioholics may face as technology makes a greater impact on our hobby. It also has a way of shaping the way we manage risk.

I can think of several truly excellent DACs that cost $1k and up. I can't imagine buying them because technology is changing so fast that their features and performance characteristics will be available for hundreds of dollars within the next 24 months. This is something that I cannot say, with any confidence, about amps or loudspeakers.

So I'm not ready to say that the last leap in DACs has already taken place. I think we may be at half time of the football game. Caution is warranted, perhaps not enough to stop one from buying a DAC but certainly enough not to spend the kind of money on a cutting edge "DAC for life" (or the next 20 years, whatever comes sooner).