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

Showing 4 responses by skushino

UncleJeff,
Those are my sentiments, too. Maybe I'm too cynical, but my question remains: are there really improvements being developed so quickly in digital playback technology that the life cycle of CD players and DACs is like a PC (say 18 - 24 months)? If this is the case, then I want to understand what these improvements are.

Computer life-cycles are short because of Moore's Law, making more processing power and memory available to run more complex software at a given price point. I don't see the parallels to digital playback. Considering Redbook only, the software is no more complex, some DAC manufacturers promote simplicity (no upsampling like 47 Labs and Zanden and even old DA converters, again Zanden) as a virtue.

Perhaps equipment manufacturers would like the market to believe that technology evolves quickly and that equiment is obsolete in a few months, as an incentive to increase unit sales.

Reubent,
Ooops, maybe this is only thought-provoking to me!
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.
Redkiwi - I mentioned Moore's Law only because CDPs and DACs are most often mentioned as having very short product life-cycles compared to other gear due to evoloving technology. Since I just acquired a DAC, I was wondering what specifically is changing so quickly in Redbook playback that would cause a DAC to be obsolete in a year or two. And if the digital technology isn't evolving fast (we don't see DACs with newer more powerful processors to play larger CD software), then one would conclude that what separates the mediocore from the excellent products is execution of fundamental design principals and listening trials, not obsolete digital technology. Aren't these the same for non-digital components like amps, phono-stages, etc? And if so, than the life-cycle for well-designed digital gear should be about the same as for a well-designed preamp!

Viggen and Clbeanz - I agree about the wide-ranging quality in digital recordings, but the same can be said about analog, too. As for hi-rez formats being mastered from low-rez sources, well that's a different topic entirely. Sounds like the record companies are taking short-cuts to supply a new format.