Still in the future … sometime in the fall
We have an M4 iPad Pro. Yields willmstillbe small and it gets the improved Neural Engine (think AI = IS = ML) into the field. An inordinate number may also come with binned M4swith only 7 CPU cores instead of the 8 possible.
dave
But we do - since long. Still, I don't see why you are so hooked on the M macs - they don't really offer anything to the table that hasn't been here for the last 5-6 years. This all can be done by a Raspberry Pi easily. One don't need 2k HW to do this - this is my point.
Otherwise the M boxes are lovely typing this from a MacBook Pro M3 pro ;-D
//
There are microcontrollers these days with serious grunt too, if you want the budget solution, with a gigaflop or so.
The DAC8 Pro has an ESS Sabre DAC, no ADC.
USB and AES/EBU digital inputs ( no analog inputs ).
It operates in 3 different modes. I use the "pure USB mode" for quad-amping.
Thanks for all the feedback. In the meantime I did some more research.
I did some research on dac8 PRO and my impression is that it's used more in home (cinema/hifi) setups and less in studio or PA setups. Here things like reliability, sturdiness, ease-of-use are important. Then the price is also quite steep. Let's say I'm happy with Mac-as-DSP and want to upgrade, why should I choose the dac8 PRO and not e.g. the MOTU UltraLite mk5 ?
Forgive me but I'm new to "in-Mac/PC digital sound processing". So if you used Focusrite Saffire 4x2 as crossover, I could as well use my Behringer UMC404HD or not? Basically I just want to see how a Mac performs, feels, works, etc as a DSP replacing the DBX Driverack PA2.
I did some research on dac8 PRO and my impression is that it's used more in home (cinema/hifi) setups and less in studio or PA setups. Here things like reliability, sturdiness, ease-of-use are important. Then the price is also quite steep. Let's say I'm happy with Mac-as-DSP and want to upgrade, why should I choose the dac8 PRO and not e.g. the MOTU UltraLite mk5 ?
Something like the MOTU UltraLite mk5 has 8 analog inputs AND 8 digital inputs (ADAT & S/PDIF ) plus 10 analog outputs and costs half as much as the DAC8 Pro. I need it to perform reliably in tough live and studio and in PA setups. For this I'm happy to trade in some sound quality e.g. aiming at 99.6% inseatd of 100% which may be important for hifi setups.
So should I get the MOTU UltraLite mk5 instead?
Before making huge investments, I just want to feel how a Mac as crossover works. So I would try this 2-way with the Beringer. For low/mids I use JBL ASB6125 (32 Hz - 1 kHz) and for highs JBL 2450H (500Hz-20kHz). Then (try to) install CamillaDSP or Blue Cat’s MB-7 Mixer and see how all works together reliably and easy. If it's not smooth, I just get the t.racks FIR DSP 408 and be happy 😉 (well not fully, because it only has PC software, which led me to trying this Mac-as-DSP route)
I am not familiar with the MOTU UltraLite mk5.
If you are going to use it on the road, I personally would not put my DAC8 PRO in a roadie rack. You also have to consider fast turn around for road work and possible backup units. Ordering a DAC8 PRO has lead times and they are not always in stock in case you need an immediate replacement. Pro gear like MOTO, RME, Lynx and Focusrite are more ubiquitous from multiple vendors and more quickly replaced should there be an issue.
You might want to state your specific use cases as well. What sample rates/bit depths do you want ? What software, protocols, plugins, etc. do you want to use and then compare that with your hardware short list.
If you are going to be doing measuring, having both the ADC and DAC controlled by the same clock is a plus. I slave clock my mic pre from the DAC8 PRO's AES/EBU output to sync the clocks.
FWIW, MAC/Apple supposedly has "Device Aggregation" which might get you started with existing DACs if it works well enough (synch's multiple DACs) and you already have a suitable MAC.
Apple Device Aggregation
Last edited:
Another product is the dspNexus DSP Audio Processor from Danville Signal Processing, Inc. It is more expensive than the aforementioned options. It is a self-contained product in the same category as the DEQX units (yet another option).
Danville Signal Processing (DSP) does commercial work for OEMs.
The dspNexus uses Audio Weaver software to design/create filters and is designed around an upgradeable hardware module topology.
It uses a SHARC DSP and AKM DAC chips.
Danville Signal Processing (DSP) does commercial work for OEMs.
The dspNexus uses Audio Weaver software to design/create filters and is designed around an upgradeable hardware module topology.
It uses a SHARC DSP and AKM DAC chips.
You can certainly roll your own collection of amplifiers, DSP, DACs with lots of boxes, power supplies, and cables or you can buy a really cost effective, compact high quality solution. I've used the Hypex Fusion on two projects and separate miniDSP, with amps and cables on another. The Hypex solution was really great. Here's the lower power three channel unit. The FA 123 https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/speaker-amps/hypex-fusionamp-fa123/
Use case: We needed a sound system for festivals (100+ people) and I found very cheap 2 x JBL ASB6125 (32Hz-1kHz) and 2 x JBL 2450H (500Hz-20kHz) and 2 x QSC amps. Now I just need a crossover and someone mentioned better get a DSP. Completely standard no nonsense use case. That's why I'm so surprised there's no DBX or Behringer crossover/DSP software that just runs on the Mac instead on their device.
Sample rates/bit depths: I don't want to loose any analog warmth and imperfection, I guess everyone has at least 24 Bit AD/DA, 96 kHz Sampling Rate
Software: Ableton 12, FabFilter Pro-Q 3 seems to work with Ableton and has crossover features but no specific filters like Linkwitz or Butterworth, Blue Cat’s MB-7 Mixer has Linkwitz but is ugly and seems not integrated with Ableton
Apple: Powerbook M1
Yes and I still don't know if the DAC8 PRO is really that much better (e.g. re " I don't want to loose any analog warmth and imperfection")
Thanks for this, I didn't know. Tomorrow I'll start with the Behringer UMC404HD and Camilla DSP 😛
They say "Something actually new in the Audio World?" and I don't get what is new about it. My goal is not to have another CPU doing some calculations but have it done on the Mac.
Another thing to look out for is mixing consumer audio and pro gear. The output of a consumer audio DAC may not be able to drive pro amps to their full potential without some sort of amplification in between (preamp, input buffer, etc.). The DAC8 PRO XLR outputs 4.2V and can be ordered with optional higher gain outputs.
I moved away from the internal processing units because it tends to lock you to a specific vendor and/or product line. With a PC, you can just get a faster processor/mobo, change/escape operating systems/virus distribution vectors, update your multi-channel DAC or update your software independently of each other.
With CamillaDSP and RePhase, you can have 64-bit FIR XOs and 64-bit convolution with @ -340dB noise floor before converting to your DAC's native format. The "I don't want to loose any analog warmth and imperfection" maybe an issue because it is lowering the noise floor, not raising it.
Where the all in ones run out of steam is with FIR, low frequency, high tap counts and higher bit depths.
Last edited:
64 bit? Do you double floats which have an ENOB of 53? 53 bits is 319dB. With large FFTs and numerical rounding you then expect to have at least 40 bits of true precision (> 240dB). These days there are microcontrollers that have hardware double floats that can handle the processing load, but usually fall short on RAM capacity.
Unfortunately I think it was proven to not provide good enough sync for high demand SQ... but I haven't tried it. Can't recall where...
I use a RME Digiface USB (Toslink) to run 4pcs of stereo DACs from one mac in complete sync i.e. 8 channels.
//
I suppose whatever noise/imperfection comes into the DSP will be accurately converted digitally and re-converted to analog? It wouldn't "clean up" the input signal right?
It wouldn't make it sound "digital" just because the signal is digitally processed?
Else I would go completely analog. Basically anything between an analog synth and the ear shouldn't add a micro-db of anything incl. noise.
@mikekasky ,
The quantization noise is reduced with bit-depth and there are no passive components which eliminates all of their associated issues (matching, tolerances, aging, thermal changes, etc.).
Here is a more complete list to be picked apart.
Why Passive Crossovers Always Suck
Here are the relative noise floors of 16 bit int, 32 and 64 bit float XOs.
I16:
F32:
F64:
The quantization noise is reduced with bit-depth and there are no passive components which eliminates all of their associated issues (matching, tolerances, aging, thermal changes, etc.).
Here is a more complete list to be picked apart.
Why Passive Crossovers Always Suck
Here are the relative noise floors of 16 bit int, 32 and 64 bit float XOs.
I16:
F32:
F64: