Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Audio-Gd Reference 10
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audio-Gd Reference 10 - Page 8

post #106 of 233
5/30/12 at 6:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by drez View Post

 but with headphones there is the problem that the treble is much more forward than speakers.

That's the HP fault.

Reply

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

post #107 of 233
5/30/12 at 6:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by drez View Post

Kingwa isn't kidding when he says "neutral" - M6 and Ref 7.1 driving HE-6 just doesn't hold back with bad recordings and lets it all through full force.  I think this is probably great for a pre-amp, but with headphones there is the problem that the treble is much more forward than speakers.  A lot of music is mastered on speakers, so when played back over headphones it will often sound bright.  For me though my Ref 7.1 M6 and HE-6 sounds incredible with 90% of material, but you do have to carefully select every component to avoid adding brightness or removing body.

 

No issues with the treble on my HE6's using the NFB-7\Master-6. In fact I would not mind a bit more wink_face.gif

Reply
post #108 of 233
5/30/12 at 7:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telstar View Post

That's the HP fault.

 

I tend to disagree - most records from EMI, Deutsche Grammophon sound incredible, but any 90's recording from DECCA - not so good.  I mean one could use a headphone like LCD-3 which naturally tries to emulate speaker listening by shelving treble but to me this is trading transparency on 90% of recordings for easy listening on 10% of recordings.

Reply
post #109 of 233
5/31/12 at 6:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by drez View Post

I tend to disagree - most records from EMI, Deutsche Grammophon sound incredible, but any 90's recording from DECCA - not so good.  I mean one could use a headphone like LCD-3 which naturally tries to emulate speaker listening by shelving treble but to me this is trading transparency on 90% of recordings for easy listening on 10% of recordings.

HF emphasis is fake transparency. I'm not referring to a particular HP.

Reply
post #110 of 233
6/4/12 at 9:15pm

Hey Everyone in Australia and New Zealand,

 

just letting you know we have received the Reference 10.2 and it is available in store for Audition

 

Ref 10.2-1.jpg

 

Kind Regards,

 

George Poutakidis

 

Tel  +613 9810 2999

 

A2A.jpg

 

 

Email: george@addictedtoaudio.com.au

Web:   www.addictedtoaudio.com.au

www.facebook.com/AddictedtoAudio

Reply
post #111 of 233
6/4/12 at 9:25pm

George -

 

How do you think the Ref 10's DAC section compares to that of the Ref 7.1? On ACSS output as well as XLR? Just curious how the 4-chip implementation compares to the all-out 8-chip implementation of the 7.1. Would love to hear what you think... Thanks!

Reply
post #112 of 233
6/5/12 at 3:50am
Thread Starter 

Hmmm- if I understand the circuit correctly, the 8-chip Ref 7 would have distortion and noise products 3 dB lower than the Ref 10 which uses 4 PCM1704's (all other things being equal.)  Since the noise / distortion is already down about 80 dB  (or possibly even lower) I'm curious to know if listeners report being able to hear the difference.  Doesn't seem like a difference in distortion from -90 dB to -93 is very significant.  Curious to see if people hear that difference.

Reply
post #113 of 233
6/5/12 at 2:49pm

the ref-5 also had 4 chips so you could get info from that as well.
 

Reply
post #114 of 233
6/6/12 at 1:11am

How about the Wolfson (NFB) version? Anyone heard that one? At 1.5K seems (to me) more interesting than the REF10 which at 2K has more competition from separate components (DAC+AMP). These offer more upgrade flexibility and possibly better value. For instance some people consider the Octave a better DAC than the Ref7...

Reply
post #115 of 233
6/6/12 at 1:24am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceausuc View Post

How about the Wolfson (NFB) version? Anyone heard that one? At 1.5K seems (to me) more interesting than the REF10 which at 2K has more competition from separate components (DAC+AMP). These offer more upgrade flexibility and possibly better value. For instance some people consider the Octave a better DAC than the Ref7...

There are a number of Audio-Gd DACs based on Wolfson chips, all of the recent ones are no-feedback designs.

 

For example I have an Audio-Gd NFB-2  which is based on a pair of WM8741 which is a top-grade Wolfson DAC. http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/dac/NFB-2/NFB2EN.htm

 

Which Audio-Gd model are you thinking of?

--------------------

 

I just read about the Metrum NOS Octave DAC, that seems REALLY interesting!  A quad R/2R DAC for about $900 US. The power supplies are not as fanatical as the Audio-Gd units, I wonder if that lets them down a little.  Maybe not, as Metrum says on their web site that the DAC chips used have their own on-chip voltage regulators, so it really wouldn't matter what you were feeding them with as long as they had plenty of current and fairly low impedance.  The Octave has NO output buffers- the DAC chips feed the output jacks. Fascinating. The 6moons review said that the Octave had no problem driving anything they tried with it, they could see no flaws in this approach. Think about it- a transparent, carefully designed output buffer is GOOD, but it MUST color the sound, even if only a teeny tiny bit.  NO output buffer - if feasible- would mean one extra stage is avoided altogether.  Interesting.  --- NO BALANCED OUTPUTS, THOUGH.  ---   Seems odd, given there are 4 DACs in it. A balanced out seems a no-brainer.

 

Anyone here ever listen to the Octave? http://www.nosminidac.nl/Octave_English.html


Edited by milosz - 6/6/12 at 1:50am
Reply
post #116 of 233
6/6/12 at 1:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by milosz View Post

There are a number of Audio-Gd DACs based on Wolfson chips, all of the recent ones are no-feedback designs.

 

For example I have an Audio-Gd NFB-2  which is based on a pair of WM8741 which is a top-grade Wolfson DAC. http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/dac/NFB-2/NFB2EN.htm

 

Which model are you thinking of?

I'm talking about the NFB-20.2. Here: http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/Headphoneamp/NFB20/NFB20EN.htm

Looks the same as REF only using Wolfson chips.And even this one has serious competition from Youlong and Shiit combos...

Reply
post #117 of 233
6/6/12 at 11:57am

The DSP-1 in the Ref-10 is a big deal IMO over the 20.

Reply
post #118 of 233
6/6/12 at 5:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by doobooloo View Post

George -

 

How do you think the Ref 10's DAC section compares to that of the Ref 7.1? On ACSS output as well as XLR? Just curious how the 4-chip implementation compares to the all-out 8-chip implementation of the 7.1. Would love to hear what you think... Thanks!

 

 I popped in to see George just yesterday and enjoyed myself immensely with this unit - not to sound too general but potential buyers should see the Reference 10.2

 as an excellent closed system balanced DAC and Amp - lining it out via the Pre Amp button to either the Sugden Masterclass or Ray Samuels Dark Star did not produce

 the best sound - it did sound best via the internal 4pin.

Reply
post #119 of 233
6/6/12 at 6:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tim3320070 View Post

The DSP-1 in the Ref-10 is a big deal IMO over the 20.


Does the DSP mean you wouldnt need to use the DI?

Reply
post #120 of 233
6/6/12 at 7:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tme110 View Post


Does the DSP mean you wouldnt need to use the DI?

Only your experience will determine that. However, I am buying the DI-DSP (coming soon) for my Ref-8 to confirm the need for it, or lack thereof.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Audio-Gd Reference 10