Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphone Amps (full-size) › O2 AMP + ODAC
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

O2 AMP + ODAC - Page 180

post #2686 of 3418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenophon View Post
 

Yes to me it is better but not if you're strictly talking 'sound quality'.  It's better because it offers me stuff I find useful that can't be found on the ODAC such as XLR-output, discreet volume control that's of a good enough quality so it can double as a pre-amp, the possibility to hardware-set pre-gain on a number of levels, hardware control of oversampling between x1,2,3,4, 'best' (depending on input) or to switch it off entirely.

 

For the DAC:  both use the Tenor USB-implementation , the differences are in the DAC-chipset proper (iirc ES9023 for the ODAC and the  PCM1792 for the V800) but especially in the way the signal is treated post-processing (filtering and conditioning etc).  They do have a slightly different 'signature' and I prefer what the V800 offers but of course you need to keep in mind that that 'signature' is not just created by the DAC-chip (frankly I don't believe there to be much if any difference there, certainly not audible) but mainly by what happens to the signal next, the OPA's used in the DAC's amplification stage etc.

I would have to agree with this, when I say DAC, I mean the implemention.  Likely it's not the chip, but the implemention of the output stage is what makes the big different.  I believe the DAC chips have schematic inside with amps inside, and that could possibly make crucial changes to the signal also.

post #2687 of 3418

Hello everyone. First post here and got a question...

 

I possess the Sennheiser HD650s and I mostly listen to music through my 3 year old laptop (Dell XPS L502x which has the Realtek ALC665 chip) and that seems OK to drive the headphones at a more than reasonable quality and volume. I've got a full-sized CD Player which is 15 years old now, the Sony XA2ES, and plugged the HD650s into the headphone socket on that and switched between that and laptop with the same music (Original CD v FLAC on the Dell) and to me there is no difference in audio quality. The Sony XA2ES has more power to drive the HD650s louder but that isn't that important for me. Of course both the Sony XA2ES and the Dell could have rubbish headphone outputs so maybe I could benefit from new equipment to maximise the HD650s.

 

I suppose my question would be - has anyone else got my set up (HD650s with the Dell XPS L502x) and found that the O2+ODAC combo been a significant improvement?

 

Thanks in advance to anyone who reads this and more thanks if you reply!

post #2688 of 3418

O/O seems quite popular here :) 


Edited by cddc - 4/19/14 at 11:29pm
post #2689 of 3418

I find the O2/ODAC combo sometimes sounds a bit harsh with the LCD 2, I'm not sure if this is due to the amp or DAC.

post #2690 of 3418
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTom View Post
 

I find the O2/ODAC combo sometimes sounds a bit harsh with the LCD 2, I'm not sure if this is due to the amp or DAC.

I have Beta 22 amp and the O2 coming out of ODAC, and compared the two amps.  Beta 22 has more control.  When I went from O2 to Betat 22, O2 sounded very loose or distorted, not as refined.  I don't see anything wrong with ODAC, I will of course try out other DACs in the future to see if I can find a better one.

post #2691 of 3418
I have had my O2/ODAC turned on for a month now. So far, very good. I thought I was running into trouble with some dropouts and static. But once I changed a setting in my J River media player the problem went away for a week now. I do not think it was the amp/DAC.

PS: The beta22 may be a very good amplifier. But using discrete components? This may be because the designer wanted a DIY design. But other than that reason, using entirely discrete parts with today's tech is unnecessary and IMO actually very silly. I still am going to look into this myself.
Edited by r010159 - 4/20/14 at 1:12am
post #2692 of 3418
Quote:
Originally Posted by r010159 View Post

I have had my O2/ODAC turned on for a month now. So far, very good. I thought I was running into trouble with some dropouts and static. But once I changed a setting in my J River media player the problem went away for a week now. I do not think it was the amp/DAC.

OT:  Are you happy with this J River player?  I gave it a try on my Mac and while the interface is great and a lot slicker than Amarra, I found it didn't come close to Amarra in sound quality.

post #2693 of 3418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenophon View Post

OT:  Are you happy with this J River player?  I gave it a try on my Mac and while the interface is great and a lot slicker than Amarra, I found it didn't come close to Amarra in sound quality.

I found the J River to be better than both the Fidelia and Audirvana+ players. I have not tried Amarra, but I understand that it is supposed to be a very good player. I am finding so far that all bit-perfect sound very close when lossless compressed files are played. Only a better ear than mind could tell the difference.
Edited by r010159 - 4/20/14 at 1:20am
post #2694 of 3418
I don't understand why a software player would make any difference at all. Surely, as long as no EQ is used they should all sound exactly the same?

If they do indeed sound different then it makes a mockery of any attempt at bit-perfect further down the chain?

I also use JRiver.
post #2695 of 3418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorrofox View Post

I don't understand why a software player would make any difference at all. Surely, as long as no EQ is used they should all sound exactly the same?

If they do indeed sound different then it makes a mockery of any attempt at bit-perfect further down the chain?

I also use JRiver.

That's rich, coming from a cable-believer :biggrin:  

 

It's as with anything to do with digital I guess:  in theory there should not be any difference.  Unfortunately implementation comes between theory and practice.  I don't know enough about software players except that for Amarra it provides for buffering, sampling and a number of other gimmicks.  Presumably the others do this as well.  Have to say that when I installed the trial I was extremely sceptical.  But when I heard the result -at that time on my DT-880's- I whipped out my card in a hurry.  This was without eq but at the time on my 2009 MBP which had -I'm being kind- a less than stellar USB-implementation.  2 drawbacks: a) expensive by comparison and b) interface is very much 1990's and their integration with iTunes kills me.

 

Nowadays I mainly use its eq function with classical pieces, very good parametric equalizer.  Anyway, I read about the J River player and installed it on a whim to give it a spin but wasn't impressed.

post #2696 of 3418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorrofox View Post

I don't understand why a software player would make any difference at all. Surely, as long as no EQ is used they should all sound exactly the same?

If they do indeed sound different then it makes a mockery of any attempt at bit-perfect further down the chain?

I also use JRiver.

There will be a difference in two areas. One is the decoding of lossy audio files. The other is when the player is performing a sample rate conversion. The quality of either one will depend on how it is done by the player.

As a side note, when I had players setup where they should be bit-perfect, a trained ear still could hear a small difference. I would not of believed this myself if it were not for the purposely confusing blind testing that I did. I may try this exersize again one of these days.

Bit perfect playback? I am now a bit suspicious.
Edited by r010159 - 4/20/14 at 2:15am
post #2697 of 3418
I still don't buy it. To my mind any difference has to be down to something being either done wrong or something being added. And cables are not a good comparator. All sorts of physical conditions can alter the signal in a cable. This cannot be the case when comparing software players in the same machine.

However...

I use Neutron via OTG USB on my portable rig and Neutron, with all the bells & whistles turned off, is head & shoulders above every other Android player. Go figure.

smily_headphones1.gif
post #2698 of 3418
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/06/measurements-part-i-bit-perfect.html?m=1
Players make no difference in SQ. I only use pure music for convenient auto sample rate switching which my I tunes doesn't do.
post #2699 of 3418
Quote:
Originally Posted by r010159 View Post

Bit perfect playback? I am now a bit suspicious.

We could start a club smily_headphones1.gif
post #2700 of 3418
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post
 

I have Beta 22 amp and the O2 coming out of ODAC, and compared the two amps.  Beta 22 has more control.  When I went from O2 to Betat 22, O2 sounded very loose or distorted, not as refined.  I don't see anything wrong with ODAC, I will of course try out other DACs in the future to see if I can find a better one.

I read that Audeze recommend an amp that can output at least a couple of watts into a 60 ohm load and the O2 seems to come up short in this respect at least so maybe this is why they don't work perfectly with the LCD 2?

 

What are some objectively well performing amps that could output more than 1 watt into a 60 ohm load?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphone Amps (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphone Amps (full-size) › O2 AMP + ODAC