Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Resonessence Labs Concero discussion/review thead
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Resonessence Labs Concero discussion/review thead - Page 114

post #1696 of 1907
Quote:
Originally Posted by montanari View Post


Let it go!
It make no differences, or just a little
No way it's sound worst
Sorry I had to tell it, I can't hear this stuff..

he was talking about the iUSB, the problem the iUSB has slight boost in the SQ, maybe thats why it was a problem with the Uber bifrost / Concero HD on my gear, once removed the SQ went back to normal from being Edgy. 

post #1697 of 1907
I think, and it's easier, that you don't like the sound of the concero (no hd, but I guess it's not so far from the hd version)
Than the sound get worst adding ifi
I have aqvox and make any difference, two friends tried to swap ifi/no ifi and they said it make just a little difference (maybe psychological ) but not worst at all
post #1698 of 1907

I agree with you. Spending $200 for the iUSB with no improvement (or marginal) in SQ does NOT sound like a wise purchase to me.

 

 When someone found out that I used a MacMini as my source, they told me to purchase the Mac Platform from Atomic Audio Labs. I wonder how much improvement in SQ something like this would have at $350 USD.

 

Thanks again

Joe

 

post #1699 of 1907
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmm007 View Post
 

 

 When someone found out that I used a MacMini as my source, they told me to purchase the Mac Platform from Atomic Audio Labs. I wonder how much improvement in SQ something like this would have at $350 USD.

 

Thanks again

Joe

 

 

$5 of material. $350 price. Absolutely no difference in sound. 

 

You should get some thousand dollar cables while you're at it. 

 

And punch whoever told you that. 

post #1700 of 1907
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmm007 View Post
 

I agree with you. Spending $200 for the iUSB with no improvement (or marginal) in SQ does NOT sound like a wise purchase to me.

 

 When someone found out that I used a MacMini as my source, they told me to purchase the Mac Platform from Atomic Audio Labs. I wonder how much improvement in SQ something like this would have at $350 USD.

 

Thanks again

Joe

 

I used to use stuff that was pretty pricey, now use some Herbies Isocups without the balls  and use stuff like this under lots of my equipment.

 

Cork and Neoprene squares  

 

post #1701 of 1907
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbarrentine View Post
 

And punch whoever told you that. 

 

Ha ha… good point! 

post #1702 of 1907
Quote:
Originally Posted by bixby View Post
 

I used to use stuff that was pretty pricey, now use some Herbies Isocups without the balls  and use stuff like this under lots of my equipment.

 

Cork and Neoprene squares  

 

 

Nice tip… Thanks! 

post #1703 of 1907

Audiophile-grade Lucite isn't cheap! :p

post #1704 of 1907

Hi.  I'm trying to decide between HD and HP.  I want one for IEMs and also to serve as a DAC.  Was wondering if you can bypass the amp on the HP to use as a DAC.

post #1705 of 1907
The HP can be used as a USB->spdif converter or a headphone amp, no pure DAC function.
post #1706 of 1907
Quote:
Originally Posted by KraftD1 View Post

The HP can be used as a USB->spdif converter or a headphone amp, no pure DAC function.

Would it be double amping If I were to use the HP with another Amp?  What would it do to the signal?  I guess a DAC doesn't have a amp stage so it sends out signal coming  out of the amp.

post #1707 of 1907
It would be double amping, probably not too much impact on the signal, but you could email Resonnesene Labs to check. DACs do have an analog stage, usually fixed level ~2V.
post #1708 of 1907
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post
 

Would it be double amping If I were to use the HP with another Amp?  What would it do to the signal?  I guess a DAC doesn't have a amp stage so it sends out signal coming  out of the amp.

 

That's only a half-truth. DACs are all "amplified" as well, from its initial I/V conversion to its line-level (usually 2 Vrms) amplification. The only difference between a DAC and an amp is that the DAC only needs to supply a full scale signal with as wide an SNR as possible, while the amp actually drives a transducer. Being a device driver and not a line driver, an amp will have higher voltage drive, and lower output impedance. At full scale volume, if the SNR is not significantly degraded, then there's no reason why an amp's output cannot be used to drive another amp.

 

If you examine the HP and HD, you'll find that it uses the same opamps, namely the AD8397. The difference is that in the HP drives the opamp to 3.5 Vrms (at 0 dBFS), while the HD remains at line level 2 Vrms. What's the difference in noise output between an opamp driven to 3.5 Vrms and 2 Vrms? Is there a significant enough SNR penalty such that you want a dedicated DAC? These are the questions that should be asked.

 

From experience, it seems that the full scale output of the HP is clean enough to act as a DAC. It's not as clean as the HD's, but the difference doesn't really have practical benefits. You can step down the volume on the HP to 2 Vrms and get an equivalent output level as the HD, but it will now have been digitally attenuated by a little bit. I don't know what the numerical differences in DNR are.

post #1709 of 1907
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post
 

 

That's only a half-truth. DACs are all "amplified" as well, from its initial I/V conversion to its line-level (usually 2 Vrms) amplification. The only difference between a DAC and an amp is that the DAC only needs to supply a full scale signal with as wide an SNR as possible, while the amp actually drives a transducer. Being a device driver and not a line driver, an amp will have higher voltage drive, and lower output impedance. At full scale volume, if the SNR is not significantly degraded, then there's no reason why an amp's output cannot be used to drive another amp.

 

If you examine the HP and HD, you'll find that it uses the same opamps, namely the AD8397. The difference is that in the HP drives the opamp to 3.5 Vrms (at 0 dBFS), while the HD remains at line level 2 Vrms. What's the difference in noise output between an opamp driven to 3.5 Vrms and 2 Vrms? Is there a significant enough SNR penalty such that you want a dedicated DAC? These are the questions that should be asked.

 

From experience, it seems that the full scale output of the HP is clean enough to act as a DAC. It's not as clean as the HD's, but the difference doesn't really have practical benefits. You can step down the volume on the HP to 2 Vrms and get an equivalent output level as the HD, but it will now have been digitally attenuated by a little bit. I don't know what the numerical differences in DNR are.

 

 

This.

 

In practice, the difference is noticeable, but not extreme. Concero HP is still quite good when used as DAC via the headphone output. 

post #1710 of 1907
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post
 

 

That's only a half-truth. DACs are all "amplified" as well, from its initial I/V conversion to its line-level (usually 2 Vrms) amplification. The only difference between a DAC and an amp is that the DAC only needs to supply a full scale signal with as wide an SNR as possible, while the amp actually drives a transducer. Being a device driver and not a line driver, an amp will have higher voltage drive, and lower output impedance. At full scale volume, if the SNR is not significantly degraded, then there's no reason why an amp's output cannot be used to drive another amp.

 

If you examine the HP and HD, you'll find that it uses the same opamps, namely the AD8397. The difference is that in the HP drives the opamp to 3.5 Vrms (at 0 dBFS), while the HD remains at line level 2 Vrms. What's the difference in noise output between an opamp driven to 3.5 Vrms and 2 Vrms? Is there a significant enough SNR penalty such that you want a dedicated DAC? These are the questions that should be asked.

 

From experience, it seems that the full scale output of the HP is clean enough to act as a DAC. It's not as clean as the HD's, but the difference doesn't really have practical benefits. You can step down the volume on the HP to 2 Vrms and get an equivalent output level as the HD, but it will now have been digitally attenuated by a little bit. I don't know what the numerical differences in DNR are.

Can you expand on this?  Is it related to SNR?

 

Also why is the dedicated DAC output impedance so high?  Is line-out typically high impedance?  Why is that?

 

Also I'm curious what the affects of the volume control.  Is it just a pot that varies the gain?


Edited by SilverEars - 4/21/14 at 7:18pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Resonessence Labs Concero discussion/review thead