Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › DAP-off: Astell&Kern AK240, HiFiMAN HM-901, Sony ZX-1, FiiO X5 + Chord Hugo & Calyx M from June.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DAP-off: Astell&Kern AK240, HiFiMAN HM-901, Sony ZX-1, FiiO X5 + Chord Hugo & Calyx M from June. - Page 33

post #481 of 932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post
 

I decided I couldn't wait for the firmware update for the Calyx M which was supposed to be due this month and put some FLAC and DSD on a card.

 

Good ol' C.C. Colletti on the Calyx M sounds good, but slightly harsh, but the kind of harsh you get from new electronics sometimes. Maybe with use it might change. It might not too. The AK240 was more clear, but not dramatically so. As I've said before this is a top recording and with lesser quality music this difference might not be noticeable.

 

I might try running the Calyx overnight for a few nights in DAC mode to see if things change.

How's the CalyxM against AK240?

post #482 of 932
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by flymetothemoon View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post
 

I decided I couldn't wait for the firmware update for the Calyx M which was supposed to be due this month and put some FLAC and DSD on a card.

 

Good ol' C.C. Colletti on the Calyx M sounds good, but slightly harsh, but the kind of harsh you get from new electronics sometimes. Maybe with use it might change. It might not too. The AK240 was more clear, but not dramatically so. As I've said before this is a top recording and with lesser quality music this difference might not be noticeable.

 

I might try running the Calyx overnight for a few nights in DAC mode to see if things change.

How's the CalyxM against AK240?

 

Bigger and browner. :tongue_smile:

post #483 of 932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post
 

 

Bigger and browner. :tongue_smile:

Sorry I should have read your lines carefully.  Missed it the 1st time.  Thanks.

post #484 of 932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

Bigger and browner. tongue_smile.gif

Hi,

Sorry for my bad english

But the competition between calyx VS hm901 would very interesting since their price are quite equal
And put ak240 as a standard between the comparation

smily_headphones1.gif
post #485 of 932
Thread Starter 

@Advert Unfortunately I don't have the HM901 here any longer. However, for the UI, the Calyx would win but for sound, that would be closer I reckon.

post #486 of 932

Just in case this would be good info for those that seek it, here is measurements done for AK240 vs DX90 with headphone load and without.  As  you can see, the DX90 numbers are better.

 

Credit to Shigzeo.

 

http://ohm-image.net/opinion/audiophile/rmaa-summary-ibasso-dx90-vs-astell-kern-ak240

 

 


Edited by SilverEars - 6/27/14 at 5:18pm
post #487 of 932

Opamps measure better than discrete circuits?  You don't say /facepalm

 

Joys of 110dB+ of negative feedback.  That said the DX90 is measuring no where near what the 1611/12 measure in a vacuum.


Edited by Solude - 6/27/14 at 5:42pm
post #488 of 932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solude View Post
 

Opamps measure better than discrete circuits?  You don't say /facepalm

The AK has descrete circuit in it?  If so, do you prefere discrete?  Can you tell us why and what are the benefits?

 

Quote:

Joys of 110dB+ of negative feedback.

Can you explain this?  What does this cause?


Edited by SilverEars - 6/27/14 at 5:54pm
post #489 of 932
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post
 

What makes the discrete circuits measure better?  Also, it seems you prefer discrete, what makes them better to you?

 

Can you explain this?  What does this cause?

 

Opamps measure better... damn near always since they live in a world where you sell specs as performance and not performance as performance.

 

Dumbing feedback way down, it stabilizes the circuit and cranks measured performance by means of correction.

 

Getting good measurements with high feedback just isn't impressive.  Making a stable circuit with very low or no feedback is a much more difficult task.

post #490 of 932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solude View Post
 

 

Opamps measure better... damn near always since they live in a world where you sell specs as performance and not performance as performance.

 

Dumbing feedback way down, it stabilizes the circuit and cranks measured performance by means of correction.

 

Getting good measurements with high feedback just isn't impressive.  Making a stable circuit with very low or no feedback is a much more difficult task.

Can  you post literature on this?  I would like to look into it.

post #491 of 932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solude View Post
 

Opamps measure better than discrete circuits?  You don't say /facepalm

 

Joys of 110dB+ of negative feedback.  That said the DX90 is measuring no where near what the 1611/12 measure in a vacuum.

Also, why does AK advertise those values then?  The numbers without the load.  Why don't they tell us what makes their players special instead of the numbers without load, and the dumbed down balanced noise rejection diagram of two DACs.  Also, why do they use two DACs if only one can do two channels in differential mode.  From AK100 to 120 as example.  Also, the Cowon P1's single ended does crosstalk better than 240's balanced numbers.


Edited by SilverEars - 6/27/14 at 6:01pm
post #492 of 932

2 separate DACs benefit from the same philosophy as discrete devices. less dynamic current limiting and cross pollination due to lots of circuitry drawing from the same tiny tracks on the chip. It's a different scenario than and will not show up on a typical steady state test. Using one channel of a stereo chip isn't as uncommon as you may expect. Chips can be great with bandwidth but bandwidth beyond 20k (without phase shift) has no useful purpose in audio other than how it may relate to feedback and even then you can have a fast feedback loop with overall bandwidth limiting. The steady state crosstalk #s your talking about are inconsequential.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if in use, that particular 2 chips in single phase mode setup may sound better than that a single 4ch chip in 2 ch differential mode even if it doesn't measure as well under steady state test conditions. Sort of less refined but more rhythmically realistic.


Edited by goodvibes - 7/8/14 at 5:02am
post #493 of 932
Thread Starter 

Regardless, let me point out some things that are important about measurements (in no particular order and off the top of my head):

 

1. Measurements without comprehensive details about what was used to make the measurements and how it was set up, along with control tests, need to be treated with a huge grain of salt.

2. Even measurements using high-grade analysers require very carefully repeated tests and analysis to mean anything, as the analysers have many settings which can change the results. Even something as simple as a wire crossing nearby a power source or cable can change the results. Likewise, just changing the weighting of a measurement (eg: to A-weighting) will change the results considerably. A single spurious tone at one point in the entire frequency range will change a measurement, even if all it affects is one frequency to a degree that is effectively inaudible.

3. Measurements from RMAA are made using frequency sweeps. IMD distortion is measured using a pre-set pair of tones. Music does not consist of frequency sweeps or a single pair of pre-set tones and very likely the device will be used with components that have very different electrical characteristics than an analyser or sound card. That is: An amp's performance into an analyser with sweeps is often different to how it will perform with headphones with music playing, which provide a completely different load.

4. Negative feedback in circuits gives you better numbers, but increases distortion in the time domain, which required extremely expensive equipment to measure. It does impressive-looking numbers though.

5. Manufacturers don't provide more than basic (and essentially useless) measurements because the numbers can be misleading for the above reasons and don't relate to our experience when listening. Sometimes they provide the most impressive numbers in the most impressive weighting at the most impressive frequency to promote their products (and don't put the less impressive ones).

6. Unless measurements can be connected back to our listening experience, they don't tell us anything very useful. They are more useful in the reverse, when trying to track down the reasons for our experiences when listening with a product, such as why certain music sounds better on some headphones than others because of differences in the frequency response.

post #494 of 932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post
 

Regardless, let me point out some things that are important about measurements (in no particular order and off the top of my head):

 

1. Measurements without comprehensive details about what was used to make the measurements and how it was set up, along with control tests, need to be treated with a huge grain of salt.

2. Even measurements using high-grade analysers require very carefully repeated tests and analysis to mean anything, as the analysers have many settings which can change the results. Even something as simple as a wire crossing nearby a power source or cable can change the results. Likewise, just changing the weighting of a measurement (eg: to A-weighting) will change the results considerably. A single spurious tone at one point in the entire frequency range will change a measurement, even if all it affects is one frequency to a degree that is effectively inaudible.

3. Measurements from RMAA are made using frequency sweeps. IMD distortion is measured using a pre-set pair of tones. Music does not consist of frequency sweeps or a single pair of pre-set tones and very likely the device will be used with components that have very different electrical characteristics than an analyser or sound card. That is: An amp's performance into an analyser with sweeps is often different to how it will perform with headphones with music playing, which provide a completely different load.

4. Negative feedback in circuits gives you better numbers, but increases distortion in the time domain, which required extremely expensive equipment to measure. It does impressive-looking numbers though.

5. Manufacturers don't provide more than basic (and essentially useless) measurements because the numbers can be misleading for the above reasons and don't relate to our experience when listening. Sometimes they provide the most impressive numbers in the most impressive weighting at the most impressive frequency to promote their products (and don't put the less impressive ones).

6. Unless measurements can be connected back to our listening experience, they don't tell us anything very useful. They are more useful in the reverse, when trying to track down the reasons for our experiences when listening with a product, such as why certain music sounds better on some headphones than others because of differences in the frequency response.

Glad someone finally said what I have been trying to say about spec sheets!!! THANKS!

post #495 of 932

Which page can I find amos' comparison of these players with the Hugo?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › DAP-off: Astell&Kern AK240, HiFiMAN HM-901, Sony ZX-1, FiiO X5 + Chord Hugo & Calyx M from June.