[GreatDane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by morpheus95 /img/forum/go_quote.gif so really then if all i want to do is to tailor my headphones i am best to use the Aphex 204

If you simply want to make them brighter or bump the bass then yes. If you go back to the link that Gradofan2 gave you can read tons of info about exactly what it does and how it works. I recommend reading the review by Colin Miller from Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity- HERE


In general, this is what you get...

Aural Exciter :

Increased Presence and Clarity
Restores Natural Brightness
Greater Perceived Loudness
Improved Detail and Intelligibility

Big Bottom:

Deeper, More Resonant Bass
Little or No Increase in Peak Output
Tighter Bass Articulation
Extended Low Frequencies

I dug up a couple old threads where the 204 is discussed:

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f5/eq-not-eq-one-213855/

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f5/ape...xciter-215808/

 

[Gradofan2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreatDane /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you simply want to make them brighter or bump the bass then yes. If you go back to the link that Gradofan2 gave you can read tons of info about exactly what it does and how it works. I recommend reading the review by Colin Miller from Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity- HERE In general, this is what you get... Aural Exciter : Increased Presence and Clarity Restores Natural Brightness Greater Perceived Loudness Improved Detail and Intelligibility Big Bottom: Deeper, More Resonant Bass Little or No Increase in Peak Output Tighter Bass Articulation Extended Low Frequencies I dug up a couple old threads where the 204 is discussed: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f5/eq-not-eq-one-213855/ http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f5/ape...xciter-215808/

You can also go to "Musician's Friend," or "Music 123" and other musician sites and see the reviews by those that buy the Aphex 204 - they're uniformly high reviews.

 

[Pete7]

To put it rather bluntly: If you have to use an equalizer in addition to headphone amping, then you have the wrong headphones, or maybe the wrong amp, IMO.

 

[monolith]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif To put it rather bluntly: If you have to use an equalizer in addition to headphone amping, then you have the wrong headphones, or maybe the wrong amp, IMO.

I wholeheartedly disagree, especially with the amp part.

 

[GreatDane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif To put it rather bluntly: If you have to use an equalizer in addition to headphone amping, then you have the wrong headphones, or maybe the wrong amp, IMO.

I don't have the wrong headphones and my amp is just fine.

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif To put it rather bluntly: If you have to use an equalizer in addition to headphone amping, then you have the wrong headphones, or maybe the wrong amp, IMO.

To put it bluntly back at you, if you are changing hardware to get the right tone you are adjusting tone in the most difficult and expensive possible way. If something is completely wrong, sure, wrong transducers. Maybe you have AT phones and Senn ears, but tweaking tone through hardware changes is...how do I put this tactfully...?

I don't recommend the Aphex aural exciter. There is some kind of processing going on in there in addition to simple equalization that I suspect the listener would tire of in time, but there is nothing wrong with subtle use of tone control. In fact, there is everything right with it, as it is there, for the user to control, to turn down the treble on harsh masters, turn up the bass a bit on thin ones, cut the low mids just a tad to stop them from masking the upper mids and "de-veil" trebles, boost the extremes just a tad to fill out low level listening, etc. It does take a little time to learn how to use it well, but EQ is incredibly useful. Seeking "synergy" through hardware changes, on the other hand, when taken too far, is just dumb. In just a few months around here I have watched people spend thousands trying to "synergize" away sonic problems that could have been addressed with simple tone controls.

I like parametric eq myself, but most people find graphic eq, or simple treble and bass controls, much more intuitive.

Tim

 

[Gradofan2]

If you're going to SP... the Aphex 204 is simply a great unit - by all accounts of those who use it in their business.

It is the only really cost-effective way to make the HD650s sound like great headphones - you have to spend way too much money, otherwise. And... it really does make them sound great - like normal headphones.

As far as the extent of the SP you might use and its effects... the enhancement is very subtle - it just makes them a whole lot brighter and more lively. You can "tune" as much of the respective effect as you want - and it sounds very natural. Though, I think its more effective at correcting the upper mids and highs of the HD650s, than the bass - it sounds more natural.

But... I would agree... that if you're buying it just for the HD650s, it might be more, practical to just opt for other headphones (e.g. the D5000s, etc.), which don't need this tweak. Also... investing "huge sums" in a set up (various cables, amps, DACs, etc.), or mixing and matching set ups, to obtain the "ideal sound" from the HD650s... suggests to me one is a bit "unstable." Far better... to "just move on."

 

[tfarney]

Gradofan --

You have tweaked my curiousity if not yet my system. Do you have any idea what is going on inside the Aphex besides pre-set eq?

Tim

 

[Gradofan2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tfarney /img/forum/go_quote.gif Gradofan -- You have tweaked my curiousity if not yet my system. Do you have any idea what is going on inside the Aphex besides pre-set eq? Tim

No... I don't "have a clue" - I just know it works well... if you're going to use an EQ or SP.

The various reviews, and the Aphex site, go into the "technology of how it works" and provide a pretty good explanation. I just never had the patience to "plod through it all" - and I really don't care... so long as it works... and... it doesn't overly "adulterate" the sound - which it doesn't, if you're careful with it. I pretty much relied on the recommendations of "GreatDane" and the many reviews on the sites like "Musician's Friend," and "Music 1,2,3" by musicians, and engineers - who universally recomended it.

From what I recall... though... it uses a techique that is a very natural technique, that is less likely to create excessive coloration, or distortion, than other techniques... and... provides a better means of controlling the amount of the "correction." But... it improves the sound the moment you engage it - even at "flat" / minimul settings. And its very easy to perform instant A/B comparisons to determine the effects.

But... I don't think I really feel I've needed it, except with the HD650s, which it does an exceptional job of "correcting" - at least the upper mids and highs. I wasn't about to invest "mega-dollars" just to correct them. It makes them sound a whole lot more bright and lively - more like Grados, or ATHs, or Denons. I just decided I preferred other phones (e.g. the modified HD580s, etc.), and sold them - so I don't use it much now. But... I may, if I decide to try the "new" HD650s. Why would I do that? Well... if you can't live without their great bass and mids, then you might... just "have to have the Aphex 204" - the "new" HD650s may well need less "co-rrection" (as "Jeeves said to Nicholson in the Shinning").

 

[Dreadhead]

I have one of these that I use entirely in the digital domain and love:

AUDIO TECHNOLOGY - EQUALIZERS & ACCESSORIES - ULTRACURVE PRO DEQ2496 : Ultra High-Precision Digital 24-Bit/96 kHz EQ/RTA Mastering Processor

It has both graphic and parametric equalizers and more bells and whistles than you could hit with a stick. If you use it entirely digitally and keep things 24 bit any possible distortion is well below the noise floor.

Cheers,
Chris

 

[Gradofan2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadhead /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have one of these that I use entirely in the digital domain and love: AUDIO TECHNOLOGY - EQUALIZERS & ACCESSORIES - ULTRACURVE PRO DEQ2496 : Ultra High-Precision Digital 24-Bit/96 kHz EQ/RTA Mastering Processor It has both graphic and parametric equalizers and more bells and whistles than you could hit with a stick. If you use it entirely digitally and keep things 24 bit any possible distortion is well below the noise floor. Cheers, Chris

Yeah... that one looked interresting to me also... I briefly considered it.

In the end... I was "influenced" by the unique technology of the Aphex 204, and all the great reviews, as well as its relative "simplicity" - the Aphex had about all the buttons and setting variables I could deal with.

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadhead /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have one of these that I use entirely in the digital domain and love: AUDIO TECHNOLOGY - EQUALIZERS & ACCESSORIES - ULTRACURVE PRO DEQ2496 : Ultra High-Precision Digital 24-Bit/96 kHz EQ/RTA Mastering Processor It has both graphic and parametric equalizers and more bells and whistles than you could hit with a stick. If you use it entirely digitally and keep things 24 bit any possible distortion is well below the noise floor. Cheers, Chris

Wow. What an incredible boxful of processing for <$200 street. Makes me wonder what on earth could possibly be in a $1000 DAC. Are all of those functions handled through hardware multi-controls or can you control the thing from a computer?

Tim

 

[Dreadhead]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tfarney /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wow. What an incredible boxful of processing for <$200 street. Makes me wonder what on earth could possibly be in a $1000 DAC. Are all of those functions handled through hardware multi-controls or can you control the thing from a computer? Tim

I don't remember seeing anyway to control it from the computer. I just use the user interface on the box which is not totally intuitive but once you get used to it it's very fast. It has 2 processors (1 for left and 1 for right) so you can apply things to each if need be. What I love is I can feed the optical in and get my signal back out digitally with no need for any conversion taking place.

It also has a width function that is essentially a cross-feed but a bit more advanced since you can change how wide you want the sound stage and at what frequency you are specifying the width. The function can also model asymmetry in the speaker setup and various other effects.

You can store everything to one of 64 setups so I just setup one for each of my sets of phones and leave it that way. Also the display can be set to be a RTA or analog style meters or any number of cool "visualizations" (of either input or output)

The street in the US is $300 at least where I bought it.

I've got a measurement mic on order (4 weeks back order) and once I have that I'll auto-equalize my stereo and I'm planning to build a head to do the same with my headphones too

.

This thing is the best $300 I've spent because there is just so much to play with.

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadhead /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't remember seeing anyway to control it from the computer. I just use the user interface on the box which is not totally intuitive but once you get used to it it's very fast. It has 2 processors (1 for left and 1 for right) so you can apply things to each if need be. What I love is I can feed the optical in and get my signal back out digitally with no need for any conversion taking place. It also has a width function that is essentially a cross-feed but a bit more advanced since you can change how wide you want the sound stage and at what frequency you are specifying the width. The function can also model asymmetry in the speaker setup and various other effects. You can store everything to one of 64 setups so I just setup one for each of my sets of phones and leave it that way. Also the display can be set to be a RTA or analog style meters or any number of cool "visualizations" (of either input or output) The street in the US is $300 at least where I bought it. I've got a measurement mic on order (4 weeks back order) and once I have that I'll auto-equalize my stereo and I'm planning to build a head to do the same with my headphones too . This thing is the best $300 I've spent because there is just so much to play with.

Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you know how this kind of technology moves up as prices move down...nature of the beast. I did a very quick search and found one for $179. I notice it has 24/96 AD and DA converters in it. Can it take in digital and put out analog? If so, have you ever used its DAC? Have you ever compared it to your Benchmark DAC1?

Tim

ON EDIT: Sorry, I looked again. That $179 was a B-stock price. New is $299. Give it a couple of months...

 

[Dreadhead]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tfarney /img/forum/go_quote.gif ON EDIT: Sorry, I looked again. That $179 was a B-stock price. New is $299. Give it a couple of months...

No worries. I did quite a bit of searching before I bought. I got some cash back and free shipping but that's about it.

I haven't compared the DAC to my DAC1. With the GEQ my setup is sort of shoe horned into place (pics here: DEQ2496 Digital-Crossfeed and Equalizer in One - Head-Fi: Covering Headphones, Earphones and Portable Audio) so switching between stuff is a real pain.

I know inquiring minds would like the comparison so maybe I'll do one later. I've recently had a chance to borrow a DAC in the $300 range and it didn't seem to have the same level of detail as the DAC1 and was more uneven in response. The uneven response was nothing that a GEQ couldn't take care of but I think the details were just not quite there. From reviews I've read in pro-audio stuff it seems like the Behringer is pretty excellent though. It's a sad fact that three clicks of a knob on this DEQ will change the sound a lot more than a 5 grand DAC ever will ("musicality", "warmth", insert your tube rolling/cable rolling statement etc... be damned).