[castleofargh]

  Great thread and great info thus far! I'm new to the whole audiophile world, but understand all that's being discussed with perceptions and placebo effect, as I work in neuroscience. That being said, I purchased my first set of audiophile cans a couple of weeks ago; Sennheiser HD800's, and I love them. I tested about maybe 8 or so different headphones and settled on these. I'm listening to my lossless files through an Apogee Duet, which I have used for years in a home recording studio environment. 
 
I listened to a couple of other DACs at the high fi shop and noted that some DACs that are reported to be "warmer" or other adjectives I can't remember, are essentially doing exactly the same thing as my current DAC- This led me to believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that slight tweaks in my EQ can likely match what I heard with other DACs (we were playing music files in 16/44 and 24/96).
 
Regarding tube amps, I'm told that if my DAC can't properly drive my cans, then to consider a tube amp or amp in general. If my sound is lacking "body" or "depth" etc., I should also seek out an amp. Maybe those adjectives can't be addressed with EQ? I don't know. I'm new at this. 

EQ is obviously the best approach to changing the signature. you'll find a lot of people even to this day with some idealistic (and erroneous) concept of not touching anything to get the "real sound" unaltered. not only do we have no headphone that is sure to be flat for you specifically, so EQ is usually the only mean to get closer to the "real sound", but a good deal of those very people are actually switching DACs and amps until they get the EQ they wished for(and possibly other sound changes). I'll be very careful with unicorn hunting and complicating our lives for the wrong reasons.
if we take the hd800 as a typical example, people buy it because it's impressive, 10seconds with one and that's clear. some also buy one because they read reviews and see that it's maybe the best dynamic driver headphone ever made. who wouldn't want that right? but then it's a very clear and IMO(but again we all have different hears) bright headphone. and while all those people are fine with the glory that comes with the name, they're not used to that sound. a high distortion warm tube amp could be the key to turn back the sound to something less objectively qualitative, but subjectively closer to what "feels" right/what we had before.
I've read some stuff suggesting that we make most of our audio personal taste based on what our parents liked, and what we heard as a teen. I wonder if this could also show some tendencies about the sound system of our parents/the one we heard most as a teen?
 
anyway EQ can't do everything, so it's just a matter of finding the right tool for the right job. but to do that we have to know more or less what we want and that can be one tricky question.
I decided not to do the amp and DAC waltz because I don't have the money and because it feels like waiting for luck to strike at my door with that one right combo I will love unconditionally. also I strongly believe that headphone listening of albums made on speakers is flawed in a way that can't be solved with basic DAC/amp behavior.
so instead I go with EQ and some convolution(for crossfeed and a very tiny tiny bit of reverb to "make" a room). I wasted a great deal of time on this so I can't even say it's faster than trying 20amps and 30 DACs for one headphone, but I do end up with a sound that I like very much. and as a bonus, a sound where panning doesn't end up vertically tilted like it is for me on most headphone systems for some messed up HRTF reasons). so I feel like I made the right choice, but it's easy to think that as it was my choice to get my sound following my ideas^_^. all I' really doing is agreeing with myself. I know for a fact that the sound I'm getting doesn't work on most people the way it does on me, because you need my messed up body(or close enough) for the final tuning.

 
as you can guess, GuyUnder is a typical case of audiophile who doesn't see a frontier between his subjective opinion and objective reality. if he likes something, it must also be better for you, after all you're in his world. I'd look at his posts for personal opinion, but not so much for factual data(but that's just my opinion ^_^).
 
 
about the better amp in general, of course there are amps better than the O2, amps that sound subjectively more enjoyable to the user, and also amps that simply measure better or do more things, have more inputs/outputs... now looking inside the box to evaluate the quality of the sound, that's one messed up idea if you're not an electrical engineer. BTW often the doubling of components achieves a little less crosstalk(almost always inaudible anyway) and about 3db of dynamic. economically it's not the cheapest approach.

 

[rlpaul]

 
I've read some stuff suggesting that we make most of our audio personal taste based on what our parents liked, and what we heard as a teen. I wonder if this could also show some tendencies about the sound system of our parents/the one we heard most as a teen?

 
That's an interesting thought. I tend to like tube gear (fully realizing that it's the natural distortion from the tubes that I like), although we didn't have anything with tubes at the house. But I was in a band, and we pumped everything through either a vintage Bassman with more tubes than we had instruments, or a Marshall that was also tube based. I don't believe we had a solid state amp, and that could very well likely have colored my perception of audio.
 
Moving on... I think EQ is something that's undervalued. Used to find EQs everywhere, back in the 'hi-fi' era of audio. And a mixing board, found at any event with PA equipment, not to mention recording studios, is basically a giant EQ. Surely we can utilize them too, to get the sound signature we're looking for. You can 'fix' a lot with an EQ, but it does require patience and experimentation to get it right.

 

[Morkai]

EQ can adjust tonal color, but will be useless for changing the character of an amp, DAC, or headphones. You have the HD800 -- could you imagine being able to replicate them with one of your cheap headphones with just EQ? There are other aspects such as speed, time domain and impedance curve that go into making the HD800 sound the way they do. Likewise there are several factors that go into an amp sounding the way they do. Volume is simply a function of power vs sensitivity and impedance. Slew rate, time domain, power supply, noise, distortion, etc, go into making an amp sound "dimensional", "full", etc and so on.

The Duet is a $600 product and so is probably superior to 90% of users' DACs on the Sound Science forum. For a meaningful upgrade try listenining to a hardware-balanced DAC, a high-end NOS DAC and a R2R DAC. You'd be looking at a full-sized DAC unit with built-in power transformers.

Tube amps will add a layer of noise to the signal which will add to an illusion of dimension, warmth and texture to sound. For a somewhat similar experience in the world of solid state amp, look into designs that use discrete class A (i.e., class A using MOSFET / JFET). The HD800 is very microscopic (revealing) and will not take kindly to poor matches.

Audiophile ******** babble.. Do you even know what balanced audio is ? 

 

[GuyUnder]

Audiophile ******** babble.. Do you even know what balanced audio is ? 

Of course?

The difference between one single-ended DS implementation and another at that general price range won't be that big. A true hardware balanced implementation would represent a greater audio improvement:

1. Significantly lower noise.
2. Significantly improved channel separation.

 

[U-3C]

Here are images from two different headphone amplifiers.

First, the O2:

Second, the Master-9:

As we can see there's a lot more going on in the latter. As it turns out, all of those extra components do things.

I very much doubt anyone who has heard both of these amps would prefer the O2.

EQ can adjust tonal color, but will be useless for changing the character of an amp, DAC, or headphones. You have the HD800 -- could you imagine being able to replicate them with one of your cheap headphones with just EQ? There are other aspects such as speed, time domain and impedance curve that go into making the HD800 sound the way they do. Likewise there are several factors that go into an amp sounding the way they do. Volume is simply a function of power vs sensitivity and impedance. Slew rate, time domain, power supply, noise, distortion, etc, go into making an amp sound "dimensional", "full", etc and so on.

The Duet is a $600 product and so is probably superior to 90% of users' DACs on the Sound Science forum. For a meaningful upgrade try listenining to a hardware-balanced DAC, a high-end NOS DAC and a R2R DAC. You'd be looking at a full-sized DAC unit with built-in power transformers.

Tube amps will add a layer of noise to the signal which will add to an illusion of dimension, warmth and texture to sound. For a somewhat similar experience in the world of solid state amp, look into designs that use discrete class A (i.e., class A using MOSFET / JFET). The HD800 is very microscopic (revealing) and will not take kindly to poor matches.

:blink:

I'm out.

But before I go, I'll do my usual spam and recommend this:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/811837/natural-crossfeed-on-headphones-earphones-for-foobar2000-v2-1-major-update-made-public

Loved it on all my headphones and haven't heard any negative feedback so far. Also tried it on the HD800 and it's really nice ^_^. I have yet to see a thousand dollar amp bring a sound so natural (granted I can only try a few top of the line stuff. I'm not rich like GuyUnder who finds spending money the first solution to things, even if they clearly make things worse and you can get better results for free, judging by his attitude on the threads )

Give it a try. It's free after all.

 

[watchnerd]

Of course?

The difference between one single-ended DS implementation and another at that general price range won't be that big. A true hardware balanced implementation would represent a greater audio improvement:

1. Significantly lower noise.
2. Significantly improved channel separation.

 
I would take this a step further:
 
People would be better served focusing on differences in the analog stage of a DAC than the chipset or type of chip.
 
The same AKM 4490 is used in DACs from the $99 Schiit Fulla 2, the $279 JDS Labs El DAC, the $499 Schiit Jotunheim, all the way up to the $1299 PS Audio NuWave DSD, and many more.
 
I also wouldn't spend over $300 on a DAC unless it was fully balanced, including 2-4 DAC chips (depending if DAC ICs are stereo or single channel).

 

[U-3C]

I would take this a step further:

People would be better served focusing on differences in the analog stage of a DAC than the chipset or type of chip.

The same AKM 4490 is used in DACs from the $99 Schiit Fulla 2, the $279 JDS Labs El DAC, the $499 Schiit Jotunheim, all the way up to the $1299 PS Audio NuWave DSD, and many more.

I also wouldn't spend over $300 on a DAC unless it was fully balanced, including 2-4 DAC chips (depending if DAC ICs are stereo or single channel).

Lol, but indeed.

Funny. If r2r is indeed so good... Why is there only one company that really bothers to make it... And why is it the only company even bothering to advertise it?


-----------

Anyways, @OP, jjust because something is expensive and big doesn't mean it's amazing. On another thread, the HiFi M8 was brought up. The oh so well loved HiFi M8, which everyone wanted at a time (and *gasp* is expensive! Clear sign it's good!) , has so many issues that makes people question what the company is even thinking. People bought it out of hype, then claimed that balanced sounded so much better. But there was no true balanced circuitry, and it was noisy, hard to carry, impossible to charge, etc. But it's big and expensive and it has the CEntrance logo and Jude even made a public announcement on Head-Fi TV so it must be good and a total bargain!

*woops, back again. Somebody tie me up and smug me out of this place.

 

[watchnerd]

Lol, but indeed.

Funny. If r2r is indeed so good... Why is there only one company that really bothers to make it... And why is it the only company even bothering to advertise it?

 

 
There are actually several companies that make R2R DACs.
 
I don't have any objection to designers wanting to use technologies like R2R or FPGA that provide more room for innovation on the digital side, particular in the filters, than what you get with an off-the-shelf Delta-Sigma ICs.  If I was a digital designer I'd probably want to do the same.
 
For me, the head shaking moment is when people take a reductionist approach and assume that chip architecture >>>>>> everything else.  I've seen many posters claim that a modestly priced, single-ended, decent power supply, decent isolation R2R DAC automatically beats a more expensive, fully-balanced, better power supply better isolation DS DAC because the magic of the chip choice is so strong.  And in reality it's just not that simple.
 
BTW, the same thing happens on the DS-only side, too.  A few years ago the ignorant were claiming that anything with an ESS SABRE DAC chip in it was automatically awesome sauce and superior to everything else.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Of course?

The difference between one single-ended DS implementation and another at that general price range won't be that big. A true hardware balanced implementation would represent a greater audio improvement:

1. Significantly lower noise.
2. Significantly improved channel separation.

He asked you what balanced audio means. "It means better sound" (what the above amounts to) isn't an answer.

 

[GuyUnder]

He asked you what balanced audio means. "It means better sound" (what the above amounts to) isn't an answer.

 
I responded to the question with "of course".
 
I went on the explain some key benefits that a hardware balanced DAC will bring.
 
The fact he felt the need to ask that question to begin with suggests he's laboring under some kind of misunderstanding about what "balanced audio" is. I didn't want to to turn the post into another lengthy educational info dump.

 

[spruce music]

I responded to the question with "of course".

I went on the explain some key benefits that a hardware balanced DAC will bring.

The fact he felt the need to ask that question to begin with suggests he's laboring under some kind of misunderstanding about what "balanced audio" is. I didn't want to to turn the post into another lengthy educational info dump.

We noticed you avoid educational info. No need to remind us.

 

[watchnerd]

I would agree that a fully-balanced DAC provides superior noise resistance and potentially better channel separation.  The same benefits you get from a fully-balanced preamp/amp.
 
However, that's not the most important benefit.
 
The most important audiophile benefit of a balanced DAC is that you can lord it over all the people who have SE DACs.  
 
It's a mic drop, "my DAC is better than yours, it's a big boy DAC" trump card.

 

[pinnahertz]

  Other amps in O2 price/performance range tend to be also power hogs. O2 can surprisingly manage with very little power (about 300mW idle and over 1.3W on full power). If that's not enough its op-amps can be switched for OPA2277 and TLE2062 for even lower idle consumption (140mW) and still admirable output of 5Vrms into 600Ohm at under 1% THD+N. I don't know of a single headphone amp, which could surpass those numbers. 

 
Less is often more
 
PS: For comparison, tubes are often rated over 20W. 
 

Tubes have several different ratings, i.e. plate dissipation and heater current to name only two.  No tube used in a headphone amp would have any rating of 20W though.  Not sure what the point is.  If you mean less is more, you can make a tube-based amp with a far, far lower parts count than any SS device, including the O2.  If you have doubts, just look at the number of transistor junctions inside any IC opamp.  
 
And, though much much "less" in design terms, there's also no way a tube headphone amp could come even slightly close to the O2 in any performance aspect. 
 
I'm afraid I don't agree with "less is more" in audio.  

 

[pinnahertz]

   
+1
 
Active components add self-noise.  
 
One should have as few as needed to meet design goals.

Passive components are noise sources too, but total circuit noise performance isn't just about parts count.  Yes, it's best to not put in parts you don't need, but not every part raises the total noise floor, not even the active ones. 

 

[watchnerd]

  Passive components are noise sources too, but total circuit noise performance isn't just about parts count.  Yes, it's best to not put in parts you don't need, but not every part raises the total noise floor, not even the active ones. 

 
I never said total circuit noise performance is simply a function of noise count.
 
The phrase "as few as needed to meet design goals" was not random.  If you need to implement negative feedback, then it will require more parts.  Buffering requires more.
 
BUT....
 
Hardly anybody on Head Fi is going out and designing new circuit topologies.  Instead, the opposite seems more common -- introducing re-clockers, Jitter B Gones, and other gadgets into the chain that, often as not, actually add noise.
 
For most users the concept of "straight wire with gain" is one that should be revisited.