[sokolov91]

Quote:

Quote:

 
They might destroy your HD 800 in terms of neutrality... but that does not mean all headphones ...
 

Not at all in my experience...For me, the 7 added much needed body and bass to the HD800...bringing the HD800 closer to the colorless ideal.  How can this be, when the 7 brings top-end, ambience and air to the LCD2s, very contradictory, I know.  The reason being....who's kidding who, I have no idea why that is?
 
It brings all my cans closer to the neutral ideal.  I theorise that because the LCD2s have so much body, that extra body is not as recognised as the extra top end.  The HD800s have so much ambience that any extra in the top end is just not registering as greater than the extra added to the bottom end...maybe a psychoacoustic phenomena?

No I'd buy it... my D7000 sound better too. I do notice more body on my LCD-2 though, but at this point I have been really only listening to them as my home headphone, with little bouts of the D7000 and my TF10 on the go (every day). So I know my LCD-2 quite intimately. The body, and low low end have increased, but yeah the highs stick out more in comparison. So I could definitely see how it would give the HD 800 "what they needed" at the same time doing for the LCD-2.
 
I can't wait till you get your phoenix... XD
 
 
TBH I wish I had a lighter pair of headphones that are more neutral than the D7000. I have been listening to the LCD-2 a lot this weekend basking in the glory of the Ref - 7 and ... well... my neck and back are hurting a bit haha.So I was just teasing more than anything.
 
Seriously though, active monitors would have a hard time beating vlrn's set up + the LCD-2.
 
What does the diamond amp do in these dacs though?

 

[Currawong]

It's an amplification/output stage. There are various types, most common. A current gain stage (ACSS) is less common.

 

[vrln]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

 
They might destroy your HD 800 in terms of neutrality... but that does not mean all headphones ...
 

Not at all in my experience...For me, the 7 added much needed body and bass to the HD800...bringing the HD800 closer to the colorless ideal.  How can this be, when the 7 brings top-end, ambience and air to the LCD2s, very contradictory, I know.  The reason being....who's kidding who, I have no idea why that is?
 
It brings all my cans closer to the neutral ideal.  I theorise that because the LCD2s have so much body, that extra body is not as recognised as the extra top end.  The HD800s have so much ambience that any extra in the top end is just not registering as greater than the extra added to the bottom end...maybe a psychoacoustic phenomena?

No I'd buy it... my D7000 sound better too. I do notice more body on my LCD-2 though, but at this point I have been really only listening to them as my home headphone, with little bouts of the D7000 and my TF10 on the go (every day). So I know my LCD-2 quite intimately. The body, and low low end have increased, but yeah the highs stick out more in comparison. So I could definitely see how it would give the HD 800 "what they needed" at the same time doing for the LCD-2.
 
I can't wait till you get your phoenix... XD
 
TBH I wish I had a lighter pair of headphones that are more neutral than the D7000. I have been listening to the LCD-2 a lot this weekend basking in the glory of the Ref - 7 and ... well... my neck and back are hurting a bit haha.So I was just teasing more than anything.
 
Seriously though, active monitors would have a hard time beating vlrn's set up + the LCD-2.
 

Actually I didn´t mean the rig isn´t neutral - neutral is one of the words in audiophile linguistics that has so many meanings anyway... The ACSS line is, at least the ones with the PCM1704UK chip, very smooth, actually quite relaxed even. It has very high fidelity, but it isn´t harsh in any way like the Delta-Sigma DAC´s I´ve previously used. This is why I think it´s not really all that punishing to bad recordings. Just found the comments about the musical line odd, since it would be reasonable to expect the musical line to be even more forgiving to bad recordings, but looking at the comments it seems it might even be the other way around.
 
The HD 800 is a fantastic pairing with the REF7+Phoenix... Out of the headphones I´ve heard (quite a lot, but no orthos so no LCD-2) it has the best bass quality. Not impact, but it´s by far the most controlled and defined. I thought they sounded very neutral with the Icon HDP Delta-Sigma I used to use, but when I got my REF7 I noticed there is a whole new world of deep controlled musical bass in all of my music. The REF7 brings this lower bass to life, making the HD 800 even more neutral as in balanced across the frequency spectrum.
 
Active studio monitors are quite an interesting topic. They come in many variants, the most usual ones being nearfield and midfield. The difference is the optimal listening distance. The whole point with nearfield monitors is that you place them on your desk quite close to your head so that your head and the two speakers form a triangle/diamond shape. In other words the monitors are pointing at your head in a 45" degree turn. The optimal distance is something around 0.7-1.5 meters or so for small monitors. Why this distance? Because this is the optimum area for the sonics so that the room accoustics don´t have much of an effect on the sound. This is the entire point of studio monitors compared to hifi speakers - they try to present the sound as flat and neutral as possible for mixing/mastering purposes. They have very strong stereo imaging and clarity. Some absolutely love the neutral sound signature and feel they destroy almost anything in the hifi speaker market, while others feel they sound lifeless and clinical without any weight to the sound. But all the music we listen to are originally made to sound good with nearfield monitors - the premise being that if they sound good on almost perfectly neutral gear, then they sound good on anything else too.
 
I have two Genelec 8020B monitors as my PC speakers, and I´ve been using my Audio-gd rig with them. Actually I´ve been listening to them more than any headphones When it comes to measurable neutrality, frequency response, they destroy any headphones out there (including the LCD-2, but yes the LCD-2 are by far the most neutral headphones on the market). But headphones vs speakers is a very different experience, hard to compare. Getting HD 800/LCD-2 quality bass on any speakers, including nearfield monitors will be expensive to say the least. I would call nearfield monitor sound a midway between traditional hifi speakers and intimate headphones - sound is a 3d image floating in the air around less than a meter in front of you, and you can hear the right/left channels stereo imaging almost as well as with headphones. They represent excellent value for money too as studio gear doesn´t do snake oil, and due to the nearfield monitoring idea room accoustics don´t play much of a role. I can highly recommend trying out a pair of quality studio monitors like Genelec and seeing if you like what they do Oh and with Audio-gd amps you already have a quality preamplfier so running active monitors in addition to headphones is extremely easy. I feel the two compliment eachother perfectly. Both are able to offer something the other cannot, while still being good value for money (no accoustic room treatment etc required).

 

 

[regal]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

 

 

. But all the music we listen to are originally made to sound good with nearfield monitors - the premise being that if they sound good on almost perfectly neutral gear, then they sound good on anything else too.

 
I  

Most of the music sold is hot compressed mastered to sound good on earbuds and in car stereos they care less about sounding good on nearfield monitors.

 

[vrln]

My bad, should have said "most of the so called audiophile quality recordings with high dynamics" instead You´re right, the loudness wars have indeed slaughtered most popular music recordings...

 

[SP Wild]

The PCM1704 is a current output DAC (not all dacs output current, most output voltage, I think?).  All dacs get converted from current to voltage in the dac, Diamond differential is no different - what comes out of the DAC output is AC - your audio signals are in fact AC.  But what came out of the DAC was not AC, but a DC voltage...its the variation in current that represents the peak or trough of a sine wave.  In AC signals, the voltage peaks represent the troughs and peaks.
 
ACSS, or CAST is different - in the R7 the current output of the PCM1704 is allowed to remain in the current stage (DC) for longer...until it reaches the amp, the amp will convert the DC audio signal back into AC audio signals (only when using ACSS).  There are very real advantages with doing this.  With every commercial DAC, there is a means of filtering any residual DC voltages from the audio AC signal - because if this DC hits your amplifier, it will amplify them and send this amplified DC to the headphones, this may destroy the drivers.  In addition, every commercial amp has a means of filtering the exact same concerns regarding residual DC...in case the DAC didn't.  This process always involves capacitors in the audio signal.
 
From my experience capacitors in the audio signal is a big NO NO.  By merely removing the input capacitors in my DIY Jaycar amp after making sure there was no residual DC from my DACs - I gained the biggest jump in sound quality, the sound "opened" up and it was obvious that the capacitor constrained the sound.  Then there is whatever mechanisms necessary to remove DC at the DAC...which is more than likely another source of sound signal contamination.
 
With ACSS, the audio signal coming out of the DAC is DC and remains DC going into the amp - so there is no need to filter DC, as the signal is DC...less components in the audio signal = less contamination of the audio signal.  I pose the question:  Does the Ref 8 have more regulators and capacitance because it has to deal with the issue of purifying the audio AC voltage from DC?  I suspect this is the case.  Using ACSS...these extra filtrations are just not required.
 
I do believe that if one intends to connect a flagship AGD DAC to non current input devices...diamond differential should be selected, as it is optimised for voltage transmission.  However, there is no doubt in my mind that current transmission is a superior delivery method...and that ACSS is the only medium that can deliver this better transmission principle.
 
That is why the Reference 7 commands a price premium over the Reference 8.  Audio GD uses the best operating principle for its flagship...Flagships must command the highest premium, this is the logic in a free market capitalist economy.  China is obviously not a true free market economy.

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

 
They might destroy your HD 800 in terms of neutrality... but that does not mean all headphones ...
 

Not at all in my experience...For me, the 7 added much needed body and bass to the HD800...bringing the HD800 closer to the colorless ideal.  How can this be, when the 7 brings top-end, ambience and air to the LCD2s, very contradictory, I know.  The reason being....who's kidding who, I have no idea why that is?
 
It brings all my cans closer to the neutral ideal.  I theorise that because the LCD2s have so much body, that extra body is not as recognised as the extra top end.  The HD800s have so much ambience that any extra in the top end is just not registering as greater than the extra added to the bottom end...maybe a psychoacoustic phenomena?

No I'd buy it... my D7000 sound better too. I do notice more body on my LCD-2 though, but at this point I have been really only listening to them as my home headphone, with little bouts of the D7000 and my TF10 on the go (every day). So I know my LCD-2 quite intimately. The body, and low low end have increased, but yeah the highs stick out more in comparison. So I could definitely see how it would give the HD 800 "what they needed" at the same time doing for the LCD-2.
 
I can't wait till you get your phoenix... XD
 
TBH I wish I had a lighter pair of headphones that are more neutral than the D7000. I have been listening to the LCD-2 a lot this weekend basking in the glory of the Ref - 7 and ... well... my neck and back are hurting a bit haha.So I was just teasing more than anything.
 
Seriously though, active monitors would have a hard time beating vlrn's set up + the LCD-2.
 

Actually I didn´t mean the rig isn´t neutral - neutral is one of the words in audiophile linguistics that has so many meanings anyway... The ACSS line is, at least the ones with the PCM1704UK chip, very smooth, actually quite relaxed even. It has very high fidelity, but it isn´t harsh in any way like the Delta-Sigma DAC´s I´ve previously used. This is why I think it´s not really all that punishing to bad recordings. Just found the comments about the musical line odd, since it would be reasonable to expect the musical line to be even more forgiving to bad recordings, but looking at the comments it seems it might even be the other way around.
 
The HD 800 is a fantastic pairing with the REF7+Phoenix... Out of the headphones I´ve heard (quite a lot, but no orthos so no LCD-2) it has the best bass quality. Not impact, but it´s by far the most controlled and defined. I thought they sounded very neutral with the Icon HDP Delta-Sigma I used to use, but when I got my REF7 I noticed there is a whole new world of deep controlled musical bass in all of my music. The REF7 brings this lower bass to life, making the HD 800 even more neutral as in balanced across the frequency spectrum.
 
Active studio monitors are quite an interesting topic. They come in many variants, the most usual ones being nearfield and midfield. The difference is the optimal listening distance. The whole point with nearfield monitors is that you place them on your desk quite close to your head so that your head and the two speakers form a triangle/diamond shape. In other words the monitors are pointing at your head in a 45" degree turn. The optimal distance is something around 0.7-1.5 meters or so for small monitors. Why this distance? Because this is the optimum area for the sonics so that the room accoustics don´t have much of an effect on the sound. This is the entire point of studio monitors compared to hifi speakers - they try to present the sound as flat and neutral as possible for mixing/mastering purposes. They have very strong stereo imaging and clarity. Some absolutely love the neutral sound signature and feel they destroy almost anything in the hifi speaker market, while others feel they sound lifeless and clinical without any weight to the sound. But all the music we listen to are originally made to sound good with nearfield monitors - the premise being that if they sound good on almost perfectly neutral gear, then they sound good on anything else too.
 
I have two Genelec 8020B monitors as my PC speakers, and I´ve been using my Audio-gd rig with them. Actually I´ve been listening to them more than any headphones When it comes to measurable neutrality, frequency response, they destroy any headphones out there (including the LCD-2, but yes the LCD-2 are by far the most neutral headphones on the market). But headphones vs speakers is a very different experience, hard to compare. Getting HD 800/LCD-2 quality bass on any speakers, including nearfield monitors will be expensive to say the least. I would call nearfield monitor sound a midway between traditional hifi speakers and intimate headphones - sound is a 3d image floating in the air around less than a meter in front of you, and you can hear the right/left channels stereo imaging almost as well as with headphones. They represent excellent value for money too as studio gear doesn´t do snake oil, and due to the nearfield monitoring idea room accoustics don´t play much of a role. I can highly recommend trying out a pair of quality studio monitors like Genelec and seeing if you like what they do Oh and with Audio-gd amps you already have a quality preamplfier so running active monitors in addition to headphones is extremely easy. I feel the two compliment eachother perfectly. Both are able to offer something the other cannot, while still being good value for money (no accoustic room treatment etc required).

 

haha I appreciate you humouring me, but I was really only teasing.
 
these nearfield monitors sound very interesting... and I could use a new pair of pc speakers... damn... not another thing to buy :O

 

[tim3320070]

Many have stated here that the Ref series "punishes" or "ruthlessly reveals" bad recordings. It's true but the big flip side to this is that well recorded music is that much more enjoyable and immersive.

 

[haloxt]

I find bad recordings to sound good even on acss, loudness war albums the exception. It is just you hear more of the recording characteristics... not necessarily good or bad. Good if you like to hear the unique recording characteristics of different albums, bad if you want to hear the music without recording characteristics being easy to hear.

 

[sokolov91]

 
Quote:

I find bad recordings to sound good even on acss, loudness war albums the exception. It is just you hear more of the recording characteristics... not necessarily good or bad. Good if you like to hear the unique recording characteristics of different albums, bad if you want to hear the music without recording characteristics being easy to hear.

I don't know if it is just the Ref - 7 + Phoenix combo, or the ACSS cables (haven't checked yet) but I am certainly hearing a lot of recording characteristics I never knew where there. How things were recorded really show through in my new set up, and I find it exhilarating. Music sounds so right. Makes it a little less magical, but all the more intimate.

 

[haloxt]

Completely agree about less magical but more intimate . The way I see it, most electronics will make it seem like the music is always trying to move in a single direction, or have one purpose or general theme which all instruments strive towards. I think what I mainly notice with acss compared to xlr, is more instrument separation and distinctness of recording quality, and the instruments do their own things precisely and subtly controlled without recording quality or other instruments being blurred into them. I think a very difficult thing for audio reproduction gear to convey is the ringing and modulating quality of some instruments and voices, and when it's not done precisely the connotation in the note played/sung changes. The general theme of the song will likely remain the same, but the individual instruments' meaning may be altered to sound less fragile/intimate, and sound more bold/sustained.
 
Not commenting on diamond differential, and I haven't tried it. This is just my observation comparing acss vs xlr on acss gear. I think the same is true but to a quite greater extent when comparing acss of my top tier gear to other tier audio-gd gear, pci sound cards, and mp3 players.

 

[regal]

Quote:

 But what came out of the DAC was not AC, but a DC voltage...
ACSS, or CAST is different - in the R7 the current output of the PCM1704 is allowed to remain in the current stage (DC) for longer...
 DC = no sine waves = no music signal,   the PCM1704 has a DC component of Zero btw.
. 
  In addition, every commercial amp has a means of filtering the exact same concerns regarding residual DC...in case the DAC didn't.  This process always involves capacitors in the audio signal. 
Wrong,  there are many different methods to give a DAC an analog stage without output coupling caps (ie DC coupled.) 
 
 
With ACSS, the audio signal coming out of the DAC is DC and remains DC going into the amp
If it was DC it wouldn't carry a signal,   ACSS is AC (Alternating current)
 
Does the Ref 8 have more regulators and capacitance because it has to deal with the issue of purifying the audio AC voltage from DC?  
Nope.  No coupling caps and no DC servo.
 
I do believe that if one intends to connect a flagship AGD DAC to non current input devices...diamond differential should be selected, as it is optimised for voltage transmission.  However, there is no doubt in my mind that current transmission is a superior delivery method...and that ACSS is the only medium that can deliver this better transmission principle.
 
That is why the Reference 7 commands a price premium over the Reference 8.  Audio GD uses the best operating principle for its flagship...Flagships must command the highest premium, this is the logic in a free market capitalist economy.  China is obviously not a true free market economy.
 
Bet you haven't heard an Re8 or any of the DD DAC's have you?  Trying real hard to convince yourself not to buy one,  please stop torturing yourself 

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

Quote:

 But what came out of the DAC was not AC, but a DC voltage...
ACSS, or CAST is different - in the R7 the current output of the PCM1704 is allowed to remain in the current stage (DC) for longer...
 DC = no sine waves = no music signal,   the PCM1704 has a DC component of Zero btw.
. 
  In addition, every commercial amp has a means of filtering the exact same concerns regarding residual DC...in case the DAC didn't.  This process always involves capacitors in the audio signal. 
Wrong,  there are many different methods to give a DAC an analog stage without output coupling caps (ie DC coupled.) 
 
 
With ACSS, the audio signal coming out of the DAC is DC and remains DC going into the amp
If it was DC it wouldn't carry a signal,   ACSS is AC (Alternating current)
 
Does the Ref 8 have more regulators and capacitance because it has to deal with the issue of purifying the audio AC voltage from DC?  
Nope.  No coupling caps and no DC servo.
 
I do believe that if one intends to connect a flagship AGD DAC to non current input devices...diamond differential should be selected, as it is optimised for voltage transmission.  However, there is no doubt in my mind that current transmission is a superior delivery method...and that ACSS is the only medium that can deliver this better transmission principle.
 
That is why the Reference 7 commands a price premium over the Reference 8.  Audio GD uses the best operating principle for its flagship...Flagships must command the highest premium, this is the logic in a free market capitalist economy.  China is obviously not a true free market economy.
 
Bet you haven't heard an Re8 or any of the DD DAC's have you?  Trying real hard to convince yourself not to buy one,  please stop torturing yourself 

 

GAHHHHH *tears hair our*

 

[SP Wild]

 
Quote:

Quote:

 But what came out of the DAC was not AC, but a DC voltage...
ACSS, or CAST is different - in the R7 the current output of the PCM1704 is allowed to remain in the current stage (DC) for longer...
 DC = no sine waves = no music signal,   the PCM1704 has a DC component of Zero btw.
. 
  In addition, every commercial amp has a means of filtering the exact same concerns regarding residual DC...in case the DAC didn't.  This process always involves capacitors in the audio signal. 
Wrong,  there are many different methods to give a DAC an analog stage without output coupling caps (ie DC coupled.) 
 
 
With ACSS, the audio signal coming out of the DAC is DC and remains DC going into the amp
If it was DC it wouldn't carry a signal,   ACSS is AC (Alternating current)
 
Does the Ref 8 have more regulators and capacitance because it has to deal with the issue of purifying the audio AC voltage from DC?  
Nope.  No coupling caps and no DC servo.
 
I do believe that if one intends to connect a flagship AGD DAC to non current input devices...diamond differential should be selected, as it is optimised for voltage transmission.  However, there is no doubt in my mind that current transmission is a superior delivery method...and that ACSS is the only medium that can deliver this better transmission principle.
 
That is why the Reference 7 commands a price premium over the Reference 8.  Audio GD uses the best operating principle for its flagship...Flagships must command the highest premium, this is the logic in a free market capitalist economy.  China is obviously not a true free market economy.
 
Bet you haven't heard an Re8 or any of the DD DAC's have you?  Trying real hard to convince yourself not to buy one,  please stop torturing yourself 

 

Ahhh well...still a lot to learn on my behalf.  But it was worth a shot!  You can't blame me for trying to defend my latest and greatest acquisition...this is perfectly normal human behaviour, made easier, because it is THAT GOOD. 

 
The more the 7 is with me, the more harder it is for me to place a definitive overall "chroma" temperature to its signature.  I do believe when this happens...it is because the DAC is adding very little color of its own.  It then requires the individual recording itself to be definitively bright or warm, before there is a general sensation that the output can be categorised correspondingly.
 
My personal preferences is in the "warm" side of things, as that's how I heard it when I was playing live, the NOS dac gives me this....but it does this to all the recordings, and I doubt if that is the intent of all recordings.  Some recordings, like Enya are meant to sound more distant and "ethereal"...this is lost with the NOS on the 7 it is correctly reproduced.  On recordings such as Norah jones or Joss Stone, where it is intimate and upclose...it still sounds like I am used to when I was playing live - this is the intent of the recording and is not lost either on the 7.
 
With the LCD2s, I always had a desire for a can to compliment them for more "ethereal" recordings - which I felt was little lost with my previous setups.  Now with the 7 - the LCD2s can reproduce these ethereal recordings in a very satisfying manner.  I do not feel the need to purchase another complimentary can.  My opinion is that the 7 reproduce the artists or recording engineers intent without loss or coloration, I feel that it does deserve a "neutral" designation.  I know for a fact that I wanted everything to sound like onstage, I wanted all the ambiance to be removed from my recordings - but I also knew this was a "coloration" because not all recordings are produced that way.  Objectively, the 7 is more correct than any other DAC I have ever heard.
 
LOL at Sokolov...its obvious to me that those that are indeed musicians that have heard real life instruments within an intimate distance on a daily basis, have distinctively different goals in audio than those that have extensive experience attending live performances as an audience member.  But at least we have a common fixed reference point, based in reality...not referencing other equipment.  Alex, I believe we are now at the mercy of the recording!
 
P.S. Can anyone define exactly what "current output" means - I had presumed that if the sinewave is to be represented by current...the voltage must remain constant, i.e. a flatline DC voltage.

 

[SP Wild]

I'm sorry Regal, you may need to carry out more research.
 
http://www.edaboard.co.uk/current-output-dacs-t288144.html
 
 
"Current output DACs don't put the "output op amp" on the chip so that you
can select your own output opamp, depending on your bandwidth, noise,
accuracy (dc precision), settling time and power requirements.

When selecting opamps you often trade off bandwidth for DC precision, so you
don't want to select an opamp with excessive bandwidth."
 
Why would there be a need for "DC precision"?