Essence STX + external amp: Headphone Out or Line Out for SQ?

Jun 15, 2009 at 3:23 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 5

chinesekiwi

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 29, 2008
Posts
3,801
Likes
47
Reason I ask this of course is that there is debate about whether on the Asus Essence STX, if you have an external headphone amp, to use the line-out thus making it pass through the LM4562 opamp or to use the internal headphone amp effectively as a pre-amp to the external amp but bypassing the LM4562 and the SQ differences.

Some reviewers and users prefer the headphone pre-amp option [via 2 RCA to 3.5mm IC] while others the line-out.

Which is better for SQ in your opinion?

Please state your amp, headphone and opamp rolls thanks!
 
Jun 15, 2009 at 3:37 PM Post #2 of 5
There's no doubt, quality-wise, the line-outs are noticeably better feeding into an external amp. However, you might find some cases in which the amped output into an external amp may sound better to you. It really depends on the rest of your gear; headphones, cables, amp, opamps. In the end, my suggestion is to try for yourself and pick whichever sounds best to you. Often times, synergy is more important than slight improvements in sound quality.
 
Jun 15, 2009 at 3:42 PM Post #3 of 5
mmmm...in a recent comprehensive reliable Essence STX review, the guy preferred the headphone out which was interesting.

Two in One: Asus Xonar Essence STX Sound Card Review (page 5) - X-bit labs

Quote:

The musical compositions were in WAV or APE (Monkey Audio) formats and were reproduced via foobar2000 0.9.6 with the ASIO plugin version 1.2.6. The sound cards were were tuned to the highest-fidelity mode: the X-Fi was switched into Audio Creation mode with Bit-Matched Playback and the HF mode was enabled for the Xonar. To avoid disturbance and minimize the time for switching, I used the adapters included with the Xonar Essence, reducing the three different output connectors to a single 3.5mm jack. Then, the sound was transferred to the C.E.C. HD53R-80 amplifier via a cable taken from the Xonar D2 box. A pair of Grado SR 325i headphones was connected to the amplifier’s right output.

The certain blurriness of the sound of the Essence STX’s line output is even beneficial for not-very-high-quality recordings which did not sound well when reproduced via the headphones output. In its turn, the headphones output offered a gorgeous sound in high-quality recordings: an abysmal depth, a crystal clarity, excellent dynamics, and lush overtones. The overtones are also rich in the Xonar Essence STX’s line output, making it better than the Creative X-Fi Elite Pro. The difference is especially conspicuous with the piano, violin and other musical instruments with a large spectrum of overtones. They sound listlessly on the Elite Pro and very natural on the Essence STX. In some cases the Elite Pro outperformed the line output of the Essence STX thanks to a better attack and a more detailed scene, but the status quo was restored as soon as I switched to the headphones output. Conversely, if the Elite Pro sounded somewhat softer and natural than the Essence STX’s headphones output, the latter’s line output proved to be even better.

This could be observed until I came to the What’s Wrong track from the Ecore – Best Of T.I.S. – Audiophile Sampler disc which was obviously reproduced better by the Elite Pro. The main difference was in the sound of the acoustic guitar when it being played with beats into the microphone standing nearby. Irrespective of the output I connected the amplifier to, the Xonar Essence created an annoying humming cloud in the left ear instead of the feeling of the musical instrument with strings and resonating case. This fact raised my earlier suspicions about the use of NJM2114 operation amplifiers on the I/U conversion stage that I had expressed in my ASUS Xonar D2 review. I had Texas Instruments OPA2132P and NE5532P opamps with appropriate DIP package and I decided to check out if the NJM2114 were to blame or not, especially as Texas Instruments recommended using the NE5534 and OPA2134 in the standard circuits for the PCM1792A and TPA6120A2.

The NE5532 being similar to the NJM2114 in its internal circuitry (the latter is sometimes even called a turbo-charged clone of the former), I did not expect them to differ much in sound quality. When I replaced one with the other, the problematic track began to sound somewhat better, at least there was less of the ear-straining hum, but one more track from the same disc, called Cowbell, made me take the sound card out of the computer again. The various drums and percussion of that composition jarred on my ear and the replacement of the NE5532 with the OPA2132 changed the situation dramatically. The sound scene became a single whole and roomier, and the minor tones and reverberations got clearer. It is like watching a scenery first in a water reflection and then – in a clear mirror. That’s the difference between the NJM2114/NE5532 and OPA2132 in the I/U conversion stage. The high frequencies of the Cowbell composition ceased to jar on my ear, the guitar in the What’s Wrong composition got more natural, and the overall sound was more exciting. This refers to the headphone output, though. The line output only got worse from the change: the previously sluggish sound became downright lazy. The bass grew flaccid and the trebles dull. Very much intrigued, I had to make a break in my test session to get some sleep, and the next day the Creative X-Fi Elite Pro refused to work.

Having lost half a day trying to install any driver for the unidentified Creative device the X-Fi Elite Pro had transformed into, I replaced it with an Auzen X-Fi Prelude that had been lying aside due to the total incompatibility of different X-Fi based devices with each other. This sound card had been praised for a very interesting sound, so I thought it would make a good opponent to the ASUS Xonar Essence STX. And when I listened to them, I was shocked because the Prelude was far better! Although the electric guitars of Judas Priest sounded as if from under a blanket and the piano lost its weight, the Prelude was otherwise much more beautiful and interesting, especially in vocals.

So, I took the Essence STX out from my computer again and put the NJM2114 back in place – these opamps had beaten the X-Fi Elite Pro in 90% of compositions. Indeed, when the change was made, the Essence STX became melodic and expressive but its drawbacks returned, too. These were somewhat colored mid frequencies, rather too hissing high frequencies, and a deep but occasionally thick bass. I would say that the default Essence STX provides a true Hi-Fi sound: it is very beautiful, with a broad sound scene, excellent dynamics, accurate reproduction, exciting expressiveness and detailedness. The Prelude, on the contrary, stifles the sound somewhat, is inferior in the naturalism of the timbres of stringed instruments but ensures a more concerted bass and puts less emphasis on sibilants and other fricatives. When listening to the set of test compositions on the two cards, each third composition sounded better on the X-Fi Prelude. When the NJM2114 was replaced with the NE5532 again, the tonal balance of the Essence STX grew so similar to the X-Fi Prelude (including the mentioned stifled quality) that they could only be told apart by smallest nuances – I often could not decide what card was actually better. In some cases I would prefer the Prelude due to the difference in the sound of the high frequencies but the Essence STX would become superior at a reduced sound volume because it would maintain its detailedness and pleasant total balance. The biggest difference in favor of the Essence STX was observed in the Raising Sand album by Robert Plant & Alison Krauss.

Thus, I could not find a universal replacement to the DIP-case NJM2114 but I know where to look for. I have unverified information that the OPA2134 differs for the better from the OPA2132 in the I/U stage, and Texas Instruments uses it in the typical connection scheme of the TPA6120A2. The AD8066 might make an ideal choice but it is not produced in DIP packaging. And ideally, this position should be occupied by an opamp like THS4631. But is it necessary to replace the LM4562? Having performed a number of tests with the Auzen X-Fi Prelude, I returned to the original LM4562. As a low-pass filter it ensures the most realistic timbres and best detailedness. Neither OPA2132/2134 nor AD823/826 could provide the same combination of properties. Therefore, the LM4562 in DIP packaging can only be replaced with SOIC --> DIP adaptors that extend the choice of opamps greatly. Then you can try the LME49722 or the single-channel opamps of the OPA827 class.

Now I must tell a few words about the headphone amplifier integrated into the Xonar Essence STX. Besides a separate output that makes it far easier to use, it features good reproduction quality. I listened to a number of compositions, switching the headphones from the sound card’s connector into the C.E.C. HD53R-80 amplifier connected to the same output of the Xonar Essence. The low impedance of the Grado headphones is a difficult test for amplifiers and the TPA6120A2 specs suggest that its distortions grow up under such load, but it was hard for me to notice a difference in the sound of the two amplifiers. Besides some discrepancies in the sound scene that are hard to describe in words, I can note the more natural sound of the piano and the clearer trumpets on the C.E.C. amplifier. The difference was more conspicuous with Tchaikovsky’s 1812 overture: the TPA6120A2 gets less detailed at spectrally dense moments, its high frequencies becoming muddier and its bass being less controlled, but these are all minor drawbacks you can hear in but a few compositions. I liked some tracks better as reproduced by the TPA6120A2 but the C.E.C. was overall superior with the 32Ohm headphones. You should not forget the much higher cost of the external amplifier, though. The availability of numerous high-quality headphones with 250 Ohm impedance opens wide possibilities for the integrated amplifier of the Essence STX.


 
Jun 15, 2009 at 3:54 PM Post #4 of 5
Quote:

Originally Posted by chinesekiwi /img/forum/go_quote.gif
mmmm...in a recent comprehensive reliable Essence STX review, the guy preferred the headphone out which was interesting.

Two in One: Asus Xonar Essence STX Sound Card Review (page 5) - X-bit labs



He's using a Grado 325i. I haven't tested any Grados with any of my gear. Despite gear changes though, one difference I consistently found was that the headphone out made the sound brighter, leaner, drier and quicker in the bass (but with less of it). The sound was also more congested in complex passages. This is all relative to the line-outs.
 
Jun 15, 2009 at 4:37 PM Post #5 of 5
I would say it's just a opinion on what sound good to the individual. The Line-outs sound noticably better to me. Not to mention the Line outs also have higher specifications then the headphone output. To each their own though, use what sounds the best to you.
You may also notice a difference depending on which opamps your using also.
When you consider the circuit, if the guy is rolling opamps during testing. Certain combination for I/V may sound better in combination with the TPA6120A2 chip. Other combination may sound better when using the LM4562NA for the single end buffer...etc. I think this could atleast be a factor.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top