[tomb]

 

 
Yeah, because as said, it's 400 Ohm... so it shouldn't have issues with a 5K load. But a DAC with more than 500 Ohm may actually have some issues.
 
And there is one such DAC where the DAC chip is connected to the RCA jacks here:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Non-Oversampling-DAC-TDA1543-DIR9001-96kHz-SPDIF-Coax-Optical-9V-NiMH-charger-/200858459050?rmvSB=true
 
(passive I/V) 

 
Attenuation is clipping out low-level signals. It's not like the amp is perfectly transparent and won't add its own noise... so when the signal that comes into the amp is as low as the noise floor, it'll just get lost. Attenuation will cause that to happen more often.
 
As for the Audio-GD devices, I meant they were not appropriate for the O2. The O2 would audibly clip when fed a signal greater than 2Vrms. Audio-GD DACs typically go up to about 2.5Vrms, I think, so that's more than the O2 can handle, and it'll clip. You may very well build an attenuator and mitigate the issue just fine, but then you're clipping out about 20% of the signal in that case (2V vs 2.5V). I don't think I'd choose that route.
 
Either way, I'm just trying to come to some explanation as to why some DACs may sound different, coming from an actual technical standpoint, and not just due to subjective impressions. Granted, this has no bearing on their actual pricing. I'm using a $150 DAC (Geek Out 450), and loving it. 

Bill, why are you looking for a lousy DAC on fleaBay that nobody should buy to try to sell a pointless point? Attenuation is reducing he signal level, clipping is hacking off the top of a waveform resulting in distortion that nobody here is interested in. Please stop looking for oddball fringe cases that are not relevant.
What are you going on about noise for? If one needs attenuation because of the oddball case you presented where the signal is too hot then after proper attenuation it will NOT be as low as the noise floor. Stop being silly.

 The oddball case you're referencing is the O2 itself.  That's because NWAVGUY completely departed from accepted industry practice and placed the volume pot between the signal stage and the buffer.  Therefore, amplification occurs before attenuation.  It's why the O2 is super-sensitive to sources that are a tiny bit stronger than the norm.  Clipping occurs immediately, before any attenuation.

 

[Bill-P]

 

 The oddball case you're referencing is the O2 itself.  That's because NWAVGUY completely departed from accepted industry practice and placed the volume pot between the signal stage and the buffer.  Therefore, amplification occurs before attenuation.  It's why the O2 is super-sensitive to sources that are a tiny bit stronger than the norm.  Clipping occurs immediately, before any attenuation.

I think that's what he meant by "oddball", as the O2 is seemingly the only popular amp that does that.
 
I just wanted to poke fun at it. 

 
But it's good to note now and again that... yeah, the O2 would clip that way. Putting an attenuator in between it and the DAC may help, but that's just unnecessarily more work IMO. A "different" (I'm avoiding "better" for good reasons) amp would be much less effort IMO. Schiit Audio has come up with some interesting options lately.
 
If I'm not traveling, I would have picked up the new Magni/Modi 2 Uber combo, as my friend said they sounded very good. Man... so tempted!

 

[tomb]

 

 

 The oddball case you're referencing is the O2 itself.  That's because NWAVGUY completely departed from accepted industry practice and placed the volume pot between the signal stage and the buffer.  Therefore, amplification occurs before attenuation.  It's why the O2 is super-sensitive to sources that are a tiny bit stronger than the norm.  Clipping occurs immediately, before any attenuation.

I think that's what he meant by "oddball", as the O2 is seemingly the only popular amp that does that.
 
I just wanted to poke fun at it. 

 
But it's good to note now and again that... yeah, the O2 would clip that way. Putting an attenuator in between it and the DAC may help, but that's just unnecessarily more work IMO. A "different" (I'm avoiding "better" for good reasons) amp would be much less effort IMO. Schiit Audio has come up with some interesting options lately.
 
If I'm not traveling, I would have picked up the new Magni/Modi 2 Uber combo, as my friend said they sounded very good. Man... so tempted!

Sounds reasonable.
 
Your suggestion of taking output directly off of the DAC chip has also been a fairly common thing in DIY.  There are many infamous mods of CD/DVD players where the DAC outputs were bypassed with boutique capacitors directly to the output.
 
The AlienDAC, for years the only low-price DAC available anywhere, takes output directly from the DAC chip (PCM2702) with just a couple of coupling capacitors.  The BantamDAC did the same thing and there are others.
 
TI basically designed the PCM2704/5/6/7 series to use a direct output from the DAC chip, but they do claim to have built-in headphone amplifiers.

 

[StanD]

 

 The oddball case you're referencing is the O2 itself.  That's because NWAVGUY completely departed from accepted industry practice and placed the volume pot between the signal stage and the buffer.  Therefore, amplification occurs before attenuation.  It's why the O2 is super-sensitive to sources that are a tiny bit stronger than the norm.  Clipping occurs immediately, before any attenuation.

Remind me not to buy one. 

 

[money4me247]

  Remind me not to buy one. 

considered yourself reminded

 

[Anthen]

Sorry to cut into your discussions, but I'm curious as to whether there is a Bottleneck effect with DACs? Surely at a certain point the signal from the DAC outresolve what the headphone can play. Speaking from my experience with DSLRs, they have a thing called the perceptive Mpix, where the sensor can outresolve the lens. If so, then wouldn't your DAC depend heavily on the "resolution" (i can't think of the right word) of your Headphones?

 

[Shaffer]

Sorry to cut into your discussions, but I'm curious as to whether there is a Bottleneck effect with DACs? Surely at a certain point the signal from the DAC outresolve what the headphone can play. Speaking from my experience with DSLRs, they have a thing called the perceptive Mpix, where the sensor can outresolve the lens. If so, then wouldn't your DAC depend heavily on the "resolution" (i can't think of the right word) of your Headphones?

Depends on the DAC. For example, the uDAC2 that I use with my laptop can't out-resolve a wet blanket, but it does sound pleasant with MP3s.

 

[money4me247]

  Sorry to cut into your discussions, but I'm curious as to whether there is a Bottleneck effect with DACs? Surely at a certain point the signal from the DAC outresolve what the headphone can play. Speaking from my experience with DSLRs, they have a thing called the perceptive Mpix, where the sensor can outresolve the lens. If so, then wouldn't your DAC depend heavily on the "resolution" (i can't think of the right word) of your Headphones?

yes, the scaling you get with adding additional components is a lot less than you might "get the impression" from reading posts here.
 
your sound quality is primarily determined by 1) your source files 2) your headphones... after that maybe 5-15% adjustments (may not always be positive) in sound quality can be fine-tuned with external components like amplifiers & headphones. there is also a concept called "audio transparency" that state that if your external equipment meets certain measurable criteria, then switching to another "audio transparent" set-up will not make any audible difference.
 
personal experience & research. your opinion & ymmv.

 

[cel4145]

Sorry to cut into your discussions, but I'm curious as to whether there is a Bottleneck effect with DACs? Surely at a certain point the signal from the DAC outresolve what the headphone can play.

The bottleneck is in the human ears and human brain

 

[billybob_jcv]

IMHO, "resolution", when talking about an analog driver, is a very slippery concept. With a lens, I think it's a little clearer (pun intended) - when you shoot a test target, it's simply where you lose the ability to discern two lines. I don't think it is quite that simple with sound.

 

[Bill-P]

IMHO, "resolution", when talking about an analog driver, is a very slippery concept. With a lens, I think it's a little clearer (pun intended) - when you shoot a test target, it's simply where you lose the ability to discern two lines. I don't think it is quite that simple with sound.

Since we're talking about that...

With lenses, you can still see the difference between 2 lenses when the right condition occurs. For instance, go to the extreme edges and look at sharpness. You'll see that different lenses with the same focal length and aperture will have different levels of sharpness. Some are sharper than the others quite noticeably. If not that, then try to shoot directly against sunlight. You'll see a stark difference in contrast, some vignetting, and even blown out highlights.

Yeah, I'm also a photographer at heart. I shoot primarily vintage lenses for kicks and for the looks, but I do still recognize and know how to gauge the benefits of modern lenses and their coatings, as well as their optical superiority.

Analog components in audio are much the same way. They may "look" about the same at first glance, just like lenses, but give a camera that has a full-frame full-dynamic-range sensor, coupled with high megapixel count, and you'll see the differences between those lenses.

Substitute the camera bodies for headphones, and we have the same problem.

Technically, all amps and all DACs would sound about the same if the headphone isn't resolving enough to begin with. Given the right headphone that's resolving enough, and those differences will show through.

 

[money4me247]

funny you make the photography analogy. biggest difference is that in photography you can put two pictures side-by-side and directly compare them. every person in the world will be able to reach the same conclusion if the differences are pointed out to them.
 
audio is temporal. hard to directly objectively compare. no one has the same opinion.

 

[coinmaster]

The thing about opinions though is. Only mine matters. People don't  seem to understand that when they disagree with me, they are wrong.

 

[Anthen]

I would disagree and say both are subjective to a degree. Photography depends on vision and music on hearing. Putting 2 pictures side by side would be the same as putting to audio systems side by side. The results would be objective to a degree, where large differences can be compared (edge sharpness, viginetting and soundstage, instrument separation), but still remain subjective in nature. If my ears are different to yours, my eyes probably are too. 
 
Now for some advice: Do you think the HE-400 deserves a good DAC? Like, can i get more detail with a better DAC? Currently using a Fiio e10 (old version) with Flac/mp3 source. 
 
p.s So much technical information guys... Sorry in advance if I do not keep up. 

 

[Bill-P]

Yeah. But that's just the reason why you can't dismiss it all.
 
The differences may or may not be there, but personally, I'd believe that there are because measurements made using more reliable instruments (a microphone?) than the human ears have consistently pointed out those differences.