[joseluishs]

Believe it or not, the FS has a better DAC. So it's a trade off either way. While the pro has a more powerful amp, I would never buy it over a FS + external amp, price being equal.

So... do you mean that the old AKM DAC is better than the ESS 9038Pro that is even used in the Wandla?...
I think it is all about the implementation... Not sure how much of a difference there would be... I like the AKM sound as well.

However, I am also not a huge fan of the sound of the DAC on the ADI-2/4 Pro SE but as a digital and recording device, plus everything else that it does... it is a serious beast... not sure there is another single unit device that can suffice so many roles in a studio situation (which is its intended use).

 

[Halleluhwah]

What is the technical explanation for that?

There is none.

 

[chargedcapacitor]

There is none.

Here's a technical explanation for you: most popular dynamic headphones have much higher impedance than planar headphones. The higher impedance of the dynamic headphones pushes the noise floor down, while also decreasing distortion (for certain classes of amps, it of course depends amp to amp). The amp has to work harder with low impedance planars, and adds distortion products and crosstalk. This isn't just true with the RME, it's true with most amps when using planar headphones. That is why there is a trend of higher and higher powered headphone amps over the years.

But please, don't trust me. Go ask the engineers and designers of these headphones and amps. They visit these threads quite often.

 

[yeboyi]

Here's a technical explanation for you: most popular dynamic headphones have much higher impedance than planar headphones. The higher impedance of the dynamic headphones pushes the noise floor down, while also decreasing distortion (for certain classes of amps, it of course depends amp to amp). The amp has to work harder with low impedance planars, and adds distortion products and crosstalk. This isn't just true with the RME, it's true with most amps when using planar headphones. That is why there is a trend of higher and higher powered headphone amps over the years.

But please, don't trust me. Go ask the engineers and designers of these headphones and amps. They visit these threads quite often.

Yep. Voltage is easier to do than current.

 

[DarginMahkum]

So... do you mean that the old AKM DAC is better than the ESS 9038Pro that is even used in the Wandla?...
I think it is all about the implementation... Not sure how much of a difference there would be... I like the AKM sound as well.

Different DAC chips (not DAC units) don't have a sound signature of their own, which is often the claim made here. For any DAC "chip", it is about transparent reproduction of the original sampled audio signal with the least amount of artefacts that are well below audible range. There are external factors that "can" make the complete circuit sound different, as they don't have the same analog interface. It is explained by the RME lead developer here. Once they are implemented properly, they will just sound the same, just as in the case of ADI-2 versions. So yes, it is about the implementation



Data for the FS XLR outs:

Data for Pro SE XLR outs:

Though the differences are inaudible, technically Pro SE has better specs - but they are both good. Fortunately in pro-audio world what is better than the other is evaluated based on technical specifications rather than reviewers or audiophiles talking about how they hear the inaudible.

Here's a technical explanation for you: most popular dynamic headphones have much higher impedance than planar headphones. The higher impedance of the dynamic headphones pushes the noise floor down, while also decreasing distortion (for certain classes of amps, it of course depends amp to amp). The amp has to work harder with low impedance planars, and adds distortion products and crosstalk. This isn't just true with the RME, it's true with most amps when using planar headphones. That is why there is a trend of higher and higher powered headphone amps over the years.

But please, don't trust me. Go ask the engineers and designers of these headphones and amps. They visit these threads quite often.

Yep. Voltage is easier to do than current.

If we were talking about a small device with a 3.8V battery, then this could have been a possibility but here we have a device that has a wall connection that can supply 12V/3A. Of course, you can argue then that the amplifier is not properly designed as the designers were fools that were waiting an audiophile step in and scream the facts to their face, but that is also highly unlikely. I could easily drive my 22 ohm DCA Stealth with very low sensitivity even with a Chord Mojo2 with excellent subbass results, so I again can ask for a better explanation that this claim - which as someone that only owns and uses planar HPs find not to be true.

Audiophiles love to go around and make such hardlined statements about what is good and what is bad, often without any technically supporting data but this often just ends up confusing people.

 

[MrHaelscheir]

Yep. Voltage is easier to do than current.

It's a completely different story once you get into the world of high-voltage electrostatic headphone amps... That's the one place where I in saving up for the Stax SR-X9000 don't want to skimp on providing it with a measurably low distortion and neutral energizer/amp, and it is apparently known that achieving such, particularly for the bass (as demonstrated with measurements of the Topping EHA5 where the limitations of a cheap transformer are revealed), is quite difficult and expensive, and indeed, with its being such a niche within a niche, we have much fewer resources being put toward innovating those energizers compared to the huge competition for headphone amps.

 

[joseluishs]

Different DAC chips (not DAC units) don't have a sound signature of their own, which is often the claim made here. For any DAC "chip", it is about transparent reproduction of the original sampled audio signal with the least amount of artefacts that are well below audible range. There are external factors that "can" make the complete circuit sound different, as they don't have the same analog interface. It is explained by the RME lead developer here. Once they are implemented properly, they will just sound the same, just as in the case of ADI-2 versions. So yes, it is about the implementation



Data for the FS XLR outs:

Data for Pro SE XLR outs:

Though the differences are inaudible, technically Pro SE has better specs - but they are both good. Fortunately in pro-audio world what is better than the other is evaluated based on technical specifications rather than reviewers or audiophiles talking about how they hear the inaudible.


If we were talking about a small device with a 3.8V battery, then this could have been a possibility but here we have a device that has a wall connection that can supply 12V/3A. Of course, you can argue then that the amplifier is not properly designed as the designers were fools that were waiting an audiophile step in and scream the facts to their face, but that is also highly unlikely. I could easily drive my 22 ohm DCA Stealth with very low sensitivity even with a Chord Mojo2 with excellent subbass results, so I again can ask for a better explanation that this claim - which as someone that only owns and uses planar HPs find not to be true.

Audiophiles love to go around and make such hardlined statements about what is good and what is bad, often without any technically supporting data but this often just ends up confusing people.

Thanks for sharing. Yes, I agree. I had already watched that video hehe - I like their content. For me it also depends on how I hear things, each user experience can be different despite of the data specs sheet, and that’s part of the beauty and the curse of the audiophile hobby.

 

[joseluishs]

Different DAC chips (not DAC units) don't have a sound signature of their own, which is often the claim made here. For any DAC "chip", it is about transparent reproduction of the original sampled audio signal with the least amount of artefacts that are well below audible range. There are external factors that "can" make the complete circuit sound different, as they don't have the same analog interface. It is explained by the RME lead developer here. Once they are implemented properly, they will just sound the same, just as in the case of ADI-2 versions. So yes, it is about the implementation



Data for the FS XLR outs:

Data for Pro SE XLR outs:

Though the differences are inaudible, technically Pro SE has better specs - but they are both good. Fortunately in pro-audio world what is better than the other is evaluated based on technical specifications rather than reviewers or audiophiles talking about how they hear the inaudible.


If we were talking about a small device with a 3.8V battery, then this could have been a possibility but here we have a device that has a wall connection that can supply 12V/3A. Of course, you can argue then that the amplifier is not properly designed as the designers were fools that were waiting an audiophile step in and scream the facts to their face, but that is also highly unlikely. I could easily drive my 22 ohm DCA Stealth with very low sensitivity even with a Chord Mojo2 with excellent subbass results, so I again can ask for a better explanation that this claim - which as someone that only owns and uses planar HPs find not to be true.

Audiophiles love to go around and make such hardlined statements about what is good and what is bad, often without any technically supporting data but this often just ends up confusing people.

From what I understand…. the DCA Stealth’s 22 ohm is not the “sensitivity”, 22 ohm refer to its impedance. It means that it probably won’t be prompt to change its character from amplifier to amplifier. That’s why you might be able to get it loud with the Mojo 2 but its sensitivity is also low at around 86db/mw, meaning that you might not have a lot of headroom with the Mojo 2 and its power delivery… the DCA Stealth is hard to drive because of that low sensitivity, which makes it a problem for some devices that might not measure as well at loud volumes and introduce distortion, but thankfully the Mojo 2 is linear up to around 4.3v or its ultra violet color.

Anyway… going back to the topic…That’s why I was recommending the Mojo 2 with the Arya Organic with its 16 ohm impedance and 94db/mw sensitivity

 

[DarginMahkum]

From what I understand…. the DCA Stealth’s 22 ohm is not the “sensitivity”, 22 ohm refer to its impedance. It means that it probably won’t be prompt to change its character from amplifier to amplifier. That’s why you might be able to get it loud with the Mojo 2 but its sensitivity is also low at around 86db/mw, meaning that you might not have a lot of headroom with the Mojo 2 and its power delivery… the DCA Stealth is hard to drive because of that low sensitivity, which makes it a problem for some devices that might not measure as well at loud volumes and introduce distortion, but thankfully the Mojo 2 is linear up to around 4.3v or its ultra violet color.

Anyway… going back to the topic…That’s why I was recommending the Mojo 2 with the Arya Organic with its 16 ohm impedance and 94db/mw sensitivity

Yes, I know "22 ohm DCA Stealth with very low sensitivity", meaning 22 ohms and a low sensitivity on top. I guess English not being my first language makes a different sometimes. In my mind, it is clear and meaningful, but apparently it is not.

 

[joseluishs]

Yes, I know "22 ohm DCA Stealth with very low sensitivity", meaning 22 ohms and a low sensitivity on top. I guess English not being my first language makes a different sometimes. In my mind, it is clear and meaningful, but apparently it is not.

Hehe it’s ok! Same here! My native language is Spanish

 

[Halleluhwah]

Here's a technical explanation for you: most popular dynamic headphones have much higher impedance than planar headphones. The higher impedance of the dynamic headphones pushes the noise floor down, while also decreasing distortion (for certain classes of amps, it of course depends amp to amp). The amp has to work harder with low impedance planars, and adds distortion products and crosstalk. This isn't just true with the RME, it's true with most amps when using planar headphones. That is why there is a trend of higher and higher powered headphone amps over the years.

But please, don't trust me. Go ask the engineers and designers of these headphones and amps. They visit these threads quite often.

That distortion and crosstalk you mention is almost certainly far far far below audibility in pretty much any headphone you can use with them.

 

[Voohoo]

I wonder how the HD800S compares to the Arya Organic

I watched the following review in Spanish (my native language) and he mentioned that it is very similar in timbre to the HD800 but with more sub bass and without the 6K peak… I wonder if that is same impression for some of you that might have both in hand.

I would agree that the Organic has a similar timbre to my HD 8XX. This is most apparent with vocals. My Focal Clear in comparison feels like the odd man out. I favor the more natural timbre of the Sennheiser and Hifiman compared to the metallic-ness of the Clear but this could be because I was raised on the Sennheiser sound.

I was surprised to hear such similarities when AB-ing the Organic and 8XX. All of my headphones are EQ'd to Harman tuning so the frequency response is less of a factor and I can better isolate differences in other characteristics like timbre and soundstage. The Organic actually kinda feels like an HD 800 v2 (or v4?) to me. For my tastes the Organic sounds superior in every way. Soundstage between the two I guess is a tie. While the 8XX is wider and more holographic, the Organic sounds more natural and scales to the recording; both are way more immersive than the Clear. When I go back to the 8XX after a session with the Organic, I hear a noticeable difference in fidelity where the 8XX doesn't sound as clean and controlled as the Organic which is crazy, but I guess the HD 800 platform is ~15 years old at this point.

 

[hanumanbob]

The organic is an excellently tuned HP far better than the previous versions

 

[quawn0418]

The organic is an excellently tuned HP far better than the previous versions

Indeed it is

 

[joseluishs]

I would agree that the Organic has a similar timbre to my HD 8XX. This is most apparent with vocals. My Focal Clear in comparison feels like the odd man out. I favor the more natural timbre of the Sennheiser and Hifiman compared to the metallic-ness of the Clear but this could be because I was raised on the Sennheiser sound.

I was surprised to hear such similarities when AB-ing the Organic and 8XX. All of my headphones are EQ'd to Harman tuning so the frequency response is less of a factor and I can better isolate differences in other characteristics like timbre and soundstage. The Organic actually kinda feels like an HD 800 v2 (or v4?) to me. For my tastes the Organic sounds superior in every way. Soundstage between the two I guess is a tie. While the 8XX is wider and more holographic, the Organic sounds more natural and scales to the recording; both are way more immersive than the Clear. When I go back to the 8XX after a session with the Organic, I hear a noticeable difference in fidelity where the 8XX doesn't sound as clean and controlled as the Organic which is crazy, but I guess the HD 800 platform is ~15 years old at this point.

Thank you for sharing your impressions! It was easy to read and well articulated - thanks!

The Organic sounds like a great deal in HiFi then tempted to buy one