[Maxvla]

I might buy an ODA/ODAC when it's available, just because it's designed by a guy I trust more than any company, and because, again, I do enjoy my placebo. But I won't go further than that (Gawd help me).
I believe we have the same hobby, we just go about it differently.

I'll also be picking up an ODAC when they are available. I'm not blind to the significant diminishing returns of this hobby and am willing to give anything a try at any price point (I can afford). I would take a comparison of the ODAC with a multi-thousand dollar setup just as seriously as any other. If the ODAC wins I will have no qualms about stating it to be true. Anyone who follows me here knows I don't pull any punches and say what I mean and then stick to it. I currently prefer my custom in ear monitor rig to my Stax rig despite it costing only half and not conforming to 'head-fi norms' of a full size open headphone, especially electrostatic, sounding best.

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

And what, exactly, is wrong with that? I am not a music lover, but I am an audiophile. I enjoy listening to audio of all kinds to hear the sounds, the mixes of sounds, and what the different pieces of gear do with those sounds. I can easily tell the difference between my Bifrost and the DacMagic I replaced, and those are at the same price point.

I would say I'm both. One of my absolute favorite albums was recorded live in a jazz club, and the ambient sounds of tinkling glasses and little whispers are quite audible. On my system the experience of listening is so real that it's spooky, you can easily imagine that you're sitting in the audience. That's what high-end audio is all about.
 

 

[skamp]

If you want immersion, get a binaural recording such as Up Close by Ottmar Liebert & Luna Negra. Works great on equipment from all price ranges.

I say the most important thing for sound quality is the recording itself (regardless of the format, be it CD, FLAC, high bitrate MP3, whatever). Headphones come second, and anything else is a distant third.

The increase in sound quality you can get from a better master / better mix totally eclipses any kind of improvement you can get from your gear.

 

[Mauricio]

Quote:

. That's what high-end audio is all about.
 

 
Right.  The problem is that many conflate "high-end" sound with high expenditure.  The problem is that common sense is sacrificed to a fastidious spiral of diminishing marginal returns.

 

[FSonicSmith]

 
Quote:

Right.  The problem is that many conflate "high-end" sound with high expenditure.  The problem is that common sense is sacrificed to a fastidious spiral of diminishing marginal returns.

 
I'm curious, Mauricio, do you keep repeating yourself because you have forgotten that you said the same thing in this thread five times or because you are trying to convince yourself that what you say is true? My advice is to 1) try giving it a rest; 2) listen to some higher end systems (which happens to be the subject of this forum where you clearly don't belong), and 3) stop thinking you already know all you need to know about DACs. 
I apologize for being so blunt. I don't claim to be right. I have become irritated that you can be so indignant that anything beyond your current price-point in DACs is a waste of money. 

 

[Mauricio]

Ah, seems I have struck a raw nerve on this channel where I "clearly don't belong".  Right.  Talk about elitist.  Tell you what.  When and if I need advice, I'll ask for it, but it certainly won't be on this channel.  In the meantime, if I have stated something that is factually incorrect or theoretically misguided, I'd be happy to hear it.  Otherwise, take it to the mods.  You can go satiate your curiosity elsewhere.

 

[mwilson]

I think what he tried to say is that we get your point. Repeating it incessantly is not necessary as this isn't a forum for the memory-challenged. The other item was that you really owe it to yourself going out and listening to some really high-end gear before proclaiming elitism.

The thing is that true high-end DACs (or everything else high-end, for that matter) come through a different production paradigm; they aren't mass-produced and hence all the R&D has to be amortized over a considerably less number of units manufactured. I certainly don't like the price I paid for my audio gear, and wouldn't think less of it had it cost a fraction of cost. It's all about the sound, not price.

Ah, seems I have struck a raw nerve on this channel where I "clearly don't belong".  Right.  Talk about elitist.  Tell you what.  When and if I need advice, I'll ask for it, but it certainly won't be on this channel.  In the meantime, if I have stated something that is factually incorrect or theoretically misguided, I'd be happy to hear it.  Otherwise, take it to the mods.  You can go satiate your curiosity elsewhere.

 

[WooXIEE DJ]

I don't get it.... if you have a high end DAC what's the point of getting a high end CD player? Won't streaming digital audio from the computer to the DAC accomplish the same thing?

 

[chesebert]

Quote:

I don't get it.... if you have a high end DAC what's the point of getting a high end CD player? Won't streaming digital audio from the computer to the DAC accomplish the same thing?

No point getting a high-end CDP, or for that matter a computer. I didn't even need a computer with my DAC. I just plug my Klimax DS to a wireless bridge/client and connect NAS to the network, and there you have it -- simple, effective, beautiful sound.  Best I have heard, matched by few (Playback design DAC/SACD player, for example), surpassed by none (so far based on my experience).
 
 
 

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

Right.  The problem is that many conflate "high-end" sound with high expenditure.  The problem is that common sense is sacrificed to a fastidious spiral of diminishing marginal returns.

 
I think that in an Omega 2 based rig such as mine, you need to spend at least $3500 on source and amp to get the most out of your investment in headphones (current going rate for the O2 Mk1 is around $1800). I don't think that's all that much money, the SR-009 for example costs that just on the headphones alone. To some though the idea of a $5300+ headphone rig is unthinkable. Once you make the investment in the Omega 2 though, in order to get at least near maximum performance out of the headphone, I think you need to spend the $3500.
 
You can buy a cheap old transformer box and a T-amp for less than $200, and spend a hundred bucks on a DAC or just use an iPod as a source, and the O2 will still work. You haven't outsmarted anybody with this level of equipment though, you've just cheated yourself and largely wasted your investment in a TOTL headphone.
 

 

[Mauricio]

Quote:

 
 
You can buy a cheap old transformer box and a T-amp for less than $200, and spend a hundred bucks on a DAC or just use an iPod as a source, and the O2 will still work. You haven't outsmarted anybody with this level of equipment though, you've just cheated yourself and largely wasted your investment in a TOTL headphone.
 

Strawman once again.

 

[Magick Man]

 
Right.  The problem is that many conflate "high-end" sound with high expenditure.  The problem is that common sense is sacrificed to a fastidious spiral of diminishing marginal returns.

"High expenditure" is purely subjective. My HE-6/SLI-80 rig is going to run ~$4k, still waiting for my new DAC. It's an incredible bargain for the quality of sound I'm getting.

 

[Mauricio]

Quote:

"High expenditure" is purely subjective. My HE-6/SLI-80 rig is going to run ~$4k, still waiting for my new DAC. It's an incredible bargain for the quality of sound I'm getting.

Right.  "High expenditure" is purely subjective, ha?  A fiction of our proletarian unwashed years, an artifact of sour grapes?  If "high expenditure" is purely subjective, the same can be said of "low income", but we know that to be untrue.  Off the top of my head I can think of at least three objective tests of whether something is high expenditure or not.
 
1.  $4,000 constitutes about 8% of the median annual household income in the United States.
2.  Plot a distribution of number of heaphone amps in the market vs. price.  $4,000 is likely an outlier, situated all the way to the right in the distribution.
3.  Measure some typical specifications (e.g. frequency response, impulse response, SNR/dynamic range, distortion, etc.) for DACs or headphone amps, and the $4,000 units will be significantly "higher expenditure" relative to measured and measurable performance than "low expenditure" units.
 
High spending power does not absolve one from reality or from common sense.  You may have wonderfully trained and sensitive hearing, but socially you are tone deaf if you consider a $4,000 headphone amp/headphone "an incredible bargain".
 
This is my last post on this channel mainly because I acknowledge I really don't belong in this here bubble.
 

 

[Draygonn]

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

High spending power does not absolve one from reality or from common sense.  You may have wonderfully trained and sensitive hearing, but socially you are tone deaf if you consider a $4,000 headphone amp/headphone "an incredible bargain".

Wrong. Rather than plotting based on median household income (what does that have to do with anything?) Or even the range of currently available headphone amps (roughly $50 - $10,000 or so) when you plot on what it is possible to spend on an audio system in general, and the level of technically possible performance from audio systems, $4-5K headphone flagship systems can be incredible performance bargains.
 
This is doubly true in environments with considerable acoustic limitations, such as my office. The room just doesn't do balanced bass response, it's too small and awkwardly shaped. I could spend hundreds on traps and hundreds more on PEQ trying to fix a bad room, or I can use headphones that simply ignore room acoustics entirely.