[deadchip12]

Let me get this right. So you get truehd with the dolby atmos experience? Making this a truehd atmos?

Or does it have something to do with backwards compatibility?

Yes it's for backwards compatibility. If you only have 7.1 system then it will give you truehd 7.1.

 

[SierraMadre]

No health concerns. How long can you play before needing to charge them?

How long is a piece of string, lol. It would depend entirely on the size and characteristics of the battery in the cans in question.

Let me get this right. So you get truehd with the dolby atmos experience? Making this a truehd atmos?

Or does it have something to do with backwards compatibility?

Not exactly but near enough. True HD and Atmos are different formats in cinemas. Dolby Atmos in cinemas is the ultimate form of surround available from Dolby. True HD by itself does not offer height effects.

However, in the home AV realm, Atmos is technically not its own audio format like in the cinema, rather, for bandwidth reasons it’s just additional metadata (the information for object-based height effects and what have you) matrixed in to either a Dolby True HD track / codec or a Dolby Digital Plus one for decoding by a capable audio receiver. If your receiver is Atmos capable then you get the additional fx, if not then you get standard True HD or DD+ or the next best Dolby format according to whatever your receiver is capable of decoding, all the way down to vanilla Dolby Digital. Atmos for UHD Blurays is of the True HD variety. Streaming services uses the Dolby Digital Plus form which is compressed / lossy, again for bandwidth reasons. Not sure which one is used by the handful of games that offer native Atmos audio though.

I’d love to know more about this. I noticed at the hyperx website that the orbits are using the audeze planar drivers. So it’s a audeze headphone branded and sold by a different company. Is this similar to a massdrop approach? i.e. more budget friendly?

Kingston’s Orbit is pretty much Audeze’s Mobius without wireless as previously stated. As such, just so you know, neither of these are particularly well-suited for gaming outside of their own in-built VSS solution which requires a PC and a wired USB connection to be used to proper extent. If you are thinking of either of these for console gaming or for wireless gaming then you’d be better off looking elsewhere.

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

I’d love to know more about this. I noticed at the hyperx website that the orbits are using the audeze planar drivers. So it’s a audeze headphone branded and sold by a different company. Is this similar to a massdrop approach? i.e. more budget friendly?

Audeze supplied the headphone in its entirety. Kingston likely just asked for specific tuning traits. But yes, it's an Audeze headphone supplied to Kingston. Its a Mobius without the Bluetooth capabilities and sold for a bit cheaper.

 

[474194]

Hey Guys,

After reading this thread, decided to try out a G6.

My most likely setting would be Game Virt (LoL, Apex) Setting => Direct Mode.

I do want to experiment with Game Virt Setting => Direct Mode => Hugo2. Not permanent just a test.

So Direct Mode completely bypasses all settings... Is there still G6 processing involved to 7.1 => 2-channel? I'm trying to understand why the G6 is even necessary unless it does some processing during Direct Mode.

So if it was just Game Virt Setting => Hugo2 that is no processing just stereo?

Just having trouble grasping Direct Mode if everything is bypassed. I'm guessing Game Virt Setting 7.1 gets processed natively via the G6 (Direct Mode) into 2-channel simulated?

Thxs. Great thread.

 

[mindbomb]

Hey Guys,

After reading this thread, decided to try out a G6.

My most likely setting would be Game Virt (LoL, Apex) Setting => Direct Mode.

I do want to experiment with Game Virt Setting => Direct Mode => Hugo2. Not permanent just a test.

So Direct Mode completely bypasses all settings... Is there still G6 processing involved to 7.1 => 2-channel? I'm trying to understand why the G6 is even necessary unless it does some processing during Direct Mode.

So if it was just Game Virt Setting => Hugo2 that is no processing just stereo?

Just having trouble grasping Direct Mode if everything is bypassed. I'm guessing Game Virt Setting 7.1 gets processed natively via the G6 (Direct Mode) into 2-channel simulated?

Thxs. Great thread.

What is the game virt setting? Do you mean sbx surround?

 

[SierraMadre]

Hey Guys,

After reading this thread, decided to try out a G6.

My most likely setting would be Game Virt (LoL, Apex) Setting => Direct Mode.

I do want to experiment with Game Virt Setting => Direct Mode => Hugo2. Not permanent just a test.

So Direct Mode completely bypasses all settings... Is there still G6 processing involved to 7.1 => 2-channel? I'm trying to understand why the G6 is even necessary unless it does some processing during Direct Mode.

So if it was just Game Virt Setting => Hugo2 that is no processing just stereo?

Just having trouble grasping Direct Mode if everything is bypassed. I'm guessing Game Virt Setting 7.1 gets processed natively via the G6 (Direct Mode) into 2-channel simulated?

Thxs. Great thread.

What do you mean by “game virt setting”? Are you talking about specific games’ in-built / pre-programmed virtual surround solution selected from the audio options in the games’ own settings or are you referring to the G6’s SBX? If you want to use the G6’s own SBX Virtual surround processing then you can’t use direct mode. You must set speaker config to 5.1 or 7.1 in Windows audio settings, turn SBX on and set surround intensity to a positive number and set any in-game audio settings to a speaker surround configuration. If there are no such settings, don’t worry. If there is a “headphones” setting, do not use it.
If on the other hand you want to use an alternative software virtual surround like the game’s own pre-programmed one (if it has one) or Dolby Atmos for headphone, DTS Headphone X or something else like that then you can just bypass the G6 and go straight to the Hugo if your only concern is audio and not chat etc.

Going back to direct mode, unless things have changed via firmware, it only works on PC (not console) only accepts stereo (it will not process a discrete multichannel feed) and turns off all SBX features and processing. Other than that and direct mode’s ability to set upto 32-bit 384khz, it’s not clear whether direct mode is any different to non-direct mode set to stereo with all SBX features turned off.
*I do however have a very distinct memory of reading in a creative product manual or official staff comment on a forum that changes to the roll-off / phase filter settings beyond default will only take effect in direct mode.

Regardless, something to consider is that the vast majority of games’ audio mixes are 24-bit 48khz or less. If you want direct mode just because you can set it at higher bit depths and sample rates, then you are not actually improving the audio rendition. In fact, the higher you go beyond the native depth / sample rate, the more you risk errors and distortion.

 

[mindbomb]

fwir, apex legends is one of those games where there is just plain stereo, so there isn't good front/back differentiation. But even beyond that, apex legends assumes front facing speakers for its stereo audio, so you have further imaging problems when you use the default stereo audio with headphones. So it is a game that benefits a lot from surround sound, with its dedicated front and rear channels, and defined speaker layout.

 

[474194]

What is the game virt setting? Do you mean sbx surround?

No. The in-game audio settings (stereo, 5.1, 7.1) before it feeds sbx on or sbx off direct mode.

What do you mean by “game virt setting”? Are you talking about specific games’ in-built / pre-programmed virtual surround solution selected from the audio options in the games’ own settings or are you referring to the G6’s SBX? If you want to use the G6’s own SBX Virtual surround processing then you can’t use direct mode. You must set speaker config to 5.1 or 7.1 in Windows audio settings, turn SBX on and set surround intensity to a positive number and set any in-game audio settings to a speaker surround configuration. If there are no such settings, don’t worry. If there is a “headphones” setting, do not use it.
If on the other hand you want to use an alternative software virtual surround like the game’s own pre-programmed one (of it has one) or Dolby Atmos for headphone, DTS Headphone X or something else like that then you can adjust bypass the G6 and go straight to the Hugo if your only concern is audio and not chat etc.

Going back to direct mode, unless things have changed via firmware, it only works on PC (not console) only accepts stereo (it will not process a discrete multichannel feed) and turns off all SBX features and processing. Other than that and direct mode’s ability to set upto 32-bit 384khz, it’s not clear whether direct mode is any different to non-direct mode set to stereo with all SBX features turned off.
*I do however have a very distinct memory of reading in a creative product manual or official staff comment on a forum that changes to the roll-off / phase filter settings beyond default will only take effect in direct mode.

Regardless, something to consider is that the vast majority of games’ audio mixes are 24-bit 48khz or less. If you want direct mode just because you can set it at higher bit depths and sample rates, then you are not actually improving the audio rendition. In fact, the higher you go beyond the native depth / sample rate, the more you risk errors and distortion.

I should of mentioned my confusion lies also in that I'm reading the /r/SoundBlasterOfficial reddit threads in parallel with this thread.

Some mention HeSuVi => Direct mode, so that throws me off why not just HeSuVi => Mojo/Hugo2? Why would the G6 be needed? I guess if you use SBX, I can see the need. But some recommend Direct Mode, W10 Stereo.

https://sourceforge.net/projects/hesuvi/

Yes, I'm referring to "specific games’ in-built / pre-programmed virtual surround solution". Oh, okay, unless you have native Atmos like Overwatch, I can get away with Dolby Atmos software solution to Mojo/H2. But for LoL/Apex, I'm not sure those will work well with just a software solution. So I would have to use SBX?

I'm not concerned about chat as we use USB Mics (A-T, MXL, Razer).

We currently have 3 Fulla2s, but I'm deciding whether to phase out into Mojo2 if released or 3 G6.

I'm looking to prioritise 1. Positional accuracy 2. SQ. It's a tough balance.

I'm not worried about bit depths or sample rates.

The nice thing about the G6 is I can use now and chain a Mojo2 later on. But if it's not really needed, then I can take a step back now since I eventually have to get qty. of 3.

fwir, apex legends is one of those games where there is just plain stereo, so there isn't good front/back differentiation. But even beyond that, apex legends assumes front facing speakers for its stereo audio, so you have further imaging problems when you use the default stereo audio with headphones. So it is a game that benefits a lot from surround sound, with its dedicated front and rear channels, and defined speaker layout.

That's unfortunate Apex doesn't have a more robust sound solution. So your recommendation is SBX surround in this situation? I believe the official SoundBlaster liason recommended the FPS profile, so I assume that's SBX on.
[merged]

 

[SierraMadre]

No. The in-game audio settings (stereo, 5.1, 7.1) before it feeds sbx on or sbx off direct mode.



I should of mentioned my confusion lies also in that I'm reading the /r/SoundBlasterOfficial reddit threads in parallel with this thread.

Some mention HeSuVi => Direct mode, so that throws me off why not just HeSuVi => Mojo/Hugo2? Why would the G6 be needed? I guess if you use SBX, I can see the need. But some recommend Direct Mode, W10 Stereo.

https://sourceforge.net/projects/hesuvi/

Yes, I'm referring to "specific games’ in-built / pre-programmed virtual surround solution". Oh, okay, unless you have native Atmos like Overwatch, I can get away with Dolby Atmos software solution to Mojo/H2. But for LoL/Apex, I'm not sure those will work well with just a software solution. So I would have to use SBX?

I'm not concerned about chat as we use USB Mics (A-T, MXL, Razer).

We currently have 3 Fulla2s, but I'm deciding whether to phase out into Mojo2 if released or 3 G6.

I'm looking to prioritise 1. Positional accuracy 2. SQ. It's a tough balance.

I'm not worried about bit depths or sample rates.

The nice thing about the G6 is I can use now and chain a Mojo2 later on. But if it's not really needed, then I can take a step back now since I eventually have to get qty. of 3.



That's unfortunate Apex doesn't have a more robust sound solution. So your recommendation is SBX surround in this situation? I believe the official SoundBlaster liason recommended the FPS profile, so I assume that's SBX on.
[merged]

If you already have a software virtual surround solution and chat solution sorted then given that you already have or intend to get a more powerful dac/amp than the G6 in the form of a Mojo or Hugo, you don’t need the G6. LOL and Apex Legends should work fine with software-only stuff like Atmos for headphone from Dolby Access, DTS Sound Unbound etc. with no need for any other multichannel capable sound card, dac or pre-dac, provided those games have audio tracks for true 5.1 / 7.1 speaker setups which is what the aforementioned software solutions need to convert into true VSS. The audio apps in question make sure that Windows presents the primary audio device (the first one in the chain) as multichannel capable so that surround can be extracted from the game’s audio.

Hesuvi is a bit different as it requires a multichannel capable primary audio processing device / source in order to create its VSS without latency. If a non-multichannel device is preferred (perhaps say because it is more powerful in other ways like your Hugo) then one can use the KS repeater method which essentially piggy backs an alternative / proxy device’s multichannel capabilities onto the desired non-multichannel capable device for processing. For example, using a G6 or even just your onboard audio chip (if it is multichannel capable) would allow Hesuvi it to create VSS in stereo PCM form to send to the Hugo or a Dave digitally.
There are a couple of other methods such as “VB cable” for when no multichannel-capable proxy is available but these are considered methods of last resort because they add latency.

So, as to your question of why people are talking about G6 in direct mode in the same breath as Hesuvi, my guess is that they are using the KS repeater method for the Hesuvi processing and sending the processed VSS in digital stereo PCM to the G6 for dac/amp duties. It’s also possible they want to use the G6’s phase and roll off filter options, and/or they believe direct mode has less latency (than standard mode even with SBX suite features turned off), and/or because they are labouring under the misapprehension that setting the depth and sample rate at 32 billion bit 64 trillion ghz squared or whatever will improve the audio of their 16/24 bit 44/48 kHz games.

So, in summary, given what you have already told us, the only reason you would need a G6 is if you need a multichannel capable device that Hesuvi can piggy back onto the Hugo or Mojo in order to create VSS without adding further latency, and/or if you want the real deal SBX rather than Hesuvi’s knock-off version (there is some debate as to whether Hesuvi accurately replicates hardware processed audio solutions like SBX and Sennheiser GSX).

 

[474194]

If you already have a software virtual surround solution and chat solution sorted then given that you already have or intend to get a more powerful dac/amp than the G6 in the form of a Mojo or Hugo, you don’t need the G6. LOL and Apex Legends should work fine with software-only stuff like Atmos for headphone from Dolby Access, DTS Sound Unbound etc. with no need for any other multichannel capable sound card, dac or pre-dac, provided those games have audio tracks for true 5.1 / 7.1 speaker setups which is what the aforementioned software solutions need to convert into true VSS. The audio apps in question make sure that Windows presents the primary audio device (the first one in the chain) as multichannel capable so that surround can be extracted from the game’s audio.

Hesuvi is a bit different as it requires a multichannel capable primary audio processing device / source in order to create its VSS without latency. If a non-multichannel device is preferred (perhaps say because it is more powerful in other ways like your Hugo) then one can use the KS repeater method which essentially piggy backs an alternative / proxy device’s multichannel capabilities onto the desired non-multichannel capable device for processing. For example, using a G6 or even just your onboard audio chip (if it is multichannel capable) would allow Hesuvi it to create VSS in stereo PCM form to send to the Hugo or a Dave digitally.
There are a couple of other methods such as “VB cable” for when no multichannel-capable proxy is available but these are considered methods of last resort because they add latency.

So, as to your question of why people are talking about G6 in direct mode in the same breath as Hesuvi, my guess is that they are using the KS repeater method for the Hesuvi processing and sending the processed VSS in digital stereo PCM to the G6 for dac/amp duties. It’s also possible they want to use the G6’s phase and roll off filter options, and/or they believe direct mode has less latency (than standard mode even with SBX suite features turned off), and/or because they are labouring under the misapprehension that setting the depth and sample rate at 32 billion bit 64 trillion ghz squared or whatever will improve the audio of their 16/24 bit 44/48 kHz games.

So, in summary, given what you have already told us, the only reason you would need a G6 is if you need a multichannel capable device that Hesuvi can piggy back onto the Hugo or Mojo in order to create VSS without adding further latency, and/or if you want the real deal SBX rather than Hesuvi’s knock-off version (there is some debate as to whether Hesuvi accurately replicates hardware processed audio solutions like SBX and Sennheiser GSX).

Thanks for this. I don't have a virtual surround solution and didn't consider we needed one until I started browsing this thread a week ago. I'm skeptical about software-only solutions and looking for something more robust. Now that I know that Hesuvi needs the G6 to process, I can justify keeping the G6. I assumed Hesuvi was similar to purchasing Dolby Atmos or DTS Sound Unbound where a multichannel device was not needed in the chain. Latency was another thing I didn't consider at this point.

With this info, can experiment:

1. Hesuvi + G6 Direct
2. G6 SBX

I was worried #1 that the G6 is just a bypass device used just for DAC/AMP and doesn't do any multi-channel processing, so couldn't justify keeping.

 

[SierraMadre]

Thanks for this. I don't have a virtual surround solution and didn't consider we needed one until I started browsing this thread a week ago. I'm skeptical about software-only solutions and looking for something more robust. Now that I know that Hesuvi needs the G6 to process, I can justify keeping the G6. I assumed Hesuvi was similar to purchasing Dolby Atmos or DTS Sound Unbound where a multichannel device was not needed in the chain. Latency was another thing I didn't consider at this point.

With this info, can experiment:

1. Hesuvi + G6 Direct
2. G6 SBX

I was worried #1 that the G6 is just a bypass device used just for DAC/AMP and doesn't do any multi-channel processing, so couldn't justify keeping.

To clarify, when we discuss hardware versus software VSS on this thread, we generally refer to when soundcards or dac/amps process their own bundled VSS on-board. However, at the end of the day, the vast majority of VSS solutions can be processed just through Windows and onboard sound on a half-decent PC and don’t require dedicated hardware for off-board processing. Even SBX can be had in software-only form running off onboard sound. Moreover, Hesuvi is technically pretty much just software too. All other things being equal, hardware based processing is only really better because the sound card or dac/amp involved tends to be of higher quality than onboard audio, is better isolated from electrical noise and interference in the case of an external dac/amp, or when the VSS solution is exclusively tied to the hardware like Super X-Fi, Smyth VSS, Sennheiser GSX etc.

For your first experimentation option, it would be Hesuvi + *Onboard sound chip* + G6 direct mode. . . But to clarify further, if you use G6 direct mode with Hesuvi, then the G6 won’t be doing any real processing other than digital to analogue conversion of the stereo PCM VSS received from - and already processed by - Hesuvi using your CPU. Hesuvi VSS conversion is done onboard by your PC, even when you are using an external audio device for its multichannel capable characteristics. Additionally, beyond placebo, a Hesuvi + Onboard Sound multichannel chip + G6 direct mode setup may be unnecessarily convoluted. You’d likely get the same result just from Hesuvi + G6 (non-direct mode) without involving your onboard audio chip in the Hesuvi chain. It would be simpler to setup and at least then you’d be able to use the G6 software features such as EQ and SBX’s non-VSS related fx.

In short, for pure audio quality, it may be better to prioritise dac/amp quality and apply VSS software to it than to prioritise an all-in-one solution *just* for its offboard processing. The only exception to that would be if the G6’s SBX works better for you than other solutions or if your CPU resources are limited to the point that you need the VSS to be processed off-board.
Dolby Atmos, DTS Headphone X, Boom 3D etc. all have free trials that are worth experimenting with and comparing against other solutions.

All that being said, the G6 is still a fine little dac/amp and SBX should be plenty sufficient for your gaming needs and the vast majority of popular headphones used for gaming. If you prefer Hesuvi instead of SBX then the G6 by itself (non-direct mode) would be fine or alternatively, you could use the G6 as the multichannel proxy for Hesuvi to send VSS to your Fulla 2 if you don’t have a multichannel capable onboard chip. Either way, unless you are using the G6’s own SBX VSS, it won’t be doing any of the virtual surround processing / conversion, it will be your CPU that does that.

 

[474194]

To clarify, when we discuss hardware versus software VSS on this thread, we generally refer to when soundcards or dac/amps process their own bundled VSS on-board. However, at the end of the day, the vast majority of VSS solutions can be processed just through Windows and onboard sound on a half-decent PC and don’t require dedicated hardware for off-board processing. Even SBX can be had in software-only form running off onboard sound. Moreover, Hesuvi is technically pretty much just software too. All other things being equal, hardware based processing is only really better because the sound card or dac/amp involved tends to be of higher quality than onboard audio, is better isolated from electrical noise and interference in the case of an external dac/amp, or when the VSS solution is exclusively tied to the hardware like Super X-Fi, Smyth VSS, Sennheiser GSX etc.

For your first experimentation option, it would be Hesuvi + *Onboard sound chip* + G6 direct mode. . . But to clarify further, if you use G6 direct mode with Hesuvi, then the G6 won’t be doing any real processing other than digital to analogue conversion of the stereo PCM VSS received from - and already processed by - Hesuvi using your CPU. Hesuvi VSS conversion is done onboard by your PC, even when you are using an external audio device for its multichannel capable characteristics. Additionally, beyond placebo, a Hesuvi + Onboard Sound multichannel chip + G6 direct mode setup may be unnecessarily convoluted. You’d likely get the same result just from Hesuvi + G6 (non-direct mode) without involving your onboard audio chip in the Hesuvi chain. It would be simpler to setup and at least then you’d be able to use the G6 software features such as EQ and SBX’s non-VSS related fx.

In short, for pure audio quality, it may be better to prioritise dac/amp quality and apply VSS software to it than to prioritise an all-in-one solution *just* for its offboard processing. The only exception to that would be if the G6’s SBX works better for you than other solutions or if your CPU resources are limited to the point that you need the VSS to be processed off-board.
Dolby Atmos, DTS Headphone X, Boom 3D etc. all have free trials that are worth experimenting with and comparing against other solutions.

All that being said, the G6 is still a fine little dac/amp and SBX should be plenty sufficient for your gaming needs and the vast majority of popular headphones used for gaming. If you prefer Hesuvi instead of SBX then the G6 by itself (non-direct mode) would be fine or alternatively, you could use the G6 as the multichannel proxy for Hesuvi to send VSS to your Fulla 2 if you don’t have a multichannel capable onboard chip. Either way, unless you are using the G6’s own SBX VSS, it won’t be doing any of the virtual surround processing / conversion, it will be your CPU that does that.

Many thanks for the clarification. We only use USB DAC/AMPs going forward since the old SB internal gave out. This gives me a lot to think about since I just noticed the Mojo sale is ending end of this week. I wasn't thinking of getting a Mojo now for gaming since I assumed the price was fixed @399 long-term. @499 normal price it's difficult to justify for gaming, but @399 it's closer to the G6's @120. So I think I'm going to return the G6 unopened. I'll experiment with software solutions in February then re-evaluate. If LoL/Apex had native VSS, it may make sense to go with the G6. For now it looks like I can get away just a software solution.

In short, for pure audio quality, it may be better to prioritise dac/amp quality and apply VSS software to it than to prioritise an all-in-one solution *just* for its offboard processing.

Dolby Atmos, DTS Headphone X, Boom 3D etc. all have free trials that are worth experimenting with and comparing against other solutions.

Either way, unless you are using the G6’s own SBX VSS, it won’t be doing any of the virtual surround processing / conversion, it will be your CPU that does that.

this. GG

 

[SierraMadre]

I would appreciate if someone could shed light on some questions I have about double-amping in the context of SXFI.

I have a basic understanding of the potential risks to equipment and potential negative impact on the audio through double-amping . I have always erred on the side of caution with what seems to be the general consensus that it's not ideal and better avoided unless absolutely necessary. But I have also noted some divergent opinions in either direction, i.e. that it's always a bad idea as aside from possible risk to headphones, it will introduce errors and distortion, versus the counterargument that double amping can actually be preferable and "better" for some hardware combinations provided one is sensible, knows their equipment and knows what they're doing.
I get the various arguments in principle but am confused as to where and how dac/amps with dedicated line-ins marked for mobile phones and DAPs fit into this context.

For now, going with the notion that it should be avoided if possible, my question is essentially this:

Plenty of dedicated headphone dac/amps have analogue line-in input 'officially' designated for DAPs and mobile phones. If you connect a phone or DAP via line-in to your dac/amp for onward output to your headphones, what's the difference between that and say connecting the headphone-out of one of the SXFI devices to the DAP/mobile designated line-in of a better amp?

Given that the vast majority of mobiles and probably a fair number of DAPs lack a line-out and only have a headphone out, isn't that also double-amping in and as of itself. . . ?​

Or is it just that most mobile phone amps are too weak to pose a risk in the aforementioned double-amping scenario?
But if that was the case wouldn't that still pose a problem for plenty of DAPs which typically have considerably more powerful amps than mobile phones?

This leads on to my next pondering:

Assuming it is still better not to double-amp SXFI in the above manner, would the following idea of taking the SXFI VSS analogue headphone signal and converting it back into digital form before a final conversion back into analogue for output to headphones be feasible as a work around to avoid or minimise potential errors and risks? Or would the potential for issues persist or be worse?
Would there be any new issues introduced such as added latency?

To elaborate, another dac/amp with ADC capability would be added into the chain as an intermediary between the SXFI device and endpoint dac/amp:

- SXFI device is first recipient in chain, receiving multichannel directly from PC via USB.

- SXFI device sends SXFI processed 2 channel analogue VSS over headphone-out to line-in (designated for DAPs/mobiles) of ADC capable intermediary dac/amp.

- Said intermediary dac/amp converts analogue SXFI signal into 2 channel digital PCM and outputs it via optical to desired endpoint dac/amp for final output to headphones.
(SXFI device at other end of the chain would have volume set to max while endpoint dac/amp volume pot would only be set as high as necessary for enjoyment).


So, yay or nay?

If nay please advise why (beyond just "it would be a hassle" or "that requires another device and more expenditure" - I already have spare devices / equipment to try this method if it would be at all worthwhile but if there are downsides/risks and they outweigh any benefits or there would be no benefits then I'd rather not bother)

Thanks in advance.

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

Some phones have line out dongles, where you're not using their headphone outs. They'll use the usb port instead and send out to a dongle that when sends audio as a line out level or perhaps digitally. I can't confirm this as the last time I worried about audio quality on mobile devices this much was an old Sansa Fuze mp3 player, that I had a line out dongle for, and used with a portable amp.

As for phones double amping, I assume it's the lesser of two evils because there are times you simply can't power your headphones well enough through a phone's headphone jack. So you either get sound lacking in any real power, or a double amped signal where your headphone at least gets the power necessary for good listening levels.

As for all the scientific stuff, that's beyond me. All I kow is that double amping gives you the distortion of both 'amps' in the chain. Whether that bothers you or not, that's for you to decide. People have been pre-amping with multiple amps for years, so I don't think it's as bad as some people think, assuming the amps being used are of high quality. My only problem with this overall, is that your first amp in the chain should be along line level output. If you surpass this, you can clip the audio and make things worse.

My personal thoughts on double amping is that I'd avoid it unless it's the only way to supply a virtual surround solution. So let's say Sennheiser GSX surround. The GSX1000 can only send GSX surround through its headphone jack. The GSX1000 has a disappointing power output, so it goes without saying that I'd definitely supplement it with another amplifier. It's not IDEAL, but it's the only method we currently have.


As someone who double amped the Mixamp for years, I can't sit here and say I'd never do it. Lol. Between the choice of clean stereo, or double amped virtual surround, I'll take the latter, every time.

 

[SierraMadre]

Some phones have line out dongles, where you're not using their headphone outs. They'll use the usb port instead and send out to a dongle that when sends audio as a line out level or perhaps digitally. I can't confirm this as the last time I worried about audio quality on mobile devices this much was an old Sansa Fuze mp3 player, that I had a line out dongle for, and used with a portable amp.

As for phones double amping, I assume it's the lesser of two evils because there are times you simply can't power your headphones well enough through a phone's headphone jack. So you either get sound lacking in any real power, or a double amped signal where your headphone at least gets the power necessary for good listening levels.

Thanks. I understand and agree it makes sense for mobiles but then what about DAPs which typically have loads more power than your average phone? Are there also DAPs which lack line-out and only have headphone-out that use dongles too?
The line-ins on both the Creative X3 and SteelSeries GameDac are actually labelled / designated as being intended for mobiles / DAPs. In the Gamedac's case, the input is marked as "mobile" on the unit itself and in the X3's case, although it is just marked "line-in", all the official Creative literature I have seen, diagrams included, refer to it as being for mobile/DAPs.

In any case, I'd appreciate your thoughts on a second dac/amp acting as an intermediary ADC passthrough to a third and final dac/amp? My admittedly crude and not very well informed theory was that by doing that, it would no longer technically constitute the double amping of an analogue line level signal and thus might eliminate some of the possible risks and negative effects on the audio. . . but I wouldn't be remotely surprised if even if it were to achieve that goal, it might introduce new problems of its own that outweigh any benefit. . .

I did try it very briefly with a cheap pair of disposable iems just to be on the safe side and it sounded ok. The SXFI VSS survived the DAC(amp) > ADC > DAC(amp) conversion signal path ok and toggled on and off as expected without any immediately obvious problems. Still hesitant to test it further with more expensive headphones however.