[Shahrose]

Quote:

The problem is that I don't know what to attribute this to. It's true that the Beta 22 has more power than the DAC1, but it may also be true that it's just a better amp... Another reason why it's hard to say what's causing the difference is that I'm driving the Beta 22 from the balanced outputs of the DAC1, but the DAC1 headphones output is driven by the single-ended part of the DAC, and these may not sound the same, so I can't tell for sure if the headphones amp even has anything to do with the sound difference...
 

I bet it's both. The Beta's a much better quality amp than the DAC1 IMO. I'm almost certain that you'd find the improvements even larger in the long-term.
 

 

[fishski13]

 
Quote:

 
Ok, so I finally had a chance to do a more detailed comparison between the Beta 22 and the DAC1 with the HE-6. These headphones do indeed sound somewhat better on the Beta 22 than they do on the DAC1. In particular, the bass is fuller, instrument separation seems to be better, and in general the sound seems to be somewhat better overall. The differences aren't huge, but significant-enough to be noticeable and affect the enjoyment to some extent.
 
The problem is that I don't know what to attribute this to. It's true that the Beta 22 has more power than the DAC1, but it may also be true that it's just a better amp... Another reason why it's hard to say what's causing the difference is that I'm driving the Beta 22 from the balanced outputs of the DAC1, but the DAC1 headphones output is driven by the single-ended part of the DAC, and these may not sound the same, so I can't tell for sure if the headphones amp even has anything to do with the sound difference...
 

the DAC1 uses the same 2 opamps for both the balanced and unbalanced out, the 5532 and LM4562 - these also drive the HP out with the addition of the BUF634 opamp for current delivery.
 
the B22 is a fully discrete design.
 
 
 
 
 

 

[visualguy]

Quote:

 

the DAC1 uses the same 2 opamps for both the balanced and unbalanced out, the 5532 and LM4562 - these also drive the HP out with the addition of the BUF634 opamp for current delivery.
 
the B22 is a fully discrete design.
 
 
 
 
 

One thing I always wondered about is whether using both balanced and unbalanced outputs at the same time has an effect on the sound quality. It seems that there might be an effect if both the balanced and unbalanced outputs are driven by the same chips.
 

 

[visualguy]

 
I've done some more listening with the HD800. I compared the following headphones amps: DAC1, Gilmore Lite (with the DAC1 as source), m903. Both the DAC1 and GLite are good with HD800, while the m903 doesn't seem to drive the HD800 all that well. Between the DAC1 and the GLite, the GLite sounds slightly better with the HD800.
 

 

[fishski13]

no, they're driven by 2 different sets of LM4562, a dual opamp - 2 LM4562 chips for balanced and 1 LM4562 for unbalanced.
 
the DAC1 is a blow-torch both with respect to current and voltage gain.  i experienced no sonic degradation driving both the balanced inputs of my Krell and unbalanced headphone amps.

 

[fishski13]

Quote:

 
I've done some more listening with the HD800. I compared the following headphones amps: DAC1, Gilmore Lite (with the DAC1 as source), m903. Both the DAC1 and GLite are good with HD800, while the m903 doesn't seem to drive the HD800 all that well. Between the DAC1 and the GLite, the GLite sounds slightly better with the HD800.
 

maybe you prefer the sound of a discrete output stage vs. an opamp

.
 
 

 

[dharma]

InnerSpace wrote:
..."Has anyone independently measured the HE-6's impedance? It could be way lower than the quoted 50 ohms (or way higher, but that seems less likely) which would explain a lot"...


According by HeadRoom measures (look for measurements graph from headphone.com) HE-6 have completely flat impedance/frequency curve

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

InnerSpace wrote:
..."Has anyone independently measured the HE-6's impedance? It could be way lower than the quoted 50 ohms (or way higher, but that seems less likely) which would explain a lot"...
According by HeadRoom measures (look for measurements graph from headphone.com) HE-6 have completely flat impedance/frequency curve

I don't own a pair, but by the nature of the beast, the impedance is purely resistive, and will be a flat line from DC to light.  50 ohms. period.
 
 

 

[InnerSpace]

Quote:

InnerSpace wrote:
..."Has anyone independently measured the HE-6's impedance? It could be way lower than the quoted 50 ohms (or way higher, but that seems less likely) which would explain a lot"...


According by HeadRoom measures (look for measurements graph from headphone.com) HE-6 have completely flat impedance/frequency curve

Did I say that?  I don't recall mentioning impedance.  I think I said the sensitivity could be way lower than specified.  And I bet it is.

 

[visualguy]

 
Quote:

Did I say that?  I don't recall mentioning impedance.  I think I said the sensitivity could be way lower than specified.  And I bet it is.

The sensitivity of the HE-6 does indeed seem to be lower than 83.5dB at 1mW. Someone measured it as 90dB at 19.69mW, which is equivalent to 77.1dB at 1mW.
 
This means that it reaches 107dB at 1W or 110dB at 2W.
 

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Did I say that?  I don't recall mentioning impedance.  I think I said the sensitivity could be way lower than specified.  And I bet it is.

Yeah, when I looked for your post, I was not able to find what was referenced, but it would not surprise me to find the real sensitivity was lower then specified.
 

 

[dharma]

Danz03 wrote:
..."most recording systems nowadays record at 24bit, which is roughly 144 dB dynamic range (a drum kit is around 115 dB), more than what a human can possibly hear, and it is definitely possible to reproduce that especially in a studio environment.
However, it is near impossible to find something non-classical nowadays on CD that is not heavily compressed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by InnerSpace

Are you kidding? I must say, for an engineer, you make a lot of very unrealistic statements. You seriously think that today's gear can reproduce the real-life dynamic range of a drum kit? An orchestra? Even a flute? Or maybe you just argue for the sake of it."...

---

HM...
AudioCD dynamic max is theoretically 96dB, SACD is little better with over 120dB
so its impossible to put "drum kit with 115db" with original dynamic to AudioCD , and you can put this to SACD but then noise floor will be very high (so if you cranck up volume knob on "dead silent" superlownoiseflooramplifier to max then it should be possible to hear quite strong backgound noise in recording...

Things are even more complicated when we want that those super low level signal components must be audible non distorted (very low signal level on digital recording/source is always more distorted than normal level recordings, because there could be used less informatin bits for particular moment of time)...

So we need even more (audible usable) dynamic range during recording and "distribution"

No, i'm not an audio engineer, and don't know how recording industry (with all its varyeties) is solving all those "things".

there is one intersting link connected to this subject:
http://www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology/dynamic-comparison-of-cd-dvd-a-sacd-part-1

 

[dharma]

InnerSpace wrote:
..."Did I say that? I don't recall"...

kwkarth wrote:
..."Yeah, when I looked for your post, I was not able to find what was referenced"...

Sorry, but i use copy-paste command to get citation from input... look for this thread page 2, no #30 input
My comment was anyway too late (someone already gave image of impedance chart in somewhere in the middle of this thread,,, so i was commenting before i reached last post)

Sometimes it happens to all of us...

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

InnerSpace wrote:
..."Did I say that? I don't recall"...

kwkarth wrote:
..."Yeah, when I looked for your post, I was not able to find what was referenced"...

Sorry, but i use copy-paste command to get citation from input... look for this thread page 2, no #30 input
My comment was anyway too late (someone already gave image of impedance chart in somewhere in the middle of this thread,,, so i was commenting before i reached last post)

Sometimes it happens to all of us...

There are errors of attribution in your citation methodology.  There seem to be errors in your understanding of dynamic range vs. max SPL based upon your previous posts.  In any live venue the noise floor is never "0."
 
 

 

[dharma]

There are errors of attribution in your citation methodology.  There seem to be errors in your understanding of dynamic range vs. max SPL based upon your previous posts.  In any live venue the noise floor is never "0."
 
 

1) What errors i produced ? (from my point of view this simple copy-paste style is best, because it keeps things/outlook simple and citation is also always correct; actually this method like ..."[copied text]"... is used in academic area...)
2) Something is misunderstood, i never said anything about ..."dynamic range vs. max SPL".... and none about ..."live venue":rolleyes: