[Mike F]

I agree. CD players with the same dac chips can have sound of different quality. The way their analog output stage is designed, implemented and power fed is very important. A simple example is the case of the Rotel above: a change of op-amps from IC to discrete components type brought an audible improvement, not only throughout my precise headphone system but also through my moderate loudspeaker system (amp and speakers in the € 1000 price range each.)

It's probably practically impossible to asses the actual DAC integrated into a CD player against an external DAC. The only thing you will be able to say is which combination you prefer overall - the transport and internal DAC, or the transport and the external DAC.

 

[jagwap]

All interesting stuff. When you say SPDIF I assume you mean coaxial? If my understanding is correct S/PDIF can refer to both Coax and Toslink, but I've always heard it generally being used to refer to Toslink, not coax? You seem to be comparing Toslink with S/PDIF above as if they're different things, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you wrote?

That was what I was implying. But you are right: SPDIF (Sony Philips Digital Interface Format I recall) is the format, and is carried by coax and Toslink, and is also the basis of AES-EBU (just some user bits and copy registers altered). It carries the data and the frame clocks and is very susceptible to impedance and multipath optical issues. If you low pass filter it and ampliy it you can actually hear a very distorted representation of the music. Hence the benefit of the randomising that Peter Craven suggested.

 

[jagwap]

Just had my ears cleaned at my ent for wax and hair mixture moderately clogging my ears.
Can't wait to listen to my ndh 30 now.
Headphones are like microscopes when it comes to sound variances. Lol

This is always a nice upgrade if there were issues in the first place. However you will now be TOO clean to be neutral, as youears should have a little wax for general protection.

So you will need to let your ear canals run-in before they sound at there nominal best.

 

[Plieb]

This is always a nice upgrade if there were issues in the first place. However you will now be TOO clean to be neutral, as youears should have a little wax for general protection.

So you will need to let your ear canals run-in before they sound at there nominal best.

Lol - I can now say that i have a new respect for my Rebel amp. Much improved fidelity and crispness and now works great with ndh30. Sounded dead prior to my cleaning. Dr provided one of my best upgrades to date. Lol

 

[Rob80b]

Sorry still OT but curious...besides which cable is ideal going to the DAC........

VERY careful listening through the Lehmann amp + NDH 30......
- 9.5 Chord Qutest dac (€ 1500-1900, 2018)
- 9.4 Lehmann Linear II D dac/headamp (€ 1900, 2019)

- 9.2 Musical Fidelity V90 dac + PSUii. (€ 230 + 150, 2013)
- 9.1 Denon DCD-100 cd player (€ 600-680, 2017). ***Not to be confused with flagship DCD-A100
- 9.0 Cambridge Audio Azur DacMagic (€ 250, 2008)
- 8.9 Rotel RCD-991 cd player, upgraded with 4 Staccato discrete opamps at (€ 800 + 250, 2001?)

- 8.6 Rotel RCD-991 cd player with original IC opamps (€ 800, 2001?)
- 8.4 Audio Alchemy Dac-In-The-Box - vintage dac (€ 250, 1994?)

- 8.0 Technics SL-PS620A cd player (€ 250, 1992).

I was thinking that each unit tested was connected to the Lehmann's analogue inputs?

it became very clear to me that passing from one digital source to a better one, the improvement comes in a very constant and predictable way:

if so ...therefor it would be a combination of the the units inherent DAC and analogue output to the Lehmann that would be heard.

I agree. CD players with the same dac chips can have sound of different quality

Which is why I was curious if it was the DAC, digital source, or the units as a whole, electronics et al that contributes to the overall sound...this analogy also obviously continues to the headphone amp itself where we could reverse the procedure with one digital source and multiple head-amps connected to your NDH30. : )

 

[headstef]

It's probably practically impossible to asses the actual DAC integrated into a CD player against an external DAC. The only thing you will be able to say is which combination you prefer overall - the transport and internal DAC, or the transport and the external DAC.

Maybe the Chord Qutest is totally immune to transport/transmission generated jitter because my finding is this:
No matter which or what transport is driving the Qutest, its sound remains absolutely the same. I have even used a "humble" portable discman with optical output and it gave a sound of the highest quality, just as every other transport did. This verifies one thing (at least): there is no data/information loss caused by various transports (that work properly). This is not strange: it is already a common experience from the era of using cd-rom instead of flash memory sticks to transfer big text files. Even writing at 40X the normal audio cd speed, whole cyclopedias could be transferred without even a letter lost. Thus, I believe that the role of transport, digital cables and jitter is hugely overestimated and, mainly for marketing/commercial reasons. A very well executed dac, dealing successfully with incoming jitter, will expose all of its quality, no matter the transport or digital cable, as long as bit-perfect signal is used and transferred.

 

[headstef]

Sorry still OT but curious...besides which cable is ideal going to the DAC........


I was thinking that each unit tested was connected to the Lehmann's analogue inputs?


if so ...therefor it would be a combination of the the units inherent DAC and analogue output to the Lehmann that would be heard.

Which is why I was curious if it was the DAC, digital source, or the units as a whole, electronics et al that contributes to the overall sound...this analogy also obviously continues to the headphone amp itself where we could reverse the procedure with one digital source and multiple head-amps connected to your NDH30. : )

Yes, each unit tested was feeding the analog inputs of the Lehmann, completely bypassing the internal dac of the Lehmann. Of course, the internal dac participated in this test by naturally feeding its subsequent amp.
A very transparent amp had to be used as a constant for this test if the results had to be comparable. The Lehmann serves excellently this purpose, its expense was mainly decided for this kind of tests.
Before and during the test I compared the Lehmann (amp only) with two other amps: the Musical Fidelity X-Can V3 (class A) and the headphone output of my Audiolab 8000S integrated amp (class A preamp stage). A simple voltage divider with two high quality metal film resistors per channel was used with the Audiolab to eliminate a barely audible hum of the output. This headphone output is designed to give very high power for use with very insensitive headphones too, where the hum is completely inaudible. Even better, a simple resistance of 20 Ohms was used sometimes in parallel to each headphone channel, to bypass the issue of the high headphone output impedance of the Audiolab. This permitted comparisons without any frequency response alterations that would occur because of headphone impedance variation at different frequencies. (Sennheiser drivers are well known for this kind of variation). The three above headphone outputs where found very similar sounding, almost not limiting at all the quality of the Qutest or the NDH 30. Alternating between the amps had a very much smaller effect (if any) on the sound quality than alternating between test dacs. All three happen to be of very high quality, ready to expose source differences very easily, though the Lehmann ultimately takes the edge.
So, yes, in theory every dac/player was listened to and judged as a combination with an amp (Lehmann). Keeping this variable (the amp) constant and using an extremely transparent one, made the dacs comparison easy and meaningful.

*** I have to note that by the term "dac" I always mean a complete implementation: [the dac chip + any digital circuits + the analog stage up to the output]. This can exist either as a stand-alone dac or inside a CD player as everything that follows after the CD reading mechanism.

 

[Mike F]

Maybe the Chord Qutest is totally immune to transport/transmission generated jitter because my finding is this:
No matter which or what transport is driving the Qutest, its sound remains absolutely the same. I have even used a "humble" portable discman with optical output and it gave a sound of the highest quality, just as every other transport did. This verifies one thing (at least): there is no data/information loss caused by various transports (that work properly). This is not strange: it is already a common experience from the era of using cd-rom instead of flash memory sticks to transfer big text files. Even writing at 40X the normal audio cd speed, whole cyclopedias could be transferred without even a letter lost. Thus, I believe that the role of transport, digital cables and jitter is hugely overestimated and, mainly for marketing/commercial reasons. A very well executed dac, dealing successfully with incoming jitter, will expose all of its quality, no matter the transport or digital cable, as long as bit-perfect signal is used and transferred.

I appreciate the time you've taken with these listening tests. There's no doubt that the NDH 30 would reveal differences if they were audible. However, I have a question. Why do yo think it is that I can hear a difference between using the SA-10s internal transport and using it's DAC with an external transport? Why also do i hear a difference between a coax cable and a Toslink optical connection when using the same external transport? This is why I said,'It's probably practically impossible to asses the actual DAC integrated into a CD player against an external DAC. The only thing you will be able to say is which combination you prefer overall - the transport and internal DAC, or the transport and the external DAC.'

 

[Rob80b]

This is why I said,'It's probably practically impossible to asses the actual DAC integrated into a CD player against an external DAC. The only thing you will be able to say is which combination you prefer overall - the transport and internal DAC, or the transport and the external DAC.'

Well life is complicated.....

Chord Qutest $2875 Can.


....or $15.99 Can. Actually used one of these for years with my TV, they work. : )
"96KHz; 24-bit S/ PDIF Incoming Bit Stream"


So should I use a Coax or Optical cable from my CD transport?

Headphone choice is so much easier.
Speaking of and back OT....there is a listing for a used pair NDH30....hhhhmmm?

 

[Mike F]

Headphone choice is so much easier.
Speaking of and back OT....there is a listing for a used pair NDH30....hhhhmmm?

Well, what are you waiting for?

Buy a new one at the same time and keep the one you like!

 

[Rob80b]

Well, what are you waiting for?

Phoned out....lol

Buy a new one at the same time and keep the one you like!

At almost $1k (after tax) here in Canada..it's a think twice, buy 1. lol
Seriously though, after picking up the HD820 I had my AKG K872 up for sale, I enjoy both but was hoping to maybe use the funds for a Neumann..so far after 2 months no takers. Well I guess the K872 are a collectors item now. : )

 

[headstef]

I appreciate the time you've taken with these listening tests. There's no doubt that the NDH 30 would reveal differences if they were audible. However, I have a question. Why do yo think it is that I can hear a difference between using the SA-10s internal transport and using it's DAC with an external transport? Why also do i hear a difference between a coax cable and a Toslink optical connection when using the same external transport? This is why I said,'It's probably practically impossible to asses the actual DAC integrated into a CD player against an external DAC. The only thing you will be able to say is which combination you prefer overall - the transport and internal DAC, or the transport and the external DAC.'

These listening test are very time consuming and can also be tiring. It took me many nights (using the quietest hours) during many months to form a very precise image of the relative sound quality of all these dacs and players. Repetitive results and blind tests are key for shaping conclusions with very high or absolute certainty. But this way I now have a very strong and stable reference base for comparative evaluation of anything that may come as a future upgrade of digital sources. Also, no "single item" reviews can fool me into spending money on expensive sources, just hoping for the best or to the wrong direction. Everything can be easily compared with my references in advance.

When you hear specific and repetitive differences between different transports (verified blindly) no one can deny that they are there, especially you. The usual suspect is jitter but it can also be (analogue) noise transferred through the connected devices in the case of coaxial cable. In my case this hasn't happened, at least not in an audible way and may be the Qutest is really immune to incoming jitter or noise, rejecting them very successfully. It is specifically designed so, at least according to its marketing points. However, other dacs may be (more) sensitive to jitter and thus playing differently with different transports or even cables? I really cannot know, I just report my results and any logical conclusions derived effortlessly (like: no data loss is happening with transports working properly and using unscratched CDs, since the same musical information and quality exits from the Qutest irrelevantly of the transport in use). Between using very expensive transports/digital cables and using dacs with jitter rejecting technology, the latter is much more cost effective IMO.

 

[Mike F]

@headstef I appreciate your time and integrity with regard to the tests you have done. It’s hard to know why some people hear some things. For instance I cannot explain why I hear a difference between two identical CD’s or a CD and a bit perfect copy of that CD. There are many that would say that such differences simply cannot exist, but then I cannot explain my own experience. I could relate many instances over the years, but on one occasion for example I was comparing my then current CD player (Marantz CD12 DA12) with a potential replacement (Mark Levinson 39). For ease of A-B testing I used a CD which I happened to have a duplicate of - one in each machine. Over a few days I was getting inconsistent results. I couldn’t understand why the players sounded different on different occasions (I was removing the CDs and listening to others in between the tests), and why they sounded inconsistently different from each other - sometimes not so different and sometimes more different. On a hunch I listened to the two CDs on my own player. They sounded different. Same result with both CDs in the other player.
I think that I might go over to ASR and report that story there - just for s**ts and giggles……..

 

[Mike F]

These discussions always remind me of one of my favourite sayings, which is; “In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.” (Einstein, I believe)

 

[headstef]

Thank you Mike! Sometimes it has been useful for me too, to use two identical CDs (original) for easier comparisons. I have a (double) small selection of 3-4 recordings of reference quality and use it for this purpose when necessary. I am lucky not to have traced any sonic differences between them on the same device . I would have been very puzzled if I had! As a matter of fact I tried hard to listen for any differences but thankfully, none was found. (We are crazy, aren't we? )

I have been tempted many times to start an account in ASR, sometimes to support expressed opinions/findings that may seem "heretical" to audiophiles (but are nothing more than science or conclusions after very systematic experiments), other times to notify that going over the top and suggesting that all sources or all amps (should) sound the same is not realistic or scientifically/technicaly supported. But I never did and probably will not, there is no time for (more) analysis or endless discussions. This community here and another (Greek) one are more than enough for me!

Changing subject, there is a good chance that the NDH 30 will not be alone in the sub-$1000 category in sounding as a much more expensive headphone. @Ichos has published his review of the iBasso SR3 with impressive findings. If his great experience is shared with more users long-term, then we are in front of another significant headphone. Of course, I believe it is difficult to expect "Neumann" quality of construction.

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/ibasso-sr3-—-150Ω-version-of-the-sr2.966541/page-12#post-17594790