[Shini44]

Let it go!
It make no differences, or just a little
No way it's sound worst
Sorry I had to tell it, I can't hear this stuff..

he was talking about the iUSB, the problem the iUSB has slight boost in the SQ, maybe thats why it was a problem with the Uber bifrost / Concero HD on my gear, once removed the SQ went back to normal from being Edgy. 

 

[montanari]

I think, and it's easier, that you don't like the sound of the concero (no hd, but I guess it's not so far from the hd version)
Than the sound get worst adding ifi
I have aqvox and make any difference, two friends tried to swap ifi/no ifi and they said it make just a little difference (maybe psychological ) but not worst at all

 

[jmm007]

I agree with you. Spending $200 for the iUSB with no improvement (or marginal) in SQ does NOT sound like a wise purchase to me.
 
 When someone found out that I used a MacMini as my source, they told me to purchase the Mac Platform from Atomic Audio Labs. I wonder how much improvement in SQ something like this would have at $350 USD.
 
Thanks again
Joe
 

 

[jbarrentine]

   
 When someone found out that I used a MacMini as my source, they told me to purchase the Mac Platform from Atomic Audio Labs. I wonder how much improvement in SQ something like this would have at $350 USD.
 
Thanks again
Joe
 

 
$5 of material. $350 price. Absolutely no difference in sound. 
 
You should get some thousand dollar cables while you're at it. 
 
And punch whoever told you that. 

 

[bixby]

  I agree with you. Spending $200 for the iUSB with no improvement (or marginal) in SQ does NOT sound like a wise purchase to me.
 
 When someone found out that I used a MacMini as my source, they told me to purchase the Mac Platform from Atomic Audio Labs. I wonder how much improvement in SQ something like this would have at $350 USD.
 
Thanks again
Joe
 

I used to use stuff that was pretty pricey, now use some Herbies Isocups without the balls  and use stuff like this under lots of my equipment.
 
Cork and Neoprene squares  
 

 

[jmm007]

  And punch whoever told you that. 

 
Ha ha… good point! 

 

[jmm007]

  I used to use stuff that was pretty pricey, now use some Herbies Isocups without the balls  and use stuff like this under lots of my equipment.
 
Cork and Neoprene squares  
 

 
Nice tip… Thanks! 

 

[tomscy2000]

Audiophile-grade Lucite isn't cheap!

 

[SilverEars]

Hi.  I'm trying to decide between HD and HP.  I want one for IEMs and also to serve as a DAC.  Was wondering if you can bypass the amp on the HP to use as a DAC.

 

[KraftD1]

The HP can be used as a USB->spdif converter or a headphone amp, no pure DAC function.

 

[SilverEars]

The HP can be used as a USB->spdif converter or a headphone amp, no pure DAC function.

Would it be double amping If I were to use the HP with another Amp?  What would it do to the signal?  I guess a DAC doesn't have a amp stage so it sends out signal coming  out of the amp.

 

[KraftD1]

It would be double amping, probably not too much impact on the signal, but you could email Resonnesene Labs to check. DACs do have an analog stage, usually fixed level ~2V.

 

[tomscy2000]

  Would it be double amping If I were to use the HP with another Amp?  What would it do to the signal?  I guess a DAC doesn't have a amp stage so it sends out signal coming  out of the amp.

 
That's only a half-truth. DACs are all "amplified" as well, from its initial I/V conversion to its line-level (usually 2 Vrms) amplification. The only difference between a DAC and an amp is that the DAC only needs to supply a full scale signal with as wide an SNR as possible, while the amp actually drives a transducer. Being a device driver and not a line driver, an amp will have higher voltage drive, and lower output impedance. At full scale volume, if the SNR is not significantly degraded, then there's no reason why an amp's output cannot be used to drive another amp.
 
If you examine the HP and HD, you'll find that it uses the same opamps, namely the AD8397. The difference is that in the HP drives the opamp to 3.5 Vrms (at 0 dBFS), while the HD remains at line level 2 Vrms. What's the difference in noise output between an opamp driven to 3.5 Vrms and 2 Vrms? Is there a significant enough SNR penalty such that you want a dedicated DAC? These are the questions that should be asked.
 
From experience, it seems that the full scale output of the HP is clean enough to act as a DAC. It's not as clean as the HD's, but the difference doesn't really have practical benefits. You can step down the volume on the HP to 2 Vrms and get an equivalent output level as the HD, but it will now have been digitally attenuated by a little bit. I don't know what the numerical differences in DNR are.

 

[project86]

   
That's only a half-truth. DACs are all "amplified" as well, from its initial I/V conversion to its line-level (usually 2 Vrms) amplification. The only difference between a DAC and an amp is that the DAC only needs to supply a full scale signal with as wide an SNR as possible, while the amp actually drives a transducer. Being a device driver and not a line driver, an amp will have higher voltage drive, and lower output impedance. At full scale volume, if the SNR is not significantly degraded, then there's no reason why an amp's output cannot be used to drive another amp.
 
If you examine the HP and HD, you'll find that it uses the same opamps, namely the AD8397. The difference is that in the HP drives the opamp to 3.5 Vrms (at 0 dBFS), while the HD remains at line level 2 Vrms. What's the difference in noise output between an opamp driven to 3.5 Vrms and 2 Vrms? Is there a significant enough SNR penalty such that you want a dedicated DAC? These are the questions that should be asked.
 
From experience, it seems that the full scale output of the HP is clean enough to act as a DAC. It's not as clean as the HD's, but the difference doesn't really have practical benefits. You can step down the volume on the HP to 2 Vrms and get an equivalent output level as the HD, but it will now have been digitally attenuated by a little bit. I don't know what the numerical differences in DNR are.

 
 
This.
 
In practice, the difference is noticeable, but not extreme. Concero HP is still quite good when used as DAC via the headphone output. 

 

[SilverEars]

   
That's only a half-truth. DACs are all "amplified" as well, from its initial I/V conversion to its line-level (usually 2 Vrms) amplification. The only difference between a DAC and an amp is that the DAC only needs to supply a full scale signal with as wide an SNR as possible, while the amp actually drives a transducer. Being a device driver and not a line driver, an amp will have higher voltage drive, and lower output impedance. At full scale volume, if the SNR is not significantly degraded, then there's no reason why an amp's output cannot be used to drive another amp.
 
If you examine the HP and HD, you'll find that it uses the same opamps, namely the AD8397. The difference is that in the HP drives the opamp to 3.5 Vrms (at 0 dBFS), while the HD remains at line level 2 Vrms. What's the difference in noise output between an opamp driven to 3.5 Vrms and 2 Vrms? Is there a significant enough SNR penalty such that you want a dedicated DAC? These are the questions that should be asked.
 
From experience, it seems that the full scale output of the HP is clean enough to act as a DAC. It's not as clean as the HD's, but the difference doesn't really have practical benefits. You can step down the volume on the HP to 2 Vrms and get an equivalent output level as the HD, but it will now have been digitally attenuated by a little bit. I don't know what the numerical differences in DNR are.

Can you expand on this?  Is it related to SNR?
 
Also why is the dedicated DAC output impedance so high?  Is line-out typically high impedance?  Why is that?
 
Also I'm curious what the affects of the volume control.  Is it just a pot that varies the gain?