[frenchbat]

Quote:

There is a small difference in bass with the T1 and a source that rolls off and one one that doesn't. It has more to do with your ears than with the upgrade in output, though. If you don't notice the difference between an iPhone 4 (which doesn't roll off with the T1) and the D2, then enjoy. There is a minor difference. I found that more than that, the better 'sparkle' between the stereo separation, was it for me.

The main problem with the DAP is volume matching, which requires more than just an ear to be accurate. I'd love to be able to do an extensive ABX between DAP, but at this point I don't think the difference would be as noticeable as what I got from my computer + DAC. The stereo separation in particular gets spectacular, compared to a simple DAP.
 
Back to your point, my ears could be at fault that's true. Especially if the roll-off is in the bass section, as I've never been a bass-head. I probably also need some training, which isn't going to happen right away. Just out of curiosity, have you ever written a piece about the D2+ roll-off ? Maybe in TMA's forum ? If you did I'd be glad to read it.
 
Aside from the DAP's respective performance, Shigzeo, would you agree to my statement that the T1 requires more than just a DAP to show all its potential ?
 
 

 

[shigzeo]

I've not written anything about the D2+ (not really) at TMA forums. I DO sort of agree that the T1 improve with good sources, but then again, the improvements aren't earth shattering. The T1 isn't easy to drive even if you get 100% linear output from the device - as you noted, separation is something that improves from a decent source. The iPhone (recent) is quite good, so the improvements from it are pretty marginal, but they are there.
 
Volume matching is pretty easy, actually, just use a splitter and match to within 0.5dB or less (if possible) using an external soundcard's input. That is what I do for every amp/DAP/other source comparison/review I do. Volume matching is very important.

 

[frenchbat]

Quote:

Volume matching is pretty easy, actually, just use a splitter and match to within 0.5dB or less (if possible) using an external soundcard's input. That is what I do for every amp/DAP/other source comparison/review I do. Volume matching is very important.

Thanks for the precision, seems like a fairly easy setup with an external soundcard. However wouldn't that change the output impedance and ultimately the load on the DAP ? I have no idea if that would be significant though.
 
I've been looking a bit into the D2+, and the roll-off is there (-2db at 50Hz). However amplification seems very beneficial, basically correcting the problem. I wonder what the RMAA would like with an iphone 4 and a D2 + a Pico Slim or an Alo RX on the T1. 
 

 

[shigzeo]

If the load would change (and I doubt it would), it would be the same on both outputs and the volume would remain the same. If you want to do blind listening tests, it is pretty necessary. Otherwise, you could use a multimeter, but the effect is the same. There is no way to mic the earphone to find the same volume, it has to be done at the output. 
 
The D2+'s rolloff isn't huge, really, but it is audible. The problem I had with it was the stereo image that shrunk. I guess that is the problem as the iPod touch 1G, that had a similar roll off, didn't bother me as much. Of course, it hissed more. There is no such thing as perfection, but I've pretty much settled on the iPod touch 4G for what I want. It drives more or less as good as portable can. 

 

[frenchbat]

Interesting point, it's really surprising that I haven't experienced the same result. Especially given that it's one of the improvements I have seen with the external DAC. I'm waiting for an S:Flo2, I'll try to get to the bottom of that when I receive it (someday hopefully !). I have to try a Sony some day too, especially given my location.

 

[shigzeo]

Haha, you should try a Sony. Some of the 'improvements' you hear, however, are just differences in presentation, not actual improvements. One thing I notice about Sony that no one seems interested in mentioning is compressed dynamic range. Sony EQ is well known as a 'good' EQ, but in reality, it compressed the dynamics. Of course, those compressed dynamics sound smooth, so they tend to get a lot of love around the net. I think that the average audiophile really is into pleasing distortion which I cannot call improvements, but I can call differences. I've used a number of AMPs that are well regarded, but actually perform worse than some headphone outputs. It ends up just being about distortion and how much.
 
Earphones like the T1 are sensitive to changes and as such, play big parts in helping people perceive what they like, whether or not those are real improvements or not. 
 
Recently, I reviewed EQu, a good EQ app for the iPod and iPhone that isn't 100% lossless. It compressed the dynamic range a bit, much like Sony's EQ does, but to a lesser degree. The end result is that the iPod and iPhone sound a LOT smoother. The big difference, then, between Sony and Apple, are that Apple's players retain a truer frequency response and don't hiss. 

 

[frenchbat]

You're probably right about some of what I called "improvements". And again I haven't done ABX with my DAPs, so I'm not even trying to put most of it into words. What I really consider improved though is the fact that with the external DAC (HRT Streamer 2+) I get a much more precise and fuller sound. As in 1 - hearing more "details" (from high and lows) or at least having it easier to pinpoint them and 2 - hearing a larger sounstage. Is it just a different presentation ? I guess it could, but if the sound was simply stressed differently, wouldn't I miss part of the rest of the spectrum ? I have the feeling that the DAC is giving me more to hear, but it can also deliver more than just Redbook Audio so there can be an influence there.
 
At the end of the day, I agree that we don't hear the same with the same monitors, for a lot of different reasons, some of them lying in the shape of our ears etc ... But a DAP isn't even supposed to be up to the job in comparison with a dedicated DAC. You must be hearing a difference too, aren't you ?
 
Edit : By the way, I've read your review at the time, but I'm not really into EQ'ing, plus I'm not willing to put cash in my iphone if it's not my main gear. The talk about how people prefers distortion if they agree with their own preference is almost and evidence by itself. If not why would we use Bass-head and Treble-head expressions around here ?

 

[shigzeo]

Everyone's ears are different, yes. Proper volume matching is probably the most necessary evil today since most players perform similarly. Today's DAC's are just up to the task. Differences aside are mostly just personal preferences and nothing more, but I respect them very much. I even enjoy the HM601 and 801, both players that have filters applied to smooth out the top end - but overall, players that put more noise in the signal. I also bypass my iPad's DAC when using with home headphones by plugging the Camera Kit into something like the Firestone Libby headphone amp or the Rubby, or any other DAC. 

 

[frenchbat]

Thanks for the link and review, I missed this one (but for a good reason !) in October. Just to be clear, I'm convinced that external DAC's are up to the task, it's the DAPs' internal DACs that I believe aren't comparing favorably to external ones. But DAP compared to another DAP is clearly in the same ballpark.
 
I haven't had the chance to try the HifiMan products, but anyway I would rather put that kind of money in desktop equipment, at least for the moment. I spent too much time on the road for that. But I also understand people can like it, however to me it just becomes marketing when their particular "inclination" isn't clearly stated.

 

[shigzeo]

I also agree that proper home equipment is more or less up to the task better than DAP's in several areas. One is power. Some headphones simply don't get loud enough with DAP's, others may distort with them and a home amp (even a cheap one) can bring the power back. Then, there is the great sound of valve amps that are warm and ... good. One that I really like is the CENtrance DACPort, though it's pretty expensive. It won't distort as much as a DAP with the same headphones, has a very low noise floor, and warms the hand!
 
Enjoy mate!

 

[frenchbat]

Haha, integrated heating sounds good ! Especially right now, Seoul seemed frozen when I flew over it last week

.

 

[shamrock134]

I do use portable amplification with the T1, I have a headstage arrow.
 
What bothers me is when I read people saying they prefer their JH13s or ES5s to their full-size cans. In my opinion, while the T1s are good, they do not really compare to my D7000 or Pro900. Are those other customs really that good? If I could have a D7000 packaged as a custom IEM I'd definitely get it. Perhaps one day I will be able to get some JH's or Westone customs and see what the fuss is about.
 
Also, I tried the T1 through my home set-up and to be honest I thought it sounded better from my portable lol.
 
Home set up: FLAC > STX > Graham Slee Solo > T1

 

[gorman]

frenchbat, the thing is... I'm much more likely to believe somebody noticing a difference with a different amplifier (in the case of the Hifiman you mentioned) rather than a difference with a properly compressed V0 or V1 MP3. An amplifier or an opamp could affect frequencies. Those you can most definitely tell. There's a certain point (can't remember which) where LAME doesn't cut frequencies anymore. From that point on, the quality of the music is (should be) identical, save for compression artefacts that don't have a direct correlation with the "quality" one associates with music.
 
I concur with keeping lossless versions as archive. But I really couldn't justify them on a DAP when ABXing showed me that I could go much, much lower. Also, even a lowly V5 or V6 MP3 sounds much better with better quality headphones.
 
I think, all in all, that in the audiophile community (not referring directly to you, as you seem to know pretty much there is to know about the science behind this) there's a lot of "pride" veiling judgement. But psychoacoustic is a science and the great majority of audiophiles claims are not.
 
Today is the day of my new ear impressions for T1s.

 

[frenchbat]

@Shamrock
Memory can be a bad mistress sometimes As for your expectation, you're obviously the best placed to be the judge of that, but well maybe you've set it too high as you were saying. I hope you're not regretting. I'd be quite upset to not find myself happy after paying that much. Maybe they'll grow on you with time.
 
@Gorman
First congratulations. Hope everything goes fine.
 
Of course the quality of the track isn't always the first thing to look at. Amplification has a big role to play, as well as the DAC. These things are physically determined and are supposed to be predictible. But in the context of someone asking for help, being able to eliminate factors fast and easy can be valuable. I apply this to myself on a permanent basis so I don't have to think about my source. Is it overkill ? Possibly, however I think it makes more sense than buying cables for half the price of a DAP. But I guess we're venturing into opinion here.
 
I've never tried ABXing 320, V0 or V1 MP3 with Flac, and it's a possibility that I wouldn't be able to pass the test with those bitrates. However V5 or V6 wouldn't even cross my mind, as those are easily recognizable. I did it before (not on hearphones though but does it make a difference ?) and I'm fairly sure I could do it again. I'm not sure to follow your point here, better earphones are going to be more revealing with regards to the loss of information, or do I misunderstand your point ?
 
I thank you for not including me in the "pride" croud, but unfortunately I'm not necessarily immune to that. I feel it applies more to the "I own a piece of expensive gear" situation than anything else though, but it is probably appearing in other situations. I read somewhere that Hi-Fi critics were actually worse at recognizing gear in ABX tests, compared to salesmen. Still they can be quite vocals about the exotic details they're supposed to be hearing. Irony is ironic isn't it ? 

 

[gorman]

Quote:

Of course the quality of the track isn't always the first thing to look at. Amplification has a big role to play, as well as the DAC. These things are physically determined and are supposed to be predictible. But in the context of someone asking for help, being able to eliminate factors fast and easy can be valuable. I apply this to myself on a permanent basis so I don't have to think about my source. Is it overkill ? Possibly, however I think it makes more sense than buying cables for half the price of a DAP. But I guess we're venturing into opinion here.
 
I've never tried ABXing 320, V0 or V1 MP3 with Flac, and it's a possibility that I wouldn't be able to pass the test with those bitrates. However V5 or V6 wouldn't even cross my mind, as those are easily recognizable. I did it before (not on hearphones though but does it make a difference ?) and I'm fairly sure I could do it again. I'm not sure to follow your point here, better earphones are going to be more revealing with regards to the loss of information, or do I misunderstand your point ?
 
I thank you for not including me in the "pride" croud, but unfortunately I'm not necessarily immune to that. I feel it applies more to the "I own a piece of expensive gear" situation than anything else though, but it is probably appearing in other situations. I read somewhere that Hi-Fi critics were actually worse at recognizing gear in ABX tests, compared to salesmen. Still they can be quite vocals about the exotic details they're supposed to be hearing. Irony is ironic isn't it ? 

What I'm trying to say is that even lowly V5 or V6 MP3s sounded vastly better with my UE-10 Pro than with cheap headphones. I'm trying to say that there's values in quality IEMs even when you have to compress your music.
 
Since I've read too many times people stating stuff like "Bah! With a 192kbps VBR LAME MP3 you are wasting your money", I always make the point that that is quite simply a lie.
 
Regarding the "pride" crowd, you stated "it makes more sense than buying cables for half the price of a DAP" so... in my book you really are firmly entrenched in the "sane" camp.
 
As an aside: I went to the audiologist, a Starkey certified doctor, and... he gave me the earprints for free. It's not something they do, so it does not have a price. I was delighted to speak with him as he seemed *really* knowledgeable and informed. Had I met him before I might have switched my decision to Starkey IEMs, to be honest. But when I mentioned ACS he was the first to say that the material is much more comfortable, etc.