So-Cal Meet: 1-15-06
Jan 19, 2006 at 10:46 PM Post #151 of 239
Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx
Any more reactions to those giant woody Senns? I'm actually considering.
wink.gif



Well, they are not too heavy and the soundstage improves dramatically. The detail and bass are also heightened and the sound in general improves drastically.

You know you want them.
evil_smiley.gif
 
Jan 19, 2006 at 11:00 PM Post #152 of 239
Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer
I'd MUCH rather have the Tannoy Eyris DC3 speakers I auditioned today than the Qualias, Omegas, etc.


Hmm, I heard those Eyris DC3's several months ago and thought they were awesome too. Driven by a PS Audio HCA-2. I thought it was funny how no one seems to talk about or review these speakers, since they sounded so freakin' great for the price (in my memory at least). I'm going back to the audio shop for a second demo soon as they finally get a pair in again.

If I like them as much as I did the first time I'll buy them, unless the Tyler Taylo monitors I have on the way (along with an HCA-2) turn out to be even better.

Oh yeah, um, great meet, pics, and impressions guys!
biggrin.gif
 
Jan 19, 2006 at 11:04 PM Post #153 of 239
darkness

What has been your experience with your setup? Have you precieved the short comings noted in the above post? Your sign..suggest you already have the SRC2496, does it make a difference?

The Lavry would seem to already have everything that the SCR2496 does internal. Is this not true with your AQVOX?

Why would the iRiver optical out be any different from any other HD such as the laptop used in the comparison? I am just asking, not question that the difference was not there.

If this is too many questions, excussed me...Thanks for sharing your setup. This is similar to where I plan on going with later this year. I am headed for the Lavry DA10 and maybe an ATH-W5000 for home use with my imp-550 or iHP-140 optical out.

I already have a lower end version of this with my iRiver units and the MicroDAC into my AE-1 (soon ISA Diablo).

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkless
A feature I like on the iRiver is its bit-perfect (but not jitterfree) optical output. Right now I have my iRiver feeding my DEQ2496 (digital EQ) which in turn feeds my AQVOX DAC.

I intend to put a SRC2496 (used as format- and sample converter and jitter remover) between my iRiver and my DEQ, using shielded AES/EBU XLR cables between the SRC-DEQ-DAC parts. This should hopefully alleviate any jitter concerns, since the digital parts of the setup are all synchronized from the SRC2496 via the digital signal (the AES/EBU signal has an auto-clock and auto-synchronization feature).

I will also try experimenting with various sample rates (44.1, 48, 88.2 and 96 KHz) at an increased wordlength to see if I can detect any difference. At any rate, an increased sample rate will give my DEQ more samples to play with and the increased wordlength will increase the digital resolution, which in turn should provide a better DEQ result and possibly a better DAC experience.
smily_headphones1.gif



 
Jan 20, 2006 at 2:55 AM Post #154 of 239
Edwood

Could you provide a little more detail on what the format you are using with your iHP-120, i.e. FLAC setting or MP3 bit rate? How about any particular settings on your ripping software such as foobar2000. Could this be a difference between the transports that you compared?

Thanks

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood
Yes. Iron_Dreamer is hanging at my place, so I have had some quality time with the iHP-120 with the Lavry.

Long story short. There is indeed a limit to being "jitter proof". It should more accurately be called "jitter resistant". The iHP-120 is a bit edgy sounding and less refined, also flatter sounding, and less focused, when it comes to details. I'm not sure if it's jittery as hell, or there is a sampling issue. Not sure.

The headphone output has an unacceptably high noise floor. If you use efficient headphones like Grado's or IEM's like the E5, it's almost unlistenable.
Very "hissy" sounding.

You absolutely have to use a headphone amp with it. One thing that surprised me, is the lack of fixed line level outputs, the line out and headphone out are identical, the volume changes on both simultaneously.

When hooked up to the Hornet it sounded much better.

It's overall a neat toy, with lots of features, and with RockBox , is far more useable. But it has some glaring flaws that keep it from being an unbeatable standalone product.

-Ed



 
Jan 20, 2006 at 3:03 AM Post #155 of 239
Quote:

Originally Posted by slwiser
Edwood

Could you provide a little more detail on what the format you are using with your iHP-120, i.e. FLAC setting or MP3 bit rate? How about any particular settings on your ripping software such as foobar2000. Could this be a difference between the transports that you compared?

Thanks



He was using my iHP-120, which was loaded with nothing but FLAC files ripped in EAC from a Plextor 1610A in secure rip mode. These were the same files on my Laptop that were used for the main DAC shootout. The only difference was the actual transport.
 
Jan 20, 2006 at 3:57 AM Post #156 of 239
Quote:

Originally Posted by darkless
Thanks Ed, very much appreciated your comments on the iRiver.

The headphone out is indeed hissing when I'm using my SF5Pros. When I used the SR-71 to amp the lineout, the hissing was gone.

A few notes: The iRiver has two ways to adjust gain. One is digital, one is analog. The lineout on the iRiver bypasses the analog amp, so the volume changes are made purely in the digital domain. If using rockbox, turning up the volume to 0 dB effectively removes the digital gain reduction (assuming you don't use the crossfeed or replaygain features which are implemented in the digital domain).

And now a small thread hijack:

A feature I like on the iRiver is its bit-perfect (but not jitterfree) optical output. Right now I have my iRiver feeding my DEQ2496 (digital EQ) which in turn feeds my AQVOX DAC.

I intend to put a SRC2496 (used as format- and sample converter and jitter remover) between my iRiver and my DEQ, using shielded AES/EBU XLR cables between the SRC-DEQ-DAC parts. This should hopefully alleviate any jitter concerns, since the digital parts of the setup are all synchronized from the SRC2496 via the digital signal (the AES/EBU signal has an auto-clock and auto-synchronization feature).

I will also try experimenting with various sample rates (44.1, 48, 88.2 and 96 KHz) at an increased wordlength to see if I can detect any difference. At any rate, an increased sample rate will give my DEQ more samples to play with and the increased wordlength will increase the digital resolution, which in turn should provide a better DEQ result and possibly a better DAC experience.
smily_headphones1.gif



Boy, why do you want to string along all these components and digital cables when your source (iRiver) just isn't going to deliver the goods ultimately? Every digital connector, receiver, cable in the path will do more harm than good.

Have you thought about getting a very clean transport/PC audio/USB-spdif converter going straight into AQVox? As we've observed, straight 44.1kHz seems to sound best on AQVox, and Lavry does seem best in its "Crystal Lock" mode (no upsampling).

What's even more interesting, some people are claiming Behringer SRC2496 sounds fantastic as standalone DAC, much better sounding than DEQ2496 even. Mr. Ender of Endler attentuator fame, for example..
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4c5pt/id8.html
I have seen people claim greatness out of SRC2496 when modded, used as DAC. Behringer does use nice AKM DAC units... Slightly modded, perhaps SRC2496 as DAC will give Lavry a fright?
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Jan 20, 2006 at 6:06 AM Post #158 of 239
Again, I would like to thank the members of the trade and patgod that donated item(s) to the So. Cal meet raffle and everyone that participated by buying ticket(s).

As most of you know, we raised a decent amount of money, which totaled $840. After I contacted all those that contributed stuff out of their own pockets as to whether or not they wanted to be reimbursed, paid to have the studio cleaned and gave my Mom a minimal rental fee to cover her expenses for that day, we raised a grand total of $520.

This evening I read Jude’s response to my pm that he prefers the raffle donation proceeds be made to Head-Fi via PayPal. I do my banking online and after the funds are received and clear in my account, I will send Head-Fi the $520 raised at the meet. I suspect within the next week, Jude should receive these funds.

Once again, thanks to everyone that participated to make this meet and raffle a great success.
 
Jan 20, 2006 at 6:09 AM Post #159 of 239
To all who participated, thank you very much for your support. 909 contacted me about this the other day, and it was a pleasant and very generous surprise, as I knew nothing about it previously.

Thanks again, everyone, and to 909 for arranging this.
 
Jan 20, 2006 at 6:14 AM Post #160 of 239
Quote:

Originally Posted by bhd812
what the hell...I want glowing cables...

thats awesome! good Idea so I wont trip over my cable in low light like I do every mourning...last week my skull met computers lcd corner..man thats not the way to wake up...oh no
eek.gif






from the tech flex website

"FLEXO REFLEX (RF) is our polyethylene terepthalate material braided together with highly reflective 3M Scotchlite® retroreflective monofilament. This unique combination provides a high level of wire and cable protection with the added advantage of extraordinary 360 degree, on-axis reflectivity.

RF is up to 1,500 times brighter than plain white under identical conditions and will provide high visibility safety on wires, hoses, cables, bicycle and motorcycle cables, stage wiring and virtually anything else up to 675' away. Reflective even under low light conditions"
 
Jan 20, 2006 at 6:38 AM Post #161 of 239
Quote:

Originally Posted by slwiser
darkness

What has been your experience with your setup? Have you precieved the short comings noted in the above post? Your sign..suggest you already have the SRC2496, does it make a difference?

The Lavry would seem to already have everything that the SCR2496 does internal. Is this not true with your AQVOX?

Why would the iRiver optical out be any different from any other HD such as the laptop used in the comparison? I am just asking, not question that the difference was not there.

If this is too many questions, excussed me...Thanks for sharing your setup. This is similar to where I plan on going with later this year. I am headed for the Lavry DA10 and maybe an ATH-W5000 for home use with my imp-550 or iHP-140 optical out.

I already have a lower end version of this with my iRiver units and the MicroDAC into my AE-1 (soon ISA Diablo).



Although I haven't been able to detect any jitter from my setup yet, I'm sure it's there. I've ordered but not yet received the SRC2496.

Both the Lavry and the AQVOX has jitter removal circuits, but I'm getting the SRC2496 in order to allow me to remove the jitter before the digital signal hits the DEQ. It also allows me to change the wordlength (from 16 to 24 bits) and resample the signal from 44.1 KHz (+-12%) to 48, 88.2 or 96 KHz, again before the signal passes through the DEQ.

The AQVOX accepts all these sample rates and includes a switchable 192 KHz upsample feature. The Lavry also accepts the various sample rates and upsamples internally (EDIT: apparently the "Crystal Lock" mode bypasses the upsampler).

Regarding the optical differences, some optical outs aren't bit-perfect, meaning they occationally throw away bits. The quality of the optical transceiver also affects the amount of jitter generated. I'll take Jon's word that the optical out on the iRiver was inferior to the one used in the computer at the meet. I haven't been disappointed by it yet, but I'll prob. know more once the SRC2496 arrives.
 
Jan 20, 2006 at 7:04 AM Post #162 of 239
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon L
Boy, why do you want to string along all these components and digital cables when your source (iRiver) just isn't going to deliver the goods ultimately? Every digital connector, receiver, cable in the path will do more harm than good.

Have you thought about getting a very clean transport/PC audio/USB-spdif converter going straight into AQVox? As we've observed, straight 44.1kHz seems to sound best on AQVox, and Lavry does seem best in its "Crystal Lock" mode (no upsampling).

What's even more interesting, some people are claiming Behringer SRC2496 sounds fantastic as standalone DAC, much better sounding than DEQ2496 even. Mr. Ender of Endler attentuator fame, for example..
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4c5pt/id8.html
I have seen people claim greatness out of SRC2496 when modded, used as DAC. Behringer does use nice AKM DAC units... Slightly modded, perhaps SRC2496 as DAC will give Lavry a fright?
smily_headphones1.gif



I don't believe the digital signal will be degraded by passing through shielded AES/EBU cables, but let's just agree to disagree here.

The DEQ2496 is there for digital equalization/filtering/effects (it has tons of features too numerous to list here) and it's one of the best investments I've ever made to my home rig. It's been able to improve my enjoyment tremendously. Adding the SRC2496 will improve the resolution of the digital signal (from 16 to 24 bits), greatly reducing the amount of rounding errors caused by digitally altering the signal in the DEQ2496 (Dr. Jan Meier has a nice explanation for this somewhere on head-fi).

I don't want to deal with the raised noise floor because of a computer being close to my home rig, so PC-Audio is out. Besides, the USB-s/pdif converters I've heard about will either resample the signal to 48 KHz and/or introduce a ton of jitter on their own. What I want is a small, noisefree, external digital transport that I can plug into my home rig. So far, the iRiver has fit the bill perfectly. If I had the money, I could've purchased another computer and a squeezebox/airport express and used that instead. However, I've yet to see a comparison proving that their optical outs are less prone to jitter than my iRiver.

Regarding resampling, you said that the unmodified 44.1KHz signal seemed to sound best on AQVOX and Lavry. However, it didn't seem to me that you had any kinds of resamplers connected allowing you to directly compare 44.1 with 48, 88.2 or 96 KHz. Lavry himself has said that he dislikes anything above 96 KHz, but what about the sample rates below? I intend to try out the various rates, hoping to find a sweetspot above 44.1 KHz.
 
Jan 20, 2006 at 7:12 AM Post #163 of 239
Quote:

Originally Posted by darkless
The AQVOX accepts all these sample rates and includes a switchable 192 KHz upsample feature. The Lavry also accepts the various sample rates and upsamples internally (no bypass available though).


The Lavry only upsamples if it is set to narrow or wide mode, but at crystal lock it does not.
 
Jan 20, 2006 at 9:41 AM Post #165 of 239
I had a great time listening to quite a few amp at the meet, but not as many as I had wanted to and the ones that I did listen to I felt it wasn’t long enough and ambient background noise made critical listening difficult to say the least. Further, I am convinced that my impression of a particular amp could be skewed positively or negatively by the particular source and cables used in the set-up.

In the end, I left with the conclusion that most, if not all of the amps at this meet sounded good to very good, yet to identify the incredible ones or particular differences that I would prefer over say another amp, I would need to spend some quality listening time in an quiet place since most of the difference between a $350 or $1200 amp aren’t usually immediately and reliably identifiable under normal meet listening condition.

An example of the cables making a difference happened when Digipete and I were listening to his Dynamite amp, which he built himself, connected by (cattylink) gold interconnects to his Esound E5. While listening to one of my reference tracks, I couldn’t hear a particular ticking in the background, but when we changed the cables to Grover’s UR6s this improved the clarity, detail, and separation so that we could at least make out the ticking. The gold cables were chocking or constraining the source feeding the amp and it wasn’t the amp at all, but the cables that were the actual causing this lack of detail.

An example of the source making a difference happened, while I was listening to the Hornet, connect with RnB180’s Black Diamond to my Rio Karma, which had the audio format of ogg vorbis at 256, I found tracks with on average five or more instruments or something similar to the “wall of sound” sounded muddled. Yet when I hooked the Hornet up to a better source such as my E5 and played the same track off the original CD the sound quality improved drastically and again the clarity, detail, separation, and sound stage improved. Here, I found that the issue wasn’t the Hornet in particular, but the quality of the audio format and the source.

With this in mind, I being my brief opinion piece on the particular amps that I found to provide an immediate and most enjoyable listening experience.

Eddie Current

EC-01

Pioneer DVD
Cables (not sure)
Moth Audio DAC
HD650 (stock cable)

This amp is built like a little Russian tank. The interior design is laid out flawlessly and what appeared to my eyes intelligently with a clean point-to-point wiring job. In fact, it appears to conserve the footprint of this little beast by utilizing a two level design. I also like the wrinkled black metal exterior, it isn’t fancy, but looks tough and built to last. When I first listened to this amp, I was immediately amazed by the sound quality and musicality in this little package. Overall, I found it hard to believe the minor difference I perceived I heard between my EC2A3 and this new offering from Eddie Current. Although I didn’t A/B my amp and the EC-01 I walked away very impressed by it and its reasonable price. I regretted not having the time to hook it up to my source and cables at the meet.


Headamp

GS-X

Meridian G08
Cardas Golden Reference Interconnects
HD650 replacement balance cable from Moon Audio

I really really liked this balanced solid state amplifier coupled with the moon audio cable and my HD650s, G08, and Cardas cables. I’ve never listened to a balanced amp or even a solid state amp before the meet but compared to the GS-1 it provided more of a good thing such as a fuller and deeper sound and an ever expansive sound stage. In no way did this compromise any of the detail, separation, or transparency. The mids were beautiful and articulate. The bass was responsive yet exercised a controlled impact. And the background was dead quiet. The treble sounded fine to my ears as well. Yet with this set-up I didn’t use my reference source and cables, but it probably was one of the nicer or nicest solid states I heard at the meet. This is one of the amps that I definitely preferred and would have liked to spend some more serious listening time with it. On a final note, I must commend Justin on the precision and beauty of his build quality; the inside of this amp looked absolutely awesome, extremely detailed, and cleanly laid out.

Gilmore lite

Esound E5
DiMarizo M-Path
HD650 (stock cable)

I had been listening back and forth between my EC2A3 and the Gilmore lite amp first using Ray’s A/B switch box and then I used Edwood’s A/B switch box. I did hear minor differences in the low and high end. I also even heard minor differences in the mids, detail, separation, and soundstage. I suppose the meet background noise influenced some of what I call my immediate inability to form any firm listening impressions, yet it really made me double think things. Most of the time I felt as if I was splitting hairs between the Gilmore Lite and my EC2A3 and it should be noted that these amps aren’t even in the same price range, yet the Lite compared very favorably under meet listening conditions.
___________________

In general, I didn’t find it so easy to listen and detect or at least try identifying or comparing the difference between amps with attendees talking and moving about in the background. And what if anything that I did notice, it seemed only minor or trivial. I suppose everything at the meet to some degree or another sounded good. And as I’ve indicated meet conditions coupled with the lack of time I had to carefully listen and compare made it difficult since even under ideal conditions it takes time to properly evaluate an amp or even the difference between two amps before anyone should actually reach any valid conclusions.

Still have a few more amps to go…

RS Audio and Eddie Current….
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top