[philydh]

Hi. Sorry if this is a newbie question, off topic or has been answered already but I have googled it and would like to check before buying this amp... Why are people using very long, Unsightly and sometimes even two cables to connect the pha-2 to an android device such as the xperia z1. Surley there must be a micro usb to micros usb OTG cable and a short and nice looking one at that? thanks in advance guys. 
 
I guess I want a neat connection. just one wire. as such for a usb B connection...http://www.head-fi.org/t/666267/diy-otg-micro-usb-b-cable-to-usb-b-tutorial.  If i can use something like this then great.

 

[FiJAAS]

I finally found a new Lowepro Rezo 60 case at a good price. I'm happy becuase sellers on Amazon have what's left of these at extreme high prices:

 

[HiFiGuy528]

NEW!  Sony PHA-1a
 

 

[Mickice]

My guess would be the PHA-1A is a budget dac while the PHA-3 is top of the line?

 

[FiJAAS]

Hey guys I'm ready to make my purchase but now I need help deciding between the Fostex HP-P1 or the Sony PHA-1. I will use either one primarily with the iPod Classic.

I understand that the HP-P1 can be used as a transport and connected to a home media center and the PHA-1 could be connected to a PC/Mac as a Dac and Amp. As for portability the HP-P1 offers about 7 hours of battery and the PHA-1 offers about 5 hours of battery.

I would like to know which one is more worth it in the long run and most of all which one sounds the best.

I currently have Shure SE215 and Audio Technica ATH-M50. I eventually plan on to upgrade to the Shure SE535 and Beyerdynamic DT-770 250 Ohms.

I also have my compact discs ripped and converted to ALAC.

Hope this information is useful, I'm sure I'll enjoy either product. Thanks!

 

[AUDIOBREEDER]

I have both and to tell you the truth I like the PHA1 more as the bass is deep with rumble. HP-P1 is great when i'm in an analytical mood and separation is great with UM3X. (had the 4r but got fed up with it)

 

[Bill-P]

Just as above. I don't have either of them anymore, but from memory, it's essentially like this:

Bass: PHA-1 has more of this. In fact, a bit too much with certain headphones. Also bass can be too loose with PHA-1. HP-P1 doesn't have the quantity, but it makes up for that with quality bass that's clean, clear, and very well extended.

Midrange: PHA-1 sounds a bit distant, and a bit grainy here. HP-P1 has a smoother, warmer, and more lush midrange. Also PHA-1 sounds dark-ish, a bit uninvolved, and a bit more muddled, whereas HP-P1 is more forward, cleaner, clearer, all at the expense of possible sibilance, but it never quite gets sibilant.

Treble: HP-1 is smoother, well extended, and more open. PHA-1 sounds a bit more rolled off, less clean/clear, and less separated.

Soundstage: HP-P1 is deeper by far, but width is just okay. PHA-1 is wider, but not as deep.

Imaging: HP-P1 is more precise, incisive, and sharp. PHA-1 has a more diffused, more blurry, and more indistinct imaging.

Tonality: HP-P1 is more coherent top to bottom, and sound flows in a continuous pattern. PHA-1 is a bit off at upper midrange and lower treble, but it's fairly coherent everywhere else.

I'd take PHA-1, because it's more versatile, and can be had cheaper than HP-P1. But if sound quality was my main concern, I'd go with HP-P1.

 

[FiJAAS]

Just as above. I don't have either of them anymore, but from memory, it's essentially like this:

Bass: PHA-1 has more of this. In fact, a bit too much with certain headphones. Also bass can be too loose with PHA-1. HP-P1 doesn't have the quantity, but it makes up for that with quality bass that's clean, clear, and very well extended.

Midrange: PHA-1 sounds a bit distant, and a bit grainy here. HP-P1 has a smoother, warmer, and more lush midrange. Also PHA-1 sounds dark-ish, a bit uninvolved, and a bit more muddled, whereas HP-P1 is more forward, cleaner, clearer, all at the expense of possible sibilance, but it never quite gets sibilant.

Treble: HP-1 is smoother, well extended, and more open. PHA-1 sounds a bit more rolled off, less clean/clear, and less separated.

Soundstage: HP-P1 is deeper by far, but width is just okay. PHA-1 is wider, but not as deep.

Imaging: HP-P1 is more precise, incisive, and sharp. PHA-1 has a more diffused, more blurry, and more indistinct imaging.

Tonality: HP-P1 is more coherent top to bottom, and sound flows in a continuous pattern. PHA-1 is a bit off at upper midrange and lower treble, but it's fairly coherent everywhere else.

I'd take PHA-1, because it's more versatile, and can be had cheaper than HP-P1. But if sound quality was my main concern, I'd go with HP-P1.

Seems like the HP-P1 is the better choice unless you need a dac/amp for your desktop or pc.

How is the PHA-2? Is it better than the HP-P1?

 

[fuzzzy]

I still have my PHA-1 and I still like it. Usually use it with the direct connection to Ipod or phone.
 
Yesterday I compared the PHA to Astel & Kern 240 and to the Sennheiser HDCD-800 desktop amp using Organ music recorded binaurally with good microphones. This was done by carrying the mics upstarts and close to the Organ chest with some of the pipes behind and some in the front. Also the air pressure is audible as is the action for the 16 stop. This makes for an interesting 3 dimensional soundscape and plenty of space then can easily be lost and a less then perfect converter and amp. Headphones used HD-800 and Stax 007.
 
The big Sennheiser amp easily takes the cake but the PHA is a surprisingly close race and in my opinion it looks like I actually prefer it to the Astel &Kern as its got a cleaner less and vailed top range with better transients and punch. The A&K is clean and analog sounding but it also covers up a bid of the very distant space that is behind the pipes where the sound comes back from the wall behind and helps to place the different pipes in space. With the Sennheiser these can clearly be placed and one could reach out and point out every not. With the A&K it i not possible to quite place the pipes further back or isolate the individual notes. The PHA is not as accurate but surprisingly the action sounds are in space rather then just noise overlaying the sound and the spacing between the pipes is there enough where it becomes almost the magic of actually sittting in the organ space watching the action spring to life with every note. Not quite but close. Considering cost it is no surprise that the Sennheiser would be better by a wide margin but the outcome between the A&K and the PHA-1 makes me consider sending the A&K240  one back even though it is so much more practical with the much better user interface then Ipods etc. I would consider PHA-3 if that is an improvement and it seems likely that it is, it might be worth what is asked for it.  

 

[jkwanness]

  I still have my PHA-1 and I still like it. Usually use it with the direct connection to Ipod or phone.
 
Yesterday I compared the PHA to Astel & Kern 240 and to the Sennheiser HDCD-800 desktop amp using Organ music recorded binaurally with good microphones. This was done by carrying the mics upstarts and close to the Organ chest with some of the pipes behind and some in the front. Also the air pressure is audible as is the action for the 16 stop. This makes for an interesting 3 dimensional soundscape and plenty of space then can easily be lost and a less then perfect converter and amp. Headphones used HD-800 and Stax 007.
 
The big Sennheiser amp easily takes the cake but the PHA is a surprisingly close race and in my opinion it looks like I actually prefer it to the Astel &Kern as its got a cleaner less and vailed top range with better transients and punch. The A&K is clean and analog sounding but it also covers up a bid of the very distant space that is behind the pipes where the sound comes back from the wall behind and helps to place the different pipes in space. With the Sennheiser these can clearly be placed and one could reach out and point out every not. With the A&K it i not possible to quite place the pipes further back or isolate the individual notes. The PHA is not as accurate but surprisingly the action sounds are in space rather then just noise overlaying the sound and the spacing between the pipes is there enough where it becomes almost the magic of actually sittting in the organ space watching the action spring to life with every note. Not quite but close. Considering cost it is no surprise that the Sennheiser would be better by a wide margin but the outcome between the A&K and the PHA-1 makes me consider sending the A&K240  one back even though it is so much more practical with the much better user interface then Ipods etc. I would consider PHA-3 if that is an improvement and it seems likely that it is, it might be worth what is asked for it.  

 
Good to hear that the PHA-1 is performing close to AK240, yeah i love the versatility of it and iPods just really can't be beaten... I'm thinking of upgrading to PHA-3, but so far not many reviews for it :\....Maybe time will tell.. I really miss my HD800 :'( 

 

[fuzzzy]

I do wonder about the PHA3. It seems the 2 added high resolution and the 3 added balanced. Soundquality can't go up all that much, maybe more marketing by adding features that sell. Meanwhile the PHA1 price has gone down and it maybe quite a good deal compared $900 plus for the 3. I would not pay much money for the balanced feature. I hope I can get one to try without a hard purchase.

 

[jkwanness]

I already have the PHA-1 with the legend EX1000, this is sort of my retirement rig.. I love the combo and can't really find no fault with them. Could use a longer battery life and more isolation though lols... Thinking of the PHA-3 is as a case of upgradatitis i guess ... just wondering if it will improve the sound even with a balanced EX1000... maybe i'm just greedy hahaha!

 

[fuzzzy]

Is this right or wrong? 

???
 

 
 
Actually it is quite right as the Astell&Kern has quite a low output for hi Z phones and the Sony fixes that quite favorably.
 
It kind of defeats the Astell's portability, though.

 

[jkwanness]

  Is this right or wrong? 

???
 

 
 
Actually it is quite right as the Astell&Kern has quite a low output for hi Z phones and the Sony fixes that quite favorably.
 
It kind of defeats the Astell's portability, though.

 
HAHAHA this pic makes me a proud owner of the PHA-1. The difference in sq really not that big? Looks like a downgrade to me going through the PHA-1

 

[fuzzzy]

Unless you got a lot of dough I would be quite comfortable sound wise with the Sony PHA1. Really not bad. It holds up well to my ears with decades of experience. There is better, but it is incremental, matters with classical acoustic music, pipe organ, that sort of thing. I hammered some live recordings through these setup and the Astell lost big time on that test. Simply due to lack of power, even with good sound. Some times I like concert levels. I will go deaf anyway one day and have a contract with my local hearing aid place already. Still tempted to give the PHA3 a try.