[Giupy]

  oh that's not what I heard... the RCA out still uses the X7's amp... it uses its speaker amp.

Well, yeah, if you put speakers via RCA, sure. If not, what is it going to amplify? The next amplified in the line? No, you just get the signal, you use the amplification of the last amplifier that your signal goes through.

Either way, the Liquid Carbon is a good end game amp, it doesn't need any help with anything. Also it's kind of a shame to use it with RCA, because it has XLR ins and outs.

If you want to pair up the LC with something, get a good DAC to go with it. Of course you could use the DAC on the X7, there's no problem in that.

 

[TimeLord]

  oh that's not what I heard... the RCA out still uses the X7's amp... it uses its speaker amp.

Quote:

 
Well, yeah, if you put speakers via RCA, sure. If not, what is it going to amplify? The next amplified in the line? No, you just get the signal, you use the amplification of the last amplifier that your signal goes through.

Either way, the Liquid Carbon is a good end game amp, it doesn't need any help with anything. Also it's kind of a shame to use it with RCA, because it has XLR ins and outs.

If you want to pair up the LC with something, get a good DAC to go with it. Of course you could use the DAC on the X7, there's no problem in that.

There is quite a difference in the signal that is coming out of a DAC as Line Level versus what is coming out of a DAC that has gone through the headphone or speaker amplification stage. The Line Level output has a much higher impedance (over 100 Ohms) compared to the headphone or speaker output (anticipating the even higher impedance (10k Ohms) that the Line Level receiving amplifier has such as the Liquid Carbon) and has been optimized for low distortion and noise.
 
I just checked the specifications for the X7 and the rear RCA Line-out and the rear 3.5 mm Line-out would be what you would want to connect to the Liquid Carbon. Connecting it this way should by-pass the headphone amplification circuit and provide you a Line Level output that would avoid double amplification.
 
The X7 does have speaker connections that would drive speakers, but you won't be using those. If you connect the RCA out to speakers, the speakers have to be powered speakers. The RCA out will not drive speakers.

 

[Mentis]

There is quite a difference in the signal that is coming out of a DAC as Line Level versus what is coming out of a DAC that has gone through the headphone or speaker amplification stage. The Line Level output has a much higher impedance (over 100 Ohms) compared to the headphone or speaker output (anticipating the even higher impedance (10k Ohms) that the Line Level receiving amplifier has such as the Liquid Carbon) and has been optimized for low distortion and noise.

I just checked the specifications for the X7 and the rear RCA Line-out and the rear 3.5 mm Line-out would be what you would want to connect to the Liquid Carbon. Connecting it this way should by-pass the headphone amplification circuit and provide you a Line Level output that would avoid double amplification.

The X7 does have speaker connections that would drive speakers, but you won't be using those. If you connect the RCA out to speakers, the speakers have to be powered speakers. The RCA out will not drive speakers.

The problem with RCA out is the SBX for headphone won't work. That's what I read from the Creative X7 thread. It has to be connected to front 3.5 or 1/4 inch to work.

 

[TimeLord]

The problem with RCA out is the SBX for headphone won't work. That's what I read from the Creative X7 thread. It has to be connected to front 3.5 or 1/4 inch to work.

I guess SBX and other digital processing is a personal choice, but a lot of folks including me prefer not to have extraneous digital processing. My ideal is to have neutral components all along the signal chain that will let the music speak for itself. Of course ideals are not reality.

 

[Giupy]

The problem with RCA out is the SBX for headphone won't work. That's what I read from the Creative X7 thread. It has to be connected to front 3.5 or 1/4 inch to work.

Do you really need it, though? I mean, you won't need the extra dynamic range from the Crystalizer. You probably don't need the Bass setting, considering that you're going for the Ether C. The Smart Volume was made with a multi-channel of 5.1 or 7.1 in mind and seems a bit redundant on headphones. It basically boils down to EQ and gain, which you can do in your player, for the most part.

You have the virtual surround which can be done by using other software, maybe some can do it even better. Well, some free ones, maybe. I know Out of Your Head does a far better job than the Creative software ever did for me, but that one costs money.

Also, from my experience with the Sound Blaster Zx, these tend to provide distortion when used. It would be a shame to alter the sound of headphones of such clarity.

 

[Mentis]

  Do you really need it, though? I mean, you won't need the extra dynamic range from the Crystalizer. You probably don't need the Bass setting, considering that you're going for the Ether C. The Smart Volume was made with a multi-channel of 5.1 or 7.1 in mind and seems a bit redundant on headphones. It basically boils down to EQ and gain, which you can do in your player, for the most part.

You have the virtual surround which can be done by using other software, maybe some can do it even better. Well, some free ones, maybe. I know Out of Your Head does a far better job than the Creative software ever did for me, but that one costs money.

Also, from my experience with the Sound Blaster Zx, these tend to provide distortion when used. It would be a shame to alter the sound of headphones of such clarity.

but that defeats the purpose of purchasing the X7's no?

 

[boogie6301]

This is a nice thread dedicated to closed headphones.

I agree with an earlier post where generally open headphones are better than closed. Imo open headphones come closer to the experience of listening to room speakers than closed. However, what one considers best is driven by preference and there is no single headphone that will be best for all users and genre.

I have the T1 and LCD3 which are both open. I believe you need at least 2 headphones to find a good (not best) match with all genre. I prefer the T1 for Jazz and live performances where I want to hear all the details albeit fatiguing (you hear both the good and bad details...no way around it). I use the LCD3 for rock and pop where generally mastering engineers don't bother spreading the various instruments across the soundstage.

I still use and own closed headphones too. My primary use of closed headphones is for isolation, i.e. when in the office, public commuting and even at home when in the bedroom or living room so as not to disturb others. Closed headphones to me should be relatively portable, not bulky or heavy and easy to drive with a DAP (I no longer consider a 2 or 3 stack setup as portable). This will eliminate the XC and Alpha Prime for me.

Like my open headphones I need at least two. Currently I have the Focal Spirit Professional for home use and the NAD HP50 in the office. Their sound profile is very close. The HP50 has more bass but i prefer the Focal being more naturally sounding. I'm still looking for an LCD3 equivalent for a closed can. I've been eyeing the Focal Classic but I pre-ordered the Fostex TH-X00. I hope the Fostex will complete my collection of 2 open and 2 closed cans. By the way, for ultra portability I have the Unique Melody Mason iem that offers the best of both worlds (T1 and LCD3) to my ears.

 

[inthere]

This is a nice thread dedicated to closed headphones.

I agree with an earlier post where generally open headphones are better than closed. Imo open headphones come closer to the experience of listening to room speakers than closed. However, what one considers best is driven by preference and there is no single headphone that will be best for all users and genre.

I have the T1 and LCD3 which are both open. I believe you need at least 2 headphones to find a good (not best) match with all genre. I prefer the T1 for Jazz and live performances where I want to hear all the details albeit fatiguing (you hear both the good and bad details...no way around it). I use the LCD3 for rock and pop where generally mastering engineers don't bother spreading the various instruments across the soundstage.

I still use and own closed headphones too. My primary use of closed headphones is for isolation, i.e. when in the office, public commuting and even at home when in the bedroom or living room so as not to disturb others. Closed headphones to me should be relatively portable, not bulky or heavy and easy to drive with a DAP (I no longer consider a 2 or 3 stack setup as portable). This will eliminate the XC and Alpha Prime for me.

Like my open headphones I need at least two. Currently I have the Focal Spirit Professional for home use and the NAD HP50 in the office. Their sound profile is very close. The HP50 has more bass but i prefer the Focal being more naturally sounding. I'm still looking for an LCD3 equivalent for a closed can. I've been eyeing the Focal Classic but I pre-ordered the Fostex TH-X00. I hope the Fostex will complete my collection of 2 open and 2 closed cans. By the way, for ultra portability I have the Unique Melody Mason iem that offers the best of both worlds (T1 and LCD3) to my ears.

 
For a closed, look into the Hifiman Edition S or the Audeze Sine with Cipher Cable. The Edition S is extremely cool because you can take off the covers and change it to open. It's also half the price of the Sine.

 

[boogie6301]

For a closed, look into the Hifiman Edition S or the Audeze Sine with Cipher Cable. The Edition S is extremely cool because you can take off the covers and change it to open. It's also half the price of the Sine.

Thanks for the tip. I will try this out when it becomes available.

 

[goobicii]

soundstage width  TH900 vs Ether C.....which one is WIDER?             if LCD2/3 is zero and HD800 is ten,how wide are Ether C and TH900?  

 

[Rebelranger]

  soundstage width  TH900 vs Ether C.....which one is WIDER?             if LCD2/3 is zero and HD800 is ten,how wide are Ether C and TH900?  

This is a great question I wonder if anyone can give an opinion if not give a range of where they fall between the 2.

 

[TimeLord]

 
This is a great question I wonder if anyone can give an opinion if not give a range of where they fall between the 2.

I found it to be a strange question, because it assumes the TH900 and Ether C both have wider sound stages than the LCD 2 and LCD 3. The Audeze headphones are not lacking in sound stage width. And considering the TH900 and the Ether C are both closed-back designs, they likely will not have as large a sound stage as the LCDs, although I haven't done direct comparisons to test for this.
 
So based on the parameters of the question, the TH900 and the Ether C would be measuring in negative territory.

 

[Rebelranger]

I found it to be a strange question, because it assumes the TH900 and Ether C both have wider sound stages than the LCD 2 and LCD 3. The Audeze headphones are not lacking in sound stage width. And considering the TH900 and the Ether C are both closed-back designs, they likely will not have as large a sound stage as the LCDs, although I haven't done direct comparisons to test for this.

So based on the parameters of the question, the TH900 and the Ether C would be measuring in negative territory.

But if one feels the TH900 or the Ether C were outside those parameters, wouldn't one say so and move the parameters to fit
Maybe I misunderstood. To me the way you put it it's like comparing apples to oranges. Then the answer is you can't compare these headphones this way.
I do understand that leaving the question as is, would be putting the TH900 and the Ether C in negative territory.
And no offense or argument intended

 

[noplsestar]

  For those interested I added my opinion of the ETHER C vs these other closed headphones in the first/second post!

Did you use the 1.1 upgrade for your comparison or the original one? Because the 1.1 version is said to have quite more bass.

 

[Age8E]

I like what I read about the Fostex TH900s, except for the fact that they are said to be leaky. Can anyone recommend a set of closed back phones to me that are similar but have good isolation? It's fine if they're slightly more neutral than the 900s, as long as the bass is comparable.
 
I was also interested in the Audeze LCD-XCs, though I've heard they are somewhat fatiguing both in terms of sound and weight.