[kapanak]

For me, the Auralic Vega is the DAC endpoint goal.

 

[wahsmoh]

I don't want to derail the thread from the point of the topic which is the HD800. Does anyone have experience though with the new Aune S16 DAC? It uses the new AKM4495EQ which has selectable filters and is 32-bit/768k DSD, DXD capable. It also has two Crystek VCXOs which aren't cheap and has a balanced DAC section with SE built-in headphone amp. My goal though is to use it primarily as a DAC. It is also $599 online with suggested retail of $699 but has top quality components.

 

[zilch0md]

 
This begs the question, does a DAC such as Octave or M51 leave one wanting a better front end for the HD800 or will it satisfy so that one can spend one's time/money pursuing great music?  And if this level DAC is not an end point, is a PWD or Yggdrasil or Hex, or BADA or QB-9 an end point, or does it never end? 

 
It seems there's always room for improvement with the HD800 - the more you give it, the more it rewards - but, somewhat in answer to your question, I can say that the non-oversampling Metrum Octave MkII had a much more dramatic impact on satisfying the HD800, in replacing my use of the OPPO HA-1's oversampling ESS9018 DAC, than the improvement made by the Metrum Aurix amp (with its minimalist design allowing me to hear the DAC with very little influence), above what I was already enjoying with the very affordable NuForce HA-200 - an inherently, low-feedback, truly single-ended, Class A amp that in and of itself offered a big improvement over the OPPO HA-1's amp section (which I absolutely love for use with every headphone other than the HD800).
 
OK, that was a mouthful, but it might make sense if you read it twice.  

 
Breaking it down like this might help...
 
OPPO HA-1 DAC > HA-1 amp > HD800 --- This was unacceptably bright, fatiguing, analytical, sterile, brittle, sibilant.
 
Metrum Octave MkII > HA-1 amp > HD800 --- This was a huge improvement, making the HD800 a "keeper" after seven months of love/hate relationship and thinking about selling it.  It was suddenly much less fatiguing, more natural sounding, not nearly as sterile, but there was still a lingering brittle edginess to the treble - not as bad as with the ESS9018, but there, nevertheless.
 
Metrum Octave MkII > NuForce HA-200 > HD800 --- This was my "final solution" for about three months (ending suddenly with a good sale price on the Aurix) and I still feel comfortable recommending the NuForce HA-200 - independent of its low cost. I could honestly live with this chain for the HD800, forever.  The HA-200's contribution took away the last remaining brittleness, but it does so with a wee bit of compromise to detail retrieval compared to the Metrum Aurix. In a way, it's slightly more forgiving than the Aurix with bad recordings, but not overly so - certainly not to the point I can't enjoy the detail of well-mastered recordings with the HA-200.  
 
Metrum Octave MkII > Metrum Aurix > HD800 --- This is my current "final solution" for the HD800.  

  In overall bang-for-the-buck at dealing with the HD800, there wasn't much the Aurix could do to improve on the NuForce HA-200, but in terms of traits that have nothing to do with "fixing" the HD800, the Aurix has been very rewarding. The Aurix is higher resolving and more transparent than the HA-200 (this is almost a tie, so don't imagine the difference here to be dramatic.)   But unlike the OPPO HA-1, which is also highly resolving and transparent, the Aurix is just as non-fatiguing, non-analytical, non-brittle, and non-sibilant as the HA-200. And better still, the Aurix has a natural, euphonic, analog, organic quality that's not in the least bit colored or thick or syrupy, but rather like the best of neutral and un-tube-like tube amps, more so when the Aurix gain switch is set to 10 dB, engaging the step-up transformer.  But again, this difficult to describe bonus of the Aurix is very subtle - not dramatic - it's more like the absence of something distracting than the presence of something attractive. It's more like the removal of what we associate with solid state reproduction. 
 
I think the hero of this last chain, for making the HD800 happy in a pro-active way, is the Octave MkII. The minimalist, zero-feedback Aurix, on the other hand, is exceedingly passive in its contributions, even with 10 dB of Gain engaged - it's just getting out of the DAC's way, except to displace other amps that were themselves, to varying degrees, a source of irritation, or at least, limitation for the HD800.
 

Spoiler: A previously posted pic...

 
Mike

 

[longbowbbs]

I have been enjoying the Wyred 4 Sound DAC2 DSDse for a while now and it is a great combo with the HD800's. They have a great deal on the DAC1 atm which now can do DSD.

 

[olor1n]

This begs the question, does a DAC such as Octave or M51 leave one wanting a better front end for the HD800 or will it satisfy so that one can spend one's time/money pursuing great music?  And if this level DAC is not an end point, is a PWD or Yggdrasil or Hex, or BADA or QB-9 an end point, or does it never end? 

 
Only you can answer that question.
 
I've lived with the M51 for some time and have not once entertained the notion of upgrading, despite the plethora of components that have since entered the market and garnered praise. My previous dac, the Gungnir, presented great bang for buck, but there were aspects of its sound signature with the HD800 that I just couldn't live with (fatiguing, particularly when paired with the Mjolnir). The M51 alleviated all of that and I didn't have to pay megabucks for it ($1.2kAUD at the time). I'm sure there are much better dacs now, but I suspect that perceived improvements would be quite subtle and, for me, not worth the effort and expense. I'm happy to remain blissfully ignorant though.
 
Everyone here is aware of how a minute change can make or break an HD800 system. Every single step in my chain has a bearing - from my playback software, to the M51's firmware, to even the cables I use. My system is dialled in "just right" for my preferences and it's cured me of audionervosa and upgraditis. For me, it's been "end game" for a long time. The only component that's drawn my attention is the Schiit Rag amp, but that will only be a serious consideration when I can accommodate speakers in my system.

 

[johnjen]

  There is a reason it sounds wider. Some of the available "width" info is being "masked" be the "resonance" that the grilles were causing.(Spatial cues are much easier to hear when you start removing mechanical colorations that the headphones are producing)
 
Joni Mitchell sums this up perfectly in the lyric from "Big Yellow Taxi" ..."You don't know what you've got til it's gone !"

 
Um, that may or may not be the ‘source’’ of the pinched width of the sound stage.
 
My SAA modded 800's have no shelf liner, creatology foam, felt, nor inner covers, and the spatial cues are pinpoint precise and expansive, where the recording calls for such.
 
I suspect there are 'other' influences at play.
 
But what I do notice as a result of all of these (Anax & SAA) mods, is a major reduction in LFF (Listener Fatigue Factor), which 'allows' me to turn up the DRC (Dynamic Range Control, aka, the volume control), to 'higher' levels before I reach 'too much' and don't wish to go any higher, mostly due to the (lack of) ‘comfort' level of the SPL (Sound Pressure Level).  
When the LFF is improved, by whatever means, the SQ raises accordingly.  
I hear this as an increase in the degree of being ‘in focus’, for the entire acoustic presentation.  
And interestingly, as the LFF is improved, this 'additional' degree of being ‘in focus’ remains quite evident, even when the volume is turned down.
 
What this allows is a greater dynamic range in the playback of the music, which in turn increases all of the subtle cues (spatiality, and all the other related harmonics associated to each instrument/voice), not to mention better bass due to our hearing's natural frequency gain of the low end, as the overall SPL is raised.  
 
And there seems to be another 'mechanism' at play as well.
As the 'choke points' in the entire system are ameliorated, the overall 'get out of its own way' factor 'allows' more of the original signal to arrive at the transducers, in the first place.
And
As we reduce the transducers ‘unwanted/undesirable’ acoustic 'traits', this can also 'allow' more of the actual signal to be heard, because these ‘bad’ traits no longer act as a 'mask', which means the need for further masking the mask, can become both unnecessary to begin with, and unwanted.
 
But as we all know improvements to the transducer (speakers, headphones) are usually most effective.
And these types of mods, such as adding masking with foam/felt, experimental removal of 'extra' parts (grills, etc), have been popular forever.  
And further it is also commonly held that these sorts of improvements can sometimes be quite significant, as is the case before us.
So it can be a challenge for us DIY’rs to figure out the ‘best’ balance between different mods.
 
Which has lead me to the understanding that as further 'choke points' are removed from the system, it is able to resolve to even greater degrees of inner definition, and be able to deliver 'more' of each instrument/voice, with a greater sense of acoustic 'realness' as the level of precision and resolution is increased.
 
That's another thing I’ve noticed, namely, as our systems become more and more precise and resolving, it becomes all to easy to assign causation of the undesirable sonic traits, to an incorrect originating source of the 'irritation'.
But not always…  
Like, with some 800's that have a 'resonant?' peak in the ≈ 5-8KHz region.
Or (fill in your favorite example here)…
 
But with any reduction of the causes of LFF, the overall sound level seems to lower at the same time that the DRC has been raised.  Which is rather curious, if you think about it. (I raise the DRC and the volume goes down????)   

Because now, to reach the same level of LFF as before the last improvement of LFF, the DRC needs to be increased, even further… 
 
It sounds like the acoustic presentation seems to present less ‘energy’ (SPL). And due to the reduction of the causative factors of LFF and other choke points, the available acoustic energy seems more tightly ‘bound’ to its original ‘parent’/source. 
 
Which points back to the increase in the Dynamic Range, because while there is less ‘smeared’ acoustic energy (since more of it is ‘bound’ to its acoustic source), the amount of silence between individual notes for each instrument/voice/source of acoustic energy, has increased.  And so there is a greater amount of time where less acoustic energy is being generated, and we can perceive this as lower SPL. 
 
IOW, when the amount of available acoustic energy is aligned and associated more precisely and accurately with its original source, there is more complete coupling of the original sonic signal to its re-created acoustical cousin, which also means there is less acoustic energy where it doesn’t belong.
 
Which is another way of saying the sound level seems to drop due to the reduction of LFF, as the entire system has gotten ‘out of it’s own way’, all the more.
 
And, "You don't know what you've got til it's gone !" indeed!  :thumb
 
 
JJ

 

[V-DiV]

  Metrum Octave MkII > Metrum Aurix > HD800 --- This is my current "final solution" for the HD800.  

  
 

 
If I end up with the Octave, I will definitely give the Aurix serious consideration.  Sounds like a great pair.  I'm drawn to this company designing its rather unique circuits.
 
 

  I have been enjoying the Wyred 4 Sound DAC2 DSDse for a while now and it is a great combo with the HD800's. They have a great deal on the DAC1 atm which now can do DSD.

 
The DAC1 deal is definitely tempting even though I am more drawn to non-Sabre DACs.  But it's also DSD capable.  Hmmm, resolution vs. the possibility of harsh treble with HD800???
 
 

   
Only you can answer that question.
 
I've lived with the M51 for some time and have not once entertained the notion of upgrading

 
That's what I'm talking about!  Maybe my HD800 wants that high up-sampling smoothness of the M51.

 

[knowhatimean]

 

  There is a reason it sounds wider. Some of the available "width" info is being "masked" be the "resonance" that the grilles were causing.(Spatial cues are much easier to hear when you start removing mechanical colorations that the headphones are producing)
 
Joni Mitchell sums this up perfectly in the lyric from "Big Yellow Taxi" ..."You don't know what you've got til it's gone !"

 
Um, that may or may not be the ‘source’’ of the pinched width of the sound stage.
 
My SAA modded 800's have no shelf liner, creatology foam, felt, nor inner covers, and the spatial cues are pinpoint precise and expansive, where the recording calls for such.
 
I suspect there are 'other' influences at play.
 
But what I do notice as a result of all of these (Anax & SAA) mods, is a major reduction in LFF (Listener Fatigue Factor), which 'allows' me to turn up the DRC (Dynamic Range Control, aka, the volume control), to 'higher' levels before I reach 'too much' and don't wish to go any higher, mostly due to the (lack of) ‘comfort' level of the SPL (Sound Pressure Level).  
When the LFF is improved, by whatever means, the SQ raises accordingly.  
I hear this as an increase in the degree of being ‘in focus’, for the entire acoustic presentation.  
And interestingly, as the LFF is improved, this 'additional' degree of being ‘in focus’ remains quite evident, even when the volume is turned down.
 
What this allows is a greater dynamic range in the playback of the music, which in turn increases all of the subtle cues (spatiality, and all the other related harmonics associated to each instrument/voice), not to mention better bass due to our hearing's natural frequency gain of the low end, as the overall SPL is raised.  
 
And there seems to be another 'mechanism' at play as well.
As the 'choke points' in the entire system are ameliorated, the overall 'get out of its own way' factor 'allows' more of the original signal to arrive at the transducers, in the first place.
And
As we reduce the transducers ‘unwanted/undesirable’ acoustic 'traits', this can also 'allow' more of the actual signal to be heard, because these ‘bad’ traits no longer act as a 'mask', which means the need for further masking the mask, can become both unnecessary to begin with, and unwanted.
 
But as we all know improvements to the transducer (speakers, headphones) are usually most effective.
And these types of mods, such as adding masking with foam/felt, experimental removal of 'extra' parts (grills, etc), have been popular forever.  
And further it is also commonly held that these sorts of improvements can sometimes be quite significant, as is the case before us.
So it can be a challenge for us DIY’rs to figure out the ‘best’ balance between different mods.
 
Which has lead me to the understanding that as further 'choke points' are removed from the system, it is able to resolve to even greater degrees of inner definition, and be able to deliver 'more' of each instrument/voice, with a greater sense of acoustic 'realness' as the level of precision and resolution is increased.
 
That's another thing I’ve noticed, as our systems become more and more precise and resolving, it becomes all to easy to assign causation of the undesirable sonic traits, to an incorrect originating source of the 'irritation'.
But not always…  
Like, with some 800's that have a 'resonant?' peak in the ≈ 5-8KHz region.
Or (fill in your favorite example here)…
 
But with any reduction of the causes of LFF, the overall sound level seems to lower at the same time that the DRC has been raised.  Which is rather curious, if you think about it. (I raise the DRC and the volume goes down????)  
Because now, to reach the same level of LFF as before the last improvement of LFF, the DRC needs to be increased, even further… 
 
It sounds like the acoustic presentation seems to present less ‘energy’ (SPL). And due to the reduction of the causative factors of LFF and other choke points, the available acoustic energy seems more tightly ‘bound’ to its original ‘parent’/source. 
 
Which points back to the increase in the Dynamic Range, because while there is less ‘smeared’ acoustic energy (since more of it is ‘bound’ to its acoustic source), the amount of silence between individual notes for each instrument/voice/source of acoustic energy, has increased.  And so there is a greater amount of time where less acoustic energy is being generated, and we can perceive this as lower SPL. 
 
IOW, when the amount of available acoustic energy is aligned and associated more precisely and accurately with its original source, there is more complete coupling of the original sonic signal to its re-created acoustical cousin, which also means there is less acoustic energy where it doesn’t belong.
 
Which is another way of saying the sound level seems to drop due to the reduction of LFF, as the entire system has gotten ‘out of it’s own way’, all the more.
 
And, "You don't know what you've got til it's gone !" indeed!  :thumb
 
 
JJ

"LFF" I like this term tremendously & I'm sure I will have occasion to use it. Fortunately it doesn't appear to be that symptomatic
of my listening lately 
(He says as he gives a repeat listen to Paul Lewis & the BBC SO proceed through Beethoven's "Emperor
Concerto; if only he would take the same tempi that Kempf takes in the Adagio this would be the "perfect" Emperor)...(Sorry, lost my
train of thought, but I think "it's returned to the Station).
 
You given me much food for thought here as I believe we're on the same page. I tend to be a bit less diplomatic in calling real time
acoustic energy events, colorations, as the former simply takes many more keystrokes to describe & certain aural elements are
plainly discernable as not being part of the sound that originates from a recording. particularly when you don't hear the same colorations of the same music in question played through a different tansducer..
 
I may have other "semi-literate" points I had intended to discuss , but I have prior engagement to attend to so I'll say as A. Hitchcock
would say "Good Eeeev-ening"(cue the Victor Herbert music)

 

[olor1n]

@V-DiV - I implore you to give the latest version of Audirvana+ (2.0.9) a trial. I haven't used Fidelia for a while but I did prefer the older versions of Audirvana to it. This latest iteration though is something else. The staging is greatly improved and there is added weight to the low end. The upper registers are smoother, without sacrificing resolution. It seems more resolving as previously subtle cues now shimmer with detail. The smoothness and lack of fatigue temps me every time to crank my amp beyond my normal (sensible) listening levels. I've always maintained that the HD800 was a rocking headphone but it's gone up a notch of late. The improvements in sq are quite apparent through my system.

 

[V-DiV]

I'll definitely give it a try.  Have you compared it to Amarra?

 

[johnjen]

  "LFF" I like this term tremendously & I'm sure I will have occasion to use it. Fortunately it doesn't appear to be that symptomatic
of my listening lately 
(He says as he gives a repeat listen to Paul Lewis & the BBC SO proceed through Beethoven's "Emperor
Concerto; if only he would take the same tempi that Kempf takes in the Adagio this would be the "perfect" Emperor)...(Sorry, lost my
train of thought, but I think "it's returned to the Station).
 
You given me much food for thought here as I believe we're on the same page. I tend to be a bit less diplomatic in calling real time
acoustic energy events, colorations, as the former simply takes many more keystrokes to describe & certain aural elements are
plainly discernable as not being part of the sound that originates from a recording. particularly when you don't hear the same colorations of the same music in question played through a different tansducer..
 
I may have other "semi-literate" points I had intended to discuss , but I have prior engagement to attend to so I'll say as A. Hitchcock
would say "Good Eeeev-ening"(cue the Victor Herbert music)

I look forward to reading your thoughts.  :thumb
 
And when the 'mechanism' of LFF first 'appeared' on my 'radar' it struck me as 'important'.
The thing is I'm not sure I could 'define it' well enough to use it to 'point at' some fundamental source or cause of what is a fairly common 'problem', namely what is 'Listener Fatigue', really…
 
It seems fairly obvious when we hear it, but taking the next step to define it, seems just outside of my/our grasp, at least for now.
 
JJ

 

[knowhatimean]

 

  "LFF" I like this term tremendously & I'm sure I will have occasion to use it. Fortunately it doesn't appear to be that symptomatic
of my listening lately 
(He says as he gives a repeat listen to Paul Lewis & the BBC SO proceed through Beethoven's "Emperor
Concerto; if only he would take the same tempi that Kempf takes in the Adagio this would be the "perfect" Emperor)...(Sorry, lost my
train of thought, but I think "it's returned to the Station).
 
You given me much food for thought here as I believe we're on the same page. I tend to be a bit less diplomatic in calling real time
acoustic energy events, colorations, as the former simply takes many more keystrokes to describe & certain aural elements are
plainly discernable as not being part of the sound that originates from a recording. particularly when you don't hear the same colorations of the same music in question played through a different tansducer..
 
I may have other "semi-literate" points I had intended to discuss , but I have prior engagement to attend to so I'll say as A. Hitchcock
would say "Good Eeeev-ening"(cue the Victor Herbert music)

I look forward to reading your thoughts.  :thumb
 
And when the 'mechanism' of LFF first 'appeared' on my 'radar' it struck me as 'important'.
The thing is I'm not sure I could 'define it' well enough to use it to 'point at' some fundamental source or cause of what is a fairly common 'problem', namely what is 'Listener Fatigue', really…
 
It seems fairly obvious when we hear it, but taking the next step to define it, seems just outside of my/our grasp, at least for now.
 
JJ

I canceled my commitment as I was just enjoying my listening session too much !
 
Possible causes for LFF huh ? Let's try this
 
Our ear drums need a certain amount of milliseconds to process every sound that they hear . The closer together or the longer the
duration of sounds taxes our hearing mechanisms as we've disrupted the interval of rest time our eardrums will have between these
impulses. For myself it's a matter of the duration of my listening sessions.
 
I simply don't care to listen at a level any louder then where I think I can hear the lowest level of sound fully at a slightly lower than medium sound level (This normally ends up being a challenge with new Orchestal recordings, so I never start listening to a new recording first). To be honest the better sounding that everything becomes the greater my challenge to not end up ear fatigued has become as I have not even realized that I've become ear fatigued sometimes until I woken up the next day.
 
I've listened to several things tonight were I can't recall the recorded detail ever grabbing my attention the way it did this evening.
 
Other than replacing my Burson Soloist hp amp with perhaps the Sennheiser HDVA 600 I'm satisfied with how "Articulate" & devoid
of non musical frequency contouring my system has become
 
Keep me updated on any new insights you may have regarding LFF as it's also on my radar for reasons I've mentioned
 
steve

 

[Zoom25]

Your central auditory nervous system can PERCEIVE certain signals/stimulus to be fatiguing either based on frequency and amplitude relationship or from signal masking where your nervous system is working extra hard to get the relevant material from the signal. This is where jitter, FR, impulse response all play a part in fatigue.

 

[kapanak]

Question for other owners: how loud approximately do you listen to your HD800? I was curious, since I measured my own listening level with a SPL meter and realized I listen to music anywhere from 57-74 dB levels, depending on the track. All measured in a very quiet room with no other background noise. 30dB background measurement. Anything above 80dB was unbearable for me and would give me a headache after 10 seconds. Unsurprisingly, no distortion of any sort at higher volumes of course.

Chain: Custom PC - > Concero HD - > Valhalla 2 - > HD800.

Also, I am surprised as to how easily and loudly my HTC One M8 can drive the HD800.

 

[lin0003]

My guess is around 75db, definitely not above 80.