[Sal1950]

Hey I too own a pair of those speakers.
Headphones no matter what ones are not speakers but hifiman doesn't have the sound of them like almost no other has. The he6 is still my fav from them.
Stax 009 or hd800. Sound nothing like speakers and yield incredible details but my IRS v actually have more details and low level sound retrieval see my point
Yes they shake the room like a real earth quack but details are still better. For me it has to do with the weight of the sound meaning estate are thin all of them.
When I get my turn I'll give my view but I do expect them to be a wow moment other than looking at them and realizing I have them on my head.

What would I have to offer to earn an invitation to spend a couple hours in front of your IRS V's?   

 

[Sal1950]

Hey I too own a pair of those speakers.
Headphones no matter what ones are not speakers but hifiman doesn't have the sound of them like almost no other has. The he6 is still my fav from them.
Stax 009 or hd800. Sound nothing like speakers and yield incredible details but my IRS v actually have more details and low level sound retrieval see my point
Yes they shake the room like a real earth quack but details are still better. For me it has to do with the weight of the sound meaning estate are thin all of them.
When I get my turn I'll give my view but I do expect them to be a wow moment other than looking at them and realizing I have them on my head.

As a V owner I'm sure you're aware of the goings on at PS Audio but just in case below is a link to one of Paul's posts on the rebuilding-updating of the 30+ year old crossovers.. Included in the post is a link to the series of videos Paul did of the building of the listening room for the IRS's etc. Very interesting info on listening room design for anyone that hasn't seen them. Although I disagree with Paul on his position concerning DSD, his has to be one of the best sounding listening rooms extant today.
 http://www.psaudio.com/forum/loudspeakers-1/irs-v-in-music-room-one-gets-a-new-lease-on-life/

 

[ALRAINBOW]

Thanks for the link , I am a member of the forums there. I am ordering the external cross over from his team as well. As Arnie is a dear friend it cannot get any better then his choices.
As for his DS dac I own one of them. As such I know it's sound well. What do you mean of his view on DSd ?

 

[Sal1950]

Thanks for the link , I am a member of the forums there. I am ordering the external cross over from his team as well. As Arnie is a dear friend it cannot get any better then his choices.
As for his DS dac I own one of them. As such I know it's sound well. What do you mean of his view on DSd ?

Just to answer your question and not to start a debate here, I don't believe in the superiority of DSD over PCM, specially to the extent of buying a DAC that converts everything to DSD.  I'll take a well recorded 24/96 PCM any time.  JMHO

 

[dharma]

  Just to answer your question and not to start a debate here, I don't believe in the superiority of DSD over PCM, specially to the extent of buying a DAC that converts everything to DSD.  I'll take a well recorded 24/96 PCM any time.  JMHO

 
If those 'well recorded' are originally recorded in DXD and are available in a wide range of resolutions, including DXD... then why not to have/listen it in original resolution?

 

[mulder01]

  Just to answer your question and not to start a debate here,

 
And that's how it starts
 
 

   
If those 'well recorded' are originally recorded in DXD and are available in a wide range of resolutions, including DXD... then why not to have/listen it in original resolution?

 
In another thread about Violectric's new DAC, when Fried from Violectric was asked why he chose not to include DSD support in his dac designs, one of several reasons was that there was no way to mix DSD, so even if you record in DSD, it has to be converted to PCM to be mixed, then converted back to DSD which is pointless because why not just have the PCM file...

 

[ALRAINBOW]

All lies and here is why. When recording I dsd there are a few methods to change mixing. First off it's only when you need to change the mix so if you dos few takes there may be none. Next the most proven method is as follows when the engineer moves a lever it does not change of a actually pauses the tecodin process so it's spliced it's done so fast you do not hear it. Now there are a few other methods as PCM then back to dsd but these machines are old now. So some get to say it's not pure. All I can say and I will say no more in the thread is dsd and PCM are sounding very different not saying what's better just different but dsd is close in analog sound. So when people claim it's not pure pause and tell them to explain how it's not. It's a shame the a dac maker would lie that's just not cool

 

[dharma]

   
And that's how it starts
 
 
 
In another thread about Violectric's new DAC, when Fried from Violectric was asked why he chose not to include DSD support in his dac designs, one of several reasons was that there was no way to mix DSD, so even if you record in DSD, it has to be converted to PCM to be mixed, then converted back to DSD which is pointless because why not just have the PCM file...

 
so-called direct recording to DXD (actually PCM) means, that during recording there is already converter in use... but now there are some e-stores which are selling those 'original DXD' recordings... so yes, there is no need for DSD (if file size is not important, same recording in DXD is about 5GB or more and in DSD it is about 1 GB).
I don't see any reason why to listen 96/24 if 'original' recording has higher resolution... test possibilities here

 

[Sal1950]

DXD is simply a fancy name for PCM run at a 24/352.8 sampling rate.
 
 

   
And that's how it starts
 
 
 
In another thread about Violectric's new DAC, when Fried from Violectric was asked why he chose not to include DSD support in his dac designs, one of several reasons was that there was no way to mix DSD, so even if you record in DSD, it has to be converted to PCM to be mixed, then converted back to DSD which is pointless because why not just have the PCM file...

Yep,  and too many more to list.
BTW, Calling anything today more "analog like" I would take as an insult. The digital process has been the superior High Fidelity reproduction technology for at least 25 years.
There have been good and bad implementations of both. 

 

[dharma]

actually, same confusion with DSD:
'DSD is a marketing term, SDM is a technical term. DSD refers to one particular set of modulation parameters, originally used in SACD'

 

[ALRAINBOW]

Wow analog is an insult damn I must be old and deaf too. Lol. I grew up on vinyl and then went to CDs
CDs did seem to be more quite and had what I thought was more details. But as my equipment got better and Remeber I own the IRS v and RS 1B many many years. The one thing I noticed was my vinyl sounded better to my brain even with the snaps and pops. In fact unless you have very good equipment it does not matter much at all. Now do not take this as an insult but cheap stuff not much does matter. And if you or others here do not like dsd that tells me too things one read the sentence above and now this. You have not heard dsd On a good dac and complete audio chain.
Sorry but some one needs to say it lol. Now good on my grammar and spelling and my sometimes nonsense ramblings it's fine to make fun of me

 

[dharma]

http://www.stereophile.com/content/promates-worlds-first-dxd-download-store
http://www.lindberg.no/english/collection/004.pdf
 
Most of the dsd recording engineers used Pyramix for recording/editing, which converts to DXD. There seems to be only one DAW that does 'native dsd all the way', Sonoma (true DSD recording, editing, and level adjustments)... it keeps the original DSD sample rate, but seems to convert to 8-bit "DSD-wide".
 
Small 'discussion' about same subject here

 

[Sal1950]

Wow analog is an insult damn I must be old and deaf too. Lol. I grew up on vinyl and then went to CDs
CDs did seem to be more quite and had what I thought was more details. But as my equipment got better and Remeber I own the IRS v and RS 1B many many years. The one thing I noticed was my vinyl sounded better to my brain even with the snaps and pops. In fact unless you have very good equipment it does not matter much at all. Now do not take this as an insult but cheap stuff not much does matter. And if you or others here do not like dsd that tells me too things one read the sentence above and now this. You have not heard dsd On a good dac and complete audio chain.
Sorry but some one needs to say it lol. Now good on my grammar and spelling and my sometimes nonsense ramblings it's fine to make fun of me

There are many forms of distortion that have proven to be very euphonic and pleasing to the listener.  Very basic measurements of even the best vinyl playback equipment will instantly reveal its failings..

 

[ALRAINBOW]

So true and tubes are a great example of what you stated. But even our unampkified music payed right in front of you has distortion food for thought. We learn to hear or better said understand d what we hear. It's a lifelong process
But it's funny how the holy grail of most any headphone amp including both Orpheus use tubes. Could it be what's appealing about them.

 

[Sal1950]

So true and tubes are a great example of what you stated. But even our unampkified music payed right in front of you has distortion food for thought. We learn to hear or better said understand d what we hear. It's a lifelong process
But it's funny how the holy grail of most any headphone amp including both Orpheus use tubes. Could it be what's appealing about them.

I don't know who taught you that all tube amplifier circuits are full of audible distortion but that simply isn't true, clean tube amp circuits came of age around 1965. Of course designers are well known to tune the sound of their amps for market appeal, whether tube or SS.
None of that has anything to do with the 1060s