Upgrade options &Thoughts: higher bit rate vs balanced setup
Jan 18, 2017 at 3:08 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 21

monkeyboylee

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Posts
285
Likes
17
Looking to get more bang for my buck from existing headphones that I use when out and about

1) Move to higher bit rate music & Mqa,currently 16bit flat
2) existing music but move to a balanced setup

Is either going to be more noticeable than the other?

Cheers

Lee
 
Jan 18, 2017 at 3:52 PM Post #2 of 21
I'd say practice using an EQ and maybe some crossfeed plug ins.
and get songs you love.
biggrin.gif

 
mqa, well. I'm not a strong fan.
balanced amp to me is the same as saying getting another amp. it being balanced doesn't make it better than a good single ended amp. so it's more a matter of knowing if you have an amp that satisfies all your headphones at your preferred loudness? or if you know you might enjoy a very colored amp? then maybe another amp out there could make you happier. but I would suggest to try before jumping on anything somebody else is telling you to buy. sometimes a lot of money gives very little change.
 
Jan 18, 2017 at 4:16 PM Post #3 of 21
cheers, first time ive ever heard of a crossfeed plug in, ill get googling. ive always shied away from eq, the pessimist in me always tells me im distorting and going against the sound the headphones and dac designers want to produce... any advice on diving in to eq greatly appreciated, Lee
 
Jan 18, 2017 at 6:55 PM Post #4 of 21
Looking to get more bang for my buck from existing headphones that I use when out and about

1) Move to higher bit rate music & Mqa,currently 16bit flat
2) existing music but move to a balanced setup

Is either going to be more noticeable than the other?

Cheers

Lee

 
Existing music and balanced gets my vote.
 
Balanced has legitimate objectively measurable benefits.
 
Higher resolution vs Redbook of the same master -- can you pass an honest ABX test between?
 
Most people can't; if you can't, it's a waste of money for you.
 
Jan 18, 2017 at 6:57 PM Post #5 of 21
 
it being balanced doesn't make it better than a good single ended amp. 
 

 
All things other things being equal, yeah, balanced is better.
 
It has better noise rejection.  And it's better able to drive long cable runs with less interferance if you want to also use active monitors (which often have XLR connectors).
 
Balanced is not some BS snake oil, although it's often over-kill for home use.
 
Jan 18, 2017 at 9:07 PM Post #6 of 21
 
 
it being balanced doesn't make it better than a good single ended amp. 
 

 
All things other things being equal, yeah, balanced is better.
 
It has better noise rejection.  And it's better able to drive long cable runs with less interferance if you want to also use active monitors (which often have XLR connectors).
 
Balanced is not some BS snake oil, although it's often over-kill for home use.

I'm not saying balanced is wrong, I'm saying shortcuts like "balanced is better" is like "tube amps are low fi", or "more power sounds better". it's not relevant. good and bad amps come in all designs and the signal coming out should be what matters.
 
I happen to have my active monitors balanced but they're not headphones 
wink_face.gif

 
cheers, first time ive ever heard of a crossfeed plug in, ill get googling. ive always shied away from eq, the pessimist in me always tells me im distorting and going against the sound the headphones and dac designers want to produce... any advice on diving in to eq greatly appreciated, Lee


it's a choice, I've always been of the opinion that my headphones weren't neutral and even if one claimed to be, I would still need to correct for my own head to benefit from really hearing a neutral sound. and even subjectively when I'm only after some fun, again it's very rare when I find a headphone to have my preferred signature unEQed. there is always a little something that I'll prefer, even if it's in the end a very minute change.
so other people might have other opinions on the matter, headfi is full of people who's religion forbid them to use any sort of DSP. I wouldn't try to go against personal faith. I just happen to have spent more on my EQ than on my headphone amp.
 
this might give a starting direction. http://www.head-fi.org/t/830852/eq-software-for-beginner-for-laptop-computer#post_13138864
also if you don't feel like spending too much time learning how to EQ for your own sound, you can turn toward solutions such as sonarwork. there is a demo so for 0$ you might want to try ^_^. and there is a dedicated thread in here http://www.head-fi.org/t/762969/sonarworks-headphone-calibration-software  with one of the sonarwork guys answering questions fairly often.  basically they have what they think is the right EQ for specific headphones and can even measure your own headphone if you send one to them(to correct channel imbalance in the signature for example). trying is the right thing to do as you can't know in advance if their target response will be what you like. (as in , their neutral might not be your neutral). but they do a fairly good job at making the sound feel fairly even IMO.
there is this too http://www.head-fi.org/t/832543/tonebooster-morphit-correct-your-headphones-frequency-response-simulate-other-famous-headphones-and-more , same basic principle as sonarwork, but I saw it yesterday and haven't made time to try it yet. tonebooster has a lot of stuff as VST lie the TB isone suite that are fun to play with.
 
as for crossfeed, depending on your preferences and your own head, it can be hit or miss with the preset stuff that are available as VST (you usually can put them as plug in in your audio player if it allows for it, just like most EQ). the purpose is to send the sound from the left channel to the right with a delay and attenuated in a certain way to mimic how the sound from left channel would have reached the right ear with speakers. it's to make for a slightly more natural way to perceive an album mastered for speakers(almost all albums). so the concept is great on principle, but the change in signature and delay for the signal sent to the other side is 100% dependent on your own head,  because that's what you'll have to mimic to fool your brain correctly. so the preset stuff out there may simply not work for you.
so again the best choice is to try a bunch and hope that one will feel right.
the "I've gone mad" solution is something like the Smyth Realiser. it creates HRIR, so EQ timing and more, head tracking, the all package to mimic the sound of your speakers. but that might not be what you're after. I personally prefer speakers to headphones, so of course I feel like it's the way to go. but it's merely my preference.
 
 
IMO all those stuff can improve the listening experience in a meaningful way when it's done well. but maybe that's not the kind of improvement/change you're after ^_^.
 
Jan 18, 2017 at 9:31 PM Post #7 of 21
  I'm not saying balanced is wrong, I'm saying shortcuts like "balanced is better" is like "tube amps are low fi", or "more power sounds better". it's not relevant. good and bad amps come in all designs and the signal coming out should be what matters.
 
I happen to have my active monitors balanced but they're not headphones 
wink_face.gif

 

 
People want simple recommendations.
 
They have to be simple and easy to understand to counteract the hype train they get elsewhere ("OMG I added the FuzzNuts MagicToob and blah blah you wouldn't believe it!").
 
If there is anything I've changed my mind about is that if you want to fight ignorance, you have to keep it simple and easy to relate to.  We're not going to defeat the audiophool voodoo vendors with long, nuanced essays that amount to "it depends."
 
So if somebody asks me, "Should I spend money on an SE R2R DAC or a balanced DS DAC?", my answer is "All else being equal, go with balanced -- it's real and proven. R2R benefits, not so much.".
 
Jan 19, 2017 at 2:06 AM Post #8 of 21
Hiya and thank you all. Been reading up and I'm assuming all the above parametric eq us for listening off a pc, which I'll have a tinker with now, but what about from a DAP source? The reason is my new DAP offers me the original options given, 24 bit, Mqa, balanced and eq.... Which way to go?. Is eq on a DAP going to be as productive as the above solutions given?
 
Jan 19, 2017 at 2:20 AM Post #9 of 21
Hiya and thank you all. Been reading up and I'm assuming all the above parametric eq us for listening off a pc, which I'll have a tinker with now, but what about from a DAP source? The reason is my new DAP offers me the original options given, 24 bit, Mqa, balanced and eq.... Which way to go?. Is eq on a DAP going to be as productive as the above solutions given?

 
Depends, what kind of EQ does your DAC have?  Full PEQ or something lesser?
 
Jan 19, 2017 at 2:29 AM Post #10 of 21
   
People want simple recommendations.
 
They have to be simple and easy to understand to counteract the hype train they get elsewhere ("OMG I added the FuzzNuts MagicToob and blah blah you wouldn't believe it!").
 
If there is anything I've changed my mind about is that if you want to fight ignorance, you have to keep it simple and easy to relate to.  We're not going to defeat the audiophool voodoo vendors with long, nuanced essays that amount to "it depends."
 
So if somebody asks me, "Should I spend money on an SE R2R DAC or a balanced DS DAC?", my answer is "All else being equal, go with balanced -- it's real and proven. R2R benefits, not so much.".

You can dumb it down too much, though.
 
A balanced input can reject common-mode noise...but there may not be any, and in that case, the benefit is lost to cost and possibly a tiny bit higher noise. Or, the balanced input may not have much common-mode rejection, at which point, it's balanced and useless.   A balanced output is useful for driving a balanced input or load, otherwise, it's of no particular benefit or use.  
 
Now, take all of that, roll it into a recommendation for a guy's headphone setup.   Will he have common-mode noise to reject?  Does he now? (he wasn't complaining about noise).  Will he have a balanced load? (nope, not likely).  So, then, why recommend a balanced thingy?  
 
If somebody asks me if they should spend more money on a balanced device, I have a few questions to ask first.
 
Jan 19, 2017 at 3:35 AM Post #12 of 21
  Hiya, its the Pioneer XDP-300R, states 'linear-phase FIR equalizer'?

Interesting player.  The manual is loaded with audiophool nonsense.  
 
For example, our discussion of "balanced"...the XDP-300R can drive balanced headphones via a 2.5mm 4-pole connector.  Unless you have balanced headphones with that specific connector, you'll be using good ol' single-ended via the 3.5mm 3-pole connector.  There are settings to turn on/off the balance output. However, they state this, of the balanced mode:
 
"Compared to the normal single-ended operation, you can get a larger output and the high voltage is not grounded together with the small signal, so you can anticipate a superior effect in the quality of the music, which means you can drive headphones that have a high impedance."  The larger output you'll get is an increase of 6dB, not a huge deal.  The "superior effect in the quality" would result from playing louder, but that's all.  Increased output voltage is not always necessary to drive high impedance headphones.  And this gem, "the high voltage is not grounded together with the small signal" simply must be a translation glitch.  
 
..or, perhaps not..."A.C.G. A mode suitable for when you have connected balanced headphones. The basic operating method is the same as the balanced mode, but uses technology to even more forcefully fix grounding standards, so you can enjoy a sound quality with improved clarity and stability than the balanced mode."  I don't even know where to start on that one.
 
But all the complete gibberish aside, it looks like a very nice player.  The strongest point, IMO, is the dual SD card slots for over 400gb of storage.  Yikes, that's impressive.  The weak points, apart from the nonsense, is the price (over $500), and not generally available in the US.  
 
I find no mention of a " 'linear-phase FIR equalizer", but I couldn't make myself read the whole manual. 
 
Jan 19, 2017 at 4:30 AM Post #13 of 21
ha ha, i just got that straight off the features page on the website. customcan in the uk provide balanced cables wired to suit that configuration, no problem if i go that route. i guess im looking at trying to eq my ath-msr7 or try oppo pm3. quite like the Android streaming options like tidal, just wondering if mqa is an actual coherent improvement.
 
Jan 19, 2017 at 6:27 AM Post #15 of 21
1) Move to higher bit rate music & Mqa,currently 16bit flat
2) existing music but move to a balanced setup

 
To summarise what others have effectively said, you'll get no noticeable improvement from either. It's a bit like asking which of the following will improve your car's performance:  A "turbo" sticker on the back of your car or painting flames down the side. This is not an accurate analogy though, because unlike the audiophile world, neither turbo sticker manufacturers nor car painters claim their products actually improve performance!
 
BTW, also as mentioned previously, all commercial recording studios run balanced setups because they're typically high interference environments which also require cable runs of several (or more) tens of metres, so the noise rejection properties of a balanced setup typically have an impact. Your headphones probably have a cable length of only 3 meters or so and are used in a low or moderate interference environment, therefore no audible benefit.
 
G
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top