[Eisenbart]

Longtime reader, but this is my first post...
 
I've grown up with high end speakers and amplifiers but just recently got into headphones. Currently I have HD 600's and a Headroom Total Bithead that I use with my computer playing FLAC files and lossless iTunes stuff. Until just a few days ago that was all I was using, then I finally ( it escapes me as to why I took so long) tried my headphones with my dad's stereo system. He has an Esoteric SA-10, a McIntosh amp and preamp and B&W 801's. I was only using the CD player and the preamp, which has a headphone circuit. In short, the difference between the Bithead and it was huuge. I was expecting a difference, but not one so large. And it gave me the urge to upgrade.
 
So thats what I have right now... Over the course of the next year and a half to two years I plan on purchasing a Woo 2 or 6 SE, Sennheiser HD 800's, LCD-2's, a V-DAC and the appropriate cables for use with my computer, and possibly a Schiit Lyr if the Woo can't drive the LCD-2's.
 
The conundrum I am left with is in which order to go in. Obviously with a lowly portable amp/dac combo my computer setup isn't ready for cans like the 800's or LCD-2's. If that were all I had then a Woo amp would be the obvious first choice, but now that I've been introduced to the C504 preamp I plan on using it far more often than my computer. Problem is I have no idea how a 30 year old preamp compares to something like a Woo. So I guess that is my real question, is the preamp I have good enough to last me awhile? I'd really like to get new cans first, but i realize that without a good amp they won't sound their best.
 
I've also been reading a lot about the WA2 and WA6SE, I'm leaning towards the WA2, but I've seen people who have both the 800's and the LCD-2's happy with either amp. Are the black gate / attenuator upgrades worth the extra money?

 

[NumLock]

The question is what actually made the difference? Your dad's preamp headphoone out or the CD player?
 
Oh and I would upgrade in this order: amp > source > headphones

 

[El_Doug]

Both the 2 and 6SE are fantastic amps.  I'd err on the side of the 6SE if you're considering the LCD-2s. 
 
Upgrade the cans first!  You already have a capable preamp, and headphones make a far bigger difference than any other part of the chain.  Neither the HD800s nor the LCD-2s will be grossly underamped by your preamp
 
 
As for those upgrades... the attenuator is definitely worth it, the blackgates are a huge waste of money (imho, of course)

 

[sxr71]

Do you have use of the C504 in your new setup?
 
If so I wouldn't for a second really think you could beat it with anything in a 3 figure price range.
 
 
I would go for source personally. A good async USB DAC or FW DAC will help you out the most IMHO. 
 
Of course you could satisfy yourself right now by connecting your computer system to the C504 and trying it. How much different from playing it with the Esoteric does it sound?
 
Let us know. 
 
 
EDIT: I didn't realize that upgrading cans is an option. That would make the most difference for the least money. You could experiment with different cans and find the one you like and then go for the source. 

 

[Eisenbart]

Gonna try to movedown the list and reply lol.

I.m sure the CD player played a major part in the better sound, mainly due to it having a much better DAC than the bithead. But the preamp probably played an equally important role since it has the power to really drive the 600's.

And yes I will have the C504 available to me. Right now I'm taking your advice and am running the computer through it. The big hindrance there will be the fact that I don't have an outboard DAC other than the one in the Bithead. So I'm at the mercy of my sound cards onboard DAC.

I'll post again after I've listened for awhile

 

[Eisenbart]

Ok, been listening for a bit.

First I went from the sound card directly to the preamp using a mini plug to RCA adapter. FLAC files sounded just as good, if not a little better than the esoteric. I expected that since FLACs are much higher quality than a CD. iTunes lossless was a different story. While it didn't sound bad, and clearly benefited from the preamps extra power, they were a bit muddy and harsh sounding. I definitely couldn't listen to them for extended periods.

Next I decided to try the headroom total bithead as a USB DAC. I was worried about the signal being amped by the bithead and then again by the preamp, but it worked out ok. I used the same mini plug to RCA adapter, but this time it was connected to the headphone out on the bithead.

iTunes lossless files sounded much much better. The bithead's DAC smoothed the sound out and brought back the clarity that had been missing. It was much more comfortable on my ears. As far as the sound compared to the esoteric... It is actually a tougher call than I thought. I listened to toccata fugue in D minor because I had been listening to it a bunch through the esoteric so it was the freshest in my head. I feel that the esoteric's midrange is more focused and clear, as are it's highs. It's more lively and spacious, but that's what 3500 dollars gets you I guess.

The computer/bithead combo was very impressive. While I have to give the edge to the esoteric, I enjoyed the extra bottom end that the bithead added.
When it comes to FLAC files the edge shifts the the computer, again though, I didn't find that too surprising. And while they do sound better it's not a great deal better over the esoteric. One area where the Esoteric still wins is the soundstage, it has a openness to it that my current gear can't beat. I'm interested to see how a dedicated DAC, probably a V-DAC, changes the sound.

Conclusions I've made...
I underestimated the quality of the bithead's DAC.
When FLACs aren't involved a good CD player still can't be beat. And even when they are involved the CD player still does some things better.
I can't wait to get a high quality outboard DAC.
I'm a bit scared to hear even nicer headphones through either setup.
My bank account is even more scared.


Thanks for the input everyone. Looks like a pair of LCD-2's and a DAC are on the horizon. Probably to be followed by a Woo late in the year.

 

[Nakattack]

 
 
Quote:

 FLAC files sounded just as good, if not a little better than the esoteric. I expected that since FLACs are much higher quality than a CD. iTunes lossless was a different story.

 
You do realise that while FLAC is lossless it is converted from WAV files which are ripped from CD's? Also, if you can actually hear a noticeable difference between FLAC and ALAC, I'll eat my own hat.

 

[Eisenbart]

The FLAC files I have are all from B&W society of sound, I was under the impression that they were somehow special
 
They are 48/24, for some reason I was thinking they were 96/24. 
 
As for FLAC vs ALAC. I have the same recording of Mahler's 8th symphony in a 24 bit FLAC and a 16 bit ALAC. While the difference is subtle, I do hear a difference. It is most notable in the organ sections. The FLAC version has a certain vibrancy, or brilliance to it that the ALAC version can't quite match. You don't have to eat your hat though lol.
 
Once I get a better DAC I'll have to get some 96/24 stuff and try it.

 

[Badd99]

Key word here is that its 16bit vs 24bit and actually the sonic difference, according to the math and frequencies the ear can hear, there is no differences. But I dont even know if I fully agree with that so who knows haha. 
 
Quote:

The FLAC files I have are all from B&W society of sound, I was under the impression that they were somehow special
 
They are 48/24, for some reason I was thinking they were 96/24. 
 
As for FLAC vs ALAC. I have the same recording of Mahler's 8th symphony in a 24 bit FLAC and a 16 bit ALAC. While the difference is subtle, I do hear a difference. It is most notable in the organ sections. The FLAC version has a certain vibrancy, or brilliance to it that the ALAC version can't quite match. You don't have to eat your hat though lol.
 
Once I get a better DAC I'll have to get some 96/24 stuff and try it.