[trevorlane]

Quote:

I think the top orthos would give the R10 a serious run for its price...I guess the R10 is like a cd3k on steroids, and no matter how awesome the diaphragms can sound, it's still based on a +80yo technology that's completely obsolete compared to the newest ortho drivers IMHO.
 
This PDF explains it all: http://www.fostexinternational.com/docs/downloads/pdfs/RP_Headphones_Brochure.pdf

The R10 and CD3000s don't sound anything alike, so I'm not sure how it would be on steroids. It would be like saying the HD800 is the HD650 on steroids.

 

[wind016]

Quote:

Wind016- since you live in San Francisco you should really consider going to meets in the bay area and listening to different dacs, comparing them to your D10, etc.  It would be a much more immediate and informative way to learn about the differences/similarities between dacs at different price points.  Listening is so much more informative than reading, and also makes reading more informative imo, since you can put people's (often enthusiastic & biased) impressions of things you've heard into perspective.
 
My advise is to not go overboard with the dac.  I heard subtle, but reliable improvements going from a D10 to a $400 CA DacMagic, but can't say if I could pass a DBT between the DacMagic and my $1200 Lavry DA11.

 
I understand that there should be better value under $1000, but I think I'll try to get the best I can for what I have. I'll try not to go overboard =)  It seems the source is not the component that gets switched with each different amp,  headphone, or tube - though there are synergy matches.
 
I would love to go to the February meet in SF, but it's tax season and I've been out of college in less then a year. So I'm kind of busy with work and certification exams haha.  I'd love to go eventually though.
 
 
Quote:

Quote:

I think the top orthos would give the R10 a serious run for its price...I guess the R10 is like a cd3k on steroids, and no matter how awesome the diaphragms can sound, it's still based on a +80yo technology that's completely obsolete compared to the newest ortho drivers IMHO.
 
This PDF explains it all: http://www.fostexinternational.com/docs/downloads/pdfs/RP_Headphones_Brochure.pdf

The R10 and CD3000s don't sound anything alike, so I'm not sure how it would be on steroids. It would be like saying the HD800 is the HD650 on steroids.

Please describe your experience with the R10. It has peaked my interest lately. I've been looking for the ultimate vocal headphone. My W11R has brought me the best vocal experience out of any headphone I've ever tried. However, the R10's legend is just too much for me to ignore XD

 

[wind016]

I just got the Anedio D1. HOLY MOLY

 

[trevorlane]

Quote:

Quote:

Wind016- since you live in San Francisco you should really consider going to meets in the bay area and listening to different dacs, comparing them to your D10, etc.  It would be a much more immediate and informative way to learn about the differences/similarities between dacs at different price points.  Listening is so much more informative than reading, and also makes reading more informative imo, since you can put people's (often enthusiastic & biased) impressions of things you've heard into perspective.
 
My advise is to not go overboard with the dac.  I heard subtle, but reliable improvements going from a D10 to a $400 CA DacMagic, but can't say if I could pass a DBT between the DacMagic and my $1200 Lavry DA11.

 
I understand that there should be better value under $1000, but I think I'll try to get the best I can for what I have. I'll try not to go overboard =)  It seems the source is not the component that gets switched with each different amp,  headphone, or tube - though there are synergy matches.
 
I would love to go to the February meet in SF, but it's tax season and I've been out of college in less then a year. So I'm kind of busy with work and certification exams haha.  I'd love to go eventually though.
 
 
Quote:

Quote:

I think the top orthos would give the R10 a serious run for its price...I guess the R10 is like a cd3k on steroids, and no matter how awesome the diaphragms can sound, it's still based on a +80yo technology that's completely obsolete compared to the newest ortho drivers IMHO.
 
This PDF explains it all: http://www.fostexinternational.com/docs/downloads/pdfs/RP_Headphones_Brochure.pdf

The R10 and CD3000s don't sound anything alike, so I'm not sure how it would be on steroids. It would be like saying the HD800 is the HD650 on steroids.

Please describe your experience with the R10. It has peaked my interest lately. I've been looking for the ultimate vocal headphone. My W11R has brought me the best vocal experience out of any headphone I've ever tried. However, the R10's legend is just too much for me to ignore XD

I'm not the best reviewer of headphones, I just prefer sitting back and listening to them. I suppose the impression the R10 left with me was the amount of bass coming out of the headphones was just a little much. I encountered this on my old 307A, the Pinnacle, and my SDS. I had a DAC-1 at the time, not the Buffalo. Although when I listened to the R10s through an EMM Dac8 and my old Gilmore Lite, it was easier on my ears. I just ended up sticking with the PS1, K1000, and HD650s. I'm pretty happy with the three.

 

[wind016]

Thanks for your impression trevorlane! I'm happy with my headphones for now and my new Anedio D1 is making me very happy.
 
After receiving the Anedio D1, I thought to myself that I probably should have bought the Anedio D1 first before my Woo amp. The Woo amp synergizes very well with my headphones, but I think the Anedio D1's headphone amp is great with my low impedance headphones. I think the Anedio is a great all-in-one compact choice for low impedance headphones at least. Excellent resolution and soundstage.
 
Soundstage on the Anedio is just Wow....  For the first 2 hours after receiving my Anedio, I truly felt my W11R headphones sounded like open headphones. The shock has subsided now and I've gotten used to it, but with binaural recordings now, I feel as if I'm listening on a better version of the AKG K701. On regular recordings, the soundstage is similar to the AD2000. You know the drivers are there so it doesn't sound quite like a speaker. Isolation is probably the only thing keeping my W11R from sounding truly open. My W2002, however, still sounded closed. They sounded more spacious, but the Anedio soundstage didn't work miracles XD
 
Music sounds a bit more distant and dispersed than with my Ibasso D10 which may have been a problem for rock songs, but much of the impact of the bass drums and toms toms are still there. Everything just sound so much more accurate. The timbre of the cymbals improved dramatically. The dispersed soundstage makes everything much easier to listen to. You'll find that most of the bass impact and rumble is still there.

 

[googleborg]

i've just had an odd thought whilst playing TF2...
 
a dac takes digital signals and turns them into analogue...surely it could be possible to simulate any dac by altering/EQing the waveform before conversion to analogue takes place based on the properties of the dac being used...so when it gets converted the dac is compensated for and it's like you're using another dac?  or is there more going on lol...
 

 

[Currawong]

Unless there is an obvious distortion in the FR of the different DAC, then no. A DAC is more than just a conversion chip in a box.
 
wind016: I guess that means you've answered your own question?

 

[haloxt]

Quote:

i've just had an odd thought whilst playing TF2...
 
a dac takes digital signals and turns them into analogue...surely it could be possible to simulate any dac by altering/EQing the waveform before conversion to analogue takes place based on the properties of the dac being used...so when it gets converted the dac is compensated for and it's like you're using another dac?  or is there more going on lol...
 

Do you mean something like a DSP that alters the data so that when fed into dac A, will produce the same thing as dac B? Maybe a self-correcting DSP with loopback hardware could try to approximate it, or maybe even try to approximate something theoretical and ideal. And maybe same could go for amps and headphones. Like the question of how fast a headphone is. If it is slow, could you not compensate by altering the data to make it "fast"? I imagine such a software may be very complex, and the hardware very expensive .

 

[Uchiya]

Sometimes I think my wallet loves music more than I do, diverging to think I'm a fool in all of this but albeit a happy one.

 

[googleborg]

Quote:

Quote:

i've just had an odd thought whilst playing TF2...
 
a dac takes digital signals and turns them into analogue...surely it could be possible to simulate any dac by altering/EQing the waveform before conversion to analogue takes place based on the properties of the dac being used...so when it gets converted the dac is compensated for and it's like you're using another dac?  or is there more going on lol...
 

Do you mean something like a DSP that alters the data so that when fed into dac A, will produce the same thing as dac B? Maybe a self-correcting DSP with loopback hardware could try to approximate it, or maybe even try to approximate something theoretical and ideal. And maybe same could go for amps and headphones. Like the question of how fast a headphone is. If it is slow, could you not compensate by altering the data to make it "fast"? I imagine such a software may be very complex, and the hardware very expensive .

yeah a DSP of sorts that would alter the input to make the ouput the same based on some kinda 'loopback' thing  you're right it would probably cost a lot lot more than the dacs you'd want to emulate haha...

 

[upstateguy]

 
Quote:

All DACs are different
 
in one fundamental quality , they all have a slightly or grossly different output levels. I have 3 CD players and several external DACs, no two have the same output level. I have recorded samples from different combos and easiy DBT'd the differences, however when I volume adjust the samples to be approximately the same I fail such tests. We, most of the time perceive slightly louder as better. Thus non level matched comparisons are a bit misleading.
 
some DACs are really different
 
some manufacturers like Wadia have tweaks such as aggressive low pass filters that deliberately drop the higher frequencies by up to -3db at 20khz, for younger listeners this is possibly audible in itself. Some CD player/DACs with tube stages can have very uneven FR such as the AH Njoe Tube designs. Some designs are so incompetent (such as the Zanden 5000 which is not even nominally flat till it hits 200hz)  that it's massive flaws are perceived as "character". It is trivial to make a DAC sound different if you really want to.
 
most DACs are however pretty similar
 
The vast majority of DACs however do a splendidly competent job at recreating an analog waveform with low distortion, low noise, low phase differences, low channel imbalances, flat frequency response, low sample timing variations and so on. In a word accurate. Excluding output levels two competent DACs will be so exemplary on measurable criteria that audibly telling them apart by such criteria will be extraordinarily difficult if not impossible. For instance an SNR of 108db is twice as good as an SNR of 102db but outside of an anechoic chamber with ear-bleeding levels you'd not tell them apart.
 
at this point
 
someone usually says but you cannot measure X or Y. Normally something like PRAT or Timbre. Well PRAT is so badly defined and so subjectively perceived that is it not terribly useful. Pace would seem to imply speed or timing variations easily measurable. Rythmn - surely nothing can change the meter of the music, Timing again implies timing variations. Timbre is all about Frequencies, harmonics, phase differences and so on, again measurable phenomenon.

Agreed.  In testing over the past few years, every test I've ever done has been a disappointment.   I've found the Benchmark I to be indistinguishable from the Stello DA100 and the Stello indistinguishable from the Neko and even the Constantine+, once they were volume balanced. 
 
I'm currently using a North Star 192 MKII with one of my rigs, but I've completely given up testing for the reasons nick_charles mentioned.  I've come to believe that the so called last 5% is more placebo than reality.
 
I'm not sure all amps sound the same though.  Although my Woo3 and M^3(637/627) have extremely similar sound signatures when volume balanced,  my GS-1 doesn't, having a relatively clinical presentation with more resolution than either of the other two.  OTOH, from the Carver Challenge, I know that amps can be made to sound exactly the same.
 
Quote:

I just got the Anedio D1. HOLY MOLY

I asked this question before, but don't you think that was a pretty expensive risk to take, buying a relatively unknown DAC, with no track record and virtually no HeadFi resale value?
 
USG

 

[kite7]

From what I've read there's a 30 day trial period so one can return it, not much to lose if it doesn't sound good.
 
Quote:

I asked this question before, but don't you think that was a pretty expensive risk to take, buying a relatively unknown DAC, with no track record and virtually no HeadFi resale value?
 
USG

Is this with the sigma11 PSU on the M^3 or just the elpac wall wart?
Quote:

I'm not sure all amps sound the same though.  Although my Woo3 and M^3(637/627) have extremely similar sound signatures when volume balanced

 

[upstateguy]

From what I've read there's a 30 day trial period so one can return it, not much to lose if it doesn't sound good.
 

Is this with the sigma11 PSU on the M^3 or just the elpac wall wart?

 


I read about the 30 day trial too, but unless you already have something of comparable quality, the new dac will probably end up being more appealing. And what happens when you want to upgrade or get a different dac for it's feature set? You're still left with something that has little resale value. It's not like trying to sell a Lavry or Benchmark.

Yes, using the Sigma 11....


USG  

 

[Currawong]

I don't think, purely, the THD measurements of a DAC entirely demonstrate whether it is better or not than any other.  How well it both deals with amplifiers of different input impedances and sources with varying qualities of digital output will surely also have some bearing. The measurements, after all, are only taken with one source and one device being used to measure the output (unless I'm mistaken). 

 

[wind016]

Quote:

 
Quote:

I just got the Anedio D1. HOLY MOLY

I asked this question before, but don't you think that was a pretty expensive risk to take, buying a relatively unknown DAC, with no track record and virtually no HeadFi resale value?
 
USG

I'm most likely going to the Bay Area meet on Saturday so I can hear what some top systems sound like, though it wouldn't be my setup. So far, I can't really imagine anything better. I can't really grasp that concept. Probably because I lack the experience, but also because my W11R closed headphones really sound open.