[riderforever]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dex85 /img/forum/go_quote.gif hi again, how do you guys control volume for headphones and active speakers? do you use foobar or asus software that comes with card?

Avoid software volume control (either foobar or asus software) as long as you can, since it leads to a loss in resolution and dynamics.

Of course with headphone connected to the essence head-amp you can't go other way, but with active speakers I'd rather keep the sound card volume at 100% and use the pot on the speakers.

 

[Telstar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by riderforever /img/forum/go_quote.gif Avoid software volume control (either foobar or asus software) as long as you can, since it leads to a loss in resolution and dynamics.

It MAY lead to loss of resolution and dynamics, if the volume is lowered below the original track bitrate.

I.e. it can be safely used with 16bit tracks played with a 24 bit dac such as the Essence, up to -15db (in my case, but your mileage may vary).

 

[dex85]

Quote:

Originally Posted by riderforever /img/forum/go_quote.gif Avoid software volume control (either foobar or asus software) as long as you can, since it leads to a loss in resolution and dynamics. Of course with headphone connected to the essence head-amp you can't go other way, but with active speakers I'd rather keep the sound card volume at 100% and use the pot on the speakers.

i don't have an external headphone amp, so i'm stuck with software regulation

and volume pot on many active speakers are ofter at rear, which is very inconvenient for me (especially if there is a volume pot for every speaker).

do you guys find that loss of resolution and dynamics to be a serious problem (audible right-away or issue for bat ears)? i'll definitely try it for myself when the cards finally arrive, but i want to know what others thinks too.

 

[riderforever]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telstar /img/forum/go_quote.gif It MAY lead to loss of resolution and dynamics, if the volume is lowered below the original track bitrate. I.e. it can be safely used with 16bit tracks played with a 24 bit dac such as the Essence, up to -15db (in my case, but your mileage may vary).

Yes you're absolutely right

Quote:

Originally Posted by dex85 /img/forum/go_quote.gif do you guys find that loss of resolution and dynamics to be a serious problem (audible right-away or issue for bat ears)? i'll definitely try it for myself when the cards finally arrive, but i want to know what others thinks too.

I'm stuck with software regulation as well. In my experience it can be noticed well at low volume listening, the lower the volume the higher the loss of musical content. At medium/high listening volumes it's negligible (expecially with 16bit files, as stated from Telstar)

 

[Bmac]

Ebisky/Tiramisu,

I don't think there is any danger to using the high gain setting with lower impedance phones. The higher gains are just amplifying the signal for louder volume on harder to drive cans. What I found though with the higher gain settings on my 701's (64 ohms) was that they were just too loud to control the volume accurately.

On the normal gain I listen at under 10% max volume normally. With the high gain I could only go up to about 1/4 max volume comfortably, and with extra high gain I could only go 1-3 of the smallest notches possible above minimum comfortably. Your mileage may vary but I didn't notice much if any change in sq between the gain settings so I stick to the normal gain for better control over the volume.

 

[neongod]

Hi, can someone tell me the correct way to set volume controls with the Essence?
I know that is important to set software volumes to the maximum to avoid loss of quality.

My actual setup is:
Asus Xonar Rssence STX connected via QED One RCA cables to KRK Rokit Powered 5 G2 speakers.

I set the volume of the Asus control panel/Windows Vista panel to the maximum (100) and leaved the right and left mixer volume at default (76).
I also set up the WMP11 volume to 100.
This way however I have to set volume controls on the speakers at four steps above
-30 dB (that's the bottom end of volume knob) or volume is really too too high.

Do you think it's right or have I to rise up to 100 the mixer volume in the control panel and set speakers volume to -30 dB?

Also: do you set the quality to PCM 96 or 192 Khz both in the Asus control panel and in the OS control panel?

 

[Shahrose]

I have found that using digital volume control (in foobar for example) degrades SQ. I have also found that maxing out the soundcard volume (from the Windows mixer) ALSO degrades SQ. It's best to keep the volume low to medium on the line-out and control volume from the amp (if it's feeding into an external amp).

 

[neongod]

So you have foobar set to maximum, right?
And what about the main volume in the Asus panel? Right and left volumes in the mixer panel of the Asus panel?

More: how do tou set quality? 96 or 192 Khz?

 

[johnston21]

Hurray! I got my STX to work using Velbac 2.0 with my X-Fi Fatil1ty on a Socket A MB.

How with no PCI-E 1X slot? With this: http://www.amfeltec.com/products/pci...s-adapter.html

Expensive yes, but someone had to try...

My Fostex PMO 4's sound great. Still to try with my 530's & Triple-Fi's.

...Lots more testing to do.

 

[Shahrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by neongod /img/forum/go_quote.gif So you have foobar set to maximum, right? And what about the main volume in the Asus panel? Right and left volumes in the mixer panel of the Asus panel? More: how do tou set quality? 96 or 192 Khz?

Set foobar volume to max. The main volume in the Asus panel is the same as the Windows mixer volume. I always try to keep the volume below 50-60% for the main volume, otherwise I've noticed a loss in SQ (in some sound cards more than others, for example, the Prelude was the worst offender). As for the L/R channel volume, leave those be.

Set the quality to 24 Bit/96 KHz as the STX performs best at those settings.

 

[usf09]

Sorry for asking this, but is there a way to choose between 16/24 bit? I can't find any option for this on my Asus control panel, only the sampling rate (which I have set to 192khz, though I'm not sure what difference it will make since I am playing 44.1khz audio files)...anyways, is there a way to change this setting, or does it change the 16/24 bit automatically? Thanks!

Also, for anyone who has hiss still...try turning the SVN off (smart volume)...I just turned it on, and a loud hiss came through over the music and when no music was playing...It may or may not work for you, just try it out...

 

[ADD]

I can't be certain since I currently own the older Xonar. But they seem very similar in many aspects. With the original Xonar, it defaults to 24 bit processing on the analogue outputs and the only way you can change the bit depth is when using third party DAW software that controls the bit depth using the ASIO API.

That said, I have noticed on the older Xonar that the SPDIF output is limited to 16 bit regardless of what ASIO settings are chosen and despite what ASUS claim (they were also dead silent on the matter when I pointed this out to them. Try to find any digital syncing 24 bit recorder ever built that will sync with the Xonar SPDIF output at anything other than 16 bits

).

I haven't had anyone confirm whether the Essence SPDIF is limited to 16 bits.

 

[Shahrose]

So I tried the 2x LM6172 in the I/V converter section and left the LM4562 in place. My impressions are that the soundstage width decreased, depth in front slightly increased, treble increased (but became more refined/detailed), midrange decreased slightly and so did voices unfortunately, bass decreased noticeably but the bass quality slightly improved. There is also a bit more texture to the music now.

Overall, I'm not sure if it's a clear improvement over stock. Soundstage is a huge factor for me, so the loss of width was a big downer for me. However, the other improvements make up for it more or less. In the end, I'm neutral to the change, YMMV.

Another by-product of the op-amp switch was a decrease in overall volume. Not a big decrease, but worth noting.

Update: OK switched over to the OPA2107 and I find they have a wider soundstage than the LM6172 but not as deep forward (difference is subtle). Voices are slightly subdued because of the opamp's bright nature, although female vocals sound better than stock. The brightness comes from a boost in lower treble. The sound is very quick, transients are excellent, great for instrumental music but not so much for vocals. This was also the most detailed opamp I've tested. Overall though, I prefer my midrange to be more prominent and so I still prefer the stock JRC's over these two opamps.
These would be a good upgrade for people who think their HD650s are veiled. They sound far from it. Bright and detailed with good bass.

I also tested the LT1361 + LM6172 which was an improvement over the LM4562 + LM6172 in the soundstage department and linearity, but there was an upper treble emphasis that I did not enjoy as much the mid-centric stock sound.

I would like to find an opamp that has a smooth sound that brings out the mids and voices more, while adding to the technical prowess of the card by increasing soundstage, transients, detail etc. I think I'll try the LT1364 and LME49720 next.

Going back to the stock opamps, I definitely prefer this sound over any other combination I've tried. Although each opamp made improvements in certain departments, the overall sound wasn't as pleasing to listen to as the stock opamps. Interesting to note that they ALL added treble over the stock configuration.

 

[ADD]

deleted double post

 

[Shahrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scytheavatar /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am listening only straight from the headphone out, on my AD2000. And only swapping the I/V slots. IMHO the LM6172 is 1 step forward, 1 step back from the 2114, while I liked the improved neutrality the soundstage and transparency seemed to have suffered, it's almost like the Esscence's magic is sucked out and it sounds more lower end. It does improve a bit after a short (about 10 hours) burn in, I think I will swap them back and burn them in more to see how much better they can get. The LME49720s on the other hand has an incredible transparency and treble extension, plus an incredible soundstage. IMHO it's an upgrade from both the 2114 and 6172. I strongly disagree that it's warmer than the 6172; in fact I disliked the LME49720's bass which seemed to have become softer. But the tradeoff is worth it IMHO.

I read this after I did my own testing and I have to say I fully agree with scythe regarding the LM6172. Mirrors my findings.