[Shahrose]

@Alydon: Let me know what you think of 3xLME49720. I personally enjoyed that combination a LOT with my DT990s, even moreso than with the HD650s. It served to tame the treble a bit, bring out the mids and remove the midbass hump on the DT990s (giving it a very linear deep bass).

One thing that I failed to mentioned earlier about the LME49720s is the amount of effortlessness it exudes, especially at higher volumes. Most other opamps can sound congested and smeared when listening to high volumes and the soundstage can collapse as well. This is absolutely not the case with the LME49720s. In fact, it's surprising how well it can convey a sense of space/air and accuracy at high volumes. The only weakness I feel is the bass (but I am being picky) which I feel is sometimes lacking (for my tastes) and it is not as sharp/defined as the default setup, however, the difference here is more in quantity than quality.

When switching to the DT990s though, an inherently bassy/warm headphone, the LME's sound excellent. I have not found the DT990s to sound better out of anything else.

 

[Alydon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zzzmonster /img/forum/go_quote.gif Are LME49720 the same as LM4562,cos I am using 3 x LM4562 (My bad) My Setup - Vista 32 Business Ed (Max Vol) -> PlayWASPI Player (No Vol Control) -> Asus Essence (3 LM4562 RCA out) -> EAM Preamp -> AudioEngine A5 + AudioEngine S8 Maybe the Audioengine is bass heavy, but I feel that the bass output is just nice in this setup, but the treble is more brittle on some occasions PlayWASPI: Minimalist Audio Player EAM Preamp: EAM ----- EA Electronics : Passive Pre-Amp Don't tell me the problem lies with the PlayWASPI player. It is miles ahead of any audio player i have used including XMPlay with WASAPI out, foobar with WASAPI out, KS out, ASIO out,winamp with ASIO,OPENAL out. Still dont know how to use CPlay successfully yet and dont wish to pay for xxxhighend

The LM4562 & LME49720 are alleged to be the same part. If you compare the datasheets from National's website you'll see that all specs, graphs, etc are identical (I just did this a few mins ago to verify). Someone in this thread on avsforum from a couple years back also said he spoke to a National engineer who said they were identical. However, if you look at their table of "Performance Audio" opamps, you'll see they're the same except for the Voltage noise, which is 2.5 on the 49720 and 2.7 on the 4562.

So hearsay and documentation say that are pretty much the same. But my ears tell me that the samples that I have sound different enough for me to think there might be some binning-for-quality going on in favour of the 49720's.

That said, you're using a speaker system w/ a decent sub, so I'm not surprised you don't have any issues w/ lack of bass.

I suspect that the LM4562's might be responsible for the sharp treble you're hearing though, since I, too, hear a little sharpness from them. Which is why I pulled them in favour of the LME49720's.

The only other unknown would be your preamp which I know absolutely nothing about. If it's generally treble-heavy that might make the 4562's sharpness more pronounced.


@Shahrose, I'll let you know my findings. I agree 100% w/ the sense of effortlessness to the sound produced by the 49720's, as well as their control of imaging, air, space, and instrument separation/distinction even at high volumes and with highly-complex and dynamic performances. Same thing w/ the 6172's, IMO, although they seem to do it more w/ a sense of raw power than that of finesse like you get w/ the 49720's. Both are quite impressive, though.

For you gamers out there this also applies to FPS gaming. The 49720's and 6172's both provide the most precise imaging and most accurate directional - and especially distance - cues out of any opamps I've tried thus far, even in heavy firefights. The increase in the number of wallhack accusations I've received recently alone speaks volumes about how it has improved my gameplay.

 

[zzzmonster]

@Alydon: I think you are right - they are not the same - I googled Voltage noise, and it seems it alter the characteristic of the opamp quite a bit

 

[ADD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by riderforever /img/forum/go_quote.gif Does the Essence have the ALT loopback functionality? I don't see it among the recording devices...

No it doesn't unfortunately, so you have to have the old Xonar cards if you want that functionality. Since I bought an M-Audio Microtrack II (which I connect to the Essence SPDIF coaxial output) I can do much the same thing the old ALT function did, but with the benefit of not having an additional digital to analogue-analogue to digital stage.

 

[ADD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loempiaja /img/forum/go_quote.gif If I enable SVN (Smart Volume Something) I really hear a lot of background noise.

Well the SVN dramatically compresses the dynamic range (both by limiting and boosting low levels). It's possible you are just hearing the noise floor which would also be present without SVN if it were possible to turn up the volume up high enough without damaging your hearing (I strongly advise against testing that theory though for obvious reasons).

I don't have the problem you described though. Any increased noise I hear is attributable to the natural noise floor inherent in the source material.

 

[riderforever]

@ADD: thanks for the answer!

I'm getting lost with all this opamp rolling... Can please someone explain me which kind of differences may I expect replacing the I/V JRC2114s with the OPA2134s or LM49720s? Is the latter actually the preferred choice or does it suffer from the lack of bass?

 

[Dodger1]

Am I right in assuming that 1 is the buffer spot and 2 and 3 are the I/V spots?

 

[riderforever]

@Dodger1: yes you're right

 

[ROBSCIX]

@Doger1, to elaborate The Buffer opamps is NOT used when using headphone output. The relays remove the LM4562NA out of the circuit and connect the I/V opamps to the headphone amp chip. I just mentioned this as changing the buffer opamp will not change the siganture of the headphone ouput

 

[Dodger1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROBSCIX /img/forum/go_quote.gif @Doger1, to elaborate The Buffer opamps is NOT used when using headphone output. The relays remove the LM4562NA out of the circuit and connect the I/V opamps to the headphone amp chip. I just mentioned this as changing the buffer opamp will not change the siganture of the headphone ouput

Thanks for the clarification and your invaluable assistance on the Hardware Canucks audio board. Now if you'll just finally wrap up the review over there, I'll be a happy puppy

I was thinking of testing Alydon's setup of LME49720's in the I/V spots and an LM6172 in the buffer; to compare against my present setup of LM6172's in the I/V spots and an LT1364 in the buffer.

To my still unsophisticated ears the 6172's and 1364 were a nice upgrade from the stock opamps; so I'm intrigued to see what the new one will sound like.

Currently I'm using my headphones ~ 6 to 1 vs. my speaker setup. My new AD900's were a very nice upgrade from the AD700's, not that I thought they were any slouch, but the 900's kept everything I liked about the 700's and simply made it better (very scientific observation - eh). So if you know of anyone who's looking for a pristine AD700

 

[Earwicker]

Anyone figured out how the variable gain on the headphone amp is achieved? Is it electrically by attenuating the output voltage or have ASUS been sneaky and programmed in three steps of digital attenuation at the DAC?

HK

 

[ROBSCIX]

The gain levels are set through the headphone amplifier chip.

 

[Earwicker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROBSCIX /img/forum/go_quote.gif The gain levels are set through the headphone amplifier chip.

Great! How though?

If I set the gain to "normal" and I only need say 3-6 dB of digital attenuation, then that's the ONLY digital attenuation going on? I'm using K701s and still trying to decide between Normal gain with very little attenuation and high gain with 12-15 dB of attenuation - logically the former should sound better...!

EW

 

[Alydon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by riderforever /img/forum/go_quote.gif @ADD: thanks for the answer! I'm getting lost with all this opamp rolling... Can please someone explain me which kind of differences may I expect replacing the I/V JRC2114s with the OPA2134s or LM49720s? Is the latter actually the preferred choice or does it suffer from the lack of bass?

Taken from my impressions here:

2x opa2134 – This added mid-bass in addition to the upper bass from the 2114. It has better bass control and clarity than the 2114 but it’s still flabby and is too boomy. The overall sound is quite organic though and you get increased clarity as well. The treble is slightly peaky but not scratchy, but it can lose control and sound “bleaty” with highly dynamic recordings. Overall it has better imaging, slightly more air, and better/longer decay than the 2114 as well, although there’s still not a lot of air (though is this is more a feature of the Opera amp I’m using). This’d be a good, cheap upgrade ($2 apiece at Digikey) if you can put up with the overemphasized bass.

The LME49720's OTOH give you a much deeper soundstage than stock, as well as a much tighter and more-controlled bass, more details all around, slightly more mids, a clean treble that has more air and is not sharp or scratchy, and vastly improved holographic 3D imaging. The downside is that the low bass rolls off prematurely. However, since the upper-bass is no longer mushy the bass you do get is much more refined than the stock 2114's.

It is important to note though that with the 6172 in the buffer spot there is no lack of bass in any way, shape, or form! It more than makes up for any bass deficiency the 49720's have in the I/V spots.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodger1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was thinking of testing Alydon's setup of LME49720's in the I/V spots and an LM6172 in the buffer; to compare against my present setup of LM6172's in the I/V spots and an LT1364 in the buffer. To my still unsophisticated ears the 6172's and 1364 were a nice upgrade from the stock opamps; so I'm intrigued to see what the new one will sound like. Currently I'm using my headphones ~ 6 to 1 vs. my speaker setup. My new AD900's were a very nice upgrade from the AD700's, not that I thought they were any slouch, but the 900's kept everything I liked about the 700's and simply made it better (very scientific observation - eh). So if you know of anyone who's looking for a pristine AD700

My memory of the lt1364/2xlm6172 is a little hazy so I'll try it out again for you tonight to see how it compares to my current setup. From what I remember, switching to the 6172/2x49720's will give you a more balanced and forward treble energy, more air, and a larger soundstage.

...

@everyone, having listened to a wider variety of music last night I'm pretty sure I'm going to keep the 6172 in the buffer spot and not even try a 3rd 49720. While comparing the lm6172 and lm4562, for much of the older music in my collection (classic rock, classical/opera, jazz/blues, 70's funk) the 6172 & 4562 as a buffer are neck-in-neck. With some I prefer the 4562, and others I prefer the 6172.

However, for newer highly-processed music containing electronica/synth elements (80's pop, electronica, trance, industrial, etc) I efeinitely prefer the 6172. Many times when I switched to the 4562's I was thinking, "Where'd the bass go?" It's like the lowest bass registers just fell off of the music and disappeared, and the bass had very little body to it. Additionally, for some highly processed music (like Men Without Hats's "Pop Goes the World") the imaging became quite flat and sound source got pushed farther away from you, although the soundstage was still big. So it sounded like you were surrounded by a flat dome of music. The 6172 as a buffer does not seem to suffer from this on any but the most poorly mastered music (where pretty much any setup would probably suffer).

 

[Shahrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alydon /img/forum/go_quote.gif ... @everyone, having listened to a wider variety of music last night I'm pretty sure I'm going to keep the 6172 in the buffer spot and not even try a 3rd 49720. While comparing the lm6172 and lm4562, for much of the older music in my collection (classic rock, classical/opera, jazz/blues, 70's funk) the 6172 & 4562 as a buffer are neck-in-neck. With some I prefer the 4562, and others I prefer the 6172. However, for newer highly-processed music containing electronica/synth elements (80's pop, electronica, trance, industrial, etc) I efeinitely prefer the 6172. Many times when I switched to the 4562's I was thinking, "Where'd the bass go?" It's like the lowest bass registers just fell off of the music and disappeared, and the bass had very little body to it. Additionally, for some highly processed music (like Men Without Hats's "Pop Goes the World") the imaging became quite flat and sound source got pushed farther away from you, although the soundstage was still big. So it sounded like you were surrounded by a flat dome of music. The 6172 as a buffer does not seem to suffer from this on any but the most poorly mastered music (where pretty much any setup would probably suffer).

I'm not sure why but when I tried the LM6172 after the LME49720 in the buffer spot, the bass was strained, especially at higher volumes. It felt like the bass was just giving up partway through the note and I don't mean a quick decay. I mean some bass notes just got truncated to the point where I was losing audio data. I'll have to try it again, but from recent memory, the bass didn't sound as good as the default setup. The DT990s masked this flaw more than the HD650 because of their own bassy signature.