Random DAC/Amp Thread!!
- Thread starter bennysachdev
- Start date
esanthosh
Guide
I only have ZO2 v2 and I am skeptical of sending it back again to digiZoid for RMA to ZO2 v3. It already cost me $113 + $20. Would not be worth spending another 3-4 weeks and $20 to send it back. From what I've heard so far, yes! it does offer good bass boost to bass light IEMs like Etymotic HF2 without distortion at my listening levels. Arrow 3G does bass boost too, but I like ZO2's implementation a tad better.
I thought that ZO2 v1 was boomy - a fact confirmed by dfkt here. ZO2 v3 should be better as you can gauge from the graph. As for comparison to FiiO, I long back had E5 and have not tried any of their latest offerings, so cannot say for sure.
As an addendum to my last post on DacMini, I liked the combo of Marantz 63SE -> Coaxial -> DacMini CX -> Burson HA-160 -> DT880/600 much better. Dynamics were not an issue as before, which makes me suspect the Windows settings more. It's still a tad bright though as I heard some sibilance which I don't usually notice otherwise. HM5 has a bit soft / compressed dynamics for sure, which may have contributed more to the earlier opinion. Will try various combos and see how it goes.
Briefly tried IEMs out of DacMini. It's headphone out (with 1 ohm mod) is pretty decent for IEMs though it hisses with FXT90. I like the DT880 with DacMini -> Burson. The top end of DacMini is good - the cymbal crashes are really nice in their attack and decay. I would need a headphone with good sub-bass presentation to test it's low end. Neither HD600 nor DT880 go low enough for me. Mids are good with IEMs. But with headphones, I have a feeling that their amp section is holding them back a little.
It would be a stretch to compare how Burson HA-160D and DacMini CX, but I did what I can i.e., DacMini CX as Dac-Amp vs DacMini CX (DAC) -> Burson HA-160 (Amp). To my eyes, even though DacMini is well built, Burson gives a strong sense of build quality. With aesthetics, DacMini's MacMini-clone design is slightly better looking than an industrial looking Burson. The stepped attenuator on the Burson is good, but volume could be a little less than required in one step and could go to a little more than required in the next. These external factors could be common even for HA-160D vs DacMini. Getting to SQ, when going from DacMini's headphone out to Burson with any headphone, I notice a better articulation, authority and weight of each note through the Burson. Burson seems to add a slight bit of warmth to the sound as well. Other than that, it's just the normal effects of amplification.
While I am yet to compare them directly from the same source (of course via Optical and with the same IEM / Headphone), what I can say at this point is that there are things I like about UHA-6S, which are missing from DacMini CX. First would be the sound stage and airiness in the presentation. Second would be the nice mid range transparency of UHA-6S. I suspect that the decay of UHA-6S is a bit shorter than DacMini and hence the more apparent perception of little nuances, but I can't be sure until I A:B. On the other hand, DacMini does the top-end better and has a slightly warmer tonality compared to the neutral tone of UHA-6S. I won't be sure about the low-end unless I try DacMini with something like EX-1000 or FX700.
Taking UHA6S out of the equation, the more pertinent question becomes - would I still need to keep HRT MSII and STX around? I'd be happy if the answer is "no" after a few days of trial and error.
PS: Anybody willing to loan Audinst MX-1 for a week?
I thought that ZO2 v1 was boomy - a fact confirmed by dfkt here. ZO2 v3 should be better as you can gauge from the graph. As for comparison to FiiO, I long back had E5 and have not tried any of their latest offerings, so cannot say for sure.
As an addendum to my last post on DacMini, I liked the combo of Marantz 63SE -> Coaxial -> DacMini CX -> Burson HA-160 -> DT880/600 much better. Dynamics were not an issue as before, which makes me suspect the Windows settings more. It's still a tad bright though as I heard some sibilance which I don't usually notice otherwise. HM5 has a bit soft / compressed dynamics for sure, which may have contributed more to the earlier opinion. Will try various combos and see how it goes.
Briefly tried IEMs out of DacMini. It's headphone out (with 1 ohm mod) is pretty decent for IEMs though it hisses with FXT90. I like the DT880 with DacMini -> Burson. The top end of DacMini is good - the cymbal crashes are really nice in their attack and decay. I would need a headphone with good sub-bass presentation to test it's low end. Neither HD600 nor DT880 go low enough for me. Mids are good with IEMs. But with headphones, I have a feeling that their amp section is holding them back a little.
It would be a stretch to compare how Burson HA-160D and DacMini CX, but I did what I can i.e., DacMini CX as Dac-Amp vs DacMini CX (DAC) -> Burson HA-160 (Amp). To my eyes, even though DacMini is well built, Burson gives a strong sense of build quality. With aesthetics, DacMini's MacMini-clone design is slightly better looking than an industrial looking Burson. The stepped attenuator on the Burson is good, but volume could be a little less than required in one step and could go to a little more than required in the next. These external factors could be common even for HA-160D vs DacMini. Getting to SQ, when going from DacMini's headphone out to Burson with any headphone, I notice a better articulation, authority and weight of each note through the Burson. Burson seems to add a slight bit of warmth to the sound as well. Other than that, it's just the normal effects of amplification.
While I am yet to compare them directly from the same source (of course via Optical and with the same IEM / Headphone), what I can say at this point is that there are things I like about UHA-6S, which are missing from DacMini CX. First would be the sound stage and airiness in the presentation. Second would be the nice mid range transparency of UHA-6S. I suspect that the decay of UHA-6S is a bit shorter than DacMini and hence the more apparent perception of little nuances, but I can't be sure until I A:B. On the other hand, DacMini does the top-end better and has a slightly warmer tonality compared to the neutral tone of UHA-6S. I won't be sure about the low-end unless I try DacMini with something like EX-1000 or FX700.
Taking UHA6S out of the equation, the more pertinent question becomes - would I still need to keep HRT MSII and STX around? I'd be happy if the answer is "no" after a few days of trial and error.
PS: Anybody willing to loan Audinst MX-1 for a week?
esanthosh
Guide
Not sure what you mean by 'good' headphone - high impedance ones, I assume? I tried it briefly with HD600 and it did OK. I do not use it regularly with headphones, but many do on head-fi. So, you should be fine.
First time - 8 days, Second time (RMA to the now abandoned ZO2 v2) - 9 days. But, no custom duty.
First time - 8 days, Second time (RMA to the now abandoned ZO2 v2) - 9 days. But, no custom duty.
esanthosh
Guide
I asked digiZoid to mark it lower. They would do that by default now.
In related news, I tried sending ZO2 v2 for RMA, but it got returned because customs found it "lighting up". It was in a cover and they must have pressed the switch by accident, I guess. Not sure how to send it now. May be I should sell it off.
No longer relevant. It's already with digiZoid.
No longer relevant. It's already with digiZoid.
I got to try out the Asus Essence One and it turned out to be pretty impressive . Very tempted to get one since haven't upgraded much for a long long time . Have posted the impressions in this thread for now , will try and post a mini-review later.
http://www.techenclave.com/topic/50...e-amplifier-at-best-price/page__fromsearch__1
http://www.techenclave.com/topic/50...e-amplifier-at-best-price/page__fromsearch__1
I already compared it to the STX and MX1 which were in the same machine that had the Essence One connected. Won't be able to give you a detailed write up but I can say that the difference was pretty vast while A/Bing . Compared to STX and MX1 the Essence One seems to provide the perfect power needed for the K702 . Though the 702s sound and are driven pretty well with the STX and MX1 , they sound their usual super neutral and little bright . With the Essence One the bass has more punch and definition. The mids all of sudden seem to sound totally different , very insanely detailed . Felt the same like it felt while re-discovering the RE-0 with a quality amp , if you know what I mean
. Overall the sound is so clean and the soundstage also so perfect , I didn't feel like taking the headphones off even thought I wasn't much of a fan of the music I was listening to
.
Even with the STX/Audinst paired to Maverick A1 I used to love the 702s but with the Essence One you fall in love all over again . Always used to wonder how much better can more expensive DACs can get , you can only experience it I believe not explain it . Now wondering what an upgrade to Essence One would be like :ahamed:.
Even with the STX/Audinst paired to Maverick A1 I used to love the 702s but with the Essence One you fall in love all over again . Always used to wonder how much better can more expensive DACs can get , you can only experience it I believe not explain it . Now wondering what an upgrade to Essence One would be like :ahamed:.
esanthosh
Guide
Always used to wonder how much better can more expensive DACs can get , you can only experience it I believe not explain it . Now wondering what an upgrade to Essence One would be like
IMHO, won't be huge as law of diminishing return kicks in - in full force. But, differences do exist based on what they highlight and bring out.
I have a general idea of what to expect having progressed to DacMini from HRT MSII. But, I probably need a money tree in my backyard for where I want to go.
I am not a fan of Srajan's writing, but I'd say this captures the essence of what higher end DACs can do
PS: Anybody ordered O2 yet?
bennysachdev
Discoverer
Just bought a Fiio E17 Alpen. Not one of my most thought out or need based decisions. More of an impulse buy than a strategically planned one
I needed a decent dac for office use to drive my Sennheiser hd25-1 II (70ohms), something small, portable, cheap (so that it doesn't hurt if it gets stolen). So i'm auditioning it right now and first impressions are pretty good. The mids sound pretty smooth and open/non congested. I'm using the fiio on default settings on high gain(12), treble 0, bass 0. The bass is good and punchy. Not very textured but has plenty of quantity. The treble is clean and non sibilant. Not the most detailed I have heard but then its not fair to compare them to dac's exponentially costlier than this
From what I can recollect the MS2 has a better treble presentation. Correct me if i'm wrong there.
Overall presentation is dark and warm sounding. Vocals based tracks and classical tracks will have an edge over trance, electronic, house and progressive kind of music. Synergy wise I would say it would pair well with neutral to bright sounding head gear. My SM3 which is already warm sounding sounds even warmer with these. The vocals sound really beautiful with the sm3 but probably just a tad too warm for my taste. Of course you can fix that by increasing the treble a notch or two to fine tune it to perfection. Increasing the treble from 0 to 6 reveals the hidden detailing, which was not audible in the higher frequencies from the instruments.
One thing what impresses me the most is the fact that there is no electrical static or noise even on high gain at its full volume. Atleast not audible on my medium impedance cans. With the SM3, its audible only after a volume level of 40 and the volume level goes up till 60. Just to give you an idea of how loud that is, i'm listening at a volume of 20 and it is really loud. I don't think i'll ever be listening to a volume of more than 25 on iems(deafening) and 30 on my hd25-1 II on high gain.
I needed a decent dac for office use to drive my Sennheiser hd25-1 II (70ohms), something small, portable, cheap (so that it doesn't hurt if it gets stolen). So i'm auditioning it right now and first impressions are pretty good. The mids sound pretty smooth and open/non congested. I'm using the fiio on default settings on high gain(12), treble 0, bass 0. The bass is good and punchy. Not very textured but has plenty of quantity. The treble is clean and non sibilant. Not the most detailed I have heard but then its not fair to compare them to dac's exponentially costlier than this
Overall presentation is dark and warm sounding. Vocals based tracks and classical tracks will have an edge over trance, electronic, house and progressive kind of music. Synergy wise I would say it would pair well with neutral to bright sounding head gear. My SM3 which is already warm sounding sounds even warmer with these. The vocals sound really beautiful with the sm3 but probably just a tad too warm for my taste. Of course you can fix that by increasing the treble a notch or two to fine tune it to perfection. Increasing the treble from 0 to 6 reveals the hidden detailing, which was not audible in the higher frequencies from the instruments.
One thing what impresses me the most is the fact that there is no electrical static or noise even on high gain at its full volume. Atleast not audible on my medium impedance cans. With the SM3, its audible only after a volume level of 40 and the volume level goes up till 60. Just to give you an idea of how loud that is, i'm listening at a volume of 20 and it is really loud. I don't think i'll ever be listening to a volume of more than 25 on iems(deafening) and 30 on my hd25-1 II on high gain.
bennysachdev
Discoverer
I meant e17. Hehe. thanks for that.
esanthosh
Guide
I think 2StepDance may be the best portable amp I own now. It transformed iPod 5G from a source I thought was just above Clip+ to something I could put on par, if not a little ahead of my QA350 -> UHA-6S rig. I listened using EX-1000 normally - a few weeks back (2nd week of Jan) with DacMini, yesterday with I2S and today with BS. So, it's not exactly a one on one comparison, rather a collection of thoughts on what stood out for me.
Now that I have three rigs which took a heavy bite of the wallet, it's interesting that all three have some uniqueness. As of now there is no clear winner in my mind. Ex-shipping and Cables, DacMini CX is in the range of $800 new (though less than $700 for me), QA350 brick stack (QA350 Mod V2 -> UHA6S, BS for short) is about $530 - though only the $280 of UHA6S matters here since QA350 just acts as a transport, iPod rig (iPod Video 5G 80GB -> 2StepDance, I2S for short) was cheaper at ~ $500 largely because of the older iPod 5G. In short, a $800 Desktop Dac-Amp against a sub-$300 portable Dac-Amp and a $500 transportable source-amp rig. Contrary to what the price range indicates, I cannot say that Dacmini was in an entirely different league, just different in it's approach.
2SD produces a much clearer sound with a darker background than BS. The balance is very even across the spectrum. Treble feels like it has much better extension (which I cannot verify with these rolled off ears), but it does have much better sparkle and presence. The mid range is more clean sounding, slightly thinner, bass has slightly better punch. Going back to UHA-6S, I thought I had lost the sharpness in each note and sound stage seemed more cohesive than the well separated presentation of 2SD. The sound stage size did not seem too different (May be 2SD is a little bigger). But, where UHA-6S scored was in bringing forth more emotion and intimacy - in my case, the death growls of Akerfledt were much more special with the UHA-6S like you can hear every bit of his throat movement. Especially around 3:15 in "Advent" (Where even foes close their eyes and leave), the closing part of 'Leave' ripples from back to the front which I do not hear / feel with other sources (just more deep bass?
). It was a bit more relaxing to listen to with the same album ("Morningrise") due to the smoothness of the sound. However, guitars benefited from a relatively clearer and sharper note presentation of 2SD (crunchier). I am not sure why, but I felt that UHA-6S had great layering and imaging a few times, but I2S felt more matter of fact when indeed both may not have done anything hugely different with the same IEM.
Coming to DacMini CX, it felt relatively more analog due to good body and weight to the sound. DacMini has perhaps the warmest mid range among the three. I did not think that the sound stage was great on the CX. It is again a bit more intimate in presentation like UHA-6S and could be as fatigue free as UHA-6S at the very least. Otherwise, I'd not have listened that long into the night.
I2S rig comes off as neutral and detailed presenting a very sharp picture of music with good separation and clarity.
UHA-6S is slightly more focused on mids followed by bass compared to treble and more cohesive in presentation.
DacMini paints a richer presentation of the music among the three. It may have a similar FR as I2S, but also has a more fluid sound. I suspect it may come across as the better source of the three except for sound stage.
Now that I have three rigs which took a heavy bite of the wallet, it's interesting that all three have some uniqueness. As of now there is no clear winner in my mind. Ex-shipping and Cables, DacMini CX is in the range of $800 new (though less than $700 for me), QA350 brick stack (QA350 Mod V2 -> UHA6S, BS for short) is about $530 - though only the $280 of UHA6S matters here since QA350 just acts as a transport, iPod rig (iPod Video 5G 80GB -> 2StepDance, I2S for short) was cheaper at ~ $500 largely because of the older iPod 5G. In short, a $800 Desktop Dac-Amp against a sub-$300 portable Dac-Amp and a $500 transportable source-amp rig. Contrary to what the price range indicates, I cannot say that Dacmini was in an entirely different league, just different in it's approach.
2SD produces a much clearer sound with a darker background than BS. The balance is very even across the spectrum. Treble feels like it has much better extension (which I cannot verify with these rolled off ears), but it does have much better sparkle and presence. The mid range is more clean sounding, slightly thinner, bass has slightly better punch. Going back to UHA-6S, I thought I had lost the sharpness in each note and sound stage seemed more cohesive than the well separated presentation of 2SD. The sound stage size did not seem too different (May be 2SD is a little bigger). But, where UHA-6S scored was in bringing forth more emotion and intimacy - in my case, the death growls of Akerfledt were much more special with the UHA-6S like you can hear every bit of his throat movement. Especially around 3:15 in "Advent" (Where even foes close their eyes and leave), the closing part of 'Leave' ripples from back to the front which I do not hear / feel with other sources (just more deep bass?
Coming to DacMini CX, it felt relatively more analog due to good body and weight to the sound. DacMini has perhaps the warmest mid range among the three. I did not think that the sound stage was great on the CX. It is again a bit more intimate in presentation like UHA-6S and could be as fatigue free as UHA-6S at the very least. Otherwise, I'd not have listened that long into the night.
I2S rig comes off as neutral and detailed presenting a very sharp picture of music with good separation and clarity.
UHA-6S is slightly more focused on mids followed by bass compared to treble and more cohesive in presentation.
DacMini paints a richer presentation of the music among the three. It may have a similar FR as I2S, but also has a more fluid sound. I suspect it may come across as the better source of the three except for sound stage.
esanthosh
Guide
The battle of bricks has one more contender - http://www.head-fi.org/t/597981/the-new-hifiman-802-new-ui-named-tai-ji
I have HRT MSII for over ... how long I don't remember. But, I've hardly used it
.
Just the other sleepless night, I was trying MS2 (USB) -> DacMini CX Analog In and compared it to DacMini CX (Optical) using DT880/600. I tried to compare both using USB to be fair, but then the PC threw a fit saying that 'USB Bandwidth exceeded'. From what I understand, DacMini was already using 45% of the bandwidth (Mouse was using 2%) and HRT MS2 demanded 51%. I was trying to run both at 24/96. No idea if it would have worked with 16/44.1, but did not try. I ran a very brief comparison, which was not thorough.
Anyways, relatively speaking, HRT MSII had a neutral tone, thinner in notes and lagged behind in the resolution and clarity department. With DacMini CX, the biggest difference was that it was more engaging. It had body and weight across the range, on the warmer side in terms of tone and more intimate in presentation. MS2 had a slightly distant sound stage. One thing it does have over DacMini is better airiness which allowed it to bring out placement within the first few minutes of Tool's "Ticks & Leeches" better. I think DacMini's amp section may be a bit of on Achilles' heel. Feeding it to Burson added a bit more air and slight bit more in terms of sound stage size.
When I bought both, I thought it was stupid to have two things with headphone outs side by side. But in practice, DacMini's 1 ohm modded headphone out goes well with IEMs, but Burson is what I like with headphones. Burson has that authority when driving headphones and sharpens the note presentation - which takes it a notch higher.
It also occurred to me that if I had not spent on the CEntrance and the Burson, I could have afforded a Anedio D2. But then, it would have been a risk of a different magnitude.
I have HRT MSII for over ... how long I don't remember. But, I've hardly used it
Just the other sleepless night, I was trying MS2 (USB) -> DacMini CX Analog In and compared it to DacMini CX (Optical) using DT880/600. I tried to compare both using USB to be fair, but then the PC threw a fit saying that 'USB Bandwidth exceeded'. From what I understand, DacMini was already using 45% of the bandwidth (Mouse was using 2%) and HRT MS2 demanded 51%. I was trying to run both at 24/96. No idea if it would have worked with 16/44.1, but did not try. I ran a very brief comparison, which was not thorough.
Anyways, relatively speaking, HRT MSII had a neutral tone, thinner in notes and lagged behind in the resolution and clarity department. With DacMini CX, the biggest difference was that it was more engaging. It had body and weight across the range, on the warmer side in terms of tone and more intimate in presentation. MS2 had a slightly distant sound stage. One thing it does have over DacMini is better airiness which allowed it to bring out placement within the first few minutes of Tool's "Ticks & Leeches" better. I think DacMini's amp section may be a bit of on Achilles' heel. Feeding it to Burson added a bit more air and slight bit more in terms of sound stage size.
When I bought both, I thought it was stupid to have two things with headphone outs side by side. But in practice, DacMini's 1 ohm modded headphone out goes well with IEMs, but Burson is what I like with headphones. Burson has that authority when driving headphones and sharpens the note presentation - which takes it a notch higher.
It also occurred to me that if I had not spent on the CEntrance and the Burson, I could have afforded a Anedio D2. But then, it would have been a risk of a different magnitude.
I do not know much or anything about USB DACs and Amplifiers and hence would ask this question.
Does a USB DAC act similarly to a PCI slotted Sound card like say Asus Xonar DX etc? Or simply put, is a USB DAC and external sound card or function like it?
I have reached a stage in my audio journey where the mention of DACs and Amplifiers are made at frequent occasions and discussions. I would like to be well prepared before making my way up the 5k mark
Actually planning to get a M50 in April sometime.
I was into (and still am) into IEMs and have the Klipsch X10. I would now like to foray into the headphones zone and upgrade form my humble gear of Steelseries Siberia V1 Headset (yes, gaming headset for music) and a http://us.playstation.com/ps3/accessories/wireless-stereo-headset-ps3.html (5k)
Does a USB DAC act similarly to a PCI slotted Sound card like say Asus Xonar DX etc? Or simply put, is a USB DAC and external sound card or function like it?
I have reached a stage in my audio journey where the mention of DACs and Amplifiers are made at frequent occasions and discussions. I would like to be well prepared before making my way up the 5k mark
Actually planning to get a M50 in April sometime.
I was into (and still am) into IEMs and have the Klipsch X10. I would now like to foray into the headphones zone and upgrade form my humble gear of Steelseries Siberia V1 Headset (yes, gaming headset for music) and a http://us.playstation.com/ps3/accessories/wireless-stereo-headset-ps3.html (5k)
esanthosh
Guide
Just broadly speaking...
The sound card also has a DAC Chip. Whether Internal or external, they both convert a digital stream into analog sound. The issue is sound card may not get clean power and could be subject to interference within the PC cabinet. An external sound card / DAC is also preferred because it can be moved around from PC to Laptop and vice versa. Other than that, they basically do the same function. However, many internal sound cards process multi-channel audio (gaming, movies), whereas when we talk of 'DACs', they generally tend to be restricted to music. This is not always true - Essence STX is a decent source for music, whereas some entry level DACs were less impressive.
The sound card also has a DAC Chip. Whether Internal or external, they both convert a digital stream into analog sound. The issue is sound card may not get clean power and could be subject to interference within the PC cabinet. An external sound card / DAC is also preferred because it can be moved around from PC to Laptop and vice versa. Other than that, they basically do the same function. However, many internal sound cards process multi-channel audio (gaming, movies), whereas when we talk of 'DACs', they generally tend to be restricted to music. This is not always true - Essence STX is a decent source for music, whereas some entry level DACs were less impressive.