New audio solutions?

[WolfStrong]

Right now, I am using a Marantz 2325 as a headphone amp + speaker amp with the source being an ASUS Essence STX. I do love this combo, however the receiver is on loan from my dad, and is giving me some problems right now that are likely going to take a while to diagnose (The Marantz 2325 is one complicated piece of electronics...). This made me think that perhaps it is time for me to get my own solution.

 

Now I have a power amp board that I used, and while it was cool, but didn't give me the sound I am looking for through the speakers, or the headphones (using the STX audio). The low end is lacking with this amp, though it puts out plenty of volume. For a headphone amp, the STX compared to the Marantz, the highs can be harsh at times when using the HD558's.. The Marantz by comparison had tone controls, which I was able to fine tune the sound with. This, coupled with the fact that the Marantz just naturally has a warm, tube-like sound, and it made for a great combo. 

 

The solution I came up with, was to get a Marantz 1060 for its simpler beautiful design, cheaper price, smaller size, and MUCH simpler electronic design. The problem is that they are still hard to find for less than $300 after shipping, usually tipping in the $200-250 on the low end after shipping. I wouldn't mind doing a DIY tube kit that gave me everything I needed, but those are usually even more expensive. Basically to sum it up, I have a loose budget of $200 which I can stretch if needed. I like a warm, tube like sound to my audio, without mudding the mids and highs; I like my highs nice and clear, though not harsh. My headphones are the Sennheiser HD558's and the speakers are the Infinity P363's. I would LOVE to get some HD650's for their darker/warmer tone over the 558's, but their price is out of my budget. Aesthetically I love the look and feel of solid metal knobs/faceplates, and prefer manual controls for everything. I HATE software/HUD controlled interfaces; I prefer a simple knob for tonal controls. The other nice thing I liked about the 1060 was that it has a tube-like sound, without the warmup time and heat of tubes.

 

So yeah, I basically already know exactly what I want (a Marantz 1060), but just thought I'd post this to see if anyone else had any other ideas that they think would fit me. That, or perhaps there are some awesome headphones that might give me the sound I am looking for (I mostly use headphones now).

[NannerBeans]

Most people on this forum do not like DACs to color the audio and I for one agree. My suggestion would be to just use your stx and invest in warmers headphones instead. Assuming you are in the US, headphones that I see recommended a lot are Beyerdynamic DT770/880/990 and custom one pros. The DT770 and custom one pros have the most base because they are closed where as the 880 are semi-open and the 990 are open. 

[EmoRarity]

Most people on this forum do not like DACs to color the audio and I for one agree. My suggestion would be to just use your stx and invest in warmers headphones instead. Assuming you are in the US, headphones that I see recommended a lot are Beyerdynamic DT770/880/990 and custom one pros. The DT770 and custom one pros have the most base because they are closed where as the 880 are semi-open and the 990 are open. 

I second this, the high impedance for the Beyer's will pair with the STX better due to its higher output impedance. 

[NannerBeans]

I second this, the high impedance for the Beyer's will pair with the STX better due to its higher output impedance. 

 

I actually totally forgot about the high output impedance. The Dt770/880/990 will suit you better than the custom one pros because of this. 

[WolfStrong]

Keep in mind I'm not permanently using the STX...Also the Marantz just ended up working again after I replaced the fuse and let it sit overnight, so I will just keep on using it for a bit longer. Still eventually want to get one for myself. Even if it isn't the best headphone amp in the world (though it is a good one), it IS an amazing speaker amp, especially for the price they can be had at. 

 

Now, as far as headphones go, as mentioned before, I was really looking into the Sennheiser HD650's. The reason I did not really consider the DT lineup was because reviews stated they tend to have very bright, sometimes harsh highs. While I do like clear highs and mids, I don't like them to be too harsh. Also, I'm surprised no one really talks about the Beyerdynamic T line, namely the T90's and T1. Beyerdynamic does intrigue me though; what I would really like to know is how where I can find a place to try them all out. I'd love to do a side by side comparison of the T90's and the HD650's.

[NannerBeans]

Keep in mind I'm not permanently using the STX...Also the Marantz just ended up working again after I replaced the fuse and let it sit overnight, so I will just keep on using it for a bit longer. Still eventually want to get one for myself. Even if it isn't the best headphone amp in the world (though it is a good one), it IS an amazing speaker amp, especially for the price they can be had at. 

 

Now, as far as headphones go, as mentioned before, I was really looking into the Sennheiser HD650's. The reason I did not really consider the DT lineup was because reviews stated they tend to have very bright, sometimes harsh highs. While I do like clear highs and mids, I don't like them to be too harsh. Also, I'm surprised no one really talks about the Beyerdynamic T line, namely the T90's and T1. Beyerdynamic does intrigue me though; what I would really like to know is how where I can find a place to try them all out. I'd love to do a side by side comparison of the T90's and the HD650's.

 

I personally think it would be a waste of money. The STX is completely fine if you have a high impedance headphone and there is no static in your setup. If anything, an upgrade on a dac should be to an o2 and odac. Otherwise, to get the sound you want changing headphones would be a better option because from what I heard, Sennheisers are not very warm although I'm not even entirely sure what "warm" is. Beyerdynamic's T line is not mentioned much because they sound very similar to the DT line which is much more affordable. Most headphones above around $300 are not worth it unless you want to get that last 5% out of your music. 

[WolfStrong]

I personally think it would be a waste of money. The STX is completely fine if you have a high impedance headphone and there is no static in your setup. If anything, an upgrade on a dac should be to an o2 and odac. Otherwise, to get the sound you want changing headphones would be a better option because from what I heard, Sennheisers are not very warm although I'm not even entirely sure what "warm" is. Beyerdynamic's T line is not mentioned much because they sound very similar to the DT line which is much more affordable. Most headphones above around $300 are not worth it unless you want to get that last 5% out of your music. 

 

Trust me, everything I have been doing for years is to perfect that last 5% according to my tastes (which does change). I take it you got that jazz about not having an amp color music and instead relying on the headphones from Logan at the Tek. The problem with that statement, is that while headphones do color music, amps can color it in a completely different way. Often, while one amp may sound great with one pair of headphones, it may sound like crap on others when compared to an amp with almost identical specs. This boils down to several factors that make amp selection almost trial and error, which can get crazy. Even so much so that amps with the exact same components may have slight variances between each other (though these are small enough to not be noticeable to the human ear). It really is the same as the CPU world, where some CPU's may overclock better than others, even though it may be the EXACT same processor. The point I am making, is that there is no end all solution like picking 'the perfect DAC/AMP' and just changing headphones around it. When you get down to the last 1-5% of the music tonal quality, it starts boiling down to being able to 'hear' something in the music, and realizing what that sound originates from: noise, clipping, peaks/dips in frequencies, impedance differences at different frequencies, and so forth. Now changing headphones while keeping the same DAC/Amp may help narrow down where the source of the problem is, but it still may not get you the sound you are looking for.

 

Before I start to describe what 'warm' is, first, let's look at what audio is in the simplest form, a wave:

 

So what your DAC does, is convert 1/0's into an analog form that can be amplified to speakers/headphones. Digital signals by nature are 'sampled', which in-and-of-itself, is compression. Even uncompressed music like FLAC's, are still digital, which means that while the sample rate may be VERY high, it is still going to have gaps (ie: missing data) from the original analog signal (on a side note, most modern vinyl is taken from a digital signal, albeit a higher one than CD's). The issue with this is mostly seen in higher volume listening, because when the amp is then trying to turn that signal into one for speakers, it is amplifying those 'steps' (sample rates), as opposed to a smooth curve (analog). But this isn't the whole story on 'warmth'. Speaker and amp matching is also very important, because while Logan's video may have led many to believe that an amp is always linear, it really couldn't be further from the truth. The truth is that both speakers and amps have highs and lows across their range in how they respond to different frequencies:

 

What this means, is that while the amp under perfect conditions will simply amplify the signal it is given, it is never actually working under perfect conditions. Speakers have resistance, that is constantly changing as much as the frequencies themselves. Coupled with the peaks and valleys, this can vary quite a lot. This, among several other reasons, is why one headphone may sound great with one amp, but not so much with another, even though both amps are rated almost exactly the same (and vise versa). Amps simply are not always linear in the environments they operate under, and under their limits, which is where we get into the last part in describing 'warm': clipping.

 

Clipping is when an amp has reached it's maximum ceiling that it can reach on power output. What happens, is similar, yet different on analog and digital amps. Digital amps tend to have 'hard' clipping, while tubes tend to 'soft' clip:

 

NOTE: This is in relation to listening to music. When producing (guitar amps*), both produce a different sound, which can be desirable either way.

 

When listening to music, hard clipping results in a very undesirable sound, while soft clipping is MUCH easier on the ears. This 'rounding' off effect is simply more pleasing on the ears. Now just think about all those varying waves music has, and you will start to see that the 'rounding off' nature, while maybe not as 'true' to the original signal, can start to be a little bit 'softer', 'warmer', and therefore, for most people, pleasing to the ears. Granted, I have heard tubes that are more clear and less distorted than solid states, and I have heard solid state amps that are 'warmer' than some tubes, but this is really a brief overview on a very generalized concept. Tubes, also by nature also tend to emphasize mids a lot more than solid states, which traditionally seem to make highs and lows harsh by comparison. Also note, that tubes are used for both pre-amps and power amps. Some amps are hybrids, using tubes as the pre-amp to give the 'warm sound', and a solid state for the efficiency and power:size advantages they offer. These really are kind of the best of all worlds when using a digital source as you get the 'warmth' of the tubes, yet the power of a solid state. Then, you can even go crazy and start getting into 'rolling tubes' to really customize the sound to exactly how you want it to sound. This gives you easily changeable options beyond that of a pure solid state system, though at a cost (since when is audio at this level cheap though...). Again, like ice cream; pick your flavor, because your taste will keep changing.

 

The point in me typing this all out though, is really to show a bit of science behind what I was talking about. When I said I really enjoy the 'warmer' sound, this is what I was referring to. Also, Sennheiser (at least when you get to the HD600's and above) from what I've gathered are the 'darker' and 'warmer' sounding headphone, while the Beyers are the ones overly emphasizing highs and lows; many describe the HD600's and HD650's as having a veil over the music coloring it, and that is what intrigued me about them over the Beyers. Not that either is bad, again, it is all taste.

[pierrelucsav]

"Even uncompressed music like FLAC's, are still digital, which means that while the sample rate may be VERY high, it is still going to have gaps (ie: missing data) from the original analog signal."

 

Oh god, this is so wrong. You really should read on the matter, starting with Nyquist sampling theorem.

 

Let me just explain it very quickly: a DAC doesn't just take the digital samples and try to smooth that shit out. What it does is calculate the original signal with the samples (assuming the sampling process was perfect) and outputs that signal. If the sampling rate is at least twice the highest frequency in the original signal, it can be reconstructed without any missing information.

[EmoRarity]

"Even uncompressed music like FLAC's, are still digital, which means that while the sample rate may be VERY high, it is still going to have gaps (ie: missing data) from the original analog signal."

 

Oh god, this is so wrong. You really should read on the matter, starting with Nyquist sampling theorem.

sssh, let the misinformation flow through you. 

[WolfStrong]

Wow...I try and explain what 'warm' means, and get flammed for someone misinterpreting something that I wrote, trying to be hypercritical and proving he knows more than me.

 

FYI, the Nyquist  theorem uses an algorithm to try and 'guess' what information digital sampling has missed (also known as aliasing). The point is information is lost in the sampling and then later a DAC is 'guessing' what information was then lost, trying to fill in the voids that are there. I stated nothing wrong, and gave no false information. While not really apparent with FLAC's due to the high quality, trying to tell me that aliasing fixes everything is giving out false information. 

 

Simple truth is simple: an analog signal is perfect; in a perfect world, amping it will give you still a perfect signal. Digital takes samples at set intervals to try and capture as much of it as possible, and 'guesses' on trying to fill in the missing information. Amplifying this causes an exaggeration of the missing information, giving your poorer sound quality when compared to analog. It is like moving a 480p image to a 1080p display; yes there are things to try and smooth it out as much as possible, but it will never be perfect when compared to taking a 35mm film and making a 1080p image from that. At what bitrate and sample rate this becomes irrelevant is up for debate, but facts are facts.

[mr moose]

Wow...I try and explain what 'warm' means, and get flammed for someone misinterpreting something that I wrote, trying to be hypercritical and proving he knows more than me.

 

FYI, the Nyquist  theorem uses an algorithm to try and 'guess' what information digital sampling has missed (also known as aliasing). The point is information is lost in the sampling and then later a DAC is 'guessing' what information was then lost, trying to fill in the voids that are there. I stated nothing wrong, and gave no false information. While not really apparent with FLAC's due to the high quality, trying to tell me that aliasing fixes everything is giving out false information. 

 

Simple truth is simple: an analog signal is perfect; in a perfect world, amping it will give you still a perfect signal. Digital takes samples at set intervals to try and capture as much of it as possible, and 'guesses' on trying to fill in the missing information. Amplifying this causes an exaggeration of the missing information, giving your poorer sound quality when compared to analog. It is like moving a 480p image to a 1080p display; yes there are things to try and smooth it out as much as possible, but it will never be perfect when compared to taking a 35mm film and making a 1080p image from that. At what bitrate and sample rate this becomes irrelevant is up for debate, but facts are facts.

Um no one means to flame you but the information you have been given is wrong.

 

A digital signal has a much higher resolution than ANY analog recording medium. PERIOD.  forget about square waves and steps and all that jazz, it happens at a point in the signal you can't hear. 

 

If we were to ditch all audio that was recorded at 13 bit equivalent or less, we would only have digitally recorded audio because vinyl and the best 1" tape is at 13 bits and below.

 

And as for the 35mm analogy, it can't be used because it is the opposite of audio with regard to maximum information able to be stored on the medium.

 

EDIT: link to Nyquist theory. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CFcQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Flavryengineering.com%2Fpdfs%2Flavry-sampling-theory.pdf&ei=gf_UUo-eOYm8kAXtmIGoBQ&usg=AFQjCNGrUWykYrT3TS7GhCFSmE9VHh7_uw&bvm=bv.59378465,d.dGI&cad=rja

 

Also: why samples above 20Khz are not required:

 

A perceptual study by Nishiguchi et al. (2004) concluded that "no significant difference was found between sounds with and without very high frequency components among the sound stimuli and the subjects

 

Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_analog_and_digital_recording

[pierrelucsav]

Wow...I try and explain what 'warm' means, and get flammed for someone misinterpreting something that I wrote, trying to be hypercritical and proving he knows more than me.

 

FYI, the Nyquist  theorem uses an algorithm to try and 'guess' what information digital sampling has missed (also known as aliasing). The point is information is lost in the sampling and then later a DAC is 'guessing' what information was then lost, trying to fill in the voids that are there. I stated nothing wrong, and gave no false information. While not really apparent with FLAC's due to the high quality, trying to tell me that aliasing fixes everything is giving out false information. 

 

Simple truth is simple: an analog signal is perfect; in a perfect world, amping it will give you still a perfect signal. Digital takes samples at set intervals to try and capture as much of it as possible, and 'guesses' on trying to fill in the missing information. Amplifying this causes an exaggeration of the missing information, giving your poorer sound quality when compared to analog. It is like moving a 480p image to a 1080p display; yes there are things to try and smooth it out as much as possible, but it will never be perfect when compared to taking a 35mm film and making a 1080p image from that. At what bitrate and sample rate this becomes irrelevant is up for debate, but facts are facts.

 

The algorithm doesn't guess if, like I said, the sampling rate was at least twice the highest frequency in the signal. It just gives you the original signal back. If it isn't so, then the algorithm produces aliasing, but ONLY if the sampling rate wasn't high enough. Furthermore, sampling rate has nothing to do with resolution in audio reproduction. Unlike video resolution, once the sampling rate is high enough any increase is unnecessary (again, for reproduction; audio production is a whole different story).

 

Also, I fail to see how my post was 'flaming'.