Is DAC matters?

[e22big]

Hi guy, have some question I hope some of you might have an answer. 

 

I've noticed for a while that my Sennheiser HD 660s seens to have a rather poor vocal seperation when paired with Xonar STX sound card, especially in a track with lound and busy instrument (and to clarify, when I say 'poor seperation' I've meant that the vocal part sound rather quiet compared to the surrouding instrument.) 

 

It was a big surprised for me because I've heard that HD 660s seems to have one of the best vocal seperation, but it seems to be much poorer than my old HD 598 and even Bose QC 15 with BT connector. But I thought that was just the characteristic of the headphone and moved on.

 

Today, I've realised however, that this "poor vocal seperation" seems to limit to just my sound card. Vocal is seperation is actually a ton better than on my Samsung Galaxy A51, and I've realised even Bose seem to have a bit worse seperation when paired with my Xonar STX card. 

 

And to my even bigger shock, even my onboard audio (the basic Realtek ALC887/897) actually do better than my STX!! (only in this particular instance of vocal seperation though) 

 

So.. what's happening here? Is Texas Instruments PCM1792A chip on my STX that bad? I am actually looking for a desktop amp and plan to use my STX as preamp (so that everything can also be controlled digitally) but at this point I don't know if I should just throw it away and look for an all in one solution instead. If it's more likely to be an amp rather than dac issue I still want to keep it though

[danalog]

Is the Xonar one of the cards with swappable DACs? Each and every DAC (and ADC for that matter) has a unique sound. I noticed a big improvement with my Sound Blaster card over my Realtek integrated audio so it's hard to believe a $200 soundcard could be worse... any things changed in the card's drivers that shouldn't be? 

[e22big]

9 minutes ago, Mel0nMan said:

Is the Xonar one of the cards with swappable DACs? Each and every DAC (and ADC for that matter) has a unique sound. I noticed a big improvement with my Sound Blaster card over my Realtek integrated audio so it's hard to believe a $200 soundcard could be worse... any things changed in the card's drivers that shouldn't be? 

It has a swoppable amp (well opamp) but not DAC. The measurement shows that it doesn't do anything though. 

[danalog]

2 minutes ago, e22big said:

It has a swoppable amp (well opamp) but not DAC. The measurement shows that it doesn't do anything though. 

Perhaps swapping the amp might help? Opamps also have a different sound. 

[e22big]

Actually let me clarify something a little further, I've tested my 3 headphones (HD 660s, HD 598, Bose QC 15) against my onboard DAC, my STX, and my A51 phone. The HD 660s actually sound pretty shit when it comes to vocal seperation on all 3 devices, I am not really sure if it's really sound any different but my HD 598 and QC15 perform much better on my phone than on my sound card (in a sense that the vocal is a lot louder than the background instruments) 

So I dunno, maybe 660s are just bad in that instance and STX just makes it worse. I've heard people say that opamp on this card can "improve sound stage" by making the vocal sound more distance, it definitely sound like that (like.. you're in the back in the room with all the bass and is struggling to hear the singer voice.) 

[e22big]

4 minutes ago, Mel0nMan said:

Perhaps swapping the amp might help? Opamps also have a different sound. 

I am tempting to just throwing them all away (opamps) and leave only the headphone amp on. Maybe that will help if those were responsible for the 'sound stage' they provided

[danalog]

Just now, e22big said:

I am tempting to just throwing them all away (opamps) and leave only the headphone amp on. Maybe that will help if those were responsible for the 'sound stage' they provided

um pretty sure removing the opamp will just make the card not work entirely

[e22big]

12 minutes ago, Mel0nMan said:

um pretty sure removing the opamp will just make the card not work entirely

Yeah, that's a real poissiblity, sadly. If it's just an amp I could just buy a desktop amp and use the card as preamp though

[OfficialTechSpace]

I honestly don't think it's worth spending money to find a better DAC/Amp solution for such a technically incapable headphone. It'll sound the same as it does now, you'll just have a cleaner output.

[rice guru]

First you got to make sure your soundcard is not doing anything weird. like adding VSS as that makes music sound bad. makesure you dont have any EQ on affecting your mids. Yes While DACs do matter not to the extent most audiophiles will say they do. Take that from a guy the owns and uses several DAcs one being a bifrost 2. in your case it could be an amp issue. the soundcard's amp could be throwing things off.  if you do want to try it out Ive always been an advocate for amazon return policy abuse. if you have access to them.

[e22big]

6 hours ago, rice guru said:

First you got to make sure your soundcard is not doing anything weird. like adding VSS as that makes music sound bad. makesure you dont have any EQ on affecting your mids. Yes While DACs do matter not to the extent most audiophiles will say they do. Take that from a guy the owns and uses several DAcs one being a bifrost 2. in your case it could be an amp issue. the soundcard's amp could be throwing things off.  if you do want to try it out Ive always been an advocate for amazon return policy abuse. if you have access to them.

I sadly don't. Some shop do have a showroom that I can try though (but unless I carried the STX and my whole PC with me, there's no way to check if this is an amp or DAC issue)

 

Planned to buy some some new amp to try just for fun anyway though. Say, if the amp on the sound card is an issue, if I connect it with RCA to an external (basically use the card as a preamp), will I see any different? I mean even with a better amp hardware, if the issue already existed in the card output (say not delivering enough power for the mid frequency), will it get fixed by a better and more powerful amp or just get worse as the flawed signal amplified?

[e22big]

12 hours ago, OfficialTechSpace said:

I honestly don't think it's worth spending money to find a better DAC/Amp solution for such a technically incapable headphone. It'll sound the same as it does now, you'll just have a cleaner output.

Eh, HD 660s is pretty technically capable as far as the measurement goes (rting report), it has much better frequency response than Bose at the very least for sure (it's also sound a magnitude better - just not as great at amplified the vocal)

[rice guru]

57 minutes ago, e22big said:

I sadly don't. Some shop do have a showroom that I can try though (but unless I carried the STX and my whole PC with me, there's no way to check if this is an amp or DAC issue)

 

Planned to buy some some new amp to try just for fun anyway though. Say, if the amp on the sound card is an issue, if I connect it with RCA to an external (basically use the card as a preamp), will I see any different? I mean even with a better amp hardware, if the issue already existed in the card output (say not delivering enough power for the mid frequency), will it get fixed by a better and more powerful amp or just get worse as the flawed signal amplified?

I'm not super sure if it is cause by your soundcard itself to begin with.  if its just a power issue a better amp will help. The common sentiment is a amplifier will only amplify any issues with a DAC.  but it also working well with your phone and motherboard kind of signals that maybe its a software issue specific  to the soundcard. the 660s isn't really that hard to drive either.  Also Generally Dac chips don't really matter  it's all about implementation. a badly implemented dac will sound worse than even a $10 apple dongle. but considering performance your soundcard isn't the best anyway and might just be outright worth replacing with a better solution external or better soundcard up to you. looking at the performance numbers it doesn't look like it has much power to begin with which could cause issues at a 100hz being under drives as looking at measurements it does peak at 400 ohms impedance in that area.

 

[e22big]

10 minutes ago, rice guru said:

I'm not super sure if it is cause by your soundcard itself to begin with.  if its just a power issue a better amp will help. The common sentiment is a amplifier will only amplify any issues with a DAC.  but it also working well with your phone and motherboard kind of signals that maybe its a software issue specific  to the soundcard. the 660s isn't really that hard to drive either.  Also Generally Dac chips don't really matter  it's all about implementation. a badly implemented dac will sound worse than even a $10 apple dongle. but considering performance your soundcard isn't the best anyway and might just be outright worth replacing with a better solution external or better soundcard up to you. looking at the performance numbers it doesn't look like it has much power to begin with which could cause issues at a 100hz being under drives as looking at measurements it does peak at 400 ohms impedance in that area.

 

I don't know how to read those measurement exactly but it seems to do well in reference audio analyzer (I do cross check some chart with audio science review, and it doesn measure up decent enough)

 

I do prefer internal solution whenever possible but yeah, those are kind of hard to find now a day. I actually really doubt that it's a power issue because even an onboard Realtek have no issue getting my headphone at a way too lound level (it's actually a little too loud already at 50 percent input) but I guess we've never know.  

 

And to be fair it could very well be EQ, tunrning on SVN actually makes it a little better (still not as good as my bare bone midrange phone though.) Maybe that's the kind of presentation they are going, and it's actually sound pretty good in most song. Just worse off in a few genre that I happened to listen to more often

 

 

Measurement's report ASUS Xonar Essence STX Mid - Reference Audio Analyzer (reference-audio-analyzer.pro)

[rice guru]

22 minutes ago, e22big said:

I don't know how to read those measurement exactly but it seems to do well in reference audio analyzer (I do cross check some chart with audio science review, and it doesn measure up decent enough)

 

I do prefer internal solution whenever possible but yeah, those are kind of hard to find now a day. I actually really doubt that it's a power issue because even an onboard Realtek have no issue getting my headphone at a way too lound level (it's actually a little too loud already at 50 percent input) but I guess we've never know.  

 

And to be fair it could very well be EQ, tunrning on SVN actually makes it a little better (still not as good as my bare bone midrange phone though.) Maybe that's the kind of presentation they are going, and it's actually sound pretty good in most song. Just worse off in a few genre that I happened to listen to more often

 

 

Measurement's report ASUS Xonar Essence STX Mid - Reference Audio Analyzer (reference-audio-analyzer.pro)

the unfortunate thing about ASR is the compiled chard of SINAD scores. DACS are not just about SINAD  it measures up according to SINAD scores. but if you scroll a little lower it shows this. DAC linearity is not the most important measurement in a DAC unless its very bad in this case ifs really bad. now I can't really say much on how if sounds and how it will affect sound as I myself have not heard a DAC with linearity this bad nor am I a very technical enthsiast. but it could be the thing causing your headphone to not sound correct. 

 

[OfficialTechSpace]

2 hours ago, e22big said:

Eh, HD 660s is pretty technically capable as far as the measurement goes (rting report), it has much better frequency response than Bose at the very least for sure (it's also sound a magnitude better - just not as great at amplified the vocal)

Measurements aren't technical ability. That's tonality, and even in that department it's not great. C-tier tuning at best IMO, very dark and veiled. Technical ability includes: separation, detail, resolution/resolving ability, imaging, soundstage, dynamics, timbre, and candor. Most of which, the 600-series is quite terrible at. The HD660S is the worst offender in the entire series, and the worst offering. I cover most of this in my review of the HD6XX, where I used a reference-grade amplifier to do my testing. The HD600 is the best variant, and even it's held back. None of them are competitive for the price by modern standards.

 

Note: this is also a more polite comparison. I could bring the $109 HiFiMan HE400SE into the conversation, but we won't talk about that. It measures better than both of these headphones.

 

According to Crinacle, whom I agree with. At least, except for the fact that he was generous enough to put it in B-tier.       A headphone that's half of the price, and better.

 

How the HD660S measures by comparison to my neutral line of reference. An absolute disaster.                 How the K612 Pro measures by comparison to my neutral line of reference. Much better, though still missing some top-end.

[e22big]

2 hours ago, rice guru said:

the unfortunate thing about ASR is the compiled chard of SINAD scores. DACS are not just about SINAD  it measures up according to SINAD scores. but if you scroll a little lower it shows this. DAC linearity is not the most important measurement in a DAC unless its very bad in this case ifs really bad. now I can't really say much on how if sounds and how it will affect sound as I myself have not heard a DAC with linearity this bad nor am I a very technical enthsiast. but it could be the thing causing your headphone to not sound correct. 

 

Yeah, I did notice that. However that is the measurement of STX II and not the original STX that I own. When reading through a few pages in that threat, you'll see someone bringing that up and point to the fact that ASR pointed that the original STX performace was a lot better. 

 

I understood that was referring only to the SINAD and not linearity. STX use a few higher end component that its successor but I have no reason to believe that linearity will perform any better in my older model. I am just not sure what it represent in particular, in a more practical sense.

[e22big]

2 hours ago, OfficialTechSpace said:

Measurements aren't technical ability. That's tonality, and even in that department it's not great. C-tier tuning at best IMO, very dark and veiled. Technical ability includes: separation, detail, resolution/resolving ability, imaging, soundstage, dynamics, timbre, and candor. Most of which, the 600-series is quite terrible at. The HD660S is the worst offender in the entire series, and the worst offering. I cover most of this in my review of the HD6XX, where I used a reference-grade amplifier to do my testing. The HD600 is the best variant, and even it's held back. None of them are competitive for the price by modern standards.

 

Note: this is also a more polite comparison. I could bring the $109 HiFiMan HE400SE into the conversation, but we won't talk about that. It measures better than both of these headphones.

 

According to Crinacle, whom I agree with. At least, except for the fact that he was generous enough to put it in B-tier.       A headphone that's half of the price, and better.

 

How the HD660S measures by comparison to my neutral line of reference. An absolute disaster.                 How the K612 Pro measures by comparison to my neutral line of reference. Much better, though still missing some top-end.

 

Not sure about the rest, but imaging measurement seems to be competitive with AKG 712 Pro, unless 612 is significnatly better, I don't see how they differ technically in that department 

 

 

Same story with Tremble response accuracy

 

 

 

The two area where the AKG is significantly better is in sound stage and bass response which seems to be a typical of Planar vs Dynamic headphone (offset by poor peak and dip.) I don't really get audio engineering but from the onbjective measurement stand point, it doesn't seems to correspond with your claim. 

 

I also don't really get audiophile term like "dark" or "veil", have no idea what that's mean. But I tend to hear most people describe this headphone as "bright", which is also the term used to decribe HD 598. And I can confirm that between it and HD 650 (which a lot of people described as 'dark') the HD 660s is a lot closer to HD 598 in overall tone, in fact that's the pretty much the reason I pick it over 650. 

 

I do also found HD 600 similar in that regard. Might actually like it a bit better but it's just uncomfortable to wear.

 

But anyway, I don't think it's relevant to this issue giving that Bose QC15 seems to perform the best between them all and that headphone had a much worse measurement across the board. So I doubt it's the headpone itself. 

[e22big]

3 hours ago, OfficialTechSpace said:

Measurements aren't technical ability. That's tonality, and even in that department it's not great. C-tier tuning at best IMO, very dark and veiled. Technical ability includes: separation, detail, resolution/resolving ability, imaging, soundstage, dynamics, timbre, and candor. Most of which, the 600-series is quite terrible at. The HD660S is the worst offender in the entire series, and the worst offering. I cover most of this in my review of the HD6XX, where I used a reference-grade amplifier to do my testing. The HD600 is the best variant, and even it's held back. None of them are competitive for the price by modern standards.

 

Note: this is also a more polite comparison. I could bring the $109 HiFiMan HE400SE into the conversation, but we won't talk about that. It measures better than both of these headphones.

 

According to Crinacle, whom I agree with. At least, except for the fact that he was generous enough to put it in B-tier.       A headphone that's half of the price, and better.

 

How the HD660S measures by comparison to my neutral line of reference. An absolute disaster.                 How the K612 Pro measures by comparison to my neutral line of reference. Much better, though still missing some top-end.

* oh but if by dark, you mean the vocal became a bit muffed, then yeah I agree. It's probably the characteristic of this headphone, because it remains muff whenther I switched to a phone of Realtek. But the STX do make the matter slightly worse imo.

[OfficialTechSpace]

52 minutes ago, e22big said:

Not sure about the rest, but imaging measurement seems to be competitive with AKG 712 Pro, unless 612 is significantly better, I don't see how they differ technically in that department. Same story with Treble response accuracy. The two area where the AKG is significantly better is in sound stage and bass response

Imaging can't be measured. Even if it could, you could trust rtings would be doing it wrong. Same goes for soundstage. Technical performance is all subjective and done by ear. What rtings has done is made up their own methodology to measure these things, because there is no universal standard on how to do such.

52 minutes ago, e22big said:

I also don't really get audiophile term like "dark" or "veil", have no idea what that's mean. But I tend to hear most people describe this headphone as "bright", which is also the term used to describe HD 598.

Dark is the exact opposite of bright, which makes sense. It's named that way intentionally. It means the treble response is inaccurate, and thereby giving an unfaithful reproduction of recordings. You've probably heard people call certain parts in the response of a headphone overemphasized. This is the opposite of that, meaning underemphasized. When there's a large crevasse or roll-off in the treble response, this becomes objectively visible. If you take a look at the measurements I gave you, the HD660S measures anywhere from 5-20dB below what's considered to be neutral throughout most of the treble range.

 

These are referred to as descriptive audio terminologies. "Audiophile term" is often a discrediting phraseology hailed at audio enthusiast by the general public.

[e22big]

12 minutes ago, OfficialTechSpace said:

Imaging can't be measured. Even if it could, you could trust rtings would be doing it wrong. Same goes for soundstage. Technical performance is all subjective and done by ear. What rtings has done is made up their own methodology to measure these things, because there is no universal standard on how to do such.

Dark is the exact opposite of bright, which makes sense. It's named that way intentionally. It means the treble response is inaccurate, and thereby giving an unfaithful reproduction of recording. You've probably heard people call certain parts in the response of a headphone overemphasized. This is the opposite of that, meaning underemphasized. When there's a large crevasse or roll-off in the treble response, this becomes objectively visible. If you take a look at the measurements I gave you, the HD660S measures anywhere from 5-20dB below what's considered to be neutral throughout most of the treble range.

 

These are referred to as descriptive audio terminologies. "Audiophile term" is often a discrediting phraseology hailed at audio enthusiast by the general public.

Umn.. they did list the measurement they used to come up with those values exactly, their imaging came from Group Delay, Phase, Amlplitude, and Frequency mismatched which sound pretty much like an accurate description if imaging error for me. 

 

I do give some weight to subjective judgement but everyone seems to have their own standard when it comes to that, when objective measurement with proper montioring tool is available, I prefer to weight that more. 

 

Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that your Tremble curve seem to be the exact opposite of rting both in the top and low end in relative to AKG? 

[OfficialTechSpace]

16 minutes ago, e22big said:

Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that your Tremble curve seem to be the exact opposite of rtings both in the top and low end in relative to AKG? 

If I understood what you meant, I could explain in great detail. I think it's fairly typical for their to be a boost within the eargain region of a measured response. The line of reference rtings uses has the same. The only difference is that theirs is based on the Harman target, and mine is based on my own hearing. It's a personalized target, and mine is a lot brighter than the Harman target because I find headphones with that response to sound bland and lacking detail. As for the bass response of our neutral targets, the only difference is that the Harman target has elevation. Mine does not. If you meant the response of the headphone itself and not the target curve, that's probably because the K712 Pro is a completely different headphone to the one I measured. It's also measured by different people, using different mics, and being presented on a differently proportioned response graph. Lets not forget that.

16 minutes ago, e22big said:

I do give some weight to subjective judgement but everyone seems to have their own standard when it comes to that, when objective measurement with proper monitoring tool is available, I prefer to weight that more. 

Understood, I'm the same. I just also take made-up measurements with a grain of salt because I know they're probably not accurate. Frequency response, spectral decay, distortion numbers, dynamic range, impedance curves, etc. are some of the few objective measurements audiophiles will go by/trust. Plus or minus a few. They're pretty much all we can agree on.

[rice guru]

9 hours ago, OfficialTechSpace said:

Frequency response, spectral decay, distortion numbers, dynamic range, impedance curves, etc. are some of the few objective measurements audiophiles will go by/trust. Plus or minus a few. They're pretty much all we can agree on.

There are subjective purists who will even disagree as well . Audio is a funny space but then again there are people who will deny performance numbers on pc parts cause it doesn't support the "team" they're part of

[H713]

@OfficialTechSpaceis probably the only person I know who uses the term "technically incapable" to refer to subjective qualities, so it's understandable how it causes confusion, as the term "technically incapable" suggests a quantitative measurement. He is also known to strongly dislike darker systems and likes systems that are pretty bright, so keep that in mind. I would probably describe his ideal system as fatiguing, and he'd probably describe mine as "dull". That's not necessarily right or wrong, but just keep that in mind. 

 

And FWIW, bright / dark usually refers to the voicing/tuning of a system. Bright usually means the response is tilted up, dark usually means it's tilted down.

 

I've honestly given up even looking at distortion numbers for DACs I want to listen to, because even the crappy ones have THD+N better than 0.005%, with most being a lot better. Your transducers are a few orders of magnitude worse - I seriously can't tell the difference between my Modi 2 Uber (which, by modern objective standards, is hot garbage) and my L22 (which by objective standards is still pretty good). This shouldn't be surprising, because the transducers will have > 1% THD most of the time anyway.

 

Where I dig through the ASR listings for DACs is when I want to "repurpose" an audio DAC for lab use, since a Topping DAC is a lot cheaper than buying a low-distortion signal generator from SRS. Same goes with ADCs, since an ADC with 110 dB of clean dynamic range is really useful and would normally be horrifyingly expensive. 

 

Where things will sound like absolute garbage is if your DAC / interface has mixer software that by default pans everything to center (and thereby summing it to mono). That will sound terrible, and I've definitely had that happen. I think Presonus interfaces do that by default (at least my FireStudio interface did).

 

 

 

 

 

[H713]

On 6/18/2022 at 12:54 PM, Mel0nMan said:

Perhaps swapping the amp might help? Opamps also have a different sound. 

Op-amp swapping is usually a bad idea unless the manufacturer did something stupid with their op-amp selection. 

 

If they're using a normal op-amp, don't touch it. Most of the time they chose something reasonable. Now and then I see equipment where the manufacturer did something moronic like using an RF op-amp in the audio path. Not long ago I dealt with something that used nothing but AD828s in the signal path. It was borderline unstable (because they didn't read App Note #47), and the distortion was higher than it should have been. Out with the AD828s, in with the LM4562s.

When people "upgrade" op-amps, they usually are moving to a higher performance chip, often from a 5532 or 5534 to something with lower distortion, higher slew rates and a higher GBP. The problem is, the circuit was designed around a 5534, and when they put something like an AD797 in, it creates stability issues. A lot of the high-performance op-amps are really picky about bypass caps and PCB layout, and sticking them in a circuit designed for a normal op-amp is a bad idea.

 

I recently debugged someone's "upgraded" preamp circuit. They had swapped the 5534s out for OPA657s on SOIC to DIP adapters. The OPA657 has a GBP of something like 1.5 GHz (!). The owner didn't know it, but his preamp was oscillating at 550 MHz, but he had no idea because he only had a 60 MHz oscilloscope. Five minutes with a spectrum analyzer, however, and the problem becomes obvious. The issue? Stray lead inductance and capacitance in the SOIC to DIP adapter. 

 

 

So unless you have good reason to believe that the engineer who designed your device made a bad decision, don't change the op-amps.