KitGuru KitGuru.net – Tech News | Hardware News | Hardware Reviews | IOS | Mobile | Gaming | Graphics Cards
When testing high grade audio equipment it is important to not have any weaknesses in the chain. Obviously this can cost a lot of money, but it really is the only way to thoroughly analyse the hardware.
We are using my long term Audeze LCD 2 headphones which I had imported from America last year. These have since been replaced by V3, and high end STAX withstanding, these are probably the best headphones on the market. The price is reasonable too, as I paid around £800 including customs duties.
These headphones use Planar Technology. The Planar Transducers are fundamentally different from conventional cone speakers or dynamic drivers. Planar Magnetic speakers use a flat, lightweight diaphragm suspended in a magnetic field as the driver rather than a cone attached to a voice coil. The diaphragm has a circuit pattern etched into it that, when energized, creates the forces that drive the diaphragm to move in the magnetic field to produce sound. Planar magnetic speakers, when implemented well, have inherent advantages over cone speakers.
First, the driver moves in a more piston-like manner due to the even application of force by the magnetic field surrounding the diaphragm, which reduces distortion effects.
Second, the diaphragm is mounted on all sides, reducing fatigue points; Planar Magnetic speakers employ a tough polymer as the base material, which makes it much more durable than cone diaphragms.
Third, because the diaphragm is very thin, it is also more responsive, leading to more faithful sound reproduction and the crispness of sound that is the hallmark of good quality speakers. And finally, because it is flat, planar magnetic drivers can dissipate heat more quickly using the large surface area of the diaphragm itself, which dramatically reduces the chance of burn-out.
Audeze employs a number of proprietary techniques to improve upon the basic planar magnetic design. Audez’e design uses a very thin, proprietary film for the diaphragm. Once etched, the diaphragm is mounted in tension between two layers of opposing magnets. This mounting process requires great precision, and Audez’e has designed proprietary methods and tools to effect a very consistent and even mount.
This diaphragm manufacturing process has been tuned to ensure a flat frequency response over a wide bandwidth while ensuring a robust diaphragm and maximum efficiency of the driver.
I had cables custom made from the guys at Double Helix which improve bass response, dynamic headroom and soundstaging. These cables alone are the same price as the headphones but it is worth the cost, as the biggest drop in quality with high end headphones will be from using the standard cabling. Sennheiser HD800 owners will understand what I am talking about. We use Nordost cabling elsewhere in the system.
My Little Dot MK VI+ headphone amplifier has been doctored from the reference specifications, with uprated internal power components and new silent fans for airflow. The reference fans used in this unit were quite loud so this was an immediate switch for me. I also tube rolled the MK VI+ swapping the bog standard power valves (‘tubes' to the American readers) for four Tung Sol 7236's (I also like the Tung Sol 5998's), which were ordered specially from a reputable American dealer.
These are classic tubes originating 70 years ago with zirconium coated plate … they cost a lot more than modern day equivalents. They really don't make them like they used to however.
I switch out driver tubes fairly regularly, but keep going back to the Mullard ECC35's for their fantastic presentation. This balanced amplifier … after all my tweaks and upgrades is worth around £1,500, with some of the parts very difficult to source. Getting a matched quad set of mint condition Tung Sol 7236 took me months to source and cost £100 per tube.
It does deliver what I would consider to be ‘perfect' audio reproduction, well to my ears anyway. The sound is warm, yet immensely detailed. As long as im listening to a well recorded CD, the sound is very ‘vinyl' like. Exactly what I want.
When it comes to the quality of a compact disc player, I have yet to hear anything that can quite match the Raysonic CD228 for the combination of warmth and detail. This is a huge, heavy flagship player which is split into two sections. It is crafted from 7mm aluminum panels with extruded corners which are bolted from the inside. I have one of the early prototypes which features the power button on the side of the amplifier section.
The CD player weighs 7kg, and the power supply weighs 10kg. You can see more information on this over here. If you want to see the insides, you can visit this page. The Raysonic CD228 costs around £4,000 but will need to be purchased from a specialist dealer in the United Kingdom, or imported from America and then the power transformer changed to 230v. Buying them second hand in a private sale is risky as the condition of the tubes/valves will be unknown.
The CD228 encloses two C core power transformers, an input cap/coil/cap filter and a supplementary filter choke for additional ripple suppression. Inside are twelve 2200uF/35V and five 10,000uF/16V storage capacitors. The high-voltage supply for the four 6922s of the main unit runs transistors, two 220uF/200V caps and two regulators.
The main unit runs a suspended Philips VAM 1202 transport and Philips SAA servo circuits underneath. The quartz oscillator clock runs at 16.9344MHz while D/A processing is by two dual-differential Burr Brown PCM1792 24-bit/192kHz chips. Op-amp I/V conversion is via BB OPA 2134. There are twelve 10,000uF/25V capacitors, two 220uF/160V units and six large MKP Solen 4.7uF/400V caps.
beautiful looking design. They always made good sound cards and products, b ut their drivers for PC are normally really weak.
very nice, but I agree with above., their audio drivers have always been dire. its surprising really considering their motherboard software is normally prettty good.
very specialised design, but im interested. need a new amplifier and this seems to be ideal for both my PC and other things.
Thank you ! been waiting on a quality review of this for a long time. Great design, im buying one now. I want something that is more versatile than that tube amp you use, but wow, nice setup man.
hardcore. asus have such a big range of products. very high quality. I have never had problems with their drivers dont know what people mean……
2 questions…
1. What cable where AND are you using to make such difference. I am an audio/video professional and never heard of such.
2. USB affected what exactly? USB is a digital connection.
If you are referring to the headphones, I tend to use cables from Double Helix in America – they make a huge variety of high grade cables for a variety of products. I am surprised as an ‘audio/video professional’ that you have never heard of such a thing. There is a whole industry devoted to various kinds of cable and some people swear by RS OCC Silver and others are even using cryo-treated Ohno continuous cast (OCC) silver. Whether you can hear the difference would be down to a: your ears b: the partnering equipment.
USB is a digital connection? Sure, it is, but it was designed mainly for computer peripherals. When you factor in transmitting audio through it, there are other dependencies, such as drivers for the operating system (which can be problematic) and interference and crosstalk with other digital circuitry inside the computer. Audio quality can be improved not only by cabling but with the purity of the signal. Some manufacturers use balanced four section DACT attenuators to precisely control the input signal of the input/gain amps. Therefore a USB feed from a computer is never going to be as pure or free from signal pollution as a high grade amplifer with dedicated audio output, built from the ground up for a single task of delivering the purist signal possible. I will say that downloading some of the studio master, uncompressed files from linnrecords in the UK was a very impressive experience via the computer, even over USB.
Apologies but I think I may not be clear.
I understand there is an industry of so called high quality cables using exotic techniques and elements to make extremely expensive cables. But having an industry does not necessarily mean scientific justified. I mean there are a whole industry based on “anti-aging” creams, diet pills, and palm readers.
I would love to see a independent lab testing results (with clear methodology) that illustrate the differences and not just subjective reviews with catch phrases like “clear mids” “powerful lows” and “soaring highs”.
I am sorry but your USB explanation is not standing on technical grounds. I work all day with broadcast film, TV and music projects with well known producers and artists.
USB signal is a digital signal. It is possible to transfer errors through transmission but it is not possible to reduce dynamic range and such. Cross talk, in the way being used here, is an analog phenomena. You might mean digital interference but that is a different thing and cannot affect the signal the way you describe it.
Having a bad HDTV reception does not make the color less saturated. You get digital errors (blocks, and such) but anything regarding range is an analog terminology. At best you are using analog explanations for a digital phenomena.
If I get a cheap USB cable with my scanner do I get less digital information???? And that less digital information means my dynamic range is smaller???
Yes drivers can affect the signal but that assumes there is a process involved. If it is a pass-through then no (assuming errors and error correction is proper levels).
Many studios record and use devices that uses digital connection like USB, firewire, AES, SDI, etc.
Interesting views. Is listening to music meant to be an entirely ‘scientific’ process? Exotic cabling is a matter for debate, sometimes i can tell the difference between a cheap cable and one costing many hundreds of pounds. Sometimes i can’t. There are debates ranging everywhere on the topic. To create an analogy of comparing human ears listening to music to that of a scanner receiving digital data is the most unusual I have ever heard. People aren’t cyborgs. ‘errors through transmission’ is one of the greatest areas that audiophile hardware tries to negate in a manner of ways.
One of the finest real world tests, is to get a hold of sennheiser hd800 headphones. Use the stock cabling for a while then try an exotic cable based on silver, or a silver and copper hybrid. The sound, especially the bass will be improved noticeably. Obviously depending on your source. Dynamic range alone does not translate to ‘perfect’ sound incidentally. This is why people still use valve/tube technology with tubes sourced from the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s. Does that ‘scientifically’ make sense when compared to the latest high grade solid state technology ? probably not, but the sound quality to many ears is significantly better.
This probably cant be scientifically measured either, but its plainly audible. Same as listening to a well recorded piece of classical music via good interconnects and a high end cd player. Then swapping the audio disc to a cheap sata computer optical drive, and listening via a usb sound card with windows drivers in the mix.
Its like chalk and cheese. But if you want a graph showing how it sounds better via my ears, i cant do that. If you dont believe the comments then thats fine, its not like a video card and acquiring xxx frames per second at xxx resolution with xxx imge quality settings.
I envy the fact you can enjoy all this without spending any money at all on source, cabling and output. Some people can. In your specific case I dont know why the Asus Xonar is even remotely interesting, you will be more than happy with standard onboard audio, stock cabling and headphones/speakers.
Why do people need to form an argument by saying they work ‘professionally’ in an industry? Its almost like saying ‘I can taste the burger better because I work in McDonalds all day’.
Digital crosstalk is a very big subject incidentally – with A/D and D/A CONVERSION/SAMPLING CIRCUITS. for an ‘expert’ to say ‘it doesnt exist digitally because I work with well known producers’ is ridiculous.
Quite a lot of information about it online…… scientific enough? 🙂
http://pdfserv.maxim-ic.com/en/an/AN1842.pdf
The capacitors are Nichicon Blue and not unbranded as mentioned. The volume pots are APLHA Taiwan and not ALPS Japan.
Hi ron,
Thanks for the info, appreciate your time.
I am planning on getting this DAC/Amp and would like to thank you for the wonderful review. It helped me make up my mind about getting this product.
Coming to the whole issue of USB related quality deterioration you have mentioned in the review, I have to kindly disagree with you on that. As an electrical engineer, I can agree with you on the merits of using specific materials and manufacturing processes to improve the conduction of analog signals between audio components. But, when it comes to digital data transport between digital devices (controllers), electromagnetic or other interference with the digital transmission has ZERO effect on the audio information being transported.
Yes! There might be some errors in the packets being transmitted from the system to the USB controller on the DAC, but these packets are packaged under specific protocols that ensure a high degree of error correction. So, when the packets are decoded and decompressed within the DAC, the audio information is 100% replica of that on the source file.
The only issue with USB transfer of digital data is the clock jitter due to the internal clocks of the source and destination not being in sync. This is taken care of by this DAC through the implementation of Asynchronous transfer protocols.
Also, any degradation/latency as a result of decoding and resampling of audio data within the computer is of no issue, since digital data is directly routed to the USB bus from the source file (bypassing the OS and onboard audio hardware), thanks to the bit-perfect data transfer protocols. Hence, data from your CD or lossless digital audio files, is exactly replicated at the other end (I2C output on this DAC) of the digital transport bus (USB in this case).
Hence, if anything, USB gives you the best option to transfer digital data to the DAC with ZERO loss of actual audio information. The only use scenario where this setup would have issues is when the computer develops hardware issues related to either the USB bus or the port-connectors.
You probably saw a degradation is quality due to the USB controller on the DAC being 24bit/192Khz and the DAC itself using 32bit/384Khz upscaling, while your source encoding was something else. Such combinations do tend to cause issues with audio quality, at times.
Anyway, thanks again for the great review!
Thanks for clearing that up Rahul, I also wondered about the USB cable issue and you seem to know what you’re talking about. digital is digital and only when things get to an analog signal distortion comes into play. This is of course as long as there is no filtering of the digital signal in between from something like codecs or otherwise, but a cable in and of itself shouldn’t affect sound quality from point A to point B.