Hot Deals

[Amazon Canada] Marantz HD DAC1 (Headphone Amp/DAC) $694.06

  • Last Updated:
  • Jun 13th, 2019 11:27 am
Member
Feb 11, 2016
265 posts
171 upvotes
gobseck wrote:
Jun 12th, 2019 3:17 pm
Could you give me an example?
There are several PCM2704 based DAC available for $10 on AliExpress.
By the way, the DAC(PCM2704) by itself cost only $0.50 while a very high quality DAC(from Texas Instruments, Cirrus, AKM) cost around $4 to $7 in units of 1000.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 24, 2002
2755 posts
468 upvotes
BC
frugalfruit wrote:
Jun 12th, 2019 7:39 pm
The Steel Series Arctis Pro Wireless is rate higher for critical listening because it is very close to their target FR and the distortion stays below 0.2% which is outstanding.
Whether we like the results or not, measurements don't lie.

If you feel that those headphones don't deserve the rating, the onus is on you to prove it. Why should we take your subjective opinion as more correct than rtings?
Lol, not even the measurement diehards believe that on ASR, stop spouting BS. Do you understand that there are more than two objective and quantifiable metrics involved when discussing audio?
Member
Nov 10, 2013
241 posts
86 upvotes
Richmond Hill, ON
frugalfruit wrote:
Jun 12th, 2019 7:44 pm
There are several PCM2704 based DAC available for $10 on AliExpress.
By the way, the DAC(PCM2704) by itself cost only $0.50 while a very high quality DAC(from Texas Instruments, Cirrus, AKM) cost around $4 to $7 in units of 1000.
And what does it mean in practical terms to a retail consumer like moi?
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 6, 2003
11994 posts
2880 upvotes
Ottawa
frugalfruit wrote:
Jun 12th, 2019 7:39 pm
The Steel Series Arctis Pro Wireless is rate higher for critical listening because it is very close to their target FR and the distortion stays below 0.2% which is outstanding.
Whether we like the results or not, measurements don't lie.

If you feel that those headphones don't deserve the rating, the onus is on you to prove it. Why should we take your subjective opinion as more correct than rtings?
There are no absolutes when it comes to sound quality, maybe later somebody will come along and come up with a better target curve. The DF/FF targets were the best target we had for many years after all.

Even Harman states "“So the final target satisfies the majority of listeners, although it won’t be perfect for all programs and all people. We believe some degree of personalization is necessary to satisfy all listeners.”

So maybe the HD600 *is* more tonally correct for Keitho due to a wide variety of reasons.

I use rtings measurements as a basis to eliminate obvious flaws but their numeric ratings are misleading. If you look at the lot of headphones rated, at say 7.9, that says to me that all those headphones are equally good sounding but they are not, and sound quite different from each other.

I own the QC35ii and HD600 too, but the QC35 is clearly inferior sounding for a number of reasons which I won't go into here, there is also a lot of processing going on, which is not reflected in the FR charts that use a single tone sweep at a preset volume level. I can hear the manipulation going on when I compare the headphones back to back with real music, not test tones.

rtings is pretty good in that they are attempting to use consistent methodology to form a rating, but even after all these years, rating sound quality is still at an infancy, even Harman has tweaked its curve a few times. I hope someday somebody will come up with a methodology that also accounts for a user's ear shape, hearing capability, preferences and even maybe emotional mood.
RFD is not just about saving money, it's about the thrill of the hunt and not paying full price like Joe Shmoe did. This applies to everyday items as well as high end items that I don't really need.
Sr. Member
User avatar
Nov 25, 2003
525 posts
178 upvotes
The best place to find the best bang for your budget is Zeos Reviews.
DESKTOP DAC + HEADPHONE AMP COMBO'S
STANDALONE DACS
PORTABLE DAC/AMP COMBO's

Personally I think the best bang for the buck is Schiit and JDS Labs.
warpdrive wrote:
Jun 11th, 2019 4:48 pm
I was looking at that topping amp dac too and it seems to be a good buy. Was going to give it a try but I wasn’t sure which is a good place to buy it from (with a return policy)

The mass drop thx amp looks amazing too, but it’s annoying to buy because you have to preorder and wait wait wait
Member
Feb 11, 2016
265 posts
171 upvotes
Ren wrote:
Jun 12th, 2019 7:55 pm
Lol, not even the measurement diehards believe that on ASR, stop spouting BS. Do you understand that there are more than two objective and quantifiable metrics involved when discussing audio?
Please enlighten me what are those two objective and quantifiable metrics? And you need to stop overusing the phrase, 'stop spouting BS'. It is tiring.

My point was that Arctis Pro Wireless is rated higher because of the measurements. I don't think rtings adds a final subjective adjustment. Also, their critical listening score consists of 80% sound quality and 20% build quality. You could request them to display just sound quality without build quality. They have responded to every query I have sent them.

I have tried to do on my own. I am not sure whether it is correct.
Screenshot from 2019-06-12 22-53-23.png
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 24, 2002
2755 posts
468 upvotes
BC
frugalfruit wrote:
Jun 12th, 2019 10:55 pm
Please enlighten me what are those two objective and quantifiable metrics? And you need to stop overusing the phrase, 'stop spouting BS'. It is tiring.

My point was that Arctis Pro Wireless is rated higher because of the measurements. I don't think rtings adds a final subjective adjustment. Also, their critical listening score consists of 80% sound quality and 20% build quality. You could request them to display just sound quality without build quality. They have responded to every query I have sent them.

I have tried to do on my own. I am not sure whether it is correct.

Screenshot from 2019-06-12 22-53-23.png
I didn’t say there were only two, there are way more. Perhaps you should read what I said and comprehend what others have said in this thread before trying to come off as knowledgeable on a topic that you obviously are lacking in. I’ll throw you a free lesson though, google transient response.

If you continue acting like there isn’t more to audio then frequency response graphs and distortion then yes, you’re spouting BS.
Member
Feb 11, 2016
265 posts
171 upvotes
Ren wrote:
Jun 13th, 2019 2:00 am
I didn’t say there were only two, there are way more. Perhaps you should read what I said and comprehend what others have said in this thread before trying to come off as knowledgeable on a topic that you obviously are lacking in. I’ll throw you a free lesson though, google transient response.

If you continue acting like there isn’t more to audio then frequency response graphs and distortion then yes, you’re spouting BS.
Did you even read the rtings website properly? Here is the breakdown of their score.


Audiophiles keeping harping about transient response, but never provide any details. Could you please cite some research papers? Otherwise, it is you who spouts audiophile BS.
Rtings-sound-breakdown.png
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 24, 2002
2755 posts
468 upvotes
BC
frugalfruit wrote:
Jun 13th, 2019 2:08 am
Did you even read the rtings website properly? Here is the breakdown of their score.


Audiophiles keeping harping about transient response, but never provide any details. Could you please cite some research papers? Otherwise, it is you who spouts audiophile BS.

Rtings-sound-breakdown.png
Lol transient response is not an audiophile term, but I have no interest in teaching you first year engineering.

As I’m feeling charitable, if you want to learn about transient response for average joe try inner fidelity or something.

I suspect you’ll go back to some hackneyed ratings site and continue screaming frequency response and distortions though.

That’s ok, you can be blissfully unaware of nth order harmonics and the differential calculus you’d need to understand it.
Jr. Member
Jul 19, 2004
171 posts
57 upvotes
I've yet to see an audiophile thread without an argument 🤣

I don't consider myself a diehard audiophile, but I do enjoy the journey of chasing the best setup for my ears.

As many have said, past a certain price range they all sound good, but just different, and people have different tastes.

Set ups can be extremely accurate sonically, but may sound "cold" or "analytical" to some. I'm in that camp.

For cans, I'm in with love my Fostex TH-X00 Ebonys. They colour the sound, but every song I listen to with them just sounds "fun" while maintaining clarity. I pair them with a Resonessence HERUS+ and I find myself grinning for hours. I'm not a bass head, but no other setup I have does justice to Royals by Lorde. The layers of bass is incredible.

For reference, I also have the HD-6xx, Beyer T90s (paired with the Bottlehead Crack is also really good), DT-880 600ohms, 400i's, M50x's (these are for bassheads!).

I have this Marantz (it's good and this is a good deal for it), O2/ODAC, DACport HD (also really good) among others.

Yeah, I've chased/dated ... and I've chosen my endgame. There's always temptation when a new pretty girl shows up, but I just ask myself how much better can it get and will I be that much happier? I've found my endgame, and I'm happy to share my results.
Jr. Member
Oct 23, 2014
158 posts
91 upvotes
Laval, QC
Ren wrote:
Jun 13th, 2019 2:45 am
Lol transient response is not an audiophile term, but I have no interest in teaching you first year engineering.

As I’m feeling charitable, if you want to learn about transient response for average joe try inner fidelity or something.

I suspect you’ll go back to some hackneyed ratings site and continue screaming frequency response and distortions though.

That’s ok, you can be blissfully unaware of nth order harmonics and the differential calculus you’d need to understand it.
you are a very patient person . Hats off to you!
Member
Feb 11, 2016
265 posts
171 upvotes
Ren wrote:
Jun 13th, 2019 2:45 am
Lol transient response is not an audiophile term, but I have no interest in teaching you first year engineering.

As I’m feeling charitable, if you want to learn about transient response for average joe try inner fidelity or something.

I suspect you’ll go back to some hackneyed ratings site and continue screaming frequency response and distortions though.

That’s ok, you can be blissfully unaware of nth order harmonics and the differential calculus you’d need to understand it.
LOL. Now, you attack my education. I did study calculcus, difference equations, vectors, linear algebra, statistics, discrete mathematics in my degree. I also studied some courses in electricals, electronics, digital circuits and then moved on to computer science. Please tell me what other things I need to learn in order to understand transient response.

Why don't you cite a proper research paper?
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 24, 2002
2755 posts
468 upvotes
BC
frugalfruit wrote:
Jun 13th, 2019 10:03 am
LOL. Now, you attack my education. I did study calculcus, difference equations, vectors, linear algebra, statistics, discrete mathematics in my degree. I also studied some courses in electricals, electronics, digital circuits and then moved on to computer science. Please tell me what other things I need to learn in order to understand transient response.

Why don't you cite a proper research paper?
Why don’t you just open a text book if you studied any of the above subjects you cited. I’m sure you can use a table of contents. Start with transient response under signal analysis. FYI differential calculus is none of the things you mentioned. You probably never studied harmonics for comp sci.

At least I’m making you learn :)
Member
Feb 11, 2016
265 posts
171 upvotes
Ren wrote:
Jun 13th, 2019 10:16 am
Why don’t you just open a text book if you studied any of the above subjects you cited. I’m sure you can use a table of contents. Start with transient response under signal analysis. FYI differential calculus is none of the things you mentioned. You probably never studied harmonics for comp sci.

At least I’m making you learn :)
Calculus includes differential & integral calculus. Doh. I never studied signal analysis because my major was computer science. Harmonic distortion was covered in some electrical course. I don't remember exactly since it was 25 years ago.

My google research reveals some papers from 1950's. Not much after that. Meanwhile, I have access to journals from my office. I will try it once I get the time.

Again, why don't you cite a paper?
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 24, 2002
2755 posts
468 upvotes
BC
frugalfruit wrote:
Jun 13th, 2019 10:42 am
Calculus includes differential & integral calculus. Doh. I never studied signal analysis because my major was computer science. Harmonic distortion was covered in some electrical course. I don't remember exactly since it was 25 years ago.

My google research reveals some papers from 1950's. Not much after that. Meanwhile, I have access to journals from my office. I will try it once I get the time.

Again, why don't you cite a paper?
Calculus 1 & 2 which are derivatives and integrals are not differential calculus, but do keep spouting BS :) I suppose you could argue calculus includes differential calculus which is kind like saying math includes calculus. In this case 2nd, 3rd, 4th and sometimes higher order harmonic resonance covered in differential calculus is very relevant to audio gear. If you’ve heard the word sibilance then that involves harmonic resonance.

Semantics aside, we can get to the crux of the argument. You’ve admitted you have no knowledge of signal analysis. Hate to break it to you, but signal analysis is pretty relevant to audio gear. I’ve already suggested you go to Inner Fidelity’s website for their layman’s take on transient response, and no I will not provide a direct link for you.

To put it in to terms more familiar with you, asking an engineer to provide a paper proving transient response exists is like asking a computer scientist to provide a paper that Boolean logic exists. I will not provide one. I have no interest in furthering what is a pointless question.

Top