[Review] The NuForce NE-600X: what happens when your starship travels at impulse speed

Drop to impulse speed!

[Insert obligatory picture here]

The problem with deals is that you end up buying stuff you never wanted in the first place. So when I saw the Nuforce NE-600X for under $10, I immediately felt that familiar feeling when the two little dudes climbed out of my clavicles and took up their usual places on my shoulders.

"Don't do it," the little dude in white with the wings and harp on my left shoulder said, "You need another pair of headphones like you need a third testicle."

"Do it," the little dude in red with the horns and pitchfork on my right shoulder said, "It's a sweet deal, pull the freaking trigger already!"

"But it's an IEM, and you don't even like IEMs!" the dude in white said.

"WTF is he talking about, you've always wanted another cheap pair of IEMs so that you don't repeat what you did on that flight to Boston last year."

I remembered the sad story of my SE535s who, like Jimmy Hoffa, were lost and never found again (that's when I swore never to travel with expensive headphones) and shuddered at the horror of the terrible memories (the loss! the empty aching hollow feeling inside!).

"Look over there on the wall!" I told the dude in white, and when he was distracted, I clicked on "Add To Cart" and bought the NE-600Xs.

The dude in red laughed with evil glee. The dude in white started to weep softly. I looked down, and discovered that lo and behold, I now had a third testicle.

The Look

The packaging is robust, and easy to open -- the cover pops open without the need to resort to a laser cutting tool or the jaws of life to extricate the IEMs from the packaging.

The plastic + metal IEMs are well built. Left and right sides are marked by a small "L" and "R" respectively on one side but not the other, but are not otherwise color-coded. The nozzles are large, and there is a bass port at the opposite ends. The flat cable is a nice touch, and terminates in a 90 degree TRS connector. At the other end the cable enters the IEM housing at 90 degrees, and so these IEMs are best worn with the cable hanging down; they can be worn behind-the-ear style but I found them uncomfortable to wear that way because of the flat cables.

Personally, I like the red/silver/black color combination. The NE-600X is also available in a silver/black variation. Accessories are sparse. Three earbuds, the medium tips pre-installed on the IEMs, and the cable tie if you count it as an "accessory". That's it.

The Feel

Fit and finish is reasonably good. Cable microphonics are moderate. Luckily the medium tips fit my ears reasonably well with good seal.

The sound

The NE-600X features 11mm dynamic drivers and have an impedance of 16 ohms. The first thing that strikes you when you listen is the prominent bass. Extension is good, and low-end tonal definition is surprisingly robust. There's some boominess of the upper bass, though which can be distracting in non-EDM genres. Mids are recessed and vocals have a somewhat flat sound but aren't smeared or distorted. The treble is somewhat artificial-sounding and the highs roll off rapidly and noticeably. Tone is on the warm side. Soundstage is modest. As usual, isolation is highly dependent on fit and seal, personally I thought isolation as average.

In conclusion

I'm somewhat ambivalent about these IEMs. For $10 they are certainly cheap, bass prominent headphones. But the flat mids and tinny highs detract from an otherwise enjoyable listening experience. If you are looking for bass-prominent IEMs in this price range for genres like EDM, the JVC HAFX101 gives you more bang for your buck. And if you want a bright pair of headphones, these are definitely not for you because of the artificiality of the tone. As a throwaway pair I suppose they are fine, but for serious listening they do not step up to the plate. If you ever have an impulse to jump on the NE-600X, my suggestion: don't do it. It's not worth it.

I should have listened to the dude in white.

[Review] AKG Q701: Would You Like To Join The Q Continuum?

Would You Like To Join The Q Continuum?

Picture of my "Stormtrooper" Q701

But First, a Preface: And Now, The Larch.


The scene: AKG HQ. A bunch of AKG executives are sitting around a table deciding on a strategy to counter the whipping Beats is giving them in the marketplace.

"We have got to come up with a viable model that can take on Beats. What can we market?"

"Well our headphones are stylish."

"Ummm...most people think AKG makes headphones for people with neckbeards and black turtlenecks who listen to Dave Brubeck!"

"OK let's color them white and green, like those gaming headophones, so that nobody can see that our basic design hasn't changed since 1880."

"How about marketing our headphones as "heavy on the bass"? That seems to be working for Beats."

"Ummm...our headphones have less bass than Mel Gibson has acting offers!"

"OK. Maybe what we need is a celebrity endorser. Can we get LeBron?"

"Ummm...he signed with Beats."

"I know, how about Dave Brubeck?"

"Ummm...he's dead, Jim. How about Quincy Jones?"

"Oh wow, the Q. He may be almost 90, but he is a living legend. Who hasn't heard of him?"

The answer: almost anyone under 30. If you are in the said demographic, at this point of time please review this video to familiarize yourself with the Q Experience before proceeding to read this review.


And thus the Q701 was born: the bastard child of the union of the K701 and Quincy Jones and radioactive green slimy ooze from Mars.


OK now on to the review

First, a disclaimer. I like the Q701, and it is my go-to headphones for gaming.


What the Q701 is


The Q701 is an open model with lots of detail, some (but not substantial) bass presence, and veers towards brightness. It has a huge soundstage for headphones, and so has the fortunate side effect of being particularly good for gaming, because

[1] the soundstage, obviously
[2] it is comfortable especially around the ears (see below about headband) and
[3] it does not have too much bass which kills gaming for me -- modern games have so many explosions that i get a headache gaming with bass-heavy headphones -- but it is not so bass-shy that I can't listen to music when gaming. Like Goldilocks, I don't wan't too much or too little bass when gaming, and IMO the Q701 is just right.


What the Q701 isn't


It's not a great choice for EDM, because of its profile. If you are looking for isolation, move on. It isn't as warm as many other headphones. The headband has bumps that can be painful for some. If you are looking for a new Q701 made in Austria, good luck finding one. While it works fine without an amp, to squeeze maximum performance you will need to consider amping it. It does not pair well with some amps. Also, if you are thinking that the Q701 with its huge soundstage will give you a speaker-like experience, dream on. It won't. No headphones can. And finally, this headphone is not for portable use.


The Look


The Q701 comes in three flavors. I'm going to call the black version "vanilla, except for the weirdly coordinated green cable", the white "Look ma, I'm a Stormtrooper!" and the green "I'll take these to a LAN party so that I can fit in with all those fools with Razers". Of the three, my favorite is white, because I can wear it and say "Let me see your identification......We don't need to see his identification......These aren't the droids we're looking for......Move along......move along."

Even though the Q701 looks large, hefty and substantial, when you hold it, it feels weirdly delicate. That's partly because of the headband design -- the two curved metal rods frame the headband, and have considerable flex. AKG claims the Q701 arches are unbreakable, but I would not want to test that assertion.

The universal self-adjusting stretch headband is attached to the frame by a flimsy-looking plastic clip mechanism, and tensioned by two rubber bands on each side, which looks (and feels) more delicate than industrial.The earcups are huge, and mostly plastic. The large velour earcups are circular in shape, deeply recessed for ears, but do not feature memory foam. The Q701 cable connects at the left earcup with a sturdy mini XLR connector.

And yes, the inside of the universal headband has eight (count 'em. eight) bumps, which are either a good thing or AKG's attempt to waterboard its customers, depending on your viewpoint.

In summary, from a distance, the Q701 looks rugged, but up close it feels somewhat frail. The materials themselves are of good quality, but it almost feels like the Q701 has brittle bones and you have to baby it to prevent something from snapping. Think of the Q701 as being akin to a boxer with osteoporosis, and you will understand what I mean.


The Feel


This is a very light (235 gm) pair of headphones. The fit and finish is excellent. The velour is plush, the plastic is shiny, the green stitching on the headband is an interesting touch. The cable is long but of good quality, the connectors are top notch. The mini XLR connection is solid and tight. The plug and contacts are gold plated.

AKG claims their patented "Varimotion" diaphgrams (which feature a multi-layer construction technique) are their best yet. The voice coils are wound with flat wires.

Let me address up front what many folks consider to be the Achilles heel of the Q701 -- the headband bumps. Regarding comfort: I find the Q701 comfortable and don't have an issue with the bumps, but some folks just hate the Q701 headband bumps digging into their skulls. People go as far as to chop the bumps off with a blade and wrap with something like a Beyerdynamic replacement pad around the amputated headband to get comfortable. I think that the only way you will know if you have a sensitive scalp is to try the Q701 and see what happens.

Also, I keep reading questions online where folks are concerned where the Q701 is made. AKG shifted production of the Q701 from Austria to China a couple of years ago. If it does not say "Made in Austria" right on the headphones it is made in China. I don't think there is any difference, although I have seen people work themselves up into a frenzy about this very topic. There are pictures of Q701 showing "smooth" plastic in the made in Austria model vs "blemished" plastic made in China. My personal opinion is that QC is QC no matter which country products are made in. If AKG values their reputation, hopefully they picked a factory in China with quality standards that meet or exceed what they had in in their facilities in Austria.

The Q701 comes with two cables -- one long, the other that stretches from here to, well, China. Maybe if they bundled the headphone with a 1.5m and 3m cable I would use both, but the 6m cable is ridiculously long and pretty much unusable. Ah well, maybe I can knit a sweater with it.


The Sound


First, the biggest criticism leveled against the Q701: that it has a "plasticky" sound. I would not characterize the main characteristic of the Q701 sound as "plasticky", although I appreciate where folks are coming from with this criticism, having heard the K701 also.

Some folks complain that tHE Q701 is fatiguing, but certainly I don't have an issue with extended sessions.

The Q701 has a clean, neutral-to-modestly bright profile. Bass is present, but by no means prominent. Vocals are crisp and natural; mids are smooth. The treble is a little artificial-sounding, and somewhat brittle. Clarity is outstanding. Detail is truly excellent. Soundstage is very wide. Frequency response is relatively flat.

Maximum input power is rated at 200mW. Sensitivity is 105 dB SPLV. With its impedance of 62 ohms, you can power the Q701 in theory off your phone or tablet or motherboard, but this is one headphone that likes to be amped.

If I had to decribe Q701 sound in a single word, I would pick "spacious". It really is.


In conclusion


I'm going to call my white Q701 "The Stormtrooper In Drag" because it looks like a stormtrooper, but doesn't sound like one. It is a great midfi audiophile headphone choice for folks who want a more neutral-to-bright tone without dominant bass, and for folks who prize detail uber alles. It's also a great choice for folks who listen to a lot of live performances, because of the vast soundstage it projects. But where the Q701 really shines is as a pair of gaming headphones, which I am sure neither AKG or Quincy Jones foresaw when they released this model.

In case you are wondering where the "Stormtrooper In Drag" reference comes from, it is from a Gary Numan song.


Some head to head comparisons: the Cliff Notes version


Q701 vs ATHM50: The Q701 has much less bass than the M50, and more visible mids. Highs are not as artificial as the M50. Soundstage is obviously better than the closed M50. By a mile.

Q701 vs Beyerdynamic DT990: If you are a fan of the Beyer sound profile with its V shaped emphasis on the bass as well as the highs, you may find that the bass and treble are both going to be lacking somewhat with the Q701.

Q701 vs Sennheiser HD598 with respect to music: The 598 is a little warmer, and has a little more emphasized bass, despite its 100 Hz impedance spike. The real difference is in the treble: HD598 has much smoother treble, without the slightly artificial tone that the Q701 brings to the table.

Q701 vs Sennheiser HD598 with respect to gaming: With respect to gaming, particularly FPS gaming, while situational positioning is an advantage, it is not the biggest factor associated with playing FPS games well. What I mean is that if you suck at FPS games in general, improved soundstage is not going to make you into a superstar all of a sudden. For example, if you cannot support your buddies appropriately, or you have no clue what "cover" means, the Q701 will not make you either more popular with your buddies or suddenly render you invincible. What positional advantage does do in FPS gaming is give you a small advantage in using an extra sense to determine where people (or objects) are. To be honest you cannot go wrong with either the HD598 or the Q701. If you are an average gamer, either will give you a good positional sense. If you are an uber competitive gamer, then maybe the Q701 will give you an extra few % of positional advantage, and if you believe that you really need that small extra boost to get to your desired level of gaming, then yes Q701 is a better choice.

Q701 vs Philips Fidelio X1: They are very different headphones. Both are open, and the similarities pretty much stop there. The X1 is much more colored, has more (and IMO better) bass, is very warm in comparison to the Q701, but has less detail. If you like warmth and colored "fun" sound the X1 clearly wins.

Q701 vs K701: The two share the same basic design but having heard both side by side, they sound different. Specifically, K701 has less bass and sounds more, well, plasticky than the Q701. I'm not a fan of K701 sound.

Q701 vs Beyerdynamic DT880 versus Sennheiser HD650 3-way shootout: The HD650 sits on one end of midline neutrality with its dark nature, the DT880 sits closer to the middle, and the Q701 is just on the bright side of the 880 furthest from the 650. Personally I think that when it comes to detail the Q701 trumps the 650 by a nose.

Q701 vs HD600: AKG claims that the Q701 is the "the most accurate and responsive reference headphones we‘ve ever produced". If you are looking for a neutral pair of headphones, the HD600 might even be at endgame-level for you, so it makes sense to bypass the 701 and just jump on the HD600. The Q701 is more comfortable than the HD600 (less clamp, lighter) unless you have issues with the headband bumps. The 701 also has a more spacious soundstage and a little more detail than the 600, which is worth considering.


The Mods


2 mods you may want to look at before you decide to buy: [1] the Q701 bass mod, and [2] the headband mod (to fix the bumps issue)

With respect to the bass mod, the two common methods are to remove the small reflex adhesive tape dots on the drivers, and using a reflector/attenuator (like microfiber) to try and make the Q701 a "semi open" headphone. But adding a microfiber layer behind the driver reduces the soundstage, which is probably why you bought the Q701 in the first place. Also, the little round bandaid reflectors are actually there for a reason -- without them the Q701 bass becomes too smeared. Since the design is so open, the reflex really improves low end resonance characteristics. Sure if you peel them off you get a little more bass, but the overall sound worsens. So the bottom line is: don't do the 701 bass mod, it does not improve sound quality. If you want tons of bass, you shouldn't buy an AKG. Also don't try to close off the open Q701 with microfiber/ electrical tape, etc. You kill the soundstage, which IMO is the Q701's biggest feature.

With respect to the headband mod, keep in mind that mutilating the headband kills resale value. Some folks have made custom universal headbands or transplanted the K701 headbands (which are expensive!). Wrapping Beyerdynamic replacement headband around the Q701 headband works, but you will have to cut the stock headband to size to allow the Beyer clips to fasten. You could also fill the valleys in the headband with adhesive foam tape.

Which flavor headphones to pick?

Q: I'm looking at Beyerdynamic DT770 headphones, but they come in three flavors -- 32 ohm, 80 ohms and 250 ohms. Which one do I buy?

A: 32 ohm versions are easiest to drive, no amp needed.

80 ohm DT770s will be driven by many mp3 players and phones, but some devices with weak outputs may struggle, and if you amp a 80ohm DT770 Pro you will see modest sound improvement (tighter bass, for example, but this also is related to damping factor and the output impedance of the device powering the headphones).

The 250 ohm DT770 will definitely require amping. Some Beyerdynamic models have 600 ohms of impedance, and those certainly will need an amp as well to shine.

Bent headphone connector

Q: Help, my headphone connector is bent!

A: It is probably best to replace the connector end. Once the connector bends, you run the risk that it will break off inside the 3.5mm jack, which is much more complicated to fix than replacing the connector. Your local Radio Shack or electronics parts store should have the connector. There are lots of guides on YouTube to walk you through the process.

One way to straighten it out is to place the connector at the end of a flat surface like a table, place something flat and reasonably heavy over it like a hardback book, and then move the book back and forth so that the connector rolls between the book and the table and straightens. But once those TRS connectors are bent it is usually only a question of time before they fail.

If the cast of Star Trek: The Next Generation were headphones

If the cast of Star Trek: The Next Generation were headphones:

• Picard is obviously a Sennheiser HD600, because he is neutral
• Guinan is a Beyerdynamic T90, because she is great for critical listening
• Geordi is a Sennheiser HD800, because he is overengineered
• Deanna Troi is a Grado, because she is too bright and gets on your nerves after a while
• Tasha Yar is a Sennheiser Amperior because she, like the Amperior, was discontinued abruptly
• the Tamarian aliens from the episode "Darmok" are Ultrasones because noone can undertand what they are saying
• Q is obviously a AKG Q701, obviously

What makes really expensive headphones so expensive?

Q: What makes really expensive headphones so expensive?

A: Essentially there are 4 aspects to the cost of any product [1] R&D [2] materials [3] manufacturing and [4] marketing. These costs may be either fixed (eg payroll) or variable (eg sourcing raw materials).

R&D is variable, so calculating the cost of R&D for an individual headphone model is difficult. Newer models still haven't seen a return on ROI costs, while older models (for example HD600) have probably recouped their R&D costs, and then some. R&D costs may be hard to figure out accurately because one technology may be used in multiple products, or may be responsible for the development of other innovations, for example the design of the HD580 enclosure and drivers directly influenced the design of the HD600 and 650 enclosures and drivers. Another great example is the Q701 -- it is in essence a K701 with modest changes. Most of the R&D cost was for the K701, and the Q701 reaped much of the benefit.

Material costs vary over time, often wildly, and are subject to supply and demand constraints. For example the price of copper, used in headphone voice coils and wires, has changed dramatically over the last few decades, and copper futures are still often volatile.

Production costs also vary, for example Q701s were made in Austria, but AKG wanted to save costs and moved production to China. But moving production to China does not necessarily make things cheaper, for example some Audio Gd amps probably cost more to make than equivalent Schiit amps, even though Schiit makes its stuff in the US and Audio Gd in China.

Many companies OEM some or all of production, which again affects costs depending on who they OEM to. And it's not just a case of folks using cheap Chinese OEMs -- some Denons for example were OEMd by Fostex, for example. And keep in mind that OEM companies typically conduct their own R&D, have their own design costs, have to retool equipment for specific products, etc, which changes cost calculations.

And finally marketing: some companies spend more on marketing (e.g. Apple, Nike, Beats) and make huge profits, while others spend very little on traditional marketing and still manage to do very well for themselves. One way to get around substantial marketing costs is to engage in direct marketing (eg Emotiva, Schiit) or to depend on word of mouth (like HiFiMan depends on HeadFi).

But eventually, keep in mind that companies will try to make as much profit as they can, so the price may be determined by what the market can support. For audiophile products, there may be a substantial markup in price just because companies know they can get away with it. A classical example of this is the Grado RA1, which has been substantially marked up when you take into account its design and materials/manufacturing cost.

AKG Q701 headband bumps hurt my head!

Q: I got a new pair of AKG Q701 and those bumps on the headband hurt my scalp! What can I do?

A: If you condition your scalp you will soon learn to ignore the headband. I recommend this activity.

But seriously, some have cut the bumps out with a knife, narrowed the headband and applied a Beyer headband cover or a modded HD600/650 headband pad. Others have crafted new headbands from fabric or leather.

Burson Soloist SL vs Schiit Asgard 2 for the HiFiMan HE500

Q: I own the HifiMan HE500. Which is a better amp for it, the Burson Soloist SL or would a cheaper amp like the Schiit Asgard 2 get the job done?

A: I would pick the Soloist SL over the Asgard2. Mainly because it puts out 2W at low resistance, as opposed to the Asgard's 1W, which would be better for the HE500. But also from a purely subjective perspective, really. I just like the design, execution and sound of the Soloist SL better than Asgard2. The variable output stage is IMO particularly well done. Plus the Soloist SL just looks better.

Help! I have a crease in my new headphone earpad!

Q: I just received my new pair of headphones and noticed that the headband has a bit of a "pinch" in one of the creases. Is this something I should be worried about for wear/damage in the long term and get them exchanged?

A: Typically these upholstering imperfections do not amount to anything, and will not cause the headband cover to unravel / fall off/ or otherwise damage your headphones. Think of it as getting a baby with a small and harmless birthmark.

Personally I would not return headphones for cosmetic defects like this. However I do know that some folks are anal about receiving "perfect" items when they buy something, and if you think you will constantly worry about this minor blemish IMO you will never be truly happy with your purchase. And if you are one of those folks (you know if you are!) then you are going to return these no matter what I say, right?

USB vs optical vs coaxial inputs

Q: What is the difference between USB and optical/coaxial inputs? Is one better than the other?

A: In essence they are the same -- a digital signal is a digital signal, no matter how you transport it. Having said that, there are a couple of differences:

[1] if you use USB, you can plug it into any computer. With optical or coax you need a source with an optical or coax jack. Not all computers have them, for example.

[2] At one point until not so long ago, USB technology was limited to 24 bits/48 kHz. At that time, it was much more advantageous to use optical or coax, which went up to 24/96. That technological disadvantage is no longer the case with current generation of USB chips. However, the technology has swung the other way -- many DAC manufacturers limit optical/coax thruput rates to 24 bits at 96 or 192 kHz. If you want to go higher beyond 192 kHz, for example 24-32 bit/352.8kHz-384kHz, USB may be the only way to do this. Keep in mind that your ears probably cannot tell the difference between 24/96 and 24/192.

[3] If you want DSD you may have to have USB input (of course, if your DAC does not support DSD then this is moot)

[4] if you have USB line noise from EMI (because USB carries power in addition to the audio signal) then optical/coax may get help rid of the noise (because you are not using USB)

Personally, my favorite connection is optical out, and not for any musical reason -- I just like the idea that my music traveled along a fiberoptic cable as light before ending up between my ears.

When lossless isn't really lossless

Q: Are all lossless audio file formats truly lossless?

A: Many like FLAC or ALAC are. But others can be somewhat deceiving. For example Sony's ATRAC Lossless audio files.

ATRAC Lossless is actually an interesting format. It works differently than FLAC or ALAC -- the way I understand it is that ATRAC lossless is actually a lossy ATRAC3 file with additional information ("correction data") that allows the lossless sound to be reconstituted. Kind of like packaging the water and the Top Ramen separately in the same box to reconstitute the whole noodles. Somehow that isn't the same as cooking the ramen from scratch.

United we stand, divided we....stand?

Q: Should I buy a standalone headphone amplifier + a standalone DAC or an amp + DAC combination unit?

A: If you buy a amp+dac combo unit (a single enclosure holds both the ehadphone amplifier as well as the DAC) and think you will be using the amp alone or the DAC alone at some point, then the key is to buy a combo that allows DAC output as line out without involving the amplifier circuit (i.e. the DAC output from the combo can bypass the amp) so that you don't end up double amping. So for example if you have an amp/dac combo and want to buy a better standalone amp, you don't want to run the signal through two amplifier circuits in tandem, in this case the amp in the amp/DAC and then the standalone amp, since you will introduce additional distortion into the signal.

Some combos (e.g. the Audioengine D1) will not allow you to decouple the DAC output from the amp which makes them inferior as standalone DACs. If you are planning to own multiple amps and/or DACs, getting separate units (such as the O2 and ODAC individually) as opposed to a combo (such as the O2 and ODAC in a single unit) makes much more sense because you can swap out the DAC or amp to something different.

However if you have decided that your purchase will be endgame 9at least for a while) then getting a single unit makes more sense because it is more convenient + less clutter.

HiFiMan HE-400 versus the Beyerdynamic DT 990 Pro

Q: Is the HiFiMan HE-400 a big step over the Beyerdynamic DT 990 Pro?

A: It depends on how well you amp the HE400s. They are different from the DT990s in 4 ways:

1) HE400s have a flatter frequency curve. You'll notice the mids coming forward compared to the 990. A lot.

2) The bass is tighter and more controlled than the DT990. The bass isn't as prominent as the DT990, but "punchier".

3) The treble is harsher and more sibilant than the 990. Cymbals and hi hats go into "attack mode".

4) The HE400s are heavier and a lot less comfortable than the 990s. Over time you will get used to their weight, though.

Now I see it, now I don't....

Q: Do different DACs sound different? What kind of DAC should I get?

A: In theory the DAC should generate the exact identical analog version of the digital source, i.e. the sound is faithfully transmitted to the next link in the chain without any additions or subtractions. This is my definition of a transparent DAC --- a DAC that behaves "like it's not there".

But in reality that's not what happens, since the additional components that make up the DAC add their own "voices" to the signal, as does the DAC chip itself.

Having said this, most DAC chips use the same digital processing method (delta-sigma) and so sound remarkably similar to each other, whether they are made by Sabre or Wolfson or Cirrus Logic or Analog Devices, or any of the other slew of DAC manufacturers. There are some exceptions, for example old-style NOS (non oversampling) DACs sound different than their delta-sigma brethren, because they operate under entirely different principles.  But by and large when you read reviews that wax eloquent about the significant and substantial differences in the sound from one DAC chip or another, you are being subjected to, well, bullshit.

Why then is there so much variation recorded between DACs? Why are some dacs felt to be "warm" and others to be "cold"?  Well, the biggest reason is that it is a matter of perception: if you approach DAC transparency from an objectivist position, then for you a transparent DAC is ideal and if you are a subjectivist listener then the same DAC is "cold" or "boring".

If you are an objectivist, you want the faithful transmission of a signal, then the coloration imparted by the analog component fo a DAC like the Cambridge Audio DacMAgic 100 is anathema.

And if you are a subjectivist, the coloring of the sound excites you just as much as the faithful transmission of the signal, and the transparent output of a DAC like the ODAC might be "bland" or "cold" or "not energetic" to you. I would argue that for such a subjectivist listener, the tonal variations offered by a tube DAC might actually be more pleasing than "the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth" offered by a transparent DAC. If you don't believe me, ask anyone with a Grado.

Further, a DAC can pick up floor noise -- hiss from, say a laptop via the USB port, that the muddies the sound profile a ta. But the same DAC may be deathly silent when plugged into a desktop USB. Does that mean that the DAC is transparent when it's connected to a desktop but not to a laptop? By my definition, yes.

You can get around noisy USB by including a good power transformer with the DAC itself. But these are expensive, and can drive up the price of the DAC. One DAC brand that has been touted for its sonic neutrality, to the point of becoming a standard reference whenever the term "transparent DAC" rears its head, is the Bench mark DAC1, which is an expensive option.

So from price-performance perspective, does buying a DAC1 make sense? Probably not. You can get a relatively transparent DAC as cheaply as $100 - the Schiit Modi (which uses a wallwart for power), or alternatively the ODAC (which uses USB power, and is priced at $150) and these are perfectly acceptable price-performance options to something like the DAC1.

Tube versus solid state amps (the cheap ones!)

Q: How does a cheap tube amp like the Darkvoice 336SE compare to a cheap solid state amp like the Schiit Magni?

A: You cant really compare solid state and tube amps, since their sound profiles are entirely different.

If you want neutral sound (or relatively neutral sound), reliability, and true value for money I would say always go with solid state  (Magni, O2, etc.) over a tube amp.

If you want the warm tubey sound at a budget, then before you pull the trigger on a budget tube amp, you should probably also think about how much you will need to factor in for tube rolling. DarkVoice tubes are cheaper than, say those for McIntoshes, but keep in mind that something like a Shuguang Treasure CV181 will cost you upwards of $100 so after swapping the stock tubes you may be really looking at closer to $350-500 than $250. At that price point, Magni isn't really a comparable amp anymore from a price perspective, IMO you should now be looking at a totally different tier of solid state amps.

If you just want to get into tube amps for the rolling experience more than anything else, tube rolling for a Little Dot mk3 works out better than a DarkVoice 336SE because tubes are relatively cheaper and you have more variety.

Q: But doesn't a tube amp better than a solid state amp? After all, tube amps have variations in their sound when you put in different tubes but all solid state amps pretty much sound the same?

A: I don't know if tube amps are better or worse than solid state amps, just that they are different.

There is a lot to be said for solid state amps, for example: quality solid state components cost much less than quality tube components, solid state components are more reliable than tubes, and they are more efficient. If you are buying your first amp, you should probably get a solid state instead of a tube amp unless you are very sure that you want tube sound.

If you are a "purist", i.e. what you want to hear is the source file without coloration or added tonality, then you should not go down the tube route since you are sure to be disappointed. If you want the coloration, tubes give you pleasing distortion and the ability to "tune" that distortion by swapping tubes.

"Better solid state" is not necessarily "the same sound, just better". The quality of solid state components do make a difference acoustically, to some degree (like noise floor, THD, etc.) But you are right that the difference between, say a Magni and an O2 is not as vast as the difference between, say a Schiit Valhalla and a Little Dot.

Review: Ultrasone Edition 10

"The best headphones ever!" I read recently online. The Ultrasone Edition 10 headphones certainly meet the criteria for audiophile goodness. Huge price tag (over $2000!), limited to only 2010 pieces (each of which has its own serial number), extraordinary level of hype when they were introduce, glowing reviews from the few who were fortunate enough to listen to one.....they must sound absolutely fabulous, right?

Well, these headphones look gorgeous. They will certainly make you feel cool as you roll in your 1936 Ford down Ocean Drive in South Beach, Miami, but a critical issue will reduce your overall level of enjoyment, despite the "butterfly-inspired design", the Zebrano wood, and the Ethiopian sheepskin leather earcup covers (I "kid" you not!) that are featured in these headphones.

And the problem, simply put, is this: The S-Logic technology kills the sound more thoroughly than a Klingon warrior with a bat'leth.

The drivers are positioned weirdly, somewhere waaay below where my ears are, and I have normal size ears positioned where normal humans grow ears (I can confidently say that if you were Abe Sapien from "Hellboy" the Edition 10 would fit you just right). And even if it did fit (or probably because it did not), the S-logic just makes everything sound so weird. It just plain sounds wrong.

You must be either [a] mad or [b] have more money to throw around than Warren Buffet to buy the Ultrasone Edition 10, no matter how gorgeous they look, and no matter how high the hype level is. I mean, you could do better by buying a used Ford Festiva for the same kind of money. You wouldn't look as cool driving down a busy Miami street, but you would certainly sound better.

The moral of the story: just because they are expensive and are finely crafted using exotic materials by  dwarves in Moria, does not necessarily mean that they sound as fantastic as they look.

The sweet spot of compressed versus uncompressed audio files

Q: At what point does compressed vs uncompressed audio files really become an issue?

A: You can have compressed lossless files (eg. FLAC files) that are sonically identical to uncompressed lossless files (eg. WAV files). The only issue you would have here is if you compress FLAC files very tightly, you will need a powerful computer to uncompress on the fly.

Now with respect to mp3 vs WAV or CDs; that's more of a lossy vs lossless question rather than compressed vs uncompressed question. For example, with mp3, the lower the bitrate (measured in kbps, an index of the file's audio quality) the more obvious the quality deterioration is appreciable with good headphones.

For streaming music, uncompressed isn't really viable because it takes up an extraordinarily huge amount of bandwidth to stream, so all radio stations / streaming services typically offer some level of lossy streams. For me, the 320 kbps Orbis bit rate that Spotify uses for streaming its Premium service is not an issue, even with really good headphones.

For local files, what you really get with compression is the ability to save some space. Typically I rip my CDs to FLAC files, and then rerip to varying mp3 rates when transferring to my phone or mp3 player because, well, like real estate, there is only so much you can fit in limited space, and either you fit a lesser number of quality files or more files but of lower quality.

Double amping

Q: What happens if you double amp?

A: Double amping occurs when you run the audio signal through two amplifier circuits in tandem, for whatever reason. When that happens, you increase distortion. In theory you may damage the downstream amp but that's unlikely.

Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.

Q: My headphone connector is bent! What do I do?

A: It is probably best to replace the connector end. Once the connector bends, you run the risk that it will break off inside the 3.5mm jack, which is much more complicated to fix than replacing the connector. If you have some basic soldering skills, you can cut off the bad connector, strip the wires, and solder in a new one . It's not complicated. Your local Radio Shack or electronics parts store should have the connector in stock.  There are lots of guides on YouTube on how to do this.

One way to straighten it out is to place the connector at the end of a flat surface like a table, place something flat and reasonably heavy over it like a hardback book, and then move the book back and forth so that the connector rolls between the book and the table and straightens. But once those TRS connectors are bent it is usually only a question of time before they fail.

[Review] Fostex HP-A4: The Little Black Box That Could

Preliminary impressions of the Fostex HP-A4 DAC/headphone amplifier

or

"The Little Black Box That Could"

Fostex? Who dat?

Fostex has been around for a while. In addition to manufacturing their own products, they OEM for other brands (think Denon headphones, for example). They are a subsidiary of the Japanese company Foster Electric (they merged with Foster in 2003). Foster has been around since the 1940s and is probably the biggest audio company you have never heard of.

History of the HPA4, or "The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow. How did it come to this?"

Earlier this year, Fostex upgraded their little HPA3 DAC/amp with an new design, the HPA4. There hasn't been much buzz or hype about this model, and I didn't know much about it until recently. That's when I got interested, initially because the HPA3 is a USB-powered amp/DAC that utilizes a DAC chip made by a company you don't commonly see -- Asahi Kasei's AK4390 chip, and I couldn't figure out what DAC the HPA4 was using.

But as I did my research, the HPA4 stood out for a bunch of reasons, and soon I realized I was obsessing about it all the time. When a product's webpage ends up as a Favorite on my browser, that's when I know I am screwed, and will probably end up buying said product. So sure enough, both logical arguments ("I need another DAC like I need another testicle") and emotional pleas ("USB powered amps don't have enough juice to even drive a Grado") failed miserably, and I ended up buying the HPA4.

What is it?

The HPA4 is a USB powered amp/DAC. It has USB and optical in, and can support up to 24 bit/192 kHz frequencies on PCM and SPDIF, and 2.8 and 5.6 MHz DSD.

It has a single 1/4 inch headphone jack that delivers 100 mw at 32 ohms, dropping to 20 mw at 300 ohms. It also has RCA out, so can act as a preamp for active speakers.

As usual, within a few hours of powering it up I had to open it up and take a look inside. It does not feature an Asahi Kasei DAC chip, instead settling for a more run-of-the-mill PCM1792A. There's a custom crystal oscillator to run asynchronous mode, the PCB design is efficient, and the build quality is excellent.

Most of the reviews I have read about the HPA4 claim that is the "little brother" of the acclaimed Fostex HPA8 DAC/amp, which is considered by some to be an endgame setup. From my look inside the HPA4, that description is, well, untrue. Different DAC, different architecture, different components -- IMO these are two entirely different DAC/amps that merely share the Fostex brand and a couple of common features. The hype train strikes again.

Features

I have four interesting features to report to you.

First, the HPA4 has optical out, so it can convert USB or optical in to a SPDIF optical out signal, which is useful if you want to daisy-chain another DAC with optical in.

Second, it has a gain switch that adds an extra 10 dB. This is very useful given that the HPA4 is USB powered.

Third, it has a filter switch. With a PCM source you can select between a slow and sharp roll-off digital filter, and with a DSD source you can choose a high cutoff (185 kHz with gain of -6.6 dB) or low cutoff (85 kHz with gain of -1.5 db).

And fourth, it has a microSD slot at the back. Unfortunately, this can't be used to play music, it is designed to allow easy firmware updates using a microSD card.

For those looking for button and connection pictures, here is the front end, and the back end.


Looks

It's small, but heavy. It comes with 4 rubber feet that you have to stick, and once they are on the unit is solid and does not slide. It has a sleek industrial black look similar to the HPA8 (but no display). It has a row of LEDs which are green and red, like Christmas all over again. The metal enclosure is a fingerprint magnet -- it attracts more fingerprints than Lindsay Lohan attracts DUIs.


Knobfeel

How can you have a device with a knob and not describe knobfeel in a review? Alas, the potentiometer does have a little friction -- it's not buttery smooth. No low end imbalance though, so I'm happy.


The sound

I read a a review a while ago (on Headphonia?) where the HPA4 was pitted against the Benchmark DAC1, and won.Ha ha, I said to myself, since the DAC1 is my gold standard. It takes challengers and breaks them like Gregor Clegane. So of course my first set of tests were against the DAC1.
The results? To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen in his famous debate against Dan Quayle: "Senator, I served with the DAC1. I knew the DAC1. The DAC1 was a friend of mine. The HPA4 is no DAC1."

It comes close though, which I thought was surprising. Shocking, even, given the difference sin design and price points. The sound is detailed, if a little smooth. Treble is modestly accentuated, but not harsh at all. Bass is well represented, tight, and without artifacts or muddiness. There is zero noise floor, both in low as well as high gain.
I couldn't make out any difference between the slow and sharp PCM filter. Sorry. I convinced myself I heard a difference with the DSD filter, but that was probably a combination of expectation bias and the dB attenuation more than a real, tangible difference.

I used Fostex's own Audio Player to listen to DSD files. It is very bare-bones, but does the job. It utilizes custom ASIO drivers by default, and can decode DSD over PCM or native DSD. It also has a "load to RAM" feature for handling audio data, for which of course you need a decent amount of RAM. My gaming rig has 32GB of RAM, and although 16GB is taken up by a RAMdrive, the remaining 16GB does not struggle with running the Audio player in its Expanded RAM setting. DSD files sound great, of course, but that's more a function of the file type than the DAC.

I have been rotating headphones only over the last few days, so have not had time to go through my stable. Most of my testing was done with my modded T50RP, which I thought was only fitting since I was flying the Fostex flag. The HPA4 is IMO synergistic with the HD650 and LCD3, but struggles to power the high impedance 600 ohm Beyer DT990. The high gain mode helps, but is merely passable. Ah well, what did you expect from a USB powered amp?


In sum: The good

It's a compact, solidly built, convenient DAC/amp that does not require its own AC power line. It sounds remarkably good, with no sonic flaws. If you are looking to get into a futureproof DSD capable DAC, then this a a great deal from a price-performance perspective. Of course the Aune X1 is the bargain basement option in this category, but Aune QC is hit-or-miss, and Fostex build quality is impeccable.

It also has RCA and optical out, so you can connect it to another optical-in device and to active speakers. The pot on the HPA4 ramps the volume of the RCA-out signal, so it can be used to control active speaker volume.

For the price, it sounds really good. It doesn't quite beat the DAC1, but it comes close. The DAC1 retails for $1000+. The MSRP on the HAA4 is $400. So from the price-performance perspective, I recommend this product.

The bad

It struggles with high-impedance headphones. The filter switch might not be hooked up to the amp at all, for all I can tell. The LED lights are bright and the green-and-red combo is a tad cheesy.RCA and headphone gain levels are not independently controlled, so when you switch from RCA out to headphone jack, you have to make sure the potentiometer is dialed down or you may blast your headphones.

The enclosure isn't a fingerprint magnet in the normal sense, it attracts smudges with the magnetic field strength of a dozen MRI machines chained together. And oh yes, the potentiometer isn't buttery smooth. I know, that's nitpicking, but it is a big deal for me.

The ugly

There really isn't anything ugly about this little black box. Even the USB cable it comes with is well built.

The bottom line

What it is: This is a great portable DAC/amp. For folks who carry their gear from home to work and back again, this is a great choice. For folks looking to get into DSD on the cheap, this is a great choice. For folks looking for a compact bedside amp/dac unit without the usual spaghetti of wires sticking out the back, this is a great choice. For Fostex fanboys, this is a great choice.

What it isn't: It's not the "little brother of the HPA8". So if you are looking for HPA8 performance on a HPA4 budget, that aint going to happen. If you have high impedance headphones, pass on the HPA4. If you want to play music off your microSD card, this isn't the unit for you. If you are paranoid about fingerprints and smudges, stock up on non-abrasive neutral electronics-safe cleaner. By the gallon.

Q: Can DAC s power headphones?

A: Some DACs have circuits on their output side that can run most headphones without issues -- for example the Benchmark DAC1 is a reference DAC that also has a high current, low impedance headphone amp. Now you can use it as a DAC with fixed output to a standalone amp, but in reality you could use it as the only equipment you will ever need, if you wanted to. The HPA2 on the DAC1 is very capable of powering 2 headphones on its dual outputs, including most higher impedance headphones. The volume knob allows you to easily adjust the level of the output, and so you can set your source volume at 100% and use the DAC1 to pretty much manage your entire personal audio experience.

In contrast, you have the Schiit Modi, which outputs a line-level signal via the RCA jacks on the back. The Modi output may not be powerful enough to power many headphones, and you have no way of adjusting output volume unless you modify the source level (which is typically not the best thing to do since the sound quality can degrade).

So the trick, if you want a single unit solution, is to find a DAC/amp combo, or a DAC that has a headphone amplifier circuit built in. Keep in mind that some lower-end DACs don't really splurge on the quality of the built-in headphone amp since they don't see the need (many of their customers will be using standalone amps anyway).

Aune Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest

Q: So I recently bought an Aune T1 and upon trying it out for the first time I realized that the sound cuts out every few seconds for about 1/4 to 1/2 a second. After further listening I discovered that the amp completely disappeared from my computer's list of playback devices after about 5 minutes. I've tried plugging it into different USB ports on my motherboard, and even tried a different USB cable but I keep getting the same issue.

A: The Aune T1 is a budget option that has had its share of reliability issues.

If the sounds cuts out intermittently for short periods, the first thing to consider is distortion known as clipping (which occurs when an amplifier is driven to excess, and tries to output more than it can), but that should not cause you to lose the USB connection.

It does not look like the issue is a bad USB port on your motherboard.

I would first go into computer>properties and prevent your USB from sleeping. If the issue still exists, try connecting the Aune to a different computer. The T1 has a Tenor USB chip that should be plug and play. If it intermittently loses connection with all computers, I think you might have gotten one with a bad chip.

If it works well with a different computer, I would reload Win drivers (or try running the T1 with ASIO drivers)

Well we're movin' on up to the east side. To a deluxe apartment in the sky.

Q: I have a Sennheiser HD600. What do I upgrade to?

A: Until some years ago, the HD600 was the flagship model from Sennheiser. They are a great neutral headphones, and are good for a huge range of music. The problem is, when you have something as versatile as the HD600, do you really need to upgrade your headphones?

Obviously, no. I could argue that if you want a neutral setup, you could be perfectly satisfied for ever with the HD600. But if you have the disposable income and want to expand your headphones collection, I would argue that you need to consider one of 3 options:

1) Save up for a higher tier of headphones - consider the Audeze LCD3 or the HD 800. Both have different profiles, and both offer significant advantages over the HD 600 that makes their high price possibly worth it. But this would make the least sense from a price-performance perspective.

2) Get a headphone that has a very different profile than the HD600 -- something that gives you bass-rich oomph like the Beyerdynamic DT990 or the Philips Fidelio X1, or something that is treble-forward like a Grado. Each has a characteristic sound profile that will offer a very different listening experience for certain types of music that accentuates their tonal features (e.g. try 2pac on DT990 or Steely Dan on a Grado)

3) Get an IEM to complement your HD600s. That's like opening a whole new Pandora's Box.

Veni's Three Laws Of Cheap (But Good) Personal Audio

Q: Whats the easiest way to improve my listening experience on a low budget?

A: There are three components that folks typically consider when they talk about personal audio -- [1] headphones, [2] amplifiers, and [3] DACs (digital to analog converters).

Veni's Three Laws Of Cheap (But Good) Personal Audio are:

Law 1: in general better headphones improves your sound the most, more than upgrading your amp, which in turn offers more enhancement than improving your dac.

Law 2: not all headphones need a dedicated amp or DAC.

And finally Law 3: if your amp or DAC costs more than your headphones, you are probably doing something wrong.

What This Blog Is, And What It Isn't

The term "audiophile" has become a stereotype -- people who spend vast amounts of money on equipment, typically for modest enhancements in performance. For them it's all about the newest, greatest, most expensive setup they can build. This blog is not for them.

This blog is for folks who want to get the most value for their budget, for folks looking to maximize the "bang for their buck", and those who place equal emphasis on price and performance.

Sometimes folks trying to get to summit-fi get so caught up in the technology and the hype generated by other personal audio sites that they forget it's actually about the music.

Eventually we all (normal folks + audiophiles alike) buy audio equipment because we all enjoy (love?) music. And there is an incredibly huge amount of music out there, far far more than I can ever hope to hear.

The joy is in discovering something new, something extraordinary every day, whether it is with a pair of headphones you bought for $5000 or with a pair of headphones you stole from United the last time you flew with them.

You won't see hype on this blog, or inflated audiophile claims, or snake-oil. You will see a price-performance perspective that will assist you in attaining your personal audio nirvana without going bankrupt, and in finding the true meaning of Life -- what extraordinary music did you discover today?