I'm finally getting around to building a decent CD Player / headphone amplifier setup. I had originally spec'd out a $1000 setup, but recently decided to just do it on a (lean) budget. I'm not looking to spark any controversy but I'm going to try the old Sony PlayStation 1 as the CD player as I hear it's very competent. Here's what I've got en route:
- CD Player: Sony PlayStation Model SCPH-1001 (can't get cheaper than that!)
- Headphone Amp: Creek OBH-11
I was looking at rounding it out with a pair of Grado SR-80i's or maybe even the SR-125i's. Any advice there? Also, do I need an equalizer? I was looking at the Behringer FBQ800 (http://www.amazon.com/Behringer-FBQ800-Ultra-Compact-Graphic-Equalizer/dp/B000MJ406Y). Thoughts?
You should have asked here first. Most of us would tell you that the first place to cut corners is this headphone amp. They are almost universally unnecessary.
Meaning an expensive headphone amp will most likely be no better than an inexpensive one. However, it might still be worth it to upgrade over the PlayStation's built-in amplifier (I don't know how good it is, but my gut reaction is it's probably nothing too impressive -- but if, like you say, it has such good DAC, who knows). Make sure the PlayStation has a line out.
You do not need an equaliser unless you're dissatisfied with the frequency response on your headphones, in which case you should be more concerned with getting a new pair of headphones. I have no experience with the Grados, but I know many people feel they have an uneven (though not necessarily unpleasant) frequency response curve.
If I were you I'd probably go for one of the inexpensive monitor headphones which are popular today, for example one of the following:
- Audio-Technica ATH-M40
- Audio-Technica ATH-M50
- Sennheiser HD 380 Pro
- Shure SRH440
- Shure SRH840
- Sony MDR-ZX700
If you search this forum for "headphones", you'll find some good recomendations.
My usual advice... All headphones (and speakers) sound different. The specs are nearly usless, and different people have different tastes & preferences.
If you are going to be picky about the sound, go to a hi-fi store and LISTEN before buying headphones or speakers (if possible).
Most of the Grado headphones are widely praised as being one of the best in their various price ranges. So, if you buy Grados you won't get "ripped off". I've got a pair of SR225's, and I like 'em. I also generally prefer "open' headphones, like the Grados. (Except the Grados look cheap, and like they are out of the 1950's. ) But, I don't listen to headphones very often so I won't try to describe the sound or compare them to other headphones I own.
If you want to improve your sound quality, speakers/headphones will make the biggest difference and that's the place to start (unless you have a "weakness" elsewhere in your system).
Or if you just want to "change the sound" (a little or a lot), an equalizer can make a big difference too. And, you don't have to buy new equipment every time you want to experiment with a little change to your sound! And heck... Its FUN to play with! It can be educational too, if you want to get a feel for the frequency spectrum.
There are two or three reasons to use an equalizer...
- To correct for frequency response variations in your headphones, speakers, or room. These kinds of changes/corrections can be done with a software equalizer (if your system has one), since it's something that you can "set and forget".
- To correct for (hopefully occasional) poor frequency response in recordings (i.e. This pop song has too much boomy bass.)
- To adust to taste. (i.e. I like tons of bass, or exaggerated highs.) Of course, most "audiophiles" would consider adjusting to taste an evil thing to do! ...The ideal of high fidelity is to reproduce the music exactly as intended.... not the way you like it. (I say it's YOUR dang EQ and you can do whatever you want with it! )
Some "beginners" seem to think an equalizer is for boosting the overall loudness... It's not... It's for altering the frequency response (or "frequency balance").
The Behringer EQ should be fine. If you were trying to precisely calibrate speakers in a room (with a spectrum analyzer, etc.), a 1/3 octive EQ, and/or a parametric EQ would be an advantage. But for most purposes, a 9 or 10 band graphic EQ is adequate. And with modern electronics it's not hard to make one with low noise & low distortion, so there's not much reason to go all "audiophile" and pay a lot of money. (That goes for most electronics.)
Wow, thanks for the input guys. The PlayStation does have a line out with high quality connectors. Also, I went with the Creek model because I have heard lots of good things and got a great price ($99). I am in love with Grados, having owned a pair of SR-80s in the past. I'm hoping to either get the SR-80i or like I said, set up to a 125i. I think their sound is very well balanced and warm for the price point.
Thank you for the EQ advice, I think I'm going to wait to hear how well it performs coming out of the DAC, but it's good to hear that the Behringer is generally acceptable.
Why a PS1? If you're going old-school, wouldn't a discman make more sense?
(I have heard stuff about the SCPH-1001, but it's unsubstantiated, is that what you referred to as "controversy"?
The better your equipment, the less you need an EQ. IME, anyway.
But I always like to have something, because some CDs and just too bright, and some podcasts have an annoying hiss, and... etc!
For gentle changes, there's a lot to be said for decent simple tone controls.
Anything is possible in software - and it's often free.
Cheers,
David.
(I have heard stuff about the SCPH-1001, but it's unsubstantiated, is that what you referred to as "controversy"?
There's no controversy: it's a piss-poor CD player - see Stereophile's measurements here (http://www.stereophile.com/content/sony-playstation-1-cd-player-measurements).
The low-level linearity, in particular, is jaw-droppingly bad.
(I have heard stuff about the SCPH-1001, but it's unsubstantiated, is that what you referred to as "controversy"?
There's no controversy: it's a piss-poor CD player - see Stereophile's measurements here (http://www.stereophile.com/content/sony-playstation-1-cd-player-measurements).
The low-level linearity, in particular, is jaw-droppingly bad.
Atkinson likes to make a fuss about things like that, but consider his stance on DBTs. If he ever did any and believed the results, he'd have to change any number of tunes that he sings.
Chances that anybody would actually hear the effects of this problem - zero! Yes, its kinda trashy below -80 dB, but as a rule CD's don't have anything on them that low - the program material itself usually bottoms out in its own noise floor long before that. If there is a problem 80 dB down, it has to be huge to be heard because everybody's ears aren't exactly perfect with sounds that small.
... I am in love with Grados, having owned a pair of SR-80s in the past. I'm hoping to either get the SR-80i or like I said, set up to a 125i. I think their sound is very well balanced and warm for the price point.
...
I like Grados, too. I bought a SR80 this year as a replacement for my broken Allessandro MS-2 (Grado 325 variant). The SR80s sound great, but the sound is different from the MS-2 and my old SR60 which I still have. The rather warm sound is gone in favor of a more brilliant sound. To me neither better or worse from overall view, just different.
Get a pair of Grados (or Alessandros) and I'd say you're good to go. If you want a higher quality CD player you can get one later on. With the setup you have now, the perceived sound quality will be great even if the CD player in the PlayStation isn't theoretically perfect.
Also, a software equaliser will of course do all that an analogue will, and you will most probably not be able to hear a difference. A good analogue equaliser does, however, offer a theoretical advantage over software equalisers.
Get a pair of Grados (or Alessandros) and I'd say you're good to go. If you want a higher quality CD player you can get one later on. With the setup you have now, the perceived sound quality will be great even if the CD player in the PlayStation isn't theoretically perfect.
I agree with you. Granted the PlayStation is not perfect, but the basis of the post was a cheap system. In fairness, it should be noted that Atkinson's review is not on the same PlayStation unit. His review is on the 5501 model, the one without the RCA output jacks and the AKM AK4309AVM 16-bit sigma-delta DAC chip. I never claimed this was an awesome CD Player, but the original 1001 unit is supposedly solid; and especially attractive since I purchased it for $4.99.
No, he measured the 1001 - it was "destroyed by UPS" when he *then* shipped it to Art Dudley.
He only references the newer model that his son has in order to observe:
I measured that sample, but it was very much worse in most respects than the SCPH-1001.
In any event, since you got the thing for $5, as long as you understand that it is a poorly-engineered CD player whose measured performance can be easily bettered by pretty much any digital audio device on the market today - have at it.
I'm still not convinced that its measured faults would not translate to anomalies in its sound. For instance, that 0.25 dB dip in its frequency response isn't much in absolute terms, true, but it's centered at *exactly* 3 kHz, where the ear is most sensitive, and as such, could potentially be audible with normal program material.
I'm still not convinced that its measured faults would not translate to anomalies in its sound. For instance, that 0.25 dB dip in its frequency response isn't much in absolute terms, true, but it's centered at *exactly* 3 kHz, where the ear is most sensitive, and as such, could potentially be audible with normal program material.
A widely respected set of rules for evaluating the audibility of frequency discontinuities is posted here:
Level Matching Criteria from JAES (http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_crit.htm)
The way to interpret this reference in accordance with your concern is to note that a 1/3 octave dip that is about 1.2 dB deep or high is not audible for sure, and with a considerable safety margin.
It would have to be on the order of 2-5 dB to be reliably audible because the reference is about variations that are unconditionally safe.
The actual dip is at most 0.2 dB deep, and an overall level broadband level variation that size is unconditionally safe or tolerable for an ABX test.
Narrow bands are always less audible than wide bands.
You're right when you suggest that this kind of dip is very uncommon and few digital players have anything that is like it.
I figured this would be a hot-button issue, tried to avoid that.
ANYWAYS, thanks for the advice, it's helped. I've got the Creek amp, the Behringer EQ and Grado SR-80is will be here tomorrow. All told I've spend $281. Pretty acceptable, now I can't wait to hear how it works.
Sorry to post twice in a row but I'm all set up. I ended up with the following:
- Creek OBH-11 Headphone Amplifier
- Behringer Mini 9-Band EQ
- Grado SR-80i
I tried the PlayStation 1; wasn't hugely impressed so I decided to run the audio straight out of my PC. I have the Fiio D3 DAC on the way (with a Wolfson DAC) to accept the Toslink from my computer. I'm using Foobar 2000 to play my FLAC files, and I can't wait for the DAC to arrive. Thanks again guys.
Also, I realize now that I don't need the Behringer since I can implement a software EQ, but it's really nice and I like it anyways.
(http://i.imgur.com/YtoCu.jpg)
For years my headphone amp was the similarly sized Behringer product called an AMP 800 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/422083-REG/Behringer_AMP800_AMP800_MINIAMP_Compact.html). I had no need for its multiple headphone outs and balanced inputs, but what I did appreciate was it's low price, low noise, L/R balance control (in the input stage, but that works for me) to perfectly center the image, and input level trim pots, complete with backing LED meters to warn of clipping and to optimize the gain structure for optimal SNR.
The only reason I stopped using it is because I switched to their 802 mixer, instead, so I could simultaneously hear TV and computer based audio at the same time.
I'm glad to see that people were able to help you and you're happy.
I fear we may have failed to give proper attention to the topic of DACs. Technology has progressed to the point where you can get a competently designed DAC without having to spend a lot of money. Simply choosing something based on the specific converter does not guarantee superior performance, let alone compent engineering.
You might want to start by considering whether there's a legitimate reason to think the one in your computer is inadequate.
(I have heard stuff about the SCPH-1001, but it's unsubstantiated, is that what you referred to as "controversy"?
There's no controversy: it's a piss-poor CD player - see Stereophile's measurements here (http://www.stereophile.com/content/sony-playstation-1-cd-player-measurements).
The low-level linearity, in particular, is jaw-droppingly bad.
Atkinson likes to make a fuss about things like that, but consider his stance on DBTs. If he ever did any and believed the results, he'd have to change any number of tunes that he sings.
Chances that anybody would actually hear the effects of this problem - zero! Yes, its kinda trashy below -80 dB, but as a rule CD's don't have anything on them that low - the program material itself usually bottoms out in its own noise floor long before that. If there is a problem 80 dB down, it has to be huge to be heard because everybody's ears aren't exactly perfect with sounds that small.
True.
Myself I wonder how much it really costs extra to build a more than good enough headphone output in a device that already has box, print, power supply and line-out. And if it is so little as I think, why the [profanity] isn't there one in every DAC?
I think most people connect their DAC to a high quality amplifier, and most amplifiers have headphone output.
But I would also be very glad to see a headphone output in every DAC.
You might want to start by considering whether there's a legitimate reason to think the one in your computer is inadequate.
Depending on the rest of the hardware the gain from an external DAC can be substantial. The Fiio E17 DAC does as far as my ears can tell a much better job at converting digital signals into analog output than the Asus Xonar DX in my PC does. In the low frequency range the Xonar lacks power and presence, and on the other end of the spectrum the Xonar offers too much, the high frequency's get way to high and rather unpleasant and tiring, at least for my ears. The external and rather inexpensive Fiio E17 DAC has way more presence in the lower frequency's and the higher frequency's are there as they should be without being unpleasant to listen too. Player is Footbar2000 and as headphones I use the Beyerdynamic DT 990Pro. And with that combo the difference is clearly audible, at least to my ears.
Our rules which you agreed to follow upon registering don't grant you the right to make such claims without objective evidence.
Our rules which you agreed to follow upon registering don't grant you the right to make such claims without objective evidence.
How can someone provide objective evidence that the higher frequency's of a certain DAC are unpleasant to his ears?
Edit: Changed my prior post to more clearly reflect the subjective nature of my opinion.
Edit2: After thinking it through, I came to the conclusion that providing objective evidence for anything involving subjective human perception is pretty much impossible. I'm not even sure that the color we both probably know as "blue" looks the same to me as it does to you.
Sorry, but you can't get around the rule by claiming personal opinion. If you can't substantiate your claim the you don't get to make it. It's really that simple.
Further off-topic discussion on the matter will be binned. This is not up for debate.
How can someone provide objective evidence that the higher frequency's of a certain DAC are unpleasant to his ears?
RMAA (http://audio.rightmark.org/products/rmaa.shtml)'s frequency response graph can give you some insight into what you're hearing, and qualifies (I think?) as "objective evidence". The FiiO E7 for instance, E17's older brother, is pretty neutral (http://outpost.fr/rmaa/E7-D2000.htm), with a very slight high frequency roll-off (likely inaudible though).
Further off-topic discussion on the matter will be binned.
Does this qualify?
RMAA (http://audio.rightmark.org/products/rmaa.shtml)'s frequency response graph can give you some insight into what you're hearing, and qualifies (I think?) as "objective evidence".high frequency roll-off (likely inaudible though).
It does not qualify. TOS #8 is quite specific about what qualifies.
Even if this RMAA data was accepted, it fails to demonstare superiority over the the other DAC mentioned.
The Fiio E17 DAC does as far as my ears can tell a much better job at converting digital signals into analog output than the Asus Xonar DX in my PC does. In the low frequency range the Xonar lacks power and presence, and on the other end of the spectrum the Xonar offers too much, the high frequency's get way to high and rather unpleasant and tiring, at least for my ears.
Does this second round of trying to circumvent TOS #8 qualify as being off-topic? Yes, Skamp, it is. I won't bin it but you're pushing your luck.
It does not qualify. TOS #8 is quite specific about what qualifies.
My bad. I didn't remember HA was so ABX centric that such tests were the ONLY acceptable evidence. Graphs are objective evidence of a
difference, just not of an
audible one indeed.
Blah, bin this. I'm used to it by now ;-)
Oh FFS!
We've been over the acceptability of RMAA results plenty of times before. While it is not as black and white for hardware as it is for lossy encoding, you don't get to hide behind them when making claims about audibility.
It does not qualify. TOS #8 is quite specific about what qualifies.
My bad. I didn't remember HA was so ABX centric that such tests were the ONLY acceptable evidence. Graphs are objective evidence of a difference, just not of an audible one indeed.
Blah, bin this. I'm used to it by now ;-)
Actually TOS 8 says:
"8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.
"
While it does say ABX, it also says ABC/hr. There are in fact a lot of ways to do a proper DBT depending on the question you are trying to answer. Many of them have the disadvantage of being harder to do and/or less likely to yield positive results for a given number of trials, actual size of difference, etc. I wonder out loud what would happen if someone used some alternative method that was in fact just as blind and clear in terms of its results. I would hope that evidence would be accepted.
Graphs are specifically stated to be unacceptable. If you don't know why, or are just curious about why someone would say such a thing, why not post a polite question rather than post a reply that would look passive-aggressive to many people?
Well I did my best to produce "objective evidence" even thought I still believe that such can not exist where subjective areas are concerned. Socrates would say that humans can not even be certain that 1+2 are truly 2. Yet let's jump to what I could come up with considering my limited equipment. I used footbar to play the sample file (Vox Populi - 30 seconds to Mars 16Bit 44100KHz FLAC-CD Rip). Since the E17 for some reason does not play 44100KHz native and upsamples 44100KHz input to 48000KHz, I used foorbar to upsample to 48000KHz up front for both devices to prevent possible upsampling related differences between the Xonar DX and the E17. For recording I had to use the Xonar DX since I don't have another suitable recording device. I have an old Audigity 2 somewhere yet Creative never released working win 7 driver for it I believe and I'm not bothering with trying to get it to run, I'm happy to have my PC free from creatives poor drivers!
I recorded over the line-in of the Xonar in 16Bit 48000KHz using an old version of Adobe Audition. So there were no changes in sample rate or dithering or anything else done for either the E17 or the Xonar DX apart from upsampling in foorbar to 48000KHz. Well, when I finished recording I normalized everything to 85% to get comparable levels of loudness (Xonar and E17 already were very close in loudness yet the source file was quite a bit louder).
(http://i49.tinypic.com/e80mqs.jpg)
*Waveform of the source file 16Bit 44100KHz
(http://i50.tinypic.com/28s3ptu.jpg)
*Waveform E17 16Bit 48000KHz
(http://i47.tinypic.com/wsqo8g.jpg)
*Waveform Xonar DX 16Bit 48000KHz
The waveform of the source file very visible shows that distinctive cut off look at the ends that is archived usually in the last phase of the recording and mixing process by cutting the dynamic range down a bit (usually inaudible) to gain the maximum possible level of loudness. The recording of the E17 shows the same thought not quite as distinctive. Whenever the slight differences to the source file is because of the E17 itself or was added by the recoding process with the Xonar I can't say. It's just something to keep in mind. Last is the waveform of the Xonar DX which almost completely lacks that distinctive cut off appearance common for modern recordings. That file is clearly visible not very true to the source.
That won't prove that audible differences exist, yet it proves that the Xonar DX output is far less true to the source material than the output of the E17 DAC. I can upload the different sample files if needed. Right now they are a little big with almost 90MB yet converting them to FLAC should get the size down a little.
Edit: And the waveforms prove at least partly what I wrote before "on the other end of the spectrum the Xonar offers too much, the high frequency's get way to high and rather unpleasant and tiring". The DX is clearly getting more dynamic range from somewhere, and it's not the source material.
Here are the samples: http://www.speedshare.org/download.php?id=4FE5D38E1 (http://www.speedshare.org/download.php?id=4FE5D38E1)
Well I did my best to produce "objective evidence" even thought I still believe that such can not exist where subjective areas are concerned.
We need objective (repeateable, not influenced by external factors) evidence that a subjective perception is real (as in what is perceived and what is said to be perceived are the same).
I am not sure how to qualify the screenshots you've posted. Aside of showing that there could be problems related to volume (on the DAC and or the ADC), why are you showing the waveform to talk about frequencies???
44100KHz
It is either 44.1Khz or 44100Hz. You've wrote it wrong all the time in the post
If you wanted to demonstrate a difference in frequency response, don’t you think a spectogram would be more relevant? Either way, I’m glad you acknowledge that visual appearance need not correlate with audibility, even if it the former is detectably different in this case. Let’s try to find out why the Xonar alters the output, but let’s not reel off any more silly clichés like appeals to philosophy/authority; nobody asked you about Socrates.
the E17 for some reason does not play 44100KHz native and upsamples 44100KHz input to 48000KHz
Since the E7 accepts 44.1 kHz just fine, I really doubt the E17 doesn't.
TOS #5 is another rule that should be taken into considration.
This discussion is not about trying to save face from a TOS #8 violation by posting waveform plots which raise more questions than they provide answers. Other than to demonstrate how not to assess a quality of a DAC, how is this helping the OP?
even thought I still believe that such can not exist where subjective areas are concerned.
Actually, you are wrong.
Suppose I show you two amplifiers. One looks like something I soldered together as a first project, the other has a $20 000 price tag. We play the cheap one, we play the expensive one. A certain listener is convinced that the expensive one sounds better. Until I reveal that I cheated -- I played from the same amp all the time.
We then know something about the difference in subjective perception: we know that it is a mindtrick. That is fairly objective knowledge, isn't it? We know for a fact that such effects exist, and that they affect the human mind. That is objective knowledge about subjective perception. Google 'placebo'. It is universally accepted in science (though certainly not on every audio forum on the 'net), and it is standard procedure in e.g. drug testing that test subjects (i.e. patients) get treatments that appear to them as the same -- once you start feeding them
apparent differences (e.g. a price tag!) this will affect how they report their well-being.
In this case, you claim that A sounds better than B. But are you really able to tell them apart, in a controlled enviroment where you cannot look up the solution? This forum wants to protect itself against the noise of unfounded claims that might just as well be artifacts of mindtrick rather than a real difference, hence item #8 in the terms of service. TOS #8 is this party's policy on a certain set of mind-altering drugs; you are free to like it or not, but if you don't comply, there are bouncers ready to tell / force [delete as appropriate] you to do your tripping somewhere else.
My Fiio D3 DAC arrived today and honestly I couldn't be happier with the $21 I spent on it. It has such a better sound than whatever DAC my Realtek sound card was using. So I'm all set. Here's the final setup / tally.
- Behringer 9-Band EQ- $65
- Creek OBH-11 Headphone Amp- $99
- Grado SR-80i headphones- $99
- Fiio D3 DAC- $21
$284 listening station. Running Foobar2000 using FLAC files, only using a Crossfeed DSP. Thanks again.
Will you be providing objective evidence in accordance with TOS #8?