• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Looking for USB DAC AMP for classical music, low impedance headphones

Haggai

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2019
Messages
12
Likes
1
Hi,

New here, enjoying reading the awesome reviews and forums.

I hope this is the correct forum for recommendations questions.

I have Beyerdynamic DT-240 headphones, which have quite good sound quality in my opinion, but are not very comfortable to wear (so I'll buy headphones with larger ear cups, for work).
I listen mostly to classical music (mainly flute/recorder and violin concertos, but also piano and other instruments, not much opera), folk (especially Finnish/Polish/Italian/Israeli/Balkan/Celtic), and sometimes older rock and pop (20s to 90s), very rarely anything with low bass that counts. I kinda hate bass, I like to know that it's there and let it support a fuller sound, but not let it overtake the higher frequencies. I also listen to podcasts quite a lot. Sound source is almost exclusively YouTube.

On my MacBook Pro the lows sound muddy and compressed. With a co-worker's Dragonfly Black v1.2 everything opened and sounded way better. Bass was fine (lower volume than mids/highs but way more detailed than with the MBP DAC), but there was a lot of hiss with high pitched instruments (e.g. sopranino recorder) and female voices, even at low volume.

I tend to listen at low volume (the DFB is too loud even at "low volume").

I am looking for a desktop USB DAC AMP at around 100$-150$ mark, for my DT-240 or other not-high impedance headphones that I'll buy sometime in the future (Hifiman HE400i? DT880? some good closed backs for work? not sure).

My current candidates are FiiO K3, FiiO Q1, Topping NX4, TempoTec Sonata iDSD Plus, DacMagic XS, SMSL idea, Sabaj DA2/DA3, and maybe maybe Dragonfly (since it did improve the sound a lot), but I'm open to everything else in the price range.

What do you recommend for sound quality?

Thanks,
Haggai
 
Last edited:

Bob-23

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
425
Likes
379
Location
Berlin, Germany
Chances are the lows on your MacBook only sounded 'muddy and compressed' and the Dragonfly only sounded "more open" because the latter was simply louder! Before buying a Dac/Amp I'd try to do an AB-sound-comparison in which the volumes are exactly matched and you don't know which one you're actually listening to. You may be surprised! I was very often.

In general: if it's done perfectly, an AB-switchbox is useful, with no time delay when switching - but, of course, you probably dont't have one at hand, I guess. The best way to match volumes is by playing a, say, 60 Hz-test-tone (get it from youtube) and then using a simple multimeter with sufficient sensitivity in the low mV range. (But the lowest Dragonly-volume, as you say, may be to high, and would have to be reduced...) But, then again. if you don't have all that at hand, I'd try at least to match the volumes in whatever way.

When listening to classical music I myself prefer the Sennheiser HD600 (300 Ohm) via either Behringer Uphoria UMC204 HD and diverse selfmade amps like the Objective 2 or via a Denon CD-Player and the amps - in an AB-sound-comparison between the Denon and the Behringer I found only a very slight difference, if at all any...For Jazz, which I also listen to a lot, (and Rock) the HD 600 needs some (deep) bass boost.
 
Last edited:
OP
H

Haggai

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2019
Messages
12
Likes
1
What I did was listening to 10-20 seconds sections of songs with the Dragonfly and with the Macbook. switching the cable between them back and forth. Not the best AB testing but the differences were large enough that I wouldn't need a switchbox. And it's not the volume. as the bass was much louder from the Macbook at any level, but also much muddier. Similarly there was hiss from the Dragonfly even at the lowest volume while even with louder volume for the Macbook the highs were much smoother (maybe masked by the overabundance of bass).
This was true for bass rich tracks as well as for treble rich tracks.
 

Bob-23

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
425
Likes
379
Location
Berlin, Germany
I know it's hard to imagine how slight differences in loudness may affect sound perception - as long as you haven't made yourself the (sometimes 'shocking') experience of comparing sources via AB-switchbox, immediate switching, without knowing what you're actually listening to. Such a box is apt to destroy illusions.

But let's suppose you did that comparison and could repeat your findings even with volume levels exactly matched (max. 0.1dB or 1% voltage difference between the two devices). There may indeed come other factors into play. There may, for instance, be a high output resistor in your Macbook which deforms the frequency response of your (low impedance) headphones, typically lifting the bass and making it a bit 'muddy' - in the case your headphones react on high output resistance, not all of them do, Sennheisers often do, AKGs often don't, for instance. And on the other hand there might be a capacitor in the output of the Dragonfly, which forms a highpass-filter with your low-impedance headphones: the result of that filter might be rolling off the bass...

Btw, there are methods to find out the output resistance of your MacBook: if Apple doesn't tell you, you can calculate/measure it , a multimeter is needed and some resistors, or, easier, a small potentiometer, say 500Ohm to 1kOhm. As a rule of thumb, headphone impedance should (at least) be about 10x the output impedance of the amp, if the phones react on high output impedances or, the other way round, the amps' output impedance should be 1/10 of the headphones' impedance, or less.

In particular with low impedance headphones, low output-impedance of an amp is thus recommend, not only with regard to sound quality, but also with regard to the power available for the headphone (a high out-put resistor forms a voltage-divider with the headphone, and 'absorbs power', the higher the resistor, the more 'voltage loss' for the headphone). On the other side, there may be some benefit in a certain minimal output-impedance: Even in the case of a short at the output - if the headphone-plug is not plugged-in correctly for a 'longer' time - it can protect the amps' output-stage , by always providing that minimal load to the last stage's opamp (if the opamp doesn't have its own sufficient short-protection).
 
Last edited:

raif71

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
2,333
Likes
2,535
I just have a general question on classical recording volume. Most if not all classical tracks sound quieter than say pop/rock tracks. I find that I need to increase the volume when listening to classical tracks after listening to pop songs which is irritating. Why do record companies master/use low volumes for classical music compared to pop/rock music ?
 

Celty

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2019
Messages
367
Likes
308
I just have a general question on classical recording volume. Most if not all classical tracks sound quieter than say pop/rock tracks. I find that I need to increase the volume when listening to classical tracks after listening to pop songs which is irritating. Why do record companies master/use low volumes for classical music compared to pop/rock music ?
Is it not inherent to the greater dynamic range typically present in "classical" music, particularly symphonic / orchestral works? I.E. , when relatively quiet passages suddenly transition to a full orchestral burst, it is both in real life and realistic recordings a larger differential in the volume than one usually encounters in pop/rock..
 

raif71

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
2,333
Likes
2,535
Is it not inherent to the greater dynamic range typically present in "classical" music, particularly symphonic / orchestral works? I.E. , when relatively quiet passages suddenly transition to a full orchestral burst, it is both in real life and realistic recordings a larger differential in the volume than one usually encounters in pop/rock..
I thought so too at first but I don't think that's exactly it. For example, Beethoven's 5th...the opening is quite loud too but after a pop track listening to it...meh. I'm not talking about just this recording...multiple versions of Beethoven's 5th will sound relatively quiet. Back to the full orchestral burst, better let it rip, then one can experience the full dynamics rather than experience meh volume levels most of the time and only listen normal levels during orchestral burst. I hope you get my drift.
 

Celty

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2019
Messages
367
Likes
308
Not having the technical chops of a recording engineer, I am just speculating. But if one recorded your example of Beethoven's 5th at a hotter overall level, could it pose clipping / distortion problems in the highest decibel passages? Just spit-balling, lol. BTW, wondering why you don't just turn up the volume on these recordings to suit your taste?
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,209
Likes
7,588
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
I just have a general question on classical recording volume. Most if not all classical tracks sound quieter than say pop/rock tracks. I find that I need to increase the volume when listening to classical tracks after listening to pop songs which is irritating. Why do record companies master/use low volumes for classical music compared to pop/rock music ?
Classical music has a great many musical effects that depend on a wide dynamic swing. Much popular music is knowingly compressed for various reasons. A wide dynamic swing is often of no use in such genres as Dance or most Pop/Rock. So the peak dynamic level for both varieties of music can be the same [there's an absolute limit for anything digital] but the average level for pop will be higher than classical.
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,209
Likes
7,588
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
I thought so too at first but I don't think that's exactly it. For example, Beethoven's 5th...the opening is quite loud too but after a pop track listening to it...meh. I'm not talking about just this recording...multiple versions of Beethoven's 5th will sound relatively quiet. Back to the full orchestral burst, better let it rip, then one can experience the full dynamics rather than experience meh volume levels most of the time and only listen normal levels during orchestral burst. I hope you get my drift.
You try to boost the average level of, say, the very recent set of Beethoven Symphonies featuring Gewandhausorchester Leipzig/Riccardo Chailly on Decca, after a while you realize your ears are buzzing from the volume. With digital, as loud as it gets is as loud as it gets. That Chailly set actually is a little compressed compared to some other Beethoven Symphony cycles, but no matter. Peak level for the two types of music is the same, dynamic range is different. At least on average.
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,209
Likes
7,588
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
Not having the technical chops of a recording engineer, I am just speculating. But if one recorded your example of Beethoven's 5th at a hotter overall level, could it pose clipping / distortion problems in the highest decibel passages? Just spit-balling, lol. BTW, wondering why you don't just turn up the volume on these recordings to suit your taste?
I have the technical chops of a recording engineer. If the recording is digital [and these days, it is], there's an absolute peak limit for any recording. Go any higher than that, raw distortion. With analog, the rise of distortion was gradual, many classic "audiophile" recordings were recorded well into the red. However, most everything today is recorded to 24 bits or more. That means the resolution at lower levels is better and one doesn't have to get any closer than -10db for peaks, so one has the ability to iron out stray peaks without losing anything else. Touch it up with a little limiting, average levels go up a little. Plug in the Ultramaximizer, you get brick-walling—constant, heavily compressed dynamic levels, very fatiguing in the long run. At some later stage in the production, it's easy to maximize the recording so that the peak level for the whole file is just barely under the highest possible level. As loud as it goes in a CD or digital file these days is usually as loud as it goes. Most pop music has pretty heavy compression, or at least fairly constant output level. Most classical music is lightly compressed, if at all. A lot of chamber music doesn't need compression. Most orchestra music gets some, that's because the bottom of the dynamic range is so low. A really good example of that is the SACD of Mahler's Third Symphony, Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra/Riccardo Chailly, which, as far as I can tell, has no compression. The lowest levels of that disc are easily covered by the street noises near your home, or the refrigerator noises in your kitchen. I suspect the same would be true of that recording's CD version as well.
 
Last edited:

raif71

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
2,333
Likes
2,535
Not having the technical chops of a recording engineer, I am just speculating. But if one recorded your example of Beethoven's 5th at a hotter overall level, could it pose clipping / distortion problems in the highest decibel passages? Just spit-balling, lol. BTW, wondering why you don't just turn up the volume on these recordings to suit your taste?
Haha...if you re-read my post, I already mentioned that I have to turn the volume up to suite:D my taste which is irritating. I will try to find those recordings @Robin L . Thank you.
 

raif71

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
2,333
Likes
2,535
I have to say @Robin L that the Beethoven's Symphonies by Chailly on Decca is louder than the rest. I don't have to turn the volume to max using 6xx (SE) on my Q5s like some of the Beethoven Symphonies recordings. His interpretation and use of certain instruments are his and unusual but I guess with more listening, I could get use to it. I've only sampled the 5th so many more to come :). Thanks again for suggesting this.
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,209
Likes
7,588
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
I have to say @Robin L that the Beethoven's Symphonies by Chailly on Decca is louder than the rest. I don't have to turn the volume to max using 6xx (SE) on my Q5s like some of the Beethoven Symphonies recordings. His interpretation and use of certain instruments are his and unusual but I guess with more listening, I could get use to it. I've only sampled the 5th so many more to come :). Thanks again for suggesting this.
What's different (besides being technically up to date as regards sound) is playing at Beethoven's metronome indications (very fast) but using a big orchestra and the Peters (older) edition of the scores. It helps a lot that the playing is so clean. When one listens to a lot of different performances of these works, one notices how different the performances can be.
 

Willem

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,658
Likes
5,276
I guess the original question should have been put differently: why are pop/rock recordings so loud?
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,209
Likes
7,588
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
I guess the original question should have been put differently: why are pop/rock recordings so loud?
COMPRESSION! Lotsa "brickwalling" goin' on.
 

raif71

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
2,333
Likes
2,535
I've seen a couple of "compression" mentioned with music. Is this the same meaning as when music files are compressed using mp3, aac etc. or different?
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,209
Likes
7,588
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
I've seen a couple of "compression" mentioned with music. Is this the same meaning as when music files are compressed using mp3, aac etc. or different?
The type of compression found in MP3 is lossy digital compression, designed to make bigger sound files smaller. That sort of compressor doesn't monkey with dynamic difference. The classic audio compressor is designed to reduce dynamic difference with a combination of making the quieter passages a little bit louder and the loudest passages a bit less loud. If used in an intelligent manner, mind you. Here is an outboard compressor, the sort that is used in a studio:

maxresdefault.jpg


Digital recordings could be compressed in the digital domain, making possible even more compression without the usual problems, like pumping or having bad recovery times.

This was a hot item in the 1990's, t.c. electronics "Finalizer" that first enabled what is now called "Brickwalling", named after the visual appearance of the signal that has been dynamically squeezed by such devices:

200971223153.jpg


This is a screen shot of a Prince song as a digital file. Above, the file has been brick walled, below is the file before.

VI56lszl.jpg


My rip of a remastered "Thriller" by Michael Jackson looks like the top file when I saw it on my I-Mac [now RIP]. When an audio track has that much compression, it becomes easier to hear over background noise but more fatiguing to listen to on its own, compared to a file with normal amounts of audio compression.

These days, compression is often performed via software on computers.

ScreenshotClean.jpg
 

Attachments

  • DBMAX-2.jpg
    DBMAX-2.jpg
    213.2 KB · Views: 141
Last edited:
Top Bottom