# DIY amp/DAC with better measurements than O2/ODAC?



## RustA

Question is quite simple... I am trying to get more information about available amplifiers and DACs and as a very happy desktop O2/ODAC owner I am curious if there are any other great-measuring amplifiers and DACs available on the DIY scene. They must be neutral and technically excellent, of course!
   
  Thanks for any information!


----------



## MrViolin

haha... Buffalo III and the Beta 22. Both are DIY but are TOTL in terms of performance.


----------



## RustA

Quote: 





mrviolin said:


> haha... Buffalo III and the Beta 22. Both are DIY but are TOTL in terms of performance.


 
   
  Are there any in-depth measurements available to compare? And what TOTL means + why should I pay attention to it when choosing what to get?
   
  EDIT: Found some of B22, not of Buffalo III so far...
   
  EDIT2: Beta22 does not seem to outperform O2 from the technical point of view, at least from measurements available here:
  http://www.amb.org/audio/beta22/
   
             Will have a look at the Buffalo...


----------



## MrViolin

Quote: 





rusta said:


> Are there any in-depth measurements available to compare? And what TOTL means + why should I pay attention to it when choosing what to get?


 
  http://www.head-fi.org/t/588978/look-out-im-using-test-equipment-o2-and-beta22-testing-inside
  http://www.head-fi.org/t/519129/pyramid-shaped-water-cooled-floor-lamp-b22-buffalo-ii-concept/30
  ^scroll down to amb's graph
  There've been comparison threads between the o2 and the b22 which you can also search
   
  totl=Them offsprings that live. top of the line. The twisted pair's been compared to other high end DACs, just search it up. As for the graph, I haven't been able to find it.
   
  As for paying attention to it, that's completely up to you. Unless you're striving for the top of DIY (purely opinionated, am anticipating you'll be asking a graph as proof for this too lol), I guess these would be it. However, if you're perfectly fine w/ the o2/odac, I see no reason to go further.


----------



## RustA

Quote: 





mrviolin said:


> http://www.head-fi.org/t/588978/look-out-im-using-test-equipment-o2-and-beta22-testing-inside
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/519129/pyramid-shaped-water-cooled-floor-lamp-b22-buffalo-ii-concept/30
> ^scroll down to amb's graph
> There've been comparison threads between the o2 and the b22 which you can also search
> ...


 
   
  Thanks very much! I quite like what Benchmark DAC2 HGC offers in terms of performance but the price of 2000USD is high... Therefore, I am looking for some more affordable upgrade over O2/ODAC. If it does not exist, it's not a problem - I am just curious.


----------



## MrViolin

Quote: 





rusta said:


> Thanks very much! I quite like what Benchmark DAC2 HGC offers in terms of performance but the price of 2000USD is high... Therefore, I am looking for some more affordable upgrade over O2/ODAC. If it does not exist, it's not a problem - I am just curious.


 
  Indeed it is. Hmmm... maybe look at the project-h? It does include the O2 in it, but the dac is a cirrus logic dac. There was a graph of it not too long ago in the anime thread (the start of the project-h is also in there, 2nd post). The graph might even be in the Project-h thread. Not sure whether it'd be a side-grade or an upgrade though. 

 Good luck in finding a solution!


----------



## NA Blur

To me the Grace Design m903 sounded identical to the O2/ODAC Combo.  I ran it through all of the listening tests I could find and could not hear a difference.  I get a little more low end ooopmph using the m903 as a DAC and a Balanced Ultra Desktop Amp for an amp, but the O2/ODAC is probably the cheapest option to get the best solid state results.  If anything it is so neutral it can make some music sound bland and depending on your views this could be a bad thing.  I suspect the DAC2 is somewhat similar if not identical sounding to the Grace Design m903 so I would not blindly make the purchase without first being able to do a direct comparison.
   
  I am not sure if HeadRoom offers a DIY kit for their higher end amps, but you may want to ask about it.  Seeing that you use the HD-800 and LCD-2 you may want to try a tube amp like the WA6 which can be a tad more fun sounding.


----------



## tomb

Just an FYI, and yes - I am a MOT and I am biased.  However, I'm not a designer - nothing I sell is anything I can call my own except for case design.  Instead, I actively seek out designers and their designs that show outstanding promise and potential.  With their blessing, I build their designs myself, listen to them and if I agree with them that the potential is there, actively promote, market and sell those designs.
   
  In the 6+ years of doing this, I've run hundreds of RMAA tests on the stuff I build.  Yeah, I know - you-know-who says RMAA is worthless.  IMHO, as long as you're using it as a comparison under the same conditions, I've neither read nor heard anything that discounts RMAA under those circumstances.
   
  Here's the funny thing: I have an M-Audio Transit that I've used for years in testing amps and DACs.  It measures better than any DAC I've ever built, better than any DAC that cetoole, Dsavitsk, cobaltmute or others have designed.  That includes the Alien DAC, BantamDAC, GrubDAC, SkeletonDAC, and pupDAC, among other, more sophisticated DACs.  The M-Audio Transit has *better measurements* than all of them - that's why it's used as the reference in my testing.  Hell, the M-Audio Transit measures an entire magnitude better than the ODAC in harmonic distortion and crosstalk - on my own equipment!  The only reason it may not register better in noise/dynamic ratio is my own crapty testing environs (everyone else who tests the same things I build get better numbers).  The reported specs on the M-Audio Transit are better in noise than the ODAC and only slightly worse in dynamic range.  And of course - _*it's been 24-bit USB ever since it came out - in 2003 and sold for $75*_.
   
  All that said about the M-Audio Transit, I would never, ever, use it as a source compared to the other DACs mentioned when I want to listen to music.
   
  Wonder why that would be?


----------



## joeyjojo

Quote: 





rusta said:


> EDIT2: Beta22 does not seem to outperform O2 from the technical point of view, at least from measurements available here:
> http://www.amb.org/audio/beta22/


 
   
  That's because it is considerably better than the interface TK used to test it. One day I hope TK/someone will test it with some serious test kit. It adds practically no distortion, FR is 0 to 2.5 MHz (0, 3 dB), less output impedance than the copper connector, 200 V/us slew, practically no ringing, totally free of transient intermodular distortion, cancels even order harmonic distortion, etc. etc. etc.
   
  Seriously look no further than the B22 if you like measurements.


----------



## RustA

Quote: 





joeyjojo said:


> That's because it is considerably better than the interface TK used to test it. One day I hope TK/someone will test it with some serious test kit. It adds practically no distortion, FR is 0 to 2.5 MHz (0, 3 dB), less output impedance than the copper connector, 200 V/us slew, practically no ringing, totally free of transient intermodular distortion, cancels even order harmonic distortion, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Seriously look no further than the B22 if you like measurements.


 
   
  Well, it's a 1000+USD amplifier as far as I know... for 1000-2000USD, I can get DAC2 HGC, HP-A8c, Mytek DSD DAC which all offer *DAC + amp* of high-end quality from reliable sources with plenty of features.
   
  I would have see a reliable set of measurements that could justify the Beta22's price... But I guess it at least sounds pretty good from impressions here on head-fi.


----------



## RustA

Quote: 





tomb said:


> Just an FYI, and yes - I am a MOT and I am biased.  However, I'm not a designer - nothing I sell is anything I can call my own except for case design.  Instead, I actively seek out designers and their designs that show outstanding promise and potential.  With their blessing, I build their designs myself, listen to them and if I agree with them that the potential is there, actively promote, market and sell those designs.
> 
> In the 6+ years of doing this, I've run hundreds of RMAA tests on the stuff I build.  Yeah, I know - you-know-who says RMAA is worthless.  IMHO, as long as you're using it as a comparison under the same conditions, I've neither read nor heard anything that discounts RMAA under those circumstances.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Jitter measurement does not seem to be impressive enough... But for the price, it looks like an extremely valuable DAC!


----------



## tomb

Quote: 





rusta said:


> Jitter measurement does not seem to be impressive enough... But for the price, it looks like an extremely valuable DAC!


 
  You should re-read the last two sentences. Maybe I was being too cagey - that's been suggested with one of my posts before. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  The point was not to convince you that an M-Audio Transit was worthwhile - that's the complete opposite of what I was stating.  Rather, that the ODAC is nothing special compared to a 24-bit USB DAC that was first offered _10 years ago_ and cost only $75 (and had more features).  Further, that if you search out measurements to the exclusion of all else, you'll probably end up with an inexpensive DAC that doesn't sound nearly as good as something else would.  A CMoy measures pretty well, too, but I quit using one after I built my 2nd amp.


----------



## wakibaki

If you want an amp that will _probably_ compete with the O2 you could look at my LME49600 design, which uses the very highest quality components deployed in the most advantageous topology and has some features such as DC coupling throughout, an extremely low output offset courtesy of a DC servo, short-circuit protection and thermal shutdown and switch-on and -off 'thump' suppression, none of which are provided by the O2. It also has considerably higher output current (250mA) and can be built with greater output voltage swing (+/-13V). It doesn't run from batteries if built in the same enclosure as the O2, however.
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/t/599224/some-lme49600-implementations/255
   
  Unfortunately I _can't_ guarantee that it exceeds the O2 in other respects as I don't have access to the $10,000 test equipment that the O2 designer has, but I _have_ made every effort to give it the best chance of doing so and it _has_ been laid out with the utmost care and attention to detail and it could well beat the O2 in some respects, perhaps in every respect.
   
  w


----------



## FraGGleR

Quote: 





rusta said:


> Well, it's a 1000+USD amplifier as far as I know... for 1000-2000USD, I can get DAC2 HGC, HP-A8c, Mytek DSD DAC which all offer *DAC + amp* of high-end quality from reliable sources with plenty of features.
> 
> I would have see a reliable set of measurements that could justify the Beta22's price... But I guess it at least sounds pretty good from impressions here on head-fi.


 
  You can build a 2 channel B22 with S22 for roughly $350 before casing.  Can be all done for under $500.  I have all the parts (except cases) for a full balanced B22, and I think it all clocked in under $700.


----------



## tomb

Just another FYI, but as for amps ... if you really study AMB's measurements on his products, you'll find that AMB's M3 is better in noise and distortion than the B22:
   
*THD*
*M3: 0.0009, B22: 0.0011*
   
*Noise*
*M3: -97.4dB, B22: -90.3dB*
   
  Here again, what does this mean?  Should people be buying the M3 as the ultimate headphone amplifier because of its low distortion and noise level?  I don't know AMB's specific sales statistics, but I bet everyone would agree that he sells more B22's than M3's.  AMB must be fooling us all ... but he and Morsel designed and built the M3 _years before_ he thought about and designed the B22.  That doesn't make sense.  Why design, build, and sell a supposedly superior product that measures worse?  I guess he should've built/bought an O2 and forgot about it.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  OK - without being cagey or confrontational ... an M3 may very well be more appropriate as a pre-amp.  However, when it comes to different loads, reactive loads, varying loads with all sorts of different designs/applications of headphones, the B22 seems to be the preferred choice for many people, _regardless of the poorer measurements_.
   
  All that said for me - I still prefer tubes, and their measurements are much worse than any of the above.


----------



## joeyjojo

It's a fair point that the specs, especially just two numbers like you quoted above, don't tell the whole picture. But the whole "specs" page taken together along with studying the schematic and reading the design notes can give you a good idea about which is likely to perform better of the B22 and M3.


----------



## tomb

Quote: 





joeyjojo said:


> It's a fair point that the specs, especially just two numbers like you quoted above, don't tell the whole picture. But the whole "specs" page taken together along with studying the schematic and reading the design notes can give you a good idea about which is likely to perform better of the B22 and M3.


 
  I think we're saying the same thing.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  Yes, I cherry-picked the two measurements that I knew were worse in the B22 than the M3, but it wasn't my point at all to claim that the M3 is better.
   
  Rather, I believe that measurements are important in making an amp design as good as it can be, but they're not necessarily a dependable discriminator in judging whether one amp is better than another.  You can't divorce the ear from the equation - or even the source and load combinations.  I was heartened to read Tyl's most recent post on innerfidelity.  When attempting to make measurements the be-all to end-all (and to paraphrase), _we don't know what we don't know ...  _


----------



## KimLaroux

So in case the last dozen posts aren't clear...
   
  The Objective duo sounds like crap. Objective measurements don't translate into the enjoyment of the music. There are no objective ways to measure satisfaction.
   
  My "warm" and "technically inferior" NFB-12 is leagues in front of the Objective duo in terms of enjoyment. My ears simply agree more to the sound coming out of it.
   
  An "amp/DAC with better measurements than O2/ODAC" probably won't be more enjoyable to listen to. Unless of course you listen to your music trough your test measurement devices...


----------



## RustA

Quote: 





kimlaroux said:


> *So in case the last dozen posts aren't clear...*
> 
> *The Objective duo sounds like crap*. Objective measurements don't translate into the enjoyment of the music. There are no objective ways to measure satisfaction.
> 
> ...


 
   





 No, they aren't clear since this is completely subjective. No, they don't sound like crap because they don't sound at all, they are neutral and transparent and this is what the real hi-fi (high fidelity) should be (because otherwise, it's not "fidelity" anymore if you intentionally alter the frequency response and add distortion). And yes, this is only what YOUR ears prefer.
   
  I personally have nothing against amplifiers and DACs that colour the sound and I am also searching for some suitable amp/DAC unit within my budget but I would never call any of them more hi-fi than O2/ODAC. The combination of O2/ODAC and HD800 is the most neutral and enjoyable I have ever heard, I enjoy to get close to what recordings are supposed to sound like. I don't think that O2/ODAC is the best amp/DAC ever but unless I get enough money to purchase Benchmark DAC2 HGC, I am most probably staying with what I have... Nothing seems to be convincing up to 1000USD.


----------



## joeyjojo

Quote: 





kimlaroux said:


> So in case the last dozen posts aren't clear...
> 
> The Objective duo sounds like crap. Objective measurements don't translate into the enjoyment of the music. There are no objective ways to measure satisfaction.
> 
> ...


 
   
  You can achieve the same with the O2 and a software equaliser. Why people buy Chinese crap when they could use a tone control I'll ever know.


----------



## KimLaroux

Quote: 





joeyjojo said:


> You can achieve the same with the O2 and a software equaliser. Why people buy Chinese crap when they could use a tone control I'll ever know.


 
   

 Because software EQ are unreliable.
 Because software EQ degrade the sound.
 Because Software EQ is a pain to manage, especially when you have multiple DACs, amplifiers and playback software.
 Because it's not Chinese crap.
 Because your alternative is made of parts made in China. How's that different?
   
  Quote: 





rusta said:


> *No, they aren't clear since this is completely subjective*. No, they don't sound like crap because they don't sound at all, they are neutral and transparent and this is what the real hi-fi (high fidelity) should be (because otherwise, it's not "fidelity" anymore if you intentionally alter the frequency response and add distortion). And yes, this is only what YOUR ears prefer.
> 
> I personally have nothing against amplifiers and DACs that colour the sound and I am also searching for some suitable amp/DAC unit within my budget but I would never call any of them more hi-fi than O2/ODAC. The combination of O2/ODAC and HD800 is the most neutral and enjoyable I have ever heard, I enjoy to get close to what recordings are supposed to sound like. I don't think that O2/ODAC is the best amp/DAC ever but unless I get enough money to purchase Benchmark DAC2 HGC, I am most probably staying with what I have... Nothing seems to be convincing up to 1000USD.


 
   
  That was my point, I think. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Nobody has the same ears. Everybody ears differently. There are no consensus on the perfect reproduction of audio signal, even less so for something as personal as headphones. I have a hard time believing every human's ears has the same flat frequency response. If you're going for "objectively best", then the _real_ way of doing it is to get your ear's frequency response verified, and find audio gear that compensate for this.


----------



## RustA

Quote: 





kimlaroux said:


> Nobody has the same ears. Everybody ears differently. There are no consensus on the perfect reproduction of audio signal, even less so for something as personal as headphones. I have a hard time believing every human's ears has the same flat frequency response. If you're going for "objectively best", then the _real_ way of doing it is to get your ear's frequency response verified, and find audio gear that compensate for this.


 
   
  You don't have to have ears with flat frequency response. You hear sounds around you in a certain and unique way and this is what you basically use as a reference when assessing "neutrality". If you get close to reproduce this with a specific audio chain, it is possible to call the gear near-to-neutral. Of course, it's a lot easier with speakers because of several factors.


----------



## bruce108

I hesitate to contribute to this thread because I'm not very technical. But as a guy who likes classical music, I may have one point to contribute.
   
  A lot of recordings nowadays do not even pretend to convey the experience of a live concert. What's more, not even live concerts do - some of them at least. By the time you put $1 million worth of equipment between you and the audience, you might as well play them a record. (It's been known…)
   
  Now every truly live experience takes place in a particular environment and provides a specific sound, and this is never uncoloured, flat or neutral. That's the way we experience music, sound plus space.
   
  I think that may be why we can handle dacs and amplifiers that "colour" the sound. Okay, it doesn't reproduce exactly what's on the record, as the neutral sounding equipment does,but what it adds is no more than a variation on the sound–space picture, and we have a very high tolerance for variations.
   
  Anyone who's been in a recording studio knows the shock when you first perform in one. There's neutral for you!
   
  All of which might explain why I didn't care for the O-DAC . . .


----------



## joeyjojo

Quote: 





kimlaroux said:


> Because software EQ are unreliable.
> Because software EQ degrade the sound.
> Because Software EQ is a pain to manage, especially when you have multiple DACs, amplifiers and playback software.
> Because it's not Chinese crap.
> Because your alternative is made of parts made in China. How's that different?


 
   
  1 and 2, do some reading (e.g 1, e.g. 2). 3 is a fair point.
   
  4 - if your DAC has a "sound", warm or otherwise, then it is faulty or a bad design.
   
  5 - the parts are the same but there are an infinity of designs out there. Again, if the ODAC is neutral and your DAC is "warm sounding", and they are both made of the same Chinese components, then your DAC is faulty or a bad design.


----------



## jcx

doesn't prove anything when the meaurements or the build must be horseapples - there's no excuse for those numbers from the B22 circuit - the discrete jfets running at mA in the input are lower noise than than any M3 op amp fet input op amp recommendation
   
  specifically the AD8610 spec is 6 nV/rtHz with 1/f corner near 1 kHz
   
  Linear systems LSK389/170 both spec 1.9nV/rtHz max - 0.9 typ, and the 1/f corner is below audio altogether
   
   
   
   
  Quote: 





tomb said:


> Just another FYI, but as for amps ... if you really study AMB's measurements on his products, you'll find that AMB's M3 is better in noise and distortion than the B22:
> 
> *THD*
> *M3: 0.0009, B22: 0.0011*
> ...


----------



## jcx

Edit: duplicated post removed


----------



## tomb

Post removed.


----------



## tomb

Sorry - it's not your fault.  Obviously, Head-Fi has blown up right now.  Here's hoping they get it fixed.


----------



## Parall3l

Quote: 





joeyjojo said:


> 1 and 2, do some reading (e.g 1, e.g. 2). 3 is a fair point.
> 
> 4 - if your DAC has a "sound", warm or otherwise, then it is faulty or a bad design.
> 
> 5 - the parts are the same but there are an infinity of designs out there. Again, if the ODAC is neutral and your DAC is "warm sounding", and they are both made of the same Chinese components, then your DAC is faulty or a bad design.


 
  4 and 5 are false. An amp designed to colour sound is not faulty or bad, it just colours the sound. It would be bad if it was neutral, but if it colours the sound like the design is supposed to, then it works fine.
   
  Think of it this way, sunglasses that take away some sunlight is not faulty.


----------



## RustA

Quote: 





parall3l said:


> 4 and 5 are false. An amp designed to colour sound is not faulty or bad, it just colours the sound. It would be bad if it was neutral, but if it colours the sound like the design is supposed to, then it works fine.
> 
> Think of it this way, sunglasses that take away some sunlight is not faulty.


 
   
  Sunglasses are designed to take away some sunlight, it's their purpose. However, amplifier is supposed to AMPLIFY the signal, nothing more.
   
  That said, I have nothing against amplifiers that introduce distortion and change the frequency response... They are just not completely hi-fi (high fidelity). IMHO


----------



## Parall3l

Quote: 





rusta said:


> Sunglasses are designed to take away some sunlight, it's their purpose. However, amplifier is supposed to AMPLIFY the signal, nothing more.
> 
> That said, I have nothing against amplifiers that introduce distortion and change the frequency response... They are just not completely hi-fi (high fidelity). IMHO


 
  I'm not sure if I understand. An amp designed to colour the sound will, well, colour the sound. Think of the sunglasses as the coloured amp. They're both designed to alter the result, the sunglasses reduces brightness, and the coloured amp can also reduce brightness.
   
  HiFi according to certain standards, does not included a lot of gear, in fact IIRC most of my headphones are not considered HiFi because they have a frequency response that deviates far from neutrality. That doesn't stop me from enjoying them, and that was the point of KimLaroux's post, its about enjoyment.


----------



## RustA

Quote: 





parall3l said:


> I'm not sure if I understand. An amp designed to colour the sound will, well, colour the sound. Think of the sunglasses as the coloured amp. They're both designed to alter the result, the sunglasses reduces brightness, and the coloured amp can also reduce brightness.
> 
> HiFi according to certain standards, does not included a lot of gear, in fact IIRC most of my headphones are not considered HiFi because they have a frequency response that deviates far from neutrality. That doesn't stop me from enjoying them, and that was the point of KimLaroux's post, its about enjoyment.


 
   
  Sunglasses that don't lower the amount of sunlight going through, are not sunglasses anymore. However, an amplifier that does not change the frequency response is still an amplifier.
   
  An amp is supposed to amplify the signal. Equalizer is supposed to change the frequency response.


----------



## FraGGleR

Quote: 





rusta said:


> Sunglasses that don't lower the amount of sunlight going through, are not sunglasses anymore. However, an amplifier that does not change the frequency response is still an amplifier.
> 
> An amp is supposed to amplify the signal. Equalizer is supposed to change the frequency response.


 
   
  If someone knows that they want a certain sound from their setup, and an amp gives them that, then not only is the amp not broken or bad, it is in fact a superior PRODUCT for that person.  Companies aren't selling theoretical constructs, they are selling products that people (in theory) want.  The best companies will understand what their customers desire and will give that to them.
   
  I am not trying to hear the recording exactly as the engineers made it, I am trying to hear the music that the engineers were trying to record.  I would assume that I am not in the minority when it comes to audio related hobbies.  Nothing compares to live music, but I am still going to try to find gear within my budget that gets me as close to the involvement and enjoyment that I have when I listen to it.  If a piece of gear doesn't measure flawlessly, but gets me closer to that state, then the producer of that product has done something right. 
   
  What are you actually after?


----------



## RustA

Quote: 





fraggler said:


> If someone knows that they want a certain sound from their setup, and an amp gives them that, then not only is the amp not broken or bad, it is in fact a superior PRODUCT for that person.  Companies aren't selling theoretical constructs, they are selling products that people (in theory) want.  The best companies will understand what their customers desire and will give that to them.
> 
> I am not trying to hear the recording exactly as the engineers made it, I am trying to hear the music that the engineers were trying to record.  I would assume that I am not in the minority when it comes to audio related hobbies.  Nothing compares to live music, but I am still going to try to find gear within my budget that gets me as close to the involvement and enjoyment that I have when I listen to it.  If a piece of gear doesn't measure flawlessly, but gets me closer to that state, then the producer of that product has done something right.
> 
> What are you actually after?


 
   
  As I said before, I have nothing against amplifiers that colour the sound. Really. I just don't think they are superior to perfectly accurate and technically excellent offerings. They are not more hi-fi in my view. And this is all I wanted to say... Just to offer my view and emphasise that amplifier is really suppose to amplify the signal only - but yeah, it's not a total requirement.
   
  I am personally searching for amp/DAC combo in one unit for around 1000USD. I even have a thread about it:
  http://www.head-fi.org/t/653757/amp-dac-for-hd800-up-to-1000usd-need-more-suggestions/15#post_9223497
   
  ... The problem is that there doesn't seem to be any single unit that could offer all I want, except Benchmark DAC1 (which I don't want since I already have desktop O2/ODAC). All I have seen so far is not good enough, lacks versatility or not offer equally good DAC and amp section. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I appreciate neutrality but I have no problem to go for anything coloured... However, it must be good enough in terms of price/performance-features ratio and outperform what I have.


----------



## KimLaroux

There aren't many DIY projects that are advertised as "DAC & Amp combo". In fact, I can't think of any that are. A DAC&Amp is essentially just an amplifier and a DAC inside the same enclosure. Nothing prevents you from doing such a thing with any existing project. In fact, that's the beauty of DIY: You build exactly what you want.
   
  Like a Buffalo III and a B22 inside the same enclosure... 
   
  If that's no better than your Objective duo, then I fear you won't ever find anything better. Not in DIY anyways.


----------



## MrViolin

oh, it seems my posts didn't make it or I didn't post it yesterday... AMB supposedly didn't use the best testing equipment for the b22 from what I saw somewhere on the forums.


----------



## skeptic

I believe "the wire" hp amp, as discussed over on diyaudio, may be at the top of the heap spec wise, but it has been quite a while since they did the gb.  I learned about it a week or so too late to jump on board and have been looking for a chance to hear this amp ever since.


----------



## Tjj226 Angel

Quote: 





kimlaroux said:


> Because software EQ are unreliable.
> Because software EQ degrade the sound.
> Because Software EQ is a pain to manage, especially when you have multiple DACs, amplifiers and playback software.
> Because it's not Chinese crap.
> ...


 
   
   
  Quote: 





rusta said:


> No, they aren't clear since this is completely subjective. No, they don't sound like crap because they don't sound at all, they are neutral and transparent and this is what the real hi-fi (high fidelity) should be (because otherwise, it's not "fidelity" anymore if you intentionally alter the frequency response and add distortion). And yes, this is only what YOUR ears prefer.
> 
> I personally have nothing against amplifiers and DACs that colour the sound and I am also searching for some suitable amp/DAC unit within my budget but I would never call any of them more hi-fi than O2/ODAC. The combination of O2/ODAC and HD800 is the most neutral and enjoyable I have ever heard, I enjoy to get close to what recordings are supposed to sound like. I don't think that O2/ODAC is the best amp/DAC ever but unless I get enough money to purchase Benchmark DAC2 HGC, I am most probably staying with what I have... Nothing seems to be convincing up to 1000USD.


 
   
   
  Just want to point out that he is right, most of the people in this thread are wrong, and if you don't believe me, I dare any one of you to write a letter to audio note (who make both tube and SS amps) and ask them which ones they prefer. 
   
  The whole notion that taking audio measurements with microphones and then pretending that your ears will respond in the same way is laughable at best. 
   
  @ OP: I IMPLORE you to break away from the common lies that people like to feed to each other and make up your own opinion by seeking out audio stores where you can actually audition amps and dacs for yourself before you drink the kool aid that the 'graph noobs' like to follow. 
   
  After that, if you like SS amps, then by all means, build yourself an O2 combo. The only way it can get better is if you use better quality components (ie. better caps, better op amps).
   
  But if you prefer tube, the there are several open source designs.


----------



## Satellite_6

No kool aid and no microphones in amp testing lol. . . do some more research. 
   
  The Objective duo sounds great if you like *actual* hi-fi. If you like distorted low-fi it will not be enjoyable. Distortion sounds so much better to so many people but to me it just sounds *bad*.
   
  Also if the designer of the B22 has proven himself useless at taking accurate measurements. . . so it is not a contender based on the OP's criterion.


----------



## KimLaroux

Quote: 





satellite_6 said:


> No kool aid and no microphones in amp testing lol. . . do some more research.
> 
> The Objective duo sounds great if you like *actual* hi-fi. If you like distorted low-fi it will not be enjoyable. Distortion sounds so much better to so many people but to me it just sounds *bad*.
> 
> Also if the designer of the B22 has proven himself useless at taking accurate measurements. . . so it is not a contender based on the OP's criterion.


 
   
  Hum. No. "Hi-Fi" has never been a flat frequency response before engineers high-jacked the term and redefined it using their test equipment. And I think we can agree that distortion is bad either ways, and so is not really the problem here. Even "subjective designers" agree that the lower the distortion, the better. Frequency response is the core issue here.
   
  If you go back only a decade, a Hi-Fi system was expected to have a steep roll off before 100 Hz and a slow treble roll off. Sure, advancements in technologies has allowed to extend that, but no Hi-Fi system is claiming to have a perfectly flat response from 0 Hz to 100 Hz. That's just silly. And it hurts.
   
  And here's the most silly part with all this argument: Few are the mastering studios that use a single, objectively better set of speakers or headphones to mix the final master. They use many different sets representing Home Theater systems, Multi-media systems, car systems, ear-buds... you get the idea. Audio albums are not mastered to be listened trough audio systems able to recreate a perfectly flat frequency response. Therefore, they are mastered in a way that compensate for that. In other words: Even your source, the music album, is not flat. Forcing this trough a perfectly flat system results in a non-flat output.
   
  Conversely, The O2 measurements all the faibois are using as their bible to defend their opinions _come from the same guy who designed the damn thing_. A creator cannot be perfectly objective towards its own creation. Something can only become a scientific fact after the results have been replicated from different teams not having any interests in the final results.


----------



## Tjj226 Angel

Quote: 





satellite_6 said:


> No kool aid and no microphones in amp testing lol. . . do some more research.
> 
> The Objective duo sounds great if you like *actual* hi-fi. If you like distorted low-fi it will not be enjoyable. Distortion sounds so much better to so many people but to me it just sounds *bad*.
> 
> Also if the designer of the B22 has proven himself useless at taking accurate measurements. . . so it is not a contender based on the OP's criterion.


 
   
  I really could care less. Until they make a test where it is one hundred percent customized to the buyer then there is no telling what sort of experience you are going to get.
   
  For instance. If I look at the graphs of the HE-500s and even the worlds best SS amp with silver wire and a fancy 6.3 mm plug, I would be lead to believe that they sound amazing. However, I think they sound like total junk IMO.
   
  I know the issue with the headphones is my own (and yes, I have tried many different HE-500s, they all have the almost echo sound) but it gives you some perspective that if I were to have bought those headphones based upon the charts, I could have lost quite a bit of money. 
   
  In  the end, until people have actually heard both high quality tube and high quality SS amps, then saying one is better than the other is sort of asinine.


----------



## Parall3l

Quote: 





satellite_6 said:


> No kool aid and no microphones in amp testing lol. . . do some more research.
> 
> The Objective duo sounds great if you like *actual* hi-fi. If you like distorted low-fi it will not be enjoyable. Distortion sounds so much better to so many people but to me it just sounds *bad*.
> 
> *Also if the designer of the B22 has proven himself useless at taking accurate measurements. . . so it is not a contender based on the OP's criterion. *


 
   
  If you're trying to sound like an objectivist, you're doing it wrong. This is a personal attack on the designer of B22, you've not shown any evidence that the B22 is not a good amp, where as third party measurements previously posted have shown that the B22 measures well.


----------



## Lil' Knight

Every time I see the nwavlady's followers' rants about objective viewpoint, I feel sorry for them. I built the O2 out of curiosity and no surprise, it sounds just like what it costs, a $30 amp. Contender of one of most boring amps I've ever built and heard, I even prefer listening my cheapo KSC35 straight out of the iPod Touch, rather than through that poor little thing. Saying it is on the level of the B22 is just plain stupid. Most of the people who support the O2 seem either never own truly hiend amps or build anything else than the O2.

Ti Kan deserves to receive a medal here at Headfi for his contribution and support. All of the DIY-ers who built one of his designs hold a high respect for him. Meanwhile, someone out there aimlessly kept attacking other designers and advertised for his design. Seriously, I am so sick of reading anything about this O2 thing.


----------



## RustA

Quote: 





lil' knight said:


> Every time I see the nwavlady's followers' rants about objective viewpoint, I feel sorry for them. I built the O2 out of curiosity and no surprise, it sounds just like what it costs, a $30 amp. Contender of one of most boring amps I've ever built and heard, I even prefer listening my cheapo KSC35 straight out of the iPod Touch, rather than through that poor little thing. Saying it is on the level of the B22 is just plain stupid. Most of the people who support the O2 seem either never own truly hiend amps or build anything else than the O2.
> 
> Ti Kan deserves to receive a medal here at Headfi for his contribution and support. All of the DIY-ers who built one of his designs hold a high respect for him. Meanwhile, someone out there aimlessly kept attacking other designers and advertised for his design. Seriously, I am so sick of reading anything about this O2 thing.


 
   
  LOL, so why you even bother with this thread? Because you felt the need to express how poor we all are? Congrats, you've done it!


----------



## vixr

I have a friend who is a professional musician...He listened to my 3 channel b22 ($800+) and was like "eh"... and then listened to my Millett MAX ($200+,12FM6) and raved for an hour...he bought a spare board from me and built his own. I feel my b22 is the finest amp I have ever built, he felt it was just ok.


----------



## tomb

Quote: 





vixr said:


> I have a friend who is a professional musician...He listened to my 3 channel b22 ($800+) and was like "eh"... and then listened to my Millett MAX ($200+,12FM6) and raved for an hour...he bought a spare board from me and built his own. I feel my b22 is the finest amp I have ever built, he felt it was just ok.


----------



## KimLaroux

Quote: 





vixr said:


> I have a friend who is a professional musician...He listened to my 3 channel b22 ($800+) and was like "eh"... and then listened to my Millett MAX ($200+,12FM6) and raved for an hour...he bought a spare board from me and built his own. I feel my b22 is the finest amp I have ever built, he felt it was just ok.


 
   
  Gotta love musicians. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  There's a reason all guitar amplifiers are so colored.


----------



## skeptic

I thought the reason (with respect to guitar amps) was that most (all?) people have an innate preference for even order harmonic distortion...so when you kick a guitar amp into overdrive, you want to make sure that is what you are generating - rather than odd order distortion that is going to make your listeners head for the door.


----------



## Satellite_6

I forgot about this thread, was just annoyed about the more stupid comments but probably should not have bothered posting.
   
"Conversely, The O2 measurements all the faibois are using as their bible to defend their opinions _come from the same guy who designed the damn thing_. A creator cannot be perfectly objective towards its own creation. Something can only become a scientific fact after the results have been replicated from different teams not having any interests in the final results."
   
See Innerfidelity for conformation of the measurements. The O2 measured better than seven other amps IIRC. 
   
"For instance. If I look at the graphs of the HE-500s and even the worlds best SS amp with silver wire and a fancy 6.3 mm plug, I would be lead to believe that they sound amazing. However, I think they sound like total junk IMO."
   
Yeah well the HE-500's measure like junk so. . . no.  
   
"If you're trying to sound like an objectivist, you're doing it wrong. This is a personal attack on the designer of B22, you've not shown any evidence that the B22 is not a good amp, where as third party measurements previously posted have shown that the B22 measures well."
   
Very well I took a look at them, the guy might be able to design overly expensive well performing amps at least. Congrats you seem to have a brain.


----------



## Mach3

tomb said:


> Just another FYI, but as for amps ... if you really study AMB's measurements on his products, you'll find that AMB's M3 is better in noise and distortion than the B22:
> 
> *THD*
> *M3: 0.0009, B22: 0.0011*
> ...


 
 Quotes from Ti Kan himself
  
One must be careful when comparing the RMAA measurement results between the M3 and β22 published on my website (and even more so when comparing such measurements taken by someone else on different test setups). The M3 that was tested was set to a gain of 5, whereas the β22 had a gain of 8. When an amp has higher gain, its measured noise floor, distortion figures and stereo crosstalk will also be higher. If the two amps had the same gain I don't think you'd find that the M3 to be such a clearcut "winner" any more.


----------



## tomb

mach3 said:


> tomb said:
> 
> 
> > Just another FYI, but as for amps ... if you really study AMB's measurements on his products, you'll find that AMB's M3 is better in noise and distortion than the B22:
> ...


 

 I doubt it - most likely due to the opamps in the M3.  They are inherently superior with regard to S/N and other measurements compared to fully discrete.  Nevertheless, the point of my post was that the B22 was superior as an overall amplifier experience.  Those same highly engineered opamps often have protective circuitry and other internal characteristics that may become limiting in a musical listening environment.  Hence, the idea of "fully discrete" as something _desirable_.
  
 I'm not sure you got the point ... whether you disagree or not with the measurements.


----------



## jasonhanjk

Want to compare amps over an RMAA result? Which is a beginner / newbie equipment. 
  
 Anyway, back to the O2 result I build with a gain of 1.
 I did get 0.0008% THD and -118dBV noise.


----------



## Mach3

tomb said:


> I doubt it - most likely due to the opamps in the M3.  They are inherently superior with regard to S/N and other measurements compared to fully discrete.  Nevertheless, the point of my post was that the B22 was superior as an overall amplifier experience.  Those same highly engineered opamps often have protective circuitry and other internal characteristics that may become limiting in a musical listening environment.  Hence, the idea of "fully discrete" as something _desirable_.
> 
> I'm not sure you got the point ... whether you disagree or not with the measurements.


 
  
 My point is, measurements need to be done in the same condition for it to be valid. Which is why I posted the different gain setting stated by Ti Kan himself.
 People tend to overlook the actually testing condition and make their decision before looking at the bigger picture. 
 I wonder how the measurement will differ if the M3 gain setting was changed to 8x or the Beta22 reduce to 5x.
  
 I am in no way knocking the O2, M3 or Beta22
  
 I actually own and modded the O2 amp and the Beta22.
 Based on the measurement posted by NwAvGuy the O2 has better measure than the M3.
 According to AMB website the M3 has better result than the Beta22.
 That would mean the Beta22 is the worst amp out of the three base on measurement people have posted.
 I love my O2, it does what it does at a ridiculous low price performance.
 But I will often turn to my Beta22 if I wanted the best possible sound.


----------



## Hifihedgehog

Having owned both, I believe the HifimeDIY is on par or better than the ODAC. I will likely get the HifimeDIY in the very near future because the ODAC offered nothing over it for me. (For your information, I have listened to all these headphones to date, many of them with my signature's listed equipment


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



I have extensively demoed (or owned, *in bold*) the following headphones: 
 [size=11.0pt]AKG K812, K712, K702, K701, [/size]*[size=9.75pt]Q701[/size]*[size=11.0pt], K550, K271, K240 Studio, K77; Audio Technica ATH-M50X, [/size]*[size=9.75pt]ATH-M50, ATH-M40X, ATH-M40fs[/size]*[size=11.0pt]; Beats by Dr. Dre Executive, Pro, Solo HD, Studio; Beyerdynamic T5 P, [/size]*[size=9.75pt]DT 990 Premium 600 ohm, DT 990 Pro,[/size]*[size=11.0pt] DT 880 Premium 250 ohm, [/size]*[size=9.75pt]DT 880 Pro, DT 860[/size]*[size=11.0pt], DT 770 Pro-80; Bose Quietcomfort 15, Quietcomfort 3, Quietcomfort 2, AE2; [/size]*[size=9.75pt]Creative EPH-630[/size]*[size=11.0pt]; Denon AH-D7100, AH-D600, AH-D340; Etymotic ER-6; Grado PS500, Grado GS1000, RS1i, RS 1, RS 2i, RS 2, SR325is, SR325i, [/size]*[size=9.75pt]SR225i[/size]*[size=11.0pt], SR225, SR125i, SR125, SR80i, SR80, SR60i, SR60, iGrado; [/size][size=14.6666669845581px]The House of Marley Redemption Song;[/size][size=11pt] [/size]*[size=9.75pt]Koss Porta Pro, KSC75, The Plug[/size]*[size=11pt], UR10; *Phonak PFE (with gray filters)*; Sennheiser HD 800, HD 650, [/size]*[size=9.75pt]HD 600[/size]*[size=11pt], HD 598, HD 595, HD 558, [/size]*[size=9.75pt]HD 555 (also modified to HD595)[/size]*[size=11pt], HD 380, HD 280, HD202, [/size]*[size=9.75pt]HD201[/size]*[size=11pt], PX 100, Momentum On-Ear, Momentum Over-the-Ear; Shure SRH1540, [/size]*[size=9.75pt]SRH940, SRH840[/size]*[size=11pt], SRH440, SE835, SE535; Skullcandy [/size]*[size=9.75pt]Aviators[/size]*[size=11pt], Crusher, Hesh; Sony MDR-X05, MDR-XB500, MDR-7506, MDR-V6, MDR-55, [/size]*[size=9.75pt]MDR-CD30[/size]*[size=11pt] (I almost forgot about these; purchased at a garage sale about 10 years ago); [/size]*[size=9.75pt]Superlux HD681, HD688B[/size]*[size=11pt]; [/size]*[size=9.75pt]Ultimate Ears TripleFi 10 (family member owns them)[/size]*[size=11pt]; Ultrasone HFI-780; Westone UM Pro 30, UM Pro 20, UM Pro 10.[/size]


  
 The HifimeDIY has better crosstalk performance and, given its inferior testing equipment compared to the ODAC's testing equipment, it has likely equal or better distortion, noise and dynamic range performance.
  
  

 Source: http://ko.goldenears.net/4075631
  

 Source: http://rmaa.hege.li/ODAC.htm


----------

