The output of the Loki is to feed into another piece of equipment (i.e: amplifier) not headphones.
The Denon probably converts it’s analog inputs to digital and then back to analog on the output.
So basically what you are doing is
Taking a digital signal from the BluRay
Converting that to analog with the iFi
Connecting that signal to the Denon which converts it to digital
Denon does its processing internally
Denon converts signal back to analog
Feed analog into Equalizer
Making analog adjustments with Loki
Output a line signal in analog that is not meant for headphones to headphones.
Basically all of the above steps are degrading your signal.
@Cyan69 , out of curiosity, have you tried going from the optical output of the BluRay to the input of the iFi and then from the headphone output of the iFi to the headphones?
Without anything else connected, no adapters, just the iFi to the headphones.
This strongly suggests what @pennstac suggested above, that “you like [something] in the signal processing that your Denon is doing, and that hearing this is over-riding some other considerations.” Whatever else may be the case, the Blu-Ray > Ifi > Arya / E3 is a vastly purer signal path than below.
So, the “restorer function” is an EQ of sorts. Per Denon, it " generates the signals eliminated upon compression" and “restores the original bass characteristics” so probably some bass boost there. The surround parameter is also doing some EQ; “rock” settings generally mean a V-shaped curve besides whatever timing and phase-shift effects it’s adding (thus some more bass boost).
Now, about that Loki.
(A) It’s in the wrong place. It has an output impedance of 75 ohms, while your headphones have a nominal impedance of 27 ohms (DCA E3) or 41 ohms (Arya). Not good. The idea is for the output impedance to be much lower than the input impedance. So, for example, the Schiit Magni has an output impedance of less than 0.1 ohms, because it’s meant to be plugged into things like headphones than often have impedances of a few dozen ohms. The Loki is meant to be plugged into something like the Magni (so, 75 ohms output impedance to 50,000 ohms input impedance). Hope that gives you some idea of how this stuff is supposed to work.
(B) You’re using it wrong. It’s not an amplifier, so don’t use it to try to make things louder (turn all the knobs all the way up). The Loki works something like this: When you turn a knob (say, 2nd from left, which is centered at 400 Hz) a little bit clockwise, not only is 400 Hz louder, but so are the frequencies above (like 450 Hz) and below it (like 350 Hz), and the taper is gentle. Imagine a wide, low hill. The more you turn the knob, the more 400 Hz increases, but also the steeper the taper. So, turn it all the way and you’ve created a rather narrow spike right around 400 Hz. Ditto for all the knobs, so when you turn all of them all the way up, you’ve created 4 spikes in the frequency response (at 20 Hz, 400 Hz, 2 kHz, and 8 kHz) along with substantial valleys in between them.
So, just remove it. Surely you liked what you were hearing before you added the Loki to the mix.
No. You’re already doing LOTS of EQ with your Denon. More is not necessarily better.
You could get objectively better performance this way, but I don’t think that’s what you want, as you’ve already said you don’t like the direct path with your Ifi. And that is certainly “better” (meaning “closer to the source”) from a purely objective standpoint. So, I’ll say “no” again.
No idea what this is. The RR2160 is a class-AB receiver, not a class-D integrated. Doesn’t matter since it sounds bad to you.
So, get some money for it if you can.
This is the crux of the matter. Most of us here have tastes that don’t seem to align with yours. Things that would count as improvements for most of us won’t for you.
All of this sounds like you’re looking for better dynamics, which would make sense because the headphone output of your Denon isn’t particularly strong. So, a headphone that’s easier to drive would warrant consideration. Something more efficient like the Meze 99 Classic might do better than the Arya or E3, despite being far less expensive.
Zyon, Lou has as much background and expertise as anyone on this forum.
A strong word of caution. Before jumping to his conclusion/suggestion you should carefully think about his entire message. I for one, find it heartening that Lou seems to concur with my observation that what you find compelling is some signal proscessing going on in your Denon.
He points out, far more expertly than I, what this is.
It is not for us to change your preferences, but it does mean that you like a sound profile that most of us do not. So, you will find that most “normal” advice you get may take you further from your preferences. Lou has taken this into account in his suggestion (which I think is reasonable too).
But there is another thing to consider. How did you get to the point where your perception of good sound differs from the usual? Here we enter @generic’s area of expertise, involving psychoacoustic conditioning. Are you simply over accustomed to a nonstandard presentation? Would it be smart or desirable to try and retrain your ears? As a financial advisor I would suggest you consider this carefully before committing further cash in pursuit of your ideal sound.
I’m answering because of @pennstac’s reference to me and because I agree with him. I’m not confident that this message will have any impact on your choices.
When I read @Lou_Ford’s very detailed and thoughtful technical analysis I concluded the same thing. Your highly unusual playback chain is not typical of most listeners, so we may not understand what you perceive with music.
Hearing sounds involves three types of processes. These correlate with each other but are not the same, and the final type (Type 3) is ultimately all that matters to a given person.
Type 1 - Electric and mechanical: This is what @Lou_Ford and measurements people focus on. Recording and playback technology involves the physics of hardware, and how to make electricity manipulate cone drivers, planar drivers, etc. It’s the fundamental and necessary starting point for reproducing sound, but it can be and is overridden in part by Types 2 and 3.
Type 2 - Biology, health, and aging: (A) The human ear forms when we are fetuses and fully matures when we are young. It’s a bio-chemical-mechanical system. Then we all get old and our hearing always declines. This follows from exposure to loud noises (motorcycles, rock concerts, guns/combat, etc.) and the simple decay of the hearing-system machine. The internal parts just get worse and worse. (B) Hearing health can affect anyone at any age. This involves infections, dietary deficiencies, medical conditions such as tumors or nerve damage, and more. We visit doctors (audiologists) to determine whether we have bio/medical hearing issues. Aging and any medical condition may cause a person to hear Type 1 changes differently than others.
Type 3 - Perception and learning: (A) Humans are born with a DNA/genetic body pattern and then grow into adults. Every person undergoes extensive sensory training. Babies and toddlers play games to learn how to use their muscles, see things, hear things, etc. Hearing is well-developed and trained by adulthood. (B) Each new device an adult hears involves fresh training. Audiophiles who dwell on listening to ever more refined sounds seek to train their hearing further (and also fool themselves into thinking they hear better than they do). Every single device you use has a training period (aka “brain burn” or habituation) where your brain and body synchronize – after learning/exposure new devices sound “right” or “similar” or “better” or “worse” than prior experiences.
@Lou_Ford nailed Type 1 very well…but in your case I have loooooooong believed that Type 2 or Type 3 is most relevant. There’s a strong chance that your (uncommon) signal chain tweaks actually address your personal biology, aging, or perception.
Take this as you will. In my experience, explanations in the audio industry tend to focus on Type 1 but gloss over 2 and 3. Many people (even audio experts) lump all human factors into “subjective” experiences when they are not crudely subjective. Individualized, yes. Highly predictable and science-based, yes too.
No, I haven’t. As a side note, I have an (old) Denon AVR-1912, but have never used the headphone jack on it. My suggestion of the Meze 99 Classic was based on the following:
The result of the settings you use and like is considerable bass boost, and the 99 Classics have a reputation for dealing well with bass-heavy music, and
The 99 Classics (103 dB/mW) are far more efficient than either the DCA E3 or the HiFiMan Arya (both 90 dB/mW). Remember that the dB scale is logarithmic, so a 13 dB increase in efficiency is a huge difference. The headphone jack on your Denon is not super-powerful, so a more efficient headphone should sound more dynamic.
You are ignoring what Lou, generic, and I have been telling you. I think we’ve made progress, then your enthusiasm for numbers and hardware becomes well, exasperating.
Of course the Meze will sound different. It moves more air. It seals or covers the ears differently. None of that has a dang thing to do with your numbers.
Do scrambled eggs taste different than hard boiled? What about a protein powder with the same nutrition label?
I’m bowing out of replies until I get some clue that you have tried to understand what we’ve been trying to tell you. We can’t define what you are calling “emotion”. There are now 3 of us who think at least much of our problem in giving advice is that you are used to hearing a large amount of signal processing that we can’t quantify.
So either you live with what you already like, and substitute things more or less blindly in search of something that sounds better to you, or you take steps to educate and re-define your burnt-in acoustic tastes.
This is not meant to be arrogant. How can we possibly know if it’s worth it to you? It’s your hearing, perception and enjoyment, not ours. But if you so like a particular sound, and it differs from what we experience, we can’t say what will sound best FOR YOU. But you’d better get good electrical protection for that Denon AVR, because you’ll be a sad puppy if it ever dies.
No. The Sennheiser stuff I posted was a response to a poster who was already looking to get into the Senn 6-series and was looking for a lower-budget approach. Note that I allocated about half of the total to a purpose-built headphone amp. For the reasons I already stated above (twice I think), my guess is that the Meze would be better.
There’s no way I (or anyone else here) can know what will make the most of your listening experience. It’s just a guess. The Meze is far less expensive than the 2 headphones I remember you saying you already own, so it should be easy enough to try. If you find you don’t like it, no big deal.