Compilation of portable amps

[Onix]

Originally Posted by jerryg

new product, not sure how it is. I'm going to get it and test it.

Look for information here before you buy it. There are some issues with it, as far as I rebember, one guy blew it just by inserting the batteries in a reversed position.

[Oeryk]

Bless you, ghart999 for this thread! It has helped me tremendously!

Would it be prudent to update it with links to reviews of said portable amps? I have found a few here and there. What I really need is a review of the best amps under $200.

[ab_ba]

I have a more general question: Do I even *need* an amp? I'm listening to my iPod photo with Shure e5c's, thru the line-out with a Sik Din. I love the 'phones, and was totally content, till (darn you all) I read that 320 kbps AAC encoding would sound better than the default "high quality" (128 kbps) I had been using. So, I re-ripped a few of my CDs at the higher bit rate, and lo and behold, they sounded exactly the same to me.

So, either 1) I'm half deaf, or 2) everyone else on head-fi is half crazy, or 3) I need an amp.

I'm not looking for more volume (I twist my volume attenuator almost all the way down as it is) but now that I have tasted the better sound quality my shures give me, I've got to chase the unicorn: how good could this get??

The Shures are 110 Ohm, and I take it the high impedance means they are easy to drive. Thus I suspect an amp might not make much of a difference. So, my question: has anyone used Shure e5c's with and without an amp? Does it help? Which amp did you use? Do the more expensive amps help even more?

[hoosterw]

Originally Posted by ab_ba

I have a more general question: Do I even *need* an amp? I'm listening to my iPod photo with Shure e5c's, thru the line-out with a Sik Din. I love the 'phones, and was totally content, till (darn you all) I read that 320 kbps AAC encoding would sound better than the default "high quality" (128 kbps) I had been using. So, I re-ripped a few of my CDs at the higher bit rate, and lo and behold, they sounded exactly the same to me.

So, either 1) I'm half deaf, or 2) everyone else on head-fi is half crazy, or 3) I need an amp.

I'm not looking for more volume (I twist my volume attenuator almost all the way down as it is) but now that I have tasted the better sound quality my shures give me, I've got to chase the unicorn: how good could this get??

The Shures are 110 Ohm, and I take it the high impedance means they are easy to drive. Thus I suspect an amp might not make much of a difference. So, my question: has anyone used Shure e5c's with and without an amp? Does it help? Which amp did you use? Do the more expensive amps help even more?

"Hearing" is something also to be learned. Given that you have normal ears as most of us do, you have to learn how to technically listen to music and determine it quality. You probably hear the difference but you simply don't recognize it.
I am now into this hifi hobby since about 3 years and I now hear things I couldn't have dreamed to hear when I started. And the more you hear the more experienced you get. (ps you also get spoiled)
At least that is my opinion.

I also have the iPod photo and the shure E5c and it is beyond doubt that there is a big difference to be heard between 128 and 320 kbs.

[ab_ba]

Thanks, hoosterw.

I am beginning to see what you mean. When I switch back and forth between the same track sampled at the two bit rates, I fail to pick out particular differences. I'll find some feature that is just barely audible at 320, then go see if I can hear it at 128. It is always there. Also, the quality of the bass or the clarity of the high notes, these things aren't clearly different to me at the different rates, when I switch back and forth quickly between them.

However, when I listen to a whole CD imported at 320, I am simply more "into" the music, more caught up in it, more satisfied, than when I listen to a CD that I have not yet re-imported. I am very dubious about vague comparisons like these: for the most part, I believe if you can't point to it, it doesn't exist. We are all so easily fooled. But, on the weight of experiences like these, I am starting to see what you mean. It's as if there is more ambiance or something at the higher bit rates.

I recently pre-ordered a headphone amp (Ray Samuels's Hornet), and I am hoping (among other things) that this might finally make the 128 vs 320 kbps distinction more readily apparent. What are your feelings about amps with your shure e5's?

[hoosterw]

Hi,

So far I have no experience with amps for headphones. But I am thinking on getting one. I also started another thread for this reason. When i do get one I'll let you know.

A very distinct detail between different rates is the difference in the socalled 'soundstage'. whether you actual can hear the stage when/where the music was recorded. A room, a podium, a church. Can you hear the placing of the different instruments, i.e. the piano a little to the right in the front, the drums in the middle a little to the rear and the guitar on the right (these are examples ofcourse, althoug the setting is often like this.)

On very high end equipment: Take an orchestra recorder in a for example royal albert hall. You should be able to 'see' the set up in front of you when hearing the music.

Hans.

[ab_ba]

Originally Posted by hoosterw

A very distinct detail between different rates is the difference in the socalled 'soundstage'. whether you actual can hear the stage when/where the music was recorded. A room, a podium, a church. Can you hear the placing of the different instruments, i.e. the piano a little to the right in the front, the drums in the middle a little to the rear and the guitar on the right (these are examples ofcourse, althoug the setting is often like this.)

That makes sense to me, that your sense for the soundstage would be lost at lower fidelity. I can imagine why that might be the case. Soundstage information largely arises from comparions between the signals at the two ears (time differences, etc), kind of the way that depth perception mostly depends on two eyes. If each channel is compressed independently, then that information would be destroyed. Also, compression mostly removes high-frequency information, where most inter-ear information resides, so that will contribute to. I will listen to see if I agree that my sense for instrument location is lost at greater compressions. It jibes with my sense that I am less caught up in the music.

Where is your thread about amps?

Aaron

[hoosterw]

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showt...5&goto=newpost

Here it is.

rgds Hans

[FTLOSM]

For fun (I realize this has to be more of a toy) but has anyone tried one of these from Radioshack?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.radioshack.com/product/in...ductId=2103656

Turn it up. Turn it up. Turn it up.
This volume booster works with most audio portables and delivers hi-fidelity stereo sound to one, two or three channels. Simply plug your headphones into the volume booster and listen to music, talk radio, audio books or a PC with two others--ideal when traveling by plane, car, bus or train.

Model: 33-1109
Catalog #: 33-1109
Price $21.99

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't dabbled into adding an amp to my Rio S50 yet and am about to order up a set of Senn HD 595's and most likely a base level portable amp, but I thought for a few bucks this maybe fun to play with one afternoon...

Anyone here who has tried one for fun?

Bill

[Romanee]

Please add the following to the list:

Portaphile PV2^2 Portaphile PV2^2

Portaphile X3 Portaphile X3

Rudistor NKK.01 Rudistor NKK.01

Ray Samuels Audio – The Hornet The Hornet