Using full sized integrated amp - Page 2

Look at my sig. Sounds verra verra nice!

NAVYBLUE, the Rotel IS very good. my RA-05 integrated was cheaper than my headphone amp, and almost as good. My guess would be your pre-amp is better than the RA-05.

It is an old beast, I do have schematics and it is powered by the mains. A bit over the top. I have a 40-lb headphone amp that measured a good 52 watts per channel RMS. Of course all of that goes through a resistor, but I'm not sure how much resistance it's putting up, my source is lossless files from a Mac laptop through a simple DAC. I keep the gain in the Mac set at half and the HK only goes up to about 9:30 before it gets too loud, depending on the recording of course.

Tim

I also use a Pioneer SA-9500II integrated amp. It does sound very good with a DAC and lossless files. Right now, I have two tube headphone amps hooked up to it via the tape loops, so I can switch between units without plugging and unplugging all the time. Everything works very nicely.

How is this possible? Since the pre and the power amp are only connected through a pair of RCA cable.

Here it is.

Headphone Adaptor for Power Amplifiers

I don't know if you are referring to used or new prices. But for used old pre and integrated amp they are simply a steal today. I got mine under a hundred bucks.

Yes, mine comes with a bass and treble knob too.

If you follow resistor values in the link I posted above, you shouldn't be far off.

For me, I calculated the peak power to be at about half the maximum power handling of the headphone, or at one quarter the RMS power. Nine o'clock on the volume knob gives me comfortable listening volume, and volume is very similar to the volume I am getting from the headphone jack of the preamp itself.

It is somewhat a prototype, if I were to build a final version I'd probably leave the resistor values as they are.

I am wondering if I should get the Little Dot Mk V. Would be it a significant upgrade to my Rotel pre amp?

Upgraditis made me undecided between using my preamp headphone jack, power amp with adapter or either of the Little Dot Mk IV/V. Or should I just put the money in a better source.

I actually returned an amp I paid $785 for because my Rotels HP out sounded like 2-3% worse. I preferred having the money. I think the Rotel HP out sounds very very good.

Hey you are bursting my bubble.

Spend the money ona nice vacation or something. thats what im doing.

To me, it just makes sense to have a dedicated headphone amp. With the MKV, you have two selectable inputs, so you could listen to another source without turning on your main system. Having that flexibility is very nice indeed. The MKV is going to sound better than a standard headphone jack setup. It has much more power and was built to be quiet and very dynamic.

Do you think your source is lacking? I have no idea.

Ok, so I don't have a life.

I don't know if my source is lacking, but when I listen to the system as a whole it doesn't wow me. It is the lowest end Sony made somewhere in the early 90s.

May be I don't get the transparency and the dynamic that I heard in some other system. It could well be the recording that I listen to as well. Simply put I don't know where to lay my hands on.

I can spend up to about the cost of a MkIV/V (another point to ponder about). I am open on replacing the source (DAC or CDP), the amp (dedicated or DIY adapter), or split the cost on both.

This is interesting. Why do you think it makes sense, I wonder? It's actually less convenient. I used integrated amps and receivers for years with all kinds of headphones and got great results; I've even argued on these forums in favour of integrateds vs. dedicated HP amps. Now I have a Cute Beyond and LD Mk V, both of which sound very nice but--dare I say it?--not better that the HP jack on my Sony JB940 minidisc deck even using Senn 650s. Now this would seem to fly in the face of all received wisdom, yet I must trust my ears, and so far they've told me that dedicated HP amps are not substantially, if at all, better that the HP jacks on some apparently proprietary equipment. Even the HP jack on my Yamaha RX-V493 receiver sounds very good, perhaps not as "pure" as the dedicated amps but with a satisfying solidity and naturallness. I could live with it if I had to.

So where does that leave us? It certainly questions the wisdom of $500+, perhaps even $300 dedicated amps. And let's get back to that convenience thing. Most people have to have an integrated or receiver anyway, if only as a switching device, so it's not like you're saving by buying a dedicated amp (and of course many people use speakers as well). So a dedicated amp is extra cost, an extra item to be housed and takes up a tape output. Hmmm...it's not looking good for dedicated amp camp. I'd like to hear arguments for the defence at this point.

Incidentally, the idea that most receivers and integrateds use op amps to power HP jacks is a myth. I can't speak for the latest HT receivers, but I've opened dozens of integrateds etc from the early 80s to the early 2000s and the vast majority simply access the speaker outputs using (typically) 330 ohm resistors. There are no 50c amps behind the HP jacks of good quality, name brand integrateds/receivers. (Or at least it's rare). What you hear is a stepped down version of what goes to the speakers. That's not the case of course with pre-amps, which MUST use an internal amp since there is no power amp.

One last point. Penchum, you mention dedicated amps as being built to be quiet. Ironically, I'm currently having a hum problem with my LD. In all the years I was using integrateds, I never had a hum/hiss/buzz problem--ever. I had almost forgotten what hum sounded like.