Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphone Amps (full-size) › BY REQUEST: Best sounding HP jacks on integrateds/receivers.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

BY REQUEST: Best sounding HP jacks on integrateds/receivers. - Page 2

post #16 of 84
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by scompton View Post
Both the DT831 and the HD580 with the NAD are my first experience of synergy, or the lack thereof with the HD580.
Goes to prove yet again the importance of synergy, but just as important is music taste and our own conception of what true hi-fi should sound like. I once tried the AKG 501 and hated it, took it back next morning; yet this is a favourite phone for some people. I hated the AT AD700, thought it was coarse and shrill and grainy, yet again this is much-liked and well reviewed phone. Then again, I listen to orchestral/classical, and my yardstick is the sound of a live orchestra in a concert hall. Someone else might be after the sound of a rock band in a stadium, a jazz group in a club, or just the sound of their mate up the road's rig. There are badly designed phones, sure, and probably even more badly designed amps, but beyond a certain level, at least with the majors, it comes down to synergy and taste; there are no absolutes.

Just the same, that AD700 did sound pretty bad....
post #17 of 84
my hfi-780's sound great connected to my yamaha rx-v2095
post #18 of 84
Thread Starter 
It'd be useful if posters could say what dedicated amps they've heard or own, if any. Puts your comments in some perspective and gives you more credibility.
post #19 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by pp312 View Post
It'd be useful if posters could say what dedicated amps they've heard or own, if any. Puts your comments in some perspective and gives you more credibility.
Very true

iBasso T1 - terrible. My first amp. I bought it when it came out and was FOM. I won't sell it because I don't want to saddle someone else with this dog.

iBasso T2 - only had it for a couple of weeks and it was OK. A big improvement over the T1, but not an improvement over the iPod with the UM1 and im716.

Xenos 0HA-REP - OK portable amp that I used at home plugged in with my computer sound card's line out as the source.

Practical Devices XM4 - a decent portable amp that I used for over a year at work. I've not used it as a portable or with a battery. I swapped opamps based an a recommendation. I can't tell the difference, mainly because it takes me 10 minutes to swap the opamps and I can't remember enough of the sound to tell the subtle differences. IMO much better than the above 3.

Starving Student Millet Hybrid - fantastic amp. It's now my work amp. Sounds great with every headphone I've plugged into it. It only cost me $70 to build, but that's because I double ordered every part assuming I'd screw something up since it was my first DIY project. I assumed right. I fried both mosfets.

NAD 3155 - impressions posted above.

I've also heard a lot of amps at meets, but those are just quick impressions, not critical comparisons.
post #20 of 84
Thread Starter 
"iBasso T1 - terrible. My first amp. I bought it when it came out and was FOM. I won't sell it because I don't want to saddle someone else with this dog."

Hmmm. Would that all Ebay sellers were so ethical.

iBasso T2 - only had it for a couple of weeks and it was OK. A big improvement over the T1, but not an improvement over the iPod with the UM1 and im716.

You mean after the T1 ("T" for Terrible, I presume) you actually bought a T2?

BTW, what's FOM?
post #21 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by pp312 View Post
"iBasso T1 - terrible. My first amp. I bought it when it came out and was FOM. I won't sell it because I don't want to saddle someone else with this dog."

Hmmm. Would that all Ebay sellers were so ethical.

iBasso T2 - only had it for a couple of weeks and it was OK. A big improvement over the T1, but not an improvement over the iPod with the UM1 and im716.

You mean after the T1 ("T" for Terrible, I presume) you actually bought a T2?

BTW, what's FOM?
FOM is Flavor or the Month.

The T1 was a tiny, shiny amp, about 1/8" (3mm) thick, 1.5" (4 cm) wide, and 3" (8 cm) long. It has bass boost, cross feed, and 2 headphone jacks. Unfortunately, it was optimized for high impedance headphones. It picked up noise from any possible source, like monitors and disk drives, including the drive in my iPod, so you couldn't strap it to an iPod. It also produced noise when it was in my pants pocket and I was walking.

The T2 was in a loaner program by Skylab. I was interested because it fixed some of the above problems. It did fix the problems with noise, but, even though it was optimized for IEMs, it was still to loud and minimum volume for me. It's probably not too loud for everyone. I listen at a very low level. I had this confirmed at a meet a couple of weeks ago. Four people commented on how low I listen, I had to turn every amp down when I started to listen, and every time I saw someone use an amp after me, they turned it up. Made me feel pretty good about my listening levels.

Edit: Last night, I left a concert half way though because it was too loud even with ear plugs.
post #22 of 84
Hi guys !

I went to my audiophile dealer and took time to compare the NAD C720BEE receiver with the dedicated Musical Fidelity X-CANv8. I brought my D2000-25 ohms and DT990-600 ohms for the purpose. Quick result : the NAD is warmer, but the MF is better, with both phones.

The MF is a hybrid head amp (tube+SS). Both are roughly the same retail price. The dealer told me that the NAD is warm like the old tube sound (even if it's SS), but the MF represents the new liquid tube sound... To me, the NAD 2D and warm, the MF was 3D and detailed...

Anyway, I'm now considering the X-CANv8, but I wonder if I should upgrade my receiver instead... What kind of sound should I expect from a 1k$ stereo receiver? Which one have high quality headphone out?

Finally, I'd be curious to have feedback on the head out of good HTR receivers, like the Yamaha RX-V2700,

RX-V2700

Thanks,
post #23 of 84
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headdie View Post
Anyway, I'm now considering the X-CANv8, but I wonder if I should upgrade my receiver instead... What kind of sound should I expect from a 1k$ stereo receiver? Which one have high quality headphone out?
There's an interesting aspect here. Did you originally buy a receiver because you use speakers as well? If your system is purely HP based, and you prefer the MF, why not just get it and forget receivers? You're not likely to find a receiver that sounds as good without considerable trouble, and is the hunt worth it?

But you also need some kind of switching device, yes? Or do you only use CDs? I'm interested in this because it bears directly on the choice between speaker or dedicated amp. I need a speaker amp because I use speakers for the TV, and I need a switching device because I feed the TV and DVD sound into the amp and also have a minidisc deck. I believe many people would be in the same boat. This means not a choice between a speaker or dedicated amp, but whether to buy a dedicated AS WELL AS a speaker amp. So personal use comes into the equation very strongly.
post #24 of 84
pp312, Thanks for the answer and for the thread !

BTW, let me say that I can still listen to the NAD easily, even after listening to the Musical Fidelity I also want to say that I hope this thread could help us get the most out of our integrated/receivers, maybe with mod or rolling suggestions.
post #25 of 84
If you like the X-Can V8 better, buy it. in the end, yours is the only opinion that matters.

Tim
post #26 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pars View Post
I'll give one to avoid: Hafler DH-110 preamp....The Hafler pre / DH-220 amp combo absolutely destroys the Marantz.
You and the Kenwood poster gave me something to think about and try. The HP out on my Hafler SE-100 was not bad ... not like your DH-100 (these two pre-amps have totally different design). But taking the line-out of the Hafler into an old Kenwood gigantic solid state amp from the '80s, which has HP out, and using the two together, pre+amp as you did, works even better.

Wow. There's a modder that puts good phono stages into Hafler's and I may now whip this whole thing into a stand-alone rig for LPs.

Tests were with a 701. Great thread.
post #27 of 84
I have tried the Triode TRV 35SE and I was quite impressed,it seems to do well against my RSA Raptor using the GS1000.
post #28 of 84
The headphone stage on my rare and lovely Teac A-H500 integrated is pretty awesome with all 'phones I've plugged in so far.



The headphone out on my NAD 3240PE however, is atrocious.

Go figure.
post #29 of 84
Thread Starter 
That's surprising about the NAD. I've owned quite a few NADs including a 3225PE and 7225PE and the HP jacks were anything but "atrocious". Was this with all phones?
post #30 of 84
I pulled a ten year old Marantz receiver out of my parent's garage recently, and was shocked at how good it sounds. Unfortunately, I can only compare it to my iBasso D1, but it totally blows it out of the water. Something to consider, since it sells for only $150 used nowadays.

EDIT: Model SR880mkII
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphone Amps (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphone Amps (full-size) › BY REQUEST: Best sounding HP jacks on integrateds/receivers.