Akg K-702 - Amped vs Unamped : Can't hear much of a difference? - Page 5

95% of the posts here about not driving their K70X to their full potential, are in response to people driving them from a mobile device, or laptop, or cheap-ass (under $100) amp. 

I don't think anyone here would say your profire isn't capable, or the $230 m-stage, or other similar ones are not. 

As for your conclusions... show me measurements, data, or something other than your opinion and subjective experiences, and we'll talk. 

As far as not liking amps that color the sound, or any eq - well - I'm here to enjoy my music - not replicate an engineer's original intent. *shrug*

to each their own (with the caveat, that we should know the difference, and make decisions understanding them) 

Thanks for the video link. Good stuff. 

Some tasks are better suited for software than hardware in my opinion.  EQ, crossfeed, coloration, etc. I'd rather have as software options (including the "not used at all" option for most things).

For portable use, sometimes satisfactory software solutions for those things are not available.  But even if for home use, I wouldn't say people are doing it wrong if taking another approach.  It just seems odd to me, to spend money on expensive colored gear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by senjy 

Double blind testing is an 100% certain test, I know no one else who would refute this matter but you.

 

What you described (or at least as you described it) was not double blind testing... and certainly not with a very large sample (just you and your brother). All it showed was under those conditions, on that day, you two couldn't tell the difference. Not that there was no difference... you dig? 

Further, 1 double blind test does not proof make. It is evidence, certainly. But you need lots and lots of experiments - repeatable and objective, to have proof. You may well be right - but to claim so based on what you stated you did so far, is premature.

But I do thank you for sharing your opinion. And I agree - especially about way overpriced, distortion induced coloration. If you want that, you can do it on the cheap. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Head Injury 

Fine detail extraction is affected by what in an amp? The only thing I can think of is distortion. How else will an amp be more detailed?

I would like to know this as well.  I cannot accept it is simply lower THD as these levels are so low as to make any differences inaudible.  Lower noise floor is not it.  All decent amps are quiet.

Whatever the reason, some preamps, amplfiers, mic preamps offer more clarity/transparency.  It's not necessarily a function of cost. 

There is a gorgeous clean ribbon mic pre available with nearly 90 dB of gain (typical mic pre offers up to 60dB) that's only around $800.  Incredible detail and delicacy. I do not know what makes it sound so good.  I expect it is something readily measurable.  It's probably a result of careful attention to gain structure, excellent bandwidth (ribbon mics are very quick and responsive to leading edge transients), good volume controls operating in the most linear part of their range, solid RF rejection, power supply chokes, etc., together which handle itty-bitty fragile ribbon microphone signals with respect.

No magic or special sauce, just solid engineering.

As always, if you don't hear differences - don't spend your money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeaj 
  It just seems odd to me, to spend money on expensive colored gear.

You mean like headphones?

Quote:

Originally Posted by senjy 

Should you not be listening to your own judgement, since it is going to be you that is listening to the end result . . .

Yep. 

You're asking us to trust your ears tho, neh? 

I do trust my own. I also trust instrument measurements (when I can review the methodology, or control the experiment myself). 

If you see some of my posts in the sound science forum, you'll see I REALLY do not trust subjective opinions (or marketing hype) given without good supporting evidences. :) I'm only picking on you because what you presented - while ostensible on the good side of this argument - was really the same thing... your subjective opinion given without robust evidence and asking us to take it at something higher than face value. This sword cuts both ways. 

For what it is worth... I am quite happy with the sound I currently get - having rejected the sound I got from other rigs. I did not spend crazy money (and won't) to get there. 

:D aye. If I didn't sound like this a few posts back, I must not have been clear in my writing. Apologies.

Devlesa!

Quote:

Originally Posted by liamstrain 

You're asking us to trust your ears tho, neh? 

Nope.

Trust yours.  If you hear no difference there is no difference.  Music recording and reproduction is ultimately entirely subjective.  Science pressed into service to capture and elicit emotion.  No wonder it makes nerds squeamish. 

I hear differences in some amp topologies.  I'd love to know why they are different.  I'm comfortable it can be quantified.  Testing gear is a lot more resolving than my ears.

I'm not advising anyone to follow my choices.  I am simply providing an example of how it is not necessary to spend oodles of green energy for competent engineering. 

I think that perhaps my experiences are irrelevant here as all of the headphone amps I was comparing are under $100 and that doesn't seam to be what the op is comparing.  I was under the impression that this was about under amped vs properly amped, and it's not.  It's about properly amped vs properly amped with special magic snake oil sauce.  In which case I agree with the op for the most part, but also choose to believe that distortion can be pleasant so long as it's accepted, acknowledged and desired, that is after all why I have a scph-1001 Playstation, for it's pleasant distortion that makes some harsh tracks easier to enjoy.

For the record I've not heard ANY change in soundstage width or depth at comparable volume levels, I won't be arguing if that is possible or not.