Akg K-702 - Amped vs Unamped : Can't hear much of a difference? - Page 6

Quote:

Originally Posted by sexiewasd 

I was under the impression that this was about under amped vs properly amped, and it's not

It was initially.  I think the OP was smart to compare and reach his own conclusions.

I never argue with another's experience.  You are absolutely correct in what you hear.

I record and listen to primarily classical.  All of my recording is done in performance spaces.  Recreation of the changes of timbre with note decay, the sound of the room, etc. is critical for a convincing reproduction of the performance.  Some mic pres, amps, ADCs, DACs do this better than others.  I don't know what is physically different about them.  It's probably the result of lots of little differences.

Just my 2 cents worth on the K70x series amp/no amp controversy:

Q701s sound terrible thru my laptop, veiled and lifeless and muddy.

My iPod sounds too bass heavy for me.

Surprisingly enough, they don't sound too bad thru the iPad.

I have a dinky little iBasso D12 and a big Matrix M Stage, the Matrix goes much deeper in the bass, but other than that I don't hear a massive difference between the two when I use edither one as a headphone amp. I think the "K70x series needs tons of current to drive them" is a complete myth.

I also have a La Figaro 336C, yes, yes, yes, I know OTL SETs will add colouration, have ppor damping factor, etc. especially to a low impedance can like the K70x series but I like listening to it anyway.

BTW, how often do the amp manufacturers list IMD in their specs?

A lot of them don't even bother listing output impedance.

Shameful.

Me, too.  I do most recreational listening on one of two tube headphone amps; one a OTL SET, the other a 300B output transformer coupled SET.  I hope no one is going to claim these do not sound different.

Not often after resolution of the spec wars a generation ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wapiti 

It was initially.  I think the OP was smart to compare and reach his own conclusions.

 

 

 

I never argue with another's experience.  You are absolutely correct in what you hear.

 

I record and listen to primarily classical.  All of my recording is done in performance spaces.  Recreation of the changes of timbre with note decay, the sound of the room, etc. is critical for a convincing reproduction of the performance.  Some mic pres, amps, ADCs, DACs do this better than others.  I don't know what is physically different about them.  It's probably the result of lots of little differences.

 

I wish that I could have that experience that you have, but I should clarify what I meant.  The word convincing is what makes it tricky, under powered, or too high of a volume both make it unconvincing, in fact I'm not sure that it can be truely convincing with either headphone or speakers with classical music anyways, with what I listen to most (live indie rock, folk and punk) it could be done with a larger room than I have, but anyways, under powered was less "convincing" for me, but if you ignore how it should sound and just focus on how it does sound then the sounds come from the same space, it's really just a function of your brain interpreting the sound directly from the driver and what it hears bouncing from the room that your in, my Q701's sound much more convincing when I listen to them in front of my speakers with both playing, even though the speakers are very cheap low fi speakers, the 701's give the detail that is needed and the speakers just add depth.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by sexiewasd 

. . . it's really just a function of your brain interpreting the sound directly from the driver and what it hears bouncing from the room that your in, my Q701's sound much more convincing when I listen to them in front of my speakers with both playing, even though the speakers are very cheap low fi speakers, the 701's give the detail that is needed and the speakers just add depth.

All recording and playback is artifice; a tricking of the mind.  If it works, it works.  In fact, I am going to try this with my T1s.  Fun!

To my ears even the most spectacular system cannot touch the sound of an unamplified instrument, such as piano, violin or voice.  I just attended a founders' party for an opera company.  One of the mezzos sang a half dozen arias.  I wish a system could sound as delicious as her solo voice in a large private home.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wapiti 

You mean like headphones?

You got me. 

Personally I most enjoy opening up the software "oscilloscope" shots in music players and muting the volume.  Therefore I don't listen to it at all, just watch the waveforms to know how it sounds.  It's like how deaf Beethoven looks at sheet music--I look at the scope.

Seriously though, "listen for yourself" would be my recommendation as well.  I'm not going to say what others hear, just be skeptical if it falls outside the range of current accepted models of the human auditory system.  I'd also urge people--if price is a concern and they want to save money--to try not to be influenced by the hype, and make sure what they hear is real and not imagined.  It's quite easy to hear differences between two things that are actually exactly the same, like the same music on the same gear in the same environment, because of how human hearing is biased by what part of the music you're focusing on, what you're expecting, and so on.

As well as the frailty of aural memory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wapiti 

 

Me, too.  I do most recreational listening on one of two tube headphone amps; one a OTL SET, the other a 300B output transformer coupled SET.  I hope no one is going to claim these do not sound different.

 

 

 

Not often after resolution of the spec wars a generation ago.

Spec wars?

I don't understand why any manufacturer would list specs for:

signal to noise

frequency response (or bandwidth)

THD

damping factor

but not list IMD

I call BS

check this out, interesting article about IMD

http://www.passlabs.com/pdfs/articles/distortion_and_feedback.pdf

BTW.  the "everything sounds the same page" is the cable controversy thread pages

LOL

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris J 

 

 

Spec wars?

I don't understand why any manufacturer would list specs for:

signal to noise

frequency response (or bandwidth)

THD

damping factor

but not list IMD

I call BS

 

check this out, interesting article about IMD

 

http://www.passlabs.com/pdfs/articles/distortion_and_feedback.pdf

 

BTW.  the "everything sounds the same page" is the cable controversy thread pages

LOL

 

that happens to be one of my favorite articles from Papa Pass.  it's a very scary world out there.

In the '70's, SS manufacturers sought to design amps with the lowest THD.  They sounded dreadful.  Finally engineers with ears determined it was the high IMD in these designs which damaged the sound.  IMD was routinely published for a while thereafter, but faded out of fashion as THD returned to rational levels.