DAC and Amp  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy*Carl 

I have hear quite a few DAC and Amps, and I have been unable to distinguish almost any of them from each other with my HD580.

 

Take for example an ipod or my computers on board sound.  They have absolutely no background noise or hiss when I plug in, not even with my beyer dynamic ear buds.  They have more volume than I would ever need.  I get no clipping or distortion at high volumes, though I never listen to high volumes anyway as it is not pleasant and I don't wanna ruin my hearing.

 

So if an ipod can do this, whats the point of a DAC or amp.  It already provides clean clear sound with more volume than you need.  I have hear the typical head-fi rhetoric that DAC's make the music clearer, etc and AMPs make the sound better, but in all my ABX testing, I have never been able to distinguish them with my HD580, except with an old 80s receiver which sounded like garbage.  If you can't pass an ABX test, then the equipment is totally useless (Something people are afraid to do around head-fi)

 

Now I am not saying this is the case with all headphones.  I have not heard many other high end headphones like k701, dt880 or hd650. I would love to, but theres no hifi shops that have any of these where I live.  However based on what people claim, I would be willing to bet the change is unnoticeable to most people if they all did ABX testing. 

 

I came to this conclusion a year ago that you don't need anything other than an iPod, at least with hd580.  But lo and behold I get a job and a little money and what do I wanna do?  Upgrade of course. Its a sickness!  Then I gotta knock some since into me and realize that I already have great sound.  I would just like to see an abx test with every review around here, as it would justify the extreme price of audio equipment.  Its kinda a common joke that tube amps are pretty silly.  There's commercials making fun of this, lol. http://adsoftheworld.com/media/tv/acura_excuses_tube_amp

 

So where are the people out there that have ABX proof of their equipment?  We are all here to get the best sound right?  Or is it just to think we have the best sound.....

Some onboard sound does have noise and hiss, and interference when the system is taxed. That yours doesn't is a stroke of luck, really. Others also want more volume than what an iPod can offer, so to say decisively that we don't need anything but an iPod isn't correct. An iPod has around half the voltage the HD580 will need to reach 110 dB, a typical benchmark for "plenty loud enough for anyone in any situation", but even that's not always accurate.

There's also nothing wrong with upgrading just to be sure you have a system that works. There's plenty of amps and DACs that will perform better than an iPod, even if the differences are inaudible. Just make sure what you're buying is competent and not just marketing, and spending is fine. I'd also never go over the $1,000 range for amps and DACs, because under that price point you have no many fantastic options that it's not worth chasing the last 0.0001% THD even if you want "perfection".

Tube amps can be made pretty neutral, maybe not as neutral as some solid state amps but plenty good. The problem is audiophile marketing ties such things as "warmth" and "naturalness" to tubes, so most manufacturers design them to be euphonic.

The aim should ultimately be enjoyment of the music, while maintaining some sense of purity of signal. To accomplish that it's my opinion that amps and DACs should be inaudible, because they can be, then coloration can be pursued in the headphones and equalization. Not everyone agrees though, so people buy euphonic gear.

I'd love to see more ABX tests, but they're not always easy to do. You need to know the methodology, understand its purpose, have the time, and have someone else along who's willing to help (and knows how). And simply put, not enough people care.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy*Carl 

I only said that an ipod is fine for me with the HD580.  I haven't heard other setups.  Also 110dB?  Your out of you mind if your anywhere close to this.

 

How can you justify a DAC if the differences are inaudible.  That's the point of the DAC, to give you better sound.

That is peak volume. On quiet recordings, peak volume will be double or even four times louder than average volume. I am nowhere near that (~70 dB average, 80 dB peaks) but others will want to listen for short periods at as loud as 100 dB RMS, with peaks that can reach 110 dB with ease. This is not long-term listening, and this is not usual listening, but it needs to be considered.

The point of a DAC is to recreate an analog signal from digital data as accurately as possible. It makes no claims on "better" sound. To define better you have to delve into subjective territory, and at that point any differences (even those imagined) can be worthwhile. Objective performance is a better benchmark, and I can justify a small premium for inaudibly accurate recreation just to ensure that it's inaudible in all situations.

If you are not hearing differences with your set up, then for you, you're correct. You do not need a separate dac and amp. 

Simple. 

Please do not try to expand your experience out to a universal truth, however. 

I'm with Head Injury, it would be interesting to see properly conducted ABX testing done - I know I did my own, but I freely admit that my methodology was flawed and limited, and I cannot present my experience as evidence to convince anyone else. All I can say, is that it appeared to me, and the results of my test (flawed tho it was - in particular, the difficulties of really good level matching) showed noticeable improvements in sound quality when using various external dac/amp combos over my computer's output.

Some day, I'll try to set it up as a more rigorous test. 

In the meantime, I am having fun. It is a relatively inexpensive hobby the way that I choose to practice it (mid fi cans, self imposed limits on equipment prices and how much I will let myself hold onto before selling). On a dollar per hour of use (I listen to music for about 5 hours a day while at work - on top of the music and audio I am mastering and working with), it works out to be a pretty great value. Certainly better value on that scale than the vintage car my coworker is trying to restore - he gets to work with it about 4 hours a week, and it hasn't run in years. 

People will spend their money on foofy things. Audible improvements are often nothing more than the result psychological factors (marketing, design, expectation, wow + new factors) - that doesn't make them any less real to the listener. And ultimately, provided they are not in the business of bilking people out of their money or doing other harm - let them spend how they want to. For me, real audible difference or no (I think there are) - it is still an entertaining hobby. And I'll pay for entertainment. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy*Carl 

So if thats the case, then alot of the claims here are false, not just opinion.  Thats the point of abx testing, its objective.  You either get it right or wrong, and over enough trials it proves the worth of equipment.  Buying it for the fun or please equates to basically just having a "cool" looking brick on your desktop. And if that's your purpose, so be it.  But that is not what people claim it does here.  They claim it makes the sound better, and in some cases, it might make a subtle difference.  But reading here, you get the impression that some headphones are flat out bad without amp, and I think that is just misguiding people who think better sound exists.

Sure. And they may believe those claims. I have not seen solid ABX (or other objective) data either way. At best we can say it may or may not actually improve over your source's output. Lots of factors, including the quality of the original source.  Some headphones actually need the additional power provided by an amp (low sensitivity, high impedance) but for low impedance cans, I agree, we do not have proof that with an amp they will improve audibly. We also do not have proof they can not. 

All claims should be taken with a grain of salt and tested where it is reasonable to do so. In the absence of that data, do what makes sense to you. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by liamstrain 

I have not seen solid ABX (or other objective) data either way.

I hope I'm not the only one who sees the irony in this statement.

I'm assuming you're referring to the "either way" at the end of my sentence. 

My point is, we haven't been presented with objective data - so we should not prematurely draw conclusions. 

No, I was referring to you stating that you, the subject, have not yet witnessed or looked for objective results, and therefore are under the opinion (if not belief) that such objective results do not exist. Because you haven't seen them.

Maybe your status quo regarding this issue is influenced by a confirmation bias which is limiting your research. There have been plenty of studies of amplifiers and their interaction with transducers, DACs too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by liamstrain 

[W]e do not have proof that with an amp they will improve audibly. We also do not have proof they can not.

Awful tough to prove a negative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anetode 

No, I was referring to you stating that you, the subject, have not yet witnessed or looked for objective results, and therefore are under the opinion (if not belief) that such objective results do not exist. Because you haven't seen them.

If i have looked, and have not found good data, what other choice do I have but to act as though it is not there, and adjust my perspective when that changes? Certainly you don't want me to assume what that data I cannot see might have shown?

That is possible. Confirmation bias can be a hard thing to root out entirely. You wouldn't happen to have a readily accessible link showing data regarding the audible effects of additional amplification (beyond internal source amplifiers) with low impedance/high sensitivity headphones? I love learning, and good resources are invaluable. Your assistance is appreciated. 

Yes. I'm not suggesting we should. See above about how I am not comfortable assuming what the data may or may not have shown, when I have not seen it. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by liamstrain 

That is possible. Confirmation bias can be a hard thing to root out entirely. You wouldn't happen to have a readily accessible link showing data regarding the audible effects of additional amplification (beyond internal source amplifiers) with low impedance/high sensitivity headphones? I love learning, and good resources are invaluable. Your assistance is appreciated. 

The effects of amplification on low impedance high sensitivity transducers is well known, a low damping factor introduces distortion which could be audible with some combinations of high output impedance amps and sensitive phones http://www.head-fi.org/t/584606/headphones-amplifiers-0-ohm-output-impedance-and-misleading-specifications http://www.head-fi.org/t/582015/how-much-does-source-impedance-of-an-amp-alter-the-sound-of-a-headphone. If the amplifier does not introduce additional distortion, then the signal remains the same. So how can you improve on a (near)perfect signal reproduction?

You asked for data regarding audible effects, yet earlier you suggested that you were still looking for data which suggests audible improvement. I can't assist in finding data on an improvement until I understand what an improvement entails. It is in such inconsistencies that your logic veers off a bit.

Also, when I mentioned confirmation bias I should have expanded that to include the overall pattern of human cognition. See Shermer's "The Believing Brain".

Quote:

Originally Posted by anetode 

The effects of amplification on low impedance high sensitivity transducers is well known, a low damping factor introduces distortion which could be audible with some combinations of high output impedance amps and sensitive phones http://www.head-fi.org/t/584606/headphones-amplifiers-0-ohm-output-impedance-and-misleading-specifications http://www.head-fi.org/t/582015/how-much-does-source-impedance-of-an-amp-alter-the-sound-of-a-headphone. If the amplifier does not introduce additional distortion, then the signal remains the same. So how can you improve on a (near)perfect signal reproduction?

Thank you. Yes, those effects I am generally familiar with. I'll read through the links as well. 
 

Fair enough. I was working under the same line as the OP - looking for reasons why one might purchase an amp in such a situation. I do not know how "improvement" might be defined here other than to say a better audio experience (sound quality/headphone performance) over using a portable or computer based source with such a headphone. 

Love Michael Shermer. Have not had a chance to read this book yet but it is on the list. Thanks again.

I'm sorry, you're not going to get away defining an "improvement" in audio as something that is "better" and leaving it at that

:P

Improvements I would consider "better", would be cleaner square wave performance or possibly frequency response changes (so called "extension"). 

I do not think we have had any data that show those kinds of changes as a result of amping a low impedance/high sensitivity headphone vs. source headphone out. But I don't know if that has been rigorously tested either. And honestly, I don't know enough about the electrical engineering to know if that would even be possible. 

I should probably back the null hypothesis here. But my heart just isn't in it. So I'll remain skeptical but optimistic.