Beyerdynamic DT 880 Pro amping query

The Kenwood will drive the DT880; the question is how well it will suit its characteristics. You say you're more than satisfied with the Beyer's performance, so what are you using now?

 

 

(1977. Yikes, that's an old amp. Are you really set on a vintage amp?)

Nothing technical about it. The Beyer is 250 ohms, which is a mid-range load pretty much designed to be driven by anything. I have the Pro so I know it's a quite efficient model. When I mentioned characteristics I meant that the DT880 can sound overly bright with the wrong amp; you certainly don't need a bright amp. At least your Kenwood will have tone controls, so we're off to a good start there.

 

I'm not sure who told you that most vintage amps are incredible sounding. I've been in hi-fi since 1967 so I'm well acquainted with many of those amps and I can assure you there were some absolute shockers back then--which is the reason NAD did so well with the original 3020 amp, which changed the face of solid state budget amps (Google it). Even currently respected names like Rotel made horrible amps back then, something most people have forgotten. I have no idea what your amp sounds like but those specs are not terribly impressive, and to be honest if you haven't already committed to this amp I wouldn't--you'd be far happier in the long run with the Marantz, which unusually for a modern amp has a phono input. 

 

Sorry if that's not what you wanted to hear but it's my best advice. Even if the Kenwood sounds marvelous it's unlikely to be reliable in the long run, nor particularly serviceable. I would also question your apparent bias toward analogue (English spelling) as there's nothing inherently superior about it. I buried my turntable in the back garden soon after the advent of CD and haven't looked back. I don't know what your musical taste is but I think you'd be far better to either buy a decent CD player (Marantz again?) or think about quality downloads from iTunes etc. Much less hassle.

 

Here endeth the lesson.

I can't comment on the quality of most CDs today as I listen exclusively to classical/orchestral music, which tends to be recorded quite well (or at least, without distortion). I know those into rock/pop often complain about over-modulation leading to distortion, so your complaint about modern CDs probably has some substance. However, I still maintain CDs have inherently lower distortion and certainly vastly greater potential than anologue. Don't worry about frequency response; it sounds like you're repeating something you've read about the limitations of Redbook (cds). In reality good recordings on CD are capable of an astonishly low distortion and great fidelity. LPs are an outmoded medium plagued with various inherent problems like tracking distortion, inner groove distortion, pre-echo, post-echo...the list goes on (and that's without mentioning surface noise). They are a medium for those who want to fiddle as opposed to those who want to just listen to music.

 

Of course, if you to simply go for quality downloads for your main system as well as your ipod the problem of LPs v. CDs would go away. You could just use a media player, as I do.

 

On the subject of the Kenwood/Marantz issue, I appreciate that you have a budget, we all do, but so often I've stuck to my budget, bought something I really didn't like and ended up re-selling it and getting what I wanted in the first place, at overall greater cost. That's when you really blow your budget. You soon forget the few dollars extra you had to spend, but if you have to live with something you don't like...

 

Incidentally you've made a good choice with the DT880. You'll be hard put to find speakers as good.

I suspect CD's may have better performance only if you can afford a state of the art kilobuck system. At under $1000 I think a decent turntable setup is better. At least that is my experience.

Joshua

Well, I think that's sheer nonsense, but hey, we're all entitled..etc.

Edited by pp312 - 2/1/13 at 10:23pm

It may Also be an issue of how things are mastered on different mediums too. Certain things have sounded alot more dynamic on records vs CD's to me. Sort of like the difference between tube amps and solid state. I certainly don't believe records are outdated technology, but they are more fiddly. I'm not a fan of mp3's at all. I use them due to my tight budget but that's the only reason. Audio today is like fast food, people care more about quantity and convenience and are ever more satisfied with mediocrity. I prefer a gourmet meal that takes hours to fix and lots of practice to get it right. The resulting meal is alot more satisfying and potentially much better.

 

Most headphones back then where 600 Ohm if I recall correctly.

 

A TOTL line amp, in spec and serviced, will not really sound much different than a TOTL amp from today. 

 

Many vintage receivers, like Marantz, feature a "warmer" sound signature. I guess many amps are tuned to the manufacturers "house/signature" sound.

 

I have a complete stereo setup, incl. speakers from the end of seventies. It sounds very, very nice. In the photo the tuner and pre have been replaced by the Technics Pro Series from 77.

 

Technics Pro Series 1977: RS-1506 // 2x SE-9060 // SU-9070 // SH-9010 // SH-9020 // ST-9030 // M85 // SL-BL3 with AT into SB-6000

 

Amps:

 

 

Don't hate on old gear. It can be a lot of fun! And the headphone output on it sound very clean and powerful, totally uncolored and drives my 880 600 into eardrum shattering levels.

 

 

 

Edited by ev13wt - 2/2/13 at 7:38pm

 

It's not a question of hating on old gear, but of recognising that not everything from years ago was wonderful. I've owned a hell of a lot of stuff from that period so I know what sounded good. Luxman sounded good, but was generally expensive (I had an L100 amp, which cost then about $1200). Some Marantz sounded good, but some didn't. Rotel sounded lousy until they decided to go the NAD route. If your technics sounds good then fine, but it has good specs, whereas the Kenwood the OP cited has pretty lousy specs. Also with vintage gear there's the question of maintenance. Not much good getting something cheap if you have to replace half the transistors, and of course if the transformer goes you're up that well known creek. I'm just not sure that for someone just getting into hi fi vintage is the way to go.    

 

Fully agreed. On Technics from the beginning of the 80's and up, only some of top gear was really good. Sadly, Technics (like others) went the way of cheap components and plastic. So a lot of older Technics gear is really only mid-fi.

 

Some select components are very nice. The A1/A2 combo and A3-MK2 come to mind quickly.