[TobaccoRoad]

Quote:

Ummm.... I don't believe I ever said the posts were "non comparison" - -  they are A/B comparisons, I titled the thread "Amp  A/B Comparisons."  So I'd have to say that... yeah, these are comparisons.

This made me laugh lol

 

[broc3]

First & foremost - Thank you milosz for a great contribution to this forum
 
Next - Since there seems to be some disagreement about the likelihood of an improved source impacting these comparisons, I wanted to throw my 2 cents in from a technical perspective ...
 
If one starts with the most basic of specifications on any of these systems, the frequency response curve, then there is a conceivable way for the source to mask an amp's shortcomings ... Try the following thought experiment
 
1) your source has a frequency response that drops some particular frequency (lets call it "A") below our perception
2) one amp has a perfectly flat response ... thus, when connected together, the listener does not hear frequency "A"
3) another amp has a frequency deficit at frequency "A", and the listener still doesn't hear frequency "A" when connected to the same source
 
In this scenario, the listening experience for both amps was the same, but the amp described in step "3" would be deficient relative to that in step "2".
 
This general reasoning can be extended to other characteristics with the end result being that for a particular deficit in an amp to go unnoticed relative to another one of 2 things needs to have happened
1) the amp's deficit needs to have aligned with the source's deficit
2) the difference was below the perception level of the person evaluating the conditions
 
Notice that I have only been discussing deficits ... If one imagines a deficit in one part of the source/amp pair aligning with a "sweetening" in the other part of the pair ... then we are probably getting into the synergy that is often discussed here.
 
Also, the deficits that I have been discussing yield effects that drop below our perception. Certain effects could only be masked by one component having a deficit near to the other such that the effect's impact on our perception is "smoothed" (picture non-linear phase delays for both systems ... place the non-linearity of the peaks near to each other so that the peak is broadened ... one effect of a non-linear phase delay is that one frequency will occur earlier or later in time relative to other frequencies)
 
The bottom line - Only if the source being used here has deficits that align/mask a deficit in one amp but not the other is there something being missed here (for the given observer).
 
I'll leave it to you to determine how likely this situation is and whether it would impact your listening experience.
 
Hopefully I haven't muddied the waters ... merely informed
 
Happy Listening!

 

[renlute]

Milosz, coming back to this thread after many weeks (and not wishing to wade through more than a dozen pages), I am curious if you've been asked how to make your A/B comparison device, or if you make copies for others? It sounds like a handy contraption for a person who has a serious headphone habit.

 

[milosz]

Quote:

im still waiting for the comparisons with the better DAC but same amps.  i might be stupid and brainwashed, but i think there will be a bigger difference in the b22 vs m3. but then again... one persons "minimal, small, barely, a tad, slightly" could be someone elses gold.

I have been remiss in not doing more on this thread.... kind of ran out of steam a little... also, during recent 22-inch snowfall here in Chicago the roof of my warehouse building partially collapsed from the weight of the snow and I've been a little distracted with repairs insurance dealings and so on.  No one hurt, and nothing much damaged; needed a new roof anyway but it's a time-consuming hassle.  Now that the contractors, structural engineer and attorney are all beavering away, I will leave most of this work in their capable hands and return to some fun.  I'll post a picture of the 50' x 35' hole in the roof that they've opened up as they rebuild, open to the sky, it's very odd to have this huge "sunroof" in my warehouse.  Well I've been wanting a convertible.... somehow I thought "putting the top down" would be more fun and glamorous, though.
 
Within the next week I will revisit the Beta 22-vs-(several other amps) using the DAC output from the Audio-Gd NFB10-ES  which is currently my best DAC and should, in theory, be better than the Cambridge DAC Magic / stock PSU that I've been using.  I'll also do an  A/B the Audio-Gd NFB10-ES DAC vs the Cambridge DAC Magic using the Beta 22 as the amplifier.

 

[debitsohn]

Sorry to hear about your building. I'm an insurance agent so I know how claims can be. If you have any questions about insurance. Pm me. Although the laws are different there are similarities. Hope everything works out!

 

[milosz]

Quote:

Sorry to hear about your building. I'm an insurance agent so I know how claims can be. If you have any questions about insurance. Pm me. Although the laws are different there are similarities. Hope everything works out!

Well, thank you kindly!  My business partner is an attorney, with experience with insurance issues; I think we will be OK.  They have not said they'd cover it, but the Insurance Co. did move swiftly to make sure we (or someone-) was dealing with the situation quickly so that MORE damage - or safety issues- wouldn't ensue.  They are quite responsive, which is good.  The worst is the stonewalling type of insurance company. "Insurance?  What insurance?  Did we write you a policy?"  type of thing, which is not the case here.  It will all come down to what exactly the policy covers and what the proximate cause of the roof failure was. The roof has to be fixed in any case; if the insurance covers it, that's grand.  If it's not covered we will negotiate- if that fails we will go to court and see where that takes us.

We just settled a case for another warehouse that burned down- a shared building where we rented 40,000 sq. ft. out of 1.5 million sq. ft. - that case took 10 years.  We went from "this loss isn't covered" to a check for $450,000.  Fun, fun, fun in small businessland.  -sigh-  Well I have to do SOMETHING with my time.....

 

[milosz]

 
Fourteenth A / B comparison:  Beta 22 & Fii0 E9  :: USING THE AUDIO-GD NFB-10ES AS THE SOURCE (instead of the earlier Cambridge DAC Magic)

 

THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC TEST.

 

The Audio-Gd NFB-10ES uses a newer-generation, more sophisticated DAC, and it uses all discrete analog stages instead of IC op amps like the DAC Magic.  In addition, the Audio-Gd NFB-10ES uses "boutique" capacitors whilst the DAC Magic uses garden-variety electrolytics in it's signal path.  On top of this, the power supply for the Audio-Gd NFB-10ES is much larger, much more sophisticated and more tightly regulated / lower impedance than the "wall wart" that powers the DAC Magic.  PLEASE NOTE THIS IS NOT A COMPARISON OF THE TWO DACs.  That will come later, in another thread.

 

LCD-2: I heard a slight difference in bass, with the Beta 22 delivering more texture. Both amps had good bass extension.  Midrange was identical as far as I could hear. I could hear a minor difference in treble, but I am hard pressed to characterize it because the difference was so small.

 

HD800:  These headphones, with their treble emphasis, pointed up the high frequency differences of these two amps more clearly.  The FiiO had a more romantic sounding top end, while the Beta 22 was clinical.  The Beta had greater transparency and you could "hear through" to the original recording more- for good or ill.  On some recordings a more honest presentation helped me hear flaws in the recording.  On such recordings, any harshness present in the original material was clearly audible through the Beta 22 to the HD800s.  If the original recording was fine and sweet, then it sounded that way on the HD800's through the Beta. The FiiO had that small amount of romantic lushness.  Bass texture was also better with the beta 22 on the HD800s but this was not as noticeable as with the LCD-2's; HD800s just don't have the bass performance of the planar 'phones, and so the richer texture from the Beta doesn't stand out as much as with the LCD-2's.

 

I can't comment on the sound of the DAC Magic vs. the NFB-10ES, as I did not compare them directly; that will come later, in another thread.  I will say that with the DAC Magic I heard minor differences in the bass and treble between these two amps.  And now with the NFB-10ES I again heard minor differences between the amps.  Using a better DAC did not point out glaring differences between these amps.  I would be prepared to say that I MIGHT have heard a little more difference in the amps using th NFB-10ES as a source, but that it is really hard to say if that's real or something based on preconceptions.

 

[olor1n]

With the differences being so slight between something like the E9 and higher end amps like the Beta22, it'd be interesting to see if you can perceive any differences at all between similarly priced "entry" level amps. E9 vs Fun's amp section (using NFB10 as dac) perhaps?
 
Also, with these comparisons, can you please describe other characteristics such as soundstage and dynamics? Are you omitting these observations because there is no difference?

 

[milosz]

I will be doing the FUN vs E9 on Thrusday. Amp section, and also a separate A/B of the E7 DAC vs the FUN DAC.

 

[olor1n]

Nice. I anxiously await your findings. To me there was an apparent difference between the E7's WM8740 (smaller soundstage, congested and less resolution) and the Fun's WM8741 + Earth (more transparent, more space and resolution). If your findings don't jive with mine I'll have my pitchfork ready.

 
My comparison was highly unscientific though with the E7 simply employed as usb dac and low impedance cans (M50 and MS-1i) plugged directly into it's headphone out vs usb into the Fun (therefore employing the Fun's more capable amp section). The easy to drive cans should have leveled the playing field somewhat... right?

 

[Currawong]

milosz: If you turn the volume up a bit higher than you usually listen, and put on some very complex music (big orchestral works and Shpongle are my picks, but there are others -- basically anything complex and fast), does the soundstage hold up equally well with both amps?  I've had similar impressions to what you wrote with wildly different gear just listening to music that wasn't complex, such as quite a bit of jazz where there is, most of the time a single instrument playing or a singer with accompaniment. 

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

 
Quote:

 
Fourteenth A / B comparison:  Beta 22 & Fii0 E9  :: USING THE AUDIO-GD NFB-10ES AS THE SOURCE (instead of the earlier Cambridge DAC Magic)
 
THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC TEST.
 
The Audio-Gd NFB-10ES uses a newer-generation, more sophisticated DAC, and it uses all discrete analog stages instead of IC op amps like the DAC Magic.  In addition, the Audio-Gd NFB-10ES uses "boutique" capacitors whilst the DAC Magic uses garden-variety electrolytics in it's signal path.  On top of this, the power supply for the Audio-Gd NFB-10ES is much larger, much more sophisticated and more tightly regulated / lower impedance than the "wall wart" that powers the DAC Magic.  PLEASE NOTE THIS IS NOT A COMPARISON OF THE TWO DACs.  That will come later, in another thread.
 
LCD-2: I heard a slight difference in bass, with the Beta 22 delivering more texture. Both amps had good bass extension.  Midrange was identical as far as I could hear. I could hear a minor difference in treble, but I am hard pressed to characterize it because the difference was so small.
 
HD800:  These headphones, with their treble emphasis, pointed up the high frequency differences of these two amps more clearly.  The FiiO had a more romantic sounding top end, while the Beta 22 was clinical.  The Beta had greater transparency and you could "hear through" to the original recording more- for good or ill.  On some recordings a more honest presentation helped me hear flaws in the recording.  On such recordings, any harshness present in the original material was clearly audible through the Beta 22 to the HD800s.  If the original recording was fine and sweet, then it sounded that way on the HD800's through the Beta. The FiiO had that small amount of romantic lushness.  Bass texture was also better with the beta 22 on the HD800s but this was not as noticeable as with the LCD-2's; HD800s just don't have the bass performance of the planar 'phones, and so the richer texture from the Beta doesn't stand out as much as with the LCD-2's.
 
I can't comment on the sound of the DAC Magic vs. the NFB-10ES, as I did not compare them directly; that will come later, in another thread.  I will say that with the DAC Magic I heard minor differences in the bass and treble between these two amps.  And now with the NFB-10ES I again heard minor differences between the amps.  Using a better DAC did not point out glaring differences between these amps.  I would be prepared to say that I MIGHT have heard a little more difference in the amps using th NFB-10ES as a source, but that it is really hard to say if that's real or something based on preconceptions.

milosz
 

 
 
Again, milosz has proven what I have been saying all this time, minor differences in neutral amps, as long as the power supplied to the headphones is adequate. It's just common sense, sense that this thread has brought out to the light. $130 holding up against an amp cost 10x+ Lol. Watch the haters come out of the woodwork.
 
Though I'm gonna be the getting the Lyr soon, I knew the E9 was a beast of an amp.

 
Watch, next thing someone is gonna say: "You need a $2000 DAC to REALLY bring out the Beta22's potential!". As if the same thing couldn't be said if the E9. Lol. Hopefully this will put haters to rest, though we all know people wanna justify all that hard earned money going to such high priced equipment.
 
I have been saying it time and time again, people pay for an amp's own signature and how it synergizes with their headphones. When you take out coloration away from the equation (by neutral amps), then suddenly the differences just don't warrant such a huge price gap.
 
This is why I'll be getting the Lyr and trying to pair it up with the most neutral tubes I can afford, that way it feeds enough power with any headphone I can throw at it without really altering the sound of my headphones. I don't expect much of an improvement if any on my D7000, but will HOPE it does outclass the E9 with my soon to come HE-4 after I get the Lyr sometime soon.
 
I'm not a soundstage or 'spatial depth' nut. I just wanna hear the music. Even if the soundstage was as tight as most Grados, I wouldn't deem it inferior. I want crisp, clear quality first, everything else comes after.

 

[Skylab]

With all due respect to both you and Milosz, you're overstating things by saying that his review "proves" anything.  I have been and remain a big supporter of this thread, and Milosz's excellent reviews and writing.  But the one and only thing that his reviews here "prove" is what he himself heard. 
 
Amps do not have to be expensive to be good, IMO.  I have spent most of my reviewing energy here on inexensive amps, in fact.  But saying that Milosz's findings "prove" things is more damaging to this thread than it is helpful.

 

[olor1n]

I agree with Skylab. You may unnecessarily be poking at the hive with that victory dance MLE. Tone it down a bit mate.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

I would expect neutral amps to sound very similar. By neutral I mean true to the original recording and not coloured. So clearly is you have various amps that are true to the original recording, they have to sound very similar. I find this thread backs up that along with a famous listening test reported in Stereo Review where no one could reliably pick out the different amps.
 
Milosz and Mad Lust Envy's experiences back that up. OK so that alone is not proof, but it is good evidence that many amps do not have the 'night and day' difference that is claimed so often on this forum. To be fair, such claims should also be asked to tone it down as well.