[blue4n3]

I was using my ipod video and decided to do some blind test between the headphone jack and my Supermacro v6 (stock config). I didnt notice alot of diff. I used the UM2 ad E4c. There was a slight difference, but not a 350 dollar diff. To me the soundstage and air was the biiggest diff. All files are lossless from original CD.
My question is this: Is something wrong in my set up (pocket dock via RNB cable to amp) or is the ipod really that weak of a source? I am also looking for anyone who has auditioned the two to give me any feedback on their experience (with any amp) on the differences they noticed. Just trying to improve my critical listening

Neil

 

[l_simon_l]

Maybe the ipod headphone out is enough to drive your phones decently. If it is, then the amp won't make such a big difference.

 

[Cousin Patty]

Does an ipod have a line out? If so, amp that instead of the headphone jack. The line out on my iRiver sounds way better than the headphone jack when amped.

 

[bahamaman]

I find that running line out of my iPod to my SR-71 offers noteworthy improvements - not in the "OMG!" category, but improvements in tightness, sparkle, soundstage, impact, etc.

Since you seem to be running line out as well, using high quality components in the signal path, I seriously doubt there is something wrong with your set-up. What I imagine is that, after reading extensively on head-fi about the advantages of amping the iPod, you quite logically expected more improvement than you got.

Unfortunately, hyperbole can run rampant around these parts and it is easy for people to suffer disappointment when that next upgrade doesn't seem to transport them to audio nirvana.

 

[NotJeffBuckley]

The majority of amp impact, especially with less expensive amplifiers, is just equal output signal across the frequency spectrum capable of properly driving the headphones without the op-amp clipping and without the headphone not having enough voltage/current for driver excursion.

Lack of output current on less sensitive low impedance headphones can cause bass frequencies to be improperly reproduced. Lack of voltage swing on high impedance headphones can clip the op-amp and won't excurse the drivers.

 

[deathsharp]

I'm kinda in the same boat here.
I just got my Hornet for my HD580, and for the first few hours, I was like "not much difference".
Hearing how these cans really need an amp, I expected a major improvement, like going from my ipod earbuds to Etys.

However, the more I listen to this amp, the more I see improvements and the more I like it.

I think I just need some time to appreciate the quality of having amp.
I'll listen to the amp at least for a month before saying anything definitive.

 

[atx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue4n3 I was using my ipod video and decided to do some blind test between the headphone jack and my Supermacro v6 (stock config). I didnt notice alot of diff. I used the UM2 ad E4c. There was a slight difference, but not a 350 dollar diff. To me the soundstage and air was the biiggest diff. All files are lossless from original CD.

I use a go-vibe with my um2 and to me the difference was big enough to justify carrying the amp. It's not worth $350 but the go-vibe only cost me $70.

Quote:

Hearing how these cans really need an amp, I expected a major improvement, like going from my ipod earbuds to Etys.

No cans really need an amp- otherwise Sennheiser would've include an amp with the headphones. "These cans really need an amp" is a blanket statement coming from people who already own amps and paid big bucks for them-- you gotta justify that spending somehow.

 

[Beauregard]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue4n3 I was using my ipod video and decided to do some blind test between the headphone jack and my Supermacro v6 (stock config). ...

It's an established audio phenomenon that blind comparisons are never as dramatic as sighted ones. A person can save a lot of money in this hobby by doing blind evaluations during money-back trial periods.

 

[blue4n3]

I have had my amp for 3 months. There is a difference, moreso with my AKG 240M (600ohms), than with my IEM. I am thinking now that IEM dont really NEED an amp to shine. I do notice the bass is more focused, and there is that extra 5% clarity. maybe a little more air as well with IEMs. During complex passages the amp keeps things properly clear and seperated, the ipod does get a bit congested. I just hope that it isnt my mind playing tricks on me.

LOL-true, blind test can drive a man insane.

 

[blue4n3]

ATX, what are some of the diff. u notice?

 

[Beauregard]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue4n3 ... I just hope that it isnt my mind playing tricks on me. LOL-true, blind test can drive a man insane.

I think one ends up saner, as well as richer, if he maintains a healthy skepticism in this business. Unfortunately, it seems to be the case in the world of hi-end audio that a person somehow manages to lose his critical thinking skills in the process of developing his critical listening skills...

 

[sxr71]

IMHO an amp makes a significant difference even into the ER-4S even with the iPod as a source. When the source is upgraded to something much better than an iPod the difference is quite pronounced.

 

[atx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue4n3 ATX, what are some of the diff. u notice?

I'm using 627 in the go-vibe. The most important difference for me was the 'fullness' of the sound and excellent decay (a trait of the opamp). The decay is like speaking in a small cave-- not echoey, but lingers just long enough to give the sound emphasis and a sense of 'space'. Going back to the headphone jack, that extra 'space' disappears -- making the sound flatter and hollower, having the same volume but less body.

The tonality ( the proportion between lows, mids, highs ) is almost identical-- so if your ears are accustomed to tonality changes (e.g. EQ manipulation), you won't find much difference. I think this is why some people don't like the 627- they're expecting tonal changes..

BTW, I also have an SR71-- but the default gain is way too high for the UM2 /w iPod lineout so that the volume is uneven. However, from my listening experience, the difference is well worth the $400 cost of the amp. With the sr71, any trace of the UM2's treble roll off is gone-- the bass, for which the UM2 is a tad 'sloppy' (almost 'muddy' if you use foams), tightens up and gathers a mean punch. The sr71 also adds that 'spacious' sound, just like the 627, but the decay rate is different. It's faster, and the sound is somewhat thinner, farther, and distant (a very different experience with my portaphile 2). Unlike the cheaper go-vibe, the sound fidelity improves very noticeably-- everything sounds cleaner and clearer (this is where the difference between a $80 and a $400 amp lie). Despite the sr71's clear superiority, the characteristic that I like most about the 627 is not present.

Anyway, my last supermacro was a v1, and like you, I had the same "this is not worth $350" thought-- I'm curious if the v6 is much improved, but never had the opportunity to get one used at a good price.

 

[blue4n3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beauregard I think one ends up saner, as well as richer, if he maintains a healthy skepticism in this business. Unfortunately, it seems to be the case in the world of hi-end audio that a person somehow manages to lose his critical thinking skills in the process of developing his critical listening skills...

This is true. Mind you that I have a cold so my ears arent at their best, but I justs compared the ipod buds to my e4c, and there was a difference. The price difference? well i dont think that the price difference justifies the sound difference. Unfortunately, I'm spoiled now and the little change that i percieve makes a big improvement over the stock buds. I have learned a lesson though... when audiophiles say there is a HUGE difference, it implies there is a subtle difference.

 

[blue4n3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by atx I'm using 627 in the go-vibe. The most important difference for me was the 'fullness' of the sound and excellent decay (a trait of the opamp). The decay is like speaking in a small cave-- not echoey, but lingers just long enough to give the sound emphasis and a sense of 'space'. Going back to the headphone jack, that extra 'space' disappears -- making the sound flatter and hollower, having the same volume but less body. The tonality ( the proportion between lows, mids, highs ) is almost identical-- so if your ears are accustomed to tonality changes (e.g. EQ manipulation), you won't find much difference. I think this is why some people don't like the 627- they're expecting tonal changes.. BTW, I also have an SR71-- but the default gain is way too high for the UM2 /w iPod lineout so that the volume is uneven. However, from my listening experience, the difference is well worth the $400 cost of the amp. With the sr71, any trace of the UM2's treble roll off is gone-- the bass, for which the UM2 is a tad 'sloppy' (almost 'muddy' if you use foams), tightens up and gathers a mean punch. The sr71 also adds that 'spacious' sound, just like the 627, but the decay rate is different. It's faster, and the sound is somewhat thinner, farther, and distant (a very different experience with my portaphile 2). Unlike the cheaper go-vibe, the sound fidelity improves very noticeably-- everything sounds cleaner and clearer (this is where the difference between a $80 and a $400 amp lie). Despite the sr71's clear superiority, the characteristic that I like most about the 627 is not present. Anyway, my last supermacro was a v1, and like you, I had the same "this is not worth $350" thought-- I'm curious if the v6 is much improved, but never had the opportunity to get one used at a good price.

I did notice this. The decay and space (air as i think of it) is substantially better using the Macro. now that you said this, I find that I am "seeing" the improvement alot more! Cheers!!