[FSonicSmith]

I hope this does not come across as a troll for it certainly is not intended to be one. It is more of an educated guess that I would appreciate some feedback (pun) on.
I have no training, education, or expertise in electronic engineering, but it seems to me that one of the pervasive myths about amplifiers is that they somehow "take control" of transducers. Reviewers, both amateur and professional perpetuate the myth by talking in terms of "grabbing hold of the bass" or "solidity and rock solid foundational underpinnings" and countless other descriptors that imply that somehow a particular amplifier under review succeeds where others have been deficient in taking control of the speakers or headphones, particularly with respect to bass. As just one example, and not to pick on Little Dot, but the ad for the Mark IV suggests that it can and will "drive them easily with effortless dynamics (45Vp-p!) , subterranean bass, cavernous soundstage, and precise 3-D imaging".

Unless some audio engineer cares to tell me that I am mistaken, I believe that only damping factor could theoretically have any role in controlling the transducer and damping factor comes into play very rarely in the real world, and particularly with headphones.
I bring this up because it seems that listeners post about being underwhelmed by their new headphone amps with some regularity over here and by and large, the source of their un-met expectations is with regard to low bass impact/slam/thunder, call it what you will. There appears to be this misconception that if only the "right amplifier" is purchased, suddenly the sound will be more dynamic and "alive". By and large, headphones will always lack the "slam" of loudspeakers as a factor of simple acoustics-reflected sound and room boundary interaction.
So again, I would appreciate any input as to whether or not others agree that by and large, many of us have unrealistic expectations as to what a well-designed headphone amp can and can not do.

 

[MaZa]

I sort of agree. There are too high expectations given to amplifiers, though they ARE important. Some headphone drivers have higher power requirements than others, but even then the differences are often small unless headphone/speaker is severely underpowered.

Amplifiers that alter the signal (sort of force EQ) by default is different story, but then they do stuff other than just amplification for reason or other. (high output impedance, parts of choice or just mere the way this amplifier circuit type works) Not all amplifiers sound same. Best amplifier is what has no sound at all though. It just amplifies linelevel signal volume without noise and distortion, and provide needed power to transducers.

 

[myinitialsaredac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FSonicSmith /img/forum/go_quote.gif I hope this does not come across as a troll for it certainly is not intended to be one. It is more of an educated guess that I would appreciate some feedback (pun) on. I have no training, education, or expertise in electronic engineering, but it seems to me that one of the pervasive myths about amplifiers is that they somehow "take control" of transducers. Reviewers, both amateur and professional perpetuate the myth by talking in terms of "grabbing hold of the bass" or "solidity and rock solid foundational underpinnings" and countless other descriptors that imply that somehow a particular amplifier under review succeeds where others have been deficient in taking control of the speakers or headphones, particularly with respect to bass. As just one example, and not to pick on Little Dot, but the ad for the Mark IV suggests that it can and will "drive them easily with effortless dynamics (45Vp-p!) , subterranean bass, cavernous soundstage, and precise 3-D imaging". Unless some audio engineer cares to tell me that I am mistaken, I believe that only damping factor could theoretically have any role in controlling the transducer and damping factor comes into play very rarely in the real world, and particularly with headphones. I bring this up because it seems that listeners post about being underwhelmed by their new headphone amps with some regularity over here and by and large, the source of their un-met expectations is with regard to low bass impact/slam/thunder, call it what you will. There appears to be this misconception that if only the "right amplifier" is purchased, suddenly the sound will be more dynamic and "alive". By and large, headphones will always lack the "slam" of loudspeakers as a factor of simple acoustics-reflected sound and room boundary interaction. So again, I would appreciate any input as to whether or not others agree that by and large, many of us have unrealistic expectations as to what a well-designed headphone amp can and can not do.

My question is, if the amplifier is not running power through the transducer and causing it to do work (absorb and release energy in the form of noise) then what is it doing?
Different amps have different measurable effects and statistics, it is very simple to see that they will act differently.

Dave

 

[olblueyez]

I think one problem is people seem to think there are only 3 parts to the equation. Source, Amp, and Headphones. I have learned through experimenting that more than 50 percent of what makes my system attractive to me came from tube rolling and finding the right cables and I can tell you that my expectations have been exceeded by a great deal. I had no idea my system would sound this good when I started all this, but it required patience and lots of reading and asking questions. If I had a dime for every time someone here at head-fi let impatience or a disbelief in things they don't understand keep them from achieving a really high level system I would be set for life. I think the language you speak of comes from people not always knowing how to frase what they are trying to convey and this causes people to say some crazy things if taken in a literal sense. "That amp really controls the bass", when I see that, to me it means the amp has plenty of power to drive the headphone or speaker. I have to disagree with Maza, when he says the best amp adds no color to the sound because everything in your system adds color to the music and you need to be able to tune your system so you are able to achieve exactly what your looking for, if you don't then the equipment gets to decide for you what sounds good, not you. This is where people end up swapping out amps and headphones to the point of being ridiculous. To me that is putting the cart in front of the horse. If only you could hear the bass I hear now. The impact you speak of is available in the right headphone system and your expectations can be exceeded but you need an open mind and enough patience to piece the system together without falling victim to people who swear cables cant make a difference and that a particular headphone can only sound one way. Skeptics are the cancer here at head-fi. On the flip side of that coin you need to weed out the "Too good to be true crowd", but it seems like you don't have a problem in that department, "Thundering Bass" bunch of bull.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FSonicSmith /img/forum/go_quote.gif I hope this does not come across as a troll for it certainly is not intended to be one. It is more of an educated guess that I would appreciate some feedback (pun) on. I have no training, education, or expertise in electronic engineering, but it seems to me that one of the pervasive myths about amplifiers is that they somehow "take control" of transducers. Reviewers, both amateur and professional perpetuate the myth by talking in terms of "grabbing hold of the bass" or "solidity and rock solid foundational underpinnings" and countless other descriptors that imply that somehow a particular amplifier under review succeeds where others have been deficient in taking control of the speakers or headphones, particularly with respect to bass. As just one example, and not to pick on Little Dot, but the ad for the Mark IV suggests that it can and will "drive them easily with effortless dynamics (45Vp-p!) , subterranean bass, cavernous soundstage, and precise 3-D imaging". Unless some audio engineer cares to tell me that I am mistaken, I believe that only damping factor could theoretically have any role in controlling the transducer and damping factor comes into play very rarely in the real world, and particularly with headphones. I bring this up because it seems that listeners post about being underwhelmed by their new headphone amps with some regularity over here and by and large, the source of their un-met expectations is with regard to low bass impact/slam/thunder, call it what you will. There appears to be this misconception that if only the "right amplifier" is purchased, suddenly the sound will be more dynamic and "alive". By and large, headphones will always lack the "slam" of loudspeakers as a factor of simple acoustics-reflected sound and room boundary interaction. So again, I would appreciate any input as to whether or not others agree that by and large, many of us have unrealistic expectations as to what a well-designed headphone amp can and can not do.

If you look at impedance curves, power requirements, as well as the different sonic signatures of various tubes, chips and circuit topologies, and add in the sensitivity and impedance curve of a headphone, you'll begin to see how different amps interact differently. If there's a large impedance bump in a headphones' curve, then a lesser amp might crap out during the increased power requirement while a more powerful one would sail through it. Think of it as the difference between driving a golf cart through a mountain pass as opposed to a Corvette. Sure, they both go along on flat ground, but climbing 4,000 feet would reveal large differences in power. You'll find the exact same thing with amps - aim for overkill so you can sail through transients without much trouble.

Amps are different, though they might not meet an ideal, as some here seem to argue that all ideal amps must sound the same, but that non-ideal amps should be excluded because they sound different. Considering that no amp is ideal, then their own logic proves that amps sound different. Further, you can easily check the differences between amps on an oscilloscope and/or spectrum analyzer. You can overlay the results from two of them and point out the differences. It's not snakeoil.

If you can get to a meet, you really should. Take your headphones and plug them into as many amps as you want. You will hear differences.

 

[MaZa]

Quote:

I have to disagree with Maza, when he says the best amp adds no color to the sound because everything in your system adds color to the music and you need to be able to tune your system so you are able to achieve exactly what your looking for, if you don't then the equipment gets to decide for you what sounds good.

To clarify, I was speaking only from theoretical standpoint what is the job of amplifier and what it shouldnt do, theoretically. But audiophile hobby doesnt really follow those ideals. Tube and opamp rolling is only one example what people do to get different sound colorations from their sources or amplifiers to gain better synergy with their headphones. This is the thing I have done plentily with my KECES and Little Dot MkIII too, with pleasing results. Though in the end, I prefer my amplifier as colorless as possible with tons of power and low output impedance (and Stello HP100 delivers all that), and leave the coloring job for my source and EQ (latter only when needed). Looking forward for Stello DAC which should have good and strong bass, should be great synergy with my rather bright albeit punchy headphones. Im not all into all-flatness: I hated K701s grey and lifeless sound for example.

But still, people give eenyweeny bit too much attention for amplifiers, and dissapointment threads show this. Though from what I have seen, often their sources dont really give those amps a justice. GIGO.

 

[intoart]

I do think that amps make a difference, but not nearly as much difference as the manufacturers would like us to believe!
I prefer my I+ to my integrated amp, but not by a wide margin (and I could easily go back.)

 

[FSonicSmith]

Quote:

Originally Posted by intoart /img/forum/go_quote.gif I do think that amps make a difference, but not nearly as much difference as the manufacturers would like us to believe! I prefer my I+ to my integrated amp, but not by a wide margin (and I could easily go back.)

Yes, amps make a difference, and they do sound differently from one another. The better the source and the better everything is down-slope from the amp, the more difference you can hear. But that is not the point. I also don't think this mistaken concept of amplifier "control" is something perpetuated primarily by manufacturers (despite my quoting LD). Primarily, it seems to simply be a misperception of we-I do not exclude myself-enthusiasts.
In my home set-up, I have a McCormack DNA .5 and a McCormack DNA-1 that are both modded to the max by Steve McCormack. My loudspeakers (kind of interesting that "loudspeakers" always sounded so antiquated a term until you talk of cans) are not particularly hard to drive; B+W Matrix 805s. The two amps ought to sound nearly identical but they don't sound alike at all. The lower powered .5 sounds a bit sweeter and up-front, with less soundstage depth. The higher powered DNA-1 lacks the sparkle and creamy smooth presentation of the .5, but I like it just as much for it's difference in perspective. The bass sounds different with the two, but one is not more "powerful sounding" than the other. As someone else already pointed out above, unless the speakers-or cans-present a difficult load to drive-the differences in sound are a matter of perspective or presentation or "sound signature" but have nothing to do with "gripping the speakers" or "taking control". PRAT fans know this too, by and large. PRAT is independant of power.
I guess to distill it down to the essence, most of us think of transducers as pistonic servos so it seems intuitive to imagine that if we get a better designed amp the amp will more precisely seize hold of the transducers creating better sound. That is not what amps do in real life.

 

[mbd2884]

In my very short and newbie journey with Amps/DAC.

1). Buy the headphones that sound good to you. Don't depend on an DAC/Amp to make it sound good.

2). Source is most important after. It will determine how it will sound.

3). Amplifier is least of my concern. Only reason to upgrade is example for me, to get the Reference 3 DAC, I would upgrade to C2C amp because I want to take advantage of the CAST technology. If my current amplifier was CAST, then I wouldn't upgrade.

While I can't comment on Tube amps and such, I find them amusing to read, as people needing to switch tubes to make headphones sound good. Just proves to me many Head-Fiers are not interested in a neutral sound and listening to the recording as artist intended, but rather how they think recording should sound.

For me, hearing what the musician wants me to hear is the most important part in a neutral system.

Once I find a more neutral headphone than the AD900 and have funds for them, I will be making the switch. But I am not delusional in thinking I will have the perfect neutral system, but I will get as close as I can. And within my budget, I believe I have made the right choices so far. Reason I have no real interest in Tubes at all, not interested in hearing this distortion causing more "real" sound, which are meaningless to me as I read those postings.

 

[Sw33t.Shuga.Ray]

^^^mbd2884
what made you sell your d2000 over the ad900? curious coz I was actually eyeing Denons
+what would the hd650 do better?

/end threadjack

 

[The Monkey]

source first.

 

[Aimless1]

x2 ^^^

 

[peanuthead]

Headphones first, as long as you have a "decent" source. For me, most "bang for the buck" comes from the headphones. I'd rather listen to 128 AAC files from iPod with Denon D2000 than high-end source/amp with iBuds.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbd2884 /img/forum/go_quote.gif In my very short and newbie journey with Amps/DAC. 1). Buy the headphones that sound good to you. Don't depend on an DAC/Amp to make it sound good. 2). Source is most important after. It will determine how it will sound. 3). Amplifier is least of my concern. Only reason to upgrade is example for me, to get the Reference 3 DAC, I would upgrade to C2C amp because I want to take advantage of the CAST technology. If my current amplifier was CAST, then I wouldn't upgrade. While I can't comment on Tube amps and such, I find them amusing to read, as people needing to switch tubes to make headphones sound good. Just proves to me many Head-Fiers are not interested in a neutral sound and listening to the recording as artist intended, but rather how they think recording should sound. For me, hearing what the musician wants me to hear is the most important part in a neutral system. Once I find a more neutral headphone than the AD900 and have funds for them, I will be making the switch. But I am not delusional in thinking I will have the perfect neutral system, but I will get as close as I can. And within my budget, I believe I have made the right choices so far. Reason I have no real interest in Tubes at all, not interested in hearing this distortion causing more "real" sound, which are meaningless to me as I read those postings.

How do you know what is "neutral"? Doesn't the notion that you don't want a tube amp because it will push the system's sound away from neutral, beg the question, i.e., how do you know a tube amp doesn't get you closer to neutral by compensating for the "distortions" that exist in the other components in the system (to oversimplify a little)?

In any event, the notion that "Head-Fi'ers" are not interested in neutral sound is just false.

And, furthermore, the statements in bold are somewhat contradicted by the statement in item 1), and possibly 2) as well, that one should pick the headphone (and maybe source) that "sound good to you." What about "neutrality"?

With all due respect, a little bit of knowledge, and a little bit of presumptuousness, can lead others astray.

 

[intoart]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monkey /img/forum/go_quote.gif source first.

Yes and no. Yes, you need a good source. These days, however, almost any CD or DVD player is a good source, even the cheap ones.
(I cannot address mp3s or computer files, however, since I know nothing about them. I only listen to CDs.)