Amps are overated?
Jan 18, 2007 at 10:02 PM Post #106 of 252
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chef Medeski /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Then I plugged my HF-1s into my computer to hear some old school Beatles. And you no what. It blew me away. This is what I use to love, the detail and quality. The amazing sound. This blew me away in the beginning with buying great headphones. The almost ear-gasm. Then it never returned and I guess I searched for amps to allow me to hear again. Yet to no prevail. Suddenly its the crappy headphone out of my computer making me hear and feel the vibe.


I think you are temporary in love with the "Apple way of coloring the music"...
 
Jan 18, 2007 at 10:02 PM Post #107 of 252
Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicomte /img/forum/go_quote.gif
And as for Coltrane's philosophization... absolute truth is a lie. Perception is all any of us can ever have.


I agree.

"We do not see the world as it is. We see the world as we are."
--- the Talmud

I love this quote. May put it in my sig.
 
Jan 18, 2007 at 11:40 PM Post #108 of 252
Quote:

Originally Posted by eddystoner /img/forum/go_quote.gif
A really a horrible headphone unamped will sound horrible even with a amp. So i agree with the comment that the souce or headphone give greater results. Without a good source or headphone an amp is a waste of money. I lean more toward having a better headphone than souce when talking about DAP's. This is just my experience....

I would also say this was a catch 22 .



This isn't always true. The AKG K1000 are unique headphones that require LOTS of power and so more modest amps simply can't give them the juice they require to sound decent. Therefore, if one listens with an under performing amp, these $1200 phones are going to sound like rubbish and one will wonder why they get just accolades. Similarly, the Grado HP-1000's can sound rather dull and lifeless without an amp that provides quite a bit of current. Of all the dynamic headphones around, the HP-1000's are said to require the most current to perform. Therefore, again, if the amp is under performing, one won't get all these headphones are capable of.

It's not a black and white situation, but common sense does play a role. If something needs < 2mW to work, and an amp provides 5+ with ample current, then really, is an amp necessary? Perhaps for flavouring...perhaps for greater control over the volume range and perhaps to lower the noise floor, but overall the phones should be powered well enough.

Too many people speak in hyperbole on this site. I'm sure I'm guilty of that at one time or another as well. The key will be to understand that everything comes in grades.

For most people, SS amps will sound the same. IF one isn't familiar with certain sonic traits, they may miss them on first or 100th listen. For someone looking, the added benefits of one over the other might be such that the person is willing to pay large for those subtle but audible differences. More accurate imaging, wider soundstage, more clairity etc.

One excellent example of moderation is the site Good Cans (www.goodcans.com) They are big Grado fans and they have reviews of most of the phones in the line-up. They once remarked that the SR60's are 85% of the RS-1's. (this and the hot rating by Headroom pushed me over the edge in my decision to buy SR60's back in '97). Now, are the SR60's 85% of the RS-1's? Maybe even 90's? There is a good chance that a whole lotta people would think they might be closer to 100% on first listen. On second listen they may notice that indeed the soundstage is quite a bit larger with the RS-1's, the treble is more controled, there is more resolution across the board and the tone and timbre of instruments is more bang on. But these are subtleties that only those willing to go right after and spend the cash for, will perhaps want or require. Perhaps for others, they won't notice the difference without better equipment that can offer the RS-1's the extra to display.

It's like listening to two performances of the same piece. To an untrained ear, one might remark they sound the same. It is after all, the same music being heard. But to someone who is familiar with classical, one might note that there is quite a difference between conductors let alone full orchestras. A von Karajan conducted piece will sound markedly different than a Ozawa piece to those that are capable of recognizing the differences in styles, even if these two folks were conducting the same orchestra and even though Ozawa trained under von Karajan. So is the difference dramatic or not? To some they would argue yes, but really it is more subtle than that, but the grades one places on those subtleties could mean a world of difference. The same can be said for wine...cigars...cuisine...practically everythnig once someone knows what to look for.

With amps it becomes tricky as many feel in the world of headphone audio, of the big three: source, amp and headphones, the amp plays the least significant role. Others don't feel that, and still others would argue it depends on whether it is tube and ss. The safest bet then for an onlooker who can't afford to test out everything or venture out to a meet, is to read longer term and note the consensus, note any issues with the amps, note the other components folks use, note their listening preferences and also try to find out their own experience. This makes buying a little safer.
 
Jan 19, 2007 at 1:18 AM Post #109 of 252
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tantra /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I think you are temporary in love with the "Apple way of coloring the music"...


That could be true. Any word on what type of sound signature this is exactly so I can look for components with similar traits but better sound.
 
Jan 19, 2007 at 1:27 AM Post #110 of 252
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chef Medeski /img/forum/go_quote.gif
That could be true. Any word on what type of sound signature this is exactly so I can look for components with similar traits but better sound.


From all reports...the iPod is said to be a very linear source/amp. So...if you don't dig the Tomahawk, it isn't as linear as the Apple. Ultra High Fidelity Magazine out of Montreal and Stereophile both remark that the iPod iPhoto was very linear, excellent right out of the jack and competed at least with $1000 USD RBCD players. I have read reviews by pro reviewers who used Etys and Shures to test with and they loved the sound.
 
Jan 19, 2007 at 1:48 AM Post #111 of 252
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth /img/forum/go_quote.gif
From all reports...the iPod is said to be a very linear source/amp. So...if you don't dig the Tomahawk, it isn't as linear as the Apple. Ultra High Fidelity Magazine out of Montreal and Stereophile both remark that the iPod iPhoto was very linear, excellent right out of the jack and competed at least with $1000 USD RBCD players. I have read reviews by pro reviewers who used Etys and Shures to test with and they loved the sound.


Oh from an iPod. I was using my Laptop output. Its an Apple. Havent listened closely to the iPod out.
 
Jan 19, 2007 at 2:11 AM Post #112 of 252
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chef Medeski /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Oh from an iPod. I was using my Laptop output. Its an Apple. Havent listened closely to the iPod out.


Hmm, out of my old Powerbook G4 and my new Macbook Pro...both were quite bright, and brittle sounding.
 
Jan 19, 2007 at 2:19 AM Post #113 of 252
Quote:

Originally Posted by cerbie /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Just sticky it, already!

As someone who will likely never get anything with four digits to the price tag (go budget-fi!), I found an amp, portable, even, to treat upgraditis so far (I will make no predictions for the future on that front). Its total is now about $200 (amp, batteries, added opamps/buffers), and it made things fun to listen to again. I would not consider getting a non-portable headphone amp, too (even though I mostly do desktop listening).

There are too many potential subtleties to make any blanket statement on whether an amp is worth it or not. Let us just accept this. I've got friends who can't tell the slightest bit of difference from mine, even though it was night and day the first time I plugged my cheapo Kosses in--to me.

I've even found that synergy thing now, with my DAP, using a non-default opamp.

Variables that can influence a judgement, off the top of my head:
1. Placebo: it's new, shiny (or matte, but cool looking), good.
2. Price placebo: you don't want something expensive to be bad. Hello, Bose.
3. FOT(M|W|D) syndrome: see #1, but with added social pressure.
4. Source: how good are you feeding it?
5. Cans: how much do they need it?
6. Ears/Brain: how much difference will you hear v. someone else? IoW, what are you listening to that someone else may not be, and what are you not listening to that someone else may be.
7. Synergy and whatever-an-antithesis-of-synergy-is: how does your equipment work together on top of each parts own qualities?
8. Specific wants: that tubey sound, dark, bright, artificially reduce emphasis on sibilance for badly done music, etc..

Surely even that doesn't scratch the surface.

Buy something you can sell easily, and/or from a source of good repute with a good return policy. The quality of the amp odes not necessarily have a causal correlation with how well you will perceive its performance and/or value (FI, my comparison on value is, "how many albums I have queued up to buy does it cost?"). Likewise, quality of sources and even headphones does not necessarily have that kind of relationship in so far as how much the amp will help. You'll just have to Try It And See (with the original concept recording only, of course!
wink.gif
).

I don't doubt the nice expensive amps, power supplies, headphones, and maybe even cables, are worth it to those who use them, and I'm sure some of you are hearing real differences. But the perception is what matters, so those differences you hear are not less real than the lack of them to someone else. That remains true whether you allow for placebo or not.



Cerbie summed it up perfectly.
 
Jan 19, 2007 at 2:39 AM Post #114 of 252
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Hmm, out of my old Powerbook G4 and my new Macbook Pro...both were quite bright, and brittle sounding.


Yup. Got a PowerBook G4, last rev.

And a first rev. PowerMac G3. I liked the PowerMac better.
plainface.gif


Hmm... maybe thats why I like the Etys. I dont know.... I really love hearing the details in the mids and stuff. Ohh wait thats why I liked the Etys.
 
Jan 19, 2007 at 3:22 AM Post #115 of 252
Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicomte /img/forum/go_quote.gif
And as for Coltrane's philosophization... absolute truth is a lie. Perception is all any of us can ever have.


Absolute truth is of course unachievable. But that doesn't mean it isn't something we should strive for.
 
Jan 19, 2007 at 4:22 AM Post #118 of 252
Quote:

Originally Posted by Coltrane /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Absolute truth is of course unachievable. But that doesn't mean it isn't something we should strive for.


Here is my stance on that. You have to assume that absolute truth is achievable in order to continually strive to achieve it. But yes, its unachievable. The importance like you say is striving for it but its more heartening if you think your getting somewhere. Its like a limit in calculus. Such a point such as at infinity might not exist, but in order to find out what it could be or should be we analyze what numbers are there before and where this is leading to. This is the conceptual limit and this is what me must strive for. And by believing its true, we can figure out much greater truths using it. The Limit Theory is the basis of calculus, without it we couldnt do any of Modern Physics. However, technically..... the limit at infinity doesnt exist.
 
Jan 19, 2007 at 4:40 AM Post #120 of 252
I'd like to chime in by saying that my brand new HD580s (these things are still 300 ohms, right?) can be driven perfectly fine out of my iPod's headphone jack. (Doesn't mean I won't be putting that iPod line out and headphone amp to use, though, once they get here.)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top