Creek OBH-11, am I deaf?

Jun 21, 2008 at 4:54 PM Post #16 of 34
Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The power supply is fundamental to amplification. If your power supply sags or doesn't deliver, the amp circuit won't sound good. The capacitors and transformers you use make a significant difference.


Well yeah, thats why I said that more power was a reason to upgrade your PSU.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif
If you want to go further, things like tube versus solid state rectification make a noticeable difference. Same with whether you regulate the supply, and that can be done via tube or solid state, as well. It's common for designers to go through several schemes before finding one that "sounds right."


The stock power supply for the OBH-11 is unregulated, the upgrade is regulated. Even so there just wasn't a huge difference in the character of the amp. The amps SQ increased throughout the entire spectrum and there was a reduction noise but there wasn't a wow moment at least for me.
 
Jun 21, 2008 at 8:02 PM Post #17 of 34
Back to the OP, what are you using to connect, a mini to rca cable? Depending on your soundcard, that isn't going to sound that great. And, nope, no different than just plugging in the HP to the card. What you wanted was a dac or dac/amp combo for an upgrade in sound quality. I think this is what the guy was referring to, is that correct?
 
Jun 21, 2008 at 8:57 PM Post #18 of 34
If your amp is new, you may require a few hours of burn-in time before you notice much more than loudness. Every amp I've ever had needed a lot of time before the benefits were apparent, and I always had the "What? this amp doesn't do anything" feeling the first time. My MKV took around 50 hours before I noticed anything at all, 100 hours for the improvements to imaging, soundstage, dynamics, and detail to be easily discernable, and around 150 for me to consider it "almost done".
 
Jun 21, 2008 at 10:34 PM Post #19 of 34
Quote:

Originally Posted by tfarney /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I know this is not the case. I know that it is, rather, hyperbolic reporting of the effects of the latest acquisition of the over-enthusiastic.


Thanks genuis. You really have mastered the art of the back handed double whammy insult haven't you? In your short time have been here you presume to know anything and everything there is about headphone audio and that your rediculously-insane post rate (don't you have anything better to do with your life?) has somehow given you godly insight into anything audio and the expense of all others.

I trust my own ears implicitely and I don't need people such as yourself - especially you it would seem - to tell I am imagining improvements in things that you would seemingly argue are little more than a placebo effect.

I stand 100% by that comparison I made, yet you've just shot it right down the drain. Have you heard an XCan v3 with a wall wart? And have you heard an XCan v3 with a Little Pinkie? And have you heard an XCan v3 with an IPod shuffle as the source? And have you heard an XCan v3 with a Sony DAT machine as the source? Yeh, right...Don't you think - at the very flippin' least - you ought to have had had all four combinations sitting right there on the table before shooting your itchy fingers off and insulting my opinion?

I have honestly had enough of this place - if I can't get any respect here for my opinions then I no longer be posting or visiting any more. Well leave to the experts such as yourself instead, eh?

Bye (for good).
 
Jun 22, 2008 at 1:19 AM Post #20 of 34
Quote:

Originally Posted by ADD /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Thanks genuis. You really have mastered the art of the back handed double whammy insult haven't you? In your short time have been here you presume to know anything and everything there is about headphone audio and that your rediculously-insane post rate (don't you have anything better to do with your life?) has somehow given you godly insight into anything audio and the expense of all others.

I trust my own ears implicitely and I don't need people such as yourself - especially you it would seem - to tell I am imagining improvements in things that you would seemingly argue are little more than a placebo effect.

I stand 100% by that comparison I made, yet you've just shot it right down the drain. Have you heard an XCan v3 with a wall wart? And have you heard an XCan v3 with a Little Pinkie? And have you heard an XCan v3 with an IPod shuffle as the source? And have you heard an XCan v3 with a Sony DAT machine as the source? Yeh, right...Don't you think - at the very flippin' least - you ought to have had had all four combinations sitting right there on the table before shooting your itchy fingers off and insulting my opinion?

I have honestly had enough of this place - if I can't get any respect here for my opinions then I no longer be posting or visiting any more. Well leave to the experts such as yourself instead, eh?

Bye (for good).



I don't think you're imagining improvements. I think you are overstating them. What was it? Stupendously enormous? Like comparing an iPod to an audiophile cdp? From a power supply upgrade? Sorry you felt offended, but that was ridiculous.

Tim
 
Jun 22, 2008 at 1:35 AM Post #21 of 34
Quote:

Originally Posted by ADD /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I have honestly had enough of this place - if I can't get any respect here for my opinions then I no longer be posting or visiting any more. Well leave to the experts such as yourself instead, eh?

Bye (for good).



Since I've had (until now?) a good relationship with ADD through ebay and email, I think it falls to me to do what I know we all wish to do--urge him not to depart this sunny realm.

ADD, I'm sure by now you've realized you've over-reacted slightly. tfarney's post was hardly abusive or even personal; at my instigation, I guess, he was simply questioning the enthusiasm of your language. We all express ourselves differently, and these pages are littered with hyperole. Besides, as you've told me, you've tested with particularly acute hearing, so it's likely the changes you heard were as great to you as you've described. I think tfarney's point was that we don't all have such hearing, and that a newbie reading that description could well be disappointed when hearing the same equipment, especially if he'd paid high prices for it. This is a point I think we all overlook: that inexperienced posters and lurkers are reading our advice and our descriptions of equipment and spending large sums, and very often they post here afterwards asking where is the light in the sky? So I guess on that basis we really need to qualify our enthusiasm for each incremental improvement with the occasional warning "in my situation, with my equipment, my music and my ears--but maybe not yours".

In any case I hope you don't depart purely on the basis of one contrary post.
Some of the most interesting and useful posts I've read here have been yours (the op amp experiments, for one). Besides, I'm sure tfarney is weeping into his porridge right now at the thought that he might have caused the departure of a regular and well-regarded poster--right, tfarney?
tongue.gif


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oops, just read Tfarney's last post. Maybe he's not weeping that hard after all.
 
Jun 22, 2008 at 2:39 AM Post #22 of 34
I don't eat porridge...what is porridge anyway?...but I am sorry, ADD. My mouth got out in front of my judgment. I didn't mean to attack you personally, but two statements in two of your posts perfectly illustrated a point I've been trying to make. I took them and used them, just to make the point. But now that I look back at them, I can see it would be impossible for you not to take it personally. My apologies.

Tim
 
Jun 22, 2008 at 3:05 AM Post #23 of 34
The OBH11 was my first amp, and I returned in inside the same week, I was really disapointed with it. I felt the same way, no improvements at all, thanks God I keep on trying other options....
IMO you can get a lot of better options for that price nowadays, or a little more. Consider also that it is a very old model, and an entrance level amp...IMO even any of the portable that we have nowdays will sound considerably better...
 
Jun 22, 2008 at 3:17 AM Post #24 of 34
Quote:

Originally Posted by tfarney /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I don't eat porridge...what is porridge anyway?...



Something Goldilocks used to get high on.
wink.gif
 
Jun 22, 2008 at 3:49 AM Post #25 of 34
Here is a description of what Porridge is, and let me asure you if its made correctly it tastes very nice.

THE HISTORY OF PORRIDGE - once upon a time
Porridge has been around for yonks and is most strongly associated with the Scots but the Welsh often ate oats, too.

Dr (Samuel) Johnson's 18th Century dictionary definition of oats reads "a grain which in England is given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people." And was in fact a dig at them.

There are many traditions and myths surround the making of porridge. Some say the oatmeal was to be added in batches, some say at the beginning and some say it ought to be added half way through the cooking to produce a nuttier flavour and interesting texture.

Some say that porridge should be allowed to stand and than be re-heated, others say that it should be made the day before it is to be eaten.

There was a belief that porridge should only be stirred in a clockwise direction using the right hand so you didn't evoke the 'devil'.

Porridge was often spoken of as 'they' and an old custom states that it should be eaten standing up and using a bone spoon.

To eat, a bowl of porridge was cupped in cold hands to warm them, and each spoonful of steaming porridge was dipped into a cup of cold milk, cream or buttermilk before eating.

Oats were also cooked and poured into a mould - sometimes even a drawer, and allowed to set. The solid oat slab (perhaps the earliest incarnations of oat biscuits or muesli slice!) were then sliced and taken to work to be eaten through the day.

While oats are considered a relative newcomer to modern day agriculture, the first traces of cultivation of wild strains date from about 1000 BC in Europe.

The Greeks and Romans found the grain coarse and inedible and dubbed it 'barbarian's food' and fed it to their animals. They did however plant and harvest oat crops in Britain where it became eaten widely in Wales and even more so in Scotland - hence Dr Johnson's jibe.

Oats were introduced to America by Scottish immigrants. They were first grown in Massachusetts in 1602 and early recipes have a strong Scottish influence, but it wasn't until the mid-19th century when the means of making porridge quickly, by using oat flakes, that saw the breakfast dish gain in popularity.

In 1877, the Quaker Oat Company developed the method of cutting, steaming and rolling the oats to create oat flakes or rolled oats as we best know them today.

Marian McNeill wrote in her 1929 recipe book "The Scot's Kitchen", 'the one and only method' for making porridge. She recommends the cook be 'very particular about the quality of the oatmeal. Midlothian oats are reputed to be unsurpassed but the small Highland oats are very sweet.'

Her instructions are to bring the water to the boil, and then add coarse oatmeal, 'in a steady rain from the left hand, stirring it briskly the while with the right, sunwise, are with the right hand turn for luck - and convenience.'

Once the porridge has returned to the boil, it should be cooked slowly for 20-30 minutes, using a special stick known as a spurtle or theevil, to stir.

It's during cooking that the starches in the oats soften, resulting in the thick and creamy textured mixture.

Porridge certainly has a long and interesting history.

Of course porridge became immortalised with thanks to English poet Robert Southey's 1837 prose of The Story of the Three Bears (although it's believed there are even earlier variations) and later published in "Old Nursery Stories and Rhymes" in 1904 as Goldilocks and the Three Bears.


I hope you all enjoyed your history lesson.
 
Jun 22, 2008 at 11:47 AM Post #27 of 34
Ahh...the old porridge drift trap...

OP, It could be as simple as what Sovkiller suggestst - a home amp that's just not that great - no better than what's built into your source.

Tim

PS - I haven't heard this amp. I am not judging it. I mean no offence to anyone who owns and loves it. This is meant only as high praise for the OP's source.
 
Jun 22, 2008 at 12:11 PM Post #28 of 34
Well, I see the thread have taken a rather different turn than I expected in the few days I haven't checked it out.

Again, I feel like should clarify a few things. I included a few extra info such as the power supply and cable because I thought it'd be helpful. My disappointment wasn't because of the power supply upgrade and the lack of improvement I got out of this upgrade. As a matter of fact, I got this amp with the upgraded power supply so I don't even know how it sounds w/o it. I just felt a bit disappointed in the whole set up, that's it.

Thanks for all the replies. In the last few days I decided to put the cables on ebay. I'm going to hang onto the amp for a while. But I have started to look into Adcom GTP-500 or GTP-400 as I have read here that they come with good dedicated headphone amps.

I'm very new here but I've been a frequent in many computer and cellphone forums and I gotta tell you, I haven't seen this many arguments taking place in any of them. I think the subjective nature of audio quality is causing these arguments most of the time. I enjoy hearing different approaches but I think it is unnecessary to attemp to smash the other party while trying to prove your point.

EDIT: Oh, and I am using an HD 650
 
Jun 22, 2008 at 12:20 PM Post #29 of 34
Quote:

Originally Posted by canercan888 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I'm very new here but I've been a frequent in many computer and cellphone forums and I gotta tell you, I haven't seen this many arguments taking place in any of them. I think the subjective nature of audio quality is causing these arguments most of the time. I enjoy hearing different approaches but I think it is unnecessary to attemp to smash the other party while trying to prove your point.


I'm not sure that there's that much smashing of people here, but you're undoubtedly right that the subjective nature of audio is the cause of what conflict there is. But I know one thing: you'll never find out as much about porridge on a computer forum as here!
 
Jun 22, 2008 at 1:36 PM Post #30 of 34
There are cell phone forums?

Why?

God help us.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top