[kensan]

Isn't it more about the source signal than "amp vs no amp"? I mean when one uses an amp in most cases one will also use a line-out signal/cable which for most mp3-players will be of superiour sound quality. I guess there's a big plus in terms of SQ in that respect.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

-Kensan

 

[FrederikS|TPU]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claus-DK /img/forum/go_quote.gif well IMO most IEMs benefit greatly with an amp, even the apple earbud is better amped........

A good source will have plenty of juice and control to drive the majority of earphones to their limit in terms of sound quality. Adding a amp will just change the tonality not the resolution, extension, bass control etc...

The only thing you "gain" from adding an amp in that line is coloration, unless you have a source that is so bad it cannot cope with the minimal load of a earphone, but I think that is a highly unlikely scenario. Of course PK1s, OK1s, are a completely different story.

Duggeh, ericj, LostOne well said! I completely agree with you guys. It depends on a lot different variables.

 

[Happy Camper]

Amplifiers are all about the best possible control over the motion of the transducer. Not about generating the loudest volume from that transducer or about the minimum requirements needed in order to drive it without any intruding distortion, which is easily achievable for most headphones if you don't mind a complete absence of explosive dynamics caused by a woefully inadequate power supply.


In a nutshell, nice summary. Power supply is the key ingredient. Better components mean better performance. Build or buy as much power supply as you can afford and you won't be disappointed.

I think this is why the K701s get such a bad rap. Throw them on a mid level SP or comparable amp and then tell me they don't have bass or impact.

 

[dgbiker1]

Of my phones, I think people could stand the SR225, M8 and A8 unamped even though some of them will benefit from amping. But a deaf monkey could tell the difference between amped/unamped with the K701s.

 

[Nomad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericj /img/forum/go_quote.gif Amping a px100 borders on silly. ditto ksc75. But these are cheap portables.

You sound quite sure. Did you try it? I don't know about the ksc75, but the px100 (specially the first version with copper coil) benefits quite a bit from an amp. It sounds less dark, without big roll-off on highs, while still presenting a warm sound. The new version improves too, although not that much.

I wouldn't bother to carry an amp with them for portable (then again, I wouldn't do it for better cans) but if I was at home I would definitely use them amped.

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

You are mistaking the increase in the size of your amplifier with a proportional increase in that abilities of that amplifier. I think that if you spent time with your headphones and a good mid to high end amplifier, you'd have what many refer to as a "moment of clarity".

No, actually, I'm not. My experience with the world of amplifiers measured in milliwatts is, admittedly, limited. But I have switched out racks of Crowns, pumping thousands of watts into stacks of drivers bigger than most listening rooms, for racks of QSCs doing the same. I've swapped McIntosh for Hafler, driving custom made monitors in studio control rooms, and a whole bunch more that I can't recall and don't need to list. And trust me, I listened critically. Hour after hour. The bottom line is I know what an amp contributes to a signal chain, and what it does not contribute.

On one point, we disagree: I think power and headroom is extremely critical to the quality of amplification. I think it may contribute more than "quality" once you get past a certain level. But I understand that when you're talking about milliwatts, it may not be as critical a factor; I don't really know. What I completely agree with is that amplification makes a difference. I happen to think that, if its of reasonable quality and adequate power, it makes the smallest difference in the signal chain, but we can discuss that small point further, or not. Your call.

What I think you are mistaking is my point. I'm not saying that amps don't make a difference. I'm saying that the amp in my iBook G4 is very different from the amp in my iPod. In fact I will say, confidently, without even hearing, that the difference between the amps in my iBook and iPod is greater, is more dramatic, than the difference between a Heed Canamp and a Singlepower. How can I make such a statement without testing? Because the amp in my iPod won't drive the 580s at all without cranking it nearly all the way up. The iBook drives them easily and they sound pretty good. A bit flabby in the bass and falsely "warm" (but lots of amps do that these days, eh? Even very expensive ones.), a bit congested in the mids on some material, but not bad at all, really. Does it drive the 580s "properly?" Well, yes, it does, actually. If properly means to volume levels great enough for critical listening, revealing good detail, instrument placement, transparency, etc... but that doesn't mean that it can't get better.

What I'm saying, my friend, is that the people who say these phones cannot be driven properly without a dedicated amp (and without hearing all the un-amped sources people are listening through) are speaking out of a lack of experience as much as those who might say that there's no difference between an an iPod and a Woo 2. It's a similarly huge assumption. And I'm further saying that when people indulge in such broad hyperbole as "HD600s can't be driven properly without a dedicated home amp" or my new BlutoPower Beta 2 made the same music, source, dac and cans sound completely different, it just blows everything else away!!!!!," before the paper cut has healed from opening the box, they don't serve the community, or their own credibility, well.

For my part, first I intend to get a quality DAC with a decent amp built into it, because I think that will make the biggest difference. Then I'll look around for a dedicated amp with plenty of power, and hear what I hear. I will not trust the word of the latest user/reviewer, because I know from experience, in a couple of hobby worlds, that too often those folks hear what they must, to justify the last, or the next, purchase. Present company excepted, of course.

Tim

 

[ericj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nomad /img/forum/go_quote.gif You sound quite sure. Did you try it? I don't know about the ksc75, but the px100 (specially the first version with copper coil) benefits quite a bit from an amp. It sounds less dark, without big roll-off on highs, while still presenting a warm sound. The new version improves too, although not that much. I wouldn't bother to carry an amp with them for portable (then again, I wouldn't do it for better cans) but if I was at home I would definitely use them amped.

If I'm at home, with a good wall-powered amp, there are at least 20 pair of headphones immediately on hand that I'd rather be listening to than my px100. Which may well be the old version - i bought it used and i'm unsure how to tell.

I suppose if it were my only pair, sure, but it aint.

 

[ClieOS]

A bit OT, but:

This thread reminds me of the other thread where the OP complains how people get into the store which he is working in and ask for an headphone with iPod compatible jack.... If the term 'average user' is referring to DAP user that can't tell what a 3.5mm headphone jack is, than the debate of whether amplification is needed would probably be a bit too difficult for them to understand.

Similarly, if a person has no experience (and thus no such knowledge) to tell apart whether their headphone is/isn't driven to its full potential, then it will be difficult for them to understand the difference b/w tightly controlled and sloppy bass, or smooth detail and over aggressive high. After all, 'Seeing is Believing' (or in this case, 'Listening is Believing') has a big part on how we define the world.

I believe, once you are asking the question of whether amplification is necessarily, you have already separate yourself from the 'average user' Your average user most likely won't care about things like impedance, freq. res., sensitivity, etc, nor do they care about what an iPod compatible jack really is.

My advise to you is, since you curiousity has gotten the better part of you, making you a head-fi'er and read threads that contains confusing words such as full, warm, detail, speed, impact, etc, it is time for you to actually listen to a few more cans / amps / sources. You will start talking to yourself like this: 'Oh, this is why XXX said this can / amp is YYY!!!'

Of course, this is no guarantee that you will feel that way on your own musical preference. May be you will end up with something opposite instead: 'This doesn't sound like what XXX said this can / amp will be!!!' - that is the lovely part of head-fi.

Hope that^ makes sense

 

[Nomad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericj /img/forum/go_quote.gif If I'm at home, with a good wall-powered amp, there are at least 20 pair of headphones immediately on hand that I'd rather be listening to than my px100. Which may well be the old version - i bought it used and i'm unsure how to tell. I suppose if it were my only pair, sure, but it aint.

That has nothing to do with the fact that the PX-100s sound better amped and it wouldn't be border silly to amp them if you plan to use them. They sound quite good unamped too. I'm not saying they require an amp.

It's not that I want to pick up a fight but the PX-100s, especially old ones, really improve quite a bit amped. It's not like some earbuds where the difference is not that great.

Cheers.

 

[Dobro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif When you ask a question about headphones here, you don't ask "the average listener" for an opinion. So you get the opinion of a (more or less) audiophile that knows and cares about the little differences. Stands to reason I think.

Only to a point. First let's forgo the word "audiophile", it is overloaded with connotation and light on meaning. Yes experience is very important and I definitely give it a lot of weight, but it is not the only factor nor does it automatically confer authority. In every field of endeavor and area of interest there are those who even after many years still remain untouched by insight or knowledge. Experience does not necessarily protect one from fanboyism, me-tooism, lack of perspective and assorted other maladies. If comments are given little thought or are stock reactions to given stimuli they are useless regardless of the commenters experience. That said, those highly experienced folks who have learned from their experience, read questions carefully and give thought to what they say are very precious sources of insight and knowledge (incase you where wondering, I'd count you in this group Kees, along with a host of others.)

I would never automatically discount the opinions of less experienced contributors. A lot of them are pretty smart cookies and can provide very useful insights and observations. So when I ask a question on these forums, I'm asking everybody, theres no telling who will give me the info or insight I might need.

EDIT: I forgot to mention a key reason I value the input those who are less experienced - perspective. Those who have spent years studying the 'little differences' are almost certainly going to have a different sense of scale then those who have not. What you see as large or maybe even huge differences may very well appear small or even negligible to us nonexperts. Not saying one is right or the other is wrong, just different. So I value hearing from those who share my sense of scale.

 

[mito]

so an amp for an a900 is not recommended?

 

[souperman]

An amp for the K1000 is not recommended either.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Has anyone else noticed that the "unnecessary amp" threads are always started by someone who doesn't have one?

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

Yes experience is very important and I definitely give it a lot of weight, but it is not the only factor nor does it automatically confer authority.

Agreed. In fact, to use a couple of recent examples from this board, there is the guy who came here, ego in hand, confessing that he can't really hear the difference between the DAC and amp he has bought and listened to for quite awhile and his phones plugged straight into the source, or the one who made a considerable investment in a Woo and confessed that the difference between it and the SS amp he already had is slight, and he actually prefers the one he already had, or the guy who followed him by saying yeah, you know, this Darkvoce 332 I bought? It sounds an awful lot like the amp I already had, too. These folks spent their hard-earned money on new gear, just like everybody else. They have just as much reason to hear what they paid for. The difference is they're being honest with themselves. The truth is that as you climb up the scale of amplification, the improvements are quite small and the higher up you go, the smaller they get.

Pros understand this because they look at this stuff as tools to hear deep into the details of what has been recorded and an amp has two purposes: 1) To adequately power the speakers and 2) to get the hell out of the way. Audiophiles, or most of them anyway, look at it romantically, and what is good and bad is a matter of taste, it is absolutely subjective. When one of them tells you that his XYZ is clearly superior to an ABC, he is probably not talking about specifications or the transparency of the system, but expressing an opinion about the kind of sound he likes to listen to. If you doubt it, go to a few recording studios and talk to a few engineers. In all likelihood, they are using DA and AD converters, to record the music we listen to, that cost <$3,000. Many audiophiles will turn around and play it back through a DAC that cost 3 or four times that, to change the sound to something he prefers. If that isn't the very definition of subjective, I don't know what is.

Tim

 

[ericj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mito /img/forum/go_quote.gif so an amp for an a900 is not recommended?

A lot of people who like the A900 and A700 seem to say that an amp doesn't make as huge of a difference as it does with some other headphones.

I, on the other hand, do not like the A900, and i'm certain that my amps did not help the situation.

The A900's are a polarizing sort of headphone. Audio-Technica did some strange things with the frequency response, and it's clear that they were attempting to make a closed headphone with a FR that gives an experience more similar to a speaker-like experience, while obviously not offering much in the way of out-of-head imaging.

A lot of people like it. To me it just sounded strange and fake. And the big, like, 4db dip at about 290hz really, really bothered me. I prefer headphones with an FR that is flattish, or if not flat, more of a traditional diffuse-field FR. The A900 is just very different, and i didn't like it.