[Piffles]

Yep, same experience for me. I was looking around for my first pair of good headphones, and I was going nuts over impedances and efficiencies and god knows what. A very wise person on the forum told me to forget all the tech rubbish and go out and buy a pair of headphones with a sound signature I liked. I did, and I'm very happy with it - straight out of my USB soundcard.

In my opinion, the amp would only make a difference with really low output sources like portable devices. But then again, my brother has his Senn HD600s plugged straight into his mp3player and is very happy with them.

 

[kira80]

Same experience here too. I bought a Headfive a few days ago out of curiosity and while I think I notice some subtle differences, the difference is certainly not a night and day one as reading many posts here made me think it would. It's the same with the crossfeed filter, I'm almost sure I couldn't tell if it's active or not while doing a blind test. I do enjoy the ability of fine-tuning the volume with a comfortable potentiometer though.

I noticed three improvements in sound quality these last few years :
- when I bought decent headphones,
- when I stopped listening to MP3s and used lossless files,
- when I stopped using the audio line-out of my cheap motherboard and bought a dedicated sound card.

Compared to those, the addition of the amp is negligible (given the quality of my ears and the quality of the rest of my system). I don't regret it though. It may prove to be useful someday or may be used as a gift to someone I know, with more picky ears than mine.

 

[en480c4]

I would guess your limiting component is the Sony's phono stage. Integrated phono stages are harder and harder to find, and the ones that are in receivers range from crap to solid. If the Sony's phono stage isn't strong, it's not going to allow you to hear any real improvement as your only going to do as well as your weakest componenet. Do you have another source (a CD player perhaps) that you could test through the receiver, maintaining the loop-out configuration of the amp? That way you could do a direct comparison while ruling out the phono stage? If you feel the same way with another source, then the amp isn't for you. If you see a more pronounced difference with a different source, then I'd say the culprit is the integrated phono stage.

 

[tbonner1]

I agree that the sound of many vintage japanese recievers is equal or better than many modern headphone amps.

1-Many vintage receivers have very good power supplies. This is one of the most expensive parts of any amplifier ( speaker or headphone). Small headphone amplifiers with wall warts(some unregulated) cannot compete with receivers that cost $500 in the 70's equal to $thousands today.

2-I like the Marantz 2230 receiver/1060 integrated amp with high impedence headphones. I also like some old 80's Sony ES receiver headphone amps.

3-Look at the archives of ltucci924 he has had countless headphone amps of the month including the much touted Heed amp for around $400. He sold the Heed almost right away after finding little difference on his Senn 650's.

4-Look at the achives for mkmelts posts on the headphone amps of vintage Marantz. Please note: The vintage Marantz may not so as much of a bargain if you need to( and you probably will) have the very old capacitors or other sound critical parts replaced due to old age. I have had mint looking Marantz units that improved quite a bit with upgrades to parts. I have also had some beat looking Marantz that had little improvement after replaceing the caps.

 

[inconnu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by en480c4 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would guess your limiting component is the Sony's phono stage.

I doubt it. It would have to be serious crap to be limiting the appreciation of the extrernal amp. For curiosity, have you considered the possibility that the Headfive would just be a bit lackustre?

As far as my experience, integrated amps (not talking of receivers) can have very musical sounding headphone jacks, thanks to their solid, all-discrete or nearly so internal circuitry. Whereas the Headfive uses only chips in its signal path, even for the current buffers; and these are typically regarded as inferior to any decent discrete circuit (which the Japanese master these days, even in the consumer range) in the audiophile universe.

 

[HFat]

My H5 is less coloured and more even across the frequency range than the old mid-fi integrated amp I A/B'ed with it. I like the H5's colouration but some might prefer the integrated's.
But yeah, it's the potentiometer that makes the biggest difference for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kira80 /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's the same with the crossfeed filter, I'm almost sure I couldn't tell if it's active or not while doing a blind test. ... - when I stopped listening to MP3s and used lossless files,

I clearly hear the crossfeed's effect but I can't tell decent MP3s from lossless in blind tests... we all hear differently and listen for different things.

 

[deej]

Quote:

Originally Posted by smeggy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Most recievers are perfectly capable of driving most all headphones fully. Also, dedicated, speciality or expensive are'nt necessarily better than the obviously inferior alternatives, as I'm constantly discovering myself. It could be that you simply prefer the sound from you reciever. Hell, I prefer a $20 battery operated toy amplifier to my $700 Stax amp

I totally agree with this. I just bought the RA-1 which is supposed to synergize with the RS-1's but to me I really don't like the sound. Too bad cuz they look wonderful paired together. I like my cheap Creek OBH-11 to it way more. P.S. if you're looking for an RA-1 PM me!

 

[LouT]

If anyone is not finding desired results, I'd say the first step is to listen to enough different setups until you do find differences.

Going to a meet where there are say 20 different amps/headphones, gear etc would be a great place to get some sort of reference for what you like, and what you can discern between setups. Only then can you really make a good choice for yourself. Listening to your favourite cd lets you notice things that are extremely subtle, since you get to know exactly what it is supposed to sound like. For me piano string bass jazz is very revealing.

I'd sell the amp for decent coin, find out more of what you like on someone elses dime...headphone meets or a store that deals in this stuff, then maybe get what you like. Or keep what you have.

Home integrated amps can do justice, not all but some do.

Lou

 

[Nandro]

Its deffinitly alot of what the listener hears. I just got the Aria, and I have Xcans, and a LD II and the Aria with the built in DAC makes my PC actually sound like a good source finally. My K701's have opened up and the HD 600's have the depth they are supposed to have, but I suppose the Aria is a bit better than what I was using previously, and I had been using those amps for well over a year, so the difference was easy to hear for me.

 

[a2d]

So, just an update for everyone following this thread.......... I was walking home from work today and felt compelled to pop in an electronics store on the way and pick up an SACD player. I got a great deal on the SONY scd-ce595 ($139.00), stopped in a music store next door and got BB Kings reflections album and Dark Side of the Moon in SACD format. Considering I've really only listened to vinyl for the last two and half years I hadn't had the opportunity to hear SACD sound quality so was kind of curious. I was also interested to look into some of the comments posted early with concerns of the phono stage in the receiver or just the source in general. Turns out there was definitely something going on there, can't really determine if it was the phono stage issue or just the "antiquity" of the DUAL. Either way, the first thing that was noted was the volume level on the H5, which previously could comfortably max out, was now reaching the same level at the half way mark. This is clearly pinpointing a weakness in the source when using the turntable. WIth the only variation in the setup being the source, switching from the DUAL 1219 to the CE595, the H5 began to separate itself from the receivers headphone out. The more subtle differences that were noted early in the detailing of the soundstage and overall sound control now became much more apparent. The major difference which I could fairly easily notice was in the speed and clarity. Listening to the same track through the H5 then the receiver I found that the sound from the receiver was just slow and dull in comparison. It kind of sounded like a discman running on a weak battery. In sports they say rain is the ultimate equalizer...... in this case I think it was the source that leveled the playing field. Although it may sound as if I'm all squared away over here that's not exactly the case.........as "fun" as this SACD thing is, and I'm not saying I won't explore for a little while, it's in no way taking the ranks on my vinyl.........I think I see the P3 in the near future.

Thanks for all the replies, they were greatly appreciated.

 

[griff2]

Vinyl definitely has its attraction, particularly in terms of dynamic range, which conventional 16 bit encoded CD can never hope to capture.

Having said that, a good quality offboard DAC being fed by the SACD player could do wonders..

For the Vinyl source, you might want to consider a different phono stage, and as such I'd recommend finding an amp such as the Denon PMA 250 MKI, an integrated, which in its day (late 80's) had a phenomenally good phono stage (in fact the amp itself was regarded more highly than an Audiolab costing more than twice the Denon's price). You could probably pick one up one EBay for next to nothing and it would be a cost-effective way of upgrading your vinyl source without paying $$$. After that there's the Rega 2/3 option, or even a used Linn

 

[SeagramSeven]

Quote:

Originally Posted by griff2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Vinyl definitely has its attraction, particularly in terms of dynamic range, which conventional 16 bit encoded CD can never hope to capture.

This is flat out wrong. 65,536 exactly-defined amplitude levels is much more than will ever be reproduced on vinyl. And they wont change or degrade over time with repeated playback. Any "issues" with CD's sounding like crap, can be attributed to sub-par mixing and/or mastering.

I suggest you view this video; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ

 

[griff2]

SeagramSeven: Quote:

This is flat out wrong. 65,536 exactly-defined amplitude levels is much more than will ever be reproduced on vinyl.

Nice video outlining compression, which is a very old subject, and not what I was reffering to, although I can see why you think I might be confusing the two.

Actually, analogue has effectively infinitely many samples of infinite bit depth, it supposedly is an exact analogue of the original waveform.

In my own opinion, 16 bit (65,536) differing levels to exactly define the amplitude of a complex musical waveform is wholly inadequate, just as 24bit (256 x 256 x 256 RGB) is inadequate for video. Our ears are very sensitive organs and can differentiate between a stepped waveform and a smooth one.

I've actually listened to 24/96 recordings - and yes they were carefully recorded (Chesky)- but I've also listened to very well recorded 16bit (Chesky again) and there's just no comparison; the 24/96 sound much more like real music (and vinyl), the 16bit sound thin and compressed.

In my opinion, CD was a rushed format, designed to work on the available technology of the time. Vinyl had 70 years to develop, despite its "crude" method of replaying music.

 

[a2d]

Quote:

Originally Posted by griff2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif SeagramSeven: I've actually listened to 24/96 recordings - and yes they were carefully recorded (Chesky)- but I've also listened to very well recorded 16bit (Chesky again) and there's just no comparison; the 24/96 sound much more like real music (and vinyl), the 16bit sound thin and compressed. .

I’m not quite as savvy with the technical side of music playback however I can compare just by ear. For one example, I’ve heard BB King in concert twice, and my vinyl just sounds much closer than the SACD. To me the SACD’s sound is exciting and crisp but in no way natural. The soundstage seems to be dramatically exaggerated, as well as a defined clarity that just has a feel of being digitally refined. For an album like Dark Side of the Moon I’m more tolerant of it, the album is more suited for that type of sound enhancement, which is exactly what it sounds like to me. The bottom line for me, I don’t need to hear music any differently then I would if I was at a live show, if I can’t hear BB’s fingers making adjustments to “ Lucille” sitting fifteen feet away then I don’t want to hear it in a playback either. I’m sure there is a time and place where SACD can more naturally convey the music, or in a case like Dark Side of the Moon where the enhancements are part of the albums conceptual intent, but I’m definitely scared to listen to any more blues that have been “digitally enhanced”….. SACD took the soul right out BB.

 

[Nandro]

I think its a mute point arguing cd vs vinyl. I have seen Joe Satriani who by deffinition is either the greatest guitarist in the world or just a musical nutcase with a guitar, but his CD's seem to be mastered in such a way that it is very real. I do think that mastering for CD's is something that was forsaken for loudness, especially for rap and heavy metal, where Old timers with great resumes did the best vinyl mastering, and did it right, all of the time. I have seen pictures on the mastering of Beatles albums, and the guys doing it all looked in their 50's+, where the guys mastering the CD's for 50 Cent look in their 30's. Maybe experience will catch up to them.