[Hi-Finthen]

However, more to the point than the Vinyl vs Digital debate, is the conclusion that the source output strenth to the amplifier in this case (as is always the case) will dictate how much "fullness" an amplifier can add to the musics presentation by more fully energizing the transducers. Granted the headamp employed here has lower gain than some others (Heed for instance as I own both) is something readers must keep in mind in terms of expectations of a given amplifiers gain being directly related to the signal strenth it is being fed. I personally have employed a tube preamp before the HeadFive to both tame the digital signal and add gain and fullness to the signal before amplification to great effect with the cans I choose.
So I believe we are getting into the area of "system matching" being found out by experimentation by the OP, to then find what some of this "Hype" about amplifiers is all about... And I think this is an important lesson of this thread for readers to fully digest, without going off into a debate about the format of the material played IMO!

 

[a2d]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hi-Finthen /img/forum/go_quote.gif However, more to the point than the Vinyl vs Digital debate, is the conclusion that the source output strenth to the amplifier in this case (as is always the case) will dictate how much "fullness" an amplifier can add to the musics presentation by more fully energizing the transducers. Granted the headamp employed here has lower gain than some others (Heed for instance as I own both) is something readers must keep in mind in terms of expectations of a given amplifiers gain being directly related to the signal strenth it is being fed. I personally have employed a tube preamp before the HeadFive to both tame the digital signal and add gain and fullness to the signal before amplification to great effect with the cans I choose. So I believe we are getting into the area of "system matching" being found out by experimentation by the OP, to then find what some of this "Hype" about amplifiers is all about... And I think this is an important lesson of this thread for readers to fully digest, without going off into a debate about the format of the material played IMO!

That is in fact exactly the point of this thread......couldn't help digressing just a bit.........

 

[HFat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by griff2 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.

Maybe the 16 simply happens to be thin and compressed. This is OT but it would be very easy to blind test the same recording in 24 and 16... take a nice 24, dither it down to 16, and see if you can really hear the >16 resolution with your gear.
Either my test recording, my ears, or my gear isn't resolving enough because I can't tell the difference.

 

[Nandro]

I think allot of that would take trained hearing and intimate knowledge of the recording. Just like video, if you don't know what to look for you wont find it. I know some people who have gone to recording school and they learn what to look for by seeing it on the screen and hearing it at the same time, putting a visual with the audio. Not everyone has golden ears or even close.

 

[griff2]

HFat wrote: Quote:

..take a nice 24, dither it down to 16, and see if you can really hear the >16 resolution with your gear.

That would be an interesting test, which I can do since I have a 24/96 source in the Chesky recording.

Certainly I can tell when an image has been bit reduced using dither, so I'll see if my ears can tell on the audio side.

Will report back on this.

 

[HFat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nandro /img/forum/go_quote.gif if you don't know what to look for you wont find it.

Indeed. Any I think that, if you love listening more than knowing or tweaking, ignorance is bliss.

 

[Nandro]

It can be. Just recently I got a total bithead portable amp, and prior to that, I was very happy with my SR-60's out of my iPod. Now without it it sounds horrid. Honestly, I dont think I need it to sound any better, and any other portable more expensive amp would be a waste. I have a pair of SuperFi5 Pro, but cant get a good fit no matter what I do, So I dont know if I should just sell them or keep on trying. When they are fitted right, without moving, they sound great, much better than the sr-60's for walking, but the fit is lost very easily.

 

[Gonz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piffles /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

I never worried about headphones when I connected them to a reciever. The results were always decent enough for me.

Then I got into computers and digital music, and even when I broke down and bought a better sound card, I still didn't get much good headphone lovin'. I thought it was my phones, (and it partially was) so eventually I ended up over here.

I bought a few types of cans which had good reviews, and my first amp. Then it was good!

Thats not to say I can't enjoy music without the amp, but with my computer, the amp helps alot.

Quote:

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.

Yeah, you can be happy, nothing wrong with that... but when we know we can do it better.. why settle?

I agree with you, portable devices really suffer. Home recievers, IMHO, not so much.

 

[SeagramSeven]

Quote:

Originally Posted by griff2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

If 16bit sounds thin and compressed to you, surely you should be able to tell the difference in a blind test? Take any 24/96 recording of your choice, and then, using high quality algorithms, downsample it to 16/44.1. To this day, no one has posted any proof of actually being able to hear a difference between the two when they were unaware of which they were listening to. If you truly think 16bit is "obviously thin and compressed", you could pottentially make a significant amount of money. Plenty of companies would be willing to pay you to prove this, since they have not been able to.

And as far as analog being "superior", try taking your "infinite resolution" turntable, and plug it's output into a high quality soundcard and record. Go ahead and record the output at 16/44.1. See if you can hear a difference without knowing which is which. Many have tried. I know of none who have succeeded. So much for "stepped waveforms" vs "smooth ones".

If you understood how digital-to-analog converters functioned, you would know that there is no such thing as a "stepped waveform" once it is converted back to analog---which it must be in order for you to hear anything!