[Bullseye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why not go to a headphone meet to test your theory.. You seem like a likable guy, but you really come off as a 'know it all,' whether you realize it or not.. Music/science doesn't mix anyways.. Science has data, but audio is more about emotion then anything else.. & audiophile terms like, bright, dry, involving, etc.. Turn that into scientific data & it becomes meaningless measurements.. & you are basically stating that everyone that hears a difference is WRONG, which turns people against you..

Hey KBI,

Well I would like to go to a meet, but unless there is not a lot of noise (to try open cans), I don't see how I could make up my mind when so much noise would be around me. Also this kind of meets are made in USA and as an european it gets difficult to go there.

I am not trying to be a "know it all", because I know beforehand I don't know it all

I am not saying that someone that hears a difference is wrong. As I told you I don't know all the cases and the methods people use to make some comparisons between their own equipment. What I think is not done right (again, not in all cases), is how people get to easy conclusions when using their own equipmen instead of analyzing first their own experience and trying to find out what could have been the reason for that change.

The way an individual enjoys his music is completely unique and subjective. But the way things work (sound wave propagation, materials used, ...; the physical -as science- part of it) remains the same for everyone.

I hope someone (you) understands what I am trying to say.

 

[aimlink]

BullsEye,

When presented as you just do, I can certainly go along with what you're saying.

However, I previously had been getting the distinct impression that you are of the opinion that if we listen to any set of cans with and without any amplifier, that any BIG difference heard would amount to an exaggeration. Any BIG difference that we claim exists, is just a play on our ears, a psychologic phenomenon (us trying to justify in our minds our wasted spending) and that it's not a BIG difference in real physical terms. Am I right? If not, then I'll have to retract all my previous comments in disagreement with your POV.

 

[Gbjerke]

Quote:

There is no way to decide which one will sound better (only listening will do that). There is no general connection between easy-to-drive or difficult-to-drive and high-end or mid-fi (or low-end). If you don't give the phones what they need they won't perform well. You can only judge the potential of headphones when you amp them to the max Different headphones need different amps according to their needs. The particular needs of headphones are never specified: average impedance or impedance at 1KHz and sensitivity are not enough to tell what amp is needed. You would also need to know maximum impedance, minimum impedance and how fast it can vary. Current needs: how much and how quickly. The variation of these specifications over the frequency curve. And no doubt a lot more. The only general rule that I know of would be: if you have high impedance headphones you need an amp that can deliver enough voltage, if you have headphones with low impedance you don't need much voltage, but you need an amp that can deliver much current. A lot of tube amps (not all!!!) are good at delivering voltage, but not so good at delivering current.

Poetry, m8, poetry.

 

[Bullseye]

Well, it is not exactly how you have written this.

First, it is not in every case using any headphone. That I have tried to make it clear. I will try to explain my point of view with an example.

If a headphone when used with the source w/o amplification produces an audible and distracting bass roll-off, you would want to get that out of the music. That bass roll off can be seen as bad by some people, as annoying but bearable by some and as completely annoying for some. However, if you were to listen to the music, rhythm, and you were to avoid that bass roll-off, you can eventually enjoy your music. Why is that? Because our brain can get used to those changes. Well the same happens when using an amplifier.

So imagine that that bass roll-off I spoke about was very very small. You had to focus all your attention on the bass in order to hear it. Imagine the cause was due to an impedance mismatch between the source's amplifier section and the impedance of your cans (being very low) (which can be a very real example). You then buy an amplifier that costs "X", that has an extremely low output impedance, low distortion (inaudbile), and a flat FR with the impedance load you add (the one of your HPs). That very small bass roll-off that was there before you added the amplifier is now gone. As it is gone you now focus on the music, not on the slightly bass roll-off that took away your attention, you got obsessed with. Therefore you say, well this is great, I can now enjoy my music.

Well, that experience could have been replicated by adding anything that would take your attention away from it. If someone told you (without adding anything). Well I have fixed what was wrong, I have been testing it very thoroughly and there is no more bass roll off. He has changed something in your setup (lets say the color of the volume knob), something visible (or not so). He puts on the HPs, listens and tells you, now this is good. You do the same, expect that change and get to enjoy the music again. All that actions can also happen when swapping some equipment.

So you end up being so happy you end up wanting more. There can't be more, there can be different. The problem your system had had been solved by that amp that cost "X". You have that association in your mind. If I add amplifier that costs X to my system I can get better sound. Then you come to this forums. Read more experiences like that, about how great this amp that costs "2X". You just have that idea in your mind that different amplifiers will be changing sound into better, and you will even be expecting that (will convince yourself, etc), as you had before a satisfactory experience. EDIT: But because it costs "2X" you might expect an improvement twice as good as the initial one. You realize there is none, or if there is it is very small. So you justify that by saying "once you go up (in price) the improvements become smaller and smaller" You justify that expensive purchase of yours that same way. You finish finding excuses for everything.

And when you see some measurements made by some equipment way more precise than your ears, that says that amplifier that costs "2X" doesn't add or take anything audible that your old amp that cost "X" added, you have to deny that, as that would be putting you in a position where you have lost money or you have not gained anything. Then you have to disregard DBT, you get to say that those measurements are wrong and you end up listening to "your ears" or more how I like to say it "you listen to your eyes"...

So then, what is the whole idea behind this? Well it is, IMO, that you should also analyze your experience, your equipment, everything you can before making vague conclusions. Then the example is not always the same for everyone. With your current setup using headphone A you might not have any bass roll-off or any crack, hum, ... So, why fix something that is not broken? And as it has been proven that louder = better (when it is not), some methodology has to be used. Then you get into DBT, measurement, and the rest.

That satisfactory experience when you made your first contact (first set of good cans, that didn't give bass roll off, or sibilant highs, or more comfort, or better looks, or having something more expensive, ...) will make you search for more, when not always it will have to be the same experience.

I hope you understand now why I say that some opinions are exaggerated. I think I finished writing in a different way I first wanted to , but I am enjoying my music whilst writing this and I get lost in my own head

Quote:

Originally Posted by aimlink /img/forum/go_quote.gif However, I previously had been getting the distinct impression that you are of the opinion that if we listen to any set of cans with and without any amplifier, that any BIG difference heard would amount to an exaggeration. Any BIG difference that we claim exists, is just a play on our ears, a psychologic phenomenon (us trying to justify in our minds our wasted spending) and that it's not a BIG difference in real physical terms. Am I right? If not, then I'll have to retract all my previous comments in disagreement with your POV.

 

[moonboy403]

Your reasoning of more expensive equipment sounding better than lesser ones hence we need to justify our more expensive purchase is clearly flawed. As most of us would agree, we've come to like/prefer amps that cost less and perform "better" on more than one occasion.

 

[Bullseye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by moonboy403 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Your reasoning of more expensive equipment sounding better than lesser ones hence we need to justify our more expensive purchase is clearly flawed. As most of us would agree, we've come to like/prefer amps that cost less and perform "better" on more than one occasion.

I didn't say that thing of "more expensive equipment sounding better than lesser ones", you didn't understand my example.

I really don't know where you made the above conclusion

Have read what I wrote again and still don't find it...

Try reading again my example again.

 

[Happy Camper]

I am coming around to understand what "synergy" means. You can put some ill matched gear together and it wouldn't matter how much it cost, it sounds inferior to the cheapest rig properly matched.

I do love my RS-1s/ety 4s and ipod. I felt the portable amp really didn't add that much to the presentation. I have since came back to the amp and at lower volumes, I hear more musical dynamics and details. To get the same without the amp, I have to use more volume which gets fatiguing.

The 701s sound like poo out of the ipod. They need an amp. The difference between my portable and the home amp at first was so minimal that I was disappointed with the purchase. As the home amp got broke in and I tweaked the tubes for the system, I can now go between the two and can immediately tell the benefits in presentation. The difference in price is judgment of the listener whether it is worth it or not.

 

[moonboy403]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullseye /img/forum/go_quote.gif I didn't say that thing of "more expensive equipment sounding better than lesser ones", you didn't understand my example. I really don't know where you made the above conclusion Have read what I wrote again and still don't find it... Try reading again my example again.

How about try reading what you wrote yourself: "Then say the more the amp costs, the more you need to justify your purchase."

Maybe I should clarify on my last post. You think that due to our expenditure in purchasing more expensive amps, we would have bias toward the more expensive amp and think that it must sound better. Then I said your idea is flawed because we all at one time or another prefer amps that cost less.

 

[Bullseye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by moonboy403 /img/forum/go_quote.gif How about try reading what you wrote yourself: "Then say the more the amp costs, the more you need to justify your purchase." Maybe I should clarify on my last post. You think that due to our expenditure in purchasing more expensive amps, we would have bias toward the more expensive amp and think that it must sound better. Then I said your idea is flawed because we all at one time or another prefer amps that cost less.

Well, I am not generalizing, I am just saying that it is the common thing to do to expect something more expensive to be better than something less. That doesn't make some people not think that.

And "the more the amp costs the more you need to justify your purchase" does not have anything to do with it sounding better. It just means you have to justify a more expensive purchase. Taking about money.

 

[moonboy403]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullseye /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, I am not generalizing, I am just saying that it is the common thing to do to expect something more expensive to be better than something less. That doesn't make some people not think that. And "the more the amp costs the more you need to justify your purchase" does not have anything to do with it sounding better. It just means you have to justify a more expensive purchase. Taking about money.

How else can we justify our purchase if we don't think that it sounds better which is what we strive for when we look to upgrade our amps? Do we justify it by telling ourselves that "it sounds the same but looks better"? Clearly, that's a no. So the only way we can justify our purchase is if we think that it sounds better(Note that we're talking about desktop amps here so portability isn't taken into consideration).

 

[Bullseye]

I wouldn't say that. You see. Realizing that you have wasted some money on something that doesn't give you what you were looking for is not good. But if you find a good reason to keep it then everything is not lost.

In my case having a dedicated volume control helps a lot. Having a hybrid amp that gets hot is nice in winter -and it looks great-. It is a pain in summer, hence I got the cute beyond. Wanted to spend less but the other alternative didn't go good. Anyways the SS amp lets me swap HPs fast, w/o problems. It is small and lightweight. Doesn't add anything (that I have noticed, but will also make some measurements myself to make sure

)

EDIT: And due to its specs it should not give any problems with low impedance cans. (That I also need to double check)

Quote:

Originally Posted by moonboy403 /img/forum/go_quote.gif How else can we justify our purchase if we don't think that it sounds better which is what we strive for when we look to upgrade our amps? Do we justify it by telling ourselves that "it sounds the same but looks better"? Clearly, that's a no. So the only way we can justify our purchase is if we think that it sounds better(Note that we're talking about desktop amps here so portability isn't taken into consideration).

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullseye /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hey KBI, Well I would like to go to a meet, but unless there is not a lot of noise (to try open cans), I don't see how I could make up my mind when so much noise would be around me. Also this kind of meets are made in USA and as an european it gets difficult to go there. I am not trying to be a "know it all", because I know beforehand I don't know it all I am not saying that someone that hears a difference is wrong. As I told you I don't know all the cases and the methods people use to make some comparisons between their own equipment. What I think is not done right (again, not in all cases), is how people get to easy conclusions when using their own equipmen instead of analyzing first their own experience and trying to find out what could have been the reason for that change. The way an individual enjoys his music is completely unique and subjective. But the way things work (sound wave propagation, materials used, ...; the physical -as science- part of it) remains the same for everyone. I hope someone (you) understands what I am trying to say.

Yes, I do. Skepticism is fine.. Debate is healthy.. What you write can be worded different as it tends to put people on the defensive when you tell them, all amps sound the same with certain equations/protocal, & the differences you are hearing are plecbo... Analyzing gear is fine.. But, to me & many others, we don't care about DBT, etc.. If we hear a improvement that's all we need.. I trust my ears.. I bought a amp that was nearly 1,000.. To my ears it sounded like a 4-5 hundred dollar amp.. I was really disappointed. But I'm not going to say all amps that are near a grand aren't worth the price.. My experience with expensive amps are limited... But IMO, diminishing returns seem to hit pretty quick after the 400-500 mark.

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by moonboy403 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Your reasoning of more expensive equipment sounding better than lesser ones hence we need to justify our more expensive purchase is clearly flawed. As most of us would agree, we've come to like/prefer amps that cost less and perform "better" on more than one occasion.

Preferred my VHP1/VAC1 greatly over the HR-2.. 520 compared to 875..

 

[bangraman]

Just my 2c, but...


While there are in some cases clear and obvious electrical merits to amping, I think one of the problems of opinions is that many people are more sensitive to tone than quality as such. It's more readily realisable to more on the portable forums, because these things ship with an EQ. The 'better sounding' by consensus portables minus EQ (a good example would be the Denon DCP-150) tend have a slight bass hump. Mix in SRS, BBE, etc and more of the consumer bent think it sounds 'higher quality'. Many audiophiles laugh at that, yet are essentially taken in by the same thing on their premium gear.


Same with a surprising range of headphones in fact, and from what I've read here a high proportion of even the highfalutin' audiophile types have distinctly consumer tastes as long as the brand and presentation is right... e.g. the ATH-ESW9 is basically a refined fart-cannon in wood, which doesn't suffer from closed phone honk in comparison to other DJ-phones because it's probably even less closed than their ~10db-at-best full-sizers. More bass, more 'open' sound, not significantly better actual sound quality than a Bose Triport AE in fact. See how popular it is on Head-fi?


OK, so more bass = more popular. But the rest of the varying tonal characteristics of a given piece of gear is highly personal in your reaction to it. And it doesn't serve as a worthwhile pointer to quality, yet it's used pretty much interchangeably on this forum and many other audio forums.


One of the advantages of benching every amp you buy after doing your listening notes is that if you have an objective bent, you start to realise this tone business sooner or later... and it's one of the reasons I no longer bother arguing in detail about quality, because I know that 99.9% of people out there aren't deciding on the same criteria as me. I just say what I like and why.


It's also combined with the fact that it's become pretty clear to me going to not just head fi meets that in fact, a heck of a lot of you out there are practically deaf and don't realise it, especially the older farts like me. Get a freakin' hearing test once in a while.