[sTaTIx]

Would someone please describe to me the differences between using the headphone outputs from a receiver or integrated amp as opposed to using a dedicated headphone amp? I want to know the sonic differences that I should look for so that I can justify spending 200 dollars on another component in my home instead of using my existing audio equipment.

From what I can understand, the headphone jacks on full components are of lower quality when compared to headphone amps. How is the sound affected, SPECIFICALLY? Is the effect the same as that of using NO amp at all (straight from the source) where the treble is scratchier, and the bass is looser, or is it an altogether different type of bad (for lack of a better term)?

 

[Suedama]

The specifics you are looking for will depend on the quality of your components. I have an NAD C370 Integrated amp with a headphone jack. I aslo have a Creek OHB11 SE headphone amp. In my opinion, they are of comparable sound quality. Others have said that NAD integrated amps have separate high quality headphone amps, rather than just a series of resistors from the main amp, so the NAD may be the exception rather than the rule.

 

[Tuberoller]

I have an NAD 317 intgrated and they do have very good headphone amps built in.if you remove the cover from any NAD integrated you will see the dedicated circiuts(with opamps) for the headphone amp.NAD is the exeption to this however.

 

[MirandaX]

Of the current NAD line, only the C160 preamp has a dedicated, fully class-A headphone amp. It has a 100-Ohm output impedance. Everything else in NAD's lineup (e.g. L40, C370) has a slightly less sophisticated, though still very good, headphone section. They have a 220-Ohm output impedance and so are more suited for Senns than low impedance phones (e.g. Grados will have a slight treble rolloff, but this arguably may improve the sound).

Someone on this board (RickG?) has a C160 and has given its headphone amp very good reviews.

 

[Audio Redneck]

Specifically? I currently have the following items with headphone jacks and and mainly use Sony V6's. Here's what they sound like:

1. Adcom GTP-400 pre-amp. I love it for the system, but the headphone jack hisses with all the phones I've tried so far.
2. Sony TC-k611 Tape deck. Best jack I have: gold plated and has a seperate volume control. Zero background noise, better bass. I am building some headphone amps and this is the one I have to beat. Even with my crappy Mura's, this jack sounds better and quieter.
3. Sony CDP-32. An oldie that I used in college. Quieter than the Adcom, but the jack on the 611 is still clearer even though its going a longer distance and through more pieces.
4. Pioneer receiver (I forget the model number). muuuudddddyyy, muuuuddddlllly, (OK, maybe its just because the rest of it is a pioneer that it sounds that way.)

Tuberoller probably makes the most valid point: is the headphone jack a major piece of the system, or just a few cents worth of parts for something that will be rarely, if ever, used.

$0.02

 

[sTaTIx]

Audio Redneck: When you say that the Pioneer receiver has muddy sound, what do you mean, specifically, in aural terms? Is the treble rolled off, or is the bass flabby, or what?

Another question: Am I correct in assuming that whether or not a receiver has a gold-plated headphone jack isn't necessarily an indication of its headphone output quality?

 

[Audio Redneck]

I am really not good a describing what I hear because I've hardly ever had another stereo-nut around that I could compare with ("well, whadaya think?" "I think the highs are rolled off")

But, at any volume, the bass is heavy and the treable light. Definately not what I would consider to be bright.

The main point I was getting at is that in two seconds, you can tell the difference between the Sony deck and the Adcom. And about 5 to 10 seconds with the other two. And with cheap headphones, too. One of these days I going to have to look closely inside at the differences.

And no, gold platting doesn't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. But it does at least say "somebody was willing to spend a little more making me". Its mainly one of several things: gold jack, volume control for the headphones, gold RCA's on the back. This particular deck was something like $450-$550(MSRP) (not that I gave that much) and has the build quality to show for it. And thankfully the sound of it, too.

You may have a decent jack with your equipment, but they definately vary, even with quality brands. So, take your phones and try them in different jacks and see how the sound changes.

Question, when you say "straight from the source", do you mean from the line-out?

Your up to $0.04 now.

 

[sTaTIx]

Straight from source=From the portable's headphone jack.

 

[Audio Redneck]

Ok, if you want to see a difference, if you have a portable with a line out, you can compare its headphone jack with the headphone jack on another peice of equipment (receiver, preamp, tapedeck, etc.)

Run a cable from the line out (not the headphone jack) to the line in of the device you are comparing and begin playing the portable. Plug the phones into the portables jack and listen for 10-15 seconds or more and then listen to the jack on the other device. Back and forth a few times and you should hear a difference.

How much? Well, how good's the jack on the portable and how goods the jack on the other device? (and by jack, I mean the whole headphone amp circuit).

It wasn't until I started doing these AB comparisons that I noticed a difference in the jacks (yeah, I'm a skeptic, too) because I always used the jack plugged to my pre-amp. Now I always use the jack on my tape deck, even if I'm using the tuner on the preamp. (after thinking about it, CLEARER is the word I would use to decribe the deck over the preamp at all levels - bass, mids, & treble)

If you've got a device that has a well thought out headphone circut, you may not need an amp (search for the Sennheiser without an amp thread.) But if your portable sounds better than your receiver, you may need an amp.

The only way you can get a more specific description is if you find someone who has your same home system and you cans. (But most folks here would bet you'll hear an improvement with a dedicated headphone amp)

 

[sTaTIx]

Instead of running the headphones through the heapdhone jack of the receiver, how about running them through the RCA outputs, instead? If the headphone jack components were the main detractors of sound quality, then wouldn't the RCA outputs be a good solution?

I can't test out anything right now, as I don't have a set of headphones to do so (not a pair that use the headphone out, at least). Anyone care to experiment?

 

[joelongwood]

Quote:

Originally posted by sTaTIx Instead of running the headphones through the heapdhone jack of the receiver, how about running them through the RCA outputs, instead? If the headphone jack components were the main detractors of sound quality, then wouldn't the RCA outputs be a good solution?

No. I'm assuming you're talking about the tape out RCA jacks. That would be like connecting to the line-out of a CDP.......it doesn't work, as the 'phones need amplification. At least I don't think it works. Maybe someone with more technical expertise can explain why.

Quote:

Originally posted by sTaTIx I can't test out anything right now, as I don't have a set of headphones to do so (not a pair that use the headphone out, at least). Anyone care to experiment? [/B]

No.....I value my headphones too much.

 

[Audio Redneck]

Quote:

Originally posted by sTaTIx ..... I can't test out anything right now, as I don't have a set of headphones to do so (not a pair that use the headphone out, at least). Anyone care to experiment?

Been there, done that, not pretty. A crummy jack sounds better. I don't think it damages the phones (BUT I DON"T RECOMMEND TRYING) because they sounded way too quiet - and I'm not much on loud.

If thats your option, stick to the jack.