Quote:
I don't want to seem pedantic or moronic by saying what follows but here we are talking about amp in the 300$-1000$ range. At the bottom end, most of the manufacturing cost is sinking into the company fixed cost (rent and wages), design, case work, workmanship time and very little is left to part cost, which is most likely in the budget area. Going upward the price range will in my opinion let more money share go to the cost of quality parts and workmanship expertise. It is true that most of the sonic characteristic is achieved through the circuit design, but the quality of the parts used are none the less important, as is the human control of quality.
+1, excellent post. There are a few veteran designers of course that can make the most of parts that aren't expensive because they're experienced enough to know how to use and work around the limitations. Those are the ones that offer the best values. But as a rule you make an excellent point. Schiit, Woo, etc are experienced enough to know how to get the best out of even their budget parts. Not that upgrading doesn't improve things (as their own ladder of products shows), but they KNOW their hardware. But generally, you're absolutely right.
Quote:
you would probably have to add noise, series output Z to the GS-2 to get it to audibly match the WA22
for the low current needed by the 300 Ohm Senn I doubt the WA22 tube distortion would be audible with music - but that can be modeled, used to degrade the GS-1 for better matching if desired too
http://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge
the take away for me is that it is highly likely the GS-1 can be modded to sound indistinguishable from the WA22 - by mods that many would consider being in the class of "adding defects"
And one would spend how much time, money, and experimentation to try to contort a GS-2 that sounds one way to sound "kind of sort of like" the WA22 that someone actually wanted it to sound like to begin with instead of just buying the WA22 up front? It proves little beyond that with enough time and money one can make a dead-neutral SS amp sound almost kind of like whatever pleasing distortion a different amp may produce. If I had that kind of time, money, and knowledge of sound shaping I'd just get a gig as a recording engineer or amp designer and be done with it
My experience with the HD 650 follows the second path. Most, at least the ones I've liked, more expensive amps have only incrementally improved the dynamics. No amp I have ever tried has significantly made it sound "like a different animal". I do not doubt amps have different frequency responses, I only doubt people's ability to accurately describe the magnitude of those differences.
I agree & disagree. No, a different amp won't make HD650 sound totally different, nor would I or any HD650 fan want it to. I'm also not certain the OP is actually terribly fond of HD650 given the desire to try to change it so. However the HD650s do play quite differently on my Lyr versus my O2, and both differently than my Headroom Micro & all the AVR's I've tried with it...all of those sound mostly the same. And it is a non-subtle difference. It doesn't change the nature of HD650 at all. it just does more of what HD650 does. But very obviously more.
Quote:
The producer/technicians in the studio listen to the stuff they record with a specific source, a specific amplifier and a set of speakers/phones. What theoretically is onthe actual recording is just an abstract idea. What was played/sung in the studio itself - the live performance - does of course exist. But in the process of getting taped, the sound has to be transformed to electrical variables by a microphone, a microphone amplifier, a mixing board etc. etc. etc.
The idea of neutral, transparent audio gear that "only plays what is on the recording" is just an abstract idea. Nobody ever heard what the recording sould sound like, because they need audio gear to listen to it.
Of course the source matters, but it is not an argument against amplifiers. They all matter. But I have heard a lot of dacs and a amps and speakers/phones - and I really think that the amp-speaker/phone synergy is more important. Just as long as the source is abovea certain level of quality (which of course will vary with the setup). Briefly put, i'm saying amplifiers/phones matterswith regards to sound signature/coloration. A better source will add resolution. And - oh yes - in case I did not make myself clear:
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS UNCOLORED SOUND
Excellent points. The neutrality-measurement crowd tends too often to forget that what's "on the recording" isn't the desired end point unless you're the studio engineer. For a studio album what's on the recording is an attempted absence of the environment it was recorded in so the playback gear has a "blank canvas' to create a stage/venue. Only binaural albums intend to capture the venue itself, and a handful of live recordings. For those, yes, dead-neutral has it's place since "what's on the recording" is the venue too.
And everyone forgets that the recording processed already passed it through racks and racks of gear that already colored it by the time it got to the recording. The microphone itself is made of moving diaphragm materials that work just like headphones but in reverse. AKG K70x uses their "Varimotion" driver diaphragm which was a variant of their microphone diaphragm design for example. Headphones are big mic's in reverse in that sense. Contact Sennheiser's pro audio division and ask them if their microphones sound just like AKGs, Shures, Beyers, Samsons, etc. Listen to them laugh. Mic tech is just as colored and just as varied by brand and model as headphones. Why would anyone think the resulting recording would lack any of that coloration? "What's on the recording" is probably one of the most confusing audiophile rants out there. We're building our systems to try to recreate what was on the STAGE, not what was on the recording, which is generally not quite what was on the stage. And that's why everyone "hears differently" as well. Different emphasized or distorted aspects, trigger for our brains differently to hear that "magic" factor of what tells us it's like what's on a stage.
Seeking an amp/can that produces that "magic" "damage" to the sound that fools our brains to equating it with a live stage is different for everyone.
Quote:
Back to your original question (and hopefully away from the religious discussion).
I'm sure I've seen measurements of amps which showed a decreased amount of stereo crosstalk when measured with HD650s connected.
As well, the perceived soundstage with better amps doesn't collapse as soon as the music becomes complex as it does with cheaper ones. This is what you pay for when you buy a good amp. Choosing an amp...well, that's a bit tough. They all sound subtly different, depending on the designer's intentions and ideas. I had to go through a few amps and learn the hard way about what mates well together, but I didn't end up spending a great deal to get very enjoyable results with the HD-600s. I suggest going to a meet if possible and trying out different combinations. I don't have enough experience with the HD-650s with a variety of equipment to suggest more than one amp and it isn't one that existed when I had HD-650s.
I can't remember if someone talked about electrostats at all. They require special amplification which is completely incompatible with normal headphone amps. However, there has been some mention of the Koss 'stats with driver (amp) going for as little as
$650, which is definitely worth considering.
And that just makes good old plain electrical
sense! Great post, +1.
Quote:
What plethora do you refer to? I can't think of too many amps that can do well with LCD-2, HD800, and HD650 under $500 let alone under $1K. For commercial amps, a WA-6SE might fit the bill with some willingness (and money) to tweak (tubes, EQ). A Mjolnir *might* fit but almost anything said about that amp is conjecture at this point. A 2 ch. Beta would work. A Dynahi would work but they're practically impossible to source. My amp would work but it's not for sale. =]
If you're serious about looking at something under $500, Lyr should still be on that decision table. It hits the price point, is good for all the headphones you mentioned (it was designed around LCD-2 and HE-5, and heavily tweaked around HD650 & K70x. Some have found it adequate with HD800, but most of what I've heard is that something much more expensive and much more tubey may be preferable for HD800. As in something outside your budget. So in your budget it's still fair choice. And it's biggest strength is you can tweak the sound with tube rolling, and that it actually IS good for everything except high sensitivity phones, since you're not sure what direction you're going to next you're bases are covered whether you go high impedance or low impedance. It's a heck of an amp and nicely tweakable (unlike Mjolnir which is the SS Lyr in a sense, and not customizable.)
If you think your next step may be Denons or Fostex TH900...it would be a very poor choice however.
There's also Schiit's statement gear that will be hybrid, probably balanced, and nobody knows what else...I'm guessing it'll sell for $1k or so (just a guess) but won't be available for a year or so.
