[ElMarcado]

Hello. Quick question: How something that measures better (for example, an iPhone 6 Plus headphone out) can sound worse objectively (less realistic, less prat, thin and harsh) when driving an efficient over-ear headphone compared to a esoteric audiophile tube amp like the Eddie Current Balancing Act or the GS-X Mk2?
Even if the iPhone 6 Plus have less THD, less impedance, it is tagged as 'thin' and 'harsh' with 'poor soundstage', while the less technically proficient ultra-expensive audiophile tube amps (called by objectivists as 'under-performing) sounds OBJECTIVELY better with ALL headphones.
 
Can someone explain this? Thank you very much. 

 

[Darkseth]

Mainly because measurements dont show you the exact soundquality, and most measurements are quite useless in that regard.
 
There are much more components, and more things that actually do something for soundquality (i doubt that ANYONE will hear any difference between some THD measurements etc~).
 
And, since that tube amp sounds way better, it cant be that hes technically worse, right? Any smartphoen dac/amp is nothing more than low-end. The question is, if your eyes can hear the difference.
 
But why are you comparing the iphone 6 with a TUBE amp? Tube amps have a different purpose. They are meant to sound warm, and a very low output impedance (which mainly has a use for expensive IEMs) is not their goal.
 
On an iPhone 6 you probably wont use any 1000€+ headphones for high fidelity music listening while loving the unique sounding of a Tube amp. You will probably use IEMs because its a smartphone. And if you listen to music, it will be somewhere in the city etc.
 
Take some expensive, very sensitive inear monitores with 3-4+ BA-Drivers (some, that react very sensitive to a higher output impedance) and listen them to the tube amp and to any low output impedance source. that might sound different.

 

[tomb]

  Hello. Quick question: How something that measures better (for example, an iPhone 6 Plus headphone out) can sound worse objectively (less realistic, less prat, thin and harsh) when driving an efficient over-ear headphone compared to a esoteric audiophile tube amp like the Eddie Current Balancing Act or the GS-X Mk2?
Even if the iPhone 6 Plus have less THD, less impedance, it is tagged as 'thin' and 'harsh' with 'poor soundstage', while the less technically proficient ultra-expensive audiophile tube amps (called by objectivists as 'under-performing) sounds OBJECTIVELY better with ALL headphones.
 
Can someone explain this? Thank you very much. 

 
1. It's direct empirical evidence that there's more to sound quality than the collection of measurements we've become to expect.
2. The race to low output impedance for amps means little in the overall string of components for music reproduction and how well they combine for the whole experience.
3. Distortion is not always a benchmark indicator of the best sound quality from an amp.
4. There are distinct listening advantages to a properly-powered, desktop-sized amp compared to a portable amplifier of any sort*, regardless of the selected performance measurements and their comparisons. 
 
* This also applies to most combination DAC-Amps, of any size.
 
5. With a few exceptions and discounting the outright rip-off artists out there, you get what you pay for.
 
I could go on, but that's probably enough for now.

 

[arnyk]

  Hello. Quick question: How something that measures better (for example, an iPhone 6 Plus headphone out) can sound worse objectively (less realistic, less prat, thin and harsh) when driving an efficient over-ear headphone compared to a esoteric audiophile tube amp like the Eddie Current Balancing Act or the GS-X Mk2?
Even if the iPhone 6 Plus have less THD, less impedance, it is tagged as 'thin' and 'harsh' with 'poor soundstage', while the less technically proficient ultra-expensive audiophile tube amps (called by objectivists as 'under-performing) sounds OBJECTIVELY better with ALL headphones.
 
Can someone explain this? Thank you very much. 

 
 
The apparent criteria "Sounds better to me" is subjective and as the saying goes: "There is no accounting for taste."
 
It is possible that being more sonically transparent (a technical property not related to taste) it does a better job of reproducing the irritating qualities of some recordings or stimulating or not concealing the irritating properties of associated gear being used.
 
For example,lets say that some speakers have a rising response to high frequencies and tend to sound harsh. An amp that rolls of the same frequencies may function as an accidental equalizer and thus produce more accurate sound. This is called shooting craps with audio gear!
 
Also, without a complete suite of measurements, we don't know that some common measurement that would reveal a possible flaw was skipped over.
 
9 will get you 10 that the "Measures better" was actually based on a spec sheet, and spec sheets are often contrived to give misleading impressions about equipment performance. 

 

[limpidglitch]

   
1. It's direct empirical evidence that there's more to sound quality than the collection of measurements we've become to expect.
2. The race to low output impedance for amps means little in the overall string of components for music reproduction and how well they combine for the whole experience.
3. Distortion is not always a benchmark indicator of the best sound quality from an amp.
4. There are distinct listening advantages to a properly-powered, desktop-sized amp compared to a portable amplifier of any sort*, regardless of the selected performance measurements and their comparisons. 
 
* This also applies to most combination DAC-Amps, of any size.
 
5. With a few exceptions and discounting the outright rip-off artists out there, you get what you pay for.
 
I could go on, but that's probably enough for now.

 
1. It's done sighted, unverifiably and without proper controls, so it's not direct, it's not empirical, and its not evidence.
2. Output impedance can be a matter of taste, but if you have a low output impedance amplifier you can easily increase it to whatever value you want by the simple addition of series resistance. If you have a high output impedance amplifier there is no easy way to experimentally lower it.
3. Distortion can also be a matter of taste, but again if you have an amplifier with low distortion values, you can add whatever effects you may want with the use of DSP. If your amplifier produces audible artefacts that are not to you liking, there usually are no easy way to remove them.
4. As long as the amplifier can produce a sufficiently high SPL with your headphones without introducing unwanted distortion, any amplifier is good enough.
5. Most amplifiers on the market are entirely over engineered for most headphones. If you get what you pay for, you're paying a whole lot for simple peace of mind.

 

[ElMarcado]

   
1. It's done sighted, unverifiably and without proper controls, so it's not direct, it's not empirical, and its not evidence.
2. Output impedance can be a matter of taste, but if you have a low output impedance amplifier you can easily increase it to whatever value you want by the simple addition of series resistance. If you have a high output impedance amplifier there is no easy way to experimentally lower it.
3. Distortion can also be a matter of taste, but again if you have an amplifier with low distortion values, you can add whatever effects you may want with the use of DSP. If your amplifier produces audible artefacts that are not to you liking, there usually are no easy way to remove them.
4. As long as the amplifier can produce a sufficiently high SPL with your headphones without introducing unwanted distortion, any amplifier is good enough.
5. Most amplifiers on the market are entirely over engineered for most headphones. If you get what you pay for, you're paying a whole lot for simple peace of mind.

Well, that's the problem. If high SPL with headphones is the only thing that matters along with low THD and low output impedance, then why a considerable amount of people keep saying that an esoteric Eddie Current amp sounds better with their headphones (improve their dynamics and soundstage, for example), and on the other hand, the same headphones sounds horrible for them through a highly proficient DAC/Amp like the Benchmark DAC1 and the classic O2+ODAC?
 
It's the distortion the responsible of the 'superior sound' of their tube amps, or what? And why those people despise these high-fidelity sources and praise the less technically-proficient one claiming that they sound better?

 

[limpidglitch]

 
Well, that's the problem. If high SPL with headphones is the only thing that matters along with low THD and low output impedance, then why a considerable amount of people keep saying that an esoteric Eddie Current amp sounds better with their headphones (improve their dynamics and soundstage, for example), and on the other hand, the same headphones sounds horrible for them through a highly proficient DAC/Amp like the Benchmark DAC1 and the classic O2+ODAC?
 
It's the distortion the responsible of the 'superior sound' of their tube amps, or what? And why those people despise these high-fidelity sources and praise the less technically-proficient one claiming that they sound better?

 
Why are a surprisingly large number of people adamant that a small vial of pure water can cure pretty much any illness, or that the current Mercury retrogade is the reason for their present poor state of mind?
 
There might be an audible difference between a certain fancy luxury amp and a more humble example, but it's not a requirement for people to hear a difference. Our brain has a mind of it's own, and it's not always easy to get a firm grip on. In this case the technical area of interest is apophenia, the brain's propensity for registering patterns where there in reality are none.
 
When it comes to esoteric gear, especially tube/valve stuff like Eddie Current, it's not impossible that it imparts some signature of its own on the sound, and that some people might prefer this to other amplifiers that imparts no signature. On the other hand, we can't disregard the possibility that the sheer stature of the physical object, and the warm, soft glow of the tubes has some impact on how the sound is experienced. Have you heard about the bouba/Kiki effect?

 

[Brooko]

@ElMarcado
 
Here is the biggest issue with your OP - you may want to change it ......
 

  Hello. Quick question: How something that measures better (for example, an iPhone 6 Plus headphone out) can sound worse objectively (less realistic, less prat, thin and harsh) when driving an efficient over-ear headphone compared to a esoteric audiophile tube amp like the Eddie Current Balancing Act or the GS-X Mk2?
Even if the iPhone 6 Plus have less THD, less impedance, it is tagged as 'thin' and 'harsh' with 'poor soundstage', while the less technically proficient ultra-expensive audiophile tube amps (called by objectivists as 'under-performing) sounds OBJECTIVELY better with ALL headphones.
 
Can someone explain this? Thank you very much. 

 
You mention the word objective/obectively 3 times - but in each instance you are actually talking about subjective impressions
 
The things I outlined in blue are all subjective descriptors - and you cannot possibly start relating them with objectively measured devices (as you are trying to correlate the two) unless you get some actual empirical data.  To do that you'll need to conduct blind tests, and you'll need to have exactly the same equipment tested for both products.
 
The other interesting thing here is that you chose the iPhone 6 - which is both DAC and amp, but you don't mention the DAC being used for the Eddie Current amp.  Also your reference to "all headphones" is likely to be incorrect, as really sensitive headphones are likely to expose the noise floor, and have impedance issues with the EC amp.
 
So basically your original post is a little generalised, and also I think you have subjective and objective observations confused.
 
In your second post, you continue to assume that "all people" will subjectively prefer the EC amp (again which DAC and what headphones?) - but until you substantiate that claim with real data, it is kind of difficult to give an objective reply.
 
As limpidglitch says above - a lot of us are suckers for something high priced vs something low priced, and also something that glows (I have a Little Dot MKIV and enjoy it with my T1 and HD600, but I am under no illusion that it has worse distortion than my solid state amp - I actually quite like the second order harmonics though).
 
Finally - I find your comment that the iPhone 6 is thin, harsh etc pretty far off base personally (admittedly I have the iPhone 5S).  Since I started using my iPhone (4 then 5S), I genuinely rate them as very good sources.

 

[tomb]

 

   
1. It's direct empirical evidence that there's more to sound quality than the collection of measurements we've become to expect.
2. The race to low output impedance for amps means little in the overall string of components for music reproduction and how well they combine for the whole experience.
3. Distortion is not always a benchmark indicator of the best sound quality from an amp.
4. There are distinct listening advantages to a properly-powered, desktop-sized amp compared to a portable amplifier of any sort*, regardless of the selected performance measurements and their comparisons. 
 
* This also applies to most combination DAC-Amps, of any size.
 
5. With a few exceptions and discounting the outright rip-off artists out there, you get what you pay for.
 
I could go on, but that's probably enough for now.

 
1. It's done sighted, unverifiably and without proper controls, so it's not direct, it's not empirical, and its not evidence.
2. Output impedance can be a matter of taste, but if you have a low output impedance amplifier you can easily increase it to whatever value you want by the simple addition of series resistance. If you have a high output impedance amplifier there is no easy way to experimentally lower it.
3. Distortion can also be a matter of taste, but again if you have an amplifier with low distortion values, you can add whatever effects you may want with the use of DSP. If your amplifier produces audible artefacts that are not to you liking, there usually are no easy way to remove them.
4. As long as the amplifier can produce a sufficiently high SPL with your headphones without introducing unwanted distortion, any amplifier is good enough.
5. Most amplifiers on the market are entirely over engineered for most headphones. If you get what you pay for, you're paying a whole lot for simple peace of mind.

 
1. In your opinion.  You just removed the most important measurement device of all - "done sighted." "Verifiably" implies that you, personally, must judge whether it's verified for it to be truly empirical.  I can show you some almost-100-year-old steam tables that say otherwise.  The origin of empirical data always begins with the initial observation.  Others verify it and arrive at a consensus.  I can verify that lower distortion does not always mean better sound.  You disagree and incorrectly assume that I'm referring to some sort of "good" distortion.  OK, we don't have a consensus if you are included.  Big deal.  It doesn't mean the entire exercise is not empirical.
 
2. It's more than taste.  It's a fact that some headphones behave better with higher output impedances.  You reference the fact that a higher output impedance can't be lowered.  Yet, you are assuming that one wants to do that.  The point is, it's just another specification like distortion, S/N, power, etc.  It means no more, it means no less.  Unfortunately, the focus lately seems to want to make that factor more important than the others.  That's wrong.
 
3. Distortion is not "taste."  You don't "add whatever effects you may want."  Again, you've bought into the crowd that seems to think that amplifiers provide flavoring, and that some people pursue something like tube amps so that they can get good distortion that flavors their music.  In the world of poorly designed, cheap amplifiers, that might be the case.  Yet the OP cited the Eddie Current Balancing Act and the Headamp GS-X.  JMHO, but I would never put those amps in the category of "whatever effects you may want."  One is classical tube, the other is classically pure solid-state.  Both are decidedly high-quality - extremely so.  You lump them both together as having "effects."  One would have to conclude that the bias is your own.
 
4. No.  Where is that SPL measured?  Most often, it's at 1KHz.  That doesn't tell you anything.  If you have a high impedance load, most likely a failure to reach a certain SPL at frequency will result in clipping. It will obviously distort and you can hear it.  Fine.  If it's a low impedance load, and the amplifier can't produce enough current, you may not hear anything, period.  Ever listen to a cheap AM portable radio?  They don't lack power at 1KHz.  The SPL is fine, but where's the bass?  Where's the rest of the response?
 
5. This is obviously false and insulting to the industry.  You imply with a simple post on a headphone forum that you know more about sound quality and value than people who have been involved in designing, testing, and marketing amps for decades,declaring them "over engineered."  "Over engineered" for what?  Distortion "effects?"  "High SPL's?"  Maybe "low impedance?"  So $$ equal "peace of mind?"  That's quite cynical and unjustified, IMHO.

 

[limpidglitch]

1. Please notice the difference between the words "verifiably" and "verified". The adverb does not imply the required involvement of a third party.
 
2. I'm saying it's easier to increase the output impedance than it is to lower it. What you personally choose to do is none of my business.
 
3. I'm sure they're both stunning pieces of engineering, I never meant to imply anything else.
 
4. If the frequency range has been changed, then distortion has been added.
 
5. Cynic. I'll take that as a compliment.