PART THREE-- WHAT I LEARNED ABOUT HEADAMPS
After about 3 weeks of continuous listening, and after going through dozens and dozens of CDs, I’m now confident I’m ready to write the review, so here it is!
Ha-ha, made you look! No, actually here it *isn’t*. The actual review is in Part Four in a post down below. This is Part Three, dedicated to distilling what I’ve learned so far about headphone amps. This information cost me thousands and thousands of dollars, and I wanted to do something with it, so I decided to pass it on to you! For free! If nothing else, it will help provide the background to the Emmeline Review, and give you a sense of where I’m coming from, and a glimpse at one Head-Fier’s journey so far through the world of headphone amplifiers, which I hope will be entertaining for some of you. If not, feel free to skip ahead at your level of interest. Sections/topics are clearly marked in
BOLD.
These are just my own personal opinions/biases/experiences, which are not exhaustive, so take these comments for what they are worth…
MY AMP HISTORY
In the words of David Byrne—“well, how did I get here”? Several years ago, when I first seriously embarked on this headphone odyssey, I purchased a Headroom Home (old version) for my Sennheiser HD580s, which I’d already had for years. I selected Headroom only because I saw their ads in Stereophile, and theirs were the only “headphone amps” I was aware even existed. Well, I didn’t take to the Home at all, and didn’t find that it sounded any better than the jack on my Marantz AV9000 HT pre/pro. So, I stepped up to the HD600s and ordered the Maxed Out Home (old version). I didn’t really find the MOH to be satisfactory either. That’s when I discovered Headwize, and came to realize there were a number of other headphone amps out there, many of them tubed (of course there was nothing like the selection we have today!).
A little detour, if I may. You newbies have no idea how good you have it now. It used to be a lot harder to find reviews/opinions on headphone stuff. Headwize was still in its more formative stages (Head-Fi didn’t even exist yet), and although a goldmine of information, it didn’t yet have the kind of database that it has today. Also, there weren’t really people that took the time to write the sort of comprehensive reviews we have become so accustomed to these days. At best, you’d get a couple paragraphs or a stray comment here or there that were inconclusive anyway. IMO, the hobby as we know it today didn’t really crystallize until Jude started Head-Fi, people got serious, and truly print-magazine-worthy reviews began to be written. Since then, the quantity and quality of information readily available about headphone gear has improved dramatically. Since I benefited so much from others' taking their time, I try to "pay back" by writing reviews myself. So, we've gone from too few reviews with too few words and too little information, to way too many words, and too much info to sort through.
But I digress. Anyway, I’d never owned any tube gear before and had basically written off tubes as being hopelessly antiquated technology listened to by old codgers with scratchy old mono LPs and ancient Victrolas. However, since I found that the “best” (or certainly most expensive) solid state headamp then available (MOH) didn’t impress me, I’d try a tube amp just to see what would happen if I went in the complete opposite direction. Besides, I figured in a headamp application, you don’t need hundreds of watts of brute force-- in fact you don’t even need a single watt-- so why not try some flea-powered tubes?
So I sold the MOH and purchased an Earmax. Boy, I could tell that it did a lot of things right, and I was instantly seduced by the enchanting tube sound, but it clipped horribly with the HD600s when it was turned up to even a reasonable listening level. IMO, the standard Earmax (which was allegedly designed specifically for the HD600) is completely worthless, and can’t drive any load let alone the HD600. So, back it went and I got the higher-powered Earmax Pro as a replacement. This was much better with the HD600s, with very strong bass, and a very tubey signature, but I found that the EMP was unable to drive the Etymotic ER4S without clipping as the Earmax had done with the HD600. Consequently, IMO, the EMP is probably unqualified to drive anything other than the HD600s to the kind of volume levels I prefer (relatively loud).
Anyway, after discovering the joys of tube-rolling, I was able to bring up the EMP to a level sonically where I was very pleased with it powering the HD600, and used this set-up for a while. Eventually, though, I fell out of love with the HD600, and knew that if I swapped headphones, I probably couldn’t rely on the EMP to be able to drive the new cans.
My next amp was a relatively obscure product by the name of the Berning MicroZOTL, which is still one of the few lower-priced tubed headamps out there able to confidently drive any headphone load, and in fact actually has enough power to drive undemanding speakers. The ZOTL was clean as could be, if a bit polite, and a hair on the bland side with the HD600. But when paired with the Sony CD3000, it made beautiful music. I still think this is a great combo (as do a number of other folks here), and continue to recommend the ZOTL as a companion for the marvelous CD3000. So, in the end, the ZOTL was much more versatile than the EMP, and really shone with the CD3000. I owned the ZOTL for as long as I owned the CD3000.
After falling for the CD3K, I decided it was time to stop screwing around, and when the chance arose I pounced on a used pair of the then relatively undocumented Sony MDR-R10s. I quickly realized that I now possessed a headphone that shamed everything that was upstream of it, including the ZOTL and my source. This set off a round of source upgrades, and led to my selling the ZOTL to purchase a Melos SHA-Gold, the bigger brother of the more common SHA-1 owned by many on this site. I loved the Melos SHA-Gold with my R10s, and quickly upgraded to a SHA-Maestro, the all-out version of the Gold. Let me tell you, the Melos Maestro with NOS Siemens Gold Pin 6922s was one hell of a combo with the R10s. I also continue to highly recommend all the Melos amps at any price level you can afford. This is another one of those rare amps that is perfectly happy driving any headphone, any impedence. This means you can hang onto the Melos while you continue to audition headphones, knowing that you have a world-class amp (at its price point) to tell you how good those new cans truly are.
A PRE-AMP BY ANY OTHER NAME…
And so I was happy for quite a while until one day a few months ago, on a lark, I stuck my R10s into the headphone jack on my Denon AVR-58000 HT receiver, Denon’s top-of-the-line showcase product. To my utter disbelief, I could not deny that the jack on my Denon was equivalent to the Melos Maestro in a number of important ways, better in a few, and not as good in some others. On balance, after listening to the Denon’s jack I could no longer justify hanging on to the Melos Maestro, given that I could be equally happy with either one. This experience just confirmed two separate realizations that had been percolating in my mind for some time:
1. A headphone amp is nothing but a limited-function pre-amp.
2. It’s a myth that “all jacks on all non-headphone amps suck”.
Over the course of going through 8 separate headamps in my system, I've concluded (to my own satisfaction, anyway) that what is marketed as a “headamp” is nothing but a limited-function pre-amp by another name. Look at the functionality of a basic pre-amp vs. a headamp-- you have audio inputs, a volume control, a source selecter, and a headphone jack. If it's a good pre-amp, chances are it will make a good head-amp and vice versa. In fact, many of the better headamps also happen to function as good pre-amps, or also offer pre-amp functionality. Many of the most cherished “headamps" are actually pre-amps. In fact, Ray Samuels, designer of the HR-2 is primarily known as a maker of high-quality pre-amps. It was probably only natural for him to turn to the headphone amp as an extension of his product line.
IMO as a layman, there's really not much special voodoo in what we call a "headamp" vs. what we call a "pre-amp" (outside of crossfeed in some units, and the ability to drive tough loads like the HD600). If you already have a component that has a top-quality pre-amp section and it has a headphone jack, why spend all that money on a separate box that recreates the exact same functionality? The amount of power required to drive cans is very low, not really more than a good pre-amp generates in the process of just being a pre-amp. IMO, adding a $300 “headamp” to your $1200 pre-amp with headphone jack, could end up being a waste—you may have to get a $700-$1000 headamp to have sound/parts quality equivalent to your existing pre-amp.
The lesson I took from all this shuffling in and out of equipment, was not to be afraid of trying out the jack on your receiver, integrated amp, pre-amp, pre/pro. You never know, if it's a good pre-amp, it just might have a headphone jack that can compete with many of the budget amps (sub-$500) out there. There's a growing group of folks here who go after the vintage 70s-era Fisher and Marantz receivers/integrated amps strictly for their headphone jacks. So, hey, give it a shot! As one Member's signature so astutely states: "if it *sounds* good, it *is* good."
I realize these comments/opinions/theories/"revelations" are very general in nature, and there are no doubt many exceptions to any of the "rules" I've come up with.
That said, my particular experience has also led me to conclude that it’s a myth that the headphone jack on your audio component automatically sucks by default.
I've never seen much focus or attention paid to the entire topic of headphone jacks in other non-headamp products, except to repeat the usual mantra about them being sub-par, which in most instances, I can see being a pretty reasonable assumption. After all, "good headphone jack" is going to be on the feature priority list at number 2113. The receiver has an awful lot of jobs to do, there's a ton of technology crammed in there that make up the bulk of the cost. Whereas a dedicated headamp is made for one purpose only-- to provide good, clean headphone sound. But that's not to condemn all receivers, as I've heard at least 2 exceptions to the “rule” (granted at very high price-points).
On my Denon AVR-5800 receiver, for example, the jack’s sound quality is outstanding, very dynamic, immaculately clean, and detailed, with a great top-end, but it isn't as warm, lush or romantic as tubes, which is a definite trade-off. In addition, if you read this whole post, you’ll recall that I said that way back when, I found the Headroom MOH (old version) to be not as good as the headphone jack on my then Marantz AV9000 HT preamp/processor.
I realize these are both relatively expensive pieces of equipment. I agree that it is unlikely that a $500 receiver is going to have a great pre-amp section and headphone jack. I am certain, however, that it's safe to assume that, in general, the better the quality the receiver, the better the quality of its headphone jack.
However, in my mind, these insights do NOT apply to jacks on CDPs/DVD players. Even if you have a $1000 DVD player, by expecting a good headphone jack, you’re also asking your DVD-player to act as good pre-amp. Now while I assert that a headamp = a pre-amp, I’m NOT saying that a CDP = a pre-amp! Nope, even I can tell those are two totally different beasts! So, no, it’s unlikely that the headphone jack on your $1000 DVD player is going to be as good as a $300 dedicated headamp.
Anyway, long story short, it turns out the pre-amp section of my Denon AVR-5800 is fantastic, and the headphone jack plugs straight into that, so it sounds just great driving my Sony R10s. Here I was going to stay for a long time until I was in a position to purchase for my R10s an amp such as the Cary CAD300SEI, or some other over-the-top piece like that. And some day, I'm sure I will!
But in the meantime, Jude contacted me about doing this review of the much more sensibly priced Emmeline HR-2, and I thought—why not? I’ll give it a spin, and so here we are... almost, but not quite at the actual review.
Mark
