[koolkat]

I believe there's a debate somewhere on the boards about how a headphone should sound when it is well amplified versus an adequately amplified headphone.
 
Some swear with good amplification, the soundstage expands, there is less congestion, etc. Is that true for high impedance headphones? From what I recall, an insufficiently amped headphone will clip at high volume. So that should be the sole determinant of a good amp right? To be able to drive the headphones without clipping. Or is a transparent amp not unleashing the full potential of the headphones? Scientifically speaking of course.
 
Hope ^ makes sense. 
 

 

[Soaa-]

An ideal amp is simply signal in, stronger signal out. Amps that add their own coloration are technically not amps anymore, but filters.

 

[Steve Eddy]

 
Quote:

An ideal amp is simply signal in, stronger signal out. Amps that add their own coloration are technically not amps anymore, but filters.

 
Gimme some filters, baby! And make 'em go to "11"!

 

 
se
 
 

 

[Willakan]

 
Quote:

I believe there's a debate somewhere on the boards about how a headphone should sound when it is well amplified versus an adequately amplified headphone.
 
Some swear with good amplification, the soundstage expands, there is less congestion, etc. Is that true for high impedance headphones? From what I recall, an insufficiently amped headphone will clip at high volume. So that should be the sole determinant of a good amp right? To be able to drive the headphones without clipping. Or is a transparent amp not unleashing the full potential of the headphones? Scientifically speaking of course.
 
Hope ^ makes sense. 
 

There is also a debate on how headphones sound with the "stock" cable versus one made with Iranian irradiated unicorn hair (or silver, or 99.999999% pure copper...ect). An amplifier can either adequately amplify a headphone to provide music, including peaks, of a given volume, or it can't. Beyond that, unless it's doing bizarre things to the audio (which is indicative of a terrible design IMO) there isn't really any room for improvement.
 

 

[mikeaj]

Sure there's always room for improvement, but whether or not that improvement is audible is a different matter.

An insufficient amp (with the headphones and volume you set) will clip, not the headphones. Or if you listen really really loud, the headphones themselves can run out of excursion and clip, but I don't think you were talking about that.

In this context, people say an amp is "transparent" if the output is so close in shape to the original (may be larger or smaller, depending on the volume set) that you can't tell them apart. From the perspective of achieving high fidelity reproduction, the goal is an amp that outputs something that matches the input as close as possible, regardless of what the input is as long as it's in the audio frequency range and regardless of the headphones. The O2 was designed towards that objective (har har).

Some amps and other devices are designed to intentionally add distortions on top of the signal, which can thicken the sound or otherwise alter the original. Arguably this can make things sound better, but that's a different design goal for sure, and one that's hard to define since different people will think different things sound better.

 

[SpaceTimeMorph]

That Iranian unicorn hair is some good stuff.  You should see how it sounds after a 5 year liquid nitrogen bath.  Brings out the mid-range like none other.

 

[deadlylover]

Easy there guys, it would be very short sighted to assume that anything that doesn't sound like the Obj2 must be coloured/crap.
 
Considering I'm the only living person who has compared it with a decent amp, you guys don't even have an opinion.

 

[Willakan]

 
Quote:

Easy there guys, it would be very short sighted to assume that anything that doesn't sound like the Obj2 must be coloured/crap.
 
Considering I'm the only living person who has compared it with a decent amp, you guys don't even have an opinion.

I'm afraid as far as opinions go, I regularly recommend stuff based entirely on the numbers (not manufacturer specs or RMAA stuff obviously)
It may seem short-sighted, but neutrality isn't subjective IMHO. To turn it round, it would be very strange to assume that things that sound different than the O2 do not measure significantly differently - and the only audible type of difference you can get (as the modern body of evidence stands on the subject), assuming you're not trying to drive an astoundingly insensitive headphone, is deviation from neutrality - which involves objectively worse measurements.

 
 

 

[deadlylover]

Quote:

I'm afraid as far as opinions go, I regularly recommend stuff based entirely on the numbers (not manufacturer specs or RMAA stuff obviously)
It may seem short-sighted, but neutrality isn't subjective IMHO. To turn it round, it would be very strange to assume that things that sound different than the O2 do not measure significantly differently - and the only audible type of difference you can get (as the modern body of evidence stands on the subject), assuming you're not trying to drive an astoundingly insensitive headphone, is deviation from neutrality - which involves objectively worse measurements.

 
I'm with you 100% on the "amps that measure the same should sound the same", but that's just not my personal experience. I'm more than happy to admit that I'm an idiot, but does no one really want to just work together and figure this out?
 
The only reason why I built the Obj2 in the first place, is to see how it sounds compared to the well regarded beta22. I really went out of my way to try and figure this out, but it does suck living in fear of being shot down by the sound science gang.

 
Until you actually get some first hand experience, it really seems like you have no idea what you are talking about. I don't mean that in a bad way, but come on man, as a scientist, put your balls against the wall and start doing something productive. You know what they say, if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
 
It's fine if you don't though, because at the end of the day, your opinion is just as worthless as mine.

 
You don't bother because you know it will lead you nowhere? Balls to it man, I've never heard of such a closed minded "scientist".

 

[koolkat]

So all that babble I recently saw in another subforum about DT880 600 Ohm having bad soundstage when underamped is baseless? ok.

 

[mikeaj]

So all that babble I recently saw in another subforum about DT880 600 Ohm having bad soundstage when underamped is baseless? ok.

It's quite possible for a worse amp to have worse channel separation (L and R channels leaking together) and significant phase shift across the frequency range. Those things should effect the perception of soundstage. Also, higher volumes tend to sound better, and it's easier to hear details if everything is louder, which a more powerful amp can accommodate--not to mention, if louder and less distorted. So I'd say "bad soundstage" is a subjective thing that you should listen for yourself about, but there are some things one amp could do differently than another, that may impact the sound in a real way. This may or may not result in a consistent perception of different soundstage.

 

[Willakan]

 
Quote:

 
You don't bother because you know it will lead you nowhere? Balls to it man, I've never heard of such a closed minded "scientist".

Few things:
1. I make no claim to being a scientist. Rationalist, quite possibly. I make decisions on the balance of evidence but lack the time and money to purchase monstrously expensive products to DBT them.
2. The "I might be an idiot" bit is a bit of a misconception - please don't be amongst the many who take any suggestion of bias as an insult, rather than an inevitable part of being human.
3. Audible differences to the Beta22 - aside from the unavoidable bias of it being a sighted test (again, don't take as insult/denigration) it is entirely possible that the Beta22 doesn't measure very well. The given crosstalk measurements are interesting - for all the wrong reasons.
4. No idea what I'm talking about/Closed minded: As we seem to be coming at this with rather different approaches, let me lay down how I see it. Science in its present and undoubtedly imperfect state suggests that audible differences between 2 amplifiers which both measurably excel do not exist. Leaving DBTs and the like out of it (they are constantly misinterpreted as the cornerstone of the objectivist argument rather than simply an approach to try to win over the pseudo-objectivists whilst allowing them to still hold a fair chunk of their beliefs about the vital importance of human perception in every stage of design of anything in the audio chain) I have yet to see any compelling evidence that this is not the case, hence I believe it (belief not perhaps being the best choice of words). Any perceived differences can be adequately explained by current scientific ideas regarding unavoidable human bias.
If someone presents any test with reproducible results that suggest such differences exist and are not due to bias, I will quite happily do a complete u-turn and not judge myself a fool for doing so. However, as it stands, there are more papers in the field of parapsychology claiming to prove the existence of telepathy than there are claiming to prove differences between practically identically measuring equipment. As it happens, the results from the tests in those papers proved impossible to repeat and their experimental design flawed. We don't even HAVE any study laying down a consistent set of "audiophile" beliefs - so what exactly am I meant to think?

 

[kiteki]

 
TL;DR someone made a headphone amp.
 

 

[Maxvla]

I'd like to know what the guy ringing the bell is standing on.

 

[deadlylover]

Quote:

Few things:

 
Thanks for clarifying your position, I really have no problem with it at all, because you speak nothing but a large amount of sense.
 
It just pains me a little that the rationalists such as yourself don't make any effort to confirm your beliefs(yeah, wrong word lol). I never really meant that the current science is incorrect or anything like that, because chances are, it isn't. It's not about being right or wrong, but don't you think that it's a little unfair that you are simply 'guessing' as to what an amp sounds like? The proper use for science IMO in this somewhat subjective hobby is to back up your findings, because let's be fair here, until you've heard something, you just have no idea what it sounds like.
 
I'll have to apologise for coming off a little harsh. In hindsight, it's just not practical for everyone to do their own testing and what not, for reasons you've stated. For me, the sea of subjective impressions from all the different amps was enough to inspire me to do something about it and try figure things out for myself. Unfortunately, I've gotten nowhere of course, but hey, at least I now know which end of a soldering iron to hold =P.
 
Quote:

 
TL;DR someone made a headphone amp.

 
No, someone made the best headphone amp ever, and anything that sounds better must be worse.