[Ruben123]

Well my original question was, if an amp can magically add more soundstage. As i understand, higher volume gives better soundstage so an amp CAN add more soundstage.
But, only if your source is not clipping, of sufficiënt quality etc etc. So at normal listening levels up to 95 dB, if your source can deliver that, you wont hear a difference at the same volume level (for instance 85dB), but if your source ends at 80dB, an amp can deliver higher volume and THUS better soundstage.

You need an amp that's capable of delivering enough power without clipping to drive the headphone to levels where you can resolve the positional cues properly. That's the point.


Well my original question was, if an amp can magically add more soundstage. As i understand, higher volume gives better soundstage so an amp CAN add more soundstage.
But, only if your source is not clipping, of sufficiënt quality etc etc. So at normal listening levels up to 95 dB, if your source can deliver that, you wont hear a difference at the same volume level (for instance 85dB), but if your source ends at 80dB, an amp can deliver higher volume and THUS better soundstage.

If all you need is 50mW you won't gain an advantage by having a 500mW amp. But you will be at a disadvantage if your amp can only produce 20mW.
Were you actually asking a question originally? ...

Localisation is based on the integration of inter-aural intensity and phase differences, along with auditory stream analysis. There's a good introduction here. Inter-aural intensity differences are based on shading due to the shape of the head, and become more pronounced with higher frequencies, starting at around 1.5kHz. As sound gets softer the relationship between the intensity and phase differences changes because of the alterations in the ear's frequency sensitivity. Put simply, it's easier to hear where a loud sound is coming from than a soft sound (in the absence of complications from reflections). This isn't a placebo.

 

[liamstrain]

  You need an amp that's capable of delivering enough power without clipping to drive the headphone to levels where you can resolve the positional cues properly. That's the point.
 
If all you need is 50mW you won't gain an advantage by having a 500mW amp. But you will be at a disadvantage if your amp can only produce 20mW.
Were you actually asking a question originally? ...
 

 
I left off the mandatory caveat. Provided that you have enough power from both amplifiers for the desired listening levels without clipping, let's say 50mW... then you gain no advantage between a 100mW source and a 500mW source.
 
No - I was not asking a question, I was trying to clarify for those following along. I don't think anyone was actually arguing that two different volumes would sound the same from a positional standpoint (the point you refuted with your chart) - but that two amps of differing (but sufficient) power at the same volume would sound the same from that standpoint. 

 

[charleski]

   
I left off the mandatory caveat. Provided that you have enough power from both amplifiers for the desired listening levels without clipping, let's say 50mW... then you gain no advantage between a 100mW source and a 500mW source.
 
No - I was not asking a question, I was trying to clarify for those following along. I don't think anyone was actually arguing that two different volumes would sound the same from a positional standpoint (the point you refuted with your chart) - but that two amps of differing (but sufficient) power at the same volume would sound the same from that standpoint. 

It looks like the quoting system is getting confused and mixing up things I was addressing to two different posts. But yes, that's the point I've been making all this time. Having too much power doesn't get you anything but you do need enough. In practice it's probably wise to tack on a couple of dB to your target as manufacturers always tend to be optimistic about their products' capabilities, and the definition of 'enough' will vary depending on your headphones' properties.
 
The real problem is that, while you can accept that cheap devices will skimp on their power output (they've got to cut corners somewhere, I suppose), it's very easy to find very expensive DAPs that compromise on this as well. Try finding a spec for the power output under load of the $2500 AK240. Try finding the power output of Sony's new $1200 walkman. Try finding the output of the $700 one they released last year. Try finding the power output of the $400 Pono Player (well, at least you can bridge the outputs, as long as you pay to have your headphones recabled...).  What do you think they have to hide? If I were spending $$$$ on a DAP I'd expect to be getting a product that I could be sure of, one that could cleanly drive any reasonable headphone, high or low-impedance, to 115dB without extra equipment or modifications.

 

[castleofargh]

   
The real problem is that, while you can accept that cheap devices will skimp on their power output (they've got to cut corners somewhere, I suppose), it's very easy to find very expensive DAPs that compromise on this as well. Try finding a spec for the power output under load of the $2500 AK240. Try finding the power output of Sony's new $1200 walkman. Try finding the output of the $700 one they released last year. Try finding the power output of the $400 Pono Player (well, at least you can bridge the outputs, as long as you pay to have your headphones recabled...).  What do you think they have to hide? If I were spending $$$$ on a DAP I'd expect to be getting a product that I could be sure of, one that could cleanly drive any reasonable headphone, high or low-impedance, to 115dB without extra equipment or modifications.

no need, A&K modifies audiophiles needs on demand. when they sold an expensive crap with a 22ohm output, it became suddenly not that much of a problem to have low impedance(but 4ohm from an ipod was a drama 6 months before). when they didn't offer a line out, it became suddenly ok to double amp(when people have been pissing on the sansa clip for years as a source for external amps because "double amping is baaaad"). there is no limit to what you can push an audiophile to do when your price says "high end".
 
seriously, having more than 25mW into 30ohm is still kind of a new thing for DAPs. fiio, ibasso, and hifiman have opened the way but for the rest we stay with mostly crap amp section and no measurement :'(.  I like FIIO mainly because of how open they are about specs. I just wrote yesterday about the fact that I bought the O2 really just because it was the only amp I could find on the web with so many measurements. sadly it's something really rare.
but I'm totally with you, when a brand "forgets" to give some specs for a product, it usually says a lot about the values of such specs.

 

[bufferoverflow]

   
The easiest (and probably most common) way of spoiling your listening experience is to turn up the volume enough to drive your amp into clipping.

Another good way to spoil your listening-experience, permanently, is to play to loud !
at 90dB average and 110dB peak you are triggering the ears built-in protection against excessive volume and if you do it to long the 'protection' becomes permanent .
(your hearing will reduce it's sensitivity, to protect itself .)
 

. There are at least two audio applications for cables that so far have not been properly adressed . There are probably more. Please do not ask which two apps are so cable dependant - I have plans to make them one day commercially available.  

 

 
This is the sound-science thread : Where is the science in claiming something and then refusing to back it up in any way - or even say what the %#?? you are talking about ?
Then you go on with the usual ramblings about blind-tests not showing anything, because some people have golden ears or something -
And offer nothing but meaningless talk to back up your claim .. Sorry, but no matter how many times subjectivist drivel is repeated it's still just drivel .
Throw in the commercial motive you claim and we have - marketing mumbo-jumbo .

 

[bigshot]

Personally, I'd rather just choose good cans and a player that don't require amping. The less clutter the better.

 

[cjl]

  I would like to stress that I do not agree with the statement that cables do not matter. There are at least two audio applications for cables that so far have not been properly adressed . There are probably more. Please do not ask which two apps are so cable dependant - I have plans to make them one day commercially available.

 
If you can't provide any evidence, this statement is useless and unsupported, and can be assumed to be false.
 
Quote:

 
Quick switching between/among short sound samples does not allow for enough adaptation time for discerning subtler things - at least not for me. Example? While roughly setting up the recording equipment in a hall prior to the arrival of musicians, I was only able to get the inherent noise floor of that hall as low as possible only after i was completely alone in that room for approx 10 minutes; only then did the faint hum emanating from the soft drinks dispenser located one floor above but "acoustically coupled" trough ventilation system became audible. With another person present ( not to mention the whole "band" ), that hum would clearly go unnoticed. Only to rear its ugly head later on during the recording where music is at the soft(est) level(s) for enough time for the soft drink dispenser hum to become glaringly obvious.
 
By then, it is too late... - and one can count on the fact that NOBODY will be accommodating you with an ABX test for the hum audibility of soft drinks dispenser one floor above - not during Sunday, chosen specifically for recording due to the fact it is the only daytime when building is not used simultaneously for MANY musically related activities, dance included.

ABX testing could easily discern the audibility of that hum. You would set up a test by making sure the ambient noise was as quiet as possible, then have someone turn on the soft drink machine (A), turn off the soft drink machine (B), and then turn it to a random state that is either on or off (X). If you could consistently tell whether it was on or off from the recording studio (matching X to A or B), you have conclusively proven that it is a potentially audible problem, and based on your description of it as "glaringly obvious", I would assume this would pose you no difficulty.

 

[bigshot]

Direct A/B switching is the easiest way to discern between two similar sounds. If you can't hear a difference when you can put one right next to the other, you sure aren't going to hear it when you have been listening for ten minutes and your ears have become totally acclimated to the noise.
 
However, extended listening time is a great way to develop placebo bias and to convince yourself you can hear something you really can't.

 

[charleski]

  Another good way to spoil your listening-experience, permanently, is to play to loud !
at 90dB average and 110dB peak you are triggering the ears built-in protection against excessive volume and if you do it to long the 'protection' becomes permanent .
(your hearing will reduce it's sensitivity, to protect itself .)

I'd advise an 85dB average, which will lead to peaks of 110dB or more on dynamic material. 85dB is the volume of city traffic inside a car, so not unreasonably loud. You certainly have to be sensible and avoid prolonged periods of listening at high volume, but you do need the volume if you want to get the experience.
 
Here's the RMS histogram for the opening chorus of Bach's Mass in B minor:


The majority of the material is 20dB or much more below the peak, with a mode of -24dB. Obviously if you're listening to music that's been squeezed flat in the loudness war you need to adjust your volume accordingly, and you will have much lower requirements for amplification if the peaks are only 6dB above the average level.

 

[RRod]

  I'd advise an 85dB average, which will lead to peaks of 110dB or more on dynamic material. 85dB is the volume of city traffic inside a car, so not unreasonably loud. You certainly have to be sensible and avoid prolonged periods of listening at high volume, but you do need the volume if you want to get the experience.
 
Here's the RMS histogram for the opening chorus of Bach's Mass in B minor:
 

The majority of the material is 20dB or much more below the peak, with a mode of -24dB. Obviously if you're listening to music that's been squeezed flat in the loudness war you need to adjust your volume accordingly, and you will have much lower requirements for amplification if the peaks are only 6dB above the average level.

 
What did you use to make that histogram?

 

[Wizz]

  Direct A/B switching is the easiest way to discern between two similar sounds. If you can't hear a difference when you can put one right next to the other, you sure aren't going to hear it when you have been listening for ten minutes and...[...]

 
Yes. This is basic knowledge among sound engineers, mastering engineers, music producers etc. People trained to hear minute details and minuscule differences, and spending lots of time practising critical listening. We KNOW that without A/B we can make unsound decisions (though we sometimes have to...) because we may be hearing what we expect, instead of what is.
 
The mere questioning of this, is one of my basic baloney alerts.
 
Anyone claiming that some (actual) sonic differences cannot be heard through a careful A/B setup but only through some sloppy methods including extended listening periods not directly correlated to each other and not even matching volumes, I consider automatically as a charlatan (if cynical) or a fool (if sincere). Until proven wrong of course. But I've been waiting for 30+ years now... still waiting... waiting...

 

[charleski]

   
What did you use to make that histogram?

That's Adobe Audition.

 

[analogsurviver]

  ABX testing could easily discern the audibility of that hum. You would set up a test by making sure the ambient noise was as quiet as possible, then have someone turn on the soft drink machine (A), turn off the soft drink machine (B), and then turn it to a random state that is either on or off (X). If you could consistently tell whether it was on or off from the recording studio (matching X to A or B), you have conclusively proven that it is a potentially audible problem, and based on your description of it as "glaringly obvious", I would assume this would pose you no difficulty.

Ahhhh - @cjl - and others - do you guys EVER work under real world conditions ?
 
This post of yours REALLY pissed me off - because in real life, it took me having to record in that hall WITH hum "one sunday not so many full moons ago" - because there was no way to get to the floor above due to keys/clearence/etc - Mission Impossible. Then I had to arrange meeting with the director of that floor during working week in order to get the permission to be given the key and access to that floor on Sunday. No way on earth I could have learned of the din that soft drink machine is causing during normal week activities in that building - there are at least two dancing schools in addition to this music hall in the building, working almost round the clock from 08:00 till 22:00 hours - in between it is closed.  I could have only learned of this machine's very existance the hard way. It is immortalized on a CD.
 
Me and my producer had to re-arrange the chairs for the musicians and microphone to the exactly same condition as the previous evening rehearsal - AFTER it has been re-arranged for a practice of baroque chamber orchestra in the morning. It took us more than half close to three quarters of an hour to get it all back to the original condition - and those 10 or so minutes of silence in loneliness, since he had to pick up an instrumentalist from the train station, was a godsend I am usually never blessed with. After musicians start arriving, tuning their instruments, singers "singing in" - you can FORGET any silence, and most certainly any ABXing.
 
If I did not get rid of that hum before musicians arrived, I would have heard it only later during a very quiet passage in music.  If and when music is loud enough, that hum is not directly audible - but does colour the sound nonetheless trough intermodulation with mains frequency and its harmonics. 
 
Why, do you ask, did we not book another hall with fewer problems? Answer is a straightforward one - money. Do you have any idea how much does it cost to have a piano at a hall that does not have a permanent good piano (although we did not need it this time)? How much does it cost to rent a hall? How much does it cost to....? Straighforward answer - TOO MUCH for means at our disposal. 
 
In theory, that ABX of yours would work really fine. If I told some 30 musicians who arrive at their own expense, leave children at home with babysitters or if older unattended, in order to record something best possible under given conditions because they love music making that much, that they have to be distracted from concentration on their own work and further delayed because of some ABX - you have only one guess what the response would have been. 
 
I did answer that extensively solely based on the fact that I basically respect you highly, jcl.
 
However, I will never again waste this much time to explain the obvious. ABX in the above example is an afterthought of an ........... after..... thought.
Lowest priority imaginable. I would be FAR better off listening to some test tracks recorded today in a salon where I have not set foot into for a hair under half a century. 
 
It is the fundamental difference between being a WWI soldier in the trenches fighting real war wearing wrong colour trousers not by his fault - or manequin wearing latest "designs" of army trousers in salons far away from the action in the safe rear.  Here the link for the movie Le Pantalon ( Trousers ) in original French : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G5Wpl5d4FI - 
because ABX crowd in a sense looks just as myopic as some of the officers in this movie made after real events - purveyors of "order, discipline and truth..."
- aka ABX. 

 

[bufferoverflow]

  I'd advise an 85dB average, which will lead to peaks of 110dB or more on dynamic material. 85dB is the volume of city traffic inside a car, so not unreasonably loud. You certainly have to be sensible and avoid prolonged periods of listening at high volume, but you do need the volume if you want to get the experience.
 
Here's the RMS histogram for the opening chorus of Bach's Mass in B minor:


The majority of the material is 20dB or much more below the peak, with a mode of -24dB. Obviously if you're listening to music that's been squeezed flat in the loudness war you need to adjust your volume accordingly, and you will have much lower requirements for amplification if the peaks are only 6dB above the average level.

 
I am not going to disagree with you on those 85dB - It's what most decent workplace security legislation stipulates as the maximum acceptable 'safe' average exposure ..
However, peaks of 110dB in high dynamic content music ain't exactly troublefree - Do it for to long time and your ears WILL try to protect themselves from excessive volume .
 
@ analogsurvivor : I STILL don't have a clue what you are actually talking about - In a 'sound-science' context .. Except the fact that you have self-proclaimed financial interests ?

 

[Wizz]

He's pissed off, and promises to stop wasting time explaining "the obvious".
 
The light at the end of the tunnel? ☺
 
Would be nice to have this thread back on its original tracks...