[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by jpelg Quote: I think we'd all choose #3. To be clear, YOU do not represent all those here either and it is presumptuous to make such a statement on their behalf. Maybe considerable extraneous noise coming out of your amp is not a problem, but that is far from true for many hi-fi listeners.

Please re-read choices #1, #2, and #3 again, then re-read the above quote from me

I think you misread, unless you take issue with my statement that we'd all rather have a better sounding amp with no drawbacks

If you really meant to take issue with my contention that #2 is better than #1, given that people who are in the market for a headphone amp by definition want better sound, then I have to ask, again: would you give up fidelity while listening to avoid any pot noise while changing the volume?

 

[Walt Milliken]

Sitting here with my brandnew HD 600s running off a new Total Airhead. I can barely hear some slight noise when I change the volume. But when I stop... Ah the sweet sound.

Now as a consumer, I can make my choice as to whether I want the tradeoff between a reasonable priced portable amp with slight noise when changing the volume or spending more on a better amp. I am not an electrical design specialist, but Tyll 's explanation seems reasonable. But, a difference in opinion with design decisions is not a defect in the product. By all means return the product because it doesn't meet your needs. Based on what I listening to now, it does meet other user's needs.

 

[chowsa]

Walt Milliken,

Your reply on this post has given me more confidence on my decision. Wow when I first posted, I never expected a long drawn out argument to break out, but I guess thats what forums are for. I can't wait until I receive my TAH( which unfortunately I have not had time to order yet, or to convince my mom to lend me her credit card ). I think I would gladly tolerate a bit of noise when changing volumes for a bit more sound quality, especially because this portable amp will be all I have for a while.

 

[jpelg]

Quote:

Originally posted by MacDEF If you really meant to take issue with my contention that #2 is better than #1, given that people who are in the market for a headphone amp by definition want better sound, then I have to ask, again: would you give up fidelity while listening to avoid any pot noise while changing the volume?

Yes, that is what I meant. I was really referring to the portion where you say "it seems like a no-brainer that they chose #2."

The question becomes "how MUCH fidelity?". You and I do not necessarily know what would be lost under scenario #1 vs. #2. The only possible way to do so in this instance is to do a direct comparison between last years Airheads and the new ones, in as scientific manner as possible. I don't know anyone who has done this side by side. I assume that HeadRoom has and that was the reason for their design decision. I, however, DO know what I can hear under scenario #2, and it is not a small deal. For me it is unacceptable and not what I consider hi-fidelity or high quality. Especially when the Airheads have historically been compared to "lesser, noiser" portable amps out there as being leaps and bounds better sounding. Your statement leads to an assumption that HR's design choices are the "end-all, be-all" of possibliities, and that is so NOT the case. There are other portable amps that do not exhibit the symptoms of the new Airheads. Comparisons of their relative "fidelity" have not been done yet by consumers, and are ultimately subjective. But do not make statements like #1, #2, & #3 as if HR has locked up the market on design possibilities on amps. Equating a very noticable noise problem with the term "audiophile" as Tyll did, does not cut it for me. YMMV, but you deserve to know that it is there, and make an informed choice. That is all. Heck, now that Tyll is saying that the Cosmic does this too, and for even considerably more $$. Makes me wonder about alot of these products we discuss here. For me, anything that goes "snap, crackle, pop" that is not in the original recording, and not in my breakfast cereal, is NOT hi-fi. Such sounds can even be damaging to speaker drivers, and possibly headphone drivers too (not to mention one's ears) at all volume levels.

Further debate over whether this is a "defect" or not seems to be a waste of bandwidth, harddrive space, and our valued time. The only opinion on that subject that matters is HR's. They have made their position clear - NOW. As I said before, these posts (and those related) will serve to inform future readers to make their own decision.

 

[jpelg]

damn, double post again. sorry - edited.

 

[James]

Quote:

MacDEF wrote: again: would you give up fidelity while listening to avoid any pot noise while changing the volume?

I vote for #3 and #2 over #1, and I'm sure I speak for this entire forum and the population of China

. I live every day with the mechanical power-switching noises of my mega-buck NAD amp, annoying digital miscues between my CDP and DAC, and heck, without just about any "normal" convenience of a typical cheap Sony receiver, because it sounds GREAT. My friends think I'm daft, loving such a cranky, "simple" system, but they just have different priorities.

Believe me jpegl, I understand how frustrating the little inconveniences can be. When I first tried out a Little many years ago, I was disheartened to discover that the pot mistracked at not-so-low volumes. My Sony boombox had better tracking, fer crying out loud! So the Little went back, even though at that time I had heard only one person complain about it (Greg Smith on SoundStage).

But it's obviously not HeadRoom's fault I didn't like their amp; I'm just that way about channel imbalances and HeadRoom can't be expected to cater to all idiosyncrasies. Similarly, I agree with MacDEF that it's not fair for you to complain authoritatively about defects and quality control just because HeadRoom's design philosophy doesn't adhere to your conceptions of high-end audio. And it's certainly unbecoming to gripe about the $15 or so it costs in shipping to audition a nice headphone amplifier, especially when you didn't give HeadRoom a chance to explain before bursting into song here on head-fi.
Quote:

jpegl: I do not feel this information was offered freely.

It was offered freely AND readily AND at an early date to anyone who asked (I heard it from Todd over the phone long before your complaints started, albeit without so much detail). Dan Wright, Jan Meier, Joseph Lau, Tyll Hertsens -- all these guys are not expected to stoop to our every demand, but it's admirable that they so often try. The RA-1 is designed for low-impedance headphones: does Joe Grados warn potential consumers about this? Heck no, but no one knocks him.
Quote:

Coming out with a "new, improved" version of an existing product, ought to imply that there are no shortcomings as compared to the original. I feel that there are some such shortcomings (ie. "noise" issues) which, at least, should have been openly declared so that consumers could make an informed choice.

With all due respect, do you have any idea how crazy this sounds? I don't think anyone should expect that the latest iteration of anything should be expected to perform better across the board than the previous version. Not every new Lamborghini Diablo was better in all ways to its predecessor, not every "NEW, IMPROVED!" detergent cleans better than the last. The new TAH sounds brighter than the old one, with less full but much punchier bass: is that better or worse? It has louder "pop!" when you switch on the amp: is this therefore, like the noises on my NAD amp, a defect?
Quote:

... that doesn't work completely as stated?

That doesn't work completely as "expected," perhaps, and that's no one's fault but your own.

Bottom line: it is apparent to me that HeadRoom tries their damnedest to make the best-sounding amps for our money and to provide a informative and supportive relationship with its customers. The vast majority of their patrons agree, as you've mentioned disbelievingly. If that's not your cup of tea, c'est la vie, but dissing them is not warranted.

James

P.S. You can completely avoid the crackling if you take your time turning up the volume. This makes sense from Danny and Tyll's technical explanation, although it's probably small comfort to you now.

 

[jpelg]

Well, James. I am (and never was really) interested in debating this issue with anyone here. My intention was only to mention a few hard learned facts that were not very well known prior to my posts. They were directed mainly to those who had recently purchased or may be considering the purchase of the products involved and to HR if they cared to listen or respond. I have no interest nor quarrel with those such as you who have no personal stake in the matter. But I owe it to my conscience to respond to you:

Quote:

Originally posted by James My friends think I'm daft, loving such a cranky, "simple" system, but they just have different priorities.

Hey, if you prefer the audio equivalent of a Triumph, Fiat, or even a Lamborghini sportscar, that is fine. I would much rather be driving on the road more than spending time in the garage. Give me a Mercedes or BMW anytime. Heck I'll take a Honda or a Volkswagon. Like you say, different priorities. I'll still pick you up on the side of the road and give you a ride to the nearest gas station.

BTW, how can you speak for this entire forum AND the population of China, when you admit your own circle of friends have that opinion or your choices? My advice is: "DON'T!" (speak for all of them, that is)

Quote:

Originally posted by James I agree with MacDEF that it's not fair for you to complain authoritatively about defects

Don't put words in MacDEF's mouth. He never said that.

Quote:

Originally posted by James especially when you didn't give HeadRoom a chance to explain before bursting into song here on head-fi.

Again I will state that in my initial phone conversation with Todd at Headroom, he stated that this was a "problem" that affected "some" of the Airheads. After I posted this fact, Danny started a whole 'nother thread on the subject. I never intended it to get as crazy as all this.

Quote:

Originally posted by James The RA-1 is designed for low-impedance headphones: does Joe Grados warn potential consumers about this? Heck no, but no one knocks him.

Actually virtually all marketing materials regarding the RA-1 state that it is designed for low-impedance headphones like the Grados. This includes every vendor catalog description of the product that I have come across as well. If I were to try it with something with higher impedance like a Senn600, and was dissatisfied, then I would be the one remiss after being sufficiently forewarned. I feel I was not in my case.

Quote:

Originally posted by James Not every new Lamborghini Diablo was better in all ways to its predecessor

Oh so now we are describing the Airhead as the audio equivalent of a Lamborghini? Do you know how ridiculous THAT sounds?

Quote:

Originally posted by James That doesn't work completely as "expected," perhaps, and that's no one's fault but your own.

You are right. I guess I just had too high of an expectation. My bad.

Quote:

Originally posted by James The vast majority of their patrons agree, as you've mentioned disbelievingly.

Now don't put words in MY mouth. I never said nor implied that.

 

[James]

jpegl, you're right, I shouldn't have misquoted. Apologies.

Actually, I had the Cosmic in mind when I brought up the Lamborghini; the detergent was meant for the ... OK, now Tyll's going to get angry at me. Just kidding, Tyll

.

Thanks for taking the flame gracefully; I really had trouble fathoming your beef with HeadRoom (still do, actually). But at least I understand your audio preferences: I once had a friend who tried to convince me that a low-end Mercedes was much preferable to a high-end Toyota. We ended the debate with my offering to pick him up at the side of the road

.

In case it isn't obvious, I have no such qualms about audio equipment (I'm a REAL audiophile, beat chest, flex earlobes), but to each his own.

Peace,
James

 

[gaineso]

James is pretty well speaking for me, although I'd rather have a Type "R" Bentley than a Lambo. Then again, I'm OLD. 20 years ago would have been different.