[krmathis]

If both are well designed and crafted - aka no overpriced "junk" there should be quite a noticeable difference. After all the $1200 should have higher quality parts.
If the 4 times higher price is worth it is up to the buyer to decide. What is worth it to some may not be worth it to someone else.

 

[jax]

 
Quote:

Actually, I really disagree with the idea "todays $300 dollar amplifiers are constructed to run with $1000 amplifiers from last year".  In fact, I have usually felt the exact opposite with regards to amplification and even more so with DACs.  Yes, there are newer designs and yes digital audio has taken huge steps forwards... which makes $1000 amps and DACs from a few years ago sell for $300... but they still sound like $1000 units and usually go head to head with today's $1000 products.

Ummm, walk me through that again.  You are saying newer designs and digital have taken huge steps forwards WHICH makes  a $1000 DAC from years ago usually go head to head with today's $1000 products?  Sorry, though I agree with the latter premise the entire statement doesn't make sense...perhaps that was the point?  The latter half of the statement would imply that in fact no huge steps forward have been made.  Anyway, I'd generally agree that there are DAC's from years ago that are very enjoyable to listen to, and may even eclipse developments in the digital realms, especially those that seem to have ultimate resolution, detail and neutrality as their goals.  I never got the draw to the Benchmark sound - I've tried one twice (recent version and older version) and never liked that DAC, which is widely considered to be one of the biggest modern bang-for-buck DACs.  There are some wonderful amps from the golden age of tubes that are still very enjoyable - will they go head to head with a moderately priced modern amp?  I guess it depends on your expectations.  It terms of sonics, what the things actually sound like...which seems to be more to the point of what the OP is after...developments over time seem to be in the direction of bringing out more detail while attempting to remain musical and engaging. 
 
With a headphone amp, and with headphones in general, if there are any flaws, any stridency's, you will have no escape, no relief, no buffer - it's going straight into your ears.  Over a short time these flaws become readily apparent.  That's not to say that a $300 amp will exhibit flaws...just that it becomes a bit more critical to be aware of the potential for this.
 
Since no one seems to be saying just what kinds of sonic improvements you might expect, let me suggest a few possibilities.  What you might hear with a better (more expensive) amp is greater clarity and resolution, possibly better extension in the extremes, a more natural realistic presentation, and better balance throughout the range, among other possibilities.  Just throwing money at it is no guarantee that you will get any of this, but these are a few places where improvements could be heard.  Of course that is not to say that everyone can hear those differences, nor that everyone cares about them or values them at the added premium you might pay ($900 in the case of your question).  That part is up to you, and indeed it would be a great idea to go to a meet if you were interested in hearing various headphone amps to compare, or to a dealer that specializes in them.  Just like the wine example someone gave - not everyone will discern the differences or care about them.

 

[FallenAngel]

Actually, I meant exactly what I wrote.
 
Take the NorthStar m192 DAC for example.  It sells for around $750 now, used to cost $2500.  I'd put this DAC against most $2000+ units any day of the week.  I've also had the pleasure of owning an EAD DSP-7000 DAC that I snatched for about $400 and later sold for $350, original price being about $2000.  I liked this DAC more than most $1000 "modern".
 
As for amps, I still used a Kevin Gilmore Dynalo, designed in 2001 up until a few months ago.    With a good power supply, it's an uber amp.  Oh, and currently I use a Gilmore Dynahi, designed in 2003.  I can't easily find an amp I enjoy more than this, certainly in the same arena as the Beta22 which I absolutely love.

 

[jax]

 
Quote:

Take the NorthStar m192 DAC for example.  It sells for around $750 now, used to cost $2500.  I'd put this DAC against most $2000+ units any day of the week.

Well that would then imply that newer designs have NOT taken huge steps forward.  I thought you were saying that they had.  I am confused...sorry, I must be missing something here. 
 
I heard an Empirical modded Northstar m192 at length in a system I am very familiar with.  Much as I do like other stuff I've heard from Steve Nugent (his Pace Car and OffRamp are excellent pieces), that piece did not impress me.  Never heard a stock m192 though, so can't comment there.  Steve also seems to like the Benchmark a lot, and does (did?) a mod on that DAC.  I can't stand the stock Benchmark - never heard the Empirical one. In that same system I heard the M192 by direct comparison I much preferred a Havana and a Modwright Transporter to the M192.  The Havana is much less expensive.  Does that mean it's a better DAC? I only know that I'd prefer to listen to it over the m192 in that system.  You'd have to be your own judge, and indeed you may hear things entirely differently.  To each their own. 

 

[downsize]

I think the Benchmark DAC is one of the most sterile and unmusical pieces of gear I have ever heard ... Just MO.

 

[hodgjy]

IMHO, this is a case of "be careful what you wish for."  Benchmark did so well to take out all errors and jitter, the sound loses some of its musicality.  The opposite condition is why tubes are very popular--the second and third harmonic distortions are very pleasing to the ear.
 
Quote:

I think the Benchmark DAC is one of the most sterile and unmusical pieces of gear I have ever heard ... Just MO.

 

[jax]

Quote:

IMHO, this is a case of "be careful what you wish for."  Benchmark did so well to take out all errors and jitter, the sound loses some of its musicality.  The opposite condition is why tubes are very popular--the second and third harmonic distortions are very pleasing to the ear.
 

 

Why, "be careful what you wish for?".  I sure wasn't wishing for anything in the realm of what the Benchmark delivers...at least in my experiences of it.
 
Not sure what you mean about taking out all "errors and jitter" - Error correction is in the domain of ripping the files and the software associated with doing just that, as well as the read mechanism reading the info from the disc (CD or hard drive).  What "errors" is the Benchmark correcting? I don't know if the Benchmark's claim to being entirely jitter immune are true. Whether or not they are, I would prefer not to listen to one, regardless of what they added or took out, or claim to have done right. 
 
Second order harmonic distortions can be pleasing to some.  Others may not like it. Same goes for third-order harmonic distortions, which are more typically associated with pentodes and transistors as I understand it.  Anyway, if it's pleasing to the ear, and it enhances your enjoyment of music, I say go for it!   Why not?  There are no rules here...or did I miss that memo?
 

 

[hodgjy]

I wasn't pointing that at you....it was at Benchmark, so to speak.  What I was trying to say is that they made an absolute marvel of technology, but it may not be as musical and pleasing compared to cheap vinyl.  Music is a mysterious and wonderful beast, and you can't always tame it through technology.
Quote:

Why, "be careful what you wish for?".  I sure wasn't wishing for anything in the realm of what the Benchmark delivers...at least in my experiences of it.
 

 

edit: typo

 

[jax]

 
Quote:

I wasn't pointing that at you....it was at Benchmark, so to speak.  What I was trying to say is that they made an absolute marvel of technology, but it may not be as musical and pleasing compared to cheap vinyl.  Music is a mysterious and wonderful beast, and you can always tame it through technology.

 

 
I think Benchmark was originally targeting the product to the Pro Audio market where neutrality reigns king.  Why it has been so embraced by the audiophile community is entirely beyond me.  To be fair, I've heard it sound good in a few systems at various shows, but in the systems I was intimately familiar with that I tried it in I could not get over what occurred to me as a harsh and strident top end and rather un-natural sounding, almost hardened sound.  I tried both the older version and the newer, USB version (not the newest one though). 
 
I think you must have meant to say that you "CAN'T always tame it through technology."
 
I'd offer a different perspective on the same sentiment.  Humans are not machines...how we respond to music and the reproduction thereof is entirely more complex than bars and graphs and numbers.  It is also widely varied and entirely unique to the individual.  The "Fidelity" in High Fidelity, though meant to be something truthful and objective, has to be interpreted by a human not a machine.  If we are all unique, what's the point? Find what you like and enjoy the hell out of it. You are certainly the best judge of what is right for you.
 

 

[hodgjy]

Yes, good catch on the typo.  I did mean to say can't.
 
Also, I 100% agree with your other statement below.  Music is art, and art moves each person in different ways.
 
Quote:

 
 
I think you must have meant to say that you "CAN'T always tame it through technology."
 
I'd offer a different perspective on the same sentiment.  Humans are not machines...how we respond to music and the reproduction thereof is entirely more complex than bars and graphs and numbers.  It is also widely varied and entirely unique to the individual.  The "Fidelity" in High Fidelity, though meant to be something truthful and objective, has to be interpreted by a human not a machine.  If we are all unique, what's the point? Find what you like and enjoy the hell out of it. You are certainly the best judge of what is right for you.
 

 

[wuwhere]

This is off topic. At one time I had about a $20k home system that I was incrementally upgrading. Then I was able to listen to a $200k system. After that I stopped upgrading.
 

 

[hodgjy]

.....because yours was just as pleasing to you, or because you realized it was hopeless to try upgrading?
 
Quote:

This is off topic. At one time I had about a $20k home system that I was incrementally upgrading. Then I was able to listen to a $200k system. After that I stopped upgrading.
 

 

[AVU]

 
Quote:

Actually, I really disagree with the idea "todays $300 dollar amplifiers are constructed to run with $1000 amplifiers from last year".  In fact, I have usually felt the exact opposite with regards to amplification and even more so with DACs.  Yes, there are newer designs and yes digital audio has taken huge steps forwards... which makes $1000 amps and DACs from a few years ago sell for $300... but they still sound like $1000 units and usually go head to head with today's $1000 products.

 
Sorry, but I'm going to have to call BS on this.  Straight BS.  

 

 

[Lil' Knight]

What makes you think it's BS?

 

[hodgjy]

I think this applies to audio in many regards, but not all.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law