# AMP A / B COMPARISONS



## milosz

I made a little box with 2 headphone cables coming out of it with standard 1/4" phone plugs on them, a DPDT switch, and a single female headphone jack.
   
  This allows me to directly compare 2 different amps with the flip of the switch.
   
  The headphone cables I used are pedestrian, just some OFC extension cables I got from Parts Express, from which I cut off the female ends to allow me to wire the cables to my DPDT switch.  OK, so they are a compromise here but the SAME type of cable is used for each amp so the differences in the amps, if any, should still show up/
   
  I put the thing in a little Hammond plastic project case.
   
  NOTE:  THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC TEST.  Not by any means.  But I found it interesting just the same.
   
  I just finished this switch box today and only had a few hours to do some A / B listening, so I only have 2 amps compared so far.
   
  I used a Cambridge Audio  DAC Magic as the source, fed by SPDIF from a Squeezebox III.  I used the RCA outputs of the DAC Magic, with RCA splitter cables. (Again, a compromise, but the same cable type is used for each amp under test.)
   
  I listened with Audeze LCD-2 and then Sennheiser HD800 phones.
   
  Today I compared a 3-channel Beta 22 and an M³ amp.  The Beta 22 has the Sigma 22 power supply; the M³ uses a 24 volt Elpac wall wart.  The M³ uses[size=small] AD843 op amps.[/size]
   
  I carefully matched the volume levels of the two amps using a 1000 Hz tone.
   
  I listened to a variety of music. 
   
*RESULTS:*
   
  LCD-2
  I was very hard pressed to hear ANY difference between the Beta 22 and the M³ on the LCD-2's. MAYBE a touch better bass control on the Beta 22 but then again maybe not.  I would NOT bet money on me being able to tell these two amps apart in a blind test with the LCD-2.
   
  HD-800
  With the somewhat exaggerated highs of the HD800's  I began to hear a subtle difference between the two amps.  The highs on the M³ sounded a tad bit harsh.  Also, the "separateness" of various instruments on a track was better with the Beta22. But these differences were quite subtle.
   
  MY CONCLUSIONS
   
  1. I was surprised that I didn't immediately hear incontrovertible differences between these amps. I was expecting a fairly obvious difference in their sounds.
  2. These are both good amps- they both sounded pretty wonderful.
 ​ ===============================================================​   
   
  The Beta 22 and M³ amps have things in common-  MOSFET output stages, 3-channel "active ground" design- maybe this is why any differences I may have heard were so subtle.
   
  This makes me want to A / B others amps.  I also urge anyone reading this post who owns more than one headphone amp to build their own A / B box and report on your tests.
   
  I expect I will hear more noticeable differences with other amps - such as Cavilli-Kumisa  vs. Beta 22, and also Beta 22 vs various tube amps in my collection.


----------



## LostOne.TR

that's a mighty selection of amps you have at hand.  I look forward to your impressions, especially with the CK2III.


----------



## milosz

Second A / B comparison:  Beta 22 & CK²III
   
  Same everything as above, except this time a CK²III.  AGAIN- THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC TEST.
   
  LCD-2:  Very hard to tell the difference.  Both sounded great.
   
  Sennheiser HD-800: Audible differences but VERY slight. The bass on the Beta-22 had more weight, seemed to go a little deeper. Highs on the Beta-22 sounded just a tiny bit cleaner.  Depth of soundfield, midrange clarity, etc., no differences heard. CK²III had a tiny bit of AC hum audible when the music was paused.  Hard to hear, at the very borderline of inaudibility, but present.  (Actually quieter than the hum from my refrigerator two rooms away as heard through the open-air Sennheisers... I had to take some pretty serious measures to get dead silence in the room I was in to hear it.)
   
  CONCLUSIONS:  
   
  1. I REALLY expected to hear MAJOR sonic differences here. But that was NOT the case, such differences as I could hear were very subtle.
  2. I found it SUPER important to get REALLY close level matching between the amps.  I perceived any tiny difference in level as a difference in QUALITY, and NOT as a difference in level!  So I matched the output across the headphone in test using a VOLTMETER to within .005 volts RMS for both amps.
  3. As with the first round of A / B comparisons, these are BOTH great amps, and they BOTH sounded beautiful on these two world-class headphones.  I had a slight preference for the Beta 22, especially on the HD800's.
  4. The Sennheisers seem to be sensitive to the type of amp used, whereas the LCD-2's seem much less picky about amps.


----------



## tisb0b

I'm not exactly surprised by your results but should be interesting to see as you go through your amp collection.


----------



## milosz

Third A / B comparison:  Beta 22 & RSA Hornet
   
  Same everything as above, except this time a Ray Samuels HORNET portable amp.  AGAIN- THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC TEST.
   
  Note: In some ways, this is apples-to-oranges.  The RSA Hornet is a PORTABLE battery-operated amp roughly the size of a matchbox weighing 4.5 ounces (128 grams) with it's lithium battery, and the Beta-22 is a desktop amp- actually a fairly large desktop amp; mine weighs about 12 lbs (5,440 grams)
   
  The HORNET gain switch was set to MEDIUM for this test.
   
  LCD-2: I could immediately hear that the upper octaves were slightly rolled off using the HORNET.  Operative word here is _slightly.  _However, even this very slight rolloff was plainly audible.  Bass was fairly comparable between the two amps, with the Beta-22 having a tiny edge in control and depth.
   
  HD800:  The high frequency rolloff was much less noticeable on the Sennheisers than the LCD-2's. It would seem, then, that the rolloff is possibly related to the lower impedance of the LCD-2's.  The very upper registers from the HORNET were a tiny bit recessed on the HD800s compared to the Beta-22, but the difference between the highs using Beta-22 vs the HORNET were much easier to hear on the LCD-2s.  Bass from the HD800s also seemed to go a little deeper with the Beta-22.  On the HD800s it also sounded like the stereo image was a little bigger with the Beta-22, as if it's stereo separation was a bit better. The highs from the HORNET seemed also to have a little more "grain" than the Beta-22, but this was subtle.
   
  CONCLUSION:  At last I heard some audible differences that were pretty easy to pick out.  But for this I had to go from a big tabletop amp to a tiny portable amp. Even so, this rolloff was NOT enough to make the HORNET dull or dark sounding on the LCD-2s.  It was a small rolloff, but easy to detect.
   
  Again, both of these amps sounded great, really.  The HORNET drove either sets of phones very well and the sound from it was definitely "high end audio" though not quite as "high end" as from the Beta-22.  And of course, you wouldn't tote the  Beta-22 along with you on a trip, etc.
   
  More to come.


----------



## milosz

Fourth A / B comparison:  Beta 22 & Audio_GD  FUN

   

  Same everything as above. AGAIN- THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC TEST.

   

  I SHOULD MENTION that in all these tests, the Squeezebox is being fed 44.1 / 16  FLAC files. I ripped my cd collection using dBPowerAmp Batch Ripper, and all the tracks I used in the test were checked by that software for the correct AccurateRip checksum - in other words, the ripping process was accomplished with ZERO errors.

   

  NOTE:  FUN used here through LINE inputs, DAC not used. FUN is a "Version A"  with Wolfson [size=x-small]WM8741 DAC (although the DAC is not used for the test) the "Moon"  OPA module (not sure if that's in the LINE IN circuit or not) and the Diamond buffer output stage.[/size]

   

  [size=x-small]LCD-2: Very subtle difference in bass was audible, with the Beta 22 sounding a little tighter and possibly a little more extended.  Highs from the Beta 22 might be a tiny bit more extended too.[/size]

   

  [size=x-small]HD800: Similar bass character difference as heard on the LCD-2's, the bass seemed to "hit" a little harder through the Beta 22. On the high end the extreme upper register seemed a little more extended from the Beta 22, and there was a tiny bit of high frequency roughness from the FUN.  Maybe.   [/size]

   

  CONCLUSION:  These differences were very subtle. In particular, the differences in the highs between the two amps seemed to be JUST BARELY perceptible. (I wonder if what I was hearing was the FUN'S  "MOON" OPA module, which Audio_GD describes as "Sounds a bit tube-like, that is, a little soft, warm and musical.")

   

  Both of these amps sounded GREAT, really.  The differences were VERY minor.  When you consider that the FUN is about $350 and includes a VERY FINE DAC and preamp outputs, you can really see it's value in how well it compared to the Beta 22 which tends to sell for about $2 thousand.

   

  All these solid-state amps I've tested sound so similar as to be NEARLY INDISTINGUISHABLE, and I am moving on to comparing the Beta 22 to tube and hybrid amps next which - according to conventional wisdom -  should show a greater contrast in sound.


----------



## Mad Lust Envy

So what did I gather from this? That for a slight/minor improvement, it's not worth paying a ridiculous amount of money for amps when something worth anywhere between 50-90% less gives you 95% of the performance.
   
   
  I'll stick to my E9 for now, lol.
   
  I wonder how the E9 would stack up to these solid state amps...


----------



## Oddworld

I too would like such a comparison


----------



## swifttal

Nice! Construction pics?


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





swifttal said:


> Nice! Construction pics?


 


  Pics of what?  The various amps' insides?
   
  Yeah I could do that, sure- are you interested in that?


----------



## PFKMan23

Not to get heavy into the science of it, but, if they are not already, I think your tests would be much more beneficial if the amps were volume level matched by an SPL meter.


----------



## Oddworld

I want pics too!!
  Electrical engineer over here


----------



## milosz

Fifth A / B comparison:  Beta 22 & Yamaha A-700 Integrated amplifier headphone jack (!)
   
  Same everything as above. THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC TEST.
   
  NOTES:

 The A-700 was produced by Yamaha in the mid 1980's. Mine is black, but there was a silver model also.
 Rated 100 watts / channel RMS 20 Hz~20 kHz  at 0.005% thd
 Can be switched to run in Class A up to 5 watts then runs class B. Normal changeover to Class B is less than 1 watt. ( "Auto Class A" switch)
 Headphone jack is typical practice, it has series resistors between the headphones and the amp's output stage.
 Spec sheet states: "Headphone jack 0.81 V / 270 ohms 0.05% THD
   
  I got this in 2007 for $29 on eBay.  I haven't used it much. AudioKarma has a number of posts praising this amp's sound, calling it "Yahama's best-sounding integrated" and so on.  Apparently, it has a reputation for sounding pretty good.  I bought it when I was looking for cheap, low-power class-A amplifiers to use to power a ribbon tweeter in a tri-amp DIY speaker. 
   
  INTERESTING: The line (AUX) input stage clipped like crazy when I fed the signal from my DACMagic into it.  At the level that the Beta-22 and all the other amps were comfortable, this amp's line stage clipped like crazy. The AUX / TAPE / TUNER  inputs have a rated sensitivity of 150 mV and 47k ohm impedance. This is pretty standard for integrated amps of this era; nowadays, 300 mV or so is more common.  Still, I had to pad the inputs down by 12 dB with an attenuator to get a signal that wouldn't clip the line stage.  
   
  There is a "DIRECT" button on this unit that disables tone controls, subsonic filter and loudness EQ.  I performed the test using this "DIRECT" setting to disable all the tone controls, etc.
   
  LCD-2:  The Yamaha A-700 showed some differences compared to the Beta-22.  Bass from the Beta-22 had somewhat more solidity, greater impact. The overall mids and highs sounded clearer from the Beta-22 though not by a huge amount. Vocals and piano sounded more natural through the Beta-22 and there was a slightly fatiguing quality to the highs though the Yamaha.
   
  HD800:  Similar to the LCD-2, the bass though the Beta-22 sounded a little more solid and punchier than the Yamaha.  Upper highs sounded rolled off a tiny bit through the Yamaha and in general the mids and highs sounded more natural and cleaner through the Beta-22. Again, the highs from the Yamaha had a slightly fatiguing quality. Transient detail through the Beta 22 was better- audience claps in time with the music from Patricia Barber's _Companion_ cd were rendered with greater clarity though the Beta-22-  individual claps stood out as sounds distinct from one another and from the music and with with more realism with the Beta-22.  With the Yamaha the individual audience members clapping in time to the song sort of merged into one rhythmic sound.
   
  CONCLUSION:  First of all, let me say that the headphone jack of this old Yamaha sounded better than I expected.  After all- there's no fancy capacitors or ultra-regulated power supplies in the Yamaha, and the phones are connected to the amplifier stage through_ resistors_ which should destroy any damping by the amp. The A-700 does seem to have a reputation of being a cut above the typical wash of 1980's Japanese mid-fi, but even so I expected really dreadful sound.  I didn't get dreadful from the Yamaha, but what I got from the Beta-22 was certainly better. 
   
  I could live with the bass from this Yamaha, series resistors and all. What I don't think I could tolerate is the "slightly fatiguing quality to the highs though the Yamaha."  This was starting to give me a bit of a headache as I did my test. I have heard this same thing before, when using miscellaneous mid-fi amps to run ribbon tweeters in my tri-amp DIY speaker experiments. I heard a harshness I found really objectionable, and I found that using a class A amplifier on those ribbon tweeters was the answer. This Yamaha runs class AB at the listening levels I was using, and I think I heard that. (Operative word here is THINK; I'd have to run a double-blind test to really sort this out.)  But anyway, the Beta-22 is class A and to me it sounded great and with no fatigue from the highs, whereas the A-700 is AB and had that fatiguing sound.
   
  If I removed the series resistors and switched the Yamaha to "Auto Class A" it's possible I could get better sound from the headphone jack, but as this  "Auto Class A" switch does not limit the Yamaha to class A ONLY (as the class A switch in some earlier Yamaha amps did) there would be something like 28 volts available at the headphone jack at full output.  This is right at the rated maximum for the LCD-2s and probably enough to burn out the HD800s.  Not worth the experiment.
   
  I did try switching the A-700 to "auto class A"  but I could hear no difference in sound. I was probably listening at levels above the A-700's 5 watt Class A limit, what with those series resistors and all.
   
  SIDE NOTE:  This A-700 has a phono preamp in it, and of course line-level outputs. I'll have to compare it to some high-end phono preamps I have at some point, but that is for another forum.
   
  MY BETA 22 INNARDS

   
  Yamaha A-700 under the hood:


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





pfkman23 said:


> Not to get heavy into the science of it, but, if they are not already, I think your tests would be much more beneficial if the amps were volume level matched by an SPL meter.


 


  OK.  
   
  I set the gain of the amps to produce the same voltage +/- 0.005 volts across the headphones using a 1000 Hz tone, as measured with my Fluke meter. Since the amps are both delivering near exactly the same voltage to the headphones, the headphones will produce the same level of loudness from each amp.  .1 volts into a pair of HD800s from amplifier X  will produce the same loudness as .1 volt from amplifier Y into the same headphones. 
   
  But I did check with my SPL meter, and verified that when set with my voltmeter, both amps produced the same volume from the headphones.


----------



## miyinan

Very good job on the comparisons, milosz.


----------



## swifttal

milosz said:


> Pics of what?  The various amps' insides?
> 
> Yeah I could do that, sure- are you interested in that?







Pics of your a/b box construction - sorry, shoulda been a bit more specific


----------



## Oddworld

I say.... keep posting pics each time you do a comparison! (if its not too much to ask) Thanks!


----------



## winzzz

thanks nice comparisons..


----------



## miloxo

How are these 'phones if you don't use an amp at all?
   
  Lookin' forward to the tube comparisons.


----------



## miyinan

Quote: 





miloxo said:


> How are these 'phones if you don't use an amp at all?
> 
> Lookin' forward to the tube comparisons.


 


  I too thought that an amped vs unamped comparison would be interesting


----------



## milosz

Sixth A / B comparison:  Beta 22 & Sugden A25 Integrated amplifier headphone jack (!)

   

  Same everything as above. THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC TEST.

   

  NOTES:


 Sugden A25 is a mid 1980's model, made in England.
 A25 has MOSFET output stage, lots of film capacitors, epoxy-fiberglass circuitboards, and is either class A or "high A  class AB" depending on your source of information.  It gets HOT so whatever class it is, the idle bias is set pretty high.
 A25 rated at 29 watts / channel
 Uses standard practice of resistors in series with amp output for headphone jack
 I replaced the NE5534 op amps in the gain stage with OPA627ab's (on sockets)
 This amp is really very nice, sounds nice on my Quad ESL-57's and on other speakers.  Sounds more powerful than 29 watts / side.  Sounds like class A to me.
 eBay purchase $125 in 2007.
 I have a schematic for this amp- which is hard to find.  If you need a copy, PM me, I'll be happy to email it to you.
   
  LCD-2:  Bass not quite as powerful / authoritative as the Beta-22, but otherwise good bass. Highs a little rolled off compared to the Beta-22, but curiously female vocalist sibilance is more un-naturally prominent or somewhat exaggerated through the Sugden compared to the Beta-22.  High volume setting is required to drive the LCD-2's (50 ohm phones) but good volume level is obtainable.
   
  HD800: Again, bass not _quite_ as well controlled or deep as the Beta-22. Some midrange exaggeration from the Sugden, possibly revealing why this amp is supposed to sound a bit "tubelike." Upper highs rolled off a bit with the Sugden compared to the Beta-22, and yet again there is this false emphasis on female sibilance though not as pronounced as it was  driving the LCD-2's.
   
  CONCLUSION:  This integrated amp (with upgraded op amp)  sounded pretty darn good, though not QUITE up to the high standard set by the Beta-22.  I did not get that "fatiguing" effect that I got from the Yamaha, which makes me think this amp is either class A or is operating in class A at the level I'm using it at.  Sucker gets QUITE hot! Nice little amp, though.  You don't see too many of these.  Makes a nice bedroom / office speaker amp with possibility of occasional headphone use.  Has a phono preamp.
   
  This amp shows to me that headphone jacks in integrated amps can sound pretty decent if the amp is approaching high-end in design (as in class-A operation and quality parts.)  Not as good as a headphone amp like the Beta-22 or the M³, but better than the conventional wisdom holds.
   
  Last of my solid state amps, by the way.
   
  A25, 1980's British near-high-end.

   
   
   
  Op amp mod

   
  Driver transistors and output MOSFETs.


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





miyinan said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


  Uhhh.... not using an amp?  You mean driving the phones with the line output of my DAC?  I am using a Cambridge DACMagic as the source here, it doesn't have a headphone jack, and I doubt it could drive the 50-ohm LCD-2's, although there would probably be some sound from the HD800's.  But this is not  something that is going to work very well,  people don't generally use a line output to drive headphones, it's not really intended for that.
   
  Maybe I didn't understand what you were trying to say....?


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





swifttal said:


> Pics of your a/b box construction - sorry, shoulda been a bit more specific


 

 OH, the A/B  box.  OK, I'll put that in here someplace.  Maybe at the end.  Most of these pictures I'm using I already have on file, have to get the camera out for the A/B box.  It's just a pair of headphone cables,  a jack and a DPDT toggle switch in a black Hammond plastic project box.  Nothing fancy.
   
  Some might say that the pedestrian headphone cables I'm using for the box moot the comparison, but I would beg to differ because although they are not fancy wires, the same type and length of cable is used for each amp. This rig is supposed to show the differences in sound between two amps on test, and so each amp is connected using the same kind and length of wire. Using much better wire might improve overall results (though I doubt it) but wouldn't change the DIFFERENCES heard between the two amps.  If two amps sound different enough to justify a $500 price difference, I'm thinking you OUGHT to be able to hear that difference EASILY.  I don't know about you, but if I spend $500 or $1000 more for a given headphone amp, I want to hear a SIGNIFICANT difference. $500 is almost real money; it's certainly more than I typically spend when I buy a CAR.


----------



## miyinan

Quote: 





milosz said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


  Sorry, I didn't know that you are using the dacmagic which doesn't have a headphone output. I thought that it would be interesting if you do an a/b comparison between your beta22 and the headphone jack of your dac or computer.
   
  Lee


----------



## milosz

Oh, yes, sure.  Like if I had a Benchmark DAC, they have headphone outputs.
   
  Alas, I don't have one of those.
   
  Hmm.  Maybe I'll rig up a twin RCA-to-1/4" headphone jack just to try and see what happens when you hang an HD800 right off the DAC outputs.  I suspect it can't drive the HD800's, but I've never tried it, I don't really know.


----------



## milosz

Seventh A / B comparison:  Beta 22 & modified Musical Fidelity XCAN V 3 amplifier (with Musical Fidelity stock external wall-wart PSU which supplies 24 VAC CT at 500 mA)

   

  Same everything as above. THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC TEST. [ By which I mean it is not  a blind test evaluated statistically.  I am switching between A  and B  myself, I know which amp is A and which is B, so psychological factors may lead me to think I hear things that would disappear in blind testing.  Which is to say, if there is a major difference that I head between A  and B, I would guess this would NOT vanish in a blind test, while any subtle differences just might.]

   

  NOTE:  The Musical Fidelity XCAN V3 is a hybrid design, having both tubes and transistors in the signal path. The tube runs at a very low B+ of 60 volts, so it is probably NOT the output stage, but a voltage gain stage.  The output stage appears to be a pair of transistors which  appear to be bolted together to couple them thermally.  Look at the photo, they are near the output coupling caps.  The modifications I performed are those widely circulated on the Web:  replace all the electrolytics in the power supply with lower ESR / higher temp rated Panasonic caps, replace the power supply diodes with faster / quieter Schottky types, remove the input DC blocking electrolytic cap altogether and switch out the 470 uF output coupling polar electrolytics with 1000 uF nonpolar types. (The stock caps were already bypassed with film types, I left those film bypass caps alone.)

   

  I did some before and after measurements of this amp RE: these mods.  After making the modifications there was about 2 dB lower noise and response at 10 Hz with a 200 ohm load came up about 1 dB, to 0 dB (flat, instead of a slight roll-off at 10 Hz.)

   

  HD800: I had some problems get a matching level between the Beta 22 and the XCAN.  When I set the levels using a 1000 Hz tone and a voltmeter, the XCAN sounded a little quieter than the Beta-22.  I determined that the XCAN has a slightly higher level in the midrange than the Beta-22, I didn't take the time to do frequency sweeps but when I set the levels using a 100 Hz tone and a voltmeter, the two volumes now seemed about equal, with the XCAN having just a slightly richer midrange.  So it seems there is a little midrange emphasis from the XCAN.  The XCAN also had somewhat different sounding highs.  This is hard to describe, but I think it was related to the slightly different harmonic profile of the tube stage adding a slight- very slight- amount of euphonious coloration.  Also, the highs didn't sound quite as open or detailed with the XCAN. They didn't sound rolled off, though.  Like I said, the highs are kind of hard to describe, but they were slightly different than the Beta-22.  Bass from the Beta-22 had a tiny bit more weight than the XCAN.  Also, I noticed the XCAN had slightly less channel separation than the Beta-22, and this lead to the sense of space from the XCAN being just a little smaller. Overall, the slightly lower separation, slight midrange emphasis and slightly "sweetened" highs added a feeling of "intimacy" or "closeness to the musicians" that was an interesting voicing, and one which was kind of nice on the HD800s which sounded a little more "clinical" on the Beta-22.

   

  LCD-2:  XCAN drove the 50-ohm LCD with power to spare, although I did have to dial up the gain just a little when chainging over to the LCD-2's from the HD800s so I could tell the amp felt the impedance change. In some ways the more "intimate" highs of the XCAN were even more noticeable on the LCD-2, which I thought interesting since the LCD-2's doesn't have the slight treble exaggeration of the HD800's that tend to make changes in highs MORE apparent on the Sennheisers than the LCD-2's, generally speaking.   Well, not THIS time-  here, I could hear the difference in the highs a little more clearly on the LCD-2's.  Bass was, again, slightly deeper from the Beta-22. 

   

  The XCAN sounded pretty good, really, in particular it kind of focussed the listener away from the somewhat emphasized highs of the HD800 without actually rolling off the highs a lot and sounding dark.  I might even get to like the XCAN more on the HD800's than the Beta-22. On the LCD-2's I preferred the Beta-22 by a small margin.

   

  The XCAN is a fairly attractive unit.  (Put a fancy control knob and a thick aluminum front panel on just about anything and I will probably buy it.)

   

  PHOTOS - the case of the XCAN does not open.  Rather, the guts can be slid out.


----------



## eliziz

Thanks for all those mini comparisons (any I hope you keep it up) though i'm finding it so strange reading this thread.
 The general opinion online is that beta 22 and HD800 are a divine combination and that the beta22 is a reference quality amp and a  sure beng-for-buck at arround 1000$. Then you find it marginally better compared to basic hp amps (the FUN, CKK that I also had and the portable RSA).
  I don't doubt your words for a moment though you can see why it's hard for me to accept.


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





eliziz said:


> Thanks for all those mini comparisons (any I hope you keep it up) though i'm finding it so strange reading this thread.
> The general opinion online is that beta 22 and HD800 are a divine combination and that the beta22 is a reference quality amp and a  sure beng-for-buck at arround 1000$. Then you find it marginally better compared to basic hp amps (the FUN, CKK that I also had and the portable RSA).
> I don't doubt your words for a moment though you can see why it's hard for me to accept.


 
  I totally understand what you are saying.  I am quite surprised myself that I'm not hearing major differences in the sound.  But if you re-read the original and sundry reviews of all these various amps- they are generally reviewed alone, with reviewers having to rely on "audio memory" of what other amps sound like.  They aren't direct A/B comparisons.
   
  Make some immediate, direct comparisons yourself and see if _you_ hear any major differences between  amps at your disposal.  It has to be done with an A/B switch, taking the time to move the headphone plug from one amp to another is too long to really be a DIRECT comparison.  I think a lot of us - myself included- are assuming that if it's more expensive it HAS to be better.  Well I would argue that the Beta-22 IS a better amplifier -technically better- than, say, the  M³, but even though it uses superior technology it doesn't SOUND *that* much different.  There is a difference, but in listening to the two amps in direct comparison for a fairly long listening session, the differences I hear are pretty slight.
   
  It's possible that having a switch, and these non-exotic headphone  cables leading from the amps to my switchbox, is somehow masking the differences between these amps.  Although I have to say that the SAME cable type and length is used to connect each amp, and since the same cable & switch is used then the DIFFERENCES between the amps, if any, should still be audible.  And if the difference is so subtle that wire can mask it - well, then it's not really that huge of a difference, is it?
   
  I've been involved in audio for a long time, and have worked as a radio producer and in recording studios, and I would say my "critical ear" ability is fair enough to tell if there are substantial differences between two sounds. 
   
  After I run through my series of tests, I will pick a few amps and then have a number of different listeners come in and judge them - including some professional musicians, both classical and jazz.  This should help sort out if it's my ears or not. I would also be willing to run some blind tests for any Head-Fi'ers in my area who want to stop by and see if their ears are golden and mine are tin; I live in Chicago and I think there may be some folks here who would take up this idea.  Or maybe at the next Chicago mini-meet or something.


----------



## oqvist

Thanks a lot. I also find the differences is minor. I need a few  weeks to really get to know the different amps and how they compare to eachother. As you I also noticed bigger changes between my tube amp and my solid states versus different solid state amps. Beta22 seemed to be consistent the top pick?


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





oqvist said:


> Thanks a lot. I also find the differences is minor. I need a few  weeks to really get to know the different amps and how they compare to eachother. As you I also noticed bigger changes between my tube amp and my solid states versus different solid state amps. Beta22 seemed to be consistent the top pick?


 


  The Beta-22 is considered to be a very good or excellent amp by all the things I've read, so I am comparing all the other amps to the Beta-22.  Quite a few folks have called it "reference" quality. The Beta-22 is probably the best amp I have so I am using it as the benchmark to listen for differences compared to the other amps I have.
   
  I think I will hear much greater differences compared to the Beta-22 with these tube amps which are the next amps in my test:

 Bijou with "Bugle Boy" 6DJ8's
 Little Dot MK III, stock tubes
 Bottlehead Crack w/ Speedball upgrade and film cap output coupling / stock tubes.
   
  I think the Bottlehead will have the greatest difference in sound, the most "tubey."  (And I already know it can't drive the 50-ohm LCD-2)


----------



## Oddworld

I love reading this thread, please keep up the good work!


----------



## milosz

Eighth A / B comparison:  Beta 22 & Bijou

   

  Same everything as above. THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC (I.e., blind / statistically analyzed )  TEST.

   

  Note: The Bijou is a DIY tube amp  designed by Alex Cavali and with some evolution by Regal and others on the boards. It is an OTL amp of unique design, being similar in topology to the Futterman OTL design.  In this case, all the complications the Futterman amps use to maintain zero volts DC on the output is forgone and a capacitor is used on the output to block the DC.The amp is also unique in having a continuously variable global negative feedback pot. The power supply is regulated, supplying 250 volts to the output tube plates. A neat feature of the power supply is the use of a rectifier tube rather than diode bridge- the advantage here is that the heater of the rectifier tube is elegantly used as a delay timer, and full B+ is not applied to the output tubes until the rectifier filament heats up- saving the output tubes from the wear and tear of applying high voltage to them before their filaments are heated.

   

  My Bijou uses "Regal's mod," and I am using Bugle Boy 6DJ8 input stage tubes and ECC99's as the output tubes.  For this test, I kept the NFB pot at minimum. (Which is also how I listen.)

   

  LCD-2: A little tricky setting matched levels here again. Matching levels between the two amps at 1000 Hz did not result in the same apparent loudness from each amp. Nor did trying to set matching levels using a 100 Hz tone.  I ended up using pink noise and a 'scope set to a 2 second sweep to act as an integrator.  This got me levels that sounded identical between the two amps.  Right away, this told me that one of these two amps is not ruler flat when driving the LCD-2.  (Guess which one had slight frequency response variations-  I'll give you a hint:  it wasn't the Beta-22)   SO: listening-  The Bijou emphasized the bass and lower mids just a little, but also rolled off a bit at the lowest extreme of the bass range. This could be related to the 50 ohm impedance of the LCD-2, maybe the Bijou couldn't quite provide the current down low while at the same time having a higher source impedance resulting in lower damping factor.  So the bass, while not "wooly" was a little more "full" but not as deep or tight. Lower mids were also just a little emphasized, making the sound a tiny bit "warm" - this lower midrange emphasis was not as strong as the slightly raised bass level, but it was audible.  Highs on the Bijou sounded slightly "sweetened," the typical harmonic character of a tube amp.  However, the very upper extreme treble was a little lower in level from the Bijou, and the Bijou also seemed to blunt transients just a little on the LCD-2's.  There was something more going on the midrange that I can't grasp- certain sounds seemed to be brought out a little from the mix by the Bijou, while other sounds seemed to recede a little. However this did not seem like a simple  frequency response artifact- rather, it seemed like the harmonic content of the sound was being changed a little at certain frequencies, which was audible at times, and at other times this change in timbre was masked when the music  was "busy" in terms of lots of sounds happening at once. This isn't really a satisfactory description of the differences in midrange I heard between the two amps, but it's as close as I can get.  In simpler terms: the midrange sounded a little different between the two amps.  Overall, on the LCD-2's, I liked the Beta-22 more. 

   

  It should be noted that the Bijou drove the LCD-2s to a normal level without having to resort to increasing the NFB. I would say that the Bijou had no real _problems_ driving the LCD-2, but the match was less than ideal.

   

  HD800:  Setting matched levels was easier, although for consistency I used the same pink noise method as with the LCD-2.  Again, the bass and lower midrange were a little "warmed up" on the Bijou, with ultimate low bass a little rolled off.  However, this was not as pronounced as on the LCD-2.  Also, the midrange timbral changes I heard using the LCD-2 were not evident.  The midrange on the Bijou sounded just a little warmer and that's it, no other hard-to-describe difference. Highs from the Bijou were "sweetened" a little, again the signature of tubes, but the transients and upper treble did not seem very much different between the Beta-22 and Bijou; on the LCD-2 I could hear differences.  Overall, it was clear that the Bijou "liked" the HD800 more than the 50 ohm LCD-2.   Even so, I preferred the Beta-22 to the Bijou on the HD800's, because I liked the more neutral bass balance of the Beta-22.

   

  Conclusion: There were easily audible differences between these amps, especially on the LCD-2's. 

   

  Notes: 


 Both amps sounded "clean" and highs were never harsh from either amp on either set of 'phones.
 LOUD levels were attainable with both amps, although the Beta-22 could not only play LOUD it could produce RIDICULOUS levels. (Hearing-harmful levels, levels at which I would never actually listen.)
 I may revisit this test with some other headphones, like AKG-701's or maybe Beyer DT880.  I want to see if the Bijou might have a better synergy with other phones.
   
  My compact Bijou 
   

   
   
  Orange tubes and blue LEDs inside
   



   

   

  Space-saving layout inside Hammond case.


----------



## tisb0b

Nice looking forward to even more comparisons.


----------



## milosz

I am glad that Head-Fi members have said they enjoy reading this.  That's a really nice compliment, for sure!  Thanks!
   
  I took a break today, but there is more to come: Beta vs. Little Dot MK III tomorrow, and then the Bottlehead Crack. Then maybe a revisit of the Bijou vs. Beta, using some other headphones besides the HD800 and LCD-2.  And then maybe a revisit of the Bottlehead vs. Beta using different 'phones.    The LCD-2's low impedance and moderately low efficiency makes them less than ideal for some of these tube amps, so I'll try those amp with some other 'phones.
   
  And if I find a headphone that really suits the Bijou, maybe I'll do  Bijou vs. Little Dot and Bijou vs. Bottlehead comparisons. 
   
  And then of course I will do one or two tests with some other listeners- including some professional musicians. I think the Beta-22 vs. M³  test would be a good one, not sure what other one to do, logistics of having a bunch of people over for this make me want to limit how much of this I do.  But I recognize the importance of having someone other than me repeat some comparisons in this series.
   
  I'm also thinking about building an automated A/B/X system driven by a notebook PC for the switching and data recording, with modules to compare amps, headphone cables, and RCA interconnects.  My thinking here is to drag it to some Head-Fi meets and let people take tests and see what their listening  judgement stats look like. Gotta see if I still remember any C++ or even Visual Basic.....


----------



## milosz

Ninth A / B comparison:  Beta 22 & Little Dot Mk III

   

  Same everything as above. THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC (I.e., blind / statistically analyzed )  TEST.

   

  The Little Dot is a pretty conventional OTL tube amp, a cathode follower I think. Build and parts quality is good but not fanatical.  Cosmetics are very nice, however, a really nice finish and good overall layout make the Little Dot MK III a pretty nice little desktop amp. It's an attractive looking component. Also, it can be used as a line stage preamp, which is pretty nice.

   

  My Little Dot MK III uses stock tubes.  I have used it about 200 hours, so I would say that it is "burned in" sufficiently.

   

  HD800:  OK, this amp was hard to get matched levels with the Beta-22. This is getting to be a habit with these tube amps.  Matching SPL for a 1000 Hz tone did NOT give an impression of equal loudness- the Beta-22 sounded louder / fuller.  So, back to white noise and the 'scope as with the Bijou.  This resulted in a much closer perceived match in loudness with music.  Again, this tells me that the frequency response of the Little Dot is not ruler flat in the audio range.  What I heard on the HD800's was a little extra midrange and low treble from the Little Dot. Also, the highs were "sweetened" a bit - that tube harmonic character at work, I think. The very upper upper highs were a little lacking in comparison to the Beta-22.  Bass from the Little Dot was very good, on the HD800 I could not hear any difference between Little Dot and Beta-22 on the lows.  Transients were a little blurred by the Little Dot (or one could say they sounded a bit "etched" on the Beta-22, depends on your point of view.) So, overall, this gave the Little Dot a somewhat romantic, ever-so-slightly lush sound on the HD800s. A little less "open" sound, those upper highs and transients give the Beta-22 a more "open" sound, but I have to say that on the HD800s  I could really get to like the slightly more "present" or "romantic" sound from the Little Dot.  I wouldn't say that the Little Dot "tamed" the HD800's highs, it was more that the sound of the Little Dot just suited the HD800 in a certain way.  If you are listening for the last bit of detail and resolution, the Little Dot doesn't seem to go as far as the Beta-22. But that doesn't mean the Little Dot didn't portray detail and offer resolution, what I mean is the Little Dot doesn't go AS FAR down Resolution Road as the Beta-22 does. Like I said, I could really like the Little Dot on the HD800.  And I was glad that the bass wasn't warmed up as some tube amps tend to do.

   

  LCD-2: First off, I noticed that the Little Dot had no problem driving the 50 ohm, fairly inefficient LCD-2. The attainable volume level was way louder than I would ever use, but still clean. Second, I heard SOME of the same frequency-emphasis differences as I heard on the HD800.  The midrange and lower treble was a little emphasized by the Little Dot.  However, the rest of the highs did not sound much different between the Beta-22 and the Little Dot.  Except MAYBE a little less upper-top treble and not quite the transient ability from the Little Dot, but then again maybe this was just my brain expecting less upper treble and less transient ability because that's what I heard on the HD800.  The sound of the treble between the Little Dot and the Beta 22 was so close that I'm not really sure there was much - or any - difference.  There WAS a little more midrange and low treble, but the additional midrange seemed not as pronounced as with the HD800.  The lower treble - the "presence" range around 2 kHz- sounded just as it did on the HD800.  This was not unwelcome, really, on the LCD-2's; the amount of extra lower treble was quite modest and added a little something nice to the sound.  Bass, however, was a different story.  Here again I think the OTL tube amp is running out of driving current at the lowest audio extreme. Bass was GOOD from the Little Dot on the LCD-2's, while from the Beta-22 it was GREAT.  There is a little less deep bass level from the Little Dot and also bass did not sound as well controlled on the Little Dot - fast very low frequency bass synth runs tended to kind of blur together on the Little Dot but these low notes sounded sharp and distinct on the Beta 22. Whereas I liked the Little Dot with the HD800's pretty well, it didn't do that much for me on the LCD-2's.  It was OK on the LCD-2's but I'm a man who likes my bass so really I wouldn't choose to use the Little Dot with the LCD-2's.

   

  Stereophile's Sam Tellig liked the Little Dot MK III quite well, and said it gave him what he wanted from tubes- he called it "rich, warm, spacious..."  and while I would say that it changed the sound to make it A LITTLE more "tubey" in the mids and treble on the HD800's, I don't know that I'd represent the amp's ability to add euphonious sonic presentation as strongly as Tellig did. 

   

  CONCLUSION: Noticeable difference in sound between this amp and the Beta-22. I like the way this amp is "voiced"  when using the HD800. Was it  *better* than the Beta-22? Well, no probably not really as detailed, as accurate. But it does offer a DIFFERENT listening experience which has some strong points and which I will  continue to enjoy IN ADDITION TO having the Beta-22. Really, the Little Dot Mk III seems to offer very good value for money in a tube amp.  Note that I did not like it on the LCD-2. If I couldn't afford a Beta-22 for the LCD-2, of all the amps I've compared, I'd go with the M³ for the LCD-2.


----------



## Crookshank

Nice thread, thx


----------



## Yekrut

Quote: 





milosz said:


> Really, the Little Dot Mk III seems to offer very good value for money in a tube amp.  Note that I did not like it on the LCD-2. If I couldn't afford a Beta-22 for the LCD-2, of all the amps I've compared, I'd go with the M³ for the LCD-2.


 
  First off: what a wonderful thread! I'm loving all these comparisons, very informative. I'm very glad you enjoyed the LD MKIII as I have just ordered one for my DT990/600 Ohms. I really hope I get that slightly sweetened highs you got with the HD800s. Also like the fact that they easy drive the LCD-2 since the DT990/600 Ohm are quite difficult to drive to get to their full potential.
   
  Thank you for these comparisons and keep them coming.
   
  PS: I don't know if you mentioned this earlier in the thread, but was is the price for the Beta-22 and M3?


----------



## milosz

Tenth A / B comparison:  Beta 22 & Little Bottlehead Crack

   

  Same everything as above. THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC (I.e., blind / statistically analyzed )  TEST.

   

  My Bottlehead Crack has the Speedball upgrade. In addition, I have Dayton 100 uF film capacitors as the output DC blocking (or coupling, if you will-) caps. They are the least expensive 100uF film caps you can get.  When I built the Crack, and added the Speedball, I also wired a DPDT switch that let me select wither the stock electrolytic output caps or the Dayton metalized polypropylene caps.  But I didn't pay attention to the way I wired the switch- when I sat down to listen, I did not know which switch position was electrolytic and which was film.  In a way this was a semi-blind A/B test of the two capacitors.  It was pretty immediately apparent that there was a difference in the way the highs sounded between the two switch positions. It turns out the direction I preferred was the film cap.  To me, I feel I showed myself that I really could hear a difference between these caps.  Of course more rigor and large number of samples would be needed to "prove" this hypothesis, but this simple test satisfied my curiosity. Anyway, that's a digression.....

   

  This Bottlehead amp has stock tubes, which are some kind of NOS stuff.

   

  LCD-2:  The Bottlehead amp could not drive the LCD-2 properly- sound was distorted at my chosen listening level of about 83~88 dB SPL.  The Bottlehead Crack is not designed to drive low impedance phones, and although some users have reported good results on Grado, I found that the Crack could not provide sufficient drive to the low impedance and fairly low efficiency LCD-2.  Grados are generally higher than "average" efficiency, so even though they are low impedance they might have high enough efficiency to work on the Crack.  I myself do not know, I don't have any Grado headphones.  I did have a pair of GS1000's  but I did not like the way they sounded at all and sold them shortly after acquiring them.

   

  HD800: OK, right off, it's interesting that setting SPL at 1000 Hz with my reference tone resulted in a match of apparent loudness between the Crack and the Beta-22.  The other tube amps I tested had enough frequency response difference at 1000 Hz to make this particular volume-matching procedure fail.  So, I'm guessing that the overall response of the Crack is a little flatter than the other tube amps I tried. Listening to the Crack on the HD800's was nice. The midrange sounded pretty much the same from both amps.  However, the Crack added just a little upper bass / lower mids.  In addition, the highs from the Crack sounded a bit "sweeter" as has been the case with all these tube amps. And again, the level of detail was good but the Beta-22 was better. Detail isn't exactly the right term here for what I heard; the Crack was quite detailed, but seemed to lack a little level at the very highest frequencies making transients stand out a little less. And that doesn't quite exactly describe what I heard, either... it's almost as if the slightly richer harmonic content of the highs (i.e., the "sweeter" highs) masked the very highest highs a bit.  Lowest bass notes were more solid with the Beta-22 but the Crack was not thin sounding.  In fact the bass was a little warmed up, except for the very lowest notes.  Bass resolution- "tightness" - from the Crack was not quite up to the level of the Beta-22.  However, the overall sound of the Crack on the HD800 was very enjoyable- the slight midbass emphasis gave instruments and voices a little extra "body" which went well with the slightly sweetened, but somehow not quite as "airy," highs.  It was very good, musical sound from the Crack on the HD800's.  Different from the Little Dot in that it was the midbass that was emphasized a little and there was also a little more "sweetening" from the Crack. I would have to say that I preferred the Crack on the HD800's over the Beta-22 to some degree, at least I did today.  It's a taste thing.  One, the Beta-22 is the netral /accurate but highly detailed sound, while the Crack was a little more "musical" as Kingwa would say. With the somewhat exaggerated highs of the HD800's, I kind of liked the juiced-up sound from the Crack.  Juicy, that's a good word to describe it.  A LITTLE juicy, the difference in sound was NOT like dialing in a whole bunch of EQ, it was more reserved a difference than that.

   

  AKG K-701: Since the LCD-2's didn't really go with the Crack, I went to the K701's as a second headphone on this amp comparison.  I find the K701's to be one of the least fatiguing headphones to use, their lack of strong peaks above the 0 dB line in the highs makes them easier for me to listen to at my preferred listening levels.  The elevated highs of the HD800s  cause me a little fatigue /  pain when I listen to my preferred volume of ~85 dB in the midrange.  However, even I've broken then in for WEEKS, the K701's just don't do it for me basswise.  They HAVE bass, even some deep bass, but it's not at the level I like.  Denon-AHD7000's they are certainly not.  Still, they sound good, particularly on symphonic and small ensemble acoustic stuff like jazz quartets and string ensemble music.  So.... on the Crack I did notice the highs sounding a bit sweeter and the bass a little warmer than the Beta-22 but this was not nearly as noticeable as with the HD800's. The K701's seemed less sensitive to the amp that was driving them.  HOWEVER, the K701 is rated at 62 ohms and at louder levels the Crack sounded a bit "iffy" - the K701s apparently are efficient enough to let the Crack drive them OK as long as you didn't try to drive them hard. Classical sounded very good on the Crack though the K701s, a little nicer than through the Beta-22 due again to the slightly warmer / sweeter presentation.

   

  CONCLUSION:  The Crack is pretty much my favorite amp for the HD800s at the moment. 

   

  NOTE: I will do an A/B comparison of the Crack / Little Dot next.  I have finished comparing all the amps I have on hand to the Beta-22.

   

  Here's my white Crack....



   

  The guts


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





yekrut said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  I paid $330 in 2009 for my M³ from a professional builder, with Elpac "wall wart" power supply.  I built my "single chassis / 3 channel" Beta-22, and the parts cost about $450 plus about $110 for a Par-Metal chassis.
   
  I did not use the "Epsilon 22" backplane board for my Beta-22, my amp boards / power supply are connected to each other by wires instead of using this backplane. At the time I built the Beta, the backplane was out of stock.  I would have spent the ~$90 for the backplane, it makes assembly easier and neater. The Beta-22 was the biggest project I ever built, there are a LOT of parts in there! I wouldn't suggest it to someone who is a beginner at soldering & assembly, but if you've built one or more amps, I say go for it.  Just pay close attention to the instructions, and TRIPLE check each part as you install it, and use the parts list as a checklist- put a checkmark for each part, this helps keep track.   I've seen professionally built Beta-22's go for around $1,500~$2,000, so you can say a fair chunk of change if you build one yourself. Also, I suggest a 2-chassis version- the power transformer has one heck of a field around it and for some reason the boards in this amp is sensitive to that magnetic field from the 60 Hz power going through the transformer. Moving the transformer a few feet from the boards is one of the best ways to combat this. In my one-chassis build, I had to enclose the transformer in a steel box inside my chassis.  The steel "confines" the magnetic field from the transformer and keeps it from inducing a noise current in the amp boards.  
   
  The gray box (lower left) is a Hammond HM305-ND steel enclosure and the transformer fits neatly inside. This steel box kept hum out of the amp.  I had to add this steel box after I built the amp; before having it, there was a quiet hum which did not vary with the volume control. Annoying. But the steel box totally eliminated the hum. I just barely had room to retrofit this box into the amp, I am really glad that a box of _*just*_ the right size was available- any larger and it would not have fit, any smaller and the toroidal transformer would not have fit inside it.
   

   
   
  The Beta-22 is one of the best amps out there, it is a true reference design.  It sounds great. It's measurements and specs are so good it's almost surreal. For example:
   

  [size=smaller]Frequency[/size]
  [size=smaller]response                  [/size]
 [size=smaller]at 0dBV output
 0Hz - 2.5MHz, +0dB -3dB      [/size]
 
 [size=smaller]Slew rate[/size] [size=smaller]100KHz square wave, at 43Vp-p output
 198V/µS[/size]
   
  So, it's flat from direct current into the shortwave radio band, and has a 198 volt / microsecond slew rate. I've NEVER seen any other audio amp with a slew rate like that.  I don't know that such electrical engineering overkill makes it sound better but one thing is for sure- you can bet that the quality of sound through this amp is not going to be limited by frequency response or slew rate..... and typically with an amplifier, if the amp has huge bandwidth and fast slewing, and is still stable, then you know that sources of possible nonlinearity in the amp have been minimized by careful design.


----------



## milosz

Eleventh A / B comparison:  Little Dot MK III & Bottlehead Crack

   

  Same everything as above. THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC (I.e., blind / statistically analyzed )  TEST.

   

  As noted in earlier posts, my Bottlehead Crack has the Speedball upgrade in which " ...the 22k1 ohm plate loads of the 12AU7 input triodes are replaced by constant current source loads, as are the 3K ohm cathode load resistors of the 6080 triodes, " to quote the Bottlehead site.  I also have metalized polypropylene film caps instead of electrolytic output coupling caps.  Tubes are stock.

   

  Everything in my Little Dot MK III is stock.

   

  As the Crack is not intended for low impedance phones and won't drive my LCD-2's well at all, I only used my Sennheiser HD-800's for this test.

   

  Due to frequency response differences between the two amps, I used the pink noise / 'scope  method to set the levels, and the apparent loudness levels of the two amps sounded like they were well matched as I began the test.

   

  This was a very interesting test. As with all the tube amps I own, these amps both added a little euphonious signature to the sound, but each amp had a different character.

   

  Compared to the Little Dot Mk III, the Crack added a little midbass which made the music sound a bit warmer and a little "richer" in a certain way.  However, the lowest bass notes seemed better served by the Little Dot- this gave the Little Dot a tighter bass sound, overall.  

   

  Because of the midbass "bump" from the Crack, mids seemed to have a little more "body" than with the Little Dot, although not by a big margin.  Both amps had very nice midrange.  Separation / imaging sounded about the same with maybe a trifle better sense of space from some recordings produced by the Crack.  Operative word:  a TRIFLE.

   

  The sound of the treble range differed between these two amps.  The Crack added a little more harmonic sweetness, while the Little Dot seemed a bit more transparent in the highs.  The Crack sounded like it had a little bit of rolloff at the highest frequencies compared to the Little Dot  This actually was OK on the Sennheisers which are a little hot in the highs. 

   

  Overall, the Crack had a more "tubey" sound. As you may recall, I found both the Little Dot and the Crack to "sweeten" the harmonic balance of the highs a bit compared to the Beta-22, and this comparison seems to show that the Crack adds a little more treble sugar than the Little Dot. There was also a slightly "smoother" quality of the highs on the Crack, maybe what I'm hearing here is the sound of film caps in the Crack vs. electrolytic caps in the Little Dot.

   

  They both sounded pretty nice. I liked the tighter bass from the Little Dot, but the overall sound from the Crack added a lush quality that I liked.  I would have to say I preferred the Crack overall; if I want tighter bass than the Crack I can go to my Beta 22 which is fantastic in this regard with very clean highs.  So, for me, to able to choose from the romantic sound of the Crack and the "precise" sound of the Beta-22 is a really nice option.

   

  The Little Dot MK III, in a sense, fell between the Beta and the Crack.  If I only had one amp, I would want the Little Dot over the Crack because, to me, it sounded a bit more "accurate" - less euphonious coloration added. But having a good solid state amp like the Beta, it's nice to have the Crack which offers a greater contrast in sound quality against the Beta.  Does that make any sense? 

   

  Here's the rear panel of the Little Dot Mk III from a stock shot, showing input connectors and the output connectors which allow using it as a line stage preamp.



   

  Here's a stock shot of the Crack WITHOUT the Speedball constant-current load upgrade:

   



   

  And here we have the Crack innards WITH the Speedball upgrade.  This builder did a neater job than I did, but his amp is all stock, without the film caps I substituted for the electrolytic coupling caps, which you can see by the photo of my amp in an earlier post in this thread.


----------



## mythless

Very cool, it really affirms with my belief that when I go out and buy amp I try to buy amps of different flavor because I doubt I would hear much difference between two similar sounding amps.  For instance, I can barely tell the difference between the KICAS and Sparrow, but when put up to tube  or hybrid amps that has the particular tube flavor I do notice a difference.  Very nice comparison!


----------



## Zida

VERY nice thread! I've been very tempted to do something like with for amps, but just never got to it. Can you think of a method to quickly switch between DACs in a similar way? Depending on how you connect to a DAC I think it might be possible.


----------



## madwolf

Thanks for the nice review and taking your precious time to do all the different A/B test. Great work


----------



## balderon

Thank you for posting your findings. Very interesting thread.  What tracks are you playing for your comparisons?


----------



## Yekrut

Great post and review once again. I have just recieved my LD MKIII and I am loving it so far. Working wonders with my DT990.
  Thats really cool that you built the amps yourself. And by the looks of it are getting an amazing deal out of it.
  Genuinely impressed!


----------



## burgunder

I really like this thread but I do miss some comments on the changes in soundstage width and depth from amp to amp.


----------



## milosz

I have not heard very much variation in the stereo image between these amps.  The exception was the Musical Fidelity Xcan V3.  It had slightly less separation, resulting in less depth and a smaller image; an overall more "intimate" sound.
   
  I noticed that my Little Dot MK III has a slight change in overall stereo balance compared against the other amps. The left channel is very slightly lower in level than the right.  You can hear it on an A/B switch comparison, but when listening to the Little Dot alone there was not a noticeable "gee the left channel is too low" thing.
   
  I am somewhat biased here because I am so spoiled by the great imaging of my speaker rigs- tri-amped Magneplanar MG 3.6  and a pair of Quad ESL-57's.  Both have incredible imaging abilities, and headphones just don't compare IMHO.  So while I hear "stereo effect" from headphones, to me it does not sound like "imaging" as I head it from speakers.
   
  I suppose if I dig through my music collection I can probably find some binaural recordings which would provide an interesting tool to evaluate headphone "imaging."  
   
  To put it bluntly, it doesn't seem to me that ANY headphones have much of what I've come to expect in terms of imaging from a music system, so I don't comment on it.  Like I said, I'm spoiled, especially by the Magneplanars- don't get me started because I could go on and on about the kind of image depth and "palpability" these produce.  I am using them with a DEQX which is not only a digital crossover, but has a measure & correct system using some very fancy DSP which corrects not only frequency response to about + /- 0.5 dB  but also corrects phase, group delay and step response to very close tolerances. All of this time-domain magic makes for a very coherent soundfield, an impressive improvement on top of the already excellent coherence of the MG 3.6's.


----------



## milosz

MUSIC:
   
  All of the tracks I listen to are stored on my server in lossless FLAC format, having been ripped from my CDs using dBA POWERAMP software, and the tracks I use show as "100% accurate" from the Accurate-Rip database, meaning my rips of these tracks match the checksums in the database- this indicates there was zero ripping error.
   
  The files are delivered to a Squeezebox 3, then by SPDIF to my Cambridge Audio DACMagic.  From there to the amps under test.
   
  Here are my "standard" tracks. For testing, I tend to pick music I like that I think is well recorded and which I think will highlight some aspect of sound- bass, spatial quality, midrange, voice, etc etc.
   

 Patricia Barber- some live tracks from Companion and some tracks from _Modern Cool_ (Mobile Fidelity gold hybrid SACD edition)
 Baabaa Maal - some tracks from _Lam Toro_
 Yo Yo Ma - tracks from _Vivaldi's Cello_, and from _PORTRAIT_
 Several Chicago Symphony Orchestra CDs - Beethoven _Symphony #9_, Varese _Ionization_.  I have heard these works live in performance by the CSO (I live in Chicago) so it's a good thing to listen to in testing.
 Tracks from _Felt_ by International Observer
 Tracks from Corey Harris CDs: _Fish Ain't Bitin', Downhome Sophisticate_, and _Greens from the Garden_
 Music tracks from _Stereophile Test CD vols. 1,2 & 3_
 Tracks from _Colma_ by Buckethead
 Tracks from_ Mezzanine _by Massive Attack
 Tracks from the _Buena Vista Social Club_ CD
 Tracks from _Tanto Tempo_ by Bebel Gilberto
 Tracks from_ A Step Forward in the Wrong Direction_ by Long Beach Jazz Quartet
   
  In addition to these I also just browse around in my collection.  Since in my A/B test, whatever track is playing I am making an immediate comparison between two amps, it's not terribly important to use (for example) exactly the same tracks in A/B Comparison 3 as in A/B Comparison 4, etc.  I am only comparing the two amps to each other in the immediate A/B test, and not comparing a given amp to how I think I remember some other amp sounded on some other occasion.


----------



## Mad Lust Envy

I hope one day you can get your hands on the modestly priced Fiio E9, to see how it stacks up with other SS amps. Oh god, I can't wait for someone to finally pull this off.


----------



## Oddworld

Ahh Mad Lust! Changed your profile pic. I was wondering where you went.
   
  I completely agree, I can't wait for someone to compare the E9 to a better amp.
  The OP seems to have a great setup and is methodically and carefully doing A/B Comparisons. I really trust his opinion! I hope in the near future someone could lend their E9 for an A/B


----------



## Mad Lust Envy

Quote: 





oddworld said:


> Ahh Mad Lust! Changed your profile pic. I was wondering where you went.
> 
> I completely agree, I can't wait for someone to compare the E9 to a *more expensive* amp.


 
  Fixed.


----------



## Alcia

Seriously, I love honest A/Bing of any sort of system of the high end with the so called low end. Really, I'm sure more is actually psychoacoustics than we'd like to admit. (says the person who distinctly head differences with tubes in my dad's speaker system. and when he upgraded to a higher end audioquest cable...)
  
  Quote: 





oddworld said:


> Ahh Mad Lust! Changed your profile pic. I was wondering where you went.


 


  Yep, wondered that tooooo. Anime fanatic (j/k of course, and hey, mine is a Pokemon, so no room to talk)


----------



## milosz

With the exception of the headphone jack on the 1980's Yamaha A700 integrated amp,  ALL of the amps I tested sounded VERY GOOD. What really sets the stage for the sound is the headphone itself, that has a MUCH larger impact on sound quality and "flavor." The better amps allow any given headphone to reach a tad more of it's full potential; and, especially with tube amps there is some "flavor" to the amp itself, though much less than the "flavor" imparted by the choice of headphone.
   
  The one thing that REALLY surprised me was how good the headphone jack on the Sugden A25 integrated amp sounded.  It's a good amp, sure, but I figured that since all integrated amp headphone jacks put resistors in series with the 'phones that this would so limit damping factor and other things that I would find it really objectionable. This was simply not true.  While the Beta-22 sounded better than the Sugden headphone jack, it was an audible difference but not a HUGE audible difference. 
   
  Of course, there are some differences that don't relate to sound quality but to driving ability:  the Bottlehead Crack could not successfully drive the LCD-2.  And I just ordered a pair of HE-6's, and I expect that while the Beta-22 should drive these just fine, I really wonder if any of my other amps will have enough power to do the job.
   
  Of course, I can connect the HE-6 to the SPEAKER outputs of one of my medium-powered speaker amps, like the Sugden A25 integrated or one of my other speaker amps: Monarchy SM70 (class A) - AMC-CVT 2030 a class A mosfet-EL34 hybrid, etc etc.  And I will certainly try this.  I already have a speaker-amp A/B comparison box which I use as a "passive preamp" and amp switch on my Quad ESL-57 speakers.  I have two Alps stereo pots in this box, that allows me to set the gain for each power amp to produce identical loudness and then I use an A/B switch to switch the speakers from one amp to the other.  I used this to select the amp I am using on those speakers- I tried a bunch of  amps against each other.  I found that due to it's more complex impedance load, a speaker has more interaction with various amps and this causes various amps to show more difference in sound than amps show with the simpler impedance curves of headphones.  This is especially true with tube type speaker amps, the output impedance of their output transformer has a moderately strong interaction with speaker impedance curves, and I heard pretty large differences on speakers between a solid state amp and a tube amp.  Some tube amps tended to produce a fairly bloated upper bass. For my ESL-57 speakers I settled on a Forte 4A amp.  But sometimes I switch over to a H-K Citation II, which is one tube amp which didn't go all woolly on the ESL-57's.  Anyway that's a digression.
   
  So far my conclusion from this testing is that, yes, there can be fairly dreadful sounding things to drive your headphones with (Yahama A-700 headphone jack)  but all the headphone amps I tried sounded VERY GOOD, with slight differences between them.  To some people, slight differences could be important I guess. 
   
NOTE: The Yama amp I'm talking about is a 1980's A700 amp,  NOT related at all to the current Yamaha A-S700 product.


----------



## Slaughter

Nice job with this thread. Your conclusions are about what I expected. Amps mostly seem to differ on the two ends of the frequency spectrum. Some roll off, some extend further, some are a little fuller, some are tighter. But I think that these small differences are what people are after. I love my HD580, but feel it needs just a bit more sparkle in the highs, so I am after an amp that provides that. Now I won't pay Beta money for that sparkle, but I can see some people doing that.
   
  When are you starting your DAC A / B thread?


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





slaughter said:


> Nice job with this thread. Your conclusions are about what I expected. Amps mostly seem to differ on the two ends of the frequency spectrum. Some roll off, some extend further, some are a little fuller, some are tighter. But I think that these small differences are what people are after. I love my HD580, but feel it needs just a bit more sparkle in the highs, so I am after an amp that provides that. Now I won't pay Beta money for that sparkle, but I can see some people doing that.
> 
> When are you starting your DAC A / B thread?


 
  I'll start the D/A thread when I get my Audio Gd NFB-11, one is supposed to be shipped to me any day now.


----------



## Zida

Quote: 





milosz said:


> I'll start the D/A thread when I get my Audio Gd NFB-11, one is supposed to be shipped to me any day now.


 


  Nice! Any thought on how you're going to work it?


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





zida said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 The NFB-11 won't be arriving till late January I reckon, so the DAC A/B test is a ways off.
   
  Haven't gotten around to working out how to test yet; currently building an A/B test rig for phono preamps, but that's another forum altogether


----------



## Oddworld

Someone get this man a Fiio E9 so we can hear some A/B


----------



## Slaughter

He's waiting for a real DAC/Amp to arrive.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  Quote: 





oddworld said:


> Someone get this man a Fiio E9 so we can hear some A/B


 
   
  Quote: 





> The NFB-11 won't be arriving till late January I reckon, so the DAC A/B test is a ways off.
> 
> Haven't gotten around to working out how to test yet; currently building an A/B test rig for phono preamps, but that's another forum altogether


----------



## ukkisavosta

What an interesting read! Thanks a lot for the trouble and effort.
   
  I would also be very interested in seeing how the E9 would fare in an A/B comparison (if just to prove myself that I probably don't need anything better). I also wonder how the Fiio E7 would perform in a DAC comparison (sadly the LOD cable isn't available yet, if I'm correct). I fully understand that it isn't possible to test every single amp & DAC available and cater to everyone's requests, but these are probably the most basic units available, so they might give some perspective.
   
  Anyway, it's very interesting to read about the subtle differences (and the apparent minuteness therein) between the various systems. From a headphone newbie's perspective I find it noteworthy that while there are notable differences in the designs of the amps, the sound is not massively different after all.


----------



## olor1n

Thanks for taking the time to do this and to share your findings with us milosz. It's refreshing to read someone in possession of some higher end components validate the quality of some "lesser" gear. This thread is bookmarked and will be used to temper my future decisions as I move to a balanced setup.


----------



## renlute

Great thread, milosz, which I just found.
   
  Bring your A/B gadget to the next head-fi meet at the SF airport Doubletree next February and there'll be a line starting at your table and extending out the door.
  (See my sig below.)


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





renlute said:


> Great thread, milosz, which I just found.
> 
> Bring your A/B gadget to the next head-fi meet at the SF airport Doubletree next February and there'll be a line starting at your table and extending out the door.
> (See my sig below.)


 
  I probably can't afford a trip to San Francisco.... I blew all my dough on headphones and amps!


----------



## XXII

An interesting thread. If I have not missed anything, you haven't mentioned what db you have volume matched to. I would be interesting to see if the differences were more or less apparent at different SPL.


----------



## SP Wild

I'm not surprised that you found minimal differences in your amps.  I'm also surprised that others have not suggested that, perhaps the Dacmagic is the bottle neck in your fine collection.  My Dacmagic was first on the chopping block after I heard them via HD800s and LCD2s...I liked it with my K701s and and HD650s and felt the Dacmagic competed amazingly well with my Bryston BDA-1...but the Dacmagic is not a source for ultra precise drivers.  You've not heard how amazing the LCD2s can control bass until you pair it with a hi-end source.  The Dacmagic has an appalling uncontrolled bass...improved when using my XPSUV3 as a power source...but compared to my Bryston BDA-1 and my Audio GD Reference 7...it was utter garbage.


----------



## milosz

Since the Dacmagic is a constant in both the "A" and "B" amps under test, the sound of the Dacmagic as a source should not make one amp sound better or worse than the other.  This is a comparison of the two amplifiers under test using the same source.  Only the amplifier changes between A and B tests, so any differences in sound between A and B will be due solely to the amps.


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





xxii said:


> An interesting thread. If I have not missed anything, you haven't mentioned what db you have volume matched to. I would be interesting to see if the differences were more or less apparent at different SPL.


 


  I like to listen around 85~87 dB, sometimes louder.  For these tests I set the level to 85 dB.


----------



## fishski13

Quote: 





milosz said:


> Since the Dacmagic is a constant in both the "A" and "B" amps under test, the sound of the Dacmagic as a source should not make one amp sound better or worse than the other.  This is a comparison of the two amplifiers under test using the same source.  Only the amplifier changes between A and B tests, so any differences in sound between A and B will be due solely to the amps.


 

 an amp cannot resolve what's not there in the first place.


----------



## violinvirtuoso

I think "SP Wild" is trying to say that the differences would be more obvious with a better source. (Please correct me if I am wrong, or misinterpreting what was said).


----------



## milosz

I understand that is what he is trying to say.  I am not certain there is any good evidence showing that a different source would make the amps sound different. I think there is a logical flaw in thinking that changing the source would somehow "bring out"  differences in the amplifiers. 
   
  Although an Audio_GD Ref 7 might be a better sounding DAC than the DAC Magic- or at least a DIFFERENT sounding DAC- it still doesn't alter the fact that the comparison here is between the two amplifiers. If the amplifiers indeed sound different then their sound signatures will show up whether the input is a direct signal from a pair of Neuman mics in a Blumlein pair flown over Orchestra Hall here in Chicago or a cassette.  (OK, well, maybe that is too extreme a contrast... but you get my meaning, I hope) And I really doubt that the difference between a Dac Magic and an Audio_GD Ref 7 is all_ that_ extreme. For grins I did some  analysis on the output of the Dac Magic and, for example,  signal at 10 Hz is down less than 0.2 dB. OK, so maybe it doesn't have the same bass sound _character_ as the Ref 7, but I don't think anyone would say that this DAC lacks bass. And since my reviews are about what the amps DO to the bass from the source, and not about the source itself, I fail to see how a different DAC would change the perception of differences of sound between two amps.
   
  While I don't see how it could make a difference in the results of these amp tests, I have an open mind- if someone cares to lend me an Audio_GD Ref 7  for a week I would gladly repeat all my tests with that DAC.
   
  I will be getting an Audio_GD NFB-11 in a month or so, I can try a few tests using that.
   
  People seem to think the ESS Sabre parts inside the NFB-11 make for a pretty good DAC.  The Sabre chips use multiple internal DACs the same way the Ref 7 (etc) use multiple DACs to average out conversion error.  The Sabre uses 8 DACs, 4 per channel in dual differential just like the Ref 7, except the Sabre benefits from all this being implemented one one silicon die vs. multiple chips in the Ref 7.   I would love to do blind A/B testing with the NFB-11 vs the Ref 7, to see if the various golden ears can really hear these "major differences" in sound quality that they claim to hear between what are otherwise all very well made and designed DACs.  I suspect a lot of people go by the assumption that if it costs $1,500 more it MUST be better, and so when they listen the psychoacoustic placebo effect serves to confirm this thinking.  Only a blind test could tell if listeners are actually able to hear these differences at statistically relevant levels of confidence.


----------



## SP Wild

Quote: 





violinvirtuoso said:


> I think "SP Wild" is trying to say that the differences would be more obvious with a better source. (Please correct me if I am wrong, or misinterpreting what was said).


 


  Thankyou, you put it in words better than I could.  IME, headphones such as the HD800 and LCD2 have the resolving precision of 10K+ speakers and I did not hear the logic in pairing such devices to entry level dacs such as my Dacmagic.  The OP seems a little sensitive to suggestions of source improvements, when he has the state of the art transducers paired with the finest of headphone amps...yet does not see the logic in upgrading to a source that befits the entire chain.  I merely expressed my findings in my audio journey with sincerity and without malice, yet it was construed as such.  For which I can only apologise for, if I came across with malicious intent.
   
  I guarantee a 100 percent score in a DBT between the Bryston BDA-1 and Dacmagic.
   
  Guarantee.


----------



## olor1n

The OP's tests still highlight the ceiling reached in amp SQ until you start spending the big bucks in upgrading your chain. For those not wanting to enter the realm of diminishing returns, these insights are of great value.


----------



## Slaughter

+1
  
  Quote: 





olor1n said:


> The OP's tests still highlight the ceiling reached in amp SQ until you start spending the big bucks in upgrading your chain. For those not wanting to enter the realm of diminishing returns, these insights are of great value.


----------



## Armaegis

Although I've personally never heard any of the big $1k dacs (not on my headphone rig anyways, I've heard a couple on speaker systems), most dacs to my ears were more sideway steps once you got beyond the junky onboard soundcards. For the dollar spent, I've heard more difference from upgrading amps and power supplies.


----------



## milosz

My position remains that if there are clearly audible differences between the amplifiers I've looked at in these tests, these differences will show up using the DAC MAGIC as a source. 
   
  While it may be true that ultimate sound quality can be improved with a different DAC, these A/B tests are not about finding the finest sound but about looking for differences introduced by the amps.


----------



## Armaegis

I think the point they are trying to make is that some of your amps are capable of greater resolving detail, but you're feeding them a low end source so they don't have anything to work with, making your comparisons skewed towards the lower end amps.
   
  Personally, I think your source is perfectly fine for the comparisons, and any upgrade of source would be noticeable across both amps (for the most part) equally... or if not equally, still not enough to shift the rankings appreciably.


----------



## SP Wild

Quote: 





milosz said:


> My position remains that if there are clearly audible differences between the amplifiers I've looked at in these tests, these differences will show up using the DAC MAGIC as a source.
> 
> While it may be true that ultimate sound quality can be improved with a different DAC, these A/B tests are not about finding the finest sound but about looking for differences introduced by the amps.


 


  I thoroughly enjoyed reading your amp comparisons and I never meant to imply that it was in any way invalidated by using the Dacmagic as a source.  Whereas you're in the position of owning great amps and lesser dacs, I am in the opposite spectrum of owning several great dacs, but I only have lesser amps, hence I enjoyed your comparisons as I am in the market for improving my amps. 
   
  I was merely sharing my findings with the impressive improvements from going to a hi-end dacs from the Dacmagic...this was as noticeable in my stock XCanV3 as on my Black Cube Linear.  IMO I believe if one already owns for eg a Dacmagic and XcanV3 and just purchased a HD800 and seek the next upgrade, I feel that upgrading the source would yield even greater improvements than upgrading the amp as the existing amp has improved data for amplfying.  Whereas upgrading the amp first, the improvements are there, however it is merely amplifying the same available data slightly differently.  Your findings here are seemingly backing up observations I made with my own amps.  I think I came across all wrong in my initial post and I hope you don't take it as any form of attack on this excellent thread.
   
  Neverthless, reading this very helpful thread has persuaded me to eventually build a Beta 22 amp and also a Crack Paramount 300b monoblocks in the near future.  Great work in this thread and I truly appreciated your findings.
   
  Kindest regards,
   
  Sam.


----------



## milosz

I have a new DAC coming from Audio-GD -  an ESS based unit, NFB-10ES, which as you know also has a balanced headphone amp in it but can be used as a fixed-output DAC.   I will repeat most of my tests with this DAC to see what happens.  It will be interesting.
   
  I am also doing an experiment with my DEQX, going to try running a compensation dataset for a set of headphones and then using the DEQX as a DAC / compensation processor.  To this end I am building an ear-and-check simulator to fit the calibrated mic that the DEQX uses.  The DEQX runs a set of sweeps that it looks at with it's mic and then calculates compensation for amplitude response, phase, group delay and impulse response. It's also a three-way crossover with slopes up to 200 dB / octave but of course with headphones you'd only use one channel full range and not all three channels as in a crossover implementation.  It's pretty amazing what it can do for speakers- it takes my Magneplanar MG 3.6's to a whole new place in terms of imaging- I am interested to see what it will do for headphones.  Of course, it's DSP-based magic is only as good as the measurement you make, and so I think a lot will depend on my "artificial ear."  I have the silicone pinna almost done and now I'm trying to figure out what to use for the ear canal.  All of this will be in a new thread once I get my ear up and running.....


----------



## SP Wild

Congrats on the NFB10 purchase.  I heard the older Sabre DAC from the Peachtree integrated at the recent Sydney meet and with its built-in headamp was miles ahead of the Dacmagic with any of my headamps with the LCD2s.  I can only speculate that the NFB10 will be even better than the Peachtree.  I'd be curios with your results and I wonder if there will be big differences between the internal headamp of the NFB10 and the Beta 22 when using the Sabre DAC.
   
  If I didn't purchase the Reference 7 I would have definitely ordered either NFB10 Sabre or Wolfson.  I was so impressed with the Reference 7 and how it made a mockery of my beloved Bryston DAC that I immediately placed a purchase on the Phoenix amp and it should be here soon, I figured I might as well go all the way!  The plan is then to build a Beta 22 and compare it to the Phoenix.
   
  I'm all for EQ and the DEQX has been on my radar for when I finally get into speakers, because everytime I go to audition speakers, they sound terrible due to room resonances and I figured the most cost effective way is to use the microphone calibration system in the DEQX.
   
  Good luck with all the ear measurement venture.  This sounds fascinating to me, and who knows, you might be able to unravel some hidden truths.  Cheers.


----------



## Zida

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *milosz* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> ... I will repeat most of my tests with this DAC...
> ... I am also doing an experiment with my DEQX
> ...I have the silicone pinna almost done and now I'm trying to figure out what to use for the ear canal.  All of this will be in a new thread once I get my ear up and running...


 

 :O How do I auto-subscribe to every thread you create?


----------



## milosz

:O How do I auto-subscribe to every thread you create?
   
   
  Ha ha ha, that's SO nice of you to say.   But- please!  No more nice comments.  If my head gets too big I won't be able to wear headphones anymore!  Très tragique!


----------



## kite7

It's nice to see a comparison of amplifiers not swayed by its pricing , only an honest opinion. Sometimes people just accept that the more expensive gear is better which isn't always true. Headphones don't improve indefinitely as one uses more expensive amplifiers.


----------



## olor1n

Looking forward to your WM8741 vs. ES9018 comparison milosz. I recently emailed Kingwa about what he'd recommend for a balanced HD650 when I go that path in future. To my surprise he suggested the NFB10WM over the ES. The ES is damn tempting though given recent developments.


----------



## metrathon

milosz (Hungarian, by any chance??),
   
  This is by far the best thread I've ever seen on this forum. It's full of commonsense and imo, objectivity. But you see, this is also very polarizing.
   
  Ppl will "hate" you because you basically rain on their parade and call them suckers, by saying that between a $200 and a $2,000 amp there is no much difference. 5 maybe 10%, while the price is 10x bigger. Basically you're telling them they are lying to themselves when writing those raving reviews after a much anticipated upgrade. And nobody likes to hear that.
  Along with the regular folks, manufacturers will hate you as well, because you're trashing their marketing efforts.
   
  Other ppl will love you because you're giving them hope, and save their wallet. It's like legalizing gay marriage, hey, you must not be ashamed you're listening to a $200 amp. You're alright, God loves you too, you have the same right as everyone. Head up 
   
  Personally, I love and hate you in the same time. Love because you proved what I always felt (read logic, intuition, experience): there is no dramatic difference between the poor man's amp and the CEO's amp, as the manufacturers would like us to believe.
  Hate because you sort of crushed my dreams of making palpable improvements by upgrading to more expensive amps. Before this post, I had something to dream to. Not anymore 
   
  Overall, again, incredible useful post and lots of balls. Watch for suspicious packages on you door steps or white powder envelopes


----------



## olor1n

There's no "hate" here dude. Everyone's stated that the OP has provided some good insight. It's actually surprising. Perhaps the calm before the storm.


----------



## dmk1

Well, I was looking forward to replace my CK2III, hoping to get a definite, noticeable improvement with my HD800 (source is a DacMagic) but there goes that idea now, since even a beta22 would be nothing but a subtle upgrade.

 Now I'm really curious to see if milosz' new DAC can spice things up... Thanks for the hard work and keep us posted!


----------



## olor1n

^ I HATE your avatar. There you go metrathon, some real "hate" in this thread.


----------



## dmk1

It's a jumping spider, the cutest arachnid there is, how can you hate it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
(click to see the original) http://tinyurl.com/3yvmmam


----------



## nikongod

We have those little guys where I work. 
   
  If they were the size of cats life as a human would be very different.


----------



## Armaegis

I've been considering building a b22 or M3. I know the M3 is the more economical/practical choice and I probably wouldn't be able to hear the difference, but there's that silly part of my brain telling me "MOAR POWER" and grunting like Tim the Toolman Taylor...
   
  I've also been musing over how to create an active balanced ground circuit like on Meier's amps (over in the DIY forum, and yes I did ask Jan if it was ok), and I think it would be easier to implement in a b22 (plus there are parts kits from Glass Jar)... despite the fact that I don't *really* know what I'm doing. Thoughts?


----------



## Lil' Knight

Quote: 





armaegis said:


> I know the M3 is the more economical/practical choice and I probably wouldn't be able to hear the difference, but there's that silly part of my brain telling me "MOAR POWER" and grunting like Tim the Toolman Taylor...


 
  The B22 is clearly a step above the M3, both in specs and sound. I like how the M3 sounds but to me, the B22 is unrivaled.


----------



## metrathon

Quote: 





olor1n said:


> There's no "hate" here dude. Everyone's stated that the OP has provided some good insight. It's actually surprising. Perhaps the calm before the storm.


 


  See my quotes ("hate"). Of course this is not a soap opera, to start pulling hair and spitting. Sometimes, when you deal with over-the-average smart/educated ppl (as I think there the majority on this forum is), the "hate" is ... silence. I've read a few posts that were asking nasty questions and others just didnt bother to reply or debate too much. They just ignored the "issue".
  I think it's a self defending mechanism. I have it, so others must have it too 
   
  You see, there will be a huge difference in the number of posts/replies if a guy says he loves his new $5,000 amp and starts painting the ecstasy he's been through when listening or if he says the $5,000 amp sounds the same like his $500 amp an he's disappointed. Nobody wants to be told he made a bad decision, or even worse, he's pretty much lying to himself.
   
  Disclaimer: I hope I'm not offending anybody, that's not my intention at all, I'm just talking about ... human nature. In this hifi field, you can really see it at work 
   
  Btw, Happy New Year HeadFi-ers! I really enjoy this forum, though I'm not much of a writer.


----------



## ardgedee

This thread makes me want to build a β22. The parts list and instructions are daunting. Especially since the undocumented first step for me will be, "learn how to solder."
   
  I already have a desktop tube amp and a portable DAP that I'm happy with, so I don't feel motivated to make one of the standard amplifier projects to teach myself by. Guess I'll start spending time in the DIY forums to see if there's a kit that looks interesting and is applicable.
   
  Thanks for your hard work, milosz. I feel like I've learned a lot here.


----------



## fishski13

Quote: 





lil' knight said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  i agree but this assumes that your source is up to snuff.  i would a take a BM DAC1 driving a pair of HPs over a $50 dvd player/B22 combo. 
   
  the sound sig of both the M3 and B22 are similar and both sound equally detailed; but the B22 pulls away with better transparency or "thereness" and a much better soundstage and imaging that puts you in the mix.  the M3 would make for a perfect monitoring tool if all you wanted to hear was the recording - the B22 gets you a little closer to the real thing.  
   
  also, i think it's HP dependent.  with the DT990/K271/K601, i don't feel like i'm missing anything with the M3.


----------



## Armaegis

Hmm, I think the other plus for the M3 is that you can roll opamps if the stock sound is not to your liking, though I need to figure out how to convert the active ground into another regular amp channel if I want to follow through with my original idea...


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *milosz* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> The M³ uses[size=small] AD843 op amps.[/size]


 

 Did you try any other opamps?  I find the 843s a little thumpy and grainy relative to the 637/627s, which appear to be smoother and have greater extension, on my M^3s.
   
  The last time I did any testing, I found my Woo3 (Cetron-Jan tubes)  sounded remarkably like my 637/627 M^3.  My GS-1 sounds different with noticeably more space around things and a wire with gain sound.
   
  USG


----------



## nikongod

The M3 has lower random noise, THD, and IMD than the B22 into any load. Just FoodForThought.


----------



## Armaegis

Quote: 





nikongod said:


> The M3 has lower random noise, THD, and IMD than the B22 into any load. Just FoodForThought.


 

 Hmm, definitely good to know...
   
  Argh this place is awful. Get some hard to drive cans, upgrade the amp. Then you get the amp and decide to find some even harder to drive cans... and so on and so on.


----------



## fishski13

Quote: 





nikongod said:


> The M3 has lower random noise, THD, and IMD than the B22 into any load. Just FoodForThought.


 


  monolithic opamps in the VAS vs. discrete?  they both spec very well either way.


----------



## fishski13

milosz,
  as a fellow DIYer, i appreciate all the effort to type personal and accessible reviews...and you sling solder 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## stainless824

What would be cool is if you built monoblock beta22. Seperate power supply for seperate channel. Overkill i know but something I'd like to see


----------



## PFKMan23

Quote: 





stainless824 said:


> What would be cool is if you built monoblock beta22. Seperate power supply for seperate channel. Overkill i know but something I'd like to see


 


  I do remember seeing a monoblock B22 at some point, and yes, it was pretty nuts.


----------



## Oddworld

This thread is fantastic, keep up the good work!
  I'm digging the A/B


----------



## milosz

I enjoyed BUILDING the Beta 22 way more!  The Beta is just an awesome piece of gear. The M3 is super good too. But the Beta is over the top in terms of electronic goodness. There's more to this hobby than the sound. I think the "object-ness" of the gear can be a pleasure in itself, and building something with as many parts as the Beta is a good way to while away quite a few hours during wintry evenings. Take your time in building; it's a craft like cabinetmaking or weaving. 
   
*HOWEVER*:  if you have never soldered very much before, the Beta might be daunting. There is A LOT of soldering on this thing, and one cold joint or solder bridge where there shouldn't be a connection can prevent it from working and can be hard to find among all those many solder joints. So in the case of novice builders I would warn against the Beta; the M3, or the CK2-III would be a better choice. http://www.amb.org/audio/ck2/  the CK2-III  is pretty easy to build, even easier than the M3 and offers similar performance.
   
  Will you hear the difference? I dunno.  They are real damned close.
   
  BUT- the Beta definitely can drive HE-6's and the M3 *can't.* The M3 driving the HE-6 clips audibly at levels I would find "moderate to somewhat loud"- 
   
  Now you may never have a pair of HE-6.  But then again you MIGHT. And maybe the HE-99,000 will come out offering class-beating performance at some middling price point but require gobs of power the way the HE-6 does.  You never know. (FYI, I found that the CK2-III CAN drive the HE-6's to loud levels.)
   
  The Beta 22 is the kind of thing where you feel, gee, this is likely about as good as it gets, I won't have to worry about upgrading my headphone amp maybe for years and maybe for MANY years. And if you build it yourself there is good _value,_ too, even if it costs a few dollars.
   
  I think the place to look for savings with a Beta 22 is the CASEWORK. I bought a Par-Metal case which is nice but not real fancy or anything.  And it cost over $100.  And you can spend even more!  So maybe try to do something with wood lined with thin aluminum sheet to shield against electric fields like AC buzz. Or some other creative do-it-yourself solution.  Like, buy an old DEAD power amp for $7 on eBay and gut it out.  A power amp will have a minimum number of holes cut in it, allowing you to creatively re-use the chassis.
   
  And FOR SURE build a 2-chassis Beta22, I made the mistake of building a single chassis and had to enclose my power transformer in an inner steel chassis or there was hum. I had my Beta as a 2 board amp at first:  no hum.  Going to 3-board "active ground" setup, and there was HUM.  The 3-channel version seems real sensitive to the magnetic field from the transformer.   For your power supply, use a more utilitarian cheaper STEEL enclosure and  tuck it away out of sight like a wall-wart when using your Beta22. Steel is good, it contains the magnetic field from the transformer and is cheap.


----------



## eliziz

I know you didn't have a chance to A/B the beta before and after the upgrade but can you expand a litle about the diffrences you felt going from 2-ch to 3-ch?


----------



## stainless824

Omg, a monoblock b22 exists? Shottie makin one when i get bored of my burson and rake up enough $$$


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





upstateguy said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  No I never tried any other opamps, though I have  OPA627's sitting around that I want to try.  When I can find the time.  (Or is it OPA637's that I have?  I can't remember.) 
   
  It is a good point re:  M3 - you can try ALL KINDS of opamps in there.  You could even use Audio-Gd discrete transistor opamp modules SUN, MOON or EARTH, though these may not fit in some M3 cases.  See http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/diy/OPA/OPAEN.htm   they are not too expensive either.  And if you have friends who are snobby about monolithic opamps, using  EARTH modules will let you put them in their place....


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





eliziz said:


> I know you didn't have a chance to A/B the beta before and after the upgrade but can you expand a litle about the diffrences you felt going from 2-ch to 3-ch?


 


  It has one more board in it.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  I really can't say I heard any difference. There may be in fact a difference but, you know, the 2 channel Beta-22 sounded great and so does the 3-channel. The only difference in sound that I can clearly point to is that my amp had HUM after I added that 3rd channel.  Ultimately I had to enclose the power transformer in a steel sub-chassis box to cure this.  I can't work out why, exactly, but it seems the 3-channel version is more susceptible to picking up hum from magnetic fields, like the 60 Hz field from the transformer. At first I thought I had a ground loop or something, but in the end it was cured by wrapping the transformer in steel and not by changes in ground scheme or wire dressing. 
   
  But as far as sound quality, no, I have no impression of how it sounded before /after so I just can't say.  In THEORY I would think that the most noticeable thing might be better bass- I think the active ground has a big effect on damping factor.
   
  The Beta 22 specs list "Output impedance  less than 0.01Ω, 20Hz - 20KHz"  which is very low, this is what determines damping factor. This is for a 3-channel topology.  I'll ask AMB what it would be for 2-channel.  But you know, this is just theory. Maybe this makes a difference in sound, maybe not. 
   
  Even though I found very little easily audible difference between Beta 22 and M3 on HD800 and LCD-2, I still prefer to use the Beta 22. This is purely psychological.  I just FEEL more appreciation for the Beta. Probably because it was a fair amount of work to build., I spent so much time on it, and because I admire the engineering in the design. It does sound GOOD - of that there is no doubt- the fact that it may not really sound much better (if at all) than the M3 doesn't mean I don't LIKE it more. If it sounded clearly worse than other amps, I would not like it all that much.  But the fact that it sounds as good or better than the other amps, and in addition I have certain emotional responses to it's design and my relationship with it during the build add up to me LIKING it more.  It's sound first and foremost, but in the end it's MORE than just sound.
   
  Which reminds me, I must buy a thicker front panel for my Beta 22.  Par Metal makes a thicker one than the "stock" one I have.... I just love chunky aluminum audio jewelry.  I'd love to have a CNC machining center, I could make some really great chassis. I know the guy who owns Tormach, I wish I could buy one of their benchtop 3-axis milling machines for cheap but he won't do that for me.  He won't let me come over to his shop and use his, either.  It's just as well, I'd put my eye out.


----------



## eliziz

Thanks! In about 2 weeks a should have my own beta (2-ch). It is hard to find information about the sonic differences between 2-ch and 3-ch builds.


----------



## ardgedee

This makes me curious how difficult it would be to make the shared ground board switchable, so you could do A/B tests on the beta22 against itself...
   
  Thanks for the advice about projects. As tempting as it is to dive right into one, I know it's better for me to do some simpler things first and learn the basics. If I ever get into building a beta22 (or whatever comes along by then), what I imagine doing is finding an old Sparcstation pizza box to put it in. They look handsome (as computer cases go) and the shielding's built in, and when one crops up, it's usually available for the cost of carrying it away. Only real problem is even when they look great in windowless server rooms, the plastic yellows in natural light.


----------



## PianistOne111

These would be so much better if they were blind. Can't you get someone to hook up the amps to the switch for you?


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





pianistone111 said:


> These would be so much better if they were blind. Can't you get someone to hook up the amps to the switch for you?


 


  Yeah they would be better tests if on a more scientific footing.  To that end, I am building a box that provides a way to let software do the switching, based on a table of random numbers. The software would also record results that I could analyze in Excel.  This would be a true random A/B/X  test.  Not done making this yet, though.  (It's actually pretty simple- just using USB to control some relays. Software is a little harder, I have written some code in my day but I'm rusty.)
   
  If I get ambitious, I will trot this setup around to some meets and let some golden ears take a crack at it, see how good they are at telling these amps apart.  
   
  I plan to get more involved with this A B testing thing. I have recently registered the domain ABTESTS.ORG where I will post my tests in the next few days, and plan to start a nonprofit organization to act as overall venue for these activities. (I currently do I.T. for a few nonprofits in my spare time and my business partner is an attorney who has a specialization in nonprofit organization law, so it would be relatively easy for me to start this.)


----------



## micmacmo

milosz, I got to say that your A/B testing is fantastic as it is and your level of ambition is really impressive. I think this is a great service to the community.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I agree milosz, this is brilliant. Your tests appear very scientific to me. I suspect that a blind test would result in the same as this one
   
  http://www.bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf
   
  which found level matched amps (Pioneer, NAD, Mark Levinson and some very high end tube amps) do sound indistinguishable.
   
  I am also not surprised that the Yamaha integrated amp you tried sounded surprisingly good as I auditioned some headphones from an updated version and was surprised at the sound quality.


----------



## BebopMcJiggy

Quote: 





nikongod said:


> The M3 has lower random noise, THD, and IMD than the B22 into any load. Just FoodForThought.


 


  Aren't they measured with different gains and such?


----------



## milosz

I just bought a used Tim Rawson-built First Watt F3 clone on Audiogon. The First Watt F3 is a Nelson Pass design using power VFETs, and while it is a low power amplifier, it is supposed to sound just great. You can read the 6moons review here: http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/firstwatt4/f3.html
   
   
  I am anxious to see what this sounds like on the Audeze LCD-2 and the HiFiMan HE-6.  And I wonder if I am risking disaster if I use it with the Sennheiser HD800.  Let me see if I can find my Ohm's Law Thinking Cap here.... It's 4 AM here in Chicago (I am an insomniac-) and at this hour, for me, it's a little hard to work this out. Just fiddling around with guesses made from looking at the distortion-vs-power curves for 4, 8 and 16 ohm loads from the 6moons audio review of the F3, I'm going to guess that this amplifier is capable of delivering about 12 volts into a 300 ohm load.  That's just under the 0.5 watt "Max. nominal long-term input power" spec from Sennheiser for the HD800. I'm not so concerned about blowing out the HD800's from listening, but from some inadvertent preamplifier pop or loud 60 Hz hum from an RCA cable falling out or something.  But it doesn't sound like the F3 can produce enough power in such a scenario to open the HD800 voice coils. The F3 is a pretty low-gain amplifier, so anything like a halfway-out RCA cable on it's inputs ought not to generate an output strong enough to vaporize my HD800's.  (I hope)
   
  Of course I could always add a series resistor. This amplifier has a low damping factor of 8.  So how much sound quality would I lose adding some series resistance?  The amp doesn't really have a "tremendous grip" on the voice coils with a damping factor of 8, so maybe reducing that damping factor by adding a series resistor won't make a difference.  But maybe I will want to keep all the damping factor I can, considering I am starting with pretty low damping to begin with.
   
  The Beta 22 has a damping factor greater than 30,000 (!) with the Sennheiser HD800's, and greater than 5,000 with the 50 ohm planar headphones (if you use superconducting headphone cables.)  (The Beta 22 lists output impedance as "less than .01 ohms from 20-20,000 Hz," which is remarkably low.  Damping Factor = load impedance divided by amplifier output impedance.)
   
  Anyway, a Nelson Pass design will be an interesting addition to the A/B tests.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

I had a similar notion to use one of the Pass' lower power amp designs for a reference headphone system. Just add the Placette Remote Volume Control (128 steps), and a good DAC (fed anyway you'd like, USB, CDP, etc.) and this "should" be a great system. 
  
  Quote: 





milosz said:


> I just bought a used Tim Rawson-built First Watt F3 clone on Audiogon. The First Watt F3 is a Nelson Pass design using power VFETs, and while it is a low power amplifier, it is supposed to sound just great. You can read the 6moons review here: http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/firstwatt4/f3.html
> 
> 
> I am anxious to see what this sounds like on the Audeze LCD-2 and the HiFiMan HE-6.  And I wonder if I am risking disaster if I use it with the Sennheiser HD800.  Let me see if I can find my Ohm's Law Thinking Cap here.... It's 4 AM here in Chicago (I am an insomniac-) and at this hour, for me, it's a little hard to work this out. Just fiddling around with guesses made from looking at the distortion-vs-power curves for 4, 8 and 16 ohm loads from the 6moons audio review of the F3, I'm going to guess that this amplifier is capable of delivering about 12 volts into a 300 ohm load.  That's just under the 0.5 watt "Max. nominal long-term input power" spec from Sennheiser for the HD800. I'm not so concerned about blowing out the HD800's from listening, but from some inadvertent preamplifier pop or loud 60 Hz hum from an RCA cable falling out or something.  But it doesn't sound like the F3 can produce enough power in such a scenario to open the HD800 voice coils. The F3 is a pretty low-gain amplifier, so anything like a halfway-out RCA cable on it's inputs ought not to generate an output strong enough to vaporize my HD800's.  (I hope)
> ...


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





ardgedee said:


> This makes me curious how difficult it would be to make the shared ground board switchable, so you could do A/B tests on the beta22 against itself...
> 
> Thanks for the advice about projects. As tempting as it is to dive right into one, I know it's better for me to do some simpler things first and learn the basics. If I ever get into building a beta22 (or whatever comes along by then), what I imagine doing is finding an old Sparcstation pizza box to put it in. They look handsome (as computer cases go) and the shielding's built in, and when one crops up, it's usually available for the cost of carrying it away. Only real problem is even when they look great in windowless server rooms, the plastic yellows in natural light.


 
   
  Ha ha  yeah a SPARC box would be a nice Beta 22 case.  We've got to find someone to cast little shiny BETA 22 badges out of bronze.
   
  You COULD do a switchable 2/3 channel setup, you'd need relays.  Too many things need to be switched to use a toggle. You can get lots of dandy 5 volt relays on eBay for peanuts. I'd use a separate little transformer and diodes to make a 5 volt DC supply, keep it off the amp's supplies.  Again. you can get small 110v-5 volt transformers on ebay for pennies.  You'd only need 50 ma.


----------



## stainless824

I reckon fabricate your own case, what could be more exciting? Building your own B22 just to put it into a generic case makes me depressed.


----------



## GreyArea

I'm seriously considering flying over to the next Chicago meet to witness some of these tests. I'd be interested to see how my Lehmann BCL stacks up.
   
  Also, looking forward to the DACMagic/Audio-GD test. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
   
   
  Quote: 





stainless824 said:


> I reckon fabricate your own case, what could be more exciting? Building your own B22 just to put it into a generic case makes me depressed.


 

 Generic case -> Depression? 
   
  Maybe this is what you need your your B22 build.


----------



## Armaegis

Wow, it's like the mutated lovechild between a furby and tribble...


----------



## turimbar1

Awesome reviews, this is one of the best amp review threads I have seen (which is not saying that much). Keep up the great work! maybe you could do an A/B section on the differences between DAC's (maybe  the µDAC2 vs Audinst using your Beta-22 as the reference amp)


----------



## akelly

Thanks for posting this. I recently acquired a Sugden A25, which unfortunately needs repair. Could you post or send me the schematic and any other documentation you may have? In addition to various other problems, one channel is hotter than the other. Do you have any recommendations on repairing this? The phono stage is more quiet than the other inputs. Is this normal for this amp? Why did you replace the ne5534s with the OPA627abs?


----------



## milosz

Twelfth A / B comparison:  Beta 22 & Audio-Gd NFB-10ES  (AMP section comparison)

   

   

  AGAIN- THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC TEST.

   

  This test is a little different- I cannot use the Cambridge DAC Magic as a source because the Audio-Gd NFB-10ES does not have analog audio inputs.  So, the Audio-Gd NFB-10ES is fed with SPDIF (RCA) and it's own ESS DAC is used; it's DAC line level analogs outputs (RCA) feed the Beta 22.  To switch from A  to B, one switches the headphone from the single-ended amp output of the Audio-Gd NFB-10ES to the output of the Beta 22, and simultaneously switches the Audio-Gd NFB-10ES to "Preamp" which sends the analog signal of the NFB-10ES DAC output to the input of the Beta 22.

   

  LCD-2:  Interesting differences. The NFB-10ES amp sounded a little brighter on the very top end, and maybe the treble of the Beta 22 sounded a little smoother too.  Bass was great from both amps- the Beta 22 was somewhat more controlled, the NFB-10ES a bit less controlled which gave the NFB-10ES a sound that had a little more bass "action" in it. A little "fuller" bass, not woolly but almost little _more_ bass, while the Beta 22 was tighter sounding, more emphasis on bass texture.  Even so, the NFB-10ES bass was not sloppy- it had good "punch'- but the Beta 22 was just more fully in control.

   

  HD-800: The NFB-10ES exhibited the same slightly emphasized high treble on the Sennheisers, but somehow it was not quite as noticeable as with the LCD-2.  It was almost as if the Sennheisers bright sound gave an impression of a little extra treble in the ~6 kHz area no matter what amp they are paired with, and this masked any extra treble added above 10 kHz by the NFB-10ES. I couldn't notice any difference in the bass, both amps sounded great on the low end.  I think the extra bass resolution / detail that the LCD-2's offer showed the differences in bass between the two amps while the HD-800s just didn't allow me to discern this.  

   

  Thoughts:


 Due to the physical layout I've got, the analog signal has to go through moderately long RCA cables from the NFB-10ES to the Beta 22.  Maybe these are rolling off the upper treble a little bit?   In the past 11 tests, the analog signal from the DAC Magic went through these cable to feed BOTH amps, so it was a constant. Here, the signal goes through this RCA cable for the Beta 22, but in the NFB-10ES it's DAC is directly connected internally to it's amp.  I measured the capacitance of those RCA cables at 500 pF, with a  2 ohm output impedance for the NFB-10ES DAC outputs, this should be flat into the MHz. Bode plot for this circuit shows the -1 db point at 200,000,000  ( 200 MHz) so it is clearly safe to say that rolloff in the audio band is negligible (something like -.00001 dB at 20 kHz) So it seems very unlikely that I'm hearing a rolloff of highs caused by cable capacitance. I suspect that the high frequency sound differences between these two amps is real; the NFB-10ES amp is a little brighter sounding.
 I will speculate: maybe the difference in bass I hear between the two amps is due to the fact that the Beta 22 is "active ground" and the single-ended headphone jack of the NFB-10ES is not.  I tried to compare the sound of the Beta-22's 3-channel active ground output to the NFB-10ES's fully balanced output - not easy to do in terms of mechanics.  It seems to me that the bass of the Beta 22 sounds very much like the balanced output of the NFB-10ES, while the single-ended output of the NFB-10ES adds a little more "fullness" but less control to the bass.  Hard to really judge this accurately as there is a short time lag between "A" (Beta 22 1/4" phone jack output - 3 channel active ground)  and "B" (NFB-10ES 4-pin fully balanced output.)  I have a balanced cable with a 4-pin XLR on my LCD-2s, and I plug this into a 4-pin to 1/4" adapter for connection to the Beta. So, to switch, I  pull the 4-pin balanced cable out of the NFB-10ES and plug that into the 1/4" TRS adapter that is plugged into the beta 22. 
   
  Conclusions:  

 It's possible that part of the slightly "brighter sound" of the NFB-10ES is inherent in it's amplifier circuit, not just the DAC. 
 I preferred the Beta 22 sound by a small margin on the LCD-2's, on the HD-800's it was more of a toss-up.
   
   
   
  Here's a  photo of the interior of the NFB-10ES


----------



## olor1n

Thanks for the update milosz. It's a shame you can't isolate the NFB-10's amp section. Any chance of giving a quick impression of the NFB-10 vs the Fun for those on the brink of taking the plunge? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Other than the degree of difference between both amp sections, I'm particularly interested in the characteristic differences between the WM8741 in the Fun and the ES9018.


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





olor1n said:


> Thanks for the update milosz. It's a shame you can't isolate the NFB-10's amp section. Any chance of giving a quick impression of the NFB-10 vs the Fun for those on the brink of taking the plunge?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

  
  In the A/B test I did earlier  in this thread with the FUN amp section vs. the Beta 22, the Beta had slightly better bass control and slightly smoother and maybe slightly  more extended highs than the FUN.  I would expect that the NFB-10ES amp has "more highs" than the FUN.  I will run an A/B comparison of their amp sections soon, followed by my first entry in a DAC A/B thread where I will test the Woflson DAC in the FUN  vs. the ESS DAC in the NFB-10ES.


----------



## kite7

I'm looking forward to your DAC comparisons. I personally found bigger differences in amps than dacs


----------



## milosz

Thirteenth A / B comparison:  Beta 22 & FiiO E9  (AMP section comparison)
   
  Same everything as the first 11 tests- using the Cambridge Audio DAC Magic as a DAC. Here we have an FiiO E9 supplied by it's US distributor - http://content.miccastore.com/fiio  AGAIN- THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC TEST.
   
   
  LCD-2:  Using the LINE INPUT,  the LEFT channel of the E9 sample had slightly less gain than the right, in both LOW and HIGH gain. This complicated testing.  I could hear some very slight differences in sound comparing the Beta 22 to the E9 on the LCD-2. In bass, the E9 seemed to go just as low into the sub-basement as the Beta 22. The Beta seemed to have a little more control - slightly tighter bass but therefore also slightly less "quantity" of bass than the E9.  This has been my experience when going from the Beta's "3 channel semi-balanced" topology to a 2-channel amp. Mids from the E9 sounded ever so slightly warmer too.  There was a difference in the treble- the Beta seemed a bit more extended which gave a little more "open" sound but the harmonic signature of the E9 sounded a little less "clinical" than the Beta - there was a certain smooth character to the highs in the E9 that I liked. Detail was good from both amps. E9 had plenty of power to drive the LCD-2.
   
  HD-800:  The channel imbalance on these higher-impedance 'phones seemed less than with the LCD-2. Interestingly, the difference in the treble seemed less noticeable on the otherwise bright sounding HD-800's than on the LCD-2. The E9 did retain a slightly "sweeter" sound signature but this was not as apparent as with the LCD-2.  Midrange from the E9 was on par with the Beta- detailed, transparent.  Bass from the E9 sounded real close to the bass from the Beta 22- again, differences between E9 and Beta were less apparent on the HD-800's than on the LCD-2-  just a tiny bit less control from the E9 and a little more bass "bloom," but overall a very slight difference on the low end. Very similar sound from both amps, with the E9 sounding just sightly sweeter in the treble than the more "clinical" Beta 22.  E9 was dead silent when the DAC was "sending silence" to the amps, as in beginnings of some tracks etc.
   
  BUILD QUALITY: The E9 does not come apart easily- if you take the front and rear panels off, the internal board cannot slide out because the iPod dock hangs down in it's way, maybe there is some way to pop the iPod dock out allowing access to the PCB, but I didn't want to bust the thing so I didn't spend much time trying to figure this out.  Internal construction seems good with a well laid-out board and quality parts. Because I couldn't get the guts out, I have not included a photo of the interior workmanship. The casework is nicer than you'd expect at this price point - tightly fitting machined panels and a nice anodized finish and - YES!- a fairly thick front panel, which is a great weakness of mine.  The control action was smooth, the blue  LED was a tiny point of light which is classy compared to designs which use a big old LED hanging off the front panel.  All in all a very good package.   Later, I will test it's DAC.
   
  OTHER COMMENTS:  This is a comparison between an amp that sells for $129 online vs. a full-out assault on amplifier technology which costs about $1,000 to _BUILD_.  I think the Beta 22 was more neutral - perhaps to a fault, as it sounded a bit "clinical" in comparison.  The designers of the FiiO seemed to have made a good choice when they chose the sonic "signature" of the amp.  I did have a channel imbalance with mine, but then this was a review sample and has been beat around quite a bit.  If I had bought this amp and it had this imbalance I would contact Micca for warranty replacement or repair, which I'm sure they would do.

   
  Channel output level measurements
  RMS values, sine wave input
   

 *Frequency* *Left* *Right* *Difference* 20 Hz 179 mV 184 mV 0.2 dB 50  Hz 179 mV 184 mV 0.2 dB 200  Hz 189 mV 195 mV 0.3 dB 1000  Hz 188 mV 194 mV 0.3 dB 1000  Hz 226 mV 230 mV 0.3 dB 1000  Hz 304 mV 316 mV 0.3 dB 10000  Hz 195 mV 195 mV 0.0 dB
  FiiO Level Measurements     
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  Note that I did NOT maintain a constant input signal level across frequency - my generator had a slightly lower output the lower I went in frequency.  So be sure you realize this is NOT a frequency response characterization.  It is only the test of the difference in output level for a given input level.  I changed frequency from 20 Hz to 10,000 Hz and I also took 1,000 Hz readings at three different volume control settings to see if channel imbalance changed with volume control position.  Test was made with a Sennheiser HD800 connected to the output of the FiiO.
   
  I am amazed that I could hear such slight differences in relative loudness between left and right. In fact, I want to check this again because the left / right channel imbalance sure sounded like more than 0.2!0.3 dB. By definition, 1 dB is supposedly the smallest change in loudness that is perceptible; but maybe smaller differences are audible when it's a DIFFERENCE between left and right.


----------



## Avi

Fantastic thread, milosz! However, I cannot pass a thread like this by without contributing my own selfish request 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  I see you compared your setup to an RSA Hornet. Do you think you will have the opportunity to compare a Meier Stepdance?
   
  Once again, thanks for a very interesting and educational thread.


----------



## Br777

wow.. great thread... OP it would be EXTREMELY helpful if you could keep the 1st post updated with the ongoing list of what amps you have compared, and links to the thread they are compared on.     also adding the latest review to the thread title is a great practice
   
  thanks again.


----------



## BobSaysHi

This thread is a DIYers wet dream...
   
  I wish I saw this months ago.


----------



## Armaegis

So far I've built a Bottlehead Crack+Speedball and S.E.X.+C4S. Currently sitting in pieces on my workbence are a b22+s22, incoming parts for a 3 channel a20, and I have circuit to replicate Jan Meier's active balanced ground topology which I intend to plug into either the b22 or a20 (maybe both?). Once I finish those up, I'll probably write up a comparison thread.


----------



## Yoga Flame

milosz, first I gotta say I'm a big fan of this thread.
   
  I recently built a passive preamp with a DP3T selector switch to select between different DACs. An unexpected result (to me) was that a noisy ground channel from one DAC affected my listening to the other two DACs. Even when the "dirty" DAC was not selected by the DP3T switch. Completely unplugging the first DAC  removed the noise. I think it's because all three DACs had their ground channels tied together inside the preamp. Only the L and R channels were switchable.
   
  Might the same thing apply when switching between amps?


----------



## upstateguy

This is one of the best threads on HeadFi. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Keep up the good work. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Do try your 637/627s in the M^3.
   
  USG


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





yoga flame said:


> milosz, first I gotta say I'm a big fan of this thread.
> 
> I recently built a passive preamp with a DP3T selector switch to select between different DACs. An unexpected result (to me) was that a noisy ground channel from one DAC affected my listening to the other two DACs. Even when the "dirty" DAC was not selected by the DP3T switch. Completely unplugging the first DAC  removed the noise. I think it's because all three DACs had their ground channels tied together inside the preamp. Only the L and R channels were switchable.
> 
> Might the same thing apply when switching between amps?


 
  Ground loops can be vexing.
   
  It all depends. Many (most?) amps have their signal input grounds isolated from chassis / power supply grounds.  And the A/B switch I use to compare the outputs switches all three leads (Tip, Ring and Sleeve) so there's nothing common there.  But, under some circumstances I suppose the input grounds of two amps can be connected together by their connection to the DAC's output.  It depends on the amps under test, what their input connection scheme is.
   
  So far, though, I haven't heard any noise from any of the amps.  They are all very silent at the listening levels I am using.


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





armaegis said:


> So far I've built a Bottlehead Crack+Speedball and S.E.X.+C4S. Currently sitting in pieces on my workbence are a b22+s22, incoming parts for a 3 channel a20, and I have circuit to replicate Jan Meier's active balanced ground topology which I intend to plug into either the b22 or a20 (maybe both?). Once I finish those up, I'll probably write up a comparison thread.


 

 I'd be curious to read how the S.E.X.  and the Crack/Speedball compare.


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





avi said:


> Fantastic thread, milosz! However, I cannot pass a thread like this by without contributing my own selfish request
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  I'll compare anything I can get my hands on.  I don't own a Stepdance....   if someone sent me one to compare I'd certainly do it.


----------



## Armaegis

Quote: 





milosz said:


> I'd be curious to read how the S.E.X.  and the Crack/Speedball compare.


 

 When I installed the speedball into the crack, there was a noticeably sense of increased resolution. While I only briefly listened to the SEX before installing the C4S upgrade (which to my understading is essentially half the Speedball upgrade), I noticed a similar improvement though not as pronounced. Granted, I was far less familiar with the SEX and the low impedance cans I was testing it with.
   
  In terms of comparitive sound signatures, I find the SEX a bit "bubblier" for lack of a better word. Both amps I find are mid-centric and have great soundstages, with the Crack giving a *tiny* bit more weight in the low-mids/mid-bass, and the SEX being a *tiny* bit better with the upper-mids. It's tough to compare them though, as the Crack is designed for high impedance (100+), while the SEX handles low impedance and pushes out more juice.
   
  With my 600 ohm Sextetts, I preferred them out of the Crack; they felt like they had a bit more control and I'm a mid-bass sort of guy. With my Phiatons (the MS300/400 and PS500), the SEX amp sounded great and it really gave some life to the cans. It was probably the first time I really enjoyed listening to the PS500, which previously were a bit thin in the mids for my liking.
   
  As I was building the amp for someone else, I did not get a chance to test much further. I also do not currently have any cans which are right in the middle resistance-wise, so it's difficult to make a good comparison. Hmm, I do have a 90ohm impedance adapter I could use though. Used with one of the 32 ohn cans that would give me 122 that I can use for both amps.


----------



## Skylab

Quote: 





milosz said:


> I'll compare anything I can get my hands on.  I don't own a Stepdance....   if someone sent me one to compare I'd certainly do it.


 


  Milosz, you are welcome to borrow my Stepdance if you're interested.  Just PM me.


----------



## vcoheda

did you ever post a pic of the device you are using to compare amps. it's still unlcear to me what you are doing.
   
  is it:
   
                                >> RCA 1 >> amp 1 >> hp out >> input 1 switch box
  source >> RCA splitter                                                                     >> headphone
                                >> RCA 2 >> amp 2 >> hp out >> input 2 switch box
   
   
  i wonder if one of these could be built for balanced use.


----------



## olor1n

milosz, Fun vs E9 please!
   
  I suspect the E9 is a very good amp hamstrung by it's common pairing with the E7 (WM8740).


----------



## 129207

This thread is epic. This deconstructs 95% of Head-Fi's content. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It's going to help Fiio push some more units as well.


----------



## micmacmo

Here's a modest proposal with ambitious intentions. Would fellow Chicagoans milosz and Skylab consider getting together to share equipment and opinions using milosz's A | B switch? I think the results of that conversation would be fascinating and essential reading for head-fiers.


----------



## 129207

Someone put this on the frontpage!


----------



## eliziz

Quote: 





micmacmo said:


> Here's a modest proposal with ambitious intentions. Would fellow Chicagoans milosz and Skylab consider getting together to share equipment and opinions using milosz's A | B switch? I think the results of that conversation would be fascinating and essential reading for head-fiers.


 

 +1
  If that's possible, comparing even half of each one's equietment would be just superb - drooling over the idea of a leben, decware, b22 comparison.


----------



## tubulis

Great thread, really appreciate the effort. Refreshing to find a thread to counterbalance the more subjective prose or others, be they accurate or not.


----------



## Mad Lust Envy

milosz, how did you feel the Fiio E9 held up against the Beta22?
   
  How did you feel about it as a desktop amp in general and how it stacks up against the others?
   
  I hate to say it....actually no I don't... I KNEW the Fiio E9 would stand up to the big boys. Now all the HATE can finally be put to rest about the Fiio E9 not being able to compete with high end neutral amps. To be able to stand up to the Beta22 and hold it's own... this is great news indeed. Especially being able to power the LCD2 and HD800.
   
  As for as I know, anything else that would be SIGNIFICANTLY better, would be based off people's personal preference in colored sound, and not how much power is being fed.


----------



## kite7

Quote: 





mad lust envy said:


> milosz, how did you feel the Fiio E9 held up against the Beta22?
> 
> How did you feel about it as a desktop amp in general and how it stacks up against the others?
> 
> ...


 

 I don't know about that. I would still need to personally hear the two before jumping to conclusions but I still appreciate milosz's impressions.


----------



## Mad Lust Envy

I have no doubt that the more expensive ones are overall better. What I'm saying is that the E9 puts up a good fight, as well as having enough power for many headphones, including flagships. The rest is subjective opinion and preference of overall sound signature.
   
  The hate was most people saying it couldn't compete. I'm pretty sure that can be put to rest. People swear price = performance moreso than not, and Fiio has been consistently proving this way of thinking wrong.
   
  I'm inclined to believe you're paying more for versatility (more inputs and compatability) with the higher end neutral amps, and not a sound upgrade, but more of a sidegrade.
   
  But of course, haters gonna hate. You're getting an amp that stays relatively true to the source and feeds your headphones enough power to shine. The Fiio E9 as a neutral amp with ample power does this, does it not? The marked improvements over the E9 is slight sound signature differences, more neutrality, from what we can see. I for one am not gonna pay $1000 more for slight improvements, when the E9 already does things quite well.
   
  I'm willing to bet a pretty penny the truly better improvements are with whatever DAC it's paired with. That will be my next logical choice to upgrading my sound.
   
  I can rest easy knowing that I bought an amp that feeds my headphones with plenty of power without coloring the sound, which was what I wanted. The bells and whistles is of no importance to me.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Boy! It's a good thing this thread isn't in the Sound Science forum! This sounds a lot like some of the cable debate going on over there!


----------



## Armaegis

The E9 is cheap enough I could buy two of them with spare adapter/wire bits to make an ad hoc balanced amp...


----------



## kite7

I see what you mean but what amps have you tried or currently own to know that the E9 is neutral? A lot of things in audio is relative to one another. I owned a few amps but none of them really color the sound in terms of adding something to the frequency response. I find that the biggest differences between cheap and expensive amps is the soundstage, layering and separation, imaging etc the attributes that make a recording sound more life like. I guess I need a E7/E9 combo to compare against my M^3 with Sigma11 PSU. I really do like to save money if possible but so far, even with that mindset I find that I'm never quite satisfied with the sound I got with cheaper combos.


----------



## scottiebabie

only just caught this thread & wow...just wow! great job Milosz, U DA MAN! im betting a whole lotta gurus are spendin sleepness nights tossin & turnin now that their mega $$$$$ amps arent the panacea they thought. im more inclined myself to think that system synergy plays a much more important role than just mechanical/electrical/financial specs. thxs for reinforcing some of my beliefs. 
   
  cant wait to hear moar so keep it up!
   
  ps:FWIW i power my cans thru my vintage Sansui AU-517 integrated amp & i think its da bees knees . $50 gets da job done!


----------



## moonboy403

To me, the M^3 with Sigma11 PSU (with the OP627s) is colored. It's bass heavy and a bit bloated and slow. Finer details also tend to be covered up by how warm it sounds in contrasts to other more neutral sounding amps.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





mad lust envy said:


> I have no doubt that the more expensive ones are overall better. What I'm saying is that the E9 puts up a good fight, as well as having enough power for many headphones, including flagships. The rest is subjective opinion and preference of overall sound signature.
> 
> The hate was most people saying it couldn't compete. I'm pretty sure that can be put to rest. People swear price = performance moreso than not, and Fiio has been consistently proving this way of thinking wrong.
> 
> ...


 

 The only thing is the level of distortion in the Beta 22 (2-channel) is 10x lower than the E9 according to the stated measurements of both.  There is both a misunderstanding by some people that one requires  a crazy amp simply to drive some headphones, as well as by people that a cheap amp will provide most of the experience of a very high grade one. Though if you only listen to crappy, highly-compressed pop, there's much truth in the latter.
   
  Something worth noting is that in most cases these comparisons were made using a DAC of (IMO) a lower grade than the amp being tested, especially going by the specifications which show it as having more distortion. With a better DAC, the differences between the cheap and expensive amps would be more noticeable.
   


  Quote: 





scottiebabie said:


> only just caught this thread & wow...just wow! great job Milosz, U DA MAN! im betting a whole lotta gurus are spendin sleepness nights tossin & turnin now that their mega $$$$$ amps arent the panacea they thought. im more inclined myself to think that system synergy plays a much more important role than just mechanical/electrical/financial specs. thxs for reinforcing some of my beliefs.
> 
> cant wait to hear moar so keep it up!
> 
> ps:FWIW i power my cans thru my vintage Sansui AU-517 integrated amp & i think its da bees knees . $50 gets da job done!


 

 My own comparison as an example: I have both the cheapest and most expensive Audio-gd amps here, the Sparrow and Phoenix. The former sounds great with most headphones. The designer really nailed it with the sound.  I can happily sit and listen with LCD-2s plugged into it.  However, jumping to my main rig, which is, overall, 10x the price, there is a huge difference. Probably the easiest way to describe it is if the music had moved from a toilet cubical into a concert hall. As well, when playing complex music, with the Sparrow (and Fun) the soundstage starts to compress as they struggle to keep up. With the Ref 1/Phoenix this doesn't happen in the slighest due to the far more extensive power supplies feeding both of them.  I wont go into describing the far greater detail that can be heard.  Looking at the measurements, the difference between them is something like 1/3rd of the level of distortion with the more expensive rig. This before we even consider crosstalk and other measurements, which reflect in what one hears.
   
  So, overall, no, you don't need a bazillion dollar system to enjoy music with headphones, but if you're like me, listen to a lot of classical and jazz and want to hear even the last detail, then, if you're willing to pay money, the potential is there, but it has to be the potential of the whole system, not just the amp.


----------



## BobSaysHi

Wow, way to sum that up, Currawong. That's the impression I got from listening to another member's high end rig versus my own.


----------



## Avi

Quote: 





micmacmo said:


> Here's a modest proposal with ambitious intentions. Would fellow Chicagoans milosz and Skylab consider getting together to share equipment and opinions using milosz's A | B switch? I think the results of that conversation would be fascinating and essential reading for head-fiers.


 


  To lapse into a few-decades old sprach; that would be epic, nay totally righteous! (OK, may I re-enter the 21st century now, please?) We can only wish


----------



## scottiebabie

i have no doubt that a Zana Deux or a Phoenix or aforementioned Beta 22 are very good headamps but at what cost & with respect to what & driving what & so on. & more importantly, how much better. not everyone has golden ears & most importantly, deep pockets. alls i knows is my vintage amp (Sansui AU-517) costs me next to nothing, is built like the Krells of yesteryears, drives my home speakers sweetly & sounds awesome with most of my cans too - to my ears ofcos.
   
  alls im saying is tryout whats available at home or something gotton inexpensively before jumping on the "golden" wagon. we mite be happily surprised. afterall isnt it all about the music & not the equipment? jus sayin as all.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





moonboy403 said:


> To me, the M^3 with Sigma11 PSU (with the OP627s) is colored. It's bass heavy and a bit bloated and slow. Finer details also tend to be covered up by how warm it sounds in contrasts to other more neutral sounding amps.


 

 I have the same 637/627 M^3/Sigma and GS-1 as you do.  Unless the 637s are so much better than the 627s *I can't agree with your evaluation* of the M^3 as bass heavy, bloated and slow.  I won't argue that the GS-1 has greater resolution.  But it's just as easy to say that the GS-1's wire with gain sound is bass light, bright, analytical, and lacking the organic 'body' the M^3 has? 
   
  Did you build your M^3 or get it new?  If not, how old is it and how many owners did it have?  The reason I ask is that *not all M^3s sound the same*.  I have 2. The older one (8065) was set up to swing as much current as possible for low impedance headphones like the AKG 340s and has a brighter sound signature than the newer one (637/627) which sounds remarkably like my Cetron tubed Woo3.... and if you know Woo amps, they don't sound tuby, bassy, bloated or slow, but more like good solid states.
   
  Now *what headphones* are you using to make this statement?  I see you and I have had 650s, 701s and 880s in common.  If I were to use each one of those headphones to describe my M^3, I would come up with 3 different descriptions.  There's no way I could call either M^3 bass heavy, bloated and slow with the 701s.  I find both M^3s lean toward the brighter side of neutral with the 880s, and the 650s have the warmest, but most accurate tone with either my M^3 or my GS-1..... 
   
  Now I see that you have *transitioned to expensive ear buds*. I had the UM3X but sold them.  If you had to say which of your *universals* was the best, which would you pick?
   

  
  Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Currawong* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...


 

 Yes you do.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  
   
  USG


----------



## moonboy403

Quote: 





upstateguy said:


> I have the same 637/627 M^3/Sigma and GS-1 as you do.  Unless the 637s are so much better than the 627s *I can't agree with your evaluation* of the M^3 as bass heavy, bloated and slow.  I won't argue that the GS-1 has greater resolution.  But it's just as easy to say that the GS-1's wire with gain sound is bass light, bright, analytical, and lacking the organic 'body' the M^3 has?
> 
> Did you build your M^3 or get it new?  If not, how old is it and how many owners did it have?  The reason I ask is that *not all M^3s sound the same*.  I have 2. The older one (8065) was set up to swing as much current as possible for low impedance headphones like the AKG 340s and has a brighter sound signature than the newer one (637/627) which sounds remarkably like my Cetron tubed Woo3.... and if you know Woo amps, they don't sound tuby, bassy, bloated or slow, but more like good solid states.
> 
> ...


 


  I tested them with my JH13s. Out of all the amps (Millet MiniMax, Pico Slim, Blue Circle SBH, Peachtree Audio Nova, DNA Sonnett, Onkyo flagship receiver) that I've tested with it, the M^3 (bought used with gain switch of either 2 or 6) disappoints me the most in terms of bass. Simple as that. 
   
  As for universal IEMs, I prefer the UM3X over the SM3 because the SM3 has an exaggerated lower midrange that I simply couldn't get over.


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





vcoheda said:


> did you ever post a pic of the device you are using to compare amps. it's still unlcear to me what you are doing.
> 
> is it:
> 
> ...


 

 You could build one for balanced use, you'd need a 4PDT switch.  They do exist, but they tend to be kind of big, sturdy industrial things.  A switch with an easier action is nicer.  It is also be possible to use relays.  I am building an A/B box using relays for use with an automated A/B/X setup I am putting together, to readily allow double-blind tests.  It will run the test then produce a report with appropriate simple statistical analysis.
   
  Here's the single-ended version that I am using.  It's very simple.


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





currawong said:


> The only thing is the level of distortion in the Beta 22 (2-channel) is 10x lower than the E9 according to the stated measurements of both.  There is both a misunderstanding by some people that one requires  a crazy amp simply to drive some headphones, as well as by people that a cheap amp will provide most of the experience of a very high grade one. Though if you only listen to crappy, highly-compressed pop, there's much truth in the latter.
> 
> Something worth noting is that in most cases these comparisons were made using a DAC of (IMO) a lower grade than the amp being tested, especially going by the specifications which show it as having more distortion. With a better DAC, the differences between the cheap and expensive amps would be more noticeable.
> 
> ...


 

 I have an Audio-Gd NFB10-ES now, so I will be repeating some tests with this as a DAC to see if a better DAC indeed does somehow point up differences in amplifiers not audible using the DAC Magic as a source.  My contention is that the amp doesn't know which DAC is being used as a source; if an amp is changing the sound, it will change the sound from a low-fi DAC to exactly the same degree as it changes the sound form an uber-reference  DAC.  The differences between two amps, if such differences are real, should be audible no matter what the source used, as long as sources are fairly low noise and wideband - as any DAC would be.  
   
  I haven't compared the sound of the NFB-10ES to the DAC Magic yet, but I will soon.  I also want to compare the Audio-Gd FUN ("A" version) DAC output to the DAC Magic. I am interested to learn how much difference there is between these DACs. The DAC Magic uses dual Wolfson 8740 DACs and the Adaptive Time Filtering  scheme used on some well regarded Nagra DACs; I really wonder if it's the sound of this unit that some listeners object to, or it's low price.  After all, it simply CAN'T be as good as a $2000 DAC, can it....?  I'm just sayin'.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





milosz said:


> I have an Audio-Gd NFB10-ES now, so I will be repeating some tests with this as a DAC to see if a better DAC indeed does somehow point up differences in amplifiers not audible using the DAC Magic as a source.  My contention is that the amp doesn't know which DAC is being used as a source; if an amp is changing the sound, it will change the sound from a low-fi DAC to exactly the same degree as it changes the sound form an uber-reference  DAC.  The differences between two amps, if such differences are real, should be audible no matter what the source used, as long as sources are fairly low noise and wideband - as any DAC would be.
> 
> I haven't compared the sound of the NFB-10ES to the DAC Magic yet, but I will soon.  I also want to compare the Audio-Gd FUN ("A" version) DAC output to the DAC Magic. I am interested to learn how much difference there is between these DACs. The DAC Magic uses dual Wolfson 8740 DACs and the Adaptive Time Filtering  scheme used on some well regarded Nagra DACs; I really wonder if it's the sound of this unit that some listeners object to, or it's low price.  After all, it simply CAN'T be as good as a $2000 DAC, can it....?  I'm just sayin'.


 

 The amp may not know which DAC you're using, but your ears should!


----------



## Dibster

Inspired by this thread, I set up my PC and other gear so that I could switch between my Asus Xonar Essence STX's headphone out and Musical Fidelity V-DAC + Heed Canamp combo with only a ~2sec break in the music. I volume matched them with an SPL meter using a 1khz test tone. Listening was done with Sennheiser HD-800. Material was lossless FLAC files of several music genres.
   
  After two nights of rigid testing, as far as I can tell, they sound identical. I can't point my finger at any real difference whatsoever. Before, I was under the impression that the V-DAC and Canamp was a warmer, smoother combo than the card's HP-out, but in light of this test I'd have to consider myself proven wrong. This is a 200€ soundcard with a 2$ IC ( I hear ) as an amplifier vs a 250€ DAC and 400€ discrete amp. I feel like I have now lost faith in Hifi, other than the differences between different pairs of speakers or headphones. I feel somewhat angry and disappointed at myself, firstly for having "conjured up" differences where there were none, and on the other hand at having bought almost 1000€ worth of stuff including interconnects that can't outperform a 200€ card. On the other hand, I feel relieved that I'm wearing the best headphones I've heard and I'm apparently getting all out of them. I can sell my stuff without regrets and spend that money on something altogether else.
   
  Thanks, OP, for making this thread. For making me doubt myself and for making me test in as objective a manner as I could. You've saved me from a lot of future spending and from spouting a bunch of false BS on the forums.


----------



## Oddworld

This thread is fantastic!
  Thanks OP for showing that there is some truth to inexpensive amps!


----------



## BebopMcJiggy

That's funny because the OP notices differences between every amp and you can't tell any difference between a soundcard and an external dac/amp in any way?  I mean actually that would be awesome if I could hear no differences between different devices... would save me a lot of money.


----------



## Dibster

The OP might, I don't. Nonetheless, he prompted me to properly test, through which I arrived at my own conclusion.


----------



## zenpunk

bebopmcjiggy said:


> That's funny because the OP notices differences between every amp and you can't tell any difference between a soundcard and an external dac/amp in any way?  I mean actually that would be awesome if I could hear no differences between different devices... would save me a lot of money.




The fact that you hear differences does not necessary mean they actually don't sound the same.:evil:


----------



## Mad Lust Envy

Also, differences =/= better.
   
  Which is why I consider well driven headphones with different amps that change the sound in subtle ways to be DIFFERENT and not necessarily BETTER.
   
  Up to there, it would all be based off personal preference, and not because Amp A is superior to Amp B.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





armaegis said:


> The E9 is cheap enough I could buy two of them with spare adapter/wire bits to make an ad hoc balanced amp...


 

 Save yourself a lot of trouble and just buy a more powerful amp.


----------



## Armaegis

But that's not nearly as fun


----------



## BebopMcJiggy

I never said that different was better or even that they couldn't sound the same to dibster.  I wish that every amp and dac combination sounded exactly the same to me but I suppose that could be pretty damn boring too.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





milosz said:


> I have an Audio-Gd NFB10-ES now, so I will be repeating some tests with this as a DAC to see if a better DAC indeed does somehow point up differences in amplifiers not audible using the DAC Magic as a source.  My contention is that the amp doesn't know which DAC is being used as a source; if an amp is changing the sound, it will change the sound from a low-fi DAC to exactly the same degree as it changes the sound form an uber-reference  DAC.  The differences between two amps, if such differences are real, should be audible no matter what the source used, as long as sources are fairly low noise and wideband - as any DAC would be.
> 
> I haven't compared the sound of the NFB-10ES to the DAC Magic yet, but I will soon.  I also want to compare the Audio-Gd FUN ("A" version) DAC output to the DAC Magic. I am interested to learn how much difference there is between these DACs. The DAC Magic uses dual Wolfson 8740 DACs and the Adaptive Time Filtering  scheme used on some well regarded Nagra DACs; I really wonder if it's the sound of this unit that some listeners object to, or it's low price.  After all, it simply CAN'T be as good as a $2000 DAC, can it....?  I'm just sayin'.


 

 I look forward to reading them.  I'd say though, in reply, that you're correct, but also consider that an amp will amplify distortion as much as it will amplify anything else. If the incoming signal has a higher level of distortion than the amp, then, excluding any improved capability to drive the headphones (which would be most revelant with music that is, say, complex with a high dynamic range) it will not provide any other sonic benefit.
   
  Now it comes to mind, regarding one of your early thoughts, I will add the thought that I have had cables that seemed to roll off the treble ever so slightly or possibly otherwise soften the sound.  If I were nearby, I'd lend you a set that, to my subjective impressions, don't do that. PM me if you want to discuss that though as I don't want to derail this otherwise interesting thread with it.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





moonboy403 said:


> I tested them with my JH13s. Out of all the amps (Millet MiniMax, Pico Slim, Blue Circle SBH, Peachtree Audio Nova, DNA Sonnett, Onkyo flagship receiver) that I've tested with it, the M^3 (bought used with gain switch of either 2 or 6) disappoints me the most in terms of bass. Simple as that.
> 
> As for universal IEMs, I prefer the UM3X over the SM3 because the SM3 has an exaggerated lower midrange that I simply couldn't get over.


 

 Sounds like there's a problem with your M^3. 
   
  Anyone else try an M^3 with JH13s?
   
  Quote: 





dibster said:


> Inspired by this thread, I set up my PC and other gear so that I could switch between my Asus Xonar Essence STX's headphone out and Musical Fidelity V-DAC + Heed Canamp combo with only a ~2sec break in the music. I volume matched them with an SPL meter using a 1khz test tone. Listening was done with Sennheiser HD-800. Material was lossless FLAC files of several music genres.
> 
> After two nights of rigid testing, as far as I can tell, they sound identical. I can't point my finger at any real difference whatsoever. Before, I was under the impression that the V-DAC and Canamp was a warmer, smoother combo than the card's HP-out, but in light of this test I'd have to consider myself proven wrong. This is a 200€ soundcard with a 2$ IC ( I hear ) as an amplifier vs a 250€ DAC and 400€ discrete amp. I feel like I have now lost faith in Hifi, other than the differences between different pairs of speakers or headphones. I feel somewhat angry and disappointed at myself, firstly for having "conjured up" differences where there were none, and on the other hand at having bought almost 1000€ worth of stuff including interconnects that can't outperform a 200€ card. On the other hand, I feel relieved that I'm wearing the best headphones I've heard and I'm apparently getting all out of them. I can sell my stuff without regrets and spend that money on something altogether else.
> 
> Thanks, OP, for making this thread. For making me doubt myself and for making me test in as objective a manner as I could. You've saved me from a lot of future spending and from spouting a bunch of false BS on the forums.


 
   
  Every time I've done tests like yours I got the same results as you did, so I stopped testing.
   
  Never-the-less, I've developed a preference for my NorthStar over my Stello and Constantine and for my GS-1 over my M^3 and Woo3. 
  
   
  USG


----------



## milosz

A/B tests are useful, but be careful trying to work out exactly what such comparisons "prove." There's a lot of logic dimensions to the epistemology here.  Stereophile just ran a column which points out a few of these thorny points. ("Audio, Meet Science," March 2011 issue) They used these points to frame apologist arguments in favor of their particular brand of subjectivism, but their misuse of these arguments doesn't negate such truth as may be inherent in them.
   
  For example, you can't prove a negative by studying examples. That is to say, let's we took RCA cable A  and RCA cable B and devised a proper method for a valid comparison of the sonic impact they had on audio signals passing through them.  Now we allow 1,000 listeners to each conduct an A/B/X  blind listening test.  Let's further hypothesize that none of these 1,000 listeners could tell cable A from cable B at a level any better than chance.  While we have shown that 1,000 listeners can't tell the difference, this does NOT prove that a sonic difference does not exist.  Stereophile is correct in stating this.
   
  Now while this is LOGICALLY true, philosophically true, mathematically true, it should be noted that in addition to philosophical considerations, life as it is lived has certain _practical_ nuances. So, while the test cannot show that no sonic differences exist, would YOU spend $600 on a product whose sonic benefits a large number of listeners couldn't hear, and* not one single listene*r that tried the A/B/X test was able to hear a difference?  
   
  So, just because you can't hear a difference doesn't prove that no difference exists.  But if it sounds the same to you, this might influence your spending! 
   
  There are also well documented placebo effects that can be observed in hearing based tests- the famous one took place under the auspices of the National Research Council Canada.  They do a lot of audio related research, in part to find ways to design better sounding gear to help Canadian manufacturers.  They had a large listening room with a curtain at one end.  A number of listeners were seated in the room -young, old, men, women, musicians, golden-ear audiophiles, regular Joes.  The curtain pulls back to show a bookshelf speaker on a stand.  It has a red cabinet and black grille cloth.  A number of musical selections and pink noise are played.  The curtain closes.  In a short time, the curtain opens again- this time there is a speaker on a stand with a blue cabinet.  The same musical selections and pink noise are played.  The curtain closes.  The audience is asked to write down their impressions of differences between the two speakers.  These are collected and the majority of listeners find that the first speaker had a "warmer, musical" sound while the second speaker had "less bass and a clearer treble."  Actually, however, there was only ONE SPEAKER used.  Stage lights were shown on the speaker that was housed in a MATTE WHITE cabinet- red filtered light made it look like it had a red cabinet, blue filters made it seem a different speaker, with a blue cabinet.  The differences heard were entirely in the minds of the listeners.  The color of the speaker influenced the way the listeners judged the sound.  This is like placebo effect in medicine- the listeners didn't IMAGINE sonic differences- their brains CREATED different audio perceptions for them.  They actually heard these differences, although the differences they heard were based on changes in their perception rather than being related to some physical property of the actual transducers.  The SOUND was same from both red and blue speakers- but that sound was HEARD differently.  
   
  It's important to remember that hearing takes place in the BRAIN, not the ears.  There's more that goes into a persons' perception of subtle audio qualities than just sound!  For example, I swear that amplifiers with thick front panels can sound better to me, in spite of myself.  That's why BLIND testing is a better gauge of what, if any, differences a listener can perceive.  I will be doing blind tests before long, I am building the little relay boxes for this and writing a little code, at some point I will start using these gizmos.  (IF I can make them work!  Hah, it's been a long time since I wrote any software aside from some simple shell script type stuff, javascript and kindergarten-level PHP.)


----------



## BobSaysHi

I read this today, I figured it might be of interest to you.
   
http://www.amb.org/forum/epsilon12-muting-protect-circuit-f24/alternative-use-for-amb-labs-e12-board-t127.html


----------



## rymd

maybe those listeners just happened to all have synaesthesia?


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





rymd said:


> maybe those listeners just happened to all have synaesthesia?


 


  No, but they were probably Canadian.... could have had frostbite damage to their ears.


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





bobsayshi said:


> I read this today, I figured it might be of interest to you.
> 
> http://www.amb.org/forum/epsilon12-muting-protect-circuit-f24/alternative-use-for-amb-labs-e12-board-t127.html


 
  Yes, it could be used for an A/B switch but there's simpler ways.
  
  There's really no need to use an op-amp etc to drive the relay in an A/B switch.  For delayed turn-on and DC offset protection - which is the epsilon's intended use, yes, you need something to do the delay function and something to sense the presence of dangerous DC and drive the relay coil when needed.  But for an A/B switch, you can use an actual DPDT switch to select which of two amplifiers drives the load, or if you have balanced circuits you can use a 4PDT switch.  Instead of a mechanical switch you can always use a relay -  making a 4PDT A/B box for balanced amps using a pair of DPDT relays is easy, perhaps easier than  finding a nice 4PDT switch.  I haven't made one myself, but I do have some A/B boxes I made using relays- I built one to A/B phono preamps, and this box switches the phono cartridge between the two preamps' imputs, as well as selecting which output of the two phono preamps drives the listening amplifier.  This has relays in it, which are energized by some rechargeable AA batteries. There's a switch which sends the DC from the batteries to all the relay coils, so that one simple switch controls the all the action. Using batteries eliminates any ground loops or other signal pollution that using some kind of AC power supply might introduce.  The batteries  can keep the relays in the energized state for 5 hours, long enough for any kind of A/B test session.  This box can also be slaved to another relay - for example, the USB-actuated relay of my prototype computer-operated A/B/X tester.  This interface to my notebook PC uses optical isolation to make sure the PC's chassis / power ground is totally isolated from the audio switching boxes.  All the relay-operated A/B boxes I'm building work either manually by a switch on their front panel or by means of a jack they can be "slaved" to the isolated computer interface.  (Computer interface etc not completed yet.)
   
  I'll be posting my phono preamp A/B tests elsewhere, but when I do I'll mention it here in case anyone wants to see it.  I'm comparing a few lower-cost phono preamps.


----------



## micmacmo

milosz said:


> No, but they were probably Canadian.... could have had frostbite damage to their ears.




Careful. Might I remind you that Chicago has the third coldest winters of all cities in the continental US. Glass houses being what they are. Black pots and kettles suffering inferiority complexes. etc.


----------



## Skylab

That ranking of third is only true if you look at the very largest of US cities only. If you include in "cities" places like International Falls MN, Chicago doesn't even come close to the top 10.


----------



## micmacmo

According to wikipedia, International Falls competes with Fraser, CO for the title of Icebox of the Nation. I think they should both hire new tourism/marketing consultants. 

Sorry, way off topic.


----------



## jeffreyfranz

Thanks for the great review. Regarding your quoted text, below, I believe John Dunlavy (not positive it was him) once said anything over about 300pF capacitance may result in treble roll-off. Generally, however, I would agree with you that a 2-Ohm output impedance should be able to give quite a wideband, flat frequency response. Thanks again for doing the amp comparisons and for your forthcoming DAC comparisons. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
   
_Thoughts:_
_Due to the physical layout I've got, the analog signal has to go through moderately long RCA cables from the NFB-10ES to the Beta 22.  Maybe these are rolling off the upper treble a little bit?   In the past 11 tests, the analog signal from the DAC Magic went through these cable to feed BOTH amps, so it was a constant. Here, the signal goes through this RCA cable for the Beta 22, but in the NFB-10ES it's DAC is directly connected internally to it's amp.  I measured the capacitance of those RCA cables at 500 pF, with a  2 ohm output impedance for the NFB-10ES DAC outputs, this should be flat into the MHz. _


----------



## BobSaysHi

Quote: 





milosz said:


> Yes, it could be used for an A/B switch but there's simpler ways.
> 
> There's really no need to use an op-amp etc to drive the relay in an A/B switch.  For delayed turn-on and DC offset protection - which is the epsilon's intended use, yes, you need something to do the delay function and something to sense the presence of dangerous DC and drive the relay coil when needed.  But for an A/B switch, you can use an actual DPDT switch to select which of two amplifiers drives the load, or if you have balanced circuits you can use a 4PDT switch.  Instead of a mechanical switch you can always use a relay -  making a 4PDT A/B box for balanced amps using a pair of DPDT relays is easy, perhaps easier than  finding a nice 4PDT switch.  I haven't made one myself, but I do have some A/B boxes I made using relays- I built one to A/B phono preamps, and this box switches the phono cartridge between the two preamps' imputs, as well as selecting which output of the two phono preamps drives the listening amplifier.  This has relays in it, which are energized by some rechargeable AA batteries. There's a switch which sends the DC from the batteries to all the relay coils, so that one simple switch controls the all the action. Using batteries eliminates any ground loops or other signal pollution that using some kind of AC power supply might introduce.  The batteries  can keep the relays in the energized state for 5 hours, long enough for any kind of A/B test session.  This box can also be slaved to another relay - for example, the USB-actuated relay of my prototype computer-operated A/B/X tester.  This interface to my notebook PC uses optical isolation to make sure the PC's chassis / power ground is totally isolated from the audio switching boxes.  All the relay-operated A/B boxes I'm building work either manually by a switch on their front panel or by means of a jack they can be "slaved" to the isolated computer interface.  (Computer interface etc not completed yet.)
> 
> I'll be posting my phono preamp A/B tests elsewhere, but when I do I'll mention it here in case anyone wants to see it.  I'm comparing a few lower-cost phono preamps.


 

 Yeah, I felt it was an overly complicated way of doing it too, it just reminded me of this thread so I figured I'd share it here.


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





micmacmo said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


  Yeah that's true.  And here, because we spent all our money on headphones and amps we've none left to buy health insurance.  So our frostbitten ears will go untreated, and fall off.  At least in Canada they have national health coverage...


----------



## chesebert

OP, I am being brutally honest here, your comparisons are worthless, except for the obvious conclusion: if you own a $400 source don't go spend $2,000 on an amp. 
   
  You should use at least a PSA PW or Ayre QB9 if you are using PC-based audio. Preferably, it would be best if you can take source quality out of the equation by using, for example, Esoteric D01, dSC Puccini or MSB Plat IV.


----------



## sphinxvc

Subscribed.  Excellent work so far.  Looking forward to your DAC comparisons.  And a comparison of the Beta22 vs. the M3 using the NFB-10ES as the source.  If the difference is more noticeable than the last round, it will only re-validate the upgrading axiom "source first."


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





chesebert said:


> OP, *I am being brutally honest here, your comparisons are worthless*, except for the obvious conclusion: if you own a $400 source don't go spend $2,000 on an amp.
> 
> You should use at least a PSA PW or Ayre QB9 if you are using PC-based audio. Preferably, it would be best if you can take source quality out of the equation by using, for example, Esoteric D01, dSC Puccini or MSB Plat IV.


 

 That's a pretty harsh thing to say.
   
  I also disagree with you.
   
  USG


----------



## chesebert

You are right about one thing, the comparisons were worthwhile to demonstrate this: "if you own a $400 source don't go spend $2,000 on an amp and $1500 on a headphone"
   

  
  Quote: 





upstateguy said:


> That's a pretty harsh thing to say.
> 
> I also disagree with you.
> 
> USG


----------



## Mad Lust Envy

Quote: 





chesebert said:


> OP, I am being brutally honest here, your comparisons are awesome, and I've come to an obvious conclusion: if you own a good source, don't waste your money buying overpriced amps.


 


  Fixed.


----------



## chesebert

I don't understand what you mean.
   
  Quote: 





mad lust envy said:


> Fixed.


----------



## Paganini Alfredo

I think he disagrees with what you said


----------



## zenpunk

So do I...


----------



## kite7

Quote: 





chesebert said:


> You are right about one thing, the comparisons were worthwhile to demonstrate this: "if you own a $400 source don't go spend $2,000 on an amp and $1500 on a headphone"


 
   
  Can you explain why all equipment must be equal or greater value for a comparison to be valid when not all equipment contribute to the same amount of improvement or difference in sound?


----------



## chesebert

Can you explain why it doesn't make sense to test for any performance differences between a 911Turbo and 911GT on a track when you are using some $50 tires you got from Bell Tire?   Can you think of atleat 1 reason why this is stupid?

 Quote:


kite7 said:


> Can you explain why all equipment must be equal or greater value for a comparison to be valid when not all equipment contribute to the same amount of improvement or difference in sound?


----------



## scottiebabie

let take a gander at this using the auto analogy as stated...
   
  because we're comparing engines & not tires? granted better tires will let both cars perform better but since both cars have the same tire, then its logical to assume other factors will determine which is the better car. lesser quality tires does not negate the tests because OP is trying to determine engine performance & all things (including tires in this case) being equal, the better engine will still be better engine & will perform as such.
   
  dont know if the auto analogy fits but this is how i would view it. btw its not $50 tires but more like $500 tires compared with $2000 tires so even though its "cheaper" tires, its still good performance tires. atleast thats how i see it.
   
  Quote: 





chesebert said:


> Can you explain why it doesn't make sense to test for any performance differences between a 911Turbo and 911GT on a track when you are using some $50 tires you got from Bell Tire?   Can you think of atleat 1 reason why this is stupid?
> 
> Quote:


----------



## Mad Lust Envy

Probably because the difference in sound from amp to amp is a lot more subtle than the performance from tire to tire?

Very bad comparison.


----------



## kite7

Quote: 





chesebert said:


> Can you explain why it doesn't make sense to test for any performance differences between a 911Turbo and 911GT on a track when you are using some $50 tires you got from Bell Tire?   Can you think of atleat 1 reason why this is stupid?


 


 I still think the car with the more powerful engine would win due to acceleration and top speed because on tracks there are straights despite being limited by not so top grade tires. You have to consider that the OP is not using a $50 DAC, he is using what most people would consider a good or decent $500 DAC and is not garbage. I doubt a $500 set of tires perform considerably worse than a $2000 set of tires such that the performance of both cars are limited by the $500 set of tires so much that they perform the same so unless you've driven both cars and can elaborate more, I don't this this car analogy is getting us anywhere from the question I asked.
   
  I doubt the OP is significantly handicapping the performance of his amps with his DAC because I'm sure you've already heard in first year calculus math courses regarding approximations that close enough is good enough. Why should some people be surprised at many amps sound the same? Some people always say that the differences between amps or dacs are "disguised" through A/B switching and that time and familiarity reveal more micro differences; though I personally don't believe this and think it's just some excuse of buyer justification to buy more expensive equipment but I do realize that this is a hobby.


----------



## chesebert

I don't think the car analogy is getting through, let's try a computer one (perhaps that's closer to everyone's actual experience). Take a Core i5 and i7 and put a Geforce 3 TI500 in both and you can tell me whether you can tell any difference when you play your favoriate game on your 24in screen at native resolution. Yeah, using a $400 entry level DAC with top of the line amp and headphone is just like that. Do you think you can tell the difference between the slowest i5 and the fastest i7 at 1080p? Or would you rather say "the difference between the slowest i5 and the fastet i7 is subtle" because I can't tell the difference when I play my game.


----------



## Armaegis

Y'know, people can pick and choose analogies until they find one that suits their point of view...


----------



## Zida

Can we just forget about the analogies? They work well for explaining a concept we all understand, but you can't use them to directly prove your point since, unfortunately, headphones don't double as racing cars and the math sciences behind their performances are mostly unrelated.

 P.S. your last analogy was fundamentally flawed. It would be like comparing performances between a top of the line CPU with say, a CPU clocked maybe 1ghz slower (assuming more expensive DACs are actually better, I myself don't _know_ this to be true) with various different high end GPUs being subbed in and out. It's a 4-way comparison. Remember, we're not arguing that a better CPU doesn't make a difference, we're arguing that a better GPU should yield similar results despite having a *slightly* lesser CPU.
 edit: again, above analogy is still meaningless in this case, I just felt like fixing it up to a point where it would at least fit the concept of this argument


----------



## chesebert

I think you are confused. the $400 DAC is the bottleneck in OP's system, just as the crappy GPU is the bottleneck in a modern gaming PC, just as the $50 tire is the bottleneck in a super car. That means no matter how great the rest of the system is, that being the SOTA headphone/amp, the newest quadcore, or the latest engine, the resulting experience, whether aural, visual or physical, will be "bottlenecked", notwithstanding some minor improvements. 
   
  Feel like I am beating a dead horse here.
   
  Honest Question: Do people who read this thread for actual comparisions honest think an entry level $400 DAC is good enough to test a SOTA audio system?
   
   
   
   
   


  
  Quote: 





zida said:


> Can we just forget about the analogies? They work well for explaining a concept we all understand, but you can't use them to directly prove your point since, unfortunately, headphones don't double as racing cars and the math sciences behind their performances are mostly unrelated.
> 
> P.S. your last analogy was fundamentally flawed. It would be like comparing performances between a top of the line CPU with say, a CPU clocked maybe 1ghz slower (assuming more expensive DACs are actually better, I myself don't _know_ this to be true) with various different high end GPUs being subbed in and out. It's a 4-way comparison. Remember, we're not arguing that a better CPU doesn't make a difference, we're arguing that a better GPU should yield similar results despite having a *slightly* lesser CPU.
> edit: again, above analogy is still meaningless in this case, I just felt like fixing it up to a point where it would at least fit the concept of this argument


----------



## Armaegis

I wish I had enough disposable income to consider $400 "entry level".


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





scottiebabie said:


> let take a gander at this using the auto analogy as stated...
> 
> because we're comparing engines & not tires? granted better tires will let both cars perform better but since both cars have the same tire, then its logical to assume other factors will determine which is the better car. lesser quality tires does not negate the tests because OP is trying to determine engine performance & all things (including tires in this case) being equal, the better engine will still be better engine & will perform as such.
> 
> dont know if the auto analogy fits but this is how i would view it. btw its not $50 tires but more like $500 tires compared with $2000 tires so even though its "cheaper" tires, its still good performance tires. atleast thats how i see it.


 
  Ahem...  The cheesy tires will ABSOLUTELY PREVENT you from ever seeing what either car is capable of and you'll end up with not having the faintest idea of what either car has to offer.  You have no idea how critical the tires are on a high performance vehicle.  So it is, with the weakest link in one's audio chain.  One thing to remember with electronics, more than ever, price does not always equate to performance.


----------



## scottiebabie

Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> Ahem...  The cheesy tires will ABSOLUTELY PREVENT you from ever seeing what either car is capable of and you'll end up with not having the faintest idea of what either car has to offer.  You have no idea how critical the tires are on a high performance vehicle.  So it is, with the weakest link in one's audio chain.  One thing to remember with electronics, more than ever, price does not always equate to performance.


 

 yup there can be no argument that better tires = better traction & better traction is everything for an automobile (idiots & dancing monkeys posing as drivers discounted). however let me present the argument that since both vehicles have the same tires, the better vehicle will still be shown to be better vehicle, again all things being equal ofcos. the smoother engine with the more linear power delivery will have better traction (however slight). the vehicle with the more optimum weight distribution ie.balanced, will again have better traction. the vehicle with the better engine management electronics will have better traction. & so on & so on.
   
  i beg to argue that since both vehicles have the same tires, the critical bottleneck will not be the tires but other factors in determining differences or even superiority. in the CPU vs GPU analogy, similar logical arguments can be made that if both rigs have the same graphics GPU, then the rig with the superior CPU will make the difference. & so on & so on.
   
  in absolute terms, its correct to assume that the weakest link will be the largest limiting factor for performance. however for comparison purposes, with both items having the exact weakest link, other factors will be the determinant.
   
  perhaps similar logical arguments can be applied to this thread for purposes of amp comparisons. just sayin


----------



## sphinxvc

Okay, the only indisputable thing being proved is that analogies are a terrible way to go about proving much in an argument.  
   
  Chesebert, this thread is far from "worthless."  I don't think you are convincing anyone otherwise.  If you can't figure out how these A/B comparisons might be useful, particularily to those of us with limited disposable income, then I suggest you take some time to think harder.  
   
  And for the record, you _are _beating a dead horse, Currawong already having made the same point as you.  
   
  Let's not derail this thread with more pointless analogies.


----------



## Paganini Alfredo

Even IF the amps are being limited to the "inferior" source, the results are still incredibly useful to those who can only have a DAC at that price point. It can also give them some peace of mind that they're not missing much with statospheric costing amplification.
   
  Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, when you get to this point of diminishing returns with gear isn't it more about finding your preferred preference of sound rather than finding "better" gear?


----------



## atothex

Quote: 





paganini alfredo said:


> Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, when you get to this point of diminishing returns with gear isn't it more about finding your preferred preference of sound rather than finding "better" gear?


 

 Amps can scale quite a bit with part quality and cost. That's kinda the whole thing with the SET crowd.


----------



## Petyot

Quote: 





paganini alfredo said:


> Even IF the amps are being limited to the "inferior" source, the results are still incredibly useful to those who can only have a DAC at that price point. It can also give them some peace of mind that they're not missing much with statospheric costing amplification.
> 
> Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, when you get to this point of diminishing returns with gear isn't it more about finding your preferred preference of sound rather than finding "better" gear?


 
  Well put. I agree with you on both point.


----------



## Mdraluck23

Quote: 





chesebert said:


> Feel like I am beating a dead horse here.
> 
> Honest Question: Do people who read this thread for actual comparisions honest think an entry level $400 DAC is good enough to test a SOTA audio system?


 


  Rarely on this forum have I experienced "audiophile snobbery" but I would imagine that is near as close as it comes.  It depends on the DAC. a $400 DAC could sound better than my $1500 DAC I just made out of some string, a USB cable and an empty bag of Doritos. Value is just as subjective as the total sound. This review was NOT worthless.


----------



## scottiebabie

Quote: 





mdraluck23 said:


> Rarely on this forum have I experienced "audiophile snobbery" but I would imagine that is near as close as it comes.  It depends on the DAC. a $400 DAC could sound better than my $1500 DAC I just made out of some string, a USB cable and an empty bag of Doritos. Value is just as subjective as the total sound. This review was NOT worthless.


----------



## bcg27

Quote: 





mdraluck23 said:


> Rarely on this forum have I experienced "audiophile snobbery" but I would imagine that is near as close as it comes.  It depends on the DAC. a $400 DAC could sound better than my $1500 DAC I just made out of some string, a USB cable and an empty bag of Doritos. Value is just as subjective as the total sound. This review was NOT worthless.


 

 QFT


----------



## Zida

I think rather than walking in and announcing that this thread, inluding all the time and effort milosz put into his near-blind testing, is meaningless, it would have been nicer and would have contributed more to the discussion had he rather said something more along the lines of

 "good tests you're running... not surprising that you're hearing the same differences most audiophiles describe when they upgrade their amps. Improved bass/treble clarity and extension (and sometimes impact, too!). Your rankings of the amps are what most would have expected, but it's good to see them confirmed in an in depth A/B comparison. I can't wait until you can hear how much MORE of a difference those amps will make once you get yourself a really state of the art DAC."

 for emphasis, lets compare that to 

 "OP, I am being brutally honest here, your comparisons are worthless..."


I'm A/B comparing those two comments and one of them definitely sounds a bit harsher


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





scottiebabie said:


> yup there can be no argument that better tires = better traction & better traction is everything for an automobile (idiots & dancing monkeys posing as drivers discounted). however let me present the argument that since both vehicles have the same tires, the better vehicle will still be shown to be better vehicle, again all things being equal ofcos. the smoother engine with the more linear power delivery will have better traction (however slight). the vehicle with the more optimum weight distribution ie.balanced, will again have better traction. the vehicle with the better engine management electronics will have better traction. & so on & so on.
> 
> i beg to argue that since both vehicles have the same tires, the critical bottleneck will not be the tires but other factors in determining differences or even superiority. in the CPU vs GPU analogy, similar logical arguments can be made that if both rigs have the same graphics GPU, then the rig with the superior CPU will make the difference. & so on & so on.
> 
> ...


 

 That would be true if it weren't for the fact that the bottlenecks obfuscate differences.  Bottlenecks are not neutral, innocent bystanders as the cars were not designed by their engineers to be driven on cheesebag tires.  Tests must be conducted in such a way as to not compromise the original designer's intent.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





mad lust envy said:


> Probably because the difference in sound from amp to amp is a lot more subtle than the performance from tire to tire?
> 
> Very bad comparison.


 
  I have to agree with you here!


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





zida said:


> I think rather than walking in and announcing that this thread, inluding all the time and effort milosz put into his near-blind testing, is meaningless, it would have been nicer and would have contributed more to the discussion had he rather said something more along the lines of
> 
> "good tests you're running... not surprising that you're hearing the same differences most audiophiles describe when they upgrade their amps. Improved bass/treble clarity and extension (and sometimes impact, too!). Your rankings of the amps are what most would have expected, but it's good to see them confirmed in an in depth A/B comparison. I can't wait until you can hear how much MORE of a difference those amps will make once you get yourself a really state of the art DAC."
> 
> ...


 
  True, but even though they say one should never awaken a sleep walker, I think it's a greater show of charity to awaken such a one before they walk out into the traffic.  Sometimes it taks a bit of a shock to awaken a slumbering friend.


----------



## Currawong

I don't think any of this requires analogies. If the level of distortion and stereo crosstalk, possibly as well as other factors, is higher in the source than in the best amp being tested, then the test isn't that great IMO.  I haven't looked at the (manufacturer stated) measurements for any of the gear he is testing with, but regardless I look forward to his comparisons with the upgraded source.


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





chesebert said:


> Can you explain why it doesn't make sense to test for any performance differences between a 911Turbo and 911GT on a track when you are using some $50 tires you got from Bell Tire?   Can you think of atleat 1 reason why this is stupid?
> 
> Quote:


 


  That is not a useful example.  You would certainly see and feel performance differences between the two versions of the 911 regardless of which cheap tires you used, provided the SAME cheap tires were used for each car.  Certainly, the cars wouldn't reach their full top speed with those tires but here's the key point:  it's not the top speed or ultimate slalom speed of the cars you are testing:  it is the DIFFERENCE between the two cars given a similar set up that you are seeking.


----------



## Ducker

This is a fantastic thread.


----------



## kite7

Quote: 





mdraluck23 said:


> Value is just as subjective as the total sound. This review was NOT worthless.


 
  Well said, far from worthless. That's why I never understood why some people say one must match the value of their equipment in the same class as their headphone; that greatly assumes that all manufacturers are pricing their products relative to the performance of another DAC but like mdrakluck23 said, anyone can price it at whatever they feel it is worth in their mind. Some hate to admit it but the differences between a good and a great SS amp is a lot smaller than one may think but hey this hobby and many others is all about purchase justification; at the same time I'm not say there is absolutely no differences at all.
   
  How many people would stop going forward never looking back for a second and stop to do a reality check to hear how big of a difference there is between a dozen SS amps? No day and night exaggerations so often heard among these forums from milosz's impressions. It's not like milosz is looking for some justification to sell his Beta22 to get some good enough cheaper amp either. There's a lot of temperance being applied here, because it's so easy to say that a more expensive amp is way better and on the other hand, some like to avoid saying something that is not generally others may dislike. People don't like it when they feel others are downplaying a specific piece of gear they know or read is good but I feel that milosz here is trying to be as fair and honest as possible. I personally was expecting that the Beta22 is noticeably improved over the elpac M^3 so I'm quite surprised myself;. I'm not saying to myself , "there must be something wrong with the setup because there's no way they could possibility sound the same right??" I guess I'll personally never know unless I hear the beta22 vs m^3 for myself but like all things I read here, I take with a grain (or a mountain for that matter) of salt due to the high subjectivity of this hobby.
   
  milosz, I'm just wondering how you were listening. Were you listening very critically with a lot of focus or just sitting back with a relaxed state of mind? I'm assuming the former. Sometimes I find if I try very hard to hear a difference, I get fatigued and end up hearing no difference.
   
  I think at this point some of us are anxiously expecting your DAC comparisons milosz


----------



## Prog Rock Man

If this thread has shown one thing, it is that one reviewer's subtle difference is another reviewer's night and day.


----------



## Mad Lust Envy

Wow. A LOT of butthurt happening on this thread.

WAAAAAH, I wanna justify why spending 3x the money makes my equipment superior to yours, WAAAAAAAAH.

milosz has done a lot here for the benefit of those of us who were pretty much already skeptical on how much of a difference a good amp is compared to a GREAT one. Whether paying considerably more for an incremental upgrade is worth it...well, that's up to us to decide. But to try and put down his tests just because he doesn't have the 'BEST SOURCE EVARZ', how much more ridiculous can people get?

If you spent $5000 on your setup, congratulations. You can rest easy knowing that you probably have a really great setup.

However, in REAL WORLD situations, people aren't gonna have the best of EVERYTHING, and tests like this are a great indicator as to what to expect from equipment that most of us would look into getting, and how subtle differences are between the amps themselves. A good source is still a good source. A better is not gonna all the sudden going to transform the amp attached to it. It's not like he's running these tests with a stock soundcard. Christ, relax.

This thread isn't the end to all A/B comparisons, and milosz himself said this wasn't meant to be taken as such.

I for one am glad someone who owns a slamming amp like the Beta22 can be as unbiased as can be when comparing such an amp to something like the E9 and still give the E9 some good marks. He's not like others that go from one amp, buy a more expensive one, and say the more expensive one BLOWS the previous amp out of the water. People here are prone to exaggerate EVERYTHING, especially when it comes to upgrading their equipment.


----------



## atothex

Chesebert is annoying, but there's a reason the word "reference" exists. True reference equipment will always be superior in real life listening tests. This has nothing to do with price. Inexperienced kids can't seem to stop talking about prices, usually to complain about how certain things cost too much, but they don't seem to realize that not all great reference equipment needs to come in huge shiny cases.
   
  That said, the OP's comparison is just fine. Just don't make the mistake of taking his words as gospel.


----------



## scottiebabie

correct me if im wrong but reference equipment doesnt have to be expensive or even 'high'end. it just need to be...well a reference point from which to differenciate and/or to judge differences provided one is very familiar with the 'reference' equipment ofcos. sure i can understand that having great equipment is better but is there really a rule or even a need as long as one can appropriate differences from ones not-quite-so-highend equipment? just asking ya
   
  infact isnt it even better to use more "common" equipment so then the general reader can identify with the reviewed equipments differences. eg if i hadnt ever listened to a esoteric DAC before, saying that DAC B is as good or even slightly worse in soundstage or detail or whatever would have absolutely zero meaning to me. however if the reviewer compares it a more common DAC that i or a majority of readers are familiar with, then any differences would have more meaning. wouldnt u say so?


----------



## atothex

Yes to the possibility of inexpensive stuff being great references. No to "common" stuff being better references when used as the constants in a comparison. Reference stuff really ideally should be high end. Taken to the logical extreme, an iPhone would be a very common and familiar source, but I'm not putting too much stock on an M3 vs B22 shootout using iPod as source.
   
  A Dacmagic is probably fine in this application, but don't fool yourself into thinking you're actually hearing really good stuff like M3/B22 or LCD2/HD800 at their best. I actually think a general lack of source quality on HF is why so many people complain about "bassless" K701s or HD800s or AD2000s, but that's kinda irrelevant/tangential.


----------



## BobSaysHi

What happened to this thread? Reading those last couple pages was painful.


----------



## rymd

Thanks for these comparisons. I now feel less inclined to splurge on an expensive amp for my merely modest source. This is just one person's unscientific test results with equipment I don't have, but my wallet will still thank you for the peace of mind.


----------



## Mad Lust Envy

bobsayshi said:


> What happened to this thread? Reading those last couple pages was painful.




The debunk brigade decided that milosz was trampling on the ideal that you must spend thousands upon thousands of moneez to really get high quality sound. Lots of audiophoolia going on, from what I see.


----------



## Armaegis

Milosz, could you copy all your reviews/comparisons into your posts on the first page? It would make it easier to read and search that way.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> If this thread has shown one thing, it is that one reviewer's subtle difference is another reviewer's night and day.


 


  Hey PRM
   
  For those who claim night and day, there is the Audio DiffMaker program.
   
  Come on guys, record it or you didn't hear it.
   
  USG


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





armaegis said:


> Milosz, could you copy all your reviews/comparisons into your posts on the first page? It would make it easier to read and search that way.


 


  In a week or two (maybe less if I get ambitious this weekend)  all the reviews will be posted to a new web site I've created for this stuff   http://www.abtests.org/
   
  There will be sections for headphone amps, DACs, and also phono preamps and some other stuff as it fleshes out.
   
  Also sections for real blind tests and sections for these non-blind A/B tests.  And a section on test methodology.
   
  I am setting up a nonprofit organization to further this work.


----------



## caracara08

i dono.... i tihnk the source is really important.  i played my jh16 through my friends dacmagic > arrow and it was tons better than out of my DAP > arrow > jh16. it was complete noticeable so i cant see why ppl think a 1000$ source wont sound better than a 400$ source.  of course not all 1000$ sources will sound better but there are some.
   
  some people who have thousands invested arent idiots for doing so.  ppl who buy expensive cars arent idiots for doing so. its their preference. does it sound/perform better? yes. is there a point of diminishing returns? yes. do they mind paying 600$ more for 10% better performance? no because once to get to a point. getting 10% or even 5% better sound is expensive. 
   
  would i buy a b22? no not from what ive read UNTIL i can upgrade my source.  will i be doing that anytime soon? i hope not but who knows. let the OP post what he really feels with his equipment.  and just because people with more expenisve stuff are all annoyed, doesnt make them snobs.... 99% of the people on here want the gear they have whehter they admit it or not.


----------



## Lunatique

I would love to put all the audiophile snobs in a room and have them do double blind shootouts between DAC's that cost $400 and those that cost $1,000 and more. Hell, throw in DAC's in sound cards and pro audio audio interfaces that costs just a couple hundred to several hundred dollars (which mean the actual DAC itself will cost only a fraction of the entire card/interface). I will guarantee you that the test results will be very embarrassing for some. Such tests have been conducted often in the pro audio circle and you guys can go read all about them at gearslutz.com (Head-fi's own Sound Science forum has them too)--from snake oil cables, the myth of burn-in's, balanced cables, to just how many people can really tell the difference between well-encoded lossy files against lossless ones). Let's just say that the test results always made people smile, and many are often shocked by the results--including experienced pro audio guys who regularly work with gear that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, and upwards to millions of dollars. These are the guys who mix and master the music audiophiles listen to. 
   
  I have always said that amps are the most overrated and over-hyped piece of gear in the headphile's signal chain. This thread is a sorely needed one IMO. It will help steer misguided and impressionable newbies away from the escalating spending on expensive amps. Even headphones in many cases can be EQ'd to sound much better than its original sonic signature, so instead of keep buying amps and use them as 'one-fixed-setting" EQ units, just buy a good EQ unit and call it the day. 
   
  Today's entry level DAC's in audio cards and pro audio interfaces are already light years superior than the expensive ones fifteen years ago. The fact is, today's average DAC is damned good--so good in fact, it would be just overkill and unnecessary for most people to even consider buying expensive standalone DAC's. If you ever find that you'd have to concentrate to hear improvements/differences when doing A/B tests, or that the minute you stop doing vigorous A/B'ing, either candidate would sound just fine to you, then you know you are just fooling yourself into giving more importance to something than it really deserves.
   
  Keep reality in check for a moment. You are not a mastering engineer. You do not need "reference" grade anything. Guys like that need to spend big money for that last 5% because that is their profession, and because they are the ones who engineer the music that the rest of the world listens to--including audiophiles with expensive gear. You just like listening to music, and that's it. How much money do you have to spend to fulfill that desire to listen to music? Is that extra 5% of difference really going to make you love the music any more? Are you in this because music speaks to your emotions and your soul, or are you in this to collect gear? 
   
  It's very easy to get brainwashed by a community of peers--it's human nature to submit to the herd mentality. What's the most tragic is when people who are not in good financial situations, but spend money they do not have and should not be spending on things that make very little difference in reality to how much enjoyment they can get out of listening to music. Everyone's priorities and values in life are different, so it's not my place to tell others how they should spend their money, but all I'm saying is stop, take a step back, and really think about it from an objective point of view.
   
  Just how much do you "really" love music to be spending the kind of money you are? Compared to passionate composers and musicians who live and breathe and die by music, and have made tremendous sacrifices (such as starving) in their lives in order to go on making music the center of their lives, you probably don't love music nearly as much as you think you do. Yet many incredibly passionate composers and musicians don't spend the kind of money that many people here do on audio gear, and they are perfectly happy with their sound systems because they understand what's truly important to them--it's the music, not the gear. Once the gear is "good enough," it's simply good enough. I'm willing to bet that for many members here, they passed 'good enough' a long time ago and have been in the "frivolous, unnecessary, and wasteful luxury" side of things for a while now.
   
  People love to make excuses for themselves in order to satisfy their vanity or fill empty voids in their lives with unnecessary stuff, instead of actually finding out what's causing them to feel and behave this way. But like I said, different priorities and values between all of us. Maybe to some people, that ridiculously priced balanced cable that costs most people their entire week's paycheck really is THAT important to them. Or maybe they just make so much money that the cable is nothing to them--just a drop in the bucket. Or maybe there are so few other meaningful things in their lives that the overpriced cable IS the meaningful thing to them.
   
  Everyone's case is different. Whatever the situation, I think it's important to keep a healthy macro view of your life from the 10,000 feet up--to keep a proper perspective in life. Mindless obsession can be very dangerous, especially when the hard-earned money could be spent on more useful/meaningful things in your life. But maybe audio gear IS the most important thing in your life, and it's not my place to say whether that's a good thing or bad thing. After all, I'm someone who lives and breathes music as a passionate composer/musician, and I certainly have spent quite a bit of money on my studio and all the gears it houses. For me, making music and listening to music is an incredibly important part of my life. When I die, I'll die with music in my heart and soul. It is the number one love in my life--it is my sanctuary, my playground, and my heaven on earth. 
   
  There are definitely folks out there who have spent far more money on audio gear than I could ever afford in this lifetime, yet they likely don't love music nearly to the same extent I do. Music to me is a matter of life or death because without music, my soul will wither away and die. How many people who spent ridiculous amount of money on audio gear can say that with all honesty? But maybe because they are rich, they don't need to be able to justify their spendings. So where does that leave the rest of the us--the ones who are not rich? I really think the key to all this is to simply be totally honest with yourself. Just HOW much do you REALLY love music? Are you in this for the fun of collecting and playing with gear? When is "good enough" actually good enough? Are you spending money on these things because this is simply a symptom of an empty life without much meaning, and each acquisition/upgrade only brings temporary happiness, and then it starts all over again? 
   
  I think what the OP is doing with these amp comparisons are of a great service to this community, because it makes us all pause and THINK before we reach for the wallet or credit card. It makes us think if it's really worth it to continue the perpetual turning wheel of upgrades and new acquisitions.


----------



## rgs9200m

Everything upstream--amps, source, cables, tubes, power conditioners makes night-and-day differences. That's been the hard (and expensive) truth in my long headphone system experience, and there
  is simply no getting around it by cheaping out. The same phones can go from painful to sublime, and it's hard to get right. It's just as hard to get headphones right as speakers, and headphones
  can inflict more pain because they are so intimate and right up against your ears.


----------



## vilasn

I love what you have said, thanks. Everyone need to think what's good enough for them, this thread may be a GOD send for lot of us.
   
   
  Quote: 





lunatique said:


> I would love to put all the audiophile snobs in a room and have them do double blind shootouts between DAC's that cost $400 and those that cost $1,000 and more. Hell, throw in DAC's in sound cards and pro audio audio interfaces that costs just a couple hundred to several hundred dollars (which mean the actual DAC itself will cost only a fraction of the entire card/interfact). I will guarantee you that the test results will be very embarrassing for some. Such tests have been conducted often in the pro audio circle and you guys can go read all about them at gearslutz.com (Head-fi's own Sound Science forum has them too)--from snake oil cables, the myth of burn-in's, balanced cables, to just how many people can really tell the difference between well-encoded lossy files against lossless ones). Let's just say that the test results always made people smile, and many are often shocked by the results--including experienced pro audio guys who regularly work with gear that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, and upwards to millions of dollars. These are the guys who mix and master the music audiophiles listen to.
> 
> I have always said that amps are the most overrated and over-hyped piece of gear in the headphile's signal chain. This thread is a sorely needed one IMO. It will help steer misguided and impressionable newbies away from the escalating spending on expensive amps. Even headphones in many cases can be EQ'd to sound much better than its original sonic signature, so instead of keep buying amps and use them as 'one-fixed-setting" EQ units, just buy a good EQ unit and call it the day.
> 
> ...


----------



## Prog Rock Man

It is because of this and other non 'night and day' threads that I enjoy my music more now than ever before. I have lost the need to upgrade and worry about the last 5% (if that even exists).


----------



## sphinxvc

Great post Lunatique - I think you addressed something that isn't spoken of much on this site.  It's a topic that probably warrants it's own thread: just how healthy this hobby is for most of us.


----------



## Armaegis

Quote: 





caracara08 said:


> some people who have thousands invested arent idiots for doing so.  ppl who buy expensive cars arent idiots for doing so. its their preference.


 

 Well, sometimes there's buying gear just for bragging rights... and the even more insidious self-imposed-placebo in order to justify the expenditure.
   
  "He with the most toys, wins." correct?


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





milosz said:


> In a week or two (maybe less if I get ambitious this weekend)  all the reviews will be posted to a new web site I've created for this stuff   http://www.abtests.org/
> 
> There will be sections for headphone amps, DACs, and also phono preamps and some other stuff as it fleshes out.
> 
> ...


 

 Cool!!


----------



## micmacmo

milosz said:


> In a week or two (maybe less if I get ambitious this weekend)  all the reviews will be posted to a new web site I've created for this stuff   http://www.abtests.org/
> *Bookmarked!*


----------



## debitsohn

great post luna. i think i have pretty much reached the level where after (maybe ive even passed it by a few hundred) wher im at now, the returns just arent worth it.  i for one, spent more than i ever watned to but its comforting to know that if i ever need the money, i can resell what i bought for minimal loss.  even b4 i read your post, i was thinking about selling some stuff solely based on the fact that.... i dont need it and the gain isnt worth the hundreds invested. 
  i really shouldve stopped at my hd650 + little dot MKII + musiland 02. but hey... i should learn from my mistakes and i hope my view on this hobby is in fact changing. it isnt my life, but ive been spending like it has been.
  thank you op and others.


----------



## Mdraluck23

Excellent post Lunatique. I feel the same way... Diminishing returns is a serious topic here on Head-Fi that is never addressed.


----------



## Skylab

Actually, I think diminishing returns is discussed fairly frequently.  There is no doubt that it exists.  Very cheap amps and DACs can provide what for most people is all the musical enjoyment they could ever want or need.
   
  But for some people, who are into very small nuances in music, spending more on equipment that can help bring out that nuance is well worth the pursuit, in terms of time and money. 
   
  I have far, far more money invested in actual MUSIC than I ever will in equipment to play it with.  Searching out higher levels of performance to try to maximize my enjoyment of the investment I have made in the music I love seems perfectly rational to me.
   
  That said, I find threads like this incredibly valuable, because they present a point of view, well presented.  I think people who make off handed comments trying to claim that what's presented in this thread isn't useful are either missing the point, or feel somehow oddly threatened.  I think threads like this are very valuable because I believe that the wider range of impressions and opinions that are available for people to read, the better off people are in trying to chart their own path to musical enjoyment, based on what their priorities and resources are.
   
  Happy listening to all.


----------



## Luketaru

Thanks for the comparisons milosz and also Lunatique for the 'enlightenment'. I am new to this hobby and tend to get in over my head in whatever I am interested at the time and you've both shown me its not really worth it. Right now I am using the uDAC2>Matrix M-stage>HD 800 and am quite pleased when I look back and compare it to what I had before. I'm really looking forward to a DAC shootout as that's the last thing I'm willing to spend on at this point... probably mostly to NwAvGuy's detailed review.
   
  Bookmarked your new site as well milosz. Enjoy the music!


----------



## micmacmo

I'm surprised how few gear snobs I've met on these forums. To the contrary, the head-fiers with the most extensive and expensive audio-equipment collections are some of the most prolific and generous contributors. Many take the time to review low-cost gear and give it a fair comparison to their high-end stuff. To them, I tip my hat. I'd never know what I'm missing or not missing otherwise.


----------



## Paganini Alfredo

Lunatique
   
  I understand your position of "enough is enough" concerning buying gear and even more expensive gear and not paying enough attention to the real problem... musical enjoyment. But, perhaps, do you think it's worthwhile to seek out different gear, not necessarily better gear, but gear that offers different presentations to music? I don't want to use the term "color" or whatever else someone might apply to that, but it seems to me it's worthwhile to experiment with gear that can provide a preferred, tailored response to that particular listener.
   
  Or is this what you were referring to in EQ'ing your music?


----------



## fishski13

Quote: 





skylab said:


> Actually, I think diminishing returns is discussed fairly frequently.  There is no doubt that it exists.  Very cheap amps and DACs can provide what for most people is all the musical enjoyment they could ever want or need.
> 
> But for some people, who are into very small nuances in music, spending more on equipment that can help bring out that nuance is well worth the pursuit, in terms of time and money.
> 
> ...


 
  x2.


----------



## Currawong

The law of diminishing returns is certainly getting stronger every year.  I was just musing how a DAC/amp I just received, worth about 1/10th of my main rig, gives me something like 90% of the satisfaction with the LCD-2s.


----------



## micmacmo

currawong said:


> I was just musing how a DAC/amp I just received, worth about 1/10th of my main rig, gives me something like 90% of the satisfaction with the LCD-2s.




And which DAC/amp, pray tell, is that?


----------



## Lunatique

Quote: 





paganini alfredo said:


> Lunatique
> 
> I understand your position of "enough is enough" concerning buying gear and even more expensive gear and not paying enough attention to the real problem... musical enjoyment. But, perhaps, do you think it's worthwhile to seek out different gear, not necessarily better gear, but gear that offers different presentations to music? I don't want to use the term "color" or whatever else someone might apply to that, but it seems to me it's worthwhile to experiment with gear that can provide a preferred, tailored response to that particular listener.
> 
> Or is this what you were referring to in EQ'ing your music?


 
  EQ'ing can definitely totally change the sonic characteristic of any piece of gear. For example, the D7000 grated on my nerves without EQ, but with my custom EQ setting, it turned into a very satisfying and beautiful sounding pair of headphones. Obviously EQ only address the frequency response, and there are other aspects like stereo imaging, soundstage, transients, texture...etc, but when people try to get different "presentation" of the music through different amps and cables, just how much of a difference are they really hearing, and how much money did they spend to attain that subtle difference? Whether the amount of money spent vs. the amount of differences heard is worth it depends on how rich you are and how important these subtle differences are in the grand scheme of your life. When Skylab said that he's spent far more money on actual music than gear, I think that's the right attitude, because in the end it's about the music, not the gear (though he's obviously well-off enough that he could buy the kind of high-end gear that will make most people's eyes bug out). 
   
  Personally, I'm very pragmatic about these things. If what I'm hearing when comparing gears is merely "different" and not necessarily "better," than I will be totally honest with myself about whether that difference is worth the money spent. Because I'm a composer/musician, I listen to music differently from those who aren't, and it's not like swapping out an amp or cable will suddenly change the orchestration/arrangement of a piece of music, or alter the performance and recording so much that it's now totally new and refreshing. Amps, cables, and sources do not make that kind of drastic changes to the music (unless we're comparing really abysmal crap to really excellent ones, but that's not what people do--people do incremental upgrades, which means very subtle and minor changes), but headphones do, and so does EQ'ing.
   
  Take any epic orchestral cue from an action film or any rocking tune with distorted electric guitars and listen to them on headphones with recessed mids (D7000 for example), and then on headphones with full and lush mids (HD650 or M50 for example), and it almost sounds like the orchestration/arrangement's been altered in terms of what dynamics the brass, strings, and guitars are playing in relation to the rest of the orchestra/band, including changing instruments' distance depending on what frequencies are altered. EQ'ing does the same thing. If you add to the signal chain something like Isone Pro, your playground space for tweaking the headphones you already have becomes even more multi-dimensional and interesting, yet you have spent very little money. A high quality free EQ and a low cost but very high quality room sim + crossfeed like Isone Pro can already add so much fun and joy to one single headphone, why spend hundreds and thousands of dollars seeking something "fresh" and "different"? 
   
  I sort of think of it like this--let's take one of your favorite movies of all time--one that you have watched multiple times before. Now, we sit down and watch it in my living room. It's got a 50" plasma screen and a pretty decent surround sound system. Now, we go watch it in a different living room, which has a 45" LCD screen and a slightly better surround sound system. Now, think about the movie that you love--it's character development, the plot structure, the emotional and intellectual resonance it evokes in you, the scenes that really make you feel that cinematic magic. Does the differences between these two living room setups significantly alter your feelings and experience while watching this movie in the grand scheme of things? When you are immersed in the dramatic scenes in the movie, are you going to care that you are watching it on a 45" or 50" screen? Are you going to notice that one surround system is slightly more filled out in the lower-mids than the other? I seriously doubt it because when you are in the middle of the cinematic magic, the world simply disappears and you are living in that alternate universe along with the characters.
   
  Now, take that analogy and use it on music. When the differences between amps or cables or sources are so minor and subtle, as soon as you stop doing vigorous A/B comparisons and just sit back and get lost in the music, you are then just enjoying your love for music. I think it's only when you are not doing A/B comparisons, but still feeling unsatisfied with what you are hearing (meaning you can pinpoint exactly what the problem is, such as the sub-bass not being extended enough, or the mids are too recessed, or the brightness is too harsh)--that is when you take action and try to remedy those issues you are so acutely aware of. But the problem with many people I see is that they often start out a post with "I'm really happy with what I have, but....." Why the "but" at all? If you are already happy with what you have, then just enjoy the music. Don't you have other things in life you could spend money on? Movies, books, games, and music you love? A present for a loved one? Dental bill? 
   
  My own journey to find audio nirvana was detailed in this post:
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/541479/where-did-you-start/30#post_7304612
   
  In it, I explained how I went from a little kid listening to crappy earbuds and boomboxes, to where I am today, with a studio built right into my home. You'll see that I always spent money on what really counts, and never on trivial stuff that made very little difference in the grand scheme of things. If I had to concentrate hard or do vigorous A/B comparisons to hear the subtle differences, then it's not enough of a difference to justify my hard-earned money.


----------



## tubulis

Quote: 





skylab said:


> Actually, I think diminishing returns is discussed fairly frequently.  There is no doubt that it exists.  Very cheap amps and DACs can provide what for most people is all the musical enjoyment they could ever want or need.
> 
> But for some people, who are into very small nuances in music, spending more on equipment that can help bring out that nuance is well worth the pursuit, in terms of time and money.
> 
> ...


 


  x3 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  Very thoughtful earlier post Lunatique


----------



## Paganini Alfredo

Hey, awesome thoughts Lunatique! Really liked the movie analogy 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Anyhow, and I guess this is off topic (it is) but the only reason I was asking about different presentations was because I was really happy with my HR Ultra setup and then plugged in my really lowfi Ion turntable and found myself really digging that sound. So then I was off on a quest to find an "analog" sounding source, which I hopefully found in a NOS Dac (we'll have to see as it's on order). 
   
  Listening to a different source sort of got the hampster wheel turning in my head about what else I might enjoy.... But yes there's no question the real "source" of what this hobby is all about (the music).


----------



## chesebert

[size=small]Discussions on diminishing returns happens less often now than many years back. This is certainly something people should keep in mind as they continue their quest for the better sound. It is also true that many cheap amps and DACs, including many used ones, provide great sound quality and musical enjoyment. [/size]
  [size=small] [/size]
  [size=small]However, OP's non-comparison comparisons fail to provide any real insight and as I have pointed out before, it's worthless. It's one thing to have a genuine comparison between amps and to articulate the difference or similarities between them; it's quite another thing to have a preconceived conclusion and deliberately setup comparisons to reach that conclusion. We can gain some real insight from the former and none from the latter. OP's posts have demonstrated that the conclusion came before the comparison. OP had a strong conviction about amps making very little difference in sound. The non-comparison comparisons were the means by which OP used to direct the reader to the preconceived conclusion. It was clear from the comparisons that there was never any real intention to do honest comparisons; instead, the entire set of comparisons were set up to reach a single result, that is amps makes very little difference. [/size]
  [size=small] [/size]
  [size=small]It almost borderlines absurdity to think that OP had enough money to afford some of the best headphones and amps in the world, but not enough to spend another $1000 to purchase a source that's more commensurable with OP's system ($1400 can generally get you a very very decent used DAC).[/size]
  [size=small] [/size]
  [size=small]In light of OP's attempt to redirect traffic from Headfi to OP's own website, I believe this whole non-comparison comparison is merely a marketing stunt designed to drive traffic to OP's own website. I hope people can see through the form and evaluate the substance of OP's posts and really ask yourself these question: why would someone who probably spent upwards of $4,000 on amps and headphones but insist to use an entry level DAC? What is OP's motive if it is not to 1) prove a point or 2) shill for his own website?[/size]
  [size=small][/size]
  [size=small]P.S. To correct some comments made in prior posts, I never mentioned $400 DAC has bad sound, and I certinaly didn't mention you can't enjoy a $400 DAC. [/size]
   
  Quote: 





skylab said:


> Actually, I think diminishing returns is discussed fairly frequently.  There is no doubt that it exists.  Very cheap amps and DACs can provide what for most people is all the musical enjoyment they could ever want or need.
> 
> But for some people, who are into very small nuances in music, spending more on equipment that can help bring out that nuance is well worth the pursuit, in terms of time and money.
> 
> ...


----------



## caracara08

thats a valid point.  although there are diminishing returns, if youre gonna try to power a b22 or something like the HE6, you need the gear to make it work up to its potential.  there are just some amps/headphones that require more. i believe the b22 is about the point where diminishing returns really kick it but you need a source that outputs enough power.  (from what i read)


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





chesebert said:


> [size=small]Discussions on diminishing returns happens less often now than many years back. This is certainly something people should keep in mind as they continue their quest for the better sound. It is also true that many cheap amps and DACs, including many used ones, provide great sound quality and musical enjoyment. [/size]
> 
> [size=small] [/size]
> [size=small]However, OP's non-comparison comparisons fail to provide any real insight and as I have pointed out before, it's worthless. It's one thing to have a genuine comparison between amps and to articulate the difference or similarities between them; *it's quite another thing to have a preconceived conclusion *and deliberately setup comparisons to reach that conclusion. We can gain some real insight from the former and none from the latter. OP's posts have demonstrated that the conclusion came before the comparison. OP had a strong conviction about amps making very little difference in sound. The non-comparison comparisons were the means by which OP used to direct the reader to the preconceived conclusion. It was clear from the comparisons that there was never any real intention to do honest comparisons; instead, the entire set of comparisons were set up to reach a single result, that is amps makes very little difference. [/size]
> ...


 

 From the first post
   
  "1. I was surprised that I didn't immediately hear incontrovertible differences between these amps. I was expecting a fairly obvious difference in their sounds."
   
  which does not back up your claim of a preconceived conclusion. Which makes a nonsense of the rest of your criticisms of the comparisons.


----------



## chesebert

It's not wise to take words based on their face value. It's important to not only look at a single post or a single sentence but to consider all the posts by OP in aggregate. Please look through the superficial words and find the purpose and reason behind OP's posts.  For example, OP claimed the posts are non-comparision but then all OP's posts were in substance and in reality comparisions.
  
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> From the first post
> 
> "1. I was surprised that I didn't immediately hear incontrovertible differences between these amps. I was expecting a fairly obvious difference in their sounds."
> 
> which does not back up your claim of a preconceived conclusion. Which makes a nonsense of the rest of your criticisms of the comparisons.


----------



## sphinxvc

^ Cynical much?


----------



## attenuated 3db

lunatique said:


> I would love to put all the audiophile snobs in a room and have them do double blind shootouts between DAC's that cost $400 and those that cost $1,000 and more. Hell, throw in DAC's in sound cards and pro audio audio interfaces that costs just a couple hundred to several hundred dollars (which mean the actual DAC itself will cost only a fraction of the entire card/interface). I will guarantee you that the test results will be very embarrassing for some. Such tests have been conducted often in the pro audio circle and you guys can go read all about them at gearslutz.com (Head-fi's own Sound Science forum has them too)--from snake oil cables, the myth of burn-in's, balanced cables, to just how many people can really tell the difference between well-encoded lossy files against lossless ones). Let's just say that the test results always made people smile, and many are often shocked by the results--including experienced pro audio guys who regularly work with gear that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, and upwards to millions of dollars. These are the guys who mix and master the music audiophiles listen to.
> 
> I have always said that amps are the most overrated and over-hyped piece of gear in the headphile's signal chain. This thread is a sorely needed one IMO. It will help steer misguided and impressionable newbies away from the escalating spending on expensive amps. Even headphones in many cases can be EQ'd to sound much better than its original sonic signature, so instead of keep buying amps and use them as 'one-fixed-setting" EQ units, just buy a good EQ unit and call it the day.




Someday we may disagree on something, Rob, but it hasn't happened yet. Is it OK to address you by your "RL" name here on Head-Fi.org, given that you include your fabulous website/blog address in your Head-Fi signature?

As you know from another "where did you begin" thread post I made, I have been "into" audio electronics for a long time, because I love the music that much, and have a highly technical education, much of it self-inflicted. 

Anyway, when I got out of selling the all-analog-vinyl-and-magentic-tape, highest-of-high-end audio in 1983, just as the Compact Disc standard was bringing audio into the digital age, audio designer and engineer Bob Carver did this.

It convinced me that much of what I had been selling was in fact, hyper-expensive "snake oil."

One caveatt: the way Carver's "transfer-function" clone amplifiers implement a power supply, they are essentially "sucking" a lot of power out of your A.C. mains outlet, as they do not have high capacitace filtration and reserve energy stored up for sudden dynamic range transient attacks, particularly at very low frequencies (say a tympani being struck repeatedly), where a speaker's woofer cone needs to move a lot of air, cubic-meter-wise to reproduce the sound-as-recorded, and to do it very quickly and then "apply the brakes" via damping factor.

But that was the only downside I could see/hear to Carver's approach.

So, yes, this thread is needed on Head-Fi very much. As the saying goes, "A fool and his money are soon parted."


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





chesebert said:


> It's not wise to take words based on their face value. It's important to not only look at a single post or a single sentence but to consider all the posts by OP in aggregate. Please look through the superficial words and find the purpose and reason behind OP's posts.  For example, OP claimed the posts are non-comparision but then all OP's posts were in substance and in reality comparisions.


 
   
  I have and find that after the initial surprise at a lack of difference, that has gone on to be confirmed by other comparisons. Your initial accusation is still wrong. The initial expectation was opposite to what you claim
   
  "1. I REALLY expected to hear MAJOR sonic differences here. But that was NOT the case, such differences as I could hear were very subtle."
   
  Where is the claim that the posts are "non comparisons"?


----------



## Mad Lust Envy

I wasn't aware that the DAC Magic was entry level. Here I thought something like the UDAC (1st gen) was entry level.
   
  In any case, amplification is supposed to be what? I was under the assumption that it was meant to AMPLIFY. How is having a "much better DAC" supposed to make an amp ITSELF better? I was under the assumption that the DAC's main change in the sound was to the HEADPHONE itself, and not the AMPLIFICATION aspect.
   
  This is why I believe amps are so overrated in how much it directly affects sound, unless the amp itself imposes it's own coloration which may sound BETTER than another amp based on personal opinion and not because the amplification process is actually improving sound over another amp, as long as both amps can properly drive a headphone.
   
  Like I mentioned earlier on here, I still believe that as long as an amp can provide clean and ample amounts of power to a specific headphone, the main thing that makes them inferior or superior to other amps is it's own coloration, in which again, it's all based on personal preference and not true lack or strength in quality.
   
  As milosz and others have stated, the differences have been subtle to extremely negligible, and the differences have mainly been between tube amps, which we all know changes signature based on tubes used.
   
  I was all set to get a Schiit Lyr based on it's overwhelming amount of power and 'headroom', so it can be used for practically all headphones, ranging from a high efficiency model like Grados, or an extremely hard to drive Ortho like the HE-6. I believe an amp like this would be the most logical path for ME because as stated before, amp inferiority/superiority is so blown out of proportion. Just makes sense getting a decently affordable amp with ample power, instead of trying to find the one amp that people consider 'reference' or whatever other audiophoolia bullcrap they wanna come up with. Now, I don't even think I'll even go that far and stick to my clean and powerful E9, which doesn't color the sound needlessly and can power MANY headphones out there well, including my own D7000. The only reason to upgrade from it is if it isn't powerful enough or if I wanna color my sound with another amp, which I DON'T. I buy amps to properly drive my headphones, not impose their own sound. The E9 does this fine at a measly $130. Is it a weak amp? No it isn't, which is why I'm glad I didn't spend my money needlessly. If I ever decide on the HE-6 or some truly hard to drive headphone that will strain the E9, THAT'S when I'll consider something like the Lyr.
   
  As for DACs, that's a different story, and I believe I'll upgrade to the soon to come Fiio E17 (24/96 DAC/AMP...releasing probably at the end of the year or a little after) because Fiio's recent products have done miraculous things for me and my wallet. That and it will still dock to my E9. Nothing better than product uniformity for me.


----------



## debitsohn

Has a comparison between the m3 vs b22 using the better source?


----------



## sphinxvc

Quote:


debitsohn said:


> Has a comparison between the m3 vs b22 using the better source?


 
   
  Not yet, only the B22 vs NFB-10ES (the better source) on page 9.


----------



## debitsohn

yea saw that.  but im really interested to see the comparisons redone (if theres a bigger difference) using the "better" source.


----------



## khatch

Ok, I'll throw in my two cent's worth on this...and I'm sure most will hate me for it....as there's really no conclusions to be drawn.
   
  I love this hobby...and the adventure of trying new things, experiencing new sounds, imaging, audible textures, etc.  I've owned and used amps I bought for as little as $250, and as much as $2700.  In the process, I've worked my way through an embarrassing number of headphones ranging in price between $20 - $1500.  Headphones I've definitely developed strong opinions about...partly based on comfort, but largely based on sonic signatures.
   
  I've used 5 sources over the years, and I could always tell which one my signal was coming from.  (Could have done it blind folded)
   
  But with amps it's been a different story.  For instance, in the last month I've spent a great deal of time comparing 3 setups - all using the same source and same set of headphones, but with 3 different amps - the EarMax Pro, the Burson HA-160 and the headphone output on the Peachtree iDecco (no jokes, please).  Here's the thing - I'm just arrogant enough to believe that (in my setup at least) I could identify each of these amps in double blind test.  At the same time, I could not, for the life of me, tell you which one I liked the most - or that I even cared.  Did they sound different?  Yes.  Consistently different across musical genres?  No.  Consistently different enough that I could pick a favorite?  Hell no.
   
  That's troubling - for the equipment makers at least.  LOL - or then again, maybe it's not.  I like all three....and I might be inclined to actuall KEEP all three and rotate between them.  Scratch that, maybe this is an equipment maker's dream come true. 
   
  For me - higher end audio is completely like higher end wines.  It's the perfect business, as no two people hear or taste in exactly the same ways....and even if they did, they wouldn't necessarily describe the experience the same way.
  
  It's all good - now back to those glowing tubes.


----------



## rgs9200m

Nice post khatch. It really captures my experience and  explains why this hobby is so much fun.


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





chesebert said:


> It's not wise to take words based on their face value. It's important to not only look at a single post or a single sentence but to consider all the posts by OP in aggregate. Please look through the superficial words and find the purpose and reason behind OP's posts.  For example, *OP claimed the posts are non-comparision* but then all OP's posts were in substance and in reality comparisions.


 


  Ummm.... I don't believe I ever said the posts were "non comparison" - -  they are A/B comparisons, I titled the thread *"Amp  A/B Comparisons."*  So I'd have to say that... yeah, these are comparisons.
   
  I also carefully noted that although I was trying to be reasonably objective, these are NOT blind tests.  I am after all a human being and I do have preferences, preconceptions, prejudices and ideas.  I TRY not to let these influence me, and to try with open ears to learn what the A/B comparisons have to teach me, but no doubt I am BOUND to be influenced at some level by knowing which amp I am listening to.  I don't think that negates the usefulness of the comparisons or my commentary on the comparisons.  
   
  I will repeat a number of these tests as blind A/B/X comparisons later when I am equipped to do that.
   
  And I don't think you can really draw any heavy conclusions from this thread.  The thread points to things that require further investigation- there's a _HINT_ here that good amps in general  might sound more similar than "conventional wisdom" would have it, but without much more investigation I don't think there's anything _conclusive. _Blind testing needs to be done. And other listeners need to get involved under standard conditions.  That's why I hope to trot the A/B/X boxes out to some meets and so on.  I'm also looking to do a little work with a local college's School of Music Recording Arts program, do some A/B/X listening sessions with them.
   
  I would say that the only conclusion- if any- that can be drawn is that I - that is, ME personally- was surprised that I didn't hear much larger differences in the sound of these amps.  That speaks more to a revelation of what I _thought _ than it does to any discovery about the amps themselves. Based on stuff I read, and on listening I did to individual amps I really thought that the differences in sound were pretty large.  You know, listening to an amp by itself, I would feel, "Hmmm, great bass. SO MUCH better than I remember the bass in the XYZ amp was."   So I guess what it really shows is my "audio memory" of what amp A sounded like on Tuesday was not so accurate that it could be used to judge how it compared to amp B on Wednesday.
   
  I'm not yet set up to do blind tests.  But I am building the boxes and writing the code, so before too many more weeks I will have that stuff ready.


----------



## Croozer

Quote:


milosz said:


> Ummm.... I don't believe I ever said the posts were "non comparison" - -  they are A/B comparisons, I titled the thread *"Amp  A/B Comparisons."*  So I'd have to say that... yeah, these are comparisons.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Milosz, Chesebert is just trying to rubbish your excellent work by any means possible, including making false statements.


----------



## Petyot

prog rock man said:


> Milosz, Chesebert is just trying to rubbish your excellent work by any means possible, including making false statements.




+1

Can we come back to the roots of this excellent thread and have more A/B comparisons with other amps ?

Thanks Milosz for this very instructive thread (for me at least). I really enjoy reading your comparisons.


----------



## debitsohn

im still waiting for the comparisons with the better DAC but same amps.  i might be stupid and brainwashed, but i think there will be a bigger difference in the b22 vs m3. but then again... one persons "minimal, small, barely, a tad, slightly" could be someone elses gold.


----------



## TobaccoRoad

Quote: 





milosz said:


> Ummm.... I don't believe I ever said the posts were "non comparison" - -  they are A/B comparisons, I titled the thread *"Amp  A/B Comparisons."*  So I'd have to say that... yeah, these are comparisons.


 

  This made me laugh lol


----------



## broc3

First & foremost - Thank you milosz for a great contribution to this forum
   
  Next - Since there seems to be some disagreement about the likelihood of an improved source impacting these comparisons, I wanted to throw my 2 cents in from a technical perspective ...
   
  If one starts with the most basic of specifications on any of these systems, the frequency response curve, then there is a conceivable way for the source to mask an amp's shortcomings ... Try the following thought experiment
   
  1) your source has a frequency response that drops some particular frequency (lets call it "A") below our perception
  2) one amp has a perfectly flat response ... thus, when connected together, the listener does not hear frequency "A"
  3) another amp has a frequency deficit at frequency "A", and the listener still doesn't hear frequency "A" when connected to the same source
   
  In this scenario, the listening experience for both amps was the same, but the amp described in step "3" would be deficient relative to that in step "2".
   
  This general reasoning can be extended to other characteristics with the end result being that for a particular deficit in an amp to go unnoticed relative to another one of 2 things needs to have happened
  1) the amp's deficit needs to have aligned with the source's deficit
  2) the difference was below the perception level of the person evaluating the conditions
   
  Notice that I have only been discussing deficits ... If one imagines a deficit in one part of the source/amp pair aligning with a "sweetening" in the other part of the pair ... then we are probably getting into the synergy that is often discussed here.
   
  Also, the deficits that I have been discussing yield effects that drop below our perception. Certain effects could only be masked by one component having a deficit near to the other such that the effect's impact on our perception is "smoothed" (picture non-linear phase delays for both systems ... place the non-linearity of the peaks near to each other so that the peak is broadened ... one effect of a non-linear phase delay is that one frequency will occur earlier or later in time relative to other frequencies)
   
  The bottom line - Only if the source being used here has deficits that align/mask a deficit in one amp but not the other is there something being missed here (for the given observer).
   
  I'll leave it to you to determine how likely this situation is and whether it would impact your listening experience.
   
  Hopefully I haven't muddied the waters ... merely informed
   
  Happy Listening!


----------



## renlute

Milosz, coming back to this thread after many weeks (and not wishing to wade through more than a dozen pages), I am curious if you've been asked how to make your A/B comparison device, or if you make copies for others? It sounds like a handy contraption for a person who has a serious headphone habit.


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





debitsohn said:


> im still waiting for the comparisons with the better DAC but same amps.  i might be stupid and brainwashed, but i think there will be a bigger difference in the b22 vs m3. but then again... one persons "minimal, small, barely, a tad, slightly" could be someone elses gold.


 


  I have been remiss in not doing more on this thread.... kind of ran out of steam a little... also, during recent 22-inch snowfall here in Chicago the roof of my warehouse building partially collapsed from the weight of the snow and I've been a little distracted with repairs insurance dealings and so on.  No one hurt, and nothing much damaged; needed a new roof anyway but it's a time-consuming hassle.  Now that the contractors, structural engineer and attorney are all beavering away, I will leave most of this work in their capable hands and return to some fun.  I'll post a picture of the 50' x 35' hole in the roof that they've opened up as they rebuild, open to the sky, it's very odd to have this huge "sunroof" in my warehouse.  Well I've been wanting a convertible.... somehow I thought "putting the top down" would be more fun and glamorous, though.
   
  Within the next week I will revisit the Beta 22-vs-(several other amps) using the DAC output from the Audio-Gd NFB10-ES  which is currently my best DAC and should, in theory, be better than the Cambridge DAC Magic / stock PSU that I've been using.  I'll also do an  A/B the Audio-Gd NFB10-ES DAC vs the Cambridge DAC Magic using the Beta 22 as the amplifier.


----------



## debitsohn

Sorry to hear about your building. I'm an insurance agent so I know how claims can be. If you have any questions about insurance. Pm me. Although the laws are different there are similarities. Hope everything works out!


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





debitsohn said:


> Sorry to hear about your building. I'm an insurance agent so I know how claims can be. If you have any questions about insurance. Pm me. Although the laws are different there are similarities. Hope everything works out!


 


  Well, thank you kindly!  My business partner is an attorney, with experience with insurance issues; I think we will be OK.  They have not said they'd cover it, but the Insurance Co. did move swiftly to make sure we (or someone-) was dealing with the situation quickly so that MORE damage - or safety issues- wouldn't ensue.  They are quite responsive, which is good.  The worst is the stonewalling type of insurance company. "Insurance?  What insurance?  Did we write you a policy?"  type of thing, which is not the case here.  It will all come down to what exactly the policy covers and what the proximate cause of the roof failure was. The roof has to be fixed in any case; if the insurance covers it, that's grand.  If it's not covered we will negotiate- if that fails we will go to court and see where that takes us.

 We just settled a case for another warehouse that burned down- a shared building where we rented 40,000 sq. ft. out of 1.5 million sq. ft. - that case took 10 years.  We went from "this loss isn't covered" to a check for $450,000.  Fun, fun, fun in small businessland.  -sigh-  Well I have to do SOMETHING with my time.....


----------



## milosz

Fourteenth A / B comparison:  Beta 22 & Fii0 E9  :: USING THE AUDIO-GD NFB-10ES AS THE SOURCE (instead of the earlier Cambridge DAC Magic)

   

  THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC TEST.

   

  The Audio-Gd NFB-10ES uses a newer-generation, more sophisticated DAC, and it uses all discrete analog stages instead of IC op amps like the DAC Magic.  In addition, the Audio-Gd NFB-10ES uses "boutique" capacitors whilst the DAC Magic uses garden-variety electrolytics in it's signal path.  On top of this, the power supply for the Audio-Gd NFB-10ES is much larger, much more sophisticated and more tightly regulated / lower impedance than the "wall wart" that powers the DAC Magic.  PLEASE NOTE THIS IS NOT A COMPARISON OF THE TWO DACs.  That will come later, in another thread.

   

  LCD-2: I heard a slight difference in bass, with the Beta 22 delivering more texture. Both amps had good bass extension.  Midrange was identical as far as I could hear. I could hear a minor difference in treble, but I am hard pressed to characterize it because the difference was so small.

   

  HD800:  These headphones, with their treble emphasis, pointed up the high frequency differences of these two amps more clearly.  The FiiO had a more romantic sounding top end, while the Beta 22 was clinical.  The Beta had greater transparency and you could "hear through" to the original recording more- for good or ill.  On some recordings a more honest presentation helped me hear flaws in the recording.  On such recordings, any harshness present in the original material was clearly audible through the Beta 22 to the HD800s.  If the original recording was fine and sweet, then it sounded that way on the HD800's through the Beta. The FiiO had that small amount of romantic lushness.  Bass texture was also better with the beta 22 on the HD800s but this was not as noticeable as with the LCD-2's; HD800s just don't have the bass performance of the planar 'phones, and so the richer texture from the Beta doesn't stand out as much as with the LCD-2's.

   

  I can't comment on the sound of the DAC Magic vs. the NFB-10ES, as I did not compare them directly; that will come later, in another thread.  I will say that with the DAC Magic I heard minor differences in the bass and treble between these two amps.  And now with the NFB-10ES I again heard minor differences between the amps.  Using a better DAC did not point out glaring differences between these amps.  I would be prepared to say that I MIGHT have heard a little more difference in the amps using th NFB-10ES as a source, but that it is really hard to say if that's real or something based on preconceptions.


----------



## olor1n

With the differences being so slight between something like the E9 and higher end amps like the Beta22, it'd be interesting to see if you can perceive any differences at all between similarly priced "entry" level amps. E9 vs Fun's amp section (using NFB10 as dac) perhaps?
   
  Also, with these comparisons, can you please describe other characteristics such as soundstage and dynamics? Are you omitting these observations because there is no difference?


----------



## milosz

I will be doing the FUN vs E9 on Thrusday. Amp section, and also a separate A/B of the E7 DAC vs the FUN DAC.


----------



## olor1n

Nice. I anxiously await your findings. To me there was an apparent difference between the E7's WM8740 (smaller soundstage, congested and less resolution) and the Fun's WM8741 + Earth (more transparent, more space and resolution). If your findings don't jive with mine I'll have my pitchfork ready. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  My comparison was highly unscientific though with the E7 simply employed as usb dac and low impedance cans (M50 and MS-1i) plugged directly into it's headphone out vs usb into the Fun (therefore employing the Fun's more capable amp section). The easy to drive cans should have leveled the playing field somewhat... right?


----------



## Currawong

milosz: If you turn the volume up a bit higher than you usually listen, and put on some very complex music (big orchestral works and Shpongle are my picks, but there are others -- basically anything complex and fast), does the soundstage hold up equally well with both amps?  I've had similar impressions to what you wrote with wildly different gear just listening to music that wasn't complex, such as quite a bit of jazz where there is, most of the time a single instrument playing or a singer with accompaniment.


----------



## Mad Lust Envy

Quote: 





milosz said:


> Fourteenth A / B comparison:  Beta 22 & Fii0 E9  :: USING THE AUDIO-GD NFB-10ES AS THE SOURCE (instead of the earlier Cambridge DAC Magic)
> 
> THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC TEST.
> 
> ...


 


  milosz
   

   
   
  Again, milosz has proven what I have been saying all this time, minor differences in neutral amps, as long as the power supplied to the headphones is adequate. It's just common sense, sense that this thread has brought out to the light. $130 holding up against an amp cost 10x+ Lol. Watch the haters come out of the woodwork.
   
  Though I'm gonna be the getting the Lyr soon, I knew the E9 was a beast of an amp. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Watch, next thing someone is gonna say: "You need a $2000 DAC to REALLY bring out the Beta22's potential!". As if the same thing couldn't be said if the E9. Lol. Hopefully this will put haters to rest, though we all know people wanna justify all that hard earned money going to such high priced equipment.
   
  I have been saying it time and time again, people pay for an amp's own signature and how it synergizes with their headphones. When you take out coloration away from the equation (by neutral amps), then suddenly the differences just don't warrant such a huge price gap.
   
  This is why I'll be getting the Lyr and trying to pair it up with the most neutral tubes I can afford, that way it feeds enough power with any headphone I can throw at it without really altering the sound of my headphones. I don't expect much of an improvement if any on my D7000, but will HOPE it does outclass the E9 with my soon to come HE-4 after I get the Lyr sometime soon.
   
  I'm not a soundstage or 'spatial depth' nut. I just wanna hear the music. Even if the soundstage was as tight as most Grados, I wouldn't deem it inferior. I want crisp, clear quality first, everything else comes after.


----------



## Skylab

With all due respect to both you and Milosz, you're overstating things by saying that his review "proves" anything.  I have been and remain a big supporter of this thread, and Milosz's excellent reviews and writing.  But the one and only thing that his reviews here "prove" is what he himself heard. 
   
  Amps do not have to be expensive to be good, IMO.  I have spent most of my reviewing energy here on inexensive amps, in fact.  But saying that Milosz's findings "prove" things is more damaging to this thread than it is helpful.


----------



## olor1n

I agree with Skylab. You may unnecessarily be poking at the hive with that victory dance MLE. Tone it down a bit mate.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I would expect neutral amps to sound very similar. By neutral I mean true to the original recording and not coloured. So clearly is you have various amps that are true to the original recording, they have to sound very similar. I find this thread backs up that along with a famous listening test reported in Stereo Review where no one could reliably pick out the different amps.
   
  Milosz and Mad Lust Envy's experiences back that up. OK so that alone is not proof, but it is good evidence that many amps do not have the 'night and day' difference that is claimed so often on this forum. To be fair, such claims should also be asked to tone it down as well.


----------



## Skylab

The difference, IMHO, is that reviews which attempt to describe the difference in the sound of amplifiers, which by their very nature will tend to make those differences seem exaggerated just be the act of trying to describe them in words, are almost never offered up as "proof" that such differences exist, but rather, the subjective impression of the person describing what they hear.  I always caveat my own reviews heavily as being nothing more than my subjective opinion.  Which is all this thread is offering as well.  Although again, to be clear, I think the reporting of such subjective findings to be very valuable - it's good to have opinions on all sides presented.  Let's just not try to turn opinions into facts.


----------



## debitsohn

so what everyone needs to figure out is what is that price point where they feel "this is good enough"?  because ones subtle differences can be more to another person.
   
  thanks milo that is surprising and of course not 100% proof, but good observations!


----------



## Mad Lust Envy

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I would expect neutral amps to sound very similar. By neutral I mean true to the original recording and not coloured. So clearly is you have various amps that are true to the original recording, they have to sound very similar. I find this thread backs up that along with a famous listening test reported in Stereo Review where no one could reliably pick out the different amps.
> 
> Milosz and Mad Lust Envy's experiences back that up. OK so that alone is not proof, but it is good evidence that many amps do not have the 'night and day' difference that is claimed so often on this forum. To be fair, such claims should also be asked to tone it down as well.


 


  Going by common sense, neutrality aims at not coloring the sound. Then there's amping. You're amping to feed a headphone enough power to let them work as intended. By that very simple line of thinking, neutral amps SHOULD sound close to one another as long as the power is adequate, and as long as they keep the sound as uncolored as possible.
   
  I do know that some of you seem to have golden ears and can pick up the very subtle nuances of amps, but then where's the point where neutral amps just become outrageously overpriced when you're only getting very slight differences?
   
  I don't take this thread as the final word on amps, but it does give me enough to back up my belief that neutral SS amps should by nature sound nearly the same with only a slight difference due to the subtle signature differences the amps themselves have on particular areas of the audio spectrum.
   
   
  I think tube and hybrids make more sense to 'price higher', because they all undoubtedly have their very own sound signatures which may pair up better with one headphone or another. For me personally, I'd like an amp that doesn't alter the sound of my headphones significantly, but provides them enough power to make them work properly. That way, it's an amp I can use with various headphones, even if they don't have the BEST synergy, I'd leave it to the innate sound of the headphone to make or break my opinion on them.
   
  Like I mentioned on another thread, if you're using an amp to significantly alter  a headphone's innate sound to make it better than what it sounds like uncolored, good for you. That's not my goal. I want an amp that works for all headphones. The E9 has done this so far. The Schiit Lyr will be my last amp as it has a ridiculous amount of power to allow any potential future headphone I get have all the power it will ever possibly need.
   
  All this said, I have no dout the Beta22 is a better amp than the E9. It's more powerful, has better components, and more versatility. As far as sound alone... well you're looking at $130 vs over $1K for how big a difference? Hmmm...


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





mad lust envy said:


> Going by common sense, neutrality aims at not coloring the sound. Then there's amping. You're amping to feed a headphone enough power to let them work as intended. By that very simple line of thinking, neutral amps SHOULD sound close to one another as long as the power is adequate, and as long as they keep the sound as uncolored as possible.
> 
> I do know that some of you seem to have golden ears and can pick up the very subtle nuances of amps, but then where's the point where neutral amps just become outrageously overpriced when you're only getting very slight differences?
> 
> ...


 

 My X-CANS and V8P are hybrids and Musical Fidelity did not price them particulalry highly, nor do they subscribe to the colouring of sound. The exception that proves the rule?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





skylab said:


> The difference, IMHO, is that reviews which attempt to describe the difference in the sound of amplifiers, which by their very nature will tend to make those differences seem exaggerated just be the act of trying to describe them in words, are almost never offered up as "proof" that such differences exist, but rather, the subjective impression of the person describing what they hear.  I always caveat my own reviews heavily as being nothing more than my subjective opinion.  Which is all this thread is offering as well.  Although again, to be clear, I think the reporting of such subjective findings to be very valuable - it's good to have opinions on all sides presented. * Let's just not try to turn opinions into facts.*


 

 Agreed, but you can turn opinion into evidence. There is a lot of evidence here that claims of huge differences in amps, which this forum is full of, are just not true.


----------



## debitsohn

so then SS amps (generally) should cost less as they are generally more neutral than hybrids and tubeS?


----------



## Mad Lust Envy

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> My X-CANS and V8P are hybrids and Musical Fidelity did not price them particulalry highly, nor do they subscribe to the colouring of sound. The exception that proves the rule?


 

 Sorry I didn't mean all tubes and hybrids. Look at the Schiit Lyr with stock tubes. It is apparently neutral in tone, outputs an obscene amount of power (seriously, What), and is priced quite competitively at $450.
   
  This is exactly WHY I want one. However, if there was a neutral SS amp that put out as much power as the Lyr at the same price, I'd opt for that instead.
   
  Power isn't everything, but gives me headroom for any potentially very hard to drive headphones I may get in the future.
   
  Contrary to popular belief, I'm not a Fiio fanboy. I am however a fanboy of products that bring a lot of performance for the price. I may just become a fan of the Lyr as well. I just happen to love that Fiio put out an amp that is relatively neutral, has a lot of clean power, and is ridiculously affordable. It does have it's downsides, and can use some refinement in some areas, but they deliver where I want them to deliver, performance that can hold it's own for a mere fraction of the cost.


----------



## zenpunk

The power cord used is probably the bottleneck here. Garbage in - garbage out as they say :veryevil:


----------



## SoupRKnowva

Quote: 





mad lust envy said:


> This is exactly WHY I want one. However, if there was a neutral SS amp that put out as much power as the Lyr at the same price, I'd opt for that instead.


 


  http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/Headphoneamp/C-2SA/C2SAEN.htm
   
  you were saying? 6W into 25 and 50 ohms


----------



## Mad Lust Envy

Quote: 





souprknowva said:


> http://www.audio-gd.com/Pro/Headphoneamp/C-2SA/C2SAEN.htm
> 
> you were saying? 6W into 25 and 50 ohms


 







   
  How much is it (if it's more than the Lyr...well I dunno). When will it be available, and if it already has, any reviews? 
   
  edit: It's apparently colored for warmth and has a laid back sig. Meh. No thanks. I want neutral.


----------



## SoupRKnowva

Quote: 





mad lust envy said:


> How much is it (if it's more than the Lyr...well I dunno). When will it be available, and if it already has, any reviews?
> 
> edit: It's apparently colored for warmth and has a laid back sig. Meh. No thanks. I want neutral.


 


  its only 300 bucks. and you obviously dont have much background with audio-gd, no offense intended. but his musical flavored equipment is still incredibly natural and neutral, everything in his descriptions is pretty much a _slight_ difference to neutral. but that said, dont buy it if you dont want to, just offering another option


----------



## Mad Lust Envy

No offense taken. I really don't know anything about Audio GD. Well on the site itself, it says warm and relaxing. I'd actually prefer brighter and aggressive if neutral was out of the question.
   
  Would such an amp power the HE-6 or K1000? The Lyr does...
   
  Still, I'd like to read up more on it and see how it stacks up to others.


----------



## shabta

Quote: 





skylab said:


> The difference, IMHO, is that reviews which attempt to describe the difference in the sound of amplifiers, which by their very nature will tend to make those differences seem exaggerated just be the act of trying to describe them in words, are almost never offered up as "proof" that such differences exist, but rather, the subjective impression of the person describing what they hear.  I always caveat my own reviews heavily as being nothing more than my subjective opinion.  Which is all this thread is offering as well.  Although again, to be clear, I think the reporting of such subjective findings to be very valuable - it's good to have opinions on all sides presented.  Let's just not try to turn opinions into facts.


 
   
  Amen to that.
   
  I think you hit the nail on the head. And if you upgrade from really good equipment to even better equipment expecting a night and day difference, most of the time you be disappointed.
   
  On the other hand my wife who thought I was crazy to spend all that moolah on the Leben when the Lehmann Audio BCL already sounded so good immediately concede there was a noticeable improvement. Of course that still didn't mean she thought I wasn't bonkers.


----------



## Lunatique

Quote: 





attenuated 3db said:


> Someday we may disagree on something, Rob, but it hasn't happened yet. Is it OK to address you by your "RL" name here on Head-Fi.org, given that you include your fabulous website/blog address in your Head-Fi signature?
> 
> As you know from another "where did you begin" thread post I made, I have been "into" audio electronics for a long time, because I love the music that much, and have a highly technical education, much of it self-inflicted.
> 
> ...


 

 Of course it's fine. I wouldn't have a publicly open website/blog if I had issues with people knowing my real name.  
   
  That Bob Carver thing is new to me, and a real eye-opener. I think people who constantly defend ridiculously expensive amps all should read it.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I would expect neutral amps to sound very similar. By neutral I mean true to the original recording and not coloured. So clearly is you have various amps that are true to the original recording, they have to sound very similar.* I find this thread backs up that along with a famous listening test reported in Stereo Review where no one could reliably pick out the different amps.*
> 
> Milosz and Mad Lust Envy's experiences back that up. OK so that alone is not proof, but it is good evidence that many amps do not have the 'night and day' difference that is claimed so often on this forum. To be fair, such claims should also be asked to tone it down as well.


 

 That was one of my favorite listening tests.  Everyone should Google it and read it again.  It contains very good information about sighted and unsighted listening tests.
   
  The golden eared listeners weren't able to tell the difference btn a *$200* Pioneer:   
   
                 -------------->    and a pair of *$12,000* Futterman monoblocks:             
   


  Quote: 





skylab said:


> The difference, IMHO, is that reviews which attempt to describe the difference in the sound of amplifiers, which by their very nature will tend to make those differences seem exaggerated just be the act of trying to describe them in words, are almost never offered up as *"proof"* that such differences exist, but rather, the subjective impression of the person describing what they hear.  I always caveat my own reviews heavily as being nothing more than my subjective opinion.  Which is all this thread is offering as well.  Although again, to be clear, I think the reporting of such subjective findings to be very valuable - it's good to have opinions on all sides presented.  *Let's just not try to turn opinions into facts.*


 

 Nor degrade the *"facts"* when they  are offered up as *"proof"*.


----------



## coconutboy

Quote:


> I do know that some of you seem to have golden ears and can pick up the very subtle nuances of amps, but then where's the point where neutral amps just become outrageously overpriced when you're only getting very slight differences?


 
   
   
  The point at which your wallet becomes more of a concern than your ears should determine what is/isn't outrageously overpriced. Audio reproduction is a luxury notorious for diminishing returns on money spent after meeting the minimum entry fee/base system costs. Example: our extended family of professional musicians has owned a lot of kickass stereo equipment over the past few decades, but the best probably belongs to my non-musician uncle. Why? He's rich. See how that works? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
   
   
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Agreed, but you can turn opinion into evidence. There is a lot of evidence here that claims of huge differences in amps, which this forum is full of, are just not true.


 
   
   
   Agreed that people often exaggerate differences in audio gear ("xyz is better than abc!") vs just describing sonic signatures. It's also much less time consuming to do the former than the latter which probably the explains the discrepancy.


----------



## coconutboy

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I would expect neutral amps to sound very similar. By neutral I mean true to the original recording and not coloured. So clearly is you have various amps that are true to the original recording, they have to sound very similar. I find this thread backs up that along with a famous listening test reported in Stereo Review where no one could reliably pick out the different amps.


 
   
  It's probably just my neck of the woods, but usually when talking with musicians/engineers, the term used to describe a lack of coloring by the audio chain is "transparent" whereas "neutral" tends to refer to tonal quality (often of a particular instrument/chord or segment of the frequency spectrum). Then again I've met many a musician who is unfamiliar with terminology or simply doesn't care so please excuse my attempts at clarification.
   
   
   Regarding listening tests, several of them over the years have golden-eared listeners getting stumped, but each test needs to be taken in context because many that I've seen/read about involve the listeners NOT being allowed to run through a large number of recordings with which each _individual_ listener was intimately familiar.  Speaking from experience, it's not uncommon that I can't find a flaw in a particular speaker until I've gone through ~20 or so passages spanning 6-10 CDs (usually less than a minute's worth of music per disc). But once I've nailed down that flaw, it's much easier to select music that will repeatedly make it evident. If instead I had to use someone else's set of reference discs, it would throw me off despite my knowing their material reasonably well.
   
   
  Not that I'm attempting to discredit the Carver story.  That was a pretty famous one (especially in car audio circles when he was marketing his amps via Crutchfield IIRC), and there were other similar blind listening tests done in Stereophile (again) as well as Audio, Car Stereo Review etc. Can't remember for certain which magazine it was (Musician I think), but one of 'em now and then would bring in a famous musician and ask them which speakers/amp/whatever most faithfully reproduced the sound of an album as the artist envisioned it. The results were sometimes surprising, often because of the improvements in gear at every level from mics and recording/mastering to consumer audio.


----------



## milosz

Some Sphongle is one of my "test tracks" lately, and always Chicago / Beethoven 9 .  
   
  Headphones don't have a "soundstage" or "image" like speakers do.  Nowhere even close to what my triamped Magneplanar 3.6's do.  Headphones have separation, and this can convey a sense of acoustic "depth" but it is not at all like a natural soundfield. I do notice changes in this effect, mostly based on midrange / lower treble prominence. I think this frequency range is what conveys the sense of acoustic depth through arrival time / phase difference between left and right ear.  Headphones that emphasize this frequency range can "dig out" or "present" more of this sense of depth.
   
  If I turn up the level enough, it seems the bass and lower mids start masking my perception of the mids and treble, and it seems to me this confuses my ability to detect the "depth."   I don't know that I'd ascribe this to the amplifier.
   
  But I'm not really the one to ask about headphone soundstage performance. I am very strongly biased, my listening focus is tuned to speakers for spatial cues. I am so spoiled by the imaging of my MG 3.6's or my Quad ESL-57's  that I just can't "synthesize" what headphones do into a soundstage. I just can't fuse what I hear from headphones into any kind of real "image."   Left, right, center, reverberant / small, reverberant / large and shades in between all these, yes;  but an actual image- no.  (The Red Rose Music Classic Ribbon speakers I got on eBay for a STEAL a while back- they can do some pretty interesting things with soundstage too, I've been noticing lately.)  
   
  I must look for some binaural recordings, maybe these will sound more spatially convincing to me.
   
  Anyway, I have not noticed any spatial changes / abilities / lack of quality  etc  in the A/B tests. But then, like I said, I probably wouldn't pay the right kind of attention to this, given the way my listening has developed.  Maybe as time goes on I'll be able to discern some finer points of headphone "imaging" but I'm no judge at the moment.


----------



## milosz

SUMMING UP
   
  There are many good amplifiers out there.  The FiiO was better than you'd expect at it's price point, and also conveys a sense of being physically nice too- it doesn't seem cheap or plasticky.  It had a certain slightly sweet treble characteristic that I think would work particularly well with compressed music files from a portable player, which it would seem is one of the main uses to which folks put it.  Using a totally transparent amp like the Beta 22 on such files can reveal the digital artifact in them, whereas with it's slightly "smoothed over" treble, the FiiO would tend to mask this. The FiiO had decent power, which is good value for money-  I didn't find them lacking the _cojones_ to drive the fairly inefficient LCD-2's. 
   
  Another commenter notes that the various tube and hybrid amps add their signature to the sound, which can work well with various headphones.  It's more subtle a change than EQ or tone controls, because it tends to be related more to harmonic content in amounts that varies by frequency and by level. These amplifiers have something to offer.  Plus they have those nice glowing bottles! And, with some tube output stages, the bass quality can be different sounding than solid state.  In some cases this sounds nice, on certain headphones and with certain music.
   
  Most of the solid state amps I listened to- the M³, CK²III, Beta 22, FUN, etc all offered a good deal of transparency and similar sound, with some slight differences in bass texture.
   
  The Yamaha integrated amp sounded the most different (and the least pleasant) of the lot- the highs were kind of "strident"  or "crunchy"-  showing that these modern headphone amps, all running Class A, really do have some nice sonics when compared to "garden variety" amplification found in "mid fi" gear.
   
  There are other reasons to own an amp beyond the sound:  I like to BUILD amps, so I enjoy my Beta 22 and also the CK²III, the Bottlehead Crack and Bijou for that reason. (I bought my M³, I didn't build it.)  I get extra pleasure out of owning something that I built.
   
  And then there are the very versatile products from Kingwa.  Useful as DACs, preamps, and headphone amps, the Audio-Gd units that I have are all quite enjoyable.  For example, I use my Compass as a DAC/preamp in a bedroom system.  Among my speaker amps, I have mostly basic amps, and not integrated amps so I can use things like the these Audio-Gd products to put together various amps and speakers to listen to for a while, then try something else later. 
   
  If I had better sense, I would probably have just one headphone amp, one DAC and one or two pairs of headphones.  I probably could get along forever with the FUN, the LCD-2 and my Beyer Dt880's. It certainly would have cost a lot less!  But, frankly, I'm off-balance and somewhat obsessed, so I buy a lot of gear and constantly play around with it.  It fascinates me for hours on end.  The HiFi hobby is a kind of pleasant madness.


----------



## Skylab

Quote: 





milosz said:


> The HiFi hobby is a kind of pleasant madness.


 


  I loved this.  Indeed, it is.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Worthy of more attention, the link posted by attenuated 3dB of the description of the Carver challenge in Wikipedia
   
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver#Amplifier_modeling
   
  I have a FiiO E5. I think that it is the most amazing bargain in hifi and was shocked at how close it comes to my X-CANV8P in a similar non scientific listening test to all those here. I am not surprised to hear that the E7 did so well here.
   
  Now thinking out loud, Chinese manufacturers are famous for their copies. If they read about Carvers evidence/proof whatever you want to call it, that you can replicate any amps sound with another, cheaper design, which cannot be audibly differentiated in listening tests, do we wave goodbye to high end amps for ever? Or, since like watches there will always be a place for high end, expensive as well as cheap and cheerful, do we wave goodbye to any notion that high end amps sound better as the golden ears often claim?


----------



## Skylab

It's worth noting, perhaps, that neither Carver's demo, nor the Stereo Review "test", had any real negative impact on the sales of high-end stereo amps.  They will be around, for all kinds of reasons.  And in the case of speaker amps, it DOES cost more to provide the power levels required for some larger speakers.  Compared to very large speakers, headphones are absurdly easy to drive.
   
  Just so everyone is clear, that Carver demo was 26 years ago.  This is not "news" - any impact it might have had has long, long ago run its course.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

As I said, high end amps will sell like high end watches, they are nice to have and some people can afford them. But a high and low end watch, when fully functioning will both tell the same time, just as Carver showed two low and high end amps can sound exactly the same. Now Milosz has added to that evidence and it matches my own experience.
   
  I will now happily disbelieve any claim about high end amps sounding night and day better that others and golden ear claims that you only hear differences when you buy high end kit.
   
  So what if the Carver experiment is old news, many including myself did not know about it.


----------



## Skylab

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> As I said, high end amps will sell like high end watches, they are nice to have and some people can afford them. But a high and low end watch, when fully functioning will both tell the same time, just as Carver showed two low and high end amps can sound exactly the same. Now Milosz has added to that evidence and it matches my own experience.
> 
> I will now happily disbelieve any claim about high end amps sounding night and day better that others and golden ear claims that you only hear differences when you buy high end kit.
> 
> So what if the Carver experiment is old news, many including myself did not know about it.


 
   
  I have no problem with anyone believing all amps sound basically the same.  There have been large groups of people who have always believed that - going back to before *I* was born, much less the younger folks.  There were even magazines that were dedicated to audiophiles who believed that only speakers and sources impacted sound (like "The Sensible Sound").  Those magazines are gone now, as the only people who buy audio magazines these days don't subscribe to that point of view.
   
  My point about the Carver item being very old news is that it isn't a revelation and will have NO impact on the market as a whole here in 2011, although if it has value for you, great.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I have no problem with people who have been given both sides of the debate who decide that amps sound very different. I do have a problem with those who rubbish threads such as this one when it adds to the evidence that amps actually sound more similar than more different.
   
  The reason why I have a problem with that is that forums such as this one with its 'sorry for your wallet' attitude can make people unhappy with their hifis, especially if they do not have the money to splash out on high end gear. If this and other hifi forums had a 'you can get great sound for not much' overall attitude, that would make more people happier with the hifis.
   
  The pressure to upgrade when there is little evidence to show that you really need to is wrong. The high and mighty, golden ears attitude of some with high end gear is wrong. There is a lot of elitism here and that drives away and makes others unhappy.
   
  To go back to watches again, I have no issue with people pouring out love for a Rolex, so long as there are no claims that it will tell better time than any other watch. That is done with threads here and elsewhere on hifi forums about watches.


----------



## Skylab

That is precisely what a forum, and a dialog, is all about. 
   
  I think this particular dialog between us, though, has run it's course.  So cheers


----------



## coconutboy

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> The reason why I have a problem with that is that forums such as this one with its 'sorry for your wallet' attitude can make people unhappy with their hifis, especially if they do not have the money to splash out on high end gear...
> 
> ...The pressure to upgrade when there is little evidence to show that you really need to is wrong. The high and mighty, golden ears attitude of some with high end gear is wrong. There is a lot of elitism here and that drives away and makes others unhappy.





   
  There's an old saying about a fool and his money being soon departed. Anyone who feels "the pressure to upgrade" is a sucker because, frankly, _high end audio is a luxury filled with diminishing returns_ and should be treated as such; simply stick to a budget and everything is fine. Similarly, whether it's headphones, car tuning, or video games, there have always been and will always be elitists. So what? Instead of paying the snobs any mind, how about focusing on the fact that you can spend a minimal entry fee to achieve 95%+ of the same SQ?
   
  As for the amps vs watches comparison, at least with amps I can find measurable differences that _sometimes_ translate to real world listening tests. Outside of marketing claims, only a fool regards high priced watches as anything more than a fashion statement or symbol of wealth.


----------



## chesebert

[size=small]I find it rather insulting for you to suggest that your fellow head-fiers need external reassurance to affirm what they are hearing is “good sound.” I find it even more insulting for you to suggest your fellow members have such a low self esteem that they cannot be happy with their equipment unless there is some external reassurance to make them "happier with the hifi."  [/size]
  [size=small] [/size]
  [size=small]I don’t doubt there are some natural “golden ears” out there. But for the rest, the ability to discern the quality of audio reproduction is not something you can pick up in a month or even a year. It takes 5-10 years, at least for me, to develop my listening skill - always learning, always comparing and always listening. [/size]
  [size=small] [/size]
  [size=small]Threads like this will mislead the junior members into believing certain “facts” about audio equipments that are absolutely false. Because of this, these members may never develop the listening skill necessary to enjoy the higher end equipments and attain a higher level of enjoyment. It is threads like this one that kills the curiosity of hi fidelity at its most infancy and is truly perverse to the spirit of this form. [/size]
   
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I have no problem with people who have been given both sides of the debate who decide that amps sound very different. I do have a problem with those who rubbish threads such as this one when it adds to the evidence that amps actually sound more similar than more different.
> 
> The reason why I have a problem with that is that forums such as this one with its 'sorry for your wallet' attitude can make people unhappy with their hifis, especially if they do not have the money to splash out on high end gear. If this and other hifi forums had a 'you can get great sound for not much' overall attitude, that would make more people happier with the hifis.
> 
> ...


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Some are clearly looking for reassurance before they buy. As for self esteem, who knows? I find your post pretty insulting at times.
   
  Golden ears fail listening tests as much as inexperienced listeners. Sean Olive at Harman International found it did not matter how experienced the listener was, they failed listening tests at the same rate. What is misleading about that? Your claims for golden ears and "it takes 5-10 years" are misleading as there is no evidence they are correct. But there is evidence they are wrong.
   
  This thread enhances curiosity about hifi, it is just a side of hifi you do not want investigating as it challenges your self esteem.......


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





coconutboy said:


> There's an old saying about a fool and his money being soon departed. Anyone who feels "the pressure to upgrade" is a sucker because, frankly, _high end audio is a luxury filled with diminishing returns_ and should be treated as such; simply stick to a budget and everything is fine. Similarly, whether it's headphones, car tuning, or video games, there have always been and will always be elitists. So what? Instead of paying the snobs any mind, how about focusing on the fact that you can spend a minimal entry fee to achieve 95%+ of the same SQ?
> 
> As for the amps vs watches comparison, at least with amps I can find measurable differences that _sometimes_ translate to real world listening tests. Outside of marketing claims, only a fool regards high priced watches as anything more than a fashion statement or symbol of wealth.


 
  It's clear that you have no appreciation for the incredible melding of art, engineering, precision, and beauty that go into a fine timepiece, but that's ok, it's your preference.  Just don't denigrate others for appreciating something you do not.  I agree with your first paragraph.  Virtually everything in this world is subject to the laws of diminishing returns.  There are very few who even have opportunity to experience things beyond the knee of that curve, and fewer still, who appreciate those achievements for what they truly are and not just the shallow snob value that the the shallower and more distant perspective perceives.  
   
  If one reads this and other threads here with an open and learning mind, it becomes quite easy to discern between those who are questing for perfection, and those who are after snob appeal.  The knee of the curve is discussed quite a bit here, and how to achieve it.  Look for it, and you will find it.


----------



## Armaegis

Quote: 





chesebert said:


> [size=small] [/size]
> [size=small]Threads like this will mislead the junior members into believing certain “facts” about audio equipments that are absolutely false. *Because of this, these members may never develop the listening skill necessary to enjoy the higher end equipments *and attain a higher level of enjoyment. It is threads like this one that kills the curiosity of hi fidelity at its most infancy and is truly perverse to the spirit of this form. [/size]


 

 I've been staying out of this silly hoohah debate up until now, but I feel the need to comment on the statement above (emphasis is mine).
   
  I will agree with the first half of the bolded part. Critical listening for technical equipment aspects is a practiced skill. Whether or not you necessarily enjoy or care about that is up to the person. This leads directly to the underlined part... which is what this whole ballyhoo is about (I like using these words)
   
  Let me use myself and a friend as an example. I've played piano for decades now, I'm building my own amps, I've spent more on this hobby than I care to admit, and for the most part can be considered a bit of an audio snob by my associates. It's safe to say that I enjoy my music. My one friend, she's got her ipod with a few dozen musicals, Disney tunes, and the Glee soundtrack. I will *never* enjoy music as much as she does. She's got songs on there that she ripped from youtube with quality that makes my ears bleed, but for her _she doesn't care_ and starts dancing anyways. She loves her music, and that's all that matters.
   
  I enjoy my toys, and I enjoy my music. I try not to mix the two.


----------



## coconutboy

[size=medium]
  
  Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> It's clear that you have no appreciation for the incredible melding of art, engineering, precision, and beauty that go into a fine timepiece, but that's ok, it's your preference.  Just don't denigrate others for appreciating something you do not.





   
   

 If you took offense from my "only a fool regards high priced watches" comment, apologies for my crude statement.  And while I see your point, this ain't ancient times with sundials.  Tracking time is easily and cheaply afforded to the masses, ergo the primary function of a watch is easily achieved. So anything in excess of that function is just that, excess. If you feel I'm denigrating watchmakers or their clients, that's simply not true. I have zero doubt there is a high degree of skill involved and that the process is truly an art.  However, you can't deny owning a pricey timepiece is not a luxury despite the skill and brilliance involved. Heck, even Rolex, Piaget and other high-end brands label their watches as such!
   
   

  lux·u·ry

_a_ *:* something adding to pleasure or comfort but not absolutely necessary

_b_ *:* an indulgence in something that provides pleasure, satisfaction, or ease
​[/size]


  Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> If one reads this and other threads here with an open and learning mind, it becomes quite easy to discern between those who are questing for perfection, and those who are after snob appeal.  The knee of the curve is discussed quite a bit here, and how to achieve it.  Look for it, and you will find it.


 
   
  Agreed


----------



## dan1son

This post has been interesting... I didn't see it until now (don't frequent this place as much as I used to).  My feelings on the subject may be of interest. 
   
  I've found over my head-fi and audio gear life that the enjoyment is the most important part of the whole thing.  I've spent hours a/bing my equipment trying to tweak the opamp selections in the dac/amp just right, upgrading the caps, upgrading resisters, etc. always getting frustrated and confused by the end of it (too many combinations).  The differences are so tiny in most cases that it almost becomes an obsession (I'm guilty of this... and will be again I'm sure).  Does the OPA627 sound better with the AD8620 when they're switched from amp to dac?  What about the AD843 with ad8066?  Do these match the HF-1s better than the HF2s?  4 hours one night making sure my new Audio-GD Compass sounds better than my old Fubar -> DIY amp (it does, but only barely and even less so after spending 2 hours of that time playing with opamps in the DAC/AMP to make it as neutral) that kind of nonsense. 
   
  I always eventually tend to just give in to the whole process and leave something in there and just use the darn equipment to listen to music.  Once I take that step back and give the equipment some time I've found obvious problems (sibilance, brightness, lack of bass, etc.) will come through if they're there (and can then be addressed directly with opamp change or new equipment [Compass was purchased because the bithead was just too bright with the HF-1s which took a year to decide]), but more often than not I just start to have fun jamming to some tunes.  
   
  All of that said, I'm currently listening to MS-1s at work on my bithead (the better equipment is at home so I could better test the Audio-GD Compass I just bought) and enjoying the crap out of em.  Sure they're missing some low end, the highs are a bit blah, but they still sound great, much better than what everyone else around me deals with .


----------



## Petyot

Quote: 





armaegis said:


> I enjoy my toys, and I enjoy my music. I try not to mix the two.


 


  And that is the right attitude!!


----------



## scottiebabie

i've had the pleasure of listening to a buncha different amps in my current addiction as a vintage gearhead. in most cases, i've been able to clearly delineate & discern the differences in those amps. prolly wont pass a DBT but dont mean i cant hear differences. 'ceptin the odd case or 2, i would ascribe my preferences & favorites to personal tastes & gear synergy rather than mere technical brillance.
   
  in my journey i've also found that the amp that didnt perform so great on the hifiman orthos did much better on a senn HD650. & vice versa. this is much easier to discern once one has a cache of amps to play with. not saying that amp technical superiority isnt a factor but that personal preferances & synergy maybe an even bigger factor. jus sayin'


----------



## Lunatique

For many, that whole "finding synergy between amps and headphones" road leads to the wallet leaking a lot of money. For people with modest income, I would suggest an alternate route, and that is to use a quality parametric EQ in the signal chain. I prefer software because you can save presets and recall them easily, and also use them on different computers easily, but for those not using the computer as a source, a hardware unit would have to do, and there are quality digital parametric EQ's on the market that functions just like software ones do, except in a hardware box with LCD displaying the software graphics.
   
  I also suggest anyone serious about attaining the ideal sonic signature for himself, to get educated about critical listening. I highly recommend this book, which contains audio examples on a CD, that teaches you critical listening at the level of a mastering engineer. It's called "*Critical Listening Skills For Audio Professionals, by F. Alton Everest*. I also recommend books on mixing and mastering, such as the ones written by *Bobby Owsinsk*i and *Bob Katz*. If you are not educated about the science and art of mixing and mastering, then you would have zero idea how/why the music you listen to was made to sound the way they do, and the critical decisions the engineers and artists made along the way to shape those recordings. Knowing all that stuff helps you think like an audio professional, where no B.S. is allowed to interfere with your logic.
   
  Some people might ask, "Well, if I don't buy and audition a ton of different amps, how would I know if the one I'm using isn't coloring my sound in a bad way to begin with, or that my headphones are heavily skewed to begin with?"
   
  For amps, I highly recommend members who are not after fast diminishing returns to simply buy standard, cost-effective pro audio headphone amps/monitor controllers such as the Samson C-Control / C*Que 8, or even the Behringer's cheaper rip-off version using plastic parts like the MiniAMP / MiniMON. Here's SOS's review of the Samson line: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep03/articles/samsonc.htm
   
  I have them and they sound perfectly fine. While I'm sure if we double bind tested them against boutique amps that cost $1,000 and more, we might heard a little bit of overall refinement with the expensive amps, but the differences will be so subtle that it's absolutely not worth spending an additional $1,000 or more on. The fact that despite having auditioned expensive amps and can obviously afford them, but don't own any, is a testament to how good I think the basic pro audio amps already sound. Pro audio gear even at the most basic entry level tend to have more strict standard for what passes as neutral sonic signature (though with monitors and headphones, the variations are much wider than amps and cables and whatnot, for obvious reasons). So basically, if you don't get a lemon with problems like noisy, noticeable coloration, or distortion, pro audio entry level amps will do perfectly fine (and if you get a lemon, simply exchange it for another unit--don't just keep and then pout about it all over the internet). If you want to spend a bit more, you can look at other pro audio alternatives to audiophile choices such as these:
  http://www.sweetwater.com/c413--Headphone_Amps_and_Distribution
  http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/headphones/headphone-amplifiers
  http://www.zzounds.com/cat--Headphone-Amps--2377
   
  At the higher-end of pro audio headphone amps, you have products like the Grace Audio M903 or SPL Phonitor, and when I hear audiophiles poopoo on these products, saying that pro audio products like these don't sound "good" because they didn't have "synergy" with their HD800 or some other reason, it just makes me chuckle a little. These devices are perfectly fine, as they were engineered to high standards and were designed to be as neutral sounding as possible within the cost limit. $1,000+ is nothing to sneeze at, and if there's no "synergy" with your headphone, then the problem is your headphone, not the amp. Amps are not supposed to be fixed-setting EQ units that remedy whatever issues your headphone has. Almost always, the headphones should be the variable to concentrate on, not the amps that have already met the basic quality standards of pro audio (unless it's some amp made to sound subjectively colored to begin with, which these pro audio amps were not designed to do so). So instead of throwing money at a bunch of amps, just use a quality parametric EQ to address your headphone's shortcomings. But if you like buying a lot of expensive toys, then that's collecting gear--a different form of hobby.
   
  If you also need monitor speaker control along with headphone amp:
  http://www.sweetwater.com/c417--Monitor_Management
  http://www.zzounds.com/cat--Monitor-Routing-and-Distribution--3856
  http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/navigation/studio-monitor-volume-controllers?N=100001+348587
   
  And that leaves just the headphones. As we already know, monitor speakers, loudspeakers, headphones...etc can be more subjective, but I think it's crucial to understand that once someone becomes more educated about audio in general (after reading the books I recommended, for example), their subjective taste will start align with the general accepted standard of what professionals refer to as neutral. The sad thing is, because some hobbyists headphiles/audiophiles are not educated about such matters, they don't even understand what "neutral" actually means. They actually believe that neutral means cold, clinical, thin, boring, and so on, and they couldn't possibly be more mistaken. Neutral simply means no noticeable coloration--whatever audio you feed into it, is reproduced exactly as is, without adding anything to it. It doesn't matter if it's a bass-heavy hip-hop or electronic track, a high fidelity classical or jazz recording, or aggressive heavy metal, they will get reproduced with all the sonic signature you expect from those genres of music. There's absolutely no reason why a neutral device will all of a sudden render a hip-hop track with wimpy bass, or a jazz recording with muffled treble. Neutral means not changing anything, keeping it exactly as is. So when people say things like the LCD-2's bass is too heavy, they are talking out of their ass, because the LCD-2's bass is about as neutral as they come (it's been tested over and over by respected members with expensive testing equipment), and it merely reproduces the music as it should be reproduced. If the same music is often heard on other devices with noticeably leaner bass, it's because those devices are incapable of rendering the bass properly with authority, not because the LCD-2 has exaggerated bass.
   
  There are definitely headphones out there that outputs ridiculously heavy bass and the sonic signature is skewed as hell, but the LCD-2 is not one of them. In order to find a pair of headphones that's as neutral as possible, you almost can't avoid spending either money or time, because you need to audition and compare them to establish a reference point of some sort. This is where all the discussion threads at head-fi can help--you can find a handful of members whose opinion and taste you trust (it's easy to tell who they are, because they tend to attain a certain level of respect in the community), and then read up on what they have to say about the various headphones they have auditioned/owned. You can then buy/audition among their recommendations, and you'd be much closer to attaining a relatively neutral sonic signature than if you were to blindly go about it just buying crap and going through them like candy.
   
  Many people have spent their entire lives listening to colored and skewed devices, and has no idea what neutral sounds like, and they must unlearn those biases. For example, a rapper's car stereo that is outputting insane amount of bass that rattles the windows of houses nearby--that is so extremely colored and skewed that you must unlearn that bias. The people who mixed and mastered those recordings did NOT engineer those songs on some ghetto car stereo with giant subwoofers that blow up the neighborhood--those albums were engineered on pro audio monitoring systems that were designed to sound as neutral as possible. When you play music on skewed devices that are colored, you are destroying all the hard work of the musical artist and engineers. In order to hear what the song is really supposed to sound like, you need to be using devices that aim to be neutral. This isn't just about bass, but the entire frequency range--from 20Hz all the way up to 20KHz. Unfortunately, headphones are extremely hard to get right in the upper-mids/treble range, because our individual ear canals are part of the equation. This is why you never see headphone FR graphs where the upper mids/treble are perfectly flat--they always dip up and down to compensate for our biology. In a way, this makes headphones very interesting, but also very frustrating because they are much harder to standardize compared to speakers. With speakers, at least we can put them in anechoic chambers and test them to be perfectly flat.
   
  While there can't be perfectly "neutral" devices in the real world, since the world is not an anechoic chamber and our individual ears are not precise measuring equipment, but the designers of products aimed at the pro audio does try to ensure that their designs will get as close as possible, while taking the possible variants in listening environments and individual biology into consideration.The key is that they have their sight set on the right goal, and no matter if they fall short of that goal or not, they at least are going for the most neutral sound, as opposed to some audiophile products, purposely going after a colored sound. When a colored sound is the goal itself, then there's no reliable standard in which to judge things--everything's subjective. Regardless if this entire subject matter is inherently subjective due to our differences in hearing and listening environment, it's important to have the same ideal goal that can be scientifically measured (even your hearing can be tested), and the only way to have a singular, consistent goal, is to aim for neutrality.


----------



## Zida

Lunatique, I very much agree with your thoughts you posted. Personally I aim for equipment as neutral as possible and would rather precisely equalize my headphones myself than let an amp or dac colour my signal for me. I wonder though your opinions on tube amps. Sure they can be used for colouring your frequency response but assuming you got a relatively neutral amp/tube what would you think of using their inherent harmonic distortion for the "sweetening" of sound. 

 Personally my experience with tube amplification is limited to my guitar amps.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





coconutboy said:


> [size=medium]
> If you took offense from my "only a fool regards high priced watches" comment, apologies for my crude statement.  And while I see your point, this ain't ancient times with sundials.  Tracking time is easily and cheaply afforded to the masses, ergo the primary function of a watch is easily achieved. So anything in excess of that function is just that, excess. If you feel I'm denigrating watchmakers or their clients, that's simply not true. I have zero doubt there is a high degree of skill involved and that the process is truly an art.  However, you can't deny owning a pricey timepiece is not a luxury despite the skill and brilliance involved. Heck, even Rolex, Piaget and other high-end brands label their watches as such!​[/size]
> 
> 
> ...


 
  First of all, I did not take offense at what you said.  Makes no real difference to me what you say.  My reaction to your earlier post was that you did not feel it was right for anyone to have an appreciation for anything beyond the Timex.  Of course, anything more than a $10 timex is a luxury.


----------



## milosz

Fiftheenth A / B comparison:  Audio-Gd FUN & Fii0 E9  ::

  THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC TEST.

   

  I was hoping to get to this yesterday, but had some LAN issues to sort out before I could access my music server from the room I had set up for the test.  Got that all sorted and so here we are.

   

  This test is a little different.  I tried to do it in two stages


 Test using FiiO E9/E7 via USB  vs. FUN vs USB
 Test using FiiO E9 amp vs FUN amp using FUN DAC off USB as the source.
   

  I couldn't really achieve A/B type tests in (1.) - I wasn't able to switch over quickly enough for my liking between the FiiO E9/E7 to really have a nice direct A/B comparison.  5~15 seconds between A and B  isn't really good enough, IMHO.  So it wasn't an A/B test really.  Given my imperfect setp, the only impression that I had- an impression only, requiring further refinement of my method to achieve quicker switchover- is that FUN DAC/AMP combo had a slight edge on the FiiO E9/E7 combo in terms of transparency.  I will revisit this if I can later.

   

  SO:  on to comparing the E9 amp against the FUN amp using the dual-Wolfson DAC in the FUN as the source.

   

  LCD-2: Interesting that on the LCD-2, where I normally hear differences in bass, I heard differences in TREBLE with these two amps.  Sounded like the E9 had a little MORE treble, but was not quite as transparent.  Bass was very similar- with the E9 being a little "warmer" in the bass, and the FUN being a little more tightly controlled.  Both amps sounded pretty good on the LCD-2, with the FUN seeming to have a little more ability in dynamics when playing loud.

   

  HD800:  On the HD-800 the treble sounded just a little different between the two amps. I can't describe the differences, which were slight in any case. It didn't sound like the E9 was harmonically 'sweeter' - and there wasn't a discernible difference in clarity or resolution. Nor did it sound like either amp was more extended. There was just something _different._  I would say the closest I can come to describing the difference is that the FUN sounded subtly more natural than the E9.  They were very close in sound, but the FUN just had a little more relaxed and natural character.  Midrange and bass sounded about the same for both amps.


----------



## milosz

I find the comments here very interesting.
   
  I look forward to bringing (or sending, if I personally cannot attend) my automated A/B/X setup to some meets and club events to see how other listeners fare.  Certainly with just me doing the listening, this is not a sample of sufficient size.


----------



## olor1n

Finally, a comparison between an Audio-GD unit and the now ubiquitous FiiO combo. If only you had an NFB-11/12 or Sparrow on hand to do a similar comparison. It may convince newer members that there are other options out there in this entry level price range.
   
  Good job milosz. Although I don't subscribe to the extremes of the debate (I suspect you and a few others here don't either), these findings are interesting and worth sharing with the wider community. It's just disappointing that preachers on both sides are trying to twist your posts to suit their tired arguments.


----------



## coconutboy

Kickass thread, seriously. Still haven't made my way through each page of it yet, but the details gleaned from what I've read thus far have been very informative.  In addition to huge volume of equipment you've A/B'd, your thoughtful commentary is much appreciated. I've been looking towards a possible purchase of the Audio-GD FUN or else a variety of other combinations including the FiiO e9/e7. Still haven't made a concrete decision yet, but you've helped my decision-making tremendously. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  P.S. In case you haven't tested it yet, please give the Matrix m-stage a run.
  
  Quote: 





milosz said:


> Fiftheenth A / B comparison:  Audio-Gd FUN & Fii0 E9  ::


----------



## BobSaysHi

hey milosz, do you own a mini3? I'd be interested to read a sound comparison between that and the beta22.
   
  If you don't have one, would you be willing to do a comparison if I built one and sent it to you to so you could compare them?


----------



## milosz

No Mini³, or Matrix M-Stage on hand.  Sorry.
   
  If anyone wants to send me anything for comparison, please PM me, I am amenable. 
   
  I don't check Head-Fi every day, so it may take a few days to get a response.


----------



## Bacci

Quote: 





lunatique said:


> For many, that whole "finding synergy between amps and headphones" road leads to the wallet leaking a lot of money. For people with modest income, I would suggest an alternate route, and that is to use a quality parametric EQ in the signal chain. I prefer software because you can save presets and recall them easily, and also use them on different computers easily, but for those not using the computer as a source, a hardware unit would have to do, and there are quality digital parametric EQ's on the market that functions just like software ones do, except in a hardware box with LCD displaying the software graphics.


 
   
  By an affordable parametric EQ, do you mean kind of an Audyssey MultEQ for headphone rigs?
  Interesting. Do you have any recommendations?


----------



## milosz

Having a selection of differently "voiced" amplifiers on hand to get desired sonic results is a very expensive way to make a TONE CONTROL, no doubt about that.
   
  The one exception is the tube amp.  A tube amp often has a harmonic "flavor" that is different in nature than a static EQ curve.  I think it's nice to have a good solid state amp and a nice tube amp on hand.  There are high-quality tube and solid state amps available for reasonable prices.  You don't have to spend a ton to get really decent sound, especially if you shop the used market.  And if you are willing to build an amp- a project that I think offers a lot of "hobby fun" - you can do really well for not too much money.
   
  Although I like to have a tube amp as an alternative, I'd have to say if I was REALLY limited in budget, you get your best bang for your low-budget sonic buck with solid state designs.  But once you have a LITTLE more money, the selection opens up and includes some tube stuff.
   
  (Aside from using, for example, EQ in your computer to tailor the sound to the particular phones you're using, I imagine it's also possible to model amplifier sound in the digital domain.  I'm pretty sure you could cook up a DSP plug in for Winamp that would model tube sound.  There is something out there called iZotope Ozone, a DSP plugin for Winamp, that offers some of this stuff.  Winamp plugins also work with Media Monkey.  When I listen using a computer, I use Media Monkey and and this allows me to use an external DAC. I'll have to try this Ozone plugin.)


----------



## Nakattack

To be honest, I don't think amplifiers should have different flavours at all. Amplifiers should do exactly as their names suggest and amplify a signal, not add colouration or "flavour". I don't own a tube amp so I can't really comment on those, but a wire with gain is exactly how an amp should sound in my opinion.


----------



## iceman23

Well I think that, from the results here, we can see that this is most often the case. In general, at least. Going against the supposedly neutral Beta, the fact that the other amps sounds very similar should show that they are in fact not imparting intentionally heavy coloration. What a buyer should look to pay a premium for is more powe and in the case they desire a certain coloration, a tube design.


----------



## olor1n

Those in the "wire with gain camp" are really preaching to the choir here imo. I think the interesting thing with these comparisons is to get a sense of the lowest price point at which that may be achieved. However, people need to factor in the added cost and benefit of better components ie power supply, to account for performance increases (dynamics etc) outside of tonal presentation (which has been the main focus of discussion).


----------



## iceman23

Quote: 





olor1n said:


> However, people need to factor in the added cost and benefit of better components ie power supply, to account for performance increases (dynamics etc) outside of tonal presentation (which has been the main focus of discussion).


 

 This is of course true, and improves with the output power of the amp. Several of the reviews state difficulties in driving the LCD-2.


----------



## baka1969

Quote:Originally Posted by kwkarth 

"It's clear that you have no appreciation for the incredible melding of art, engineering, precision, and beauty that go into a fine timepiece, but that's ok, it's your preference.  Just don't denigrate others for appreciating something you do not.  I agree with your first paragraph.  Virtually everything in this world is subject to the laws of diminishing returns.  There are very few who even have opportunity to experience things beyond the knee of that curve, and fewer still, who appreciate those achievements for what they truly are and not just the shallow snob value that the the shallower and more distant perspective perceives.  
If one reads this and other threads here with an open and learning mind, it becomes quite easy to discern between those who are questing for perfection, and those who are after snob appeal.  The knee of the curve is discussed quite a bit here, and how to achieve it.  Look for it, and you will find it."


I actually agree with this entire statement. First with wrist watches. There are many brands of mechanical watches that most people aren't even aware of. Much of them are unassuming to look at. So it is the masterful craftsmanship and the brilliance of micro mechanics that are part of the appeal. If you understand what goes into a tourbillon or a minute repeater then you'd appreciate them a bit more. Those are amoung the perfection in the art and skill of watchmaking. I won't get into Rolex but that's a different subject. 

As for chasing the ghost of perfect audio reproduction, it's the diminishing returns that what many, like myself, are after. Kevin uses the knee analogy, I've said elbow. Both amount to the same thing. It looks like a natural yield curve. You get incremental gains in sound quality for exponential cost increases. If you're someone that want's to go after the lest few percentage points towards the elusive audio "perfection" then you'll pay dearly for it. Budgets and a willingness to pay are part of the equation too. 

I've listened to a good deal of amps and although there may or may not be huge differences between amps as I've moved up in cost, once I've experienced those differences, no matter how large or small, I have found it difficult for me to go back. Justifying the extra cost for me. Everyone's experience will vary.


----------



## debitsohn

Quote: 





baka1969 said:


> I actually agree with this entire statement. First with wrist watches. There are many brands of mechanical watches that most people aren't even aware of. Much of them are unassuming to look at. So it is the masterful craftsmanship and the brilliance of micro mechanics that are part of the appeal. If you understand what goes into a tourbillon or a minute repeater then you'd appreciate them a bit more. Those are amoung the perfection in the art and skill of watchmaking. I won't get into Rolex but that's a different subject.
> 
> As for chasing the ghost of perfect audio reproduction, it's the diminishing returns that what many, like myself, are after. Kevin uses the knee analogy, I've said elbow. Both amount to the same thing. It looks like a natural yield curve. You get incremental gains in sound quality for exponential cost increases. If you're someone that want's to go after the lest few percentage points towards the elusive audio "perfection" then you'll pay dearly for it. Budgets and a willingness to pay are part of the equation too.
> 
> I've listened to a good deal of amps and although there may or may not be huge differences between amps as I've moved up in cost, once I've experienced those differences, no matter how large or small, I have found it difficult for me to go back. Justifying the extra cost for me. Everyone's experience will vary.


 


  well said.


----------



## pp312

Quote: 





baka1969 said:


> I've listened to a good deal of amps and although there may or may not be huge differences between amps as I've moved up in cost, once I've experienced those differences, no matter how large or small, I have found it difficult for me to go back. Justifying the extra cost for me. Everyone's experience will vary.


 


 I don't think anyone's questioning your or anyone's right to pursue "perfection" to any kind of fiscal height, but I think one has to be careful not to lose perspective when offering advice to others. As you say, you can't go back, but there are those who, even if they went as far as you, might not hear what you hear, or think it was worth anything like what they had to pay to hear it. I think it's very easy to look back in contempt at what one had and wonder how one ever put up with it, or why anyone should have to, and advise accordingly, forgetting that most people are perfectly happy with gear that would have you running from the room. I personally tend to take more note of those posters whose gear in not too exotic when seeking advice; I never quite trust the perspective of the others.
   
  Of course, none of these comments is meant to apply to you personally (unless the shoe fits, of course). I'm merely making a philosophical observation.


----------



## baka1969

Quote:Originally Posted by pp312 


"I don't think anyone's questioning your or anyone's right to pursue "perfection" to any kind of fiscal height, but I think one has to be careful not to lose perspective when offering advice to others. As you say, you can't go back, but there are those who, even if they went as far as you, might not hear what you hear, or think it was worth anything like what they had to pay to hear it. I think it's very easy to look back in contempt at what one had and wonder how one ever put up with it, or why anyone should have to, and advise accordingly, forgetting that most people are perfectly happy with gear that would have you running from the room. I personally tend to take more note of those posters whose gear in not too exotic when seeking advice; I never quite trust the perspective of the others.
Of course, none of these comments is meant to apply to you personally (unless the shoe fits, of course). I'm merely making a philosophical observation."

If you read through all my posts on Head-Fi you'll see I continue to point out the strengths or weaknesses of the equipment I have experience with. Even ones I didn't like personally. An example is the HD650. Not my favorite headphone. That said, I can understand what others like in it and can hear that it's a quality headphone. It just doesn't suit me. I think the Grado SR-80 is one of the best headphone bargains. Period. Even though I've moved on from the Grado house sound. I prefer my humble RE0 to the much more expensive SE535. 

When answering a post I try to answer within the OP's needs. That said, I'm not going to back down from my beliefs. Chasing the ghost of "perfection" is something that many of us pursue. I am one of them. I think the fact that it's impossible to achieve only the makes the drive that much more magnetic. So I think an amp that is an improvement to me is worth it. It may seem like a small difference to some. But once I hear it, it becomes pretty substantial to me. As I've said before one person's small is another person's big. 

Of course there are things that can be done within the confines of someone's budget and willingness to get that much closer to nirvana. Like making sure their music format, front end source, DAC, and yes, amp are on par with the headphone to get it to perform and sound it's best as a system. 

Decide what is and isn't important to you.


----------



## pp312

Just to make my point clear without quoting your post or getting into fine details: your goals and standards in hi-fi are your own business; what I'm cautioning about is you or any poster making recommmendations based on standards which may be completely irrelevant to the enquirer. I believe you did that in another thread when you advised against the OP buying a 650 because he was listening to MP3 files. I don't intend to fight that battle again, but like yourself, neither do I intend to back down from my beliefs and standards nor stand by while enquirers are being given poor, misleading and expensive advice.   
   
  Oh, and on a personal note, the 650 is my favourite headphone and I thought the Grado SR80 was the worst HP I'd ever heard. Just goes to show that one man's audio bargain can be the next man's total rubbish.


----------



## debitsohn

Quote: 





pp312 said:


> I don't think anyone's questioning your or anyone's right to pursue "perfection" to any kind of fiscal height, *but I think one has to be careful not to lose perspective when offering advice to others*. As you say, you can't go back, but there are those who, even if they went as far as you, might not hear what you hear, or think it was worth anything like what they had to pay to hear it. I think it's very easy to look back in contempt at what one had and wonder how one ever put up with it, or why anyone should have to, and advise accordingly, forgetting that most people are perfectly happy with gear that would have you running from the room.* I personally tend to take more note of those posters whose gear in not too exotic when seeking advice; I never quite trust the perspective of the others.*
> 
> Of course, none of these comments is meant to apply to you personally (unless the shoe fits, of course). I'm merely making a philosophical observation.


 

 that is true, but the ppl on here and around the forum that are suggesting that the fiio e9 can properly drive the hd800 are also losing perspective when offering advice to others.
  and 100% your statement is not true about baka1969.  he is always telling both sides of the story and is constantly knocking sense into me about gear.
  by exotic, do you mean expensive?  so you must not put any weight into what headphone addict, skylab, and other people on here say?  i assure you, there are people with good and bad gear that will tell you their perspective is absolutely 100% truth. i tend to want to try things myself AFTER seeking advise from the great ppl on the site. by know i think i know who has the same audio ideals and tastes i do.


----------



## Lunatique

Quote: 





bacci said:


> By an affordable parametric EQ, do you mean kind of an Audyssey MultEQ for headphone rigs?
> Interesting. Do you have any recommendations?


 

 I think most people will do just fine using a free quality EQ like Easy-Q from re-met.com. You can't really try to measure with standard pro audio measuring mic and then correct the frequency response, since that's not headphones are measured--you need one of those expensive dummy heads with measuring mic inside the ear canal. I've tried using a CD and having the mic through the hole, but I doubt that's all that accurate. So in the end, I do it by ear. Since my reference monitors and my studio are treated/corrected to be as flat as possible, I just compare the headphone to the monitors and then tweak. If the Audyssey ever makes a product that tests headphones, I'm sure it'll sell very well though.


----------



## baka1969

Quote:Originally Posted by pp312 

 "Just to make my point clear without quoting your post or getting into fine details: your goals and standards in hi-fi are your own business; what I'm cautioning about is you or any poster making recommmendations based on standards which may be completely irrelevant to the enquirer. I believe you did that in another thread when you advised against the OP buying a 650 because he was listening to MP3 files. I don't intend to fight that battle again, but like yourself, neither do I intend to back down from my beliefs and standards nor stand by while enquirers are being given poor, misleading and expensive advice.   
 Oh, and on a personal note, the 650 is my favourite headphone and I thought the Grado SR80 was the worst HP I'd ever heard. Just goes to show that one man's audio bargain can be the next man's total rubbish."

 Suggesting to someone that they should upgrade from mp3 files to lossless files is hardly irrelevant. It's an improvement. I've also addressed the issues in this thread and commented about them.


----------



## Zida

Quote: 





baka1969 said:


> Suggesting to someone that they should upgrade from mp3 files to lossless files is hardly irrelevant. It's an improvement. I've also addressed the issues in this thread and commented about them.


 


  I haven't seen the thread you guys are talking about so I don't know exactly what was said, but I would never deter someone away from a great headphone just because they still use MP3. I personally still have yet to find the difference between 192kbps and flac. I make sure to retest it every time I upgrade my rig and I'm right now up to HE-6. The quality of recording / mastering makes a waaaay bigger difference than having a lossless rip. IF there's something missing it would become apparent to him on his newer better headphones, no need to talk him out of it.


----------



## Armaegis

I have to agree with that. 192kbps is about my threshhold for reliably picking out lossy vs lossless, and heck on some songs even 128kbps can be difficult to pick out when the tracks are acoustically simple. Older encodings (and I'm talking_ at least_ 5+ years ago) had more issues with encoding artifacts, but modern ones are quite clean. A good or bad recording/mastering will show through regardless of mp3 quality.
   
  One area where I find encoding artifacts really become prominent is when converting from one format to another. This was really bad years ago when people would muck around with their itunes libraries not really knowing what they were doing, rip their cds not knowing aac was the default, then later converting their libraries into mp3. Yuck.
   
  So in summary, I blame itunes


----------



## Zida

Oh lord yes, MP3 has come a long way. Old 128 rips sound underwater. These days 128 can be wholly passable, but are worth trading up for 196+ with a half decent listening rig.


----------



## baka1969

Quote:Originally Posted by Zida 



 "I haven't seen the thread you guys are talking about so I don't know exactly what was said, but I would never deter someone away from a great headphone just because they still use MP3. I personally still have yet to find the difference between 192kbps and flac. I make sure to retest it every time I upgrade my rig and I'm right now up to HE-6. The quality of recording / mastering makes a waaaay bigger difference than having a lossless rip. IF there's something missing it would become apparent to him on his newer better headphones, no need to talk him out of it."


 And what of the emergence of the hi-rez downloads? Are those just a waste of bandwidth? A trick? Irrelevant? I doubt it. Nor would I suggest otherwise. Are the new hi-rez formats an audible improvement over 44.1? Almost certainly. Is "Redbook" better than 320kps mp3? Yep. Is recommending to someone that they should look at upgrading a part of the music chain misguided? Absolutely not. Will it make as much difference as an amp/DAC/source upgrade? That depends. Results will vary. But it's not irresponsible to suggest that lossless formats are better than lossy formats.


----------



## estreeter

I have a Linux plugin that lets me do DBT - bit of a novelty at first, but I rapidly got bored with it. Unless the difference between two samples is night-and-day, I have a tendency to just start picking 'B' and caring less and less about the outcome - far prefer to just listen to music. Plenty of boredom to be had at work.


----------



## Zida

I have no comment about higher than CD formats.

 I agree that lossless formats are better than lossy formats. If I didn't have to go through a ton of work re-downloading my entire catalog into FLAC I would, but not because I myself have heard the difference. I very much believe one _can _hear the difference, myself included. I just haven't.

 I will reiterate that I don't even know what thread the two of you were referring to so I'm not attacking you or what you said, I just had to comment that I firmly believe one can enjoy better equipment even with a lossy format. Especially if the equipment one is upgrading is their headphones where there is so much more to improve than little brickwalls in the extreme frequencies.


----------



## olor1n

The OP in that thread clearly stated in the first post that the quality of his files varied (not ripped from CD or purchased from iTunes) and presumably of questionable origins. People (rightly, imo) suggested the OP perhaps upgrade those files before considering other components in his chain. The MP3 warriors rode in and derailed it into a lossy vs lossless debate, completely missing the OP's most pressing need. Typical Head-Fi dribble.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





olor1n said:


> The OP in that thread clearly stated in the first post that the quality of his files varied (not ripped from CD or purchased from iTunes) and presumably of questionable origins. People (rightly, imo) suggested the OP perhaps upgrade those files before considering other components in his chain. The MP3 warriors rode in and derailed it into a lossy vs lossless debate, completely missing the OP's most pressing need. Typical Head-Fi dribble.


 
  Since you've so aptly identified the fatal flaw here, surely, you must have the antidote for the poison in the pot!  So let's have it!


----------



## olor1n

Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> Since you've so aptly identified the fatal flaw here, surely, you must have the antidote for the poison in the pot!  So let's have it!


 


  Don't want to derail this thread any further. Response PMed.


----------



## kwkarth

Thank you!


----------



## pp312

Quote: 





baka1969 said:


> Quote:Originally Posted by Zida
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 No one is suggesting that "recommending to someone that they should look at upgrading a part of the music chain" is misguided, nor was that ever suggested. My objection was to the advice, or implication, that MP3 files were not worthy of an HD650, that since the quality of his files was variable the enquirer should consider a cheaper headphone. I believe this is nonsense. Several comments in this thread make it clear that many people (myself included) cannot tell the difference between 192 MP3 and FLAC. But whatever the quality or bitrate, a 650 will make them sound better, no question.
   
  Oh, for anyone with time on his hands here's the crux of the argument:  http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/544070/sennheiser-650s-computer-headphone-jack-what-am-i-missing/30


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





pp312 said:


> No one is suggesting that "recommending to someone that they should look at upgrading a part of the music chain" is misguided, nor was that ever suggested. My objection was to the advice, or implication, that MP3 files were not worthy of an HD650, that since the quality of his files was variable the enquirer should consider a cheaper headphone. I believe this is nonsense. Several comments in this thread make it clear that many people (myself included) cannot tell the difference between 192 MP3 and FLAC. But whatever the quality or bitrate, a 650 will make them sound better, no question.
> 
> Oh, for anyone with time on his hands here's the crux of the argument:  http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/544070/sennheiser-650s-computer-headphone-jack-what-am-i-missing/30


 
  Thank you for sharing your opinion.  There are many exceptions to your opinions and they're as welcome and as valid.  Cheers!


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





pp312 said:


> But whatever the quality or bitrate, a 650 will make them sound better, no question.


 

 You betcha it will!


----------



## olor1n

^ Lol. What is that?


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





olor1n said:


> ^ Lol. What is that?


 


  It's this little cube player I used a few years ago.......  it had no trouble powering my 650s or 880s to moderate volumes without distortion.
   
  Here's another pic I took of it....
   

   
  Of course it could be used with an amp, but that defeated it's size.  I would just put the cube in my shirt pocket and listen to music with my 650s or 880s.


----------



## Zida

Hehe that little thing is hilarious. The aux plug must penetrate like half the way through it!

 I would like the next A/B to be between that little sucker and the B22. We all know who'll win but wont that just make for the cutest Source photos?


----------



## pp312

Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> Thank you for sharing your opinion.  There are many exceptions to your opinions.....


 


 No, no!!! I won't have it, I tell you! It's too much to bear!


----------



## milosz

128k MP3's don't sound all THAT bad.... kind of like listening to the radio.  Listening to SOMA FM/Groove Salad 128k stream sounds better, to my ears, than typical FM radio.  Part of that is because commercial FM radio compresses the hell out of the audio, but also because in a city with tall steel buildings - like Chicago, where I live- the multipath is so awful it's a wonder that most tuners don't just give up in disgust and frustration.
   
  Certainly, I don't think 128k MP3 is  "where it's at" for serious listening, but for background music it is just fine.  And it's really great to have the availability of tons of specialized streams from around the world.  
   
  And of course, if you go to Shoutcast.com  you can see there are many streams available at higher rates-  really quite a few at 320 kbps and even 2 streams at 917 kbps. It's funny, though- there are many, many streams with only 1 or 2 listeners.
   
  By the way, I have 2 free streams that I run.  They're not music, though...   they're MONO and 48 kbps.  But for spoken word / old time radio / drama etc that's OK.
   
http://AudioNoir.com
http://InsomniaTheater.com


----------



## Lunatique

People have GOT to stop regurgitating the stuff about how one MUST have lossless files or the audio gear is somehow not being used to its full potential. That is just ridiculous. I wish I could gather up all the people who regurgitate that stuff and put them in a high-end mastering facility (where reference monitors alone cost as much as a very nice car, and the DAC alone cost more than a very high-end computer) and play them well-encoded lossy files and lossless files, and have them try to pass a double blind test. If they cannot pass the double-blind test, then they need to just stop bringing this up. Forever. And if they cannot tell the difference through the most high-end mastering loudspeakers and DAC, then what chance do they have with $500 headphones? Seriously, let's try to put all this into proper perspective.
   
  An overwhelming majority of decently encoded lossy files using today's latest iteration of a good encoder, will sound absolutely transparent to an overwhelmingly large percentage of the population, including an overwhelmingly large percentage of the so-called audiophile and pro audio crowd. If you happen to be one of those people with dog-like hearing, then congratulations--good for you, but know that you are in a small minority, and most people cannot hear those differences, so it shouldn't matter to them. And even if you can hear that very subtle 1% to 2% of a difference, does it even matter at all when you are not doing what's is essentially a rigorous hearing test? Who the hell listens to music as if they are taking a hearing exam? The moment you stop doing rigorous A/B comparison tests and double blind tests, none of these very subtle differences will have any meaning anymore, because you wouldn't notice them AT ALL. 
   
  This whole discussion is totally irrelevant in today's technological climate. It is nothing but a remnant of issues caused by old technology that's still being regurgitated today. It's just like how today's typical consumer electronics will have  significantly superior DAC compared to the professional DAC's from fifteen years ago, yet people are still going on and on about how you MUST have some kind of expensive boutique standalone DAC that costs so much but gives back astounding diminishing returns. 
   
  If you are rich, then fine, play the game of diminishing returns. Buy your way into the so-called perfection by paying 300 times more and get MAYBE a 3% increase in very subtle improvement that you may or may not even be able to reliably discern during double-blind tests. But the tragedy has ALWAYS been that this kind of mentality is so prevalent even among people who are NOT rich--not by any means, yet they are so brain-washed by the rich snobs that they think that's what they must also do, or else this hobby will cease to have any meaning or something. It's just tragic.


----------



## Skylab

If we are not allowed to care about that final few percent of additional performance, what, exactly, is the point of this site?  The whole point about caring about audio reproduction is improving things at the margin.  That doesn't have to cost a lot.  And in many cases, like ripping from CD's, you can get an improvement for FREE.  We should not only care about such improvements, we should cherish them.  I don't get why people spend time on a site devoted to sound, if they don't actually care about trying to maximize it.  It is NOT about how MUCH you spend.  It's about HOW you spend.


----------



## olor1n

Edit: Not getting drawn into this again but for those wanting to get into the mud slinging, here's the thread in question. Please read it from the OP for some perspective.


----------



## Lunatique

Quote: 





skylab said:


> If we are not allowed to care about that final few percent of additional performance, what, exactly, is the point of this site?  The whole point about caring about audio reproduction is improving things at the margin.  That doesn't have to cost a lot.  And in many cases, like ripping from CD's, you can get an improvement for FREE.  We should not only care about such improvements, we should cherish them.  I don't get why people spend time on a site devoted to sound, if they don't actually care about trying to maximize it.  It is NOT about how MUCH you spend.  It's about HOW you spend.


 

 I'm not saying it shouldn't be allowed--what I'm talking about is putting things into proper perspective and context.
   
  The so-called "improvement" from ripping a lossless file--in what ways exactly is it a "benefit" if the the differences cannot be heard, and it only takes up more storage space? So now this person instead of being able to have 2000 songs on his portable player can only have 200? People instead of making blanket statements about how lossless is superior and there's no reason to not rip in lossless, how about actually being a realist and being fair and actually mention the fact that an overwhelming majority of human beings cannot tell the difference between a relatively good quality lossy file and a lossless one, so it really doesn't matter NEARLY as much as people think?
   
  If people cannot hear the differences now at their current age, with the current encoding algorithms, then it's NEVER going to change in the future, because our hearing will only get worse as we age, never better, and encoding algorithms will only become superior, not worse. So it's extremely unlikely anyone who can't hear the differences now will all of a sudden be able to in the future. So why does it matter in any way, shape, or form, to rip lossless when you cannot hear the difference anyway? And the argument of "once you upgrade your gear you'll be able to hear the differences" doesn't hold much water either, because like I already said, I can put a bunch of so-called audiophiles and pro audio guys into the most high-end mastering facility using some of the most uber high-end gear on planet earth, then have them do double-blind tests of well-encoded lossy and lossless files, and it would be very embarrassing for many of these folks who are always foaming at the mouth about this issue when they cannot reliably pass these double-bind tests. 
   
  I'm all for spending money on things where the listener can RELIABLY tell the difference every time, and the differences are significant enough to have actual meaning, other than proving to the world that you have dog-like hearing and can hear differences that have zero real-life impact in how much joy you are getting out of your music. That very subtle 1~2% difference will NOT even register in your brain AT ALL the moment you stop performing these rigorous hearing tests on yourself. 
   
  What I'm advocating, is to be objective and pragmatic. No egos. No vanity. No elitism, No pissing contests. Focus on the elements that actually have real life impact on how we enjoy our music, not how we do when we perform rigorous hearing tests on ourselves. Put the horse back before the carriage, in other words.


----------



## Petyot

Quote: 





lunatique said:


> What I'm advocating, is to be objective and pragmatic. No egos. No vanity. No elitism, No pissing contests. Focus on the elements that actually have real life impact on how we enjoy our music, not how we do when we perform rigorous hearing tests on ourselves. Put the horse back before the carriage, in other words.


 


  The more I read you, the more I like what you say... Thanks!


----------



## Skylab

Well, I think the idea that enjoyment of audio gear had to be limited to what we can discern on a rigorous double-blind test is just a different form of snobbery. I also think it's silly. But I'm very tired of this line of argument, as I have been into audio for three decades, and the argument has been going on long before then. Suffice it to say that while your command of the English language is outstanding, Lunatique, that doesn't mean your well stated post is in any way definitive, any more than my disagreement with you is - these are purely opinions, and I, for one, am very, very glad indeed that not everyone feels the way that you do, because if they did, I would have a lot less things in this hobby to be interested in. I enjoy the dialog about the effect of different thing on the very margins of audio.


----------



## Mad Lust Envy

Quote: 





lunatique said:


> People have GOT to stop regurgitating the stuff about how one MUST have lossless files or the audio gear is somehow not being used to its full potential. That is just ridiculous. I wish I could gather up all the people who regurgitate that stuff and put them in a high-end mastering facility (where reference monitors alone cost as much as a very nice car, and the DAC alone cost more than a very high-end computer) and play them well-encoded lossy files and lossless files, and have them try to pass a double blind test. If they cannot pass the double-blind test, then they need to just stop bringing this up. Forever. And if they cannot tell the difference through the most high-end mastering loudspeakers and DAC, then what chance do they have with $500 headphones? Seriously, let's try to put all this into proper perspective.
> 
> An overwhelming majority of decently encoded lossy files using today's latest iteration of a good encoder, will sound absolutely transparent to an overwhelmingly large percentage of the population, including an overwhelmingly large percentage of the so-called audiophile and pro audio crowd. If you happen to be one of those people with dog-like hearing, then congratulations--good for you, but know that you are in a small minority, and most people cannot hear those differences, so it shouldn't matter to them. And even if you can hear that very subtle 1% to 2% of a difference, does it even matter at all when you are not doing what's is essentially a rigorous hearing test? Who the hell listens to music as if they are taking a hearing exam? The moment you stop doing rigorous A/B comparison tests and double blind tests, none of these very subtle differences will have any meaning anymore, because you wouldn't notice them AT ALL.
> 
> ...


 

 This X 100000000000000000000.
   
  That is precisely everything I have been debating about this ENTIRE time. Thanks for this.
   
  There's so much elitist nonsense on Head-fi, it's not even funny. Wait, it IS funny.
   
  "AMP A only gets you 95% of what AMP B gives you. You won't truly appreciate your headphone unless you use AMP B, because AMP B is reference class, while AMP A isn't meant to be taken seriously."
   
  In here, it seems to be about what high end equipment you own, rather than the point where a certain setup can be enjoyable for the majority of people.
   
  I am one who is not able to truly tell between a well encoded 192kbps and FLAC, at least with NORMAL listening. I'd have to sit there and spend a considerable amount of time seeing how FLAC sounds better, and even then I feel it's more in my mind than actual performance. Normal listening tends to happen 99.9999999% for most people, am I right? Who LITERALLY stands there and says to themselves "Hey, if I spend a while A/B testing between an MP3 and FLAC, I can tell the FLAC is better, so I'm gonna go ahead and delete my MP3s in favor of FLAC, even if I have to upgrade my HDD to fit all my music in it now." If you're spending a large amount of time trying to find a reason why something is better rather than enjoying it, well then, you've already lost. Something has to be CLEARLY, without a doubt, a real improvement for it to be considered worthwhile to me. I'm willing to bet that it's the same for most people. I see on here how people just go by what others suggest, even if they probably would've been been just as happy with something worth 1/4 the price. It's that 'prestige' mentality that just doesn't sit well with me.
   
  I understand that high end equipment has it's place, however, not a lot of people have the ridiculous budgets being flaunted about on here. A person asks for a complete setup in the $600 range, and ends up getting suggestions on saving up money for an $800 because it will be THAT much better. That's the kind of bullcrap that irritates the hell out of me on Head-fi.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





skylab said:


> If we are not allowed to care about that final few percent of additional performance, what, exactly, is the point of this site?  The whole point about caring about audio reproduction is improving things at the margin.  That doesn't have to cost a lot.  And in many cases, like ripping from CD's, you can get an improvement for FREE.  We should not only care about such improvements, we should cherish them.  I don't get why people spend time on a site devoted to sound, if they don't actually care about trying to maximize it.  It is NOT about how MUCH you spend.  It's about HOW you spend.


 
  Well said Rob.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





lunatique said:


> I'm not saying it shouldn't be allowed--what I'm talking about is putting things into proper perspective and context.
> 
> The so-called "improvement" from ripping a lossless file--in what ways exactly is it a "benefit" if the the differences cannot be heard, and it only takes up more storage space? So now this person instead of being able to have 2000 songs on his portable player can only have 200? People instead of making blanket statements about how lossless is superior and there's no reason to not rip in lossless, how about actually being a realist and being fair and actually mention the fact that an overwhelming majority of human beings cannot tell the difference between a relatively good quality lossy file and a lossless one, so it really doesn't matter NEARLY as much as people think?
> 
> ...


 
  Good post as well.  So we have pragmatic audiophiles, and audiophools.  I think you and Rob are essentially saying much the same thing, and just using different angles to describe the same result.  I think the biggest difference is that while some of us are content to take someone else's word for something, there are others among us who love the thrill of discovery, for ourselves.  The journey does not have to be fraught with epic expenditure, but rather conducted with common sense, and we all know, common sense isn't... common.


----------



## Mad Lust Envy

Kinda reminds me of what I see in the HDTV front. 720p vs 1080p anyone? Person A owns a 1080p HDTV, while Person B is deciding on whether he should get 720p or 1080p.
   
  1080p is better in certain situations (size to viewing distance is everything for 1080p, which actually has a very small window before 1080p is rendered useless in a 'setup', where 720p would have been just as good).
   
  In any case, Person A recommends 1080p because it's technically superior, though Person B's situation has it where a 720p would be just as enjoyable as the 1080p due to his seating distance and size of the TV. You'd be surprised at how many have 1080p TVs yet sit far enough away from them to only be able to see 720p-like detail.
   
  Same thing can be said about Audio amps, formats, and headphones. The best and pricier stuff gets recommended, where in the majority of situations, the person asking wouldn't be able to benefit from the extra 5%.
   
  But hey, it is what it is. Just the Head-fi mentality. I learned to brush it off and go by stuff that isn't obviously biased, and more 'realistic'. That's why I rather listen to people like milosz who has given his stuff a real chance with an unbiased opinion, instead of people who say one is clearly better than the other, when they probably only heard the 'other' at a meet, or already went in with the mentality that their pricier equipment is better, swaying their bias.
   
  I wish people would honestly say stuff like "If I sit here and REALLY pay attention, I can see how this item may be just a little better than this other item, but I'd have to actively pay attention to every little nuance to truly see this"
   
  Instead we get "OMG, THIS ITEMZ BLOWS THIS OTHER ONE AWAY! ITS LIEK OPENING MY EARZ FOR THE FURST TIEM. THE OTHER ONE I HAVE ENJOYED SUX. MY NEW ONE IS MUCVH BETERZ"
   
  Tell me how that is an unbiased, or real impression?
   
  People are impressionable. Whenever they get a new item, it's almost ALWAYS superior to the old one. That's why I will never just outright believe someone who just happened to get an item.


----------



## Zida

I think everyone is able to agree with a lot that everyone says. As Kwkarth said (that I only noticed halfway through this posting), Most of us agree on a lot of the same ideas, just some of us take it in different ways.

 For the sake of ending this argument as far as this thread is concerned I have written up a list of points that I think every poster here should be able to agree to, do with it what you will.

 - Flac is inherently better than MP3. By it's very definition of Lossless vs. Lossy this shouldn't even be up for discussion.
 - In a perfect world we would all have unlimited access to unlimited FLAC from any source, that is to say storage, capacity, and availability would be a null issue. In this world we would all use FLAC. Why the hell wouldn't we!
 - Not all of us can actively hear any difference between FLAC and good MP3s, and it doesn't seem to matter whether we have a high end setup or a _very_ high end setup. Either you got it or you don't.
 - We can, therefor, enjoy high end equipment regardless of our choice to use FLAC or quality MP3 (or whatever lossy compression you like). 
  -Since this isn't the perfect world I have previously mentioned, combining all my previous points: *some* of us just don't need to use FLAC. Period. (by some I mean a large sum, not just a couple unfortunate souls)

 - The pursuit of the last 3% is a justifiable one, and if FLAC makes up that last 3% to you then great, you know what you need to do. It isn't for everyone.


 If anyone thinks I left anything out or made any mistakes here let me know, but lets not start a flame thrower over it.


 edit: oh Hell no. Don't you get to raggin' on my 1080p


----------



## kwkarth

It's getting hard to buy a 720p display over 15" these days, not that I want one.


----------



## Mad Lust Envy

Lol, hey all my displays have been 1080p for the past 5 years. Nowadays, 1080p is pretty much the standard for TVs over 40".
   
  I was mainly referring to that particular war when 1080p was the new 'thing'. Everyone had to have it, and yet an overwhelming majority of people not only didn't need it, but COULDN'T see the difference even if they were A/B in them against 720p at proper discernable viewing distances. Then there's that fact that the majority of consumers sat too far from their 1080p sets to even gain any benefit over 720p. I had a 67" that I used to sit about 8 feet from, which was the absolute optimal seating distance to see the full benefit of 1080p. That's for 67". People are sitting that far (or FURTHER) from their 40-55" tvs... so yeah...
   
  Just food for thought. 
   
  Sorry for going off topic, though I found it relevant as it sorta is how MP3 vs FLAC is, which is even harder to discern.


----------



## dan1son

/me mellows out to some Joanna Newsom encoded with lame -V0.   
   
  Seriously guys...  Take a well known album (well known to you of course), encode it with mp3/ogg/aac different bitrates/variable/flac/redbook and decide for yourself.  Find your happy medium between transparency, size, compatibility and rip rip rip.  This should be a non-issue.  My standards and requirements have changed.  I used to use ogg -q3, then -q6, now lame -v0.  I'd still use ogg over mp3 if I didn't have stuff that won't play oggs.


----------



## dailysmoker

i also do not see the difference between 1080p and 720p i have a 42 " inch full hd tv but do not see it and what mp3 320 vs flac sometimes with some genre's like reggea i do hear the difference between them just a little clearer and more rich in  sound but i think wav is also a little better then flac when i listen to bob marley in flac or wav i prefer wav.......


----------



## olor1n

mad lust envy said:


> This X 100000000000000000000.
> 
> That is precisely everything I have been debating about this ENTIRE time. Thanks for this.
> 
> ...




I take issue with how you paint people with broad strokes.

If you were more perceptive of both sides of these arguments you'd notice that the ones that obssess more about A/B tests are often those in the "good enough" camp.

These tests, and its results on others, are ALWAYS brought up as a crutch and is employed to undermine someone's own first hand experience. If a person can (or believes they can) perceive minute differences and can justify the added expense (however large or small) and effort to enhance the experience for themselves, then who are you to tell them they're deluded? And at what point are these tests not required if, to the listener, these differences are less than subtle?


----------



## olor1n

Quote: 





zida said:


> I think everyone is able to agree with a lot that everyone says. As Kwkarth said (that I only noticed halfway through this posting), Most of us agree on a lot of the same ideas, just some of us take it in different ways.
> 
> For the sake of ending this argument as far as this thread is concerned I have written up a list of points that I think every poster here should be able to agree to, do with it what you will.
> 
> ...


 


  Yep. Why the hell wouldn't I?
   
  It's not impractical for me and puts this silly debate beyond doubt. I don't have to worry about this particular aspect of my chain being somehow deficient and can just listen to and enjoy my music without ever worrying about A/B tests.


----------



## pp312

Quote: 





skylab said:


> Well, I think the idea that enjoyment of audio gear had to be limited to what we can discern on a rigorous double-blind test is just a different form of snobbery. I also think it's silly. But I'm very tired of this line of argument, as I have been into audio for three decades, and the argument has been going on long before then. Suffice it to say that while your command of the English language is outstanding, Lunatique, that doesn't mean your well stated post is in any way definitive, any more than my disagreement with you is - these are purely opinions, and I, for one, am very, very glad indeed that not everyone feels the way that you do, because if they did, I would have a lot less things in this hobby to be interested in. I enjoy the dialog about the effect of different thing on the very margins of audio.


 

 I'm not sure I understand this post. It seems to suggest that certain things are being forbidden, whereas I don't see that at all. Discussions about fine degrees of difference will go on whatever anyone else says; what Lunatique is saying is that people often lose perspective when replying to newbie posters (in particular) and allow their own rarified standards to affect their advice. Harking back to the source of this debate, the OP asked a question about amps and was subsequently advised that if his listening was done on low bitrate MP3s (even though he'd only said 'variable') using a phone as good as the 650 was a waste of time.The following statement was made: "I personally wouldn't spend $300+ on a pair of HPs if i primarily listened to a lossy format. If you can't hear the difference, maybe your hi-fi widgets aren't up to the task" which more or less summed up the "purist" point of view and is the sort of thing I (and I believe Lunatique and Brent Hutto from the original thread, if I may speak for them) object to. There's nothing wrong with believing this and discussing it with other like-minded enthusiasts, but it's bad advice to someone who only wrote enquiring whether an upgrade of amp would be worthwhile given his 'variable' MP3 files. And as Lunatique suggests, it's not part of the real world where most people can't even detect the difference between lossless and 192 MP3, let alone 320. And this 'If you can't hear the difference your equipment isn't good enough" stuff just ignores the fact that, as Lunatique says (sorry to keep taking your name in vain, mate) even golden ear pros using top equipment often can't hear a difference. As I said in the original thread: "But is that difference significant, honestly? Not, can you detect it if you really listen on certain recordings, but is it likely to seriously interfere with your listening pleasure were you not to know what you were listening to?--that's the real question." Because it's one thing to detect a difference, and even be able to reliably detect it each time, quite another for that difference to be significant enough to affect one's everyday pleasure in the music. I just think we lose perspective in these discussions and forget that other people have quite different priorities and, while they want good sound, just aren't interested in continually listening for minute shadings of difference.
   
   
  Back in 1978 I wrote in an Australian Hi-Fi mag a semi-humorous article called "Music V Hi-Fi" in which I said, "Now I notice that I very seldom listen to music; I only listen to sound. Records with good music but poor sound are put aside in favour of records with poor music but good sound. I listen now to the tone before the tune; the bass and treble before the flute and fiddle. I have become, God help me, a hi-fi fanatic..."
   
  Seems not much has changed in 30+ years.


----------



## olor1n

Fanatics abound on both sides pp312 (and yes, water is wet 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




). There seems to be a common thread in the posts from the "lossy" side of the debate. Namely, the assumption that enjoyment and appreciation of the music is thrown out the window when higher resolutions are involved. Yes, there are those who've perhaps lost their way and obsess about such things, but quality and over analysis don't always go hand in hand.


----------



## Skylab

Y'Know, I had made another post, but I'm not interested in debating this topic any more. Y'all enjoy. Peace out.


----------



## Mad Lust Envy

What... account hax....


----------



## olor1n

Quote: 





skylab said:


> Y'Know, I had made another post, but I'm not interested in debating this topic any more. Y'all enjoy. Peace out.


 

 Shouldn't have edited that post Skylab. Your responses are well reasoned and conveyed, although conveniently, some have overlooked the neutral stance of your posts.

 It's disappointing that those painting others as being at one extreme are silencing the ones trying to present a balanced counterpoint.


----------



## bumblingbooby

I like the way the OP has just carried on regardless.


----------



## olor1n

MLE, I hope your account hasn't actually been hacked. If you're just feeling the wrath of the moderators I can relate. A lot of my posts have inexplicable disappeared into the ether. Perhaps people like us need to learn to be less blunt about how we express our views. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  On a related note, props to Currawong, who actually pays you the courtesy of explaining why certain posts have attracted his attention.


----------



## Mad Lust Envy

Oh, its hacked. My email changed to something else entirely, as well as my details disappearing, some options changed, and my gaming headphone guide was deleted.

I personally don't care if people see me as being too blunt or not. Its about time someone actually called people out on the elitist nonsense going on around here. I'm speaking in general.


----------



## Lunatique

In my personal experience, even crappy recordings will benefit greatly from quality gear, so I don't agree with the mentality that if someone was listening to lossy files, they shouldn't waste their money on quality headphones. For example, I have some really old cassette recordings that friends in high school made for me that are muffled, full of noise, distortion, azimuth irregularities, and so on, and some are artists I still haven't been able to identify to this day, so I have no way of tracking down better quality recordings of those songs. During the evolution of my listening habits and studio setup, these old crappy recordings have been played on a variety of equipment in the last couple of decades. With each improvement of gear, I was able to hear more detail in those crappy recordings than before, which means those details were always there, just that the crappy earbuds and boomboxes I started with as a teenager weren't able to resolve those details. Now that I have the most ideal studio setup I can afford, I'm hearing a lot of stuff in these old recordings that I never did in the past. Instead of what people commonly refer to as "better equipment will make lower-quality recordings unbearable because the flaws will become too obvious" I experienced the opposite. The better gear actually made the crappy recordings far more enjoyable because now I have a neutral platform for those old recordings to stand on. 
   
  Most inferior gear (not the same as cheap, since some cheap gear can be excellent) have unacceptable coloration, and what happens when you listen to bad recordings on them is that those colorations will exacerbate the deficiencies of the bad recording. The frequency anomalies are often exaggerated, the stereo imaging collapses, and the distortion and noise are amplified. When you use quality gear that's as neutral as possible, at the very least you are providing no exaggeration and distortion, and the inferior recording will simply stand on its own, without having its flaws amplified, while whatever fidelity that has remained in the recording can now be heard more clearly. In fact, I was surprised by how much information was actually contained in those crappy old cassettes--certainly far more than I could have predicted, and I have been listening to them for decades and know them like the back of my hands. So if crappy old cassette dubs can sound much better on good gear, so can lossy files (but read on--this has a catch).
   
  But, I also need to mention that if you have lossy files that were encoded a long time ago using old algorithms (for example, old inferior mp3 encoders from the 90's, and encoded at 128 kbps constant bitrate), then yes, their flaws will become even more evident when you listen on quality gear. The smear of the transients, the lack of resolution, the distortion, the metallic fakeness...etc will all become more evident with good gear--to the point of being a bit annoying. This is because digital encoding using inferior algorithm will cause very different kinds of undesirable artifacts than old analog recordings like the cassettes I mentioned. So if you have really old lossy files with low bitrate, I highly suggest you re-rip those files with modern quality encoders. I find that with the latest stable iteration of the LAME engine using variable bitrate and set to even just standard quality, it will already sound vastly superior to those old rips. With even higher settings, you will get essentially transparent lossy files that only those with dog-like hearing will be able to tell apart from the lossless version, and even among those people, the subtle differences can only be heard via concentration. In normal everyday situations, if you simply played a piece of music for a golden-ear friend to listen to, I doubt the person will be able to tell they are listening to a high quality lossy files if you didn't tell them.
   
  Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> Good post as well.  So we have pragmatic audiophiles, and audiophools.  I think you and Rob are essentially saying much the same thing, and just using different angles to describe the same result.  I think the biggest difference is that while some of us are content to take someone else's word for something, there are others among us who love the thrill of discovery, for ourselves.  The journey does not have to be fraught with epic expenditure, but rather conducted with common sense, and we all know, common sense isn't... common.


 

 My name's Rob too, so that's two Rob's saying much the same thing. 
   
  I absolutely agree about the comment regarding common sense, and it's usually the lack of common sense that's the fuel for me long rants. In a way, I spend time writing these long posts because I want to shake some sense into as many members who might benefit from a dose of pragmatism as possible, so that the overall head-fi culture will stop breaking people's wallets and bank accounts with alarming frequency--especially that very often these unnecessary purchases really don't add up to anything truly meaningful.
   
  When I see posts where a typical college student has something like half a dozen different headphone amps and buying expensive balanced custom cables, it just makes me a little sad, because they could've spent that money on something else such as actually eating healthy instead of eating instant noodles all the time. I even know someone who's on welfare, but because of all the brain-washing from this community, he ends up constantly buying and selling headphones and amps and his spending continues to escalate, despite the fact he can't afford any of it. He could've been perfectly happy had he stayed with the first headphone that had really blown him away and cost very little (The M50), but he keeps reading the forum and keeps being tempted by all the posts where people crap on what he was already very happy with, saying how much better this and that is, or that he NEEDS this and that amp for the "synergy" and so on. It's often a bunch of ass-backwards advice and suggestions that only makes things worse for someone financially, instead of helping them achieve satisfaction without them having to break their bank accounts. 
   
  I have more than a few times received PM's from members who are afraid to speak up publicly in the forums about their findings, but in the PM's, they admit to me that when they compared this and that expensive piece of gear against the much cheaper one, they really couldn't hear any meaningful differences. These members are afraid to speak up about it because they know they'll get attacked and ridiculed. The fact that this community culture has caused that kind of fear and intimidation is a part of this so-called "tragedy" I've been talking about.


----------



## Armaegis

Something tangential I've noticed about hifi is that sometimes there's this sense of "enhanced reality" as I call it, where the recordings you listen to sound better than real life. I go to the symphony quite often, yet when I listen to classical music on my rig I swear it almost feels like it's better than the real thing. Can it be? Or is it just the proximity and the tweaking and all the hoodoo voodoo that makes it seem more real than real? And yes, I even get that feeling with mp3s.


----------



## jeust0999

When I first got my AKG K 701's I used a Pioneer stereo receiver, which sounded surpringly good.
   
  I decided to get a dedicated headphone amplifier: KICAS Caliente.
   
  I was actually surprised by the subtle, yet noticeable differences. I have slowly and progressively learned and come to love my Caliente.
   
  The difference between good and great is just that little extra...sparkle.
   
   
   
   
   
  Here's a review I wrote...
  http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/540545/review-akg-k-701-kicas-caliente-w-pictures


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





mad lust envy said:


> Oh, its hacked. My email changed to something else entirely, as well as my details disappearing, some options changed, and my gaming headphone guide was deleted.
> 
> I personally don't care if people see me as being too blunt or not. Its about time someone actually called people out on the elitist nonsense going on around here. I'm speaking in general.


 

 No moderator would ever stoop to something so low.  Please tell me more about your hacked account via PM and we will get to the bottom of it.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





lunatique said:


> In my personal experience, even crappy recordings will benefit greatly from quality gear, so I don't agree with the mentality that if someone was listening to lossy files, they shouldn't waste their money on quality headphones. For example, I have some really old cassette recordings that friends in high school made for me that are muffled, full of noise, distortion, azimuth irregularities, and so on, and some are artists I still haven't been able to identify to this day, so I have no way of tracking down better quality recordings of those songs. During the evolution of my listening habits and studio setup, these old crappy recordings have been played on a variety of equipment in the last couple of decades. With each improvement of gear, I was able to hear more detail in those crappy recordings than before, which means those details were always there, just that the crappy earbuds and boomboxes I started with as a teenager weren't able to resolve those details. Now that I have the most ideal studio setup I can afford, I'm hearing a lot of stuff in these old recordings that I never did in the past. Instead of what people commonly refer to as "better equipment will make lower-quality recordings unbearable because the flaws will become too obvious" I experienced the opposite. The better gear actually made the crappy recordings far more enjoyable because now I have a neutral platform for those old recordings to stand on.
> 
> Most inferior gear (not the same as cheap, since some cheap gear can be excellent) have unacceptable coloration, and what happens when you listen to bad recordings on them is that those colorations will exacerbate the deficiencies of the bad recording. The frequency anomalies are often exaggerated, the stereo imaging collapses, and the distortion and noise are amplified. When you use quality gear that's as neutral as possible, at the very least you are providing no exaggeration and distortion, and the inferior recording will simply stand on its own, without having its flaws amplified, while whatever fidelity that has remained in the recording can now be heard more clearly. In fact, I was surprised by how much information was actually contained in those crappy old cassettes--certainly far more than I could have predicted, and I have been listening to them for decades and know them like the back of my hands. So if crappy old cassette dubs can sound much better on good gear, so can lossy files (but read on--this has a catch).
> 
> ...


 
  Lunatique,
  What you've described is the nature of humanity.  There are elements of any population sample who have addictive personalities, there are elements in any population who seem to be completely focused on what others think about them, there are elements of any population sampling who freely offer advice to others, while know little to nothing whereof they speak.
   
  Such is life and the larger the sample size the greater the frequency of such sightings.  Don't let it get you down.  Just keep offering your wisdom and insights, and realize there are some who will hear what you say and put your principles to work.  Realize that Skylab is also a very reasonable fellow and provides tons of great and good advice to Head-Fi readers.  There are those who reject, those who hear and benefit and there are those who hear and pervert.  Thank you for wanting to help our little community.
   
  Cheers,
  Kevin (aka kwkarth)


----------



## SoupRKnowva

what im getting out of lunatique's posts from reading them, isnt that he doesnt think people should spend money, just that they should be spending the money where the most good can be made of it, and that is at the transducer. i admit there are differences among amps and certainly among dac's, the i dont think anyone can deny that new speakers or headphones will make a drastically larger differences in the sound that you are hearing.
   
  ill me moving out of my dorm and into a house here kind soon. and i want to get a good speaker rig going. im gonna try to sink somewhere between 5-10 grand into a set of speakers, and then maybe another 1-2 grand into source/pre-amp/amp's just becuase i know that'll get me the best sound for my money. sure maybe an emotiva amp may not be the last word in amplification, but its got the power, and its got the specs, and itll power my salk signature speakers just fine


----------



## pp312

Quote: 





olor1n said:


> Fanatics abound on both sides pp312 (and yes, water is wet
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


 Nor would I ever suggest anything so heretical, olor1n. However, experience tells me that fanaticism occurs more frequently amongst those most deeply immersed in their hobby. A constant eye on the wallet and a generally pragmatic attitude seems to ward it off.  
   
  Incidentally, not much is said here about the economic aspects of this hobby beyond "sorry for your wallet", and I'm glad Lunatique has raised the point of over-spending. Also, I'm not sure we always realize what enormous influence we have with our reviews and opinions, not just on enquirers but lurkers (especially when we've got "Headphonius Supremus" or whatever after our monickers). I've often been surprised after making a casual comment to find someone desperately seeking clarification before making an expensive purchase, or making the purchase and then saying they based it on "what someone here said" (Eek! It wasn't me!). I think we should remind posters and non-posters alike that everything said here is opinion, that there are so many variables of equipment, expectation, music tastes and ear-shapes that nothing should be taken as more than a guide. Maybe it should be an announcement in BOLD at the top of the page.


----------



## Armaegis

You mean... some of you don't spend money just for bragging rights?


----------



## pp312

Quote: 





armaegis said:


> Something tangential I've noticed about hifi is that sometimes there's this sense of "enhanced reality" as I call it, where the recordings you listen to sound better than real life. I go to the symphony quite often, yet when I listen to classical music on my rig I swear it almost feels like it's better than the real thing. Can it be? Or is it just the proximity and the tweaking and all the hoodoo voodoo that makes it seem more real than real? And yes, I even get that feeling with mp3s.


 


 Don't forget that classical recordings are made with the mics much closer than an audience member would normally be sitting, so tend to pick up details you'll never hear in the 12th row. But I get the feeling greater detail is not what you mean.


----------



## olor1n

Quote: 





pp312 said:


> Nor would I ever suggest anything so heretical, olor1n. However, experience tells me that fanaticism occurs more frequently amongst those most deeply immersed in their hobby. A constant eye on the wallet and a generally pragmatic attitude seems to ward it off.
> 
> Incidentally, not much is said here about the economic aspects of this hobby beyond "sorry for your wallet", and I'm glad Lunatique has raised the point of over-spending. Also, I'm not sure we always realize what enormous influence we have with our reviews and opinions, not just on enquirers but lurkers (especially when we've got "Headphonius Supremus" or whatever after our monickers). I've often been surprised after making a casual comment to find someone desperately seeking clarification before making an expensive purchase, or making the purchase and then saying they based it on "what someone here said" (Eek! It wasn't me!). I think we should remind posters and non-posters alike that everything said here is opinion, that there are so many variables of equipment, expectation, music tastes and ear-shapes that nothing should be taken as more than a guide. Maybe it should be an announcement in BOLD at the top of the page.


 

 If you don't want to be liable, there's always that space in your sig for a disclaimer. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  I don't think everything stated on these forums need to be tagged with an IMO. The onus is on the reader to distinguish the obvious. I agree that hyperbole (on both sides) needs to be countered with balanced and differing views though. It's just that the attempt to get these differing views across often leads to a ruckus where good intents are usually decimated. Lunatique spoke of pragmatism, but so did Skylab.
   
  People need to remember there are varying degrees. It's not black and white. There's no us and them. Someone's barely indistinguishable improvements is someone else' audio nirvana. Why take that away from them?


----------



## bumblingbooby

As someone who is in the market for a headphone amplifier, I welcome what the OP has undertaken and the way in which, he is going about it. I've also enjoyed reading the discussion and debate that his efforts have generated. The differences of opinion and belief that I have seen here recur throughout this forum.


----------



## pp312

Quote: 





olor1n said:


> People need to remember there are varying degrees. It's not black and white. There's no us and them. Someone's barely indistinguishable improvements is someone else' audio nirvana. Why take that away from them?


 


 I don't think it's a question of taking anything away from anyone as of realizing that, with headphones even more than speakers, impressions are not transferable, that even top-of-the-line Stax stuff may not suit everyone, or may suit in terms of sound quality but be uncomfortable, or creak annoyingly on fat heads, or whatever. It's hard to think of a subject with more personal variables than headphones, and newbies in particular need to be aware that even the ultimate, Universal Headphonius Supremus (where is he, by the way?) can't guarantee that anything he recommends will suit someone else. Consequently when we start to get dogmatic about the audio nirvana we've discovered, we need to remember not just that it might well seem mediocre to someone else, but that something half as expensive might have seemed just as good.


----------



## pp312

Quote: 





bumblingbooby said:


> As someone who is in the market for a headphone amplifier, I welcome what the OP has undertaken and the way in which, he is going about it. I've also enjoyed reading the discussion and debate that his efforts have generated. The differences of opinion and belief that I have seen here recur throughout this forum.


 

  
  And if you've noticed that, maybe you're not a bumblingbooby after all.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Incidentally, if you're in the market for a headphone amplifier don't forget to consider the possibility of using an integrated amp or even HT receiver. Don't assume that it needs to be a dedicated amp, as speaker amps can often give surprisingly good results.


----------



## Nakattack

Quote: 





bumblingbooby said:


> As someone who is in the market for a headphone amplifier, I welcome what the OP has undertaken and the way in which, he is going about it. I've also enjoyed reading the discussion and debate that his efforts have generated. The differences of opinion and belief that I have seen here recur throughout this forum.


 

 I agree completely. I think I have been converted to finding an amplifier described as "a wire with gain", with a beefy power supply in a separate enclosure and the ability to drive most if not all the headphones I'll collect in future. Still haven't made up my mind about DAC's though


----------



## bumblingbooby

What I did find particularly interesting is that the OP noticed a difference between solid state and tube amps; referring to the "sweetness" and "romantic" quality that tubes impart to the sound. I was wondering if he detected any difference in the level of transparency and three dimensional imaging between the two types of amplifier?


----------



## baka1969

Quote:Originally Posted by bumblingbooby 

 "... I was wondering if he detected any difference in the level of transparency and three dimensional imaging between the two types of amplifier?"


 I have noticed, to me at least, that different tubes make a difference in the level of transparency and imaging. Each tube paring has it's own characteristics. To many that's part of the fun of rolling tubes.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





bumblingbooby said:


> I like the way the OP has just carried on regardless.


 

 x2.


----------



## Armaegis

Quote: 





pp312 said:


> Don't forget that classical recordings are made with the mics much closer than an audience member would normally be sitting, so tend to pick up details you'll never hear in the 12th row. But I get the feeling greater detail is not what you mean.


 

 The detailing has a bit to do with it, but it's just the whole recreation of it. Sometimes the "fake" just winds up sounding a bit better than the "real" to the ear somehow. It could be the recording process, the remastering, the digital processing, your room acoustics, the fact that you're sitting in a comfy chair, no noisy/stinky people nearby, just the way the transducers produce sound, the glass of wine/coffee/snapple in your hand, etc.
   
  And really, change any one of these innumerable factors and your music will sound different. Maybe very little, maybe a lot, who knows.
  
  Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *pp312* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> It's hard to think of a subject with more personal variables than headphones


 

 Religion, politics, sports, women, wine, etc 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
p.s. not necessarily in that order


----------



## jeust0999

I'm very surprised by the dialogue between certain head-fier's. It is certainly sophisticated, sometimes rational and at others illogical-- and emotional.
   
  Very insightful, yet informal. And to my pleasure, very interesting.


----------



## Bacci

Aren't these "appreciation threads" on this forum all about cognitive dissonance?


----------



## Mad Lust Envy

Not to derail the current discussion, but I wanna say something that might be confusing some people.
   
  My biggest debate has been the differences between *'neutral' SS amps*. I DO think that tube amps have a larger number of factors which will undoubtedly differentiate themselves a lot more than a pure SS amp.
   
  Just wanted to clear this up.
   
  I'm not one who wants to get into the realm of tube amps, but since the hybrid Schiit Lyr uses tubes (I plan on trying to make it sound as SS as possible, but I'll be sticking with stock tubes for now), I know there are bound to be some very distinct differences between something like my E9 and the Lyr.
   
  In any case, I look forward to being able to hear what these differences are once I do order my Lyr hopefully next month. Now, as for a DAC to go with it.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

This thread stands out because it dares to buck the 'night and day' reviews trend on the forum. As soon as you dare to say that some things sound similar, or even the same, you get accused of all sorts from cloth ears to trolling.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> This thread stands out because it dares to buck the 'night and day' reviews trend on the forum. As soon as you dare to say that some things sound similar, or even the same, you get accused of all sorts from cloth ears to trolling.


 
  Not too long ago I posted about the similarity between two cables I was listening to, and guess what?  Nobody jumped on me for it.  So maybe you're overly sensitive?


----------



## Mad Lust Envy

People aren't as emotionally connected to cables as they are to their amps and headphones. That's why this debate is a lot more 'animated' than those of cables, which most agree is mostly snake oil. I won't go there though, as that's one debate I won't even bother getting into. I'm more skeptical about cables way more than amps, so I just avoid it altogether.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> Not too long ago I posted about the similarity between two cables I was listening to, and guess what?  Nobody jumped on me for it.  So maybe you're overly sensitive?


 

 Try saying all cables sound the same ........


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Try saying all cables sound the same ........


 
  Well, they don't all sound the same, so I would never say that.


----------



## olor1n

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Try saying all cables sound the same ........


 

  
  Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> Well, they don't all sound the same, so I would never say that.


 


  Lol. Strap yourselves in folks! We're off on another tangent.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





olor1n said:


> Lol. Strap yourselves in folks! We're off on another tangent.


 
  Oh, no we're not.


----------



## pp312

Quote: 





jeust0999 said:


> I'm very surprised by the dialogue between certain head-fier's. It is certainly sophisticated, sometimes rational and at others illogical-- and emotional.


   
  Care to name names?


----------



## pp312

Quote: 





olor1n said:


> Lol. Strap yourselves in folks! We're off on another tangent.


 


 How could you have a decent rollercoaster ride without a few tangents?


----------



## Armaegis

I state without shame and posit unequivocally as fact... that coat hangers sound the same as lamp cord.
   
  So there


----------



## pp312

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> This thread stands out because it dares to buck the 'night and day' reviews trend on the forum. As soon as you dare to say that some things sound similar, or even the same, you get accused of all sorts from cloth ears to trolling.


 

  
  Well, I say all sorts of things all the time and get accused of being all sorts of things all the time, and I couldn't give a fig. I'm the bugger who started a thread about the best sounding speaker amps for headphones--a totally heretical subject at the time and only marginally better accepted now. And that was after a previous thread that strayed into this forbidden ground was interrupted by a dedicated amp enthusiast accusing all the contributors of being unemployed losers (yes, truly!). At least nothing like that has ever happened since.


----------



## jeust0999

Evidently we are all headphone enthusiasts, and all that accompanies it.
   
  Sometimes I can allude to the analogy between believers in God. Yet, some are Christians and others Catholics. Oh, and don't forget the Atheists who do not believe in God. Which is the namely the same thing only reciprocally, anyways.


----------



## Currawong

If you don't listen to well-recorded, complex music, then a lot of gear sounds pretty much the same.  I remember when I started out here I got into OPAMP rolling, where each IC results in a sound that is a little different. The differences were mainly in the tone. Maybe I should explore the reasons for this with RMAA, but what it boils down to is tonal changes being the primary big difference between components, including cables.  Greater detail and a greater ability maintain performance even when the music becomes complex take a bit more focus and experience to discern and may not be so relevant for a lot of music. Then with so much gear being between the computer or CD and the headphones, figuring out what is having what effect on the sound so that upgrades or side-grades becomes difficult.  I know I've often targeted the wrong component for upgrade, unaware that changing something else would have had a greater effect.


----------



## jeust0999

Yes we learn to notice the truly minute differences in electrical components. Everything from the tone of an ambient light in a room, to the megahertz increase of the CPU in your computer. And the way electricity behaves in sound reproduction. Amazing stuff, really.


----------



## estreeter

Once again, I have to ask the mods why this thread hasnt been moved into Sound Science - it has devolved to the extent that 'amps' are a side issue.


----------



## fishski13

it would be a thread kill. 
   
  while i may disagree with how the OP has come to his conclusions, and maybe i listen differently or have different priorities, i don't think there's anything taboo here to get banished to the SS forum.


----------



## pp312

Quote: 





jeust0999 said:


> Which is the namely the same thing only reciprocally, anyways.


----------



## pp312

Quote: 





jeust0999 said:


> Yes we learn to notice the truly minute differences in electrical components. Everything from the tone of an ambient light in a room, to the megahertz increase of the CPU in your computer. And the way electricity behaves in sound reproduction.


 
   
   
  Do we? I must be lagging behind.


----------



## jeust0999

You might be less evolved.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





estreeter said:


> Once again, I have to ask the mods why this thread hasnt been moved into Sound Science - it has devolved to the extent that 'amps' are a side issue.


 

 There you go, anything that challenges the unfounded claims of audiophiles should be sidelined.


----------



## fishski13

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> There you go, anything that challenges the unfounded claims of audiophiles should be sidelined.


 

 challenges, yes, but opinions that are no more valid than a cable guru claiming to hear differences in cables.


----------



## kwkarth

Hey, you guys stop being so thin skinned and divisive.  We can always shut the thread down altogether if you resort to bickering.  Fishski13 had it right when he said they're all just opinions.  Don't get so worked up over somebody else's opinions, unless they cause your taxes to go up.


----------



## pp312

Quote: 





jeust0999 said:


> You might be less evolved.


 


 Or I could have been away that day.
   
  Why are people demanding this thread be moved? I like it just where it is.


----------



## jeust0999

All I see is good conversations going on. I agree with pp312, stop complaining!


----------



## bumblingbooby

This just might be my favourite thread. I'd welcome the OP's comments regarding whether he detected any overall difference in transparency and imaging between solid state and tube amps.


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





bumblingbooby said:


> This just might be my favourite thread. I'd welcome the OP's comments regarding whether he detected any overall difference in transparency and imaging between solid state and tube amps.


 


  As I've said before, I am not the one to ask for opinions about headphone "imaging." In my opinion, headphones don't "image" at all. Speakers can portray an "image." Headphones are only capable of "directional effects."  So much of building up an acoustic "image" in your brain is related to cues you get when moving your head in relation to the sound field, and also in specific interactions between the sound and the room - and neither of these factors are present in ANY measure with headphones.  It's possible that binaural recordings can present the original "image" present at the time the recording was made, but regular stereo recordings do not sound ANYTHING like an 'image' on headphones -whether they be recordings of acoustic instruments in real spaces or studio-produced music recordings in which the stereo is built up using the mixing board and effects processors.  When I listen to my Quad ESL-57's, or my triamped Magneplanar MG-3.6's etc., I experience an_ image_.  When I listen to headphones I hear an _effect_.
   
  That said, I did notice that one of the amps I listened to had less separation between channels.  I do not think this is related to tubes vs. solid-state.  I think there is just some stray capacitive copling between the channels.  (The amp was the Musical Fidelity XCAN V3.  It had a tiny bit less separation than the Beta 22.)
   
  Transparency is one of those terms that, having no precise definition in terms of it's use in audio discussions, can lead one astray.  The general notion of being able to "hear through" the gear back to the original recording is an attractive one, but I'm not sure we need an entire category for this. If the distortion is low and - generally speaking- treble is not rolled off or possibly even emphasized a little, this should give us a sense of "transparency."  But we can define this state by saying "distortion is low and the highs are good-"   using the terms distortion and treble (highs) is sufficient- it does not necessarily communicate more information to say "distortion is low and the highs are good,  and transparency is good as well."  We sort of already said "transparency" when we said "good highs and low distortion."  I hope that makes my thinking on this issue clear; _transparent,_ so to speak.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  OK, but to answer your question, within my terms as best I can, I will say this:  The solid state amplifiers, with the Beta 22 foremost among them, reproduced the signals fed to them with great faithfulness.  One might say, with program material that was not recorded or mastered well, that these amplifiers are accurate  _to a fault_.  Some of the tube amps added a bit of extra romance and lushness to the sound. Which is to say, some tubes amps had a slight midbass emphasis, slight softening of the texture of low bass, and presented the treble range with some of that harmonic character tube amps are known for- a slight increase in low, even-order harmonics compared to the "solid state sound."  I rather LIKE this "euphonious coloration" that tube equipment can sometimes add to music, especially on the Sennheiser HD800's whose treble is boosted; using them with, for example the Bottlehead Crack, helps keep them from sounding OVERLY BRIGHT in the highs, the way they can sound on some solid state amps. 
   
   
  It's all a matter of taste, really.


----------



## olor1n

milosz, if the differences in tonality between these amps are minute, what about their ability to handle dynamics? What about control of the lower frequencies and the presentation of that spectrum with authority? Don't these things correlate with the quality and quantity of power supply?


----------



## bumblingbooby

Thank you milosz for your excellent response. I'm normally reluctant to use descriptive terms such as "transparent" and "neutral" when describing headphones and amps. I'm not sure that I've heard either or if I ever will. Would I know if I did, if they didn't accord with my sense of what "transparent" and "neutral" should sound like? As you say, "It's all a matter of taste, really."


----------



## baka1969

Quote:Originally Posted by milosz 





 "As I've said before, I am not the one to ask for opinions about headphone "imaging." In my opinion, headphones don't "image" at all. Speakers can portray an "image." Headphones are only capable of "directional effects."  So much of building up an acoustic "image" in your brain is related to cues you get when moving your head in relation to the sound field, and also in specific interactions between the sound and the room - and neither of these factors are present in ANY measure with headphones.  It's possible that binaural recordings can present the original "image" present at the time the recording was made, but regular stereo recordings do not sound ANYTHING like an 'image' on headphones -whether they be recordings of acoustic instruments in real spaces or studio-produced music recordings in which the stereo is built up using the mixing board and effects processors.  When I listen to my Quad ESL-57's, or my triamped Magneplanar MG-3.6's etc., I experience an image.  When I listen to headphones I hear an effect.
 That said, I did notice that one of the amps I listened to had less separation between channels.  I do not think this is related to tubes vs. solid-state.  I think there is just some stray capacitive copling between the channels.  (The amp was the Musical Fidelity XCAN V3.  It had a tiny bit less separation than the Beta 22.)
 Transparency is one of those terms that, having no precise definition in terms of it's use in audio discussions, can lead one astray.  The general notion of being able to "hear through" the gear back to the original recording is an attractive one, but I'm not sure we need an entire category for this. If the distortion is low and - generally speaking- treble is not rolled off or possibly even emphasized a little, this should give us a sense of "transparency."  But we can define this state by saying "distortion is low and the highs are good-"   using the terms distortion and treble (highs) is sufficient- it does not necessarily communicate mor


----------



## baka1969

^^^

 I know that bright and sibilance aren't always the same thing but ironically my WA6SE tends to be more sibilant (at various degrees depending on the tubes) with the HD800 than the B22 is. Go figure.


----------



## fishski13

Quote: 





baka1969 said:


> ^^^
> 
> I know that bright and sibilance aren't always the same thing but ironically my WA6SE tends to be more sibilant (at various degrees depending on the tubes) with the HD800 than the B22 is. Go figure.


 

 with my K702, your B22 and David's M3 have the best treble i've heard.  the stereotype that tubes are always soft on the top end doesn't jive with my experience.


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





baka1969 said:


> ^^^
> 
> I know that bright and sibilance aren't always the same thing but ironically my WA6SE tends to be more sibilant (at various degrees depending on the tubes) with the HD800 than the B22 is. Go figure.


 


  I've heard the same thing- an amplifier that sounded rolled of in the treble yet exaggerated sibilance on female vocals.  I think there may be distortion going on - distortion of high frequencies that adds extra energy to sibilance.  Just a guess.


----------



## milosz

Nearly all of the A/B comparisons from this thread are now collected online at http://ABTESTS.ORG
   
  It's easier to find a particular one if you can see them all in one place. 
   
  There's one or two more in the thread I haven't copied up to the site yet, will get to those.


----------



## zenpunk

Just noticed the link for the Crack / Little Dot comparison seems messed up. Great idea and wonderful ressource...


----------



## bcg27

Quote: 





milosz said:


> Nearly all of the A/B comparisons from this thread are now collected online at http://ABTESTS.ORG
> 
> It's easier to find a particular one if you can see them all in one place.
> 
> There's one or two more in the thread I haven't copied up to the site yet, will get to those.


 

 I like that you have the B22 schematic at the top 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  I don't own nearly as many amps as you, but your thoughts on the B22 vs. Crack with hd600s mirror my own thoughts very closely.


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





zenpunk said:


> Just noticed the link for the Crack / Little Dot comparison seems messed up. Great idea and wonderful ressource...


 


  Oh!  OK, fixed it.


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





bcg27 said:


> I like that you have the B22 schematic at the top
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  After I do blind a/b tests I will be selling some of these amps.  I don't need so many.  I LIKE them all!  But I don't have unlimited money.  Even after I sell some, I will still have more than I need!  Ha ahhahah. This isn't a HOBBY it's a _HABIT! _
   
  I have a lot of respect for AMB, and the design of the Beta 22 is really interesting from a technical point of view.  And it is my "reference" amp, so it's schematic is in a place of honor.  (plus it look nice as part of the graphic design)
   
  "Nonscientific" DAC comparisons are coming next- a new thread here on Head Fi and a new section in ABTESTS.ORG
   
  As you can see from the organization of the site, I will be adding quite a bit.  I am ramping up to do "nonscientific comparisons" of Phono Preamps after the DACs.  I will be posting these comparisons over at Amp & Preamp Asylum, (or Tube Asylum) as well as AudioCircle-  and of course on ABTESTS.ORG
   
  Here's what I will be comparing, in case anyone is interested:
   
*PHONO STAGES*
  Musical Fidelity VLPS
  Parasound Z-Phono
  NAD 1600 Preamp Phono Stage
  Cambridge Audio P540
  Marchand phono stage
  Nelson Pass DIY  Pearl Phono Stage*
  Bellari VP 130
  Yaqin MS-22B
  Hagerman Cornet 2 ( upgraded caps to Cardas w/ Teflon cap bypass, 6SN7 tube used as output stage, copper chassis, etc)
  Bottlehead Eros*
   
  * kits / DIY I am building
   
  This is pretty much all the common lower cost phono stages that are popular at the moment.  Cost ranges from under $100 for a used Cambridge P540 to $780 for the Bottlehead Eros.
   
  Turntable:  Rega Planar 3 / RB300 with Origin Live arm mods
  Cartridge:  "Naked" Dynavector 10x5
   
  This turntable / arm / cartridge combo is pretty much in the same budget class as the preamps.


----------



## FrankWong

In my experience the B22 is clearly a step above the M3, both on paper and in actual listening. I like how the M3 sounds, but to me the B22 is a much better sounding amp.


----------



## bcg27

It seems something is funky with the links to B22 vs. Crack and Crack vs. MKIII. Now the Crack vs. MKIII link works but the B22 vs. Crack does not.


----------



## Armaegis

Quote: 





milosz said:


> After I do blind a/b tests I will be selling some of these amps.  I don't need so many.  I LIKE them all!  But I don't have unlimited money.  Even after I sell some, I will still have more than I need!  Ha ahhahah. This isn't a HOBBY it's a _HABIT ADDICTION! _


 
   
  Fixed that for you.


----------



## justpete

I just read 24 pages of this thread to see if he posted a picture of the device he used to a/b the amps... did he ever?


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





armaegis said:


> Fixed that for you.


 

 HAHAHAHA  yeah


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





justpete said:


> I just read 24 pages of this thread to see if he posted a picture of the device he used to a/b the amps... did he ever?


 


  Here it is


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





bcg27 said:


> It seems something is funky with the links to B22 vs. Crack and Crack vs. MKIII. Now the Crack vs. MKIII link works but the B22 vs. Crack does not.


 


  OK, yeah, looks like the HTML for the Crack vs. MKIII was actually missing from the site.  Thanks for letting me know.  I have to get in the habit of testing the whole site after I fiddle with one part of it.
   
  Should be OK now.


----------



## justpete

milosz said:


> Here it is




Funny.


----------



## upstateguy




----------



## milosz

Yes, an interocitor can be used as a headphone A/B switch.  After all, what _can't _you do with an interocitor?
   
  Click *HERE* to order yours today!
   
  Easy-to-build kit available. All parts included!

   
  Comprehensive manual....

   
  ...and complete technical documentation!


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





milosz said:


> Yes, an interocitor can be used as a headphone A/B switch.  After all, what _can't _you do with an interocitor?
> 
> Click *HERE* to order yours today!
> 
> ...


 

  
   
  Great pics, btw...
   
  USG


----------



## Mad Lust Envy

Hahaha, too great.


----------



## Yoga Flame

Here's my A / B switchbox inspired by milosz. Can't really compare to an interocitor, but it gets the job done 
   



  More internal shots in my head-fi album.


----------



## Mad Lust Envy

That looks GREAT. Wish I had one, but the difference between the Lyr and E9 is pretty easy to spot, so it isn't necessary for me. I can pick out which is which no problem. I'll assume its because of the SS vs Tube difference more than anything.


----------



## renlute

Quote: 





justpete said:


> I just read 24 pages of this thread to see if he posted a picture of the device he used to a/b the amps... did he ever?


 
  I made a similar inquiry a month ago, post #273 on page 19, but nobody responded. Everbuddy jist walked right past it. Response #450 to justpete looks like something I would expect to see on the grounds of a power transmission facility of Pacific Gas & Electric. A jest, clearly. Is there a trade secret behind this gadget? 
   
  Yoga Flame's gizmo at post #457 is most helpful -- thanks for that. But how does a body make that sucker? I'd like to be able to borrow (for a few days) or maybe rig up something like that.


----------



## milosz

I don't see the usefulness of posting a photo of a box with a switch on it.  But, when I have time, I will take some photos of it and post them here.


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





yoga flame said:


> Here's my A / B switchbox inspired by milosz. Can't really compare to an interocitor, but it gets the job done
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  Mine looks similar
   
  Except: 

 All the connections in mine are soldered - no push on type terminal things, I'm too lazy to use them.
 My inputs are not jacks but headphone cables coming right out of the box
 I used a smaller A/B switch
 I only have one headphone output jack.  I see you have both sizes.
 The box I used is cheaper.


----------



## milosz

Something I was thinking about-
   
  There's a lot of thought and a lot of trial-and-error given to finding the right headphone-amp "match."
   
  There's some value to this idea, no doubt.  Certainly, some headphones need a fair amount of power, while others don't. And the sound of some amps - especially some of the  harmonically 'sweeter' tube amps - do seem to be wonderful in combination with  certain headphones.
   
  But, just as most good headphone amps don't sound _THAT_ different from one another on a given headphone, they also don't _interact_ all that much differently with different headphones.
   
  I think we're all used to the idea of finding synergistic "system matches" when building a speaker-oriented HiFi setup. I know myself I've paired certain speakers with certain amps- especially certain tube amps- and the results were really pretty amazing. One on amp, the sound was OK- but try another amp and the results are "WOW!"  These are NOT subtle sound differences! 
   
  Speakers - especially multi-way speakers with their crossovers etc- have pretty complicated impedance vs. frequency curves and this causes certain amplifiers to interact in various ways.  If the curves really dip low, you're going to need something with a lot of current. And if the amp employs much negative feedback you may see some unexpected transient interaction with the speaker; and tube amps, with their output transformers, often show rather large differences of power delivery over the range of audio frequencies.  Sometimes these interactions serendipitously produce wonderful sound.  Speaker-amp matching can be quite an art.  
   
  I think we bring the expectations of system-matching that we developed in the speaker world to the headphone world; I think there's an expectation that with just the right amp, a given headphone will show truly superior performance.
   
  However, headphones don't have the complicated impedance curves of speakers; in general, there's no crossover and no bass reflex or transmission line diaphragm loading to cause hard-to-drive phase angles, etc.  Some headphones - the planar types- look like plain resistors to the driving amp, they have almost no reactance at all at audio frequencies. So really headphone amps aren't faced with loads that will bring out the kind of differences in them that speakers can bring out from speaker amps. 
   
  I think there are certain colorations that some amps impart that can sound good on certain headphones, but the palette of interactions between the electrical properties of the headphones and the amplifiers is much lower in magnitude than it is with speakers, and matching of amp to 'phone is a much simpler job than trying to find fortuitous pairings between speakers and the amplifiers driving them.
   
  (Electrostatic headphones are another matter. They ARE weird loads and I would expect they'd sound quite different on different amps when driven through matching transformers or driven directly by high-voltage direct drive amps.)


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





milosz said:


> ...
> 
> Speakers - especially multi-way speakers with their crossovers etc- have pretty complicated impedance vs. frequency curves and this causes certain amplifiers to interact in various ways.  If the curves really dip low, you're going to need something with a lot of current. And if the amp employs much negative feedback you may see some unexpected transient interaction with the speaker; and tube amps, with their output transformers, often show rather large differences of power delivery over the range of audio frequencies.  Sometimes these interactions serendipitously produce wonderful sound.  Speaker-amp matching can be quite an art.
> 
> ...


 
  Look at the impedance plot of the higher end of Sennheiser cans.  The variance is surprising!


----------



## Armaegis

Most headphones do not exhibit such a curveture though, and are indeed quite flat. The high end Senns are atypical in this regard.


----------



## pp312

Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> Look at the impedance plot of the higher end of Sennheiser cans.  The variance is surprising!


 


 Wow, the 650 is so much flatter than the other two! I wonder what it all means....


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





pp312 said:


> Wow, the 650 is so much flatter than the other two! I wonder what it all means....


 
  Well, it probably means that the resonance modes for the 800 and the 600 are not as well damped as they are on the 650, so the Q of the drivers is higher, making them more reactive.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> Well, it probably means that the resonance modes for the 800 and the 600 are not as well damped as they are on the 650, so the Q of the drivers is higher, making them more reactive.


 

 Hey K
   
  What does that mean as far as the sound is concerned?
   
  E


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





upstateguy said:


> Hey K
> What does that mean as far as the sound is concerned?
> E


 
  It means that the sound is heavily dependent upon the amp.


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





pp312 said:


> Wow, the 650 is so much flatter than the other two! I wonder what it all means....


 


   


  Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> Look at the impedance plot of the higher end of Sennheiser cans.  The variance is surprising!


 

 Yes there is some variance-  but look at a typical speaker's curve:
   

   
  Not only is the impedance magnitude curve much more complicated, I think you'll find there is much greater variation in the impedance phase curve for speakers vs headphones- this has impact even on solid state amps in terms of what the amp is being asked to deliver in terms of current.  Lot of reactance in a speaker.


----------



## pp312

That last graph certainly clears it all up.


----------



## pp312

Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> Well, it probably means that the resonance modes for the 800 and the 600 are not as well damped as they are on the 650, so the Q of the drivers is higher, making them more reactive.


 


 Yet we're constantly assured that the 650 is very hard to drive and sounds like crap without a great amp, whereas in practise I've found they can be driven adequately, even if not optimally, by a slight breeze. It's a contradiction I often puzzle over late into the night  --not.


----------



## scottiebabie

Quote: 





milosz said:


> Something I was thinking about-
> 
> There's a lot of thought and a lot of trial-and-error given to finding the right headphone-amp "match."
> 
> ...


 
   
  for sure, in general, speakers are reactive loads while headphones, merely resistive. i cant say i disagree with your conclusion although having tried over a dozen vintage amps with a pair of HE5-LE, i can safely say with no uncertainly that i do hear differences with most if not all of them. esp with highly resolved headphones.
   
  instead of concluding which amp is better, my ears tells me that its the combo of a particular amp with a specific headphone that makes it the synergistic superior rather than anything in generalities of make & model. adding our individual musical needs & tastes to that mix ensures it becomes a rather complicated issue. FWIW i find the Sansui AU-517 to have the best synergy with the hifiman orthos.
   
  amp differentiation using a less resolved headphone (ie.HD650 in my case if i can call it that) becomes more difficult but even then, i found a particular amp, Technics SA400, to have a distinct synergy with it. on top of the Technics distinct quickness & less bottom emphasis, it also seems to impart an upper mids bump giving the Senn a much needed boost in vocal intimacy very much to the effect of a 2/3 row seating instead of the backrow usually associated with hd650s - all of which are synergistic to the hd650s but not so much for other cans, to my ears.
   
  is this synergy or just a psychological need to find differences. hmmmmm....LOL
  
  addon:just wanna add that while it cannot be disputed that good amps should sound more alike than not, there exists certainly "magical" amp/transducer combos that can transcend the sum of its parts both speakers & headphones atleast to my mind.


----------



## baka1969

Quote:Originally Posted by pp312 





 "Yet we're constantly assured that the 650 is very hard to drive and sounds like crap without a great amp, whereas in practise I've found they can be driven adequately, even if not optimally, by a slight breeze. It's a contradiction I often puzzle over late into the night  --not."


 In my experience with the HD650 I found them amp dependent. I went through several amps before I found a good match with the Gilmore Lite. It was mostly bass control I had issues with and found the biggest improvement with the GLite over other amps I had and have listened to them with. Including the Matrix M Stage and Headroom Micro Amp that weren't best suited for them. Of course the b22 sounds nice with then. The M^3 also. But many lesser amps weren't optimal. I never did listen to them with tubes though.


----------



## justpete

That's great Yoga. Thanks so much. Was looking to build one myself and wanted an idea of where to start. So much more useful than a snarky, sarcastic response. Appreciate it. 



yoga flame said:


> Here's my A / B switchbox inspired by milosz. Can't really compare to an interocitor, but it gets the job done
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## pp312

Quote: 





baka1969 said:


> Quote:Originally Posted by pp312
> 
> 
> "Yet we're constantly assured that the 650 is very hard to drive and sounds like crap without a great amp, whereas in practise I've found they can be driven adequately, even if not optimally, by a slight breeze. It's a contradiction I often puzzle over late into the night  --not."
> ...


 


 There's no doubt that there are optimal amps for any headphone, though the more neutral the headphone the less synergy it'll require to sound at least decent. Some people talk about the 650 being "coloured" (or rather, "colored"), but I don't hear that; to my ears they're very neutral and balanced and tend to sound good, if not necessarily as good as they possibly can, with any well-designed amp, including integrateds and receivers. So I'd have to say my experience differs from yours in that I find the 650 very forgiving.
   
   
  I will say though, in line with the general concensus, that it does seem to scale well. I'm currently using an Onkyo 9555 integrated (which uses a separate HP amp) and enjoying a clarity and lack of listener fatigue I haven't heard before even with full-size dedicated HP amps. I don't think this is synergy so much as just a superior amp matched to a headphone well enough designed to take advantage of increasing quality. However, If I'd never stumbled upon the Onkyo and was still using my previous Marantz PM5300 I wouldn't be at all dissatisfied.


----------



## pp312

Quote: 





justpete said:


> That's great Yoga. Thanks so much. Was looking to build one myself and wanted an idea of where to start. So much more useful than a snarky, sarcastic response. Appreciate it.


 
   
   
  And what you got against snarky, sarcastic responses, eh? Eh?
   
  Some of my best posts have been snarky and sarcastic.


----------



## baka1969

Quote:Originally Posted by pp312 



 "There's no doubt that there are optimal amps for any headphone, though the more neutral the headphone the less synergy it'll require to sound at least decent. Some people talk about the 650 being "coloured" (or rather, "colored"), but I don't hear that; to my ears they're very neutral and balanced and tend to sound good, if not necessarily as good as they possibly can, with any well-designed amp, including integrateds and receivers. So I'd have to say my experience differs from yours in that I find the 650 very forgiving.

 I will say though, in line with the general concensus, that it does seem to scale well. I'm currently using an Onkyo 9555 integrated (which uses a separate HP amp) and enjoying a clarity and lack of listener fatigue I haven't heard before even with full-size dedicated HP amps. I don't think this is synergy so much as just a superior amp matched to a headphone well enough designed to take advantage of increasing quality. However, If I'd never stumbled upon the Onkyo and was still using my previous Marantz PM5300 I wouldn't be at all dissatisfied."


 We all hear things differently. That's fine. I think the HD600 is more neutral sounding to me. There are many headphones to choose from. Look at the other rivals to the HD650. The K-701, 880, and to some extent the RS1. All very different sounding headphones. All four, in my experience, are amp dependent. I think the HD650 and K-70x scale up the best with better amplification. When I had Grados, it seemed it was easier to reach their full potential than with the two I just mentioned. I don't have enough time with the 880 besides meets to know as much about them to give a definitive statement.

 The HD800, which is a pretty neutral headphone, is another can that is amp dependent. I just don't think there are too many one-size-fits-most amps out there. Although my b22 does seem to come close.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





milosz said:


> Yes there is some variance-  but look at a typical speaker's curve:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only is the impedance magnitude curve much more complicated, I think you'll find there is much greater variation in the impedance phase curve for speakers vs headphones- this has impact even on solid state amps in terms of what the amp is being asked to deliver in terms of current.  Lot of reactance in a speaker.


 
  Help me make sure I understand you correctly...
   
  You're saying that the variance of 4 ohms to 16 ohms is greater than 300 ohm to over 600 ohms?  i.e. 12 is greater than over 300?   Specially considering the typical driving impedances of the amp?  Granted the ratio of change is 4 to 1 vs. 2 to 1, but the actual change in absolute impedance is far greater with the cans.
  
  BTW, the phase anomaly is mostly due to multiple drivers and crossover reactance.


----------



## Armaegis

Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> Help me make sure I understand you correctly...
> 
> You're saying that the variance of 4 ohms to 16 ohms is greater than 300 ohm to over 600 ohms?  i.e. 12 is greater than over 300?   Specially considering the typical driving impedances of the amp?  Granted the ratio of change is 4 to 1 vs. 2 to 1, but the actual change in absolute impedance is far greater with the cans.
> 
> BTW, the phase anomaly is mostly due to multiple drivers and crossover reactance.


 

 I always figured the ratio of change was the more important factor. The rate of change as well. Granted, I'm an ME not an EE, so *shrug*.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





armaegis said:


> I always figured the ratio of change was the more important factor. The rate of change as well. Granted, I'm an ME not an EE, so *shrug*.


 

 The ratio of change depends upon other factors such as amplifier output impedance, level of global negative feedback, output coupling, etc. to determine how the amp reacts to those changes.  Rate of change over frequency is not as important.  So, depending upon the amp, conditions will change.


----------



## renlute

Quote: 





milosz said:


> I don't see the usefulness of posting a photo of a box with a switch on it.  But, when I have time, I will take some photos of it and post them here.


 
  Of course a photo of a metal box is not very useful. But that is not what I was after. I wrote in post 273....
   
  "I am curious if you've been asked how to make your A/B comparison device, or if you make copies for others? It sounds like a handy contraption for a person who has a serious headphone habit."
   
  The point is, given that this device embodies a very useful concept for evaluating amplifiers for a given headphone, how do we get one or construct one ourselves?


----------



## milosz

Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> Help me make sure I understand you correctly...
> 
> You're saying that the variance of 4 ohms to 16 ohms is greater than 300 ohm to over 600 ohms?  i.e. 12 is greater than over 300?   Specially considering the typical driving impedances of the amp?  Granted the ratio of change is 4 to 1 vs. 2 to 1, but the actual change in absolute impedance is far greater with the cans.
> 
> BTW, the phase anomaly is mostly due to multiple drivers and crossover reactance.


 
   
  The ratio of impedance variation to the "average" impedance is more important than the absolute magnitude of the impedance variation, especially as far as the driving amp is concerned.
   
  And, yes, the current leading or lagging the voltage in the impedance phase characteristic IS coming from multiple drivers and crossovers.  But that's my point exactly- there's a whole lot more going on in a typical speaker in terms of interaction with the driving amp than thee is with headphones.  A headphone typically has one impedance peak and voltage and current phase doesn't vary all over the place; this is a fairly easy load to drive and even with transformer coupled tube amps you'll see just one possible response peak at that single frequency; with speakers (and tube amps especially)  you have the possibility of multiple frequency response bumps -bass, mid, treble- and some speakers have such weird reactances that they are hard to drive well with ANY amplifier. The chances for this sort of complex interaction between transducer and driving amplifier are much greater with speakers than with headphones, the variation in sound between the same speaker on various amplifiers is therefore likely to be much greater than a given headphone on various amps. This is especially true for tube amps with speakers. My point is that audiophiles experience trying a speaker with various (tube) amps gives a sense of a lot of variation between amps.  I think some of this expectation of great variation gets carried over by us when we try a given headphone on different amps.  We experience how different amps sound on a speaker and so we expect a similar magnitude of variation with a headphone.  This expectation gets passed down by reviewers, bloggers, thread contributors.....


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





baka1969 said:


> "Yet we're constantly assured that the 650 is very hard to drive and sounds like crap without a great amp, whereas in practise* I've found they can be driven adequately, even if not optimally, by a slight breeze.* It's a contradiction I often puzzle over late into the night  --not.


 

   
  @pp312
   
  I agree with you completely.  The 650s can be driven by a breeze and still sound like  650s.  Adequately if not optimally.
   

   
  Quote: 





baka1969 said:


> In my experience with the HD650 I found them amp dependent. I went through several amps before I found a good match with the *Gilmore Lite*. It was mostly bass control I had issues with and found the biggest improvement with the GLite over other amps I had and have listened to them with. Including the Matrix M Stage and Headroom Micro Amp that weren't best suited for them. Of course the b22 sounds nice with then. The *M^3 *also. But many lesser amps weren't optimal. I never did listen to them with tubes though.


 

 @Baka
  
  I agree with you as well.  My GS-1 does a very good job with the 650s, as does my M^3 and Woo3 but to a slightly lesser extent.
   
  USG


----------



## pp312

I'd say anyone who can agree with both me and baka1969 on the same issue should get a job as a diplomat.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





milosz said:


> The ratio of impedance variation to the "average" impedance is more important than the absolute magnitude of the impedance variation, especially as far as the driving amp is concerned.
> 
> And, yes, the current leading or lagging the voltage in the impedance phase characteristic IS coming from multiple drivers and crossovers.  But that's my point exactly- there's a whole lot more going on in a typical speaker in terms of interaction with the driving amp than thee is with headphones.  A headphone typically has one impedance peak and voltage and current phase doesn't vary all over the place; this is a fairly easy load to drive and even with transformer coupled tube amps you'll see just one possible response peak at that single frequency; with speakers (and tube amps especially)  you have the possibility of multiple frequency response bumps -bass, mid, treble- and some speakers have such weird reactances that they are hard to drive well with ANY amplifier. The chances for this sort of complex interaction between transducer and driving amplifier are much greater with speakers than with headphones, the variation in sound between the same speaker on various amplifiers is therefore likely to be much greater than a given headphone on various amps. This is especially true for tube amps with speakers. My point is that audiophiles experience trying a speaker with various (tube) amps gives a sense of a lot of variation between amps.  I think some of this expectation of great variation gets carried over by us when we try a given headphone on different amps.  We experience how different amps sound on a speaker and so we expect a similar magnitude of variation with a headphone.  This expectation gets passed down by reviewers, bloggers, thread contributors.....


 
   
  Depends upon the amp.  I think you're right about misperceptions abounding.
   
  I think lately, the most significant issue people have dealt with is power output capability needed to really make the latest generation of cans shine.  Only recently have we seen amp manufacturers respond with products specifically designed to meet this need more fully.  The Lyr is a good case in point.  My AKG 701s sound better than they ever have in the years that I've had them because they finally have the power they've always needed but never received in the past.  Then of course are the planar magnetic cans.  From the Fostex T50RP to the LCD-2, even though far lesser amps allow them to make music, with a truly powerful amp they can at last make music the way it ought to be made.  Until recently, many amps didn't even readily disclose their power delivery capability.


----------



## baka1969

Quote:Originally Posted by pp312 

 " I'd say anyone who can agree with both me and baka1969 on the same issue should get a job as a diplomat."


 It's a crazy world. LoL


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> Depends upon the amp.  I think you're right about misperceptions abounding.
> 
> I think lately, the most significant issue people have dealt with is power output capability needed to really make the latest generation of cans shine.  Only recently have we seen amp manufacturers respond with products specifically designed to meet this need more fully.  The Lyr is a good case in point.  *My AKG 701s sound better than they ever have in the years that I've had them because they finally have the power they've always needed but never received in the past.*  Then of course are the planar magnetic cans.  From the Fostex T50RP to the LCD-2, even though far lesser amps allow them to make music, with a truly powerful amp they can at last make music the way it ought to be made.  Until recently, many amps didn't even readily disclose their power delivery capability.


 

 I'm not sure I completely understand you KW.  I've always had problems with this concept.
   
  I normally listen at no more than 9:00 with my T-1s, 650s, 880s or 701s on my GS-1, M^3 or Woo3.  How loud are you listening?
   
  Are you saying that a more powerful amp will sound better at the volume levels I normally use or are you saying that if I want to turn up the volume to rock concert levels, a more powerful amp will be able to handle it better than the ones I already have, (which are capable of playing louder than I ever want to go)?
   
  USG


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





upstateguy said:


> I'm not sure I completely understand you KW.  I've always had problems with this concept.
> 
> I normally listen at no more than 9:00 with my T-1s, 650s, 880s or 701s on my GS-1, M^3 or Woo3.  How loud are you listening?
> 
> ...


 
  It has nothing to do with how loud I listen.  Most of the time I listen at pretty low volumes.  ~80-85dB.  It has everything to do with the fullness of sound and the purity of sound with real life uncompressed playback.  My volume control is normally set at around 9 o'clock on both the Lyr and the Asgard.  On rare occasions it approaches 12 o'clock with 24 bit quietly recorded material, but then I usually end up turning it down when it comes to the creshendos.  With the K-1000, I listen usually at 11-12 o'clock, and as loud as 2:30 or 3 o'clock on rare brief occasions.  They are way less sensitive than any of my other cans.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> It has nothing to do with how loud I listen.  Most of the time I listen at pretty low volumes.  ~80-85dB.  *It has everything to do with the fullness of sound and the purity of sound with real life uncompressed playback.*  My volume control is normally set at around 9 o'clock on both the Lyr and the Asgard.  On rare occasions it approaches 12 o'clock with 24 bit quietly recorded material, but then I usually end up turning it down when it comes to the creshendos.  With the K-1000, I listen usually at 11-12 o'clock, and as loud as 2:30 or 3 o'clock on rare brief occasions.  They are way less sensitive than any of my other cans.


 
   
  Hi KW
   
  I wish I was an engineer like you are, because I don't understand how a more powerful amp running at a low volume can have a fuller sound than an less powerful amp running at the same  low volume level. 
   
  At a 9 o'clock setting for instance, what electrical parameter does a more powerful amp like the Lyr supply to the headphones, (that a less powerful amp like my GS-1 does not,) that enables the Lyr to produce a fuller sound?
   
  If the Lyr sends more amps or volts into a headphone than my GS-1 for instance,  won't it just play louder? 
   
  USG


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





upstateguy said:


> Hi KW
> 
> I wish I was an engineer like you are, because I don't understand how a more powerful amp running at a low volume can have a fuller sound than an less powerful amp running at the same  low volume level.
> 
> ...


 
  Suffice it to say the real music with real dynamic range is not a static sine wave.  The real bottom line is that if something sounds good to you, let it go at that and pay no attention to what anyone else says including me.


----------



## milosz

I agree that the amount of power a headphone amp can cleanly deliver to the headphones of your choice is quite important.
   
  Some headphones are really very efficient and work fine with just about any outboard amp, power-wise. I had a pair of Grado GS1000's and even though they were "low impedance" at 32 ohms,  they seemed to work with any amp I tried them on at the time. (Although I did not have a Bottlehead Crack at the time, I would guess it would be "iffy" on that amp.)
   
  Some OTL tube headphone amps can't provide enough power into low-impedance phones, the Bottlehead Crack is one of these- it is not intended to work with low-impedance phones.  So, if you have low impedance phones you have to make sure that the amp you choose will be happy driving low impedance loads.
   
  This "low impedance vs. high impedance" thing is not the same thing as the interaction between an amp with the frequency-dependent impedance curve a given set of headphones.  This is simply an issue of power- can the amp put out the current to drive low impedance phones.   Some just can't, like the Bottlehead Crack.  
   
  So, there's that.
   
  Then there is the issue of their being several well-like headphones out there that require a lot more power to drive than most other 'phones.  The AKG k1000, the HiFiMan HE-5 and especially HE-6, and the Audeze LCD-2.   My HE-6 just doesn't play loud enough on any amplifier not capable of at least one watt output into their 50 ohm impedance.  HiFiMan says the amp should have at least 4 watts output capability, but in my experience an amp with one clean watt - like the Musical Fidelity XCAN V3 for example- can drive these OK.  The portable amps I've tried don't have the power to drive these, and neither do the OTL tube amps I've tried-  Bijou and Little Dot MKIII  were sorta OK on the HE-6, but left me wanting more power.  Even the *M*³, an otherwise capable solid-state amp, ran out of steam driving the HE-6.  The Audeze LCD-2's are not quite as power hungry as the HE-6's, but they want more power than the Crack can deliver, and the Bijou starts to fold up in the bass when played loud into the LCD-2's.  LCD-2 is also a 50 ohm 'phone, and of lower efficiency than most other headphones.  LCD-2 and HE-6 are planar type headphones, like a Magneplanar speaker, and this design is less efficient therefore requiring more power.
   
  Aside from this handful of headphones that requires power fed to them in WATTS, most other headphones are happy with a few hundreds of milliwatts. (A milliwatt is 1/1000 of a watt.)  An iPod can't deliver that much power, but almost any external hi-fi headphone amp can. Phones like Sennheiser HD600/HD650 and HD800 can  play loudly off just about any headphone amp, although typically to have good bass the amp should have enough power capacity so that it is not straining to drive the headphone at your chosen volume level.  So my experience with these headphones (I've owned all three) is that they are OK on just about any headphone amp, but you get extra goodness with amps that have MORE than enough power.
   
  So, really, the power thing comes down to:
   
  1. Can it drive the headphones to your desired loudness_ at all? _
  -and-
  2. Does the amp have enough power not only to drive the headphones, but to drive them without ANY strain?
   
  Amps that satisfy #1 let you listen and enjoy, and then there's #2 which gives you that extra "more" that audiophiles are always seeking.
   
  So, yeah, power does make an important overall difference.
   
  In my experience, headphone amps vary from about 100 mW at 50 ohms to about 8 watts (!) at 50 ohms.  At 300 ohms, you'll see more like 300 mW to 4 or 5 watts as the range of what various amps can deliver.  
   
  When I was talking about impedance curves, though, I was talking more about "voicing" type interactions between the driving amp's source impedance and the headphones load impedance, both of which vary somewhat with frequency.


----------



## Skylab

With OTL amps, it's more than just the current delivery - you can get a mismatch between the high-ish output impedance of the OTL amp and the low impedance of some headphones.  In the case of dynamic-driver headphones, this will create damping factor issues, and that WILL be audible.


----------



## Bacci

Quote: 





renlute said:


> Of course a photo of a metal box is not very useful. But that is not what I was after. I wrote in post 273....
> 
> "I am curious if you've been asked how to make your A/B comparison device, or if you make copies for others? It sounds like a handy contraption for a person who has a serious headphone habit."
> 
> The point is, given that this device embodies a very useful concept for evaluating amplifiers for a given headphone, how do we get one or construct one ourselves?


 
   
  If you're not afraid to sling some solder, you could make one based on AMB's ε12 PCB, cf. this thread.


----------



## Wedge

Quote: 





kwkarth said:


> Suffice it to say the real music with real dynamic range is not a static sine wave.  The real bottom line is that if something sounds good to you, let it go at that and pay no attention to what anyone else says including me.


 

 I'd say this is some very sound advice.  Although its just fun sometimes to pay attention to what everyone is saying including you.
   
  Quote: 





milosz said:


> Then there is the issue of their being several well-like headphones out there that require a lot more power to drive than most other 'phones.  The AKG k1000, the HiFiMan HE-5 and especially HE-6, and the Audeze LCD-2.   My HE-6 just doesn't play loud enough on any amplifier not capable of at least one watt output into their 50 ohm impedance.  HiFiMan says the amp should have at least 4 watts output capability, but in my experience an amp with one clean watt - like the Musical Fidelity XCAN V3 for example- can drive these OK.  The portable amps I've tried don't have the power to drive these, and neither do the OTL tube amps I've tried-  Bijou and Little Dot MKIII  were sorta OK on the HE-6, but left me wanting more power.  Even the *M*³, an otherwise capable solid-state amp, ran out of steam driving the HE-6.  The Audeze LCD-2's are not quite as power hungry as the HE-6's, but they want more power than the Crack can deliver, and the Bijou starts to fold up in the bass when played loud into the LCD-2's.  LCD-2 is also a 50 ohm 'phone, and of lower efficiency than most other headphones.  LCD-2 and HE-6 are planar type headphones, like a Magneplanar speaker, and this design is less efficient therefore requiring more power.


 

 Technically, the difference between 1w and 4w is 6dB and since the human ears are log based it doesn't actually seem 4 times louder.  I think in this case it depends equally on the users preference of volume and the particular amps design.  Just so I am clear though I do believe that different amps will sound different, albeit to some two different amps will sound less different to some than they will to others, but based purely on a power discussion the average volume the user listens to will determine how much dynamic range margin they require before the amp either runs out of power or just starts to sound to distorted.  Some amps are designed with more dynamic range margin, than others and this will play a large roll as every active device has some sort of linear and non-linear operating region and depending on where the designer decides to run the components at, will ultimately give you a less distorted output or more distorted output.
   
  I am not sure what drove me to say all this but its late and well I just decided to say it.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote: 





wedge said:


> I'd say this is some very sound advice.  Although its just fun sometimes to pay attention to what everyone is saying including you.
> 
> Technically, the difference between 1w and 4w is 6dB and since the human ears are log based it doesn't actually seem 4 times louder.  I think in this case it depends equally on the users preference of volume and the particular amps design.  Just so I am clear though I do believe that different amps will sound different, albeit to some two different amps will sound less different to some than they will to others, but based purely on a power discussion the average volume the user listens to will determine how much dynamic range margin they require before the amp either runs out of power or just starts to sound to distorted.  Some amps are designed with more dynamic range margin, than others and this will play a large roll as every active device has some sort of linear and non-linear operating region and depending on where the designer decides to run the components at, will ultimately give you a less distorted output or more distorted output.
> 
> _*I am not sure what drove me to say all this but its late and well I just decided to say it*_.


 
  Too much coffee?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Hey, howz that Leben?


----------



## Wedge

The Leben CS-300XS vs the Woo Audio WA-5?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  I won't compare right now, but the Leben is awesome period.


----------



## rlawli

Quote:  





> ... a $400 DAC could sound better than my $1500 DAC I just made out of some string, a USB cable and an empty bag of Doritos.


 

 Your _reductio ad absurdum_ image is wonderful. I can see a way to interface the string to the empty Doritos bag; but how did you interface the USB cable to the string?  Reminds me of the $1 finger-powered cellophane based turntable/speaker RCA developed in the 50's to parachute into communist countries to spread the word about democracy. Even though I haven't heard your expensive DAC, I suspect it sounds substantially better than the RCA which I have heard and couldn't have been designed to sound worse. Talk about jitter! But DACs have come a long way since the 50s and $400 can buy a lot of serious engineering. Seriously, though, I think what you are rightly complaining about is a variety of "thread noise", perhaps more properly characterized as thread noise with a pervasively strident tone: something which until recently has been refreshingly absent from this thread and which I expect to fade away, given the obvious merit of milosz's thoughtful efforts.


----------



## ale79

I have just finished reading through this thread, and even though I didn't grasp all the technical details, I found it enlightening (even concerning some aspects of human nature..) and really wish to express my gratitude to Milosz for the excellent work he has done. I very much look forward to your DAC comparisons Milosz!


----------



## adydula

Hi,
   
  I just ordered a set of LCD2's...and was wondering what am to use with them!!!! Oh Boy I ran across this thread!
   
  I built a SOHA II Cavalli design, have a SCHITT ASGARD and a very nice PreAmp by AVA, a Insight+....and even an head amp section of an Onkyo 05 AVR.
   
  I asked the AVA person and he said the amp for the head section was great and try it before spending more $$$.
   
  I did and it really sounds great with my present set of AKG702's.
   
  But being the nut I am, I bought a Schitt ASGARD for hear a Class a SS amp and see for myself if the preamp head amp was any good...it was!
   
  And wanted to see what a tube amp would sound like or do...and built the SOHAii.
   
  Basically in my A/B tests they all sound pretty good.
   
  Honestly I cant hear a real worldly difference and would be happy with either one...
   
  I think I will hear quite a difference between the 702 cans and the LCD2's..
   
  All the best!
  Alex


----------



## Navyblue

Adydula,
   
  I am considering to build a SOHA II for a different "flavour" to my SS amp. Are you saying that the SOHA II sounded very similar to an SS amp?


----------

