Ever since I was told that it is possible to tell 320kbps CBR from loseless, I've had some interest in hi-fi, and that was a few years ago. Today, I use an ASUS Xonar Essance sound card and an AKG Q701 headphone. I am pretty confident that it sounds better than all the cheaper alternatives I've had before, and I am quite proud of my own ability to eliminate biases without blind testing (because of lack of equipment). However, 320kbps MP3 is still transparent to me. The absolute best I can do is tell 128kbps, and it is extremely difficult as I have to go through the samples multiple times to try and spot one or two obvious distortions, and tell from that. If I couldn't find any than they sound identical to me. I have read through many of the FAQs, compilation of test results and older posts so I know this isn't uncommon and isn't what I am worried about. I keep everything loseless even though I can't tell the difference because I don't have that many music, only a few gigs which isn't a problem for today's mobile devices (exported selected few from CD images).
The biggest problem is I keep running into this claim that headphone amps are supposed to make ginormous differences, especially with the AKG Q701. Some people say there is more difference with the K701 but aren't they identical except the colors? Of course nobody could show any blind test results and they are nothing more than testimonies. I am not a hard core audiophile I don't have any audiophile friends so it's not possible so it is not possible for me to try out stand alone amps. It just seems to me that many of these audiophiles believe in some kind of mystical superiority of external boxes. You gotta have an external DAC, and an external amp and you have to connect them together. I mean today they are just intergraded circuits why do they have to be external? The Xonar Essance says "Headphone amp card" and it does have an amplifier chip as well as those small ones that you can swap out and everything, so What's the difference?
In fact, I tried the Q701 on my cell phone, iPad, on-board intergraded audio, and even an iPod shuffle. They sound slightly worse I would say, the difference is quite subtle when compared to the Xonar. And I could not tell any difference between my phone, iPad and iPod shuffle.
I've also heard that you have to use an external power supply (it has a port that plugs into the computer power supply) for the Xonar to "bring out its full potential". Again, what's the difference? are computer power supplies not stabilized? I guess I also count as an overclocker so I know how voltages in the computer are set to two or three digits after the decimal, it is really sensitive stuff. I mean maybe the computer with its variable power requirement will destabilize the power source, but I don't listen to music while playing games or anything, I leave the computer idle for that. Also being a fairly high-end spec, the -12V power supply has a capacity of 650W (for 12V alone) , isn't that enough head room for small fluctuations?
(http://i.imgur.com/jK9W5.jpg)
The biggest problem is I keep running into this claim that headphone amps are supposed to make ginormous differences, especially with the AKG Q701. Some people say there is more difference with the K701 but aren't they identical except the colors? Of course nobody could show any blind test results and they are nothing more than testimonies. I am not a hard core audiophile I don't have any audiophile friends so it's not possible so it is not possible for me to try out stand alone amps. It just seems to me that many of these audiophiles believe in some kind of mystical superiority of external boxes.
Sometimes a headphone amp can make a difference.
But, there is a TON on nonsense in the audiophile community and in audiophile marketing.The parts to build a good headphone amp (or put one on a soundcard or motherboard) are not expensive. But, when you manufacture & distribute specialty items in small quanties, the costs go up. A nice cabinet also adds to the cost. So, an nice headphone amp could legitimately sell for a couple-hundred dollars, even if it doesn't sound any better than your average-good soundcard (or cheaper headphone amp). Plus, audiophiles are generally more-attracted to higher-price items.
Basically, there are 3 kinds of potential defects or differences in sound reproduction:
Noise, distortion, and frequency response variations. So, if you read something like,
"This amp has weak bass", or
"This soundcard is noisy", that's engineering & scientific terminology and I'd tend to trust it. But, when someone says,
"This headphone has more detail", I don't know what that really means, and I'm not sure anybody knows what it means in scientific terms or specifications.
If you are hearing noise in your headphones, you'll probably benefit from an external DAC & headphone amp (or from a better soundcard).
Otherwise, here's why a headphone amp can sometimes be an improvement:
Impedance - Headphone impedance varies over the frequency spectrum, that's perfectly normal and acceptable and the impedance curve is different with every headphone.
Bit if the souce impedance of your soundcard (or headphone amp) is high (say, close to the headphone impedance), the variations in headphone-impedance interact with the soundcard's impedance and you get variations in frequency response (not acceptable). I think it's usually a bump in the bass or mid-bass, but like I said every headpone is different. Technically, these frequency variations degrade the audio reproduction and it's not performing as designed or as specified. But, the frequency variations (such as an increase in bass) could actually
heard as an improvement.
With high impedance headphones (i.e. 600 Ohms) this isn't an issue, and you won't get different frequency response from different soundcards or headphone amps (assuming no actual defects).
Most headphone amplifiers should have low impedance, so this shouldn't be an issue. It might not be an issue with most soundcards either, but a "line output" could be higher impedance.
What complicates this is that the output impedance specs are not always clear... The specs for the headphone amp might say "32 Ohms", but that's usually the (minimum) recomended
headphone impedance, not the internal impedance of the headphone amp itself, which is hopefully much lower. (The goal is
not to "match" the impedance. With headphone amps & power amps, the amp shoud have much lower internal output-impedance than the actual load.)
Voltage - If you are not getting enough volume without distortion, a headphone amp will generally help because they are usually designed for higher-voltage output than an average sooundcard.
Voltage is also related to impedance... A higher impedance headphone (i.e. 600 Ohm) requires more voltage to get the same power (milliwatts) and loudness as a lower impedance headphone.
I've also heard that you have to use an external power supply (it has a port that plugs into the computer power supply) for the Xonar to "bring out its full potential".
This could be a voltage issue. I don't remember if there is +/- 12V on the PCI bus. I would assume so because they used to have +/-12V RS-232 ports on I/O cards, but I don't know for sure.
This could be a voltage issue. I don't remember if there is +/- 12V on the PCI bus. I would assume so because they used to have +/-12V RS-232 ports on I/O cards, but I don't know for sure.
There is power on the PCI bus of course, but this card has an extra 4-pin 12v power port that uses the same power as hard drives/ DVD-roms and video cards, which plugs directly into the power supply instead of using power from the mother board.
Voltage - If you are not getting enough volume without distortion, a headphone amp will generally help
I don't have this problem with the sound card, it can go extremely loud. But for things like mobile devices and on-board audio I usually need max volume.
If you are hearing noise in your headphones, you'll probably benefit from an external DAC & headphone amp (or from a better soundcard).
no chance I'm hearing any noise from this one.
What complicates this is that the output impedance specs are not always clear... The specs for the headphone amp might say "32 Ohms", but that's usually the (minimum) recomended headphone impedance, not the internal impedance of the headphone amp itself, which is hopefully much lower. (The goal is not to "match" the impedance. With headphone amps & power amps, the amp shoud have much lower internal output-impedance than the actual load.)
This one I think has an independence of 10 ohms. and it is advertised to support headphones up to 600ohms.
But, when someone says, "This headphone has more detail", I don't know what that really means, and I'm not sure anybody knows what it means in scientific terms or specifications.
Better impulse response, maybe?
I've also heard that you have to use an external power supply (it has a port that plugs into the computer power supply) for the Xonar to "bring out its full potential".
This could be a voltage issue. I don't remember if there is +/- 12V on the PCI bus. I would assume so because they used to have +/-12V RS-232 ports on I/O cards, but I don't know for sure.
Doesn't matter. there are such things as DC->DC Converters that change 5 volts into whatever up into the KV range. 5 V -> 12 V is a common requirement for which off-the-shelf solutions exist.
If memory serves the early PCI Soundblaster consumer boxed versions had this feature because they were rated for more output voltage than 5 volts can get you to. The OEM versions were rated for the typical 1 vrms which a 5 volt supply can give you.
I just looked at the specs for the ISA and PCI bus connectors and they both have +12 and -12 pins. I suspect that people might want to avoid them because the 12 volt lines in a PC are loaded by motors and servos and aren't all that well regulated.
In a traditional PC power supply there is one transfomer with separate windings for each voltage output, but only the 5 volt lines are actually regulated. The rest are along for the ride. For example, if there is a big 5 volt load, the 12 volt output will rise maybe half a volt.
But, when someone says, "This headphone has more detail", I don't know what that really means, and I'm not sure anybody knows what it means in scientific terms or specifications.
Better impulse response, maybe?
Yeah, joke.
IME a lot of nonlinear distortion or significantly rolled-off highs (linear distortion) can do a nice job of removing that obnoxious
detail stuff. ;-)
Thing is, very little reasonably good stuff has enough of either kind of distortion to cause a serious problem. If it happens, it probably happens in the transducer, not the electronics.
http://www.stereophile.com/computeraudio/a...ards/index.html (http://www.stereophile.com/computeraudio/asus_xonar_essence_ststx_soundcards/index.html)
and the follow up review by a different pair of ears -
http://www.stereophile.com/content/asus-xo...-september-2010 (http://www.stereophile.com/content/asus-xonar-essence-ststx-soundcards-follow-september-2010)
These reviews contain a staggering amount of easily digestable information and will answer most of your queires.
As for closed versus open backed headphones the simple answer is :
Closed headphones provide insulation from the surrounding areas ambient noise much like earplugs and cannot be heard by others even when those people are quite
close, this makes them ideal for djs live mixing at a club in noisey enviroments or say you live near a busy highway or the neighbors have dog that barks constantly.
The downside of Closed back headphones is that they sacrifice the sense of an open soundstage and can sometimes it seems as if the sound isn't coming from either side
of you head but from inside the middle of your skull.
They do however provide tighter low end bass than open backed headphones which is good for modern music but can suffer from slightly bright treble.
Open backed headphones provide no insulation from the surrounding areas ambient noise and thus can be heard quite clearly by others from a distance they do however
provide a much more open soundstage and are more suited to places such as the home or recording studios where fidelity is paramount for monitoring / mixing.
The downside of open backed headphones is they tend to lack the tight bass of closed headphones due to leakage through the ports but as a rule have neutral top end.
Midrange however seems to swing either way with either headphone design.
Be all this as it may, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference in any aspect of sound quality reproduction other than the soundstage.
The external power connector for the ASUS Xonar is either a 4 pin Molex cable as used on Hard Drives or it is (believe it or not)
the exact same 4 pin plug that powers a 3 1/2 in 1.44Mb floppy diskette drive.
Use of this power connection for the soundcard is absolutely essential.
I have the ASUS Xonar DX myself which uses a floppy connector and i also recently installed an ASUS Xonar Essence STX on a friends PC
which also uses the floppy connection.
http://asia-pacific-india.beyerdynamic.com...ones.html#fo546 (http://asia-pacific-india.beyerdynamic.com/service/faqs/faq-for-headphones.html#fo546)
I hope the below explains better the difference between headphone types/designs than my previous post.
I remembered where i'd seen the information just minutes after my previous post as always inevitably happens.
The differences between closed and open headphones are:
1) the strong ambient noise attenuation with closed headphones (and vice versa: the “outside world” cannot hear what is playing on the headphones) and
2) the better spatial sound with open headphones. In principle, semi-open headphones are a mix of both and attempt to combine the respective advantages of each type.
Open, semi-open or closed? What is the difference?
As already explained in the in-ear headphones topic, the bass response is very good with in-ear headphones, since the space between the diaphragm and eardrum is “closed”, so to speak. In principle, these are closed systems. However, the conclusion that closed headphones have the best bass response is not completely correct, because the system works in a manner that is completely different from that of in-ear headphones. This is a topic that is not easy to explain and would make this article too long.
The biggest differences between closed and open headphones are: 1) the strong ambient noise attenuation with closed headphones (and vice versa: the outside world cannot hear what is playing on the headphones) and 2) the better spatial sound with open headphones. In principle, semi-open headphones are a mix of both and attempt to combine the respective advantages of each type. If we look at the issue from a mechanical standpoint, we recognize that open headphones have an advantage in comparison to those that are closed: the air volume that is closed off between the diaphragm and the headphone shell attenuates the vibration of the diaphragm. With open headphones, there is pressure compensation through the shell, which has a positive influence on the impulse fidelity, among other effects. The greater attenuation of the diaphragm also decreases the risk of uncontrolled vibrations.
The choice of headphones on the basis of how they sound depends on what we want to listen to, of course. For classical and jazz music, which have less of a bass component, but for which very high impulse fidelity is of particular importance, open headphones are the perfect choice. For pop and rock music, semi-open or closed headphones are the preferred choice.
In the end, which operating principle is suitable depends on the application (where do we want to use the headphones?). If the headphones are to be used in a quiet environment (in a music studio for mixing or listening to music, for example) you can freely choose headphones according to type and personal taste. If the headphones are to be used by a musician for monitoring purposes during a recording, headphones should be selected that attenuate ambient noise very well and that in turn shield sound from escaping into the environment, so that the sound produced by the headphones is not picked up by the microphone.
http://www.stereophile.com/computeraudio/a...ards/index.html (http://www.stereophile.com/computeraudio/asus_xonar_essence_ststx_soundcards/index.html)
and the follow up review by a different pair of ears -
http://www.stereophile.com/content/asus-xo...-september-2010 (http://www.stereophile.com/content/asus-xonar-essence-ststx-soundcards-follow-september-2010)
These reviews contain a staggering amount of easily digestable information and will answer most of your queires.
One little problem - it is all based on sighted evaluations which are perforce, false of it you want to be more generous - speculative.
As for closed versus open backed headphones the simple answer is :
Closed headphones provide insulation from the surrounding areas ambient noise much like earplugs and cannot be heard by others even when those people are quite
close, this makes them ideal for djs live mixing at a club in noisey enviroments or say you live near a busy highway or the neighbors have dog that barks constantly.
On balance we have to mention what open back headphones have difficulty providing, and that is low bass. Putting the ears and the headphone driver into a sealed compartment maximizes the transmission of sound at low frequencies that have poor directionality.
The downside of Closed back headphones is that they sacrifice the sense of an open soundstage and can sometimes it seems as if the sound isn't coming from either side
of you head but from inside the middle of your skull.
As stated this is an excluded middle argument. Real world headphones are neither perfectly isolating nor perfectly open to outside sounds. All headphones exist on some kind of sliding scale. While open space provides a certain level of sound transmission, it is not always that different from what is obtained from various kinds of real world enclosures.
They do however provide tighter low end bass than open backed headphones which is good for modern music but can suffer from slightly bright treble.
Bright treble is usually due to reflections within the earpiece and within the inner portions of the pinnae and ear canal. Whether the phones are open or closed need have a fixed bearing on this issue. In practice there seems to be no general trend in treble response based on whether the headphones are open or closed.
Open backed headphones provide no insulation from the surrounding areas ambient noise and thus can be heard quite clearly by others from a distance they do however
Closed back headphones may or may not provide effective isolation of outside sounds.
provide a much more open soundstage and are more suited to places such as the home or recording studios where fidelity is paramount for monitoring / mixing.
As a recordist with thousands of recordings under his belt, I would say not so much. One of the biggest problems if not the biggest problem with monitoring in general and by any means is leakage of the acoustic field from the performance being recorded into the headphones, and contamination of the electronic sound which is what people want to hear while they are monitoring.
Open ear headphones are pretty useless in the studio unless the required isolation is provided by other, usually architectural or structural means.
The downside of open backed headphones is they tend to lack the tight bass of closed headphones due to leakage through the ports but as a rule have neutral top end.
Not "the downside" but one of many.
Midrange however seems to swing either way with either headphone design.
As does the treble.
Be all this as it may, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference in any aspect of sound quality reproduction other than the soundstage.
I guess that depends on which people and which headphones.
If you are hearing noise in your headphones, you'll probably benefit from an external DAC & headphone amp (or from a better soundcard).
Otherwise, here's why a headphone amp can sometimes be an improvement:
Impedance - Headphone impedance varies over the frequency spectrum, that's perfectly normal and acceptable and the impedance curve is different with every headphone. Bit if the souce impedance of your soundcard (or headphone amp) is high (say, close to the headphone impedance), the variations in headphone-impedance interact with the soundcard's impedance and you get variations in frequency response (not acceptable).
With high impedance headphones (i.e. 600 Ohms) this isn't an issue, and you won't get different frequency response from different soundcards or headphone amps (assuming no actual defects).
Most headphone amplifiers should have low impedance, so this shouldn't be an issue. It might not be an issue with most soundcards either, but a "line output" could be higher impedance.
What complicates this is that the output impedance specs are not always clear... The specs for the headphone amp might say "32 Ohms", but that's usually the (minimum) recomended headphone impedance, not the internal impedance of the headphone amp itself, which is hopefully much lower. (The goal is not to "match" the impedance. With headphone amps & power amps, the amp shoud have much lower internal output-impedance than the actual load.)
Voltage - If you are not getting enough volume without distortion, a headphone amp will generally help because they are usually designed for higher-voltage output than an average sooundcard.
Voltage is also related to impedance... A higher impedance headphone (i.e. 600 Ohm) requires more voltage to get the same power (milliwatts) and loudness as a lower impedance headphone.
Excellent summary!
Doesn't the Essence card already have a headphone amp on it, as well as a dedicated power connector?
Ok, so i was going through the forums, looking for power supply designs for Headphone amps, when i came across this thread,
I am really sorry for reviving this old thread, but, through this, i realized something,
DVDdoug, in his reply to the OP, said "But, when someone says, "This headphone has more detail", I don't know what that really means, and I'm not sure anybody knows what it means in scientific terms or specifications".
With all due respect, I want to question this, is it that you don't believe that one headphone can reveal more detail than another? or is it that because there is no scientific way of measuring The detail reproduction/resolution of a speaker, a speaker cannot be more detailed than another. Please don't mind, i do not know of any other way to put up the question.
To the OP, i have not listened to your particular model, but i have been in the audio hobby for quite some time now. The weakest link in the chain, are actually the phones. Headphones, earphones. I have tried to listen for differences between 320kbps and FLAC files, and found no difference whatsoever. But when i go to 128kbps on my setup, even 192kbps, the difference strikes very very clearly. Its actually hard not to hear the artifacts. I say this because you mentioned that "The absolute best I can do is tell 128kbps, and it is extremely difficult as I have to go through the samples multiple times to try and spot one or two obvious distortions, and tell from that."
Fore me, i have a portable setup and use IEMs, and i do not have to A/B tracks to check for artifacts, i can listen to a track just once and tell if its 128kbps. What the whole point is, i am a firm believer in Headphones being more detailed than others. Headphones having more resolution than another model of the same brand or the other. So maybe, if you want to go the detailed way, you would like to try other headphones or who knows a couple of IEMs (rather than looking at power supply options). Please also note that i am not in any way saying that Power Supplies do not make a difference, but merely that if the Headphones being used are not detailed enough, how are u gonna hear whats missing??
My setup if you are wondering, is Sansa Fuze (Line Out)>Mini^3>RE272s and Ultimate Ears TF10s.
The Mini^3 i use because it has more punch and power, and i like what it does to my TF10s, i.e, Opens them up, widens the Sound Stage.
The RE272s are one of the most detailed IEMs i have heard. Listening to 128kbps songs on them, and u wont be able to un-hear what u are going to hear.
Regards
^^^Amping a fuze to use with iems makes zero sense. The fuze is already a low impedance out. At best the amp literally does nothing.
^^^Amping a fuze to use with iems makes zero sense. The fuze is already a low impedance out. At best the amp literally does nothing.
Am gonna say it once again, the Amp opens my IEMs up, widens the sound stage. Adding to it, instrument separation is better through the amp. I like the change in sound signature that the Mini^3 provides over the Default Signature of the Fuze.
psgarcha92: this isn't head-fi, you have to abide by certain rules (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3974). Specifically, TOS #8.
psgarcha92: this isn't head-fi, you have to abide by certain rules (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3974). Specifically, TOS #8.
Skamp,
Yes, i got that part just a few moments ago, reading another thread.
I will be taking care of that from now on.
Though, in a totally non-attacking way, how exactly are graphs going to convey Soundstage, instrument separation, and other such stuff?
Regards
^^^Amping a fuze to use with iems makes zero sense. The fuze is already a low impedance out. At best the amp literally does nothing.
Am gonna say it once again, the Amp opens my IEMs up, widens the sound stage. Adding to it, instrument separation is better through the amp. I like the change in sound signature that the Mini^3 provides over the Default Signature of the Fuze.
There is a reason why correct ABX tests must be level matched: you could very likely obtain the same improvements just pushing up a couple bars of volume level on the same Fuze!
And in doing so, take care of your ears: with IEMs one could easily reach high and undistorted sound pressures which can cause damage in the long run. I love my Etymotic most of all because of their insulation, as lowering so much the noise floor they allow me to listen at lower average levels without loosing too much on... well... details, soundstage, instrument separation and so on!
By the way, that's an easy test you can do: start listening at moderate level for a while, get your ears accustomed to it and then pull the volume a little up. Chances are you'll actually perceive the variation as an "opening" instead of simply "increasing".
But, when someone says, "This headphone has more detail", I don't know what that really means, and I'm not sure anybody knows what it means in scientific terms or specifications.
Better impulse response, maybe?
Maybe. I'd say transient or attack stage.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....aded&start= (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=39970&pid=351983&mode=threaded&start=)
I do music transcription like these in my Youtube channel
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5B63AD2C38CE0549 (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5B63AD2C38CE0549)
That means I need to listen to a song and analyze the instruments/chord/arrangement etc and use MIDI instruments to reproduce the song. Some earphones can reveal the starting point (attack) of a note/chord more clearly so I can identify the correct pitch/chord easier. Some people may think that it is because different earphones have different frequency response but at least I can't imitate earphones' A's response on earphones B using EQ.
In fact there are transient-driven VST effects like Voxengo Transmodder and Waves TransX to enhance or reduce transient (not to confuse with a multiband dynamic processor).
EDIT: I didn't read the discussions thoroughly. I am talking about different earphones, not headphone amps. For headphone amps I have no opinions as I have never compare them carefully.
Though, in a totally non-attacking way, how exactly are graphs going to convey Soundstage, instrument separation, and other such stuff?
Graphs and measurements are actually not accepted here as evaluations of (audible) sound quality, either. The only accepted metric is a properly conducted double-blind listening test (ABX).
FWIW, "soundstage", "instrument separation", "detail", "impact", "control", "depth", "realism", "natural", "musicality", "analog sounding", etc… are all audiophile terminology that rarely accurately describes what is actually heard.
But, when someone says, "This headphone has more detail", I don't know what that really means, and I'm not sure anybody knows what it means in scientific terms or specifications.
Better impulse response, maybe?
Maybe. I'd say transient or attack stage.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....aded&start= (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=39970&pid=351983&mode=threaded&start=)
I do music transcription like these in my Youtube channel
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5B63AD2C38CE0549 (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5B63AD2C38CE0549)
That means I need to listen to a song and analyze the instruments/chord/arrangement etc and use MIDI instruments to reproduce the song. Some earphones can reveal the starting point (attack) of a note/chord more clearly so I can identify the correct pitch/chord easier. Some people may think that it is because different earphones have different frequency response but at least I can't imitate earphones' A's response on earphones B using EQ.
In fact there are transient-driven VST effects like Voxengo Transmodder and Waves TransX to enhance or reduce transient (not to confuse with a multiband dynamic processor).
In basic system theory, impulse and step response are a way to characterize system behavior on time domain, but they are (roughly) the equivalent of frequency response on frequency domain. That's why a put a smiley on my reply: they basically give you the same (or comparable) informations, but could make some time related aspects more evident, like risetime, over/under-shots amplitude, time to zero error after a transient, which are related to signal tracking precision and thus qualitatively I think may be considered as "ability in revealing details".
That said, a pulse or a step contain frequencies that are completely out of audible range and nowhere to be found in musical signals, so it's completely normal to see an audio transducer smoothing and by a lot a square wave or changing a pulse in something resembling a sinc without drawing negative conclusions on sound quality aspects, if it has a flat frequency response in audio band.
Anyway, you can't exactly "imitate" two very differently built transducers (headphones or speakers), not without real feedback at least, just compensate for slightly different FR with EQ, which is a kind of feedforward action, within their respective physical limits of course.
In basic system theory, impulse and step response are a way to characterize system behavior on time domain, but they are (roughly) the equivalent of frequency response on frequency domain. That's why a put a smiley on my reply: they basically give you the same (or comparable) informations, but could make some time related aspects more evident, like risetime, over/under-shots amplitude, time to zero error after a transient, which are related to signal tracking precision and thus qualitatively I think may be considered as "ability in revealing details".
That said, a pulse or a step contain frequencies that are completely out of audible range and nowhere to be found in musical signals, so it's completely normal to see an audio transducer smoothing and by a lot a square wave or changing a pulse in something resembling a sinc without drawing negative conclusions on sound quality aspects, if it has a flat frequency response in audio band.
Anyway, you can't exactly "imitate" two very differently built transducers (headphones or speakers), not without real feedback at least, just compensate for slightly different FR with EQ, which is a kind of feedforward action, within their respective physical limits of course.
I understand your point. In fact I can't ABX SoX resampler's linear vs minimum phase but their visual differences in a single impulse or square wave are huge.
Skamp,
How am i supposed to ABX Headphones?
My Reply to the OP was not about the use of an amp, rather Trying out a different set of Headphones/IEMs.
Skamp,
How am i supposed to ABX Headphones?
The problematic claims you made are about amps. Those can be readily abx tested. I don't think anyone here objects to you saying that different pairs of headphones could sound different. Its just silly things like amping devices that won't benefit from it that raise eye brows.
psgarcha92: this isn't head-fi, you have to abide by certain rules (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3974). Specifically, TOS #8.
The OP would have done well to pay more attention to that, too. For reference to readers, saying you have a lot of faith in your own ability to be unbiased in non-blind tests and have read a lot are not get-out-clauses to render you exempt from the rules that all members are expected to follow.
Graphs and measurements are actually not accepted here as evaluations of (audible) sound quality, either. The only accepted metric is a properly conducted double-blind listening test (ABX).
FWIW, "soundstage", "instrument separation", "detail", "impact", "control", "depth", "realism", "natural", "musicality", "analog sounding", etc… are all audiophile terminology that rarely accurately describes what is actually heard.
Thanks for doing this so I don’t have to.
[…] u wont be able to un-hear what u are going to hear.
Is there some reason that you are seemingly unable to type the extra two letters that should be in the word
you, despite apparently having no such problem with larger words? TOS #10 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3974#entry149483) is relevant here.
FWIW, "soundstage", "instrument separation", "detail", "impact", "control", "depth", "realism", "natural", "musicality", "analog sounding", etc… are all audiophile terminology that rarely accurately describes what is actually heard.
Similar to audiophile terms, parameters in audio effects are difficult to understand without actually listening to them as well. Another similarity of them is different effects developers may use different terms to describe the same parameter. We cannot use words to accurately describe sound quality just like we cannot use graphs and numbers to describe sound quality, but at least we can use DBTs to tell one sound is different from another.
(http://i45.tinypic.com/42ty1.png)
Thanks for doing this so I don’t have to.
I blame head-fi prose (http://www.head-fi.org/a/describing-sound-a-glossary) for making me nauseous.
Of interest, is Ethan Winer (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showuser=69730)'s description of 4 parameters (http://www.ethanwiner.com/audiophoolery.html) that affect sound quality: "noise, frequency response, distortion, and time-based errors.". Incidentally, those are measurable. I don't know if it has been done already, but I wonder if anyone's ever conducted a battery of double-blind tests to match their thresholds of audibility with measurements. That would be very interesting (though I can't be arsed to do it myself).
Thanks for doing this so I don’t have to.
I blame head-fi prose (http://www.head-fi.org/a/describing-sound-a-glossary) for making me nauseous.
Of interest, is Ethan Winer (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showuser=69730)'s description of 4 parameters (http://www.ethanwiner.com/audiophoolery.html) that affect sound quality: "noise, frequency response, distortion, and time-based errors.". Incidentally, those are measurable. I don't know if it has been done already, but I wonder if anyone's ever conducted a battery of double-blind tests to match their thresholds of audibility with measurements. That would be very interesting (though I can't be arsed to do it myself).
While Ethan's list lacks some rigor (the better words are IMO noise, nonlinear distortion, and linear distortion), the idea is very good.
The problem with testing the thresholds of hearing for those things is that things can get real complicated fast as soon as your tests engage things like masking.
Arguably the first well-known tests for such things resulted in the Fletcher Munson curves which are interesting because they were done in such as way as to pretty much avoid masking. The general rule is that since masking is so endemic, Fletcher and Munson's numbers are usually highly optimistic, IOW too sensitive. But they are indicative. Perceptual coders would have never worked out if we thought that Fletcher Munson were the be all and end all.
One thing that can be said is that if you get all forms of noise, nonlinear distortion, and linear distortion more than 100 dB down, you need to move on for sure.
The actual thresholds for specific things are mostly in the 30-60 dB range, depending. There are a few cases where 20 dB down can suffice.
Respected Moderators,
I am sorry that i did not read the TOS at all. Now that i have, i will be taking care of all that i have been notified about in the preceding posts and TOS.
Thanks for being patient.
@skamp,
Thanks for your replies. You guys are way more experienced about this stuff than i am, i will be taking extreme care of what i post here from now on.
@saratoga
In my reply to the OP, i thought i would just mention my Rig in-case he wonders. I wasn't asking him to use an amp, i just mentioned my Rig. My reply was about trying another set of Earphones and see how it goes for him. It was you who pointed out that an adding an amp makes zero sense. Which i found insulting, and that's why i replied to it. I happen to like the coloration that i end up with, nothing else. The post was about changing Headphones, not adding an amp. I am sorry if i offended you in any way.
Regards
^^ unless something is really screwy with that amp you are not getting any coloration. That's my point, you took one good output and substituted it for another equivalent one. That doesn't do anything . Then you posted to tell us about it.
I am not offended and I didn't mean to insult you but I was trying to suggest to you that you may not understand what you are doing and might want to read a bit more.
I don't remember if there is +/- 12V on the PCI bus. I would assume so because they used to have +/-12V RS-232 ports on I/O cards, but I don't know for sure.
You don't need to remember, you just need to know where the spec can be found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_PCI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_PCI)
Pins 1 and 2 of a conventional PCI slot are for + and - 12 volt power.
Any sound card will use a regulated voltage anyway (or at least it'd better or its quality is going to suffer), so they can generate any voltage level they want from the usual 3.3v rail. This is very uncommon though because most headphones have moved towards lower impedance designs that are meant to be driven by relatively low voltages. Even modern high impedance headphones are actually of relatively moderate impedance by historical standards. Its fairly rare to see headphones that can be safely (for the users ears!) driven at 2 Vrms these days.
Hi Folks,
This is my first post and I'm very interested in this topic.
Would the previous discussion also be applicable to electrostatic amplifiers for headphones like Stax. That is, would any given electrostatic amplifier operating within normal parameters (i.e all the circuits running within spec) be able to adequately drive the transducer and produce sound from the transducer that would be indistinguishable from any other electrostatic amplifier.
Has anyone ever done a DBT on this or can anyone point me to some literature where this might have been attempted?
Aside for the different principles of operation, is there anything at all special about the amplification needs of these transducers that would distinguish them from the amplification needs of dynamic headphones?
I hope I've conveyed my question clearly and those who have researched Stax headphones can probably understand my curiosity!
Would the previous discussion also be applicable to electrostatic amplifiers for headphones like Stax.
No, that is a radically different technology with no relationship to what has been discussed in this thread.
Aside for the different principles of operation, is there anything at all special about the amplification needs of these transducers that would distinguish them from the amplification needs of dynamic headphones?
Yes, they require an enormous drive voltage.
Would the previous discussion also be applicable to electrostatic amplifiers for headphones like Stax.
No, that is a radically different technology with no relationship to what has been discussed in this thread.
Aside for the different principles of operation, is there anything at all special about the amplification needs of these transducers that would distinguish them from the amplification needs of dynamic headphones?
Yes, they require an enormous drive voltage.
Thanks Saratoga for the reply. Yes I'm aware of the difference in technology. I'm curious though if an electrostatic amplifier has a sound profile that the transducer reflects, one that is obvious and could be easily identified in a DBT.
My understanding from reading is that a properly operating amplifier just amplifies a signal and thus should not impart much if any sonic change on the transducer. Also, I've made a little test between different amplifiers on my dynamic headphones and had difficulty telling any appreciable difference between say an iPod's amplification and more expensive amplifiers. This test wasn't controlled and was only level matched through hearing. Regardless, I couldn't really pick one for the other (I hope the previous statement doesn't violate a TOS!).
I ask because there are a wide variety of choices for electrostatic amplification ranging from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. I would like to purchase some nice electrostatic headphones, but am hesitant to move forward because I cannot adequately evaluate the claims of others in regard to amplification.
If amplification of electrostatic headphones is indeed critical, then I must further examine the amplification element of this purchase. Otherwise, I'll just get the best transducer I can afford and something economical that swings an adequate amount of voltage to drive them.
Would the previous discussion also be applicable to electrostatic amplifiers for headphones like Stax.
No, that is a radically different technology with no relationship to what has been discussed in this thread.
Aside for the different principles of operation, is there anything at all special about the amplification needs of these transducers that would distinguish them from the amplification needs of dynamic headphones?
Yes, they require an enormous drive voltage.
Thanks Saratoga for the reply. Yes I'm aware of the difference in technology. I'm curious though if an electrostatic amplifier has a sound profile that the transducer reflects, one that is obvious and could be easily identified in a DBT.
Hard to say since virtually every electrostatic headphone comes integrated with its own power amp. All things considered, that is probably how things should be.
My understanding from reading is that a properly operating amplifier just amplifies a signal and thus should not impart much if any sonic change on the transducer.
All true but that mostly relates to loudspeakers that are designed to work any good amplifier. I don't know of any electrostatic headphones that play by that rule book.
Also, I've made a little test between different amplifiers on my dynamic headphones and had difficulty telling any appreciable difference between say an iPod's amplification and more expensive amplifiers. This test wasn't controlled and was only level matched through hearing. Regardless, I couldn't really pick one for the other (I hope the previous statement doesn't violate a TOS!).
And if you make a reasonable extrapolation of that to electrostatic headphones?
I ask because there are a wide variety of choices for electrostatic amplification ranging from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. I would like to purchase some nice electrostatic headphones, but am hesitant to move forward because I cannot adequately evaluate the claims of others in regard to amplification.
The wisdom I receive from sophisticated technicans with the resources to check this out is that electrostatic headphones have no inherent advantages over the best conventional headphones.
If amplification of electrostatic headphones is indeed critical, then I must further examine the amplification element of this purchase. Otherwise, I'll just get the best transducer I can afford and something economical that swings an adequate amount of voltage to drive them.
IME there are a number of very good alternatives in the top performance rungs of the ladder, but no clear overall winner.
A lot of money can be wasted chasing the one very best, while in fact any of several very good alternatives can be highly satisfying.
Thanks Arnold for the thorough reply. I can't really draw any conclusions from my little A/B test beween headphone amps that wouldn't violate a TOS, so I'll leave it at that!
I currently have a really nice dynamic headphone setup and was sort of wondering if the electrostatic world would be oodles better. Considering the additional amp purchase it might not be worth it.
If the sound profile was totally different (I was hoping someone who had a Stax setup would chime in here), then it might be worth it, but if your knowledgeable pals say these two technologies are similar for the most part, then maybe I'll pass for now and wait until I can actually demo a system.
I would still like to understand from a scientific perspective why one electrostatic amp would sound different than another on a given electrostatic headphone. I don't really understan why a little (headphone) transducer should be any different than a big (speaker) one where, from my reading, it's been clearly demonstrated that speaker amps don't impart a marked sonic signature if they're operating nominally.
Why would the headphone transducer be different?
Thanks Arnold for the thorough reply. I can't really draw any conclusions from my little A/B test beween headphone amps that wouldn't violate a TOS, so I'll leave it at that!
I currently have a really nice dynamic headphone setup and was sort of wondering if the electrostatic world would be oodles better. Considering the additional amp purchase it might not be worth it.
If the sound profile was totally different (I was hoping someone who had a Stax setup would chime in here), then it might be worth it, but if your knowledgeable pals say these two technologies are similar for the most part, then maybe I'll pass for now and wait until I can actually demo a system.
I had a chance to A/B a Stax versus a Sennheiser set of headphones at a high end audio show some years back. Not scientific, but I'm not also not claiming any dramatic difference. They both sounded nice, but the Sennies were a lot more practical. As I mentioned a local acoustics research lab catering to the Auto business (I live in Detroit) did both listening and technical tests and found that they were a little different but that neither had a strong advantage over the other.
I would still like to understand from a scientific perspective why one electrostatic amp would sound different than another on a given electrostatic headphone.
There's not a lot to understand. Making amps sound different is very easy. We built audio power amps from the late 19-teens to the early-mid 1960s before they were good enough to start sounding a lot the same.
These days you almost have to go out of your way to build a power amp that sounds different, but of course you can still do it and people do it for good reasons by putting a DSP inside the amp.
I don't really understand why a little (headphone) transducer should be any different than a big (speaker) one where, from my reading, it's been clearly demonstrated that speaker amps don't impart a marked sonic signature if they're operating nominally.
If you look at on-axis response curves for some of the better speakers, they have flatter response than many headphones.
Why would the headphone transducer be different?
Because it bypasses the head and the pinnae.
There's not a lot to understand. Making amps sound different is very easy. We built audio power amps from the late 19-teens to the early-mid 1960s before they were good enough to start sounding a lot the same.
These days you almost have to go out of your way to build a power amp that sounds different, but of course you can still do it and people do it for good reasons by putting a DSP inside the amp.
OK, I get this. Would it be fair to suggest then that some boutique manufacturers are deliberately (well intentioned I'm sure) tweaking components that result in EQ stuff inside the amp to distinguish the sound from another amp?
Is that the sort of
general thing going on with claims over at head-fi that amp A sounds so much more better than amp B?
Because it bypasses the head and the pinnae.
OK Right. So here we're talking about the perception of sound rather than physical size of a transducer. Also, I just read that headphones are specifically tweaked to emphasize and de-emphasize certain frequencies so as to enhance the illusion of space.
Thanks again Arnold it's all making a lot more sense to me now.
There's not a lot to understand. Making amps sound different is very easy. We built audio power amps from the late 19-teens to the early-mid 1960s before they were good enough to start sounding a lot the same.
These days you almost have to go out of your way to build a power amp that sounds different, but of course you can still do it and people do it for good reasons by putting a DSP inside the amp.
OK, I get this. Would it be fair to suggest then that some boutique manufacturers are deliberately (well intentioned I'm sure) tweaking components that result in EQ stuff inside the amp to distinguish the sound from another amp?
I'm not a mind reader, nor am I able to test every amp made. I suspect that most amps with eq inside are made that way to optimize their use with specific speakers.
One exception is power amps that are intentionally made with ridiculously high source impedances. But then the results still aren't exactly what you say - they simply exaggerate the differences among different speakers.
Is that the sort of general thing going on with claims over at head-fi that amp A sounds so much more better than amp B?
Again I don't know for sure, but I suspect that many of the perceived differences reported at audiophile sites have a very simple cause - really badly done listening tests.
How many people actually level match and do quick switching under the control of the listener? IME do those two things and many people will start noticing that things that used to sound very different suddenly start sounding remarkably the same. They may probably still hear subtle differences until they go down the blind test/statistical analysis road, but many "mind blowing" differences are likely to go away.
I'm of the opinion that many sonic differences are in some sense real. The sense in which they are real is that in terms of what the listener hears with his ears, there are real differences. However the real differences are not due to inherent differences in the equipment, they are are due to uncontrolled influences in the listening evaluation.
Because it bypasses the head and the pinnae.
OK Right. So here we're talking about the perception of sound rather than physical size of a transducer. Also, I just read that headphones are specifically tweaked to emphasize and de-emphasize certain frequencies so as to enhance the illusion of space.
The methodology and criteria for spectral shaping of the response of headphones probably varies. I suspect that like speakers, it is done based on a combination of measured response and the opinions of one or more golden ears, whether in-house or a consultant.
One of the interesting set of factoids out there is the response of Sennheiser RS 160, 170, 180 and 220 family of wireless headphones.
http://www.headphone.com/rightbetweenyourears/?p=1132 (http://www.headphone.com/rightbetweenyourears/?p=1132)
I suspect that all 4 have the same basic drivers, but that the electronics packages vary. We know for sure that the 160 has a fairly wimpy and brain dead electronics package compared to all the rest. As the price goes up, they fix the notch and crank in more bass. Both are just too easy to do if you can control the electronics package. The 220 may have a driver with more Xmax or not.