I bought a XFi Platinum and SENNHEISER HD555 3.5mm/ 6.3mm Connector Stereo Headphone - Retail. I have read alot of threads telling people to get an amp and I have no clue why one might need an amp! I am really ignorent when it comes to sound. I have also not seen anyone suggest the headphones I just bought, any known problems with the set?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Why would I need an amp for headphones?
- Thread starter pettybone
- Start date
LunchboX3904
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2005
- Messages
- 1,524
if it sounds good to you, then no need for an amp, but you're missing out on quite a bit. An amp allows the headphones to produce a fuller sound.
The HD555's are wonderful headphones and one of the most recommended on [H] actually.
The HD555's are wonderful headphones and one of the most recommended on [H] actually.
digitalmind
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 251
The HD555 and HD595 don't need an amp. An amp does however give the 555 and 595 a bit fuller sound, but imo, you won't gain so much that it's worth to buy an expensive amp for these headphones, not with the allready good source that you have.
I was starting to get scared I made a bad buy. I have the choice to change my order for the fact I made the order an hour ago. Should I stick with the one I bought or change to SENNHEISER HD590 3.5mm/ 6.3mm Connector Headphone?
EDIT: Its only a $10 price difference!
EDIT: Its only a $10 price difference!
PCMusicGuy
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,222
You don't need an amp. Trust me, your hearing will thank you when you are older.
legcramp
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2004
- Messages
- 12,406
come on guys, an amp is not used specifically for volume, more like sound quality.
PCMusicGuy
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,222
aZn_plyR said:
Filters and DSPs are used for sound quality, not an amp. Cyrilix, I wasn't implying that everyone that listens with an amp are killing their eardrums but most are aware enough to know the difference. Even listening to sounds at what you think is a comfortable level can damage your hearing. It's just better to be careful and I don't believe a headphone amp is anything useful unless you are driving headphones with an insane amount of resistance, and that's something most good quality headphones do not have .
PCMusicGuy said:
Actually an AMP is about sound quality. Besides speakers/phones the next most important component for sound quality is a good amp. Filters and DSPs are for fixing bad equipment. If you have a weak or under powered amp which you find in many portables then you can easily drive those to clipping even at moderately low volumes depending on the phones you are driving.
PCMusicGuy said:
That's a mouthful to say about amps not being about sound quality. If this was true, then we wouldn't be seeing amp designs being worked on, based on both science and experience, now would we? You're pretty much arguing that the entire way head-fi goes about doing things is incorrect. If you have a good way to back this up, then maybe you have a point, but my experience tells me that an amp delivers me better sound.
Pinipig523
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2004
- Messages
- 1,742
PCMusicGuy said:
Amps affect the sound and you cant say that it doesnt unless you've had a solid headphone amp power a capable headphone. I know for sure that there is a difference when I listened to my HD650 straight out of the soundcard versus out of the HeadAmp GS-1. Albeit, the amp was $750.... the difference was more than just subtle.
Amps say a lot about the end sonic result of a headphone - as they do on speakers. It's not just about how LOUD they get, sometimes, you have to think about the current draw the headphones require to sound their best during those dynamic transients.
http://webpages.charter.net/fryguy/Amp_Sound.pdf
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that an amp sound makes little to no difference in sound.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that an amp sound makes little to no difference in sound.
Cousin Patty
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 634
To say an amp has nothing to do with sound is just ridiculous. You obviously dont know much about amps and headphones. A headphone amp is not for volume, its for dynamics.
legcramp
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2004
- Messages
- 12,406
Fryguy8 said:
you obviously did not have a visit to head-fi.org then havn't you?
Sure I have. If you want to blindly believe something without testing it solely based on the word of others, then that is your perogative. I am simply providing a link to some information contrary to what you believe. What you choose to do with this information is totally up to you.
I never said I believe the contents of the article either; I'm simply showing that evidence exists to suggest the contrary.
I never said I believe the contents of the article either; I'm simply showing that evidence exists to suggest the contrary.
Pinipig523
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2004
- Messages
- 1,742
Fryguy8 said:
I'll put out my .02.
Try this, power a set of bookshelves with your run of the mill receiver, then go with a good solid separate amp. If you do not hear a difference that is very discernable, then you're not hearing right or dont know what to listen to at all.
Same goes with headphones - although, in my experience - to a lesser degree.
There is no question in my mind that amps make a solid difference in sonic reproduction. I remember taking my Rotels over to my brothers room and hooked up his Klipsch B2 bookshelves that he normally hooks to his promedia amp and let him listen for the difference.
At first, he questioned the switch, his reasoning was that he didnt need the extra volume. I told him it's more about the current than the total watt output.
He listened and he said, there is a significant difference. It is more dynamic and doesnt sound like a flat piece of paper type of soundstage.
While we are talking about experiments: (note this is not a flame, simply a group of questions since you seem to be someone I can have an intelligent argument about the subject with, hopefully this stays civilized)
Assuming you are playing content at 60-70db with a load suitable for the amplifier, how can reproducing material that is consuming far less than a single watt of power matter?
Any reasonable receiver is going to have plenty of ability to reproduce dynamics in excess of 20 watts, usually far more, and especially far more than the ~1 watt necessary to do this at 60-70db.
So where does the difference sound come from, if it exists?
Not saying it doesn't, but if you are so convinced it does I'm curious as to what accounts for this difference. An amplifier takes an analog waveform and outputs a larger analog waveform. This is it. Obviously it's not perfect at what it does because it's analog, but it's quite trivial to measure the difference and deduce that it is almost non-existant and nearly to completely inaudible in real world listening.
You say that you might not know what to listen for at all. Since you seem so sure, what specifically is it that we are listening for that an amplifier makes sound different?
My general belief is that the difference between 2 amplifiers is negligible at best assuming they are reasonable quality to begin with, and the only time that these differences begin to show themself a lot is when amplifiers are pushed to their limits, whether it be at or near clipping, running out of power from the power supply, driving a difficult speaker load, or similar. All of these can be counter-acted by buying an extremely beefy budget oriented amp that is far in excess of what you actually need, so the amp always runs in the middle of it's range. A pretty poor analogy would be buying a car that you only have to run at 3000 rpms on the highway instead of 6000 rpms.
An example of something like this would be a large pro amp. These are budget oriented, have good designs in general, and are extremely overbuilt and beefy power-wise.
Just some thoughts.
Assuming you are playing content at 60-70db with a load suitable for the amplifier, how can reproducing material that is consuming far less than a single watt of power matter?
Any reasonable receiver is going to have plenty of ability to reproduce dynamics in excess of 20 watts, usually far more, and especially far more than the ~1 watt necessary to do this at 60-70db.
So where does the difference sound come from, if it exists?
Not saying it doesn't, but if you are so convinced it does I'm curious as to what accounts for this difference. An amplifier takes an analog waveform and outputs a larger analog waveform. This is it. Obviously it's not perfect at what it does because it's analog, but it's quite trivial to measure the difference and deduce that it is almost non-existant and nearly to completely inaudible in real world listening.
You say that you might not know what to listen for at all. Since you seem so sure, what specifically is it that we are listening for that an amplifier makes sound different?
My general belief is that the difference between 2 amplifiers is negligible at best assuming they are reasonable quality to begin with, and the only time that these differences begin to show themself a lot is when amplifiers are pushed to their limits, whether it be at or near clipping, running out of power from the power supply, driving a difficult speaker load, or similar. All of these can be counter-acted by buying an extremely beefy budget oriented amp that is far in excess of what you actually need, so the amp always runs in the middle of it's range. A pretty poor analogy would be buying a car that you only have to run at 3000 rpms on the highway instead of 6000 rpms.
An example of something like this would be a large pro amp. These are budget oriented, have good designs in general, and are extremely overbuilt and beefy power-wise.
Just some thoughts.
It's probably more of a case of attenuation than amplification, ironically enough.
If you externally amp, then you're feeding that amp with the optimum line signal that your soundcard / source can deliver. Among the things that you'll be getting with a quality external amp will be effectively a better class of attenuation, resulting in a cleaner sound at the same volume. Also the electrics inside the card may not be powering your headphones properly. I'm not talking about volume, but the ability of the amp inside the soundcard to drive the load that it is subjected to. Many soundcards are incapable of driving high-impedance headphones properly, yet they also start to struggle when powering efficient, low-impedance phones. A good amp can remove many of these variables. It is all about delivering the line output of a source into your ears as effectively as possible, and not necessarily making things louder.
I fully acknowledge that many headphone amps in many 'hi-fi' configurations (with an amp competing for example with a decent onboard headphone socket on the CD player and/or integrated amp/reciever) don't really make a difference in the sound quality, only a tonal difference at best... including some models popular here. However in the context of computer audio, given the abovementioned factors almost any decent-quality external amplifier will make a positive difference. Some will be better than others of course.
I do note that many guys who write long treatises debunking the 'amp myth' have not used an amp and are talking from the point of view of their own made-up logic/assumptions, or have limited themselves to a very low number of entry-level units through presumably a lack of resources. From a personal point of view it doesn't really make a difference to me whether I spend $40 or $4K on an amp I'm interested in, so make a point of rather extensive comparisons. And from that I conclude that amps do make a difference... not as much as some 'night and day' advocates would have you believe but quality amplification, be it for headphone or speaker, is one of the foundations of a good-sounding system. And it's true that many soundcards don't provide that.
Now, whether that really matters to you enough (in the context of your own set-up) to get an amp is something only you can decide.
If you externally amp, then you're feeding that amp with the optimum line signal that your soundcard / source can deliver. Among the things that you'll be getting with a quality external amp will be effectively a better class of attenuation, resulting in a cleaner sound at the same volume. Also the electrics inside the card may not be powering your headphones properly. I'm not talking about volume, but the ability of the amp inside the soundcard to drive the load that it is subjected to. Many soundcards are incapable of driving high-impedance headphones properly, yet they also start to struggle when powering efficient, low-impedance phones. A good amp can remove many of these variables. It is all about delivering the line output of a source into your ears as effectively as possible, and not necessarily making things louder.
I fully acknowledge that many headphone amps in many 'hi-fi' configurations (with an amp competing for example with a decent onboard headphone socket on the CD player and/or integrated amp/reciever) don't really make a difference in the sound quality, only a tonal difference at best... including some models popular here. However in the context of computer audio, given the abovementioned factors almost any decent-quality external amplifier will make a positive difference. Some will be better than others of course.
I do note that many guys who write long treatises debunking the 'amp myth' have not used an amp and are talking from the point of view of their own made-up logic/assumptions, or have limited themselves to a very low number of entry-level units through presumably a lack of resources. From a personal point of view it doesn't really make a difference to me whether I spend $40 or $4K on an amp I'm interested in, so make a point of rather extensive comparisons. And from that I conclude that amps do make a difference... not as much as some 'night and day' advocates would have you believe but quality amplification, be it for headphone or speaker, is one of the foundations of a good-sounding system. And it's true that many soundcards don't provide that.
Now, whether that really matters to you enough (in the context of your own set-up) to get an amp is something only you can decide.
Slightly OT....
With all the hubbub over how great the latest Creative crop is, and how they have always marketed themselves in that sense, why is it no consumer audio cards are designed with a headamp similar to the popular ones? It seems silly to me to pay that much for a card and then have to use an amp with it...
<begin Chewbacca Defense> It just doesn't make sense! <end Chewbacca Defense>
With all the hubbub over how great the latest Creative crop is, and how they have always marketed themselves in that sense, why is it no consumer audio cards are designed with a headamp similar to the popular ones? It seems silly to me to pay that much for a card and then have to use an amp with it...
<begin Chewbacca Defense> It just doesn't make sense! <end Chewbacca Defense>
agent420 said:
Why does that not make sense? That is how every other piece of audio equipment goes. Seerates tend to be better quality wise. However with current recievers on the market you need to spend a good deal to get better quality with seperates.
Back OT, two things that make it difficult for creative or the likes to do what you want.
1. Cost, it adds a good deal of cost that most consumers wont pay for, the ones worried about quality would rather buy a seperate piece of hardware that is not trash when the new tech comes out. AMPS do not get outdated as quickly.
2. Size, they have a limited amount of space to work with.
Ronco said:
I think you and I are on a separate page here. You said that powering bookshelves with a separate amp was going to make a noticeable difference over using a standard receiver. My argument was never that soundcards are a suitable amplification device; they send out a line-level signal at best, and certainly lack the electronics to produce any sort of power. This totally agrees with your first paragraph or so.
And as for your third paragraph, this is an extremely broad generalization with no real quantitative or qualitative measurements. If you'll take the time to read the article I linked to, the users were exposed to different amplifiers, not an amplifier versus no amplifier.
Please correct me if I understand your point incorrectly, but as I understand it:
You seem to be saying or implying that in a setup with a source feeding a receiver, that using a dedicated amplifier instead of the built in amplifier in a receiver is going to yield a noticeable improvement in sound at volume levels that are far less than 1 watt, let alone the 20+ watts that amplifiers put out. My argument is that this is false, and can not reasonably be true if the amplifier has enough ability and design to be able to amplify 20+ watts.
If we are on a different page, then so be it. My belief is that as long as you are getting a reasonable quality amplifier that does it's job properly and correctly (which is pretty much anything nowadays since consumer-level technology has come a long way), that it is going to have minimal to no differences to a super expensive exotic amplifier. Of course a sound card isn't going to reproduce amplified sound well; it's not an amplifier, and isn't marketed as such. The only reason it gets away as being such for headphone use is because headphones have such a small power requirement. Driving headphones with a line-level output isn't recommended, and isn't going to yield any sort of good results when compared with electronics designed to do the job, namely an amplifier.
Ok then, I misunderstood your argument then, I got thrown off when you started talking about bookshelf speakers.
In that case, yes I recommend amping headphones, or using SOMETHING other than the sound card. In my case, I have low-impedance headphones and never listen at high volumes, so a reasonable quality receiver output (denon) is fine for me.
In that case, yes I recommend amping headphones, or using SOMETHING other than the sound card. In my case, I have low-impedance headphones and never listen at high volumes, so a reasonable quality receiver output (denon) is fine for me.
Fryguy8 said:
Just to point out that receivers do not use their effect (speaker) amps to power headphones. Receivers have dedicated headphone amps, just like sound cards. Receivers may have excellent effect amps but horrible headphone amps. The headphone amp on my soundcard (EMU 1820) is far better than that on my receiver (NAD L70).
And btw the size of the trafos and dielectrics needed for perfect reproduction of transients with 110 dB SNR at 1 W rms output are far beyond that of typical consumer receivers/amps, and yes it does make a difference.
xmetal2001
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Messages
- 139
To someone not experienced in the headphone world, needing an amp may sound rediculous if your headphones are already loud enough. But the fact is that high-end headphone DO require Amps in order to perform their best. It is NOT for volume. I don't see how there can be an argument here. Anyone who has ever listened to a properly amped headphone vs. the same headphone unamped would agree. This argument isn't like paying hundreds for silver interconnects or whether burn-in matters. High-end Headphones with amps sounding better is a practically undeniable and an issue that until now, i've never seen disputed by even the most skeptical listeners with some experience in headphones.
Fryguy8 said:
I'll agree with you slightly here. My Revo 5.1 has a headphone out which is amped, and it is pretty decent, quite a bit better than my line out, however, it's lacking that bit of fullness on the low-end that I'm getting used to on my M^3.
Pinipig523
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2004
- Messages
- 1,742
Fry,
If I skimmed your post well enough, I would say that you are saying that a receiver has the capability to sound just as good as a separate amp? For speakers?
Is this what you were getting at?
Because I can tell you from experience and the experiences of many others that this isnt true. There is a reason why exotic amps have their place, it's because they truly improve the sound. As to how much they improve once you hit past the $5K mark, I'm not sure since I havent had much experience up there.
Though, from my true experience, a Harman Kardon AVR330 has a more anemic sound than a Rotel RB1050 amplifier (the least of the Rotels).
.02.
If I skimmed your post well enough, I would say that you are saying that a receiver has the capability to sound just as good as a separate amp? For speakers?
Is this what you were getting at?
Because I can tell you from experience and the experiences of many others that this isnt true. There is a reason why exotic amps have their place, it's because they truly improve the sound. As to how much they improve once you hit past the $5K mark, I'm not sure since I havent had much experience up there.
Though, from my true experience, a Harman Kardon AVR330 has a more anemic sound than a Rotel RB1050 amplifier (the least of the Rotels).
.02.
Just to clear up a few things that im reading....
Fryguy8, a headphone jack on a receiver puts out 20+watts...........................
20+watts?????????????????????
Are you sure you didn't leave out a mili???? most headphones are not rated for over a watt... much less 20+. (I see it now, you plug your headphones into the 120VAC wall outlet, that'll give you 20+ watts of power!)
jon67, about the receivers having a dedicated headphone amp built in for the headphone jack.............. that's not always true.
Some receivers tap off the speaker circuitry and have a resistor in series to drop the voltage. I wouldn't call that much of a dedicated amp.
Just to add my $1.37, a headphone amp does not guarantee an improvement in sound quality, especially for some of the smaller portable ones.
Its much more subtle then some people here would have you belive, especially if you compare it to going from diffrent brand headphones.
Bottom line, try and get your hands on an amp and see for yourself. ^_^
Fryguy8, a headphone jack on a receiver puts out 20+watts...........................
20+watts?????????????????????
Are you sure you didn't leave out a mili???? most headphones are not rated for over a watt... much less 20+. (I see it now, you plug your headphones into the 120VAC wall outlet, that'll give you 20+ watts of power!)
jon67, about the receivers having a dedicated headphone amp built in for the headphone jack.............. that's not always true.
Some receivers tap off the speaker circuitry and have a resistor in series to drop the voltage. I wouldn't call that much of a dedicated amp.
Just to add my $1.37, a headphone amp does not guarantee an improvement in sound quality, especially for some of the smaller portable ones.
Its much more subtle then some people here would have you belive, especially if you compare it to going from diffrent brand headphones.
Bottom line, try and get your hands on an amp and see for yourself. ^_^
jon67 said:
Please re-read my posts, I said nothing about it producing content at 1 w rms. I realize that most headphone outputs of receivers aren't capable of this. I know it's a bit hard to follow, since we seemed to have switched from headphones to real speakers a couple of times.
Pinipig523 said:
Yes this is what I'm getting at, given the stipulation that you are listening at a volume level low enough to not clip or stress the receiver amp in any way (which is decidedly low). Your experience and the experiences of others, were these conducted in a proper test environment? Did you bother to read the article I posted?
Again, I'm not trying to change people's minds here, simply to present them with information they may or may not know is available and lead them to make their own decisions.
Pinipig523
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2004
- Messages
- 1,742
Fryguy8 said:
Fry,
I did do a blindfold test in which I had my brother play the same track at the same volume (77db) on both amps. I used a Polk LSi9 and a BW703 as my test speakers. On both, I could tell 100% (6/6) when the Rotel was playing vs when the HK was playing.
Was this the most specific/sensitive or least flawed test? I'm sure it wasnt....
But the differences were very apparent and even non-audiophiles could easily tell - brother, friends, parents.
I am not exaggerating, the difference between the receiver and the Rotel was there - it was palpable. Just going by the imaging of the vocal, I could easily tell which was what.
Some quickies I have done include the Rotel RB1090 vs the Rotel RB1091monoblocks x2, the Rotel RB1070 vs the Rotel RB1050, the BK200.2 vs Yamaha Z9 receiver, Melody SP3 vs Parasound 1200, etc...
Cant comment too much on the differences between the other amps as they werent as "thorough" as my first HK vs Rotel test, but I can guarantee that if YOU visited and I had the two amps here, you will easily tell which is playing also.
There is a difference between the 2 - it's about how the amps were designed, the capacitor capacity of each channel, the power supply employed, the toroids used, and more stuff that I dont have time to get into. It's also about current (amp) output moreso than brute power (watts).
Imagine a speaker like my ML Summits - it dips down to .7 ohms at 20khz (starting at 1ohm from 10khz up) - a receiver or a normal amp is NOT stable at that low of an impedance.... THD too high... take a Krell or the top Rotel RB1090, those two can power the speaker aplomb, regardless of volume. I wont go into the sound inherent into each of those 2 amps as I havent had the proper exposure to both at the same time with the same speaker in the same room.... but you get the idea.
There is a difference, otherwise there wouldnt be this many people with hiend amp gear in the first place. We cant ALL be wrong. Dont you think I would love to SAVE money also?
Yes I realize specialized speakers exist that have exotic loads on amplifiers, I mentioned this briefly in a previous post.
And what exactly was the sonic difference you heard. You claim it's easy to hear, yet you seem to have some difficulties in accurately describing it.
Did you verify that all signal processing was turned off on the H/K in both situations (direct mode)?
H/K amps are typically only in the range of 35 watts, so depending on the musical passage played and the speakers used, it's feasible that you were driving the H/K too far to reproduce perfectly.
I'm curious if the same results occur when listening at lower volume levels, say 65db.
Edit: also your main argument seems to be that capacitors and power supply etc are beefier on dedicated amps. Is your stance that even among dedicated amps there are significant differences? Or are you only talking about Receiver power versus dedicated amp power? If you are talking about significant differences among dedicates as well, then what about something like a pro amplifier, which has amplification circuitry quite similar to some published krell designs in general, with extremely overbuilt components in general (built for pro-longed use in high-stress conditions). Opinions on these? Which are QUITE cost effective, and offer all of the features you are claiming make an amplifier sound good.
And what exactly was the sonic difference you heard. You claim it's easy to hear, yet you seem to have some difficulties in accurately describing it.
Did you verify that all signal processing was turned off on the H/K in both situations (direct mode)?
H/K amps are typically only in the range of 35 watts, so depending on the musical passage played and the speakers used, it's feasible that you were driving the H/K too far to reproduce perfectly.
I'm curious if the same results occur when listening at lower volume levels, say 65db.
Edit: also your main argument seems to be that capacitors and power supply etc are beefier on dedicated amps. Is your stance that even among dedicated amps there are significant differences? Or are you only talking about Receiver power versus dedicated amp power? If you are talking about significant differences among dedicates as well, then what about something like a pro amplifier, which has amplification circuitry quite similar to some published krell designs in general, with extremely overbuilt components in general (built for pro-longed use in high-stress conditions). Opinions on these? Which are QUITE cost effective, and offer all of the features you are claiming make an amplifier sound good.
PCMusicGuy
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,222
I'll stick by original statement. With an XFi and 50 ohm high quality headphones, I would not recommend an amp for the OP. Amps do certainly make a difference but whether it affects the sound quality for the better is really a subjective thing. I will say that any difference you hear between headphones with and without an amp can be recreated through the use of the proper filters, albiet at a lower maximum sound level.
the 555s are 120 ohm cans with a spl of 103 dB
try to make your own headphone amplifier if u can to save money
check out http://www.headwize.com
try to make your own headphone amplifier if u can to save money
check out http://www.headwize.com