Do i need an Amp?

[hazen10]

Hello everyone, recently bought the beyerdynamic dt990 pro 250ohm, they sound pretty good , but i was wondering if i needed to buy an amp to power them properly, the headphones are plugged into a xonar dg soundcard, any recomendation?

[Guest Kloaked]

That should be more than enough. If you want something external I would suggest a Schiit Fulla 2, but you won't actually need it.

[aithos]

Do you need an amp?  No.  Do I think you should have one?  Absolutely. 

 

Those headphones with a sound-card or on-board sound are not going to sound anywhere near as good as they would with even an average amp/dac meant to run HD headphones.  You don't have to spend a lot of money, a basic Schiit magni/modi stack or an o2+odac should be more than sufficient for your needs and will sound considerably better than any sound-card.  What you go with really depends on your budget and whether you intend to use the headphones somewhere besides your desk (portable) or if you intend to get more expensive headphones later. 

[SSL]

1 hour ago, aithos said:

Do you need an amp?  No.  Do I think you should have one?  Absolutely. 

 

Those headphones with a sound-card or on-board sound are not going to sound anywhere near as good as they would with even an average amp/dac meant to run HD headphones.  You don't have to spend a lot of money, a basic Schiit magni/modi stack or an o2+odac should be more than sufficient for your needs and will sound considerably better than any sound-card.  What you go with really depends on your budget and whether you intend to use the headphones somewhere besides your desk (portable) or if you intend to get more expensive headphones later. 

 

• What is an "HD" headphone?
• Why are you recommending O2 and ODAC for "considerably better" sound?

[hazen10]

1 hour ago, aithos said:

Do you need an amp?  No.  Do I think you should have one?  Absolutely. 

 

Those headphones with a sound-card or on-board sound are not going to sound anywhere near as good as they would with even an average amp/dac meant to run HD headphones.  You don't have to spend a lot of money, a basic Schiit magni/modi stack or an o2+odac should be more than sufficient for your needs and will sound considerably better than any sound-card.  What you go with really depends on your budget and whether you intend to use the headphones somewhere besides your desk (portable) or if you intend to get more expensive headphones later. 

I only intend to use them with my PC, so being portable is not required, and i'm not going for more expensive headphones, my budget is arround 100 dollars...

Thanks for your reply

[aithos]

52 minutes ago, SSL said:

 

• What is an "HD" headphone?
• Why are you recommending O2 and ODAC for "considerably better" sound?

I feel like you aren't seriously asking these questions, but in case you aren't being facetious I'll answer anyway.

 

An "HD" headphone is the catch-all term for quality over-ear headphones that aren't geared towards gaming (headsets with microphones).  Some people also use the term interchangeably with hi-fi to mean audiophile quality headphones with better audio quality than standard consumer products that you would find in retail stores.  I use the term in the former manner.

 

Why am I recommending that?  I'm not.  I mentioned a couple of options that are widely considered to be the best bang for the buck solutions for amp/dacs capable of running anywhere from entry level headphones to very expensive ones.  Are you suggesting that a decent amp/dac unit paired with some decent headphones won't sound "considerably" better than with a sound-card?

 

1 hour ago, hazen10 said:

I only intend to use them with my PC, so being portable is not required, and i'm not going for more expensive headphones, my budget is arround 100 dollars...

Thanks for your reply

Around that price range the two you're going to see recommended a lot are the Fiio e10k and the Schiit Fulla 2 that the other poster previously mentioned.  I would personally lean toward the latter, but either will be decent enough.

[anothertom]

1 hour ago, aithos said:

An "HD" headphone is the catch-all term for quality over-ear headphones that aren't geared towards gaming (headsets with microphones).  Some people also use the term interchangeably with hi-fi to mean audiophile quality headphones with better audio quality than standard consumer products that you would find in retail stores.

So would you mind providing the objective difference between a HD and non-HD headphone? Otherwise it's a useless addition to an already bloated terminology.

[aithos]

11 minutes ago, anothertom said:

So would you mind providing the objective difference between a HD and non-HD headphone? Otherwise it's a useless addition to an already bloated terminology.

HD headphone: no microphone, referred to as "cans" or "mid-fi" or "hi-fi" or "audiophile".

Non-HD headphone: microphone, referred to as "headsets" or "gaming headphones".

 

This isn't a "useless addition" at all, it's a general term meant to convey a basic category and it's been around for ages.  I've seen it used consistently going back to the early 2000s when people in the competitive gaming scene started realizing that better audio (good sound-stage, better clarity, etc) actually made a difference in competition.  I'm sorry if you haven't seen it before, but categorizing headphones in this manner is simple and useful on forums where a lot of people aren't as familiar with audio.

[SSL]

1 hour ago, aithos said:

An "HD" headphone is the catch-all term for quality over-ear headphones that aren't geared towards gaming (headsets with microphones).  Some people also use the term interchangeably with hi-fi to mean audiophile quality headphones with better audio quality than standard consumer products that you would find in retail stores.  I use the term in the former manner.

 

"HD" as an alternate term is not a thing. Even "hi-fi" is a bit nebulous outside of marketing jargon.

 

1 hour ago, aithos said:

Why am I recommending that?  I'm not.  I mentioned a couple of options that are widely considered to be the best bang for the buck solutions for amp/dacs capable of running anywhere from entry level headphones to very expensive ones.

 

Ok, so you just mentioned a couple of options. But they aren't recommendations. Got it. The Objective stuff hasn't really been a value since the 2nd gen Schiit stuff came out. Definitely not suitable for very expensive headphones, and in some cases not optimal for even less expensive ones.

 

1 hour ago, aithos said:

Are you suggesting that a decent amp/dac unit paired with some decent headphones won't sound "considerably" better than with a sound-card?

 

Well, the operative words here are "decent" and "considerably", but basically yes. It's possible that a dedicated DAC and amp will not provide a "considerable" improvement. The opposite may also be true. However, I generally do not recommend taking that gamble for people who are not serious about ultimate audio quality and/or have limited budgets.

 

[aithos]

2 minutes ago, SSL said:

 

"HD" as an alternate term is not a thing. Even "hi-fi" is a bit nebulous outside of marketing jargon.

If you say so, but that's your entirely subjective opinion and goes against the commonly held meaning of both terms.

 

2 minutes ago, SSL said:

Ok, so you just mentioned a couple of options. But they aren't recommendations. Got it. The Objective stuff hasn't really been a value since the 2nd gen Schiit stuff came out. Definitely not suitable for very expensive headphones, and in some cases not optimal for even less expensive ones.

Yep, if you had bothered to read the rest of what I had said instead of immediately jumping in to be a jerk you'd notice that I specifically said: " What you go with really depends on your budget and whether you intend to use the headphones somewhere besides your desk (portable) or if you intend to get more expensive headphones later."  IE: I'm not recommending anything but just giving some examples of what you might look at.

As for the rest: give me a break.  The Schiit stuff isn't definitively better than the Objective stuff and until you get into the range of HD-800 and above a decent o2+odac is more than suitable for the vast majority of what people would want to do, and anyone considering planar-magnetic or other expensive headphones won't be looking at a $200-300 amp/dac anyway.  The o2+odac is a neutral amp so to pretend it's less than optimal is ridiculous, the only thing it's not well suited for are extremely cheap headphones that will be exposed for being awful by a good amp... which is true for ANY amp/dac you might want to buy as well.

 

2 minutes ago, SSL said:

Well, the operative words here are "decent" and "considerably", but basically yes. It's possible that a dedicated DAC and amp will not provide a "considerable" improvement. The opposite may also be true. However, I generally do not recommend taking that gamble for people who are not serious about ultimate audio quality and/or have limited budgets.

 

Again, that's ridiculous.  A sound-card isn't at all optimized for headphone audio, let alone for high-fidelity audio.  Unless you have a $300 enthusiast motherboard with "HD audio" (as Asus refers to it on their ROG boards) or a $200+ sound-card there is no way it's going to sound anywhere near as good as a dedicated amp/dac of even reasonable quality.  It's not a gamble at all, it's an investment and it isn't difficult at all to do your research and find an adequate solution within virtually any budget.

 

People spend upwards of several thousand dollars on PC builds that will last a few years, will drop $500+ on a monitor that will last 6-8 years, but suggest they spend $300-400 on a GOOD audio setup that will last 10+ years with proper care and they look at you like you're crazy.  It would be humorous if it wasn't sad.  Also, it has nothing to do with "ultimate" audio quality, it just has to do with good audio quality as opposed to garbage audio.  People using on-board sound with cheap gaming headsets have no idea what they are even missing.

 

Give them a Fulla 2 or an Objective2 and a pair of AKG K7XX to game with and they would be blown away.  You don't need a thousand dollar+ setup to have good audio and I certainly don't recommend that people new to audio (who aren't rich) spend a lot on a setup, but suggesting it's all snake oil and of questionable worth is silly and you're just putting on blinders to one of many aspects of a media experience.

 

[anothertom]

Just now, aithos said:

HD headphone: no microphone, referred to as "cans" or "mid-fi" or "hi-fi" or "audiophile".

Non-HD headphone: microphone, referred to as "headsets" or "gaming headphones".

 

This isn't a "useless addition" at all, it's a general term meant to convey a basic category and it's been around for ages.  I've seen it used consistently going back to the early 2000s when people in the competitive gaming scene started realizing that better audio (good sound-stage, better clarity, etc) actually made a difference in competition.  I'm sorry if you haven't seen it before, but categorizing headphones in this manner is simple and useful on forums where a lot of people aren't as familiar with audio.

That's the use of the term 'headsets'. HD in this instance is not a clearly defined set of criteria, unlike it's use in display technology, and there are products which undoubtedly will crossover from one to the other. What's to stop Sennheiser putting a mic on one of their high end models, does that suddenly make them non-HD?

 

Categorising is only useful when the boundaries are clearly defined.

[aithos]

1 minute ago, anothertom said:

That's the use of the term 'headsets'. HD in this instance is not a clearly defined set of criteria, unlike it's use in display technology, and there are products which undoubtedly will crossover from one to the other. What's to stop Sennheiser putting a mic on one of their high end models, does that suddenly make them non-HD?

 

Categorising is only useful when the boundaries are clearly defined.

Yeah, well nothing in audio is "clearly" defined and you can tell that to the companies who use the terminology.  I'm just using terms that I've seen used hundreds of time over a 15+ year period of time to collectively define the next step beyond cheap/shitty audio without having to get really specific about the characteristics of the headphones.

[SSL]

11 minutes ago, aithos said:

If you say so, but that's your entirely subjective opinion and goes against the commonly held meaning of both terms.

 

Ok. A google search of head-fi.org reveals about 400 results for "hd headphones", most of which are in the names of products. "hifi headphones" yields over 100k results. So you tell me which meaning is more "commonly held".

 

11 minutes ago, aithos said:

I certainly don't recommend that people new to audio (who aren't rich) spend a lot on a setup, but suggesting it's all snake oil and of questionable worth is silly and you're just putting on blinders to one of many aspects of a media experience.

 

But I don't suggest that it's all snakeoil. I've spent thousands on audio by now.

 

At this point you are just ranting and running sentences together. Really, I would like to respond but it's not normal for someone to behave this way in a discussion. If it feels like I am attacking you, then yes, I am challenging your statements because they are wrong in my experience. And I want to ensure that the people that come here looking for information get the most accurate possible, from my point of view. If you want to counter with your own experience, be my guest, but petulantly calling everything I say "ridiculous" is boring.

[anothertom]

Just now, aithos said:

Yeah, well nothing in audio is "clearly" defined and you can tell that to the companies who use the terminology.  I'm just using terms that I've seen used hundreds of time over a 15+ year period of time to collectively define the next step beyond cheap/shitty audio without having to get really specific about the characteristics of the headphones.

I would suggest that there is quite a lot clearly defined in audio. Frequency response, impedance, power capability, bit rates/depth, presence/not of a mic etc... It's the human element which is unclear and varies greatly. But there are better terms than HD and non-HD to describe the difference you meant*. HD (high definition) has no relation the the presence of a mic, or the quality of said mic, from a users perspective; or the quality of the headphones themselves, by your definition.

 

 

*anyway, shouldn't it be HD and SD?

[aithos]

11 minutes ago, SSL said:

 

Ok. A google search of head-fi.org reveals about 400 results for "hd headphones", most of which are in the names of products. "hifi headphones" yields over 100k results. So you tell me which meaning is more "commonly held".

And that says what exactly?  It seems to me like you're just being argumentative for no reason.  I just said that "some people" use the terms HD and "hi-fi" interchangeably, the point was that HD headphones just refers to a generic group and posting anecdotal evidence from a primarily audiophile headphone community doesn't relate at all to the example I've given in several subsequent postings that the term was coined in the gaming community.  Also, Asus uses the term HD audio in their ROG line of gaming motherboards...

 

Quote

But I don't suggest that it's all snakeoil. I've spent thousands on audio at this point.

 

At this point you are just ranting and running sentences together. Really, I would like to respond but it's not normal for someone to behave this way in a discussion. If it feels like I am attacking you, then yes, I am challenging your statements because they are wrong in my experience. And I want to ensure that the people that come here looking for information get the most accurate possible, from my point of view. If you want to counter with your own experience, be my guest, but petulantly calling everything I say "ridiculous" is boring.

No, you're just bashing one of the most well-reviewed and highly recommended amp/dac units for no reason and ignoring both the fact that I wasn't recommending anything specifically *AND* that I also mentioned the Schiit products in the same post.  You're making a big deal out of nothing for no apparently reason, and since I haven't made any real contentions here there isn't anything for me to be wrong about.  You want to "ensure people get the most accurate info" but nothing you've said is even relevant to what I was talking about, you're just too focused on being "right" to let it go. 

[aithos]

3 minutes ago, anothertom said:

I would suggest that there is quite a lot clearly defined in audio. Frequency response, impedance, power capability, bit rates/depth, presence/not of a mic etc... It's the human element which is unclear and varies greatly. But there are better terms than HD and non-HD to describe the difference you meant*. HD (high definition) has no relation the the presence of a mic, or the quality of said mic, from a users perspective; or the quality of the headphones themselves, by your definition.

 

 

*anyway, shouldn't it be HD and SD?

None of that is what we're talking about, you're mentioning specific technical details and I'm talking about a general product category.  You can claim there are better terms to describe it but I disagree, if you say "hi-fi headphones" most non-audio people are going to have even less of an idea what you mean than if you say "HD headphones".  The generally accepted meaning of HD is "high definition", I am broadly lumping gaming headsets together because generally their audio quality is lower... they aren't HD or Non-HD because of the existence of a mic... that is just a general characteristic that correlates to the quality of the audio.  You can argue the semantics all you want, but I'm done because this isn't productive.

[SSL]

8 minutes ago, aithos said:

No, you're just bashing one of the most well-reviewed and highly recommended amp/dac units for no reason and ignoring both the fact that I wasn't recommending anything specifically *AND* that I also mentioned the Schiit products in the same post.  You're making a big deal out of nothing for no apparently reason, and since I haven't made any real contentions here there isn't anything for me to be wrong about.  You want to "ensure people get the most accurate info" but nothing you've said is even relevant to what I was talking about, you're just too focused on being "right" to let it go. 

 

It's not for no reason. Being right is part of it, but it's a means to an end. So, I will not let it go.

[spwath]

22 minutes ago, aithos said:

 

 

No, you're just bashing one of the most well-reviewed and highly recommended amp/dac units for no reason and ignoring both the fact that I wasn't recommending anything specifically *AND* that I also mentioned the Schiit products in the same post.  You're making a big deal out of nothing for no apparently reason, and since I haven't made any real contentions here there isn't anything for me to be wrong about.  You want to "ensure people get the most accurate info" but nothing you've said is even relevant to what I was talking about, you're just too focused on being "right" to let it go. 

I think being right is important. You don't want to spread wrong information. SSL is right here. o2 is a mediocre amp. Schiit stuff is better. That's all there is to it.

[Lauen]

This was a fun read. 

 

OP: As long as your headphones get loud enough, there's no need to get an amp. The DT990s (yes even the 250 ohm) are fairly efficient / sensitive headphones and an amp won't make it sound any better unless your current setup is 15 year old onboard audio. Only reason you'd ever need an amp is to make stuff LOUDER. Which is what an amp does.