Is headphone's scalability a thing?

[Mbuud]

Few days ago i posted on my facebook about my belief on headphone's cables that they don't change the sound of the headphones, and someone commented that it depends on the headphone's scalability. Is headphone's scalability a thing? If it is, what is it? Thanks in advance.

 

[NTK]

Before I (and I think anyone else) can give you an answer, we'll first need to have a commonly accepted definition of what "headphone scalability" is. I have no idea what that someone on FB was talking about.

Having said that, I would bet money that the answer to your question is anything but no.

 

[solderdude]

The whole 'scalabilty' story is very simply explained in a technical term.

Headroom

People that state certain headphones 'scale' simply run into clipping issues with low voltage amps/sources.
High impedance headphones are said to 'scale' on more expensive amps because in general these usually provide higher output voltages and thus reach impressive levels without sounding coarse/unpleasant.
The same is true for low impedance and relatively inefficient headphones. They are said to 'scale' with better amps.
Usually better amps (those suited for low impedance headphones) can provide more current and thus can reach impressive levels without distortion.

Sure one can drive any headphone with a phone but many will not reach impressive levels without a hint of distortion/coarseness.

And yes... headphone cables actually CAN change the sound in specific circumstances but in general they do not.
When they verifiable DO change the sound either the original (3 wire) cable/connector was crap or the new cable is purposely changing the sound (high resistance common return wire in a 3-wire cable with a low impedance headphone).

In most other cases one can be pretty sure it is not 'real'

 

[Mbuud]

we'll first need to have a commonly accepted definition of what "headphone scalability" is.

what this "scalability" that he mentioned, probably means that some headphones could have a significant different in term of sound quality on a different cables while others aren't, but maybe it has another term for it since i couldn't find anything about this "scalability" anywhere

 

[Mbuud]

The whole 'scalabilty' story is very simply explained in a technical term.

Headroom

hmm i pretty much doubt that this "scalability" he meant is headroom, since it has nothing to do with cables, but i guess this "scalability" term, could means different things, that's why i think it might not be a real thing

 

[NTK]

what this "scalability" that he mentioned, probably means that some headphones could have a significant different in term of sound quality on a different cables while others aren't, but maybe it has another term for it since i couldn't find anything about this "scalability" anywhere

In other words, to me, "scalability" would mean how sensitive the headphones are to bad cables. That says something negative about both the headphones (requires too much current) and the cables (impedance too high), assuming the headphone amplifier is not another limiting factor.

 

[Tks]

hmm i pretty much doubt that this "scalability" he meant is headroom, since it has nothing to do with cables, but i guess this "scalability" term, could means different things, that's why i think it might not be a real thing

That's the point though, he won't ever actually provide ample description of what he is talking about in reality with actual metrics that someone can properly understand without interpretation or assumption. The reason folks talk about nonsense like scalability, is they need some sort of justificatory notion of upgradability being possible at all levels. No one using the "scaling" notion would ever conceive the contrary is possible.

Until he specifically describes what scalability translates to in terms of reproducable, and verifiable results, he's simply making vacuous statements.

 

[solderdude]

hmm i pretty much doubt that this "scalability" he meant is headroom, since it has nothing to do with cables, but i guess this "scalability" term, could means different things, that's why i think it might not be a real thing

You can doubt all you want. In the subjectivists world when a headphone 'scales' they mean it sounds MUCH better from a higher quality amp.
It has nothing to do with cables indeed nor did I claim this. The extra info on the cable 'sound' was about your view on headphone cables not sounding different.

Scaling is a nonsensical term coined by those that believe some headphones 'respond' better with higher 'quality' amping. They call that 'scaling' of headphones.
Let them believe it is caused by magic or secret components or other non-electrical causes.
It is not.. the amps in question just have more headroom so the 'scaling headphones' just sound more impressive/loud/distortion free.
Those well scaling headphones thus sound 'good' from a phone, better with some random amplifier, much better with an expensive amplifier and heavenly from their TOTL uber expensive amplifier.
Headphones that do not 'scale' sound very good from a phone and or portable amp and just slightly better from an uber expensive amplifier.

Just use an amplifier that is suited for (subjectivists call this 'synergy') for the headphone in question, especially one with enough headroom (output power).

 

[A800]

The whole 'scalabilty' story is very simply explained in a technical term.

Headroom

People that state certain headphones 'scale' simply run into clipping issues with low voltage amps/sources.
High impedance headphones are said to 'scale' on more expensive amps because in general these usually provide higher output voltages and thus reach impressive levels without sounding coarse/unpleasant.
The same is true for low impedance and relatively inefficient headphones. They are said to 'scale' with better amps.
Usually better amps (those suited for low impedance headphones) can provide more current and thus can reach impressive levels without distortion.

Sure one can drive any headphone with a phone but many will not reach impressive levels without a hint of distortion/coarseness.

And yes... headphone cables actually CAN change the sound in specific circumstances but in general they do not.
When they verifiable DO change the sound either the original (3 wire) cable/connector was crap or the new cable is purposely changing the sound (high resistance common return wire in a 3-wire cable with a low impedance headphone).

In most other cases one can be pretty sure it is not 'real'

I agree headroom is important regarding headphones.

 

[PuX]

it means a headphone responds well to getting a better amp or sounds more or less the same.

 

[MRC01]

Isn't it also possible that a headphone (or speaker) has so much of its own distortion, CSD or other flaws that it masks or obscures subtle details in the music, or other differences? If so, scalability would be akin to transparency, which is not a myth. We've all had the experience of hearing transparent speakers or headphones that revealed subtle details way down in the music that are masked by inferior systems. For an extreme example, I can hear all kinds of subtle details on my high quality system that I can't hear when I listen to the same track in the car, on earbuds, or on the clock radio in my kitchen.

 

[Incursio]

Isn't it also possible that a headphone (or speaker) has so much of its own distortion, CSD or other flaws that it masks or obscures subtle details in the music, or other differences? If so, scalability would be akin to transparency, which is not a myth. We've all had the experience of hearing transparent speakers or headphones that revealed subtle details way down in the music that are masked by inferior systems. For an extreme example, I can hear all kinds of subtle details on my high quality system that I can't hear when I listen to the same track in the car, on earbuds, or on the clock radio in my kitchen.

No.

Some headphones are just more resolving/detailed than others.

This doesn't mean they would sound better with something like an AudioGD Master 9 or iFi Pro iCan than on a JDS Atom (assuming the Atom has enough headroom and all measured differences are below audible thresholds). This is what they mean by scalability. Just substitute the amp for more expensive cables. Same idea.

People make claims of 'scalability' (i.e. better soundstage, 'layering' etc.) to justify the higher costs of an amplifier/DAC/cable.

It would be interesting to see if people making those claims can identify the differences when they can't see what they're listening to.

@solderdude knows what he's talking about.

 

[MRC01]

... Some headphones are just more resolving/detailed than others. ... This doesn't mean they would sound better with something like an AudioGD Master 9 or iFi Pro iCan than on a JDS Atom (assuming the Atom has enough headroom and all measured differences are below audible thresholds). This is what they mean by scalability. Just substitute the amp for more expensive cables. Same idea. ...

That's not my point. I've heard the word "scalable" used in different ways. Sometimes it's about audio snobbery. @solderdude offers another a plausible explanation. He reminds me of the Rega Planet CD player, which some people said "scaled" - meaning it sounds better (or at least different) with "better" (e.g. more expensive) gear. The notion was, most CD players sounded the same in all systems but the Planet sounded different in some, so it must be more "scalable". In this case it turns out it had an output impedance around 1 kOhm which is ridiculously high for a solid state device. If you connected it to the downstream device with high capacitance cables you could get treble attenuation in the audible spectrum. Here, "scalability" was a bug, not a feature. But that was not what people meant when they used the word.

My point is, while people often use "scalable" this way, I don't think that is the only way people use that word. With some headphones, everything sounds the same. Upstream gear, recordings whatever. They are not resolving or transparent, masking differences. With other headphones, everything sounds different. The first time one listens to his music collection with a truly transparent resolving headphone, he realizes how different all the recordings sound. You can hear how closely it's miced, what kind of room it was recorded in, etc. When people say a headphone "scales", sometimes they are referring to this quality: a headphone can scale with good recordings.

 

[Incursio]

My point is, while people often use "scalable" this way, I don't think that is the only way people use that word. With some headphones, everything sounds the same. Upstream gear, recordings whatever. They are not resolving or transparent, masking differences. With other headphones, everything sounds different. The first time one listens to his music collection with a truly transparent resolving headphone, he realizes how different all the recordings sound. You can hear how closely it's miced, what kind of room it was recorded in, etc. When people say a headphone "scales", sometimes they are referring to this quality: a headphone can scale with good recordings.

Fair enough.

I still think it's a better approach to take a specific headphone's capabilities as a given, rather than a variable.

If I would venture a guess, the origins of this 'scalability' myth comes from the Senn HD800, which is a very resolving headphone. It has been said to be very sensitive to upstream gear and recording quality.

Years ago, when nobody had any amp measurements and performance was all over the place, it was a generally accepted idea that the HD800 'scaled' with expensive tube amps. This was because many found the treble to be too harsh and certain tube amps rolled-off the highs.

It has also been said that you could only hear differences between DACs if you were listening with the HD800.

This is all just...amusing.

 

[majingotan]

Years ago, when nobody had any amp measurements and performance was all over the place, it was a generally accepted idea that the HD800 'scaled' with expensive tube amps. This was because many found the treble to be too harsh and certain tube amps rolled-off the highs.

It's not that the tube amp rolled-off the treble frequency but rather the output impedance of the amp emphasized the bass frequency of the HD 800 headphones. This is assuming that the amplifier is well under its clipping limits (using only less than 10% output power on average and have a very high voltage swing when needed)

For balanced armature IEMs, the effect is opposite where a higher output impedance will result to rolled-off bass frequencies. My Campfire Andromeda is pretty sensitive to output impedance that it can sound from "bassy" (elevated 50-700 KHz curve or L-shaped frequency curve) to "harsh" (rolled off from 700 KHz and below) depending on the output impedance the amplifier. I find that an output impedance at 1.5 Ohm suits my subjective preference

 

[Incursio]

It's not that the tube amp rolled-off the treble frequency but rather the output impedance of the amp emphasized the bass frequency of the HD 800 headphones. This is assuming that the amplifier is well under its clipping limits (using only less than 10% output power on average and have a very high voltage swing when needed)

I know. I was just trying to keep it simple without having to explain damping factor.

 

[MRC01]

... It has also been said that you could only hear differences between DACs if you were listening with the HD800. This is all just...amusing.

Most of the time, comments like that are just BS. But sometimes it can have a thread of truth. The HD800 is a relatively transparent revealing headphone, so if there are difference to be heard, you stand a better chance of hearing them with this headphone, compared to most others.

For example, the difference between minimum phase or slow roll off reconstruction filters, and standard "sharp" filters, can be audible. But that difference is usually subtle enough you had better use a transparent revealing headphone if you want to hear it. Since some DACs use different filters, this could be an example of hearing a difference between DACs.

 

[AnalogSteph]

The first headphone model I remember being thought of as "scaling" very well was the HD650, back when that was Sennheiser's TOTL. It would make sense that a headphone with few major foibles in the frequency domain, a slightly tilted response suited to louder listening and low distortion (HD600/650 are still the open headphones to beat in the 40 mm dynamic driver class, IMHO) should react well to better-performing gear.

 

[Incursio]

Most of the time, comments like that are just BS. But sometimes it can have a thread of truth. The HD800 is a relatively transparent revealing headphone, so if there are difference to be heard, you stand a better chance of hearing them with this headphone, compared to most others.

For example, the difference between minimum phase or slow roll off reconstruction filters, and standard "sharp" filters, can be audible. But that difference is usually subtle enough you had better use a transparent revealing headphone if you want to hear it. Since some DACs use different filters, this could be an example of hearing a difference between DACs.

That would be a logical assumption.

Take the supposedly audible differences in DACs that measure audibly transparent, for example...

After all these years, and despite advances in transducer technology, nobody has been able to pass a blind test to prove it. It's all just anecdotal.

People making claims can sound so sure in forums or Youtube videos, but there isn't even a single documented case where someone was able to identify the differences unsighted. All these years, and not even a single one.

(I could be mistaken. Let me know if I am.)

What has undoubtedly advanced is the precision, consistency, and availability of amplifier and DAC measurements, along with a better understanding of audibility thresholds.

I think there is enough available information to disprove many of those claims, scientifically.

 

[JohnYang1997]

5% truth 95% lies.