Topping L30 II Review (Headphone Amp)

[raif71]

Let's talk practical. At the end of the day sighted bias rules. Why do I say that? Yes, I have gone through the blinded tests and couldn't find any differences but that test is just simply not long term. As I accepted the fact that blinded listening I couldn't tell which from which, I started listening normally and whoah...there is a difference. I just can't ignore this. So, like it or not, there is a difference when listening normally...can't help it.

 

[Lambo1985]

The differences you believe you are hearing between these amps are in your imagination. We’ve all been there. If there are “clearly audible” differences between these devices, those differences will also be clearly visible in the measurements. You may think you have no bias but you’re mistaken. There’s really no getting away from cognitive bias. You have to make a real effort to mitigate its effect.

You really are dying on that hill. Aren't you?
Ok. If it's my imagination, so be it. Nothing you or anyone else can sway my subjective opinion. They sound different. Both are kick ass, and are a great value.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

You really are dying on that hill. Aren't you?
Ok. If it's my imagination, so be it. Nothing you or anyone else can sway my subjective opinion. They sound different. Both are kick ass, and are a great value.

Both are definitely kick ass, and a great value. Nobody is denying that.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Let's talk practical. At the end of the day sighted bias rules. Why do I say that? Yes, I have gone through the blinded tests and couldn't find any differences but that test is just simply not long term. As I accepted the fact that blinded listening I couldn't tell which from which, I started listening normally and whoah...there is a difference. I just can't ignore this. So, like it or not, there is a difference when listening normally...can't help it.

LOL. "Simply not long term." OK whatever you say. I prefer to live in reality rather than delusion. I want to do things that ACTUALLY make real differences rather than just imaginary ones.

Look, nobody really cares what you or anyone else thinks they can hear when they listen to their systems. It only matters when you jump on forums (this forum in particular...most others actively promote the lunacy) and start claiming that this amp or dac has quicker transients or that amp or dac removes many veils.

 

[raif71]

LOL. OK whatever you say. I prefer to live in reality rather than delusion. I want to do things that ACTUALLY make real differences rather than just imaginary ones.

Look, nobody really cares what you or anyone else thinks they can hear when they listen to their systems. It only matters when you jump on forums (this forum in particular...most others actively promote the lunacy) and start claiming that this amp or dac has quicker transients or that amp or dac removes many veils.

Thanks for being understanding and accommodating. This site does help in purchasing value added audio gears. I do hope more can tolerate us that are audio challenged in ways of "imagining" gear differences. Yes, there are other forums that are more accommodating/tolerating these heresies but it's just not the same as in ASR.

 

[half_dog]

Being a forum that is inclined to a scientific view is understandable this kind of doubt over people claiming to hear differences. Although both devices display excellent numbers, I think that's possible an external factor might bring a a variable which could cause an audible difference. Amir has enough experience and knows how his rig works and what might cause interfere somehow and in his reviews he usually comments how he fixed (or tried to fix) that. Example, ALL L30 (II) I had are sensible to some interference coming from other devices connected to the same power line. Every time I turn on or off my fan or change its speed, I can hear a click coming from the L30. This never happens with other amplifier I had as JDSLABS Atom, a DIY one similar to Atom, Magni Heresy etc... What I'm trying to say is we cant warranty that device will work perfectly anywere and this can cause an audible difference.
BTW is quite common here people commenting about background noise, mouse noise etc here they have no idea what is the culprit (usually is a ground loop) and blame the device.

 

[Lambo1985]

LOL. "Simply not long term." OK whatever you say. I prefer to live in reality rather than delusion. I want to do things that ACTUALLY make real differences rather than just imaginary ones.

Look, nobody really cares what you or anyone else thinks they can hear when they listen to their systems. It only matters when you jump on forums (this forum in particular...most others actively promote the lunacy) and start claiming that this amp or dac has quicker transients or that amp or dac removes many veils.

It's good to know I'm not the one that's crazy

I've read about people describing the L30II as sounding "dry" & "dead". While I don't necessarily agree with those descriptions, it may have something to do with the negative feedback loop implementation. It may be possible that this implementation can result in what I perceive as faster transients. It may just be a faster decay of the signal. This could theoretically result in the perception of better dynamics and transient response. - In my opinion, it does sound more clean, neutral, and more like how my studio projects sound during the recording/early mixing phase. Where individual track and 2-bus compression hasn't been added/dialed in to glue everything together.

 

[Rja4000]

It's good to know I'm not the one that's crazy

I've read about people describing the L30II as sounding "dry" & "dead". While I don't necessarily agree with those descriptions, it may have something to do with the negative feedback loop implementation. It may be possible that this implementation can result in what I perceive as faster transients. It may just be a faster decay of the signal. This could theoretically result in the perception of better dynamics and transient response. - In my opinion, it does sound more clean, neutral, and more like how my studio projects sound during the recording/early mixing phase. Where individual track and 2-bus compression hasn't been added/dialed in to glue everything together.

In other words, it sounds like when the sound is pure and not distorted yet. (Distorting somehow the sound is a normal side effect of sound processing. No critic at all.)

I'm pretty sure when sound is distorted enough, that will become audible.
Similarly, if you add enough noise (but not to the point it becomes obtrusive), you may possibly hear some effect (I've read somewhere it may impact our perception of spatialisation, as an example).

The difficulty here is that you speak about differences between 2 devices that are measurably transparent. So no distortion that we could reasonably hear, nor noise (unless you feed them with a very low source level. And still.) could justify an audible difference.

The chances the difference comes from the device itself, for 2 devices measuring so well, are very very low.

Still, it's always possible we miss something.
But then we'd need to take the time to identify it, prove (statistically) that this difference really exists and can be reproduced and identified systematically. And then find a measurement that explains it. Or at least shows it.
This is science.

So far, to my knowledge, no real audible difference has ever been proven this way for what we call "measurably transparent" devices.
(If you keep them at the same level and well within the limits where they are transparent, of course)

For sure, that would be a very good thing if that was done, and everybody here would be very excited.

But until we have such an evidence, we won't spend time and energy on such claims.
Because they deny current knowledge without providing any actionable way to improve it.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

It's good to know I'm not the one that's crazy

I've read about people describing the L30II as sounding "dry" & "dead". While I don't necessarily agree with those descriptions, it may have something to do with the negative feedback loop implementation. It may be possible that this implementation can result in what I perceive as faster transients. It may just be a faster decay of the signal. This could theoretically result in the perception of better dynamics and transient response. - In my opinion, it does sound more clean, neutral, and more like how my studio projects sound during the recording/early mixing phase. Where individual track and 2-bus compression hasn't been added/dialed in to glue everything together.

Nearly every one of these amazing, neutral and super clean headphone amps get labelled as "dry and dead" by someone at some point. It often begins with some little issue they've (or somebody else even) recognized that they aren't super happy about...maybe a tiny pop when the amp turns on or when super high def tracks are encountered or perhaps they don't like the feel of the volume knob. Then, they note the amp sounds great, but "maybe a little dry and dead." Too "clinical." Then, a few pages later they have a different (equally clean and neutral) amp on order and when it arrives, lo and behold it's wonderfully moist and alive compared to that old completely neutral and clean amp! The difference (between these two devices whose signal output is measurably unaltered in any way other than volume) is "clearly audible" to them and folks who don't note it obviously have un-cultured hearing and un-resolving gear.

The slight variation in positioning of your headphones on your head from one listening session to the next is causing significantly more sound quality variation than anything these amps are doing differently.

 

[Lambo1985]

In other words, it sounds like when the sound is pure and not distorted yet. (Distorting somehow the sound is a normal side effect of sound processing. No critic at all.)

I'm pretty sure when sound is distorted enough, that will become audible.
Similarly, if you add enough noise (but not to the point it becomes obtrusive), you may possibly hear some effect (I've read somewhere it may impact our perception of spatialisation, as an example).

The difficulty here is that you speak about differences between 2 devices that are measurably transparent. So no distortion that we could reasonably hear, nor noise (unless you feed them with a very low source level. And still.) could justify an audible difference.

The chances the difference comes from the device itself, for 2 devices measuring so well, are very very low.

Still, it's always possible we miss something.
But then we'd need to take the time to identify it, prove (statistically) that this difference really exists and can be reproduced and identified systematically. And then find a measurement that explains it. Or at least shows it.
This is science.

So far, to my knowledge, no real audible difference has ever been proven this way for what we call "measurably transparent" devices.
(If you keep them at the same level and well within the limits where they are transparent, of course)

For sure, that would be a very good thing if that was done, and everybody here would be very excited.

But until we have such an evidence, we won't spend time and energy on such claims.
Because they deny current knowledge without providing any actionable way to improve it.

Just like science can't explain it yet, I'm going to start calling such anomalies "Dark Energy" as a place holder, until someone figures it out.

 

[Rja4000]

I'm going to start calling such anomalies "Dark Energy"

I'm aligned with the "dark" qualifier.
But I'd rather use another word than "energy" until further evidence is provided.

 

[Lambo1985]

I'm alignee with the "dark" qualifier.
But I'd rather use another word than "energy" until further evidence is provided.

It's either "Dark Energy" or "Dark Matter". If we are to go by the standard model of particle physics, it should really only be one of these two - But if there MUST be another word, I vote for the "Dark Force"!

 

[IAtaman]

It's either "Dark Energy" or "Dark Matter". If we are to go by the standard model of particle physics, it should really only be one of these two - But if there MUST be another word, I vote for the "Dark Force"!

Lets go with WIMP.

 

[Lambo1985]

Lets go with WIMP.

Whose Impressions Made Practically. - I like it.

 

[melorin]

Does anyone know what the input impedance is?

 

[oldpsych]

LOL. "Simply not long term." OK whatever you say. I prefer to live in reality rather than delusion. I want to do things that ACTUALLY make real differences rather than just imaginary ones.

Look, nobody really cares what you or anyone else thinks they can hear when they listen to their systems. It only matters when you jump on forums (this forum in particular...most others actively promote the lunacy) and start claiming that this amp or dac has quicker transients or that amp or dac removes many veils.

You certainly have a very condesceding tone,not really a necessity in this forum.I don't question the measurements as presented here.However,you seem to leave the variance in the human ear out of the equation.I've lost some hearing due to age(measured),so I may hear a particular amp or dac differently.That doesn't put me in a world of delusion, my reality is just different from yours and the way something is measured.

 

[Veri]

However,you seem to leave the variance in the human ear out of the equation.I've lost some hearing due to age(measured),so I may hear a particular amp or dac differently.That doesn't put me in a world of delusion, my reality is just different from yours and the way something is measured.

Everything comes down to controls. Sure you may believe something sounds totally different, but how did you test how did you volume match and is the result repeatable? Or did you stop at 'I'm sure I hear what I hear' like just about every other commercialised audio forum. Because that's just an anecdote and not exactly.. objective.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

You certainly have a very condesceding tone,not really a necessity in this forum.I don't question the measurements as presented here.However,you seem to leave the variance in the human ear out of the equation.I've lost some hearing due to age(measured),so I may hear a particular amp or dac differently.That doesn't put me in a world of delusion, my reality is just different from yours and the way something is measured.

Why exactly would two things that don't sound different from each other, sound different from each other because you have lost some hearing? As long as you are using the same two ears to listen with for both devices, why would they be heard differently? What would be the reason for them to sound different from one another due to your specific hearing capabilities? By that reasoning, the same amp could sound different to you from one listening session to the other...which might very well be true, but it's got nothing to do with the amp itself and so it makes that information pretty useless when it comes to offering any sort of public statement about the quality of one amp compared to another.

Oh, and welcome to the forums!

 

[Rja4000]

Welcome @oldpsych !

you seem to leave the variance in the human ear out of the equation.

Sure.
We speak about devices. Not about human ear.

I've lost some hearing due to age(measured),so I may hear a particular amp or dac differently.

Age. I know what you're talking about.

my reality is just different from yours

Most probably.
In fact, that's true for babies as well.

and the way something is measured.

This is where I lost you.

We use measurements to assess the capability of a device to transmit transparently (but, usually, with gain, positive or negative) recorded music or sound.

Unless you have a very out of the norm hearing (like: you're a bat and you are able to hear ultrasonics, which we don't focus on in measurements), if measurements are confirming transparency, it will remain transparent whatever your earing (and, of course, whatever the audio material or music).

That's exactly the "magic" of measurements... and of transparent devices:
you don't want to hear the device. And you can make sure you won't hear it.

"Worse" case, if your hearing is very damaged (I whish not), the measurements will be somehow overkill for you.
But that won't harm.

Hope you get my point ?
Have a good day/morning/evening

 

[oldpsych]

Why exactly would two things that don't sound different from each other, sound different from each other because you have lost some hearing? As long as you are using the same two ears to listen with for both devices, why would they be heard differently? What would be the reason for them to sound different from one another due to your specific hearing capabilities? By that reasoning, the same amp could sound different to you from one listening session to the other...which might very well be true, but it's got nothing to do with the amp itself and so it makes that information pretty useless when it comes to offering any sort of public statement about the quality of one amp compared to another.

Oh, and welcome to the forums!

Ty for your reply but you missed my point.I'm just saying when people respond to forum issues and hear things differently than how they measure it could be (and in my case is) because of hearing loss they are not aware of.If a headphone measures a high treble peak that is not heard,it's not placebo and they are not delusional.People tend to jump on them about how they are technically correct and they are having placebo effect.In reality it's not placebo but how their ears measure.Blind test etc. will not change what they hear.