Live data from Hacker News

Headphone and Amp Impedance (2011)

nwavguy.blogspot.com

51–60 of 115 posts

Re: Headphone and Amp Impedance (2011)

#51
post #44

I find myself guilty of deep-diving into headfi-territory audiophilia once in a while, this time it got to me as well and I started thinking how neat it'd be to finally do it and get some high-end replacement for my 250 ohm dt990 pro cans, and I've heard both the hifman arya and sennheiser hd800s and know they are quite a lot better.. but THEN comes the amp question... and the rabbithole deepens.. and then the DAC an…

> but THEN comes the amp question... and the rabbithole deepens.. and then the DAC and in the end I give up, every time..

Well I have some great news for you!

In 2024, you don’t need to spend mega bucks to get a good DAC or amp. You might not need one at all!

One of the better performing and measuring DACs out there right now is the $9 Apple USB-C dongle: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/r...

I’m not suggesting you need to rush out and buy it, but it’s a good reminder that modern tech is so good that even a $9 Apple part measures so well that nobody could hear the difference between it and a more expensive DAC.

As for amps: The amp story has been exaggerated a lot. A $70-$100 amp could give you more power and better performance than you could ever need (barring exotic headphones that need specialty amps). That’s if you even need one at all.

Don’t drink the kool-aid or take advice from people who learned about Hi-Fi from 1990s or 2000s tech.

> I guess what I hate about gear, is what others love, that there's no one right, no one truth, and that subjective experience has to be taken into account..

Sadly, subjective and placebo are two sides of the same coin in the audiophile world. People will swear up and down that their $1000 amp or DAC or cables are superior to their $100 version, but the claims disintegrate under blind testing conditions.

Re: Headphone and Amp Impedance (2011)

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Digging deep into my memory here, but I always remember that when Zout==Zin that's what you want for maximum power transfer. My guess is that the 1/8 trick is for the typical characteristics of small-speaker headset. Big speakers may have different capacitance and inductance characteristics. I don't know though. That's the first time I heard that approximation, and it doesn't seem to align with anything that I learne…

That's true for RF, but not for DC. Audio is "DC" because transmission lines are well approximated as ideal wires at frequencies below 100s of kHz.

nor fully correct. lumped circuit theory doesn't only depend on the frequency but also the cable length. EM waves travel at around 0.6C in solids (copper). wavelength = V/f where V=0.6C, and frequency is say 20kHz, which is 9km. If you have an audio cable of hundreds of meters you would need impedance matching.

Re: Headphone and Amp Impedance (2011)

#53
post #28

Why don't sources try to measure the frequency response of the driver + cable + headphone circuit and apply a digital prefiltering step to compensate these distortions?

> Why don't sources try to measure the frequency response of the driver + cable + headphone circuit and apply a digital prefiltering step to compensate these distortions?

Because the effects are negligible and trivial to overcome with even basic attention to design.

The distortion of speakers or headphones is orders of magnitude higher than the distortion from even a basic headphone amp design in the modern era.

Re: Headphone and Amp Impedance (2011)

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Digging deep into my memory here, but I always remember that when Zout==Zin that's what you want for maximum power transfer. My guess is that the 1/8 trick is for the typical characteristics of small-speaker headset. Big speakers may have different capacitance and inductance characteristics. I don't know though. That's the first time I heard that approximation, and it doesn't seem to align with anything that I learne…

Unlike what other commenters are saying, this Zout == Zin is applicable to audio. For a fixed Zout much higher than zero, if we want to suck the most power out of the amplifier, we should use a matching Zin indeed. E.g. if an amplifier has 16 ohms output impedance, then we will draw the most power out of it with a 16 ohm load. Loads higher than 16 ohms will result in less current flowing. Loads lower than 16 ohms wil…

> Loads lower than 16 ohms will cause power waste in the source impedance. For instance a zero ohm load will mean that all the power is dissipated in the 16 ohm source impedance: the zero ohm load draws current, but no power because it I^2R is zero.

Why are you even considering the case of a zero Ohm load with a 16 Ohm source impedance? Modern headphone amps (including really cheap ones) have source impedances in the range of 1 Ohm or less while headphones can range from 30-ish to 300 or more.

If you don’t understand the problem with your post, trying flipping the roles to match reality: Assume a 16 ohm load and a 0 (or realistically, 1 Ohm) source impedance: Now the “no power absorbed” side of this equation is the amplifier. All (or nearly all) power goes to the headphones. That’s exactly what we want.

> Loads higher than 16 ohms will result in less current flowing.

I think this is where you’re confused. Headphone amps are generally voltage limited sources. If you get to the point of current limiting then it’s going to distort intensely and people would turn the volume down because it’s so unpleasant. Any source impedance subtracts from the maximum voltage you can apply across the load, because the source impedance forms a resistive divider. These aren’t high frequency transmission lines where we’re trying to send GHz signals over impedance matched lines.

You don’t maximize power delivered to the headphone by adding an identical source impedance. You actually reduce it massively relative to a modern If this still doesn’t make sense, consider why putting a 300 Ohm resistor in your headphone jack before connecting your 300 Ohm headphones isn’t going to improve anything. You’re just burning power in the source-side impedance and fighting against a fixed voltage limit.

Re: Headphone and Amp Impedance (2011)

#56

For context, the NwAvGuy O2 amp[0] design is pretty famous now. The dude even lays it down right there[1] in the comments of the linked article. And then soon after that iirc he just disappears? [0]: https://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/07/o2-headphone-amp.html [1]: https://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/02/headphone-amp-impedance...

Yep, I remember following these articles when they came out. I bought their DAC design and it's been in continuous use for close to a decade now. I've actually got this entire blogspot site mirrored just so I can make absolute certain nothing ever happens to the posts.

Re: Headphone and Amp Impedance (2011)

#57
post #10

this is great, i've been reading a lot about headphone impedance this week, but from the perspective of 'i want to use 3.5mm jacks for super simple data communications and power for small devices, so how do i keep from burning out headphones if someone accidentally plugs them in' (also it turns out that these jacks briefly short-circuit as you plug and unplug them) because 'super simple' excludes power negotiation sc…

Why not just go with RJ11 (6P4C) instead? The PCB mount connectors are cheap, cables are easily available even from most local electronics stores, up to 10m lengths.

yeah, rj-11 or 4p4c ('rj-9') are the other candidates, and they have some real advantages over 3.5mm jacks:

- cables are available even from hardware stores, and also so are bus adaptors which connect two or three or five cables together, pin for pin; these do exist for 3.5mm jacks but are less common

- spiral 4p4c cables are cheap and easily available

- it doesn't short the power rails together as you're plugging it in

- the cables are all pretty high quality, which is not true at all for the 3.5mm audio cables

they also have some disadvantages:

- the cables are much larger than 3.5mm cables

- the jacks are much larger than 3.5mm jacks

- instead of absentmindedly plugging earphones into my data logger or programmable load and blowing up the earphones, the danger is that i (or a child, say) might absentmindedly plug the data logger into the phone jack on my cable modem, which is something like 50 volts on-hook and 90 vac when it rings

- 3.5mm jacks are an evolution of phone switchboard connectors, so they should be good for thousands of insertions and the plugs for like a million or so, and i'd be surprised if rj-11 or 4p4c connectors made it to hundreds

Re: Headphone and Amp Impedance (2011)

#58
post #10

this is great, i've been reading a lot about headphone impedance this week, but from the perspective of 'i want to use 3.5mm jacks for super simple data communications and power for small devices, so how do i keep from burning out headphones if someone accidentally plugs them in' (also it turns out that these jacks briefly short-circuit as you plug and unplug them) because 'super simple' excludes power negotiation sc…

What’s wrong with type c connectors? They are dirt cheap, psu/cable is already done for you, thoroughly tested, and easy to solder(6pin version)

usb c? they're fragile as shit, they're a pain in the ass to solder compared to 3.5mm jacks or rj-11 jacks, the data protocol is a fucking nightmare, making a compliant psu is even worse, 90% of the market consists of noncompliant devices that are thoroughly tested to not work, you have to insert them at the right angle, and, worst of all, here in argentina they aren't even dirt cheap

basically in many ways usb c represents the opposite of what i want to achieve

however, it does have some real merits! the other 10% of the market has some really excellent devices which can reliably deliver many watts of power over relatively lightweight, flexible cables; the connectors are quite thin and lightweight, more so even than 3.5mm jacks; most usb-c devices can charge from usb-a chargers and talk to usb-a data ports, where the data protocol is still a fucking nightmare, but at least it's a widely implemented fucking nightmare that delivers multiple megabits; and even if you do have to insert the connector at the right angle, at least now you can do it without looking, unlike usb-a, mini-b, and micro-b

Re: Headphone and Amp Impedance (2011)

#59
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> i want to use 3.5mm jacks for super simple data communications and power That sounds like an all around bad idea.

Apple's iPod Shuffle 2G did charging and USB syncing over its 3.5mm TRRS socket. And for people concerned about accidentally shorting a power line when inserting the plug, hypothetically could use a socket with built in switches so power is only sent once the plug is fully inserted into the socket.

oh hey, that's a pretty good idea, thanks! you can tell i'm a novice

it would still probably burn out my earbuds if i put 5 volts at 100 milliamps on the tip connector once the plug was fully inserted

Re: Headphone and Amp Impedance (2011)

#60
post #27
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

just in case this wasn't clear, plugging headphones or other audio equipment into these 3.5mm jacks is not the intention of this design; rather, i want to minimize the chance of destroying expensive equipment if it happens by accident noise is pretty irrelevant on the power rail. but if i put a high constant impedance on the power rail—say, a 100Ω resistor in front of 5 volts—none of the devices powered from it can d…

You could do what USB does and limit the current until the device signals it wants full power!

a couple of levels up i said

> 'super simple' excludes power negotiation schemes like usb-c

like, i think you're thinking about devices one or two orders of magnitude bigger than what i'm talking about. i want to be able to wire up a 35¢ device like an attiny4 https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/microchip-technol... with maybe three 1¢ resistors and two 1¢ diodes for protection http://tinyurl.com/26ngjdzh or maybe just soldered directly to the jack. it has 512 bytes of flash for the code and 32 bytes of ram; that would have to contain both whatever is necessary for the communication protocol and whatever application i want to run on it (in that case maybe it could handle a capacitive touch button or run a couple of 5-volt pwm channels)

i'm not sure the attiny4 is powerful enough. but i'm pretty sure i can make the attiny45, the ch32v003, the pms150c, the attiny202, the stm8s003f3, or the mb95f264hpft work

otoh in usb-c a lot of the power negotiation consists of things putting particular resistors across the line, which you could do even at that small granularity. a bus topology won't let you do that, though; if you had five devices plugged in, all their resistors would be in parallel

(incidentally, despite the name, usb is not a bus; it's a bunch of point-to-point links. that's why it can do that)

Post reply on HN