# Rising cost of "audiophile" equipment and importance of bias/blind testing



## Dillan

Am I the only one around here that is fed up with the evolution of headphone pricing and marketing? We are shooting ourselves in the feet by being blind, ignorant buyers and thinkers. We aren't looking at the technical, tangible aspects of these products anymore and instead just looking at the price tag and letting our wallets and bias control us. I have personally just recently come to the conclusion that if a company obviously and irrationally overcharges for their products (at any point in their product line, but usually this is done at the very flagship level) then I am not going to buy any of their products whatsoever anymore. Companies like Schiit create excellent gear at an understandable price, because they don't hire marketers that whisper in their ear to charge to the extreme because it makes the company and the product look like "the best". Ever notice how when Jude on head-fi or even sites like CNET - when reviewing a product its always "the best" when it costs the most. Also every review video is very positive of the product if they sponsor the site or an event.
  
 Obviously people in this thread are less guilty, but its like everyone just wants the cost of things to go up. A/B testing, double blind testing and the mention of pricing is highly discouraged in every thread and even *banned *in most cases. How laughable is that? We should instead be encouraged to promote price for performance and blind testing. Audio is very subjective and it makes me sick that its universally accepted that the most expensive things are the best - the new Orpheus cost what, $60,000? The new MSB system at Canjam London is $144,000? Someone in that very thread said the markup just for vendors was 50% and then take into account the build cost is about roughly a few hundred dollars and you get a product that everyone's going crazy with joy about that has one of the largest markups ever seen in the headphone industry and nobody is allowed to talk about it. If their R&D upsale *of each individual product* is well over a hundred thousand dollars then I need to get into audio engineering, because their time is statistically worth more than the most sought after jobs in the world. Its been mentioned that Sennheiser spent more time developing the HD800 than they did with the new $60,000 orpheus. However Sennheiser has well funded marketing that knows in this hobby, people use money as a means of comparing whats good and bad, because our brains aren't developed enough to think beyond the bias, pricing and marketing that goes on as well as one of the major portals of discussion and research (head-fi) which discourages blind testing and price discussion. Every time I have seen it being brought up in fact.. a mod steps in to warn, ban or delete it.
  
 Sorry for the rant, but its very disheartening and we are literally hurting ourselves by this type of behavior. People are amazed and starry eyed when seeing these products with incredibly high price tags and automatically assume its the best thing ever. So when you put them on you have this assumption that its amazing so guess what, people think it is. Would they be that amazed if they were told it cost a few hundred dollars, or even just simply blind tested it first?
  
 No. They wouldnt.
  
 Anyway here is the post and the message that lead me here. Thanks for letting me rant.
  


deftone said:


> wow  $145K buying your headphones after that would seem like pennies.


 


dillan said:


> Im afraid it will only get worse. It's not as much about sound quality anymore as it is about money and marketing. Ever notice how it's always an "upgrade" when spending more money? These guys noticed


 


jude said:


> Have you heard it? Like I said in my post (and as @musicman59 said in his), it's an amazing system to listen to. Would I spend that kind of money on a headphone system, in any circumstance (certainly not in my reality, and likely not even in fantasy)? Probably not.
> 
> I hope companies keep making hypercars, too, even though my current reality is a Honda Fit. It's not like if I choose to upgrade my car, the only place to go from my Fit is a Porsche 918.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Then below is my reply in the thread that was deleted almost instantly by Jude and I was sent a PM by him as well.
  
 ------------------------------------------------------------

 Quote:


dillan said:


> I definitely appreciate the fact that both the Orpheus and the MSB are priced really high. Their marketing is extremely respectable for sure. Going out on a limb here and guessing if people blind listened without knowing the price then they _probably_ would have different (and less impressive) reactions. Do you think if you told people it cost $3000 they would say it was a bargain? Probably not.. And I guarantee the general consensus would be that it wasn't as good as combos that cost more than it. Instead it has an unheard of price tag so it's automatically "the best".
> 
> Just my two cents but audiophiles and religion have much in common. I'm sure the system is cool, I'd buy one if I thought it was worth it. Not to derail the thread, I look forward to more impressions!


  
 --------------------------------------------------------------
  
 Followed by his PM and deletion, a quote from Jude: "The moment you start getting into blind testing and/or the religion analogy, the appropriate place is in the Sound Science forum. You can start a thread in there, and (if you'd like) quote my post that you responded to."
  
 So that is what I did.
  
 I love the community and I love the hobby, but we are slowly buying our way out of sanity and reason and it's turned us into a joke. The fact that we openly have the theme of "*Welcome to Head-Fi, sorry about your wallet*" - kind of explains it all. Our sound science forum is dead and people on the outside view audiophiles as brainless snake-oil buying jokes and audio manufacturers see us as dollar signs.
  
 Am I just going crazy here? I never hear anyone talking about blind testing anymore and things that used to be discouraged such as expensive cable upgrades, overpriced items etc are now highly encouraged. I have literally watched the community slowly decline in promoting technology and reason over the last 5 to 10 years and prices are jumping up and outsiders respect of us is almost non existent at this point.
  
 I have been just as guilty in the past, but I have always been aware of my bias and overpaying for items and part of it was just for the appeal of exclusivity and viewing some of the products as more "art" than real audio enjoyment. My HD800's were less enjoyable than my $60 Grado, but guess which one I felt most proud to tell people about?
  
 Perhaps its time for me to move on, its a pity.


----------



## krismusic

Hi Dillan. I hear you brother! However, I think you are conflating several different things that do not necessarily belong together. 
I am slightly sceptical about the MSB system. I'm looking forward to hearing it but it may well be an attempt to break a price point for marketing purposes. I don't know. 
When I first read of the original Sennheiser Orpheus,it was presented as a cost no object attempt to achieve the absolute pinnacle of audio perfection as an excersise rather than a serious attempt to sell to customers with deep pockets. I like that approach. 
Eventually I was lucky enough to hear the Orpheus a couple of years ago. It had an air of reverence about it and I enjoyed hearing it. However, I much preferred the HD800 system and figured that showed how much things had moved on on 20 years. 
This year I hope to hear the HE1 and I hope that will up the game once again. 
Regarding mark up. Almost everything you buy goes through the same process. 100% mark up. It's the way retail works. So yes. It's sobering to realise that something you pay £1000 is in reality worth £500 and the value of the components or materials is even less. Hey ho!
As for people on here. It exasperates me how many people do not allow for new toy syndrome. Expectation bias and placebo. 
The claim of "night and day" differences is enough to put me on my guard. 
Apart from headphones. The differences between electronics is small IME 
I am sick to death of products that promise the moon on a stick and don't even deliver the stick!
For me however, this does not ruin the hobby for me but I would never buy anything without hearing it and I approach purchase as cynically as possible. 
I remain interested to hear products that create excitement on here but I make my own mind up. 
One last thing. I think blind testing is a very useful tool but not the be all and end all. Some attributes may take time for the listener to become aware of?
With all "improvements" the acid test for me is if they enhance my enjoyment of music over a period of time.


----------



## Dillan

krismusic thanks for the reply, certainly some great points. I definitely look forward to your impressions. I know some people have said they enjoy their Stax setup more than the HE1 so it will be interesting to hear the impressions from can jam. A very smart thing you said about auditioning before you buy and if that's possible then I HIGHLY recommend it to everyone. I've noticed that my hearing preference and opinion differs greatly than most people's so I have came to rely on myself and only myself.

Thanks again for the reply, have a great event, wish I could make it!


----------



## U-3C

Welp, I've spent enough money to learn to be on guard when I hear "night and day," especially when about products that should not sound different (as in, products like the O2 that should not sound different by design no matter who makes it).

Going from a pair of Skullcandy iems to a pair is apple iems was the only "night and day" difference I have ever experienced. Going from apple to Audio Technica AD900X, as well as the Q701 with a CEntrance dacport slim really wasn't that much of an improvement for me. I was so underwhelmed I went to test my friends with my system. Some claim to be reluctant to even pay 20 dollars for the setup. One person, who also has a headphone hobby and recognized the setup, however, was super excited and claimed to hear much more details with higher resolution files. She couldn't prove any difference in the 5 blind tests she volunteered to do, which really surprised her.

Go audiophilia~

\( ^_^)/


----------



## reginalb

EDIT: Missed the part that earned the deletion from @jude, so I'll take out my original criticism. You can see in cel's post below where my reading ability seemed to fail me for a few minutes. Sorry about that. 
  


> Companies like Schiit create excellent gear at an understandable price, because they don't hire marketers that whisper in their ear to charge to the extreme because it makes the company and the product look like "the best".


 
  
 Have to disagree here. The Fulla is a dec little guy at a great price, but Jason Stoddard is a marketer. A skilled one, too. Having a big marketing thread that people love and just view it as him telling it like it is, when it's just a very long advertisement. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, to be honest, it's better than the marketing that a lot of these places run, and some of my best friends are marketers! But marketing is what he does on here. I love that he even once said something to the effect that there is evidence that amps sound different, but not DAC's. He also has a whole post on how overpriced a lot of audio gear is. This is _also_ a guy that sells a $2300 DAC, not even a DAC/Amp, just a DAC.


----------



## cel4145

reginalb said:


> The fact that
> your thread gets deleted is just infuriating. @jude  has no problem, clearly, allowing the post on the site, you just better make sure it's in a backwater thread. There is no reason that post should have been deleted. Pretty shameful to be honest. I do blame this site for my having spent money on things that were a complete waste in my past.




I think Head-Fi mods and Jude tend to also be more tolerant when posts that mention blind testing aren't intolerant of others and say things like 



dillan said:


> Instead it has an unheard of price tag so it's automatically "the best".
> Just my two cents but audiophiles and religion have much in common.




Some members would find that insulting.


----------



## reginalb

cel4145 said:


> I think Head-Fi mods and Jude tend to also be more tolerant when posts that mention blind testing aren't intolerant of others and say things like
> Some members would find that insulting.


 
  
 Ah, thanks, I managed to breeze over that in my first read through. That would be insulting (accuracy notwithstanding) to a lot of people here.


----------



## cel4145

reginalb said:


> Ah, thanks, I managed to breeze over that in my first read through. That would be insulting (accuracy notwithstanding) to a lot of people here.




Yep. And then someone else will go off on that. And then the website has a flame war with no one listening to each other any more. It's like what is the point anyway then of even bringing it up.


----------



## Dillan

reginalb said:


> The fact that
> 
> 
> your thread gets deleted is just infuriating. @jude has no problem, clearly, allowing the post on the site, you just better make sure it's in a backwater thread. There is no reason that post should have been deleted. Pretty shameful to be honest. I do blame this site for my having spent money on things that were a complete waste in my past.
> ...


 

 I can't argue with your post at all. Thank you for the reply and your mindset is most welcome here. I feel like it would be a great thing to discourage product makers from creating snake oil or overpriced nonsense or at the very least I wish we were allowed to voice our criticisms more openly and hopefully inform newcomers to the hobby that "price doesn't always equal performance" (this saying being super extra extra true in the audiophile world). My posts have been deleted quite a few times for being blunt and honest instead of just blindly believing the hype. To their defense I do go off topic and have a tendency to rant, so I don't really blame them for that - but I *do *blame them when they specifically point out the things I spoke about such as encouraging technology and science, blind testing and price breakdown/criticism and banning that specifically.
  
 I have always wanted to break down the technical aspects and build materials/quality of these unimaginably priced devices, but nobody is ever open to comparing the $2000 dac to the $100,000 dac.. other than to say how much better the higher priced is, because it just _has _to be better right? I can understand a supercar with *much much *higher build cost AND tangible real evidence of its performance in horsepower, track times, features etc costing over six figures.. but a little aluminum box with a circuit board inside or a pair of headphones that some pretentious company builds and *charges the same price* as the supercar with no available technical or scientific reason as to why the cost is so high is honestly ridiculous and they should be ashamed and anyone who pretends to hear the "incredible night and day difference" should be laughed at. People like that ruin the hobby and are the reason our motto is "sorry about your wallet". Well if we weren't completely bias inspired and discouraged from science, technology and double blind testing then that motto wouldn't exist.
  
 It literally all boils down to sound being subjective and hard to prove/measure. So companies take advantage of that and of the people they sell their products to. But if you're blind (or deaf) enough to buy it, then we should only pity you and try to inform the next victim and then just move along.


----------



## Dillan

cel4145 said:


> Yep. And then someone else will go off on that. And then the website has a flame war with no one listening to each other any more. It's like what is the point anyway then of even bringing it up.


 

 I agree the religion bit was crossing the line - but many other times my posts have been deleted because I chose to bring up or challenge the reasons behind pricing of a certain item as well as asking the technical comparisons versus other devices and *especially *when I bring up double blind or A/B testing. That sort of speak is apparently banned outside of our dead sound science section which is actually extremely harmful to the community. Literally it drags us down as a whole to not only discourage it, but ban it.


----------



## RRod

cel4145 said:


> Some members would find that insulting.


 
  
 [rant not directed at you, cel, you cool]
  
 :stephenfry_offended.jpg:
  
 There is so much stuff that IS basically religion on this site that the comparison is apt. Did you know that a headphone that is actually not that hard to drive and is low in distortion needs a really expensive amp/DAC that is specifically chosen for the user because synergy? If you look up the HD800 on this site, that's the stuff you'll get, rather than "just use a bit of EQ to get the sound you want." It's funny that a single off-hand snark remark gets a whole missive from the admins, but encouraging people to spend past their budgets is just cool because, hey, "sorry about your wallet." Well some of us find THAT insulting, and we get sent here to Molokai.


----------



## Dillan

rrod said:


> [rant not directed at you, cel, you cool]
> 
> :stephenfry_offended.jpg:
> 
> There is so much stuff that IS basically religion on this site that the comparison is apt. Did you know that a headphone that is actually not that hard to drive and is low in distortion needs a really expensive amp/DAC that is specifically chosen for the user because synergy? If you look up the HD800 on this site, that's the stuff you'll get, rather than "just use a bit of EQ to get the sound you want." It's funny that a single off-hand snark remark gets a whole missive from the admins, but encouraging people to spend past their budgets is just cool because, hey, "sorry about your wallet." Well some of us find THAT insulting, and we get sent here to Molokai.


 

 Literally couldn't agree with this anymore. I should put that in my signature or something.


----------



## cel4145

dillan said:


> I agree the religion bit was crossing the line - but many other times my posts have been deleted because I chose to bring up or challenge the reasons behind pricing of a certain item as well as asking the technical comparisons versus other devices and *especially* when I bring up double blind or A/B testing. That sort of speak is apparently banned outside of our dead sound science section which is actually extremely harmful to the community. Literally it drags us down as a whole to not only discourage it, but ban it.




Well, it could be the approach or tone of what you said in other circumstances as well. After all, you did miss that the "religion" bit as reasonably something mods might remove to discourage flame wars. Missed it enough not only to write it to being with, but to quote it again here and tag Jude on it. (lol)

So as an "objectivist" I'd want to see the actual examples and situations before I could agree with you.


----------



## cel4145

rrod said:


> [rant not directed at you, cel, you cool]
> 
> :stephenfry_offended.jpg:
> 
> There is so much stuff that IS basically religion on this site that the comparison is apt. Did you know that a headphone that is actually not that hard to drive and is low in distortion needs a really expensive amp/DAC that is specifically chosen for the user because synergy? If you look up the HD800 on this site, that's the stuff you'll get, rather than "just use a bit of EQ to get the sound you want." It's funny that a single off-hand snark remark gets a whole missive from the admins, but encouraging people to spend past their budgets is just cool because, hey, "sorry about your wallet." Well some of us find THAT insulting, and we get sent here to Molokai.




The whole synergy thing can be questioned even from a subjectivist perspective. Most people on Head-Fi would probably agree that it can be difficult to get agreement on how different headphones sound in comparison to each other because of how subjective that is. Then the idea that there is shared agreement about the minute difference in amps and dacs (if one accepts that difference exists) can make with a headphone is fairly illogical.


----------



## RRod

cel4145 said:


> The whole synergy thing can be questioned even from a subjectivist perspective. Most people on Head-Fi would probably agree that it can be difficult to get agreement on how different headphones sound in comparison to each other because of how subjective that is. Then the idea that there is shared agreement about the minute difference in amps and dacs (if one accepts that difference exists) can make with a headphone is fairly illogical.


 
  
 The thing is that agreement can happen simply by bandwagon effects, but that is another thing that if brought up would get you outcast. As far as the flame-war element brought up previously, my feeling is that 1000+ page threads can deal with the occasional 2-4 page reminder of the existence of other ways to handle this "good sound" business. That being said, people would do better to help out the newbie posts rather than hop into the Schiit thread.


----------



## Dillan

rrod said:


> The thing is that agreement can happen simply by bandwagon effects, but that is another thing that if brought up would get you outcast. As far as the flame-war element brought up previously, my feeling is that 1000+ page threads can deal with the occasional 2-4 page reminder of the existence of other ways to handle this "good sound" business. That being said, people would do better to help out the newbie posts rather than hop into the Schiit thread.


 

 I feel like I would get permabanned for telling a newcomer the truth about bias and pricing and snake oil here to be honest. Which sucks.
  
 I wouldn't feel safe introducing someone unless I said the generic "Welcome to head-fi, start out with this dac/amp for your low impedance headphones and also sorry about your wallet."


----------



## krismusic

I was about to drop, what for me is quite a chunk of my disposable income, on a DAP as I had begun to think that maybe the iPhone was not as good as it gets. 
It was largely a very honest post from Dillan that stopped me. At least until I follow my own advice and hear it at CanJam!
It seems to me that mainstream electronics from the likes of Apple have got so good these days that boutique manufacturers really struggle to justify their products.
A great shame you won't be at CanJam Dillan. It would have been good to meet you. Mind you, you would probably have started a punch up !!


----------



## LajostheHun

The religion aspect is spot on. It simply implies that no scientific evidence required only belief. Simple is that, and if someone find that insulting perhaps they should have examine themselves further why.
Regarding marketing, actually some companies like Shiit or Cavalli don't really need it as the members here can create such hype that no advertising dollars could match alone.
As for price and performance value. My personal limit is $1000 on anything headphone related, but I probably would never pay more than $300 for a dac, and certainly would never pay anything at all for fancy cables or USB purifiers and other such nonsense.
I don't blame the companies taking advantage of people who let themselves fall into their deception. It is their choice and they doing it willingly. Of course this site is enabler it's how it makes money, is anybody don't know this when they signed up or watched some of their videos?
Knowing all this I'm still here because it's still a somewhat diverse crowd here so there is something of an interest once in awhile, and many of the poster's experiences have at least some entertaining values. YMMV.


----------



## cel4145

rrod said:


> The thing is that agreement can happen simply by bandwagon effects, but that is another thing that if brought up would get you outcast




Exactly. But I think it's possible to argue it from a subjectivist perspective, which means maybe some people might be convinced. 



rrod said:


> That being said, people would do better to help out the newbie posts rather than hop into the Schiit thread.




I will sometimes bring up in the newbie threads that "audio science suggests" and encourage people to go learn more. I try to avoid saying that everyone else is wrong and try to avoid remarks that might seem as disparaging to the opposite point of view. Merely offer it as an alternative way of looking at things that they might want to learn more about. Let people make their own decision. 

Most recently this has been the case with smartphones and portable DACs. Thanks to GSMarena's measurements, it's possible to show people how well many flagship smartphones measure with an external amp when the person really just needs more volume. Buy a Fiio A3, and they are set to power most headphones with a phone with likely cleaner output (since most measure better with external amplification).


----------



## cel4145

lajosthehun said:


> The religion aspect is spot on. It simply implies that no scientific evidence required only belief. Simple is that, and if someone find that insulting perhaps they should have examine themselves further why.




But why is it necessary to even make that analogy? When it is obviously an ineffective rhetorical strategy, doesn't make sense to bring it up to me. It seems to me it's more about some kind of personal interest in asserting one is right than trying to convince others.


----------



## Dillan

krismusic said:


> I was about to drop, what for me is quite a chunk of my disposable income, on a DAP as I had begun to think that maybe the iPhone was not as good as it gets.
> It was largely a very honest post from Dillan that stopped me. At least until I follow my own advice and hear it at CanJam!
> It seems to me that mainstream electronics from the likes of Apple have got so good these days that boutique manufacturers really struggle to justify their products.
> A great shame you won't be at CanJam Dillan. It would have been good to meet you. Mind you, you would probably have started a punch up !!


 

 Hey no worries man, you're a friend to me no matter what. We will meet some day I am sure.


----------



## krismusic

dillan said:


> Hey no worries man, you're a friend to me no matter what. We will meet some day I am sure.



It was you and the manufacturers I was worried about!
To continue the theme. I think that there is something a bit dubious about turning audio into a hobby at all. Listening to music is essentially a passive activity. Perhaps people try to turn it into an active pursuit with all the talk of synergy etc. 
Essentially you are just buying stuff. 
I like the paraphernalia as much as anyone but I only spend money on stuff that genuinely improves my life.


----------



## Dillan

lajosthehun said:


> The religion aspect is spot on. It simply implies that no scientific evidence required only belief. Simple is that, and if someone find that insulting perhaps they should have examine themselves further why.
> Regarding marketing, actually some companies like Shiit or Cavalli don't really need it as the members here can create such hype that no advertising dollars could match alone.
> As for price and performance value. My personal limit is $1000 on anything headphone related, but I probably would never pay more than $300 for a dac, and certainly would never pay anything at all for fancy cables or USB purifiers and other such nonsense.
> I don't blame the companies taking advantage of people who let themselves fall into their deception. It is their choice and they doing it willingly. Of course this site is enabler it's how it makes money, is anybody don't know this when they signed up or watched some of their videos?
> Knowing all this I'm still here because it's still a somewhat diverse crowd here so there is something of an interest once in awhile, and many of the poster's experiences have at least some entertaining values. YMMV.


 

 Cheers, thanks for your post and I pretty much agree with all of it. I tend to stick around, because this is the few places I can keep up with local events to actually get a chance to listen first hand to compare different things.. as well as ask important questions that I can't find elsewhere regarding a potential purchase. Those two things are important to me and keep me around head-fi.. although reluctantly.


----------



## LajostheHun

cel4145 said:


> But why is it necessary to even make that analogy? When it is obviously an ineffective rhetorical strategy, doesn't make sense to bring it up to me. It seems to me it's more about some kind of personal interest in asserting one is right than trying to convince others.



No argument there, it is clearly not a tool to teach but rather pointing out the obvious from one's POV.


----------



## castleofargh

reminds me of this excellent documentary(DVDs never lie!). "this expensive audio device, do you want to know what it is? the marketing matrix is everywhere..."
  
  
 
  
 happiness and truth aren't always on the same bill in the same pill.


----------



## icebear

Relax guys, relax ... what honestly is the problem?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Talking people into spending their money and then talking people into spending more money is just the way it works. This is how the world economy works. If someone is stupid enough to blindly believe marketing folks and is not able to listen for himself and make a proper judgement, if he's getting his money's worth, then he will be had a couple of time down the road of his life, simple as that
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. This may sound a little sarcastic but this is my simple point of view. I listened to a well hyped 3000$ headphone and was pretty much alone in my opinion how it sounded not like the real instruments and that I didn't like it. I am quite confident that I am able to judge for myself, if I like the sound of something or not, no matter what the hype is. If there is a 125 grand DAC/headphone amp system out there that gets hyped, yeah ok. I wouldn't spent the money on that, a home comes first. But I have no problem with any manufacturer building and pricing a system in a way that gets a lot of attention. So what?
  
 If there is chance sometime that the Orpheus 2 will be shown in the NYC area, I will try to audition it, sure why not. I will never spend that much money on a headphone. But I have also heard an about $500 grand 2 channel speaker system and I was disappointed. It's not the price tag that makes the sound, when you have ears to listen
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## U-3C

icebear said:


> Relax guys, relax ... what honestly is the problem?  :rolleyes:
> 
> Talking people into spending their money and then talking people into spending more money is just the way it works. This is how the world economy works. If someone is stupid enough to blindly believe marketing folks and is not able to listen for himself and make a proper judgement, if he's getting his money's worth, then he will be had a couple of time down the road of his life, simple as that .




Almost every single person first getting into audio equipment is that stupid. Just like me.

I wish people told me that I was stupid instead of encouraging me to buy into the marketing BS and spend more money.


----------



## Peti

For 145k one can build a hi-fi system that will wash the floor with that headphone "accessory". The headphone "hobby" has been doing its best to catch up with the hi-fi audiophile world's crazy pricings. I have seen special rocks to be sold for 40$ totune your room and audio system (!)  (http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm), USB A to USB B cable for 9000$, audiophile-grade micro SD card, "Hi-Rez" audio files uosampled from redbook, etc.
  
 Gone are the days when my eyes popped out to see a new pair of headphones for 5.5k a few years back that never had the chance to make it on the Wall of Fame at Innerfidelity. As much as I love headphones and the intimate connection to the music, listening through a true hi-fi system is just different, to put it nice. If I was a bored millionaire, I'd go with the hi-fi system instead of spending 145k on a headphone system sans the headphones themselves.
  
 On the other hand, if one gets to learn how to navigate around here and what to take with a grain of salt, one can find himself in the cornucopia of related knowledge and impressions, a sheer size of related information that is unmatched on the internet when it comes to the hobby of personal audio. Also, if I may reverse the OP's "thesis", many of us remember the good ol' days when the HD650 was the king and then you called it a day. Since then we have made an enormous improvement regarding music reproduction on headphones & the prices went up like crazy, too. So would it better if we'd got stuck on that level with the HD5650?


----------



## musikevan

Maybe I'm just getting old, but good audio electronics is much more affordable than the high-end gear of the past few decades. It's not that the technology has improved, although it has,but there are so many more options available to the thrifty audiophile. No one has to spend $$$ on the latest promoted gear to join the club. Anyone remember when single ended pentode amps were all the rage in the 1990s? Console pulls were going for hundreds-- the common stuff, 6bq5, etc.  If you needed power, SAE, and early Van Alstine gear was your goal,but it certainly wasn't cheap.
  
 By comparison, there's a plethora of options that will get you near the very best... objective, schiit, beyerdynamic, soundmagic, the list goes on-- and at reasonable cost considering the quality.  There will always be overpriced and hyped gear so long as companies and individuals want your money.


----------



## VNandor

icebear said:


> Relax guys, relax ... what honestly is the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Good marketing and scamming people should not be the same thing. I'm not sure if I can label selling snake-oil equipment as scamming from a legal viewpoint but in my opinion it is morally unacceptable.


peti said:


> For 145k one can build a hi-fi system that will wash the floor with that headphone "accessory". The headphone "hobby" has been doing its best to catch up with the hi-fi audiophile world's crazy pricings. I have seen special rocks to be sold for 40$ totune your room and audio system (!)  (http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm), USB A to USB B cable for 9000$, audiophile-grade micro SD card, "Hi-Rez" audio files uosampled from redbook, etc.


 
 Don't get me started. I might start selling audiophile-grade metadata for FLAC files (if I change my mind about what's  being "morally acceptable" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




), apparently some people believe it can somehow "corrupt" the file, and I've seen that in the sound science sub forum, not in the one for cables


----------



## Dillan

To me its the principal of it. I can't respect a company that charges six figures for a headphone system. Like I mean honestly guys lets be serious for one second. I could buy a house and build an acoustic room and install a good speaker system for that money, literally. Who would want a headphone "toy" at that point. Either way I like the discussions from all angles and my opinion isn't always fact.. for me I just strongly believe that manufacturers are taking advantage of the misinformed, *which also *affects me in many ways.. regardless if I believe the nonsense and hype or not. Honestly though at the end of the day.. if I were them, I would want to trick people into thinking I were the best too.. why wouldn't I want to take money and trick people if I were making a huge profit from it. It would be different if I were stealing from the poor, but they are stealing from the stupid.
  
 It just sucks that because of people paying without thinking - we suffer, because we think before we buy.


----------



## Peti

Ok, let's not get overboard though; what you just said Dillan, can be summed up in one word; Capitalism. Everything comes down to money and to own more and more of it. And profit is not a four letter word, but rape is against the law, you know. I have news for you: you (and pretty much all of us) get ripped off in the grocery's store, at the car dealership, at the dentist, etc. on a regular basis. I'm sure there will be demand for this 145k audio system in certain circles though.
  
 Just because we don't know anyone who has the $ and crazy/adventurous enough to buy, rest assured, there's folks out there to pick these up.


----------



## franzdom

It's easy to not like rich people and to be jealous when you are young. As you mature and gather wealth it becomes more difficult, and easier to see both sides of things.


----------



## musikevan

Hmmm. I've certainly matured, but when can I expect to gather wealth?


----------



## VNandor

castleofargh said:


> reminds me of this excellent documentary(DVDs never lie!). "this expensive audio device, do you want to know what it is? the marketing matrix is everywhere..."
> 
> 
> 
> ...





 The analogy is not perfect IMO.
 Some people get tricked into think that they took the red pill and that's where it can get infuriating (And confusing because how can you be so sure about that you took the red pill? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




). Just imagine that Morpheus switched the description of the pills on purpose then had a good laugh and left the Matrix.


----------



## U-3C

Speaking of which...the Schiit Modi Multibit is now out.
  
 ...
  
 What's the point?
  
 No, it's not a rhetoric question, but like really, what's the point? It seems to be so important for some people, but doesn't make a difference for others, so I never understood what the purpose of a multibit dac is. Just what exactly makes it so special?
  
 0_0?


----------



## Dillan

peti said:


> Ok, let's not get overboard though; what you just said Dillan, can be summed up in one word; Capitalism. Everything comes down to money and to own more and more of it. And profit is not a four letter word, but rape is against the law, you know. I have news for you: you (and pretty much all of us) get ripped off in the grocery's store, at the car dealership, at the dentist, etc. on a regular basis. I'm sure there will be demand for this 145k audio system in certain circles though.
> 
> Just because we don't know anyone who has the $ and crazy/adventurous enough to buy, rest assured, there's folks out there to pick these up.


 

 Good point.
  


franzdom said:


> It's easy to not like rich people and to be jealous when you are young. As you mature and gather wealth it becomes more difficult, and easier to see both sides of things.


 

 I consider myself both well off and mature 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 but I didn't get that way buying magic tricks either. I still remember the company lessloss literally selling a plastic box that sold for hundreds (thousands?) that eliminated quantum and distortion fields.
  
  


u-3c said:


> Speaking of which...the Schiit Modi Multibit is now out.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


 

 Sonically I have no idea.. engineering and technology wise I can respect it.. still don't really have a clue why though, nor do I fully understand the reason. I could rant forever about dac technology. To me I think its at the point where some of these headphones and dacs/amps are being updated and upgraded well past our hearing capability. Tyll said at a recent seminar that digital sound processing is the future and one of the only things we can do anymore that actually makes a difference in sound that we hear.. he has a point, because increasing almost immeasurable specifications just doesnt cut it for me anymore.. but I have noticed the most expensive gear can't even do that.


----------



## cel4145

dillan said:


> To me its the principal of it. I can't respect a company that charges six figures for a headphone system. Like I mean honestly guys lets be serious for one second. I could buy a house and build an acoustic room and install a good speaker system for that money, literally. Who would want a headphone "toy" at that point.




You aren't the target market, though. It's like the Kef Muons which are $225K a pair. It's for the person who has everything with hundreds of millions in the bank. Well, unless you are a Saudi prince or major star NBA player and we didn't know it 



So do you not respect Kef because they make a $225K speaker??? Or what about the Behinger iNuke Boom iPhone speaker for $30K? Am I going to condemn Behringer for that? Seems silly for a product, but someone might have bought one when they came out:

(see the iphone plugged in on top to realize how big it is)

Sometimes such things are built more as concept products that help to generate talk about a brand. And then design effort that goes into it provides some new knowledge that may trickle down into other products. For example, there are some flagship concept cars that have super high end audio systems that you will never see in a production car. It's to show off what the audio company can do. They use them at conventions and shows.


----------



## Mach3

To me, what make a certain thing/product valuable is how rare they are.
 That's why, I prefer collecting rare headphone instead of the latest and greatest mass product TOTL.
 As soon as a new model come out, you've just lost 40-50% of your initial value. That's fine if you purchase basic headphones around 100-200 mark.
 Once you step into 2000-4000k mark, it really hurts the hip pocket.
 Worst example of this is the HD800 and the HD800s. You added a foam filter and painted black instead of silver. Bam it a nice upgrade.


----------



## Peti

mach3 said:


> To me, what make a certain thing/product valuable is how rare they are.
> That's why, I prefer collecting rare headphone instead of the latest and greatest mass product TOTL.
> As soon as a new model come out, you've just lost 40-50% of your initial value. That's fine if you purchase basic headphones around 100-200 mark.
> Once you step into 2000-4000k mark, it really hurts the hip pocket.
> Worst example of this is the HD800 and the HD800s. You added a foam filter and painted black instead of silver. Bam it a nice upgrade.


 

 But I wouldn't label this 145k audio system mass product by any means. Other than that I fully agree.


----------



## Mach3

dillan said:


> Am I the only one around here that is fed up with the evolution of headphone pricing and marketing? We are shooting ourselves in the feet by being blind, ignorant buyers and thinkers. We aren't looking at the technical, tangible aspects of these products anymore and instead just looking at the price tag and letting our wallets and bias control us. I have personally just recently come to the conclusion that if a company obviously and irrationally overcharges for their products (at any point in their product line, but usually this is done at the very flagship level) then I am not going to buy any of their products whatsoever anymore. Companies like Schiit create excellent gear at an understandable price, because they don't hire marketers that whisper in their ear to charge to the extreme because it makes the company and the product look like "the best". Ever notice how when Jude on head-fi or even sites like CNET - when reviewing a product its always "the best" when it costs the most. Also every review video is very positive of the product if they sponsor the site or an event.
> 
> Obviously people in this thread are less guilty, but its like everyone just wants the cost of things to go up. A/B testing, double blind testing and the mention of pricing is highly discouraged in every thread and even *banned *in most cases. How laughable is that? We should instead be encouraged to promote price for performance and blind testing. Audio is very subjective and it makes me sick that its universally accepted that the most expensive things are the best - the new Orpheus cost what, $60,000? The new MSB system at Canjam London is $144,000? Someone in that very thread said the markup just for vendors was 50% and then take into account the build cost is about roughly a few hundred dollars and you get a product that everyone's going crazy with joy about that has one of the largest markups ever seen in the headphone industry and nobody is allowed to talk about it. If their R&D upsale *of each individual product* is well over a hundred thousand dollars then I need to get into audio engineering, because their time is statistically worth more than the most sought after jobs in the world. Its been mentioned that Sennheiser spent more time developing the HD800 than they did with the new $60,000 orpheus. However Sennheiser has well funded marketing that knows in this hobby, people use money as a means of comparing whats good and bad, because our brains aren't developed enough to think beyond the bias, pricing and marketing that goes on as well as one of the major portals of discussion and research (head-fi) which discourages blind testing and price discussion. Every time I have seen it being brought up in fact.. a mod steps in to warn, ban or delete it.
> 
> ...


 
 I actually saw that response before it got delete. I was kinda surprised at your initial message and thought to myself. There are sane people like me too and I was so thrilled other notice the crazy trend.


----------



## Mach3

peti said:


> But I wouldn't label this 145k audio system mass product by any means. Other than that I fully agree.


 
 You have a good point, but I was referring more to the fact of the trend of TOTL headphone at the moment.
 Before the HD800, the HD600 & HD650 ruled the market for decades without the need for upgrades at a reasonable price.
  
 To be honest, I know there was much more R/D in my 30k Evo X than that so called MSB best setup 145k
 I know I'm not comparing apple to apple. But I refuse to believe that the R/D and part of cost of the MSB setup is any near my impressive Evo X.
  
 If I was the owner of the MSB previous flagship the MSD Diamond DAC.
 I would feel small and cheated at the same time, because the next upgrade is more than double of a $40k DAC


----------



## Dillan

@cel4145 no way is that iphone speaker real, for some reason I think that is the funniest thing I have seen in a long time lol look at that thing! The iphone looks like an ant compared to it.
  
 And I actually could afford the MSB system, but it wouldn't just be pocket change. However I would die inside and would rather use that investment to make more money so that eventually I can sit on that iphone dock in my living room


----------



## Mach3

dillan said:


> @cel4145 no way is that iphone speaker real, for some reason I think that is the funniest thing I have seen in a long time lol look at that thing! The iphone looks like an ant compared to it.
> 
> And I actually could afford the MSB system, but it wouldn't just be pocket change. However I would die inside and would rather use that investment to make more money so that eventually I can sit on that iphone dock in my living room


 
 You should buy an Evo X you'll have much more loose change and it more fun than a 145k paper weight sitting at home


----------



## cel4145

dillan said:


> @cel4145
> *no way is that iphone speaker real,* for some reason I think that is the funniest thing I have seen in a long time lol look at that thing! The iphone looks like an ant compared to it.




Yes it is.



Behringer apparently made it mainly for promotional purposes. They hauled it around to conventions. Not sure how many they actually sold. But I think they did have them listed for sale at one point.

Although for $30K, seems a bit overpriced. I bet we could get help from the DIY guys at AVS forum and build our own for 1/3 that


----------



## cel4145

Just had to post another pic


----------



## U-3C

cel4145 said:


> Just had to post another pic


 
  
 ...
  
 Thank you for the pic!

 xDDD
  
 If I ever become a rich billionaire, I might just buy that simply as a piece of furniture for my house/mansion, just to troll my friends.
  
 \(>v<)/


----------



## Dillan

Oh my god look at that thing! Hahaha yea I'm with you, its almost worth it just for novelty reasons. My friends and family would die if they saw that in my living room and me trying to keep a straight face telling them it's my iPhone speaker!


----------



## U-3C

Um...what happens if the iPhone dies and Apple decides to, I don't know, use a new, proprietary connection (like they always do once in a while).
  
 Will the iPhone still sit perfectly with a cheap adapter and not fall over and call down all audiophilia hell, or will you have to spend about $10k to get a custom adapter that covers the entire top, so the iPhone sits perfectly on it and the adapter blends in seamlessly, so people can enjoy the original design style?


----------



## Brooko

Dillan
  
 I'm going to highlight a few portions of your post - and this is not Brooko the "Mod" talking - but Brooko the audio enthusiast / music lover / Head-Fi member (who happens now to have a knowledge of the inner workings for the forum).
  
 Quote:


dillan said:


> Obviously people in this thread are less guilty, but its like everyone just wants the cost of things to go up. A/B testing, double blind testing and the mention of pricing is highly discouraged in every thread *and even banned in most cases.* How laughable is that?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...


 
  
 The three sections I've kept may be your impression of what goes on - but they are blatantly false.  You don't get banned for talking about blind-testing, or for objective testing.  In my time here it hasn't happened (to my knowledge anyway).
  
 There is a rule however that if you want to talk about those subjects, placebo etc - it should be done in the Sound Science section.  There is a reason for this.  People are passionate about audio. Most of the people who come here lean heavily on the subjective side. Suggesting that their impressions are wrong, and they should be blind testing, volume matching, ABXing etc inevitably leads to massive debates which then lead to full blown arguments. If it was allowed, then the forums would cease to function effectively. So it was decided (well before I joined) to make a section of the forum available where you could debate these points, and where it was OK to ask for proof.
  
 Now here is the ironic thing - if we'd gone the other way, and made a small section of the forum just for the subjectivists, and said in this small part of the forum you couldn't insist on testing etc - guess which part would grow, and which would shrink?  So the forum is the way it is for a reason.
  
 I'd actually prefer if we could bring more objectivity to the forums.  I try to use as much as I an in my own reviews.  I challenge people on cables and burn-in.  But I also live within  the rules.
  
 The reason Sound Science is dead is because not enough people use it.  I wish more did - but that's up to the community to embrace it.  You want it to grow - create more interesting threads.  We don't put things here to die - we do it so they can be explored properly.  I'll give you a couple that I set up - one a couple of years after I first joined, one more recently:
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/815002/discussion-on-mee-p1-and-burn-in
  
 Sound Science is a great part of the forum - and it can grow if you actively use it.  That onus is on you and others in the community.
  
 But please don't spread the litany that the Mods here do things like:
  - maniacally protect sponsors
  - jump down the throats of any objectivists
  - ban people for no reason
  - act like fascists etc
  
 In reality - nothing could be further from the truth.  I see a lot of the PMs between Mods and members and most of them are courteous, polite and understanding. The last thing we want (as volunteers) is to be involved at all.  We'd prefer the forum runs smoothly.  But with a million visitors a week, we are kept pretty busy.  The reason the forums run so smoothly is because we manage to allow all people to express their opinions without having massive arguments.  To do this we have to have rules.
  
 The only times I see the Moderation team get grumpy - is when we post a simple advice of the rules, and we basically get told to "eff off".  Or when we get a post or PM claiming things which are blatantly false.
  
 Did you notice that despite your digs at Jude = he hasn't shut this down, hasn't given any warnings, has allowed you to have your opinion.  That's what the Mod/Admin Team is really like.  its a pity more people didn't give them some due respect.


----------



## krismusic

brooko said:


> The three sections I've kept may be your impression of what goes on - but they are blatantly false.  You don't get banned for talking about blind-testing, or for objective testing.  In my time here it hasn't happened (to my knowledge anyway).
> 
> There is a rule however that if you want to talk about those subjects, placebo etc - it should be done in the Sound Science section.  There is a reason for this.  People are passionate about audio. Most of the people who come here lean heavily on the subjective side. Suggesting that their impressions are wrong, and they should be blind testing, volume matching, ABXing etc inevitably leads to massive debates which then lead to full blown arguments. If it was allowed, then the forums would cease to function effectively. So it was decided (well before I joined) to make a section of the forum available where you could debate these points, and where it was OK to ask for proof.
> 
> ...



I have huge respect for the Mods. 
I realise that the role is voluntary and it is the Mods who help make this forum the friendly place it is. 
As do the rules. 
I was not happy with the bashing tone of some of this thread and perhaps should have said so. 
There are points raised in this thread that are very valid and interesting to me though. 
That is it to say that I do not enjoy the hobby aspect of audio. Reading about the latest gear, going to meets, hearing amazing set ups. 
When it comes to parting with money though, I have to be careful. I am very fortunate and live well but I have little disposable income, so it is very useful to have a corrective to the consumer enthusiasms that abound on here. 
I do think that there is a lot that is valuable about HeadFi though. After all I have been a member for quite a few years and obviously enjoy being here.
Having met Jude I know that he is a lovely guy and a real enthusiast. 
However it is probably worth bearing in mind that he and this site are working within commercial realities. We don't pay to belong here. Isn't there an old internet truism," if you don't pay for content, you are the content"?!
That is not to say that interactions between members are not genuine. 
There are also strict rules about how industry insiders operate on here, which keeps things transparent. 
I find Sound Science very valuable and it has saved me going down several expensive rabbit holes. There are some very technically knowledgeable members on there who can give sound insight into products other than " it's shiny"!
It does get a bit dry though and other areas of the forum offer a lot of eccentricities and entertainment.
Not to mention keeping me up to date with all the latest and greatest gear.  
All in all it is a good thing not to be naive. 
I'm sure there are charlatans and hucksters within audio. 
There are also sincere, genuine people working hard to push forward the possibilities. Some technical people have an approach that is similar to that of an artist. 
As consumers it is worth keeping our feet on the ground however. I have heard some very esoteric rigs. I have yet to hear anything that blows me away. For £145k the MSB would have to reproduce the sound of angels breathing into my ears!
I have come to the conclusion that audio, in particular headphones, only gets so good. 
It is easy to get very used to top quality sound and start looking for "the next level" and plenty of people on here will encourage you. 
There is a limit. I think when you forget that is when you start chasing unicorns.


----------



## mulder01

I think the times I have mentioned trying things blind in the subjective section of the forum I've never had an issue...

To be honest I've not visited the Sound Science part of the forum in a while. (Only here because OP linked to this thread from the LCD-4 thread). From my limited experience though, I've found that very few people are completely open minded about audio. Most either completely ignore the science, or make every decision based around it. I was here ages ago when a little device from Synergistic Research called the "HOT" came out and it seemed ridiculous and everyone bagged the crap out of it because how could it possibly do anything. I laughed along with everyone. Somebody bought one and didn't like it and donated it to a few of the sound science regulars to do some testing on it to see if it did anything. They did every test imaginable, but when I asked if they listened to it, they hadn't. Isn't the obvious test to see if something makes the sound different to listen to it? But they refused, because the theory and the measurements told them that it CAN'T do anything. So it seems like there are very few people in the middle. On one side you have people that firmly believe in the importance of things like premium interconnects and feel like the difference is so obvious that they don't have to do a blind test just to prove themselves to the skeptics, and on the other side, you have the people that feel like they don't have to prove to the cable believers that they're right, because there is no possible way that they can do anything so they don't even need to listen to them...

I'm an electrician and have a fairly good understanding of electrical theory. I'll admit that the idea of upmarket cables seems sketchy. How can they possibly do anything. I was telling a retailer one day who started talking to me about cables that I wasn't entirely convinced. He said that plenty of people are in the same boat and he gives them a cable and tells them to take it home and try it. Listen to it for a few days or a week and if they don't like it, bring it back for a full refund. He reckons they never come back. Said that plenty of people are skeptical and not willing to try, but the ones that are skeptical but ARE willing to try always stick with it - claims that he has never met the guy who was open minded about cables, tried them and went back to standard $20 ones. Was it true or just part of the pitch? I dunno. Is the whole industry built on people's fear of not having the best? Are they all simply worried that if they go back they will be missing out on something so they keep it 'just in case'? I dunno.

So I figured the only way to put the issue to rest is to try things for myself. In the past (in store) I have tried a bunch of different dacs. No joy. As far as I'm concerned the sound science guys were right on that one. Tried the almighty Yggy. No different to my ears to any other DAC I've tried.

I have literally just sat down with a pair of Cardas Clear interconnects that I bought second hand off audiogon. This 0.5m pair of coax cables retails for AUD $2499. Which is flat out ridiculous IMO. (paid USD $500 for these used with postage). I have a pair of Abyss and a respectable dac/amp to try them on. Too many people compare a $40 cable to a $120 cable and say "yep sounds the same to me! CONCLUSION: all premium cables are a lie" (yes that is slightly exaggerated). So I figured to be able to put this debate to bed (to my satisfaction) I'd go for the flagship cable of one of the world's most respected brands and compare it to a blue jeans cable (to ensure the "cheap" cable is definitely a reasonable quality cable - not just something that costs a dollar and may have an issue that makes the premium cable sound better). I WANT it to sound amazing and if it does, I will accept that it does even though I don't understand why, but I also want it to sound the same so I can sell it for what I paid for it and I got to have an extended in home demo with one of the world's "best" cables and have satisfied my curiosity and it cost me nothing. I am going to hold onto them for a while so I can let some other head fi'ers have a listen to see if we all agree, and we will be absolutely ABX testing them. Should be interesting. I'll post my/our findings when it's all said and done and include a link to the "for sale" section if need be.

Anyway sorry for the very long post, but that's what science is about to me - you make a hypothesis based on what you know and expect and then you ACTUALLY DO the experiment to see if you were right...


----------



## Joe Bloggs

I guess I'm in an even deeper hole than most of you guys, because not only do I find the expensive products lacking in quality over the inexpensive ones, I also find that said expensive products are pushing superior products / methodologies out of existence. All I need for music fidelity in all situations, besides a basic pair of headphones and DAC/amp, is a sophisticated digital effects host that can process all system audio with equalization, multiband compression and cross channel impulse convolution (for crossfeed and/or multichannel processing). The "purist", "bit-perfect" and DSD movements are pushing such an approach to the lunatic fringe.

Allow me to pimp my latest DSP project here, this one greatly enhancing soundstage from headphones: http://www.head-fi.org/t/811837/natural-crossfeed-on-headphones-earphones-for-foobar2000-v2-0-major-update-made-public

It may not work for everybody, but if you want to create a setting that works best for you, it's a matter of shelling out about $100 for a measurement mic and sitting in front of a stereo (doesn't have to be even that good a stereo) for recording.

You may also note that such an approach calls for a fixed sample rate / conversion to said fixed sample rate, which is apparently an existential threat to audiophiles the world over. :rolleyes:


----------



## gregorio

Quote:


brooko said:


> [1] Most of the people who come here lean heavily on the subjective side.
> 
> [2] Now here is the ironic thing - if we'd gone the other way, and made a small section of the forum just for the subjectivists, and said in this small part of the forum you couldn't insist on testing etc - guess which part would grow, and which would shrink?


 
  
 1. Isn't this a circular argument? I don't have any figures but my guess is that many/most of those who come here for the first time do not "lean heavily on the subjective side". Don't most first-timers come here for information on how to spend their money wisely to replace or upgrade part/s of their audio chain? If so, I would think most don't lean heavily on any side, most first-timers probably don't realise there even are "sides" but if they did, wouldn't they want to come down more on the objectivist side because they just want to get the best bang for their buck and not get ripped off? They generally don't want to know the science behind say how a DAC works, they just want their seemingly simple question answered, so they don't come to the sound science forum, they go to the forum with the name which best matches the audio component area they're looking to replace/upgrade. As soon as they do, they effectively become targets for indoctrination by subjectivists (+ those who profit from subjectivists) and the vast majority will succumb to this indoctrination and become subjectivists themselves. So yes, most who come here will will eventually lean heavily on the subjective side.
  
 2. I think we all know which would grow ... the really sad part is why! The bottom line is that there's countless millions of $ to be made from pushing subjectivity at the expense of objectivity and relatively little/nothing to be made from pushing the opposite. If objectivity ruled: There wouldn't even be a market for $500 consumer DACs, let alone DACs which cost many times that amount. There would be no cable market beyond say Amazon Basics. There would be no consumer audio formats or consumer audio content beyond 16/44.1. Etc. ... There is no financial advantage in stating these facts and therefore it's not worth investing any finances in marketing them but with millions at stake, it's certainly worth investing finances in pushing subjectivity at the expense of objectivity. With substantial budgets for a range of sophisticated marketing strategies verses no budget for any marketing at all, it's not difficult to guess which part would grow and which would shrink!
  


brooko said:


> The three sections I've kept may be your impression of what goes on - but they are blatantly false.  You don't get banned for talking about blind-testing, or for objective testing.  In my time here it hasn't happened (to my knowledge anyway).


 
  

 1. It's not just the OP's impression and it's not blatantly false. Sure, just mentioning objective testing doesn't get one banned but talking about what the results of objective tests actually mean, does!
  
 2. The general rule here on head-fi is no insults/abuse, which seems fair enough. The problem is in how that rule is applied. I personally find the use of pseudo-science and the deliberate (or even inadvertent) perversion of the facts/science to be "abuse", a very insulting abuse. However, this abuse is perfectly acceptable here on head-fi (except occasionally on this sub-forum), even to the point of it appearing to be encouraged by some! Any hint of an insult or abuse towards the abusers, even just refuting the claims of the abusers, that's effectively forbidden?
  
 The problem for some of us is that we would like to see head-fi exist to help newcomers and thereby (due to it's size) actually influence the manufacturers of consumer audio equipment and content to produce (value for money) high-end products. Unfortunately, head-fi in effect does the opposite: It misinforms newcomers and encourages manufacturers to produce products which are no higher-end than vastly cheaper equivalents but are simply marketed as higher-end through the abuse/perversion of facts.
  
 I'm not attacking you personally Brooko, you and castleofargh are two of the better mods IMHO, trying to take a more moral stance against a system which is stacked against such a stance. I'm not even attacking the rules of head-fi. What I'm attacking is whoever has decided to interpret those rules, whoever it is who has decided that posting perversions of the facts is not abuse, insulting or disrespectful to others but strongly refuting those perversions is!
  
 G


----------



## Brooko

The thing is Gregorio - people know what they sign up for when they join.  The rules are there in black and white. And as part of the sign up process you actually have to acknowledge them (I personally doubt a lot of people read them - but there you go).
  
 The second thing is that there are a lot of people who would fall in the middle ground (I'd like to think I fit that mould) - maybe acknowledging their human weaknesses (bias whatever you want to call it) and also ready to listen to a reasoned response.  Those people aren't the issue.
  
 The ones who are the issue are the ones on both sides of the spectrum who are vociferous in their responses, and are often unwilling to hear the other side of the debate.  And to be honest one side is as bad as the other.  Neither listens, both try to drown each other out, and before you look around - you have a thread going off the rails.
  
 The thing is - its not my forum - I just choose to spend my time here.  Why?  Because the people are nice, its a great source for music ideas, and I've learnt a whole lot about myself, my hearing, my limitations, how audio works etc.  But I'm interested in that stuff - others aren't. Question - how would *you* police things if they weren't run the way they are now?  Start banning everyone who continually argues from both sides? You'd likely end up with a very heavily moderated forums.  Hydrogen also has a set of rules - and people live by them.  if they make claims they better be able to back them up.  Why is their forum necessarily any better than here?  people will gravitate to where they feel comfortable.
  
 And  how do you settle the debates on burn-in, cables, formats etc? And do you realise how many people who are here that just want to relate their experiences and not worry about it?
  
 I think you know me well enough by now to know that my hearing isn't the greatest - age and tinnitus are my enemies. I know I can't tell aac256 from FLAC or DSD for that matter.  Most well made DACs actually do sound the same to me (transparent).  But you know what - I have a iDSD Micro (and am also testing a DAC Box RS).  Both have little lights which flick on telling you when you're playing DSD (both can upsample).  I know there is no way I can tell the difference, but that little light actually makes me feel better when music is playing. The secret is I know it makes no audible difference to me - but the machine gives me pleasure.
  
 What I'd love to see s a forum where that sort of discussion could be fostered.  I agree there is too much snake oil out there.  I'd love to see the scientific side of things discussed a lot more.  But I'd also like the pure science types to apply a little human empathy and emotion.  I don't listen to sound - I listen to music.  Technically its sound - but its the actual music that moves me.  Ideally there should be a mix of both on the forum.  If you can find a way to have both, and not have the throat ripped out of half the threads on the way - I'm sure a lot of people would be interested.


----------



## Brooko

Oh - and actually this bit is wrong - sorry:
  


> 1. It's not just the OP's impression and it's not blatantly false. Sure, just mentioning objective testing doesn't get one banned but talking about what the results of objective tests actually mean, does!


 
  
 I talk about it quite often - even before I became a mod. The difference is the manner of how it is explained.  And this comes back to the people at the fringes of both sides of the debate. Before you know it - they are shouting - and thats where the warnings come in. The bans come when people are warned not to be abusive, and they continue.  And 9/10 the poor people stuck in the middle who might have asked the seemingly harmless question will wonder what the heck they have done to start such a massive brawl.
  
 The fault is on both sides.
  
 The problem is that neither side wants to acknowledge their part of the problem.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

The problem is, Brooko, the truth doesn't always lie somewhere in the middle.


----------



## gregorio

mulder01 said:


> They did every test imaginable, but when I asked if they listened to it, they hadn't. Isn't the obvious test to see if something makes the sound different to listen to it?


 
  
 No, it's not, it just seems like it's the obvious test.
  
 1. The perception of sound is massively influenced by all kinds of biases, not least of which is what we know about what we're listening to. Our perception of sound means that we can hear substantial, very obvious differences where there are none or hear no differences where there are substantial differences and not only that but our perception is not constant, it changes over both the long term and the short, depending on various factors, including context. For anyone who is unaware of these basics of the perception of sound then just listening to it would seem like the obvious test but for those who are aware, it's not. The first thing I'd want to do is test whether or not there is actually any difference because if there isn't then whatever difference I perceive from a particular listening test or even several listening tests is just my perception playing a trick on me, a trick which can change at any time due to a change in context, biases or knowledge about what I'm listening to. Personally I'm unwilling to spend substantial amounts of money without knowing there is some actual difference.
  
 G


----------



## Brooko

joe bloggs said:


> The problem is, Brooko, the truth doesn't always lie somewhere in the middle.


 
  
 If at the end of the day, the person is happy - does it matter?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

brooko said:


> If at the end of the day, the person is happy - does it matter?




How many of these people are actually happy with their gear?

How long does this happiness last before the next upgrade bug bites?

I'm as happy as can be with my gear, have been for years--with the only caveat of worrying that the tools I use to achieve audio nirvana will one day be obsoleted out of existence by the mass market.

Can the same be said of head-fiers in general?

If objectivists have earned a reputation for being a cranky lot, it certainly isn't because of dissatisfaction with their own gear.


----------



## gregorio

> Originally Posted by *Brooko* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> The bans come when people are warned not to be abusive, and they continue.


 
  
 While I agree with most of what you have said, it's this statement which infuriates me.   Perverting the facts is abusive and yet people continue to do so and are never even warned in the first place, let alone banned. Many mods actually encourage or support that abuse and are themselves sometimes the actual instigators/perpetrators!
  
 I'm well aware of the weaknesses in human perception. As a sound engineer it's a constant battle, both trying to avoid fooling yourself and deliberately trying to fool yourself (and others)! There can't be a single experienced sound engineer out there who hasn't spent time tweaking an EQ (or other processor) to perfection, only to find that actually they've done nothing at all because the EQ was bypassed the whole time. It's also pretty difficult to remain objective after considerable time trying to fix an issue, that what you've ended up with is actually better than what you started with. On the other side of the coin, most of my work depends on fooling the perception of others, I typically explain my most common professional role (sound designer) as effectively operating between the two boundaries of reality and believability.
  
 Although I personally don't do it, I have no objection to people buying or recommending audio equipment purely due to it's visual appearance or pride of ownership. I don't even object to someone stating that some uber-expensive cable or rock has caused a night and day difference in how they personally perceive the sound from their system. I just object to those who state it DEFINITELY makes a night and day difference to the actual SQ/fidelity and anyone who disagrees is effectively deaf, an idiot or both. Wrapping that sort of statement up in slightly less offence language is still a perversion of the facts and is still insulting/abusive, just not as overtly insulting. It seems to me that this is the skill/art of getting away with being insulting/abusive here on head-fi. Deliberately lying, deceiving, misinforming, insulting, abusing and disrespecting others are all absolutely fine, provided it's done in a certain way and depending on who those "others" are!
  
 G


----------



## Joe Bloggs

But it's not abusive misrepresentation if they 100% believe in it...


----------



## Brooko

joe bloggs said:


> But it's not abusive misrepresentation if they 100% believe in it...


 
  
 And the problem comes in where people talk in absolutes.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

I was merely pointing out why it can't be considered as deliberate insults. They believe it makes a genuine audible difference, hence anyone who can't hear it is deficient in hearing. Simple "fact".


----------



## Brooko

gregorio said:


> While I agree with most of what you have said, it's this statement which infuriates me.   Perverting the facts is abusive and yet people continue to do so and are never even warned in the first place, let alone banned. Many mods actually encourage or support that abuse and are themselves sometimes the actual instigators/perpetrators!


 
  
 Let me ask you something Gregorio - as I've read a lot of your posts, and found most of them very insightful.  When you've been moderated, has it been the debate or subject you've been moderated on, or is it when the name calling starts? Because I get to see a lot of it now - and although I can't make a call on what happened years earlier - I do know that almost all of the time when a Mod steps in - they aren't taking sides in a debate - they are stepping in when the forum rules have been broken.  Nothing more - nothing less.  How you interpret that is pretty much the same thing as you're talking about thus far.  Perceptions of reality skewed by which side of the debate they're on.  When we're actually moderating, we have to put our own opinions away.  We deal in facts.  And its not the debate we have to moderate - it is the behaviour of the participants.  We're not here to sort truth or pick sides.  We're here to make sure the forum rules are followed.
  
 The issue is that both sides get so wrapped up in the heat of the debate, that it escalates quickly into mud slinging a lot of the time.  When it does, it is the perpetrator (or both parties a lot of the time) that gets bounced.
  
 Try it sometime.  Debate a point - but without escalating or making it personal - you'll find the mods do nothing.  We don't take sides - we can't afford to.
  
 And again, this perception you seem to be placing on us is quite frankly troubling - and I'll say again - a little skewed.


----------



## gregorio

joe bloggs said:


> But it's not abusive misrepresentation if they 100% believe in it...


 
  
 Yes it is. The only difference, if they 100% believe in it, is that it would be an inadvertent abusive misrepresentation rather than a deliberate abusive misrepresentation. If I state the earth is flat, would that not be a misrepresention of the facts if I actually believed the earth to be flat?
  
 G


----------



## Brooko

joe bloggs said:


> I was merely pointing out why it can't be considered as deliberate insults. They believe it makes a genuine audible difference, hence anyone who can't hear it is deficient in hearing. Simple "fact".


 
  
 You and I both know that there are ways and means of debating Joe.  And when someone calls someone else's hearing into question - most times it is done maliciously in the heat of a debate.  So lets not try and dress it up.  When it gets personal - it crosses a line.


----------



## Brooko

gregorio said:


> Yes it is. The only difference, if they 100% believe in it, is that it would be an inadvertent abusive misrepresentation rather than a deliberate abusive misrepresentation. If I state the earth is flat, would that not be a misrepresention of the facts if I actually believed the earth to be flat?
> 
> G


 
  
 The problem arises when the same statement is made something like :
  
 "You guys have no ideas what you're talking about - of course the earth is flat - only morons would argue against it"
  
 And at that stage - the line is crossed.  the problem is that when the PM is sent, the recipient immediately blames the Mod (easy target) rather than seeing that their own behaviours is what gets them in hot water.
  
 Anyway - sorry gents,  its quarter to one in the morning here, and I have to be up at 6.00 am.  It has been a good conversation.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

It takes courage to go to sleep in the middle of an internet argument


----------



## reginalb

mulder01 said:


> I...I was here ages ago when a little device from Synergistic Research called the "HOT" came out and it seemed ridiculous and everyone bagged the crap out of it because how could it possibly do anything. I laughed along with everyone. Somebody bought one and didn't like it and donated it to a few of the sound science regulars to do some testing on it to see if it did anything. They did every test imaginable, but when I asked if they listened to it, they hadn't. Isn't the obvious test to see if something makes the sound different to listen to it? But they refused, because the theory and the measurements told them that it CAN'T do anything....


 
  
 Sorry, but this is purse BS. Your ears are less reliable than measurements. There are so many things that can go wrong with a listening test that if you can null two signals you _shouldn't _do a listening test. Measurements are just more reliable. Once your ears and brain get involved you're going to be _less _correct. That's what I hate about this "Just trust your ears...go test it that way," mentality. It's so counter to anything that makes any sense at all. 
  
 So no, the very last test you should do to find out if something sounds different is to listen to it. 
  


joe bloggs said:


> The problem is, Brooko, the truth doesn't always lie somewhere in the middle.


 
  
 This is just so true.


----------



## castleofargh

mulder01 said:


> I think the times I have mentioned trying things blind in the subjective section of the forum I've never had an issue...
> 
> To be honest I've not visited the Sound Science part of the forum in a while. (Only here because OP linked to this thread from the LCD-4 thread). From my limited experience though, I've found that very few people are completely open minded about audio. Most either completely ignore the science, or make every decision based around it. I was here ages ago when a little device from Synergistic Research called the "HOT" came out and it seemed ridiculous and everyone bagged the crap out of it because how could it possibly do anything. I laughed along with everyone. Somebody bought one and didn't like it and donated it to a few of the sound science regulars to do some testing on it to see if it did anything. They did every test imaginable, but when I asked if they listened to it, they hadn't. Isn't the obvious test to see if something makes the sound different to listen to it? But they refused, because the theory and the measurements told them that it CAN'T do anything. So it seems like there are very few people in the middle. On one side you have people that firmly believe in the importance of things like premium interconnects and feel like the difference is so obvious that they don't have to do a blind test just to prove themselves to the skeptics, and on the other side, you have the people that feel like they don't have to prove to the cable believers that they're right, because there is no possible way that they can do anything so they don't even need to listen to them...
> 
> ...


 
 there are plenty of things in this world that fool us. many still do even when we're told in advance that it's fake. if the point is to make yourself happy, then why not go with what you feel. magic tricks are always fun and I'm sure they're even better when you actually believe it's real. if my very own happiness is the end game, believing I'm happy is a job well done even if I'm happy from believing lies.
 but that's me, myself and I. it doesn't involve other people, or trying to tell/learn the truth. that's a very different project.
  when it's about demonstrating the objective impact of a device, "just listen" can in fact bring as many problems as it can solve. it's the good old "I believe only what I see", audio edition. at times it can be more relevant to just try than to trust some noname guy making claims on the web. but when is that? what if the noname guy has the tools and knowledge, and I'm just a guy who can't even level match my cable? the obvious answer to that is "providing evidence to our claims". so that people reading our posts can make their own opinion in a rational way, not because they like my nickname or because I like the same headphone he does.
 trusting in what you experience is also the cause for flat earth theories, rejecting vaccination, deciding that climate change is a hoax because last week it rained. it's my mother thinking that a drop of crap in an ocean of water is a reliable way of making medicine. all those people decide that what they feel to be the truth based on what they experienced is the actual truth. it's thinking that drinking alcohol keeps me warm in winter, that 6 is my lucky number and that I should put on the right sock first when I dress up in the morning if I want to avoid a bad day. all based on real experiences with real events and feelings, yet all total BS.
 and that's the problem right there. thinking that we are not fooled by our brain all day long is the biggest lie of all. that's not ignorance toward audio, that's ignorance of who we are as humans. which is ironic for subjectivists who decide to judge every gear using themselves as the only reliable measurement tool.
  
 I agree with you that experimenting ourselves is a great method. but there are ways of experimenting. sitting in a chair and listening to my favorite music, that's a very limited and unreliable experience if my objective if to know the device and get factual information about it that I can confidently share with others.
  
  
  


joe bloggs said:


> I guess I'm in an even deeper hole than most of you guys, because not only do I find the expensive products lacking in quality over the inexpensive ones, I also find that said expensive products are pushing superior products / methodologies out of existence. All I need for music fidelity in all situations, besides a basic pair of headphones and DAC/amp, is a sophisticated digital effects host that can process all system audio with equalization, multiband compression and cross channel impulse convolution (for crossfeed and/or multichannel processing). The "purist", "bit-perfect" and DSD movements are pushing such an approach to the lunatic fringe.
> 
> Allow me to pimp my latest DSP project here, this one greatly enhancing soundstage from headphones: http://www.head-fi.org/t/811837/natural-crossfeed-on-headphones-earphones-for-foobar2000-v2-0-major-update-made-public
> 
> ...


 
 I feel you bro.
  
  


gregorio said:


> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 at last my almost total lack of moderation is seen for what it's worth! ^_^
 seriously, it's a waste of time to pretend that modos will apply the law in a totally fair and consistent way. the guys deciding about our future in our respective governments more than fail to do that, so it's unfair to expect it from random guys trying to keep things calm. because that's what they/we do. the rules don't try to be fair, or to promote truth(clearly not in the blind test TOS thingy!). those rules have one main and obvious purpose, keeping peace and order. outside of sound science, when someone comes with objective data and reasoning, and 15 guys almost get a heart attack from having someone give evidence that they're full of crap, what do you believe is the most effective way to avoid a riot? reason with the 15 dudes and have them relax and admit that they're liars or ignorant(good luck with that) or remove the one guy who made it all so unstable in the first place?
 it's sad that in many occasions, it looks like the modos are taking the side of ignorance as a result. but most of the time they don't care about who's right. they will remove the one who creates the "problem", which is usually the one who ends up making personal attacks. because... Brooko's signature ^_^.
 there is very little ideology involved. TOS say no personal attack, you post some, it's a legitimate way to stop the conflict while obeying the TOS. I don't think there is any sort of conspiracy, we in fact over-think why modos do what they do by including the topic's ideas into it.
 the personal attack thing, may look like an excuse, and in some occasion it probably is(let's be honest), but it's still the law and the result will be a calmer topic. so that alone makes it a good reason to act that way.
  
 I get you, of course I do, I've been myself warned a few times, got my posts deleted when I had many evidences that what I was saying was way closer to the truth than what the other guy was saying. hell I even got locked out of some topics at some point. it's infuriating because you know the truth is leaning on your side, so being the one sanctioned feels as unfair as when a good guy is hurt in a disney anime. but I believe it's a typical case of "hate the game, not the ref".  and when a troll is pushing your buttons, if he does it without being disrespectful and you fail to answer in kind, you just got played. it sucks, I still get owned way too often for my pride not to hurt, but we're on a forum with specific rules, failing to follow those rules means losing. it's really that simple and most decisions don't require an assembly of experts and a vote at the united nations. it's just TOS through and through.


----------



## altrunox

brooko said:


> But please don't spread the litany that the Mods here do things like:
> - ban people for no reason


 
  
 but, why do you guys ban/silence people when they start talking about others audio sites?


----------



## cel4145

brooko said:


> I talk about it quite often - even before I became a mod. The difference is the manner of how it is explained.




I agree. Every time I see these complaints about how objectivists are treated outside of this forum, I have to laugh because so often these discussions get away from the audio science to descriptions and discussions are that more colored than pure science--e.g., "snake oil"--and get into characterizing other's belief structures--"religion." And I see that tone get carried over when some objectivists try to bring up audio science in other forums. 

So, for example, there is a difference in saying a statement like

"Don't waste your money on hi res. There's no difference between it and CD audio" 

And

"Audio science tells us that there should be no difference in audio quality when recordings are made in hi res vs CD audio."

The former implies that all those who do are wasting their money and is very editorialized, from my opinion, over presenting the pure science. And it's bound to encourage a subjectivist to be defensive about their purchases. The latter doesn't make that characterization of what happens when one spends money on it, and lets the reader draw their own conclusions about the value of spending (which is not audio science). 

For an interesting comparison, if one reads a good bit of the published scientific literature on global warming by climatologists (not the discussions and blog postings on the Internet) --which is just as hot a topic--the scientists generally stick to the science and just present the theories and facts without attacking the opposite point of view. Good strategy for objectivists on this forum as well. And instead of arguing about audio science in the other forum areas, say what you have to say as a scientist should and encourage people to come here to the sound science forum to discuss it further. Avoid temptations to debate it at length in other forum areas.


----------



## reginalb

cel4145 said:


> I agree. Every time I see these complaints about how objectivists are treated outside of this forum, I have to laugh because so often these discussions get away from the audio science to descriptions and discussions are that more colored than pure science--e.g., "snake oil"--and get into characterizing other's belief structures--"religion." And I see that tone get carried over when some objectivists try to bring up audio science in other forums.
> 
> So, for example, there is a difference in saying a statement like
> 
> ...


 
  
 I don't think that either of those is an unfair statement to make. I do think it's a waste of money, and I think it's ok to point that out (to the benefit of people that are new to the hobby). I get what you're saying, but I think it's a bad example. The problem is, I think we're a little too sensitive to the feelings of those that do the duping. Which is understandable, since they support the forum, but we should accept that that's what we're doing. Biasing the discussion to the benefit of the forum sponsors. To pretend otherwise is, I think, a bit dishonest. 
  
 Also, snake oil is a pretty apt description of a lot of stuff on the audiophile market today.


----------



## RRod

brooko said:


> The problem arises when the same statement is made something like :
> 
> "You guys have no ideas what you're talking about - of course the earth is flat - only morons would argue against it"


 
  
 Perhaps I just grew up in a more Wild West kind of Internet era, but I expect to have the occasional "moron" and "a-hole" thrown at me in online discussions. And theories about the shape of Earth and how digital audio works have been around long enough that one should indeed wonder about people who argue against them so vociferously.


----------



## cel4145

reginalb said:


> I don't think that either of those is an unfair statement to make.




What does "fair" have to do with any of this? My goal is to educate people, and choosing the rhetorical strategies that fit the context is what's important, not support my ego regarding my right to self-expression. Judging things based on what is "fair" is about personal sense of whether or not one should be able to express a particular opinion. It does very little good to turn discussions about audio science into yet another flame war on the Internet, whether it is "fair" to say something or not.


----------



## cel4145

BTW: I'm not saying I don't ever go too far and say the wrong thing regarding what I have been describing. But that doesn't make it the smart thing to do if my goal is to persuade others and avoid flame wars.


----------



## pctazhp

The usefulness of double blind testing is well established in the scientific community. But to be useful the tests have to be designed and conducted by qualified people. They must be repeatable and subject to peer review. As Jason Stoddard has pointed out, most high end companies don't have the budget or resources to conduct valid tests, and the "science" of high end audio isn't exactly a wide-spread focus of most universities.
  
 I don't dispute expectation bias and all that. But I do have a problem with the arrogance of many audio "objectivists" who uncritically promote double blind testing without pointing to specific test results (with sufficient details to lend the results credibility) or test procedure that would pass muster in a university setting. I think most of them are fooling themselves if they think they can sit at home and conduct their own double-blind-tests that are worth any more than sighted tests.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

That's why I never took any tests I took myself seriously, sighted or otherwise. (Actually I have never bothered to run any blind tests myself--because I've long since found a series of audio improvements that have way bigger effect than anything that might require blind tests to suss out)

But I think Jason is making out the science of audio to be much more uncertain than it is. If valid test results seem thin on the ground, it's probably because the thresholds of audibility for various distortion phenomena were established long before the internet age and the industry had moved on--or in some cases backtracked at the behest of monetary interests... (e.g. recent AES conferences...)


----------



## pctazhp

joe bloggs said:


> That's why I never took any tests I took myself seriously, sighted or otherwise. (Actually I have never bothered to run any blind tests myself--because I've long since found a series of audio improvements that have way bigger effect than anything that might require blind tests to suss out)
> 
> But I think Jason is making out the science of audio to be much more uncertain than it is. If valid test results seem thin on the ground, it's probably because the thresholds of audibility for various distortion phenomena were established long before the internet age and the industry had moved on--or in some cases backtracked at the behest of monetary interests... (e.g. recent AES conferences...)


 
 I personally chose my audio components by what brings me the greatest listening enjoyment within my budget. I know that is not a scientific approach, but it works for me.


----------



## U-3C

joe bloggs said:


> I guess I'm in an even deeper hole than most of you guys, because not only do I find the expensive products lacking in quality over the inexpensive ones, I also find that said expensive products are pushing superior products / methodologies out of existence. All I need for music fidelity in all situations, besides a basic pair of headphones and DAC/amp, is a sophisticated digital effects host that can process all system audio with equalization, multiband compression and cross channel impulse convolution (for crossfeed and/or multichannel processing). The "purist", "bit-perfect" and DSD movements are pushing such an approach to the lunatic fringe.
> 
> Allow me to pimp my latest DSP project here, this one greatly enhancing soundstage from headphones: http://www.head-fi.org/t/811837/natural-crossfeed-on-headphones-earphones-for-foobar2000-v2-0-major-update-made-public
> 
> ...




Gonna try that out when I have time. Thanks for the efforts!

Currently using the Dolby tweak with EQ so the bass will calm the %#€£ down. I'm listening via a Q701 so that says something...

@_@


----------



## RRod

pctazhp said:


> The usefulness of double blind testing is well established in the scientific community. But to be useful the tests have to be designed and conducted by qualified people. They must be repeatable and subject to peer review. As Jason Stoddard has pointed out, most high end companies don't have the budget or resources to conduct valid tests, and the "science" of high end audio isn't exactly a wide-spread focus of most universities.
> 
> I don't dispute expectation bias and all that. But I do have a problem with the arrogance of many audio "objectivists" who uncritically promote double blind testing without pointing to specific test results (with sufficient details to lend the results credibility) or test procedure that would pass muster in a university setting. I think most of them are fooling themselves if they think they can sit at home and conduct their own double-blind-tests that are worth any more than sighted tests.


 
  
 "Generalizability" is different from "control". A foobar ABX test of a hi-res file versus a redbook version done by a single person isn't generalizable to all humans, but it certainly is a much better controlled test of the given persons ability to hear a difference than your typical sighted test. Is it *perfectly* controlled: maybe, maybe not, but it's at least volume-controlled, which is I wager already a step-up from your typical sighted test.


----------



## Dillan

@Brooko Thanks for joining the discussion, I will admit I was a little hypercritical of the moderation and to be fair - I do think you guys are a little less heavy handed than some of the other forums I have been on. It is very respectable to let us actually have our debates and discussions without stepping in.. regardless if I think you guys _do _step in without warrant on too many occasions. Honestly when it comes down to it, I understand things aren't always black and white and you guys are just doing your part in volunteering on a site we all like to visit from time to time. However like some of the other posters are saying, the whole "fairness" thing doesn't really exist. We all know that people who "believe" their unproven claims and also those who support companies who scam and overcharge and also those companies themselves *all *have the ball in their court. For me to challenge anyone on this forum feels like I am a bad guy trying to tip toe around land mines or something. Why does it have to be like that? I don't want to go around bullying people, and its VERY easy to go overboard and borderline insult people.. but honestly if someone came to me before I joined the forum and said two different things and let me choose which I liked more:
  
 1. "Hey so this place will encourage you to stretch your budget, avoid discussion of science, technology or fact (but has an inactive section for that) and will generally discourage you from getting a real tangible answer to anything that isn't a hive-mind of biased, subjective and unproven opinions. BUT the journey is about happiness and opinion and at least you won't get your feelings hurt, because we ban ideas that stir the pot and keep this "nothing to see here" mentality on threads that might make our sponsors unhappy. We are encouraged to waste money chasing a dream that doesn't exist."
  
 or
  
  
 2. "This forum is a great wealth of technical, objective (with healthy subjectivity) and tangible, non-biased information for you to use on your journey in the headphone hobby. You'll save tons of money in an otherwise *very *expensive world of audiophilia, because luckily this is the site that goes against the grain and challenges companies and consumers to have self respect and really think about what they are building and buying. The downside is sometimes you will get your feelings hurt and the site really pushes for donations from time to time, because they do not have a plethora of sponsors everywhere that has to be kept happy."
  
  
 Okay I got creative with the sponsors bit at the end, but you get what I am saying. I obviously choose (the non existent version of head-fi) option 2. I know one mod, or even probably all of the mods can't completely change the forum. I just think making a shift in a better direction would be great for everyone. You know what happens to new members? I can tell you the process easily and I was definitely part of this at one time. You join and ask some generic questions -> someone or the communities echochamber of bias and opinion lead you to stretching or maxing your budget -> sorry about your wallet _haha _-> rinse and repeat. Maybe at some point we can squeeze in encouraging someone to spend less, think more and *teach *what AB testing and audible measurements are. You can blame the newbie, but if none of that stuff is even mentioned and literally deleted if not in the "right section of the forum" then how would he know the _real _truth about what goes on.
  
 I'm kind of rambling, but it is the headphone communities fault that we have a $150,000 amplifier and dac that gets blind praise and respect for measuring worse and being technically inferior to dacs/amps 1/100th of its price. Tell me this thing costs a lot and then tell me everyone loves it and thinks it sounds awesome.. hype me up and make it seem like a privilege to even get to test this for 30 seconds with my ears. Then compare my reaction (regardless of what I am actually hearing) to someone letting me listen to a "budget" entry level system that "everyone thinks is pretty good, not great". I'd like to think I am pretty level headed, but even I would have bias influence my experience, regardless of what I actually hear. Why is this the way it has to be? Like I said initially, sound quality is not what we focus on anymore.. we are all in one big illusion that scam artists profit from. Spending more money always sounds like an upgrade to the imperfect brain and hearing relationship.


----------



## pctazhp

rrod said:


> "Generalizability" is different from "control". A foobar ABX test of a hi-res file versus a redbook version done by a single person isn't generalizable to all humans, but it certainly is a much better controlled test of the given persons ability to hear a difference than your typical sighted test. Is it *perfectly* controlled: maybe, maybe not, but it's at least volume-controlled, which is I wager already a step-up from your typical sighted test.


 
 Good point. Virtually everything I listen to is from Tidal HD. I don't worry about anything more hi-res than that. Again, it works for me. I can listen for hour after hour to my system and never experience fatigue and love what I'm listening to. It is often difficult for me to stop. Moreover, I'm far from convinced that upgrading any component would result in something better - probably just "different". And if I want different I can just roll tubes - which I don't do much anymore because I have found the combo in my Elise that works for me.


----------



## Dillan

gregorio said:


> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Reading your replies it is like you completely took the words right out of my mouth. I completely agree with almost everything you've written. Thanks for your contribution to the thread! I also agree with you saying hearing should *not *be the first (and especially the only) thing we use when testing equipment. Our ears are the most inconsistent and untrustworthy tools possible. People charging 50x the cost of what it took to bring a product to life are the people who would encourage you to trust your ears.


----------



## Dillan

reginalb said:


> I don't think that either of those is an unfair statement to make. I do think it's a waste of money, and I think it's ok to point that out (to the benefit of people that are new to the hobby). I get what you're saying, but I think it's a bad example. The problem is, I think we're a little too sensitive to the feelings of those that do the duping. Which is understandable, since they support the forum, but we should accept that that's what we're doing. Biasing the discussion to the benefit of the forum sponsors. To pretend otherwise is, I think, a bit dishonest.
> 
> Also, snake oil is a pretty apt description of a lot of stuff on the audiophile market today.


 

 Thats my thoughts too. When we challenge any of this stuff for the benefit of the consumer, we get ridiculed for it. But being on the other extreme, to me, is just as insulting. I don't want to read about how taking off and putting on a leather case has leaps and bounds of effect on sound quality. (found in the AK380 thread) Embarrassing discussions like that is why the device costs literally $3000 dollars more than the next DAP in the first place. People defended that statement and many other insane things and me challenging it is what gets frowned upon. Like I said, we are shooting ourselves in the foot and nobody seems to notice or care.


----------



## Ruben123

Wow this thread exploded in just one day. Just a question out of curiosity: didn't you own an AK music player @ts?


----------



## icebear

dillan said:


> ...
> I'm kind of rambling, *but it is the headphone communities fault that we have a $150,000 amplifier and dac that gets blind praise and respect for measuring worse and being technically inferior to dacs/amps 1/100th of its price.* Tell me this thing costs a lot and then tell me everyone loves it and thinks it sounds awesome.. hype me up and make it seem like a privilege to even get to test this for 30 seconds with my ears. Then compare my reaction (regardless of what I am actually hearing) to someone letting me listen to a "budget" entry level system that "everyone thinks is pretty good, not great". I'd like to think I am pretty level headed, but even I would have bias influence my experience, regardless of what I actually hear. Why is this the way it has to be? Like I said initially, sound quality is not what we focus on anymore.. we are all in one big illusion that scam artists profit from. Spending more money always sounds like an upgrade to the imperfect brain and hearing relationship.


 
  ??? ... who are you again to judge the headphone community as a group
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 and for what?
 That the owner of this site is loving and promoting ueber expensive hifi gear to stirr up the debate and promoting the next CanJam event.
 For what it's worth, maybe 2 cents, ... do you have any proof for the technical inferior claim?
  


dillan said:


> Reading your replies it is like you completely took the words right out of my mouth. I completely agree with almost everything you've written. Thanks for your contribution to the thread! I also agree with you saying hearing should *not *be the first (and especially the only) thing we use when testing equipment. *Our ears are the most inconsistent and untrustworthy tools possible.* People charging 50x the cost of what it took to bring a product to life are the people* who would encourage you to trust your ears.*


 
 Mmmh ... I do listen to music with *my ears* and that's the exact purpose of my hifi set-up. Emitting a signal that my ears can catch and which I enjoy listening to.
 Btw. I agree completely about the ears not being consistent like a certified instrument but that's the same with all of our senses.
 What do you use when listening? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  


dillan said:


> Thats my thoughts too. *When we challenge any of this stuff for the benefit of the consumer, we get ridiculed for it. But being on the other extreme, to me, is just as insulting. I don't want to read about *how taking off and putting on a leather case has leaps and bounds of effect on sound quality. (found in the AK380 thread) Embarrassing discussions like that is why the device costs literally $3000 dollars more than the next DAP in the first place. People defended that statement and many other insane things and me challenging it is what gets frowned upon. Like I said, we are shooting ourselves in the foot and nobody seems to notice or care.


 
  
 If you realize that you are on the other extreme, you are half way there. You just have to accept that you can't claim to know what's right or wrong for others. You are not in charge watching other consumers wallets, are you
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




? And if you don't want to read about ... admittedly totally ridiculously priced products or effects ... very easy, just don't read it, don't subscribe or unsubscribe or use the ignore button.


----------



## reginalb

icebear said:


> If you realize that you are on the other extreme, you are half way there. You just have to accept that you can't claim to know what's right or wrong for others. You are not in charge watching other consumers wallets, are you
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I get so tired of this argument. It's OK for a subjectivist to make outlandish claims which cost other people money, but it's not ok to counter those claims to try to save people money.


----------



## Dillan

icebear said:


> Mmmh ... I do listen to music with *my ears* and that's the exact purpose of my hifi set-up. Emitting a signal that my ears can catch and which I enjoy listening to.
> Btw. I agree completely about the ears not being consistent like a certified instrument but that's the same with all of our senses.
> What do you use when listening?


 
  
 Honestly, along with many other things.. I just try to use my brain.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

icebear said:


> Mmmh ... I do listen to music with *my ears* and that's the exact purpose of my hifi set-up. Emitting a signal that my ears can catch and which I enjoy listening to.
> Btw. I agree completely about the ears not being consistent like a certified instrument but that's the same with all of our senses.
> What do you use when listening?




Sure my ears are there for enjoying the music, or to evaluate the merit of a certain tweak / change *after it has been ascertained that a tweak is actually doing anything to the sound*. But there are many tools that can check the bolded part much more quickly with greater certainty than one's ears.


----------



## Dillan

joe bloggs said:


> Sure my ears are there for enjoying the music, or to evaluate the merit of a certain tweak / change *after it has been ascertained that a tweak is actually doing anything to the sound*. But there are many tools that can check the bolded part much more quickly with greater certainty than one's ears.


 

 Yep, I don't think he is taking things like bias or placebo into consideration.


----------



## icebear

dillan said:


> Honestly, along with many other things.. I just try to use my brain.


 
  
 Without your ears, your brain will not have anything to process, does it?
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  


joe bloggs said:


> Sure my ears are there for enjoying the music, or to evaluate the merit of a certain tweak / change *after it has been ascertained that a tweak is actually doing anything to the sound*. But there are many tools that can check the bolded part much more quickly with greater certainty than one's ears.


 
 Ultimately what are the tweaks supposed to do ... to result in an improved sound impression. If you don't trust your own ears for development then get some folks of your staff who have a reliable hearing and use them for acessing the acoustic effect of the tweak.
  


dillan said:


> Yep, I don't think he is taking things like bias or placebo into consideration.


 
  
 Yes I do. Over and out, you guys have fun


----------



## Dillan

icebear said:


> Without your ears, your brain will not have anything to process, does it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Honestly I can't take you seriously with all the winky and smiley emojis.
  
 The ever echoed "trust your ears" in my opinion is very flawed. We humans are not perfect and should not trust our ears. There are studies all over the internet about how bias and placebo alter someones hearing. Here is one I was reading just recently about how patients were given two different hearing aids, one being a "new" and "updated" version. Even though they were both the exact same: 75% thought the newer "better" version allowed them to hear the best and they were even *measured *to score better in hearing tests.. showing they even _tried _to hear better using it to the point of them _literally hearing better_. This could explain why sometimes people hear a difference in something that is technically impossible. Not only do their minds play a role in tricking them into thinking they hear a difference - they focus more on the sound and actually do hear something different, because they are trying so hard to (whereas initially they tune things out due to expectation bias and aren't using their hearing to its utmost potential). Its very interesting actually, but just another reason for us *not *to trust our inconsistent hearing. Preference is one thing @icebear but ultimately we are just trying to help consumers like you think a little bit more and perhaps save some money as well. 
  
 Here is the link to the study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23594421
  
 Sorry if you are leaving the conversation.


----------



## Peti

Dillan, I used to be the believer of this bias and placebo...but all I can say is what I have experienced: The first time I have had the chance to listen to my test tracks via a TOTL headamp I have realized that this bias and placebo thing cannot be used as a blanket explanation to justify outrage against top end amps. Now mind you, I'm not talking about this 145k audio system.
  
 Hell, even my Liquid Carbon was soo good after my O2/ODAC that I couldn't tell you and it was not placebo, I have heard things on my favourite tracks I haven't heard before.


----------



## Ruben123

peti said:


> Dillan, I used to be the believer of this bias and placebo...but all I can say is what I have experienced: The first time I have had the chance to listen to my test tracks via a TOTL headamp I have realized that this bias and placebo thing cannot be used as a blanket explanation to justify outrage against top end amps. Now mind you, I'm not talking about this 145k audio system.
> 
> Hell, even my Liquid Carbon was soo good after my O2/ODAC that I couldn't tell you and it was not placebo, I have heard things on my favourite tracks I haven't heard before.




Maybe your updates are somewhat flawed, causing your headphone to sound different. Maybe.


----------



## LajostheHun

icebear said:


> Without your ears, your brain will not have anything to process, does it?





 Yes, the ear collect the soundwaves, but it's the brain that makes sense of it but it can be fooled extremely easily even without one realising it. And that's where most of the problem lies with "audiophiles".


----------



## Brooko

Sorry I had to leave last night - enjoying the conversation.
  
 Quote:


altrunox said:


> but, why do you guys ban/silence people when they start talking about others audio sites?


 
  
 We don't ban people for mentioning it.  We warn them that one particular site in particular is not allowed to be referenced. Once they are warned, it they repeatedly break the rules - we issue a sterner warning - and after that if they still choose to break the rule - then their access here is removed. The important thing is that they are warned - they have the chance to change their ways.  As far as the reasons go (for that site being off limits) - I don't know the full history - but I think if you look at the amount of slander (which is actually encouraged to a certain extent) over there - and a lot of the petty innuendo is nothing more than outright lies (around Admin here and Moderation etc) - I can understand the approach.  People forget this is a privately run site.  If Head-Fi was your website, and people were publically pushing their own agenda on the other site, and doing it very underhandedly - would you want to allow unfettered access on your site?
  
 You just need to step into someone else's shoes for a while.  The other thing with restricting all mention is that it stops anyone here teeing off on them.  Is it a form of censorship - some may see it like that (I don't).  Again though - Head-Fi is a privately run site - we choose to be here.
  


reginalb said:


> I get so tired of this argument. It's OK for a subjectivist to make outlandish claims which cost other people money, but it's not ok to counter those claims to try to save people money.


 
  
 It is OK to counter those claims.  I do it all the time.  If you counter those claims aggressively and cause a fight in the forums (personal attacks etc) expect to be moderated.


----------



## LajostheHun

peti said:


> Dillan, I used to be the believer of this bias and placebo...but all I can say is what I have experienced: The first time I have had the chance to listen to my test tracks via a TOTL headamp I have realized that this bias and placebo thing cannot be used as a blanket explanation to justify outrage against top end amps. Now mind you, I'm not talking about this 145k audio system.
> 
> Hell, even my Liquid Carbon was soo good after my O2/ODAC that I couldn't tell you and it was not placebo, I have heard things on my favourite tracks I haven't heard before.



Well there is a definite interaction between headphones and amp, and it's mostly have to do with how an amp delivers voltage and power into an ever changing load, like an HP. However even that is rather small, so when people are making claims that "amp a wipe the floor with amp b" or just "the difference is huge" etc.. their claims become a suspect along with their credibility . I myself observed differences with amps driving the same HP's but the differences were small in each cases, and nothing like I would declare a winner of one over the other. Expectation bias will happen whether you aware of or not, or wishing for it or not. I bet some of the people here on this thread encountered it as well, even though they "know it better". We are all fallible creatures.


----------



## Brooko

It becomes difficult though when you come up with something you just can't explain - and have nothing to fall back on but a purely subjective view.  I've been writing up a close to $1000 tube amp from VE over the last 3 months (simply haven't had time to complete it).  Compared it to me iDSD and LD MKIV.  Same headphones (HD600).  Volume matched.  I know both the iDSD and LD MKIV deliver enough voltage and current to the headphones.  I can get my wife to help by switching sources so I'm not sure which is which.  I've been consistently lost in the music (those wow moments) with the Enterprise - and while I enjoy music with the other two - it hasn't given me the same feeling.
  
 It's probably down to presentation of harmonic distortion - and unfortunately my gear won't be able to measure that with the accuracy I'd like (I'll try).  Ultimately though - this does come down to what I actually like - and the Enterprise subjectively I like.
  
 It doesn't help that it is big, unwieldy, and pretty expensive.  If I could take that sound into the iDSD form factor ........
  
 Anyway food for though - and this is from someone who hates it when I can't explain the reasons why.


----------



## cel4145

peti said:


> Dillan, I used to be the believer of this bias and placebo...but all I can say is what I have experienced: The first time I have had the chance to listen to my test tracks via a TOTL headamp I have realized that this bias and placebo thing cannot be used as a blanket explanation to justify outrage against top end amps. Now mind you, I'm not talking about this 145k audio system.
> 
> Hell, even my Liquid Carbon was soo good after my O2/ODAC that I couldn't tell you and it was not placebo, I have heard things on my favourite tracks I haven't heard before.




There's a scientific explanation for that. If you look at enough measurements for TOTL amps, you'll see that they are not always linear, and they may have audible distortion. It's just a pleasing sound to people. So of course they may sound different from a solid state amp that measures accurate and transparent within the range of human hearing. 

That being said, bias can still play a part even when electronics do have audible differences. Psychological bias could cause one to over estimate how much better a piece of electronics is.


----------



## cel4145

brooko said:


> We don't ban people for mentioning it.  We warn them that one particular site in particular is not allowed to be referenced. Once they are warned, it they repeatedly break the rules - we issue a sterner warning - and after that if they still choose to break the rule - then their access here is removed. The important thing is that they are warned - they have the chance to change their ways.  As far as the reasons go (for that site being off limits) - I don't know the full history - but I think if you look at the amount of slander (which is actually encouraged to a certain extent) over there - and a lot of the petty innuendo is nothing more than outright lies (around Admin here and Moderation etc) - I can understand the approach.  People forget this is a privately run site.  If Head-Fi was your website, and people were publically pushing their own agenda on the other site, and doing it very underhandedly - would you want to allow unfettered access on your site?
> 
> You just need to step into someone else's shoes for a while.  The other thing with restricting all mention is that it stops anyone here teeing off on them.  Is it a form of censorship - some may see it like that (I don't).  Again though - Head-Fi is a privately run site - we choose to be here.




There's also a good reason to do it from a web design perspective. Head-Fi has been around a long time and is extremely active. I would imagine that Head-Fi has very high status in Google page ranking. So when web pages on a highly ranked site link to another site, that helps the other website's Google rank. So of course. If another website is negatively speaking out against yours in "underhanded" ways, why would you want to potentially help it? This is reason enough alone, in my book.


----------



## LajostheHun

brooko said:


> It becomes difficult though when you come up with something you just can't explain - and have nothing to fall back on but a purely subjective view.  I've been writing up a close to $1000 tube amp from VE over the last 3 months (simply haven't had time to complete it).  Compared it to me iDSD and LD MKIV.  Same headphones (HD600).  Volume matched.  I know both the iDSD and LD MKIV deliver enough voltage and current to the headphones.  I can get my wife to help by switching sources so I'm not sure which is which.  I've been consistently lost in the music (those wow moments) with the Enterprise - and while I enjoy music with the other two - it hasn't given me the same feeling.
> 
> It's probably down to presentation of harmonic distortion - and unfortunately my gear won't be able to measure that with the accuracy I'd like (I'll try).  Ultimately though - this does come down to what I actually like - and the Enterprise subjectively I like.
> 
> ...




Right, but just because one cannot explain it, doesn't mean there is none. The worse thing one can do is to invent a myth around it based on pseudo or junk science or just pure ignorance. Having said that I don't discourage people to share their subjective experiences, just don't sell it as "gospel". 
Your reviews are always about useful info with a bit of your own thoughts that actually have relevance. Very refreshing and valuable IMO.


----------



## reginalb

brooko said:


> It is OK to counter those claims.  I do it all the time.  If you counter those claims aggressively and cause a fight in the forums (personal attacks etc) expect to be moderated.


 
  
 Yeah, and to be honest, I've not felt squeezed too much. I don't actually have a problem with the attitudes of mods as much as I do the people that get mad at me for counting those claims. The only time I've been moderated are by you and Castle, and it's been for feeding trolls.


----------



## jcx

not my experience - I was "lawyered" out of a technical response to another poster's question in an "impressions" thread on the technical grounds that I may not own the product - when I never impled the answer was specific to the product
  
 as far I could tell a significant fraction of the posters hadn't bought the product either - were seeking info - seemed a hypocritical application of a not even explicit "rule"


----------



## Peti

lajosthehun said:


> Well there is a definite interaction between headphones and amp, and it's mostly have to do with how an amp delivers voltage and power into an ever changing load, like an HP. However even that is rather small, so when people are making claims that "amp a wipe the floor with amp b" or just "the difference is huge" etc.. their claims become a suspect along with their credibility ._ I myself observed differences with amps driving the same HP's but the differences were small in each cases, and nothing like I would declare a winner of one over the other._


 
 I'd really like to know what amps you are talking about here. To name names, my first (rude) awakening was when I went from my O2/ODAC to the ODAC/Liquid Carbon. I've had this revelation I explained before. The biggest problem is, I think, that we don't have a universally accepted measuring system, nor metric, neither in the imperial units. How can you measure accurately the improvements from amp (or DAC or cables as a matter of fact) A to B? Acre? Kg?
  
 How can I measure precisely the feeling when I hook up my HD800 with a WA22 after my Liquid Carbon and I feel the soundstage has expanded along with improved details while listening? For some of us, it is indeed a big (day and night?) difference while for others, it's not a big deal, and certainly not enough to justify buying the 3000$ WA22. Lack of a trusted measuring system, that's the root of all (Head-Fi) evil!
  
 But when you have a (classical) recording that you have heard like a hundred times before and when you employ a TOTL amp to drive your headphones for the first time to listen to this record, and for THE FIRST TIME you hear that at a certain point a truck (a diesel truck, mind you!) pulls by the auditorium during the recording, that's a tangible enough of an evidence for the improvement of that amp, isn't it? Or is it pure imagination, a bias toward the TOTL amp, if you will?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Well, can you hear the diesel truck with the non-TOTL amp, now that you've heard it? When you listen to new gear your brain changes gears and looks for things it hasn't looked for before.

Hearing new things in a recording is an overrated performance metric anyway. I mean, how is hearing a diesel truck pulling over supposed to improve your music experience!?


----------



## cel4145

peti said:


> But when you have a (classical) recording that you have heard like a hundred times before and when you employ a TOTL amp to drive your headphones for the first time to listen to this record, and for THE FIRST TIME you hear that at a certain point a truck (a diesel truck, mind you!) pulls by the auditorium during the recording, that's a tangible enough of an evidence for the improvement of that amp, isn't it?




Or it could be that the TOTL amp is skewing the frequency response slightly, and thus the diesel truck is emphasized enough more that now you noticed it. If you could figured out where that skew is, you could achieve the same thing with EQ for less money.


----------



## Peti

That's it, I give up guys!


----------



## U-3C

cel4145 said:


> Or it could be that the TOTL amp is skewing the frequency response slightly, and thus the diesel truck is emphasized enough more that now you noticed it. If you could figured out where that skew is, you could achieve the same thing with EQ for less money.


 
  
 I have to agree with this. So many times, I hear a difference in something I have never heard before, and I hope so much that it can justify my purchase.
  
 Nope. Switch back to last source/amp/hi-res files/whatever. It's there. Almost the same, too. Maybe a small change that made me notice it, or maybe I just noticed the new thing by chance.
  
 Back to being sad about having paid for premium dac/amps because everyone said I owe it to myself to spend money on them.
  
 ;-;


----------



## U-3C

peti said:


> That's it, I give up guys!


 
  
 Don't give up on your wallet! Keep it full when you don't need to abuse the poor thing!


----------



## Dillan

peti said:


> That's it, I give up guys!


 

 No reason to "give up"! For the record I think that its awesome you heard a difference/improvement and I think it is definitely something to explore! Maybe try playing back the same recording with your old gear to see if you hear it this time (like a few posters have suggested). I think there could be a lot of reasons for the differences you heard and its a great starting point to create experiments and find answers as to why. Or if you just want to accept it as simply an upgrade to your old gear and it makes you happy and you just wanna move along then I respect that too!
  
 (PS the thought that it could be emphasizing certain frequencies is smart too, thats very possible and also reproducible with EQ which could save money in the long run!)


----------



## LajostheHun

You see cel4145, how do you educate someone like Peti? The usual cliches we all heard them before. His mind is made up and there is nothing one can say. Oh well it's his money........


----------



## RRod

cel4145 said:


> Or it could be that the TOTL amp is skewing the frequency response slightly, and thus the diesel truck is emphasized enough more that now you noticed it. If you could figured out where that skew is, you could achieve the same thing with EQ for less money.


 
  
  
 And TOTL measurements would show these kinds of things (change in FR, additional distortion) readily.


----------



## U-3C

lajosthehun said:


> You see cel4145, how do you educate someone like Peti? The usual cliches we all heard them before. His mind is made up and there is nothing one can say. Oh well it's his money........


 
  
 I'm worried that this may start to turn into a hate thread because I can see that we are starting to attack people personally now. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
  


peti said:


> That's it, I give up guys!


 
  
 @Peti, I hope you didn't take anything I said personally. I appreciate your posts and I find your claims interesting. I think most people are trying to rule out things that could have affected your judgement so they can believe what you are saying is, in fact, creditable. It's not an attack on you. It's just since you brought up the case, and you are the only one we know in this thread that has heard this setup and made this claim, the burden of proof is on you. I do see how the way people have been commenting may sound very negative towards you and I really don't want you to leave frustrated because of a negative attitude towards you.
  
 Again, I appreciate your posts. If I understood this correctly, this thread was started because the OP is upset about how Head-Fi in general has created this mindset that encourages people to spend more money on placebo effects, even though one can easily save that money and enjoy the same experience, especially with free things like DSP or simple mind tricks. I know I was tricked my this mindset and although I barely have any experience or knowledge, I still see people who are just discovering high fidelity audio fall into the same rabbit hole. I'm still trying to make sense of it all right now on what I should and should not do in the future and claims like yours help just as much as explanations from the sound engineers on this site.
  
 Take care.


----------



## LajostheHun

u-3c said:


> I'm worried that this may start to turn into a hate thread because I can see that we are starting to attack people personally now.




.and you thought quoting me in that light was the correct thing to do? I made no personal attacks. "Peti's post" is dime a dozen not just on this board but throughout audio hobby sites, and I'm not talking about him or his posts but the type of post by many like minded posters. All of "his points" have been debated before to nauseum for years here or elsewhere. I simply didn't see a reason to engage in that. My post was to another poster that refers to an earlier page simply using Peti's post as an example.


----------



## krismusic

This has been one of the most interesting and thought provoking threads that I have read on here for a long time. It's great if people of different viewpoints can exchange information and opinions. People like Peli are especially valuable as he is prepared to present a view that is not very popular in Sound Science. 
This thread will become worthless if we all close our minds and end up agreeing with each other. 
All input and viewpoints welcome. The more the merrier IMHO.


----------



## cel4145

rrod said:


> And TOTL measurements would show these kinds of things (change in FR, additional distortion) readily.




What would be the fun in manufacturers showing the "magic" by providing measurements?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Peti is about as open-minded to the objective persuasion as they come. Heck he even stated that he came from this side of the fence to start with. If we have to attack someone like Peti there'd practically be nobody on this site who can live with us except ourselves!


----------



## mulder01

I see the potential issues with listening to things to see if they sound different, (that remark would only make sense on this forum). But I still think it's the only test I can rely on at times. If someone ONLY looked at measurements of a bunch of headphones and had to buy a pair solely based on measurements, their chance of picking the headphone they like the sound of the most is very small (or one in however many pairs of headphones there are). One of the other reasons I don't trust measurements a whole lot is because the Abyss doesn't measure particularly well but IMO it sounds WAY better than anything else I've ever heard. When I first heard about the Abyss I was totally uninterested in it - thought it was a bit of a joke - why would anyone spend that much money? It's ridiculous. I don't care what it sounds like - it's not worth it. Then I listened to a pair and was floored. I HATED the fact that I liked it so much - I WANTED to hear it and be indifferent because it's big money and I would never spend that. Yet when I heard it, I couldn't go back to anything else - headphones costing thousands of dollars sounded garbage next to them. I had to sell the gear I had plus save up for over a year to buy the damn things. Why do they sound so good when they don't measure so good though? I don't know. That's why I like to listen to things for myself. I reached a point where I looked at them sitting on my desk and thought "what the hell am I getting into? This is getting silly. I need to sell these, get some good IEMs that I can power straight from a phone or whatever and be happy with that". Knowing that I was happy pre-abyss with a much less expensive pair of headphones and thought they were the best things ever, and thinking I would take advantage of our short sonic memories, stopped listening to the abyss a couple of weeks before going to audition IEMs in the hope it would 'reset' what I perceived as 'good' and I could ignore other high end gear and ignorance is bliss. Did not work. Everything seemed like a complete waste of money. Moral of the story is if I didn't just listen to all this stuff I would have had next to no idea what actually sounds good (to me at least). This is one of the reasons I decided to test out a super duper interconnect. 1000 people can tell me it's BS, but I can't be 100% satisfied until I hear the BS for myself. I plugged those cables into my system and had a bit of a listen for half an hour or so last night and I have to say, if they make any difference, it isn't immediately obvious. So chances are, yes the cable upgrade was totally pointless but I'll give it some more time, try and let a few other people try and hear a difference, and blind test anyone who says they can and see what happens. What I want to happen is for someone to be blown away and say they are brilliant and describe in detail all the reasons they sound head and shoulders better than anything else, then get them to ABX test them and hope they fail. Seeing that evidence first hand will go a fair way toward convincing me that people who describe such amazing differences are all just imagining it. I know you guys are convinced, but in a hobby that is totally based around subjective enjoyment, it would be nice to see that subjective enjoyment coming exclusively from knowing that you have a really expensive cable and looking at it, rather than an actual audible difference.


----------



## krismusic

As with most things, an open mind and a middle way are the way forward. It would be extreme to buy anything based on measurement without listening. I'm very surprised to hear that something sounds good while actually measuring badly. 
I'll have to listen to the Abyss. Or maybe I shouldn't! 
I'm really just very interested in not getting caught out by first impressions or placebo etc. 
I don't aim to make a philosophical commitment to any school of thought. I just want equipment that does what I have paid for!


----------



## Mach3

Maybe it because measurements don't pickup stuff like soundstage or imaging?


----------



## gregorio

peti said:


> But when you have a (classical) recording that you have heard like a hundred times before and when you employ a TOTL amp to drive your headphones for the first time to listen to this record, and for THE FIRST TIME you hear that at a certain point a truck (a diesel truck, mind you!) pulls by the auditorium during the recording, that's a tangible enough of an evidence for the improvement of that amp, isn't it?


 
  
 No, it's not. It's not even close to tangible evidence! ...
  


peti said:


> I think, that we don't have a universally accepted measuring system, nor metric, neither in the imperial units. How can you measure accurately the improvements from amp (or DAC or cables as a matter of fact) A to B? Acre? Kg?
> 
> Lack of a trusted measuring system, that's the root of all (Head-Fi) evil!


 
  
 No, it's really not. I would say your post itself typifies the root of all (head-fi) evil! I'm sure you don't want to hear that though, and as you've already stated that you "give up" you're probably not even reading this but I'm going to explain what I mean by that statement just in case:
  
 OK, your post doesn't typify the root of ALL head-fi evil but certainly many of the disputes between hardcore audiophiles and the rest of us. The bottom line is that hardcore audiophiles take their perception of sound (hearing) as gospel. You hear a difference, maybe hear something for THE FIRST TIME and therefore there must obviously be a difference. So far there is no argument between us. The argument is where that difference is, what's causing it. Your hearing is your hearing, it's your connection to the world, even if you accept that it's fallible on occasion (which many hardcore audiophiles don't), that still doesn't matter because you're stuck with your hearing, there's nothing you can do about, you have no other way of perceiving sound and therefore there's simply no alternative to your hearing being the baseline against which everything you hear is judged/measured. This seems so patently obvious that audiophiles simply don't even think about it, let alone actively question it. Unfortunately (for audiophiles), virtually none of this is strictly true! Hearing is provably fallible ALL the time and on multiple levels and there IS something you can do about it because not only is sound sub-consciously perceived differently over time but it can be relatively easily changed consciously. The "root of all evil" is audiophiles refusing to take these facts into consideration or at least, not giving them their required weight. What happens next is what causes the arguments because audiophiles are forced into conclusions which are devoid of this important (commonly, the *most* important!) part of the equation and if pushed, to come up with theories to explain those conclusions. Theories which commonly fly in the face of known science, fly in the face of simple common sense or even basic levels of education but they really don't have a choice, by ignoring the essential facts they've backed themselves into a logical cul de sac from which illogic/irrationality is the only avenue of escape. Your theory of no universally accepted measuring system is such an example. We have decibels and frequency, which are both universally accepted measurements and can be used to accurately measure the performance of an amp. If you're talking about improvements in terms of perception, say "good" or "better" for example, then no, there are no measurements and probably never will be because everyone has their own individual perception and even a single individual's perception changes with time, experience or context.
  
 Going back to your first quote: Yes, it's tangible evidence that you perceived a difference but it's not tangible evidence that difference was due to an improvement in the amp. There's quite a long list of reasons why you heard the improvement you described but the amp actually performing better is quite a long way down that list!
  


peti said:


> Or is it pure imagination, a bias toward the TOTL amp, if you will?


 
  
 A bias towards the amp is certainly one of the potential reasons on our list but far from the only one and might not even be very high on the list. I wouldn't necessarily use the word "imagination" either, because imagination implies inventing something which doesn't exist and while that can be true of some of the potential reasons on our list, it's not true of all of them or even the majority. In your example, it's not likely to be a case of your brain creating a difference which does not exist (the truck), it's more likely a case of your brain expecting a difference and therefore allowing you to become consciously aware of (notice) a sound of which you were previously unaware IE. You heard it on your previous amp, you just didn't notice it. There are also other potential reasons for you noticing it with the TOTL amp, not accurately level matching it for example.
  
 From your perspective, you listened to a new amp, noticed something you didn't previously and therefore it's worth it to you. From my perspective, it was likely the act itself of listening to a new amp, rather than the amp itself which caused you to notice and therefore you're likely wasting your money buying something which is effectively identical to what you've already got. Of course though, if it makes you happy then it's your money to spend how you want. There are two potential problems here though: 1. You'll only remain happy while your listening context remains the same, maybe you'll listen to a new amp after a while, notice another truck (which you hadn't noticed before) and have to spend another wad buying another identical amp or just remain unhappy with the TOTL amp. 2. If you go round telling everyone/posting that your TOTL amp is night and day better than whatever your previous amp was. It's not now your money or your happiness at stake and for all you know your previous amp might actually be better than the TOTL amp or at least could probably (under certain circumstances) be perceived as better.
  
 I'm using your anecdote purely as an example. Without measuring them, I don't discount the possibility that the TOTL amp is actually better than your previous amp.
  
 G


----------



## Joe Bloggs

The problem is there often IS a measurable difference, BUT that measurable difference usually isn't nearly enough difference of the right type to explain the *perceived* differences. Good luck explaining all that to anyone... :rolleyes:


----------



## RRod

mach3 said:


> Maybe it because measurements don't pickup stuff like soundstage or imaging?


 
  
 Well you bring up a typical problem in all this: fuzzy lingo. "Imaging"… what is that exactly. Typically it's defined as "the kind of thing where if you don't hear it then you don't know what you're talking about", which is pretty convenient for subjective reviews, I'd say. "Soundstage" can at least be related in terms of apparent position of instruments on a stage, which can be matched up with speaker position in a room. And the latter can absolutely be picked up by measurements: move speakers around a room and stereo/binaural mics placed at the listening position will pick up all the spectral, intensity, and time differences, and let you quantify them in a more useful way than what your ears can tell you.


----------



## reginalb

rrod said:


> Well you bring up a typical problem in all this: fuzzy lingo. "Imaging"… what is that exactly. Typically it's defined as "the kind of thing where if you don't hear it then you don't know what you're talking about", which is pretty convenient for subjective reviews, I'd say. "Soundstage" can at least be related in terms of apparent position of instruments on a stage, which can be matched up with speaker position in a room. And the latter can absolutely be picked up by measurements: move speakers around a room and stereo/binaural mics placed at the listening position will pick up all the spectral, intensity, and time differences, and let you quantify them in a more useful way than what your ears can tell you.


 
  
 Right? What's the difference between the sound of X and Y? Well, the imaging is different, also, the clarity. It's so obviously different, I don't _need _to do blind testing. Really it's night and day.
  
 Or, one that I got yesterday, this DAC doesn't have "digital glare" what the heck is that?


----------



## Dillan

gregorio said:


> From your perspective, you listened to a new amp, noticed something you didn't previously and therefore it's worth it to you. From my perspective, it was likely the act itself of listening to a new amp, rather than the amp itself which caused you to notice and therefore you're likely wasting your money buying something which is effectively identical to what you've already got. Of course though, if it makes you happy then it's your money to spend how you want. There are two potential problems here though: 1. You'll only remain happy while your listening context remains the same, maybe you'll listen to a new amp after a while, notice another truck (which you hadn't noticed before) and have to spend another wad buying another identical amp or just remain unhappy with the TOTL amp. 2.* If you go round telling everyone/posting that your TOTL amp is night and day better than whatever your previous amp was. It's not now your money or your happiness at stake and for all you know your previous amp might actually be better than the TOTL amp* or at least could probably (under certain circumstances) be perceived as better.
> 
> I'm using your anecdote purely as an example. Without measuring them, I don't discount the possibility that the TOTL amp is actually better than your previous amp.
> 
> G


 
  
 I think this is really important and unfortunately a concept that is a pillar in this community.
  
  


mach3 said:


> Maybe it because measurements don't pickup stuff like soundstage or imaging?


 
  
 Also as far as liking the Abyss even though it measures wonky or has technical specs that is far below other TOTL headphones - Thats totally understandable in my opinion. There are some headphones and speakers I thoroughly enjoy even though they are cheap and technically worse than my reference LCD-4. In fact sometimes I prefer my Grado SR80e's which cost 40x less than the LCD-4 and is technically much worse.. I can also say I usually enjoy the Audeze EL-8 open back more often than the 4's. This isn't saying I can't tell when swapping back and forth that the 4's are more natural sounding, accurate and detailed - but it's just more fun and musical to listen to something colorful like the other two I mentioned. That musicality and differing sound signatures is where our subjectivity comes in. I think even us in the sound science section can appreciate someones preference and subjective tastes. However there is always a fine line between liking something because it sounds good to you and liking something because it is "the best".
  
 Briefly bringing up gear like amps and dacs: This is just my opinion and I am up for listening to others point of view, but I think differences you hear in things like that (or even some cables for that matter) come down to one of them being flawed. Simple as that. The cable or amp/dac is not transmitting the exact information like it should be. (intentional or not) If you look at a tube amp and compare it to a similar digital/solid state version, then the tubes are technically worse. However when you have distortion or EMI/RFI or even slight signal loss, this can be perceived as enjoyable to some listeners. It is kind of like when you look at some paintings and one is a lot more realistic looking (almost like picture quality), but another is of the same object and a lot more colorful and cartoon-like and vivid and odd looking - well some people might enjoy the not-so-realistic version more. I firmly believe that bias and imagination are the first and foremost reason that these differences are "heard" but my point still stands for the few that might actually hear something.
  
 99.999% of the time though, these devices/cables/whatever is going to do just what it's made to do and that's carry a signal without audibly altering it. I passionately believe that the speaker/headphone itself (assuming the source is good) is pretty much the only thing worth upgrading/downgrading. I just like playing a little devils advocate and maybe bringing some outside perspective.


----------



## Dillan

reginalb said:


> Right? What's the difference between the sound of X and Y? Well, the imaging is different, also, the clarity. It's so obviously different, I don't _need _to do blind testing. Really it's night and day.
> 
> Or, one that I got yesterday, this DAC doesn't have "*digital glare*" what the heck is that?


 
  
 Not to be rude at that person, but I'm laughing hard at "digital glare".


----------



## cel4145

joe bloggs said:


> The problem is there often IS a measurable difference, BUT that measurable difference usually isn't nearly enough difference of the right type to explain the *perceived* differences. Good luck explaining all that to anyone... :rolleyes:




+1

As they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink . . .

But then wait. Sometimes you have a donkey, he balks all of the time, and you can't even lead him to the water :etysmile:


----------



## cel4145

Here is an additional thought on TOTL headphone amps. There are obviously people who have more money than they know what to do with. Let's ignore them. In fact, worrying about them makes no sense because (a) we are concerned about consumers getting their money's worth, and it doesn't really matter to them and (b) they very well may be buying purely for prestige. 

But of the others for whom these expensive amps are a huge chunk of their disposable income--the people we really would like to help--if they got into building a living room or even dedicated HT setup, they'd soon figure out that spending $1000 on a new headphone amp vs. the good $200 solid state amp they have isn't worth it compared to what happens when you have to very much budget your spending in terms of opportunity costs for real gains in audio quality: going from a $200 subwoofer to a $800 subwoofer, a $500 receiver to a $1000 one with Audyssey XT 32, or adding $500 in Dolby Atmos speakers. Or how about building a very good desktop speaker setup? Or how about adding a $500 area rug for that living room setup that has tile floor and is creating nasty reflections?

There are a LOT of things I can do to get significant improvements in my speaker setups with $800. Why in the heck would I put money into such a small potential improvement in SQ based on what subjectivists are describing you get? It's ludicrous.


----------



## ExtremeGamerBR

Best topic I've read in this forum. Thanks!


----------



## krismusic

Blimey Dillan. You will achieve guru hood at this rate. Better buy yourself some flowing garments and walk the land. Or at least attend HeadFi meets! 
I agree with extreme gamer BTW.


----------



## james444

reginalb said:


> "digital glare" what the heck is that?


 
  
 Roughly the opposite of "analog warmth".


----------



## U-3C

james444 said:


> Roughly the opposite of "analog warmth".


 
  
 ...Just like how reginalb heard of "digital glare" yesterday, I just heard of "analog warmth" today.

 ...
  
 What is that???!!  Analog devices warm up the room during the cold winter? Don't digital devices do the same?  0_0???
  
 (Just joking)


----------



## Joe Bloggs

I think James was also telling a joke.


----------



## Dillan

krismusic said:


> Blimey Dillan. You will achieve guru hood at this rate. Better buy yourself some flowing garments and walk the land. Or at least attend HeadFi meets!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Haha I attended my first "real" meet at Canlanta where I learned a lot and met some really cool people. Hopefully its the start to many more meets/conventions.
  
 However I am definitely nobody to give credit to, this thread has been a joy to read through because of everyone else's thoughts, debates and contributions!


----------



## pctazhp

Sometimes it seems to me there is a thin line between those who want to help newcomers and those who just want to control people. Newbies to HeadFi are not necessarily people who just fell off the turnip truck with no practical life experience. Many newbies here (as I was when I first arrived) may have decades of experience as audiophiles. Just about every newbie will already have extensive experience in shopping for and buying such things as cars, home appliances, TVs, new homes, sporting equipment, etc. Most newbies I assume know that just because something costs a lot doesn't mean it is better than something cheaper or is the best suited for that particular person. Each newbie arrives here already with his or her own unique process for making decisions.
  
 I'm really not sure detailed discussion of double-blind testing and expectation bias is going to be meaningful to a lot of newbies. Seems to me a few simple points of advice might be the most helpful, such as:
  
 1. Try not to buy anything you don't have a chance to audition at home and in your system for at least two weeks.
 2. Be aware that advertising, fancy cosmetics, what others have told you, your mood, other things going on in your life, and many other external factors can all affect what you think you are perceiving or "hearing".
 3. Don't assume that something that costs more is better than a cheaper alternative.
 4. Read all reviews and comments here with a grain of salt. If you see a consistent point of view with respect to a particular product (good or bad) that might provide some guidance, but nothing will replace your own personal at home audition of a product.
 5. Take it slow. Give yourself a chance to learn and ask questions. Remember, this is a hobby. Have fun. The most important consideration is what brings you the best listening experience for YOU within your budget limits.
 6. The only "expert" you should depend on is you and what seems pleasing to you.
 7. Above all, keep your priorities in perspective. Again this is a hobby. It should supplement your life - not detract from it. Your children, family, friends, financial security and many other things are all far more important.


----------



## cel4145

joe bloggs said:


> I think James was also telling a joke.




Eh?

Analogue Warmth: The Sound Of Tubes, Tape & Transformers

6 Tips for Making Digital Sound Analog (Analog Warmth From Software Plug-Ins


----------



## dprimary

pctazhp said:


> 7. Above all, keep your priorities in perspective. Again this is a hobby. It should supplement your life - not detract from it. Your children, family, friends, financial security and many other things are all far more important.


 
  
 I don't have any hobbies, is that strange?


----------



## krismusic

pctazhp said:


> Sometimes it seems to me there is a thin line between those who want to help newcomers and those who just want to control people. Newbies to HeadFi are not necessarily people who just fell off the turnip truck with no practical life experience. Many newbies here (as I was when I first arrived) may have decades of experience as audiophiles. Just about every newbie will already have extensive experience in shopping for and buying such things as cars, home appliances, TVs, new homes, sporting equipment, etc. Most newbies I assume know that just because something costs a lot doesn't mean it is better than something cheaper or is the best suited for that particular person. Each newbie arrives here already with his or her own unique process for making decisions.
> 
> I'm really not sure detailed discussion of double-blind testing and expectation bias is going to be meaningful to a lot of newbies. Seems to me a few simple points of advice might be the most helpful, such as:
> 
> ...



This should be on the front page of HeadFi.


----------



## U-3C

krismusic said:


> This should be on the front page of HeadFi.




Someone tag Jude!!!

xD


----------



## reginalb

james444 said:


> Roughly the opposite of "analog warmth".


 
  
  


u-3c said:


> ...Just like how reginalb heard of "digital glare" yesterday, I just heard of "analog warmth" today.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


 
  
  


joe bloggs said:


> I think James was also telling a joke.


 
  
  


cel4145 said:


> Eh?
> 
> Analogue Warmth: The Sound Of Tubes, Tape & Transformers
> 
> 6 Tips for Making Digital Sound Analog (Analog Warmth From Software Plug-Ins


 
  
 I don't think the joke is that people don't talk about analog warmth. I think the joke is that, like digital glare, it's a horribly vague statement and doesn't really help get an understanding of what something sounds like. 
  
 If it is the opposite of warmth, them I guess digital glare just means "accurate," "as the artist intended," or "not distorted."


----------



## cel4145

pctazhp said:


> Newbies to HeadFi are not necessarily people who just fell off the turnip truck with no practical life experience. Many newbies here (as I was when I first arrived) may have decades of experience as audiophiles. Just about every newbie will already have extensive experience in shopping for and buying such things as cars, home appliances, TVs, new homes, sporting equipment, etc.




My experience in helping hundreds of people on the newbie forums it that many are, indeed, fairly new to audio. I would guess that for at least half, the age range is somewhere from 16 to 23. Most don't have the experience you describe, and they are very easily persuaded by outside factors other than the actual performance of the audio. Note I don't wish to imply that all in the 16 to 23 age group are that way. But a very large majority probably are. 



pctazhp said:


> 6. The only "expert" you should depend on is you and what seems pleasing to you.




And that is the core tenant behind subjectivism.


----------



## krismusic

u-3c said:


> ...Just like how reginalb heard of "digital glare" yesterday, I just heard of "analog warmth" today.
> 
> 
> ...
> ...



Hang on. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. A lot of people reckon that vinyl has a warmth that the 1's and zeros of digital inherently does not. I'm prepared to accept that. The frequency range of vinyl is greatly extended beyond the brick wall of CD. More contentiously, tube amps are deemed to have a warmer sound. They must have with those glowing bottles!  
I don't think it helps convince anyone to deny that different technologies have different characteristics.


----------



## RRod

cel4145 said:


> My experience in helping hundreds of people on the newbie forums it that many are, indeed, fairly new to audio. I would guess that for at least half, the age range is somewhere from 16 to 23. Most don't have the experience you describe, and they are very easily persuaded by outside factors other than the actual performance of the audio. Note I don't wish to imply that all in the 16 to 23 age group are that way. But a very large majority probably are.





> And that is the core tenant behind subjectivism.


 
  
 It's the old "zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" mantra. The issue is that, like you said, we're not dealing with entrenched audiophiles wanting to try one new piece of gear, we're dealing with people who want to get their first "serious" setup or who are straight up unhappy. So they look for opinions, and that's where things get dicey. Because if someone wants to try, say, the HD800, it should be equally valid for someone to say "you need a TOTL tube amp and NOS DAC" as it is for me to say "just get a Fulla" from a subjective standpoint. Yet my opinion would be met with total disdain, even though from a technical, objective perspective my setup should be perfectly fine, and indeed to my ears it does sound perfectly fine.


----------



## RRod

krismusic said:


> Hang on. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. A lot of people reckon that vinyl has a warmth that the 1's and zeros of digital inherently does not. I'm prepared to accept that. The frequency range of vinyl is greatly extended beyond the brick wall of CD. More contentiously, tube amps are deemed to have a warmer sound. They must have with those glowing bottles!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Shall I give you a series of test signals in the 20-22kHz range? What you'll hear, if anything, sure won't be "warmth".


----------



## krismusic

rrod said:


> Shall I give you a series of test signals in the 20-22kHz range? What you'll hear, if anything, sure won't be "warmth".



No thanks but play a piece of music that has harmonics etc and I *might[/B ]enjoy it more on vinyl through a tube amp than on a digital set up.*


----------



## Sophonax

Excellent thread topic and discussion so far.
  
 If you want a bit of amusement -- head over to Amazon and check out the first review of the Sennheiser HD650. It's dated from 2004 (a year after the headphone was first released) and says the following: "They cost a lot. A whole lot."
  
 Nowadays the HD650 is downright cheap compared to most offerings. Have headphones improved over the past decade? Collectively, sure. But personally I don't think they've improved nearly enough to justify the flagship pricing we see today. It's gotten a bit out of hand.
  
 I think the biggest disservice to readers of this site is the ubiquitous, ultra-positive reaction to new flagship products. Something new and expensive comes out, and it's immediately heralded as the best thing ever, so much better than all previous products in the category which are suddenly now flawed by comparison. This type of rhetoric, whether by intention or not, (1) makes it difficult to get any meaningful sense of the product's true performance, (2) causes many people to spend money on products which may be overpriced and/or inferior, and (3) fuels the endless cycle of component "upgrades" that often ends in dissatisfaction and disillusionment.
  
 To avoid falling victim to this fervor, new product releases should be approached with a healthy amount of skepticism, and level-headed objectivism can help to provide a first line of defense for your wallet.


----------



## RRod

krismusic said:


> No thanks but play a piece of music that has harmonics etc and I *might*enjoy it more on vinyl through a tube amp than on a digital set up.


 
  
 And I might enjoy a piece that's all cymbals and tam-tams on a digital setup more, but let's assign perceived benefits to causes that actually fit the bill.


----------



## cel4145

rrod said:


> It's the old "zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" mantra. The issue is that, like you said, we're not dealing with entrenched audiophiles wanting to try one new piece of gear, we're dealing with people who want to get their first "serious" setup or who are straight up unhappy. So they look for opinions, and that's where things get dicey. Because if someone wants to try, say, the HD800, it should be equally valid for someone to say "you need a TOTL tube amp and NOS DAC" as it is for me to say "just get a Fulla" from a subjective standpoint. Yet my opinion would be met with total disdain, even though from a technical, objective perspective my setup should be perfectly fine, and indeed to my ears it does sound perfectly fine.




Yeah. I'm sure I'm getting those same looks at my posts from other members when I tell people that their flagship smartphone measures very well with an amp and that they should just get the Fiio A3 instead of an Oppo HA-2 and save their money for something else. But you know a lot of these kids think they have to have a portable dac/amp because that's what someone told them. 

Side note: I think USB dac/amps are a poor choice in that situation anyway because you can't charge your phone and listen to your music at the same time. Hey, but never let practicality of chasing that SQ that might not even be there. :rolleyes:


----------



## pctazhp

cel4145 said:


> My experience in helping hundreds of people on the newbie forums it that many are, indeed, fairly new to audio. I would guess that for at least half, the age range is somewhere from 16 to 23. Most don't have the experience you describe, and they are very easily persuaded by outside factors other than the actual performance of the audio. Note I don't wish to imply that all in the 16 to 23 age group are that way. But a very large majority probably are.
> *And that is the core tenant behind subjectivism.*


 
 Are you seriously suggesting that if I audition a new component in my system for at least two week and find that I am really enjoying it and I can afford it, that if someone else tells me that I have made a stupid choice that is not supported by objective, scientific principles, I should immediately return it and wait for someone who can tell me what I should be using from a scientific basis?
  
 Please do not lecture me on the validity of DBT or expectation bias. I accept the basic tenants. But I refuse to deprive myself of an enjoyable experience because I can't establish that my experience is scientifically valid.


----------



## cel4145

pctazhp said:


> Are you seriously suggesting . . .




I'm not suggesting anything. I am quite clearly pointing out that the primary principle of audio subjectivism is that personal experience trumps everything else. Your beliefs and what you choose to do are up to you. But a rose is still a rose by any other name.


----------



## RRod

The issue is *what* you decide to audition and *how* you audition it. Take my HD800 + Fulla example. Would a given audiophile who wants to try the HD800 bother to even audition the Fulla? If they did, would they give it a fair shake or just go "nope" after 2 seconds because it isn't "TOTL"? And how would the little device end up fairing in the review they write? If not-well, then how many people have been driven away from a potentially cheap and excellent solution? How many of those decide not even to bother with the headphones now?


----------



## U-3C

rrod said:


> The issue is *what* you decide to audition and *how* you audition it. Take my HD800 + Fulla example. Would a given audiophile who wants to try the HD800 bother to even audition the Fulla? If they did, would they give it a fair shake or just go "nope" after 2 seconds because it isn't "TOTL"? And how would the little device end up fairing in the review they write? If not-well, then how many people have been driven away from a potentially cheap and excellent solution? How many of those decide not even to bother with the headphones now?




Well, multiple people claim that the small DACport Slim is great for driving the HD800. So for 20 dollars more than the Fulla, you can get a setup that a few people have claimed to work well! Not sure how much 20 dollars will influence these people's judgments though.


----------



## pctazhp

rrod said:


> The issue is *what* you decide to audition and *how* you audition it. Take my HD800 + Fulla example. Would a given audiophile who wants to try the HD800 bother to even audition the Fulla? If they did, would they give it a fair shake or just go "nope" after 2 seconds because it isn't "TOTL"? And how would the little device end up fairing in the review they write? If not-well, then how many people have been driven away from a potentially cheap and excellent solution? How many of those decide not even to bother with the headphones now?


 
 I set forth a list of 7 pieces of advice. Focus was placed on only 1 of the 7 on that list. The list was just an attempt to come up with some useful advice for newcomers. I claim no pride of authorship and am open to other approaches. What would you suggest to solve the problem you describe?


----------



## RRod

pctazhp said:


> I set forth a list of 7 pieces of advice. Focus was placed on only 1 of the 7 on that list. The list was just an attempt to come up with some useful advice for newcomers. I claim no pride of authorship and am open to other approaches. What would you suggest to solve the problem you describe?


 
  
 I agree with most of the list, but what cel mentioned really gets to the heart of the matter of "how can prices be too darn high"? What needs to happen is that the community should embrace posters/reviewers who do in fact aim for some objectivity in their assessments. Just saying "this setup was warm" isn't as helpful as "I noticed a perceived warmth in the bass and sure enough measurements show higher THD below 100Hz." Saying "this amp sounded fine but not as good as my TOTL setup" isn't as useful as "in a blind, volume-matched comparison I could not differentiate these two amps." Yet what often gets credit is flowery language and adherence to societal norms, the kind of norms that promote equipment that costs too much for what it's supposed to be doing.


----------



## krismusic

cel4145 said:


> Yeah. I'm sure I'm getting those same looks at my posts from other members when I tell people that their flagship smartphone measures very well with an amp and that they should just get the Fiio A3 instead of an Oppo HA-2 and save their money for something else. But you know a lot of these kids think they have to have a portable dac/amp because that's what someone told them.
> 
> Side note: I think USB dac/amps are a poor choice in that situation anyway because you can't charge your phone and listen to your music at the same time. Hey, but never let practicality of chasing that SQ that might not even be there. :rolleyes:



I think it is worth bearing in mind that new technologies often offer many new experiences but probably at the expense of attributes of the previous technology. 
It may well be that a vinyl based system would be more enjoyable than my smartphone and CIEM's. 
That is not appropriate to how I enjoy listening to music at this time. On the move. Commuting between jobs. 
I cannot beat the joy of plugging my headphones into a device that I already have to carry around with me and listen to an almost endless library of music on Tidal. 
When I retire and spend more time at home this may change. 
In the meantime trying to get digital to ape the characteristics of analoge leads to the nonsense of carrying a "stack" around ( been there done that!) which is a PITA to carry around and in reality is never going to sound like a Linn Sondek into a pair of electrostatic speakers. 
Having said that, my ridiculously expensive CIEM's sound amazing from an iPhone but accepting realistic limitations to what is possible in this context will save me a lot of money, time and effort chasing rainbows. 
I eagerly await the opportunity to hear stuff at CanJam London that may prove me wrong. 
I will definitely have my BS detector turned up to max and will report back here.


----------



## cel4145

Well, I decided to make an alternative list. The one that says things I'd like to say, but won't  

1) There are many excellent amps/dacs available for a few hundred dollars and less that are distortion free. Spending more money won't get you more sound quality, but it does make the audio vendors wallets heavier. 

2) Buying a new amp for better synergy with your headphones makes about as much sense as buying a new oven because you don't like how the pizza you cooked tastes. Try cooking a different pizza instead. 

3) Any recommendation for audio equipment that includes the phrase "the best in the world" or "the best ever" should be discounted about as quickly as the guy who emails you asking for help to transfer $200,000 from Nigeria. 

4) Just because twenty other people in the thread followed the initial positive review for a new product off a cliff with their wallet doesn't mean you need to. 

5) You don't need to repeatedly buy $300 exotic cables to find the perfect sound. One pair will do when you decide to hang yourself later after realizing how much money you wasted. 

6) People that record headphone (and speaker) demos for perspective buyers should never be allowed to review audio equipment again. Especially those that use their own home made contraptions to do it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo2xDhu7JK8

7) Audio science is not trying to attack your precious infallible ego. But since you apparently don't realize it, audio science can save a fool from being parted from his money.


----------



## pctazhp

cel4145 said:


> Well, I decided to make an alternative list. The one that says things I'd like to say, but won't
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 You list simply demonstrates how dogmatic, offensive, off-setting and unscientific many "objectivists" can be. No 1 is a blanket statement of fact without any back up.
  
 It also demonstrates why it is pointless to try to engage in a reasonable discussion of this subject.


----------



## musikevan

This short video will put things in perspective...
https://vimeo.com/25761812


----------



## reginalb

u-3c said:


> Well, multiple people claim that the small DACport Slim is great for driving the HD800. So for 20 dollars more than the Fulla, you can get a setup that a few people have claimed to work well! Not sure how much 20 dollars will influence these people's judgments though.


 
  
 Wasn't the slim Massdrop exclusive? The DACport is typically $200, vs $79 for the Fulla. And I have it on good authority that he got his for less than that. The Fulla is a great little piece of kit. 


pctazhp said:


> You list simply demonstrates how dogmatic, offensive, off-setting and unscientific many "objectivists" can be. No 1 is a blanket statement of fact without any back up.
> 
> It also demonstrates why it is pointless to try to engage in a reasonable discussion of this subject.


 
  
 How in the world is it offensive? It's also true. But even if you disagree, I don't see how you can see it as offensive. 
  
 There is a lot of backup, too. Backup is stickied.


----------



## U-3C

reginalb said:


> Wasn't the slim Massdrop exclusive? The DACport is typically $200, vs $79 for the Fulla. And I have it on good authority that he got his for less than that. The Fulla is a great little piece of kit.


 
 Yes, it is an exclusive. However, just wait a few days and it will be back! It's getting dropped so often~
  
 The DACport HD is quite a bit more powerful than the Slim and was never meant to really compete with the Fulla. However, the reviews I mentioned about were all about the $99 DACport Slim with the HD800. Feels good even though I still don't think it's better than my onboard audio with my current headphones. 0_0;
  


> Originally Posted by *reginalb* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> How in the world is it offensive? It's also true. But even if you disagree, I don't see how you can see it as offensive.


 
  
 To be honest, I find it a bit offensive... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Reading the list, I get the feeling that the audience may feel like they are labeled as being stupid or brushed to the side. I want to make it clear that I don't hold anything personal against you, nor am I trying to attack you. I can understand why you are frustrated with such things and may see them as being dumb. Based on the list, I think you tried to express it in a way that seems to be simple and straight forward for others to understand, but for a person that is from the other side of the debate, they may see your post and feel equally as frustrated. Just as how you may see the choices of those opposing you as idiotic, they may see your advice as being very blunt and over-simplified as well.
  
 The part about the cable used to hang the reader really hurt me. If they were in a case like me where they are just getting into the hobby, ignorant of how things work and are doing research on a site that is filled with marketing designed to get them to pay for stuff, they are easily fooled and pulled into the rabbit hole, especially with something like audio where the boarders between science and pseudoscience is so hard to spot at times unless you have previous experience with audio, or in the case of the SS forum, probably have previous training regarding sound science.
  
 The Sound Science subforum is pretty dead. Not a lot of people visit here compared to the other places. If somebody really is just starting out, they will probably not look here when they seek help. Where ever they go, they probably will get help from passionate people with good intentions and they will appreciate it. They might follow the advice and spend their money, and they might end up being very happy, whether they got the best value for their money or they simply wasted the majority of their budget on marketing gimmecks. If they are on the extreme end and have bought premium audio cables, whether they are happy or if they are upset (like me) because they realized that it doesn't make that much of a difference, especially knowing the price paid for them, and go around spreading the word/searching for an answer to their confusion, it really hurts when somebody comes up and bluntly tells them that the only expensive cable they need in their case is the one used to hang themselves.
  
 I know I'm still searching for an answer to my questions because I feel heavily lied to, and reading that list really hurt. I understand that your intentions are good and that you are trying to prevent people like me from making poor choices that they may regret. If I understood correctly, you are probably frustrated with the issues raised in this thread? I don't hold anything against you, but I can see why the list can really hurt someone and be taken as a personal attack.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Take care.


----------



## reginalb

u-3c said:


> Yes, it is an exclusive. However, just wait a few days and it will be back! It's getting dropped so often~
> 
> The DACport HD is quite a bit more powerful than the Slim and was never meant to really compete with the Fulla. However, the reviews I mentioned about were all about the $99 DACport Slim with the HD800. Feels good even though I still don't think it's better than my onboard audio with my current headphones. 0_0;
> 
> ...


 
  
 I didn't make the list, but they are clearly just a tongue in cheek satire of an earlier list in the thread. Don't take life too seriously, you'll never make it out alive! 
  
 I wouldn't use that list in a search for truth or anything. Many of us, myself included, bought stuff we probably shouldn't have in this hobby.


----------



## U-3C

reginalb said:


> I didn't make the list, but they are clearly just a tongue in cheek satire of an earlier list in the thread. Don't take life too seriously, you'll never make it out alive!
> 
> I wouldn't use that list in a search for truth or anything. Many of us, myself included, bought stuff we probably shouldn't have in this hobby.


 
  
 Woops, got you confused with cel4145!
  
 *Runs off to hang myself with the 20 feet cable from AKG Q701. ;v;*
  
 Th...thanks AKG for your insanely long cable. It has finally come to use. 0_0;


----------



## cel4145

reginalb said:


> I didn't make the list, but they are clearly just a tongue in cheek satire of an earlier list in the thread. Don't take life too seriously, you'll never make it out alive!
> 
> I wouldn't use that list in a search for truth or anything. Many of us, myself included, bought stuff we probably shouldn't have in this hobby.




Yep. Some were supposed to be over the top and are a play on different things that commonly happen. 

But (1) shouldn't be offensive to anyone. I would guess that most of the objectivists in the sound science forum believe that to be true, that (a) there are accurate dacs and amps to be had, which definitely leads to (b) the idea that buying more expensive stuff only helps the audio companies, not the consumer. If you grant (a), then (b) is a logical conclusion. If you don't agree with (a), then (b) shouldn't bother you.


----------



## RRod

reginalb said:


> I didn't make the list, but they are clearly just a tongue in cheek satire of an earlier list in the thread. Don't take life too seriously, you'll never make it out alive!
> 
> I wouldn't use that list in a search for truth or anything. Many of us, myself included, bought stuff we probably shouldn't have in this hobby.


 
  
 I'll add that some of us who are plenty smart made excessive purchases when we wanted our first "big boy" headphone setup from assuming that the cognoscenti of the audiophile world actually trust in the science of it all. I mean, I was used to photography guys who hate jpg, but what you get in the audio world seems to be on a whole 'nother level. I wasn't expecting it, and once I found Sound Science and did some learning, I was glad that audio equipment seems to live in this weird universe where used items sell for like 99% of the original price…


----------



## U-3C

> [...] audio equipment seems to live in this weird universe where used items sell for like 99% of the original price…


 
  
 I got my Q701 for 90 bucks used...These were the older Made in Austria ones so their original prices are probably more than what Amazon is showing at the moment...
  
 Did I somehow bend the laws of physics???!!! Will some SWAT team charge into my room at any moment to drag me off to some secret lab and try to analyze from me the mysteries of the universe???!!! I hope hiding here in the SS forum will keep me hidden...
  
 0_0;


----------



## krismusic

rrod said:


> I'll add that some of us who are plenty smart made excessive purchases when we wanted our first "big boy" headphone setup from assuming that the cognoscenti of the audiophile world actually trust in the science of it all. I mean, I was used to photography guys who hate jpg, but what you get in the audio world seems to be on a whole 'nother level. I wasn't expecting it, and once I found Sound Science and did some learning, I was glad that audio equipment seems to live in this weird universe where used items sell for like 99% of the original price…



I've always been amazed at how little a hit people expect to take when they decide to move gear on. 
The old rule of thumb of 50% of original price seems to have gone out of the window!
I much prefer the original list. The hanging comment is obviously a bit of gallows humour. Poor taste maybe. Definitely not to be taken seriously. 
As to advice to Newbies. I'm always concerned for anyone spending money they might not be able to afford. 
Never mind Newbies. I often need a corrective to thinking that I need a shiny new toy!


----------



## oldmate

krismusic said:


> I've always been amazed at how little a hit people expect to take when they decide to move gear on.
> The old rule of thumb of 50% of original price seems to have gone out of the window!
> I much prefer the original list. The hanging comment is obviously a bit of gallows humour. Poor taste maybe. Definitely not to be taken seriously.
> As to advice to Newbies. I'm always concerned for anyone spending money they might not be able to afford.
> Never mind Newbies. I often need a corrective to thinking that I need a shiny new toy!


 
 I've purchased a couple of second hand items recently. iBasso DX90 $150 and it came with an additional large capacity battery and back. Westone W3's $113.00. All USD. Scored the Focal Classics for $150.00 brand new. Some people spend all of that combined on a cable. Focal's new latest and greatest is 4K. Yes, 4K, - Joke.
  
 There are bargains to be had if you want great sound.
  
 The rising cost of "audiophile" equipment is just something I shake my head at and thank my lucky stars it is of no consequence to me. I'm not an audiophile. I just love music and know that you don't have to spend a fortune to achieve great sound.
  
 Thankfully the majority of people on Head.Fi know this - I sincerely hope!!


----------



## mulder01

I think most people need to live and learn and make their own mistakes. As pointed out earlier, 99% of newbies won't end up in this part of the forum and any time someone recommends something like a fulla for a HD800, 10 people will rush in to beat them down and say they must be going deaf if they can't hear the difference. And a newbie will look at the comments and see that, well, 10 people said I need to spend a grand and 1 guy said I only gotta spend eighty bucks and she'll be right... But I do want the best sound so I better get the "better" gear. I would say you have about a 1% chance of a retailer offering you an $80 amp to try the HD800 on if you are in the market for a high end system. When I bought my Abyss, the cheapest amp they had available for audition was $2k. I tried them on that and thought "hey this is just as good as the $5k amps - I'll get away with this". And so I bought said amp. Later on I plugged them into a $800 portable amp and thought hmm this sounds just as good. Then a friend of mine bought an Abyss too with a Ragnarok (because he read on the internet that it was a good pairing) and thought one day he'd try using his Objective amp/dac combo just to have a laugh at how crap it was. He was surprised at how good it was and said it's actually probably 90% + of the Ragnarok. With some additional more careful listening and a bit of time, he admitted that there was pretty much no difference between the 02 and the Rag. Turns out I spent more than I probably had to but I didn't know that at the time and if I tried to go into the Abyss thread and tell people they can have a world beating setup with a $5k headphone and $279 dac/amp combo, I'd be laughed out of the thread and it would get lost in a sea of "buy a 5 figure dac or you won't hear what they are really capable of" posts and nobody would ever see or take notice of it because it is such a minority opinion in that part of the forum, any newbie would just write that person off as an idiot. Unfortunately the fully open minded will never outnumber the big spenders that are infinitely proud of their systems and not willing to try anything less. "Sorry about your wallet" is actually a fairly sincere remark. "Sorry you spent more than you had to" definitely doesn't have the same ring to it.


----------



## U-3C

mulder01 said:


> I think most people need to live and learn and make their own mistakes. As pointed out earlier, 99% of newbies won't end up in this part of the forum and any time someone recommends something like a fulla for a HD800, 10 people will rush in to beat them down and say they must be going deaf if they can't hear the difference. And a newbie will look at the comments and see that, well, 10 people said I need to spend a grand and 1 guy said I only gotta spend eighty bucks and she'll be right... But I do want the best sound so I better get the "better" gear. I would say you have about a 1% chance of a retailer offering you an $80 amp to try the HD800 on if you are in the market for a high end system. When I bought my Abyss, the cheapest amp they had available for audition was $2k. I tried them on that and thought "hey this is just as good as the $5k amps - I'll get away with this". And so I bought said amp. Later on I plugged them into a $800 portable amp and thought hmm this sounds just as good. Then a friend of mine bought an Abyss too with a Ragnarok (because he read on the internet that it was a good pairing) and thought one day he'd try using his Objective amp/dac combo just to have a laugh at how crap it was. He was surprised at how good it was and said it's actually probably 90% + of the Ragnarok. With some additional more careful listening and a bit of time, he admitted that there was pretty much no difference between the 02 and the Rag. Turns out I spent more than I probably had to but I didn't know that at the time and if I tried to go into the Abyss thread and tell people they can have a world beating setup with a $5k headphone and $279 dac/amp combo, I'd be laughed out of the thread and it would get lost in a sea of "buy a 5 figure dac or you won't hear what they are really capable of" posts and nobody would ever see or take notice of it because it is such a minority opinion in that part of the forum, any newbie would just write that person off as an idiot. Unfortunately the fully open minded will never outnumber the big spenders that are infinitely proud of their systems and not willing to try anything less. "Sorry about your wallet" is actually a fairly sincere remark. "Sorry you spent more than you had to" definitely doesn't have the same ring to it.




I still hold the claim that I can't really hear much of a difference between my onboard audio, my iPhone, or my dedicated dac/amp. I was so lost at first and the people I asked, including the company that made the product, all directly or indirectly pointed at problems with my ears/appreciation for music, especially since everyone else claim to hear a "night and day" difference, and many told me before my purchase that I owed it to myself to buy the dedicated dac/amp or else my headphone purchase is pointless. 

As a sanity check, I went out and asked my friends to help me test. 10 volunteers later, nobody bothered to even pretend they hear a difference, some even looked at me weird, as I actually was tricked to waste money on this stuff. 0_0; Sure, it wasn't a scientifically accurate experiment, and people told me that I should buy equipment to volume match everything and to measure if there is a difference, but...really? Recommending expensive measuring tools to help me justify my purchase and to prove to myself that a difference exists? @_@; I was just reading that stuff in fascination: how did it the thread even get there?! 

Maybe someday, I'll decide to buy a pair of HD800, LCD-X or whatever top of-the-line headphone that some company is selling. My little 100 dollar dacport will still be my endgame source/amp if my iPhone doesn't have enough juice. 

Not sure if this guy's blog is overhyped or not, but I really wish that I have read this part before any of my purchases:


----------



## mulder01

It is hard to find good advice, as you pointed out, these down-to-earth comments are far outweighed by a general enthusiasm for shiny expensive stuff and it's hard to listen to reason when the promise of audio nirvana is coming at you from everywhere. As you also pointed out, the persuasion coming from the scientific minded people can often come across as aggressive and condescending and can be easy to overlook.


----------



## castleofargh

it's hard to find good advice because facts aren't easy to get, and most websites will have some nonsense claims go unchallenged for the sacred rule of respecting subjective views.
 I was in photography(for good) long before I came to amateur audio, and still to this day I'm amazed at the crap audiophiles accept to eat daily.  at best a false claims goes X said this, Y said that, and we rarely know who was really right, we usually go with best rhetoric
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.
 try to go on something like dpreview and start claiming how your old canon camera is the best for low light pictures when it has horrible noise at 800iso. and see how long it takes for you to get burned until there is nothing left for any reader to believe your claim.
 but audiophiles, they can just get away with anything. in part because it's harder to show the result, pictures are cool for that, but also mostly because it's the unsaid rule. don't contest my BS I won't contest yours.  "the jitter on that DAC really sounded bad", measures like -110db at 17khz...  "I hear more micro details on 24bit tracks"... the song has like 60db of content, including the noise that's not quantization noise or dither... you name it, if it makes no sense, it's been claimed. such stuff aren't killed until they diededed like they should, they hang in there on forums for everybody to read and believe. so of course the people coming after that will be affected by all the myth and legends without clear statements disproving them. when stuff are said in a confident way on the web, they have a lasting effect. and the less an idea is challenged, the faster it will be accepted as true.
 we're in need of something between the current state of things on most audio forums, and a radical GTFO anytime someone is wrong on the internet(because there wouldn't be anybody left). and it may not be easy to implement, but how things are right now in audio is super wrong. I believe anybody can see that.


----------



## oldmate

castleofargh said:


> it's hard to find good advice because facts aren't easy to get, and most websites will have some nonsense claims go unchallenged for the sacred rule of respecting subjective views.
> I was in photography(for good) long before I came to amateur audio, and still to this day I'm amazed at the crap audiophiles accept to eat daily.  at best a false claims goes X said this, Y said that, and we rarely know who was really right, we usually go with best rhetoric
> 
> 
> ...


 
 ^This.
  
 I recently asked @jmills8  how a cable could remove bass and add mids and treble only to for him to respond with an insult but no answer to my question. How dare I question his claim. It's this kind nonsense that needs to be stamped out of not just Head.Fi but the industry as a whole. Unfortunately it will not happen any time soon if ever.


----------



## tkteo

Here is another one: Furutech rhodium wall power socket. 500hrs of burn in to hear improvement in sound!


----------



## jmills8

.


----------



## reginalb

u-3c said:


> I still hold the claim that I can't really hear much of a difference between my onboard audio, my iPhone, or my dedicated dac/amp. I was so lost at first and the people I asked, including the company that made the product, all directly or indirectly pointed at problems with my ears/appreciation for music, especially since everyone else claim to hear a "night and day" difference, and many told me before my purchase that I owed it to myself to buy the dedicated dac/amp or else my headphone purchase is pointless.
> 
> As a sanity check, I went out and asked my friends to help me test. 10 volunteers later, nobody bothered to even pretend they hear a difference, some even looked at me weird, as I actually was tricked to waste money on this stuff. 0_0; Sure, it wasn't a scientifically accurate experiment, and people told me that I should buy equipment to volume match everything and to measure if there is a difference, but...really? Recommending expensive measuring tools to help me justify my purchase and to prove to myself that a difference exists? @_@; I was just reading that stuff in fascination: how did it the thread even get there?!
> 
> ...


 
  
 That guy is a little taboo around here. His info is pretty good, FYI, @mulder01 mentioned his buddies O2/ODAC, that screenshot is from the site of the designer of the amp and DAC in question. He wanted a measurably good headphone amp, and didn't want to spend much, because reasons. So he tested a bunch, and they all sucked, so he figured he would just make one himself, then made the design open source so that anyone could make it (and a few companies do). He later designed the ODAC to match it, and you got a measurably amazing amp/dac that retails for under $300, and you can build yourself for even less. But it's been around a while, and unless you need the watts, you're better off with standalone USB powered guys nowadays (in my humble opinion). Something like a Schiit Fulla that also measures pretty darn well for even less money, and can be taken with you because it's tiny. But if you have power hungry cans, you might need more wattage than that little guy pumps out.


----------



## pctazhp

The quest to "stamp out" all subjective audio reviews and comments on the internet to save everyone from the greedy high end manufacturers who dominate, manipulate and monopolize the world economy is certainly a noble endeavor. Unfortunately, given the way most make their day to day decisions, it is an uphill battle:
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/11835#post_12750020
  
 Once this goal has been achieved, I certainly hope the crusaders will successfully "stamp out" all hate speech on the internet as this can be a matter of life and death.
  
 Then hopefully the climate change deniers can also be denied all access to the internet.
  
 It will certainly be utopia when the Internet Dictatorship is in full control of all thought. All ignorant slobs absolutely must be saved from themselves.


----------



## bfreedma

pctazhp said:


> The quest to "stamp out" all subjective audio reviews and comments on the internet to save everyone from the greedy high end manufacturers who dominate, manipulate and monopolize the world economy is certainly a noble endeavor. Unfortunately, given the way most make their day to day decisions, it is an uphill battle:
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/11835#post_12750020
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 Who didn't see this post coming?  It's a pretty common escape hatch for subjectivists here.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

It's also 100% truth (about how we can't do schiit about the status quo and how we're all fscked on a much grander scale than being doomed to expensive schiity audio for the rest of our lives (which will probably be cut short by catastrophic climate change)) :rolleyes:


----------



## pctazhp

bfreedma said:


> Who didn't see this post coming?  It's a pretty common escape hatch for subjectivists here.


 
 Your ability to foresee the future is certainly impressive. Your ability to comprehend the point I was making is less impressive.
  
 I choose my audio equipment based on my subjective determination of what brings me the greatest pleasure. I don't try to impose that approach on anyone else. I also acknowledge the existence of expectation bias and the value of DBT. But those who think they can conduct valid DBTs at home in my opinion are fooling themselves. It is also my experience that it is difficult to find scientifically conducted audio DBTs that are repeatable, subject to peer review and conducted by qualified professionals.
  
 I was addressing the attitude of those who want to "stamp out" all posts they disagree with.


----------



## RRod

bfreedma said:


> Who didn't see this post coming?  It's a pretty common escape hatch for subjectivists here.


 
  
 And they never address the *real* Pepsi challenge:
  
 It's not: "Can you ABX two DACs in a lab setting?"
  
 It's not: "Can some engineer jedi-sense a bit of difference between two types of burritos in sighted switching?"
  
 It's: "Would you notice, just by listening, if I snuck in your house and hooked up a Modi instead of an Yggy?"


----------



## cel4145

pctazhp said:


> I choose my audio equipment based on my subjective determination of what brings me the greatest pleasure.* I don't try to impose that approach on anyone else. *






You just included it in your list for newbies less than 24 hours ago???



pctazhp said:


> 6. The only "expert" you should depend on is you and what seems pleasing to you.




Also,



pctazhp said:


> I also acknowledge the existence of expectation bias and the value of DBT.




Acknowledging that a thing might exist and believing in it are two different things. #6 from that list of yours suggests that you don't do the latter.


----------



## cel4145

rrod said:


> And they never address the *real* Pepsi challenge:
> 
> It's not: "Can you ABX two DACs in a lab setting?"
> 
> ...




We should remove the components of a Yggy and insert the Modi inside. Then take it to a head-fi meetup :evil:


----------



## pctazhp

rrod said:


> And they never address the *real* Pepsi challenge:
> 
> It's not: "Can you ABX two DACs in a lab setting?"
> 
> ...


 
  I have no idea and am not stupid enough to claim that I would. Again, this has nothing to do with my post. However, I do know for sure that I would have you arrested for trespassing


----------



## pctazhp

cel4145 said:


> We should remove the components of a Yggy and insert the Modi inside. Then take it to a head-fi meetup


 
 From my ancient audiophile days I seem to remember something like this was done with a big-buck amp and no one had an idea the internals had been switched.


----------



## RRod

cel4145 said:


> We should remove the components of a Yggy and insert the Modi inside. Then take it to a head-fi meetup


 
  
 Oh man, it's almost worth ponying up the coin to make it happen.
  


pctazhp said:


> I have no idea and am not stupid enough to claim that I would. Again, this has nothing to do with my post. However, I do know for sure that I would have you arrested for trespassing


 
  
 You can't arrest what you can't see 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I was responding more to subjectivist hatred of ABX, which I think gets way too much press over the test we all actually care about.


----------



## Dillan

pctazhp said:


> The quest to "stamp out" all subjective audio reviews and comments on the internet to save everyone from the greedy high end manufacturers who dominate, manipulate and monopolize the world economy is certainly a noble endeavor. Unfortunately, given the way most make their day to day decisions, it is an uphill battle:
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/11835#post_12750020
> 
> ...


 
  
 The post you linked is very unfortunate and extremely common.
  
 In my opinion, posting things and praising things like that is what hurts us consumers/hobbyist the most.. It fuels overspending and leads everyone to respond with a product maker saying "This is the best, don't question it, don't test it" with "Ok, take my money until the next person tells me what to do". I get his arguments and I respect his opinion, but he is not taking into consideration so many things. Many people confuse our sight as being the same thing as our hearing. *Its not even close. *
  
 It's important to first understand the difference in perception and sensation. There is a good little research article in the Psychlopedia that discusses just that: http://psychlopedia.wikispaces.com/Sensation+%26+Perception
  
 The thing about gardening, playing computer games or even photography is its *much *less influenced by _perception _and much more reliant on sensation. We use our eyes and hands to garden, our eyes and hands to play a video game and our eyes to look at photographs. Do you notice the obvious thing that is missing with these? Things are just simply more black and white outside of the audio world. I am not going to need to double blind test to know that this plant is producing more peppers, because I can see and hold them and others can do the same thing. A healthy body uses less perception with every other sense versus the hearing counterpart. It just simply calls for more reliable testing than us simply trusting a dac maker that's trying to sell us something.
  
 For the people that just don't care or completely admit that they might be believing in something that isn't real - or just aren't phased by being overcharged, because of the exclusivity or craftsman factor - that's fine I get that. This still hurts the community as a whole, because it encourages/influences manufacturer pricing and unwarranted credibility - but I still respect it. I would rather people be open to the fact that there may not be an audible difference in these two dacs, or this $20,000 amplifier might not be anywhere close to reasonable when considering build cost, R&D etc. Its really the people that are instantly *impressed* for no reason with a system costing six figures, blindly believe everything a product maker tells them and also echo the hivemind of the ignorant community's false and unproven opinions just for the sake of doing it. Why can't the first thing we start doing when a product is released is give constructive criticism, be open (or allowed) to talk about pricing and have some form of objective/subjective balance of discussion?


----------



## pctazhp

Sometimes, at least for me, a little knowledge and subjective opinions can be helpful. I love my Bimby and have no desire to "upgrade". The main reason is I don't feel my system fails to give me anything I am missing. But also, I know that the upgrade path would probably be to a balanced DAC. Most more expensive DACs I have seen are balanced. My Elise is not balanced and I know I would be unnecessarily paying for duplicate circuitry I wouldn't use. In addition, within the Schiit line most "subjective" comments I have read suggest there is not a significant increase in sound quality as one goes up the line.
  
 I can't remember which one said it, but either Jason Stoddard or Mike Moffat has said that he uses the Gungnir in his personal system and not the Yggdrasil.


----------



## Vigrith

dillan said:


> I have been just as guilty in the past, but I have always been aware of my bias and overpaying for items and part of it was just for the appeal of exclusivity and viewing some of the products as more "art" than real audio enjoyment. My HD800's were less enjoyable than my $60 Grado, but guess which one I felt most proud to tell people about?


 
  
 I fail to see the problem here. Why does exclusivity have to be a bad thing?
  
 There are statement products everywhere, cars, time pieces, painting, sculpture, interior design, clothing, anything. The fact that the Orpheus costs 50 grand and the new MSB system costs 150 does not change the fact that the headphones I own cost south of 1k, I still love them just the same. I cannot afford the aforementioned, thus they are irrelevant. I have better things to do than be angry or upset over the fact some people can and will buy them for the sake of just owning the most expensive stuff around.
  
 I've said this in other threads and have used it as an example many times - it's all about perspective. The minimum wage in my country is less than $400 a month, yet I somehow have managed to get lucky enough to afford a system that cost me around 4 grand over the last year or so. Isn't that ridiculous? Why should I be able to afford $1000 headphones when there are so many people struggling to feed their kids all around me bringing 300€ home a month working 10 hours a day? Am I selfish for spending my money on something I enjoy regardless of surrounding circumstances?
  
 According to your signature you own the Vi DAC and LCD-4s, that put together is what, 6 or 7k? Do you know how long a family could rent a decent place for here with that money? How life changing that would be to some people? Are you not ashamed of spending 4k on a pair of headphones when that money could be much spent or invested elsewhere? See, this is rhetorical, this is not the way I see things and I feel you should spend your money as you please, *the exact same way* someone who buys the new HE-1 Orpheus should. It's all about perspective, I respect the way you want to spend yours, it is yours after all correct?
  
 Some things I will never be able to afford (such as the Orpheus), I am at peace with that. Would I want one? Of course, but that doesn't mean I am upset over the fact someone richer than I can afford to purchase one whilst I cannot. It's a waste of my time, waste of effort, and above all else it shows clear lack of tact. I place no blame on people who "fall" for the price bias, some people are rich enough to just not care and whether or not their wealth is the result of hard work or just a by-product of something else is, my moral high horse has no business in this.
  
 Empirically speaking do the Orpheus and the MSB system warrant their price tags to people like you or myself? Absolutely not, I figure you can agree on that, now are they worth the price for someone who is willing to pay to have the best, or to have a beautiful work of art in their living room such as the HE-1? Maybe, that's up to them to decide, not us. Us earthlings have other things to look forward to such as the Elear for myself and the Utopia (theoretically, as it seems to be within your budget) for you.
  
 I understand the point you're trying to make, what I am not a fan of is pretending spending $60000 is complete and utterly ridiculous and a joke for a 1-5 or whatever % increase in sound quality whilst spending $4000 for a 1-5% increase over my LCD-2s is not. These numbers are pure speculation of course for the sake of illustration, the point I'm making is that what's alarming to you is not alarming to others, same as what is not alarming to you is alarming to others. When the Bugatti Veyron got announced and was said to start a one and a half million dollars plenty of people lost their minds, yet has it affected the pricing on more "reasonably priced" (super) cars? I'd argue it hasn't. If the price of the MSB system won't affect what people like you and I can afford then... What's the big deal?


----------



## U-3C

cel4145 said:


> We should remove the components of a Yggy and insert the Modi inside. Then take it to a head-fi meetup :evil:




Bring both a Yggy and a Modi, but swap the components, somehow. 0.0

Then let people compare both and record the reactions and serious debates on the their differences!


----------



## pctazhp

dillan said:


> The post you linked is very unfortunate and extremely common.
> 
> In my opinion, posting things and praising things like that is what hurts us consumers/hobbyist the most.. It fuels overspending and leads everyone to respond with a product maker saying "This is the best, don't question it, don't test it" with "Ok, take my money until the next person tells me what to do". I get his arguments and I respect his opinion, but he is not taking into consideration so many things. Many people confuse our sight as being the same thing as our hearing. *Its not even close. *
> 
> ...


 
  
 I fully understand the difference between perception and sensation. Hopefully for your sake you will be successful in stamping out links like the one I cited. Free thought and diverse views are today's most dangerous problem the world is facing.


----------



## cel4145

rrod said:


> Oh man, it's almost worth ponying up the coin to make it happen.






u-3c said:


> Bring both a Yggy and a Modi, but swap the components, somehow. 0.0
> 
> Then let people compare both and record the reactions and serious debates on the their differences!




Or, just bring the Yggy with the Modi inside and make up a great story to go with it:

_This is a modified Yggy. I have a friend who is a genius and got his PhD in electrical engineering from MIT at the age of 19. He then worked with the Navy for five years on improving the resolution of passive sonar using high tech digital filters that are not available to consumers, and now works for some defense industry contractor on some hush-hush audio project that aims to listen to outdoor conversations from people from satellites. He took the Yggy, and with a couple hours of work and $50 worth of parts, was able to upgrade the sound so much that all of the music has a much bigger soundstage and better resolution that you have to hear it to believe it. Best DAC ever! _

What you want to bet it would be the talk of the headphone community for weeks?

:evil:


----------



## Joe Bloggs

pctazhp said:


> I fully understand the difference between perception and sensation. Hopefully for your sake you will be successful in stamping out links like the one I cited. Free thought and diverse views are today's most dangerous problem the world is facing.




Free thought and diverse views did get us collectively into the schiithole the world is facing today. Dictatorship is a non-starter as an alternative, of course, since a dictator is just another human who's as open to human faults as the next. The only way forward is for people to keep arguing and hope that the voice of reason wins in the end. If the voice of reason is silenced out of a desire to avoid conflict then all is lost.


----------



## bfreedma

pctazhp said:


> Your ability to foresee the future is certainly impressive. Your ability to comprehend the point I was making is less impressive.
> 
> I choose my audio equipment based on my subjective determination of what brings me the greatest pleasure. I don't try to impose that approach on anyone else. I also acknowledge the existence of expectation bias and the value of DBT. But those who think they can conduct valid DBTs at home in my opinion are fooling themselves. It is also my experience that it is difficult to find scientifically conducted audio DBTs that are repeatable, subject to peer review and conducted by qualified professionals.
> 
> I was addressing the attitude of those who want to "stamp out" all posts they disagree with.


 
  
 I've never seen anyone suggest that people shouldn't purchase what they want.  I've certainly purchased many audio components for subjective reasons.
  
 The real issue is that too many people, after purchasing subjectively, then attempt to justify that purchase based on perceived performance.  What's worse is that they try to convince others to make the same purchase based on subjective opinions couched as vetted factual data.
  
 This subforum is the only place on head-fi where objective data is required and subjective posts are challenged.  I see no issue with trying to present facts and call out posts where those opinions are stated as fact.


----------



## pctazhp

joe bloggs said:


> Free thought and diverse views did get us collectively into the schiithole the world is facing today. Dictatorship is a non-starter as an alternative, of course, since a dictator is just another human who's as open to human faults as the next. The only way forward is for people to keep arguing and hope that the voice of reason wins in the end. If the voice of reason is silenced out of a desire to avoid conflict then all is lost.


 
 Totally agreed. But debate is hampered when it becomes personal (which happens on both sides of the audio DBT debate). This debate has been raging in audio circles for decades, and unfortunately often degenerates into arrogant personal attacks and people creating "straw" arguments they then love to discredit. Just like the two national party conventions I have been watching here in the US )))))


----------



## pctazhp

bfreedma said:


> I've never seen anyone suggest that people shouldn't purchase what they want.  I've certainly purchased many audio components for subjective reasons.
> 
> The real issue is that too many people, after purchasing subjectively, then attempt to justify that purchase based on perceived performance.  What's worse is that they try to convince others to make the same purchase based on subjective opinions couched as vetted factual data.
> 
> *This subforum is the only place on head-fi where objective data is required and subjective posts are challenged.  I see no issue with trying to present facts and call out posts where those opinions are stated as fact.*


 
 I don't see an issue either. But I'm not sure why you are directing your comments to me. I have not challenged the right of anyone to present facts (assuming they really are "facts" and not just opinions or assumptions) or the right of anyone to challenge a post they disagree with.


----------



## Dillan

> When the Bugatti Veyron got announced and was said to start a one and a half million dollars plenty of people lost their minds, yet has it affected the pricing on more "reasonably priced" (super) cars? I'd argue it hasn't. If the price of the MSB system won't affect what people like you and I can afford then... What's the big deal?


 
  
 I understand your points, but this is where I would argue. I think its great that MSB want to charge $150,000 for their new system. The problem though, is that it _does _affect the market overall. They aren't specifically hurting my feelings or my wallet, but collectively this is what is happening over and over and the market in the headphone world is doing just what the market in the high end speaker world has done for the last 30 years. The Bugatti sold for that much money, because it broke world records and introduced measurable and provable technology. It had the top speed of any street legal car in the world when it was released, had 1,200 horspepower (unheard of for a stock luxury car) and the engine is just completely insane to get all that to work ALL while having things like a radio and air conditioning, leather seats etc. Let them charge that much when its an unprecedented technological feat. Compare that to MSB charging more than a Ferrari for something with build materials equal to about 1/400th of their little metal box. If you asked them what technology they use to justify the price, how much would you want to bet that they couldn't tell you without using marketing lingo and gibberish "technology".
  
 I don't think Sennheiser charging $70,000 for their newest flagship has anything to do with scaling inflation or even particularly because of a big market demand for such a product. It was released for the similar reasons the MSB is being released.. For people to talk about their products and say "Wow! They have the most expensive product so they are probably the best! Lets buy some of the stuff we can afford, because they make the best stuff". The whole concept of thinking price = performance in this industry is killing the hobby. We keep shelling out money for products that aren't worth it and they'll keep charging it and I am just as guilty as anyone. If we slowly turned that around, then simple capitalism tells you we might not get ripped off anymore and companies might actually give us what we pay for. This whole thread was just a hopeful step in the right direction.
  
 The audiophile world is one of the only situations in the world where the product maker is blindly praised and the consumer is blamed and tested (not the product). The ball is always in their court and we hurt ourselves to defend people taking our money. Shouldn't it be the other way around?


----------



## cel4145

bfreedma said:


> I've never seen anyone suggest that people shouldn't purchase what they want.  I've certainly purchased many audio components for subjective reasons.




Me, too. I always try to maintain self doubt in my own evaluations because I believe that various biases can so easily influence the process. 



bfreedma said:


> The real issue is that too many people, after purchasing subjectively, then attempt to justify that purchase based on perceived performance.  What's worse is that they try to convince others to make the same purchase based on subjective opinions couched as vetted factual data.




Just this week, someone in the intro forum asked about the Asgard 2 vs. the NFB-11. His NFB-11 was broken, and instead of paying shipping costs for repairs, wanted a new amp. He said he'd like a bit warmer sound. Now in comparing--unscientifically--the Asgard 2 to my NFB-11 when I had them both, I "thought" I heard some slight bit of warmth from the Asgard 2. So I told him, "The Asgard is very nice and _seemingly_ a tiny bit warmer to my ears than the NFB-11."

So I agree. It's possible to share subjective opinions by expressing them the right way, which, as you say, is not to insist that they are fact. 

Meanwhile, to be honest, even though I know it's likely that the NFB-11 and Asgard 2 might sound the same in a DBT, I figure then there is no harm in biasing that person's evaluation towards what he wanted to hear since that is what I think I heard.


----------



## bfreedma

pctazhp said:


> Your ability to foresee the future is certainly impressive. Your ability to comprehend the point I was making is less impressive.
> 
> I choose my audio equipment based on my subjective determination of what brings me the greatest pleasure. I don't try to impose that approach on anyone else. I also acknowledge the existence of expectation bias and the value of DBT. But those who think they can conduct valid DBTs at home in my opinion are fooling themselves. It is also my experience that it is difficult to find scientifically conducted audio DBTs that are repeatable, subject to peer review and conducted by qualified professionals.
> 
> *I was addressing the attitude of those who want to "stamp out" all posts they disagree with. *


 
  
  


pctazhp said:


> I don't see an issue either. But I'm not sure why you are directing your comments to me. I have not challenged the right of anyone to present facts (assuming they really are "facts" and not just opinions or assumptions) or the right of anyone to challenge a post they disagree with.


 
  
 That's why I responded.  It I took that too broadly and you are ok with posts presenting facts as a way to tamp down subjectivist posts without facts, then my apologies.


----------



## bfreedma

cel4145 said:


> Me, too. I always try to maintain self doubt in my own evaluations because I believe that various biases can so easily influence the process.
> Just this week, someone in the intro forum asked about the Asgard 2 vs. the NFB-11. His NFB-11 was broken, and instead of paying shipping costs for repairs, wanted a new amp. He said he'd like a bit warmer sound. Now in comparing--unscientifically--the Asgard 2 to my NFB-11 when I had them both, I "thought" I heard some slight bit of warmth from the Asgard 2. So I told him, "The Asgard is very nice and _seemingly_ a tiny bit warmer to my ears than the NFB-11."
> 
> So I agree. It's possible to share subjective opinions by expressing them the right way, which, as you say, is not to insist that they are fact.
> ...


 
  
  
 Perhaps every subforum should have the definition of "fact" and "opinion" in the header   Conflating those two words, is, in my _opinion_, the leading cause of stress and argument on head-fi.


----------



## pctazhp

I don't know about others, but I find it mentally exhausting to post something and then have to defend against things I didn't say or reasonably imply.
  
 For my sake, I want to try to make my position clear. I fully accept the substantial literature that establishes the existence of expectation bias and the value of DBT in many circumstances. I do question the scientific validity of many reported audio DBTs or the value of DBT for purposes of at home evaluations.
  
 I am also aware that the threshold of our ability to detect distortion has been fairly well established. But for me choosing a component based only on measured electrical performance just doesn't get it done. Probably the reason I like my Elise so much is due to the amount of even order harmonics introduced by tubes. I also suspect that part of the reason I like my HD800S is due in part to the even order harmonics Sennheiser introduced in the lower bass region to warm it up or do whatever they were attempting to accomplish.
  
 I set out to acquire a headphone system that would bring me a lot of listening enjoyment for the foreseeable future (which I consider to be years). I accomplished that. If that makes me one of the ignorant slobs then so be it.


----------



## bfreedma

cel4145 said:


> We should remove the components of a Yggy and insert the Modi inside. Then take it to a head-fi meetup


 
  
 Sort of like Lexicon creating a large shell for their $3500 blu ray player and then inserting a fully intact, unmodified (except for the links from the Oppo buttons to the Lexicon case)  $500 Oppo BDP-83 inside?  Then selling them as "statement blu-ray players".
  
 If you look at the Home Theater focused sites from 2009/2010, there are numerous posts from the Lexicon purchasers stating how much better their Lexicon was than the Oppo.  Even after pictures were posted of the Oppo in the Lexicon case and both Oppo and Lexicon confirmed the BDP-83 inside was unmodified, people still insisted they could hear and see how much better the Lexicon was.  I remember several posts using the term "night and day"....


----------



## reginalb

joe bloggs said:


> Free thought and diverse views did get us collectively into the schiithole the world is facing today. Dictatorship is a non-starter as an alternative, of course, since a dictator is just another human who's as open to human faults as the next. The only way forward is for people to keep arguing and hope that the voice of reason wins in the end. If the voice of reason is silenced out of a desire to avoid conflict then all is lost.


 
  
 The world isn't a collective schiithole (IMHO). There are bad pockets, for sure. And we should strive to keep improving them. But every century has its own impending doom, and none come to pass, sometimes they're made up, sometimes not, and collective human action prevents them from coming to pass.
  
 Meanwhile, the rate of violent conflict, violent crime, infant mortality is all in sharp decline. Costs of goods are also in sharp decline as measured in the number of productive hours it takes to afford those goods. In just the last 50 years the average cost of food has dropped drastically in most of the world (again - as measured by number of hours the average person has to work to buy the same thing) The world is getting better, and doing so rapidly. I know that, in America, we love to lament the next generation, they're so much worse, these darn kids. But drug and alcohol use among minors, as well as overall delinquency rates? Also in sharp decline. Luckily, much like audiophilia, the facts don't match the common belief.
  
 Now, does that mean that the fight is over, that we've achieved Utopia? Heck no, long way. I worked to help build a school in Tanzania when I was younger, and thusly have seen true, crippling poverty, so I understand it exists, and we shouldn't stop momentum. We should keep striving for better. But the fact is that things have gotten better, and I think they'll continue to. 
  
 Maybe audiophilia will get better, too.


----------



## Dillan

reginalb said:


> The world isn't a collective schiithole (IMHO). There are bad pockets, for sure. And we should strive to keep improving them. But every century has its own impending doom, and none come to pass, sometimes they're made up, sometimes not, and collective human action prevents them from coming to pass.
> 
> Meanwhile, the rate of violent conflict, violent crime, infant mortality is all in sharp decline. Costs of goods are also in sharp decline as measured in the number of productive hours it takes to afford those goods. In just the last 50 years the average cost of food has dropped drastically in most of the world (again - as measured by number of hours the average person has to work to buy the same thing) The world is getting better, and doing so rapidly. I know that, in America, we love to lament the next generation, they're so much worse, these darn kids. But drug and alcohol use among minors, as well as overall delinquency rates? Also in sharp decline. Luckily, much like audiophilia, the facts don't match the common belief.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Respect!


----------



## cel4145

bfreedma said:


> Perhaps every subforum should have the definition of "fact" and "opinion" in the header   Conflating those two words, is, in my _opinion_, the leading cause of stress and argument on head-fi.




+1

I think if we could just require everyone to have a bit of self doubt about personal evaluations, that would go a long ways towards helping, too.


----------



## pctazhp

cel4145 said:


> +1
> 
> I think if we could just require everyone to have a bit of self doubt about personal evaluations, that would go a long ways towards helping, too.


 
 Throughout my life I have tried as best I could to have healthy self doubt about all my experiences and beliefs. When I was a young kid my grandfather told me that it was much more difficult to listen than to talk and much more important. I haven't been following his advice much recently on this thread


----------



## Dillan

pctazhp said:


> Throughout my life I have tried as best I could to have healthy self doubt about all my experiences and beliefs. When I was a young kid my grandfather told me that it was much more difficult to listen than to talk and much more important. I haven't been following his advice much recently on this thread


 

 That's actually really good advice, I have heard that before as well. The smartest people are always those who listen much more than they speak. Too bad we couldn't all do that or the forums would be dead! hehe


----------



## castleofargh

let me quote myself from this morning when I wasn't yet a confirmed trouble maker.
 Quote:


> I wish people(starting with me) could use the famous open mind to always include the version of the story where they're dead wrong as the main hypothesis and move on from there. it would work way better than our natural instinct to try and play alpha male in any stupid confrontation we can find(like I hope I'm not doing too much right here^_^).


 
 that's one huge unicorn, but one I would love to get.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Reading more of the threads "outside", I've come to the conclusion that there's a huge population of people whose audio perception is so suggestible that the effect of spending more money on shinier equipment that others have raved about is at least as "real" as any objective improvements to the actual audio reproduction, and for whom whole classes of actual improvements (esp. anything DSP related) have been so thoroughly discredited that they carry a heavy "anti-placebo" penalty. These people won't recognize a picture-perfect reproduction of a live performance if it hit them in the face unless the associated equipment carried a $1million price tag (or audiophile rhetoric worth the same amount psychologically) and all evidence of DSP technology were hidden from view. OTOH if the price tag and audiophile rhetoric are there it hardly matters what their ears are actually hearing.

I say I should just let them be, for my sanity's sake. This is their reality, and our reality is just as pie-in-the-sky to them as theirs is to us, and never shall the twain meet.



Edit: there are people for whom this psychological suggestion naturally doesn't work. Even if such people are taken in by the audiophile rhetoric in the beginning, they will hear nothing of the magic that others suggest and be naturally disappointed by the result of any purchases that don't bring objectively audible improvements. In time they will come knocking at the door to this subforum and require no persuasion on our part. U-3C is a shining example of this. 

Edit2: I suppose the driving force for a lot of us in our debates is that we suppose anyone born and raised on placebo improvements would be shocked and awed by the difference a *real* improvement makes, and drop the placebos from that point forward. I now submit that this is not the case.


----------



## spruce music

The old Mark Twain quip seems to fit here:
  
"It is easier to fool people, than to convince them they have been fooled."


----------



## U-3C

spruce music said:


> The old Mark Twain quip seems to fit here:
> 
> "It is easier to fool people, than to convince them they have been fooled."


 

 And "people" includes himself, and us. : )
  
 Being an objectivist means one is also affected by beliefs and can be very close minded. Imagine a black swan appears regarding some fundamental principle that many people believe. It may be hard to accept, and if it comes out of the mouth of someone else, it's easy to blame it on their brains playing weird tricks (which can easily be seen as a personal attack about their own perception/listening ability) than look at oneself and reevaluate all the "proven" theories/principles that one's world view is based on.
  
 I'm currently stuck regarding what I should believe. I have never heard in real life what many have claimed to hear. I don't have the money or the time to do so, and as a result, I can only listen to what they say and hopefully guess what is right and what is not. I also don't have a background in audio engineering. I don't know the math or the science behind why something sounds a certain way, and why something does not sound a certain way. All I can do is read posts in this subforum-many of which are conflicting debates-and again hopefully guess who is right and who is wrong.
  
 People from all over Head-Fi always replies to my questions, so I'm thankful for that. It makes it harder to know who to trust and who to ignore, especially since most respond to questions out of good heart, so even they themselves believe that they are true, with evidence and experience to back their claims up.
  
 : /


----------



## mulder01

I know I am always a page or two behind, but why are people so concerned about blind testing to be done to the letter by trained professionals in lab conditions and with special equipment and peer reviewing and etc etc etc? From a (semi) outsider's perspective, it's almost like saying don't bother blind testing anything because you'll do it wrong and your results will be invalid. Shouldn't we be encouraging blind testing as much as possible? As long as you can volume match something and not really be able to consistently tell the difference between A and B (especially when there is a large price gap) then that's good enough to realise that you shouldn't bother forking out all your cash for the more expensive option, right? If I hear two products (even in a sighted test) in an instantly switching volume matched situation (when you are most likely to be able to pick a difference) and I can't really distinguish any differences, that is all the ammo I need not to spend my money.


----------



## krismusic

u-3c said:


> And "people" includes himself, and us. : )
> 
> Being an objectivist means one is also affected by beliefs and can be very close minded. Imagine a black swan appears regarding some fundamental principle that many people believe. It may be hard to accept, and if it comes out of the mouth of someone else, it's easy to blame it on their brains playing weird tricks (which can easily be seen as a personal attack about their own perception/listening ability) than look at oneself and reevaluate all the "proven" theories/principles that one's world view is based on.
> 
> ...



"Being an objectivist" implies signing up to some kind of dogma. Sounds like you are in a similar position to me. A pretty ordinary bod who just wants to enjoy his music as much as possible. 
We are already a little ahead of the game having come to one of the more questioning corners of HeadFi. 
One of the reasons that I enjoy going to meets is to hear what is possible. I have heard some very esoteric rigs and have yet to be "blown away".
Maybe this time at CanJam London!
I am booked in to hear two eye wateringly expensive systems. I am very interested to hear the state of the art and kind of work back from there. 
More problematic, I will also be able to hear a couple of things that I can afford. If they do what the manufacturers claim, I may well buy them but I am not in the market for desk ornaments or male jewellery!
I have found this site very informative and I wouldn't even have heard of my CIEM's which are probably my favourite possession. 
So healthy scepticism seems the way forward. 
It's a hobby. At the end of the day, as long as you are not spending money you cannot afford, no real harm done. 




mulder01 said:


> I know I am always a page or two behind, but why are people so concerned about blind testing to be done to the letter by trained professionals in lab conditions and with special equipment and peer reviewing and etc etc etc? From a (semi) outsider's perspective, it's almost like saying don't bother blind testing anything because you'll do it wrong and your results will be invalid. Shouldn't we be encouraging blind testing as much as possible? As long as you can volume match something and not really be able to consistently tell the difference between A and B (especially when there is a large price gap) then that's good enough to realise that you shouldn't bother forking out all your cash for the more expensive option, right? If I hear two products (even in a sighted test) in an instantly switching volume matched situation (when you are most likely to be able to pick a difference) and I can't really distinguish any differences, that is all the ammo I need not to spend my money.



The difficulty for me is that differences are not always immediately apparent on first listening. Is my hearing good enough to evaluate accurately in a blind test?


----------



## mulder01

krismusic said:


> The difficulty for me is that differences are not always immediately apparent on first listening. Is my hearing good enough to evaluate accurately in a blind test?


 
  
 Do you find that looking at the gear helps you hear better though?


----------



## krismusic

mulder01 said:


> Do you find that looking at the gear helps you hear better though?



Only if I can see the price tag! 
Seriously though. In a blind, or sighted test, the piece of test equipment most likely to be faulty is between your ears. I don't know how to avoid that problem.


----------



## Mach3

dillan said:


> I understand your points, but this is where I would argue. I think its great that MSB want to charge $150,000 for their new system. The problem though, is that it _does _affect the market overall. They aren't specifically hurting my feelings or my wallet, but collectively this is what is happening over and over and the market in the headphone world is doing just what the market in the high end speaker world has done for the last 30 years. The Bugatti sold for that much money, because it broke world records and introduced measurable and provable technology. It had the top speed of any street legal car in the world when it was released, had 1,200 horspepower (unheard of for a stock luxury car) and the engine is just completely insane to get all that to work ALL while having things like a radio and air conditioning, leather seats etc. Let them charge that much when its an unprecedented technological feat. Compare that to MSB charging more than a Ferrari for something with build materials equal to about 1/400th of their little metal box. If you asked them what technology they use to justify the price, how much would you want to bet that they couldn't tell you without using marketing lingo and gibberish "technology".
> 
> I don't think Sennheiser charging $70,000 for their newest flagship has anything to do with scaling inflation or even particularly because of a big market demand for such a product. It was released for the similar reasons the MSB is being released.. For people to talk about their products and say "Wow! They have the most expensive product so they are probably the best! Lets buy some of the stuff we can afford, because they make the best stuff". The whole concept of thinking price = performance in this industry is killing the hobby. We keep shelling out money for products that aren't worth it and they'll keep charging it and I am just as guilty as anyone. If we slowly turned that around, then simple capitalism tells you we might not get ripped off anymore and companies might actually give us what we pay for. This whole thread was just a hopeful step in the right direction.
> 
> The audiophile world is one of the only situations in the world where the product maker is blindly praised and the consumer is blamed and tested (not the product). The ball is always in their court and we hurt ourselves to defend people taking our money. Shouldn't it be the other way around?


 
  
 Great analogy/explanation on why the Bugatti worth it asking price. Side note, it's a known fact that the first production run of the Bugatti was sold at a lost.
 To sum thing up, I believe anything that classified itself to be the best in the world should back it up with hard facts/evidence/research results etc.
 Especially when it starts costing as much as a car or a house etc.


----------



## krismusic

mach3 said:


> Great analogy/explanation on why the Bugatti worth it asking price. Side note, it's a known fact that the first production run of the Bugatti was sold at a lost.
> To sum thing up, I believe anything that classified itself to be the best in the world should back it up with hard facts/evidence/research results etc.
> Especially when it starts costing as much as a car or a house etc.



Maybe I'm being naive but I think that a manufacturer like Sennheiser is genuine when it announced that they have put together a system designed without cost restraints in an attempt to create a statement, state of the art system. 
I doubt that they are that bothered about selling units of the HE1 but it's worth bearing in mind that there are people for whom this is fairly small change.


----------



## mulder01

krismusic said:


> Only if I can see the price tag!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 


Yeah, I have had an experience where I tried to downsize my desktop setup into a portable and the differences were subtle, but unfortunately the portable option was a little harsher and more fatiguing to my ears, and over time I started to like the system less and less so I had to sell. In cases where the differences are quite small, I don't have a good suggestion apart from a long term in home demo. At first I was impressed due to the apparent extra "detail" but over time I found that it was too much for me, even though - I'm assuming - the portable may have measured better, it wasn't subjectively better to me... The differences were far from the night and day many people claim, but more like dusk and 5 mins after dusk. They seem the same at first but after a while you find that you do have a preference.


----------



## krismusic

mulder01 said:


> krismusic said:
> 
> 
> > Only if I can see the price tag!
> ...


 Yep. That pretty much chimes with my experience. 
Also, the number of times I have heard wonderful improvements only to have them melt away the next day!


----------



## cel4145

krismusic said:


> "Being an objectivist" implies signing up to some kind of dogma.




Only if you think of scientific skepticism and reasoning as dogma.


----------



## pctazhp

cel4145 said:


> Only if you think of scientific skepticism and reasoning as dogma.


 
 It is discouraging to realize that in 2016 the majority of the world's population still probably believes the scientific method (properly applied*) is dogma.
  
 * http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html


----------



## castleofargh

Quote:


mulder01 said:


> I know I am always a page or two behind, but why are people so concerned about blind testing to be done to the letter by trained professionals in lab conditions and with special equipment and peer reviewing and etc etc etc? From a (semi) outsider's perspective, it's almost like saying don't bother blind testing anything because you'll do it wrong and your results will be invalid. Shouldn't we be encouraging blind testing as much as possible? As long as you can volume match something and not really be able to consistently tell the difference between A and B (especially when there is a large price gap) then that's good enough to realize that you shouldn't bother forking out all your cash for the more expensive option, right? If I hear two products (even in a sighted test) in an instantly switching volume matched situation (when you are most likely to be able to pick a difference) and I can't really distinguish any differences, that is all the ammo I need not to spend my money.


 
 because the test could be performed by mister fantastic and verified by sherlock holmes, it wouldn't change a thing for most audiophiles.
  they have built an entire logic and a complex system that "works" under their laws, and they have years of comforting self fulfilling prophecies telling them that if something was wrong they would know about it by now. they think just like we do. our belief in a system comes from how often the result agrees with the model. when the model is to trust yourself without restriction before anything or anybody else, how could you possibly trust whatever the other guy is saying? without the very basis that doubt in self is a necessary step toward truth, there is no point discussing anything someone already has an opinion about. the same way it would be a waste of time to try and explain to me that there is more to sound in my system than the measured electrical signal of it. simply because it's an electrical signal that goes in the brain. so if there is more than electricity, then we would lose it right there anyway. that's my axiom. if it is wrong, I'm fracked(not the gas thing).
  
 when the entire audiophile doctrine is based on "trust your ears" and "we're all different" misunderstood by most as "him being right doesn't make me wrong", we soon arrive to a system where ignorance and a pair of ears is always enough to know everything. 
 and when true unavoidable and omnipresent audio concepts like bias and placebo are burned publicly on the town square, you know reality is made to lose against dreams on purpose. maybe in that ecosystem, we're really the bad guys, trying to make every dream less than it seems?


----------



## cel4145

Did we discuss throwing money at a problem via purchasing of high end DACs? 

This guy is getting some harshness from his speakers with brass instruments, which is sign to me it's likely either placement/room or the speakers themselves. He already has a $700 DAC, and wants to know if he should upgrade to the Schiit Yggdrasil or Gungnir Multibit to solve the issue. While I've suggested some things, of course, others have jumped in addressing everything but perhaps the speakers being the issue: http://www.head-fi.org/t/815590/choosing-between-schiit-yggdrasil-and-gungnir-multibit-for-studio-monitors

The speakers are the Focal CMS 50, and it amazes me that people don't realize that spending $2300 on a DAC is not the way to improve the sound when there are better speakers to be had with that budget.


----------



## RRod

cel4145 said:


> Did we discuss throwing money at a problem via purchasing of high end DACs?
> 
> This guy is getting some harshness from his speakers with brass instruments...


 
  
 Hey, I remember that guy. He didn't take the same advice from me, so good luck Cel ^_^
  


mulder01 said:


> I know I am always a page or two behind, but why are people so concerned about blind testing to be done to the letter by trained professionals in lab conditions and with special equipment and peer reviewing and etc etc etc? From a (semi) outsider's perspective, it's almost like saying don't bother blind testing anything because you'll do it wrong and your results will be invalid.


 
  
 I mentioned this a few pages ago. I also don't see why we should throw "controlling the test" out the window just because we might not control everything to the standards of a journal article (not that they have great standards all the time anyway). A while ago someone posted here about some test that showed a difference between WAV and AAC (or something similar). He was all ready to run with his positive test result, but then I took the test myself and also passed. Sure enough, there was a 0.2dB difference in RMS between the versions. That was ALL it took for me to hear something, but people want me to put credence in their amp reviews if they don't volume match?


----------



## james444

castleofargh said:


> the same way it would be a waste of time to try and explain to me that there is more to sound in my system than the measured electrical signal of it. *simply because it's an electrical signal that goes in the brain. *so if there is more than electricity, then we would lose it right there anyway. that's my axiom. if it is wrong, I'm fracked(not the gas thing).


 
  
 Not sure if that's conclusive, unless your system were direcly wired to the brain.


----------



## ExtremeGamerBR

rrod said:


> Hey, I remember that guy. He didn't take the same advice from me, so good luck Cel ^_^
> 
> 
> I mentioned this a few pages ago. I also don't see why we should throw "controlling the test" out the window just because we might not control everything to the standards of a journal article (not that they have great standards all the time anyway). A while ago someone posted here about some test that showed a difference between WAV and AAC (or something similar). He was all ready to run with his positive test result, but then I took the test myself and also passed. Sure enough, there was a 0.2dB difference in RMS between the versions. That was ALL it took for me to hear something, but people want me to put credence in their amp reviews if they don't volume match?


 

 I was really shocked when you said you are using Fulla with the HD800. This is a statement that I did not expect to hear, as they say that the HD800 is difficult to be fed. I apologize if I'm coming off the topic subject, but what are the specifications should I look at whether an amplifier is enough to feed a headphone? Not only impedance, right?

 Thank you and I hope that this topic has a long life.
  
 And sorry for my bad english.


----------



## Ruben123

extremegamerbr said:


> I was really shocked when you said you are using Fulla with the HD800. This is a statement that I did not expect to hear, as they say that the HD800 is difficult to be fed. I apologize if I'm coming off the topic subject, but what are the specifications should I look at whether an amplifier is enough to feed a headphone? Not only impedance, right?
> 
> 
> Thank you and I hope that this topic has a long life.
> ...




"Hard to drive" is a statement that is highly exaggerated. The more boutique an earphone, the harder it is to feed. Until...... One closes their eyes. I have been almost attacked for using a Sansa Clip music player. It has quite some power but not enough for certain earphones. They say. I don't hear any differences between the earphones in question being amped or unamped.


----------



## reginalb

extremegamerbr said:


> I was really shocked when you said you are using Fulla with the HD800. This is a statement that I did not expect to hear, as they say that the HD800 is difficult to be fed. I apologize if I'm coming off the topic subject, but what are the specifications should I look at whether an amplifier is enough to feed a headphone? Not only impedance, right?
> 
> Thank you and I hope that this topic has a long life.
> 
> And sorry for my bad english.


 
  
 It needs to pump enough power, essentially, without distorting.
  
 HD 800
 300Ω 
 102dB/V
  
 The Fulla outputs 40mW @ 300Ω (RMS per channel)
  
 If I did the math right, that means that you can pump them to something like 103dB. EDIT: Did the math wrong, closer to like 113dB, so you should be able to get north of 100 before distortion.
  
 But the Fulla distorts a bit at the very high end of its output, according to my measurements. As a bit of a guess, knowing that it can get pretty close to the top of the volume pot before that happens you're probably good to get close to 100dB without distortion, so it depends on the volume you like. A typical lawnmower is in the range of 90dB. Loud rock concerts are louder than that, but I wear earplugs at those.


----------



## cel4145

reginalb said:


> It needs to pump enough power, essentially, without distorting.
> 
> HD 800
> 300Ω
> ...




+1

Yep. The next step is to estimate one's average listening volume. Need an SPL meter and spend some time with speakers to get some kind of idea of that. 

And then, depending on the genre, you can estimate how much headroom for dynamic peaks. If one likes to listen at 75 db, and listens to popular music, probably generally only need an extra 10 db or so above that since popular music often only has a dynamic range of 20db. Classical has a much higher range with as much as 50db, so then one would want more headroom for dynamic peaks. Blu-ray movie content has a lot of dynamic range. Generally a rule of thumb is +20 db above average dialog levels. 

I also think genre comes into play with bass heavy music (and movies that have lots of deep bass effects) which can take some extra power to drive the low frequencies. Then if someone likes to use EQ to boost any frequencies, some has to be added to the headroom estimates above the average listening level.


----------



## castleofargh

extremegamerbr said:


> rrod said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, I remember that guy. He didn't take the same advice from me, so good luck Cel ^_^
> ...


 

  when you read "hard to drive" you think energy. but the guy talking about it may be in fact talking about all sorts of subjective things, like the hd800 is too bright for him, so an amp with rolled of trebles will seem to him like it "drives" the headphone better. some other guy may just be overwhelmed by the fidelity of the headphone(what he paid for), so to him an amp with audible but euphonic distortions may just be the only amp able to "drive" the headphone correctly. where correctly in this case is based 100% on personal taste and as such has no right or wrong and no objective relation to actual energy needs. the hd800's topic is a very demonstrative case of such examples.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

reginalb said:


> If I did the math right, that means that you can pump them to something like 103dB. EDIT: Did the math wrong, closer to like 113dB, so you should be able to get north of 100 before distortion.
> 
> But the Fulla distorts a bit at the very high end of its output, according to my measurements. As a bit of a guess, knowing that it can get pretty close to the top of the volume pot before that happens you're probably good to get close to 100dB without distortion, so it depends on the volume you like. A typical lawnmower is in the range of 90dB. Loud rock concerts are louder than that, but I wear earplugs at those.




The power measurements are quoted for a given level of distortion that shouldn't be audible, but the volume pot can go higher than that. So it's okay to just use the calculated value directly.


----------



## cel4145

rrod said:


> Hey, I remember that guy. He didn't take the same advice from me, so good luck Cel ^_^




He might be saved yet. Got him interested in considering new speakers to correct his problem. And I steered him toward AVS's speaker forum. I have no doubt _no one_ there will suggest he buy a $2300 DAC to solve his issues. LOL


----------



## RRod

extremegamerbr said:


> I was really shocked when you said you are using Fulla with the HD800. This is a statement that I did not expect to hear, as they say that the HD800 is difficult to be fed. I apologize if I'm coming off the topic subject, but what are the specifications should I look at whether an amplifier is enough to feed a headphone? Not only impedance, right?
> 
> Thank you and I hope that this topic has a long life.
> 
> And sorry for my bad english.


 
  
 To put some real-music on the numbers the other gents have kindly provided:
  
 My most dynamic album, give or take, has a minimal 100ms* RMS of -75dBFS (ignoring track transitions) and a max of -8.6dBFS**, and peaks at 0dBFS. So if I map 113dBSPL to the max RMS, I get a 100ms RMS range of 46.6 to 113 dBSPL, and a peak of 121.6 dBSPL. The overall RMS is -30.2, which in this mapping would be 91.4dBSPL. I honestly don't think I'm listening that loud, and the quietest parts do indeed kind of vanish into the room noise, which is nominally 35dBA. So even for my most dynamic stuff, the Fulla delivers at least what I need.
  
 What REALLY has helped out with the sound of the HD800 is EQ and crossfeed. My really well-recorded classical stuff really knocks my socks off. I don't think switching to a Woo and an Yggy would do anything to help as much.
  
 *I use 100ms kind of arbitrarily, but I do recall reading that as an estimate of the integrating time of the ear at 1kHz
 **Not sure if dBFS is proper notation for RMS values relative to FS; anyone?


----------



## U-3C

extremegamerbr said:


> I was really shocked when you said you are using Fulla with the HD800. This is a statement that I did not expect to hear, as they say that the HD800 is difficult to be fed. I apologize if I'm coming off the topic subject, but what are the specifications should I look at whether an amplifier is enough to feed a headphone? Not only impedance, right?
> 
> 
> Thank you and I hope that this topic has a long life.
> ...




This might help:



The left side refers to the sensitivity of your headphones. The top refers to the volume you want it to get . Use it to find how much power you need at the impedance of your headphones to drive it to a certain level. For example, if you have 80 ohm headphones with a sensitivity of 97 db/mw, and you want to reach a volume of 110 db, you will need an amp that can provide 20 mw of power into 80 ohm headphones to reach that level. Use that to judge how hard your headphones are to drive. Source is from a site that cannot not be named or else the universe will collapse. 

Tyll from innerfidelity also has articles explaining the measurements he does.

http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/headphone-measurements-explained-electrical-impedance-and-phase

Then you can look at his measurements in the HD800:

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/SennheiserHD800.pdf

Notice the giant lump that goes to 600 ohms in the electrical impedance graph. At that frequency, the amp is having the hardest time driving the headphones, so you need to make sure that your amp can drive them to satisfying levels without distortion (refer to charts in first link.

_Disclaimer: I am not trained in audio engineering, nor do I have a degree in any field that is even remotely related to it, so you should take what I said with at least 3 sacks of salt. In fact, I'm pretty much making this schiit up. Somebody help make sense of me!!! _

( ﾟДﾟ)

Edit: Joe Bloggs corrected my last part here:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/815376/rising-cost-of-audiophile-equipment-and-importance-of-bias-blind-testing/225#post_12755812

Plus smoothing out some other stuff for the sake of being civil. 

Just ignore what I said and listen to the expert!


----------



## U-3C

ruben123 said:


> "Hard to drive" is a statement that is highly exaggerated. The more boutique an earphone, the harder it is to feed. Until...... One closes their eyes. I have been almost attacked for using a Sansa Clip music player. It has quite some power but not enough for certain earphones. They say. I don't hear any differences between the earphones in question being amped or unamped.




Everyone keeps saying everywhere, to this day, about how notoriously hard certain AKG models are to drive due to low sensitivity and low impedance yada yada yada...

Phone and laptop from over 5 years ago drives my pair to painful volumes with no noticeable distortion. 0_0;

My wallet: "Th...thanks Head-Fi... ;-;"


----------



## Joe Bloggs

U-3C The links you posted are all good info, but regarding your last part, actually, the higher impedance part of the impedance response curve is easier to drive.

For a given voltage, higher resistance of the load equates to lesser power output required. P=V^2/R

Therefore, a (say) 0.1V sine wave at the peak frequency of that impedance hump is going to draw less power than a 0.1V sine wave at any other frequency (because of the highest R)

Frequency response graphs are also drawn in relation to a constant voltage output to the headphones for all frequencies.


----------



## U-3C

joe bloggs said:


> U-3C The links you posted are all good info, but regarding your last part, actually, the higher impedance part of the impedance response curve is easier to drive.
> 
> For a given voltage, higher resistance of the load equates to lesser power output required. P=V^2/R
> 
> ...




I understand now (hopefully). Thanks for clearing that up.

The claim I made before was probably my misinterpretation of this part from the Innerfidelity link on impedance:

_"[...]This is a little counter-intuitive as this is also the point at which the driving amplifier has the easiest job powering the driver, but remember, it's also the most difficult place for the amplifier to drive the driver away from, and therefore has the highest impedance.

Read more at http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/headphone-measurements-explained-electrical-impedance-and-phase#ZVsuTh5qUC8vrIR3.99"_

...

;-;


----------



## Dillan

Nice info! I'm actually learning more about ampage than I thought I would. Also as far as not AB testing because we don't have a science labs worth of equipment to do it properly.. Wouldn't trying be better than nothing?

I'd rather come to the wrong conclusion (which probably won't happen) by testing something than just assuming something based on my opinion or someone else's. Some people are ok with being tricked but I'd rather at least try to use objective testing. 

Also something about you using a fulla with the HD800 makes me happy.


----------



## U-3C

dillan said:


> Nice info! I'm actually learning more about ampage than I thought I would. Also as far as not AB testing because we don't have a science labs worth of equipment to do it properly.. Wouldn't trying be better than nothing?
> 
> I'd rather come to the wrong conclusion (which probably won't happen) by testing something than just assuming something based on my opinion or someone else's. Some people are ok with being tricked but I'd rather at least try to use objective testing.
> 
> Also something about you using a fulla with the HD800 makes me happy.




Or...just drive a pair with a smart phone and bring it to a meeting (assuming the phone actually can drive them properly)!


----------



## cel4145

dillan said:


> Nice info! I'm actually learning more about ampage than I thought I would. Also as far as not AB testing because we don't have a science labs worth of equipment to do it properly.. Wouldn't trying be better than nothing?




Anytime you can reduce the factors that bias a decision (audio or otherwise), you can have increased confidence in that decision. But without properly running the DBT, you aren't proving anything definitively.


----------



## pctazhp

cel4145 said:


> Anytime you can reduce the factors that bias a decision (audio or otherwise), you can have increased confidence in that decision. But without properly running the DBT, you aren't proving anything definitively.


 
 This may be the most succinct and profound post to date on this thread.


----------



## mulder01

I see the concerns about blind testing when people think they have passed - have they passed due to the test not being conducted properly? Fairly likely yes. 

But failing a blind test (even a simple one done at home with a friend) can be the most eye opening experience - I think a lot of people WOULD fail - especially when testing things like DACs and it may open their minds a bit more to the fact that maybe their sighted listening tests and other people's impressions online may be fairly inaccurate. For me, opportunities to blind test are few and far between but one day I went to a mini meet with some other audio guys with my gear. My dac is a Violectric v800 (retails for about $1.5k) and another guy's DAC was a Matrix something-or-other and cost about $400. Both were sabre dacs, similar features, similar IO options, similar... size? Anyway, 'other guy' listened to his DAC vs mine and said he liked his better. I was surprised that someone could hear a difference between 2 dacs that were so similar. He insisted that he could and confidently and with plenty of self belief described in detail exactly what the differences were that he heard. I said to him I don't suppose you'd be willing to do an ABX test? Because if you can hear what you say you hear, then that's awesome for you because you know that you can cross any future DAC upgrade off your list and be confident that what you have is probably either just as good or better than DACs several times the price... I was keen to run the test because for me, if I could see someone describe these differences and back that up, I would perhaps believe a bit more that people actually can tell the differences between dacs (because I sure couldn't). He went on to do the test, thought he preferred, say, DAC 'B' in the blind test (which was actually mine) and went on to get 2/10 correct in his blind test... wot? For me that proved that even though someone can be so confident about a product and describe in such detail the improvements they are hearing, they really may in fact, have no idea what they are talking about, and for him, I think now he questions what he's hearing a bit more and realises just how much your mind can play tricks on you. If everyone could have an experience like that I think it would be a significant step in the right direction. However if their volume matching is off (in favour of the more expensive product) that may fill them with a false confidence that only makes the problem worse...


----------



## U-3C

mulder01 said:


> I see the concerns about blind testing when people think they have passed - have they passed due to the test not being conducted properly? Fairly likely yes.
> 
> But failing a blind test (even a simple one done at home with a friend) can be the most eye opening experience - I think a lot of people WOULD fail - especially when testing things like DACs and it may open their minds a bit more to the fact that maybe their sighted listening tests and other people's impressions online may be fairly inaccurate. For me, opportunities to blind test are few and far between but one day I went to a mini meet with some other audio guys with my gear. My dac is a Violectric v800 (retails for about $1.5k) and another guy's DAC was a Matrix something-or-other and cost about $400. Both were sabre dacs, similar features, similar IO options, similar... size? Anyway, 'other guy' listened to his DAC vs mine and said he liked his better. I was surprised that someone could hear a difference between 2 dacs that were so similar. He insisted that he could and confidently and with plenty of self belief described in detail exactly what the differences were that he heard. I said to him I don't suppose you'd be willing to do an ABX test? Because if you can hear what you say you hear, then that's awesome for you because you know that you can cross any future DAC upgrade off your list and be confident that what you have is probably either just as good or better than DACs several times the price... I was keen to run the test because for me, if I could see someone describe these differences and back that up, I would perhaps believe a bit more that people actually can tell the differences between dacs (because I sure couldn't). He went on to do the test, thought he preferred, say, DAC 'B' in the blind test (which was actually mine) and went on to get 2/10 correct in his blind test... wot? For me that proved that even though someone can be so confident about a product and describe in such detail the improvements they are hearing, they really may in fact, have no idea what they are talking about, and for him, I think now he questions what he's hearing a bit more and realises just how much your mind can play tricks on you. If everyone could have an experience like that I think it would be a significant step in the right direction. However if their volume matching is off (in favour of the more expensive product) that may fill them with a false confidence that only makes the problem worse...




Well, I've gotten a fair amount of blame towards my ears as well as how careful I listen to music, that I just have poor taste, etc. because I claim I can't hear a difference between my laptop, my phone and my PC's integrated audio compared to the AKM AK4490. Funny though, as the more I try to put myself into a quiet, isolated room, the more careful I compare back and forth, and double check, and triple check...and the more I try to listen to "audiophile grade music," the more certain I am about my previous claims.

If I do it quickly, in haste, I always think I hear a difference. I'm just so certain it's there and I'm happy as I paid for it. Then I have to be a party pooper by switching back to whatever cheap source I have to check. Nah, just an illusion. Back to being sad about I wasted all that money and being screamed at.



I did a small test with my friends regarding low quality to high quality audio files. The ones who recognized my setup immediately always claimed to hear a difference, where as those who don't give a cr*p about expensive audio equipment were more concerned about why I payed so much money for these devices that doesn't sound any different from just plugging headphones into a smart phone and tried to offer me advice as they think I was tricked into a scam. Oh, and I recorded the results of that simple "blind" test. The one who was most confident scored 4/10, which is pretty close to random guessing. She was so surprised by it as she swore she heard a difference, and she even ended up recommending my test to her boyfriend.

This test wasn't designed to prove or disprove any anything major. It was more of a sanity check because _I friggin' can't hear anything special_ and I was seriously convinced that I was deaf or something.


----------



## RRod

dillan said:


> Also something about you using a fulla with the HD800 makes me happy.


 
  
 I'm sure happy to have the extra desk space back. You really don't need to dedicate a hectare to power these things, I swear!


----------



## cel4145

rrod said:


> I'm sure happy to have the extra desk space back. You really don't need to dedicate a hectare to power these things, I swear!




Surely, though, one can stack a larger headphone amp on top of the Yggy, which one must have in order get the best sound out of the HD800


----------



## RRod

cel4145 said:


> Surely, though, one can stack a larger headphone amp on top of the Yggy, which one must have in order get the best sound out of the HD800


 
  
 The funny thing is that I don't need the music louder; I need the environment softer! So much like in speaker-land, I'd get more by treating the room than by buying an amp that can weaponize my transducers.


----------



## U-3C

Speaking of the rising cost of audio equipment...these are now dropped on Massdrop. 

https://www.massdrop.com/buy/ortofon-ec7s

I know cables are usually the last to be recommended as an upgrade to anything, but I also know that cables can change the sound, even if it's subtle. 

I'm curious of everyone's opinions. I really am. In some rare cases, I have read (in the SS subforum) that cables can in fact cause changes in audio and it's not hard to alter the sound of things like headphones or iems with cables if one really wants to, especially in the rare case that original cables are already doing something to the sound. However...what about spending some time to investigate changes that one finds pleasing, and then applying those changes via EQ? Any specific disadvantages/limitations with that?


----------



## lawlbear

I personally wish they would list more technical things on their equipment, like frequency responses.


----------



## james444

u-3c said:


> Speaking of the rising cost of audio equipment...these are now dropped on Massdrop.
> 
> https://www.massdrop.com/buy/ortofon-ec7s
> 
> ...


 
  
 Why not just skip the cable rolling and investigate changes directly via EQ?


----------



## U-3C

james444 said:


> Why not just skip the cable rolling and investigate changes directly via EQ?




Sorry, I might have worded that incorrectly. I just meant...what's wrong with playing with eq until you are happy?

0_0???

If something is wrong, try to figure out what it is and try to solve that via EQ. Say if one isn't happy with the sound, find the reasons why. If it's because the highs are trying to murder the poor person with knives, make a metal note, open the EQ settings and kill them back. That's what I meant by "investigate."

;w;


----------



## james444

u-3c said:


> Sorry, I might have worded that incorrectly. I just meant...what's wrong with playing with eq until you are happy?
> 
> 0_0???
> 
> ...


 
  
 Absolutely nothing wrong with that... and Master-EQer @Joe Bloggs even provides a great tutorial:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/794467/how-to-equalize-your-headphones-2016-update
  
 Btw, here's the story of one of Joe's equalized budget IEMs going up against some of my $$$$ ones:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/726569/review-tour-somic-mh412-viper4android-the-put-up-or-shut-up-review-and-tour


----------



## Koolpep

Hi Guys,
  
 I want to add my experience here as well.
  
 EQ:
  
 - if you use different headphones (I do all the time) that need different EQ it's a bit of a hassle to change it
 - some DAPs don't have EQ like my HM-901
 - some EQ implementations are pretty poor
  
 Of course these are not universal arguments against EQ - these are just my reasons why I am not so comfortable using EQ. I have the FLC8S IEMs with 36 tuning options via filter combinations. I somehow prefer that to EQ-ing. Maybe someone can make a study about why people (me included) dislike EQ - event though it's a good and easy way to alter the sound exactly the way you like it? I really wonder why I am like that. Now I slowly warm up to the idea - with the old vintage "treble" and "bass" dials. 
  
 Blind testing:
 I have an input switcher - it saved me from so many silly purchases. And showed me how many redundant ones I have made. But when testing some things, where I cannot hear a difference to save my life, on one friend of mine - and he gets it right every single time, then I also understand that:
  
 - I am lucky, since I don't hear the difference of the expensive one vs inexpensive, I can use the less expensive things and be happy and content
 - I am missing out on some of the better sound quality - as I am not able to distinguish it (in some areas)
  
 I should always say: they sound the same to ME (very very subjective).
  
 That's why I am totally in "between the chairs" (in english I think it's "between the camps"), as for me, a lot of things are snake oil, sound the same, etc. etc. but the exact same test, others can actually hear a difference. 
  
 But one huge benefit of switching live is that you get a reality check about the differences and how small they actually are (contrary to what I remembered the differences to be) - even when doing it sighted.
  
 Cables:
 Steve Eddy (formerly Q-Audio) and Brian Goto (BTG-Audio, Q-Audio) both sell custom cables and had/have a similar stance on their effects . Here is their point of view: http://www.btg-audio.com/cable-facts 
  
 Cheers.


----------



## Ruben123

If youre into EQ'ing check this link!! http://www.head-fi.org/t/672375/great-news-for-rooted-android-users-viper4android
  
 I have to make profiles for my headphones still.... but it promises to actually improve the music quality by extremes --> http://www.head-fi.org/t/726569/review-tour-somic-mh412-viper4android-the-put-up-or-shut-up-review-and-tour


----------



## mulder01

u-3c said:


> Speaking of the rising cost of audio equipment...these are now dropped on Massdrop.
> 
> https://www.massdrop.com/buy/ortofon-ec7s
> 
> ...


 
  
 ...did you just post a link to a mass buy of audiophile cables in the sound science section to try and gather interest?  Now I am confused.


----------



## castleofargh

ruben123 said:


> If youre into EQ'ing check this link!! http://www.head-fi.org/t/672375/great-news-for-rooted-android-users-viper4android
> 
> I have to make profiles for my headphones still.... but it promises to actually improve the music quality by extremes --> http://www.head-fi.org/t/726569/review-tour-somic-mh412-viper4android-the-put-up-or-shut-up-review-and-tour


 

 viper has more than just EQ, so it can be a great if you have the means to use the tools. like convolution, it can simulate a great number of things, but you will still need to find or create the file you need. it can be used as basic EQ or do more(RRod helped me for that with Jedi math trick, but like always I've stopped halfway and jumped on 3 new "I must try that stuff!!!!". I totally blame ...people, for talking about ... stuff and making me curious).
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 the cool part of viper IMO is that it is system wide. that's probably the most attractive thing. else there are plenty of cool apps and cool players.
  
@Koolpep
 I've been making EQed µSD cards for a dedicated IEM for years on my DAPs. I would go out with an IEM and the µSD to go with it. I started making a "custom" card for the DAPs that didn't have replaygain because it was driving me crazy, and rapidly moved on to get the sound I wanted(EQ, crossfeed, you name it). and in the last years I've spent way more time on those stuff than on hardware. and IMO to my benefice. but yeah for portable devices, if for all of them I could just upload .txt files with the EQs and be done with it, that would be great.
  
 at home on the computer, I just have shortcuts for the DSP chain I want in foobar, and use those on my "jack of all trades master of none" HD650. not exactly a hurdle.
 the only reason that stopped me from getting serious with EQ before has been that I had no idea how to use one properly(still don't, but I pretend a lot better now ^_^).


----------



## U-3C

mulder01 said:


> ...did you just post a link to a mass buy of audiophile cables in the sound science section to try and gather interest?  Now I am confused.




Should I take it out?

0.0


----------



## cel4145

u-3c said:


> Speaking of the rising cost of audio equipment...these are now dropped on Massdrop.
> 
> https://www.massdrop.com/buy/ortofon-ec7s
> 
> ...




Your first clue that this is overpriced audiophile madness it that Ortofon charges $25 more for the white sleeves with sliver ends.$25 for plastic coloring. LOL

Sure. Silver can sound different from copper cables since it's a different conductor. But otherwise, a good set of cables that won't sound measurably different from more expensive ones would be a lot cheaper than this.


----------



## U-3C

cel4145 said:


> Your first clue that this is overpriced audiophile madness it that Ortofon charges $25 more for the white sleeves with sliver ends.$25 for plastic coloring. LOL
> 
> Sure. Silver can sound different from copper cables since it's a different conductor. But otherwise, a good set of cables that won't sound measurably different from more expensive ones would be a lot cheaper than this.


 

 I see. Honestly, reading the reviews, nobody really even tries to pretend it changes the sound. I'm just curious, as I know that some cables _can_ change the sound, but based on my understanding, it's a subtle effect, and these cables are often expensive, so I wanted to know aside from the snake oil and marketing factor, are there any reasons to prefer the sonic changes certain cable manufacturers claim to make over free EQ stuff..


----------



## cel4145

u-3c said:


> I see. Honestly, reading the reviews, nobody really even tries to pretend it changes the sound. I'm just curious, as I know that some cables _can_ change the sound, but based on my understanding, it's a subtle effect, and these cables are often expensive, so I wanted to know aside from the snake oil and marketing factor, are there any reasons to prefer the *sonic changes certain cable manufacturers claim* to make over free EQ stuff..




It's a claim. Just like the claims that DACs sound better by manufacturers and the people that have spend hundreds of dollars to supposedly get better sound. The cables could sound exactly the same as cheaper versions, and without DBT, you could still be biased to think they are different. And marketers make claims in advertising all of the time that are not true or are exaggerated. 

The point is, you would be buying something that you really have no idea is actually different, much less better What's the point from an economic standpoint of investing in something that you can't ever know if you get a return and the science suggests that you can get great quality from spending much less?


----------



## U-3C

cel4145 said:


> It's a claim. Just like the claims that DACs sound better by manufacturers and the people that have spend hundreds of dollars to supposedly get better sound. The cables could sound exactly the same as cheaper versions, and without DBT, you could still be biased to think they are different. And marketers make claims in advertising all of the time that are not true or are exaggerated.
> 
> The point is, you would be buying something that you really have no idea is actually different, much less better What's the point from an economic standpoint of investing in something that you can't ever know if you get a return and the science suggests that you can get great quality from spending much less?




Exactly my question...what's the point???!!

People who spend a few hundred dollars on cables for their audio equipment probably are not that new to audio, and they have probably done a lot of research to find the "proper" cable to enhance their audio experience. So...why the cable and not EQ? What reasons justify those few hundred dollars, especially when it might not even work out?

I'm curious of the strong reasons that make people say yes to these products.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Because the mere mention of "EQ" makes many seasoned audiophiles lose their lunch. :rolleyes:

The reason for THAT, are probably too complex for me to elucidate or even understand for myself...


----------



## castleofargh

joe bloggs said:


> Because the mere mention of "EQ" makes many seasoned audiophiles lose their lunch.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 because EQ ruins the sound, I can prove it. RMAA your system in a loop, now add some EQ and measure again, boom! the specs went down.
 QED




 I'm sure I could be a pretty amazing EQ hater if I didn't use one for everything.


----------



## Dillan

u-3c said:


> Exactly my question...what's the point???!!
> 
> People who spend a few hundred dollars on cables for their audio equipment probably are not that new to audio, and they have probably done a lot of research to find the "proper" cable to enhance their audio experience. So...why the cable and not EQ? What reasons justify those few hundred dollars, especially when it might not even work out?
> 
> I'm curious of the strong reasons that make people say yes to these products.


 

 Maybe they have done everything possible including EQ and just want to add that extra 1%?
  
 I buy audio cables because they look cool and in theory silver is more conductive than copper. Also for the termination, if the stock cable doesn't have what fits my amp (XLR etc).
  
 Never tested myself to see if I can tell a difference in my cables, but all of them are balanced and SE for that particular headphone so that makes things a little difficult. Don't have 2 balanced or 2 SE.
  
 To be honest I buy audio cables for the piece of mind and craftsmanship.. and like I said they look pretty.
  
 Edit: Oh and EQ is an amazing thing


----------



## krismusic

Do you reckon the dislike of EQ is a hang over from the days of analogue?


----------



## castleofargh

krismusic said:


> Do you reckon the dislike of EQ is a hang over from the days of analogue?


 

 isn't the wrong idea about the meaning of analog sound the root of all audio debates?


----------



## krismusic

castleofargh said:


> isn't the wrong idea about the meaning of analog sound the root of all audio debates? :wink_face:


----------



## U-3C

castleofargh said:


> isn't the wrong idea about the meaning of analog sound the root of all audio debates? :wink_face:




I can still find some of those old school cameras that belongs to my dad. They say those can capture life within the pictures...

Oh, and maybe an analog multimeter! None of that new digital crap that does everything for you and ruins all the fun. 

Clearly everything with the word "analog" is better. After all, the word even sounds romantic!


----------



## oldmate

dillan said:


> I understand your points, but this is where I would argue. I think its great that MSB want to charge $150,000 for their new system. The problem though, is that it _does _affect the market overall. They aren't specifically hurting my feelings or my wallet, but collectively this is what is happening over and over and the market in the headphone world is doing just what the market in the high end speaker world has done for the last 30 years. The Bugatti sold for that much money, because it broke world records and introduced measurable and provable technology. It had the top speed of any street legal car in the world when it was released, had 1,200 horspepower (unheard of for a stock luxury car) and the engine is just completely insane to get all that to work ALL while having things like a radio and air conditioning, leather seats etc. Let them charge that much when its an unprecedented technological feat. Compare that to MSB charging more than a Ferrari for something with build materials equal to about 1/400th of their little metal box. If you asked them what technology they use to justify the price, how much would you want to bet that they couldn't tell you without using marketing lingo and gibberish "technology".
> 
> I don't think Sennheiser charging $70,000 for their newest flagship has anything to do with scaling inflation or even particularly because of a big market demand for such a product. It was released for the similar reasons the MSB is being released.. For people to talk about their products and say "Wow! They have the most expensive product so they are probably the best! Lets buy some of the stuff we can afford, because they make the best stuff". The whole concept of thinking price = performance in this industry is killing the hobby. We keep shelling out money for products that aren't worth it and they'll keep charging it and I am just as guilty as anyone. If we slowly turned that around, then simple capitalism tells you we might not get ripped off anymore and companies might actually give us what we pay for. This whole thread was just a hopeful step in the right direction.
> 
> The audiophile world is one of the only situations in the world where the product maker is blindly praised and the consumer is blamed and tested (not the product). The ball is always in their court and we hurt ourselves to defend people taking our money. Shouldn't it be the other way around?


 
 I really don't go for these super car analogies and audio equipment. BTW Bugatti lost 6.24 million on every Veyron they sold. The car was built as a technical exercise and showpiece for what could be done. It was a bargain and they did not have to use any as you put it marketing and gibberish to sell it.
  
 I've heard analogies with cars, art, TV's and photography. Seriously.


----------



## pctazhp

u-3c said:


> I can still find some of those old school cameras that belongs to my dad. They say those can capture life within the pictures...
> 
> Oh, and maybe an analog multimeter! None of that new digital crap that does everything for you and ruins all the fun.
> 
> Clearly everything with the word "analog" is better. After all, the word even sounds romantic!


 
 The analog multimeters were so great. Even better were the Heath Kits )) But best of all about analog was that about the only math one needed was Ohm's law. Today I'd rather try to understand A Brief History of Time than make any sense out of all the digital giberish


----------



## Dillan

oldmate said:


> I really don't go for these super car analogies and audio equipment. BTW Bugatti lost 6.24 million on every Veyron they sold. The car was built as a technical exercise and showpiece for what could be done. It was a bargain and they did not have to use any as you put it marketing and gibberish to sell it.
> 
> I've heard analogies with cars, art, TV's and photography. Seriously.




I agree, I don't like car analogies and bringing up the Bugatti in the same conversation as this overpriced MSB is hilarious


----------



## mulder01

I read someone saying the other day (could be complete BS) that the MSB retail price is roughly 9 times the production cost. They said for a business to run and pay their engineers well enough to keep them around and happy, and with the low quantity of units sold, the retail price needs to be about 7-10 times the production cost. I can understand that for lower priced a products - if something has $20 worth of parts it sells in a retail store for $180, but when the profit on one item is $90k it doesn't seem right...


----------



## spruce music

Actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.


----------



## nanaholic

Pure parts/production cost does not reflect the number of man hours involved in designing a product, it's always a poor and misleading way of judging worth that's only been recently popularised by IT tech sites with their tear downs.


----------



## mulder01

Well then, if it's all reasonable, we may as well just close the thread down then.  Sorted.


----------



## Koolpep




----------



## sxr71

dillan said:


> Good point.
> 
> 
> I consider myself both well off and mature
> ...


 

 It's funny when I first came across the resources to buy the "good" stuff I did just that and realized this stuff doesn't really sound any better. I'm glad because I could have easily spent large sums of money on nothing. The more I make the more value I see for money and it's not from lack of it that I reject the expensive stuff.
  
 DSP is the future and it will trickle down great sound for the masses as long as they don't fall into the dogma that they must spend $xx,000 to get good sound. DSP corrected drive units, DSP crossovers and finally DSP room correction will bring what the $500k system cannot.


----------



## sxr71

krismusic said:


> Hang on. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. A lot of people reckon that vinyl has a warmth that the 1's and zeros of digital inherently does not. I'm prepared to accept that. The frequency range of vinyl is greatly extended beyond the brick wall of CD. More contentiously, tube amps are deemed to have a warmer sound. They must have with those glowing bottles!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 I think you have in both a microphonic component. The tubes and the cartridges pick up the sound in the air and cause a pleasant sounding distortion. Now how does this apply to headphone audio? I think it's just expectation bias at that point. I think tubes and vinyl have a reputation for sounding warmer that you just cannot dispel. You will think it sounds warmer just seeing that thing glow. I remember reading that one major manufacturer of very high end expensive tube amps said that a tube amp can be designed to sound as "dry" as a SS amp and in fact the best tube amps designed for accuracy will sound similar to a SS amp. But it just costs a lot more to get them to that level of accuracy than it does for a SS amps. So I guess most tube amps are colored. Now with the reputation for sounding warm manufacturers will do anything to exaggerate that effect on any tube amp they build. It wouldn't surprise me if they found that putting them in resonant cases makes them sound even warmer.


----------



## pila405

We need to demand more objective data from manufactures regarding FR, THD (for the entire audible spectrum), impulse response etc'

 There is this stupid belief that "one can hear beyond the measurements" or some nonsense of this kind...


----------



## Koolpep

Question re: vinyl frequency range
  
 The microphones used recording the performance - aren't they at best 20Hz-20kHz in any case? So what kind of additional frequency can vinyl potentially have that wasn't recorded? I checked all Shure microphones and I didn't find any with more extension  than 20-20kHz. Or am I on the totally wrong track?


----------



## mulder01

pila405 said:


> We need to demand more objective data from manufactures regarding FR, THD (for the entire audible spectrum), impulse response etc'
> 
> There is this stupid belief that "one can hear beyond the measurements" or some nonsense of this kind...


 
  
 Personally, I think that headphone measurements don't tell you much - If someone (even with lots of experience) could look at data for 6 headphones they've never heard before and rank them in order of their predicted preference, then listen to them in a blind test and rank them in order of their actual preference and the results of those two tests matched, I would be very surprised.


----------



## mulder01

koolpep said:


> Question re: vinyl frequency range
> 
> The microphones used recording the performance - aren't they at best 20Hz-20kHz in any case? So what kind of additional frequency can vinyl potentially have that wasn't recorded? I checked all Shure microphones and I didn't find any with more extension  than 20-20kHz. Or am I on the totally wrong track?


 
  
 I think this was a reference to the sample rate frequency of vinyl being theoretically infinite, rather than the frequency of the audible sound produced.
  
 Though I wonder (not that I've looked into vinyl production too much) how much the vinyl production is limited by the equipment manufacturing it.  If you turn the magnetic signal on a tape into an electrical voltage that moves a cutterhead on a lathe in and out of a piece of material (whatever it is) to cut a groove in it, how much backlash is in that motor? How sharp is the cutterhead cutting the groove?  If you put that cutterhead into a microscope and zoom in and in and in, it will get rough at some stage, and when the cutter is cutting the material, how clean does that material cut out?  Even assuming a 100% completely sharp cutter down to some sort of molecular level, can the material be cut out that cleanly or will it slightly tear out here and there?  How well does the vinyl fill those grooves when the pressing is done?  How long does it take to wear out or round off the master pressing?  Does the 500th pressing of a record sound as good as 100th?  It seems to me like even though the entire production is analogue from start to finish, there are more stages where losses can occur and I would think that those losses are greater than the loss of converting the analogue signal to digital straight up.  Maybe all those losses and very slight rounding off of the signal at each stage is what gives the vinyl it's more romantic warm sound, not the fact that it is closer to the original sound...
  
 Mind you I bought a turntable because I like them and I like mechanical things and well engineered things and the history and the big artwork and the experience of selecting a vinyl, putting it down and putting the needle on it adds something pleasing to the listening experience.  Sure it's easy to just be scrolling and scrolling through a massive library and then click on something, but vinyl is just a nice thing to own for other reasons than maximum fidelity...


----------



## pila405

mulder01 said:


> Personally, I think that headphone measurements don't tell you much - If someone (even with lots of experience) could look at data for 6 headphones they've never heard before and rank them in order of their predicted preference, then listen to them in a blind test and rank them in order of their actual preference and the results of those two tests matched, I would be very surprised.


 
 Thing is, if you have a pair with very low THD and smooth FR, you can EQ it to fit your taste while still having a clean, detailed sound.
 And I am all for this kind of test. I know from my own experience that I guess quite well whether I'll like a sound signature or not only from the FR, but this is not proper research, and as you said, should be done as a double blind one.


----------



## mulder01

Well, I suppose it's possible for someone with a lot of experience to do quite well at a test like that, but for 99% of people, I don't think the measurements would mean much. I mean, I see what you're saying, but I can't say I agree. I am an abyss owner and I'm fairly married to it. It doesn't measure the best and if you can successfully take a cheaper better-measuring headphone and make it sound as good as an abyss, I will eat my hat.


----------



## Orestes1984

mulder01 said:


> I think this was a reference to the sample rate frequency of vinyl being theoretically infinite, rather than the frequency of the audible sound produced.
> 
> Though I wonder (not that I've looked into vinyl production too much) how much the vinyl production is limited by the equipment manufacturing it.  If you turn the magnetic signal on a tape into an electrical voltage that moves a cutterhead on a lathe in and out of a piece of material (whatever it is) to cut a groove in it, how much backlash is in that motor? How sharp is the cutterhead cutting the groove?  If you put that cutterhead into a microscope and zoom in and in and in, it will get rough at some stage, and when the cutter is cutting the material, how clean does that material cut out?  Even assuming a 100% completely sharp cutter down to some sort of molecular level, can the material be cut out that cleanly or will it slightly tear out here and there?  How well does the vinyl fill those grooves when the pressing is done?  How long does it take to wear out or round off the master pressing?  Does the 500th pressing of a record sound as good as 100th?  It seems to me like even though the entire production is analogue from start to finish, there are more stages where losses can occur and I would think that those losses are greater than the loss of converting the analogue signal to digital straight up.  Maybe all those losses and very slight rounding off of the signal at each stage is what gives the vinyl it's more romantic warm sound, not the fact that it is closer to the original sound...
> 
> Mind you I bought a turntable because I like them and I like mechanical things and well engineered things and the history and the big artwork and the experience of selecting a vinyl, putting it down and putting the needle on it adds something pleasing to the listening experience.  Sure it's easy to just be scrolling and scrolling through a massive library and then click on something, but vinyl is just a nice thing to own for other reasons than maximum fidelity...


 
 Or you could just take the easy way of going about things and say the maximum producible bit-rate of vinyl is about 11 to 12 bits (1 bit is around 6.02dB and plus/minus a small amount thereof in Signal Noise Ratio [SNR]) more on that later, but even people who didn't care much for music back in the day when vinyl was really a thing recorded on tape and listened to music on 8tracks. CDs produce (as a minimum) 16bit sound, the only device that can produce a theoretically limitless recording and playback of sound is a computer.
  
 This vinyl discussion should have been over YEARS ago. An excellent quality virgin original, never had sex, vinyl collected by a Star Trek fan never taken out of the box can get to about 18khz and 65-70dB, this assumes a vinyl in excellent condition  in terms of loudness on a good day with a prevailing wind pushing it in the right direction on the outside track without falloff which can go down to about 30db on the inside tracks. But let's just say we're listening to the outside track which will equate to oh  lets says? Slightly less than 12 bits on the calculation above this DONE. And at that bitrate: 44k (44,000 x 12 x 2 (for stereo) it equates to no more than, say, about 1030kb/s depending on how you calculate how many bits in a byte.) By comparison a CD is 1378kbs and we are still talking about inferior recording mediums that are good for nothing when we can download lossless FLAC and WAV recordings of studio masters now.
  
 This debate is over, if it ever was one, its one thing to like the flaws in an inferior medium its another thing to be able to understand why that medium is flawed. You could happily record a vinyl in 16bit stereo in FLAC and never care about it for the light of day, ever again in your life and then listen to all the pops and crackles and hisses through your headphones to your hearts content for the rest of your life.
  
 The best thing to do with a vinyl after you've taken it out of its box is to play it once to rip and to set it on fire and enjoy the show, unless its something that's utterly obscure there is no point in having it in the first place. This little debate goes in the same box as people who believe they can get more than 12megapixels out of 35mm film from a still picture camera where if you encode it at a higher resolution all you're going to do is increase the grain, in the same way you would increase the graininess of vinyl by trying to achieve more.If you need to mix records just get CDJs, Pioneer already killed the only reason why Panasonic was releasing an inferior product, there is no need for vinyl to exist in anyones life anymore except nostalgia.
  
 And those people who are nostalgic have completely forgotten about 4 and 8 track recordings... The things that the recordings were originally recorded on to get the audio to press onto vinyl. See those things in the middle, right hand corner? Doesn't look like a vinyl press to me. Apart from guys like Giorgio Moroder little did they know that thing in the middle would rule the roost while diehard vinyl aficianados are still trying to justify their music that was originally recorded on an 8track.


----------



## U-3C

I want to ask another question, because if this post I just read somewhere. Just to clarify, I still do not want to take a position to participate in a debate, nor am I trying to mock anyone. I am just curious and am looking for opinions.



Before I purchased my first pair of "audiophile" headphones, I keep reading how good headphones will make poor recordings sounds terrible, and that I will eventually start looking for well mastered, high res audio files. However, I never really realized that I can't enjoy my collection of low bit rate, terribly mastered music by amatures who use very limited equipment to produce their music.

Sure, it doesn't have the _oomph_, that extra push in quality you find in pieces made my seasoned pros, but I never found that I needed to dump "low quality music " because of headphones being more detailed, or "analytical."

What really got me interested in this is that I now have a pair of Q701, the "poor man's HD800," the analytical, cold headphone that many complain about. Well, music still sounds great. 

I want to clarify again that I am not trying to mock anyone or trying to counter a belief. It's just that my experience doesn't seem quite similar to what other people claim to have so I want to ask for opinions. Is this just be being lucky as my ears are so poor, I can enjoy music universally at both its finest and its poorest, or is this actually common, but people don't want to talk about it because the general belief says otherwise, and people are encouraged to have this mindset of searching for high quality music instead of "lower quality music" made by some dude who plays guitars for a hobby and uploads recordings on Facebook?


----------



## Orestes1984

Unless you're a snob, which comes with the prevailing territories of being on a Hi-Fi board, just enjoy the music. If you like it that's all that matters. But do yourself a better favor where possible and buy the CD then rip it to a losless audio format such as WAV or FLAC to enjoy it in CD quality rather than the low bit-rate alternative you're currently listening to. That CD you thought was worth $20-$30 is now worth $2 on ebay. Enjoy.


----------



## nanaholic

orestes1984 said:


> Unless you're a snob, which comes with the prevailing territories of being on a Hi-Fi board, just enjoy the music. If you like it that's all that matters. But do yourself a better favor where possible and buy the CD then rip it to a losless audio format such as WAV or FLAC to enjoy it in CD quality rather than the low bit-rate alternative you're currently listening to. That CD you thought was worth $20-$30 is now worth $2 on ebay. Enjoy.


 
  
 Actually it's not a given that CDs today is better mastered than download lossy versions.
  
 There's this music group which I like and I bought the CD - I listened to it and it sounded off. As a fun experiment I then went to buy the download version because there's been news now that services like iTunes etc does their own editing and I wanted to know if that is true - turns out that for this particular album the lossy download (320kbps acc encoded as sold by mora.jp) version was actually better than CD with way less clipping and a slightly less dynamic compression (though not really enough to make an noticeable difference).
  

  
 The bad thing?  You just don't know until you pay for the product, which is really one of the most annoying thing about his hobby.
  
 Oh and it's definitive proof that it's the mastering, not format, that makes the difference.


----------



## Orestes1984

It's interesting, but I guess it's all dependent on where the original encoding is coming form. I should have thought about this more to realise that most of these major companies are probably mixing down from the original and not from a previously recorded source. It makes perfect sense in todays world and given companies like Apple are now practically the largest recording companies in the world.


----------



## nanaholic

Thing is now that I have bought lossy downloads that are better made than CDs, and I've also had hi-res downloads that are really just the original CD masters up-converted and you can clearly see the cliff fall off at 22kHz and the rest just flat lines for all frequencies above in the spectrum plot. 
  
 There's nothing anyone can just look at and say "oh this is definitely the better product".  And that REALLY sucks.


----------



## Treeko

@Dillan I just wanted to say thank you for making this thread, as a person that I consider to be relatively fresh to the audiophile world and I have read every single page on this thread. That alone has in my opinion safeguarded me against taking some people words as absolute and having a base level of skepticism with regards to everything I read. If only something like this was stickied to the front page of the site that informed fresh members of the lets say "darkest" parts of being interested in hi fidelity components. What I truly worry about is not the active members though through the sheer asking of questions you tend to learn alot but it is the lurkers of the thread that do not have time and or do not feel confident enough to take part in the thread that scour the site looking for gear to purchase that fit their needs only to be told (mostly indirectly) that higher priced items have a night and day difference to lower priced components.


----------



## ss5972

treeko said:


> @Dillan I just wanted to say thank you for making this thread, as a person that I consider to be relatively fresh to the audiophile world and I have read every single page on this thread. That alone has in my opinion safeguarded me against taking some people words as absolute and having a base level of skepticism with regards to everything I read. If only something like this was stickied to the front page of the site that informed fresh members of the lets say "darkest" parts of being interested in hi fidelity components. What I truly worry about is not the active members though through the sheer asking of questions you tend to learn alot but it is the lurkers of the thread that do not have time and or do not feel confident enough to take part in the thread that scour the site looking for gear to purchase that fit their needs only to be told (mostly indirectly) that higher priced items have a night and day difference to lower priced components.


 
  
 I share similar thoughts with you. However there will always be that tinge of self-confirmation among some people that your expensive headphones are better than those other lesser-headphones because of $$$. But hey, if thats what the consumer wants im sure the market will more than accommodate while the people who want real tangible improvements suffer from exorbitant price increases.


----------



## cel4145

nanaholic said:


> Pure parts/production cost does not reflect the number of man hours involved in designing a product, it's always a poor and misleading way of judging worth that's only been recently popularised by IT tech sites with their tear downs.




That explains the high cost of those Ortofan and other expensive cables. They are difficult to design.


----------



## Orestes1984

u-3c said:


> Exactly my question...what's the point???!!
> 
> People who spend a few hundred dollars on cables for their audio equipment probably are not that new to audio, and they have probably done a lot of research to find the "proper" cable to enhance their audio experience. So...why the cable and not EQ? What reasons justify those few hundred dollars, especially when it might not even work out?
> 
> I'm curious of the strong reasons that make people say yes to these products.


 

 No point, but you can't stop some people, they just do... I ended up buying "monster" cables for my TV when I moved houses, simply because I couldn't be bothered waiting to get them some other how. $30 for a piece of nothing to go into a wall socket. It's a price I paid for convenience  so I could watch over the air TV knowing full well I was getting ripped off. Meanwhile I've made speaker cable myself simply by pulling the shielding off of 12gauge electrical cable that I re-purposed from laying around in the house and it sounds just the same as "monster" cable. Learn how to solder and you can even put a 3.5mm headphone jack on it.
  
 On the other hand, I knew what I was doing was wrong. People who go out and spend hundreds of dollars on a DAC and then find out their internal DAC in their phone, computer, whatever is better but a snake oil salesman told them they needed a DAC. Things like this are a little more problematic however. Some things you don't learn about without learning that lesson the hard way though without someone who knows better telling you why its wrong.
  
 I've done a lot of that in my life.


----------



## nanaholic

cel4145 said:


> That explains the high cost of those Ortofan and other expensive cables. They are difficult to design.


 
  
 Of course, it's easy to laugh at overpriced cables especially because if someone dumps 50 bucks worth of parts for a cable with a sticker price that's 400 bucks, it's very likely that someone CAN bash together said cable.  I know I can and I've done it before, which is why I'd never pay for a headphone cable that a) I can put together myself, and b) doesn't change the sound.
  
 It's a different story for electronic gadgets though - if someone dumps 150 dollars worth of electronic components on your table, can you put together a working DAP?  Chances are you can't. I certainly know I can't (and I HAVE an engineering degree!), which is why I'd never go around saying things like "man this gadget's parts list is only 150 dollars what a ripoff they charge 400!". 
  
 Which is why break down price of parts alone is a poor judge of a product's worth.


----------



## castleofargh

mulder01 said:


> pila405 said:
> 
> 
> > We need to demand more objective data from manufactures regarding FR, THD (for the entire audible spectrum), impulse response etc'
> ...


 
 for a few years now I've been at a point where I'm confident about measurements. I still have a few good surprises  where something I believe will be horrible based on measurements, sounds just fine to me when I try it. it's extremely rare TBH but it does happen and logically so. after all I can't be sure that I will dislike all signatures but one, or that stuff like ringing or distortions will automatically sound annoying. but on the other hand I'm yet to find one headphone where the specs looked like a headphone I'd like, and didn't like the sound when I tried it. I can't remember this happening to me since I have a little understanding on some of the measurements.
 so at the moment I'm confident that I will probably dislike something, and very very confident that I will like something based on measurements(the more measurements, the better of course).


----------



## Orestes1984

I'm getting sick of this "Pepsi challenge" behavior from certain members who come on here, to be honest it wreaks of sour grapes.


----------



## sxr71

nanaholic said:


> Thing is now that I have bought lossy downloads that are better made than CDs, and I've also had hi-res downloads that are really just the original CD masters up-converted and you can clearly see the cliff fall off at 22kHz and the rest just flat lines for all frequencies above in the spectrum plot.
> 
> There's nothing anyone can just look at and say "oh this is definitely the better product".  And that REALLY sucks.


 
  
 Really bad practice to sell converted music as hi-rez. It feels like theft.


----------



## cel4145

nanaholic said:


> Of course, it's easy to laugh at overpriced cables especially because if someone dumps 50 bucks worth of parts for a cable with a sticker price that's 400 bucks, it's very likely that someone CAN bash together said cable.  I know I can and I've done it before, which is why I'd never pay for a headphone cable that a) I can put together myself, and b) doesn't change the sound.
> 
> It's a different story for electronic gadgets though - if someone dumps 150 dollars worth of electronic components on your table, can you put together a working DAP?  Chances are you can't. I certainly know I can't (and I HAVE an engineering degree!), which is why I'd never go around saying things like "man this gadget's parts list is only 150 dollars what a ripoff they charge 400!".
> 
> Which is why break down price of parts alone is a poor judge of a product's worth.




I was just disagreeing with your sweeping generalization: "it's *always* a poor and misleading way of judging worth."

Also, once so many units have been sold, that initial development cost has been covered. Bose 901s for example. The drivers in them are cheap paper cones that you can buy replacements from Parts Express for under $20 each, which means they probably cost well under $10 to manufacturer. Bose recouped their development costs decades ago and has made only minor upgrades since. Yet the latest version costs over $1000 today.


----------



## krismusic

That Van Gough only spent £20 on paint for those sunflower paintings. Sheesh!


----------



## krismusic

I wanted to post this morning but work got in the way! Forgive me if its a little out of context now. 
Of course there are charlatans and hucksters in audio. 
I do believe however that there are designers and engineers who are genuinely involved in trying to push forward what is possible within their field. 
I wonder how these genuine electrical engineers compensate for placebo etc. 
I asked Rob Ward in the Chord Mojo thread and he gave me a very intelligent reply. 
He is very active in that thread and comes across as completely sincere. Still can't hear the "improvements" it is claimed the Mojo gives though!
The post earlier by sxr71 is rather bitter . He raises some valid points but I would point out a minor point. 
AK is a reinvention of iRiver who do have a pedigree in audio. 
As to the much maligned Beats. I quite envy people using them. They have a product that they think looks cool. ( I quite like the look too.) 
They look fairly well made and possibly suit the music being played. 
The wearer usually looks pretty happy and probably isn't fretting about SQ! 
Whoever originally came up with the concept was a marketing genius. 
Headphones were not mainstream before Beats IIRC. They have created a product with millions of satisfied customers. What's not to admire?
I realised that all was not as it appears in audio quite quickly. I guess I have Russ Andrews to thank for that!
I met him at a show. Nice guy. Appears totally sincere. His products are a load of bollo as far as I am concerned though!
It certainly suits my world view and circumstances if it is not necessary to spend large sums on equipment to get high quality sound. 
I don't think that materialism is the way forward and I do not have a lot of disposable income. 
It will be very interesting to attend CanJam London in the context of this thread. 
If it turns out that an iPhone is all I need to get the best out of my CIEMS then I will celebrate the fact that mainstream electronics have moved forward to the point where pricey DAP's are obsolete. 
I am attending with an open mind but my BS meter (analog of course!) turned up to 11!


----------



## nanaholic

cel4145 said:


> I was just disagreeing with your sweeping generalization: "it's *always* a poor and misleading way of judging worth."
> 
> Also, once so many units have been sold, that initial development cost has been covered. Bose 901s for example. The drivers in them are cheap paper cones that you can buy replacements from Parts Express for under $20 each, which means they probably cost well under $10 to manufacturer. Bose recouped their development costs decades ago and has made only minor upgrades since. Yet the latest version costs over $1000 today.




Except what you just said is actually proving my comment - you are using other factors (units sold, guessing they have recoup the R&D cost) other than pure parts cost to judge worth. 

So I'm going to say my sweeping generalisation is in fact true.


----------



## castleofargh

u-3c said:


> I want to ask another question, because if this post I just read somewhere. Just to clarify, I still do not want to take a position to participate in a debate, nor am I trying to mock anyone. I am just curious and am looking for opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 ok here I'm leaving objectivity for good and give only my opinion about what I love.
  
 when I think about my life and the best times I've had with headphone/IEMs, what I remember are particular moments in my life, and particular songs. in some cases I can still give the name of the devices I used, but did they make the moment special? IMO they didn't. I have plenty of good memories using a walkman and a pair of koss plugs. they sound really like crap, I still have a pair somewhere and wouldn't even think of using them. but when I didn't have better, I didn't need better to have a blast.
  
 I've taken the road of the well recorded albums for a time, but unless you're really a fan of jazz and classical, it's not that easy to get good everything. to quote Big Soul, "je suis allergique au jazz". I've bought some and they are indeed well recorded, just like those oriental demos you get in showrooms with percussion that come straight out of a dream. but as it's not my stuff, I get the technical performance, I'm amazed. but I'm not having that music moment when you're the song and "nothing else matters". I'm lucky that I do love classical so I can still enjoy both the technique and the art on many records. but for rock, rap, pop, getting a band I adore and crappy recording is the most common occurrence. trying to get the very last drop of fidelity for that, it stopped making sense to me a long time ago. not only is it a waste of my money, but in some extreme situations, the song just subjectively sounds better played in mono in an elevator than on my headphone system. I have plenty of such cases, one almost everybody can relate to is radioactive by imagine dragons. I heard it on the radio in a car on the highway, it was a cool song, I've heard it again on TV and thought I really liked it. I bought the album and... I gave it to somebody who cared.  it's impossible for me to enjoy that song on a good audio system. I have plenty of albums like that, black eyed peas, most of my chemical romance, almost all the punk rock I have, some rap albums where they clip the bass on purpose to get it subjectively loudererer.... and this might be the most anti audiophile thing to say, but I enjoy listening to those using the tweeters in my laptop. and I often do.


----------



## cel4145

nanaholic said:


> Except what you just said is actually proving my comment - you are using other factors (units sold, guessing they have recoup the R&D cost) other than pure parts cost to judge worth.
> 
> So I'm going to say my sweeping generalisation is in fact true.




Ummm...you already agreed with me that cables were an example that contradicted your sweeping generalization.


----------



## U-3C

castleofargh said:


> ok here I'm leaving objectivity for good and give only my opinion about what I love.
> 
> when I think about my life and the best times I've had with headphone/IEMs, what I remember are particular moments in my life, and particular songs. in some cases I can still give the name of the devices I used, but did they make the moment special? IMO they didn't. I have plenty of good memories using a walkman and a pair of koss plugs. they sound really like crap, I still have a pair somewhere and wouldn't even think of using them. but when I didn't have better, I didn't need better to have a blast.
> 
> I've taken the road of the well recorded albums for a time, but unless you're really a fan of jazz and classical, it's not that easy to get good everything. to quote Big Soul, "je suis allergique au jazz". I've bought some and they are indeed well recorded, just like those oriental demos you get in showrooms with percussion that come straight out of a dream. but as it's not my stuff, I get the technical performance, I'm amazed. but I'm not having that music moment when you're the song and "nothing else matters". I'm lucky that I do love classical so I can still enjoy both the technique and the art on many records. but for rock, rap, pop, getting a band I adore and crappy recording is the most common occurrence. trying to get the very last drop of fidelity for that, it stopped making sense to me a long time ago. not only is it a waste of my money, but in some extreme situations, the song just subjectively sounds better played in mono in an elevator than on my headphone system. I have plenty of such cases, one almost everybody can relate to is radioactive by imagine dragons. I heard it on the radio in a car on the highway, it was a cool song, I've heard it again on TV and thought I really liked it. I bought the album and... I gave it to somebody who cared.  it's impossible for me to enjoy that song on a good audio system. I have plenty of albums like that, black eyed peas, most of my chemical romance, almost all the punk rock I have, some rap albums where they clip the bass on purpose to get it subjectively loudererer.... and this might be the most anti audiophile thing to say, but I enjoy listening to those using the tweeters in my laptop. and I often do.


 
  
 I see. Thanks for your insight!


----------



## LajostheHun

koolpep said:


> Question re: vinyl frequency range
> 
> The microphones used recording the performance - aren't they at best 20Hz-20kHz in any case? So what kind of additional frequency can vinyl potentially have that wasn't recorded? I checked all Shure microphones and I didn't find any with more extension  than 20-20kHz. Or am I on the totally wrong track?



Correct , and not only that, tape recorders can't even do 20-20k combined with the fact their noise, channel separation and dynamic properties are below 16 bit of digital one can wonder where is this analog superiority thesis comes from? Vinyls can track easily 50k but having real issues with low Fr's and their noise, channel separation and dynamic range figures are even worse than tapes [master].
Most of the current vinyl releases comes from digital masters BTW.


----------



## Koolpep

I don't find the cost of audiophile equipment is rising at all. The opposite is true. The same amount of money today buys me so much more sound quality than a few years back. You have so many choices these days to spend your money, some absolutely insane bargains can be made. I bought a few iems for $30-50 recently and couldn't believe how good they have become in that price range. I think we live in amazing times, the upper limit is pushed as well as the lower. VE Monks for $5 anyone? 

Food for thought:

High priced audio stuff, like Bose 901. I don't understand. What's the issue? Just because it's a physical object we behave like insane profit margins are .... insane. 

How much does it cost to write, record and produce a song and sell downloads? A download of a song costs basically nothing, still they charge the same 99 cents. A song hopefully brings the same amount of fun to the first buyer as to the last. Even if they already sold the song 10 million times. Should it be cheaper after the initial R&D costs are recouped? Same with software, every additional sell is just pure bottom line profit and probably profit margins reach insane amounts if you produce a hit. Is it not fair that JK Rowling is so bloody rich now? If a Bose 901 is worth it for the first person who buys it for $1,000, why shouldn't it be worth it for the 100,000th person? 

I don't understand the obsession with the bill of materials, it means nothing. Look at sneakers or any textiles, clothes. And the difference between BOM and sales price means nothing unless you know the costs for development, research, design and industrial design, production, marketing, distribution and logistics, warranty, packaging, service handling, manual writing and translating, getting operating licenses like FCC, CE, TÜV etc for various countries, costs of filing patents, and so on and so on.... 

I know some large toy shop chains, that don't touch any product if it doesn't give them minimum 40% profit margin, same with watches, etc. so why do we measure personal audio with such a different yardstick? This is only the retailer profit margin, NOT the manufacturer one, not the distributor one, etc. they all need to make money otherwise it's not a business. Unless of course you only sell direct. If you produce a DAC and price it at $99,0000 because you think you can sell 20 of them during its production life, but then you actually sell 200 that suddenly creates a great windfall profit. Good for them.

Thankfully some people are willing to spend big bucks, so some other people invest the time to create something groundbreaking new (and expensive) and eventually the technology used will become more accessible over time with mass production, for us mortals. It's good for the hobby. Everyone's has their own threshold and the law of diminishing returns is very individual. I reached my personal level where, even if I hear better gear, am content with what i have, as the amount of money needed to get a meaningful improvement (purely subjective) - doesn't justify it for me. Some can easily go for the last few percent improvement with 2, 3, or 5 times the cost of the second best "99% as good" product and that is good for them, as long as they enjoy it, so be it. 

The slowest car in my household is electronically limited to 250kph/155mph. My wife's car is faster. Is that needed? Of course not, nobody needs to have a car that fast. We could all drive Camrys. But would I buy it again? In a heartbeat, as the amount of fun I have every single time I drive it, is off the charts for me. I don't give a **** of what other people think about me, I love to drive a car that is a blast on the race track and I can drive it to work every day. I drive it for me not for others. And I think the same applies to some audiophiles, they have the money, cool, let them buy the best their money can buy. Who are we to judge if someone wants to spend money on something that measures better but is probably not audible? Or that measure worse but gives the owner pleasure in a different way?

The main take away of my rant is: be content with what you have, everybody has a different value for money ratio. Just because there are more expensive things coming out, we can still all buy better and better gear for the same budget as generally the sound quality increases constantly in the same price brackets.

Rant over  I duck and run away 

PS: of course I am totally against snake oil salesmen. False advertisement is wrong and should be punished. And of course I would buy an apartment, car or plenty of other things instead of a $100k DAC - but that's just me.


----------



## richard51

Very interesting thread!
  
 i will answer to the title of this thread in 3 parts:
  
 first part:  *Buy used vintage hi-fi*, i own a Sansui AU-7700, one of the best amp of 1975, i dont think that since Audio has put it to shame by comparison to other actual products below one thousand or 2...The same is true of my vintage Stax SR-5 , one of the better stax headphone, with a srd-7 that cost peanuts used and with a sound so good that upgrading will cost many thousands dollars...
  
 second part:  all gear vibrate and are plague with negative resonance (independently of price ), using cheap solutions(*sorbothane*) bring me more upgrading quality than anything i had previously bought...
  
 third part: With speakers you must put yourself at work to make *room treatment*, for 30 dollars, i have transform my used  already good speakers and give them an  audiophile sound ...
  
 coclusion:  I dream someone would have said all that to me 4 years ago, in the beginning of my search for a good sound....My system is so good now, i am afraid to buy anything below 2 thousand dollars... Will i upgrade? i dont know, but i am no more frustrated to read description of many thousand dollars gear, because with my poor ear i am already in paradise...By the way, with these clear upgrading effect, no blind testing is necessary, i have decide anything concerning my gear in minutes of listening with cd i know by heart already... The natural sounding timbre of instrument is the only criteria of good audio  for me... i think blind testing is necessary for distinguishing  2 very costly products and that will be interesting to have that here...


----------



## krismusic

koolpep said:


> I don't find the cost of audiophile equipment is rising at all. The opposite is true. The same amount of money today buys me so much more sound quality than a few years back. You have so many choices these days to spend your money, some absolutely insane bargains can be made. I bought a few iems for $30-50 recently and couldn't believe how good they have become in that price range. I think we live in amazing times, the upper limit is pushed as well as the lower. VE Monks for $5 anyone?
> 
> Food for thought:
> 
> ...



Very sane outlook IMHO. 



richard51 said:


> Very interesting thread!
> 
> i will answer to the title of this thread in 3 parts:
> 
> ...



Brilliant that you are so happy with your speaker system. Job done I'd say! 
With headphones its maybe a bit more about the gear as you can't do much room treatment inside your head! 
Totally agree with you about the room though BTW. I found out the hard way that you can have the nicest gear sounding terrible in a bad room.


----------



## richard51

krismusic said:


> Very sane outlook IMHO.
> Brilliant that you are so happy with your speaker system. Job done I'd say!
> 
> 
> ...


 
 In the contrary i begin with enclosure cup treatment of my 2 stax and hifiman he 400, with sorbothane duro 70...The effect was so extraordinary that my hifiman he 400 sound on the same level of my stax now (sorbothanized also)... The effect is so great that i dont recognize the he 400, and now it is one of my favorite, three weeks ago i thought that i must  selling them 100 dollars, now i dont want to sell them even for 400 hundred dollars used...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 the cost of the gear is not the only factor  in audio, eliminating vibrations first, room treatment second, and synergy between parts third...No gear has a sound of his own, but is only part in a chain...


----------



## LajostheHun

richard51 said:


> No gear has a sound of his own, but is only part in a chain...



Yes, but once it is all connected only the transducer [speakers/headphones] actually produce any acoustic output for the ear to pick up. "Synergy" takes a distant 3rd place [much like you say] yet it receives an unproportioned attention from posters on the other forums. Of course I'm not talking about power requirements and such but pure subjective pairing of devices.


I just returned an Oppo PM3 yesterday because I just didn't like how it sounded, and surprise none my extensive number of electronics made any difference yet the very first thing I was suggested about from others , namely it works best with a Chord Mojo [which I don't own] they have the best "synergy" so I was told. Of course I'm not buying into that the Mojo would fix my problems this headphone poses , no electronics can. Yes I tried EQ and various other electronic boosts and such, as all my headphones have EQ profiles on my music player apps, but still it didn't sounded as good as my AT ATH-M50 does for less than 3rd of the price for example, so there was no reason to keep them.


----------



## richard51

> Quote:


 


lajosthehun said:


> Yes, but once it is all connected only the transducer [speakers/headphones] actually produce any acoustic output for the ear to pick up. "Synergy" takes a distant 3rd place [much like you say] yet it receives an unproportioned attention from posters on the other forums. Of course I'm not talking about power requirements and such but pure subjective pairing of devices.
> 
> 
> I just returned an Oppo PM3 yesterday because I just didn't like how it sounded, and surprise none my extensive number of electronics made any difference yet the very first thing I was suggested about from others , namely it works best with a Chord Mojo [which I don't own] they have the best "synergy" so I was told. Of course I'm not buying into that the Mojo would fix my problems this headphone poses , no electronics can. Yes I tried EQ and various other electronic boosts and such, as all my headphones have EQ profiles on my music player apps, but still it didn't sounded as good as my AT ATH-M50 does for less than 3rd of the price for example, so there was no reason to keep them.


 
 you have a good point for sure and i am ok with your remarks... when i speak of synergy, i dont speak of that to justify more expense for sure...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 I think and verify for myself that  cheap room treatment  made more upgrading lift  to my speakers than any amplifier synergetically match at any cost would have made....samething for headphone that sound way much their level with sorbothane treatment rightly implemented...and that confirm your opinion


----------



## castleofargh

lajosthehun said:


> richard51 said:
> 
> 
> > No gear has a sound of his own, but is only part in a chain...
> ...


 

 I would put this case in my box of logical fallacies. you have the headphone and aren't happy, he has the headphone+mojo and he is happy, therefore the mojo would make you happy. the person goes with the assumption that you'll like and enjoy the same thing he does, so in his system, the only and obvious variable is the the mojo. a very understandable mistake, and extremely popular one on the forum.


----------



## richard51

castleofargh said:


> I would put this case in my box of logical fallacies. you have the headphone and aren't happy, he has the headphone+mojo and he is happy, therefore the mojo would make you happy. the person goes with the assumption that you'll like and enjoy the same thing he does, so in his system, the only and obvious variable is the the mojo. a very understandable mistake, and extremely popular one on the forum.


 
 i note your point and i understand your point that this "concept" of synergy is used to justify the products and push customer to spend money... Good point... But all use of this word are not there to justify that....And it was not my intention but i understand  your remark in the context of this thread and i give to you a point...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 I have experiment by myself that 2 dollars sheets of foam at the right spot in the room will make better upgrade than any synergetic new amplifier, hence i am in perfect harmony with your opinion...But i dont want to ban the word synergy either...


----------



## krismusic

Where would I buy a switch box to AB equipment?


----------



## james444

richard51 said:


> But i dont want to ban the word synergy either...


 
  
 Synergy sure does exist, but ime it's usually two wrongs making a right, e.g. IE800 and Tera Player, the former boosted in bass and treble and the latter rolled off at both ends.


----------



## richard51

james444 said:


> Synergy sure does exist, but ime it's usually two wrongs making a right, e.g. IE800 and Tera Player, the former boosted in bass and treble and the latter rolled off at both ends.


 
 yes for sure... It is not though the only use of this word possible ... It is also for example  the transmitted undesire effect of a negative resonance  transported all along the gear chain...Using the right means to damp this negative resonance reestablish a positive synergy between all pieces of the chain...
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 i personally experience that many times...And  one the most satisfying upgrade for me was this damping methods for headphone or speakers ....The other is cheap  room treatment...


----------



## LajostheHun

richard51 said:


> i note your point and i understand your point that this "concept" of synergy is used to justify the products and push customer to spend money... Good point... But all use of this word are not there to justify that....And it was not my intention but i understand  your remark in the context of this thread and i give to you a point...
> 
> I have experiment by myself that 2 dollars sheets of foam at the right spot in the room will make better upgrade than any synergetic new amplifier, hence i am in perfect harmony with your opinion...But i dont want to ban the word synergy either...



His point wasn't about synergy per se but rather the fallacy that that we all perceive things in the same way so it's must be the components that matter. In reality the differences among us which can't be easily quantified is what matters quite a bit or at least should.


----------



## richard51

lajosthehun said:


> His point wasn't about synergy per se but rather the fallacy that that we all perceive things in the same way so it's must be the components that matter. In reality the differences among us which can't be easily quantified is what matters or at least should.


 
 if it is that, i think nobody perceive  the same, and some product are better than other for our all different  ears, and in all our different sounding  rooms, and for our all different gear, yes, and because of synergy some component are linked in a better way  for our own  specific ears taste  gear and room, yes...An objective experience for me though is that the better upgrade i experience was less with difference in gear than with damping and room treatment...Spectacular upgrade at near no cost...


----------



## castleofargh

richard51 said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > I would put this case in my box of logical fallacies. you have the headphone and aren't happy, he has the headphone+mojo and he is happy, therefore the mojo would make you happy. the person goes with the assumption that you'll like and enjoy the same thing he does, so in his system, the only and obvious variable is the the mojo. a very understandable mistake, and extremely popular one on the forum.
> ...


 

 oh my post wasn't trying to imply all that much. you make me more clever and deep than I am ^_^.
  
 about synergy in audio, well I hate the word more and more with each passing days when it's abused. not because I believe synergy doesn't exist, of course it does and it explains very clear processes. I hate it because it's so often used in audio as a hand waving term to artificially give some rhetorical weight to a personal opinion. it's just another "it's more natural" kind of argument and not actually bringing any information on the table.
  
 take James example, he didn't go with synergy as a final argument to look fancy, he explains what is going on for him. remove synergy, the argument still holds. I'll always be fine with that.


----------



## Dillan

> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Awesome points by everyone. I liked this rant by Koolpep even though it's different from my opinion.
  
 The biggest problem I have is I think the audiophile world is completely different than almost anything else that people try to compare it to. I think it is very unique to most things and it sort of goes back a few pages to my sensation vs perception post. I think being an audiophile is more closely connected to art collecting. You can't (in my opinion) justify the extreme pricing of what we see everyday in high end audio the same way you can't justify million dollar paintings where the artist literally splashes paint on the canvas.
  
 To me it comes down to companies taking advantage of our deceitful hearing and us laying back and letting them. In my opinion we could start with these forums:
  

Treat sponsors the same as other manufacturers
Allow pricing, bias and blind testing discussion outside of the science section
Teach newcomers that opinionated advice runs rampant through here (maybe even through banners/stickies)
  
 If a company can charge an extremely high price (even considering everything involved) and not only get away with it, but be praised instantly then that is our fault not theirs. Who wouldn't want to be considered great just by throwing a big price tag on something - that's literally a win/win for them.
  
 I have been an advocate for this topic for awhile now and I would encourage you guys to read my short thread in the portable source section: http://www.head-fi.org/t/810821/serious-question-why-is-the-ak380-four-thousand-dollars
  
 I still haven't figured out an answer to that question. Why is the AK380 so pricey? Other daps have equal or superior technical specs so can anyone actually (outside of a marketing point of view) tell me why it cost so much? I actually bought the 380 and blind tested it myself and it was subjectively worse sounding to me than almost anything else I compared it to (for the very few scenarios I could even hear a difference). I even tried contacting their support (along with many others) to try and ask a legitimate technical question and I never got an answer. In fact few hear back from them after you spend so much on their products.
  
 I agree with letting people do whatever they want and if you're happy then thats great. Ignorance really is bliss and if you spend more than you can afford then that is its own separate issue altogether. However I also agree with spreading the notion that it's OK to challenge product makers and not just sit back and take whatever they shovel us. *What's more helpful to us consumers long-term: Talking about this stuff or ignoring it?*
  
 I dislike the constant and lazy response from the other end of the argument - "Let people do what they want."
  
 Just my 2 cents as always!


----------



## krismusic

dillan said:


> Awesome points by everyone. I liked this rant by Koolpep even though it's different from my opinion.
> 
> The biggest problem I have is I think the audiophile world is completely different than almost anything else that people try to compare it to. I think it is very unique to most things and it sort of goes back a few pages to my sensation vs perception post. I think being an audiophile is more closely connected to art collecting. You can't (in my opinion) justify the extreme pricing of what we see everyday in high end audio the same way you can't justify million dollar paintings where the artist literally splashes paint on the canvas.
> 
> ...



Wow. That's some commitment. Buying the 380. 
Not kidding yourself that it is the best thing since sliced bread is pretty impressive. 
I'm starting to see what you were getting at starting this thread. 
Some of the side issues and observations have been great but (I'm as guilty as anyone) maybe risk obscuring your main point. 
Yes. Absolutely. Manufacturers should be held to account when they make subjective claims that cannot be proved or disproved. 
I'm fed up with products that do not perform as claimed as well. 
It would be great if those products could be erased. Leaving audio a lot healthier. Good luck with that though! 
Maybe we could have our own "wall of fame". 
Products that really did do what they said on the tin. 
I'll start with the Sennheiser HD600. An audio classic and a bargain IMHO.
How do you do that spoiler thing BTW?


----------



## richard51

In the beginning of my  travel in audio here, the best remedy i take for curing   my naivete  and  correct some errors i have made is not only reading the many conflicting advises about gear by enthusiasts or detractors, but mostly  trying inexpensive mods. and room treatment by myself that transform my listening experience into an enlightning one...Hence i realize that purchasing some gear , headphone, or speakers dont give me an absolute warrenty of audio quality, better to buy vintage or used, and maximize that with damping and room treatment...This is for me extraordinary upgrading...not buying one thousand new amp or dac or speakers or headphones but experimenting with this new discovered fact  :all product are plague by vibrations and the better speakers will not sound so good in a non treated room... My relatively cheap system is now audiophile for me and i am afraid to buy something because it is not evident and certain now that will be truly better compare to what i own properly implemented in my room ...my advise is :buy used,  the best vintage,kill all vibrations,treat your room, and enjoy paradise...


----------



## mulder01

dillan said:


> I still haven't figured out an answer to that question. Why is the AK380 so pricey? Other daps have equal or superior technical specs so can anyone actually (outside of a marketing point of view) tell my why it cost so much? I actually bought the 380 and blind tested it myself and it was subjectively worse sounding to me than almost anything else I compared it to (for the very few scenarios I could even hear a difference). I even tried contacting their support (along with many others) to try and ask a legitimate technical question and I never got an answer. In fact few hear back from them after you spend so much on their products.


 
  
 Hmm, maybe their response of _absolutely nothing_ is, in a way, their reasoning as to what it is about their product that justifies the price.


----------



## Treeko

dillan said:


> Treat sponsors the same as other manufacturers
> Allow pricing, bias and blind testing discussion outside of the science section
> Teach and encourage newcomers that opinionated advice runs rampant through here (maybe even through banners/stickies)




This so much. These 3 points are arguably the most important points brought up in this whole topic. With regards to the interests of head fi and keeping the community going, the last two are realistically what should definitely be implemented here in some way or form. We as members need to also realise that a (probably insanely) large number of people visit this site and many are non members. If a person were to head out and purchase an comparatively overpriced piece of kit that falls short of his expectations or original set up just because an opinionated member essentially sold the dream this would leave said person with feelings of betrayal and mistrust that harms this site and the members, the individual him/herself leaving the only person to gain in the scenario being the manufacturer.


----------



## Orestes1984

lajosthehun said:


> His point wasn't about synergy per se but rather the fallacy that that we all perceive things in the same way so it's must be the components that matter. In reality the differences among us which can't be easily quantified is what matters quite a bit or at least should.


 

 At the end of the day, not only are our ears and ear canals different sizes and shapes, the thing between them that is responsible for perceiving sounds is also different. The ears don't "hear" whats between them interprets it and that's how we hear. Therefore to claim that we all hear the same thing is utterly preposterous. Some basic understanding of human anatomy and physiology is in need here, perhaps a first year university textbook on audiology might help with regard to this.
  
 There is a good reason why we all like different things, we're all different and we all perceive sound differently. Neutrality other than for the purposes of being a scientifically valid concept we can measure through a decent EQ of the response curve is utterly wasted on all of us. The perception that I don't like this sound or that sound is just a natural extension of human physiology. Better than being anal retentive about things and chucking the CD in the fire because we don't like the "mix." The latter habit becomes Hi-Fi snobbery at best.
  
 While I was talking to my elder one in the family about this as he is a musician/recording artist, while yeah we can put ourselves in the seat of the producer, and expect the best to hell with it and listen to music for the sake of being pure to the cause of listening to music, sometimes the producer gets it wrong and we don't like what we hear. In such cases, all heil the EQ so we can adjust said music to suit our own damned tastes.


----------



## Mach3

Hi Dillan,
  
 Any chance you've purchase the Tera Player? I'm so confused and clueless as why it is 7.5K for a DAP that only plays WAV and no UI.


----------



## cel4145

koolpep said:


> High priced audio stuff, like Bose 901. I don't understand. What's the issue? Just because it's a physical object we behave like insane profit margins are .... insane. . . . If a Bose 901 is worth it for the first person who buys it for $1,000, why shouldn't it be worth it for the 100,000th person?




Ummm...because it measures terrible, is difficult to drive, and there are much better speakers to buy for less money. However, Bose devotes so much money to marketing that the average person thinks Bose are great quality stuff, when in fact, they are poor values. Meanwhile, they've used their insane profits to sue any negative reviews. That's what happens when companies make "insane profit margins" on a product for over 48 years.


----------



## Orestes1984

The original BOSE 901 was a decent speaker for its time, the issue with BOSE is that they're a one hit wonder and they've been living off that success ever since. Most people simply don't know any better. The other issue with BOSE is that they are guilty as sin of Hifi-Fu and talking out their anus about concepts in sound that don't exist and are nothing more than shiny marketing and PR nonsense, like another company I can think of called Beats by Dre. Both best avoided if you have any common sense. Neither do I care, or am I interested what happened to the 901 since the current models have been released, but if you want a wide sound stage and a fair amount of musicality for a party due to their design of being a semi PA speaker, they're pretty decent. Hardly accurate, but they have their own merit.

 Chuck a vintage amp behind them that can actually power them and go nuts. I happened to grow up with a friend whose dad had a set of 901s when they're set up correctly they're not bad. I wouldn't go out of my way to buy a pair but people who mock them, just because "BOSE" really don't have much of a leg to stand on either.


----------



## Dillan

mach3 said:


> Hi Dillan,
> 
> Any chance you've purchase the Tera Player? I'm so confused and clueless as why it is 7.5K for a DAP that only plays WAV and no UI.




Never heard it sorry!


----------



## BushkaNicke

Placebophiles are everwhere. Since the he-6 costs more, it must be leaps ahead of the he-500 and not just a different sound signature and slightly improved driver and clarity. I can fully believe someone liking a pair of grados over stax sr 009's out of personal preference, but apparently, i spent more so everything i have is better than your cheap-fi low-fi setup. And lets just forget about amps/dacs and cables.


----------



## cel4145

orestes1984 said:


> Chuck a vintage amp behind them that can actually power them and go nuts. I happened to grow up with a friend whose dad had a set of 901s when they're set up correctly they're not bad. I wouldn't go out of my way to buy a pair but people who mock them, just because "BOSE" really don't have much of a leg to stand on either.




You can buy better speakers for less that can "go nuts" with a regular amp


----------



## Mach3

dillan said:


> Never heard it sorry!


 
 I stand corrected, the current 2016 model will set you back 10K EURO not USD.
 There no LCD screen and it only accept WAV files. Makes your AK380 purchase seem like an absolute bargain.


----------



## Koolpep

krismusic said:


> Where would I buy a switch box to AB equipment?


 
 http://mfspdesigns.com/index.php/en/all-products/switch-box
  
 They can even build you a switch box after your own custom wishes.
  
 I am using the Fiio HS-2 but that's out of production for a long time now.
  
 Cheers.


----------



## Orestes1984

cel4145 said:


> You can buy better speakers for less that can "go nuts" with a regular amp


 

 That all depends, speakers are as much a personal taste as anything else including headphones, if you want to listen to Rogers or Bowers and Wilkins or LS3/5As that's fine by me also.
  
 Plenty of speakers to go round for everyone, and I have a strong dislike of audio snobs so whatever floats your boat. The "my speakers are better because I'm an audio snob" is not my game. You can buy a set of LS3/5As for a lot less also and have a much better sounding set of vintage speakers for less you just need to know what you're looking for.
  
 Whatever I'm not going to go out and spend $4500 on a set of 901s.
  
 http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Bose-Lifestyle-901-Rare-Amazing-Sound-Hard-To-Find-Amazing-Condition-RRP-9-999-/131889361725?hash=item1eb537f33d:g:k1oAAOSwFqJWk4vC


----------



## Dillan

mach3 said:


> I stand corrected, the current 2016 model will set you back 10K EURO not USD.
> There no LCD screen and it only accept WAV files. Makes your AK380 purchase seem like an absolute bargain.




Wow there sits the epitome of this entire conversation. Wonder what the specs are and how it measures compared to amazing daps that cost $10,000 less with tons of features and storage. Better yet, I wonder what it "sounds" like compared to them.


----------



## Koolpep

dillan said:


> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Ok, we agree mostly. I enjoy this discussion.
  
 Wow you actually bought an AK380? With buying a $4,000 DAP - are you part of the problem or part of the solution (this is tongue in cheek)?
  
 - Might be a lazy argument (I don't think so) but it's still valid - people can do what they want with their money - I mean you bought a $4k DAP.
 - We also agree that we should always test and scrutinize products no matter if sponsor or not.
 - We also agree that expectation bias can run both ways (hearing differences and hearing no differences) => DBT
 - This forum might be the wrong one for that because it deliberately does not want people to mention DBT etc. in any parts except Sound Science - but as we already agreed - getting a proper DBT done in home environments is VERY hard if not impossible - so it's indicative at best but not proof. I love doing DBT or just switch box tests - biggest eye opener for me.
 - Manufacturers should absolutely be held accountable to justify their prices but expecting more than marketing fluff in some cases would be an illusion.
 - I really like the mantra/rule here that you should only report, review and discuss things you have extensively heard or own.
 - Auto-footer on each post: This is my personal opinion and not necessary a fact.
 - Teach newcomers - well that is hard as they can access the whole forum and nobody wants to go through (or read) long disclaimers in detail. But maybe a short disclaimer would be in order for a new member - question of course is - what about the lurkers who never sign up?
  
 Cheers!


----------



## Mach3

koolpep said:


> Ok, we agree mostly. I enjoy this discussion.
> 
> Wow you actually bought an AK380? With buying a $4,000 DAP - are you part of the problem or part of the solution (this is tongue in cheek)?
> 
> ...


 
  
 Problem is, some manufacture don't even bother publishing the specs.
 I've purchased equipment where the IC marking has been sanded off.
 I fully understand they are protecting their IP, but when you don't publish any specs on what you are selling.


----------



## mulder01

I think the tera player may be a joke. Someone is trying to prove to their mates that they can sell any garbage as long as it has a massive price tag audiophiles will buy it because they're all idiots. Guy is gonna make a few bucks by the look of it.


----------



## Mach3

mulder01 said:


> I think the tera player may be a joke. Someone is trying to prove to their mates that they can sell any garbage as long as it has a massive price tag audiophiles will buy it because they're all idiots. Guy is gonna make a few bucks by the look of it.


 
  
 No it not a joke, I've seen a few older models on the FS forum on head fi in the past.


----------



## Koolpep

cel4145 said:


> Ummm...because it measures terrible, is difficult to drive, and there are much better speakers to buy for less money. However, Bose devotes so much money to marketing that the average person thinks Bose are great quality stuff, when in fact, they are poor values. Meanwhile, they've used their insane profits to sue any negative reviews. That's what happens when companies make "insane profit margins" on a product for over 48 years.


 
 Highly unethical indeed. I didn't know that. I was never interested in bose speakers as I already knew they are overpriced for what they deliver. However, there should be ways to go about it. Better Business Bureau, Consumer Protection Agency, etc. Also ideally their reputation should suffer so much that nobody wants to buy their 901 for $1,000 - but if people still like what they hear....what to do. After all the people go into their shops and can actually listen to them (of course with no comparison and with highly beneficial music made to sound good with their systems but....they did hear before they bought). Not all Bose products are bad quality. And I disagree - this is not what happens with companies with insane profit margins - it only happens with *bad* companies and insane profit margins


----------



## cel4145

orestes1984 said:


> That all depends, speakers are as much a personal taste as anything else including headphones, if you want to listen to Rogers or Bowers and Wilkins or LS3/5As that's fine by me also.
> 
> Plenty of speakers to go round for everyone, and I have a strong dislike of audio snobs so whatever floats your boat. The "my speakers are better because I'm an audio snob" is not my game. You can buy a set of LS3/5As for a lot less also and have a much better sounding set of vintage speakers for less you just need to know what you're looking for.
> 
> ...




You keep talking crap as if this is some kind of snobbery. Have you ever owned Bose home audio speakers? I have. 201, 301, and 601. It was when I was much younger before I learned that Bose speakers aren't that good a value. The reason I got them? The same reason people bought them then and buy them today: Bose marketing. People don't buy them because they sound good. People buy them because they have been TOLD that they are good and they don't know anything else. (lol)

The 901s don't measure well, and the early models were terribly inefficient. Apparently, they might have gotten a little more efficient, but can't tell from Bose because they don't share any specs on the speakers. Because they are designed to work with that EQ unit, it also requires amplification that can loop in the EQ, making it more of a pain to power them. They are also extremely placement sensitive, more so than typical direct radiating speakers.Their main saving grace is that they can get very loud. However, one can get PA speakers that sound as good and play loud with less amplification for less money. That was my point. Which has nothing to do with audiophile snobbery because audiophiles don't buy PA speakers. My mistake for thinking you know about these speakers more than just you heard them as a kid :rolleyes:


----------



## Koolpep

mach3 said:


> Problem is, some manufacture don't even bother publishing the specs.
> I've purchased equipment where the IC marking has been sanded off.
> I fully understand they are protecting their IP, but when you don't publish any specs on what you are selling.


 

 Yes, I agree. My nuForce icon HDP was such a case. they didn't disclose their DAC chips as they didn't want to be thrown in the bucket of ahhh Wolfson - warm, ahhh, Sabre - cold/bright. So I guess to some extend (at that time) it was an understandable decision - though I still don't agree with it.


----------



## Koolpep

dillan said:


> Wow there sits the epitome of this entire conversation. Wonder what the specs are and how it measures compared to amazing daps that cost $10,000 less with tons of features and storage. Better yet, I wonder what it "sounds" like compared to them.


 
 http://www.altmann.haan.de/tera_player/
  
 The dev story.
  
 And the current page:
 http://www.tera-player.com
  
 You can "apply" to purchase one for 10k Euro....


----------



## james444

dillan said:


> Wow there sits the epitome of this entire conversation. Wonder what the specs are and how it measures compared to amazing daps that cost $10,000 less with tons of features and storage. Better yet, I wonder what it "sounds" like compared to them.


 
  
 I had a Tera Player on loan some time ago. To my ears, nothing special and rather touchy about pairings with balanced armatures and low ohm phones:
  
http://www.head-fi.org/t/626954/the-diary-entries-of-a-little-girl-in-her-30s-part-2/9735#post_9332267
  
 According to its maker, he developed the player using modded Koss Porta Pros (60 ohms) as reference phones, so it might well sound decent with those.


----------



## mulder01

mach3 said:


> No it not a joke, I've seen a few older models on the FS forum on head fi in the past.


 
  
 Yeah they used to be a few hundred euros.  Fair enough if the guy had to sell them for that to cover his costs and time if he makes them himself.  
  
 This one is a con for sure.


----------



## U-3C

dillan said:


> Maybe they have done everything possible including EQ and just want to add that extra 1%?
> 
> I buy audio cables because they look cool and in theory silver is more conductive than copper. Also for the termination, if the stock cable doesn't have what fits my amp (XLR etc).
> 
> ...




I see, though can I just add on one more question: can you elaborate what this 1% is? Are you referring to things like build quality, features, convenience, or simply aesthetics, or are you referring to sonic differences? I'm again confused, because if you are referring to sonic differences, and people do pay for exotic cables for that final 1% change in sound, then does that means that there is some advantage with using physical cables over eq?

In really curious...or am I simply beating a dead horse by constantly digging at this question?


----------



## U-3C

May I kindly ask: is there a general target that manufacturers of high end dac chips aim for? Do flagship dac chips strive for a neutral sound, and let the people who buy the chips alter the sound with their implementation, or do the manufacturers colour the sound based on their own target?

The reason I'm asking is because someone just told me this, and I don't have the experience nor the money to figure out how true the statement is:



Sorry if I'm constantly bothering people with questions. I'm curious about this stuff, yet my current understanding is most likely less than non-existent.


----------



## krismusic

u-3c said:


> I see, though can I just add on one more question: can you elaborate what this 1% is? Are you referring to things like build quality, features, convenience, or simply aesthetics, or are you referring to sonic differences? I'm again confused, because if you are referring to sonic differences, and people do pay for exotic cables for that final 1% change in sound, then does that means that there is some advantage with using physical cables over eq?
> 
> In really curious...or am I simply beating a dead horse by constantly digging at this question?



I assume Dillan is referring to sound quality. Some people seem to think that true musicality and enjoyment depends on the last fraction of sound quality. The law of diminishing returns kicks in hard at that point. 



u-3c said:


> May I kindly ask: is there a general target that manufacturers of high end dac chips aim for? Do flagship dac chips strive for a neutral sound, and let the people who buy the chips alter the sound with their implementation, or do the manufacturers colour the sound based on their own target?
> 
> The reason I'm asking is because someone just told me this, and I don't have the experience nor the money to figure out how true the statement is:
> 
> ...



You ask away! You are talking of things that cause endless debate on HeadFi. 
You will find people that claim all sorts. Including those that say all properly designed DAC's and amps sound exactly the same. 
This thread in particular is an expression of frustration with the vast amount of misinformation and nonsense that is endemic in audio circles. 
In theory I would think that high end designers would strive for a product that neither added nor took away anything from the music. 
In reality, different circuits and technologies cause distortions that some find appealing.
 I have no real knowledge to back this up but I suspect some manufacturers introduce some kind of DSP to colour the sound. 
Don't be shy to ask as many questions as you wish. There are some very knowledgeable people on these forums and in the main it's a very friendly site.


----------



## Koolpep

u-3c said:


> May I kindly ask: is there a general target that manufacturers of high end dac chips aim for? Do flagship dac chips strive for a neutral sound, and let the people who buy the chips alter the sound with their implementation, or do the manufacturers colour the sound based on their own target?
> 
> The reason I'm asking is because someone just told me this, and I don't have the experience nor the money to figure out how true the statement is:
> 
> ...


 

 Most DACs come with a lot of digital filters you can use (as a board producer). Some companies let you switch them in software, like iBasso with these:
  Digital Filters: 
 There are two options: Sharp Roll-off, and Slow Roll-off.
 (1). Sharp Roll-off.
 With the Sharp Roll-off, one can see the frequency curve drops significantly. The Sound is less aggressive.
 (2). Slow Roll-off. 
 With the Slow Roll-off, one can see the frequency curve drops smoothly. The sound is more open, the extension of low and high is better. 
  
 Take a look here:
 http://www.akm.com/akm/en/product/datasheet1/?partno=AK4490EQ
 It's the product sheet of the AKM4490 it has 5 digital filters integrated that a DAP or DAC producer can utilize (or not) depending on which sound they want to go into the amp/line out.
  
 And for the AKM4490EN:
Five different 32-bit digital filter types are available: Short delay sharp roll-off and short delay slow roll-off filters have overall short delay characteristics. Sharp roll-off filter and slow roll-off filter preserve the phase difference and a new filter that has even slower roll-off character was added to these four filters. They are selectable according to the user audio and system preferences.
  

  
 So - yes, "implementation" of a DAC chip matters - but in general I think the goal is to make the digital signal as real life analog as possible. However read this: AKM fully supports sound tuning that takes into account musicality of the system manufacturer. AKM has a wealth of experience, and a track record with over 25 years as an audio device manufacturer.
 from here: 
 http://www.akm.com/akm/en/product/featured/velvetsound/
  
 And you wonder....how much tuning is possible in a DAC.....
  
 Cheers.


----------



## Koolpep

Oh AKM also writes:
  
VELVET SOUND (AK4490EQ)​​ ... the architecture of new generation audio devices.​​ Velvet Sound’s philosophy is a combination of measured performance ​and human listening tests, ​*because ears will always exceed any test measurement.​*  
here: ​http://www.akm.com/akm/en/product/featured/velvetsound/
  
 The bold highlight is done by me. Now - if a DAC manufacturer says that - hmmmmm.


----------



## mulder01

I've tried listening to different dacs and don't hear a difference. Then there are users like purrin who started that 'thoughts on a bunch of dacs...' thread who goes into massive detail on a ton of different gear. Is it 100% completely made up by his imagination? You would think that he's a least hearing SOMETHING to feel compelled to do that bigger write-up... DAC upgrades have proven to be not worthwhile for me and I would say that 99% of the population probably would say they all sound the same but has that other 1% trained their hearing like a wine taster can train their pallet? Don't know.

If I can't tell the difference between dacs, I give myself even less of a chance hearing the difference with my new fancy audiophile cables, but I'm willing to try things out and see what happens. If you want to give stuff a try, keep an eye out for well priced second hand gear then if you don't love it, hopefully you can just sell it for what you paid for it. That's my plan anyway.


----------



## old tech

koolpep said:


> Oh AKM also writes:
> 
> VELVET SOUND (AK4490EQ)​​ ... the architecture of new generation audio devices.​​ Velvet Sound’s philosophy is a combination of measured performance ​and human listening tests, ​*because ears will always exceed any test measurement.​*
> here: ​http://www.akm.com/akm/en/product/featured/velvetsound/
> ...


 
 The highlighted bit is a red flag. Many audio tests measure far in excess what humans can possible hear. A claim such as the highlight is clearly directed at gullible audiophools.
  
 As for high end DACs, most are a waste of money unless you are seeking a certain "signature" sound, ie a subjective pleasant colourisation which is fine of course, but a departure from true "see through" high fidelity.  The thresholds of transparency were exceeded decades ago


----------



## Treeko

I always thought (and also assumed that it was the general consensus) that all DAC's, once constructed properly, sound more or less the same. Doesn't an increase in price of a DAC just get you more features such as various different inputs (analog and digital and maybe even balanced), some dac offering offer line level dials and maybe even bluetooth support.

Wouldn't a headphone amplifier be somethings that would make a difference to the audio chain due to different makes from different manufactures all spitting out different power outputs to your headphone with hugely varying distortion numbers and a plethora of implementation features such as tubes, solid state, balanced or unbalanced circuits, RCA switching, current mode amplification, crossfeed, (The list is huge if you actually think about it)


----------



## Orestes1984

mulder01 said:


> I've tried listening to different dacs and don't hear a difference. Then there are users like purrin who started that 'thoughts on a bunch of dacs...' thread who goes into massive detail on a ton of different gear. Is it 100% completely made up by his imagination? You would think that he's a least hearing SOMETHING to feel compelled to do that bigger write-up... DAC upgrades have proven to be not worthwhile for me and I would say that 99% of the population probably would say they all sound the same but has that other 1% trained their hearing like a wine taster can train their pallet? Don't know.
> 
> If I can't tell the difference between dacs, I give myself even less of a chance hearing the difference with my new fancy audiophile cables, but I'm willing to try things out and see what happens. If you want to give stuff a try, keep an eye out for well priced second hand gear then if you don't love it, hopefully you can just sell it for what you paid for it. That's my plan anyway.


 
 This is because 90% of modern, modestly priced devices have a better DAC in them than the one that you're paying for. In my short time here I've see people here ask about the price of a decent DAC for modern premium smart phones, and laptops with inbuilt HD chipsets that kick the crap out of any low budget DAC yet people continue to buy them. Your biggest warning about this kind of behavior is that a large majority of websites that recommend people go out and buy a DAC are the same websites that are actually selling the thing.
  
 There you go folks, shiny marketing hype.


----------



## reginalb

mulder01 said:


> I've tried listening to different dacs and don't hear a difference. Then there are users like purrin who started that 'thoughts on a bunch of dacs...' thread who goes into massive detail on a ton of different gear. Is it 100% completely made up by his imagination? You would think that he's a least hearing SOMETHING to feel compelled to do that bigger write-up... DAC upgrades have proven to be not worthwhile for me and I would say that 99% of the population probably would say they all sound the same but has that other 1% trained their hearing like a wine taster can train their pallet? Don't know.
> 
> If I can't tell the difference between dacs, I give myself even less of a chance hearing the difference with my new fancy audiophile cables, but I'm willing to try things out and see what happens. If you want to give stuff a try, keep an eye out for well priced second hand gear then if you don't love it, hopefully you can just sell it for what you paid for it. That's my plan anyway.


 
  
 DACs should be pretty easy to test, though. A null test should be able to tell you a whole lot about a pair of DACs, should it not? I have no doubt that someone doing sighted tests could imagine hundreds of differences. Watch a quick video of the McGurk effect. People that study it can't avoid falling for it, even when they know what's going on. Your ears just aren't all that great at hearing things. 
  
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0
  
 And that's why I don't trust my ears.


----------



## Orestes1984

treeko said:


> I always thought (and also assumed that it was the general consensus) that all DAC's, once constructed properly, sound more or less the same. Doesn't an increase in price of a DAC just get you more features such as various different inputs (analog and digital and maybe even balanced), some dac offering offer line level dials and maybe even bluetooth support.
> 
> Wouldn't a headphone amplifier be somethings that would make a difference to the audio chain due to different makes from different manufactures all spitting out different power outputs to your headphone with hugely varying distortion numbers and a plethora of implementation features such as tubes, solid state, balanced or unbalanced circuits, RCA switching, current mode amplification, crossfeed, (The list is huge if you actually think about it)


 

 If you need another device in your line for a specific purpose such as line level, or a microphone, or recording, or support for bluetooth inputs then you can buy a specific device for this such as a sound recorder that has all of the above from a reputable brand such as Zoom or Tascam or whatever and leave it to the appropriate manufacturer. Adding another device in your chain would not nescessary add another significant benefit in fact it can add a significant amount of distortion from said devices especially when they're competing on devices which don't have a proper line out. Of course there are reasons why you need such things when you're driving such things as inefficient headphones, but my standard for that is to just take the device out of the equation whether its my laptop or iphone and go DLNA directly to a dedicated receiver if I so want more amplification.
  
 If you need a line level for recording in your chain just buy one of these things:
  
 https://www.zoom.co.jp/products/handy-recorder/h2n-handy-recorder


----------



## cel4145

mulder01 said:


> I've tried listening to different dacs and don't hear a difference. Then there are users like purrin who started that 'thoughts on a bunch of dacs...' thread who goes into massive detail on a ton of different gear. Is it 100% completely made up by his imagination? You would think that he's a least hearing SOMETHING to feel compelled to do that bigger write-up... DAC upgrades have proven to be not worthwhile for me and I would say that 99% of the population probably would say they all sound the same but has that other 1% trained their hearing like a wine taster can train their pallet? Don't know.




Come at from another way. Consider that expectation bias can influence what one hears. Then consider other factors that can influence evaluations such as volume levels and time between comparisons.

Suppose that 20% of the DACs he listens to DO sound different if DBT was used. Do you buy equipment that you can't know if what you hear is a real difference, or just a perceived difference caused by biases in your evaluation methods and that there is only a real difference 20% of the time? Do you buy equipment based on others' testimonials when can't know if what they heard is a real difference or just a perceived difference caused by bias in their evaluation methods and that there is only a real difference 20% of the time? 



mulder01 said:


> If I can't tell the difference between dacs, I give myself even less of a chance hearing the difference with my new fancy audiophile cables, but I'm willing to try things out and see what happens. If you want to give stuff a try, keep an eye out for well priced second hand gear then if you don't love it, hopefully you can just sell it for what you paid for it. That's my plan anyway.




But the problem with those new cables are, how do you know what you are hearing is a real difference? 

Do I invest in a product where 20% of the time I am getting a real return, but the other 80% of the time it is fake? Or suppose the ratio was 50/50, real/fake? From my perspective, I don't see the financial sense in investing in something that I cannot ever know if I got a return on my money. I have other things I'd rather spend my money on that do result in real returns.


----------



## cel4145

orestes1984 said:


> This is because 90% of modern, modestly priced devices have a better DAC in them than the one that you're paying for. In my short time here I've see people here ask about the price of a decent DAC for modern premium smart phones, and laptops with inbuilt HD chipsets that kick the crap out of any low budget DAC yet people continue to buy them. Your biggest warning about this kind of behavior is that a large majority of websites that recommend people go out and buy a DAC are the same websites that are actually selling the thing.
> 
> *There you go folks, shiny marketing hype.*




Hmmm...so marketing hype matters with DACs. But in relation to Bose speakers, it's just audio snobbery? Double standard


----------



## castleofargh

u-3c said:


> May I kindly ask: is there a general target that manufacturers of high end dac chips aim for? Do flagship dac chips strive for a neutral sound, and let the people who buy the chips alter the sound with their implementation, or do the manufacturers colour the sound based on their own target?
> 
> The reason I'm asking is because someone just told me this, and I don't have the experience nor the money to figure out how true the statement is:
> 
> ...


 
 should this topic become a new general purpose topic?(not a critic, just asking) because we're in orbit around money but the topics just keep coming.
  
 personally I believe for the most part that poorly implemented chips show more of their differences. as they all have different power supply requirement, different oversampling values, different filtering options... I'm inclined to think that when they start failing because of some implementation problem(power supply on the first super famous sabre anyone?), they probably have their own way of failing with typical sound.
 I've heard many DACs with many chipsets where I couldn't tell them apart in a messy single blind test. but I did also hear some, where the wolfson was overly warm, where the sabre had slightly annoying trebles, and at some point I believe those problems become the trade sound of the chip in the mind of both the users and the DAC manufacturer. the same way you're a little disappointed if a tube amp is dead clean dead flat, because you bought a tube amp to hear a "tube sound". else why bother? so wolfson became the almost analog sound in the mind of people for years, and I suspect some DAC manufacturers started rolling off the high freqs even more on purpose when using those chips at some point. because that's the reason why most people would be attracted by that chipset's name.
 and then there are the urban legends. get one famous dude make a comment about chipsets sound, and most of the guys who respect this famous dude will now repeat what they feel must be the truth, and soon enough you have the same thing repeated enough for it to have become a fact. else why would so many people have the same opinion?




  
  
  
  


koolpep said:


> Oh AKM also writes:
> 
> VELVET SOUND (AK4490EQ)​​ ... the architecture of new generation audio devices.​​ Velvet Sound’s philosophy is a combination of measured performance ​and human listening tests, ​*because ears will always exceed any test measurement.​*
> here: ​http://www.akm.com/akm/en/product/featured/velvetsound/
> ...


 
 all manufacturers have ears, and use some golden ears at different levels of testing. it would be ludicrous to only rely on measurements and not try it on the humans. that would be like making a car and never driving it before going to mass production. it's a formality and it could reveal a problem nobody cared to check or measure. 
 and if at some point they end up having a "wrong" that subjectively sounds better to the testies than the objectively better solution, some may decide to go for the subjectively better(stax does that for their headphones). there is nothing wrong with that IMO. of course the way it's written could be interpreted a lot of different ways:
 "we also have ears"
 "we make our final decisions based on listening tests"
 "we can't reach the specs of sabre so we cater to subjectivists needs".
 "we have no idea what we're saying, it's the marketing guy, please don't hit us".


----------



## krismusic

castleofargh said:


> should this topic become a new general purpose topic?(not a critic, just asking) because we're in orbit around money but the topics just keep coming
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I suggest that it is a good thing that this thread has broadened out. The posts are all kind of related to the original post. I'm pleased that it has stayed active for so long and hope it keeps going. The most interesting thread for a long time on HeadFi IMHO. 
Regarding manufacturers testies 
I hope that when I buy a product, someone very knowledgeable and skilled has selected components and put together a design based on measurement and theory and then listens to it and maybe tweaks things by ear. ( that last is pure speculation and may be fantasy!) It is nuts to think that you either go purely by measurement *or listening. 
As a fairly uninformed punter it is most reassuring to hear that a preference is backed up by theory.*


----------



## Orestes1984

cel4145 said:


> Hmmm...so marketing hype matters with DACs. But in relation to Bose speakers, it's just audio snobbery? Double standard


 

 Not really... The thing with BOSE is their marketing hype came from a product they released once, that may have been half decent and so the story goes. As to DACs I come from a background where I've worked both in tech so have some understanding of the purpose of what DACs do and have been surrounded by musical influences my entire life since I was knee high to a grasshopper. It's pretty simple. Most modern semi-decent devices have a DAC that is good enough, and I get sick of people coming on here and saying oh hai! my laptop has an Intel HD Audio chipset but I need a DAC anyway.
  
 No you don't and you never did. Do some research and understand the qualities of the DAC in your existing device. Otherwise, I'd be happy to take your money instead though if you literally feel like setting it on fire by buying a superfluous DAC. This forum is literally littered with people buying things they don't need and getting recommendations for buying things they don't need because STUFF! on a daily basis.
  
 It's tiring.


----------



## Dillan

u-3c said:


> I see, though can I just add on one more question: can you elaborate what this 1% is? Are you referring to things like build quality, features, convenience, or simply aesthetics, or are you referring to sonic differences? I'm again confused, because if you are referring to sonic differences, and people do pay for exotic cables for that final 1% change in sound, then does that means that there is some advantage with using physical cables over eq?
> 
> In really curious...or am I simply beating a dead horse by constantly digging at this question?


 
  
 I think that sometimes people get bored of their gear or just get an itch to "update/upgrade" something. Maybe they've upgraded everything else recently so now they just want "better" cables. I think the reasons to upgrade cables differ wildly, but I would guess that most people that buy them think they audibly change the sound quality.. for the most part I pretty much disagree (although they can in some situations). Some people just want to squeeze out every bit of performance they can out of their system, even if they can't hear the difference in reality (or maybe they _think _they do, but don't).
  
 Anyway my point was raising the question of maybe that person in your scenario had already done everything possible already, including EQ. So they looked at cables. But to answer your question, cables do not change the sound even remotely close to what EQ does. In fact I would argue cables do not make a hearable difference in most cases with most people. (Again some people would argue that with me) BUT I don't think anyone would argue that EQ has a much bigger impact than cables. There is no "advantage" to using cables instead of EQ unless maybe the person is against EQ altogether or something.. I mean that's a tough question to answer, because everyone has their own personal preferences and opinion.


----------



## cel4145

orestes1984 said:


> Not really... The thing with BOSE is their marketing hype came from a product they released once, that may have been half decent and so the story goes. As to DACs I come from a background where I've worked both in tech so have some understanding of the purpose of what DACs do and have been surrounded by musical influences my entire life since I was knee high to a grasshopper. It's pretty simple. Most modern semi-decent devices have a DAC that is good enough, and I get sick of people coming on here and saying oh hai! my laptop has an Intel HD Audio chipset but I need a DAC anyway.
> 
> No you don't and you never did. Do some research and understand the qualities of the DAC in your existing device. Otherwise, I'd be happy to take your money instead though if you literally feel like setting it on fire by buying a superfluous DAC. This forum is literally littered with people buying things they don't need and getting recommendations for buying things they don't need because STUFF! on a daily basis.
> 
> It's tiring.




That doesn't justify your post #335 which suggests that people that don't like Bose speakers are audio snobs:



orestes1984 said:


> Plenty of speakers to go round for everyone, and I have a strong dislike of audio snobs so whatever floats your boat. The "my speakers are better because I'm an audio snob" is not my game. You can buy a set of LS3/5As for a lot less also and have a much better sounding set of vintage speakers for less you just need to know what you're looking for.




The criticism of Bose speakers is ultimately the same as your criticism of more expensive DACs: neither is a good use of money. Bose Acoustimass is another great example of this. Lifestyle systems that offer very poor audio quality performance value for the price. Yet they are popular because of the brand image and marketing hype by Bose. To quote Bose from their headline about their product, "High-performance surround sound." By no metric of audio science are these "high performance" for the money that they charge.


----------



## Orestes1984

It's clear to me you have something against BOSE, meanwhile I could not care any less if I tried. I simply stated they're not as bad as you projected them as being.
  
 Moving right along. If you have anything else you'd like me to discuss I'd be glad to hear it.


----------



## LajostheHun

koolpep said:


> Oh AKM also writes:
> 
> [COLOR=000000]VELVET SOUND (AK4490EQ)​
> ​... the architecture of new generation audio devices.​
> ...




 LOL DACs by design should only be faithful to the signal I.E. transparent. Any coloration will come from the analog circuits that follow, and the endless imagination of the listener themselves.
I was gonna say that indeed all DACs by design would be like that but if a chip maker already muddy the water with silly marketing slogans like that.......well . In any case I never subscribed to the notion that DAC's have any sound or influence the sound at all as long it performs by specs, and no I'm not talking about various add on filters here. Remember most DACs use off the shelf chips and then each MFRs build their own analog circuitry around them [implementation] and at this point they could "tune" it, but in reality most of it just the same with a healthy dose of marketing talk to ignite interest.

Just now in another thread I gave my subjective impression of my LG V10 phone VS the HRT Microstreamer DAC/amp but I wasn't comparing their DACs but rather their final sound after their HP amp using the same HPs. Often people doing the same thing and laying any differences at DACs when they can't really isolate them at listening evaluations.


----------



## cel4145

orestes1984 said:


> It's clear to me you have something against BOSE, meanwhile I could not care any less if I tried. *I simply stated they're not as bad as you projected them as being.*




Sounds like you are another victim of marketing hype, much like the people that buy more expensive DACs. Audio science supports that Bose home audio speakers are not a good value.


----------



## reginalb

cel4145 said:


> Sounds like you are another victim of marketing hype, much like the people that buy more expensive DACs. Audio science supports that Bose home audio speakers are not a good value.


 
  
 Science in any field is outside of the realm of "value." It might not be a good value to you, but that's subjective. Measurements can get to frequency response, distortion, and a whole wealth of other things. I agree that there is a lot of bogus marketing hype out there. But at the end of the day, all you can do is present good info, and let the user decide what is and isn't of value to them. For example, I bought a Soundlink for an ex of mine. At the time, it was the perfect device for her, there weren't many portable BT speakers on the market at the time. It was the same price as my UE Boom, and while it wasn't dust and splashproof, she wasn't outdoorsy, but she did care about the styling, and preferred the Bose. A lot of Bose stuff is decent looking, and it's also a status symbol. 
  
 They also made the best NC headphones for a while. 
  
 For me personally, most of their stuff is not a good value, but that's not really a scientific statement.


----------



## Orestes1984

cel4145 said:


> Sounds like you are another victim of marketing hype, much like the people that buy more expensive DACs. Audio science supports that Bose home audio speakers are not a good value.


 
 Sounds to me that you have a chip on your shoulder, I already said I couldn't really care less and there are plenty of decent speakers to go round while listing a few you might want to spend some time listening to. That's about as best as I can do.
  
 This conversation is going nowhere, for the record I would never go out of my way to buy a BOSE speaker. I live and am surrounded by a family member who does almost nothing other than collect vintage speakers, amplifiers and musical instruments, particularly guitars, if I want to I can listen to any manner of these that have been bought by someone with a more than discerning ear.
  
 I really have no time for any of this discussion.


----------



## LajostheHun

krismusic said:


> I suggest that it is a good thing that this thread has broadened out. The posts are all kind of related to the original post. I'm pleased that it has stayed active for so long and hope it keeps going. The most interesting thread for a long time on HeadFi IMHO.



yes same here, as long as Dillan agrees. 

Ok can we talk about USB purifiers now ?


----------



## U-3C

lajosthehun said:


> yes same here, as long as Dillan agrees.
> 
> Ok can we talk about USB purifiers now ?




I am so tempted to buy one! Now, a Jitterbug (with their special USB cable, of course), a Wyrd, a Regen, or a used powered USB hub for 10 bucks on eBay? My laptop has limited USB ports so I'm leaning to the USB hub, but my _Complete Guide to Audiophilia_ tells me otherwise!

But on a serious note, how useful are they in different cases? Are there cases where you actually might want to get one (instead of just buying a new pair of headphones)? What exactly makes those commercial USB decrapifiers special compared to a powered USB hub? I assume that dac/amps that draw their power directly from the wall aren't really affected by these, or am I wrong? I actually have been considering getting something like that as the USB 2.0 port on my laptop trends to make my dac freak out a bit.

And just to stay on the topic of rising costs and blind testing, does anyone have any links to people who did blind tests in these things?

0.0


----------



## cel4145

reginalb said:


> Science in any field is outside of the realm of "value." It might not be a good value to you, but that's subjective. Measurements can get to frequency response, distortion, and a whole wealth of other things. I agree that there is a lot of bogus marketing hype out there. But at the end of the day, all you can do is present good info, and let the user decide what is and isn't of value to them. For example, I bought a Soundlink for an ex of mine. At the time, it was the perfect device for her, there weren't many portable BT speakers on the market at the time. It was the same price as my UE Boom, and while it wasn't dust and splashproof, she wasn't outdoorsy, but she did care about the styling, and preferred the Bose. A lot of Bose stuff is decent looking, and it's also a status symbol.
> 
> They also made the best NC headphones for a while.
> 
> For me personally, most of their stuff is not a good value, but that's not really a scientific statement.




The BT speakers are OK. I think people might find other brands they like better in terms of sonic preference. But their BT speakers seem reasonable compared to alternatives. 

Their home audio speakers are another story, and there has been a lot of audio science criticism of them. Back in 1999, Sound and Vision reviewed the Acoustimass 15. The frequency response measurements were terrible

 SATELLITES BASS MODULE
Frequency Response 280 Hz to 13.3k Hz at ±10.5 dB 46Hz to 202Hz at ±2.3 dB

Forget the terrible treble roll off, but there is a hole in the frequency response between where the satellites roll off and the bass module kicks in. Then 280 hz is way too high to crossover satellites because of bass localization. And then, 46 hz low end isn't very good for a subwoofer. In fact, I visited my aunt in the early 2000s, and she had recently gotten the latest, greatest AM setup. Not did it sound terrible over all (good $25 headphones sound better), but male vocals often seemed to come from the bass module. 

SPL output is abysmal because the cheap paper drivers are between 2.5" to 3". Simply physics. A cheap driver that size can not put out a lot of SPL. 

If you search, you can find discussion of the internal crossovers in DIY communities indicate that are also cheap and badly designed. 

Then several years ago it came out from big box store employees that Bose did not allow any music to be played on their systems but what they provided. So one employee compared the tracks on the Bose demo disks to the original songs and found that they were heavily EQd. Nice huh? 

And yet. People keep buying them and recommending them due to Bose's over forty years of heavy marketing in magazines and other places, during which most of the time other speaker manufacturers did not.


----------



## Dillan

lajosthehun said:


> yes same here, as long as Dillan agrees.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 This is a democracy! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I think USB purifiers are a good topic these days!
  
 Static, EMI/RFI and other types of signal noise are definitely an issue sometimes - I have had them myself and usually listen hard for that sort of thing. Other than potentially cleaning the signal in that sense, what other advantages would a "USB purifier" give you? Maybe consistent, regulated power? The good thing is most of them aren't as pricey as other components.
  
 Still saying that, a lot of times we spend a lot on something that a $2 item like this can fix:
  


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1p7jQLVXXXXcoXFXXq6xXFXXXw/5pcs-lot-Black-Plastic-Clip-On-font-b-EMI-b-font-RFI-Noise-Suppressor-5mm-font.jpg


----------



## U-3C

dillan said:


> This is a democracy!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I have about 20 of those just lying around in my house with no use.
  
 I'll sell them for $1.50 each. Anybody want them? 
  
 But on a more serious note, what exactly do those do that fixes USB issues?


----------



## Dillan

u-3c said:


> I have about 20 of those just lying around in my house with no use.
> 
> I'll sell them for $1.50 each. Anybody want them?
> 
> But on a more serious note, what exactly do those do that fixes USB issues?


 

 The item in the picture that I linked or the purifiers in general?


----------



## LajostheHun

well there are some interesting bits from Gordon Rankin here about USB audio in general :

http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/05/gordon-rankin-on-why-usb-audio-quality-varies/


----------



## cel4145

lajosthehun said:


> well there are some interesting bits from Gordon Rankin here about USB audio in general :
> 
> http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/05/gordon-rankin-on-why-usb-audio-quality-varies/




Interesting. His primary explanation of errors in USB audio doesn't seem to have much necessarily to do with the cables.


----------



## LajostheHun

cel4145 said:


> Interesting. His primary explanation of errors in USB audio doesn't seem to have much necessarily to do with the cables.


No it's not cables he responded to the question if purifiers would make a difference , and in his view yes.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

cel4145 Re Bose, I don't think it's a case of someone falling for their marketing so much as someone who hasn't heard enough of Bose to care or decide either way... unlike you, who has obvious had extensive experience with them despite yourself


----------



## U-3C

dillan said:


> The item in the picture that I linked or the purifiers in general?


 
  
 Well, I have a pile of those ferrite beads at home.
  
 However, I am curious about how different USB purifiers work.


----------



## RRod

cel4145 said:


> Interesting. His primary explanation of errors in USB audio doesn't seem to have much necessarily to do with the cables.


 
  
 Plus he shows no evidence that the errors are in any way *musical*. I know if I start running my USB HDs hard when listening to music I will indeed hear errors, but it's snap/crackle/pop stuff that is obvious, not "more air" or "better soundstage".


----------



## VNandor

reginalb said:


> DACs should be pretty easy to test, though. A null test should be able to tell you a whole lot about a pair of DACs, should it not?


 
 It's not as easy as you probably think. I tried to do that when there was a discussion about WAV vs. FLAC. People assumed wav can sound better if your player doesn't have the capacity to decompress the FLAC files while playing them. And of course they assumed only pricier DAPs can do it. So I captured the output of my portable DAP by recording the LO and playing the WAV and FLAC converted from the same files.
  
 I expected some random noise around the noisefloor of my DAC but to my surprise the null peaked around -20dB and I could recognize the music. I quickly checked if I screwed up something during the conversion but they nulled digitally. I wasted a whole day to try and ABX my recordings before I gave up. After that I checked if I could get a better null by recording the exact same wavs and as it turned out I couldn't. I tried it with different sources but still no succes, I was so desperate I even changed my cables thinking they may be faulty.
  
 After doing a bit research on the interwebz I think it has to do something with the fact nor the recording and playback sample rate is perfectly stable. I still have no idea how it could mess up my tests though. Anyways trying to null the output of the DAC was anything but easy. At least to me.


----------



## cel4145

lajosthehun said:


> No it's not cables he responded to the question if purifiers would make a difference , and in his view yes.




But did he come out and say that directly? Admittedly, I kind of skimmed things. Mostly what he did was describe where USB audio might have errors. The primary examples he gave were with the the music software faulting on reading from the hard drive and the problem with the library being on the system disk. Don't see how a purifier is going to help with that. And before his interview,Thorsten Loesch of iFi pitches their purifier as benefiting EMI problems. Doesn't seem like Ranking talked about EMI at all or purifiers for that matter.


----------



## castleofargh

I read no such thing from what mr Rankin said. in fact he wasn't even asked about such products(or did I miss something?). the only thing the writer really has to acknowledge what he himself calls wisely a likelihood, is the passage saying that everything can have an impact on everything. which is interesting but also something captain obvious could have figured out.
 there is nothing on how many errors we're likely to get on typical systems in a minute, no information about how much that can impact the sound, no information on how different DAC chips deal with this, no information about how stuff like upsampling/oversampling might affect the error, or be affected, no idea if such errors ruin the all packet(so likely more than one sample and end up making a weird noise, or a silence, does it actually change the music or does it only create one of those noises I notice when I put too many DSPs and not enough buffer?
 of course if we have a given problem and a device solves that given problem then it will improve the sound. but do we have that problem? can the device really solve the problem without bringing it's own? or will it only reduce the value of noise that may or may not be the cause of some errors?
  
 the kind of article that just brainstorms my head but doesn't teach me anything. arrrgh!!!





  
  
  
  
  
 useless anecdote about ferrite beads, they've done wonders for the usb cable I use on my camera(not the original that I've lost a few times). I went from maybe 2 or 3 corrupted pictures every 300pictures(between 25 and 30mo per pic), to zero corrupted picture by adding a ferrite bead on each end like there was on the original canon cable.
  
  
  
  


dillan said:


> This is a democracy!


 
 where did you get such a strange idea?


----------



## cel4145

joe bloggs said:


> cel4145 Re Bose, I don't think it's a case of someone falling for their marketing so much as someone who hasn't heard enough of Bose to care or decide either way... unlike you, who has obvious had extensive experience with them despite yourself




Yeah. I was young and dumb. 

But over at AVS forum, we get people coming in all the time asking if some Bose setup will be good, and they think it's good because that's what they've heard from friends who have Bose (but don't know any different) and you can tell how they have influenced by marketing when you mention mainstream speaker brands that they have never heard of. But they knew of Bose.


----------



## LajostheHun

Yes he did say that directly, it is towards the end of the article.


----------



## cel4145

lajosthehun said:


> Yes he did say that directly, it is towards the end of the article.




Can you provide a quote? I'm not seeing it.


----------



## LajostheHun

cel4145 said:


> Can you provide a quote? I'm not seeing it.




You're right it was Darko's assessment based on the email he posted. My bad.


----------



## LajostheHun

castleofargh said:


> I read no such thing from what mr Rankin said. in fact he wasn't even asked about such products(or did I miss something?). the only thing the writer really has to acknowledge what he himself calls wisely a likelihood, is the passage saying that everything can have an impact on everything. which is interesting but also something captain obvious could have figured out.
> there is nothing on how many errors we're likely to get on typical systems in a minute, no information about how much that can impact the sound, no information on how different DAC chips deal with this, no information about how stuff like upsampling/oversampling might affect the error, or be affected, no idea if such errors ruin the all packet(so likely more than one sample and end up making a weird noise, or a silence, does it actually change the music or does it only create one of those noises I notice when I put too many DSPs and not enough buffer?
> of course if we have a given problem and a device solves that given problem then it will improve the sound. but do we have that problem? can the device really solve the problem without bringing it's own? or will it only reduce the value of noise that may or may not be the cause of some errors?
> 
> the kind of article that just brainstorms my head but doesn't teach me anything. arrrgh!!!




I myself experiencing "drop outs" but admittedly it can be anything. When Rankin says it could "sound bad" he really doesn't explain it at all, but normally error in a digital realm will cause something like a drop out or weird noise like you say. I really doubt it would degrade the sound to any other way, like it's being described by many. The most usual improvement by purifiers being cited is the "blacker background or noise floor". Whatever that means. It's the blacker than black noise floor.


----------



## RRod

vnandor said:


> After doing a bit research on the interwebz I think it has to do something with the fact nor the recording and playback sample rate is perfectly stable. I still have no idea how it could mess up my tests though. Anyways trying to null the output of the DAC was anything but easy. At least to me.


 
  
 It's definitely not trivial. Slightly different clocks, slightly different phases, etc can add up to a non-trivial null, but that might otherwise sound identical in casual switching.


----------



## james444

dillan said:


> To me it comes down to companies taking advantage of our deceitful hearing and us laying back and letting them. In my opinion we could start with these forums:
> 
> 
> Treat sponsors the same as other manufacturers
> ...


 


treeko said:


> This so much. These 3 points are arguably the most important points brought up in this whole topic. With regards to the interests of head fi and keeping the community going, the last two are realistically what should definitely be implemented here in some way or form.


 
  
 This would assume a consumer-oriented forum, which imo head-fi just isn't. He who pays the piper, calls the tune... helps to keep things in perspective and expectations realistic.


----------



## Dillan

u-3c said:


> Well, I have a pile of those ferrite beads at home.
> 
> However, I am curious about how different USB purifiers work.


 

 I think it differs from product to product. I am not researched enough with some of the more complex implementations such as "active" filtering. The Schiit Wyrd being one of those active devices. However I know that some of the "passive" filtering is a little more easy to understand. I am kind of a fan of this creative iFi Gemini cable:
  

  
 Regardless if it actually does anything noticeable, it's still a cool concept to me. What they did here was completely separate the USB's power from the USB's data. So any unwanted interference noise from the transferring power signals would stay separated and ultimately shielded when going into your source. I think it is definitely overpriced at almost $200 USD, but a cool idea nonetheless. Also keep in mind you could completely bypass your computer to power as well and just use a USB hub or something else. Simple EMI shielding and separation of power/data.


----------



## reginalb

vnandor said:


> It's not as easy as you probably think. I tried to do that when there was a discussion about WAV vs. FLAC. People assumed wav can sound better if your player doesn't have the capacity to decompress the FLAC files while playing them. And of course they assumed only pricier DAPs can do it. So I captured the output of my portable DAP by recording the LO and playing the WAV and FLAC converted from the same files.
> 
> I expected some random noise around the noisefloor of my DAC but to my surprise the null peaked around -20dB and I could recognize the music. I quickly checked if I screwed up something during the conversion but they nulled digitally. I wasted a whole day to try and ABX my recordings before I gave up. After that I checked if I could get a better null by recording the exact same wavs and as it turned out I couldn't. I tried it with different sources but still no succes, I was so desperate I even changed my cables thinking they may be faulty.
> 
> After doing a bit research on the interwebz I think it has to do something with the fact nor the recording and playback sample rate is perfectly stable. I still have no idea how it could mess up my tests though. Anyways trying to null the output of the DAC was anything but easy. At least to me.


 
  
 With regards to audio, there is a lot that I don't personally own the equipment to properly test. My Behringer and RMAA allow me to get frequency response and....just that really. But I mean to say more accurately that someone with the means should be able to null two DAC's. I don't know that I could without spending some time to look in to the process a bit more. But again, it should be possible. 
  


dillan said:


> I think it differs from product to product. I am not researched enough with some of the more complex implementations such as "active" filtering. The Schiit Wyrd being one of those active devices. However I know that some of the "passive" filtering is a little more easy to understand. I am kind of a fan of this creative iFi Gemini cable:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless if it actually does anything noticeable, it's still a cool concept to me. What they did here was completely separate the USB's power from the USB's data. So any unwanted interference noise from the transferring power signals would stay separated and ultimately shielded when going into your source. I think it is definitely overpriced at almost $200 USD, but a cool idea nonetheless. Also keep in mind you could completely bypass your computer to power as well and just use a USB hub or something else. Simple EMI shielding and separation of power/data.


 
  
 I had issues with EMI with the USB-C output on my work laptop. Just switched to my USB 3 hub, and all was good. That said, while I thought it worked initially, if you leave the AK300 sitting on the port, it doesn't play nicely with USB 3.0 power management. So you need to disconnect and reconnect it to get it to work after a period of inactivity. This is the same with Schiit DAC's. They blame Windows for it, their FAQ and manufacturer section of the forum trashes both Apple and Windows for introducing USB power management (of course - most people care more about their laptop battery life than they do a Schiit DAC - and it's the responsibility of a designer to make their products work correctly with the systems they choose to integrate them with)
  
 Funny, while my $900 Astell&Kern, and Schiit's DAC's have so much trouble with USB 3 power management, the folks at Behringer seem to have no issues with it. Their $30 audio interface, which does much more than a Schiit DAC has no trouble being hooked up through the USB 3 hub, idle periods be damned.


----------



## cel4145

Back to the amp synergy thing. Post of the day. Apparently, the Magni 2 Uber works well with a variety of headphones, but "the bass is a bit ragged" with the K7XX. http://www.head-fi.org/t/816049/dac-amp-for-akg-7xx#post_12762881


----------



## U-3C

cel4145 said:


> Back to the amp synergy thing. Post of the day. Apparently, the Magni 2 Uber works well with a variety of headphones, but "the bass is a bit ragged" with the K7XX. http://www.head-fi.org/t/816049/dac-amp-for-akg-7xx#post_12762881




Here I am, still wondering why my dac/amp doesn't do jack schiit to my akg headphones compared to my iPhone, especially when the company specified that they were asked by Massdrop to tune the product specifically so it can drive the K7XX headphones. -_-;

Then I read this.


----------



## Dillan

I think it would be fun to write a research paper about the relationship between science, technology and marketing psychology (with focus on pricing) in the high end headphone market. Can I get any coauthors!?


----------



## cel4145

dillan said:


> I think it would be fun to write a research paper about the relationship between science, technology and marketing psychology (with focus on pricing) in the high end headphone market. Can I get any coauthors!?




I think it would be more fun to focus on the language of hype in Head-Fi threads


----------



## Dillan

cel4145 said:


> I think it would be more fun to focus on the language of hype in Head-Fi threads




That's a language you don't need Rosetta Stone for. If there was a vaccine for shiny toy syndrome then hype would be overtaken by reason.. Which would be pretty beneficial to us all!


----------



## cel4145

dillan said:


> That's a language you don't need Rosetta Stone for. If there was a vaccine for shiny toy syndrome then hype would be overtaken by reason.. Which would be pretty beneficial to us all!




Comes with a free toy!!!


----------



## Dillan

HAHAHAHA!

Where did you find that image?


----------



## cel4145

dillan said:


> HAHAHAHA!
> 
> Where did you find that image?




When you said shiny new toy, it made me think of cereal boxes. So I wondered if there is a cereal box generator, and sure enough there is just a google search away


----------



## Koolpep

Three and a half minute well spend. Please watch. Just the last minute if time-pressed. Especially the conclusion is pretty astounding - more expensive wines taste better - if you know they are expensive!
  
 Tadaaaaa- there we have it - same issue= blind testing shows people prefer whatever wine they like most (mostly the cheaper ones)- but that shifts once the price and experience is coming to play - and seeing wine testers rank the same identical wine (they were not told) completely different. I think this is another example that our senses (taste, hearing) are influenced by the brain and like with the wine example - people who claim that a certain piece of equipment sounds better (no DBT) = it's because for them it is absolutely real - their brain created that reality. Their reaction to it is real. Unfortunately that doesn't mean it will be real for anyone else.... Which also explains why so many people don't want to do DBTs = it ruins their enjoyment of that said equipment.
  
 So - you enjoy the same wine more when you think it's expensive - measured in the pleasure center of your brain. That would mean in audio that you enjoy your expensive headphone/equipment more - even if it's not better - because you know it's expensive. 
  
 We can end the debate: objectively it might not be better, subjectively it could be. BOTH camps are right.


----------



## U-3C

dillan said:


> I think it would be fun to write a research paper about the relationship between science, technology and marketing psychology (with focus on pricing) in the high end headphone market. Can I get any coauthors!?


 

 I wrote a "research paper" for a college English class regarding just that...
  
 I somehow got 96%. Highest I have ever gotten, as I'm usually borderline failing. All I did was shat on expensive audio equipment and quoted every single AES paper I can manage to read.


----------



## krismusic

I wonder how many, if any, professional reviewers factor placebo into their evaluations. 
I am currently having a conversation elsewhere on HeadFi about a DAP I am interested in. It seems rude to ask the guy if he has tested the claims he is making. As someone who is obviously employed by several companies to run their online presence I don't see how he could say the performance of the product is anything less than stellar.


----------



## nanaholic

koolpep said:


> Three and a half minute well spend. Please watch. Just the last minute if time-pressed. Especially the conclusion is pretty astounding - more expensive wines taste better - if you know they are expensive!
> 
> Tadaaaaa- there we have it - same issue= blind testing shows people prefer whatever wine they like most (mostly the cheaper ones)- but that shifts once the price and experience is coming to play - and seeing wine testers rank the same identical wine (they were not told) completely different. I think this is another example that our senses (taste, hearing) are influenced by the brain and like with the wine example - people who claim that a certain piece of equipment sounds better (no DBT) = it's because for them it is absolutely real - their brain created that reality. Their reaction to it is real. Unfortunately that doesn't mean it will be real for anyone else.... Which also explains why so many people don't want to do DBTs = it ruins their enjoyment of that said equipment.
> 
> ...




  

  
 This experiment is even better.


----------



## mulder01

cel4145 said:


> Do I invest in a product where 20% of the time I am getting a real return, but the other 80% of the time it is fake? Or suppose the ratio was 50/50, real/fake? From my perspective, I don't see the financial sense in investing in something that I cannot ever know if I got a return on my money. I have other things I'd rather spend my money on that do result in real returns.


 
  
 I would only invest in something that was clearly better - especially when it retails well into four figures... For a cable...  Admittedly I haven't done any real proper testing yet but it's looking like no difference.  I would like other open minded people to have a listen to them and see if they claim to hear an improvement.  If so, get them to blind test them, if they fail, that's it for me, 100%, sell them and never buy another expensive cable.  If we ALL heard an improvement, AND could pick it 100% blind, I would accept that I don't understand why, but if it sounds better I'd keep it and be happy to accept that it makes the system better for some unknown reason.  I kinda want to meet someone that can hear the difference but I am doubtful.  And I think people are more likely to be honest about what they hear if they have no investment in the cable themself - if someone had spent $500 or $1000 or $5000 on a cable and I asked them to blind test it they would probably hate me because I'm questioning and doubting them and they don't want to look like a fool or feel like they were scammed, but if I provide a cable at no cost to them and ask them what they think, I think they will be more honest.  
  


reginalb said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0
> 
> And that's why I don't trust my ears.


 
  
  


koolpep said:


>




  
 Ha, these two videos say a fair bit.  Especially the first one where you KNOW you are being tricked but you can't stop being tricked even if you try.  Goes to show that looking at an expensive cable actually DOES sound better, but it only sounds better because you're looking at it, not because it actually sounds better... And as the second video points out, it sounds even better again if you know it's expensive.


----------



## mulder01

dillan said:


> I think it differs from product to product. I am not researched enough with some of the more complex implementations such as "active" filtering. The Schiit Wyrd being one of those active devices. However I know that some of the "passive" filtering is a little more easy to understand. I am kind of a fan of this creative iFi Gemini cable:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless if it actually does anything noticeable, it's still a cool concept to me. What they did here was completely separate the USB's power from the USB's data. So any unwanted interference noise from the transferring power signals would stay separated and ultimately shielded when going into your source. I think it is definitely overpriced at almost $200 USD, but a cool idea nonetheless. Also keep in mind you could completely bypass your computer to power as well and just use a USB hub or something else. Simple EMI shielding and separation of power/data.


 
  
 Isn't USB power 5 volts DC?
 And DC doesn't make noise because there is no expanding and contracting magnetic field?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

For the DAC output nullling thing, you want to try that DiffMaker program...


----------



## Torq

mulder01 said:


> Isn't USB power 5 volts DC?
> And DC doesn't make noise because there is no expanding and contracting magnetic field?


 

 DC, in theory, shouldn't have variation.
  
 But... "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."
  
​Even the best DC regulation isn't perfect and while you might not get electro-magnetic effects, you still get variations in potential difference and ripple.
  
Whether or not those affects are material or not is an entirely different questions! 
  
Either way ... there's no such thing as a "free lunch".


----------



## Ruben123

mulder01 said:


> I would only invest in something that was clearly better - especially when it retails well into four figures... For a cable...  Admittedly I haven't done any real proper testing yet but it's looking like no difference.  I would like other open minded people to have a listen to them and see if they claim to hear an improvement.  If so, get them to blind test them, if they fail, that's it for me, 100%, sell them and never buy another expensive cable.  If we ALL heard an improvement, AND could pick it 100% blind, I would accept that I don't understand why, but if it sounds better I'd keep it and be happy to accept that it makes the system better for some unknown reason.  I kinda want to meet someone that can hear the difference but I am doubtful.  And I think people are more likely to be honest about what they hear if they have no investment in the cable themself - if someone had spent $500 or $1000 or $5000 on a cable and I asked them to blind test it they would probably hate me because I'm questioning and doubting them and they don't want to look like a fool or feel like they were scammed, but if I provide a cable at no cost to them and ask them what they think, I think they will be more honest.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Nice video about something most of us already know. Though the first part of the video's test is done wrong: you can't compare different wine brands from the same grapes! You can compare three the same wines which you then fill in different bottles though.


----------



## castleofargh

mulder01 said:


> Isn't USB power 5 volts DC?
> And DC doesn't make noise because there is no expanding and contracting magnetic field?


 
 the power supply is 5V DC, but the signal uses another path and obviously is not of constant value(or your favorite track is super boring ^_^)


----------



## mulder01

castleofargh said:


> the power supply is 5V DC, but the signal uses another path and obviously is not of constant value(or your favorite track is super boring ^_^)


 
  
 So the signal interferes with itself?
 Or maybe the signal interferes with the DC... which makes it ripple... which interferes with the signal!  
  


torq said:


> DC, in theory, shouldn't have variation.
> 
> But... "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."
> 
> ...


 
  
 Hmm... hearing 5vdc ripple next to a digital signal after it is converted to analogue...
  
 I see what you're saying about imperfect regulation on maybe a desktop PC with an AC supply, but what about on a laptop?  They run a 16vdc (or something) battery.  Surely you can get clean DC from clean DC...  I should start up a thread saying that USB signal from a laptop is better because the DC is more pure than the converted dc from a desktop PC and therefore less interference and therefore higher fidelity and no doubt someone will be like "yeah! I can hear it!"


----------



## Torq

mulder01 said:


> So the signal interferes with itself?
> Or maybe the signal interferes with the DC... which makes it ripple... which interferes with the signal!
> 
> 
> ...


 

 The minute you have a switching signal, which is, by definition, any digital signal at all, the idea of "clean" DC goes out the window.
  
 While the effects can be incredibly tiny, and are, in most cases, perhaps entirely imperceptible/in-audible, they are still present.


----------



## cel4145

mulder01 said:


> I would only invest in something that was clearly better - especially when it retails well into four figures... For a cable...  Admittedly I haven't done any real proper testing yet but it's looking like no difference.  I would like other open minded people to have a listen to them and see if they claim to hear an improvement.  If so, get them to blind test them, if they fail, that's it for me, 100%, sell them and never buy another expensive cable.  If we ALL heard an improvement, AND could pick it 100% blind, I would accept that I don't understand why, but if it sounds better I'd keep it and be happy to accept that it makes the system better for some unknown reason.  I kinda want to meet someone that can hear the difference but I am doubtful.  And I think people are more likely to be honest about what they hear if they have no investment in the cable themself - if someone had spent $500 or $1000 or $5000 on a cable and I asked them to blind test it they would probably hate me because I'm questioning and doubting them and they don't want to look like a fool or feel like they were scammed, but if I provide a cable at no cost to them and ask them what they think, I think they will be more honest.




I have some expensive Audioquest solid copper core bi wire speaker cables that were an extra set of my brothers. Supposed to be the bees knees to use that copper core AND to bi wire speakers on an AVR, according to subjectivists. No difference that I could tell between them and not bi wiring using typical copper 12 gauge cable. 

That being said, I now use KnuConceptz Karma speaker cable, which is a bit more expensive stuff than the regular stuff. Not because of any audio claims of the cable. But rather because the extra PVC coating around the individual wires makes the cable lay better and I like the look of it.


----------



## Orestes1984

lol speaker cables dont make a single ounce of difference. Having handmade speaker cabling out of everything including 18 to 12gauge electrical wire for homes, I can tell you it doesn't make one iota of difference to SQ. I hear a lot of nonsense in "sound science"  but people who suppose they can hear the difference in SQ from different cables has to be up there with the biggest load of nonsense on sound forums. Go to your nearest electrical store yourself and buy the cable, don't fall for "monster" nonsense. Learn how to crimp a plug. Make your own "monster" cable.So much nonsense about this goes on in sound forums, I've been around this hearing this nonsense since I was a teenager 12 years ago... You're wasting your time kids.

 People wasting hundred of dollars on speaker cables makes me lol everytime.


----------



## U-3C

orestes1984 said:


> lol speaker cables dont make a single ounce of difference.





...or do they? 

I'm sure there are some that make at least am ounce, right? maybe half an ounce? ; )

Since sound isn't the only thing about cables that matter.


----------



## Orestes1984

Maybe they'll make your pockets a couple ounces lighter


----------



## Mach3

orestes1984 said:


> lol speaker cables dont make a single ounce of difference. Having handmade speaker cabling out of everything including 18 to 12gauge electrical wire for homes, I can tell you it doesn't make one iota of difference to SQ. I hear a lot of nonsense in "sound science"  but people who suppose they can hear the difference in SQ from different cables has to be up there with the biggest load of nonsense on sound forums. Go to your nearest electrical store yourself and buy the cable, don't fall for "monster" nonsense. Learn how to crimp a plug. Make your own "monster" cable.So much nonsense about this goes on in sound forums, I've been around this hearing this nonsense since I was a teenager 12 years ago... You're wasting your time kids.
> 
> People wasting hundred of dollars on speaker cables makes me lol everytime.


 
  
 It confuse me to the point of near insanity that people spend more on headphone cables than the actually headphone sometimes.


----------



## cel4145

mach3 said:


> It confuse me to the point of near insanity that people spend more on headphone cables than the actually headphone sometimes.




What about a +$2000 DAC to use with $500 headphones? :blink:


----------



## U-3C

cel4145 said:


> What about a +$2000 DAC to use with $500 headphones? :blink:




...what about premium rocks to be placed in the same room as your speakers to get rid of listening fatigue? 0v0


----------



## Orestes1984

I have a rock, it gets rid of sibilance, I don't hear any sibilance in my headphones, would you like to buy my rock?


----------



## U-3C

orestes1984 said:


> I have a rock, it gets rid of sibilance, I don't hear any sibilance in my headphones, would you like to buy my rock?




I'LL PAY 0.40, no, 0.50 USD!!!! I'LL EVEN INCLUDE SHIPPING IN THAT FOR YOU!!!! I'LL BY 3 OF THOSE ROCKS IF YOU CAN GET MORE!!!!!

o(0v0)o


----------



## dprimary

mulder01 said:


> So the signal interferes with itself?
> Or maybe the signal interferes with the DC... which makes it ripple... which interferes with the signal!
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Batteries have both noise and ripple.
  
http://www.hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de/downloads/NoiseMeasurementsOnChemicalBatteries.pdf


----------



## Don Hills

A laptop uses an internal SMPS to convert the DC from the battery to the different voltages used by the electronics. The advantage to running from battery is that you don't have the potential for an earth loop or noise injection which you'd get if the laptop was connected to the mains via its power pack.


----------



## mulder01

cel4145 said:


> What about a +$2000 DAC to use with $500 headphones?


 

 YES
 Man that's annoying.  
 Clearly they are buying without auditioning.  
 Could have spent that on a flight to anywhere in the world to go and listen to some gear and actually be better off long term...
  


orestes1984 said:


> I have a rock, it gets rid of sibilance, I don't hear any sibilance in my headphones, would you like to buy my rock?


 
  
 Don't underprice your rock...
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm
 lol the picture at the bottom is just the worst
  


dprimary said:


> Batteries have both noise and ripple.
> 
> http://www.hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de/downloads/NoiseMeasurementsOnChemicalBatteries.pdf


 
  
 Well then...


----------



## Orestes1984

Holy ****


----------



## Koolpep

Hmmm just a bit food for thought:
  
 Of course the $2,000 DAC for a $500 headphone might sound ridiculous (for my a DAC for $2k always sounds ridiculous but that's personal)....but there might be a strategy behind this.
  
 Since every piece of equipment might have a range of how good it can sound based on what's in front off it in the chain etc. it might make sense to have:
  
 - best source you can get (transport, DAC)
 - best amp you can get
 = your headphones (no matter how expensive) will sound their personal best
  
 While some $500 headphones on a $50 amp might sound like poop - some might sound ok or even as good as it gets. But let's assume the "best amp" is really the best - the headphone will surely sound its best.
  
 And since we have already established that changing the headphones makes the biggest impact - having a great source/amp makes total sense - you stick with it - and change headphones for variety.
  
 Cheers.


----------



## Koolpep

mulder01 said:


> YES
> Man that's annoying.
> Clearly they are buying without auditioning.
> Could have spent that on a flight to anywhere in the world to go and listen to some gear and actually be better off long term...
> ...


 
  
 These guys offer also: http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina60.htm
 EDIT: here is the technical paper: http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina43.htm - enjoy the teleportation tweak
  
 They just call your home, you hold the receiver into your home and the frequencies transmitted via the phone will alter and upgrade your home setup.
  
 These guys are not real - they make fun, can't possibly be real


----------



## mulder01

koolpep said:


> Hmmm just a bit food for thought:
> 
> Of course the $2,000 DAC for a $500 headphone might sound ridiculous (for my a DAC for $2k always sounds ridiculous but that's personal)....but there might be a strategy behind this.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I think the issue is, a lot of headphones around that price range can be run out of an ipod or smart phone and sound just as good as when they are plugged into $$$$ worth of equipment.  I had an opportunity to hear the Final Sonorous X which sells for AUD$6.5k but is easy to drive and comes with a 3.5mm plug on it.  If anything was going to show the difference between premium portable players and an ipod/phone, then these would be the headphones to show it.  Plugged it into my ipod classic and an assortment of A&K players up to about $4k I think.  All of them sounded the same. Maybe there would be a very small difference if you did long term critical listening, but I couldn't tell them apart.  If someone with a $500 pair of cans wanted to spend $2k on an upgrade, they could definitely spend it in a way that upgraded their system in a much more effective way (ie. headphones)
  
 I think one of the main objectives of the sound science forum is to let people know that an on board DAC or something like an objective dac will sound just as good as a $2k DAC...  But everyone in the rest of the forum likes to claim that the dac is the most important because without a good dac the rest of your system suffers.  To use the dreaded car analogy, I would liken the DAC to the tyres.  Yes, you need tyres just like you need a dac in your audio system, but when you have a $500 car, you don't need $2000 tyres to 'make it perform at it's potential'.  If you have a $100,000 car, then yes, it's probably a bit more worthwhile investing some extra $, but if you have a $500 car and are looking for an upgrade in performance, don't go and buy bloody $2000 tyres for it.


----------



## Koolpep

mulder01 said:


> I think the issue is, a lot of headphones around that price range can be run out of an ipod or smart phone and sound just as good as when they are plugged into $$$$ worth of equipment.  I had an opportunity to hear the Final Sonorous X which sells for AUD$6.5k but is easy to drive and comes with a 3.5mm plug on it.  If anything was going to show the difference between premium portable players and an ipod/phone, then these would be the headphones to show it.  Plugged it into my ipod classic and an assortment of A&K players up to about $4k I think.  All of them sounded the same. Maybe there would be a very small difference if you did long term critical listening, but I couldn't tell them apart.  If someone with a $500 pair of cans wanted to spend $2k on an upgrade, they could definitely spend it in a way that upgraded their system in a much more effective way (ie. headphones)
> 
> I think one of the main objectives of the sound science forum is to let people know that an on board DAC or something like an objective dac will sound just as good as a $2k DAC...  But everyone in the rest of the forum likes to claim that the dac is the most important because without a good dac the rest of your system suffers.  To use the dreaded car analogy, I would liken the DAC to the tyres.  Yes, you need tyres just like you need a dac in your audio system, but when you have a $500 car, you don't need $2000 tyres to 'make it perform at it's potential'.  If you have a $100,000 car, then yes, it's probably a bit more worthwhile investing some extra $, but if you have a $500 car and are looking for an upgrade in performance, don't go and buy bloody $2000 tyres for it.


 

 I don't think that the reason of the Sound Sciences forum is to let people know, but rather to discuss things without limitation.And as I said: some headphones - not all. Some are so easy to drive it's wasted. Others - not so much.
  
 And for the car. I am on track days a lot and a petrol head. So, sorry but the tires analogy doesn't work - the tires will make a hell of a difference for your lap times and will be an VERY noticeable upgrade to your $500 car. And likewise a VERY noticeable upgrade for your $100k car as well. Actually your example with the tires is perfectly fine to use for my side of the argument. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The $500 car's potential on the track can only be fully exploited with the best, grippiest tires. Hell even old/used tires of the same make vs. new make a large difference. 
 listen to the first words of: https://youtu.be/rrLQpAt5Mes Chris Harris (2 seconds on a single lap better compared to the standard tire on a GT3, which already has amazing standard tires - that's a huge difference).
  
 https://youtu.be/yw8l8q8w6s4 -> same car - different tires (both crazy good track tires)
  
 Cheers.
  
 EDIT: so we can argue that sometimes NO upgrade will make the headphones sound better - but that for some it matters.


----------



## krismusic

I think the car analogy should become our equivalent of invoking nazis in an online debate. Game over.


----------



## Koolpep

krismusic said:


> I think the car analogy should become our equivalent of invoking nazis in an online debate. Game over.


 

 Haha, ok - I also feel that whatever the analogy from screen resolutions to cars or watches and whatnot - hardly ever work.
  
 Let's just omit any analogies.


----------



## mulder01

Ok then forget that analogy (I am not in car racing).  DACs are like seat covers  
  
 Have you blind tested a bunch of dacs?  Do you think that a $2k dac is a good upgrade option for someone with a $500 pair of headphones?


----------



## Koolpep

mulder01 said:


> Ok then forget that analogy (I am not in car racing).  DACs are like seat covers
> 
> Have you blind tested a bunch of dacs?  Do you think that a $2k dac is a good upgrade option for someone with a $500 pair of headphones?


 

 Yes, I have. Also have blind tested a couple of DAPs...
  
   
  
 Always with my trusted Fiio HS-2 input switcher. The above are some photos of some experiments my friends and I did with some of the joint collection. 
  
 For me - the difference is minimal (at best) - shockingly so - needless to say since I started doing that I have not bought a new DAP and appreciate my phone as source as well.
  
 However, a friend was able to pick two of these out every time - (I couldn't to save my life) so my ears might not be the gold standard. But I live much cheaper and happier now, knowing that for me - no difference to speak of.
  
 Cheers!
  
 PS: I mean my AK100 Mk1 has a headphone out output impedance of 22 Ohms - so it might mess with some low Ohm in-ears - the AK100 Mk2 has 3 Ohms and all is well. I wonder how often things like this get credited to DACs etc....


----------



## pctazhp

If you want to hear differences and spend a lot of money you should be like me. Become a tube-roller


----------



## castleofargh

can I do bread analogy?





  
 if I'm the one baking, the quality of the wheat will really not matter much. charcoal is still charcoal.(I'm an excellent cook, I can do hard boiled eggs and overcooked pasta, if some fancy American restaurant wants to hire me as a chef, I do have the most horrible french accent that goes so well with the job).
  
 seriously, for the reasonable people, it's all about magnitudes, fidelity will never be 100%, noise will always exist... the fidelity we can expect from each components tells us that the headphone is very very very likely to be the weak link in an audio chain. and that even with the very best headphone. headphones must be good in electrical, mechanical, and acoustical domains all at once. so of course it's way easier to get better fidelity from the devices that only need to do the electrical stuff right. it's basic logic, and measurements certainly agree with such idea. in fact measurements make it way more obvious than any audiophile would ever imagine by ear.


----------



## Orestes1984

koolpep said:


> Hmmm just a bit food for thought:
> 
> Of course the $2,000 DAC for a $500 headphone might sound ridiculous (for my a DAC for $2k always sounds ridiculous but that's personal)....but there might be a strategy behind this.
> 
> ...


 

 You are only ever as good as your weakest link and contrary to marketing hype a DAC can actually make the situation worse. Given the quality of the DACs in modern MP3 players and phones I just don't see the need for a DAC at all in the first place. If you want to add more presence and fullness to your stage then by all means add an amplifier, or if you want a warmer sound add some valves, but you don't really need to at least not with the phones I've got as I am concerned.
  
 At the same rate however people are throwing out perfectly good high end receivers just because they don't have HDMI inputs and so you can pick up units that handle even very inefficient headphones for less than $200 such as my Onkyo unit which handles an input impedence of 470‎Ω and is 110w per channel I got at a yard sale for less than that simply because it's a 12 year old unit that doesn't have HDMI. It has more than enough to blow up even the most high end or inneficient of headphones.
  
 People just have a tendency to buy things they don't need and can spend on better quality gear down the road. Given my Focal headphones have a nominal impedance of 32‎Ω and are fairly efficient I would say I've got a complete an utter overkill, but I didn't really pick this receiver up off a yard sale to listen to headphones. If we're talking about the amount of impedence to make a speaker go blip, then I've got that covered 10 times over.
  
 Even my iPhone will crank out a precautionary unlistenable sound stage of 100db out of its DAC, they are very good devices by themselves and you will only need an amplifier for the most inefficient of speakers/phones.


----------



## Koolpep

orestes1984 said:


> You are only ever as good as your weakest link and contrary to marketing hype a DAC can actually make the situation worse. Given the quality of the DACs in modern MP3 players and phones I just don't see the need for a DAC at all in the first place. If you want to add more presence and fullness to your stage then by all means add an amplifier. At that rate however and the rate people are throwing out perfectly good high end receivers just because they don't have HDMI inputs you can pick up units that handle even very inefficient headphones for less than $200 such as my Onkyo unit which handles an input impedence of 470‎Ω and is 110w per channel. More than enough to blow up even the most high end of headphones.
> 
> People just have a tendency to buy things they don't need and can spend on better quality gear down the road. Given my Focal headphones have a nominal impedance of 32‎Ω and are fairly efficient I would say I've got a complete an utter overkill, but I didn't really pick this receiver up off a yard sale to listen to headphones.


 

 Yep agreed. I didn't say by the way that this was my personal strategy - but that I can see where a guy would be coming from following that strategy. I am so excited listening to a vintage DAC/Amp from Sansui with a rare Sanyo hybrid DAC and it sounds lovely, picked that up for a few bucks and love it.


----------



## Orestes1984

Exactly, and given that this is "sound science" we should be encouraging more people to spend money where it actually counts and making note of the fact that there are plenty of ways to get incredibly cheap and high quality setup without breaking the bank, particularly in this era where even brands like Sennheiser are throwing themselves into the "lifestyle" market that was previously inhabited solely by BOSE and later Beats, I think it should just be a common duty service.
  
 One of the reasons why I went to Focal was a middle finger salute to this kind of behavior, I've always trusted Senn to produce true sound at a modest price, but not anymore. In reality I should have just bought another pair of vintage AKG's to add to the collection. I'm aware there are are good Senns and bad Senns but that gap is getting wider and wider and wider, and even more expensive along the way.


----------



## cel4145

mulder01 said:


> I think the issue is, a lot of headphones around that price range can be run out of an ipod or smart phone and sound just as good as when they are plugged into $$$$ worth of equipment.  I had an opportunity to hear the Final Sonorous X which sells for AUD$6.5k but is easy to drive and comes with a 3.5mm plug on it.  If anything was going to show the difference between premium portable players and an ipod/phone, then these would be the headphones to show it.  Plugged it into my ipod classic and an assortment of A&K players up to about $4k I think.  All of them sounded the same. Maybe there would be a very small difference if you did long term critical listening, but I couldn't tell them apart.  If someone with a $500 pair of cans wanted to spend $2k on an upgrade, they could definitely spend it in a way that upgraded their system in a much more effective way (ie. headphones)
> 
> I think one of the main objectives of the sound science forum is to let people know that an on board DAC or something like an objective dac will sound just as good as a $2k DAC...  But everyone in the rest of the forum likes to claim that the dac is the most important because without a good dac the rest of your system suffers.  To use the dreaded car analogy, I would liken the DAC to the tyres.  Yes, you need tyres just like you need a dac in your audio system, but when you have a $500 car, you don't need $2000 tyres to 'make it perform at it's potential'.  If you have a $100,000 car, then yes, it's probably a bit more worthwhile investing some extra $, but if you have a $500 car and are looking for an upgrade in performance, don't go and buy bloody $2000 tyres for it.




I agree with most of what you say. A $500 car? That's like a $10 set of headphones. Yep. Don't need to upgrade any tires/electronics. Spend the money on a better car/headphone.  

But otherwise, I agree with Koolpep. The tire analogy doesn't work very well because higher performance tires do have measurable performance benefits. Going from a $100-$200 DAC to a $2000 DAC likely may offer nothing at all. But I recently explained to my son the reason we put $110 a piece performance all season radials on his 2008 Honda fit vs. $60 ones (it has tiny tires, so $110 are very high performance). My strategy? Don't cheap out on tires on your car. First, better hardness rating so more durability--saves money in the long run. Second, in day to day driving you might not notice a lot of difference. But the first time you see people hydroplaning in their cars on wet roads due to cheap tires, or you have to swerve hard to avoid an accident and your car sticks to the road, or you brake hard and you narrowly miss plowing in the back of someone, that's when you pat yourself on the back that you spent extra money on tires 



krismusic said:


> I think the car analogy should become our equivalent of invoking nazis in an online debate. Game over.




Or, at least, the person making the analogy needs to thoroughly understand the technical aspects of whatever car attribute they are comparing


----------



## pureangus62

I think the main problem is that component pricing increases exponentially as its quality increases. While the capacitor with the tightest tolerances may cost $300 a pop, its probably not going to improve SQ over one that is say $10 each. Slap 50 of them in a DAC and regardless of how impressive the spec sheet is and how little difference there is in sound, the material cost is through the roof. This combined with marketing buzzwords like "flagship" gives you a huge price tag for what could very well be minimal (if any) improvement


----------



## terry parr

I don't get by head-fi too often, anymore (even to just lurk), but I still do pop in from time-to-time.  glad I popped in now, to catch this thread.  kinda reminds me of the old days, where a thoughtful discussion thread (that was more about delivering the steak, rather than just selling the sizzle) seemed to be a more frequent occurrence!   (to my mind, at least). 
  
 congrats to Dillan for getting the ball rolling, and for all you guys for contributing to a good thread.  I thought the thread read a little better in the beginning pages (where the comments stayed closer to the original points raised), but I've still followed it, even when the thread started to drift.  (there were interesting comments during those times, too).


----------



## KT66

The reason why I landed here about 6 years ago was that I was fed up with the traditional 2 channel hifi industry, it had got to the point where any upgrade to my system, even just a tonearm, was £3k plus, that to me to hard to justify to SWMBO or myself.

I loved the attitude here then of squeezing the most out of cheapish products, and that for less than a grand I could get an HM801 with DT1350, resulting in an incredible sound.

AK started entering the dark side first with silly prices and Charles A responded by literally taking the piss.

It's a shame to see prices of AK240s and Hifiman flagship headphones, but don't forget that for much much less you can get 90% of that sound with DX80 and a pair of XSs or DT1350.

And cables, don't get me started on cables, one of the reasons I came here was to get away from Nordost and the like, and I see Mike Mercer using Odin or Valhalla, and I see I am not safe.

Headfi is still vfm compared to normal hifi but the gap is getting closer and I see more and more old hifi industry bods appearing and trying to jump on the band wagon. 

The only traditional hifi manufacturer that has successfully moved into Head fi is Chord, for me B&W, Arcam, Focal, Meridian etc just don't get it.


----------



## krismusic

cel4145 said:


> I agree with most of what you say. A $500 car? That's like a $10 set of headphones. Yep. Don't need to upgrade any tires/electronics. Spend the money on a better car/headphone.
> 
> But otherwise, I agree with Koolpep. The tire analogy doesn't work very well because higher performance tires do have measurable performance benefits. Going from a $100-$200 DAC to a $2000 DAC likely may offer nothing at all. But I recently explained to my son the reason we put $110 a piece performance all season radials on his 2008 Honda fit vs. $60 ones (it has tiny tires, so $110 are very high performance). My strategy? Don't cheap out on tires on your car. First, better hardness rating so more durability--saves money in the long run. Second, in day to day driving you might not notice a lot of difference. But the first time you see people hydroplaning in their cars on wet roads due to cheap tires, or you have to swerve hard to avoid an accident and your car sticks to the road, or you brake hard and you narrowly miss plowing in the back of someone, that's when you pat yourself on the back that you spent extra money on tires
> Or, at least, the person making the analogy needs to thoroughly understand the technical aspects of whatever car attribute they are comparing



I just think that audio has absolutely nothing in common with cars and vice versa. 
I completely agree with you about tires though!


----------



## cel4145

krismusic said:


> I completely agree with you about tires though!




I'm a little worried after his comment that mulder might be putting cheap tires on his car. Makes me cringe a little to imagine riding around on budget tires. :eek:


----------



## U-3C

Honestly I feel more and more disappointed as I spend time reading into other dacs by following their discussion threads.

The one I have has had driver issues for months, sometimes catastrophic, as in Windows shuts itself down to save itself at times due to conflicts. I see other popular dacs, such as the Schiit Modi, also has driver issues at times. These seem to have arose due to Windows 10, but they are a huge inconvenience factor and are just another reason to make me wonder...what's the point compared to onboard audio that works just fine and sound just as good if you bypass whatever the drivers are doing in the background and move/shield the cables in your pc so there's no noise. I find it funny because the noise for on my external dac is higher than my onboard audio....


----------



## musikevan

Comparing audible differences in DACs can be easy and inexpensive...many older tablets end up in the used marketplace for about $20-$30. Compare an Alcatel pop 7 to an Azpen a727 for noticeable, consistent differences. At those prices, I could save for better headphones or amplifier, or better yet, tix to your local community orchestra.


----------



## U-3C

musikevan said:


> Comparing audible differences in DACs can be easy and inexpensive...many older tablets end up in the used marketplace for about $20-$30. Compare an Alcatel pop 7 to an Azpen a727 for noticeable, consistent differences. At those prices, I could save for better headphones or amplifier, or better yet, tix to your local community orchestra.




I have this old MP3 player from over 10 years ago. It costs less than 10 bucks, if I remember correctly. With it, I was finally able to actually notice a difference! Hooray!!!

Modern smartphones/tablets compared to well implemented AK4490...meh. Nothing.


----------



## reginalb

u-3c said:


> I have this old MP3 player from over 10 years ago. It costs less than 10 bucks, if I remember correctly. With it, I was finally able to actually notice a difference! Hooray!!!
> 
> Modern smartphones/tablets compared to well implemented AK4490...meh. Nothing.


 
  
 If you need an outboard DAC pickup a Behringer UCA202 or 222. Works great, no driver issues, even through a USB3 hub. I don't get dropouts, and I can use its input to measure FR. And it was $30. Can't really beat that. 
  
 If you want something with a good low impedance amp built in, you can get a Schiit Fulla, and use a usb 2.0 port or hub. Or just use the onboard audio, for 90% of use cases you'll be just fine with that


----------



## U-3C

reginalb said:


> If you need an outboard DAC pickup a Behringer UCA202 or 222. Works great, no driver issues, even through a USB3 hub. I don't get dropouts, and I can use its input to measure FR. And it was $30. Can't really beat that.
> 
> If you want something with a good low impedance amp built in, you can get a Schiit Fulla, and use a usb 2.0 port or hub. Or just use the onboard audio, for 90% of use cases you'll be just fine with that




Unfortunately I already have a outboard dac that measures better than both, and I still can't hear a difference between that and my onboard, so I guess I simply don't need to spend money on outboards, even if it's just 10 bucks. I'll just save that 30 dollars and buy a good book instead~


----------



## mulder01

Ok nobody liked my car analogy because sometimes you don't just want the standard tyres.  Fair enough.  I still maintain that spending your $2.5k on a $500 car and adding $2000 tryes to it is a dumb idea.


----------



## U-3C

mulder01 said:


> Ok nobody liked my car analogy because sometimes you don't just want the standard tyres.  Fair enough.  I still maintain that spending your $2.5k on a $500 car and adding $2000 tryes to it is a dumb idea.




I think your analogy is fine!

People are just pointing out some differences to be aware of. If you have 2500 dollars to spend, then unless you got a very good car at a very low price, you should in indeed invest that money in making sure that car is even safe to drive...


----------



## mulder01

Thanks for the support  Yeah, look, I appreciate that someone could go out and buy a second hand V8 paddock basher with shot tyres and improve their race time around a track with a tyre upgrade. I was thinking more from my own personal history where the first car I bought was a 1978 Toyota Corolla which cost about $500. It had so little power that from a standing start, on a GRAVEL ROAD, I could floor the accelerator and it would take off normally without any wheel spinnage. I think the engine would have had possibly single digits worth of horsepower left. In my case better tryes would not have helped me get off the mark. Then people went and poked holes in my story and now I'm paying for it.


----------



## terry parr

headphone marketing is changing.  but the older, respected, and venerable manufacturers seem to be taking marketing and advertising cues from inferior-sounding headphone makers!   
  
  *Orestes1984* just touched on the current marketing on post #439. 
  
  I popped on the AKG website recently to have a look around, and the headphone section of their site looks like advertising copy that would look at home in the pages of COSMOPOLITAN magazine. (a magazine aimed at 20-year-old young women).  I really don't know what the "target demographic" of that magazine is, but that sounds about right.  college sophomores. 
  
 "Courtney" wants a headphone that plugs into her phone, that are lightweight and doesn't slide around on her head while she's working out. 
  
 what do the headphones sound like, Courtney?
  
 "oh, they're great!  you can almost feel the bass!"     
  
  
  
  
 nothing wrong with the above scenario.  I say let Courtney enjoy her headphones.   but, what I see happening here is the big headphone makers concentrating more on this market, and pretty much letting the mid-tier, ("buick" models of the headphone industry, if you will) begin to slide.  pretty soon, the choices that people will have among the mid-level offerings (truly good phones, but priced reasonably) will begin to shrink. 
  
 and, if you want truly good sounding phones, (which will sound noticeably better than entry-level),  then be prepared to pay a premium.      
  
  
  
 to me, I think the new marketing "tarnishes" the well-established brands, and leads people who have been in the headphone listening hobby for some time, to begin to take the brand less seriously.
  
 although I don't think the older manufacturers are worried too much about what their older customers think.  they're after the younger market.  and, if the new marketing approach moves product (maybe an inferior product than what they were once known for), but if it makes that companies' bottom line look better, then, hey.  it's successful.


----------



## terry parr

excuse me, guys.  didn't mean to interrupt the discussion about car tires.  the subject matter changes quickly around here, sometimes, in these threads.
  
 now my comment on headphone marketing sounds like a rude "butt-in" and completely out of context!
  
  
  
 so what does everybody think the best high-performance road tire is?


----------



## U-3C

terry parr said:


> headphone marketing is changing.  but the older, respected, and venerable manufacturers seem to be taking marketing and advertising cues from inferior-sounding headphone makers!
> 
> *Orestes1984* just touched on the current marketing on post #439.
> 
> ...




Welp, that's the "Beats Factor" that Sean Olive from AKG talked about. It doesn't seem to be what humans really like in general, but thanks to the success of companies like Beats, people _think _they want it, so they will buy it and judge headphones by the bass quantity. Whenever I walk into Best Buy, I see countless headphones by reputable brands. However, every product has the word "bass" labelled large on the packaging. Funny. Some of them has been reviewed as "lacking bass."

Hey, if it sells, companies will provide it.


----------



## cel4145

terry parr said:


> nothing wrong with the above scenario.  I say let Courtney enjoy her headphones.   but, what I see happening here is the big headphone makers concentrating more on this market, and pretty much letting the mid-tier, ("buick" models of the headphone industry, if you will) begin to slide.  pretty soon, the choices that people will have among the mid-level offerings (truly good phones, but priced reasonably) will begin to shrink.




Yeah, but we now have a ton of people that started out a few years ago with iPhones with stock earbuds that have pretty good sound, or Beats people too, that may be ready to take the next step to something better. Happens all the time on the intro forum here. The more people that get exposed to headphones and use them constantly, the more of them "grow up" as listeners and want better sound. And they have aged, too, so they often have more disposable income.


----------



## evanatch

I joined head-fi six years ago, but I tend to only come by for a few weeks every 2-3 years when I decide I want to buy new headphones. This time, it feels a bit different. 90% of the content on the main discussion forums is in megathreads for every different product, and 90% of the content of those threads is people congratulating each other on what great purchases they've made. The first page of the thread will be filled with glowing reviews, usually comparing the headphone favorably to the HD800, whether it costs $200 or $4000. It seems that the forum overall has seen a push towards serving those who see buying gear as a hobby, probably because those are the most profitable targets for ads. Newcomers are pushed to the recommendations forum, which sees less traffic, and critical discussion seems to have been pushed here. Overall, it feels harder to determine which reviews represent the gear genuinely, especially when some reviewers shower everything they get for free with adulation. Maybe I didn't notice it before, but head-fi definitely seems to have become more commercialized over time, and headphone manufacturers now seem acutely aware that this is where opinions about their products are formed and spread.


----------



## sxr71

krismusic said:


> I wanted to post this morning but work got in the way! Forgive me if its a little out of context now.
> Of course there are charlatans and hucksters in audio.
> I do believe however that there are designers and engineers who are genuinely involved in trying to push forward what is possible within their field.
> I wonder how these genuine electrical engineers compensate for placebo etc.
> ...





You're right it was quite bitter and it was taken down to give me time to make it less offensive but keep the basic points. I haven't gotten around to it. 

I think where the bitterness comes from is that after dropping thousands on this stuff I decided to stay away for years and got sucked back in like an idiot. The bitterness comes from anger at myself for allowing myself to get suckered again. I came to a point where I realized how much fluff and opinion is on the boards. Then when every tom, dick and Harry got involved I knew I had to be out. I mean that in terms of manufacturers and to a degree posters. 

I don't have a problem with marketers. Beats mainstreamed our hobby and all of a sudden everyone wants $300 for a headphone. The average consumer used to think that was Bose money and now they can choose to spend that at any one of 50 vendors for a headphone. It also got really upsetting that even reputable vendors (AKG and Sennheiser) got into the Beats style business of limited editions, different colors that cost more. It took what was a technical business and made it a fashion business. All the little tiny variations for extra money and no sound difference was getting too much. It became a field for fashionistas and not for technical, scientific people. 

Also my experience with a lot of (now) reputable brands in portable audio was that stuff was breaking. I don't want to name any brands but some of the early products from some of these names were faulty. I have a desk drawer of broken or faulty amps. You might want to ask why I didn't send them back. I know it sounds cliche but really I don't have time for this run around of sending stuff back and waiting on repairs. I really don't want to list names. For one of them I found a local service center with very prompt support from the manufacturer and it's been 8 months and no response from the service center. I've moved away from the area and given up on that item. I know even the best companies have products that fail but the number in this business is very high. It's too high given the pricing. You can tell everything is made to be disposable and for you to buy the next one. 

Again I'm not bitter about money spent that's like crying about split milk. I don't have time for that. But this time walking into an Apple Store trying to get my glass fixed I got sucked in. It was amazing. Built in dac/amp in the cable. Planar dynamic for portable. My latent portable audiofool was awakened. 

Again I failed. Sucked in like a pleb consumer moron. It sounds pretty good. The planar aspect checks a geek box for me. The built in dac/amp is pure geek candy. But the thing snapped like cheap bamboo chopstick. 

I've posted pictures of it. And it upsets me quite a bit that white knight types want to post about how they supposedly throw them around and sleep on them, step on them etc. The picture is crystal clear about how darn thin the connection is. It's maybe suitable for a home headphone at best. I mean at best. The connection is 2.5mm of hollow swiveling metal. You have to be kidding me. It is nowhere near where it needs to be for putting in a travel bag at all. 

Where the additional bitterness comes from is how much these fanboys will make excuses for their brand. The picture is clear that the thickness of the connection is inadequate. But that basic science is out the door in favor of "I did blah blah to mine and they didn't break". Another person also had this happen and yet nobody apparently read that. 

I think people are extremely biased towards their brands and products. They cannot be bothered to see basic reason. Just because your pair didn't break after your dog/gf whatever slept on them means nothing. 

I suppose the same could be said of me. But I have the pictures of the connection and even a lay man would be able to figure out that isn't strong enough for a travel phone. Yet everybody keeps singing the praises and some day we should work out over time if it is defective design. Again I don't have time for this. I know the history of this and other companies in this space. First they try to sweep it under the rug. Then they deny. Then maybe they'll issue a campaign. This industry and the people at head fi make it acceptable for poor design and experimental products to reach the shelves. I don't want to name names but you know the names. 

People here make allowances for crap nobody would put up with anywhere else. 

I used to be a student. I used to have time to deal with cutting edge unfinished half baked stuff. It was cool. I just don't have time for it anymore. I'm also upset that buying stuff at an Apple Store gives you only 14 days to return and I still doubt they would take a broken product back. So I feel ripped off. I would love to unwind this deal. I made a mistake at the Apple Store and I wish I never got back into this. I should have done my research and gotten those Sony IEMs. $80 I don't care if I lose them. They sound amazing. In an aircraft cabin you can't get better than 30-40dB s/n ratio either. But really to me they have the detail of the ER4s with some real bass. They are perfect for me.


PS Also sorry I don't think iRiver counts as anything. They are a known 3rd tier manufacturer that reinvented itself with a hipster name and now charges $4k for a portable player. That people will buy it just speaks volumes.


----------



## cel4145

sxr71 said:


> But this time walking into an Apple Store trying to get my glass fixed I got sucked in.




The Apple Store. Always feels like some strange cult where all of the sales people walk and talk the same and act like they are on Prozac or something. LOL

Time for you to go Android and join the dark side of the force


----------



## sxr71

cel4145 said:


> The Apple Store. Always feels like some strange cult where all of the sales people walk and talk the same and act like they are on Prozac or something. LOL
> 
> Time for you to go Android and join the dark side of the force




I was an early adopter so I'm stuck on this Apple ecosystem. Also I do believe that Apple is more likely to preserve user privacy than Google. But yeah Apple stuff is typically overrated. I'll tell you iOS has become a buggy POS of late. Pretty bad. I use Mac also but IMHO Windows 10 blows it out of the water. Plus all the amazing laptops in the Windows world. Lighter, thinner, faster, more functional.


----------



## Dillan

I so much agree with the last few posts in the thread.


----------



## cel4145

sxr71 said:


> Also I do believe that Apple is more likely to preserve user privacy than Google.




You mean like like tracking their users every move, even though users may not realize it? LOL


----------



## pureangus62

sxr71 said:


> I think people are extremely biased towards their brands and products. They cannot be bothered to see basic reason.


 
  
 This line stood out to me the most. Just because so-and-so made it it's by default flawless and cannot be talked down upon without attack. Also, regardless of build quality, spec, etc its GREAT! (and pricey)


----------



## sxr71

evanatch said:


> I joined head-fi six years ago, but I tend to only come by for a few weeks every 2-3 years when I decide I want to buy new headphones. This time, it feels a bit different. 90% of the content on the main discussion forums is in megathreads for every different product, and 90% of the content of those threads is people congratulating each other on what great purchases they've made. The first page of the thread will be filled with glowing reviews, usually comparing the headphone favorably to the HD800, whether it costs $200 or $4000. It seems that the forum overall has seen a push towards serving those who see buying gear as a hobby, probably because those are the most profitable targets for ads. Newcomers are pushed to the recommendations forum, which sees less traffic, and critical discussion seems to have been pushed here. Overall, it feels harder to determine which reviews represent the gear genuinely, especially when some reviewers shower everything they get for free with adulation. Maybe I didn't notice it before, but head-fi definitely seems to have become more commercialized over time, and headphone manufacturers now seem acutely aware that this is where opinions about their products are formed and spread.




This is the number one mistake I made. When researching headphones by habit I check Head-Fi. All you will get no matter what the product is "buy it, buy it, but it, best thing I ever heard, you'd be missing out without it, make sure you get an amp that is up to the level of those phones, buy it. 

Standard response to dissenting opinions: your source sucks, your amp is weak, you haven't spent enough on your stuff that you would like the whole shebang with a Stockholm syndrome like fervor. After you drop that kind of cash you're going to like it period. So the solution is to spend enough that you will have to like it. 

It's not Head-Fi's fault that this industry got commercialized. It was just lucky to be in the right place at the right time. I remember buying homemade Xin Feng amps. Those were great for what they were. He could have barely profited off those if at all. 

Then the iPhone came out. Everybody had an MP3 player. Then Beats came in to cash in on it. But even the good traditional manufacturers went astray. Rerelasing product. Making special editions with cosmetic features. Releasing problems items and reiterating with +1 or +5 added to the model number within a year. Got Shure SE530? It's crap now. You need SE535. Got K701? Total garbage. You need K702. We fixed the crappy parts. It became a clear money grab IMHO. We're talking about top notch legitimate headphone brands here. 

Also there used to be niches. Shure did microphones and IEMs. It made sense for their clients. Sennheiser did headphones it's what their clients needed. Now it's a free for all. Shure making headphones, Sennheiser making IEMs. I'm not saying they don't have the right to. But for companies that spend years developing products and releasing product every 5-10 years a barrage of stuff came out really fast. You have to think these are just released to capture dollars. Talk to Chinese OEM and put your logo on it and crank it out. 

Again I don't have time to deal with upstart type products. I'm used to buying from firms that have a track record in the industry they make products in. I know it's narrow minded to block out a product just for that reason but you have to realize at some point the same engineers the company is known for had nothing to do with what's coming out now. 

People certainly are clueless. If you drive a Porsche SUV is that really a Porsche? It's a Volkswagen with a Porsche badge. Come on since when were they known for making SUVs? Seriously.


----------



## sxr71

cel4145 said:


> You mean like like tracking their users every move, even though users may not realize it? LOL




I've disabled all that stuff and Siri. But you have to remember how hard it was to get into that one guy's phone. You know who I mean.


----------



## Orestes1984

I didn't mean to start off this discussion but anyway it's here now, the biggest problem I see with "Best Buy" and other consumer Hi-Fi stores is that they have a target consumer, and a person called a "buyer" or whatever fangdangled title they give them in the store to buy for a consumer otherwise the store goes broke. It's just natural that the buyer, buys stock that targets a set demographic. None the less it is disappointing. I listened to a rack full of Sony and Senbheisers, then for laughs I listened to a rack full of BOSE and Beats headphones, mein gott. But everything has its marketing point and little Sally wants her bass, and uncle Bob wants to cut the cord.
  
 To those that know better and can get a better deal elsewhere I say go for it, ignore the PR and marketing nonsense and buy in. I got suckered in a little while ago buying Focal's as a middle finger salute to the industry and ending up buying a set of Focal Spirits, they sound pretty damn good, but I don't think I would have otherwise spent the $300 MSRP on them other than to say I had to be in on the market and buying a set of $300 headphones.
  
 For everyone else, dig through the reviews on here and elsewhere and find some actual audiophiles reviews and be more open minded to using ebay, craigs list or whatever and using your legs/transport to go out there and find yourself a better deal. In future I will be going back to this way of purchasing and giving advice in such a manner for everyone else.
  
 The audifools market is a mugs game.


----------



## terry parr

sxr71 said:


> This is the number one mistake I made. When researching headphones by habit I check Head-Fi. All you will get no matter what the product is "buy it, buy it, but it, best thing I ever heard, you'd be missing out without it, make sure you get an amp that is up to the level of those phones, buy it.
> 
> Standard response to dissenting opinions: your source sucks, your amp is weak, you haven't spent enough on your stuff that you would like the whole shebang with a Stockholm syndrome like fervor. After you drop that kind of cash you're going to like it period. So the solution is to spend enough that you will have to like it.


 
 I think a lot of us here have made expensive mistakes with regards to purchasing equipment that we soon found ourselves regretting.  but, how's this for industrial-strength stupid?  ordering an esoteric, boutique, specialty item that you've never heard, but doesn't have a return policy?  had to special order it from an audio equipment retailer here in the states, or get it shipped from Europe.  well, I ordered it.
  
 dumb.  
  
   I write this as a warning to others.  don't let the feeling of "i know i'm taking a risk by not being able to send it back, but I really don't want to miss out on the experience of owning this unique, nice-looking piece of gear, which promises to be a "game changer."   if I don't get it, i'll probably always regret it because i'll always wonder what it would've sounded like."   
  
 "game changer". 
  
 sound familiar? 
  
  the piece was very well-reviewed by not just this site, but on other audio-related sites as well.   
  
  
 I wonder, though, that if anyone had stepped into that thread (where everyone was extolling the virtues of that piece, and where I was getting more and more stoked with each additional positive review that I read),  if someone here (even somebody that I recognized and trusted for honest, and reasonable-sounding advice),  if that person tried to introduce some common sense and reason, would I have listened at the time? 
  
  
 this is why I can't be overly-critical of people who get swept-up in the mania.  I've been swept-up, too.  
  
 maybe this post will serve as a cautionary tale for some folks down the line. 
  
 you can read a long thread of so many people (people who you think are similar to you.  people who are serious about their music, and who want the best sound possible).  and, you think, "can all these people be wrong?"
  
 the answer, is YES!


----------



## richard51

i will repeat myself.... the better purchase for your first path in audiophile world, will  definitely be used cheap  vintage  with great pedigree, and second, for speakers, no upgrade can beat  cheap room treatment, and  read about sorbothane  duro 70 for *damping all your gear*, cost is low and returns very high if rightly implemented....
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 all cie. sold you their product pretending that they are perfect  directly from their hand and more it is costly, less you  give a damn for the right implementation and use of the product....BUT all gear vibrate and are plague by negative resonance, without damping them the sound is never optimal, speakers and headphone alike.... No speakers sound to his potential in a room not treated acoustically.... It is possible to treat a room for 40 dollars with different kind of foam sheet or plate, i have make it for my room and the results are spectacular....No speakers sound optimal and none of my headphones without sorbothane also....


----------



## Orestes1984

It is possible to treat a room with nothing more than used egg cartons and packing foam and it works surprisingly well.


----------



## richard51

orestes1984 said:


> It is possible to treat a room with nothing more than used egg cartons and packing foam and it works surprisingly well.


 
 i am sure it works, cheap room treatment is more important that people thinks...


----------



## Orestes1984

The point of having sound treatment is that your sound bounces around and never hits a dead spot so having millions of tiny things laying out on or in your walls achieves said point, now you can spend countless amounts of dollars and hours laying out dynamat, or you can go down the road of picking up something that is literally thrown away.
  
 We set up a studio in the early 1990s out of a single downstairs living area using nothing but egg cartons and packing foam, it worked splendidly for the job.


----------



## U-3C

Any resources you recommend on learning about room treatment? Total noon here. Don't wanna google and fall into the head-fi equivalent of speakers/room acoustics.


----------



## richard51

u-3c said:


> Any resources you recommend on learning about room treatment? Total noon here. Don't wanna google and fall into the head-fi equivalent of speakers/room acoustics.


 
 try different panels made of varied kind of foam, compressed foam and not compressed, light foam and more thick listen with your ears and adapt...
  
 Dont put that on all surface, put them asymmetrically , remember that some absorb more than reflect certain frequencies, some other the reverse, treat also the ceiling  of the room.... For example i put on my ceiling  some thin foam relatively dense square pieces , i use these normally  for wrapping  the books i ship...
  
 You must experiment and listen the results, each room is different and this is fun...


----------



## terry parr

ah, *Richard*, if the suggestion about getting a vintage amp was directed towards me, then you're "preaching to the choir".  my current headphone amp of choice is a 1970's-era sony str-6055. 
  
 (check my profile).
  
 I recognize you from the "vintage amps and receivers" forum, but you may not recognize me (even though i have posted there, i'm not a frequent poster to that forum). 
  
 cheers!


----------



## Orestes1984

richard51 said:


> try different panels made of varied kind of foam, compressed foam and not compressed, light foam and more thick listen with your ears and adapt...
> 
> Dont put that on all surface, put them asymmetrically , remember that some absorb more than reflect certain frequencies, some other the reverse, treat also the ceiling  of the room.... For example i put on my ceiling  some thin foam relatively dense square pieces , i use these normally  for wrapping  the books i ship...
> 
> You must experiment and listen the results, each room is different and this is fun...


 

 This is good advice. There is no one way to treat any room, trial by error and using your ear helps a lot. Using a proper desk with an EQ comes next. The point is sound treating a room does not have to be expensive either, though it is time consuming especially in larger rooms. My best advice is to start small with a designated listening room such as your home office rather than trying to treat a whole living area.


----------



## cel4145

u-3c said:


> Any resources you recommend on learning about room treatment? Total noon here. Don't wanna google and fall into the head-fi equivalent of speakers/room acoustics.




Ethan Winer is a very good source. He's got some basic information on the web that first discusses speaker placement and then how to for room treatment: http://realtraps.com/art_room-setup.htm. This one will give you the basics of why you want to eliminate reflections: http://realtraps.com/rfz.htm. I'd probably read it first.


----------



## cel4145

orestes1984 said:


> There is no one way to treat any room, trial by error and using your ear helps a lot.




It's not all trial and error. See the piece I just linked to for U-3C: http://realtraps.com/rfz.htm. You can use a mirror to figure out the first reflection points.


----------



## richard51

there is evidently some basic principles everybody must read.... ultimately it is done , if you have no means for measuring with the ears....My experiment was conducted progressively, one step at a time with great success , only choose  different kind of foam. densites, thickness, with different type of surface, polished and rough one...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




And for sure read the links above... thanks for them


----------



## LajostheHun

musikevan said:


> Comparing audible differences in DACs can be easy and inexpensive...many older tablets end up in the used marketplace for about $20-$30. Compare an Alcatel pop 7 to an Azpen a727 for noticeable, consistent differences. At those prices, I could save for better headphones or amplifier, or better yet, tix to your local community orchestra.



Except you not comparing DACs but the entire audio output from device to device, so it would be impossible to lay any differences by their DACs alone.


----------



## cel4145

richard51 said:


> there is evidently some basic principles everybody must read.... ultimately it is done , if you have no means for measuring with the ears....My experiment was conducted progressively, one step at a time with great success , only choose  different kind of foam. densites, thickness, with different type of surface, polished and rough one...:atsmile: And for sure read the links above... thanks for them




Glad to help. The mirror trick is the best. Before I learned about that, I always wondered if the way to do it accurately was to have to get out a protractor, some measuring tape, and find a geometry book. Instead, you just need a mirror and a friend to it hold up around the room while you sit in the listening postion. So much easier on the brain. LOL


----------



## dprimary

orestes1984 said:


> It is possible to treat a room with nothing more than used egg cartons and packing foam and it works surprisingly well.


 

 Um No


----------



## Orestes1984

cel4145 said:


> Glad to help. The mirror trick is the best. Before I learned about that, I always wondered if the way to do it accurately was to have to get out a protractor, some measuring tape, and find a geometry book. Instead, you just need a mirror and a friend to it hold up around the room while you sit in the listening postion. So much easier on the brain. LOL


 

 Thanks for that I evidently thought the same that without some witchcraft and mathematics that there was no easy way of doing it.


----------



## Orestes1984

dprimary said:


> Um No


 
 Considering I've seen and helped with the application in process it definitely is more than possible. What the egg cartons will do is stop the sounds inside the room from reflecting all over the place. What the foam does there in is add to the density of the material to dampen sound as a result.


----------



## dprimary

u-3c said:


> Any resources you recommend on learning about room treatment? Total noon here. Don't wanna google and fall into the head-fi equivalent of speakers/room acoustics.


 
 http://outextbook.com/?product=acoustic-absorbers-and-diffusers-theory-design-and-application-second-edition
  
 https://www.amazon.com/Home-Recording-Studio-Build-Like/dp/143545717X
  
 https://books.google.com/books?id=6tiJ1cwnwxoC


----------



## mulder01

terry parr said:


> I think a lot of us here have made expensive mistakes with regards to purchasing equipment that we soon found ourselves regretting.  but, how's this for industrial-strength stupid?  ordering an esoteric, boutique, specialty item that you've never heard, but doesn't have a return policy?  had to special order it from an audio equipment retailer here in the states, or get it shipped from Europe.  well, I ordered it.
> 
> dumb.
> 
> ...


 
  
 OK I'm not getting all the subtle hints.  What was it?  We've probably all bought something we didn't need to.  I know I have.


----------



## dprimary

orestes1984 said:


> Considering I've seen and helped with the application in process it definitely is more than possible. What the egg cartons will do is stop the sounds inside the room from reflecting all over the place. What the foam does there in is add to the density of the material to dampen sound as a result.


 

 I won't say egg crates do nothing. But unless the walls are glass, mirrors, or ceramic tile, they offer the acoustic effect of drywall texture. Foam is an absorber, but not not one of most effective ones at lower frequencies. It also has flammability issues. Rockwool and compressed fiberglass is more effective. Acoustics in a structure does require a fair amount of calculations but is by no means  left to trial and error. 
  
 You are right acoustics is very important and completely overlooked by audiophiles. Sadly it has about as much voodoo as cables. both are completely measurable follow basic physics. Somehow they get spun into magic.


----------



## dprimary

cel4145 said:


> Ethan Winer is a very good source. He's got some basic information on the web that first discusses speaker placement and then how to for room treatment: http://realtraps.com/art_room-setup.htm. This one will give you the basics of why you want to eliminate reflections: http://realtraps.com/rfz.htm. I'd probably read it first.


 

 Ethan  Winer  .....


----------



## sxr71

dprimary said:


> I won't say egg crates do nothing. But unless the walls are glass, mirrors, or ceramic tile, they offer the acoustic effect of drywall texture. Foam is an absorber, but not not one of most effective ones at lower frequencies. It also has flammability issues. Rockwool and compressed fiberglass is more effective. Acoustics in a structure does require a fair amount of calculations but is by no means  left to trial and error.
> 
> You are right acoustics is very important and completely overlooked by audiophiles. Sadly it has about as much voodoo as cables. both are completely measurable follow basic physics. Somehow they get spun into magic.


 
  
 Very important but short of a dedicated room impossible to do right. So I think DSP will make the most practical improvements for the most people.


----------



## sxr71

U3-C:

 The good news is since such materials are bought by professionals there won't be this sort of consumer craziness in that market. The absorbance figures and frequency ranges are given straight up.


----------



## Koolpep

sxr71 said:


> This is the number one mistake I made. When researching headphones by habit I check Head-Fi. All you will get no matter what the product is "buy it, buy it, but it, best thing I ever heard, you'd be missing out without it, make sure you get an amp that is up to the level of those phones, buy it.
> 
> Standard response to dissenting opinions: your source sucks, your amp is weak, you haven't spent enough on your stuff that you would like the whole shebang with a Stockholm syndrome like fervor. After you drop that kind of cash you're going to like it period. So the solution is to spend enough that you will have to like it.
> 
> ...


 
 Noooooo not another car analogy - and nooo it's not a VW - drive both - come back. It's based on the same platform as the Touareg, Bentley Bentayga, Audi Q7 but all manufacturers share platforms and parts,still this car is distinctively Porsche. After test-driving plenty of SUVs this is the one I drove for 3 years. In any kind of comparison it scored favorably to the established SUV manufacturers and quickly got the respect - hell Porsche build the first hybrid car in 1900 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lohner-Porsche so if anyone can make a SUV sporty it's them. I took mine through the desert - up the big red, so yes they actually build a very decent SUV. But as all Porsches it shines the brightest on tarmac. Loved it to bits. Compared to that POS Grand Cherokee I had before. Look at this: 
 https://youtu.be/_RVr8XkeuKA (Track Battle: Macan Turbo vs. BMW M2 on track)
  
  
 Coming back to headphones:
  
 I think you shouldn't discount new companies entering the field:
 Hifiman
 Audeze
 Mr. Speakers
 PSB
 NAD
 Focal
  
 All their "first" headphones were pretty decent. 
  
 Cheers.


----------



## Ruben123

richard51 said:


> i will repeat myself.... the better purchase for your first path in audiophile world, will  definitely be used cheap  vintage  with great pedigree, and second, for speakers, no upgrade can beat  cheap room treatment, and  read about sorbothane  duro 70 for *damping all your gear*, cost is low and returns very high if rightly implemented....
> 
> all cie. sold you their product pretending that they are perfect  directly from their hand and more it is costly, less you  give a damn for the right implementation and use of the product....BUT all gear vibrate and are plague by negative resonance, without damping them the sound is never optimal, speakers and headphone alike.... No speakers sound to his potential in a room not treated acoustically.... It is possible to treat a room for 40 dollars with different kind of foam sheet or plate, i have make it for my room and the results are spectacular....No speakers sound optimal and none of my headphones without sorbothane also....




Exactly, I sold my Onkyo home cinema set and got a 70s Technics amp off my mother - heard no difference but after I sold the Onkyo at least my wallet felt it!
Also I got some 3ft high Jamo speakers from that time. Were too big. Sound very good, looking for used speakers can also save you lots of money. Even though I'm in love with the set up, my bedroom can't be much room-treated unfortunately.


----------



## Ruben123

terry parr said:


> ah, *Richard*, if the suggestion about getting a vintage amp was directed towards me, then you're "preaching to the choir".  my current headphone amp of choice is a 1970's-era sony str-6055.
> 
> (check my profile).
> 
> ...




Be careful as vintage amps might have terrible headphone outputs with output imps of over 100 ohms. Though of course if you like the sound....


----------



## Koolpep

cel4145 said:


> You mean like like tracking their users every move, even though users may not realize it? LOL


 

 Yes, exactly - they save it on your phone after you opted in to do it. They share it anonymously if you opt-in a second time. So two times it's off by default, you need to push a button to say: Please, Apple, collect it, switch it on baby. I think it's fair to say that this pretty transparent and fair. Plus your privacy is never at risk. Not sure how other OSs do it though. Anyhow - I like both major mobile OSs but I think that apple still has a privacy advantage in this case.
  
 Coming back to the way the industry changed: I think it has a lot to do with the prevalence of PR, paid-for reviewing and other in general way more polarized society. It seems these days everything can only be black or white. You either love or hate beats, if you support Android you MUST hate Apple - What? Why? Why are we putting people in boxes based on the products they use and why do people enjoy being part of that. I guess this is fanboism. Also so many people HATE things - or at least they tell you that. Such a strong word. I can't hate a digital audio player or car brand or an operating system. These are bloody inanimate objects, hate is such a strong emotion. I like Windows, macOS and Linux, I like iOS and Android. Of course I prefer one over the other depending on use case but I don't hate anything. Is this materialism at its best, that you are defined by the stuff you own? Strange world we live in.
  
 could one of the criticisms of this forum as well be the "appreciation threads" which are now slowly phased out? Negative opinions were chased away - based on the title of the thread. So apparently this is also something that thankfully changed now and should help with more open discussions of pros and cons.
  
 Let's hope so.
  
 Cheers!


----------



## Orestes1984

ruben123 said:


> Be careful as vintage amps might have terrible headphone outputs with output imps of over 100 ohms. Though of course if you like the sound....


 
  
 If your amp is too old it wont even have a phone stage which makes the whole adventure useless without a preamp for headphones which makes the whole misadventure pretty to look at, but ineffective. You don't need to go that old with amplifiers really, you can get high end receivers that are only around 10-15 years old designed as surround receivers from any boutique brand you'd like for less than a couple hundred dollars and there is nothing wrong with them for the purposes of listening to headphones, or for putting bookends, or even 5.1 speakers on them, they just don't do HDMI, and people get rid of it because they want HDMI, which is ridiculous where most people won't even use all of the available channels.


----------



## sxr71

koolpep said:


> Noooooo not another car analogy - and nooo it's not a VW - drive both - come back. It's based on the same platform as the Touareg, Bentley Bentayga, Audi Q7 but all manufacturers share platforms and parts,still this car is distinctively Porsche. After test-driving plenty of SUVs this is the one I drove for 3 years. In any kind of comparison it scored favorably to the established SUV manufacturers and quickly got the respect - hell Porsche build the first hybrid car in 1900 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lohner-Porsche so if anyone can make a SUV sporty it's them. I took mine through the desert - up the big red, so yes they actually build a very decent SUV. But as all Porsches it shines the brightest on tarmac. Loved it to bits. Compared to that POS Grand Cherokee I had before. Look at this:
> https://youtu.be/_RVr8XkeuKA (Track Battle: Macan Turbo vs. BMW M2 on track)
> 
> 
> ...


 

 The Macan is impressive but I'd take the M2 any day for me personally and in a manual, performance be darned. The BMW X5 for a time was considered the best handling SUV but that was a time ago. Still I guess regardless of their achievements in SUV building I don't consider any of them to be real BMWs especially the X1 which was horrible even as a loaner. Similarly I don't know anyone who considers the M SUVs to be real M cars. But they exist because people need to show they can pay $15K extra to get an M badge on it because it distinguishes them at the Kroger parking lot. Ohh what was I thinking, I meant the Whole Foods parking lot.
  
 I'm sorry but distinctively Porsche is the 911. That is distinctively Porsche. I'm sure they made a wonderful SUV and the Macan proves they can.  Some real performance in there and quite the sleeper. But I do think they got there from making the second gen Cayenne. The first gen was not well received at all. It was seen as a branding attempt which stuck because Americans love SUVs and the only thing they like more than that is rubbing the noses of everyone in their vicinity in their conspicuous consumption. Again no hate for your choice of vehicle, the second gen must be great, they had nearly a decade to figure it out.
  
 The first Audeze had issues with build quality which at some point through much arm twisting they owned up to. I love Focal as a brand, I use one of their studio monitors which I think sounds glorious. I even bought their $500 or 700 computer speakers like a moron. I won't be buying any "decent" headphone from them given that lesson.
  
 I'm not going to settle for decent when I have a plethora of well established headphone makers to choose from.
  
 Keep in mind the shoddily designed headphones that brought me to this thread were from Audeze together with BMW designworks. My last three cars were BMW and it all adds up now. They designed that joint just like they designed their HPFP, their Rod bearings on the E92 M3, their Throttle actuator on the M3 etc. I put up it with them because I liked the feel, then I drove a new generation BMW and thought if they drive like Camrys now, why not just get a Toyota? At least the Toyota will be reliable. We all know more R&D goes into a Camry than the entire BMW range which at this point is shared between around 30-40 variants of vehicles which apparently they need to do to be all things to all people. Ok the new BMWs aren't that bad but they have no feel whatsoever, none. Nothing that makes me want to drive one anymore. At this point it too is a fashion statement. A badge that confers "status".
  
 If you saw the headphone joint in question you would wonder why anyone would design it that way especially a product pitched for portable use from an iPhone. It's amateur level design. That's what's been going on at head-fi since I started coming here. Its just been getting worse since people will deal with this amateur level stuff. The SR71 Blackbird was a glorified CMoy amp. Seriously? People paid $650 for it. Also I've been reading NwAvGuy and I'm seeing how many botched designs have been sold over the years for top dollar. Active ground junk. I bought some portable amp from a big name here that stopped working within weeks. I'm just sick of it.
  
 Also I use or have used both NAD and PSB products and respect both of them. PSB makes great speakers and NAD makes some great electronics. But why would I go out on a limb to buy some "decent" headphone from them when there are Beyerdynamic and AKG and Sennheiser in the world that make great headphones and have been making them for decades and selling to professionals? i'm not about to buy some decent NAD headphones because I use their amplifier.
  
 The making of decent headphones isn't some huge mystery, any Chinese OEM can create a decent headphone and any electronics brand can slap their name on them. Drop a dynamic drive unit in there and design a case for it and a headband. I see people fretting over their purchase decision like crazy on here and should we bother to recommend some decent OEM headphone because it has a familiar name to them? That would IMHO be a disservice to them. Could we not steer them to companies and lines (because even Sennheiser slaps its name on OEM stuff these days) that have some pedigree ie. designed by a team that designs and makes everything from scratch? As opposed to an outsourced design that is only made to capitalize on a known brand name.
  
 Speaking of NAD I use their C390DD amp in one of my systems and it was probably one their first complicated digital designs. They had a firmware update that screwed up the remote sensor. The sensor was perfectly functional and after the update it responded only sometimes. I called them about it. They denied the firmware did anything to the remote sensor. After about a year they released a new firmware that fixed that problem. No admission of anything just fixed. The amp sounded good enough to deal with the problem. They make electronics with a good sound at a good price point. But I'm not getting any headphone from them.
  
 In any case the more I think about it, headphones, while the most important component of a headphone system (just as speakers are in a speaker system), are not that mysterious. Look at Grado churning out a design they came up with by hand in a factory in brooklyn. There's nothing hi tech about any of it. But all of a sudden they needed a model at the $650 price point, then at a $1000 price point, then a $1300 price point and so on. Same wound coil, same plastic diaphragm, just different nice woods and machined aluminum and the word "professional" on it. Did they do a $1800 version of it yet? They obviously sound different and are voiced differently but really how much different is the $1300 one from the $60 one? Different voicing of the same house sound?
  
 If anything Sony is up there with the new tech. They managed to get a hybrid dynamic/BA phone to sound right. They have all sorts of crazy crystal, vapor deposition, cellulose diaphragm materials out there. Beyerdynamic came out with a new coil/magnet system and a new flux density. No doubt Audeze too is up on the new tech ever making planar dynamic better, more flux density, more compact, more efficient, but man the design is so bad. i might as well go Sony. Sony has made dud products. They made some $130 DVD player that broke consistently around 13-20 months. They never did anything about it. But it was $130. Just buy something else. That's also how I look at their headphones. Good tech, sounds great, probably won't break (that SCD-1 had to go in for service, some bearing issue, par for the course on a first gen product), but if does no big deal. It was cheap. Audeze may be doing great things for planar magnetic but at $500-4000 they need to do better. I'm so out of this boutique audio business. It's almost like it's code for "half baked". That sort of thing may fly here with the fanboys, but it doesn't fly with me anymore. When it comes to headphones I'll just take the Camry.


----------



## Orestes1984

Sony has to be one of the single overrated brands in and of themselves. They're ok, but everyone who thinks they own a high end Sony unit thinks they're brilliant where a lot of what they sell is simply mediocre to middling. I'm not saying Sony are terrible,because they've released a lot of things that are well above average over the years, but there are a lot of other brands you can go to that are much better and their more modern Hi-Fi gear is very consumer oriented. It's the brand people buy:

 "because I couldn't think of, or don't know anything else."


----------



## Ruben123

orestes1984 said:


> If your amp is too old it wont even have a phone stage which makes the whole adventure useless without a preamp for headphones which makes the whole misadventure pretty to look at, but ineffective. You don't need to go that old with amplifiers really, you can get high end receivers that are only around 10-15 years old designed as surround receivers from any boutique brand you'd like for less than a couple hundred dollars and there is nothing wrong with them for the purposes of listening to headphones, or for putting bookends, or even 5.1 speakers on them, they just don't do HDMI, and people get rid of it because they want HDMI, which is ridiculous where most people won't even use all of the available channels.




I wouldn't call those vintage myself


----------



## Orestes1984

ruben123 said:


> I wouldn't call those vintage myself


 
 Damn auto-correct *phono... I wouldn't consider a 15 year old receiver vintage but they're easy to live with and you can get lots of power and decent input impedance for next to nothing even if you're chasing premium brands like Onkyo, Nakamichi, Marantaz, Yamaha, whatever it is that floats your boat...

 I've got some vintage Sansui, Luxman and whatever else receivers just sitting around doing nothing some of them need to be recapped with new higher end solid capacitors and then sold off eventually once repaired. The problem is what I said above, some of them might not have the right inputs or the right impedance to handle modern headphones without a preamp, and then by the time you have to buy a modern preamp you've already shot yourself in the foot. That's if you've got an amp with a dedicated line in.
  
 They're good amps but your just better off with starting off with something that just works. Something like this and Bob's your uncle. Meanwhile a whole generation is totally unaware of Naka's reputation as the leading premium Hi-Fi brand there ever was.
  
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nakamichi-AV-10-Home-Theater-Receiver-5-1-/232034504148


----------



## Ruben123

orestes1984 said:


> Damn auto-correct *phono... I wouldn't consider a 15 year old receiver vintage but they're easy to live with and you can get lots of power and decent input impedance for next to nothing even if you're chasing premium brands like Onkyo, Nakamichi, Marantaz, Yamaha, whatever it is that floats your boat...
> 
> 
> I've got some vintage Sansui, Luxman and whatever else receivers just sitting around doing nothing some of them need to be recapped with new higher end solid capacitors and then sold off eventually once repaired. The problem is what I said above, some of them might not have the right inputs or the right impedance to handle modern headphones without a preamp, and then by the time you have to buy a modern preamp you've already shot yourself in the foot. That's if you've got an amp with a dedicated line in.
> ...




Sure 10 years old amps - used - are a great value. Recommend everyone to look at the used market, why shouldn't one save lots of money if one could?


----------



## pedalhead

I'm afraid I haven't read the entire thread, but wanted to respond directly to the original post (with which I totally agree btw). 
  
 The audiophile headphone market is, sadly and perhaps inevitably, catching up with the long-established speaker market and prices of flagship products are following suit through the roof accordingly. IMHO Head-Fi.org has been and continues to be a key player in this process of price escalation.  Rather than use it's position as the highest profile headphone forum on the Internet as a force for good in the market - taking manufacturers to task on pricing, providing true critical analysis of products - Head-Fi is now simply a shop window for sponsors, neutered by it's unwillingness to offer any criticism whatsoever of the hand that feeds. Not only does it passively avoid rocking the sponsor boat, it also actively discourages dissent and that greatest of all enemies to the world of high end audiophilia...science.  Yes, I'm typing this in a "Sound Science" forum, but it only exists so the remaining 99% of posts on the site can be free of any nasty scientific objectiveness.
  
 This approach has resulted in a certain culture on the forum...highly subjective, lacking in measurements and objective comparisons, and prone to manufacturer-lead circle jerking.
  
 Of course, it boils down to the fact that HF is a business, plain and simple. Despite this micro-rant, I don't blame HF for being run the way it is...somebody's mortgage is (presumably) being paid by this thing. It does, however, explain why a splinter-forum or two have appeared for those who want to go another way, who value objectivity over perceived value based idolization, and - crucially - aren't trying to make a living out of it. Honestly, I've bought into the hype many times myself, but I think I've been around long enough now that I'm starting to see the cracks in the process.
  
 To end on a positive note, despite the way HF is run, it's full of excellent people, a number of whom I consider to be good friends. The member-lead regional meets continue to be superb (although hopefully the monetisation of meets into CanJams won't see a decrease in the unofficial ones).


----------



## Orestes1984

In response, someone is paying for the data to run this space so you can bleat appropriately about "how terrible it is" I don't blame you but I have seen large scale forums of entire community cohorts here in Australia go under because of a mass exodus from people who don't agree with the site sponsor and now that community is entirely gone.
  
 Be careful of biting the hand that is feeding you.
  


ruben123 said:


> Sure 10 years old amps - used - are a great value. Recommend everyone to look at the used market, why shouldn't one save lots of money if one could?


 

 There is no reason not to save money where you can, particularly if your smart enough to be discerning about what brands you buy and look at the specification, I believe this should be one of the points of sound science.


----------



## castleofargh

my secret hope is that Jude will keep adding more and more measurements(I want the same rig!!!!!), and that will make many science haters go turncoat and start caring about measurements because, you know, Jude is such a nice guy. if he cares about measurements, there must be a good reason.
 #subjectivismforscience


----------



## richard51

orestes1984 said:


> Damn auto-correct *phono... I wouldn't consider a 15 year old receiver vintage but they're easy to live with and you can get lots of power and decent input impedance for next to nothing even if you're chasing premium brands like Onkyo, Nakamichi, Marantaz, Yamaha, whatever it is that floats your boat...
> 
> I've got some vintage Sansui, Luxman and whatever else receivers just sitting around doing nothing some of them need to be recapped with new higher end solid capacitors and then sold off eventually once repaired. The problem is what I said above, some of them might not have the right inputs or the right impedance to handle modern headphones without a preamp, and then by the time you have to buy a modern preamp you've already shot yourself in the foot. That's if you've got an amp with a dedicated line in.
> 
> ...


 
 Your precautionary remarks are true....Nevertheless if someone manage to have one recapped, at a good price, the 1970 1980 period is the golden age of audio marvel....Mine is a best of the best in 1975, for this  Sansui recapped i paid 100 and with an additional  150 the recapping job, and the results are no short of astounding.... Better Amplifier for sure  exist now, but never with these all functionalities and versatilities, and for the same musical quality, prepare to pay many times this amount for one, but how to manage to have a modern one, in the same musicality league without auditioning one before? For the story my repairman said to me that his tone controls and filters functionalities are better than some McIntosh amp he has repaired...
  
 The vintage amplifiers of this period are all very good, i recommend you one, by the way the Sansui AU 7700 has an integrate and separate function for his hi-quality pre-amplifier... It is the best deal of my life in audio ever...I know that there is today  something better than  but that will cost me more than one thousand today to beat it on all count ....and  certainly with not all his audiophile functionalities....I wish you good luck for just discover one less than 1000 with his organic sound quality....For example the excellent  low cost Ember amplifier was not comparable  one second to it at 400 hundred +adapter+tube...And this Ember has many functionalities for an headphone amp....I recommend it also...But the sansui for the same price recapped beat it out of the flesh for hifiman he-400 and put my Stax headphone to a shining glory (with an adapter) ....
  
 By the way all  Sansui AU series amplifier are very good, the little  one with little power are also good in sound after reading all reviews...If someone has ever said that to me in the beginning, i will never had pay for a Aune T1, and after dissatisfaction for the Ember ( the cost of the 20 tubes and adapters  i have bought to upgrade the Ember were more than the price of the amp 2 times and not one of these tube beat the Sansui by a long margin), the cost of these 2 amplifier of my first years here   was around  600 hundred together, 2 times the cost of my Sansui for least quality....and way less pleasure...The bug for upgraditis is almost on control now with me, because how much i will pay for crushing my Sansui ? i know how much and will not write obscenities here ... thanks to all


----------



## Orestes1984

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy vintage amps also and have a large collection of them at my dads house of various brand and assortment, most of them only need minor work to be functional and they sing once you repair them. If money isn't the issue its a great hobby and aesthetically they're also in a new league. As to testing modern amplifiers, I've already stated this. You have to be able to do the leg work and a willing seller, ebay is simple enough, pop in your zip code and see what's around you.
  
 Punch in anything within a 100mile radius or whatever it is you feel comfortable with and pay them a visit. Visiting some of these people can often be more entertaining than the amplifier you've purchased and its an interesting hobby just to get out there and talk to other people about what they're doing and what their interests are.
  
 I realise that it's not about the amount of power and that older amplifiers tend to develop more power per rated wattage, it just becomes an extremely expensive hobby straight away if you want to bring them up to a standard that you can use them with modern headphones, not so much speakers, that are generally still low impedance, but should you want to add a Phono stage for whatever reason and a line in you will soon up your budget by 10 fold to get to a decent amplifier as you have already noted.


----------



## richard51

orestes1984 said:


> Don't get me wrong, I enjoy vintage amps also and have a large collection of them at my dads house of various brand and assortment, most of them only need minor work to be functional and they sing once you repair them. If money isn't the issue its a great hobby and aesthetically they're also in a new league. As to testing modern amplifiers, I've already stated this. You have to be able to do the leg work and a willing seller, ebay is simple enough, pop in your zip code and see what's around you.
> 
> Punch in anything within a 100mile radius or whatever it is you feel comfortable with and pay them a visit. Visiting some of these people can often be more entertaining than the amplifier you've purchased and its an interesting hobby just to get out there and talk to other people about what they're doing and what their interests are.
> 
> I realise that it's not about the amount of power and that older amplifiers tend to develop more power per rated wattage, it just becomes an extremely expensive hobby straight away if you want to bring them up to a standard that you can use them with modern headphones, not so much speakers, that are generally still low impedance, but should you want to add a Phono stage for whatever reason and a line in you will soon up your budget by 10 fold to get to a decent amplifier as you have already noted.


 
 My Sansui has phono stage with possibilities to accomodate the impedence of 2 table, and all added  line in put or ouput possible.. Possibilities to accomodate 2 sets of speakers... the Sansui AU 7700 is officially rated 54 watts, mine measured output 85 watts in reality....The separate amp-preamp function is more than  useful to me...If someone buy vintage he must read about possibilities of  the products...And you are right on the spot for the pleasure, and all the information old guys who sell their stuff  can give ....


----------



## sxr71

orestes1984 said:


> Sony has to be one of the single overrated brands in and of themselves. They're ok, but everyone who thinks they own a high end Sony unit thinks they're brilliant where a lot of what they sell is simply mediocre to middling. I'm not saying Sony are terrible,because they've released a lot of things that are well above average over the years, but there are a lot of other brands you can go to that are much better and their more modern Hi-Fi gear is very consumer oriented. It's the brand people buy:
> 
> 
> "because I couldn't think of, or don't know anything else."




Of course they make a lot of mediocre stuff but they also have a few fingers in some good products. In general brands mean nothing. The lines do matter. You have an idea of which team is making things. Their ES line for one has some decent products.

They have had some very high end headphones. But the one I like and use is the XBA H1. Nothing wrong with it at all. Sounds like an ER4s with bass.


----------



## richard51

By the way the root of all upgraditis (costly disease) is dissatisfaction with what someone finally hear from his system...The posts i have made is for curing that disease....There is 3 remedies for hearing only the best from your gear....
 FIRST  all gear with enclosure  vibrate,  headphone included,read about sorbothane, teach yourself how to use it (duro 70 is the best for audio)...
 SECOND : room treatment will give you the best of your speakers...
 THIRD : buy vintage best amplifier used and used speakers
  
 After these i now enjoy a more than good sound, audiophile sound in fact, very difficult to upgrade that if you enjoy without listening to any evident defect in your system...
  
 In the beginning i was always in the mood to upgrade because i was never satisfied with my gear, they dont sounded perfect and they were not, with these 3 advises now my gear sound perfect... WHY upgrade it? at what cost for a real upgrade ? i know the cost to beat my actual gear totally and it will be near 6 thousand dollars to crush my actual dac, amp, and headphone ... If i dont count my first errors , all my actual gear chain cost me 1000 all in all used dac included with the he 400 and the SANSUI and used mission speakers ... i dont count my 2 used stax system ...


----------



## james444

orestes1984 said:


> It is possible to treat a room with nothing more than used egg cartons and packing foam and it works surprisingly well.


 
  
 Doctor: For heaven's sake, your cholesterol level is ten times higher than normal!!
 Patient: Well I read this awesome tip on room treatment on Head-Fi...
  


castleofargh said:


> my secret hope is that Jude will keep adding more and more measurements(I want the same rig!!!!!), and that will make many science haters go turncoat and start caring about measurements because, you know, Jude is such a nice guy. if he cares about measurements, there must be a good reason.
> #subjectivismforscience


 
  
 Subjectivity is like a train, you get off once you've reached your destination.
  
(sorry, couldn't resist... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)


----------



## sxr71

richard51 said:


> By the way the root of all upgraditis (costly disease) is dissatisfaction with what someone finally hear from his system...The posts i have made is for curing that disease....There is 3 remedies for hearing only the best from your gear....
> FIRST  all gear with enclosure  vibrate,  headphone included,read about sorbothane, teach yourself how to use it (duro 70 is the best for audio)...
> SECOND : room treatment will give you the best of your speakers...
> THIRD : buy vintage best amplifier used and used speakers
> ...




There's also that phenomenon of wondering what you're missing. Especially if you're new and somebody trashes a component in your system and says "I compared X and Y, and Y blows X out of the water. I sold my X and added $x,xxx and got Y. I'm enjoying Y so much better. I can hear details I never heard before. I'm replaying my whole library on Y. I can't believe how good Y sounds". 

Then it's over for you if you're new and susceptible to Internet talk. I mean it's hard to keep X after you read something like that.


----------



## Koolpep

Hmmmm,
  
 upgraditis for me comes from being an addict.
  
 The first time you hear your most loved music with a brilliant setup - you have shivers running down your spine, goosebumps, the works. You want to listen to every track you like with that setup and you just smile silly and listen way longer than you should. You are high as a kite with your music. You can repeat that a few times - maybe 5 to 10 times then the goosebumps stop and while it's still sounds amazing - you are not getting that "high" again. So, you are on cold turkey. But... you get used to it. UNTIL you find a better setup and BAMM the initial high is back - keeps you going for some time and then - repeat the above.
  
 So, you are trying to get that kick, that high back.
  
 What I learned is that you can get these perfect moments with cheap gear as well.
  
 My highs as I can recall them:
  
 Sennheiser HD-598 with Schiit Asgard (back when the Asgard was Schiit's only product)
 T90 with Bottlehead Crack
 HD650 with Cayin C5 & Fiio X5
 HE-560 via HE-Adapter from Sansui vintage amp
 HM901 with balanced cable to K10
 LCD-2 with iCan Pro in tube mode
  
 So, unfortunately I had to return the iCan Pro - but even though I have the LCD-2 for 2 years, only with that amp I had this famous "high" and listened until I fell asleep.
  
 Now, I am on the hunt for the next fix, the next mega listening session but I am just going through my own inventory, trying new combinations of stuff I already have.
 Crossing fingers that I find another glorious combo - to keep me from upgraditis.....
  
 Cheers.


----------



## krismusic

orestes1984 said:


> Be careful of biting the hand that is feeding you.



I am acutely aware and uneasy about this. 
I really enjoy being on HeadFi. 
The vast majority of people I have met at meets including Jude have been excellent friendly people. But there is so much misinformation and misdirection on here that it has to be questioned. IMHO.


----------



## sxr71

koolpep said:


> Hmmmm,
> 
> upgraditis for me comes from being an addict.
> 
> ...




I mean seriously at that point saying something is that much better that it wows you, it would need to inject endorphins into your bloodstream when you're not looking. 

With this sort of thing you have to get used to the idea that you might be chasing 2-3% at most. If anything you might find something different wows you for a period. 

I'll be willing to bet that each of those memorable combinations also came with associations. Maybe you were drinking more, maybe you began a great relationship, maybe you were just a carefree student there are so many other factors that we don't consciously realize. 

My big setup memories were related to landing after a 12 hour flight and I remember the setup and song that was playing during landing. I remember some setups sounded sweet when I was partying more. 

I won't hesitate to say that whatever setup you have going at 3AM with a couple of rounds in you is one you won't forget. 

Coming from those memories I can't imagine anything could wow me like those setups. The only setup that would wow me at this point is the first one I get my hands on after winning so much lottery money I'd never have to work a day in my life. 

Having been in this field for a while, and I'm no expert, sometimes the price of the equipment or the perceived quality, or maybe it's the first setup that had no noise at all when music is not playing maybe it just feels solid, maybe the volume knob feels like a million dollars, maybe there's a $300 NOS tube on top of it. It's all the associations that IMHO that make the sound feel like wow. 

You will have to up the stakes to get that wow again and maybe you do need those $4000 headphones at this point to get it again.


----------



## cel4145

koolpep said:


> Hmmmm,
> 
> *upgraditis for me comes from being an addict.*
> 
> ...




No doubt. There's an amorphous group (changes membership a lot) that you can see in some of the new FOTM threads that quickly move from buying one thing to the next. By amorphous, some people are engaged in the frenzy for months, some for years, and as new people drop out, new people join in. They feed on the excitement. And even if they don't buy, they'll say something like, "This looks awesome. If I hadn't already bought five IEMs the last two months, I'd order it." You have to kind of watch multiple FOTM threads to see it because of course not everyone of them is in every thread. But it doesn't take long to see the pattern. And not to sound overly critical. I was involved for awhile, too, before I figured out the seductive nature of this. It's not just the upgraditis addiction that can take hold, but also the enjoyment of doing it with other people. Drinking in a bar vs. drinking alone. LOL

Fortunately for the rest of us, this behavior also feeds the trade forums of many like new items. So there is a good side benefit here. 

Speaking of that, subscribing to the Deals Thread also feed the trade forums. Don't subscribe to that unless you are interested in buying. It becomes hard to resist no grabbing a "deal" after watching so many of them. At least I have trouble resisting.


----------



## terry parr

mulder01 said:


> OK I'm not getting all the subtle hints.  What was it?  We've probably all bought something we didn't need to.  I know I have.


 
 what's up, mulder?  I've enjoyed your posts on this thread.   look, you might have bought something you didn't need to in the past.  I completely went off the deep end with this particular purchase.  remember.  at the time, nothing but solid, positive reviews about this piece (both here and on other sites).  this is an example of "what the hell was I thinking?"
  
 of course, if the unit had performed as I was led to believe by reading the reviews, I might not feel _quite_ so bad.  (but, even then, i'd probably be feeling at least twinges of regret, by now).  as it was, this piece was completely unsatisfactory to me. got no enjoyment from it at all, because I didn't like it from the very first listen. 
  
 it was the expense of it that still makes me twitch (used to make me shudder) whenever I think about it.   
  
 lesson to all:  considering spending a lot of money on a piece of gear?  listen to it in your system, (or, exactly the way you plan on setting it up),  and at your leisure, first.    
  
 (drum roll, please...)
  
 it was the SPL Phonitor


----------



## cel4145

terry parr said:


> lesson to all:  considering spending a lot of money on a piece of gear?  listen to it in your system, (or, exactly the way you plan on setting it up),  and at your leisure, first.
> 
> (drum roll, please...)
> 
> it was the SPL Phonitor




That cost a lot more than my 15" subwoofer. Can't imagine spending that much on a small pre-amp/headphone amp. The subwoofer was well worth it though


----------



## pctazhp

Is my HD800S 280 times better than my $5 Venture Electronics Monk Plus earbuds???
  
 I can't say. Sighted opinions aren't allowed on this thread!!!!


----------



## U-3C

pctazhp said:


> Is my HD800S 280 times better than my $5 Venture Electronics Monk Plus earbuds???
> 
> I can't say. Sighted opinions aren't allowed on this thread!!!!




I think they are allowed to a certain degrees, just that blind testing is preferred when it comes to sound due to placebo and bias. I'm sure you can say what you hear and back it up with measurements to show both us and yourself that your brain isn't playing tricks on you. It always plays tricks on me for some reason. 

Edit: epic grammar issues.


----------



## pctazhp

u-3c said:


> I think they are to a certain, just that blind testing is preferred when it comes to sound due to placebo and bias. I'm sure you can say what you hear and back it up with measurements to show both us and yourself that your brain isn't playing tricks on you. It always plays tricks on me for some reason.


 
 At my age I'm happy when my brain is even functioning!!! It's been playing tricks on my all my life


----------



## castleofargh

pctazhp said:


> Is my HD800S 280 times better than my $5 Venture Electronics Monk Plus earbuds???
> 
> I can't say. Sighted opinions aren't allowed on this thread!!!!


 

 of course it's allowed. what we're not super fan of is when sighted opinions are used to make claims that are not about personal preferences and feelings. but opinions as opinions are welcomed here, we're not as serious as hydrogen on the need for factual evidence.


----------



## Koolpep

sxr71 said:


> I mean seriously at that point saying something is that much better that it wows you, it would need to inject endorphins into your bloodstream when you're not looking.
> 
> With this sort of thing you have to get used to the idea that you might be chasing 2-3% at most. If anything you might find something different wows you for a period.
> 
> ...


 
  
 While my "addiction" metaphor reflects of course my personal description of why I have upgraditis, I think I am mostly in control of it now. It was also more a way of explaining the syndrome, maybe others can find themselves in that description.

 Actually I had another awesome session some time ago that might not have been as mind blowing but nevertheless was good. It was with the FLC8S driven from my phone. So funny enough - doesn't have to be a new TOTL. And as my personal circumstances might have an influence? Absolutely. It's all in my head - so who knows what triggered my enjoyment. The new wine or whiskey I tried,coming from the gym, exhausted, my lovely wife, the recent bonus. It also was the music I was listening to at that time more frequently than other times and what not. So yep, sometimes it's just a bath of music and you are splashing in it.  In the recent past though the new flagships have left me rather indifferent - Ether C - meh, Nighthawk - meh, HD800S - niiiice, Edition-X, LCD-4 - ok.... 
  
 I thought as well I need to spend the big bucks going forward to get some of these highs back but then I am now content in not having them - or only by accident - as otherwise I ruin my wallet and am chasing ghosts.
  
 I just recently found an old Ultimate Ears Studio 3 single BA IEM and am surprised how nice this old clunker with horribly oxidized cables sounds. Wonder why I hid them so well, LOL
  
 Cheers.


----------



## RRod

pctazhp said:


> Is my HD800S 280 times better than my $5 Venture Electronics Monk Plus earbuds???
> 
> I can't say. Sighted opinions aren't allowed on this thread!!!!


 
  
 It is exactly the difference between "it is" and "I think it is" that we're interested in here.


----------



## cel4145

rrod said:


> It is exactly the difference between "it is" and "I think it is" that we're interested in here.




+1

And the fact that many people make claims that "it is" when they have no means to determine that.


----------



## castleofargh

koolpep said:


> sxr71 said:
> 
> 
> > I mean seriously at that point saying something is that much better that it wows you, it would need to inject endorphins into your bloodstream when you're not looking.
> ...


 
 I'm totally in control! usually... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 checking some stuff for 6 months before making a rational decision based on all the accumulated data. and sometimes I just go berserk on impulse buying. it's either/or for me, and no real in-between. but I hope to get more reasonable once I'm a grown up. as a 40 year old kid it's normal to be weak from time to time.


----------



## U-3C

castleofargh said:


> I'm totally in control! usually...
> checking some stuff for 6 months before making a rational decision based on all the accumulated data. and sometimes I just go berserk on impulse buying. it's either/or for me, and no real in-between. but I hope to get more reasonable once I'm a grown up. as a 40 year old kid it's normal to be weak from time to time.




As a 20 year old kid struggling to pay rent, I suddenly feel so justified for my impulse purchases...(It's usually food though...)


----------



## krismusic

u-3c said:


> As a 20 year old kid struggling to pay rent, I suddenly feel so justified for my impulse purchases...(It's usually food though...)



Foods good! As a young person paying no doubt exorbitant rent you have my sympathy.


----------



## Dillan

Just to bring it back to the main focus of the thread and to invoke some discussion:
  
  

What in you guys' opinion would improve our hobby and be a step forward in maintaining a healthy future for consumers?
Do you guys think it is our right to criticize Head-Fi or even advocate for specific structure or rule changes?
Is there nothing wrong with the way things are as is? (speaking about the forums AND the headphone industry in general)
  
  
 I have some opinions on those questions, but I will wait until I can give a more detailed explanation on why I think the way I do on certain things, as well as potential changes that I could see benefiting us consumers.


----------



## pctazhp

koolpep said:


> *While my "addiction" metaphor reflects of course my personal description of why I have upgraditis, I think I am mostly in control of it now. It was also more a way of explaining the syndrome, maybe others can find themselves in that description.*
> 
> Actually I had another awesome session some time ago that might not have been as mind blowing but nevertheless was good. It was with the FLC8S driven from my phone. So funny enough - doesn't have to be a new TOTL. And as my personal circumstances might have an influence? Absolutely. It's all in my head - so who knows what triggered my enjoyment. The new wine or whiskey I tried,coming from the gym, exhausted, my lovely wife, the recent bonus. It also was the music I was listening to at that time more frequently than other times and what not. So yep, sometimes it's just a bath of music and you are splashing in it.  In the recent past though the new flagships have left me rather indifferent - Ether C - meh, Nighthawk - meh, HD800S - niiiice, Edition-X, LCD-4 - ok....
> 
> ...


 
 I personally think that the constant chase for the best latest and greatest can be a true addiction and in such situations can be very harmful.


----------



## VNandor

dillan said:


> Just to bring it back to the main focus of the thread and to invoke some discussion:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 1.) * As far as I know we still haven't figured out how a perfectly neutral should sound like. There are accepted standards but further research about the "perfect" frequency response could bring improvements.
     *We know about HRTF yet not too much company seems to care about it and offer personalized measurements and corrections.
     *Our hobby would benefit from stopping the so called loudness war and from better masters in general.
  
 2.) I personally don't see how discussing/ciritcizing the rules (as long as it's done appropriately)  would harm Head-Fi but the owner(s) of the site probably knows what he wants and didn't just pull out those rules out of his @ss. There are also other audio forums as far as I know so if anyone wants more objectivity he could just register to a more objective forum and participate in both places.
  
 3.) There's no law against selling crappy stuff for a lot of money, unfortunately. It may not be a good thing but what can we do about that? Marketing guys exist for a reason. They are here to sell stuff that would not sell itself and they definitely do their job well.


----------



## richard51

sxr71 said:


> There's also that phenomenon of wondering what you're missing. Especially if you're new and somebody trashes a component in your system and says "I compared X and Y, and Y blows X out of the water. I sold my X and added $x,xxx and got Y. I'm enjoying Y so much better. I can hear details I never heard before. I'm replaying my whole library on Y. I can't believe how good Y sounds".
> 
> Then it's over for you if you're new and susceptible to Internet talk. I mean it's hard to keep X after you read something like that.


 
 You are technically right.... anyone is vulnerable to this... But ultimately my ears are my best adviser...especially when i cannot detect any evident failure in my system like now... But  i can throw my money when i will have some to a better dac for example...The price will be more than one thousand if i dont want a sidegrade but a real upgrade...You are right, i have read about that...BUT i am not frustrate now even if  i dont have this money because my gear actually dont reveal any evident defect, room treatment is effective , sorbothane made miraculous cure, my vintage and used gear are very satisfying, hence i can wait, without desesperation for the upgrade....That is my point...


----------



## glassmonkey

castleofargh said:


> my secret hope is that Jude will keep adding more and more measurements(I want the same rig!!!!!), and that will make many science haters go turncoat and start caring about measurements because, you know, Jude is such a nice guy. if he cares about measurements, there must be a good reason.
> #subjectivismforscience


 
 Jude gets a lot of headphones and has insane measuring equipment, but we never see those measurements, just statements about DAVE being the best measuring anything, and no cold hard data. I'd like to see HeadFi pushing out measurements. It would be helpful for me as a reviewer and useful for people shopping for their next impulse CrackFi fix.


----------



## cel4145

dillan said:


> Do you guys think it is our right to criticize Head-Fi or even advocate for specific structure or rule changes?




Let me change this 

Do you guys think it is _a waste of time_ to criticize Head-Fi or even advocate for specific structure or rule changes?

Head-Fi is a business, and given the current state of the industry, doesn't make sense for them to change. Well, unless they want to make less money.


----------



## U-3C

dillan said:


> [*] What in you guys' opinion would improve our hobby and be a step forward in maintaining a healthy future for consumers?




In my opinion, communication is very important. Since many people who have this hobby are very passionate, it is extremely easy to see certain people's opinions as personal attacks. There has been many times when I never criticized a product, but compared it to something seemingly "inferior," and as a result, somebody saw that as an attack towards the product, and being a supporter of that product, the person saw that as an attack towards him/her. Next morning, when I log into head-fi, I see someone either questioning my ears or questioning me as a person for being a troll. 0_0;

Since plain text is pretty one-dimensional, with no tone or gestures to act as cues, it is very easy to misunderstand someone's post. What is easier, and is something that I believe most people have experienced, is how people assume things. The reader of a post, depending on what s/he has read (anywhere), as well as how life is going, can easily assume the person is saying something, or that the person is trying to imply something. This can shift a proper debate to a flame war if the reader interprets something as being negative. On the other hand, the communicating person can easily be frustrated as well, as points that may appear obvious to himself/herself (due to background experience, personal beliefs, etc.) simply are not received properly. Also, it's always easier to see oneself as the victim, as the one who is defending the truth against an angry troll, and thus, flame war~

^^probably the main reason controversial objective measurements are banned.

I've been working on a way of expressing my thoughts via online discussions for some time. The main goal is to avoid the stuff stuff I've mentioned, and is mainly based on a book called _Nonviolent Communications: A Language of Life_ (great book on communications theory. Highly recommended to all). The basic model follows 4 parts: Observation without evaluation, the expression of feelings without thoughts or opinions, express the needs and values that you seek, and finally express your request.

This is quite difficult to do and quite time consuming, but it works. The goal is to express what you are seeing objectively, in a way that everyone from every point of view can understand. Then, you express how that makes _you_ feel. It's easy to say, "You are being a stubborn idiot. This thing outputs enough clean power to blow those headphones appart so there is no need to recommend that 100k USD amp that does nothing different side from being shiny!" or "I'm seriously doubting your ears because there is no way onboard onboard audio from a cheap 5 year old laptop can even compare to this product that is put on InnerFidelity's Hall of Fame." It's also easy to get offended when you are receiving something like that. As a result, wording what you see objectively, without evaluating anything/anyone and expressing how that observation makes _you_ feel can put everyone on the same page. For example, you can say, "I see that you claim onboard audio is just as good as the WA7, and I feel confused/shocked/frustrated as in my case, there was a clear night and day difference." You can follow it up by expressing how you wanted to help the OP who is asking about xyz, that you have a similar setup and being passionate about this hobby, you wanted to guide the OP through your own personal experiences so s/he can also enjoy music as you do. Perhaps in your case onboard audio and/or certain products resulted in something going terribly wrong, so you don't want the OP to also waste time with that, like you did?Then, you can request something from the person you are talking with, something that also contributes to what you value (in this case, your need to help another person with a similar passion).

This is quite hard to do as it can make you quite vulnerable at times (and make you seem overly sensitive! I feel like I'm a crybaby when I read posts by myself that are worded this way), but is works for me. I'm still trying to improve on this as it is slow, but I have seen it stop quite a few potential flame wars. 

Oh, and use emoticons! Those help too!

PS: please ignore grammar issues. I haven't sold my soul to the smartphone keyboard gods yet...


----------



## Orestes1984

james444 said:


> Doctor: For heaven's sake, your cholesterol level is ten times higher than normal!!
> Patient: Well I read this awesome tip on room treatment on Head-Fi...
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Hahaha....


----------



## Torq

dillan said:


> Just to bring it back to the main focus of the thread and to invoke some discussion:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
*What in you guys' opinion would improve our hobby and be a step forward in maintaining a healthy future for consumers?*
  
 People spending less time worrying about what other people choose to spend their money on would be an excellent start.  And to make things more healthy for _customers _and the_ hobby_ in general_, _less trying to push or berate people as to what they should and shouldn't like/hear/think about other products when they've never been asked.
  
*Do you guys think it is our right to criticize Head-Fi or even advocate for specific structure or rule changes?*
  
 On the site itself?  Nope, no more a "right" to even _be here _than on any other private property.
  
 If you want to go elsewhere to criticize it, then that'd be down to the perspective of the owner of THAT property.
  
 And advocating for different structural or rules changes seems highly presumptuous ... are you going to canvas for points of view and then go with the most popular (even if they 100% at odds with your own) or just push your own agenda? 
  
 If you want to come on to a site and try and push for changes that are not what the site owner wants, much less the general "community", you're not likely to fare very well.  If you want different rules, start a site that has those rules ... then these questions become moot.  Because there's only one way this works out if it's against the general wishes of the owner,  maintaining his private property, and anyone else.
  
*Is there nothing wrong with the way things are as is? (speaking about the forums AND the headphone industry in general)*
  
 Nothing is perfect.  
  
 With free will (i.e. no literal or figurative gun to their heads), in general, when people don't like something they'll seek out alternatives and/or leave.
  
 I suspect you perceive an issue that is only an issue to a small minority of the participants here and if that is the case, you're just going to be wasting your time.
  
 --
  
 These are not points I care to debate ... just throwing out comments ... there is no "freedom" on private property, which is what the second question seems to start to push for ... and then it turns around and starts making comments that tend to be the way dictatorship thinking starts.  Which would, at best, mean trading one "regime" for another ... 
  
 Seems to me it'd just be easier and a lot less stress to start a site that focused on being what you wanted it to be instead of going into an established one and trying to change it - potentially against the wishes of the majority and it's owner.  It'd also probably be a lot more successful.  Impressing on a person of one religion, the doctrine of an alternate faith (for this is really what we're talking about) has a long history of just being really bad for everyone involved.
  
 I'm just waiting for someone to claim "freedom of speech" and get all bent out of shape while completely failing to understand what that actually means.
  
 All part of the entertainment - which is principally how I view sites like this.
  
 And take my comments as what they are ... one part hearty reality (you really do *not* have freedom on any website you don't own, nor do property laws support that you should - and rightly so in my opinion), and about nine parts "who really cares - but it was too much to resist to comment".
  
 Ciao!


----------



## Dillan

glassmonkey said:


> Jude gets a lot of headphones and has insane measuring equipment, but we never see those measurements, just statements about DAVE being the best measuring anything, and no cold hard data. I'd like to see HeadFi pushing out measurements. It would be helpful for me as a reviewer and useful for people shopping for their next impulse CrackFi fix.




This is a good point! I'd love to see some tangible evidence to backup all the amazing measurements we hear about. I could understand maybe not mentioning them in the first place, but that isn't the case.


----------



## Dillan

torq said:


> *What in you guys' opinion would improve our hobby and be a step forward in maintaining a healthy future for consumers?*
> 
> People spending less time worrying about what other people choose to spend their money on would be an excellent start.  And to make things more healthy for _customers_ and the _hobby_ in general_, _less trying to push or berate people as to what they should and shouldn't like/hear/think about other products when they've never been asked.
> 
> ...




Hey Torq,

I read your DAC thread where you try a bunch of high end dacs and pick one you think sounds good. I've also asked you about your testing methods in that thread before and you were completely honest in your biasing and lack of blind comparisons. I respect that you based your choices on pure opinion then and I respect your opinion now - although for the most part I disagree with most of the direction of your posts in both threads. Agree to disagree I guess.

You say that you aren't willing to debate or hear anyone else's thoughts in your post above so when I get a second to post my opinions on the subjects I brought up then I will mostly be speaking to others who care to read another persons opinion other than yours or their own.


----------



## Orestes1984

If you're gonna come here, or anywhere to any online community, and expect to change the site to your liking expect one simple answer "ban hammer" I've been on various forums with mouthy opinionated ignoramuses who expect everyone to agree with them and this is almost always the result unless you're "that one guy" that the moderators like to keep around anyway because they happen to have some sort of click with the owner or moderators and chances are you are not "that one guy" and you will be gone before you achieve the status of "that one guy" who can be a total arsehole to everyone and still get away with it.
  
 Giving mouthy comments to the site owners/site sponsors is also the quickest way to meet with the ban hammer.


----------



## Dillan

orestes1984 said:


> If you're gonna come here, or anywhere to any online community, and expect to change the site to your liking expect one simple answer "ban hammer" I've been on various forums with mouthy opinionated ignoramuses who expect everyone to agree with them and this is almost always the result unless you're "that one guy" that the moderators like to keep around anyway because they happen to have some sort of click with the owner or moderators and chances are you are not "that one guy" and you will be gone before you achieve the status of "that one guy" who can be a total arsehole to everyone and still get away with it.
> 
> Giving mouthy comments to the site owners/site sponsors is also the quickest way to meet with the ban hammer.


 
  
 What?


----------



## Orestes1984

Giving "expectations about how I think the site should be" in a nonconstructive manner is a good way to get yourself banned.


----------



## Dillan

orestes1984 said:


> Giving "expectations about how I think the site should be" in a nonconstructive manner is a good way to get yourself banned.


 

 Why are you putting that in quotes, who said that?


----------



## Orestes1984

No one said that, it's a general response to people who come onto other peoples property and expect the rules to change to suit themselves. As others have said if you want a community with the rules that suit yourself you're best off making your own community.
  
 Having started one from scratch its not that easy, so I have the utmost respect for the people here that already have established the biggest headphone forum in the world. I don't expect to make any changes on this forum, I just came here on the advice of others for discussions and advice.


----------



## Dillan

orestes1984 said:


> No one said that, it's a general response to people who come onto other peoples property and expect the rules to change to suit themselves. As others have said if you want a community with the rules that suit yourself you're best off making your own community.
> 
> Having started one from scratch its not that easy, so I have the utmost respect for the people here that already have established the biggest headphone forum in the world.


 
  
 I am not trying to be some trouble maker, Orestes1984. I think that it's healthy (Even for Jude and Head-Fi) to discuss what the community likes and doesn't like. Jude uses this website as a source of income, I am sure he doesn't have any other jobs besides the one centered around this forum. I respect and even encourage that!
  
 The problem, in my opinion, is when we aren't allowed to voice what we don't like about said forum or more importantly the industry itself (regardless if you care about my opinion or if it will even accomplish anything). Even if you were defending the best interest of manufacturers and the forums right to monetize, I still think we could put even more money into their pocket by giving us what we want.. and then at least it could be a win/win. I could be wrong about what the general population of head-fi users and audiophile consumers want.. but that's why I started the thread in the first place. I just wanted to discuss the trending evolution of abnormally higher pricing and if/why blind testing or biasing is important. Indirectly calling me an "ignoramus" is incredibly rude in my opinion, I would guess if anyone is getting the "ban hammer", it would be someone insulting people and being childish in a science thread.
  
 At the end of the day Orestes1984, I am really only looking out for people like you - the consumer. Jude actually encouraged me to start a thread here talking about this subject, if you've read the first post. I'm going to have my opinion if you agree with it or not.


----------



## Orestes1984

You're personalising my comments, I never called you an ignoramus neither did I suggest you should be banned. I simply stated that I have the utmost respect for what Jude does and letting me play in his yard. I try to keep my head down and not make much noise here and get along.
  
 Once again I'm sorry if you took my comment the wrong way. That was never my intention to call you an ignoramus.


----------



## Dillan

orestes1984 said:


> You're personalising my comments, I never called you an ignoramus neither did I suggest you should be banned. I simply stated that I have the utmost respect for what Jude does and letting me play in his yard. I try to keep my head down and not make much noise here and get along.
> 
> Once again I'm sorry if you took my comment the wrong way. That was never my intention to call you an ignoramus.


 

 Well thank you, maybe I misunderstood.
  
 I definitely enjoy spending my time here on Head-Fi and am grateful for the work that Jude and the mods put in. I would suspect other forums wouldn't even let a thread like this exist - constructive or not.
  
 Cheers


----------



## Torq

dillan said:


> Hey Torq,
> 
> I read your DAC thread where you try a bunch of high end dacs and pick one you think sounds good. I've also asked you about your testing methods in that thread before and you were completely honest in your biasing and lack of blind comparisons. I respect that you based your choices on pure opinion then and I respect your opinion now - although for the most part I disagree with most of the direction of your posts in both threads. Agree to disagree I guess.
> 
> You say that you aren't willing to debate or hear anyone else's thoughts in your post above so when I get a second to post my opinions on the subjects I brought up then I will mostly be speaking to others who care to read another persons opinion other than yours or their own.


 

 As you say, we're free to agrees to disagree.
  
 In regards to how I choose to evaluate DACs for my own use, be it biased, subjective, objective, random or whatever, remains my choice and anyone that disagrees with it is at absolute liberty to do their own auditioning of whatever products they prefer in whatever manner they wish.  But if they want any say in how I do it, it's not discussion, debate or argument they need to bring to the table, it's cold, hard, cash.
  
 I had stated my biases, in my original post in that thread, months before you asked me about them.  At no point did I ever suggest I was trying to be scientific, objective or unbiased and there are multiple posts in there, along the way, that re-iterate that precise point.  There are, in many other threads, as well as that one, places where you will see me question spurious claims from a well-informed and practiced scientific and engineering background.  I'm interested in the theory and the science and the engineering, and often times what seems like utter gob****e is really just that ... and sometimes I just don't care and prefer to just listen.
  
 And my unwillingness to debate really relates to my primary point:* that you do not have any rights here, *is simply because it's _not_ a debate.  It's not even a matter of opinion.  It's a well established fact of law, supported by thousands of precedents in thousands of cases over decades of legal proceedings.  Excepting a handful of very specific, protected, classes, a private property owner can eject you from their property (and to be sure, this site IS private property for all relevant legal purposes) for whatever reason they deem fit - indeed they do not necessarily have to even provide a reason.  Feel free to challenge _that_ and when you win then you'll have rights on private property - until then you simply don't and debating it here will not make a blind bit of difference.
  
 High-school debate-club tactics don't go over very well with me - neither does putting words in my mouth.
  
 As to objective selection criteria - they only work if you only care about objective factors.  Most purchases are more than that unless you're a hardcore purist (I was, at one time ... I grew out of it because it kept ending up in places I wound up not liking).
  
 I bought a car that way once.  A 2004 Porsche 996 C4S Cab.  It was a nice car.  But it wasn't what I really _wanted_ ... just what the numbers said I should buy.  Head vs. heart type stuff.  I went with my head thinking I was being very mature and sensible.  I kept the car for 13 months.  It was fun at first, but as soon as the "it's new and different" factor had worn off, it became an increasingly irksome thing.  I wound up selling it and buying an Aston Martin and, price wise, I could have had a Ferrari, Lamborghini, Bentley, Koenigsegg or one of several other marquees instead - many of which significantly out-specced (objectively) the Aston.
  
 12 years later, and with enough free cash on hand to buy a DAC, on a whim, at a price not that far from some of those cars, I still drive Aston Martins.  It was an almost purely subjective purchase made on almost purely subjective grounds.  It is a joy to look at and an event just to sit in, in a way that none of the other, more technically accomplished competition.  I second guessed the Porsche every day for 12 months of the 13 I owned it.  I've never thought twice about whether I should have the Aston since the day it was first nestled in my garage.
  
 Combining objective and subjective aspects works better for me as shown by a long history of choices.  How much of which varies based on what I'm doing.  And while you're free to choose what works best for you, you're not in any position to comment on what works best for me.


----------



## Dillan

torq said:


> As you say, we're free to agrees to disagree.
> 
> In regards to how I choose to evaluate DACs for my own use, be it biased, subjective, objective, random or whatever, remains my choice and anyone that disagrees with it is at absolute liberty to do their own auditioning of whatever products they prefer in whatever manner they wish.  But if they want any say in how I do it, it's not discussion, debate or argument they need to bring to the table, it's cold, hard, cash.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I just get slightly confused about your comments on this thread as well as others. The same patterns happen every time I see someone disagreeing with your opinion..
  
 In the LCD-4 thread, when someone disagreed with your opinion on piano reproduction - you mentioned you had a piano worth 6 figures that world class pianist have played on, which you used as a way to boast about your subjective bias that really isn't worth more than anyone else's (regardless of how much your piano is worth).
  
 In your DAC thread you talk about how many DAC's you've bought and how expensive they were and now you are talking about these exotic cars you have and how you could buy a Ferrari, but your Aston is so much cooler. Give me a break man, come on.
  
 Trust me, I can brag too.. but I would rather support my opinions without talking about that stuff. It doesn't make your bias anymore worthwhile than any other persons. If you care about your opinion, but don't have enough respect to read someone else's that doesn't agree.. then why contribute to the discussion in the first place?
  
 Its just so off-putting.
  
 Edit: I am also extra confused about you saying "cold hard cash" can change the way you do things. So instead of having a civil conversation and discussing different points - you say you won't listen to anyone or change anything, but giving you money would do the trick?  I... I just don't understand.


----------



## RRod

dillan said:


> What in you guys' opinion would improve our hobby and be a step forward in maintaining a healthy future for consumers?
> Do you guys think it is our right to criticize Head-Fi or even advocate for specific structure or rule changes?
> Is there nothing wrong with the way things are as is? (speaking about the forums AND the headphone industry in general)


 
  
 .Ideally in the headphone world something like the new Realiser should generate as least as much buzz as yet-another-bloody-DAC, I don't care how many chimichangas are in the thing.
 .I think the mods haven't closed this thread yet, so they can't be too evil. We've kept it civil, so far, and that's not asking much. I do think people need to be directed to Sound Science more often, and without the overtones of "go talk to THOSE guys."
 .Consumers need to be better informed, but that's a big uphill battle when bringing up EQ alone gets the pearls mighty clutched. Reviewers are rewarded too much for conforming to subjective mores, which just encourages people to stagnate rather than learn, and it encourages companies to build with a mind toward sociology rather than sound.


----------



## Torq

dillan said:


> I just get slightly confused about your comments on this thread as well as others. The same patterns happen every time I see someone disagreeing with your opinion..
> 
> In the LCD-4 thread, when someone disagreed with your opinion on piano reproduction - you mentioned you had a piano worth 6 figures that world class pianist have played on, which you used as a way to boast about your subjective bias that really isn't worth more than anyone else's (regardless of how much your piano is worth).
> 
> ...


 

 The bring "cold hard cash" comment means if _you_ want to choose how I select something, _bring the cash to pay for _it because that's the only way it'll happen.  It won't change what _I do._
  
 My piano comments are intended to establish the fact that my experience with piano is not limited to what I _think_ it sounds like from recordings or school.  Just that I have one, a serious one, that has been played by people resolutely expert in doing so, and that I find, based on MY experience, is more accurately reproduced elsewhere.  You'll no doubt have noticed a post or two down in that thread I very specifically made the point that it is, in fact, _my bias and means nothing to_ ANYONE ELSE.  Nope, you'll have conveniently skipped that point.
  
 The car was an extreme example of a situation in which being objective bit me in the arse.  I supposed I could have made it about a Ford and a Chevy, but that's not how it happened.
  
 And the reference to DAC pricing is simply to illustrate that, based on my findings so far,  I'm hardly gravitating to the typical subjective nonsense that equates to "more expensive is better".  The car example would illustrate the same thing, as it happens, but if you want to see it as bragging, that's fine.
  
 If it's so off-putting maybe you just shouldn't read my posts, or block them altogether.
  
 And again you're putting words in my mouth ... which doesn't work.


----------



## Dillan

rrod said:


> .Ideally in the headphone world something like the new Realiser should generate as least as much buzz as yet-another-bloody-DAC, I don't care how many chimichangas are in the thing.
> .I think the mods haven't closed this thread yet, so they can't be too evil. We've kept it civil, so far, and that's not asking much. I do think people need to be directed to Sound Science more often, and without the overtones of "go talk to THOSE guys."
> .Consumers need to be better informed, but that's a big uphill battle when bringing up EQ alone gets the pearls mighty clutched. Reviewers are rewarded too much for conforming to subjective mores, which just encourages people to stagnate rather than learn, *and it encourages companies to build with a mind toward sociology rather than sound.*


 
  
 Thats actually a really interesting way of putting it, especially the part in bold. I think you're right that one "easy" change would be to shift the mindset that the science thread is active and helpful (which is obviously up to us haha). Things like that do not require rule changes and naturally encourage people to come here more often thus introducing objectiveness into their overbearing subjectiveness.


----------



## Torq

Anyway, I made the point I intended to make and didn't intend to debate.
  
 My point in doing so was in answer to your question; I don't believe I'm required to stick around to do more than that, so I won't.


----------



## Dillan

torq said:


> The bring "cold hard cash" comment means if _you_ want to choose how I select something, _bring the cash to pay for _it because that's the only way it'll happen.  It won't change what _I do._
> 
> My piano comments are intended to establish the fact that my experience with piano is not limited to what I _think_ it sounds like from recordings or school.  Just that I have one, a serious one, that has been played by people resolutely expert in doing so, and that I find, based on MY experience, is more accurately reproduced elsewhere.  You'll no doubt have noticed a post or two down in that thread I very specifically made the point that it is, in fact, _my bias and means nothing to_ ANYONE ELSE.  Nope, you'll have conveniently skipped that point.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Honestly Torq I just want a thread that helps people save money and be more informed. If you want to tell me about the exotic things you own and how you won't change anything until I pay you then thats fine - I will just try to shift the topic into a more friendly and helpful discussion. If you aren't willing to listen to someone's opinion that isn't yours then I can't change that, but I would question your reason for even joining the topic in the first place.
  
 I have shiny toys too, but most of them were obtained because of bias, marketing and placebo. I want to help, inform and debate - if you don't thats great.
  
 Thank you for letting us hear about your experiences and opinion.


----------



## Torq

dillan said:


> Honestly Torq I just want a thread that helps people save money and be more informed. If you want to tell me about the exotic things you own and how you won't change anything until I pay you then thats fine - I will just try to shift the topic into a more friendly and helpful discussion. If you aren't willing to listen to someone's opinion that isn't yours then I can't change that, but I would question your reason for even joining the topic in the first place.
> 
> I have shiny toys too, but most of them were obtained because of bias, marketing and placebo. I want to help, inform and debate - if you don't thats great.
> 
> Thank you for letting us hear about your experiences and opinion.


 

 Well, that's something I *can* get behind.
  
 We might disagree on methodology, probably do, but I'm all for people being more informed.  We might even disagree on what that actually means, but in principle I have to agree it's a good thing.
  
 I've not said that I'm not willing to listen to other opinions (at least not in any general context) ...  just that they don't carry much weight with my _purchases.  _The only way to influence those directly is to make them for me - i.e. buy me what it is you think I should have. 
  
 I don't mind debating the debatable, but I'll leave that point alone now - maybe I misconstrued what you were referring to in your initial response.
  
 Anyway, sincere apologies if I'm coming across like a jack-ass.


----------



## Dillan

torq said:


> Well, that's something I *can* get behind.
> 
> We might disagree on methodology, probably do, but I'm all for people being more informed.  We might even disagree on what that actually means, but in principle I have to agree it's a good thing.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Several pages back someone said that you become smarter by listening first and speaking second. I think we could both take that advice as the dumbest thing you could do is speak first and listen never. I don't think you're a jackass actually, but I do feel like you could respect those around you (and yourself) by at least listening to the other side of the argument (and without telling us what "amazing" things you own). Your Porsche or Aston Martin doesn't impress me, if you wanted to talk about cars then I could PM you my collection 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Nobody has to be right, but I feel like everyone *should *be open to at least listening, learning and just being friendly in general.
  
 Again thanks for your input, although I haven't really agreed with anything you've said in any thread ever - I at least more than welcomed you saying it.


----------



## oldmate

orestes1984 said:


> If you're gonna come here, or anywhere to any online community, and expect to change the site to your liking expect one simple answer "ban hammer" I've been on various forums with mouthy opinionated ignoramuses who expect everyone to agree with them and this is almost always the result unless you're "that one guy" that the moderators like to keep around anyway because they happen to have some sort of click with the owner or moderators and chances are you are not "that one guy" and you will be gone before you achieve the status of "that one guy" who can be a total arsehole to everyone and still get away with it.
> 
> Giving mouthy comments to the site owners/site sponsors is also the quickest way to meet with the ban hammer.


 

  
 Every science thread I have read starts with the greatest of intentions but usually turns to crap.


----------



## nanaholic

Going off tangent for a bit, instead of focusing on the equipment where I think we are way beyond diminishing returns as making competent equipment over a entire range of prices now is easy as pie, anyone has any idea what the audiophile community can do to something that makes a real audible difference 100% of the time - stop music labels from putting out really crappy loud and overly dynamically compressed mixes of their music?  The recent push for "hi-res" audio has reset the needle a little because the engineers have a tiny flame put under their feet to take more care into making the "hi-res" mix better because the current audience is a little bit more picky about it (yet you will see some "audiophiles" whom just automatically assumes that the hi-res mix is automatically superior), but it's only a matter of time when the same bad practice for mixing loud CDs gets carried over when the general audience takes the wrong idea and assumes that "hi-res = better" and the engineers can stop giving a **** (which is the same mentality of "more expensive = better" in the equipment side of the hobby).  What can we do about that?  Because I think that part of the equation is equally if not more important but is often overlooked in these kinds of discussions.


----------



## oldmate

orestes1984 said:


> You're personalising my comments, I never called you an ignoramus neither did I suggest you should be banned. I simply stated that I have the utmost respect for what Jude does and letting me play in his yard. I try to keep my head down and not make much noise here and get along.
> 
> Once again I'm sorry if you took my comment the wrong way. That was never my intention to call you an ignoramus.


 
 Keeping your head down and getting along and not speaking up is exactly why people go out and buy 1K cables and wonder why they don't sound any different. That does no-one any favors. Anyone can be a sheep mate. I say speak up and lob a grenade in every now and again and question certain claims. Otherwise it's just going to get more expensive.


----------



## Dillan

nanaholic said:


> Going off tangent for a bit, instead of focusing on the equipment where I think we are way beyond diminishing returns as making competent equipment over a entire range of prices now is easy as pie, anyone has any idea what the audiophile community can do to something that makes a real audible difference 100% of the time - stop music labels from putting out really crappy loud and overly dynamically compressed mixes of their music?  The recent push for "hi-res" audio has reset the needle a little because the engineers have a tiny flame put under their feet to take more care into making the "hi-res" mix better because the current audience is a little bit more picky about it (yet you will see some "audiophiles" whom just automatically assumes that the hi-res mix is automatically superior), but it's only a matter of time when the same bad practice for mixing loud CDs gets carried over when the general audience takes the wrong idea and assumes that "hi-res = better" and the engineers can stop giving a **** (which is the same mentality of "more expensive = better" in the equipment side of the hobby).  What can we do about that?  Because I think that part of the equation is equally if not more important but is often overlooked in these kinds of discussions.


 

 This is soooo true.
  
 I actually think about this a lot and have consciously been listening to older recordings, because back then you couldn't cut corners like you can now. I think audiophiles are at a point (and have been for awhile) where they are trying to squeeze out so much of a recording, when in reality it was just poorly mixed in the first place which makes the entire situation a little backwards.


----------



## Dillan

oldmate said:


> Keeping your head down and getting along is exactly why people go out and buy 1K cables and wonder why they don't sound any different. Anyone can be a sheep mate. I say speak up and lob a grenade in every now and again. Otherwise it's just going to get more expensive.


 

 Yep.. that's what I think too. We can either be sheep or wolves - I myself don't like being herded by the industry hehe


----------



## Orestes1984

dillan said:


> I just get slightly confused about your comments on this thread as well as others. The same patterns happen every time I see someone disagreeing with your opinion..
> 
> In the LCD-4 thread, when someone disagreed with your opinion on piano reproduction - you mentioned you had a piano worth 6 figures that world class pianist have played on, which you used as a way to boast about your subjective bias that really isn't worth more than anyone else's (regardless of how much your piano is worth).
> 
> ...


 
  
 Some people like you to know they've got an Amex Platinum card, personally I don't give a horses ass, really. I have never worked a day in my life for the man, and I never will. Whopp dee ****** doo. Money is a bartering tool for me, and I live like a bard in its truest derogatory sense as far as this forum is concerned, a life story of how you fell into new money impresses me about as much as the stain on my toilet basin after I've had food poisoning done a crap.


----------



## Torq

dillan said:


> Several pages back someone said that you become smarter by listening first and speaking second. I think we could both take that advice as the dumbest thing you could do is speak first and listen never. I don't think you're a jackass actually, but I do feel like you could respect those around you (and yourself) by at least listening to the other side of the argument (and without telling us what "amazing" things you own). Your Porsche or Aston Martin doesn't impress me, if you wanted to talk about cars then I could PM you my collection
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 If I was trying to be "impressive", that wouldn't be where I'd go.
  
 Nor would an online forum be where I'd choose to do it.
  
 I just like extreme contrasts as examples and for setting context and illustrating pre-existing bias (something I fully acknowledge).
  
 And I like to talk about cars, so I'd love to hear about your collection.  I stopped collecting a couple of years ago ... various life factors re-focused me on experiences over "stuff".  There are a few things I'm passionate about (that piano is one, we're not sure where that's being left to) that go well beyond this head-fi stuff.
  
 But yes, talk to me about your car collection and PM is fine, as it's clearly off-topic here!


----------



## oldmate

This is what I drive;
  

  
  
 As we are off topic temporarily does anybody here know what it is??


----------



## Torq

oldmate said:


> This is what I drive;
> 
> 
> 
> As we are off topic temporarily does anybody here know what it is??


 

 Looks like a Type 13 Bugatti Brescia.
  
 Could be mistaken, but that's what I'd say at first look.


----------



## Dillan

orestes1984 said:


> Some people like you to know they've got an Amex Platinum card, personally I don't give a horses ass, really. I have never worked a day in my life for the man, and I never will. Whopp dee ****** doo. Money is a bartering tool for me, and I live like a bard in its truest derogatory sense as far as this forum is concerned, a life story of how you fell into new money impresses me about as much as the stain on my toilet basin after I've had food poisoning done a crap.


 

 Im with you!
  
  
  


oldmate said:


> This is what I drive;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 What kind of gas mileage you get with that thing? Lil paint job and you'll be good to go.


----------



## Torq

Since being conciliatory makes no difference ...
  
 I'll part by saying enjoy the shenanigans in November ... and good luck ... you're going to need it.


----------



## U-3C

dillan said:


> Yep.. that's what I think too. We can either be sheep or wolves - I myself don't like being herded by the industry hehe




Why not be social, compassionate humans and work something out instead of being predator or prey?


----------



## Dillan

torq said:


> Since being conciliatory makes no difference ...
> 
> I'll part by saying enjoy the shenanigans in November ... and good luck ... you're going to need it.


 
  
 Bringing up American politics is pretty random haha But thanks I guess?
  
 See ya round!


----------



## Dillan

u-3c said:


> Why not social, compassionate humans?


 

 Because we are all jerks and everyone is out to get me


----------



## Torq

dillan said:


> Bringing up American politics is pretty random haha But thanks I guess?
> 
> See ya round!


 
  
 It's a point of amusement for me, not being American - I just maintain a home here.
  
 Not that my home politics are any better ... I'm English ... and our current political situation is a complete cluster of it's own unique, and unfortunately spectacular, design as well.
  
 Africa is seriously starting to look like a viable primary residence!


----------



## Orestes1984

Politics is a mindfield everywhere, we're not much better in Australia, your favorite Australian celebrity Pauline Hanson is back on office.


----------



## Torq

orestes1984 said:


> Politics is a mindfield everywhere, we're not much better in Australia, your favorite Australian celebrity Pauline Hanson is back on office.


 

 I'd say "just come home", but I'm just a pom ... so I doubt that'd have much effect (probably not a positive one anyway).  And you're probably no better off even then!
  
 BUT ... if you do visit old-brightly, please leave, well, EVERYTHING that moves back in Australia because I'm pretty sure all of it wants to kill me.  Personally, I mean.  And most of it, seemingly, can.  JHC on a pony ... I never had much of an issue being in the water with sharks, but when the locals told me about the Irukandji ... yeah ... time to take off the tanks and get back in the boat!
  
 Bruce or Sheila, you're made of sturdier stock ... and I thought our stiff upper lip was sufficient ... /shudder


----------



## U-3C

dillan said:


> Because we are all jerks and everyone is out to get me


 
 Don't say that!


----------



## Orestes1984

torq said:


> I'd say "just come home", but I'm just a pom ... so I doubt that'd have much effect (probably not a positive one anyway).  And you're probably no better off even then!
> 
> BUT ... if you do visit old-brightly, please leave, well, EVERYTHING that moves back in Australia because I'm pretty sure all of it wants to kill me.  Personally, I mean.  And most of it, seemingly, can.  JHC on a pony ... I never had much of an issue being in the water with sharks, but when the locals told me about the Irukandji ... yeah ... time to take off the tanks and get back in the boat!
> 
> Bruce or Sheila, you're made of sturdier stock ... and I thought our stiff upper lip was sufficient ... /shudder


 

 I would try, but I am also Greek, while I appreciate my rights as a citizen of the Commonwealth to vote as an Australian and thereby commonwealth citizen, to actively engage in British politics and to actively engage in using the express lanes in British airports, I'm not sure that certain members of the Brexit voting public would put up with my appearance as a tanned skinned Mediterranean descent person no matter how much the average Brexit voting Lad/Ladette likes to spend on Greek beaches every year being louts and drinking copious amounts of alcohol then pissing on the sides of our walls in Greece.
  
 I have a double edged problem. I feel about as Greek as I do Australian in different contexts surrounding different people. I have a great fear a the moment though that I would run into a presence in Britain that is slightly less than welcoming of my appearance.
  
 At the same time what I hear and see through the media is superficial and I might be blowing things out of proportion.


----------



## cel4145

dillan said:


> Yep.. that's what I think too. We can either be sheep or wolves - I myself don't like being herded by the industry hehe






u-3c said:


> Why not be social, compassionate humans and work something out instead of being predator or prey?




Ummmm....because corporations (even audio ones) have the morality of a psychotic? LOL


----------



## mulder01

Sorry guys but I'm just gonna go back a few pages for this one because every time I go away from the computer and come back this thread has grown by a few dozen posts...
  
 In regards to being WOWed by a headphone system and having that WOW factor slowly wear off until you are hungry for the next fix, I can relate where now I'm in a position where the Abyss sounds 'normal'.  Sometimes I put them on and think "wow these really are something else", and other times, yeah, just 'normal'.  But until you have heard a pair of high end headphones you really love, I don't think you realise how big the difference can really be, and saying 'but you could buy X speakers for the same money'.  Yes you can, and they would not be as good.  In my experience, the difference between a $500 speaker and $2000 speaker (both with a sound signature that suits your taste) is SMALLER than the difference between a $500 headphone and a $2000 one.  It's not a few percent difference like amps/dacs - no way.  I am_ not_ a critical listener _at all_ and can't pick different dacs and would really have to try to hear a difference between well designed amps but for the difference between headphones, even I would use the words 'significant' and 'obvious'.
  
 It annoys me a bit when people who haven't directly compared their reasonably priced headphones to some of the more expensive flagships because they're "not worth it" or "the manufacturer is just taking advantage of the consumer" etc.  I went to a hifi show a couple of years ago that had some headphone stuff, but was mostly high end 2 channel gear.  This is where I bought my Abyss and the thing that helped me pull the trigger on that purchase was comparing them to speakers.  Every room was filled with flagship everything from every manufacturer you can think of and costing well into the 5 or 6 figure range.  I remember walking into a couple of rooms and thinking 'man, this sounds garbage'.  Walked over to the rack of expensive looking gear and looked at the back of it and there's 10, 20, 30 thousand dollars plus worth of cables connecting the rubbish together.  I look out into the room and there's half a dozen old dudes and one reluctant tag-along wife sitting there with their thumb and forefinger on their chin looking down at the floor really concentrating as the rubbish sound washes over them.  Every now and again, I'd go back downstairs and have a listen to the Abyss, then go back to speakers and the only rooms that sounded as good were filled with what looked like AT LEAST 6 figures worth of stuff.  That experience actually confirmed for me that even a headphone like the Abyss was actually _value for money._  Yes, a $5k headphone was a relative bargain because if you want to get that level of sound out of speakers you need to spend an exorbitant amount of money.  So, for me at least, headphones even very expensive ones can be 'worth it', but I must stress that is relevant to headphones ONLY.  The same thing can't be said for amps and is even less true for dacs but I don't think high end headphones deserve as badder wrap as they have been getting in this thread occasionally.  
  
 I'm going to add:
 IMO


----------



## Ruben123

mulder01 said:


> Sorry guys but I'm just gonna go back a few pages for this one because every time I go away from the computer and come back this thread has grown by a few dozen posts...
> 
> In regards to being WOWed by a headphone system and having that WOW factor slowly wear off until you are hungry for the next fix, I can relate where now I'm in a position where the Abyss sounds 'normal'.  Sometimes I put them on and think "wow these really are something else", and other times, yeah, just 'normal'.  But until you have heard a pair of high end headphones you really love, I don't think you realise how big the difference can really be, and saying 'but you could buy X speakers for the same money'.  Yes you can, and they would not be as good.  In my experience, the difference between a $500 speaker and $2000 speaker (both with a sound signature that suits your taste) is SMALLER than the difference between a $500 headphone and a $2000 one.  It's not a few percent difference like amps/dacs - no way.  I am_ not_ a critical listener _at all_ and can't pick different dacs and would really have to try to hear a difference between well designed amps but for the difference between headphones, even I would use the words 'significant' and 'obvious'.
> 
> ...


 

 What helps me is have a collection of some headphones/earphones, sell the ones without much use instantly after you think "meh" and keep only those few around that you really like and change them now and often. First few weeks headphone A, then B, then A again and after that C. I keep exploring new details etc in tracks Ive known for long just by getting my other headphone. Shrills? For certain. Oh btw for most here my headphones are a joke.


----------



## mulder01

terry parr said:


> what's up, mulder?  I've enjoyed your posts on this thread.   look, you might have bought something you didn't need to in the past.  I completely went off the deep end with this particular purchase.  remember.  at the time, nothing but solid, positive reviews about this piece (both here and on other sites).  this is an example of "what the hell was I thinking?"
> 
> of course, if the unit had performed as I was led to believe by reading the reviews, I might not feel _quite_ so bad.  (but, even then, i'd probably be feeling at least twinges of regret, by now).  as it was, this piece was completely unsatisfactory to me. got no enjoyment from it at all, because I didn't like it from the very first listen.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Hi Terry, I did not guess the SPL Phonitor.  Actually, now that I think about it, your original post describing just how well the 'unnamed product' was received and reviewed and universally loved made me realise that there are SO MANY threads that you could have been referring to.  (Actually guessed the Yggy - budget little brother of the new world-beating hero named DAVE).  I guess this actually unintentionally highlights the other issue pointed out a few times by a few members of how overly positive every thread is becoming and how you get shut down if you criticize anything or don't hear the 'magic' this piece of gear possesses.  It was also pointed out that head fi has become more and more this way over time, and I didn't notice it personally because it has happened slowly over a period of years but for someone to go away and come back years later, I can see how it would be more evident.  Now that it's been brought to my attention, I do remember people being a lot more "In my opinion" "take that with a grain of salt" and "to my tastes, but others may disagree" etc etc, but now the line between opinion and fact is becoming blurry because people mistake their opinions, and the general opinion on a thread, as facts... Which is a shame.  
  
 ---
  
 ^Ruben you probably have a pretty good system going there actually - the thing that usually makes me appreciate my system more is momentarily going back to a lesser product.  When my first 'decent' headphone purchase started to not wow me anymore, I would put in a pair of apple earbuds for a minute or so, then go back to said headphones and BAM they were magical again...


----------



## Orestes1984

ruben123 said:


> What helps me is have a collection of some headphones/earphones, sell the ones without much use instantly after you think "meh" and keep only those few around that you really like and change them now and often. First few weeks headphone A, then B, then A again and after that C. I keep exploring new details etc in tracks Ive known for long just by getting my other headphone. Shrills? For certain. Oh btw for most here my headphones are a joke.


 
  


mulder01 said:


> Sorry guys but I'm just gonna go back a few pages for this one because every time I go away from the computer and come back this thread has grown by a few dozen posts...
> 
> In regards to being WOWed by a headphone system and having that WOW factor slowly wear off until you are hungry for the next fix, I can relate where now I'm in a position where the Abyss sounds 'normal'.  Sometimes I put them on and think "wow these really are something else", and other times, yeah, just 'normal'.  But until you have heard a pair of high end headphones you really love, I don't think you realise how big the difference can really be, and saying 'but you could buy X speakers for the same money'.  Yes you can, and they would not be as good.  In my experience, the difference between a $500 speaker and $2000 speaker (both with a sound signature that suits your taste) is SMALLER than the difference between a $500 headphone and a $2000 one.  It's not a few percent difference like amps/dacs - no way.  I am_ not_ a critical listener _at all_ and can't pick different dacs and would really have to try to hear a difference between well designed amps but for the difference between headphones, even I would use the words 'significant' and 'obvious'.
> 
> ...


 

 I'm definitely not on here to poopoo on your views or your experiences, no doubt some expensive speakers sound better than others, and then some don't and then if you know the right model and vintage some cost significantly less and sound better. I'm sure they sounded excellent, as a self professed musical bard the only time I'm going to come near this is when I inherent my fathers rather large and expensive collection of vintage musical instruments amps and speakers.
  
 Whatever floats your boat, I'm sure they sound amazing and then sometimes it's not relevant to speakers at all, I posted a set of BOSE 901s that someone wanted $4500 for, Jesus Christ no! If you gave me that money to spend willfully without reason I'd still find it hard to pass up a set of Rogers LS3/6 BBC Studio Monitors though with a suitable amplifier and sub woofer to warm them up a little.
  
 May I sing a song for my supper?


----------



## mulder01

I have discovered that there is value to be had in vintage gear, especially 2 channel stereo stuff where not much has changed in decades, but haven't had that many chances to hear very very good vintage speakers.  I would be QUITE surprised if you could show me a $5k pair of vintage speakers that matched the abyss, but also willing to accept that you were right if you could.  I am also a little biased toward headphones as I was previously into speakers but my current situation makes speakers too impractical and likely to just sit and collect dust...
  
 I suppose it's not quite apples for apples though because you're talking about something second hand vs new RRP.  In 30 years I wonder how much a used vintage abyss will set you back...


----------



## oldmate

torq said:


> It's a point of amusement for me, not being American - I just maintain a home here.
> 
> Not that my home politics are any better ... I'm English ... and our current political situation is a complete cluster of it's own unique, and unfortunately spectacular, design as well.
> 
> Africa is seriously starting to look like a viable primary residence!


 
 Shame Boris got Shafted by May though. I always liked him. Saw him on Top Gear. Had me in stitches.


----------



## Pogart

Hi I'm new to this forum and this is actually the first time I'm writting something. Unfortunately as a new I've got nothing important to say but warm hello to all of you 
The subject of this post has interested me because I'm necoming an audiophile or let say, I've started to notice the difference between the mp3 files and wav or flac... To be honest I hate mp3 and all my audio collection is whether on CDs or flac files...
I can't start new post yet so I'm sorry if I annoy you by posting in here?
I wish I could get some answers from you? I'm in deep doubts if I have to start spending money for purchasing hi-res audio albums please?
I did purchase the first one for £17 where CD of this album costs £6.99 ...
I'm listening musicon my Sennhaiser HD650 headphone connected to the computer by Oppo H2 portable amplifier.
To play music I'm using Winamp set in options to play 24bit audio.
And that's it for now.
The Led Zeppelin IV Deluxe edition in hi-res costs £30 where CD is for around £10? Before I make any silly mistake I need some help please to answer my question if I really going to do right when I start spending that much money on hi-res albums please?
Also I've got not any sound card on my computer just the one on matherboard...
Is Oppo H2 enough or I should get extra sound card and then connect Oppo H2 to it? Again I am sorry for bothering you.
I'm full of daubts if I can benefit from hi-res audios to not waste my money... I've read some other forums where people arguing about it, one of them are laughing that human's ear can't hear more than 20khz so CD is twice than that... Others arguing that it's not tru because the hi-res files like 72khz or 192khz are actually not to be heard by humen ear but to be sent to amplifier and then the extra khz is making a big difference when is converted by amplifier... Some people says to make a good record of orchestra on CD is needed 20bit at least...
So bits matter... Also I can play my hi-res on my Blu-ray what is able to read ip to 192khz/24bit audio files.
I've got very good quality speakers too connected to Yamaha RX777...
I'm a bit lost between so many different opinions...
I need your help please whether I will benefit from hi-res audio or I can experience the same quality by purchasing original CDs?
Should I get good sound card or I'm better off Oppo H2 please?


----------



## nanaholic

pogart said:


> I've started to notice the difference between the mp3 files and wav or flac... To be honest I hate mp3 and all my audio collection is whether on CDs or flac files...


 
  
 Since this is the science section I'm just going to stop you right there before you start to wonder off into the wrong direction that many of us in this very thread is trying to steer new comers away from.
  
 Refer to my post here and here in this thread to see why that just assuming lossless > lossy and that "hi-res" > "low-res" not only doesn't actually get you very far for your dollar, but may lead you down the wrong track.
  
 Also I'd suggest doing some actual ABX test to see if you can REALLY hear the difference between lossy/lossless - the result may actually surprise you!


----------



## castleofargh

pogart said:


> Hi I'm new to this forum and this is actually the first time I'm writting something. Unfortunately as a new I've got nothing important to say but warm hello to all of you
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 may I suggest here, http://www.head-fi.org/f/7840/introductions-help-and-recommendations or any of the dozens of topics already existing on "highres vs XXX".


----------



## oldmate

pogart said:


> Hi I'm new to this forum and this is actually the first time I'm writting something. Unfortunately as a new I've got nothing important to say but warm hello to all of you
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Welcome to Head.Fi. I won't say the rest of the slogan as it does not have to be.
  
 1st up mate just be a lover of music. No need to become an audiophile.
  
 Great choice with the HD650's and oppo HA-2. Great setup. The HD650's might benefit more with a more powerful amplifier however. It might be worth your while going for a decent desktop amp (with USB input and) for those headphones and use your oppo for portable use or more efficient headphones.
  
 IMHO just stick to Red Book CD's and skip the Hi-Res. Your enjoyment will be the same and your wallet most thankful. You can buy that desktop amp with the money you will save!! Stay away from the Hi-Res threads as the only thing you will learn there is the true meaning of the word futility. With regard to your on board audio as you are using USB to your oppo no sound card required IMHO. On Board Audio provided your motherboard is not from the nineties is pretty respectable these days.
  
 With regard to led zep the best release of that album is the 1994 remaster on CD.
  
 Any further help you require there is a help thread right here;
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/f/7840/introductions-help-and-recommendations
  
 Rock on.


----------



## Orestes1984

pogart said:


> Hi I'm new to this forum and this is actually the first time I'm writting something. Unfortunately as a new I've got nothing important to say but warm hello to all of you
> The Led Zeppelin IV Deluxe edition in hi-res costs £30 where CD is for around £10? Before I make any silly mistake I need some help please to answer my question if I


 
  
 Led Zeppelin IV was recorded on an 8track tape with no more than two microphones for most of the tracks except for John Bonham's drum tracks because he was that melodramatic about it all being recorded the way it was. There is only so much sound resolution you're going to get out of it. For older albums like that it's better you learn how to use an EQ to get a sound that sounds better to you. I use Spotify in 320kb/s [yes i know but Spotify is cheap and so were the recorders Led Zeppelin recorded it on in their garage] I start with the bass boost EQ settings and go from there, otherwise there is nothing you can do, it's always going to sound hollow as a hula hoop. They simply recorded it straight to tape, there is no more resolution on that album than what a high resolution cassette tape can handle. There wasn't a care about it, they literally recorded it out of the back of Mick Jager's transit van, and put it out there at a time when people didn't care.
  
 Sorry, if you want to listen to it properly get one of these:
  
 https://www.amazon.com/TDK-minute-Super-Resolution-Cassette/dp/B00017YHME


----------



## castleofargh

dillan said:


> Just to bring it back to the main focus of the thread and to invoke some discussion:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I got a BSOD for the first time in a year when I had almost finished answering to this... arrrrrrrrgggggghhhhhhhhhHHHHHHH!!!!
  
 1/standards. measurement standards required to be followed, minimum measurement to disclose for a right to some basic label saying your stuff isn't total crap(I'm sure marketing could find a way to get value out of such a stuff). 
 so we might not know everything, but at least we would know when a guy is selling nonsense for 2000$.
  
 also I go back and forth between audio and photo forums (my 2 not very secret love affairs). photographers are surrounded by measurements and technical data of all kinds all the time. they care about it or they don't, but they're used to live in such an environment, so when someone tries to pull a scam on us, we almost always have a few guys who will know what spec to use and expose the scam. can I sell an amp that has mad non linearity plugged into anything below 50ohm and talk non stop about how the sound feels more realistic and my product is high end for only 1999$? of course I can. and I may just sell a bunch if the sound isn't horrible.
 now try to go sell a lens with 5blades and make your marketing on how the bokeh feels realistic and natural. good luck surviving a week after the first person gets a sample. it's not perfect but they eat way less crap than us while smiling and telling everybody else how tasteful it is.
  
 this is IMO due to 3 factors:
 - in photo everybody will show the result of using the device to others. in audio, the average audiophile doesn't do it, doesn't know how to do it, and/or doesn't have a good enough input. so we all pretend to care about how things really sound, but even for DACs and amps, we don't share actual sound... (well a few of us might do it from time to time in this subs section, but even here it's not that much of a common practice). 
*warning!*  before getting the usual argument that the input will alter the real sound, showing pictures online means others will be looking at it through more or less uncalibrated screens, so it's not the real picture, but it's still enough to notice a great deal of problems like vignetting, bad bokeh, some obvious distortions, chromatic or geometric, etc. more often than not it can be informative and revealing of something. and it's the very same for audio on a not so perfect input. for comparisons of a particular variation, a bad input might just be a good enough tool.
 in audio, we're stuck with the utopia of perfection that already never was a thing in the recording studio, so people reject a 90% informative method because 10% isn't. as if anything was always 100% certainty in their lives... 
  
 - the other factor is that photographers are surrounded by data, specs and measurements, so even the newbie will over time naturally become accustomed with those data and start noticing how they may or may not relate to something in the final picture. the result is that over the years, photographers have on average become way more educated and knowledgeable about some of the technical aspects of photography and gears. while in audio we have a dominating anti graph, anti science movement so that newbies have to be highly motivated and extremely curious if they want to find and learn anything about objective data. those ends up of course being an extremely small minority of the audiophile community, and the rest will most likely know very little about how to do or read measurements, and even less about what it means for sound. and it's likely that at some point they will feel ashamed for not knowing something in a conversation, and will turn into a proud new member of that anti science movement as a way to justify themselves for never making any effort to learn.
 so we have and have had for many years, a very sustainable system in favor of ignorance where the natural answer is "I care about what I hear" as a permanent free pass argument.
 of course there is some irony when a photographer who's an artist and a creator, is less biased against objectivism than an amateur audiophile doing nothing creative. but a photographer is able to make the difference between a tool that should do a good objective tool job, and subjectivism that is the human side of things where there is no objective right or wrong. it's obvious and there was never any reason for objectivism and subjectivism to be mutually exclusive(they can't anyway), but it's required in audio or else the fake subjectists(because actual subjectivists don't spend their days trying to prove other people they're right) would lose their excuse for not learning anything and still pretend to know it all.
  
 - last is a consequence of the 2 previous, you can come and pretend to know everything. and on an audio forum you might just get away with it. in something like DPreview(where trolling is strong) confidence and false claims will get shot down by people more knowledgeable than yourself in a few hours delay. so other readers won't believe your false claim, instead they see how burn you get for trying to pretend too much. as a result the people talking will still have the subjective approach and talk about what they like and fight over that(canon vs nikon blablablah etc), but statements about hard cold facts are more often than not the real deal and we soon enough get confirmation if something is really wrong. that's not sure at all in audio forums.
  
  
  
 2/ it's easy enough to go PM and admin(and I mean an admin, not a quasi modo like myself), and make some suggestions if you believe they're correct and would benefit the forum.
 but you mustn't forget that the main objective here is to have many people who want to come, want to come back, and are happy spending time in here. it pains me to say this, but the quest for truth and knowledge isn't exactly it. just think about what makes a successful TV show, remove boobs, because it's not that kind of forum, and there you have it.
 the 2hours special on what does a capacitor at the output of the amp on an electrical level, might not have the same success as "new device is amazing, learn more about what people subjectively thought of it!".
 about trying to advocate changes to other members, well can that work? yes and no. it depends on what we're talking about and how antagonistic we are toward headfi. I have myself been posting that kind of stuff many times, often thinking "oh well it was cool while it lasted, this time I really went too far and will get a ban". now I'm moderating sound science, so don't underestimate the evil ways they can use to punish you for going too far! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 seriously when we act all "anarchy will triumph, the establishment is wrong", and we don't get in trouble for it, it's because it was so small no modo noticed, or because all the modos who noticed decided to tolerate the post. so IMO it really comes down to what ideas are expressed, and most of all, how.
  
  
  
 3/ everything is wrong and could be better. I hate the audio community as it is(seriously!), but also I hope I can sometimes learn something, and sometimes help a fellow compatriot of the internet world, to give back all the hours some unknown people wasted explaining things to me while expecting nothing in return but a little thank you. those people got to me and my natural egoism. so I still hang around when common sense would tell me to forget about all this hobby and just enjoy my music on whatever gear I own.
  
  
  
  
 as you can see I didn't stop being a grumpy guy, and my rant power is over 9000. but hope is nice too.


----------



## Orestes1984

And yet brands like Samyang continue to exist and thrive in photography.


----------



## Brooko

dillan said:


> Just to bring it back to the main focus of the thread and to invoke some discussion:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Middle of biz trip through Nth America and Europe, but it's nice to see the input into this thread so far.

My thoughts

1) improvements we can do ourselves, and it just involves questioning (nicely) the overly subjective views of some posters - especially when you know they are introducing subjective bias. Example - a poster asked about balanced vs SE output on FiiOs X7 + AM3. Someone pointed them to my review, and then another reviewer posted this (http://www.head-fi.org/t/713735/fiio-x7-dxd-dsd-384k-64b-ess9018-android-wifi-bluetooth-4-amp-modules-balanced-out/13605#post_12769131) to which I replied with this (http://www.head-fi.org/t/713735/fiio-x7-dxd-dsd-384k-64b-ess9018-android-wifi-bluetooth-4-amp-modules-balanced-out/13620#post_12770378)

You can do it nicely and matter of factly - but the important thing is to continually question.

2) I would suggest it is ok to lobby for change - but realise that this is a private site, and most of the rules actually work pretty well and are there for a reason. Jude is really good to talk to and open to improvements as long as they don't lead to issues somewhere else. Unfortunately some of what you guys may want introduced could lead to complications in the running of the forums - and ultimately that could be the biggest hurdle.

3) Too much claims of absolutes - when people should be talking in terms of individual subjective impressions. Again. This leads back to point 1 - questioning people nicely. Some will not like it, but ultimately it may change the way they post in future (if they begin to question themselves)


----------



## Orestes1984

I get where you're coming from and am an active member on DPReview in the Micro Four Thirds forum, and people are generally more informed particularly about why they chose Micro Four Thirds on the MFT forum, you're right, but I still trawl through some of the forums on there and there is still the uninformed plonkers who say their "super zoom" is the best camera yet and they gave up full frame cameras because of their super zoom and how much better it is, there is wheat and chaft over there also, but I get what you're saying as a generalisation people are more informed, but there is also more data out there and graphs and shiny things like DXO Mark and constant MTF reviews that make it easy for consumers to see what the results of a particular lens are going to do as an approximation which is great.
  
 I haven't really been around this place long enough to see the actual comparative SQ charts and figures pop up here, but do know what the industry can be like in terms of audio and just how many "white van" type people tend to hang around sound forums, it was one of the reasons I left in the first place, but I stupidly got sucked back into the hipster scene by buying $300 headphones. I like them OK but I only really did it to say that I had a shiny Focal stamp on my headphones more than anything else... Theoretically it's just as easy to create the charts that represent sound in a way that everyone understands it, it's just that most people treat SQ as if its some kind of black magic you just have to keep throwing dollars at to get better.


----------



## krismusic

A couple of thoughts. 
As to this site being private property as someone put it. Yes but once you invite me onto your property...
It is noticeable that this thread has not been subject to moderation AFAIK. 
It is great that we have managed to discuss many contentious issues. In the main while remaining respectful of others viewpoints. 
One big motivation for correcting what may be seen as misinformation or fanboyism is to help some notional newbie. Maybe we shouldn't worry about them so much. Although it's a lot less painful to learn from others mistakes it's your own that really teach you IME.


----------



## cel4145

mulder01 said:


> I went to a hifi show a couple of years ago that had some headphone stuff, but was mostly high end 2 channel gear.  This is where I bought my Abyss and the thing that helped me pull the trigger on that purchase was comparing them to speakers.  Every room was filled with flagship everything from every manufacturer you can think of and costing well into the 5 or 6 figure range.  I remember walking into a couple of rooms and thinking 'man, this sounds garbage'.  Walked over to the rack of expensive looking gear and looked at the back of it and there's 10, 20, 30 thousand dollars plus worth of cables connecting the rubbish together.  I look out into the room and there's half a dozen old dudes and one reluctant tag-along wife sitting there with their thumb and forefinger on their chin looking down at the floor really concentrating as the rubbish sound washes over them.  Every now and again, I'd go back downstairs and have a listen to the Abyss, then go back to speakers and the only rooms that sounded as good were filled with what looked like AT LEAST 6 figures worth of stuff.  That experience actually confirmed for me that even a headphone like the Abyss was actually _value for money._  Yes, a $5k headphone was a relative bargain because if you want to get that level of sound out of speakers you need to spend an exorbitant amount of money.  So, for me at least, headphones even very expensive ones can be 'worth it', but I must stress that is relevant to headphones ONLY.  The same thing can't be said for amps and is even less true for dacs but




Well, it's commonly known that a lot of the $5, $10K and more expensive speakers may not sound as good as what you can get for somewhat less. Then sometimes those vendors don't setup their equipment well and the acoustics are terrible at those shows. And just to note, if you are on your feet walking around and listening to speakers, you probably weren't listening to them really. Typically have to be seated in the listening position, just like you have to put headphones correctly on your head not one cup hanging half of your ear. For example, direct radiating speakers have a lot of frequency roll off the further you listen off axis. 

Then again, it's a personal preference thing. Maybe the Abyss are just for you  Me, I listened to them at a Head-Fi meetup and thought the HE-560 sounded as good or better.


----------



## Ruben123

cel4145 said:


> Well, it's commonly known that a lot of the $5, $10K and more expensive speakers may not sound as good as what you can get for somewhat less. Then sometimes those vendors don't setup their equipment well and the acoustics are terrible at those shows. And just to note, if you are on your feet walking around and listening to speakers, you probably weren't listening to them really. Typically have to be seated in the listening position, just like you have to put headphones correctly on your head not one cup hanging half of your ear. For example, direct radiating speakers have a lot of frequency roll off the further you listen off axis.
> 
> Then again, it's a personal preference thing. Maybe the Abyss are just for you  Me, I listened to them at a Head-Fi meetup and thought the HE-560 sounded as good or better.




Won't surprise me if they deliberately make the 5k speakers a lot worse than the 20k ones so people buy the 20k speakers. Won't surprise me too if a $500 speaker from 20 years ago would sound better than a high end speaker from now.


----------



## Pogart

I am thank you so much, all of you.
In few words you've taught me a great lesson how not to waste unnecessarly my money. I know my post might been too long but I had to tell you some story as well what I am and what stuff I got to give you my friends some picture what we're talking about 
The question itself was simply as I was lost between CDs and hi-res audios.
Thanks to all of you I believe I know what's just right to buy at the moment and it's not hi-res album of Led Zeppelin IV for £30 to download 
Thanks to "oldmate" I believe I already have anything to start enjoy good audio files  Thank you oldmate for your advice  I'm a bit confused yet whether there're some benefits to convert original CD tracks to losless flac files to experience even better quality of audio? But I'll try to find it out later on searching this forum for good answer to not bothering you any more with my questions 
Thank you again for your keen advices and help...


----------



## Orestes1984

Converting the CD to FLAC or WAV will simply mean that it is more convenient to listen to on your media player, there is no benefit to converting it other than this. The audio recording quality was imperfect from the beginning, the best benefit for listening to Led Zeppelin is to begin to understand what a graphic EQ does to get more bottom end and warmth out of the recording.
  
 It's simply the case that Led Zeppelin IV aside from a few tracks was recorded in a van, with two microphones. You can find pictures of the band playing outside while they were recording. The only track that received more microphones was John Bonham's drum tracks because he wouldn't excuse this kind of behavior.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Wew lads... *whistles*

The title preview is suspiciously short though. Lol


----------



## pctazhp

Seems to me there are two disparate discussions going on in this thread. The first has to do with DBTs and expectation bias, which is very appropriate in this forum.
  
 The second seems to involve generally unsubstantiated claims about all the "greedy" headphone manufacturers. Hardly "scientific" in my opinion.


----------



## cel4145

ruben123 said:


> Won't surprise me if they deliberately make the 5k speakers a lot worse than the 20k ones so people buy the 20k speakers. Won't surprise me too if a *$500 speaker from 20 years ago* would sound better than a high end speaker from now.




Hard to say. There are a lot of crappy 20 year old speaker designs. But I doubt that they deliberately make $5K speakers sound "a lot worse" that $20K. However, like many markets, the high end stuff is often not better than mid tier. It's a luxury that sells because it's something more expensive.


----------



## krismusic

pctazhp said:


> Seems to me there are two disparate discussions going on in this thread. The first has to do with DBTs and expectation bias, which is very appropriate in this forum.
> 
> The second seems to involve generally unsubstantiated claims about all the "greedy" headphone manufacturers. Hardly "scientific" in my opinion.



I've actually found headphones to be the least disappointing of my audio purchases. 
Its electronics that seem to promise the moon on a stick and then struggle to even deliver the stick!


----------



## reginalb

orestes1984 said:


> And yet brands like Samyang continue to exist and thrive in photography.


 
  
 Samyang makes some pretty solid MF lenses for a lot less money. I think that's a pretty bad example.


----------



## Orestes1984

Eventually even the cheaper brands like Sigma, Tokina and Samyang kick a goal, they produced a long list of terrible lenses before they produced anything decent. It's not that bad of an example.


----------



## pctazhp

krismusic said:


> I've actually found headphones to be the least disappointing of my audio purchases.
> Its electronics that seem to promise the moon on a stick and then struggle to even deliver the stick!


 
 I generally agree with you. And headphones, almost by definition, are not suited to DBTs.
  
 I would say something about the electronics I have chosen, but this isn't the proper place to do that.


----------



## reginalb

orestes1984 said:


> Eventually even the cheaper brands like Sigma, Tokina and Samyang kick a goal, they produced a long list of terrible lenses before they produced anything decent. It's not that bad of an example.


 
  
 If you're now bringing Sigma in to the discussion as "occasionally" kicking a goal, then you don't know much about camera lenses. The entire Art line is crazy good. 
  
 But while a place like Fred Miranda is full of knowledgeable people and good discussion, you still have the rumor site comment sections. Full of people loudly arguing back and forth about aperture equivalencies like they are dropping some bombshell revelation every time they explain that a 100mm m4/3 lens isn't the same as a 200mm FF lens. We get it, they're not the same. Most people care about how to set their exposure and their field of view more than anything else. But I digress.


----------



## Orestes1984

reginalb said:


> If you're now bringing Sigma in to the discussion as "occasionally" kicking a goal, then you don't know much about camera lenses. The entire Art line is crazy good.
> 
> But while a place like Fred Miranda is full of knowledgeable people and good discussion, you still have the rumor site comment sections. Full of people loudly arguing back and forth about aperture equivalencies like they are dropping some bombshell revelation every time they explain that a 100mm m4/3 lens isn't the same as a 200mm FF lens. We get it, they're not the same. Most people care about how to set their exposure and their field of view more than anything else. But I digress.


 

 You're either through deliberate or conscienceless  behavior misrepresenting my views. I've shot with lots of terrible lenses and yes even Sigma and Tokina were once terrible. I know plenty about camera lenses, if you look at sites like Fred Miranda and ask them about some of the Sigma and Tokina zooms for film cameras you will get a good response that a lot of them were truly terrible and don't represent what we have now.

 The point is even things made in China eventually get better and now every man and his dog is running their headphones through a Huawei phone made and designed in China which they call a "premium" brand worthy of a "Leica" camera stamp while looking at their images they shot on their Chinese made DSLRs and phones on Korean Samsung TVs and driving Chinese made Mercedes Benz cars and South African made VW and Toyotas. Not sure what the issue is here, maybe you're not familiar with this. Even Samsung tried their hand at made in Korea DSLRs and did as well and better than a lot of Japanese cameras after the second and third iterations of their cameras and once they developed an interchangeable lens system despite its mass market failure.
  
 Ask someone 50 years ago whether they would buy a Japanese made Toyota and see what they had to say. Now every second person will tell you, including Americans, they would drive nothing other than a Toyota simply because of how well built and reliable they are and occasionally they handle well to boot.
  
 Just a little reality check.


----------



## reginalb

orestes1984 said:


> You're either through deliberate or conscienceless  behavior misrepresenting my views, I've shot with lots of terrible lenses and yes even Sigma and Tokina were once terrible. I know plenty about camera lenses, if you look at sites like Fred Miranda and ask them about some of the Sigma and Tokina zooms for film cameras you will get a good response that a lot of them were truly terrible and don't represent what we have now.
> 
> The point is even things made in China eventually get better and now every man and his dog is running their headphones through a Huawei phone made and designed looking at their images they shot on their Chinese made DSLRs on Korean Samsung TVs and driving Chinese made Mercedes Benz cars and South African made VW and Toyotas. Not sure what the issue is here, maybe you're not familiar with this.
> 
> Ask someone 50 years ago whether they would buy a Japanese made Toyota and see what they had to say.


 
  
 How is any of that relevant to today? You implied that Samyang's continued survival is evidence contrary to Castle's point that photogs tend to be more well informed on internet forums.
  
 Here is what you said to Castle (probably tongue in cheek, but still inaccurate) in response to his assertion that photographers are more well informed/pay more attention to objective facts than audiophiles (in their respective internet communities):
  


> And yet brands like Samyang continue to exist and thrive in photography.


 
  
 So through no misrepresentation of your statements (perhaps they don't represent your views, but that wouldn't be the fault of my own behavior which is allegedly misrepresenting your views) I countered this. The phrase "And yet..." in response to Castle clearly implies through the meaning of that phrase that you are about to present evidence contrary to his point. Which is that the community of photographers participating in internet forums is more knowledgeable than the audiophile community participating in internet forums. 
  
 I then pointed out that they thrive today because of exactly what Castle said, thusly I would replace "And yet..." with "As evidenced by..."
  
 When I pointed out that they actually make pretty solid lenses, especially at their price, you brought up Sigma and Tokina. Sigma makes crazy good lenses. Now you're talking about film lenses. That's fine, Samyang might have, at one time, made bad lenses. But since we're talking about relative knowledge of communities _today _that's not really relevant. They make good stuff today. Which is the timeframe that Castle was likely referring to, I am hinted to the timeframe by the reference to photo forums, which didn't exist 50 years ago. 
  
 Sorry If you feel I'm mischaracterizing your views, but if I am, you should explain them more clearly!


----------



## Orestes1984

Its perflectly relevant and while you can put your fingers in your ears and your "what about now" behavior I still wouldn't buy a Samyang lens, as wouldn't many others, and the past of all of this is as relevant as what it was then and now. Clearly, your yes but now isn't applicable.
  
 Eventually even the most poorly represented brand will make a decent device, or else their company will fail and go bankrupt. My statement is perfectly logical your yes but now is irrelevant.


----------



## Pogart

Thanks so much Orestes 1984 for pointing me out that the converting CD tracks to the flac files is nothing else but convenience 
I've learnt guys from you today mora than last few weeks when I was on my own trying to answer so basic questions. 
One remaining question I like to answer is how to recognise albums on sale that are Red Book CDs? 
Oldmate has adviced me that if I buy CD it's good if I buy Red Book one...
I'm after Led Zeppelin IV and I tried to find out any information containing anything about quality, red book certificate or something but I couldn't find it, so I'm unsure now if the Led Zeppelin is recorded on red book certificate then?
This is my top question now 
Thank you again


----------



## Orestes1984

Let me rephrase this in a way that is more relevant, a company started out in the 1950s selling cheap transistor radios to American soldiers in the wake of World War II as_ Tokyo Tsushin Kogyo_ 東京通信工業, Tokyo Telecomunications Engineering Company [TTK.]
  
 The same company is now named Sony and is now one of the most profitable high end Hi-Fi manufacturers in the world.Eventually even the most impoverished peasants can make devices that are the namesake of every man and his dogs living room with enough refinement over the years towards actually making a good product. And every second person who still knows nothing about Hi-Fi will still recommend that if someone is going to spend more money than they have sense on Hi-Fi gear that they buy a "Sony" something or other.
  
 Their products now sell themselves even if Sony never bothered to do any more marketing, but they didn't originally. We might know of the Muteki and Explode disasters and a various other range of failures including the Mini Disc Walkman among others before they reinvented their Walkman as an iPod but the average consumer doesn't and still buys it because it has a "Sony" label on it.
  
 They earned that label by releasing a whole lot of junk first, Samyang is still releasing lenses that are terrible.


----------



## cel4145

pogart said:


> One remaining question I like to answer is how to recognise albums on sale that are Red Book CDs?
> Oldmate has adviced me that if I buy CD it's good if I buy Red Book one...




Any audio CD is a red book CD. Red book was the term for the book of specifications for the CD audio standard. It came in a booklet with a red cover. So I'm not sure what Oldmate means.


----------



## Koolpep

cel4145 said:


> Any audio CD is a red book CD. Red book was the term for the book of specifications for the CD audio standard. It came in a booklet with a red cover. So I'm not sure what Oldmate means.


 

 I assume old mate just means normal audio CDs and not SA-CDs just the normal standard "red book" audio CDs, 16bit/44KHz
  
 cheers.


----------



## Orestes1984

A CD player isn't Red Book, although some early Sony and Phillips CD players have earned the nickname "Red Book" players, its a misnomer. Red Book simply relates to the open standard to which all standard compact discs apply to otherwise CD-DA (Compact Disc Digital Audio) as opposed to CD-ROM (Compact Disc Read Only Memory) among other CD standards.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

There's nothing bad about SACDs either*, they come with a standard "redbook" CD layer that any computer can read and convert.

*Well except they tend to be more expensive lol

DVD-A discs (the few that you can find) are cool too


----------



## Koolpep

orestes1984 said:


> A CD player isn't Red Book, although some early Sony CD players have earned the nickname "Red Book" players, its a misnomer. Red Book simply relates to the open standard to which all standard compact discs apply to otherwise CD-DA (Compact Disc Digital Audio) as opposed to CD-ROM (Compact Disc Read Only Memory) among other CD standards.


 

 Nobody was talking about CD players but the Audio CDs.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc_Digital_Audio 
  
 Quote:
*Compact Disc Digital Audio* (*CDDA* or *CD-DA*) is the standard format for audio compact discs. The standard is defined in the _Red Book_, one of a series of "Rainbow Books" (named for their binding colors) that contain the technical specifications for all CD formats.


----------



## Orestes1984

Which is what I said in the second part of that statement above.


----------



## Koolpep

orestes1984 said:


> Which is what I said in the second part of that statement above.


 

 Was responding to your post before it was edited:
Orestes1984 replied to this thread on August 5, 8:50 am

 A CD isn't Redbook, although some early Sony CD players have earned the nickname "red book" players, its a misnomer, red book simply relates to the open standard to which all standard compact discs apply to.


----------



## Orestes1984

Sorry I edited for clarification.


----------



## Koolpep

orestes1984 said:


> Sorry I edited for clarification.


 

 All cool, didn't read the edited version


----------



## krismusic

joe bloggs said:


> Wew lads... *whistles*
> 
> The title preview is suspiciously short though. Lol



Our work here is done.


----------



## eke2k6

pedalhead said:


> .
> 
> I don't blame HF for being run the way it is...


 
  
 I do.
  
 The fact of the matter is that discussions about price are immediately shut down, and members are banned from threads for it, even if they don't use inflammatory language. Look at the trend when a new exorbitantly priced product is announced. First come the members expressing disbelief, and asking for some kind of justification for the price. Then come the mods, Jude specifically, telling these members "not to review a product the haven't heard." Next, the thread is silently purged of non-conforming comments, and members are banned from the threads. It happens EVERY single time.
  
 What's the point of a forum then? Truly, what is the point of this exercise on this site? I understand bills must be paid, but $55,000 for a headphone is ludicrous. That's the cost of a finely engineered German automobile. Same for a $4,000 glorified MP3 player.
  
 Manufacturers are becoming more and more brazen with their prices. We're fast approaching the point of Modern Art, where plain white canvases sell for 6 figure prices. 
  
 And part of it rests on Jude, Currawong, and company. I've never met these people in person, and I'm sure they're perfectly nice guys and family men, but there has to be some level of accountability.


----------



## krismusic

I think the most useful thing that anyone reading this thread can take from it is that budget gear offers phenomenonal performance these days. Just don't get gulled into thinking that then the more you pay the better it gets.


----------



## krismusic

eke2k6 said:


> I do.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that discussions about price are immediately shut down, and members are banned from threads for it, even if they don't use inflammatory language. Look at the trend when a new exorbitantly priced product is announced. First come the members expressing disbelief, and asking for some kind of justification for the price. Then come the mods, Jude specifically, telling these members "not to review a product the haven't heard." Next, the thread is silently purged of non-conforming comments, and members are banned from the threads. It happens EVERY single time.
> 
> ...



I have met Jude and can confirm that he is indeed an extremely nice guy and a true enthusiast. 
I don't think anyone is suggesting that we all need to buy $50,000 rigs. These are state of the art products which only those with extremely deep pockets will buy. 
I suggest that Sennheiser for instance do not care if they sell a single HE1. It's a statement piece. All this IMHO of course.


----------



## pctazhp

krismusic said:


> I think the most useful thing that anyone reading this thread can take from it is that budget gear offers phenomenonal performance these days. *Just don't get gulled into thinking that then the more you pay the better it gets.*


 
 And if you really want to be "scientific" don't get "gulled" into thinking that something beyond what you consider "budget" in price can't be better without any objective substantiation of that belief.


----------



## pctazhp

eke2k6 said:


> I do.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that discussions about price are immediately shut down, and members are banned from threads for it, even if they don't use inflammatory language. Look at the trend when a new exorbitantly priced product is announced. First come the members expressing disbelief, and asking for some kind of justification for the price. Then come the mods, Jude specifically, telling these members "not to review a product the haven't heard." Next, the thread is silently purged of non-conforming comments, and members are banned from the threads.* It happens EVERY single time.*
> 
> ...


 
 I have been active on both Feliks Audio Elise threads for a long time. In fact, I started the second one. Price is frequently discussed on both threads, and the Elise is often compared to other amps. I don't remember a single instance on either thread where what you have described has occurred. I'm not nearly as active on the HD800 Classic and S threads, but I would say the same thing for those threads.


----------



## cel4145

eke2k6 said:


> What's the point of a forum then? Truly, what is the point of this exercise on this site? I understand bills must be paid, but $55,000 for a headphone is ludicrous. That's the cost of a finely engineered German automobile. Same for a $4,000 glorified MP3 player.






krismusic said:


> I don't think anyone is suggesting that we all need to buy $50,000 rigs. These are state of the art products which only those with extremely deep pockets will buy.




Totally agree. And as I pointed out in earlier in this thread, companies often come up with these types of things as (a) exercises in design that result in new methods that trickle down into lower tier products and (b) purely for marketing purposes. They take them to trade shows. They demo them. They get people talking about their products, just as we are doing here. 

But if you truly feel pressured to buy a $55K headphone and aren't just ranting, well, to be honest, that sounds like a personal problem (lol)


----------



## RRod

cel4145 said:


> But if you truly feel pressured to buy a $55K headphone and aren't just ranting, well, to be honest, that sounds like a personal problem (lol)


 
  
 Yes, the pressure we're more concerned with here is the pressure to spend $100 more for a multibit DAC or $50 more on an amp for easy-to-drive headphones based upon reviews/posts that amount to flowery writing.


----------



## krismusic

pctazhp said:


> And if you really want to be "scientific" don't get "gulled" into thinking that something beyond what you consider "budget" in price can't be better without any objective substantiation of that belief.



I await clarification of that for me personally at CanJam London.


----------



## eke2k6

pctazhp said:


> I have been active on both Feliks Audio Elise threads for a long time. In fact, I started the second one. Price is frequently discussed on both threads, and the Elise is often compared to other amps. I don't remember a single instance on either thread where what you have described has occurred. I'm not nearly as active on the HD800 Classic and S threads, but I would say the same thing for those threads.


 
  
 Perhaps you're not involved in the right threads then.
  
  
  
  


cel4145 said:


> Totally agree. And as I pointed out in earlier in this thread, companies often come up with these types of things as (a) exercises in design that result in new methods that trickle down into lower tier products and (b) purely for marketing purposes. They take them to trade shows. They demo them. They get people talking about their products, just as we are doing here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 You're absolutely right. Some of these products are experiments, but not how you think. The AK120 was $1K. We accepted it. The AK240 was $2.5K. We accepted it. The Ak380 comes in at a cool $3.5K. All the while, it gets increasingly harder to justify such things. Look at the average price for DAPs...the bell curve has shifted to the right since these products launched. 
  
 The average price of IEMs has skyrocketed as well. It's not rocket science to see the trends, as well as the cleanup that occurs in these product threads. I have been personally banned from DAP threads because I questioned the prices of these devices vs the average smartphone that is FAR better equipped for a fraction of the price. Even the OnePlus3 is ridiculously specced for a fraction of the price.
  
 It. does. not. add. up.


----------



## pctazhp

eke2k6 said:


> *Perhaps you're not involved in the right threads then.*
> 
> You're absolutely right. Some of these products are experiments, but not how you think. The AK120 was $1K. *We accepted it.* The AK240 was $2.5K. We accepted it. The Ak380 comes in at a cool $3.5K. All the while, it gets increasingly harder to justify such things. Look at the average price for DAPs...the bell curve has shifted to the right since these products launched.
> 
> ...


 
 Oh please tell me what threads I should be involved in as obviously I'm not capable of making those choices on my own.
  
 Maybe you "accepted" all of those products you mentioned. I personally didn't.


----------



## cel4145

eke2k6 said:


> You're absolutely right. Some of these products are experiments, but not how you think. The AK120 was $1K. We accepted it.




Who is "we?" I didn't accept it? 



eke2k6 said:


> The AK240 was $2.5K. We accepted it.




Nope. Not that either. 



eke2k6 said:


> The Ak380 comes in at a cool $3.5K.




Definitely didn't accept that. 



eke2k6 said:


> All the while, it gets increasingly harder to justify such things.




Justify to whom? I'm confused. 



pctazhp said:


> Maybe you "accepted" all of those products you mentioned. I personally didn't.




I'm glad I'm not the only one. LOL


----------



## Ruben123

rrod said:


> Yes, the pressure we're more concerned with here is the pressure to spend $100 more for a multibit DAC or $50 more on an amp for easy-to-drive headphones based upon reviews/posts that amount to flowery writing.




Even easy to drive earphones surely sound better with amp than without. Bass tightens up, highs don't roll off and the mids will stand out much more with more air around the voices. Also the sound stage enlarges. Just try it.







Jk although this could be a quote written to me.


----------



## Dillan

brooko said:


> Middle of biz trip through Nth America and Europe, but it's nice to see the input into this thread so far.
> 
> My thoughts
> 
> ...


 
  
 1 - I absolutely agree that encouraging people to respectfully challenge the purely opinionated descriptions that people try passing off as fact is a great place to start. I think people in this hobby especially are so headstrong about what they believe that it is really hard to even bring a civil counterargument to someones blatant subjective "facts". People for some reason feel insulted when you don't agree with what everyone else nods their head at - which usually is at the cost of people trying to seek help about a certain product.
  
 2 - When it comes down to it - I 100% know that all of the changes *I *would like done would either make the site not generate as much income for the staff or possibly make the majority of people here have a less enjoyable experience (again ignorance is bliss). Neither of those outcomes are pleasant sounding to Jude and understandably so. However I think _some _of the changes I would love to see happen (as well as others in the thread) would absolutely be beneficial to everyone! Now what those changes are specifically, that's what we are here to discuss. I did bring up a few points earlier though, including the most obvious one: allow us to discuss blind testing outside of the science section of the forums.
  
 3 - Yep, what I hate the most is when someone asks what product X does or what could help product Y sound better OR when they are asking questions about what their next purchase should be.. and people try to get them to stretch their budget by telling them what things will sound like that either shouldn't change the sound much (if at all) or just telling them a flat out opinion and passing it off as truth. I have both been the victim of that and also am guilty of doing it.
  
 As a side note Brooko - I just wanted to say that I respect that you are contributing to the thread, as well as castleofargh. It may be a little unrealistic to think we could change the forums or the industry, but in my opinion I love this hobby and would think it is at least worth the effort. I've never been someone to just sit back and accept things. I think one day it would be great to look up headfi on the internet and not have things like this show up: https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/2ulnya/is_it_generally_accepted_that_people_on_headfi/
  
 This is honestly how people see us from the outside and I can't blame them at all.
  


pctazhp said:


> I have been active on both Feliks Audio Elise threads for a long time. In fact, I started the second one. Price is frequently discussed on both threads, and the Elise is often compared to other amps. I don't remember a single instance on either thread where what you have described has occurred. I'm not nearly as active on the HD800 Classic and S threads, but I would say the same thing for those threads.


 
  
 I think moderation of those types of things is more heavily active in product threads that sponsor the site. We often have this situation where it's a quick delete and a private message telling them not to do it anymore and this keeps the "Nothing to see here, lets keep our sponsors happy" sort of mentality. I have personally seen and been apart of multiple discussions that started involving pricing and blind testing and they were told by members AND mods alike to discuss that somewhere else or not at all. If we can talk about how pretty something looks, how our flawed hearing thinks it sounds this way and bla bla.. then maybe we should be allowed to talk about what objectively makes it cost literally 100x more than another product in comparison. Just my opinion on that.


----------



## castleofargh

krismusic said:


> joe bloggs said:
> 
> 
> > Wew lads... *whistles*
> ...


 
 I always think of 3rd rock from the sun:
      Harry: I want to make the world a better place. I want to give mankind the gift... of electricity.
     Tommy: They have electricity.
     Harry: Ah, then my work is done!


----------



## RRod

ruben123 said:


> Even easy to drive earphones surely sound better with amp than without. Bass tightens up, highs don't roll off and the mids will stand out much more with more air around the voices. Also the sound stage enlarges. Just try it.
> 
> Jk although this could be a quote written to me.


 
  
 No need for the disclaimer, I was already chuckling by "tightens". Seriously, though, I was just in a thread where a kid was trying to justify a headphone purchase to the 'rents. Replace "headphone" with "DAC" and "'rents" with "himself", and you get a situation that I think happens a lot on here. And we happen to be in a time where we have a great example, in multibit DACs, of a technology and associated poetry of "high-end" gear trickling down to lower-cost options that still charge a significant premium over more common technology. So now this kid is trying to decide on spending an extra $100 based on what? People hearing sibilance differences among flat DACs?


----------



## pctazhp

dillan said:


> I think moderation of those types of things is more heavily active in product threads that sponsor the site. We often have this situation where it's a quick delete and a private message telling them not to do it anymore and this keeps the "Nothing to see here, lets keep our sponsors happy" sort of mentality. I have personally seen and been apart of multiple discussions that started involving pricing and blind testing and they were told by members AND mods alike to discuss that somewhere else or not at all. If we can talk about how pretty something looks, how our flawed hearing thinks it sounds this way and bla bla.. then maybe we should be allowed to talk about what objectively makes it cost literally 100x more than another product in comparison. Just my opinion on that.


 
  You may very well be right. I don't spend much time on those threads, just as I don't spend much time reading adds or visiting manufactures' website, which almost never provide any helpful information.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

cel4145 said:


> eke2k6 said:
> 
> 
> > You're absolutely right. Some of these products are experiments, but not how you think. The AK120 was $1K. We accepted it.
> ...




Obviously not referring to anyone here. eke is out with the head-fi regulars a lot more than most of us here I think.

Or did you forget that we and this subforum don't really exist?


----------



## pctazhp

rrod said:


> No need for the disclaimer, I was already chuckling by "tightens". Seriously, though, I was just in a thread where a kid was trying to justify a headphone purchase to the 'rents. Replace "headphone" with "DAC" and "'rents" with "himself", and you get a situation that I think happens a lot on here. And we happen to be in a time where we have a great example, in multibit DACs, of a technology and associated poetry of "high-end" gear trickling down to lower-cost options that still charge a significant premium over more common technology. So now this kid is trying to decide on spending an extra $100 based on what? *People hearing sibilance differences among flat DACs?*


 
 Any you have conducted valid DBTs or know of at least one to confirm multibit technology makes no difference?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

pctazhp said:


> RRod said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If you've heard what a properly configured de-esser or multiband compressor plugin does against sibilance, you'll never look back...


----------



## RRod

pctazhp said:


> Any you have conducted valid DBTs or know of at least one to confirm multibit technology makes no difference?


 
  
 We know what causes and fixes sibilance, and I'm going to go out on a limb and guess these DACs aren't doing anything funny from 5-10kHz. The DBT thing is a dodge. But you know what, one of these reviewer fellers who owns one could try a DBT instead of finding a thesaurus.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

rrod said:


> We know what causes and fixes sibilance, and I'm going to go out on a limb and guess these DACs aren't doing anything funny from 5-10kHz. The DBT thing is a dodge. But you know what, one of these reviewer fellers who owns one could try a DBT instead of *finding a thesaurus.*




I LOLed


----------



## pctazhp

rrod said:


> We know what causes and fixes sibilance, and I'm going to go out on a ledge and guess these DACs aren't doing anything funny from 5-10kHz. *The DBT thing is a dodge*. But you know what, one of these reviewer fellers who owns one could try a DBT instead of finding a thesaurus.


 
  
 Wash your mouth out with soap!!!
  
 I really don't know. I haven't been following the discussion about sibilance and my Bimby is the only Schiit DAC I have ever heard.


----------



## RRod

pctazhp said:


> Wash your mouth out with soap!!!
> 
> I really don't know. I haven't been following the discussion about sibilance and my Bimby is the only Schiit DAC I have ever heard.


 
  
 Oh were you just pulling my leg like Ruben? If so, whooooooosh.


----------



## Dillan

The thing is.. even if you were to compare dacs by blind testing and didn't hear a difference - people would just insult your hearing and passive aggressively congratulate you for being able to save money because your "poor hearing can't tell a difference".
  
 The thing I like to compare a lot are specs and measurements - going back to the AK380 argument.. why _does_ it cost upwards of $4000? It does not have the lowest THD, it does not have the best amplifier (even its upgraded amplifier add-on is $700 and they barely tell you any specs at all.. but neither are Class A) and not only that, but it has no features such as streaming or third party applications etc.
  
 I admit that it might have the most storage potential, but that's it? You charge that much for it and you get to save a few more songs on it while sacrificing audio related specs? I gave it the benefit of the doubt and bought it to compare and potentially become a believer.. I felt ripped off after sincerely using it for a week straight.


----------



## pctazhp

rrod said:


> Oh were you just pulling my leg like Ruben? If so, whooooooosh.


 
 This exchange started with a statement you made suggesting that people were hearing things from the multibit technology that wasn't real. I merely asked you if you could justify your statement by a valid DBT. Nothing more. Nothing less. But I do find it interesting when people who consider themselves "objective" recoil when asked to substantiate a statement they make by reference to DBTs.


----------



## reginalb

dillan said:


> The thing is.. even if you were to compare dacs by blind testing and didn't hear a difference - people would just insult your hearing and passive aggressively congratulate you for being able to save money because your "poor hearing can't tell a difference".
> 
> The thing I like to compare a lot are specs and measurements - going back to the AK380 argument.. why _does_ it cost upwards of $4000? It does not have the lowest THD, it does not have the best amplifier (even its upgraded amplifier add-on is $700 and they barely tell you any specs at all.. but neither are Class A) and not only that, but it has no features such as streaming or third party applications etc.
> 
> I admit that it might have the most storage potential, but that's it? You charge that much for it and you get to save a few more songs on it while sacrificing audio related specs? I gave it the benefit of the doubt and bought it to compare and potentially become a believer.. I felt ripped off after sincerely using it for a week straight.


 
  
 Don't get pulled in by Class A's either. They aren't better, they just do the same thing less efficiently. That said, they aren't wrong that if you do a double blind test, that result isn't generalizable. You didn't have a random sample with a sufficiently large n, so it's not.
  
 And people do love players that don't measure well, which is funny.  
  
 Here's a couple HiFi DAPs:
  

  
 So flat, amirite?


----------



## pctazhp

dillan said:


> *The thing is.. even if you were to compare dacs by blind testing and didn't hear a difference - people would just insult your hearing and passive aggressively congratulate you for being able to save money because your "poor hearing can't tell a difference".*
> 
> The thing I like to compare a lot are specs and measurements - going back to the AK380 argument.. why _does_ it cost upwards of $4000? It does not have the lowest THD, it does not have the best amplifier (even its upgraded amplifier add-on is $700 and they barely tell you any specs at all.. but neither are Class A) and not only that, but it has no features such as streaming or third party applications etc.
> 
> I admit that it might have the most storage potential, but that's it? You charge that much for it and you get to save a few more songs on it while sacrificing audio related specs? I gave it the benefit of the doubt and bought it to compare and potentially become a believer.. I felt ripped off after sincerely using it for a week straight.


 
 Great. Then this entire thread has been a complete waste of time.
  
 I guess DBTs are only important for people who claim to hear a difference in sighted comparisons, but not to those who make unsubstantiated claims such as multibit technology is a waste of money.


----------



## reginalb

pctazhp said:


> Great. Then this entire thread has been a complete waste of time.
> 
> I guess DBTs are only important for people who claim to hear a difference in sighted comparisons, but not to those who make unsubstantiated claims such as multibit technology is a waste of money.


 
  
 What? I mean, he's not wrong. There was a recently released "study" that literally said that if you conduct an experiment, and you don't find that people heard a difference between sources, you automatically know that the study is flawed, because only those that find a difference can be correct. 
  
 As I once heard it put "I know double blind tests are inaccurate, because they often don't detect a difference that I know exists." Well damn, why even do the test?
  
 EDIT: Just to show that it's not a straw man, read sidebar 2: http://www.hificritic.com/uploads/2/8/8/0/28808909/2016_07_05__final_unabridged_article_part_1_sound_quality_differences_between_wav_and_flac_formats.pdf


----------



## Dillan

pctazhp said:


> Great. Then this entire thread has been a complete waste of time.
> 
> I guess DBTs are only important for people who claim to hear a difference in sighted comparisons, but not to those who make unsubstantiated claims such as multibit technology is a waste of money.




Im not sure the entire thread is a waste of time because I brought up an argument that someone could make.

Like you said though, DBT is a good way to test someone that claims to hear extraordinary differences between DACs or amps.


----------



## pctazhp

reginalb said:


> What? I mean, he's not wrong. There was a recently released "study" that literally said that if you conduct an experiment, and you don't find that people heard a difference between sources, you automatically know that the study is flawed, because only those that find a difference can be correct.
> 
> As I once heard it put "I know double blind tests are inaccurate, because they often don't detect a difference that I know exists." Well damn, why even do the test?


 
 If you want to argue with someone who would make such a claim then please try to find that person. I don't question the value of properly conducted audio DBTs. I'm just saying they should be used to verify any unsubstantiated claim such as multibit technology is a waste of money. As an alternative, I guess someone who makes that claim could show measurements of a pre-mb Schiit DAC and a the same DAC with mb added, but I didn't see that either.


----------



## reginalb

pctazhp said:


> If you want to argue with someone who would make such a claim then please try to find that person. I don't question the value of properly conducted audio DBTs. I'm just saying they should be used to verify any unsubstantiated claim such as multibit technology is a waste of money. As an alternative, I guess someone who makes that claim could show measurements of a pre-mb Schiit DAC and a the same DAC with mb added, but I didn't see that either.


 
  
 Sorry, I misunderstood your point. I am in agreement


----------



## pctazhp

dillan said:


> Im not sure the entire thread is a waste of time because I brought up an argument that someone could make.
> 
> Like you said though, DBT is a good way to test someone that claims to hear extraordinary differences between DACs or amps.


 
 Seems to me it is also a good way to test someone who claims without substantiation that there are no differences.


----------



## cel4145

pctazhp said:


> This exchange started with a statement you made suggesting that people were hearing things from the multibit technology that wasn't real. I merely asked you if you could justify your statement by a valid DBT. Nothing more. Nothing less. But I do find it interesting when people who consider themselves "objective" recoil when asked to substantiate a statement they make by reference to DBTs.




You are kind of mixed up here. The claim by the manufacturers and those who have listened to multibit equipment is that it sounds better. Skeptics doubt that claim and ask for proof using ABX. Skeptics didn't make the initial claim.


----------



## Dillan

cel4145 said:


> You are kind of mixed up here. The claim by the manufacturers and those who have listened to multibit equipment is that it sounds better. Skeptics doubt that claim and ask for proof using ABX. Skeptics didn't make the initial claim.




That's a good point.


----------



## pctazhp

cel4145 said:


> You are kind of mixed up here. The claim by the manufacturers and those who have listened to multibit equipment is that it sounds better. Skeptics doubt that claim and ask for proof using ABX. Skeptics didn't make the initial claim.


 
 Again, I would also ask you to find someone who disagrees with what you just said to argue with.


----------



## pctazhp

I have been giving some thought to the question of what is wrong with the headphone industry and how it could be improved. I think professional reviewers are one of the biggest problems. I gave up reading most professional reviews a long time ago. I think most professional reviewers are self-absorbed, verbose charlatans. And most professional reviews are deadly boring.
  
 Inevitably most reviews will provide sighted impressions of the reviewer's comparison with the piece of equipment under review with other similar pieces with which he or she is familiar. I don't remember ever seeing such comparisons backed up by proper DBTs.
  
 As long as we want to engage in utopian thinking, I would require all professional reviewers back up their comparisons with DBTs. But that would probably put most of them out of business.


----------



## cel4145

pctazhp said:


> Again, I would also ask you to find someone who disagrees with what you just said to argue with.




Not sure what you mean. So you agree?


----------



## pctazhp

cel4145 said:


> Not sure what you mean. So you agree?


 
 I agree with you.


----------



## castleofargh

pctazhp said:


> Great. Then this entire thread has been a complete waste of time.
> 
> I guess DBTs are only important for people who claim to hear a difference in sighted comparisons, but not to those who make unsubstantiated claims such as multibit technology is a waste of money.


 
 in a way yes it is. just think about it for a minute. will you trust the result of a guy expecting negative result and then failing to pass a blind test? it would demonstrate nothing, not anything!
 now get a guy who is sure he's hearing something, and have him pass the test. now imagine the test is well done and has ample controls, is described enough for us to accept it as a valid test. if that guy can pass, that's it! we have evidence that an audible difference does exist.
  
 success and failure do not hold the same value in such tests. and that's the reason why we always seem to care only for the yay sayers. because they hold the key to know for sure. when you really understand how those tests work, you stop thinking it's a conspiracy against golden ear people.
  
  
 now about sibilance, when you know how mastering engineers deal with it, you really do not expect such a thing to happen to any DAC as it usually involves EQ and/or band limited dynamic compressor as far as I know. did shiit lie about the frequency response variation in their specs? do they mess with the linearity of the output voltage? their specs say no and I very very much doubt it. and so did RRod. that's why even if they do hear something, which isn't demonstrated so far,  it's unlikely that they expressed it correctly. 
 so please don't get revolted by the double values of us bad boys. it's just a particular situation that indeed is hard to take seriously.


----------



## Torq

Here's something I'm willing to do ... 
  
 As a result of upgrading one of my office systems, it happens that I'm going to have all _eight_ versions of Schiit's Bifrost to hand (or will when Fedex shows up).  That's two separate units, one the latest multi-bit unit w/ Gen 2 USB board and then my original unit with USB Gen 1 board for which I have the original analog/DAC board, the Uber version (again, many thanks to @crazychile) and the current "4490" board.  So 4x DAC/analog stages and 2x USB inputs.
  
 This particular set of gear would make it relatively easy to perform a number of DBTs to determine if there's an audible difference between the units, as it minimizes the number of variables beyond the DAC board or USB input board in any given comparison (i.e. no other components have to vary - which is certainly not the case if you used, say, a Bifrost and a Vega) which should help improve the accuracy of the test.  
  
 Now, I'm *not* going to run such a test *unwitnessed* as that's likely to do nothing more provoke the usual arguments as to the validity of the testing execution (regardless of the outcome) or accuracy/legitimacy of the reporting.  So, if there's someone local to me (Seattle, WA) that understands how to properly conduct a DBT (I do, it's part of some of my work, but the witness/tester ALSO needs to understand/conduct the proper protocol) and is interested in something like this let me know and we'll get it set up.  Probably better if said witness is of the objective persuasions, rather than my objective-subjectivist nature (I'm an engineer, among other things, after all).  Better still, *multiple* witnesses and test subjects.
  
 I can host it, and provide suitable gear and music.


----------



## pctazhp

castleofargh said:


> in a way yes it is. just think about it for a minute. will you trust the result of a guy expecting negative result and then failing to pass a blind test? it would demonstrate nothing, not anything!
> now get a guy who is sure he's hearing something, and have him pass the test. now imagine the test is well done and has ample controls, is described enough for us to accept it as a valid test. if that guy can pass, that's it! we have evidence that an audible difference does exist.
> 
> success and failure do not hold the same value in such tests. and that's the reason why we always seem to care only for the yay sayers. because they hold the key to know for sure. when you really understand how those tests work, you stop thinking it's a conspiracy against golden ear people.
> ...


 
 It's not necessarily subjecting the guy who claims there is no difference to the DBT. It is a question of subjecting his claim that there is no difference to a valid DBT conducted with neutral subjects. If the DBT establishes they can't hear a difference then his claim would be substantiated. But if the neutral subjects can identify differences under the DBT his claim is undermined.


----------



## Dillan

I have been considering setting up my own experiments at local meets and having people blind test some gear and then documenting the results.

Multibit seems like a hot topic, maybe I'll snag an yggy.


----------



## pctazhp

@Torq  Good luck. I wish I lived up your way. You could make audio history, however the chips fall ))))


----------



## pctazhp

dillan said:


> I have been considering setting up my own experiments at local meets and having people blind test some gear and then documenting the results.
> 
> Multibit seems like a hot topic, maybe I'll snag an yggy.


 
 Shoot it down my way after you finish your experiments


----------



## Dillan

torq said:


> Here's something I'm willing to do ...
> 
> As a result of upgrading one of my office systems, it happens that I'm going to have all _eight_ versions of Schiit's Bifrost to hand (or will when Fedex shows up).  That's two separate units, one the latest multi-bit unit w/ Gen 2 USB board and then my original unit with USB Gen 1 board for which I have the original analog/DAC board, the Uber version (again, many thanks to @crazychile
> ) and the current "4490" board.  So 4x DAC/analog stages and 2x USB inputs.
> ...




This is almost worth me flying to you from the southeast.
I think this could be a truly cool thing to experiment with. ABX/DBT and any other tests we can come up with.


----------



## cel4145

pctazhp said:


> I agree with you.




Then I am confused by this statement



pctazhp said:


> This exchange started with a statement you made suggesting that people were hearing things from the multibit technology that wasn't real.* I merely asked you if you could justify your statement by a valid DBT.* Nothing more. Nothing less. But I do find it interesting when people who consider themselves "objective" recoil when asked to substantiate a statement they make by reference to DBTs.




The burden of proof is always in the person making the initial claims.


----------



## Torq

cel4145 said:


> The burden of proof is always in the person making the initial claims.


 
  
 However, it doesn't prevent the other party from coming up with the necessary proof themselves.


----------



## castleofargh

pctazhp said:


> It's not necessarily subjecting the guy who claims there is no difference to the DBT. It is a question of subjecting his claim that there is no difference to a valid DBT conducted with neutral subjects. *If the DBT establishes they can't hear a difference then his claim would be substantiated.* But if the neutral subjects can identify differences under the DBT his claim is undermined.


 
 not really IMO. first, failure of one only proves failure of one, not that there is no difference. and second, a person with a preconception of no difference is not likely to make a lot of efforts in hearing a difference. him trying honestly won't change the fact that bias do affect people and you can't really hope to remove a negative bias in a blind test. it's really just technicalities.
 I understand what you mean about making a claim and having a put or shut up attitude toward it. but it's a fact that you can't really prove the absence of audible difference. that's why only those who claim they do hear something are interesting in such a test. or a massive number of people who failed for statistical analysis but it's even harder to do.


torq said:


> Here's something I'm willing to do ...
> 
> As a result of upgrading one of my office systems, it happens that I'm going to have all _eight_ versions of Schiit's Bifrost to hand (or will when Fedex shows up).  That's two separate units, one the latest multi-bit unit w/ Gen 2 USB board and then my original unit with USB Gen 1 board for which I have the original analog/DAC board, the Uber version (again, many thanks to @crazychile) and the current "4490" board.  So 4x DAC/analog stages and 2x USB inputs.
> 
> ...


 

 scientific or not, I'm very interested and wish people will jump on your offer. we kind of hoped for the shiit guys to offer just that when baldr participated for a time in the topic on R2R vs delta sigma, but he was more interested in discussing audio philosophy at the time. 
 if you can check the loudness and have a switch, it would already be a great improvement over what we usually read online. obviously the closer to a DBT the better, but proper testing can be a bitch so I don't dare to ask too much when I never do DBT myself.


----------



## cel4145

torq said:


> However, it doesn't prevent the other party from coming up with the necessary proof themselves.




But to argue that they need to is a logical fallacy.


----------



## Torq

cel4145 said:


> But to argue that they need to is a logical fallacy.


 

 I didn't say they _needed_ to, I said they _could_.
  
 Happens all the time in the lab - we have opposing, but testable theories, and in general regardless of who is holding which position, the one with the most expedient path to resolving the issue is the one that winds up taking on the task.  It's a practical matter rather than a logical one.  But of course in the case of our lab, it's not about winning an argument (or avoiding having to prove a point just because you didn't make it) with logic and debate-tactics, it's about finding the answer in an expedient manner.


----------



## cel4145

torq said:


> I didn't say they _needed_ to, I said they _could_.




Right. But my comment was to pctazhp. Who seemed to imply that there was something wrong if skeptics didn't want to take responsibility for doing the testing.


----------



## mulder01

cel4145 said:


> Well, it's commonly known that a lot of the $5, $10K and more expensive speakers may not sound as good as what you can get for somewhat less. Then sometimes those vendors don't setup their equipment well and the acoustics are terrible at those shows. And just to note, if you are on your feet walking around and listening to speakers, you probably weren't listening to them really. Typically have to be seated in the listening position, just like you have to put headphones correctly on your head not one cup hanging half of your ear. For example, direct radiating speakers have a lot of frequency roll off the further you listen off axis.
> 
> Then again, it's a personal preference thing. Maybe the Abyss are just for you
> 
> ...


 
  
 All the speakers I heard were well set up - the show in question rented out a section of a hotel across a number of floors. Hotel rooms are soundproofed quite well, and there was always a number of rooms between exhibitors to ensure nobody got sound leaking between their exhibits.  You could tell each exhibitor had clearly taken time to set up their equipment - measurements and masking tape all over the floor at specific angles and more marks on the floor where the seats were meant to go.  Carpets on the floor and heavy curtains over the windows.  There was a number of differently laid out rooms (being a hotel) and the exhibitor has their choice of room to showcase their gear.  So if you have a building filled with your competition set up in probably more ideal rooms than most small hifi stores, and were trying to convince people to hand over large sums of money because your system was the best, why would you bring anything BUT your A game?  Don't get me wrong, there were some fantastic sounding rooms but sometimes you can just tell by what you're looking at that you could never afford it.  If someone could exhibit a $10k system next to all these other super expensive ones and have it sound just as good/better, why on earth wouldn't they?  They would sell 50 systems that weekend...
  
 I would question how you heard the Abyss vs HE560.  I bet it was not side by side.  There was someone on the LCD4 thread raving about them for a while and was confident that they were much better than the Abyss (which he had heard at a meet).  Curiosity eventually got the better of him and he ordered a set of Abyss to give them a proper side by side comparison and sold the LCD4 the next day...
  
  
 Quote:


eke2k6 said:


> I do.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that discussions about price are immediately shut down, and members are banned from threads for it, even if they don't use inflammatory language. Look at the trend when a new exorbitantly priced product is announced. First come the members expressing disbelief, and asking for some kind of justification for the price. Then come the mods, Jude specifically, telling these members "not to review a product the haven't heard." Next, the thread is silently purged of non-conforming comments, and members are banned from the threads. It happens EVERY single time.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I have been on this forum for a while and ALWAYS talk about pricing and have NEVER had even a PM from a mod in relation to it.  I think what they don't like it when people see a new product come out that is dearer than they can afford and blow up about it claiming how it isn't worth it.  I have noticed when a new high end headphone gets announced, the first part of the thread is always complaining about price.  When it comes out, some meaningful discussion gets going and the thread becomes a more useful resource.  If I wanted to go and read up on an Abyss/LCD4, I would have to scroll through dozens of pages worth of whining about costs until I came to something worthwhile.  Going onto a thread and saying "This is too expensive for me this is stupid" doesn't contribute anything - it just annoys people who might be interested in said product.  I fully agree that the AK players are overpriced for what they are, and if I went onto an AK player thread after I auditioned one or more and told everyone that in X situation I couldn't hear the difference between 'A' player for $$ and 'B' player for $$$$ and heard no difference and did Y testing on them and I would personally spend my money elsewhere, then there would be no complaint at all from the mods.  But if you just waltz into a thread for a product that you have nothing to do with and start claiming rip-off, you have to understand how unhelpful that is - especially if everyone who feels the same way does it too.  The forum becomes a public place for people to have a bitch session rather than actually have a meaningful discussion about a product.  Don't get me wrong, I think the AK players are a joke, but I can see the mods have a job to do.  I think another unnamable forum has recently been shut down because behaviour like this was allowed and slowly but surely it went on a downhill slope until it just became nasty and was no longer useful and needed to be shut down.  A good balance is very hard to find.  Everyone is entitled to their criticisms but you have to do it in the right way, and slamming a product you've never tried is in breach of the head fi rules (and so it should be).


----------



## cel4145

mulder01 said:


> All the speakers I heard were well set up - the show in question rented out a section of a hotel across a number of floors. Hotel rooms are soundproofed quite well, and there was always a number of rooms between exhibitors to ensure nobody got sound leaking between their exhibits. You could tell each exhibitor had clearly taken time to set up their equipment - measurements and masking tape all over the floor at specific angles and more marks on the floor where the seats were meant to go. Carpets on the floor and heavy curtains over the windows. There was a number of differently laid out rooms (being a hotel) and the exhibitor has their choice of room to showcase their gear.




But did you actually sit in the seats and do a listening session? (see my previous comment)



mulder01 said:


> I would question how you heard the Abyss vs HE560. *I bet it was not side by side.*




Well, it was within 5 to 10 minutes of each other. That's good enough for me.


----------



## Orestes1984

ruben123 said:


> Even easy to drive earphones surely sound better with amp than without. Bass tightens up, highs don't roll off and the mids will stand out much more with more air around the voices. Also the sound stage enlarges. Just try it.


 

 Or do they? Most modern devices such as iPhones are ridiculously over powered. I can literally hear the difference between my MacBook and my iPhone and my iPhone drives my 32ohm phones just fine.


----------



## mulder01

cel4145 said:


> But did you actually sit in the seats and do a listening session? (see my previous comment)
> Well, it was within 5 to 10 minutes of each other. That's good enough for me.


 
  
 Yeah, though some rooms I got up and walked out pretty fast.  When you walk in and the sweet spot has nobody sitting in it it's generally a bad sign.  Some rooms you could walk into and there wouldn't be a single seat left and you had to stand up the back or in a corner and it was still tenfold better.  That day further confirmed for me the fact that more money does not always mean better sound.  Though in some cases it did, I swear some of the setups costing $50k + did not sound as good as my sub $10k system.
  
 I wish I could like the HE560 as much as the abyss - I got into headphones thinking that for $1k I could get all I ever dreamed of but would be willing to go to $2k if I found something really special.  I ended up spending 6.  So you can imagine how good they sound to me.  Everyone is different though I guess.  The HD800 I absolutely hated but some people think it's the world's best regardless of price.  Go figure.


----------



## Dillan

I'm happy that the most purely enjoyable headphones I've heard are under a grand.. And I have heard pretty much all of the worlds best. I am proud of the fact that I have no association of price with enjoyment.. That said I do constantly have the itch to upgrade all of my gear for no reason. It's definitely somewhat of an addiction for me.


----------



## cel4145

dillan said:


> *I'm happy that the most purely enjoyable headphones I've heard are under a grand.*. And I have heard pretty much all of the worlds best. I am proud of the fact that I have no association of price with enjoyment.. That said I do constantly have the itch to upgrade all of my gear for no reason. It's definitely somewhat of an addiction for me.




But your headphones listed in your sig retail for $4,000


----------



## RRod

pctazhp said:


> This exchange started with a statement you made suggesting that people were hearing things from the multibit technology that wasn't real. I merely asked you if you could justify your statement by a valid DBT. Nothing more. Nothing less. But I do find it interesting when people who consider themselves "objective" recoil when asked to substantiate a statement they make by reference to DBTs.


 
  
 This has been hashed out a bit already, but I'll say:
 a) I am not making a positive claim
 b) The negative (null) claim I am making is supported by what we actually know about sibilance and the FR of these DACs
  
 I harp on this particular claim+technology combo because I feel it is a great example of how the average price that people are paying for quality audio could increase. It's not so hard for me to envision this scenario:
 .Someone buys some cans that are a bit bright in the upper treble
 .They notice sibilance more
 .They come into the forum looking for solutions
 .Someone says "buy new cans"
 .Someone else says "buy a multibit DAC" which can now be had at a "reasonable price."
 .The person decides that since their built-in DAC is the "weak link", they will try the DAC solution
  
 And there we go, all other things held constant, this person is paying more for what is very probably not an actual solution to his problem. Now perhaps he can convince himself that he hears fewer Ss and Shs (god help them if they like Russian opera), but then we're really getting into what it means to "hear" something.


----------



## Dillan

cel4145 said:


> But your headphones listed in your sig retail for $4,000




I respect my LCD4's the most and are technically superior to everything I've owned and most things I've heard.. But I get in moods where I like my SR80e more and pretty much always enjoy the EL-8 open back more.


----------



## cel4145

rrod said:


> This has been hashed out a bit already, but I'll say:
> a) I am not making a positive claim
> b) The negative (null) claim I am making is supported by what we actually know about sibilance and the FR of these DACs
> 
> ...




You forgot the next step. It's viral. Once a DAC synergy expert determines that the multibit sounds better than a few other DACs he's tried with headphone X, he shares it in the owners/impressions thread for X, and off we go. Multibit DAC synergy pandemic!


----------



## pctazhp

rrod said:


> This has been hashed out a bit already, but I'll say:
> a) I am not making a positive claim
> b) The negative (null) claim I am making is supported by what we actually know about sibilance and the FR of these DACs
> 
> ...


 
 I understand what you are saying. When I first bought my HD700 I really liked it. But after a few months I came to realize that the upper level spike was really bothering me. But I was under no illusion that I could solve the problem with a different DAC or amp. I did extensive home evaluations of the HD800S and the Beyer T1 Gen 2 and ultimately settled on the S.
  
 I'm just not sure why you have focused on the multibit DACs. I've seen numerous cases where people tried to solve problems they were facing with a particular headphone by foolishly trying a wide variety of different DACs or amps.I don't spend a lot of time on the Schiit threads, but I haven't noticed a pronounced effort by users of their multibit DACs to solve sibilance or treble spike problems they are experiencing with their headphones. But I could be wrong about that because as I said I don't spend a lot of time on those threads.
  
 I'm not personally invested in defending my purchase of the Bimby. I had already given up on the HD700 by the time I bought it. I just know that the particular system I have now has provided me countless hours of listening enjoyment and I have no reason to believe that will change or that I will be tempted to upgrade in the foreseeable future.


----------



## tonykaz

Mr. Dillan,
  
 You might be missing the point behind these "ultra" expensive products, they're for the people on the other side of the "Velvet Rope", not for regular salt of the Earth types like us "the unwashed masses"!
  
 Unless:
 You have a 400sq.ft. Closet for your Suits ( in each of your 5 Houses ), your spouse has a number of Dressage Horses that you "Fly" to events around the Globe ( Mrs. Romney ), you are one of the heirs of the Walmart Corporation or perhaps one of the Children of a Foxcomm President ( living in Canada ).  
  
 I've experienced the MSB stuff and the Yggy, my old ears hear nothing special, which I was rather surprised by.  I had my hearing examined by University of Michigan Medical staff to help me understand this and discovered numerous correctable issues.  I corrected and still these "pricy" high performance designs "do-not" move the "needle" for me.  The Famous Bob Katz is equally "un-moved", which helps me feel "normal".
  
 I conclude that a large contingent of this pricy stuff is nothing more that the "King's new Suit", even Jason Stoddard has said "DACs are boring", for god's sake!
  
 Performance in Audio headphones seems to top out with Chord and Cavalli sorts of products, the pricier stuff is packaging and fluff! 
  
 The Focal phones seem to fit right in with the HD800, the big Stax and the big Hifiman.   $5,000 for headphones is the Zenith.  
  
 $145,000 is an expensive solution to a $10,000 problem.
  
 Tony in Michigan
  
 ps.   an exclusive solution for the folks that own a "Private Jet" but need a nice Birthday Gift for "daddy"


----------



## RRod

pctazhp said:


> II'm just not sure why you have focused on the multibit DACs. I've seen numerous cases where people tried to solve problems they were facing with a particular headphone by foolishly trying a wide variety of different DACs or amps.I don't spend a lot of time on the Schiit threads, but I haven't noticed a pronounced effort by users of their multibit DACs to solve sibilance or treble spike problems they are experiencing with their headphones. But I could be wrong about that because as I said I don't spend a lot of time on those threads.


 
  
 I am focusing on it because it's a fresh topic and it is a good example of the kinds of myths that can come about due to a lack of objectivity. A search for sibilance by recency brings it up, and thus my point about a poor soul wandering in and getting sucked into the rabbit hole. There are certainly bigger fish to fry, but it's the accumulation of all these things that can edge up how much people are paying for "good sound."


----------



## RRod

cel4145 said:


> You forgot the next step. It's viral. Once a DAC synergy expert determines that the multibit sounds better than a few other DACs he's tried with headphone X, he shares it in the owners/impressions thread for X, and off we go. Multibit DAC synergy pandemic!


 
  
 Exactly! Now we have yet another convoluted entry into the matrix of synergy that could be fixed by a down-wheel on a slider.


----------



## U-3C

ruben123 said:


> Even easy to drive earphones surely sound better with amp than without. Bass tightens up, highs don't roll off and the mids will stand out much more with more air around the voices. Also the sound stage enlarges. Just try it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




^^THIS.

...and that's how I purchased my last audio product.


----------



## tonykaz

Mr.RRod,
  
 Quit right!    Isn't that what Head-Fi is all about? 
  
 Tony in Michigan
  
 ps.  there are a few lads that own "Standards" i.e. Mastering Engineers, these guys are Delta Sigma Dac people, they all say that R2R Dacs are "old-school" and should be retired. ( I say that about Vinyl )


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Re proving or unproving things via blind tests,

As said before, blind tests don't convince anybody these days--among other reasons stated above I'd like to add, that to properly conduct a blind test in a way that removes confounding telltales from the equation, often requires control methodologies that "the other side" will not accept. For example, if the DACs have a timing as well as volume difference, then fast switching between them would not work unless you run the signals through something like VSTHost with a delay plugin on one side, which would immediately make the blood boil in audio purists :basshead:

I think we need a more convincing demonstration that more people can accept. E.g. we could have a demo black-box system driving a HD800, that sounds "smoother", "more detailed yet less fatiguiing", etc. than any source/DAC/amp system the audiophile cares to throw at it. Then we open the black box to show a bog-standard smartphone running a custom HD800 correction profile on Viper4Android or something.


----------



## Koolpep

joe bloggs said:


> Re proving or unproving things via blind tests,
> 
> As said before, blind tests don't convince anybody these days--among other reasons stated above I'd like to add, that to properly conduct a blind test in a way that removes confounding telltales from the equation, often requires control methodologies that "the other side" will not accept. For example, if the DACs have a timing as well as volume difference, then fast switching between them would not work unless you run the signals through something like VSTHost with a delay plugin on one side, which would immediately make the blood boil in audio purists :basshead:
> 
> I think we need a more convincing demonstration that more people can accept. E.g. we could have a demo black-box system driving a HD800, that sounds "smoother", "more detailed yet less fatiguiing", etc. than any source/DAC/amp system the audiophile cares to throw at it. Then we open the black box to show a bog-standard smartphone running a custom HD800 correction profile on Viper4Android or something.




Your subjects will throw up their hands and scream to point out the evil EQ witchcraft you used. Which means you went the easy way and not the rocky, hard, manly one of assembling the best synergy with dacs, amps, USB regenerators, cables and interconnects and of course a specific headphone cable, to suit the HD800. 

Cheers.


----------



## spruce music

Here is a listening test with a smartphone:
  
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/can-you-hear-smartphone-recording-28432/
  
 And one of the DACs in this group of files is a smartphone too.
  
 http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/which-digital-analogue-converter-do-you-prefer-28370/


----------



## richard51

i have never read in any cie. of cable site that one piece of foam for a bucks rightly placed on a wall or no more placed at all there , in an adequately made room treatment can make a difference for your ears  more audible than a one thousand dollars cable.. I have verified that in my own cheaply cost adequately made room treatment.... By the way i have verified by myself that in some case cable make a difference between them and in the same system dac also are different...In audio all is born from your experience and your ears, nothing from opinions, dogmas,marketting....i think measure are useful indications if you are capable to make sense of them, or if your ears says the samething than your apparatus...And if your apparatus doesnt say the samething that your  satisfied ears, the ears always win...


----------



## krismusic

It occurs to me that if it is the case that budget to mid price gear is as good as it gets SQ wise,then that is a win for those of us in a limited budget.


----------



## pctazhp

krismusic said:


> It occurs to me that *if *it is the case that budget to mid price gear is as good as it gets SQ wise,then that is a win for those of us in a limited budget.


 
 Well that of course depends on the "if". And I guess it could be considered a "win" if it is important to you that no one else has a better system than you.


----------



## cel4145

joe bloggs said:


> I think we need a more convincing demonstration that more people can accept. E.g. we could have a demo black-box system driving a HD800, that sounds "smoother", "more detailed yet less fatiguiing", etc. than any source/DAC/amp system the audiophile cares to throw at it. Then we open the black box to show a bog-standard smartphone running a custom HD800 correction profile on Viper4Android or something.




Take a big well known DAC case, put a Modi inside along with a mini DSP in it to manipulate the sound however you want. That could be interesting, too


----------



## krismusic

pctazhp said:


> Well that of course depends on the "if". And I guess it could be considered a "win" if it is important to you that no one else has a better system than you.



I'm not particularly interested in what other people have. 
Just pleased if mid price gear is capable of superb performance. 
I guess it would remove the continual itch for ever better equipment. 
It would leave the audio industry in a peculiar position and would not necessarily be good for the hobby as a whole.


----------



## pctazhp

krismusic said:


> I'm not particularly interested in what other people have.
> Just pleased if mid price gear is capable of superb performance.
> I guess it would remove the continual itch for ever better equipment.
> It would leave the audio industry in a peculiar position and would not necessarily be good for the hobby as a whole.


 
 In my opinion, mid price or even low price gear can offer superb performance. Example: my pair of $5 Venture Electronics Monk earbuds powered by my Samsung Note 4.
  
 Whether big buck gear is better, and if so, by how much, is certainly open to debate - which will go on forever.
  
 Also, in my opinion, the constant urge to upgrade has less to do with gear and more to do with personality issues. 
  
 The audio industry has dealt with these issues at least from the early beginning of "high-end" audio back in the 60s. So far there isn't much evidence they have much to worry about.


----------



## Torq

joe bloggs said:


> Re proving or unproving things via blind tests,
> 
> As said before, blind tests don't convince anybody these days--among other reasons stated above I'd like to add, that to properly conduct a blind test in a way that removes confounding telltales from the equation, often requires control methodologies that "the other side" will not accept. For example, if the DACs have a timing as well as volume difference, then fast switching between them would not work unless you run the signals through something like VSTHost with a delay plugin on one side, which would immediately make the blood boil in audio purists
> 
> ...


 
  
  


cel4145 said:


> Take a big well known DAC case, put a Modi inside along with a mini DSP in it to manipulate the sound however you want. That could be interesting, too


 

 For a little while, going back at least a few months now I guess, I've been talking to another member here (@landroni) about building a proper tool to more easily/reliably facilitate blind and ABX testing for source components.  While there are certainly tools that enable such things today, they are generally software-side solutions, which aren't very useful if the source you want to compare isn't a computer-based player and, in the case of the most readily available, it's a Windows-centric thing.
  
 It also typically forces you to have USB somewhere in the audio chain as most computers don't have any other way to talk to a DAC.
  
 That tool does a few of things.
  
 First it's a distribution point ... feed it a digital input and it'll give you two outputs of the same signal, allowing you to connect to two digital devices at once and have them playing in synchronization form the source.  It allows you to adjust timing between delivery to those two sources to permit overcoming any latency from internal buffering/re-clocking schemes as needed.  You don't have to use this stage ... you can just use the analog inputs (see next point) instead if you prefer.
  
 Second, it takes two stereo analog inputs, provides a push-button way to automatically level-match them to within 0.1 dB (quite a lot better than you'll manage by ear and beyond the realistic capability of many SPL meters), and then provides a single, switched, output to an amplifier.
  
 Third, it provides for a couple of comparison modes, with a simple control to allow the user to indicate when they hear a difference.
  
 One mode simply repeats a selectable passage of music ... you mark a start and end point, which it stores in an internal buffer, and then it'll repeatedly play that while switching sources.  The other simply passes through whatever is coming from the source and switches sources randomly there.  This allow you see if differences are detectable in-stream or between repeated passages.  Then there's an option to mute between switches or make the changeover seamless*.
  
 It logs what source playing when, and records when the user indicates they detect a difference, and then gives you the data so you can analyze it from there.
  
 Switching is driven by a proper *hardware* random number generator rather than a pseudo-random software one (e.g. Mersenne Twister), and within certain constraints you can substitute a different device there (which comes from me not having settled on which RNG I wanted to use when I first got things running).
  
 *There's a bit more work to do before it's finished, in particular the seamless switching needs tweaking, but once it's done there's a good chance I'll throw the thing up on some crowd-funding site and then have as many built as there is concrete interest in.  And then I may open-source the design and code, depending on how much work it ultimately takes to get it from being a tool for me vs. something others can easily use.


----------



## Ruben123

cel4145 said:


> Take a big well known DAC case, put a Modi inside along with a mini DSP in it to manipulate the sound however you want. That could be interesting, too




What about a 1$ Chinese mp3 player hidden for the listener filled with 128kbps mp3 files? Just say it's an AK 380 with chord Hugo and external HiFi amp.
Lol!


----------



## VNandor

ruben123 said:


> What about a 1$ Chinese mp3 player hidden for the listener *filled with 128kbps mp3 files?* Just say it's an AK 380 with chord Hugo and external HiFi amp.
> Lol!


 
 I seriously doubt you could get away with this.


----------



## cel4145

ruben123 said:


> What about a 1$ Chinese mp3 player hidden for the listener filled with 128kbps mp3 files? Just say it's an AK 380 with chord Hugo and external HiFi amp.
> Lol!







vnandor said:


> I seriously doubt you could get away with this.




I don't think that's going to work either. LOL

The Modi's measured levels of distortion are arguably inaudible. With a mini dsp, you could then apply some slight EQ to the DAC analog output, ever so slight, just to skew it a little. Plus, people would freak out not only knowing you used the Modi, but then you used the ADC and DAC in the mini dsp on the analog signal. (hehe)


----------



## U-3C

ruben123 said:


> What about a 1$ Chinese mp3 player hidden for the listener filled with 128kbps mp3 files? Just say it's an AK 380 with chord Hugo and external HiFi amp.
> Lol!




I have an old 8 dollar Chinese mp3 from 10 years ago.

It's bad. You won't be able to get away with it. However, music isn't unbearable or anything. I can still enjoy it. It's just not that good.


----------



## Ruben123

The ones I listened to (got some also for cheap presents) sound transparent with higher impedance headphones - only when switching songs you hear the CPU working - though $5 flac mp3 players from China sound completely transparent. No CPU. Even with 16 ohm phones.


----------



## cel4145

You need to do some reviews of those.


----------



## Ancipital

vnandor said:


> I seriously doubt you could get away with this.


 
  
 Nope, depending on the source material, you really couldn't. 128k layer 3 will be obviously running out of bitrate, and the coding artifacts fairly audible to an interested listener, especially with material containing complex, layered content. Using 320k layer 3, or at a pinch 256k AAC (with a reasonable encoder) will past most sniff tests, though.


----------



## mulder01

dillan said:


> I respect my LCD4's the most and are technically superior to everything I've owned and most things I've heard.. But I get in moods where I like my SR80e more and pretty much always enjoy the EL-8 open back more.


 
   
  

 This really surprises me.
 I thought one thing that everyone agreed on in this forum (objective and subjective sides) was that headphones make the most / a big difference.
 I was totally with you guys when we were talking about dacs and amps making not much difference, but some posts I read on here, I think I can see the reason that subjectivists think objectivists are just crazy and mad at the world.
  
 This one as well...
  


pctazhp said:


> In my opinion, mid price or even low price gear can offer superb performance. Example: my pair of $5 Venture Electronics Monk earbuds powered by my Samsung Note 4.


----------



## mulder01

Also, meanwhile, all the lurkers not normally part of this forum are writing down the user names of people who want to put a modi/smartphone in a yggy chassis so they know to be very aware of any gear they bring to a meet...


----------



## pctazhp

mulder01 said:


> This really surprises me.
> I thought one thing that everyone agreed on in this forum (objective and subjective sides) was that headphones make the most / a big difference.
> I was totally with you guys when we were talking about dacs and amps making not much difference, but some posts I read on here, I think I can see the reason that subjectivists think objectivists are just crazy and mad at the world.
> 
> *This one as well...*


 
 I didn't say the Monk sounded as good as my HD800S or even nearly as good. I try to avoid subjective comparisons on this thread.
  
 I agree that headphone choice is probably the most important. 
  
 And just to be clear, I personally don't believe that DACs and amps don't make much difference, but I don't want to make any claims on this thread I can't substantiate by valid DBTs.


----------



## glassmonkey

torq said:


> joe bloggs said:
> 
> 
> > Re proving or unproving things via blind tests,
> ...


 
 I'm probably going to get blasted for this, but I don't believe in instant switching ABX testing. I think that the brain fills in acoustics that it expects to hear and I prefer to have a few seconds delay wash out period. This hypothesis is *loosely* supported by a recent meta-analysis of high definition audio discrimination studies in the AES journal, and is something that I think needs to be addressed in future ABX methodology tests. Instant switching increases the chance of false negatives.
  
 The paper can be checked out here: http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20160806/18296.pdf
  
 I've put some clippings below:
  

 What the forest plot shows is that studies with training appear to show a greater ability to discern high definition content, and overall there appears to be a a small ability to discern high definition content. The paper is interesting and not without limitations, so take with a grain of salt and read for yourself. Interesting, among the studies in the training subgroup the longer stimuli and longer intervals between stimuli appeared to correlate with greater ability to discern content.
  

  

  
 The results should be taken in a somewhat guarded manner, as the subgroups have small sample sizes. The study also assesses most studies as having high risk of bias. It just isn't the case that audio studies involving people are generally well conducted. There is also lots of heterogeneity in the study methods of studies included in the meta-analysis, but I think the preparation work to make code the studies in a binary fashion, discern or not discern, was done well.
  
 Anyway, go check out the study. It is well worth a read.


----------



## cel4145

glassmonkey said:


> I'm probably going to get blasted for this, but I don't believe in instant switching ABX testing. I think that the brain fills in acoustics that it expects to hear and I prefer to have a few seconds delay wash out period.




If the goal is scientific research, sure. I could see your argument. 

If the goal of Torq's device is for audio enthusiasts to do their own testing, just offer both. If the listener can't tell with fast switching, and the listener can't tell taking their time listening, then hopefully it would convince them that it's not worth spending money on the more expensive DAC


----------



## Torq

glassmonkey said:


> I'm probably going to get blasted for this, but I don't believe in instant switching ABX testing. I think that the brain fills in acoustics that it expects to hear and I prefer to have a few seconds delay wash out period. This hypothesis is *loosely* supported by a recent meta-analysis of high definition audio discrimination studies in the AES journal, and is something that I think needs to be addressed in future ABX methodology tests. Instant switching increases the chance of false negatives.
> 
> The paper can be checked out here: http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20160806/18296.pdf
> 
> ...


 
  
 You won't get blasted by me! 
  
 The box I'm piddling around with is just a tool intended to take another person out of the loop and make sure that "random" is actually _random_ ... I know that personally I find some effects only apparent after protracted listening (e.g. they cause fatigue, sooner or later than some other "thing"), and nothing specifically prevents the box being used in that manner.
  
 And instant vs. delayed switching, as well as short-loops vs. entire albums is something it does already, so the choice is there for the user (assuming there's ever anyone using it but me ...).
  
 Interesting material.


----------



## cel4145

torq said:


> You won't get blasted by me!
> 
> The box I'm piddling around with is just a tool intended to take another person out of the loop and make sure that "random" is actually _random_ ... I know that personally I find some effects only apparent after protracted listening (e.g. they cause fatigue, sooner or later than some other "thing"), and nothing specifically prevents the box being used in that manner.
> 
> Interesting material.




LOL

I posted literally seconds before you. I guess I was on track with your thinking


----------



## glassmonkey

torq said:


> glassmonkey said:
> 
> 
> > I'm probably going to get blasted for this, but I don't believe in instant switching ABX testing. I think that the brain fills in acoustics that it expects to hear and I prefer to have a few seconds delay wash out period. This hypothesis is *loosely* supported by a recent meta-analysis of high definition audio discrimination studies in the AES journal, and is something that I think needs to be addressed in future ABX methodology tests. Instant switching increases the chance of false negatives.
> ...


 
 By the way, I am interested in your device (assuming affordable price) and I think that there are other reviewers that would be also. They might not work for any big magazines, though.


----------



## roadcykler

dillan said:


> I agree the religion bit was crossing the line - but many other times my posts have been deleted because I chose to bring up or challenge the reasons behind pricing of a certain item as well as asking the technical comparisons versus other devices and *especially *when I bring up double blind or A/B testing. That sort of speak is apparently banned outside of our dead sound science section which is actually extremely harmful to the community. Literally it drags us down as a whole to not only discourage it, but ban it.


 
 I just stumbled onto this thread and there's a lot to read but I too believe, and have stated as much, that a lot of audiophilia is exactly like religion. Objectivists want scientific evidence that something swapped in a system affects the sound. Subjectivists "know what they hear" when something is changed. Religious people have faith that what they believe is true, subjective audiophiles have faith that their new, usually more expensive item that's new to their system will make the sound better. It has to be faith because there is no scientific evidence.
  
 One thing I am curious about is, do cable manufacturers who cryogenically treat their stuff or claim that their cables are directional, actually believe that or do they really know it makes no difference and are just using marketing to their potential benefit?  
  
 As for the ever increasing prices, too many people believe the fallacy that more expensive is better, and not just in the audio world. 
  
 Great idea for a thread. Unfortunately it probably won't change many people's minds.


----------



## Ancipital

glassmonkey said:


> By the way, I am interested in your device (assuming affordable price) and I think that there are other reviewers that would be also. They might not work for any big magazines, though.


 
  
 Of course not, a device to facilitate ABX testing won't let the poor little flowers focus on what matters- matters like the fact that "the regular changes in rhythm want to sound paranoid, but not confused, lest the screams lose their purpose". Just the facts, ma'am.
  
No, I suspect that useful test gear, like sensible test methodology, might be like kryptonite to most big magazines.
  
(I have nothing against a nice subjective writeup, but self-indulgent "James Joyce on acid" riffing makes me want to throw things. I want to know about the shiny, not read failed poetry.)


----------



## cel4145

ancipital said:


> (I have nothing against a nice subjective writeup, but self-indulgent *"James Joyce on acid" riffing makes me want to throw things.* I want to know about the shiny, not read failed poetry.)






Had to find a face palm to agree with you for the occasion. LOL


----------



## glassmonkey

ancipital said:


> glassmonkey said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, I am interested in your device (assuming affordable price) and I think that there are other reviewers that would be also. They might not work for any big magazines, though.
> ...


 
 I just went and listened to the song that is being referenced, and the quote taken out of context isn't really fair. I get where the reviewer is coming from and I've not generally been into James Joyce and haven't tried acid--not even shrooms, man. Here's some links to the song, maybe you'll get it, maybe you won't, but I wouldn't denigrate someone just because they express something in a colourful manner of expression that isn't yours, but I'm a pretty colourful reviewer sometimes:
  
Spotify
  
 and Tidal (the picture is the link to show my bias). I tried to find it on Bandcamp, but no luck.


----------



## Ancipital

Without threadjacking this into some sort of single-buttocked litcrit event, the point isn't that it's bad to be "colourful", more than it's somewhat grating to do it _badly_. If the balance of useful information and inept hyperbole was slightly better-judged, it would have been a far more readable review.
 I like the song a great deal more than the review, but that's not hard. We now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast


----------



## Torq

glassmonkey said:


> By the way, I am interested in your device (assuming affordable price) and I think that there are other reviewers that would be also. They might not work for any big magazines, though.


 

 Hard to comment price at the moment - but it's not being built to make money as such, so it'll be as reasonable as possible while making it worth the effort to push forward.
  
 Depending on what it shows, lots of people might not be very happy ... though as a subjectivist/objectivist (and engineer) myself, I'm fortunately not likely to be one of them!
  
 I suppose, as I'm thinking about it, I shall have to give it an option to output verifiable-tamper-proof result sets.  In other words, provide a way to save its dataset in a form that can be published directly and its contents be verifiable as unmolested.  This wouldn't stop somebody taking the data and putting it in a different form, but if they wanted to output the raw test data then that'd be in a secure and verifiable package which then, hopefully, be the only result set from a given test that anyone would take seriously.


----------



## Orestes1984

ancipital said:


> Of course not, a device to facilitate ABX testing won't let the poor little flowers focus on what matters- matters like the fact that "the regular changes in rhythm want to sound paranoid, but not confused, lest the screams lose their purpose". Just the facts, ma'am.
> 
> No, I suspect that useful test gear, like sensible test methodology, might be like kryptonite to most big magazines.
> 
> (I have nothing against a nice subjective writeup, but self-indulgent "James Joyce on acid" riffing makes me want to throw things. I want to know about the shiny, not read failed poetry.)


 
 Of course an objective test where a reviewer can't use such flowery language about things which don't technically exist would be kryptonite to most audio magazines. Of course being a research graduate in my working life leads to one thing though. Intersubjectivity is life, this reminds me of the ongoing and never ending debates between relativists, that knowledge is truth, and subjectivity that everyone has their own opinion and everything is OK in between provided we are reflexive in our practices and willing to concede that others are allowed to have their opinion also.
  
 The problem with intersubjectivity is that people on forums very rarely have the skills and nescessary knowledge to be able to concede in a civil manner that each of us are entitled to an opinion and that the "truth" is also always subjective except in the limited cases where we can scientifically clarify through the shortest possible answer that there is no other way that the response could be anything other than what it is.


----------



## Ancipital

orestes1984 said:


> Of course an objective test where a reviewer can't use such flowery language would be kryptonite to most audio magazines. Of course being a research graduate in my working life leads to one thing though. Intersubjectivity is life, this reminds me of the ongoing and never ending debates between relativists, that knowledge is truth, and subjectivity that everyone has their own opinion and everything is OK in between provided we are reflexive in our practices and willing to concede that others are allowed to have their opinion also.
> 
> The problem with intersubjectivity is that people on forums very rarely have the skills and nescessary knowledge to be able to concede in a civil manner that each of us are entitled to an opinion and that the "truth" is also always subjective.


 
  
 There's room for both, in an ideal world. If I'm considering dropping a non-trivial amount of money on a piece of gear, I'd like to know some useful data- maybe some measurements, or how it fared in blind testing- if the reviewer has the resources and expertise do it well. That doesn't preclude wanting to know how much the review enjoyed listening to it- how they felt it altered the sound and affected the amount of pleasure offered by the experience, as that's also interesting.
  
 Even subjective observations can vary wildly in how useful they are, though. The sort of self-indulgent bollocks that you get in places like What Hifi can be a lot less informative than some of the more practical reviews posted around here. Sad but true.


----------



## Orestes1984

Of course, but another reason why I walked away from this hobby a few years ago before coming back is the ability for audiofools to engage in self flagellating crap. To be honest I can't stand the company of most audiofools especially where it comes to religiously fervent behaviors.


----------



## glassmonkey

ancipital said:


> orestes1984 said:
> 
> 
> > Of course an objective test where a reviewer can't use such flowery language would be kryptonite to most audio magazines. Of course being a research graduate in my working life leads to one thing though. Intersubjectivity is life, this reminds me of the ongoing and never ending debates between relativists, that knowledge is truth, and subjectivity that everyone has their own opinion and everything is OK in between provided we are reflexive in our practices and willing to concede that others are allowed to have their opinion also.
> ...


 
 I've got my own issues with What HiFi, like their best of people who've paid us lots of money or given us lots of free stuff lists. They also believe that vinyl is irrefutably more HiRes, which is just not an accurate scientific assessment of well-recorded music. Vinyl isn't capable of having the same dynamic range as digital. This doesn't mean that Vinyl versions of albums don't often sound better than the CD versions, but this generally has more to do with mastering than it has to do with detriments of the recording format. I've even heard that the Vinyl master of Death Magnetic is almost listenable (pic links to Dynamic Range Database). Also notice that some of the HiRes measures horrible bad awful, for shame shame shame.


----------



## cel4145

orestes1984 said:


> Of course an objective test where a reviewer can't use such flowery language about things which don't technically exist would be kryptonite to most audio magazines. Of course being a research graduate in my working life leads to one thing though. Intersubjectivity is life, this reminds me of the ongoing and never ending debates between relativists, that knowledge is truth, and subjectivity that everyone has their own opinion and everything is OK in between provided we are reflexive in our practices and willing to concede that others are allowed to have their opinion also.
> 
> The problem with intersubjectivity is that people on forums very rarely have the skills and nescessary knowledge to be able to concede in a civil manner that each of us are entitled to an opinion and that the "truth" is also always subjective except in the limited cases where we can scientifically clarify through the shortest possible answer that there is no other way that the response could be anything other than what it is.




Well, knowledge is definitely socially constructed. But when there are generally agreed upon concepts about a thing, some opinions regarding it are necessarily worse than others. We don't want to enable the people that conflate the principle of respecting the right to one's opinion as the same as having to respect the opinion itself.

Some people are just not ready for discussions about epistemology. LOL
(I didn't mean you)


----------



## RRod

glassmonkey said:


> The results should be taken in a somewhat guarded manner, as the subgroups have small sample sizes. The study also assesses most studies as having high risk of bias. It just isn't the case that audio studies involving people are generally well conducted. There is also lots of heterogeneity in the study methods of studies included in the meta-analysis, but I think the preparation work to make code the studies in a binary fashion, discern or not discern, was done well.
> 
> Anyway, go check out the study. It is well worth a read.


 
  
 Very guarded. If I throw the data into another statistical model (random-effects logistic regression), there is no significant effect of high-res for non-trained groups at 95% (and let's not forget that p-values have their issues). He also simultaneously makes a huge deal about the effect of training but punts on really digging into questions about confounding issues such as distortion. He also made a press-release in which he is quoted as saying:
  
 ""Audio purists and industry should welcome these findings -- our study finds high resolution audio has a small but important advantage in its quality of reproduction over standard audio content."
  
 There is absolutely nothing in the paper that points to any *advantage*, especially for audio purists who haven't undergone training.


----------



## glassmonkey

rrod said:


> glassmonkey said:
> 
> 
> > The results should be taken in a somewhat guarded manner, as the subgroups have small sample sizes. The study also assesses most studies as having high risk of bias. It just isn't the case that audio studies involving people are generally well conducted. There is also lots of heterogeneity in the study methods of studies included in the meta-analysis, but I think the preparation work to make code the studies in a binary fashion, discern or not discern, was done well.
> ...


 
 Show your work (at least the results) and tell what software you used. There are limitations, but they aren't as strong as you're implying. Asking him to control for confounders in that aren't measured in the study reports is a bridge too far. He's mentioned plenty of potential sources of bias and what direction they'll take.
  
 Also, throwing out the subgroup that you don't like and emphasizing the subgroup you do is bad practice. 
  
 His findings show that, overall, people are more likely to be able to tell the difference between HiRes and standard. If you want to take the most relevant finding, it is in the sensitivity analyses. The author never should have used a continuous model, as it's patently ridiculous for probability data. Probabilities are bounded between 0 and 1, the normal distribution is bounded between negative infinity and positive infinity. What this means is that the continuous results can produce probabilities below 0 and above 1, which isn't possible. I've highlighted the findings that are the most relevant. I'd usually be using inverse variance random effects meta-analysis as this doesn't assume a constant effect across trials and is therefore more likely to fully represent uncertainty.
  

  
 The analyses using appropriate methodology (highlighted) show greater uncertainty, but a clearer difference than the continuous analysis with the lower confidence interval being at a higher level than the fixed effect mean for the continuous analysis.
  
 Also, as the author points out in copious detail, the methods of the larger trials, which carry the greatest weight in the analysis (82%) have a strong tendency towards type II errors, that means estimating that there is no effect when there actually is an effect. This means that the results of the meta-analysis may even be conservative overall. This is why the author felt confident in making the press release statement cited--because the evidence points to this being the correct conclusion.
  
 I don't have the time or will right now to re-run this using OpenBUGS and it's been a little while since I've done a meta-analysis, but that would give us something more manageable than a p-value. There are other less finicky software to re-analyze this, but they would give you a frequentist answer, and the Bayesian answer is more interesting to me. If anyone wants to step in for my laziness, feel free.


----------



## nanaholic

vnandor said:


> I seriously doubt you could get away with this.




I think you can, if that Penn and Teller tap water experiment is any indication.


----------



## Ruben123

cel4145 said:


> You need to do some reviews of those.




It's about this player, search a bit better and you can find it cheaper even. http://www.aliexpress.com/item/5TH-GENERATION-MP3-MP4-MUSIC-MEDIA-PLAYER-FM-Games-Movie-1-8-LCD-SCREEN/32622806363.html?spm=2114.10010108.1000014.17.O2CtbH&scm=1007.13338.33346.0&pvid=d61dc558-acc6-4f13-96be-3290e80bc97a&tpp=1

I have tried a lot of Chinese mp3 players that play lossless too as my library is lossless. All have all sorts of problems except this one. Battery is really audiophile quality (= empty pretty quickly lol) but I compared it much side by side to my Sandisk Sansa Clip+ which is regarded as quite good, and I could not hear a difference. No roll off, no hiccups, no other colouring of the sound... I've thought to review it "audiophile style" for some time but as my name doesn't attract much attention as I'm no reviewer I'm afraid nobody will click on it lol


----------



## Joe Bloggs

glassmonkey said:


> Also, as the author points out in copious detail, the methods of the larger trials, which carry the greatest weight in the analysis (82%) have a strong tendency towards type II errors, that means estimating that there is no effect when there actually is an effect. This means that the results of the meta-analysis may even be conservative overall. This is why the author felt confident in making the press release statement cited--because the evidence points to this being the correct conclusion.
> 
> I don't have the time or will right now to re-run this using OpenBUGS and it's been a little while since I've done a meta-analysis, but that would give us something more manageable than a p-value. There are other less finicky software to re-analyze this, but they would give you a frequentist answer, and the Bayesian answer is more interesting to me. If anyone wants to step in for my laziness, feel free.




I don't see how one could tell whether a particular experiment is more likely to produce type II errors than another. If this was done by looking at the results, well, who's to say they didn't get their negative results simply because those experiments happen to be the only ones conducted properly?

That said, long experience with this subforum tells me that hi-res / non-hi-res arguments are one of the most fruitless possible arguments to make here, despite them being one of the easiest to prove for yourselves: downconvert a hi-res file down to standard res, convert back up to original res (to avoid different DAC operations confounding the issue), put both into the foobar ABX plugin, profit?.

Can we get back on topic (whatever that is)? It was something to do with audio hardware at any rate...


----------



## Ancipital

glassmonkey said:


> I've got my own issues with What HiFi, like their best of people who've paid us lots of money or given us lots of free stuff lists. They also believe that vinyl is irrefutably more HiRes, which is just not an accurate scientific assessment of well-recorded music. Vinyl isn't capable of having the same dynamic range as digital. This doesn't mean that Vinyl versions of albums don't often sound better than the CD versions, but this generally has more to do with mastering than it has to do with detriments of the recording format. I've even heard that the Vinyl master of Death Magnetic is almost listenable (pic links to Dynamic Range Database). Also notice that some of the HiRes measures horrible bad awful, for shame shame shame.


 
  
 Oh, don't. I work with people who have been fighting the "loudness wars" on a technical and scientific level for years, feeding into international standards bodies when possible- and the sheer amount of nonsense that they have had to put up with defies rational belief. The subject of horrendous clippy brickwall mastering just cases tired, pained expressions now. Stuff mastered to the edge of clipping, forced through optimod in a broadcast chain and then lossily compressed for streaming over Them Interwebs makes many kittens sad, too.
  
 Also, I have seen people insist a piece of vinyl has better dynamic range and fidelity than the digital export that was sent to produce the vinyl. Clearly the act of forcing audio into an RIAA curve and subsequently attempting to undo it has magical properties that pulls extra "quality" from parallel dimensions. It's not that I hate the medium- I see the appeal of a physical object with lots of space for artwork, and to an extent, the graceful degradation of the SQ can actually sound _nice_- as long as you know that's what you're getting and enjoy it for what it is. 
  
 As the late John Peel said, "listen mate, life has surface noise".


----------



## krismusic

ancipital said:


> As the late John Peel said, "listen mate, life has surface noise".


 I'd like to get rid of life's surface noise too!


----------



## Ancipital

Yeah, you probably want the moon on a stick also


----------



## krismusic

ancipital said:


> Yeah, you probably want the moon on a stick also



Hell yeah! One of my favourite phrases


----------



## glassmonkey

joe bloggs said:


> glassmonkey said:
> 
> 
> > Also, as the author points out in copious detail, the methods of the larger trials, which carry the greatest weight in the analysis (82%) have a strong tendency towards type II errors, that means estimating that there is no effect when there actually is an effect. This means that the results of the meta-analysis may even be conservative overall. This is why the author felt confident in making the press release statement cited--because the evidence points to this being the correct conclusion.
> ...


 
 We were on topic, as @Torq is making a machine that is all about proper comparison methods. I questioned what proper methods meant and cited the AES meta-analysis as having some interesting subgoup results about length of listening. Unlike sample size of one self studies that are often advocated, the AES meta-analysis looks at lots of people and had a strong result showing that it is likely that some people can tell differences between high res and standard res. Invariably people are going to say that they believe their sample size of one studies refute the findings. What I was saying is that one finding in the training studies in the meta-analysis was that common arguments about nearly instantaneous switching intervals and short clips may not actually be the best method for audio discernment in controlled comparisons. This evidence was based on a small potentially biased subgroup, so should be interpreted cautiously. Evidence is evidence, and this reaches the ludicrous alpha of 0.05. Whether the conclusion on whether this inference is generalisable is a fairer criticism than trying to disregard the whole study because of a frail p-value in one subgroup. People don't generally make decisions on 95% confidence. See Karl Claxton's "The Irrelevance of Inference" for more on that.
  
 If you want to read about the risk of bias in the studies, I suggest checking out the study. It is well worth a read. I have no doubt that Rrod can show his model as he's demonstrated engineering chops elsewhere, but I would also say that his proposed model only looking at the most dominant subgroup (untrained), is tossing out information inappropriately. The relative weight of the untrained studies and their direction of potential bias as well as sensitivity analyses indicate that the overall discernment effect size (admittedly small) is highly likely to be real. Tossing out important data isn't sound scientific method, which is the whole point of the forum, not just ABX orthodoxy.


----------



## castleofargh

glassmonkey said:


> joe bloggs said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see how one could tell whether a particular experiment is more likely to produce type II errors than another. If this was done by looking at the results, well, who's to say they didn't get their negative results simply because those experiments happen to be the only ones conducted properly?
> ...


 

 but because it's meta analysis and the proper tests on this particular matter aren't by the thousands, we end up having correlations that could come from anywhere. when the analysis about trained people is made comparing the results of a test with trained people and the results to another test with untrained listeners, how do we make sure the training was the relevant factor when we're talking different tests and different people? it's the same idea for length of sample and delay between samples. so on that matter I'll keep trusting the tests conducted to determine just that, instead of this paper.  trying longer samples is easy and can be done even with the most basic abx test, so it's up to the the guys to fool around and see if they can get better success with a different sample length depending on the question the test is trying to answer.
 but I have a lot of reservations about the delay between samples. I'm not sure how often letting the experience sink in would outweigh the mad loss in accuracy from not going with almost instantaneous noiseless switch?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Each of the studies that was used in the meta-analysis showing positive results had drawn numerous criticism from knowledgeable sources questioning the validity in their way of preparing and of presenting the music. All were sponsored by industry interests with an axe to grind. Putting a dozen invalid studies together does not make them valid in combination.


----------



## glassmonkey

joe bloggs said:


> Each of the studies that was used in the meta-analysis showing positive results had drawn numerous criticism from knowledgeable sources questioning the validity in their way of preparing and of presenting the music. All were sponsored by industry interests with an axe to grind. Putting a dozen invalid studies together does not make them valid in combination.


 
 Those kind of claims need proof. Where's the proof? There were only 4 of 18 studies that didn't find a mean effect showings a small difference in ability to discern. You've basically just accused 14 sets of study authors of academic dishonesty. I wouldn't do that lightly. If you've got proof or citations that refute the studies than it is your duty to provide that.
  
 If the argument is that only the studies with statistically significant results were being dishonest than you've still got a problem as that list is 8 deep. I checked disclosure statements for a few of the studies, including Oohashi, and for the most part it looks like studies were funded through government grants, not sponsored by industry. Maybe you have different information?


----------



## Ruben123

I'd like to see the confidence intervals of the tests. They say a lot more than only an effect. Also it's known very well only tests with positive results (an effect) are released which is a pity for all science areas.


----------



## RRod

glassmonkey said:


> If you want to read about the risk of bias in the studies, I suggest checking out the study. It is well worth a read. I have no doubt that Rrod can show his model as he's demonstrated engineering chops elsewhere, but I would also say that his proposed model only looking at the most dominant subgroup (untrained), is tossing out information inappropriately. The relative weight of the untrained studies and their direction of potential bias as well as sensitivity analyses indicate that the overall discernment effect size (admittedly small) is highly likely to be real. Tossing out important data isn't sound scientific method, which is the whole point of the forum, not just ABX orthodoxy.


 
  
 Well the degree in stats helps more than the put-on engineering skills. Here ya go:

```
Fixed effects: Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|) (Intercept) 0.04608 0.02637 1.748 0.0805 . train1 0.34659 0.05518 6.282 3.35e-10 *** --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
```
  
 I could go into the model or try a Bayesian version, but as Joe said, what's the point? Here's an author happy to go into a missive about the evils of Meyer & Moran, but readily assumes that "using blindfolding" is the reason why Theiss is such an outlier, instead of investigating why it might be screwed up. What audio needs is a study that is better-done than any of these, not a meta-analysis.
  
 p.s. Mods, feel free to move the Reiss discussion to the thread I had started on it a while back.


----------



## Orestes1984

glassmonkey said:


> Those kind of claims need proof. Where's the proof? There were only 4 of 18 studies that didn't find a mean effect showings a small difference in ability to discern. You've basically just accused 14 sets of study authors of academic dishonesty. I wouldn't do that lightly. If you've got proof or citations that refute the studies than it is your duty to provide that.
> 
> If the argument is that only the studies with statistically significant results were being dishonest than you've still got a problem as that list is 8 deep. I checked disclosure statements for a few of the studies, including Oohashi, and for the most part it looks like studies were funded through government grants, not sponsored by industry. Maybe you have different information?


 

 That's not the way it works, if the sample variance is deemed to be insignificant then it is insignificant. Again, some people need to learn how to do statistics before they come to this kind of discussion.


----------



## cel4145

glassmonkey said:


> I'm probably going to get blasted for this, but I don't believe in instant switching ABX testing. I think that the brain fills in acoustics that it expects to hear and I prefer to have a few seconds delay wash out period. This hypothesis is *loosely* supported by a recent meta-analysis of high definition audio discrimination studies in the AES journal, and is something that I think needs to be addressed in future ABX methodology tests. Instant switching increases the chance of false negatives.




I'm glad you emphasized "loosely." I'm always skeptical of these meta analysis studies. To me, they are just glorified lit reviews, and are problematic as stand alone publications in their own right. They are the kind of work one might do as background to design their own research project and one might include as background in the published results of the project that resulted. At most they are useful for looking at the range of methodologies across studies--which is why I say they are helpful for new project design--but not for drawing _any_ conclusions about the results.


----------



## Koolpep

So we can confidently say that there is no study so far that was conducted properly, is conclusive and large enough to be significant?
  
 Will it ever happen - apparently there is no desire and no funding to actually do it properly (if that is even possible)?? If it's so easy for our hobby statisticians in this thread to poke so many holes in these professional studies...my hopes are not high.
  
 Cheers.
  
 PS: If you are not a hobby statistician but a proper full-on statistician - my apologies, it just sounded better.


----------



## glassmonkey

orestes1984 said:


> glassmonkey said:
> 
> 
> > Those kind of claims need proof. Where's the proof? There were only 4 of 18 studies that didn't find a mean effect showings a small difference in ability to discern. You've basically just accused 14 sets of study authors of academic dishonesty. I wouldn't do that lightly. If you've got proof or citations that refute the studies than it is your duty to provide that.
> ...


 
 Do enlighten. The comment doesn't at all seem to relate to what I was saying about accusing academics of dishonesty without providing even evidence that their studies had been refuted.
  
  


rrod said:


> glassmonkey said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to read about the risk of bias in the studies, I suggest checking out the study. It is well worth a read. I have no doubt that Rrod can show his model as he's demonstrated engineering chops elsewhere, but I would also say that his proposed model only looking at the most dominant subgroup (untrained), is tossing out information inappropriately. The relative weight of the untrained studies and their direction of potential bias as well as sensitivity analyses indicate that the overall discernment effect size (admittedly small) is highly likely to be real. Tossing out important data isn't sound scientific method, which is the whole point of the forum, not just ABX orthodoxy.
> ...


 
 Interesting that the Theiss study is brought up when it's relative weight is 0.71%. It is contributing basically nothing to the analysis, why analyse it as an outlier, removing it will make no difference to the study results. I do agree that it is looks to be pretty bad. It only has 3 participants. How are you supposed to generalize that?
  
 My experience with audio studies is that they are all pretty terrible, at least Reiss is doing something to try to bring the standard of evidence up by using systematic methods. If we add another trial, it doesn't mean that we should discard the information from the Reiss study. Instead the new study should be used to update what we know. If it is sufficiently rigorous, it will move the needle somewhere.
  
 The methodological considerations raised by Reiss are valid, and future studies should investigate them.


----------



## RRod

glassmonkey said:


> Interesting that the Theiss study is brought up when it's relative weight is 0.71%. It is contributing basically nothing to the analysis, why analyse it as an outlier, removing it will make no difference to the study results. I do agree that it is looks to be pretty bad. It only has 3 participants. How are you supposed to generalize that?
> 
> My experience with audio studies is that they are all pretty terrible, at least Reiss is doing something to try to bring the standard of evidence up by using systematic methods. If we add another trial, it doesn't mean that we should discard the information from the Reiss study. Instead the new study should be used to update what we know. If it is sufficiently rigorous, it will move the needle somewhere.
> 
> The methodological considerations raised by Reiss are valid, and future studies should investigate them.


 
  
 Theiss is brought up to question the author's intentions, especially since he makes it a point to laud the blindfolding aspect in the paper. And you're NOT supposed to generalize it, and making it part of a meta-analysis doesn't legitimize it. And while we are waiting for future studies to be done, the hi-res world will be running with the press release about "advantages".


----------



## glassmonkey

ruben123 said:


> I'd like to see the confidence intervals of the tests. They say a lot more than only an effect. Also it's known very well only tests with positive results (an effect) are released which is a pity for all science areas.


 
 I think what you are actually interested in is the probability of there being a difference in discernment, which we could get with a Bayesian meta-analysis (I haven't done one since I took a course 3 years ago, don't ask me). I'm no statistician, though, I just have to use stats from time to time for my work. I can't see how the confidence intervals on a p-value would be used, and I would expect them to be small given the alpha being tested.
  
 Back to the original point I was trying to make when I referenced the study, there isn't any conclusive study on how we hear content, so it is worth looking at alternative methods rather than just sticking with the same method that basically always shows that people can't tell the difference or that the exercise causes cognitive confusion leading to far worse discernment than random chance. I don't think that ABX by the methods commonly advocated is perfect, and I think further exploration given the lack of good quality studies is warranted. @Torq is making a device that will make these methodological issues easier to explore and I really applaud that. I hope to see it on Kickstarter for a reasonable price.
  
 If folks know of the studies that show conclusively the length of audio memory and the studies that show conclusively how long we should listen, I'd love to see them--assuming they aren't behind the AES's massively opaque pay wall. All I could find was the ITU guidelines, which don't cite any studies at all. I'm not ready to throw out studies like Oohashi (which seems to be quite pilloried here and on hydrogen audio)  just because they go against what the ITU says.


----------



## pctazhp

rrod said:


> Theiss is brought up to question the author's intentions, especially since he makes it a point to laud the blindfolding aspect in the paper. And you're NOT supposed to generalize it, and making it part of a meta-analysis doesn't legitimize it. And while we are waiting for future studies to be done, the hi-res world will be running with the press release about "advantages".


 
 Other than having some vague notion of what Type 2 errors are, I'm completely lost in this conversation. I know it would be asking to much for someone to put it in terms of DBT Protocal for Dummies, but while this interchange may be helpful for those with the knowledge to participate in it or at least read and understand it, it does nothing to further education of most lay HeadFi participants. Perhaps you guys think we great unwashed masses are too far gone to reach. You may be right.
  
 As far as future studies, despite all of the talk on this thread of the billions of dollars being raked in by hi-res providers and hi-end gear manufacturers, I'm guessing there is not sufficient "academic" interest in the subject or sufficient money to give hope that future valid and informative audio DBT studies will be forthcoming.


----------



## cel4145

pctazhp said:


> As far as future studies, despite all of the talk on this thread of the billions of dollars being raked in by hi-res providers and hi-end gear manufacturers, I'm guessing there is not sufficient "academic" interest in the subject or sufficient money to give hope that future valid and informative audio DBT studies will be forthcoming.




It's not lack of academic "interest" that is the problem, but definitely lack of funding. A lot of academic scientific research depends on private funding from corporations. If your research agenda will negatively affect profit making in the industry or does not promise patents, no one will fund it. This is why there is scanty published research on natural health remedies. The pharmaceutical companies don't fund academic research for that because they can't patent it and legitimizing sales of natural remedies could negatively affect their business model. 

Since ABX testing is a research methodology, not an actual product, there's no money to be made off of it, and, of course, the electronics side of the audio industry knows that legitimizing ABX could affect their sales. Certainly, they would fund research that invalidates it. 

Although I have to wonder why some speaker companies wouldn't want ABX to be more legitimized. If expensive DACs and amps are found to be a waste of money, that allows consumers to spend more on speakers.


----------



## pctazhp

ruben123 said:


> I'd like to see the confidence intervals of the tests. They say a lot more than only an effect. *Also it's known very well only tests with positive results (an effect) are released which is a pity for all science areas.*


 
 As I have very little background in this area, could you provide me with substantiation for this claim?


----------



## pctazhp

cel4145 said:


> It's not lack of academic "interest" that is the problem, but definitely lack of funding. A lot of academic scientific research depends on private funding from corporations. If your research agenda will negatively affect profit making in the industry or does not promise patents, no one will fund it. This is why there is scanty published research on natural health remedies. The pharmaceutical companies don't fund academic research for that because they can't patent it and legitimizing sales of natural remedies could negatively affect their business model.
> 
> Since ABX testing is a research methodology, not an actual product, there's no money to be made off of it, and, of course, the electronics side of the audio industry knows that legitimizing ABX could affect their sales. Certainly, they would fund research that invalidates it.
> 
> Although I have to wonder why some speaker companies wouldn't want ABX to be more legitimized. If expensive DACs and amps are found to be a waste of money, that allows consumers to spend more on speakers.


 
 I understand what you are saying and agree.


----------



## glassmonkey

cel4145 said:


> glassmonkey said:
> 
> 
> > I'm probably going to get blasted for this, but I don't believe in instant switching ABX testing. I think that the brain fills in acoustics that it expects to hear and I prefer to have a few seconds delay wash out period. This hypothesis is *loosely* supported by a recent meta-analysis of high definition audio discrimination studies in the AES journal, and is something that I think needs to be addressed in future ABX methodology tests. Instant switching increases the chance of false negatives.
> ...


 
 Levels of evidence from Oxford University (these are for Evidence Based Medicine):
  

LevelTherapy / Prevention, Aetiology / HarmPrognosisDiagnosisDifferential diagnosis / symptom prevalence studyEconomic and decision analyses1aSR (with homogeneity*) of RCTsSR (with homogeneity*) of inception cohort studies; CDR”  validated in different populationsSR (with homogeneity*) of Level 1 diagnostic studies; CDR”  with 1b studies from different clinical centresSR (with homogeneity*) of prospective cohort studiesSR (with homogeneity*) of Level 1 economic studies1bIndividual RCT (with narrow Confidence Interval”¡)Individual inception cohort study with > 80% follow-up; CDR”  validated in a single populationValidating** cohort study with good” ” ”  reference standards; or CDR”  tested within one clinical centreProspective cohort study with good follow-up****Analysis based on clinically sensible costs or alternatives; systematic review(s) of the evidence; and including multi-way sensitivity analyses1cAll or none§All or none case-seriesAbsolute SpPins and SnNouts” “All or none case-seriesAbsolute better-value or worse-value analyses ” ” ” “2aSR (with homogeneity*) of cohort studiesSR (with homogeneity*) of either retrospective cohort studies or untreated control groups in RCTsSR (with homogeneity*) of Level >2 diagnostic studiesSR (with homogeneity*) of 2b and better studiesSR (with homogeneity*) of Level >2 economic studies2bIndividual cohort study (including low quality RCT; e.g., <80% follow-up)Retrospective cohort study or follow-up of untreated control patients in an RCT; Derivation of CDR”  or validated on split-sample§§§ onlyExploratory** cohort study with good” ” ”  reference standards; CDR”  after derivation, or validated only on split-sample§§§ or databasesRetrospective cohort study, or poor follow-upAnalysis based on clinically sensible costs or alternatives; limited review(s) of the evidence, or single studies; and including multi-way sensitivity analyses2c“Outcomes” Research; Ecological studies“Outcomes” Research Ecological studiesAudit or outcomes research3aSR (with homogeneity*) of case-control studies SR (with homogeneity*) of 3b and better studiesSR (with homogeneity*) of 3b and better studiesSR (with homogeneity*) of 3b and better studies3bIndividual Case-Control Study Non-consecutive study; or without consistently applied reference standardsNon-consecutive cohort study, or very limited populationAnalysis based on limited alternatives or costs, poor quality estimates of data, but including sensitivity analyses incorporating clinically sensible variations.4Case-series (and poor quality cohort and case-control studies§§)Case-series (and poor quality prognostic cohort studies***)Case-control study, poor or non-independent reference standardCase-series or superseded reference standardsAnalysis with no sensitivity analysis5Expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal, or based on physiology, bench research or “first principles”Expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal, or based on physiology, bench research or “first principles”Expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal, or based on physiology, bench research or “first principles”Expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal, or based on physiology, bench research or “first principles”Expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal, or based on economic theory or “first principles”
  
 What is then to be argued is how homogenous the studies are. The heterogeneity data looked pretty good in the meta-analysis, and looks pretty good on the eyeball test too, but it wouldn't be hard to make an argument for heterogeneous methods at all. Maybe this isn't generalisable to other fields.
  
 In evidence-based medicine, high quality systematic reviews are the top level of evidence. They tell us whether we need further study and they are the most reliable basis for informing policy. Most people who think that RCTs are the best haven't seen how frickin' crap many RCTs are when it comes to telling us anything about the real world. In this context, we need good RCTs, but nobody is doing them, they'd likely be expensive and they are unlikely to be of much benefit.
  
 I think that new studies should be treated like diagnostic studies, we should be looking at sensitivity and specificity of human discernment. I also think that one of the crucial flaws of all the studies is that none of them allow the person to listen to music they know, unless they happen to know the selections that are available.


----------



## RRod

pctazhp said:


> Other than having some vague notion of what Type 2 errors are, I'm completely lost in this conversation. I know it would be asking to much for someone to put it in terms of DBT Protocal for Dummies, but while this interchange may be helpful for those with the knowledge to participate in it or at least read and understand it, it does nothing to further education of most lay HeadFi participants. Perhaps you guys think we great unwashed masses are too far gone to reach. You may be right.


 
  
 Well that's why I asked the mods above to move it to the pertinent thread


----------



## richard51

All this dicussion about high scientific  testing  and blind test measure is difficult to understand not only to ordinary people but to some others also, scientific methodology is not always for the fainted heart but it is always interesting to think hard for sure .......
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Big cie. suppose their finished products are perfect as they are and superior in their marketting policy, and  some people contesting these marketting dogmas want to submit these claims to the procustean bed of testing science... No doubts it will be interesting, and i will be the first to read their experiments and conclusions about these cie. claims and their finished products...
  
 I dont have faith now in a so-called finished audio product "per se" with a price so high that most people want to think that their purchase is the best....
  
 My experience (with a very  limited competence in audio) is more simpler than devising tests  to compare  the so call   differences between costly audiophile finished products .... More simply, i think that no speakers  have a sound of their own, the room is like an enclosure, and it is impossible to have an "objective" review of speakers in any room,especially non acoustically treated room,because no finished products is perfect per se, speakers  treated or not in any room treated or not will never sound the same in different enclosure room... With your ears and simple  rules easy to read on the net, you can prepare the  *specific* enclosure of your room for your *specific *pair of ears  for a low cost...After you will discover like me that your pair of speakers are so good that the upgrading will be too costly to consider...You will discover that more than half upgrading obsessions were caused by the inappropriate  use of already good or very good speakers in inappropriate manner....Enclosure of headphone raise exactly  the same issue as with speakers , i was about to trash(selling) my hifiman he 400, because there are not so good compare to my Stax SR-5, i decide to treat the enclosure with sorbothane and my version of the grill mods....Now they are on par and for me superior to my Stax (already treated)... The lesson is simple, good product are good product but they are not at their potential right out of the box...
  
 No cie will say that their products need works and modification to sound their best, my experience is the waves  sound i hear come from the  ocean of resonances from the enclosure, be it a room or  the cups of headphone... It is interesting to organize complex testing to measure the affirmation of marketting cie about their so called hi cost competiting  finished products... It is perhaps better to educate ourselfes with acoustic laws, simple experiments in room design and cups modifications and *communicate with each other our experiments*....I will say that these simple measures  has produce from my ordinary speakers and headphones for me true audiophile experience... I know that there are better gear but at very higher cost if not adequately treated ...My upgraditis urge is controlled  now by this scientific homemade experiment  and personal knowing... I will not replace my he 400 modified by another non treated  headphone under 1000 bucks just to change or because of some favorable subtle bias in a blind test experiment favorable to  another headphone, especially a non treated one...
  
 When i will read your blind test comparison with great curiosity and pleasure between this 1000 bucks headphone or speakers  versus these others costly one, i will think at the end  that my modified headphone or speakers  are  probably in the same league or not very far  because trust me there are no comparison for me between my headphone and speakers now and  before room treatment and cups treatment....The most important think is not only debunking marketting claims, but also communication each one with others about simple way to transform ordinary gear in extraordinary one with simple science and experimentation.... Thanks for your patience towards my not so good english...This is very good thread and interesting fellows...


----------



## Ruben123

pctazhp said:


> As I have very little background in this area, could you provide me with substantiation for this claim?


 

 here you go mate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias


----------



## pctazhp

ruben123 said:


> here you go mate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias


 
 Thanks. Interesting. Seems to make intuitive sense to me as long as we are talking about manufactures and the like who have a vested interest in the outcome of the studies.


----------



## Orestes1984

Again generalisability is good but this avoids the issue all together, as Occam's (or Ockham's) razor tells us we should not needlessly multiply things unnecessarily if  there is a shorter possible answer.


----------



## Ruben123

pctazhp said:


> Thanks. Interesting. Seems to make intuitive sense to me as long as we are talking about manufactures and the like who have a vested interest in the outcome of the studies.




Indeed. Think of a group of scientist, funded by pono or Sony, both advertising with HD music. What if the outcome would be negative? Probably the results wouldn't be published then, but what if, maybe by statistic chance, the results get positive? For sure Sony will publish it. Same for medicine unfortunately


----------



## Orestes1984

glassmonkey said:


> Do enlighten. The comment doesn't at all seem to relate to what I was saying about accusing academics of dishonesty without providing even evidence that their studies had been refuted.
> 
> 
> Interesting that the Theiss study is brought up when it's relative weight is 0.71%. It is contributing basically nothing to the analysis, why analyse it as an outlier, removing it will make no difference to the study results. I do agree that it is looks to be pretty bad. It only has 3 participants. How are you supposed to generalize that?
> ...


 

 I'm gonna go ahead and say I haven't been following this debate closely enough.


----------



## pctazhp

ruben123 said:


> Indeed. Think of a group of scientist, funded by pono or Sony, both advertising with HD music. What if the outcome would be negative? Probably the results wouldn't be published then, but what if, maybe by statistic chance, the results get positive? For sure Sony will publish it. Same for medicine unfortunately


 
 Not a great situation for those of us interested in audio. But when it comes to medicine, which can involve life and death, it is tragic.
  
 Even though I don't understand a lot of the statistical stuff, I've been enjoying the discussion in this thread. Most participants seem to be trying to stay reasonable and civil. Unlike many similar debates that date as far back as the early days of high-end audio in the late 60s.


----------



## RRod

glassmonkey said:


> Those kind of claims need proof. Where's the proof? There were only 4 of 18 studies that didn't find a mean effect showings a small difference in ability to discern. You've basically just accused 14 sets of study authors of academic dishonesty. I wouldn't do that lightly. If you've got proof or citations that refute the studies than it is your duty to provide that.
> 
> If the argument is that only the studies with statistically significant results were being dishonest than you've still got a problem as that list is 8 deep. I checked disclosure statements for a few of the studies, including Oohashi, and for the most part it looks like studies were funded through government grants, not sponsored by industry. Maybe you have different information?


 
  
 Well the two Jackson papers are straight-up Meridian efforts. And getting money from a grant doesn't mean you don't have ties/interest elsewhere (Reiss himself has his LandR product). None of that is proof of anything but it's reason to maintain healthy skepticism at all times.
  


glassmonkey said:


> Also, as the author points out in copious detail, the methods of the larger trials, which carry the greatest weight in the analysis (82%) have a strong tendency towards type II errors, that means estimating that there is no effect when there actually is an effect. This means that the results of the meta-analysis may even be conservative overall. This is why the author felt confident in making the press release statement cited--because the evidence points to this being the correct conclusion.
> 
> I don't have the time or will right now to re-run this using OpenBUGS and it's been a little while since I've done a meta-analysis, but that would give us something more manageable than a p-value. There are other less finicky software to re-analyze this, but they would give you a frequentist answer, and the Bayesian answer is more interesting to me. If anyone wants to step in for my laziness, feel free.


 
  
 All his results pertain to differentiation, *not* advantage, which is what is quoted in the press release. In a world where distortions exist, making the jump from one to the other is perilous. As far as Bayes, I am likely to use a more conservative prior than you


----------



## Joe Bloggs

glassmonkeyIt turns out I'm not able to answer your question satisfactorily at this point. I merely stated the opinion I gathered from an informal reading of community reaction, and I thought there would be plenty of people coming up to substantiate these claims when questioned. Turns out not quite, maybe because this is not an AES forum 

I'm no committed enough to buy all the articles being "meta-analysed" and tell you what is wrong with each of them--but that IMHO is what we have to do for ourselves at the end of the day, inspect each reviewed experiment in detail and draw our own conclusions about the validity of each, and how it jives with the "meta" article. The fact that very few people can afford the time to do this means a meaningless pissing match ensues.

I have one question to ask you though: would you just take the meta-analysis article's word for it that a particular study is "neutral" or biased toward "type II errors"?

As for the question of the "sample size of one", it does however concern what is arguably the most important sample point at the end of the day: yourself, and whether YOU can reliably tell the difference between high-res and standard-res. At the end of the day it doesn't matter if a meta-analysis of a thousand experiments say humans in general shouldn't be able to tell high-res out, if YOU can--or vice versa.


----------



## pctazhp

If anyone wants to see an example of how insidious upgrade fever can get, check this out: http://www.head-fi.org/t/816026/breaking-news-he1000-v2


----------



## Win0ver

For me the biggest problem in all of this is that it has become hard to find useful information.
  
 For example, I used to own ER4S and K501s. The ER4S pretty much need an amp to be able to listen to classical music at acceptable volume out of a smartphone. So after a bit of research, I had bought a 150-200$ usb DAC/AMP (Heardroom's Airhead or something like that) and a Little Dot II.
  
 The Airhead was made by Headroom and thus specifically made for audiophiles. You'd think it would be good enough, but it couldn't drive my K501 without heavy distortion and clipping. The Little Dot II I bought also had problems (as described here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/816323/little-dot-long-term-reliability-data-collection-thread-what-have-you-experienced).
  
 Both of these amps were highly praised by head-fi members. 
  
 One the other hand, I never had any problem with cheap USB audio interfaces made for musicians. For about 100-150$, you get a DAC, AMP, balanced inputs, inputs with phantom power, optical out, and other bells and whistles, and they all drove my K501, SR225 and ER4S without any problem whatsoever.
  
 I'm looking to buy a DAC/AMP that will be able to drive K701 and HD650, and don't want to overspend. Seeing how hard it is to find accurate info, I just might buy another generic audio inferface.
  
 (I might as well ask here since people in this thread aren't out of touch with reality: would a FiiO Q1 be enough for my needs?)


----------



## glassmonkey

joe bloggs said:


> I have one question to ask you though: would you just take the meta-analysis article's word for it that a particular study is "neutral" or biased toward "type II errors"?


 
 The article has supplementary data that is pretty wide open. If you look at the end of the pdf you can get a link to download lots of data, including some risk of bias assessments. I think the article has done a fairly good job explaining the potential biases, and there is a little more info on the studies in the supplementary data. Every meta-analysis has to look at risk of bias, so this is standard practice. Whether a reader trusts the results is up to them, and as has consistently been pointed out, there are all kinds of uncertainty going on here and a relatively meagre difference, albeit statistically significant, from random chance. I think there is enough in the paper to warrant future exploration with more rigourous and repeatable methods, but I can't presage which way these studies would move the needle. Thanks for the PM with the links, by the way, very informative.
  
 The supplementary data gives even less reason for confidence showing even more methodological flaws than the tables in the report do. It's pretty eye-opening. I'm not clear on what effect the methodological flaws would have, though. I'm not going to be examining this in more detail. I've spent too much of this day doing not the stuff that I should be doing, work for my job that pays the bills.


----------



## goodvibes

I don't get why anyone needs studies or to prove anything when making a buy. Listen for yourself and spend what you need to tickle your fancy.  Don't assume anything, the hype or skeptics, and just listen. If you don't hear a difference, buy the cheaper one. If you do, consider if it will make you happier without a compare. If nothing has a significant enough goose bump factor, pass. Overthinking it becomes paralysis by analysis when the point is to find some pleasure.


----------



## HumdrumPenguin

Haha it is funny you saying you prefer the sound quality in your $60 Grado than on the HD800. I have a IEM (JVC HA-FX750) that costed me 251.000 Won (around USD 237), and I prefer the sound on it then on my HD700, which was CAD 800 (after tax). Indeed we can't let ourselves be "fooled", for a lack of better words, by just looking at prices alone. I do believe that there are cans that really should cost around 1000 to 1500, but more than that, seriously, I think they are just WAAAY overpricing it. As long as there are people buying it, why not keep making it more expensive, right? I'm not saying cans that cost over it sound bad or whatnot, just that they are not worth it. You can get something amazing already spending around $1000.


----------



## castleofargh

pctazhp said:


> rrod said:
> 
> 
> > Theiss is brought up to question the author's intentions, especially since he makes it a point to laud the blindfolding aspect in the paper. And you're NOT supposed to generalize it, and making it part of a meta-analysis doesn't legitimize it. And while we are waiting for future studies to be done, the hi-res world will be running with the press release about "advantages".
> ...


 
  
 for those who didn't put enough XP in their math skill while leveling up over the years, or those like myself who simply had 20 years to forget, I believe this can be of interest:

  
  
 @RRod I didn't move anything because while you guys talk obvious sorcery(the spanish inquisition will knock down your door when you least expect it), I find it good from time to time to have something that goes way over our heads. I can at least talk for myself, it keeps me curious, and certainly a little less cocky for a few hours before I remember that I do deserve to rule the world(the same thing we do every night Pinky).


----------



## castleofargh

goodvibes said:


> I don't get why anyone needs studies or to prove anything when making a buy. Listen for yourself and spend what you need to tickle your fancy.  Don't assume anything, the hype or skeptics, and just listen. If you don't hear a difference, buy the cheaper one. If you do, consider if it will make you happier without a compare. If nothing has a significant enough goose bump factor, pass. Overthinking it becomes paralysis by analysis when the point is to find some pleasure.


 

  I'm sure many people would love to just try everything and decide by themselves, but for the guy who used the same gear for the last 4 years and comes by only because something broke(which I imagine should still be the vast majority of people), how does he even know what to try(if he can)?  the answer usually comes down to price and FOTM, 2 of the worst indicators of quality or of what someone needs for himself. I personally would love to have more specs and easier comparative tools like we have when trying to buy a graphic card, a camera, a car ...  that way a smaller list that can realistically be tested by ear could be selected.


----------



## goodvibes

No doubt. Seems to be more difficult with audio as it appears our ears are better at the examining the whole than a group of #s might indicate. Worth the wait to listen since we don't all like or appreciate the same things. Headfi should be pre-listening exploratory research and not a buying forum. Don't want to think about the dubious reviews, whether intentional or not, that started trends. I remember a (I think Scottish)custom IEM that got a best ever review with a waiting line to buy. It was later discovered to be a rebadged Heir audio 4 that got panned for a severe frequency trough before getting revised...and at twice the price. 2 woofs with a twfk that almost always sounds too hot (to me) used that way. Those measurements did result in a positive change to that Heir so it's not all subjective either. That brings another question. It was a device that wouldn't be for me but if a buyer likes the unrevised unit better, is he wrong?


----------



## Dillan

Going back to bias and subjectivity - I definitely can say with confidence the majority of my favorite listening sessions have been tequila or ale influenced. Manufacturers should start shipping shots with their gear for that ultimate first impression IMO.


----------



## pedalhead

So true. If I'm settling in for a serious evening listening session, a snifter of whisky is the perfect companion


----------



## krismusic

Curiously I am opposite. Love a drink. Love listening to headphones. Hate the two together.


----------



## richard51

i will say that my ears are never enebriated, except by musicality and realistic timbre....


----------



## ExtremeGamerBR

A good beer and some smoke. All details come to light.


----------



## Ruben123

With all those new and experienced people around here, I hope I could get my long unanswered question answered.

Both extreme objectivists (all gear sounds the same) and subjectivists are somewhat foolish in their thoughts. I'm curious though if those high end daps etc really do sound different. The ak380 measurements are ruler flat so I would expect it to sound like anything else. Though the chord mojo has seen claims all over the place, even by its inventors. Does the chord have a different sound (or eq, DSP etc) or is it still all "between the ears"?


----------



## mulder01

I suppose they all just carry on about their different dacs as the selling point. So I guess it would depend on whether or not you believe it's worth spending thousands extra on a 'better' DAC...


----------



## castleofargh

ruben123 said:


> With all those new and experienced people around here, I hope I could get my long unanswered question answered.
> 
> Both extreme objectivists (all gear sounds the same) and subjectivists are somewhat foolish in their thoughts. I'm curious though if those high end daps etc really do sound different. The ak380 measurements are ruler flat so I would expect it to sound like anything else. Though the chord mojo has seen claims all over the place, even by its inventors. Does the chord have a different sound (or eq, DSP etc) or is it still all "between the ears"?


 

 how can you hope for an answer that actually reflects reality in general?
 if 2 sources measure clean enough in most specs, then we can very much expect them to sound the same under measurement conditions. that is true whatever weird anecdotes some people can pull. but such circumstances are what? unloaded device and nominal output? useless for most practical purposes.
 now will those 2 sources sound the same into 10ohm? or into 300ohm? set with an output of 0.05V or set at 2V? playing 16/44 or 24/96? do they have the exact same impedance(unlikely)? there will always be some circumstances, or some headphone/IEM that will lead to an audible difference because the conditions are different.
 and of course as reviews are massively uncontrolled,  you'll still get people talking about way more differences than there really is. the fact that subjectivists decide to ignore that and instead believe that they notice more because they're all wonder golden ears, will always amaze me. but it's not worst than the guy thinking his amp will still have the manufacturer's specs into all his headphones/IEMs at all volume levels ^_^.
 when the information isn't enough, the brain will try to make up the missing parts. that's bad but not unexpected and given how little actual information we get in that hobby, the made up missing parts are almost all of the hobby.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 so I guess the factual answer is that everything will sound different under messed up enough conditions(which so many IEMs with nonsense impedance/sensi will achieve). we of course could get a better objective view if guys like stereophile stopped measuring DAPs as if they were DACs, and started using low impedance loads and functional voltages to reflect the actual use of DAPs. the reviews about A&K, or the pono are close to useless objectively. and they don't even have the excuse of not knowing better. I think the lowest load I've seen was 300ohm... for a portable player, are you kidding me? and even then, you see 300ohm on the AK240, but only 600ohm for the pono ^_^. I guess he "forgot" to try 300ohm. this is BS science. I can tell more about how my DAP behaves with my IEMs using a crap microphone, a few resistors, and a very bad input, than those guys with so much knowledge, professional gears and so many years of experience. what a joke, and that one is on us. I've seen cellphone websites doing more relevant measurements for audio.
  
 I can't even talk about those stuff without getting mad. what a failed objectivist I make.


----------



## mulder01

Do you think that perhaps they know exactly how to measure the performance of them properly, but don't do it in the best interest of the company that has provided the reviewer with said product? Because such information may just further confirm how unnecessary said product is?

---

On the AK380, I think it's funny how the copper version is (AU)$600 more (retail) than the "aircraft grade duraluminium". How they come up with that I do not know. It seems like the "aircraft grade duraluminium" case would be dearer to manufacture than copper, but since the other finish came out first and they needed another money grab, they just made the copper dearer? (That's how it looks to me anyway)

Actually, at the moment here, the AK380 is on special for $4799 AND comes with a free amp (normally $1079) and the copper player sans amp is $6199, so the two finishes (more or less) have a price difference of $2.5k.

Yep. No idea how anyone could think their stuff is overpriced...


----------



## Ruben123

mulder01 said:


> Do you think that perhaps they know exactly how to measure the performance of them properly, but don't do it in the best interest of the company that has provided the reviewer with said product? Because such information may just further confirm how unnecessary said product is?
> 
> ---
> 
> ...


 

 Check the thread where the copper version is regarded as much better by some members. Really funny to read.


----------



## Koolpep

ruben123 said:


> Check the thread where the copper version is regarded as much better by some members. Really funny to read.


 

 With or without leather case?


----------



## Ruben123

castleofargh said:


> how can you hope for an answer that actually reflects reality in general?
> if 2 sources measure clean enough in most specs, then we can very much expect them to sound the same under measurement conditions. that is true whatever weird anecdotes some people can pull. but such circumstances are what? unloaded device and nominal output? useless for most practical purposes.
> now will those 2 sources sound the same into 10ohm? or into 300ohm? set with an output of 0.05V or set at 2V? playing 16/44 or 24/96? do they have the exact same impedance(unlikely)? there will always be some circumstances, or some headphone/IEM that will lead to an audible difference because the conditions are different.
> and of course as reviews are massively uncontrolled,  you'll still get people talking about way more differences than there really is. the fact that subjectivists decide to ignore that and instead believe that they notice more because they're all wonder golden ears, will always amaze me. but it's not worst than the guy thinking his amp will still have the manufacturer's specs into all his headphones/IEMs at all volume levels ^_^.
> ...


 

 As always a sharp reply from you! Sure there are differences in output power, imps etc. etc., which means that if they measure the same under load, would not certainly mean they sound the same because with another load the sound could be different. Though the thing about the Chord Mojo is the claims by the manufacturer, after 30 years of research, timings, blabla, you name it, which dont seem to be visible in measurements (are there even measurements of it or am I making things up now?), so........ does the Mojo even sound else, better, do the better timings, echos and I dont know what make any difference? Or is it just marketing claims meant to let reviewers think they hear better sound?
  
 Sorry I dont have my best English day but I hope you understand me.


----------



## Ruben123

koolpep said:


> With or without leather case?


 

 Without case it sounds much more open. Though to be fair why would you even buy a DAP that needs a case that is half open of itself because else it will *overheat*? A music player that overheats in a case lol!!!


----------



## Koolpep

ruben123 said:


> Without case it sounds much more open. Though to be fair why would you even buy a DAP that needs a case that is half open of itself because else it will *overheat*? A music player that overheats in a case lol!!!


 

 LOL, I was referring to this post: post #5847
  
 Cheers!


----------



## Ruben123

koolpep said:


> LOL, I was referring to this post: post #5847
> 
> Cheers!


 
 quote: I hope you guys really did try to A/B the AK380 with or without a leather case. The difference is not night and day, but so significant that it will blow you away. Try before buying a case.

 quote: Sometimes I wish, I´d never read this advice. Now I have a dignis case I don´t use, because my X7 sounds so much better without it!
 You´re absolutely right LA, the difference really did blow me away. I can only imagine how it must be with an AK380Cu.....


----------



## mulder01

Well, what if you put a copper case over the copper player!  Additional heatskink _and_ fidelity


----------



## castleofargh

mulder01 said:


> Do you think that perhaps they know exactly how to measure the performance of them properly, but don't do it in the best interest of the company that has provided the reviewer with said product? Because such information may just further confirm how unnecessary said product is?


 
 as far as stereophile is concerned, I don't think there are many doubts left that they do all they can to please the sponsors.
  


ruben123 said:


> As always a sharp reply from you! Sure there are differences in output power, imps etc. etc., which means that if they measure the same under load, would not certainly mean they sound the same because with another load the sound could be different. Though the thing about the Chord Mojo is the claims by the manufacturer, after 30 years of research, timings, blabla, you name it, which dont seem to be visible in measurements (are there even measurements of it or am I making things up now?), so........ does the Mojo even sound else, better, do the better timings, echos and I dont know what make any difference? Or is it just marketing claims meant to let reviewers think they hear better sound?
> 
> Sorry I dont have my best English day but I hope you understand me.


 
 I have no idea, the mojo seems to have several good things going on if only on a practical level, but is it an audio revolution? IMO we're already too far in what we can achieve in fidelity for anything with even more fidelity to really blow our mind with sound anymore(for DACs and amps!!!, I don't mean it for headphones). plus the best thing there is to drive a low sensi headphone, may not be the best thing there is to drive a 8ohm IEM. and without measurements into such conditions, it's hard to pretend to know anything.


----------



## U-3C

mulder01 said:


> Well, what if you put a copper case over the copper player!  Additional heatskink _and_ fidelity




I was considering getting a heatsink for my amp but I barely use it as it doesn't sound any different from my phone or my onboard. Measured it (roughly) for a sanity check. Justust a dead flat frequency response on all of them so no surprise. Now I'm considering getting one as putting a piece of aluminum under it will clearly change the sound and actually make this dac/amp do something!!!


----------



## icebear

If cars can be equipped with software to detect stationary exhaust pipe testing to cheat emission regulations...
 ... don't you guys think, to always achieve a ruler flat frequency response is an easy feat?


----------



## Dillan

ruben123 said:


> With all those new and experienced people around here, I hope I could get my long unanswered question answered.
> 
> Both extreme objectivists (all gear sounds the same) and subjectivists are somewhat foolish in their thoughts. I'm curious though if those high end daps etc really do sound different. The ak380 measurements are ruler flat so I would expect it to sound like anything else. Though the chord mojo has seen claims all over the place, even by its inventors. Does the chord have a different sound (or eq, DSP etc) or is it still all "between the ears"?




I would look more towards what sounds bad versus what sounds better. I have recently tried dozens of the most popular daps around and the only concrete difference I heard was some had a buzzing or slight interference and some didn't. I have good ears to this type of thing and the AK380 definitely had it.. Maybe it's because I had the leather case ON haha

Either way I think the music files themselves will be the biggest factor in the quality you hear - not the dap. If a dap is built well then you won't hear a difference between them and it certainly should not cost more than around a thousand dollars. (Should be a lot less)
Just my opinion!


----------



## Joe Bloggs

icebear said:


> If cars can be equipped with software to detect stationary exhaust pipe testing to cheat emission regulations...
> ... don't you guys think, to always achieve a ruler flat frequency response is an easy feat?:rolleyes:




No, if only because there's no standard test methodology for DACs/amps...


----------



## Ancipital

ruben123 said:


> As always a sharp reply from you! Sure there are differences in output power, imps etc. etc., which means that if they measure the same under load, would not certainly mean they sound the same because with another load the sound could be different. Though the thing about the Chord Mojo is the claims by the manufacturer, after 30 years of research, timings, blabla, you name it, which dont seem to be visible in measurements (are there even measurements of it or am I making things up now?), so........ does the Mojo even sound else, better, do the better timings, echos and I dont know what make any difference? Or is it just marketing claims meant to let reviewers think they hear better sound?




I don't know how much of the elaborate claims are grounded in reality.

It is a bloody nice-sounding DAC/amp though, that is built like a tank, has a low low noise floor, and seems to like anything from sensitive IEMs to high impedance planar magnetics. It'd be interesting to see a bunch of measurements to quantify this (don't look at me, I am a) lazy b) stuck in a portakabin at the Edinburgh festival right now). 

I'm willing to believe in extravagant noise-shape dithering, if not some of the other claims without proof. However, it's a really nice-sounding and sturdy device which fits easily in my bag, and also fulfils the "oo shiny" urge. It's also an obvious upgrade to my old Fiio, which lacked the grunt to drive bigger cans like my HD650. It gives me jaw-dropping SQ, everything from cheap IEMs to a Stax rig. Yes, it costs 25% more than the other amp unit I was looking at, but sometimes you want to pander to the "oo shiny". It was an extra £100, rather than thousands for some of the more hilarious "hewn from a solid block of unobtanium"-priced hifi gear, so not unreasonable as a cool toy.

However, it would be nice to see someone put it through its paces.


----------



## Koolpep

joe bloggs said:


> No, if only because there's no standard test methodology for DACs/amps...




PInk noise, sine waves?


----------



## Ruben123

koolpep said:


> PInk noise, sine waves?




You need to play it some hours every week so it will keep your DAC healthy and at it best.


----------



## Ancipital

If you're using TOSlink, make sure that you use a connect with gold-plated plugs, too!


----------



## cel4145

ancipital said:


> If you're using TOSlink, make sure that you use a connect with gold-plated plugs, too!




Oh goodness, this made me think. Are there any boutique shops advertising the benefit of some super expensive fiber optic? Figure it's gotta be out there. 

If not, maybe I should corner the market.


----------



## cel4145

ancipital said:


> If you're using TOSlink, make sure that you use a connect with gold-plated plugs, too!




Oh goodness, this made me think. Are there any boutique shops advertising the benefit of some supposedly super expensive fiber optic with space age properties? Figure it's gotta be out there. 

If not, maybe I should corner the market.


----------



## Ancipital

i actually suspect that have a gold-plated TOSlink cable somewhere- having ordered the cheapest 1.5m-ish one that I could find on Amazon, some years ago


----------



## nanaholic

castleofargh said:


> as far as stereophile is concerned, I don't think there are many doubts left that they do all they can to please the sponsors.
> 
> I have no idea, the mojo seems to have several good things going on if only on a practical level, but is it an audio revolution? IMO we're already too far in what we can achieve in fidelity for anything with even more fidelity to really blow our mind with sound anymore(for DACs and amps!!!, I don't mean it for headphones). plus the best thing there is to drive a low sensi headphone, may not be the best thing there is to drive a 8ohm IEM. and without measurements into such conditions, it's hard to pretend to know anything.


 
  
 RMAA did do some measurements across different headphone loads for the Mojo (and the AK380 too, for kicks)
 http://ohm-image.net/data/audio/rmaa-chord-mojo-24-bit
 http://ohm-image.net/data/audio/rmaa-astellkern-ak380-24-bit


----------



## dprimary

cel4145 said:


> Oh goodness, this made me think. Are there any boutique shops advertising the benefit of some super expensive fiber optic? Figure it's gotta be out there.
> 
> If not, maybe I should corner the market.


 
 http://www.audioquest.com/fiber-optics/cinnamon
  
  
 Missed this one
  
  
 http://www.audioquest.com/fiber-optics/diamond


----------



## Turrican2

cel4145 said:


> Oh goodness, this made me think. Are there any boutique shops advertising the benefit of some supposedly super expensive fiber optic with space age properties? Figure it's gotta be out there.
> 
> If not, maybe I should corner the market.




http://www.sysconcept.ca/product_info.php?products_id=349&osCsid=5v06ejo6kcktn9fqb9jdlfdht7

Not super expensive, but they do work and are made to order.


----------



## castleofargh

nanaholic said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > as far as stereophile is concerned, I don't think there are many doubts left that they do all they can to please the sponsors.
> ...


 

 thanks. I don't know if there is the measurement method explained somewhere (is shigzeo doing those himself?) but +6dbV and even+18dbV for the mojo, unless some IEMs were used as speakers in the test, I doubt it has anything to do with the actual test signal. I see it has something to do with the ADC part, but is it calibrated, or is it just an input gain thing and we don't actually know anything about the voltage at the output of the mojo for those different IEMs/headphones?


----------



## nanaholic

castleofargh said:


> thanks. I don't know if there is the measurement method explained somewhere (is shigzeo doing those himself?) but +6dbV and even+18dbV for the mojo, unless some IEMs were used as speakers in the test, I doubt it has anything to do with the actual test signal. I see it has something to do with the ADC part, but is it calibrated, or is it just an input gain thing and we don't actually know anything about the voltage at the output of the mojo for those different IEMs/headphones?


 
  
 Shigzeo does the measurements himself. I believe he also writes for Headfonia.
  
 He mentions it has something to do with the input sensitivity of his Hilo (he does all his RMAA test with Hilo, and his chain always goes from source > XLR of the Hilo), I'd suspect that's why it was outputted at that volume.
  
 EDIT: reading again he outputs at those levels to match the maximum volume output level of the AK380 and DP-X1, and maximum output level of desktop DACs. He's probably looking for distortion at maximum volume output levels of devices in general.


----------



## sxr71

cel4145 said:


> Oh goodness, this made me think. Are there any boutique shops advertising the benefit of some super expensive fiber optic? Figure it's gotta be out there.
> 
> If not, maybe I should corner the market.


 
  
 Trust me it's all been done before. I remember some glass fiber TOSLINK cables were going for thousands.


----------



## sxr71

ancipital said:


> If you're using TOSlink, make sure that you use a connect with gold-plated plugs, too!


 
  
 That is a must because only gold can preserve the quantum properties of the light signal. Well, ok, I'm lying Palladium does a slightly better job to my ears for live music. I compared both gold and palladium and thought the palladium brought out that sense of air between instruments and allowed me to hear the boundaries of the concert hall better so i prefer it for live performances. Gold brings out better PRAT so I prefer it for rock. I keep both cables on me and switch them out depending on what I'm listening to and both are cryo treated which is a must to get my results. It's only about $3k worth of cables to carry around and it's entirely worth it assuming you have the $4k A&K player. If not you should work on making sure your source is up to level, because as you know garbage in, garbage out.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 I want to puke on myself thinking about how easy it was to write that and puke again thinking about how someone will read it and believe it and then utterly vomit my bowels out thinking that it is possible that someone may repeat that drivel as gospel.


----------



## sxr71

win0ver said:


> For me the biggest problem in all of this is that it has become hard to find useful information.
> 
> For example, I used to own ER4S and K501s. The ER4S pretty much need an amp to be able to listen to classical music at acceptable volume out of a smartphone. So after a bit of research, I had bought a 150-200$ usb DAC/AMP (Heardroom's Airhead or something like that) and a Little Dot II.
> 
> ...


 

 You did absolutely the right thing looking at professional equipment. IMHO it is better to stay away from this consumer space. The whole space is tainted badly, there may be exceptions but nobody has the time to find the exception. When you go with pro equipment you know it will perform as advertised.
  
 Looking back at those early amps today I cannot believe how badly we were all fleeced by fancy expensive CMOY amps. It should serve as a warning to people even now.


----------



## sxr71

dillan said:


> Just to bring it back to the main focus of the thread and to invoke some discussion:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 1. I think it's over. There's just so much money in this market and so many people wearing headphones in public as fashion accessories. There's no going back to the point when it was essentially a professional field. The only thing that I think would help is if we looked at this as a professional field again. If someone could compare a cheap professional interface to a $2k headphone amp and not get laughed at all then there may be hope. But I doubt it would happen. People love to associate with products of high "class" and high cost. It happens in so many other markets: furniture, cosmetics, alcohol etc. Only consumers can maintain their own mental and financial health. Sorry for the pessimistic view.
  
 2. Not at all. The culture has been cultivated over years and was drawn from the speaker audio community which is even more insane hence the existence of a site called audioasylum. After some point I think those of us who meet engineers and very smart grounded people will start to seek out professional products. There's another venue for that, which anyone can find. You will notice a huge lack of hyperbole, and rich descriptions of how the sound was life changing etc. If you can get over the lack of flowery prose you will be well served. The culture is different there and here and I suppose it's best to let each be.
  
 3. With the forums the only thing that gets under my skin is the lack of respect for dissenting opinions. If you speak against any product in the product thread you'll have some white knight come in and ridicule your opinion. Let's just rename these the XYZ praise threads. That way you know that dissenting opinions are unwelcome. I just can't stand the white knights coming in and just calling you crazy for saying the slightest thing bad about their FOTM. I cannot help but think there are paid people on here. I think people should be aware of that in any forum. That means vacuum cleaners, video cards, kitchen appliances, everything. I've seen it before and nothing can stop it, the value of the advice on the internet is exactly what you paid for it.
  
 As for the headphone industry, IMHO, it's over. What was a technical, professional oriented field has become a fashion field. When that happens it's just over. The concept of value is no longer relevant anymore. You can't say anything about somebody recommending a $1000 shirt or $2000 pants or a $10,000 chair or a $30,000 sofa. It's just about opinion and taste at that point. I'm just thankful that smartphones at least haven't succumbed. Neither have computers for the most part. Those fields remain technical mostly.


----------



## sxr71

orestes1984 said:


> I get where you're coming from and am an active member on DPReview in the Micro Four Thirds forum, and people are generally more informed particularly about why they chose Micro Four Thirds on the MFT forum, you're right, but I still trawl through some of the forums on there and there is still the uninformed plonkers who say their "super zoom" is the best camera yet and they gave up full frame cameras because of their super zoom and how much better it is, there is wheat and chaft over there also, but I get what you're saying as a generalisation people are more informed, but there is also more data out there and graphs and shiny things like DXO Mark and constant MTF reviews that make it easy for consumers to see what the results of a particular lens are going to do as an approximation which is great.
> 
> I haven't really been around this place long enough to see the actual comparative SQ charts and figures pop up here, but do know what the industry can be like in terms of audio and just how many "white van" type people tend to hang around sound forums, it was one of the reasons I left in the first place, *but I stupidly got sucked back into the hipster scene by buying $300 headphones.* I like them OK but I only really did it to say that I had a shiny Focal stamp on my headphones more than anything else... Theoretically it's just as easy to create the charts that represent sound in a way that everyone understands it, it's just that most people treat SQ as if its some kind of black magic you just have to keep throwing dollars at to get better.


 
 Ha Ha! Great line. That's what it's become. I love the Focal studio monitors I use, but man I can't figure out what history they have in developing headphones. I guess it's brand fashion at this point, I use their monitors so why not proclaim to the world I use this brand by getting caught wearing their headphones in public. It wouldn't surprise me that some people bought them for that reason. The hipster scene is ridiculous in how they claim uniqueness by wearing that same stupid beard, same stupid (disgusting) beer, same stupid clothes. Every Tom, Dick and Harry is getting into beard care products.
  
 No offense to anyone who wears a beard.


----------



## sxr71

reginalb said:


> Don't get pulled in by Class A's either. They aren't better, they just do the same thing less efficiently. That said, they aren't wrong that if you do a double blind test, that result isn't generalizable. You didn't have a random sample with a sufficiently large n, so it's not.
> 
> And people do love players that don't measure well, which is funny.
> 
> ...


 

 It would be funny to see a $500 smartphone beat both. Which I'm sure one of them does.


----------



## nanaholic

sxr71 said:


> I love the Focal studio monitors I use, but man I can't figure out what history they have in developing headphones.


 
  
 I don't get this issue you continue to display with history/heritage of a brand.
  
 If Focal has a long history of developing speakers, it's not far fetch for them to apply their knowledge into headphones, afterall it's all just sound science applied in a different form factor. Of course the final proof in the pudding is whether their headphones are actually objectively good, but the science of speakers and headphones doesn't seem like apples and oranges that no company can successfully leap across. Dismissing a product base on a company's history (or the reverse - irrationally embracing a company's product based on history) are both unscientific and just bias all the same. 
  
 Focal jumping from speakers to headphones is much less of a change than say, Nintendo making paper trump cards to electronic video games, or Nokia from rubber tires to smartphones.


----------



## JaeYoon

I need to ask something. I recently come across lots of posts about how cables can change the sound quality. Like adding soundstage to expand and make sound more warm or Dark.
  
 How is that possible? I asked Brooko, he told me cables aren't supposed to do that, though a bad cable with poor impedance may not draw enough power. But other than that rest is just magic to the listener's mind.
 But many others I keep reading say it does lots of improvements. Most of cables recommended go well into $150 - $300+ even.


----------



## spruce music

sxr71 said:


> 1. I think it's over. There's just so much money in this market and so many people wearing headphones in public as fashion accessories. There's no going back to the point when it was essentially a professional field. The only thing that I think would help is if we looked at this as a professional field again. If someone could compare a cheap professional interface to a $2k headphone amp and not get laughed at all then there may be hope. But I doubt it would happen. People love to associate with products of high "class" and high cost. It happens in so many other markets: furniture, cosmetics, alcohol etc. Only consumers can maintain their own mental and financial health. Sorry for the pessimistic view.
> 
> ..................................
> As for the headphone industry, IMHO, it's over. What was a technical, professional oriented field has become a fashion field. When that happens it's just over. The concept of value is no longer relevant anymore. You can't say anything about somebody recommending a $1000 shirt or $2000 pants or a $10,000 chair or a $30,000 sofa. It's just about opinion and taste at that point. I'm just thankful that smartphones at least haven't succumbed. Neither have computers for the most part. Those fields remain technical mostly.


 
 I think this is a very large part of the headphone scene as it currently exists.  One that wasn't much the case a decade ago, and one that was nearly non-existent prior to that. I also agree mostly with your prognosis.


----------



## Brooko

If a cable changes enough impedance, and you're dealing with an earphone sensitive to Impedance change (typically multi BA set-ups and often with crossover designs), then you could get frequency response changes. But employing a high priced cable to do that - when you could either:
(A) employ EQ
(B) buy an alternate earphone
strikes me as having more money than sense - but each to their own.

You have to be careful about reading too much into the claims though. Most people talking about cables do so completely subjectively, virtually none of them measure or volume match. I've seen people talk about a cable change on the MEE P1 making them brighter / more vivid / wider sound stage. I tried it myself with multiple cables. Turns out the MEE stock cable has slightly higher impedance causing lower volume with its dynamic driver (about 2.5 dB). After measuring and volume matching, I discovered that turning the volume up slightly with the stock cable makes the same effect. Other than that, the effect on frequency response was actually zero - after volume matching the two freq curves are identical.

My advice - be sceptical about cable claims. And if you're buying one - do it for mainly sensible reasons - aesthetics, fit, connections, micro phonics etc.


----------



## JaeYoon

brooko said:


> If a cable changes enough impedance, and you're dealing with an earphone sensitive to Impedance change (typically multi BA set-ups and often with crossover designs), then you could get frequency response changes. But employing a high priced cable to do that - when you could either:
> (A) employ EQ
> (B) buy an alternate earphone
> strikes me as having more money than sense - but each to their own.
> ...


 
 Thanks a lot for information! Only reason I would also buy a cable if stock cable is extremely long, (focal spirit classic, dear lord) I need short one, etc. You pretty much nailed it.
  
 Someone via PM recommended I buy this extremely expensive headphone cable around $700 saying that it would make the sound Warm/Organic/Extremely huge soundstage/Nice mids.
  
 I thought the person was high on drugs. I felt if someone wanted a warm organic sound, there's always DAPs that are neutral/warm etc and you can synergize that with right Phone/IEM. Get better results than those cables.
  
 I remember reading up the importance of volume matching when someone does ABX testing in your Fiio X3ii review.


----------



## sxr71

nanaholic said:


> I don't get this issue you continue to display with history/heritage of a brand.
> 
> If Focal has a long history of developing speakers, it's not far fetch for them to apply their knowledge into headphones, afterall it's all just sound science applied in a different form factor. Of course the final proof in the pudding is whether their headphones are actually objectively good, but the science of speakers and headphones doesn't seem like apples and oranges that no company can successfully leap across. Dismissing a product base on a company's history (or the reverse - irrationally embracing a company's product based on history) are both unscientific and just bias all the same.
> 
> Focal jumping from speakers to headphones is much less of a change than say, Nintendo making paper trump cards to electronic video games, or Nokia from rubber tires to smartphones.


 

 It's a first gen product to start. The product has borne this out. I believe it generally gets panned now after the initial euphoria. We have seen time and again how first gen products usually don't hit the mark. Focal is one of the few manufacturers that actually produces their own drive units, but still the production of full range drive units that sit on your ear is a different ball game. You can't expect them to get it right the first time especially in today's headphone market when they don't really have to. Just slap the name on it and get it out ASAP. The brand name will sell it. Let's not even get into the other aspects of design and production like getting the headband right, the cups etc. They have no experience with that at all. Even among the established makers we see they can get those aspects wrong.
  
 Your Nintendo and Nokia examples don't consider almost a century between the two products they produced.
  
 I won't disagree that it's a bias but at the same time, consider it closed minded, but I'm not about to throw my hard earned money into some company with no history in an industry saturated with established manufacturers and especially one with a long history of professional makers. I already did with some Focal computer speakers. They were ok, but a joke at $800. Their powered monitors at that price point stomp on them. The powered monitors have a form factor and design that company is familiar with. They also have amateur and professional users using their powered monitors. Nobody uses their computer speakers except idiots like myself.
  
 I'm not against companies entering related spaces but again I've learned not to get involved until the company proves itself in the new space. Again especially when others have been in the space for decades. I'm not going to look at a name and say I love their speakers so I will get their headphones. That sort of thing is the hipster oriented brand identity association that today's marketers know works very well and they know they quality of the actual product itself matters less than the brand association. 
  
 I'm open to auditioning these Focal headphones, but I will not anymore go in to the listen with some notion of how good they must be considering my opinion of some of their studio monitors. If anything I'd rather go in expecting nothing and being pleasantly surprised. The name Focal means nothing in the headphone space until they prove themselves. Beryllium is their trademark tweeter material and is marketed hard (and works well in their monitors and speakers), now they decided to put it into a headphone. Is that first choice of material for a full range headphone driver given the science? Or is it what the marketing team told the engineers to "get in there" because the marketing is already in place?  These are things worth questioning. What's the motive in producing these? For a company that makes speakers in excess of $100k. Are they trying to show their mastery of dynamic drivers with $300, $800, $1500 headphones? Or are they trying to capitalize on the brand name that makes and sells $100k speakers? In today's headphone market the motive is always suspect. In other words is the new product line intended to expand their reputation with quality or leverage an existing reputation? With those computer speakers it was clearly the latter.
  
 I'd say the same with all the Lenbrook stuff coming out. It's a holding company the owns some brands, they know they have fans for NAD, for PSB and so why not sell headphones to those fans? The headphone space is hot and very profitable. It's easy and cheap to OEM them out in China. I don't think these products come out with the same noble intent that the products which built these brands came out with. Those products over the decades came out to build a brand. Possibly these might be like that, maybe some engineer in there got all of sudden passionate about making headphones. Yeah right.


----------



## Ruben123

sxr71 said:


> It would be funny to see a $500 smartphone beat both. Which I'm sure one of them does.




Here you go, my favourite music player, only $40: http://nwavguy.blogspot.nl/2011/02/sansa-clip-measured.html


----------



## sxr71

jaeyoon said:


> I need to ask something. I recently come across lots of posts about how cables can change the sound quality. Like adding soundstage to expand and make sound more warm or Dark.
> 
> How is that possible? I asked Brooko, he told me cables aren't supposed to do that, though a bad cable with poor impedance may not draw enough power. But other than that rest is just magic to the listener's mind.
> But many others I keep reading say it does lots of improvements. Most of cables recommended go well into $150 - $300+ even.


 
  
  
 Ha ha! $150-300 is dirt cheap in the (IMHO ridiculous) cable world. So you get them home. You admire the packaging. You admire how thick and nice they look. Then you read the marketing stuff. Then you lovingly hook them up. Then you pour yourself some whiskey that the owner of a $2000 set of audio cables surely has the refinement and taste to burn money on. Then you play your favorite song on it. Of course after all that drama your brain is primed to believe it sounds better. It's happened to me before. OMG the bass so is clean now. Etc. etc. IMHO it's all about brain conditioning.


----------



## sxr71

ruben123 said:


> Here you go, my favourite music player, only $40: http://nwavguy.blogspot.nl/2011/02/sansa-clip-measured.html


 

 Much appreciated. Thanks!


----------



## JaeYoon

Sxr71. Definitely agree able cable industry using brain conditioning to sell people expensive cables. As long as customer believes it sounds better. They will always sell


Another thing I wonder is Trinity audio.
They make incredible IEMS for cheap. But how do they even profit from it. Must be something up
Right now you can preorder Phantom Master 6 for 260$ usd and get 2x 7mm titanium drivers with dualbalance armature drivers. 5x tuning filters, free carrying case. Detachable cables. Aluminum cnc housing.

You can also get Trinity Vyrus $70. Free carrying case, detachable cables. 7x filters, aluminum housing and 7mm titanium.

Any other company wouldve easily tried to sell that for $180 -200+.

I wonder how trinity even makes money selling audio gear that is a steal. O.o they make it all in their factory in U.K. R&D too


----------



## nanaholic

sxr71 said:


> It's a first gen product to start. The product has borne this out. I believe it generally gets panned now after the initial euphoria. We have seen time and again how first gen products usually don't hit the mark. Focal is one of the few manufacturers that actually produces their own drive units, but still the production of full range drive units that sit on your ear is a different ball game. You can't expect them to get it right the first time especially in today's headphone market when they don't really have to. Just slap the name on it and get it out ASAP. The brand name will sell it. Let's not even get into the other aspects of design and production like getting the headband right, the cups etc. They have no experience with that at all. Even among the established makers we see they can get those aspects wrong.
> 
> Your Nintendo and Nokia examples don't consider almost a century between the two products they produced.
> 
> ...


 
  
 What's inherit in a gen 1 product that makes it automatically fail? Nothing except brand/heritage bias. Also placement of a transducer in a room and next to your ear and getting them to sound right goes back to basic sound science like acoustics etc that are quite well known and shares the same sort of technical knowledge.  None of your criticism actually points to the money grab that you are alluding to by Focal.  Again if you are trying to say that Focal is in it for a money grab, a bit of objectivity is going to be needed - show us why these Focal headphones are bad - just calling them out on the lack of heritage, especially in a thread where we are talking about the LACK of objectivity in the audiophile community, seems to be one giant case of irony.
  
 Also my Nintendo and Nokia examples are PERFECTLY on point. Nintendo spend 80 years making paper cards and cheap plastic toys with no "hi-tech" technical background, in 1970s they suddenly decided they would go into using *electronics* to make toys, that's when they started making light guns and video games. That jump is WAY larger in the technical level (and MUCH less relevant technically) than Focal going from speakers to headphones. Nokia was originally a paper/rubber manufacturer for many years and then decided to jump into electronics and telephones.  Both companies has no heritage (or even become well known for) in the products they jumped to by your very own definition.


----------



## sxr71

nanaholic said:


> What's inherit in a gen 1 product that makes it automatically fail? Nothing except brand/heritage bias. Also placement of a transducer in a room and next to your ear and getting them to sound right goes back to basic sound science like acoustics etc that are quite well known and shares the same sort of technical knowledge.  None of your criticism actually points to the money grab that you are alluding to by Focal.  Again if you are trying to say that Focal is in it for a money grab, a bit of objectivity is going to be needed - show us why these Focal headphones are bad - just calling them out on the lack of heritage, especially in a thread where we are talking about the LACK of objectivity in the audiophile community, seems to be one giant case of irony.
> 
> Also my Nintendo and Nokia examples are PERFECTLY on point. Nintendo spend 80 years making paper cards and cheap plastic toys with no "hi-tech" technical background, in 1970s they suddenly decided they would go into using *electronics* to make toys, that's when they started making light guns and video games. That jump is WAY larger in the technical level (and MUCH less relevant technically) than Focal going from speakers to headphones. Nokia was originally a paper/rubber manufacturer for many years and then decided to jump into electronics and telephones.  Both companies has no heritage (or even become well known for) in the products they jumped to by your very own definition.


 
  
  
 I'm very well aware of the history of Nintendo and Nokia and I have used products from both. Those early 70s Nintendo electronics products did not make them, it was a decade later they emerged with their killer product. Same story for Sony and Samsung parts of which have already been discussed in this thread. Nokia got into telecom and over a long period of time built up a great brand and reputation. The NES was quality from start as they had years of experience making portables that get tossed around.
  
 A first gen product is not automatic fail but the odds are very high that it is. You may choose to go in and put your money down but I know better now than to do that. As i already said I did with their mediocre computer speakers. Focal is not the place to go for computer speakers at all. You're so much better off getting their powered monitors which have been refined for a decade or more.
  
 Headphone acoustics are a whole other ballpark. It isn't about your drive units or electronics or the crossover network or enclosure construction as much as it is about the pinna and the ear canal. To date only one company I know of is doing any research on that and that is the Nura headphone on kickstarter. To date headphones are voiced by ear, someone else's ear. That might sound good to your ear it might not. That sort of puts everyone on a level playing field as even Grado can make well regarded phones just winding up some coils and gluing them to polypropylene and voicing the whole deal out by ear. Which also reveals how low tech this business is and how all the tech or acoustic background associated with a company does not come into play. I realize what I just said helps your argument to a degree. But it doesn't explain how anyone can come in from the blue and market their phones hard enough to sell them at $500-$2k.
  
 All the research they did on their W cone material and beryllium tweeters does not apply to headphones. They make band limited drive units for acoustic spaces. They design crossovers and cabinets. The acoustics in your space mostly still depends on your space. They have no experience with drive units sitting on your ear. They can make headphones but when this was a professional space the headphone makers did headphones and microphones (micro acoustics) and the speaker makers did speakers. The design considerations are completely different. All of a sudden the margins on headphone stuff is so sky high that everyone wants to slap their name on one and price it out in the today acceptable price points of $300-$1500.
  
 I'm not saying they aren't good headphones, they might be, but I have to question the motive. Just like I should have with those computer speakers. It was a branding play at best. They just outsource some engineer to design it slap their name on it. None of the research that went into the products that created their reputation comes into play. So I have to look at the product as I would from any upstart in the market - an UNKNOWN quantity. I'm not going to conjure up any association with the great listening sessions I had on their studio monitors or the W cone or beryllium tweeters. That's it. I'm not against or for them. But I will note that some serious professional firms like Genelec will not whore out their brand by making headphones and I will respect that. They stick to what they know and know very well. The amount of detailed information that they provide with their products gives you an idea of exactly how much acoustic research they do and how much they tested the product in all the use cases they specify the product for. That's a company that won't release a headphone without the full backing of their acoustic team and knowing how they have no experience in pinna analysis or ear canal analysis they just won't make it. If they have put in the research then and only then would they release a headphone and if they do, it won't be an also ran product. It would redefine headphone audio.
  
 Just my experience from that computer speaker and their marketing in the audiophile space I know they are ready to slap their name on anything if it will sell. They know they bifurcated the brand into two. With the people who know better sticking to what we know they make well and everyone else buying the outsourced OEM'd stuff. The timing is so convenient just as computer speakers became popular they got in on it and with headphones just as the margins got crazy good they got in on it. Maybe they put their best micro driver engineers on it. Oh wait they don't have any micro dynamics engineers. Maybe they hired a team in France? Why bother? Just hire one in China and OEM it. I'm not even suggesting that these Chinese outsourced engineers are bad. They might actually be great given enough resources. But it won't come with any of associations we have built up with Focal as a drive unit maker or studio monitor maker or JM Labs as an audiophile speaker maker.
  
 Unless there is something they did that is revolutionary I would look at them as an upstart maker of headphones. Which again isn't a bad thing but instead of launching one headphone and improving on its faults which being a new entrant they will have, they decided to release a whole line up hitting all the price points. One at $1500 or $2k? For an upstart? Only this community would tolerate it and embrace it no less. They will create associations with the heritage of Focal and like you create some story about how their acoustics background came into play and so $2k is perfectly acceptable for their second gen flagship. If you start in a new field start small. Start like you mean it. Nintendo had $20 game watch things out for a decade before the NES. They didn't just 3DO it and fail spectacularly. Heck even Microsoft only stuck because the brute forced the Xbox in with $9 billion and the division still hasn't recouped that. Even they started with Web TV crap at least. 
  
 But now you can get away with a $2k headphone just because you have some tenuous history in audio. When is the Mark Levinson $8k phone coming out? We couldn't have them tarnish their name with a $500 phone could we? It would be just too low for that name. How about the $2k Infiniti phone or the $500 Harman phone? That company has a lot of experience in audio and acoustics why not? At least they are decent enough to start with $100/$200 JBL phones and then move up as they gain experience and work out the kinks and move into the higher end of headphones.
  
 All this came about because another poster expressed regret about buying even a $300 phone from Focal and I chimed in about my regret with an $800 computer speaker from them. It's because idiots that we were we associated the brand with the product and we lost. That's the whole point here. Do not associate a brand's capability to make and sell $100k speakers as any indication that they will make good headphones and even less accept that it allows them to charge you $2000 for a second gen attempt at a headphone. I'm just letting people know not to make that mistake. If I come across one I'll listen to it and evaluate as any other $2k headphone but ultimately I've wisened up to spending that kind of money on headphones and I know that automatically makes me an outcast around here because I won't play that game anymore.


----------



## castleofargh

nanaholic said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > thanks. I don't know if there is the measurement method explained somewhere (is shigzeo doing those himself?) but +6dbV and even+18dbV for the mojo, unless some IEMs were used as speakers in the test, I doubt it has anything to do with the actual test signal. I see it has something to do with the ADC part, but is it calibrated, or is it just an input gain thing and we don't actually know anything about the voltage at the output of the mojo for those different IEMs/headphones?
> ...


 
 oh I imagine that to get such amazing measurements, the gears are measured maxed out or at some other nominal value close to the max. that's very logical as far as measuring the sources to get the biggest possible numbers(as is often done on measurements). my concern is for the sensitive IEMs to be plugged with such outputs. the SM2 are given at 119db/mw and 16ohm. if those specs are any good, that would be close to 143db at 1khz when fed 2V(if my mad windoz calculator skillzz are good)
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.
  
  


jaeyoon said:


> I need to ask something. I recently come across lots of posts about how cables can change the sound quality. Like adding soundstage to expand and make sound more warm or Dark.
> 
> How is that possible? I asked Brooko, he told me cables aren't supposed to do that, though a bad cable with poor impedance may not draw enough power. But other than that rest is just magic to the listener's mind.
> But many others I keep reading say it does lots of improvements. Most of cables recommended go well into $150 - $300+ even.


 
  bad cables do exist. people should think like that and not that cables improve the sound(which is silly). it may feel the same, but the difference is huge IMO. you buy cables that won't ruin your signal. not cables that will improve your signal. 
 when your system needs a particular coax interconnect, and you end up with something supposedly at 75ohm to fit both devices, in fact being 5ohm from some chinese brand that sells non coax cable with coax plugs, it is understandable that a proper cable with the proper specs may be better. so there is good cable and bad cable. the parting with reality comes when price is involved as a way to tell them apart. because a 5$ cable can very much have the proper specs and a 1000$ one have the wrong specs!
 with the same idea once you've crushed your cable under your chair a few times, and bent it in all direction hundreds of times, at least at some places, the diameter will not be what was written as cable gauge. so when it's not an inconvenience, going just a little bigger may not be a bad idea in the long run. sadly cables that won't move don't need that, and cables that will move a lot will be a bother if they are too thick and to heavy ^_^. so choices need to be made(I always chose comfort over everything else, but that's me).
 anyway, reason to get different measurements(very very rarely significant or audible) are real. the thing is, when you buy some fancy expensive cable made by some famous guy on headfi, the price comes with zero guaranty that the specs will be better than a 5$ cable. that's the reality of the actual market. what you pay for is mostly eye candy, the almost meaningless name of a metal, and a brand. how often do you buy a cable that comes with extensive individual measurements and a certificate defining the magnitude of variations from the marketed specs?  you buy based on money and trust, which do not improve sound as far as I know.^_^
  
 TBH what will really matter the most in interconnects will most likely happen in the plugs, soldering quality of course(do it yourself if you have doubts), and the contact surface of plugs can sometime be small and not strongly secured, ending up adding for starters, significant resistance. that can definitely alter the electrical specs of the circuit in ways that go far beyond what the cable itself is IMO. you will find some clever dicks who will sell you cables with plugs very slightly larger than the norm. so when you use them you get often a better contact. the other side of the coin is that depending on the kind of plug, you end up stretching the female plug so now normal plugs won't be fixed as well as before... there has been some such situations on IEMs cables ruining your IEMs, and then all normal cables fall off easily, or have contact troubles with the usual noises or loss of signal associated. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 for some interconnects, I bet the very best measurements you could get would be with some cheap basic cable soldered directly to the devices. I'm not that extreme myself but good female plugs are important to me. some with a spring or something like that so when the plug is too fat, it doesn't bend anything that wouldn't come back to it's original position. I kind of like banana plugs too I wouldn't be mad if I had only that instead of some coax stuff. but instead it seems like the future apple has decided for us will be to have sound come through a bad evolution of USB plugs, how audiophile ^_^.
 I really don't put a lot of money into cables. I buy 4 or 5 cheap ones and throw away the bad ones if I get some. that worked well for me so far. if it didn't I would have spent money into a good soldering iron, certainly not into fancy audiophile cables.
  
  
  
 people talking about subjective changes(soundstage signature micro details ...) can have found some correlation for reason they don't always understand and decide the cable is "making" that sound when it's the interaction with the rest of the system that led to a change, not the cable alone in most instances. meaning the same cable plugged into something else may lead to different results. that's why claims of silver increasing the soundstage are ludicrous because even if true in a given situation(and that was certainly not proved), people should know better than to make general claims based on one anecdote in a misunderstood process.
 but also a good deal of those feedbacks  are as real as testimonies about aliens. if you give anything to someone twice coming in different shape, colors, and price, they'll just assume they're different and tell you in great details the differences they think they felts. that's human. you don't have to take anything people say without proof as if it was factual, people lie and people are wrong all day long(me included but hush!  ^_^).
  
  
 so yeah, cables are important, without them the sound doesn't come out.


----------



## nanaholic

sxr71 said:


> I'm very well aware of the history of Nintendo and Nokia and I have used products from both. Those early 70s Nintendo electronics products did not make them, it was a decade later they emerged with their killer product. Same story for Sony and Samsung parts of which have already been discussed in this thread. Nokia got into telecom and over a long period of time built up a great brand and reputation. The NES was quality from start as they had years of experience making portables that get tossed around.
> 
> A first gen product is not automatic fail but the odds are very high that it is. You may choose to go in and put your money down but I know better now than to do that. As i already said I did with their mediocre computer speakers. Focal is not the place to go for computer speakers at all. You're so much better off getting their powered monitors which have been refined for a decade or more.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I think you are sort of moving the goal post here, killer product or not is the not the point here, what I'm seeing is that you have a habit of criticising brands moving from one product segment to another of which they had no previous experience/expertise in.  Again my Nintendo and Nokia example stands completely. Nintendo moved from plastic/paper toy products to electronic toys in the 70s (first by licensing products and then making their own - preciously the model you are criticising some OEMs for doing here), Nokia moved from rubber products to telephone equipment (by merging with electronic companies that were not part of their heritage - again the same sort of practice you turn your nose up on) - both involve great leaps in  obtaining technical know-hows than your Focal example of going from speakers to headphones. Plus the ear canal argument is not valid IMO (actually it almost sounds like you were going off into pesudo-science there for a bit) - when sound waves enter your ear canal it still obeys the same physical laws of waves being reflected in space/time/material etc, which is no different than speakers place in a room with materials etc - whether they use speaker tweets and cones or drivers to generate the waves also don't make a difference, they are still being tied to the same fundamental wave theories, which means certain knowledge could and most certainly can be carried over and applied.  This is completely different than injection mold plastic or paper printing to designing electronics and programming said electronics, or from making rubber products to telephones which involves COMPLETELY different fields of expertise and nearly nothing could be carried over. So if you can give those companies a pass for venturing into areas not of their heritage, then companies like Focal (or Shure or Sennheiser that you also criticised for moving into different product categories), should also be given the same pass based on applying the same judging criteria.  
  
 Don't get me wrong, having a healthy dose of skepticism is good and like I said before completely embracing a product on brand name alone is irrational, but completely rejecting a product base on brand name alone is equally irrational. It sounds like the reason is not really that you are truly skeptical base on reason and rational thought or measurements that the Focal headphones are bad, but rather you've got burnt before by Focal (purchasing that $800 speaker) - that itself is fine and I myself have that kind of bias too - we ALL do as it's human nature that we base our actions on past experiences, but you need to be aware of that as personal bias and not confuse it as being rational as well.


----------



## nanaholic

castleofargh said:


> oh I imagine that to get such amazing measurements, the gears are measured maxed out or at some other nominal value close to the max. that's very logical as far as measuring the sources to get the biggest possible numbers(as is often done on measurements). my concern is for the sensitive IEMs to be plugged with such outputs. the SM2 are given at 119db/mw and 16ohm. if those specs are any good, that would be close to 143db at 1khz when fed 2V(if my mad windoz calculator skillzz are good)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Well as the measurement really wasn't interested in the output volume/FR of the headphone at that power level, but rather the output of the player in question under a given load.  He's aware that nobody listens to the phones at the level if you read his other RMAA measurements, I think it's just convenience that measuring at max power rather than say at same output volume of headphone which would be much more difficult to achieve/control?  Also another guess on my part is those headphones he chose may actually measure to be close to their stated impedance (we all know those varies as well), and he isn't handy enough to bash together control/fake loads for what he is doing.


----------



## castleofargh

nanaholic said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > oh I imagine that to get such amazing measurements, the gears are measured maxed out or at some other nominal value close to the max. that's very logical as far as measuring the sources to get the biggest possible numbers(as is often done on measurements). my concern is for the sensitive IEMs to be plugged with such outputs. the SM2 are given at 119db/mw and 16ohm. if those specs are any good, that would be close to 143db at 1khz when fed 2V(if my mad windoz calculator skillzz are good)
> ...


 

 again I don't think anything is wrong with the measurement choices. different tests give different information. my concern was for the well being of the IEMs themselves.


----------



## gikigill

brooko said:


> If a cable changes enough impedance, and you're dealing with an earphone sensitive to Impedance change (typically multi BA set-ups and often with crossover designs), then you could get frequency response changes. But employing a high priced cable to do that - when you could either:
> (A) employ EQ
> (B) buy an alternate earphone
> strikes me as having more money than sense - but each to their own.
> ...




A good cable should aim for low resistance, low inductance and low impedance. If a $20 cable does the job, then why not.


----------



## pctazhp

gikigill said:


> A good cable should aim for low resistance, low indictable and low impedance. If a $20 cable does the job, then why not.


 
 Because a more expensive cable will have been made by Tibetan monks using their secret fairy dust, which will make everything sound more better.


----------



## Ancipital

Personally, I am about to replace the cable on my main 'phones- because the stock one is so bloody long that I find it annoying to use. My main use case is  to find a quiet corner and flop with a mobile device and a DAC/amp feeding the cans, to really enjoy the listening experience.
  
 I'll end up with a shorter cable, terminated with the right plug (so I can dispense with the adaptor, too). I couldn't resist ordering a slightly more bling one making outrageous claims, just because I will enjoy having a more tracatable cable- and derive a certain amount of satisfaction from the aesthetics too. The build quality and materials will doubtless be solid, the handling easier, and the experience more pleasant all-round. My listening rig with open-backed cans is for pleasure. For work purposes, I'm generally using a far more humble pair of HD25s and a much more workmanlike audio setup. When I'm "off the clock", I can be a bit irrational.
  
 However, I'm not paying hilarious amounts for it, as if I was about to splash that sort of cash around, it'd go towards some planar magnetics, for a slightly different listening experience.


----------



## cel4145

What I hear from all of this (quoted it below since it is so long) that you are criticizing one kind of brand loyalty buying in preference for another; in many ways, it has the same kind of pitfalls, IMO. And then, you have built an argument based on one bad experience with one product and extrapolated it to all new products in new market areas for all companies. Hardly a statistically valid method of looking at things, and one that has ignored all of the bad products put out by audio manufacturers with longer experience in a market. Plus, who expects computer multimedia speakers to compare to studio monitors? Seems you didn't do your research very well. 

Then, as a consumer, who likely knows little about audio engineering, you are arguing for a specific direction for headphone design and development, as if you would somehow know better than audio companies with years of speaker audio production. Interesting, too, that you chose PSB and NAD as one of your whipping boys given the headphones are designed by Paul Barton who is well known for working with Sean Olive years ago on analyzing user sound preferences, work that Olive has continued with HRTF. Barton's focus is on headphones that sound good based on a very good strategy drawn from good research, which he was able to achieve for many people. 

And that's what matters: how the speakers/headphones sound. So rather than rationalizing arguments because you feel anger over spending too much money on Focal computer multimedia speakers, better is to do what many of us do _because there are no otherwise good shortcuts here_

1) Don't worry about brand one way or the other. Demo speakers/headphones based on good reviews and/or measurements. Buy ones that sound good to you for the money. Return ones that don't. 
2) Don't buy the latest release on the market. Give it 1 1/2 to 2 years to make sure there are no apparent build quality/reliability issues. 

What an easy solution, right? 



sxr71 said:


> It's a first gen product to start. The product has borne this out. I believe it generally gets panned now after the initial euphoria. We have seen time and again how first gen products usually don't hit the mark. Focal is one of the few manufacturers that actually produces their own drive units, but still the production of full range drive units that sit on your ear is a different ball game. You can't expect them to get it right the first time especially in today's headphone market when they don't really have to. Just slap the name on it and get it out ASAP. The brand name will sell it. Let's not even get into the other aspects of design and production like getting the headband right, the cups etc. They have no experience with that at all. Even among the established makers we see they can get those aspects wrong.
> 
> Your Nintendo and Nokia examples don't consider almost a century between the two products they produced.
> 
> ...






sxr71 said:


> I'm very well aware of the history of Nintendo and Nokia and I have used products from both. Those early 70s Nintendo electronics products did not make them, it was a decade later they emerged with their killer product. Same story for Sony and Samsung parts of which have already been discussed in this thread. Nokia got into telecom and over a long period of time built up a great brand and reputation. The NES was quality from start as they had years of experience making portables that get tossed around.
> 
> A first gen product is not automatic fail but the odds are very high that it is. You may choose to go in and put your money down but I know better now than to do that. As i already said I did with their mediocre computer speakers. Focal is not the place to go for computer speakers at all. You're so much better off getting their powered monitors which have been refined for a decade or more.
> 
> ...


----------



## sxr71

Just because I'm an audio consumer doesn't mean I know nothing about the field at all. I've been up and down this field for a very long time. 

I'm at a point where I'm keen to embrace the future with DSP and room correction, digital crossovers and digital driver correction. However those technologies would kill the current status quo of using the excuse that everything must be done in the analog domain and the very expensive results of that status quo. 

I will admit that I was wrong to pick on PSB especially if Paul Barton and Sean Olive were involved. I have a lot of respect for Paul Barton and actually bought two sets of the PSB Alpha. I left a set at my parents' and had to get myself another pair. They sounded great for their price and size. PSB with Paul's involvement is legitimate in my book. Certainly the wrong people to pick on. Also given the reasonable pricing of their debut offerings in this space. 

However I'm really over spending more than about $200 on any headphones at this point as I feel for decades even the most experienced manufacturers never crossed about $500 for any of their headphones and all of a sudden the sky's the limit on pricing.

As for those multimedia speakers that's water under the bridge but a lesson nevertheless. Always audition the equipment first.


----------



## cel4145

sxr71 said:


> Just because I'm an audio consumer doesn't mean I know nothing about the field at all. I've been up and down this field for a very long time.




Yes. And everyone that watches Monday night football is qualified to coach an NFL team. 



sxr71 said:


> I will admit that I was wrong to pick on PSB especially if Paul Barton and Sean Olive were involved. I have a lot of respect for Paul Barton and actually bought two sets of the PSB Alpha. I left a set at my parents' and had to get myself another pair. They sounded great for their price and size. PSB with Paul's involvement is legitimate in my book. Certainly the wrong people to pick on. Also given the reasonable pricing of their debut offerings in this space.




I didn't say that Sean Olive was involved (reread). And of course Paul Barton was involved with PSB's headphones. PSB stands for Paul and Sue Barton. After creating the headphones for PSB, then he was contracted by NAD to create headphones for them. So the NAD's are "2nd gen" PB stuff since 1st gen seems to be your hang up.


----------



## Mach3

So sick of the summit fi trend. HD800 > HD800S, T1 1st Gen > 2nd Gen, TH-900 > TH-900 MKII, Ether > 1.1 > Flow, HE1000 > HE1000 V2, LCD4 100Ohm > LCD4 200Ohm.
 All this, in a space of a year or less. It's like the headphone company trying to pump them out like mobile handset now.
 Seem pointless getting the latest and greatest, I got out of PC hobby because of this trend.


----------



## gikigill

Tried the new TH900, sticking with the old one.

Tried the new Hifiman single sided drivers in the newer lighter headphones, sticking with the older dual sided heavier kit such as the HE400, 500 and the venerable HE-6.
Nothing from the Hifiman range brings the thunder and fury as a properly powered HE-6. Hoarding older Hifiman as I am on my 3rd HE400 and buying a backup HE-6.

Audeze house sound is not my taste. 

HD800 sounds perfectly fine, still one of the best things ever to grace headfi despite a proper audition of the newer version which sounds like a tube amp stuck in the drivers. 

Personally don't believe the Ether are worth 2700AUD so no comment.


----------



## cel4145

hmmm...apparently iFi decided to build on their USB purifier success with a SPDIF purifier:

http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/05/ifi-audios-spdif-ipurifier-debuts-at-fujiya-avic-spring-2016/

Just goes to show: if you can make a product that "claims" to help in _some_ way, audiophiles will surely buy it.


----------



## pctazhp

cel4145 said:


> hmmm...apparently iFi decided to build on their USB purifier success with a SPDIF purifier:
> 
> http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/05/ifi-audios-spdif-ipurifier-debuts-at-fujiya-avic-spring-2016/
> 
> *Just goes to show: if you can make a product that "claims" to help in some way, audiophiles will surely buy it.*


 
 Well maybe some audiophiles will buy based on claims alone. But this seems like a pretty broad statement to make on this thread.


----------



## castleofargh

I've tried to follow some topics about all interconnect/magic box/streaming solutions/converters/etc. all the stuff that exist between the music storage and the DAC. I find this very interesting if only to see what's possible, so I'm genuinely curious about the actual pros and cons of everything and how some practical applications can work. but after reading hundreds of pages(what a total waste of my life), the only clear conclusion I get is that most people decide to purchase for objective reason(trying to lower jitter, noise, errors), so the purpose is clearly signal fidelity improvement. but once they have one or several such solutions, almost everybody validates the effectiveness by ear


----------



## etc6849

I agree.  In fact I avoid all shops that sell $400 speaker cables, etc...  They want to con me, that's fine I won't even give them business and tell everyone I know not to shop there and that their staff is a technical joke.  Then these dealers complain about not enough customers, can't afford a showroom, etc...
  
 I also never pay MSRP as I know dealers almost always double the price.  If manufacturers pull the price fixing BS I don't buy their stuff either (McIntosch, Lexicon, JL Audio, etc...) unless I can get a floor model below audiogon used prices or find a reasonable dealer.
  
 There are lots of audio shops out there that only sell normal cables and tons of independent dealers who are reasonable and will bend pricing rules verbally if you call them.
  
 Problem is when I bought my first pair of "real" headphones (HD 800's) and come across this 2-pin proprietary connector (What), then the only websites I see sell snake oil.  EVERY website I went on that had the connectors I needed has $400 or more balanced cables and Sennheiser thinks their own cable is worth $379?!?     I found a very reasonable dealer for the HD800, but they still probably made $150 off me.  I'm fine with that though as they did stock the item and offer a return period.
  
 The cable thing still makes me seriously doubt my HD800 purchase.  I did make my own cable but still feel like I got ripped off paying $44 for the connectors.  If it didn't sound so good hooked to my used Oppo HA-1 I bought I'd return them.  However, I'm really into critical listening and have genuinely heard a few extra details on a few tracks I couldn't even on my end all loudspeaker system (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1J0a4OV_WGLUVZBNUJBR29LTEU) which has an ultra low noise floor and room treatments.
  
 Not sure where headphone guys buy stuff, but every website I went on has stuff with outrageous claims that don't mean anything to an electrical engineer...  Do any of these headphone retailers have integrity?  Telling me I should get connectors coated in rhodium for $160, I mean What?  Maybe if I was unplugging them 100 times a day I would, but gold plating is fine with me and no you can't actually hear the difference.  At least I know several loudspeaker dealers that won't lie to my face.


----------



## etc6849

Yeah these ppl who sell these magic $5k+ streaming solutions are crooks.  When did we stop trusting networks to send and buffer data?  If what these crooks claim was true every time you accessed a file over the network it'd be corrupted.
  
 Quote:


castleofargh said:


> I've tried to follow some topics about all interconnect/magic box/streaming solutions/converters/etc. all the stuff that exist between the music storage and the DAC. I find this very interesting if only to see what's possible, so I'm genuinely curious about the actual pros and cons of everything and how some practical applications can work. but after reading hundreds of pages(what a total waste of my life), the only clear conclusion I get is that most people decide to purchase for objective reason(trying to lower jitter, noise, errors), so the purpose is clearly signal fidelity improvement. but once they have one or several such solutions, almost everybody validates the effectiveness by ear


----------



## krismusic

I think you are being unreasonable expecting dealers to make next to no mark up. $150 on a $1300( or whatever) item. 
The dealer probably doesn't sell high end stuff in quantity. 
By the time he has paid overheads for his store you are not leaving him much to eat! 
Then you expect too levels of CS. With return period etc.
 Not having a go but that doesn't sound fair. 
You are aware that virtually everything we buy from a small independent supplier has a 100% mark up? That's how people make a living. 
Completely agree with the rest of what you are saying mind!


----------



## mulder01

Yeah... etc I think if you tried to run a small business selling things for what you bought them for you would be very broke very fast.


----------



## castleofargh

etc6849 said:


> Yeah these ppl who sell these magic $5k+ streaming solutions are crooks.  When did we stop trusting networks to send and buffer data?  If what these crooks claim was true every time you accessed a file over the network it'd be corrupted.


 
 to be honest, I understand almost everything the sellers do. claiming more than there is while being shady enough not to be sued, that's basic marketing.
 creating a market from scratch by putting unjustified fears in the consumer's mind, well again, that's marketing heaven when it works. and if I had to complain about that, I would start with TV and politicians doing it all day long, before I would care about some low level audio dude in his niche market.
 the prices are also kind of self regulating IMO. if an outrageous price still let the guy sell enough to make a living, then basically the price was right. consumers create their own mean to waste money.
 it's the consumer paying 1000$ for a cable and trying to justify it rationally that makes no sense. if the argument was "because I can afford it", that would be it. there really is no need for all the pseudo science justifications and night and day difference claims... what I see then are insecure people making fools of themselves and getting offended when we dare tell them. quite the paradox.
 in my last post my problem is about claiming objective fidelity improvement by subjective means. it tells nothing, proves nothing, makes no sense at all. so why are people still doing it on a daily basis as if it made perfect sense? the reader will keep learning potentially false claims, or if he's like me, learn nothing at all because I can't possibly take seriously a subjective claim about objective significance. meanwhile, where is the real factual information about the devices? I'd love to know.


----------



## etc6849

Not really.  The guys I know don't have a store front and rely on word of mouth or post "open box" items on audiogon, ebay etc...  They had to start doing it to survive.  Tons of integrators and installers out there that will gladly order you something for 15-20% above their cost on a high ticket item.  Think about it, takes an hour of their time and they clear several hundred on the transaction.  They can't get the really exclusive boutique brands, but can get everything else.  They will never put the price in writing on the website, you have to call a few and haggle...  kind of like buying a car.
  
 I'd feel bad if they had a store front and actually stocked the item, but NONE of the guys I deal with do, so trust me they are not going broke.  By that logic the guys selling TV's would go broke too (seriously the markup on TVs is low if you order from a distributor like AVAD), yet every integrator seems fine making 15-20% on a TV because that is the norm.
  
 Please tell me why you think a small business guy working out of his house deserves to make an extra $1500 on a $1500 item (e.g. your cost is $3000) just because the manufacturer sets a price and just thinks their goods are worth that much?  How do you feel when you go to resale your $3000 item and find it only fetches $1200 (cause it's really only worth $1500 new in the first place)?  What about the local store demanding you to pay an extra $5000 on speakers they bought for $5000 when they don't even stock the item and have to order and you have to wait for weeks to get it?  So they can't possibly survive without making $5000 on one transaction...!?!  BS.
  
 Also, the headphone place I ordered the HD800 probably orders 50 units at a time, so that is a bad example on my part.  I am sure their margins were higher as every manufacturer gives a discount on a large order.  I think making $200 off of headphones is plenty of margin.  On average though, you can divide the MSRP by 2 and that is how much these niche audio items are.  TV's, PC's, etc: they aren't doubling their money on, but somehow us audio hobbyists are giving them a much bigger markup than other electronic goods; why!?!  Even on niche TV's (Samsung's top 78" etc....) these small businesses don't get anywhere near double and TV's are risky as heck to sell cause the screens can be cracked from transport, but they gladly take only 20% markup on them cause it's the norm.
  
 Also don't forget many of these little guys can and do form pools and place a large order all at once to maximize their buying potential, but they are only going to do it on items that have a large market (Denon/Marantz, etc....) not niche goods.  They aren't going to do it on headphones as the market is probably too small, but a lot of home theater equipment guys do.  Of course, the goods may/may not be considered "grey market" and some greedy manufacturers won't offer a warranty on these.  I don't want to sound like I blame the small business owners because I don't, mostly blame the manufacturer's shady price fixing strategies that should be illegal (not offering warranties on something, etc...).
  
 Quote:


mulder01 said:


> Yeah... etc I think if you tried to run a small business selling things for what you bought them for you would be very broke very fast.


 
  


krismusic said:


> I think you are being unreasonable expecting dealers to make next to no mark up. $150 on a $1300( or whatever) item.
> The dealer probably doesn't sell high end stuff in quantity.
> By the time he has paid overheads for his store you are not leaving him much to eat!
> Then you expect too levels of CS. With return period etc.
> ...


----------



## etc6849

I get the psychological aspects and understand them.  However, this level of shoddy customer service and deception won't get you a life-time customer, and I personally would never do it to someone even if they were rich and had the money because I would feel genuinely bad.  If you want people to buy your product, pretty simple: make a better product that actually offers real value. Don't use some pseudo science hog wash that makes no sense like cryogenically frozen silver wire, wood/granite blocks that elevate the sound by going under speaker wire, etc...
  
 None of the loudspeaker shops I've been to selling this snake oil stuff know anything about room acoustics, room correction, using dual subs, how to actulaly , etc...  As soon as the customer finds an integrator or a buddy who shows them what real sound is, they aren't going back to the first place.  The incompetence of these shops is obvious even to those set on boutique amps and cables once they hear what a real setup can do.
  
 Quote:


castleofargh said:


> to be honest, I understand almost everything the sellers do. claiming more than there is while being shady enough not to be sued, that's basic marketing.
> creating a market from scratch by putting unjustified fears in the consumer's mind, well again, that's marketing heaven when it works. and if I had to complain about that, I would start with TV and politicians doing it all day long, before I would care about some low level audio dude in his niche market.
> the prices are also kind of self regulating IMO. if an outrageous price still let the guy sell enough to make a living, then basically the price was right. consumers create their own mean to waste money.
> it's the consumer paying 1000$ for a cable and trying to justify it rationally that makes no sense. if the argument was "because I can afford it", that would be it. there really is no need for all the pseudo science justifications and night and day difference claims... what I see then are insecure people making fools of themselves and getting offended when we dare tell them. quite the paradox.
> in my last post my problem is about claiming objective fidelity improvement by subjective means. it tells nothing, proves nothing, makes no sense at all. so why are people still doing it on a daily basis as if it made perfect sense? the reader will keep learning potentially false claims, or if he's like me, learn nothing at all because I can't possibly take seriously a subjective claim about objective significance. meanwhile, where is the real factual information about the devices? I'd love to know.


 
  
Mod Edit - Removed religious reference


----------



## krismusic

Well. I attended CanJam London yesterday. 
First up MSB. I asked the demonstrator to play a track that I know well. It sounded very good. Then he played his own selection. Stevie Ray Vaughan and Johhny Cash. I wasn't complaining!
The main attribute that shone out was emotion. 
SRV always was a passionate player 
As for Hurt by JC. That is enough to destabilise me even through TV speakers. Through the MSB system it was a resurrection!
I couldn't help thinking though that if I thought I was listening to a £1500 system, I would probably have been picking holes in the sound. 
Onto the Sennheiser HE1. I was disappointed TBH. I really wanted to like it more than the MSB. I have a lot of respect for Sennheiser as a company. 
To me the sound was overly warm. I got them to play Hurt and it did not connect in the same way at all. 
Next up The Smyth Realiser. TBH I didn't expect much of this but it rocked me back on my heels!
Forget sitting listening for bat squeaks! This is technology worth paying for.


----------



## RRod

krismusic said:


> Forget sitting listening for bat squeaks! This is technology worth paying for.


 
  
 Amazing what a bit of DSP can do, eh?


----------



## krismusic

rrod said:


> Amazing what a bit of DSP can do, eh?



Indeed.


----------



## Dillan

krismusic said:


> Well. I attended CanJam London yesterday.
> First up MSB. I asked the demonstrator to play a track that I know well. It sounded very good. Then he played his own selection. Stevie Ray Vaughan and Johhny Cash. I wasn't complaining!
> The main attribute that shone out was emotion.
> SRV always was a passionate player
> ...




Awesome impressions! Did you happen to compare DAPs to each other and to your iPhone? The MSB seems interesting, but I think you missed a couple zeros in the price of it hehe

I like the SR009 in general, it always gives me the emotional experience you described.. I wonder how much of that enjoyment came from the six figure amp versus the headphones themselves. Also I have heard people say they prefer the original Orpheus.. To me the new one was a rushed marketing gimmick


----------



## krismusic

dillan said:


> Awesome impressions! Did you happen to compare DAPs to each other and to your iPhone? The MSB seems interesting, but I think you missed a couple zeros in the price of it hehe
> 
> I like the SR009 in general, it always gives me the emotional experience you described.. I wonder how much of that enjoyment came from the six figure amp versus the headphones themselves. Also I have heard people say they prefer the original Orpheus.. To me the new one was a rushed marketing gimmick



Hi Dillan,  I have posted in the CanJam impressions thread about my DAP experiences, so I won't double post here. 
I agree with you that the HE1 was a let down. I thought all the motorised stuff was a total gimmick and eff all to do with great sound. 
The MSB did seem to be something special but a pretty crazy price. I also question the form factor. I'm not sure I would want those big chrome ingots shouting their presence in my living room. Happily this is a problem that I am too poor to have!
I am very excited to have just signed up to the Realiser Kickstarter though. Next May is going to be interesting.


----------



## castleofargh

krismusic said:


> Well. I attended CanJam London yesterday.
> First up MSB. I asked the demonstrator to play a track that I know well. It sounded very good. Then he played his own selection. Stevie Ray Vaughan and Johhny Cash. I wasn't complaining!
> The main attribute that shone out was emotion.
> SRV always was a passionate player
> ...


 

 well MSB does seem to measure incredibly well. if they're really getting the best specs in a few domains like they seem to say they do, then why not have an astronomical price? what's rare is expensive.
 now who cares? not me when DACs and amps have been able to sound pretty transparent for years, even some cheap ones. but to a rich guy who likes to have the best, maybe that's the stuff he was waiting for. there is no harm in trying to surpass our tech limits.
 now the headphone is still just a headphone, the DAC a DAC and the amp an amp. it's a chain that is factually flawed when the music you play was mastered for speakers. the all industry and vast majority of audiophiles seem ok with burying their head in the sand and pretend that what we really need is discrete everything and even more bits and ultrasounds for no actual reason at all instead of trying to address the elephant in the room.
 I never bought the previous smyth realiser because to me headphones are still just a hobby and mostly a portable one, so paying 3000euro never felt right. but the price of the kickstarter campaign for the new one did feel right for my humble wallet, and sure enough I was backing it the very day it started. it's not a product for everybody just yet because ideally you'd have to go to amazing studios yourself and measure stuff. for the average dude, the main purpose will be to replicate your own speaker system on headphones(mine is total crap so I'm certainly not planning on replicating that ^_^).
  
  
 Kris, the first thing I noticed in the videos showing people testing the latest stuff was how most demos seem to use the same cymbal/hit hats sounds, and stay away from low freqs (for logical reason/no tactile bass, it's the demo they try to look perfect), did you get to demo some actual music a little?


----------



## Dillan

krismusic said:


> Hi Dillan,  I have posted in the CanJam impressions thread about my DAP experiences, so I won't double post here.
> I agree with you that the HE1 was a let down. I thought all the motorised stuff was a total gimmick and eff all to do with great sound.
> The MSB did seem to be something special but a pretty crazy price. I also question the form factor. I'm not sure I would want those big chrome ingots shouting their presence in my living room. Happily this is a problem that I am too poor to have!
> I am very excited to have just signed up to the Realiser Kickstarter though. Next May is going to be interesting.




Awesome I'll have to go to the impressions thread to check it out. Also.. I definitely think the realiser could be something special, I should back it because I know next year I would have wished I did. Envious of you being there!


----------



## krismusic

castleofargh said:


> Kris, the first thing I noticed in the videos showing people testing the latest stuff was how most demos seem to use the same cymbal/hit hats sounds, and stay away from low freqs (for logical reason/no tactile bass, it's the demo they try to look perfect), did you get to demo some actual music a little?



Are you referring to the Realiser? In which case, I did hear some music through it. Not music that I was familiar with though. I must admit, I think I am taking a bit of a gamble. The demo was so good that my critical faculties rather went out of the window!



dillan said:


> Awesome I'll have to go to the impressions thread to check it out. Also.. I definitely think the realiser could be something special, I should back it because I know next year I would have wished I did. Envious of you being there!



I think anyone who heard it would be excited. I can imagine that it may not be for a purist. It is taking DSP and running with it! It remains to be seen how close to replicating the effect in my own home I can get. Visiting a venue sounds like a must at some point. I emailed Smyth asking how difficult set up is. Stephen answered very quickly (the morning after a busy CanJam!) and said that a home visit might be a possibility if necessary. The guys are really behind their product it seems to me. 
If you have the money it's got to be worth getting onboard.


----------



## Ancipital

This thread is getting tame now. Think bigger:
  
 http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-gift-for-music-lovers-who-have-it-all-a-personal-utility-pole-1471189463
  
 (..and of course, they're doing it to make vinyl sound better.)


----------



## etc6849

Come on guys, this thread is supposed to save people money, not get them to spend more!
  
 I already have a world class 5.2 theater, why do I want to order this so bad!  If I had this in my bedroom with my HD800's I may never leave to go into my real theater.  The price is also fantastic which isn't helping things...
  
 https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1959366850/realiser-a16-real-3d-audio-headphone-processor
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
 Quote:


krismusic said:


> Hi Dillan,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## krismusic

Agreed this is not really in the spirit of the thread. 
This does seem to be a product which does what it claims spectacularly and doesn't cost a fortune though.


----------



## etc6849

Leave it to the US media to once again not do due diligence and counter with an actual scientific/engineering view point. 
  
 How ridiculous this is!?!  This guy has several beautiful horn speakers I wouldn't mind owning; however, given his 250 sq ft apartment he should really look into headphones!  Can't believe not a single speaker is ideally placed, no room treatments and that he listens to a technically inferior source format (wrt to metrics like noise floor, dynamic range, etc...).
   He'd probably faint if he heard high quality headphones and 96kHz/24bit recordings from AIX!  And I thought I was crazy...
  
 Quote:


ancipital said:


> This thread is getting tame now. Think bigger:
> 
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-gift-for-music-lovers-who-have-it-all-a-personal-utility-pole-1471189463
> 
> (..and of course, they're doing it to make vinyl sound better.)


----------



## etc6849

The original Smyth Realizers were thousands of dollars, even their current model is over $3k with upgrades.  This really is an awesome deal and thanks for posting it.
  
 Quote:


krismusic said:


> Agreed this is not really in the spirit of the thread.
> This does seem to be a product which does what it claims spectacularly and doesn't cost a fortune though.


----------



## LajostheHun

krismusic said:


> Next up The Smyth Realiser. TBH I didn't expect much of this but it rocked me back on my heels!
> Forget sitting listening for bat squeaks! This is technology worth paying for.



I did a pledge as well [#259] however I did this without hearing it, the price is just too good to pass it up. I've been on a lookout for a competent "out of one's head" sound via headphones , and Smyth Research just keeps coming up on that subject as the "best" by anyone who experienced it, including you it seems. Now the wait............


----------



## cel4145

ancipital said:


> This thread is getting tame now. Think bigger:
> 
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-gift-for-music-lovers-who-have-it-all-a-personal-utility-pole-1471189463
> 
> (..and of course, they're doing it to make vinyl sound better.)




Well, at least if he has his own utility pole with his own audiophile transformer, he shouldn't feel the need for a power conditioner in the house 



> Normal electricity just wouldn’t do anymore. To tap into what Mr. Morita calls “pure” power, he paid $10,000 to plant a 40-foot-tall concrete pole in his front yard. On it perches his own personal transformer—that thing shaped like a cylindrical metal garbage can—which feeds power more directly from the grid.


----------



## etc6849

Man, I need to stick to this thread and not post factual info in other places:  http://www.head-fi.org/t/650510/the-new-hd800-impressions-thread/23295#post_12792295


----------



## Brooko

etc6849 said:


> Man, I need to stick to this thread and not post factual info in other places:  http://www.head-fi.org/t/650510/the-new-hd800-impressions-thread/23295#post_12792295


 
  
 I actually thought you explained it rather well.  Interesting to see that once shown the "math" he rather rapidly changed tune on his points.  Thats a win.


----------



## icebear

brooko said:


> I actually thought you explained it rather well.  Interesting to see that once shown the "math" he rather rapidly changed tune on his points.  Thats a win.


 

 He was shown the math once (at least) before using "his own" formula :
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/650510/the-new-hd800-impressions-thread/23250#post_12785358
  
 I am sure he will be back


----------



## etc6849

I'd be remiss if I didn't go fix my sarcasm though in my post so I did since he apologized (still didn't admit he was wrong though).  My guess is he's just looking at formulas he's seen somewhere and mixing up terms.  Usually Vs and Rs are at the input of the amplifier.  I just remembered that from 16 years ago!  Still that is on the input side of an amp, not the output side.  He could be a retired EE that is losing it.  Funny thing is his old post has the right voltage divider?!?
  
 I watched my dad quickly go down hill and it sucked.  Hope that is not what's going on with him.
  
 Quote:


icebear said:


> He was shown the math once (at least) before using "his own" formula :
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/650510/the-new-hd800-impressions-thread/23250#post_12785358
> 
> I am sure he will be back


----------



## etc6849

No... Must not reply in the HD800 thread.
  
 "Double Helix Neucleotide (which you can DIY) - I have a 8-strand neucleotide macromolecule cable with some nice Oyaide connectors." -wait what does that really mean?  So if macromolecules make up protiens and wait, aren't nucleotides what make up DNA?  That cable sounds scary...  might eat its user or something.  Talk about fear based marketing; this is it right here.
  
 Can't believe the names for this stuff.  I've always been into horn speakers so this is the first none pro audio I've frequented except for AVS.


----------



## Ruben123

Cable made of ubicorn's red blood cells flowing through it it seems.


----------



## Ruben123

Im just going to do my own little experiment. Bought a USB sound card on eBay for few bucks, looks quite good, but how does it sound? We will see. Im more interested though how audiophiles will say it sounds when I say it was over $400. Makes me thinking about a guy around here that let his audiophile friends listen to both wav and 320 mp3 - though both files were wav in fact but his friends didnt know so they kept telling how song 2 sounded much inferior. How funny.


----------



## mulder01

krismusic said:


> I couldn't help thinking though that if I thought I was listening to a £1500 system, I would probably have been picking holes in the sound.


 
  
 Can I ask what you mean by this?  If you were told it was a hundredth of the price you would think it could do with some improvements but you loved it partly because it was very very expensive??
  
  
 On the Smyth Realiser, I would expect that 9 out of 10 headphone customers DON'T have home theatre setups at home to tune their realisers off, so if you just wanted a preset setting of listening to left and right speakers at a distance of X meters and X meters apart, could a piece of software on your computer do the same thing?


----------



## U-3C

ruben123 said:


> Im just going to do my own little experiment. Bought a USB sound card on eBay for few bucks, looks quite good, but how does it sound? We will see. Im more interested though how audiophiles will say it sounds when I say it was over $400. Makes me thinking about a guy around here that let his audiophile friends listen to both wav and 320 mp3 - though both files were wav in fact but his friends didnt know so they kept telling how song 2 sounded much inferior. How funny.


 
 Yeah...I did a blind test featuring my 5 year old budget laptop vs my dedicated dac using the Q701. Nobody can tell a difference.
  
 Then I did a blind test featuring lossless audio vs compressed mp3, from 320 kbps to 128 kbps VBR.
  
 Nope, the few volunteers couldn't hear a difference. The results were pretty much all close to random guessing (around 50-50 score). This included someone who is somewhat enthusiastic about audio (she recognized my setup immediately).
  
 I can't tell you if people with trained ears can hear a difference under extensive listening. That's for people with the right equipment and knowledge to figure out in labs (the recent AES paper about this is quite interesting). However, for the average listener (people who don't care) to people who do care but are not that well trained, I doubt they will notice a difference. Even for those who are trained, the difference is probably very small. For some, it is worth it to chase that last 0.01%. However, as mentioned before, for some reason, almost everybody on head-fi thinks that they have these "golder ears," and thus their subjective claims become fact, and affect other people's judgements, strengthening these "facts."


----------



## Ruben123

It would be nice if either the sound card sounds somewhat bad - ie not fully transparent, such as due to s high impedance - or just completely transparent. Either way could lead to some interesting claims.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

etc6849 said:


>




The room and the curves all look 10 times more awesome and dig at least 10Hz deeper than my 2.1 system with 12" sub... ;_;


----------



## U-3C

joe bloggs said:


> The room and the curves all look 10 times more awesome and dig at least 10Hz deeper than my 2.1 system with 12" sub... ;_;




;_;


----------



## krismusic

mulder01 said:


> Can I ask what you mean by this?  If you were told it was a hundredth of the price you would think it could do with some improvements but you loved it partly because it was very very expensive??
> 
> 
> On the Smyth Realiser, I would expect that 9 out of 10 headphone customers DON'T have home theatre setups at home to tune their realisers off, so if you just wanted a preset setting of listening to left and right speakers at a distance of X meters and X meters apart, could a piece of software on your computer do the same thing?



What I meant was that I had made an appointment, met a senior representative of the company. Been shown into a hotel room where enormous impressive looking boxes sat in subdued lighting. 
Had the technology and R&D explained to me in respectful tones. 
Then I sit down to listen. 
Awesome is the appropriate response in that situation!
I tried to strip all that back and actually listen to what was playing. 
If I had heard that system under normal conditions as an average punter buying modestly priced gear in the appropriate environment, I don't know that I would have been particularly impressed. 
Regarding the Realiser, You can arrange to go to a venue that Smyth has had set up to allow measurements to be taken and stored. 
You then take that "profile" home and load it into the system. In theory you will then be listening to the sound of the venue you visited. 
There are pre loaded profiles taken from world class venues. 
People also put their own profiles online for other users. 
It is possible to personalise all these third party profiles to a degree but for the full potential you need to physically go to a venue. 
Well. That's as I understand it! 
I guess this last is more appropriate to the Smyth thread.


----------



## VNandor

u-3c said:


> Yeah...I did a blind test featuring my 5 year old budget laptop vs my dedicated dac using the Q701. Nobody can tell a difference.
> 
> Then I did a blind test featuring lossless audio vs compressed mp3, from 320 kbps to 128 kbps VBR.
> 
> ...


 
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/816527/mp3-vs-flac-split-from-modi-multibit-thread/15
  
 Try the link posted in this thread. I don't know what you mean by 320kbps VBR because it's called "VBR" (Variable Bit Rate) for a reason but when I set the compression to the highest quality (from 220 to 260kbps but according to foobar it's more like 280-320kbps) I can still ABX that particular sample. I have never been able to do that with my music so far (and probably never will) but still in some rare cases even the untrained ear can tell the difference between lossless and lossy.


----------



## etc6849

Yes, but I bet your headphone setup is on par minus the tactile feel 

I can tell you these HD800's are dead on in bass accuracy hooked to my Oppo HA-1.



joe bloggs said:


> The room and the curves all look 10 times more awesome and dig at least 10Hz deeper than my 2.1 system with 12" sub... ;_;


----------



## etc6849

This is correct. There is a home theater geeks show last year that talked about this in detail for the current Smyth Realizer version. Seems the intent is to sell access to these rooms to measure your head transfer function in, but I am not sure how much they charge. 

It seems the download of a room without having measured your head in it will not be as accurate, but could be if your head matches their head model very closely.



krismusic said:


> What I meant was that I had made an appointment, met a senior representative of the company. Been shown into a hotel room where enormous impressive looking boxes sat in subdued lighting.
> Had the technology and R&D explained to me in respectful tones.
> Then I sit down to listen.
> Awesome is the appropriate response in that situation!
> ...


----------



## castleofargh

etc6849 said:


> I'd be remiss if I didn't go fix my sarcasm though in my post so I did since he apologized (still didn't admit he was wrong though).  My guess is he's just looking at formulas he's seen somewhere and mixing up terms.  Usually Vs and Rs are at the input of the amplifier.  I just remembered that from 16 years ago!  Still that is on the input side of an amp, not the output side.  He could be a retired EE that is losing it.  Funny thing is his old post has the right voltage divider?!?
> 
> I watched my dad quickly go down hill and it sucked.  Hope that is not what's going on with him.
> 
> ...


 

 I've been into arguments like those a few times. once we ended up in PM both going mad because we both had the same logic and the theory, but we couldn't agree on anything as a result. then it hit me, the guy was looking at things as measured at the amp and I was looking at the measurements taken on the headphone. so simple it's silly not to have realized it before. as soon as we both had this figured out we magically agreed upon everything. ^_^ 
 so it can get weird even with people who have some electrical understanding.


----------



## ExtremeGamerBR

u-3c said:


> Yeah...I did a blind test featuring my 5 year old budget laptop vs my dedicated dac using the Q701. Nobody can tell a difference.
> 
> Then I did a blind test featuring lossless audio vs compressed mp3, from 320 kbps to 128 kbps VBR.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I couldn't hear the difference between my LG G3 and onboard sound card.
 I couldn't hear the difference between MP3 128kbps (compressed via dBpoweramp 16.1 - therefore is a good codec) and FLAC.
  
  I do not know if these differences are really hard to be noticed, or my equipment is very bad or if I am deaf.


----------



## etc6849

Yeah I just unsubscribed from the HD800 thread. He is back posting incorrect information again of how a cable can greatly change the damping factor!?!

Funny how ones mind/ears can easily fool them. Watch this AES workshop for a mind opening example! I can tell you the example Poppy Crum gives fooled my ears completely!

Starts at about 5min 20sec, but the whole video is excellent:

[VIDEO]https://youtu.be/BYTlN6wjcvQ[/VIDEO]

PS: This Ethan Winer guy is very smart. I recommend subscribing to him.



castleofargh said:


> I've been into arguments like those a few times. once we ended up in PM both going mad because we both had the same logic and the theory, but we couldn't agree on anything as a result. then it hit me, the guy was looking at things as measured at the amp and I was looking at the measurements taken on the headphone. so simple it's silly not to have realized it before. as soon as we both had this figured out we magically agreed upon everything. ^_^
> so it can get weird even with people who have some electrical understanding.


----------



## Sophonax

For anyone interested, I thought this was a pretty good blind test of lossless vs. mp3:
  
 http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
  
 They have six short tracks, each encoded in lossless WAV, 320 kbps mp3, and 128 kbps mp3 (not sure if VBR or not). The goal is to pick out the lossless file from the three. It's kind of cool because after you make your guess, they have a brief blurb about why they picked that track for the test.
  
 With my DT880, I managed to get five of the six right, but admittedly one of those was a random guess. A couple I thought were pretty easy, a couple were significantly harder, and the one I got wrong I actually picked the 128 kbps file! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 My conclusion was that in many cases the differences are there to be heard, but even 128 kbps mp3 offers surprisingly good quality.


----------



## U-3C

vnandor said:


> http://www.head-fi.org/t/816527/mp3-vs-flac-split-from-modi-multibit-thread/15
> 
> Try the link posted in this thread. I don't know what you mean by 320kbps VBR because it's called "VBR" (Variable Bit Rate) for a reason but when I set the compression to the highest quality (from 220 to 260kbps but according to foobar it's more like 280-320kbps) I can still ABX that particular sample. I have never been able to do that with my music so far (and probably never will) but still in some rare cases even the untrained ear can tell the difference between lossless and lossy.




Sorry, I meant 320 kbps tracks, plus one 128 kbps vbr track that I just threw in there for fun. Having listened to that track for so long, I might be able to heat a difference. For people who only had an hour, nah, can't tell anything.

Again, I apologize as I should have worded myself better.


----------



## Argyris

Every four or five years I do an ABX test in Foobar of several common lossy formats to see how they've improved (or if my hearing has deteriorated!). Last time was in 2014, when I was testing out OGG alongside my staple, AAC, and the default benchmark, MP3. The latter has pretty much tapped out, in my experience; I still need at least V0 (~245 kbps) to achieve transparency, meaning it's not a good choice if efficiency is a priority. AAC and OGG are quite similar to me, and both are of course much more efficient than MP3. For most material, at my transparency point the encoders for both formats output at ~165 kbps in VBR mode, but it can go considerably lower on occasion. One album, Daniel Barenboim's recording of Chopin's nocturnes, tops out at ~130 kbps and frequently dips below 100 kbps--now that's efficient!

The main goal of this exercise was to find the most efficient format so I could save space on my portable player. Technically OGG won, but it wasn't by a great enough margin for me to re-encode and re-tag my entire collection. Plus, right around that time I started using streaming services, meaning I pretty much stopped using a dedicated music player. These services are typically offered at a quality level below my transparency point on my carefully-selected test tracks, but you know what? Unless I really concentrate, I never even notice, and thus it doesn't bother me.

So the moral of the story? Check out my signature. I'm interested in establishing my limits, both to satisfy my curiosity and for practical reasons. Big, uncompressed formats are inefficient and, depending on which one you choose, can have poor cross system compatibility. It was worth the time and effort to work out just how low I could go and not notice, which, as it turns out, can be quite low. And, in the end, even streaming services that I could probably ABX from the original files (if such a test could be conducted) are good enough for me when I'm not in analysis mode and just want to enjoy some music.


----------



## ExtremeGamerBR

argyris said:


> Every four or five years I do an ABX test in Foobar of several common lossy formats to see how they've improved (or if my hearing has deteriorated!). Last time was in 2014, when I was testing out OGG alongside my staple, AAC, and the default benchmark, MP3. The latter has pretty much tapped out, in my experience; I still need at least V0 (~245 kbps) to achieve transparency, meaning it's not a good choice if efficiency is a priority. AAC and OGG are quite similar to me, and both are of course much more efficient than MP3. For most material, at my transparency point the encoders for both formats output at ~165 kbps in VBR mode, but it can go considerably lower on occasion. One album, Daniel Barenboim's recording of Chopin's nocturnes, tops out at ~130 kbps and frequently dips below 100 kbps--now that's efficient!
> 
> The main goal of this exercise was to find the most efficient format so I could save space on my portable player. Technically OGG won, but it wasn't by a great enough margin for me to re-encode and re-tag my entire collection. Plus, right around that time I started using streaming services, meaning I pretty much stopped using a dedicated music player. These services are typically offered at a quality level below my transparency point on my carefully-selected test tracks, but you know what? Unless I really concentrate, I never even notice, and thus it doesn't bother me.
> 
> So the moral of the story? Check out my signature. I'm interested in establishing my limits, both to satisfy my curiosity and for practical reasons. Big, uncompressed formats are inefficient and, depending on which one you choose, can have poor cross system compatibility. It was worth the time and effort to work out just how low I could go and not notice, which, as it turns out, can be quite low. And, in the end, even streaming services that I could probably ABX from the original files (if such a test could be conducted) are good enough for me when I'm not in analysis mode and just want to enjoy some music.


 
  
 Spotify Premium stream OGG at ~320kpbs. For what you say, it should be transparent, at least for you and me.


----------



## Ancipital

u-3c said:


> Yeah...I did a blind test featuring my 5 year old budget laptop vs my dedicated dac using the Q701. Nobody can tell a difference.


 
  
 Yeah, I wish I was in that boat. Some months ago, I ended up taking my old Fiio E7 to work for a bit, as I was doing some video editing on a machine (a modern HP Z series workstation) where the on-board audio was so noisy that I could hear the hard drive* spin up/step, and make a pretty good guess at the current fan speeds and power management. The RFI spikes were nasty, and the general noise floor was really high- I couldn't hear enough detail to mix the audio down in my old faithful HD25 (which I always have in the sound bag- not pretty but they are a great tool). 
  
 My ancient Fiio E7 saved the day- getting the DAC and amp out of the machine actually made it possible to hear enough of the detail to finish the job. I found an Edirol UA-25ex to plug into it more or less permanently now, which is even more convenient, as it has a proper volume knob, and lets me take my Fiio home again!
  
  
  
 * Yes, actual spinning rusty glass, but mostly for near-line backup from the SSDs


----------



## U-3C

ancipital said:


> Yeah, I wish I was in that boat. Some months ago, I ended up taking my old Fiio E7 to work for a bit, as I was doing some video editing on a machine (a modern HP Z series workstation) where the on-board audio was so noisy that I could hear the hard drive* spin up/step, and make a pretty good guess at the current fan speeds and power management. The RFI spikes were nasty, and the general noise floor was really high- I couldn't hear enough detail to mix the audio down in my old faithful HD25 (which I always have in the sound bag- not pretty but they are a great tool).
> 
> My ancient Fiio E7 saved the day- getting the DAC and amp out of the machine actually made it possible to hear enough of the detail to finish the job. I found an Edirol UA-25ex to plug into it more or less permanently now, which is even more convenient, as it has a proper volume knob, and lets me take my Fiio home again!
> 
> ...




Noise always ruins it.  one reason I used the Q701 instead of my sensitive iems is because if I plug in my iems, the noise floor will make it too distracting.

You can't really do much about a laptop unless you manufacturer lets you really customize your computer. It's a bit easier on a desktop if you know what to look for.

On my desktop, I couldn't bare with onboard at first as simply scrolling up and down on a web page results in irritating whining and beeps. However, I moved the audio cables around and finally found one route that eliminates all the noise. Velcroed that son of a ***** in that position and now, unless I ramp up my gpu in games, I can't hear anything. I actually prefer it over my dedicated dac, which is both convenient and quite shocking. 0.0

Other people got away with shielding their cables/soundcards/components with cheap diy solutions.


----------



## Argyris

My ancient Toshiba (circa 2006) had noise, a scratchy volume pot, and an unfortunate issue I've thankfully never encountered anywhere else: whenever the CPU changed speed, after a short delay, the audio would skip. It took me ages to diagnose the issue, and you'd think messing with power modes would fix it, but nope. No matter which mode I chose, or which third party software I tried, the chipset was apparently hardwired to throttle the CPU up and down no matter what. Nothing short of locking the CPU speed via BIOS could alleviate the issue, and since you could only set the clock to the lower extreme (1 GHz), it was an unworkable solution.

The weird thing is it didn't do this initially; I only noticed the issue at first with a PCMCIA sound card I bought to get around the noisy, weak output of the onboard audio. Sometime over the years, long after the Toshiba had ceased being my main laptop and the outboard audio card fell apart, the issue seems to have migrated to the onboard audio. The only thing I can think of is that it's a driver issue, since I've continually upgraded the OS over the years, mainly as a pet project to see how long the old hardware can keep working.


----------



## etc6849

The HD800 thread is like a train wreck (you can't look away): http://www.head-fi.org/t/650510/the-new-hd800-impressions-thread/23325#post_12794429
  
 About to just start selling these guys $500 cables if it keeps up...  If you can't beat them, join them (and make lots of money)!


----------



## Ancipital

u-3c said:


> Noise always ruins it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Yeah, the whole point of this machine was to keep the hardware as off the shelf as possible, should it need replacement under warranty- I could just raise a ticket and get a new one without fiddling. There's not even a lot of loose cabling involved either, in this case. It's a mobo chipset- and they're often little RFI monsters. Also, on this machine, which runs lots of GPU accelerated apps, the GPU is often rather busy


----------



## Argyris

etc6849 said:


> The HD800 thread is like a train wreck (you can't look away): http://www.head-fi.org/t/650510/the-new-hd800-impressions-thread/23325#post_12794429
> 
> About to just start selling these guys $500 cables if it keeps up...  If you can't beat them, join them (and make lots of money)!




Subjectivism is the norm on Head-Fi. Most of the time I just ignore it as best I can. Unfortunately, it often makes impressions threads useless to me because it's a long, hard slog to sift through the endless cable and amp talk to actually read some impressions of the headphone.

Speaking more generally on my Head-Fi experience, the problem with banishing objective discussion to this sub-forum is the subjectivists sometimes get the idea that objective impressions and viewpoints (i.e. the assertion that backend equipment doesn't make a significant difference; advising newcomers to buy inexpensive, high quality equipment to save money) are somehow "sound science" discussion and start complaining about derailment.

This is what always happens when you have a protected, favored group: eventually they learn that their opinion is allowed whereas others' opinions are monitored, and they then feel like they have the right to demand that anything that contradicts their opinion be censored. This happened recently in the HD 600 thread. It wasn't my finest moment, I will say, but I have a vanishingly small tolerance for passive aggressive tattling, and I wasn't the only one rubbed the wrong way.

I take Head-Fi for what it is: a modern iteration of the stereotypical high end audio culture. If you know where to look, there's some great information and great people here, but if you don't fit the prevalent culture (I don't), there's always going to be that prick of annoyance when you're trying to work out a comparison between a couple headphones or IEMs you're interested in and people are banging on about DACs and cables.


----------



## richard51

subjectivism versus objectivism are totally pointless debate about audio....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  
 What importance there is to listen to a  determinate  audio system with an apparatus and so call testimonies of objective measure (if you are not an engineer in audio making  ) or with only your ears and subjective brain, when all gear (  sometimes marketted as top of the world) vibrate with negative resonance,(especially headphone, but amp and dac also in my experience) and  if  you listen in a room not acoustically treated , all  your speakers does not sound the same nor at their optimum potential.... What is the point to argue ears versus  so call objective  measure in these conditions ?
  
  
 The only interesting thing that  is not pointless  (not  sterile discussion about dogmas) is sharing  communication of  useful information....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  
 i beg your pardon for my rant...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 For many years here, the only useful advise i discovered is not so call scientific measure information about gear, nor subjective opinions, but for example : 
  
*All *gear vibrate,(especially headphone cups)
  
 Room treatment is imperative for speakers,(more imperative that a pointless upgrading)
  
  metal jumper sold with speakers are awful, better with cable jumpers,( i test that yesterday and the results are night and day between metal jumper and  with my cheap cable)
  
 buy used or vintage 
  
 etc etc etc.... 
  
 facts are interesting, and useful...


----------



## JaeYoon

Im glad had some people give me good advice on how to pick a cheap but effective cable. Not too many people know about and are literally throwing money, literally throwing money at salesmen selling cables $500 - $2000

As long as impedance is good and resistance is low.


----------



## icebear

etc6849 said:


> The HD800 thread is like a train wreck (you can't look away): http://www.head-fi.org/t/650510/the-new-hd800-impressions-thread/23325#post_12794429
> 
> About to just start selling these guys $500 cables if it keeps up...  If you can't beat them, join them (and make lots of money)!


 
  
 LOL


----------



## richard51

the only fools are those that fool themselves in the first place....Twain was great mind indeed 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




....


----------



## Mach3

Expensive cables are becoming more like designer fashion accessories. The better they look the more expensive they are.


----------



## U-3C

mach3 said:


> Expensive cables are becoming more like designer fashion accessories. The better they look the more expensive they are.




I'm actually planning on buying some custom usb otg cables just for the looks. I'm sick of all my black cables.

... Strangely, these hand made cables are cheaper than similar usb cables out there. 0_0;

I guess prices are so high, even these hand crafted ones can sell for a cheaper price and still make a profit...


----------



## nanaholic

u-3c said:


> I'm actually planning on buying some custom usb otg cables just for the looks. I'm sick of all my black cables.
> 
> ... Strangely, these hand made cables are cheaper than similar usb cables out there. 0_0;
> 
> I guess prices are so high, even these hand crafted ones can sell for a cheaper price and still make a profit...


 
  
 Because officially, USB cables have to get certification to have the USB logo on them (those trident-looking symbols etc) - which means they are actually of correct specification.  Certification involves cost etc, and you see where this money goes.
  
 Just a few weeks ago I bashed together my own USB OTG cable, and yeah it cost me next to nothing to make and it works just fine. That's because normal USB 1.0/2.0 is now common and it is also pretty robust, so if you source the parts and bash them together yourself they are actually dirt cheap and normally would work. Micro USB plugs are like 10 cents if you buy them in some small bulk quantity and get some cheap wire in giant reels and the cost of the material is certainly just a few bucks, and due to the robust nature of USB and the low voltage/current it carries you don't have to worry too much about the cable being out of spec so it's possible to forgo certification and still have a fairly good working cable.


----------



## cel4145

nanaholic said:


> Just a few weeks ago I bashed together my own USB OTG cable, and yeah it cost me next to nothing to make and it works just fine. That's because normal USB 1.0/2.0 is now common and it is also pretty robust, so if you source the parts and bash them together yourself they are actually dirt cheap and normally would work. Micro USB plugs are like 10 cents if you buy them in some small bulk quantity and get some cheap wire in giant reels and the cost of the material is certainly just a few bucks ...




Surely you jest. Something that costs $0.10 can't be a good audio quality?


----------



## nanaholic

cel4145 said:


> Surely you jest. Something that costs $0.10 can't be a good audio quality?


 
  
 I listen to rock music so the "dirty" sound was exactly what I was looking for! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
 All by tuning my sound with a USB cable!


----------



## mulder01

etc6849 said:


> The HD800 thread is like a train wreck (you can't look away): http://www.head-fi.org/t/650510/the-new-hd800-impressions-thread/23325#post_12794429
> 
> About to just start selling these guys $500 cables if it keeps up...  If you can't beat them, join them (and make lots of money)!


 
  
 And become one of the people you hate so much!
  
 That's another reason I'm not mad at retailers selling expensive cables - people walk into your shop and insist that they want them.  If that's what they want to spend their money on then you may as well sell it to them and make good money off it.  If you don't sell them the cable, you're not educating them - they're just going to buy it off someone else.  
  
 Years ago when I was just getting into hi fi I bought a flagship CD player/ amp combo from a certain manufacturer.  I rang the dealer the next day when I found out that the same manufacturer made a $199 XLR interconnect to join the two components together and told him to add one to the order.  He just carried on about how stupid the idea of expensive cables was and refused to sell me one.  So instead of listening to him like I should have, I just went elsewhere.  
  
 So I can see why they do it.


----------



## Argyris

Being the son of a small business owner, I can attest to the above. My family's business breeds and sells tropical fish wholesale. There are plenty of truly spectacular varieties, but there are also a ton of bland brown or silver fish whose only claim to fame is that they're slightly different from or rarer than the other brown and silver fish. And people buy some of these in droves! If we just stocked what we personally liked and ignored the boring little brown things people inexplicably like, we would never be able to stay in business. No matter what you may personally think, to some degree at least you need to satisfy the market demand.
  
 On the other hand, we do have a line we won't cross. We will not sell something we know has been derived by nefarious means. For example, if we know or at least strongly suspect that a popular variety that claims to be a legitimate new discovery is in fact just a cross of previously-available varieties (or, increasingly these days, a dubious genetic manipulation), we will not participate in the deception and sell it, no matter how many people ask for it or how much we could make on it. There are fish we have refused to stock for decades because of this. It's just one of those things that comes down to personal integrity, and where any given person draws that line is going to be a personal choice.
  
 I'll say this much: if I had to run an audio shop, I couldn't in good conscience sell people expensive cables, or even stock them. That just crosses my personal line. Higher end amps and DACs I might stock, but I would never sell people one if they asked for advice. Let the people who know what they want come in and get it; all others would get recommended a low-end Schiit stack or a FiiO something-or-other.
  
 Personally, though, I would never choose to run a Hi-Fi shop in the first place. Far too much deception and snake oil in the hobby for me, and it would be pretty hard to stay in business without dealing with the devil at some point. The advantage to something like breeding fish is, if you're sufficiently talented and motivated and have the proper facility, you can generate your own stock and affect the market price simply by not charging a ridiculous markup or being dishonest about what went into your stock. If you're big enough, others have to enter the price battle with you in order to compete, and prices come down over time.
  
 In something like the Hi-Fi industry, you can't really make your own stock, or, if you do, simply pricing it lower than the competition immediately gives it less cache. There's not much even the most determined subjectivist can say if you're offering _<Genus species _"Variety"> at four bucks apiece and Joe Bob McPrice-Gouge and Bradley McSwindle III are trying to get twenty--it's the same fish, you're just beating the market on price. But because of all the subjectivism in audio, the exact same effective signal path with McPrice-Gouge's name on it can fetch ten times what you could make as an independent shop, unless you increase your own price to match and get a bunch of reviewers to say it's the greatest thing since sliced awesome, in which case you've just become McPrice-Gouge yourself.


----------



## U-3C

When I first started working as a cashier, I felt so horrible and guilty. Most of the sales are from tobacco, alcohol, and lottery tickets. Unless you worked at a store like mine, it's really hard to comprehend just how much people spend. You see people who are clearly broke and addicted, yet you still have to sell them products that are damaging their lives because that's were your income comes from. 

One audio shop I've been to is super passionate. The person working there would not let me use my iPhone to audition headphones as he deemed it to be sacrilege. >v< 


He ended up looking around the shop, opening up new products to give me the best experience, including extremely expensive cables. I appreciate his intentions, but the passion was a bit...too strong. It keeps ticking off my BS meter, especially when he says "the difference is night and day!!!" 

On the same day, I went to another store. The guy was much more down to earth and he expressed how he thinks about how crazy everything is. When i said that I might need an amp, he just handed me a Chord Mojo, showed me how to get the headphones off their display and walked into his office. No BS marketing speech. Even when I asked him about certain products (like the Chord Mojo), he does not treat them as anything special. This builds trust and I look forward to buying from his shop/seeking his advice regarding room acoustics in the future. 

"Oooh, the Chord Mojo!"

"You know it?"

"Does anyone not know it?! "

"I don't know. 0-0 Here, enjoy."


----------



## Ancipital

u-3c said:


> When I first started working as a cashier, I felt so horrible and guilty. Most of the sales are from tobacco, alcohol, and lottery tickets. Unless you worked at a store like mine, it's really hard to comprehend just how much people spend. You see people who are clearly broke and addicted, yet you still have to sell them products that are damaging their lives because that's were your income comes from.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Hah, nice. I popped into a shop in Edinburgh to listen to some Grados last week, plugged in my Mojo, and the shop assistant was clearly fascinated and knew what it was. That weird, ugly "alien special forces" design is clearly working for brand recognition.
  
 I do like mine, though, as it's small, sturdy, practical, and drives whatever I throw at it without issues. It was a luxury purchase, but for my listening habits (sitting quietly in a corner wherever looks comfortable, with an iOS/Android source), it's great. I think I secretly wanted something without all the faffy bells and whistles, that was built like a tank and just worked- no fiddly Fiio style menus!


----------



## etc6849

When I was on a rotation near Omaha, there was a pushy "knows everything" place.  Of course the sales person was your typical arrogant audiophile who said he played an instrument once so knows everything about electronics (of course he had no real technical background only sales training from manufacturers).  Absolutely swears by power cords, speaker cables, etc...!
  
 I auditioned several headphones and he asked that I not go buy them online after auditioning there (of course he didn't carry Sennheiser since it wasn't boutique enough).  They even had a $5k McIntosh headphone amp that looked really cool.
  
 It didn't matter, there was no way I was ever going to give the place any money since they weren't being honest with me and kept trying to sell me cables (I presume they make huge margins far more than their typical 100% cause this guy was pushy).  The same guy even bad mouthed my 5.2 Klipsch setup since it had horns, but wasn't some overpriced European brand with horns.
  
 All in all, I'm not too impressed with audio places.  I've only met one out of the 30-40 I've been to that I think actually knows more than me or at least is on par with me.  It was a world class systems integrator near Edmond, OK.  Had no idea it was there, but they must have had a several million dollar show room in the middle of open fields.
  
 All the speakers were hidden behind fabric and he had absorption on all walls.  He had a conference room, theater, kitchen, living room, etc all setup so you would only see the minimum amount of equipment possible too.
  
 Funny thing is the owner said he only sold Meyer Sound and other pro audio amplified horn speakers with active crossovers as they outperform consumer gear.  He said he used to sell B&W, McIntosh, etc but stopped as having an active crossover and dedicated internal amps was far superior and cheaper than using passive crossovers and using an amp that is usually way overkill for the speaker they are attached to.
  
 He said he was at a show once and heard the Meyer Sound X10 speakers and couldn't believe the lifelike clarity he heard.  After that he sold all the overpriced gear he had at a discount and refused to carry it anymore.  My jaw dropped.  I had never heard an audiophile store owner say such a thing, but I absolutely knew he was right.
  
 He did sell some expensive processors (Datastat RS20i) and even used Dirac in his theater.  Spec wise any EE will say the Datastat is world class, just over priced at $20k!  After hearing his pairing of processor and horn speakers, I knew my horn system was limited by my AV8801 Marantz processor that just didn't have the S/N ratio (found this out after a real review was finally done and the PhD just bad mouthed the preamp section over its poor design choices), Dirac and only marketing gimmicks.  In fact I could even hear hiss at my listening position the Marantz was so poor, but I had bought it off ebay going off the many "professional" reviews that highly praised it.
  
 I looked and looked and finally found a used Emotiva XMC-1 that also had Dirac and had similar S/N measurements to the Datastat, just didn't do 16 channels.  That was honestly the first time I have learned something from a store owner.  He didn't recommend Emotiva (would if he heard it), but it wasn't hard to see how great it was after seeing these measurements:  http://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews/receiver-processor/processors/emotiva-xmc-1-processor-review/
  
 I still constantly get people who haven't heard my system telling me I need tube amps, a dedicated stereo preamp, better DSP, etc...  I guess at least they are not telling me to try expensive cables.
  
 Quote:


u-3c said:


> When I first started working as a cashier, I felt so horrible and guilty. Most of the sales are from tobacco, alcohol, and lottery tickets. Unless you worked at a store like mine, it's really hard to comprehend just how much people spend. You see people who are clearly broke and addicted, yet you still have to sell them products that are damaging their lives because that's were your income comes from.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Ruben123

My $3 USB sound card has arrived. Quite a bass roll-off below I guess 200Hz, maybe even higher lol. Let the music sound natural!!! (and people get lolled)


----------



## U-3C

ruben123 said:


> My $3 USB sound card has arrived. Quite a bass roll-off below I guess 200Hz, maybe even higher lol. Let the music sound natural!!! (and people get lolled)




You know...you can always EQ the sound to however you like and claim that it's the DAC's 768khz 128kbps something something something that's doing the magic 

People will notice. I doubt everyone will though, even though the general attitude is that as long as you feel like writing a review on Head-Fi, you automatically have golden ears that otherwise requires years of constant training.


----------



## terry parr

argyris said:


> Subjectivism is the norm on Head-Fi. Most of the time I just ignore it as best I can. Unfortunately, it often makes impressions threads useless to me because it's a long, hard slog to sift through the endless cable and amp talk to actually read some impressions of the headphone.
> 
> Speaking more generally on my Head-Fi experience, the problem with banishing objective discussion to this sub-forum is the subjectivists sometimes get the idea that objective impressions and viewpoints (i.e. the assertion that backend equipment doesn't make a significant difference; advising newcomers to buy inexpensive, high quality equipment to save money) are somehow "sound science" discussion and start complaining about derailment.
> 
> ...


 
  
  
    
  
 who among us are willing to step out in front of the train that's speeding down the tracks (of an impressions thread) where we might actually have a more informed opinion, based on our actual experience, but that might run counter to a point that was just made by a popular poster in that particular thread?  the thread probably won't stop to consider the "odd" opinion that's different from the "amen chorus".   the thread will oftentimes ignore the outlying opinion and continue to roll on as if nothing radically different was ever said. 
  
 I think as most of us gain more experience and knowledge in this pursuit of a hobby and as we settle-in with equipment combos that work for us, most of us move on.  a lot of us do try to contribute something while we're here (even if it's humor.  that has it's place, too).  but, for the most part, we "take the best, and leave the rest."  there are a few of us that don't seem to mind wading into unfriendly waters (at the expense of being seen as an "agitator" by those that might disagree), but I don't think most long-term members are motivated to "hang around and teach."  
  
 it's discouraging to see someone pop-in to a thread to offer a respectful corrective, only to be shot down by two or three less informed posters.  and, I've been tempted a few times to chime-in to a particular thread or two,  but by the time I've gotten my thoughts together, and taken the time to compose what I think is a cogent response,  the thread has "gotten back on track", so to speak.   
  
 the exchanging of ideas is a noble concept.  but if both sides seem to be so entrenched in their opinions and beliefs with neither side willing to stop.  and consider...then, the exchange of ideas quickly degrades into trading "catchy" put-down phrases in an attempt to be clever. nobody learns much witnessing a "trading barbs" contest.  although I have to admit that I have laughed at a few of these over the years.  
  
 I have enjoyed the site since I first discovered it and as some have alluded to, I don't want to sound like an invited guest to a dinner party who shows up and starts complaining about the food.  there have been (and still are) some redeeming qualities to this site, but at the same time the criticisms that have been raised in this thread are valid. 
  
 I've enjoyed this thread.  it has reminded me of my early days of lurking here before signing-up, where I would find the ideas interesting and where I would follow the thread all the way through.


----------



## gikigill

Anyone who criticises Klipschhorns deserves a proper beating. 

Jokes apart, the Klipschhorns are still some of the best speakers available at the price range. I'll be moving into a bigger house soon and planning to get a set soon, powered by either a Stasis in mint condition or a Pass Labs amp.


----------



## Ruben123

u-3c said:


> You know...you can always EQ the sound to however you like and claim that it's the DAC's 768khz 128kbps something something something that's doing the magic
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I feel like I should REALLY write a review in the very near future here to claim that I have golden ears. Some KZ ZS3 earphones are on their way (check their pictures, amazing design for only $10 on ebay) and that very good lossless media player I talked about....


----------



## U-3C

ruben123 said:


> I feel like I should REALLY write a review in the very near future here to claim that I have golden ears. Some KZ ZS3 earphones are on their way (check their pictures, amazing design for only $10 on ebay) and that very good lossless media player I talked about....




My Piston 3's are my favourite IEMs of all time. ^_^ I prefer them most of the time over my AD700x and by Q701. One guy working at an audio shop, when talking about some 500 dollar headphones I was trying out, said they were of a completely different league of the headphones I was looking for (the cheapish T50RP MK3), and are definitely of a different league of the IEMs I had in my hands. I just secretly shook my head in disapproval. The 500 dollar headphones were the underwhelming ones for me. 

Always wanted a pair of KZ IEMs though.


----------



## Ruben123

u-3c said:


> My Piston 3's are my favourite IEMs of all time. ^_^ I prefer them most of the time over my AD700x and by Q701. One guy working at an audio shop, when talking about some 500 dollar headphones I was trying out, said they were of a completely different league of the headphones I was looking for (the cheapish T50RP MK3), and are definitely of a different league of the IEMs I had in my hands. I just secretly shook my head in disapproval. The 500 dollar headphones were the underwhelming ones for me.
> 
> Always wanted a pair of KZ IEMs though.


 

 KZ ED9 are besides the Monoprice 8320 the best cheap IEMs Ive heard to date. Both can be find well below $10! Will look for the Piston 3s myself also... oh god why lol


----------



## U-3C

ruben123 said:


> KZ ED9 are besides the Monoprice 8320 the best cheap IEMs Ive heard to date. Both can be find well below $10! Will look for the Piston 3s myself also... oh god why lol




Haha. I'll be bringing my friend to a store tomorrow to listen to a pair of HD800 an SR-007. I'll also let him listen to my headphones with eq and dsp altering the **** out of the sound. I'm curious if his impressions. I also look forward to ruining his audio life. :evil:

He needs new IEMs so I recommended him the Philips SHE3590, which I found in a store locally. I gave them a listen once and subjectively liked the sound signature more than my Pistons. It was just a quick back and forth comparison, but I know that you can't go wrong with them, especially for their price. My friend doesn't want to spend much money, nor does he want to purchase online, so I hope he will be satisfied with my recommendation without breaking the bank. I also hope to set things up so that he can truly appreciate how little the jump from 200 dollar setup to a 4000 dollar setup is with free eq and such.


----------



## cel4145

gikigill said:


> Anyone who criticises Klipschhorns deserves a proper beating.
> 
> Jokes apart, the Klipschhorns are still some of the best speakers available at the price range. I'll be moving into a bigger house soon and planning to get a set soon, powered by either a Stasis in mint condition or a Pass Labs amp.




If you want really deep bass, you'll need a hecka of a sub to keep up with those babies


----------



## Brooko

This type of post is so wrong .......
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/765943/fiio-x5-2nd-gen-impressions-and-discussion-thread/5640#post_12796818


----------



## JaeYoon

brooko said:


> This type of post is so wrong .......
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/765943/fiio-x5-2nd-gen-impressions-and-discussion-thread/5640#post_12796818



They are lucky seriously. I spent 3 hours volume match abx testing via foobar. I fail most of Lame MP3 3.99 -V0 vs FLAC
Comparisions. The ones I got correct were mainly guesses


----------



## Argyris

jaeyoon said:


> They are lucky seriously. I spent 3 hours volume match abx testing via foobar. I fail most of Lame MP3 3.99 -V0 vs FLAC
> Comparisions. The ones I got correct were mainly guesses


 
  
 They most likely haven't actually done a proper double blind test. Running a null test that highlights the "missing" material isn't the same thing as actually being able to pick between the tracks at full volume with no help. Reading that post makes me smile a little despite myself. I was just like that one time, thinking I could hear the difference. It made me feel so proud, so superior, bragging to my friends as though they actually cared. Stupid youth.
  
 Sometime around 2006 I did a (sighted) comparison of various lossy formats and, apart from MP3, at around 192 kbps I couldn't honestly convince myself I heard a difference between any of them and the source file. I didn't know it at the time, but I had managed to do something that eludes so many audiophiles: I was completely honest with myself and admitted that my "golden ears" weren't so golden after all. I was also quite impressed at how efficient the non-MP3 formats were and re-encoded my collection to take advantage of the space savings (and improved UI performance) this afforded me on my iPod.
  
 Around 2009 I somehow stumbled upon Hydrogenaudio and learned about the ABX comparator in Foobar, which gave me a more scientific way of zeroing in on my transparency point. I remember smiling when I got that perfect 50% result for 192 kbps QuickTime AAC--it meant I could rest. I was completely guessing at that point, and I could finally stop listening to that same snippet of that same song over and over! Up to that point the lowest I'd gotten was 9/10 on 185 kbps. It seems the plateau for me is just beyond that level, at least using the ABR default mode. Three years later I discovered a way to access the VBR encoding mode and decided to test again. It's difficult to say if the encoder improved over that period because of course VBR mode is more efficient, but I definitely get much lower peak bitrates now than when I was using the default mode, and it's still transparent to me (I failed the test, in other words). The highest it ever seems to go is ~180 kbps, which, incidentally, is on Gulda's performance of the Well-Tempered Clavier (I was actually just talking about this set in another thread). I suspect it's because these recordings have a high noise floor. Noise is by nature random and therefore difficult to efficiently compress.


----------



## JaeYoon

argyris said:


> They most likely haven't actually done a proper double blind test. Running a null test that highlights the "missing" material isn't the same thing as actually being able to pick between the tracks at full volume with no help. Reading that post makes me smile a little despite myself. I was just like that one time, thinking I could hear the difference. It made me feel so proud, so superior, bragging to my friends as though they actually cared. Stupid youth.
> 
> Sometime around 2006 I did a (sighted) comparison of various lossy formats and, apart from MP3, at around 192 kbps I couldn't honestly convince myself I heard a difference between any of them and the source file. I didn't know it at the time, but I had managed to do something that eludes so many audiophiles: I was completely honest with myself and admitted that my "golden ears" weren't so golden after all. I was also quite impressed at how efficient the non-MP3 formats were and re-encoded my collection to take advantage of the space savings (and improved UI performance) this afforded me on my iPod.
> 
> Around 2009 I somehow stumbled upon Hydrogenaudio and learned about the ABX comparator in Foobar, which gave me a more scientific way of zeroing in on my transparency point. I remember smiling when I got that perfect 50% result for 192 kbps QuickTime AAC--it meant I could rest. I was completely guessing at that point, and I could finally stop listening to that same snippet of that same song over and over! Up to that point the lowest I'd gotten was 9/10 on 185 kbps. It seems the plateau for me is just beyond that level, at least using the ABR default mode. Three years later I discovered a way to access the VBR encoding mode and decided to test again. It's difficult to say if the encoder improved over that period because of course VBR mode is more efficient, but I definitely get much lower peak bitrates now than when I was using the default mode, and it's still transparent to me (I failed the test, in other words). The highest it ever seems to go is ~180 kbps, which, incidentally, is on Gulda's performance of the Well-Tempered Clavier (I was actually just talking about this set in another thread). I suspect it's because these recordings have a high noise floor. Noise is by nature random and therefore difficult to efficiently compress.


 

 I'm in same boat as you. Only time I get 95% Correct answers is probably like Lame -V5. I kept repeating that damn 1:35 - 1:45 portion over and over until I thought I heard the difference.
 Lame -V4 went to around 80% and Lame -V3 and 180 kbps-192 kbps, I start trying really hard. I press buttons then I'm wrong. got like 50%
  
 I never wanted to do that again, so fatiguing and tiring XD


----------



## oldmate

I'm presently sitting in the the sun having a couple of coldies listening to MP3's through iPod Nano and Westone W3's and hey, all I can say is, ignorance is bliss!!


----------



## Argyris

jaeyoon said:


> I'm in same boat as you. Only time I get 95% Correct answers is probably like Lame -V5. I kept repeating that damn 1:35 - 1:45 portion over and over until I thought I heard the difference.
> Lame -V4 went to around 80% and Lame -V3 and 180 kbps-192 kbps, I start trying really hard. I press buttons then I'm wrong. got like 50%
> 
> I never wanted to do that again, so fatiguing and tiring XD


 
  
 That's the beauty of it...you only have to do it once, unless you want to test a different format or see if the encoder has improved over time.
  
 It's not something I personally enjoy doing, which is one of the mischaracterizations of the process that some subjectivists like to use. They say objectivists spend their time time doing ABX tests instead of listening to music. The reality is that the typical objectivist probably hasn't even bothered with an ABX test, and the ones who have know that the point is to do it _once_ to establish a transparency point, and thereafter be blissfully unaware of what the encoder is doing to the file because they know that they _can't hear the difference_.
  
 This all said, I do use FLAC as an archival format, which is actually its intended purpose. I've got every CD I've ever bought ripped and stored on my server, which comes out to just shy of 120 GB in FLAC format. If I had used an uncompressed format it would be around double that. A lot of it is stuff I don't listen to often so it's not in my music library, so in addition to the space savings it's also easier to stream over my wireless network in the event I ever do want to listen to it. Every once in a while I parse a bit of the stuff I've never actually tried, and occasionally I find a gem that had been sitting unheard in my collection for over a decade. It's always an amazing feeling when that happens.
  


oldmate said:


> I'm presently sitting the sun having a couple of coldies listening to MP3's through iPod Nano and Westone W3's and hey, all I can say is, ignorance is bliss!!


 
  
 It sure is!


----------



## U-3C

oldmate said:


> I'm presently sitting in the the sun having a couple of coldies listening to MP3's through iPod Nano and Westone W3's and hey, all I can say is, ignorance is bliss!!




Tomorrow I want to try to AB an iPhone vs a Chord Mojo using an HD800. Last time, I thought there was a difference, albeit quite small. It was rushed though. Hopefully, I will be able to find a way to justify all that hype. The HD800 is known to be picky of sources so why not use that? I might even throw in a cheap 10 dollar Chinese mp3 player from a decade ago, broken and fixed multiple times, just for fun. I dug it out of a box of old stuff I kept and the screen isn't even functional anymore. 

On a serious note, is there anything I should look out for when ABing tomorrow? I can't do a blind test, nor can I bring any tools to volume match everything. I think I already know the results I'm looking for. It's more to give my friend a listen and see if I can convince him that the difference isn't all that big.

I'll also make sure to try everything upside down too! If the shop owner doesn't let me, I'll be sure to make my friend listen to everything upside down! 

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?3211-Review-Benchmark-DAC1-%28Modified%29&p=48449&viewfull=1#post48449

Okay, maybe I wasn't as serious as I wanted myself to me...


----------



## Ruben123

u-3c said:


> Haha. I'll be bringing my friend to a store tomorrow to listen to a pair of HD800 an SR-007. I'll also let him listen to my headphones with eq and dsp altering the **** out of the sound. I'm curious if his impressions. I also look forward to ruining his audio life. :evil:
> 
> He needs new IEMs so I recommended him the Philips SHE3590, which I found in a store locally. I gave them a listen once and subjectively liked the sound signature more than my Pistons. It was just a quick back and forth comparison, but I know that you can't go wrong with them, especially for their price. My friend doesn't want to spend much money, nor does he want to purchase online, so I hope he will be satisfied with my recommendation without breaking the bank. I also hope to set things up so that he can truly appreciate how little the jump from 200 dollar setup to a 4000 dollar setup is with free eq and such.




I really have to dig in the eq thingie sometime soon... Already downloaded viper for android app , nowi only have to create some sine sweep responses for fr correction.


----------



## james444

brooko said:


> This type of post is so wrong .......
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/765943/fiio-x5-2nd-gen-impressions-and-discussion-thread/5640#post_12796818


 
  
 Agreed. But imo even more wrong is the fact that his post is compliant with Head-Fi rules, while your rebuttal is not. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  

  
Head-Fi ToS:


----------



## oldmate

u-3c said:


> Tomorrow I want to try to AB an iPhone vs a Chord Mojo using an HD800. Last time, I thought there was a difference, albeit quite small. It was rushed though. Hopefully, I will be able to find a way to justify all that hype. The HD800 is known to be picky of sources so why not use that? I might even throw in a cheap 10 dollar Chinese mp3 player from a decade ago, broken and fixed multiple times, just for fun. I dug it out of a box of old stuff I kept and the screen isn't even functional anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I'm most definitely the wrong person to be asking that question. I don't own a Mojo nor HD800 nor ever likely too because of the fact I was listening to a Nano thru W3's today. As a matter of fact I have spent too much on this hobby as is and enjoying the music today with that simple rig with MP3's tells me I can get by without my Oppo HA-2, iBasso D6, FIIO X3, Focal Classic's, Beyerdynamic T51P's and my DUNU DN1K's. But I really can't get buy without my DX90 and Aurisonics Harmony!!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 From now on my spare cash goes into my gaming PC and associated IT stuff unless there is a revolutionary breakthrough in the reproduction of music that does not require me to take out a 2nd mortgage.


----------



## Argyris

james444 said:


> Agreed. But imo even more wrong is the fact that his post is compliant with Head-Fi rules, while your rebuttal is not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 ​I wonder which forum you need to post in if you want to include inaccurate, misleading and/or unsubstantiated content. Oh, wait....


----------



## Ruben123

james444 said:


> Agreed. But imo even more wrong is the fact that his post is compliant with Head-Fi rules, while your rebuttal is not. :rolleyes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




But.... Some 320 mp3 from old codecs could not be 100% transparent. That's why I always download flac when I can.


----------



## nanaholic

ruben123 said:


> But.... Some 320 mp3 from old codecs could not be 100% transparent. That's why I always download flac when I can.


 
  
 It's arguably way more important whether the master the song is from is a quality mix or not, rather than what format it is in.
  
 Given a choice between a poorly mixed song with clipping to hell and back and a tiny dynamic range but encoded in FLAC, or a quality mixed master that's within threshold and much less dynamic compression encoded in old 320kbps mp3 (or heck even 256kbps), I'll take the mp3 any day in a heartbeat.


----------



## Argyris

How long ago was it that there was an implementation of 320 kbps MP3 that wasn't transparent, or at least not on the same general quality level as something like V0 or 256 kbps (any mode you like) in modern times? That must have been ages ago. Granted, that won't matter to you if you've got a file that old, particularly if it's something rare or unique, but I've been testing out (and eventually using) lossy compression since the very early 2000s and even back then 320 kbps MP3 was transparent to me.


----------



## Brooko

james444 said:


> Agreed. But imo even more wrong is the fact that his post is compliant with Head-Fi rules, while your rebuttal is not. :rolleyes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm not about to change my post when someone posts something which is obviously incorrect. If I get bounced - so be it I guess.


----------



## Ruben123

argyris said:


> How long ago was it that there was an implementation of 320 kbps MP3 that wasn't transparent, or at least not on the same general quality level as something like V0 or 256 kbps (any mode you like) in modern times? That must have been ages ago. Granted, that won't matter to you if you've got a file that old, particularly if it's something rare or unique, but I've been testing out (and eventually using) lossy compression since the very early 2000s and even back then 320 kbps MP3 was transparent to me.


 

 Thanks, maybe I should try some mp3 downloads then! Since you dont know how it was converted it always kept me off a bit.


----------



## Argyris

ruben123 said:


> Thanks, maybe I should try some mp3 downloads then! Since you dont know how it was converted it always kept me off a bit.


 
  
 I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just curious, since I know that MP3 goes further back than even my earliest experimentation with it, and I've heard that early encoders were quite primitive compared to modern ones. It was the first practical compression format (I think there were two before it, hence MP_3_, but they either didn't compress very much or were otherwise unsuitable--I'll have to read up on it again) and dates back to the mid-90s, so it has a long pedigree.
  
 As for downloading stuff, if you can I'd still go for lossless. Not necessarily for perceivable audio differences, but because you can take a lossless file and convert it to any format you like, and if a new format or newer implementation of an existing format comes along, you can re-encode from the original file again. Theoretically double encoding can produce artifacts. In my experience, the few times I've been unable to avoid doing so I never noticed any issues, but it's something I try to avoid just on the off chance an issue comes up.


----------



## mulder01

Wow, are those new head fi rules? I've never noticed that before


----------



## krismusic

mulder01 said:


> Wow, are those new head fi rules? I've never noticed that before



Nope. Those rules have been in place since before I joined. To be fair though I have mentioned blind testing and placebo (also a banned topic IIRC. ) in other threads and never been called on it.


----------



## Argyris

mulder01 said:


> Wow, are those new head fi rules? I've never noticed that before


 
  
 Been for a while now. While I see the point (endless cyclical discussions that achieve nothing, threads were constantly getting hijacked), and while I appreciate that several mods have popped into this forum at various times and given reasonable explanations for the policy and how they personally feel about it, I nonetheless don't like the way the problem was "solved" simply by pigeonholing one side of the argumemt. The upshot is that newcomers to the hobby often aren't even aware that there are less subjective viewpoints, and as such they get caught up in a lot of the stuff we've been discussing in this thread simply because alternate advice gets lost in the echo chamber. Others have complained about excessive moderation of objective impressions as well. For my part, I haven't had a problem with this--I've posted on numerous occasions without incident how I feel that differences in upstream gear are overblown.
  
 Whatever. Head-Fi can do what it likes. I'm not going to make a big stink about it; if that's how they want to keep things from blowing up, then that's how things are going to be. I appreciate that there's no easy solution; I just wish a somewhat less restrictive and more inclusive one could be explored.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Isn't it nice of HF that testing your gear in a verfiable way using "ABX" to sniff out "placebo" bias in public areas is prohibited but unofficially tolerated, in the same way that drugs and prostitution is "tolerated" in some countries?


----------



## krismusic

joe bloggs said:


> Isn't it nice of HF that testing your gear in a verfiable way using "ABX" to sniff out "placebo" bias in public areas is prohibited but unofficially tolerated, in the same way that drugs and prostitution is "tolerated" in some countries?



I think that's a bit unfair (but funny). Agyris is right IMO. A somewhat unsatisfactory way of stopping pointless arguments. 
I often suggest to people that they visit here to get an alternative view on cables etc. That seems a reasonable way of guiding anyone new to such things.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Off topic but can I pick you geniuses' brains on this one?

This guy here seems to have come up with a brilliant way to clean up BA drivers in IEMs:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/801589/westone-um3x-rc-multiple-ba-driver-failures-and-unlikely-repair-solution

I'm tempted to try this with my CIEMs, but wondering if the alcohol will dissolve the lacquer that the shells are made of and leave me with nothing but spare parts. Lol


----------



## Argyris

Well I'll be damned. I thought I'd seen everything about twenty minutes ago when I noticed that my packet of instant ramen contained cuttlefish extract, and now I see this.
  
 In regards to your question, is there any way you could find out exactly what the composition of your shells is? I'm sure you've thought of this, but that should make it fairly easy to determine if they'll react with alcohol.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Usually they're declared as acrylic, and alcohol supposedly clouds and cracks acrylic.

I think I'm going to try his idea with some "plastic cleaner" solutions instead.


----------



## Ancipital

ruben123 said:


> But.... Some 320 mp3 from old codecs could not be 100% transparent. That's why I always download flac when I can.


 
  
 Also, and this annoys me more than it should, the fixed frame size thing with MP3, with silence at the end of the last frame (as produced by a more coders than I'd like) buggers up gapless playback. Yes, I know there are tweaks and kludges to work around it, but you can't expect every encoder and player to be sensible- especially out of the box. With albums lacking hard track boundaries, the gaps can be quite jarring.
  
 For the sake of my own sanity, it's nice to simply avoid this issue- as well as reaping the benefits of a more efficient and modern codec as the same time. I'm usually not enough of a listening ninja to be able to distinguish 256k AAC with a good coder from lossless (at least on the majority of tracks), so that can save me a little space on my mobile devices. 
  
 (..note that I can't remember if it's a problem with coder or container, but can't be arsed to read up and work it out right now. Point and laugh if you must 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





)
  


argyris said:


> As for downloading stuff, if you can I'd still go for lossless. Not necessarily for perceivable audio differences, but because you can take a lossless file and convert it to any format you like, and if a new format or newer implementation of an existing format comes along, you can re-encode from the original file again. Theoretically double encoding can produce artifacts. In my experience, the few times I've been unable to avoid doing so I never noticed any issues, but it's something I try to avoid just on the off chance an issue comes up.


 
  
 Cascade coding artifacts, both in lossy video and audio codecs, are absolutely not just theoretical. They made kittens very sad, and have caused lots of real-world issues. It's best just to avoid transcoding lossily-coded stuff, unless the lossy source is some ludicrously high bitrate mezzanine format.


----------



## Argyris

ancipital said:


> Cascade coding artifacts, both in lossy video and audio codecs, are absolutely not just theoretical. They made kittens very sad, and have caused lots of real-world issues. It's best just to avoid transcoding lossily-coded stuff, unless the lossy source is some ludicrously high bitrate mezzanine format.


 
  
 I remember once seeing a thread (might have been on HA) where somebody set up a script to encode a file recursively. I can't remember exactly how many times they did it (500 comes to mind for some reason), but the end result was bizarre. It was like listening through phased static on a clock radio. Also, it was the weirdest Rickroll I'd ever experienced because, yep, of course they used _that_ song.
  
 I guess I shouldn't have used the word theoretical here. My meaning was more that it's possible artifacts that you can actually detect will emerge, but that the few times I've done it I didn't notice anything odd, so it's possible to get away with it. As you say, it's best to avoid it if at all possible.


----------



## Ancipital

argyris said:


> I remember once seeing a thread (might have been on HA) where somebody set up a script to encode a file recursively. I can't remember exactly how many times they did it (500 comes to mind for some reason), but the end result was bizarre. It was like listening through phased static on a clock radio. Also, it was the weirdest Rickroll I'd ever experienced because, yep, of course they used _that_ song.
> 
> I guess I shouldn't have used the word theoretical here. My meaning was more that it's possible artifacts that you can actually detect will emerge, but that the few times I've done it I didn't notice anything odd, so it's possible to get away with it. As you say, it's best to avoid it if at all possible.


 
  
 There have been instances where people have publicly failed to get away with it (that I probably can't talk about here), too, amusingly. The people who _do_ notice get disproportionately pissed off, you won't be shocked to hear.
  
 ..also, that really does sound like one of the few Rickrolls that would have been worth hearing. If you ever come across it again, feel free to chuck me a link!


----------



## RRod

brooko said:


> This type of post is so wrong .......
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/765943/fiio-x5-2nd-gen-impressions-and-discussion-thread/5640#post_12796818


 
  
 Send them over to the thread where we're actually playing with files that are killer:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/816527/mp3-vs-flac-split-from-modi-multibit-thread/
  
 The issue isn't that some people can ABX mp3 320 / V0 with certain files; that's actually true. The deal is the rhetorical comments on the subject that adhere to myth-based norms on the subject rather than how these codecs actually work. I know people love their cymbals, but when synthesized impulses are *hard* to ABX at V0, then the last thing that the codec should be doing to cymbal is absolutely destroying the sound. But that's the story people like to tell, along with high-bit-rate mp3 "destroying" all kinds of easier sounds like Jerry Garcia's guitar. And then there's the whole "reverb tail" thing, which is its own special problem: anyone can hear issues in reverb tails if you jack the volume up *beyond listening levels on only the reverb tail*.
  
 This matters to this thread, of course, because it's another example of how people can end up paying more $$ for the same end result. "NO NO, you can't just stream this album at 256AAC. If you really want to hear it correctly you must pay the $25 for the hi-res FLAC download!"


----------



## cel4145

james444 said:


> Agreed. But imo even more wrong is the fact that his post is compliant with Head-Fi rules, while your rebuttal is not. :rolleyes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...







brooko said:


> I'm not about to change my post when someone posts something which is obviously incorrect. If I get bounced - so be it I guess.




I knew that "discussion" was not permitted. But I somehow missed the extreme censorship of specific terms. I can understanding wanting to avoid flame wars by eliminating the arguments about it in a forum that is so heavily subjectivist oriented. But how do you even suggest to some of the newbies that they might want to go learn about DBT and expectation bias in the sound science forum if you can't even say the words? 

I'm done. No more assistance in the Intro/Newbie forum for me. That's completely unhospitable to any non-subjectivist points of view with this level of segregation. Also makes me feel as if I'm being allowed occasionally to get by with it because I'm Uncle Tom enough to be let out of the kitchen. Not interested in feeling that way.


----------



## Dillan

I personally agree that there is _probably _a better way to handle off topic tangents and discussions than to just ban the other side all together (or at least banishing them to a rarely used science section). The ones who suffer the most from that type of behavior are the newcomers which means our hobby will only slowly decline as time goes on.. which it has in my opinion.
  
 Saying that - I don't know the best way to rewrite those rules, but I definitely think there is a better direction to take that can benefit us consumers. I know Jude wants to make money and have a business, but he's a headphone loving audio enthusiast just like us and we have a great website here that can make a dent in the industry and I feel like it's a good thing to talk about how.
  
 Seeing those rules in the above post is kind of sad actually when its laid out like that. Inevitably.. in product threads (especially new products) - it feels like at least to me that we are only really allowed to talk about the pros and not the cons. I am not even talking about in regards to the rules _per say _ but our society here at head-fi has a negative reaction to criticism of gear, even if completely constructive and reasonable.
  
 As for MP3 vs FLAC - My 2 cents would be that because the internet is so diverse and you never know if something was converted 10 times before it reached your hard drive or the encoding used or where the original mastering came from etc I just try to use FLAC just for the piece of mind and as a rule of thumb. If you have a properly encoded/transcoded MP3 320 then it really is nearly impossible (_read completely impossible_) to hear any difference whatsoever from personal experience and multiple studies. However I like having the piece of mind that FLAC files on the internet are usually of better quality origination, haven't been converted many times (if at all) before and are in a format that is "supposed" to be the exact copy as your physical media. This opinion might be a little different from most people in this thread.. and I certainly don't like contributing to the theory of "bigger is better".. but it just helps me sleep at night having that rule of thumb.


----------



## Ancipital

dillan said:


> Seeing those rules in the above post is kind of sad actually when its laid out like that. Inevitably.. in product threads (especially new products) - it feels like at least to me that we are only really allowed to talk about the pros and not the cons. I am not even talking about in regards to the rules _per say _ but our society here at head-fi has a negative reaction to criticism of gear, even if completely constructive and reasonable.


 
  
 Gnnh.
  
 Sorry to be that guy, but it's "per se", it's Latin. Pet hate.


----------



## Dillan

ancipital said:


> Gnnh.
> 
> Sorry to be that guy, but it's "per se", it's Latin. Pet hate.




I knew that, my mistake!

You never know how I'll type something.. I only really proof read when I'm being formal. Sorry in advance to you forum grammar nazis! Haha


----------



## Ancipital

dillan said:


> I knew that, my mistake!
> 
> You never know how I'll type something.. I only really proof read when I'm being formal. Sorry in advance to you forum grammar nazis! Haha


 
  
 Hah, I'm really sorry- I did try to resist but the flesh is weak


----------



## nanaholic

I just had a co-worker commenting that my headphone cable looks cheap and is probably limiting the performance of my gear, and that I should buy better and more expensive cables because they would make a night and day difference. He boasted about how changing the cable altered the sound of his Shure IEMs and made them listenable compared to the stock cable and what cable can tune the sound etc. It was very difficult for me not to burst out laughing in his face, instead I just went along with the snake oil talk. Now I feel a bit dirty. 
  
 It's scary how many people talk about these things as a matter of fact-ly, and that due to social pressure that objectivist like us can't refute them because we are in the minority going against the consensus.


----------



## SodaBoy

nanaholic said:


> I just had a co-worker commenting that my headphone cable looks cheap and is probably limiting the performance of my gear, and that I should buy better and more expensive cables because they would make a night and day difference. He boasted about how changing the cable altered the sound of his Shure IEMs and made them listenable compared to the stock cable and what cable can tune the sound etc. It was very difficult for me not to burst out laughing in his face, instead I just went along with the snake oil talk. Now I feel a bit dirty.
> 
> It's scary how many people talk about these things as a matter of fact-ly, and that due to social pressure that objectivist like us can't refute them because we are in the minority going against the consensus.


 

 You probably got him all hyped up now; sold him on some 6moons stuff. He's going to walk home with some cryogenic cables, which will transform the sound stage of his Shures into Carnegie Hall, and the voice of Diana Krall will drift down from the heavens and bathe him in a warm all encompassing radiance. It was like he was really there, seated in the 3rd row, he could clearly hear the plucking of the bowstrings across the cellos, and the tapping of performers' heels. Truly sublime presentation, nuanced yet spacious. Those cables are worth their weight in gold.


----------



## mulder01

nanaholic said:


> I just had a co-worker commenting that my headphone cable looks cheap and is probably limiting the performance of my gear, and that I should buy better and more expensive cables because they would make a night and day difference. He boasted about how changing the cable altered the sound of his Shure IEMs and made them listenable compared to the stock cable and what cable can tune the sound etc. It was very difficult for me not to burst out laughing in his face, instead I just went along with the snake oil talk. Now I feel a bit dirty.
> 
> It's scary how many people talk about these things as a matter of fact-ly, and that due to social pressure that objectivist like us can't refute them because we are in the minority going against the consensus.


 
  
 haha it's like you've come to sound science confessional.  Except instead of saying Hail Mary's you have to say 50 Ohm's Laws...


----------



## krismusic

nanaholic said:


> I just had a co-worker commenting that my headphone cable looks cheap and is probably limiting the performance of my gear, and that I should buy better and more expensive cables because they would make a night and day difference. He boasted about how changing the cable altered the sound of his Shure IEMs and made them listenable compared to the stock cable and what cable can tune the sound etc. It was very difficult for me not to burst out laughing in his face, instead I just went along with the snake oil talk. Now I feel a bit dirty.
> 
> It's scary how many people talk about these things as a matter of fact-ly, and that due to social pressure that objectivist like us can't refute them because we are in the minority going against the consensus.



Was there a reason you had to go along with his. POV? I would have thought it was an excellent opportunity to suggest an alternative view. Might have been a lively discussion!


----------



## mulder01

I have been told before that not only does a cable need burning in, but it burns in in the position it's in, and if you move it or bend it in another way, it has to start burning in again in it's new position. And I was like, "Oh yeah".

Sometimes you just don't feel like an argument.


----------



## nanaholic

krismusic said:


> Was there a reason you had to go along with his. POV? I would have thought it was an excellent opportunity to suggest an alternative view. Might have been a lively discussion!


 
  
 Mainly because he was a superior, and having worked with him before he doesn't like being "corrected" in general....
 He was so sure he was absolutely correct, these types of people that boarders on religious fanaticism can't be converted by pesky things like facts, unfortunately.


----------



## krismusic

In other news. I have been so close to buying a DAP as I have been told several times that I am not getting the best out of my CIEMS using the iPhone. 
However, the few that I have heard either sound little different or just boost the lower mids. 
Could it be that the iPhone is technically correct in its implementation of DAC and amp and no improvement is possible? 
Apologies if this is not the thread to discuss specific products but it seems relevant that I am being asked to drop £100's on something that may not have any advantage over what I own already.


----------



## nanaholic

krismusic said:


> In other news. I have been so close to buying a DAP as I have been told several times that I am not getting the best out of my CIEMS using the iPhone.
> However, the few that I have heard either sound little different or just boost the lower mids.
> Could it be that the iPhone is technically correct in its implementation of DAC and amp and no improvement is possible?
> Apologies if this is not the thread to discuss specific products but it seems relevant that I am being asked to drop £100's on something that may not have any advantage over what I own already.


 
  
 Contrary to popular "audiophile" belief the iPhone is a great player which measures very well. I think the only reason for not using easy to drive CIEM with the iPhone as a player is only a) you REALLY hate using iTunes to transfer music, b) you've got a bunch of files in formats such as FLAC or hi-res files which the iPhone won't play natively and you can't be bothered to spend hours to do transcoding and retagging etc. c) you don't have enough space on the phone as it is due to things like photos and apps taking up the space, and d) battery life
  
 Personally I don't use my phone as a player is mainly because I'm having enough trouble with battery life as it is already, if I play music on my phone too I'll probably be charging my phone 3 times a day. Plus I change phones quite frequently, and sound quality from phones wasn't exactly a given thing 3-4 years ago (now it's MUCH better in general). I haven't used iPhone for ages, if I ever go back to using iPhones I would probably even consider selling off some of my DAPs.


----------



## Argyris

nanaholic said:


> Mainly because he was a superior, and having worked with him before he doesn't like being "corrected" in general....
> He was so sure he was absolutely correct, these types of people that boarders on religious fanaticism can't be converted by pesky things like facts, unfortunately.


 
  
 I can understand that. Plus, who wants to get into that kind of debate with somebody they have to work with every day? If it were some random person on the Internet, I wouldn't care. But if I had to see that person frequently, and they weren't a friend or somebody I had a non-professional relationship with? It's not worth the added tension, especially since, as you've said, it's not like you're going to convert them, anyway.
  
 It's a bit like telling people who bought Beats they wasted their money, especially back a few years ago when they were considerably worse than they are now.


----------



## krismusic

nanaholic said:


> Mainly because he was a superior, and having worked with him before he doesn't like being "corrected" in general....
> He was so sure he was absolutely correct, these types of people that boarders on religious fanaticism can't be converted by pesky things like facts, unfortunately.



Fair enough. I didn't intend to call you on it! Just thought it might be interesting to have that discussion IRL for a change. You can't argue with someone with a mind like a steel trap. Especially when it is shut!


----------



## krismusic

nanaholic said:


> Contrary to popular "audiophile" belief the iPhone is a great player which measures very well. I think the only reason for not using easy to drive CIEM with the iPhone as a player is only a) you REALLY hate using iTunes to transfer music, b) you've got a bunch of files in formats such as FLAC or hi-res files which the iPhone won't play natively and you can't be bothered to spend hours to do transcoding and retagging etc. c) you don't have enough space on the phone as it is due to things like photos and apps taking up the space, and d) battery life
> 
> Personally I don't use my phone as a player is mainly because I'm having enough trouble with battery life as it is already, if I play music on my phone too I'll probably be charging my phone 3 times a day. Plus I change phones quite frequently, and sound quality from phones wasn't exactly a given thing 3-4 years ago (now it's MUCH better in general). I haven't used iPhone for ages, if I ever go back to using iPhones I would probably even consider selling off some of my DAPs.



Thanks for the reply. I don't know why I find it so hard to accept that what I have is about as good as it gets. 
If only people didn't bother to make devices that do not deliver in their claims. I guess it happens in other areas of life but audio seems particularly bad!


----------



## Ancipital

sodaboy said:


> You probably got him all hyped up now; sold him on some 6moons stuff. He's going to walk home with some cryogenic cables, which will transform the sound stage of his Shures into Carnegie Hall, and the voice of Diana Krall will drift down from the heavens and bathe him in a warm all encompassing radiance. It was like he was really there, seated in the 3rd row, he could clearly hear the plucking of the bowstrings across the cellos, and the tapping of performers' heels. Truly sublime presentation, nuanced yet spacious. Those cables are worth their weight in gold.


 
  
 ..though probably cost more than the equivalent weight of gold?
  
  


nanaholic said:


> Contrary to popular "audiophile" belief the iPhone is a great player which measures very well. I think the only reason for not using easy to drive CIEM with the iPhone as a player is only a) you REALLY hate using iTunes to transfer music, b) you've got a bunch of files in formats such as FLAC or hi-res files which the iPhone won't play natively and you can't be bothered to spend hours to do transcoding and retagging etc. c) you don't have enough space on the phone as it is due to things like photos and apps taking up the space, and d) battery life


 
  
 Yeah, the stuff that I keep around as lossless is kept as ALAC now- since Apple open-sourced it, all the usual suspects can make it, but my iThingies don't choke on it either. It's a pretty acceptable compromise. 
  
 I'm a bit annoyed that the next iPhone may lack a proper 3.5mm socket/DAC/amp, as I was seriously considering making my next phone an iPhone just for the fact that it'd sound acceptable and fit in my pocket without a massive stack. My Nexus 6 sounds sort of so-so, as long as I avoid letting Android doing the inevitable upsampling itself, when using the internal stuff, but doesn't fully whelm me.


----------



## cel4145

The Nexus 6 measures similar to the iPhone 6. See gsmarena reviews. Doubt you'd notice much difference.


----------



## Ancipital

cel4145 said:


> The Nexus 6 measures similar to the iPhone 6. See gsmarena reviews. Doubt you'd notice much difference.


 
  
 Aye, the point is that it sounds sort of similar, once you have done all the faffing.
  
 To get around the audioflinger libraries muddying the highs/transients with what remains relatively cheapass linear interpolation, I have to use a player (Neutron) which does its own sample rate conversion before letting it hit the system audio stuff. It solves the problem, but it's a crappy UI, a battery hog and the way it handles lock screen integration is really flaky and actually somewhat insecure- I have accidentally bypassed the PIN lock with it a few times now, though I am too stupid to reproduce that bug on demand.
  
 So I'm not all that whelmed. Being able to use a sensible player that Just Works would be a far less tiresome experience. That's before we take into account many of the questionable security design issues in Android which remain unresolved, even in Nexus class devices- especially since a lot of them are moving to 64 bit ARM now, and a lot of the popular Linux security patch sets don't yet cover that architecture (and it's a low priority for porting), so Google can't easily integrate them for a quick mitigation of the more glaring howlers.
  
 Oh yeah, and the Nexus 6 is a clownphone, it's huge so it looks a bit weird in my pocket, and barely fits in some trousers. It's not a terrible phone, and works quite well in general, but the size is a bit of an issue. It was the only really up to date Nexus when I bought it, I wouldn't have chosen that form factor. An excuse to upgrade away to something less cumbersome would be welcome


----------



## castleofargh

nanaholic said:


> I just had a co-worker commenting that my headphone cable looks cheap and is probably limiting the performance of my gear, and that I should buy better and more expensive cables because they would make a night and day difference. He boasted about how changing the cable altered the sound of his Shure IEMs and made them listenable compared to the stock cable and what cable can tune the sound etc. It was very difficult for me not to burst out laughing in his face, instead I just went along with the snake oil talk. Now I feel a bit dirty.
> 
> It's scary how many people talk about these things as a matter of fact-ly, and that due to social pressure that objectivist like us can't refute them because we are in the minority going against the consensus.


 
 the thing is, aside from the se215 that is rather stable with different sources, all the other shure IEMs have a low and messed up impedance curve that can indeed result in audible changes when going from one cable to another(if there is a significant resistance difference between both cables).
 but except if the cable is so out of specs that it starts influencing the behavior of the source, then the audible change is most likely just EQ.  and that's the amazing thing in audio, we still have a majority of people crying that EQ ruins the "real" sound, but then those same people go and buy every little crap that will change the frequency response by 0.5db the way they enjoy, and call it an improvement. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  those guys should try EQ again and stop adding +10db everywhere like noobs and then blame EQ because the sound sucks.
  
 anyway your coworker may work on placebo, or he may have indeed experienced a difference. what might interest him is to know that almost all the differences he heard are frequency response differences. 
  
 anyway low impedance BA IEMs are a special case(even more so on multi BA). they're the messy unstable part of the system, not the other way around. ideally people should run away from anything going real low in impedance. because the lower the impedance of the IEM, the closer the amp feels like it's being shortcut by a wire. and you don't need to be audio rocket scientist to guess that you won't have nominal behavior from the amp that way.  but for some reasons, TOTL IEM manufacturers don't seem to give a crap that we'll have a hard time finding an ideal source for their stupid specs.
  
 the only thing really worth noting outside of saying that a good EQ can do the same thing with more control for your coworker, is that the impedance of the DAP will almost always have more impact than the impedance of the cable. simply because there are usually more variations in impedance from DAP to DAP than from cable to cable(save for the weirdo cables).
  
  


krismusic said:


> In other news. I have been so close to buying a DAP as I have been told several times that I am not getting the best out of my CIEMS using the iPhone.
> However, the few that I have heard either sound little different or just boost the lower mids.
> Could it be that the iPhone is technically correct in its implementation of DAC and amp and no improvement is possible?
> Apologies if this is not the thread to discuss specific products but it seems relevant that I am being asked to drop £100's on something that may not have any advantage over what I own already.


 
 you can get a little idea of what I'm going to say from what I wrote just above. you can certainly find an amp that will behave better when the load(IEM) is of low impedance. but how can we know without measuring into those low impedance loads? if I was to use that BS term of synergy in audio, that would be right here. the amp section can measure great into 100ohm, but suck into 16ohm, and maybe just distort like mad into 5ohm.
  
 http://headphoniaks.com/blog/calidad-sonido-smartphones-iphone-6-htc-one-m8-fiio-x1/ looking at the first list of measurements shown for the Ifoon6(dunno what you own), you can see that 16ohm can indeed go into distortions at higher volumes and has rather high crosstalk(maybe with a really crappy cable you can end up with it being noticeable?). some DAPs may deal with such a situation better, some DAPs will be able to go louder before distorting, and of course, many can do worst. the impedance output of the phone could have some impact, but how do you judge better objectively when it comes to frequency response? do you have a target fitting your own ears? it gets complicated real fast when several people are involved and have different tastes
 .
 how loud the eyephone can go is a non issue with most CIEMs. so that's out of the way. here it's really about impedances on both sides, and how the amp section deals with it. I don't know if the jh13fp has the same impedance as the old one. I still have my old jh13 and they go as low a 10ohm for my pair in the low freqs. sadly, even with good extensive measurements like on this website(sometimes they mess up the units, but the job seems consistent), the lower we got is 16ohm loads so it's hard to guess what happens when the phone is feeding 10ohm.    and for the same reasons, it's hard to tell if another source would really behave better into 10ohm. how good they are into 10kohm or even into 16ohm doesn't assure us it will still be the same into lower impedance.  and maybe it will be fine when you listen to your CIEM at 90db, but the distortions will go way up at 100db? unless such a situation is measured, how could anybody answer your question?
  I often complain about this, we need measurements into loads we do encounter IRL, the old 16 or 30ohm for minimum is obsolete and has been for years when it comes to portable gears. I can't possibly be the only one to see that, but it would show a bad side for many otherwise praised devices, so I guess the industry insiders are in no hurry to show it.
   I certainly would be impressed by a source that can get reasonable distortions and noise feeding 0.3V into 5ohm, while having a 0.5 or less impedance output. such a source would interest me and my IEMs.^_^
  
 I didn't buy any multidriver IEM in the last years in part for such reason(and because so many have become so big it's ludicrous). the manufacturers don't tell you shiit, most CIEMs aren't measured, and most of those that are, made me run away even when I enjoyed the sound(like the SE846). I'm done paying big bucks for marketing pep talk and IEMs that will be a nightmare for most portable sources.


----------



## Ancipital

castleofargh said:


> the thing is, aside from the se215 that is rather stable with different sources, all the other shure IEMs have a low and messed up impedance curve that can indeed result in audible changes when going from one cable to another(if there is a significant resistance difference between both cables).


 
  
 It is, but has a very strong signature- very "bass or death". I have taken a gentle roll-off around 86Hz on mine, and it sounds a bit clearer overall. Have you spent any time EQing them to sound more neutral, and if so, do you have a set of EQ adjustments to hand?


----------



## Oteil

mulder01 said:


> I have been told before that not only does a cable need burning in, but it burns in in the position it's in, and if you move it or bend it in another way, it has to start burning in again in it's new position. And I was like, "Oh yeah".
> 
> Sometimes you just don't feel like an argument.


 
 I know exactly what you mean, I was demo-ing speakers and the same thing happened to me. I asked him what speaker wire he used, he said it didn't matter. So I walked around and picked up the speaker cable and he freaked out and yelled at me that it would at least take a couple of weeks for the sound to return to where it was. He was using Cardas Gold, I asked him, I thought you said it didn't matter what cable I used but he said this sounds better....I kind of just rolled my eyes and said ok...sorry


----------



## Argyris

oteil said:


> I know exactly what you mean, I was demo-ing speakers and the same thing happened to me. I asked him what speaker wire he used, he said it didn't matter. So I walked around and picked up the speaker cable and he freaked out and yelled at me that it would at least a couple of weeks for the sound to return. He was using Cardas Gold, I asked him, I thought you said it didn't matter what cable I used but he said this sounds better....I kind of just rolled my eyes and said ok...sorry:rolleyes:




Oh dear, I'd forgotten about the whole cable burn in thing. I'm struggling not to go into a rant about the validity of baseless arguments, and the false, feel-good notion we're taught these days that every belief is equally valid and should be accepted without challenging it, and...

Enough! I've had to clear this reply box numerous times now. I guess the mildest way I could put it is, if the devil somehow strong-armed me into selling cables in a hi-fi shop, I would accept eternal damnation before I agreed to tell customers they had to burn them in.


----------



## castleofargh

ancipital said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > the thing is, aside from the se215 that is rather stable with different sources, all the other shure IEMs have a low and messed up impedance curve that can indeed result in audible changes when going from one cable to another(if there is a significant resistance difference between both cables).
> ...


 
 sorry I didn't try to make an EQ I like for the se215 yet.  as a rule of thumb nowadays, when something is overly warm, I try to get the 200hz area to sound neutral or even a little bit recessed to my ear(too much and the guitar bass starts to disappear). that way the mids end up clearer subjectively, even if I decide to keep too much rumble in the 30/60hz. /me likes sub-bass.


----------



## oldmate

nanaholic said:


> Contrary to popular "audiophile" belief the iPhone is a great player which measures very well. I think the only reason for not using easy to drive CIEM with the iPhone as a player is only a) you REALLY hate using iTunes to transfer music, b) you've got a bunch of files in formats such as FLAC or hi-res files which the iPhone won't play natively and you can't be bothered to spend hours to do transcoding and retagging etc. c) you don't have enough space on the phone as it is due to things like photos and apps taking up the space, and d) battery life


 
 Believe it or not the 7th Gen Nano measures quite well too. Practically ruler flat. I can fit a lot of MP3's into 16gb.


----------



## mulder01

oteil said:


> I know exactly what you mean, I was demo-ing speakers and the same thing happened to me. I asked him what speaker wire he used, he said it didn't matter. So I walked around and picked up the speaker cable and he freaked out and yelled at me that it would at least take a couple of weeks for the sound to return to where it was. He was using Cardas Gold, I asked him, I thought you said it didn't matter what cable I used but he said this sounds better....I kind of just rolled my eyes and said ok...sorry


 
  
 Ah ok maybe that's why I didn't hear a difference when I put a cardas clear between my dac and amp.  Because it had been bent too many times and needs to burn in again.  Cardas must be extra sensitive to movement...


----------



## U-3C

mulder01 said:


> Ah ok maybe that's why I didn't hear a difference when I put a cardas clear between my dac and amp.  Because it had been bent too many times and needs to burn in again.  Cardas must be extra sensitive to movement...




...

How...how should I make of my personal listening setup then???!! :eek: Are they sensitive to bending? Should I bend them or not? How many times? At what degrees???!!! What should I play to burn them in???!!! I already know the Q701 need burn in but are the cables also a main contributor??!!! Do you have any money to donate to me so I can buy a book on the sonic bendiness of cables as well as a jar of fresh snake oil to lubricate my cables with???!!! I TOTALLY WILL NOT SPEND THE MONEY ON DELICIOUS DELICIOUS FOOD SO ANSWER THE LAST QUESTION FIRST!!!!


----------



## icebear

An absolute must have are ... audiophile cable ties but you knew that, I take it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
 ... and I forgot : they are directional of course


----------



## Joe Bloggs

ancipital said:


> cel4145 said:
> 
> 
> > The Nexus 6 measures similar to the iPhone 6. See gsmarena reviews. Doubt you'd notice much difference.
> ...




Did you try my resampling test files to verify the problem? I believe that linear interpolation was deprecated long ago and if you're rooted you can often force highest resampling quality by editing build.prop to change / add af.resampler.quality (=4 is the highest quality)


----------



## JaeYoon

What do you all think of Chord advertising that if you want Good Audio Quality. You should spend over 2 grand for Chord Hugo and wear a Sennheiser HD-800 outside in the street.
 Can you imagine if someone came up to you was like
 "Yo, You should definitely do this! even though you might not hear anything from the headphones with all the cars and motorcycles and urban city noise going on, if you want best audio quality, you should do this!!!"


----------



## U-3C

icebear said:


> An absolute must have are ... audiophile cable ties but you knew that, I take it
> ... and I forgot : they are directional of course :eek:




Which direction should I strap them on?

But on a serious note, I brought my friend out to listen to some high end audio gear. He was surprised that the HD800 was so expensive compared to other headphones such as the DT880, the HD650, the K702 or the HE400 for what they offer, which is not a lot more in terms of improvement. He would price them the same as the other ones, which are also expensive to him. He prefers my modded Q701 with my EQ settings more.


----------



## glassmonkey

u-3c said:


> icebear said:
> 
> 
> > An absolute must have are ... audiophile cable ties but you knew that, I take it
> ...


 
 Whatever works for you and your friend. I would say that the HD800 needs better amp matching than the other headphones listed and that I prefer a well matched HD800 to any of those options. They shouldn't be the same price. Most people don't understand the prices in audiophile gear, but I think the topic of this thread is the release of 'high-end' gear at nearly double the price of previous releases, and other trends like this. Having gear that is expensive, and has exceedingly small diminishing returns is different than having increasing prices without any objective increases in technical prowess.


----------



## U-3C

glassmonkey said:


> Whatever works for you and your friend. I would say that the HD800 needs better amp matching than the other headphones listed and that I prefer a well matched HD800 to any of those options. They shouldn't be the same price. Most people don't understand the prices in audiophile gear, but I think the topic of this thread is the release of 'high-end' gear at nearly double the price of previous releases, and other trends like this. Having gear that is expensive, and has exceedingly small diminishing returns is different than having increasing prices without any objective increases in technical prowess.




Yes, I should have mentioned that we were surprised at just how small the diminishing returns is. I would have at least expected the HD800 to be quite a bit better in terms of sound quality, but the difference for both of us is so small that we consider them all to be in the same league. That's quite some diminished returns. :/ Maybe we were just used to how much of a difference some free eq tweaks tend to make so we were deluded?

Not sure if the Chord Mojo is a good pairing with the HD800. That's the one I used.  People also said my DACport Slim was a good match so I also threw that in.

If this is getting off topic then please tell me so I know.


----------



## Dillan

jaeyoon said:


> What do you all think of Chord advertising that if you want Good Audio Quality. You should spend over 2 grand for Chord Hugo and wear a Sennheiser HD-800 outside in the street.
> Can you imagine if someone came up to you was like
> "Yo, You should definitely do this! even though you might not hear anything from the headphones with all the cars and motorcycles and urban city noise going on, if you want best audio quality, you should do this!!!"




I thought it was kinda funny I was gonna comment on this then noticed the huge Chord ad right above my reply. I think Chord products are great (minus the pretentious pricing) but the reason they're especially popular here is because they sponsor the site.


----------



## glassmonkey

u-3c said:


> glassmonkey said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever works for you and your friend. I would say that the HD800 needs better amp matching than the other headphones listed and that I prefer a well matched HD800 to any of those options. They shouldn't be the same price. Most people don't understand the prices in audiophile gear, but I think the topic of this thread is the release of 'high-end' gear at nearly double the price of previous releases, and other trends like this. Having gear that is expensive, and has exceedingly small diminishing returns is different than having increasing prices without any objective increases in technical prowess.
> ...


 
 Some people will tell you the Chord Mojo is a good match for the HD800, I personally think the HD800 needs more juice to sound anywhere near its best. It will still sound okay, but you won't really see it come into its own. The HD800 will make sound on not very much, so will the HD600 (which I own), but to really give them their best, you need over more than most portable players will supply, including the Mojo. Don't get me wrong, I think the Mojo is a wonderful DAC, but it isn't a wonderful amp for demanding cans, in my opinion. What the HD800 does on soundstage is really special, and I haven't heard much that can touch the HD800 in that area. The first time I heard it, though, I didn't like it because the amplifier wasn't a good match, it was the bass--I just wasn't getting enough definition (I don't have a problem with the treble peak).


----------



## glassmonkey

dillan said:


> jaeyoon said:
> 
> 
> > What do you all think of Chord advertising that if you want Good Audio Quality. You should spend over 2 grand for Chord Hugo and wear a Sennheiser HD-800 outside in the street.
> ...


 
 I don't think the price argument really applies to the Mojo. It is reasonably priced for what it is and a relative bargain on HeadFi. Now the Hugo, not so much. I far prefer the Mojo.


----------



## JaeYoon

dillan said:


> I thought it was kinda funny I was gonna comment on this then noticed the huge Chord ad right above my reply. I think Chord products are great (minus the pretentious pricing) but the reason they're especially popular here is because they sponsor the site.


 

 O.O I just barely noticed it, I got that ad too!
  
 Yeah I also agree with Mojo is a much better value than Hugo. It's much smaller and easier to carry around too.


----------



## nanaholic

castleofargh said:


> the thing is, aside from the se215 that is rather stable with different sources, all the other shure IEMs have a low and messed up impedance curve that can indeed result in audible changes when going from one cable to another(if there is a significant resistance difference between both cables).
> but except if the cable is so out of specs that it starts influencing the behavior of the source, then the audible change is most likely just EQ.  and that's the amazing thing in audio, we still have a majority of people crying that EQ ruins the "real" sound, but then those same people go and buy every little crap that will change the frequency response by 0.5db the way they enjoy, and call it an improvement.
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 It's very hard for me to believe that any after-market IEM cable will make enough difference in terms of impedance matching because that would mean the maker had to actively put something else into the cable eg a resistor/capacitor etc to alter the electrical properties enough to make such a difference. But if you've seen one after market cable you've really seen them all - they are just different wires types solder to plugs, and the materials themselves are hardly exotic (having dabbed a little into DIYing my own IEM cables lately). Perhaps the plugs themselves have enough altering properties but I somehow also doubt that - at least nothing worthwhile that shows up on a good old multimeter.
  
 Oh and we also know that unless you have some majorly weird/out of spec cable, for them to alter specific frequency in very specific ways eg increase bass etc, is just 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Which means that when someone tells me their purchase of an IEM cable makes a night and day difference, I'll default to them being placebo from buying new bling toys.


----------



## U-3C

castleofargh said:


> the thing is, aside from the se215 that is rather stable with different sources, all the other shure IEMs have a low and messed up impedance curve that can indeed result in audible changes when going from one cable to another(if there is a significant resistance difference between both cables).
> but except if the cable is so out of specs that it starts influencing the behavior of the source, then the audible change is most likely just EQ.  and that's the amazing thing in audio, we still have a majority of people crying that EQ ruins the "real" sound, but then those same people go and buy every little crap that will change the frequency response by 0.5db the way they enjoy, and call it an improvement.
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 May I kindly ask for your opinion on inline volume controls?
  
 Lets say you have a dac with a digital volume control and a high noise floor, and you choose to use a cable with a inline volume control to lower the hiss. Will it degrade the sound quality/fidelity of the DAC?
  
 The reason I'm asking this is because the dac I use has a high noise floor and many people are upset about it, especially those using sensitive IEMs. One person said that s/he used a cheap inline volume control to solve the issue. The manufacturer of the dac later responded that they do not recommend this as "those have a resistor inside and therefore they dramatically increase the output impedance, making the frequency response irregular for most headphones, especially IEMs." Other people have recommended using impedance adapters. The company is considering offering an upgrade that solves this issue for 99 USD.
  
 I just wanted to know: how true is this claim? Will a 5 dollar inline adapter fix the issue without any audible distortions (say with the SE846), or is there an actual reason to purchase the mod if you really care about audio fidelity enough (and not snake oil)?


----------



## Ancipital

joe bloggs said:


> Did you try my resampling test files to verify the problem? I believe that linear interpolation was deprecated long ago and if you're rooted you can often force highest resampling quality by editing build.prop to change / add af.resampler.quality (=4 is the highest quality)


 
  
 No, it was not deprecated, it still resamples- it's just better in Android 5.xx than it was in 4.xx, there's less aliasing, but it still does resample.
  
 Also, editing build.prop required rooting, last I checked. That's no longer a particularly sensible idea, as it causes things like Android Pay to stop working. If you read up the thread a bit, this particular tangent was about being sick of all the buggering about needed to make Android baseline acceptable. I bugger about with computers huge and tiny all day, to try and make them do exotic things with video and audio, is it too much to want to turn into a glassy-eyed passive consumer in the evenings, with a device that doesn't screw up my audio by default? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 That said, the urge to jump ship and get an iPhone will certainly diminish if they remove the 3.5mm headphone out.
  
  


dillan said:


> I thought it was kinda funny I was gonna comment on this then noticed the huge Chord ad right above my reply. I think Chord products are great (minus the pretentious pricing) but the reason they're especially popular here is because they sponsor the site.


 
  
 I've never seen a Chord ad until you took a picture of one there 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I do agree that the pricing on stuff like Hugo and Dave is well over the line, in the "if we don't charge this much, the magical thinking crowd won't rate it" zone. I'm still a total sucker for my Mojo though, as a tiny brick that lets any of my devices drive any of my headphones properly, and sound good doing it. The fact that that it's also slightly gratuitous and a bit "oo shiny" doesn't hurt, as I admit that I do love the build quality and lack of fiddly UI, too. I can't claim that it's a completely rational choice, there is a slight attraction to nice things at play there, also. I'm a sucker for devices that do one thing and do it well.
  
 To clarify, though, if anyone wanted to give me a free Hugo or Dave, I'd certainly accept one cheerfully- out of the goodness of my heart, to stop it being lonely.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

ancipital said:


> joe bloggs said:
> 
> 
> > Did you try my resampling test files to verify the problem? I believe that linear interpolation was deprecated long ago and if you're rooted you can often force highest resampling quality by editing build.prop to change / add af.resampler.quality (=4 is the highest quality)
> ...




I didn't say it doesn't resample anymore, I'm saying it does an audibly transparent job at high quality resampling (rather than horrible linear interpolation as you claim).

And since I'm not satisfied with the stock sound of headphones, no matter how perfect the reproduction quality of the source components, my favorite Android app is the sound processing app called Viper4Android, which requires rooting and even disabling SELinux unless you're running SuperSU, in which case you only need to disable the audio related part of SELinux. So you're definitely talking to the wrong guy here :rolleyes:


----------



## Ancipital

joe bloggs said:


> I didn't say it doesn't resample anymore, I'm saying it does an audibly transparent job at high quality resampling (rather than horrible linear interpolation as you claim).
> 
> And since I'm not satisfied with the stock sound of headphones, no matter how perfect the reproduction quality of the source components, my favorite Android app is the sound processing app called Viper4Android, which requires rooting and even disabling SELinux unless you're running SuperSU, in which case you only need to disable the audio related part of SELinux. So you're definitely talking to the wrong guy here


 
  
 Au contraire, I'm talking to exactly the right guy, you're a nerd who cares about this stuff- so I am enjoying the discussion 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Yeah, given the parlous security state of Android, and the increasing popularity of mobile malware, I don't want to root any more. While a lot of the popular exploits can do their own rooting, it's still a little crazy. I guess anyone who does still root does so on a phone that has no access to financially useful personal details.
  
 Like I say, the heyday of rooting is over as more people move to waving their devices about as a mobile payment device and transit ticket. It was fun while it lasted, though.
  
 Also, and I might be going mad, but isn't 4 the default for the resampler anyway? 
  
https://android.googlesource.com/platform/system/media/+/master/audio_utils/include/audio_utils/resampler.h
  
 ...though I haven't had much coffee today.
  
 I did look at Viper4Android, but the need to root and a wall of chinese didn't exactly inspire confidence, so when using my cheap IEMs straight out of the phone, I just use Neutron's parametric EQ. Badly. I must really get better at EQing in anger. 
  
  


glassmonkey said:


> Some people will tell you the Chord Mojo is a good match for the HD800, I personally think the HD800 needs more juice to sound anywhere near its best. It will still sound okay, but you won't really see it come into its own. The HD800 will make sound on not very much, so will the HD600 (which I own), but to really give them their best, you need over more than most portable players will supply, including the Mojo. Don't get me wrong, I think the Mojo is a wonderful DAC, but it isn't a wonderful amp for demanding cans, in my opinion. What the HD800 does on soundstage is really special, and I haven't heard much that can touch the HD800 in that area. The first time I heard it, though, I didn't like it because the amplifier wasn't a good match, it was the bass--I just wasn't getting enough definition (I don't have a problem with the treble peak).


 
  
 My HD650 sound pretty good on my Mojo, but there's a bit of me that secretly wants to stick an affordable/decent desktop amp in front of them to see if there's any difference- and you're not helping silence that voice!
  
 I was looking at a Magni 2 Uber, as having one of those kicking about does have a certain appeal- bags of power in a nice predictable solid state form. Do you think I'd gain (ahem) anything? Also, as a UK resident, can you suggest any other sensibly-priced alternatives that are good? Schiit seem to have terrible European distribution.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

ancipital said:


> Au contraire, I'm talking to exactly the right guy, you're a nerd who cares about this stuff- so I am enjoying the discussion
> 
> Yeah, given the parlous security state of Android, and the increasing popularity of mobile malware, I don't want to root any more. While a lot of the popular exploits can do their own rooting, it's still a little crazy. I guess anyone who does still root does so on a phone that has no access to financially useful personal details.
> 
> ...




I do also wish the desire to take control of my phone audio doesn't mean possibly losing control over phone security...
https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=155868
http://forum.xda-developers.com/android/software/petition-google-supporting-custom-sound-t3038862/

But Viper4Android (V4A) includes, among other things, a portable convolver function--you can use it to apply any esoteric per-channel EQ your headphone may require (and be able to tweak this EQ using any PC software as opposed to pecking away at your smartphone). You can even use a V4A'd smartphone as source in your home HiFi setup and it could work like a DSPeaker Anti-Node or something like that (though I just plonk my PC there as source, others may prefer a more portable solution)...

As for af.resampler.quality, if the default value is now 4, that's another reason why I reckon Android's days of crappy resampling are long past? Though I did change the value to this key in a certain Android audio player released just last year to fix its audio quality problems outside of its bundled audio player app :rolleyes:


----------



## Ancipital

joe bloggs said:


> I do also wish the desire to take control of my phone audio doesn't mean possibly losing control over phone security...
> https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=155868
> http://forum.xda-developers.com/android/software/petition-google-supporting-custom-sound-t3038862/
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 Well, sad to say, I only really found out about resampler issues by coming to it blind and ignorant. I plugged a Mojo into an Android 6 device, and wondered why it didn't sound as nice as it did on my iPad. In fact, neither of my two Nexus-class Android 6 devices (Nexus 6 and Pixel-C) did. I was seized by a severe case of What, as all I was asking them to do was drive a USB sound card. The What increased when I ran a tone generator using the external DAC versus the internal.
  
 I guess you could say that I accidentally did a blind test of the resampler, and it failed.
  
 So, being a lazy, ignorant tool, I did what you'd expect- I googled and found out about the resampling. This lead me to trying out UAPP/HF player, problem solved- except for having to use a special player, rather than having all sound playing properly through my external device. Grr!
  
 Anyway, it's nice to see that I'm not alone, and that other people want access to low level sound stuff without rooting their devices. Whether it'll change anything, I don't know, but thanks for the links, an interesting read. I also don't know if Apple will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by dropping the headphone socket, either. It's interesting times for the likes of us.
  
 Edit:
  
 Oh yeah, you're clearly expecting someone to ask which player before you spit it out.. which one? I hope it was one of those pants-on-head-stupidly-overpriced AK things


----------



## castleofargh

nanaholic said:


> It's very hard for me to believe that any after-market IEM cable will make enough difference in terms of impedance matching because that would mean the maker had to actively put something else into the cable eg a resistor/capacitor etc to alter the electrical properties enough to make such a difference. But if you've seen one after market cable you've really seen them all - they are just different wires types solder to plugs, and the materials themselves are hardly exotic (having dabbed a little into DIYing my own IEM cables lately). Perhaps the plugs themselves have enough altering properties but I somehow also doubt that - at least nothing worthwhile that shows up on a good old multimeter.
> 
> Oh and we also know that unless you have some majorly weird/out of spec cable, for them to alter specific frequency in very specific ways eg increase bass etc, is just
> 
> ...


 
 it's all a matter of perspective. if the amp is 0.5ohm and the IEM 30ohm all the way, who cares if a cable is 0.01ohm or 1ohm. but when the IEM goes from 5 to 15ohm like the se846 and the source is 1ohm, then can you be so sure that some weird audiophile cables can't have an impact? of course I believe that most people talking about improvement from cables are maxed out on placebo, but the possibility for a real audible change can't just be denied as a standard. even less so when we're talking elite audiophiles with exotic gears and super weird cables or IEMs with ludicrous impedance swings.
  


u-3c said:


> May I kindly ask for your opinion on inline volume controls?
> 
> Lets say you have a dac with a digital volume control and a high noise floor, and you choose to use a cable with a inline volume control to lower the hiss. Will it degrade the sound quality/fidelity of the DAC?
> 
> ...


 
  I imagine you meant DAP not DAC.
 without giving a concrete example I don't know how to answer. ^_^ which source? which IEM? what is the "upgrade" doing?


----------



## Ancipital

castleofargh said:


> sorry I didn't try to make an EQ I like for the se215 yet.  as a rule of thumb nowadays, when something is overly warm, I try to get the 200hz area to sound neutral or even a little bit recessed to my ear(too much and the guitar bass starts to disappear). that way the mids end up clearer subjectively, even if I decide to keep too much rumble in the 30/60hz. /me likes sub-bass.


 
  
 Ok, weirdly, this simple approach is a really good start, trying it with thickly-layered stuff like Radiohead's "Fake Plastic Trees", it does subjectively bring some of the snares and hats back out of the murk. Thanks!
  
 If anyone else has bright ideas like that, bring 'em on.


----------



## U-3C

castleofargh said:


> it's all a matter of perspective. if the amp is 0.5ohm and the IEM 30ohm all the way, who cares if a cable is 0.01ohm or 1ohm. but when the IEM goes from 5 to 15ohm like the se846 and the source is 1ohm, then can you be so sure that some weird audiophile cables can't have an impact? of course I believe that most people talking about improvement from cables are maxed out on placebo, but the possibility for a real audible change can't just be denied as a standard. even less so when we're talking elite audiophiles with exotic gears and super weird cables or IEMs with ludicrous impedance swings.
> 
> I imagine you meant DAP not DAC.
> without giving a concrete example I don't know how to answer. ^_^ which source? which IEM? what is the "upgrade" doing?




Owners of the CEntrance DACport Slim have been a little unhappy about the high noise floor of the device, especially with sensitive 16 ohm iems. One person said s/he uses a cheap in line volume control to lower the volume a bit to get rid of the noise. The DACport Slim uses a digital volume control so there is no way of lowering the noise floor on the device. CEntrance has recommended against that as it might affect fidelity. The person using the volume control confirms that there is slight changes in sound.

CEntrance has been considering offering an aftermarket mod (just like on their higher end products) for the device to lower the noise floor and are considering different options. The mod will cost 99 USD.

Since you mentioned how cables (especially very out of spec ones) can affect sound in certain cases, I'm curious about how much an in line volume control will affect fidelity, since it literally is used to change sound volume.

Just want to get an idea whether or not I personally will opt for one option over the other given my personal circumstances (I'm broke, so don't want to spend 100 USD. I'm also broke, so if the noise floor is lowered, and CEntrance choses to add the other features they currently are considering, I should have all the features I need to stop me from upgrading my source.)


----------



## castleofargh

u-3c said:


> Owners of the CEntrance DACport Slim have been complaining about the high noise floor of the device, especially with sensitive 16 ohm iems. One person said s/he uses a cheap in line volume control to lower the volume a bit to get rid of the noise. The DACport Slim uses a digital volume control so there is no way of lowering the noise floor on the device. CEntrance has recommended against that as it might affect fidelity. The person using the volume control confirms that there is slight changes in sound.
> 
> CEntrance has been considering offering an aftermarket mod (just like on their higher end products) for the device to lower the noise floor and are considering different options. The mod will cost 99 USD.
> 
> ...


 
 ok, I haven't followed that product, my first idea would obviously be to sell it and get something with knowingly low noise for use with sensitive IEMs. band aids are usually only that.
   a voltage divider could do the trick, as long as the IEM really doesn't require much power it shouldn't be too hard for the IEM to see something like a 1ohm resistance from a divider.
 I would also be against just adding a pair of resistors in series if the IEM doesn't have flat impedance response. but in some cases, who knows, people might like the new signature? ^_^ it's rare but it happens on some IEMs.


----------



## U-3C

castleofargh said:


> ok, I haven't followed that product, my first idea would obviously be to sell it and get something with knowingly low noise for use with sensitive IEMs. band aids are usually only that.
> a voltage divider could do the trick, as long as the IEM really doesn't require much power it shouldn't be too hard for the IEM to see something like a 1ohm resistance from a divider.
> I would also be against just adding a pair of resistors in series if the IEM doesn't have flat impedance response. but in some cases, who knows, people might like the new signature? ^_^ it's rare but it happens on some IEMs.




I see. Thanks for the info!


----------



## Joe Bloggs

What's the IEMs you're using? A single dynamic driver IEM can usually get away with this without much change in sound because of their flat impedance response.

I used to put a 75ohm impedance adapter between my BA CIEM and a loud but noisy smartphone source. I dealt with the tone changes by also tuning my EQ on the computer with the adapter connected...


----------



## U-3C

joe bloggs said:


> What's the IEMs you're using? A single dynamic driver IEM can usually get away with this without much change in sound because of their flat impedance response.
> 
> I used to put a 75ohm impedance adapter between my BA CIEM and a loud but noisy smartphone source. I dealt with the tone changes by also tuning my EQ on the computer with the adapter connected...




Well, I really don't care much about the hiss. I mainly use the Xiaomi Piston 3, and the hiss is barely audible (at low gain) when nothing is playing. The impedance curve on it is almost ruler flat so it shouldn't matter much. I also have some cheap 16 ohm Brainwavz and Skullcandies that I don't really use, and they pick up more hiss that might disturb more people.

The person who used the in line volume control also used the Piston 3, but that person is more sensitive to hiss than me. S/he claims that the volume control does change the sound. I don't know if s/he was referring to the Pistons, nor do I know what other headphones/IEMs s/he uses.

Both the onboard audio on his/her computer and mine are quieter than the DACport Slim, which is one reason why I think many are upset. One of the main reason I decided to get an entry level dac was to get away from noise! 

The DACport HD has less noise than the Slim, and CEntrance is considering they might offer the aftermarket mod as a way to unlock the Slim into an HD with some hardware tweaks and a firmware update for 99 USD, and I have yet to hear complaints about noise on the HD. I guess it's one of the things that was sacrificed if you only pay for the lower end model, but nobody really paid attention to it until now.

They are also considering another option: lowering the gain a bit to get rid of the noise. That's when I wondered, should I pay 99 USD for that if it ever becomes an issue, or should I just buy a cheap 5 dollar in line volume control/impedance adapter to solve the problem.

The original reviewer of the DACport Slim claimed there is no noise with the SE864, but multiple people have claimed otherwise. I assume an in line volume knob will affect that?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Well lowering the gain of the amp is a different matter from adding variable resistors to the output... (the volume adapter)

But for 99usd you could almost buy a FiiO E17K...


----------



## U-3C

joe bloggs said:


> Well lowering the gain of the amp is a different matter from adding variable resistors to the output... (the volume adapter)
> 
> But for 99usd you could almost buy a FiiO E17K...




Yep. I guess I have my answer now. Thanks for clarifying that up for me.

I'd rather buy more food and books as I'm deaf and prefer my no-noise onboard with no stutters or driver issues over dedicated dac/amps. 

Maybe one day I'll buy a Creative E5 just for all the features. Until then, I'll stick faithfully to your EQ settings!


----------



## krismusic

Back to the original point of this thread. 
I have heard a lot of gear now and have come to the conclusion that as far as electronics are concerned, once you have a competently implemented DAC and amp. That's it. As good as it gets. 
One can then spend any amount of money chasing the illusion that more enjoyment is possible. 
I would go as far as to say that headphone electronics is not really a hobby, unless you are involved with DIY. Otherwise you are just buying stuff.


----------



## Koolpep

krismusic said:


> Back to the original point of this thread.
> I have heard a lot of gear now and have come to the conclusion that as far as electronics are concerned, once you have a competently implemented DAC and amp. That's it. As good as it gets.
> One can then spend any amount of money chasing the illusion that more enjoyment is possible.
> I would go as far as to say that headphone electronics is not really a hobby, unless you are involved with DIY. Otherwise you are just buying stuff.


 

 Thanks, interesting topic. My other hobby is driving my cars in circles during track days. I am not servicing my cars myself, I don't build my own car. The only thing I produce is lap times, I race, I buy the rest. As much as I would love to, I don't have enough time to e.g. change my oil myself. So like with headphones - you listen, you don't need to create your own headphone to have headphones (or let's say headphone collecting?) as a hobby. So in the end it's all "just buying stuff" IMHO. So my hobby would be: racing. I wouldn't call my hobby "car mechanics". So calling headphone electronics a hobby = then I agree with you, that would require you more than just "use" headphones.
  
 I have a friend who ran through an incredible amount of gear in no time. After some meet ups and mini meets etc. I asked him how often he actually listens to music and he said "I don't have much time for that, maybe half an hour to one hour............a month (!!!)"
  
 My hobby is *listening to music*. Not listening to headphones, cables, DACs etc. They are a means to experience my music in various new ways. And that is a hobby and exploration for me, to try out new combinations, setups, earphones, headphones, sources, whatever to enjoy my music, to experience the differences - to gain more insights. But I also have reached my personal Zenith - no desire to upgrade at the moment. But I surely love to try gear at every opportunity. And I love to drive ANY car around the race track, no matter which one, as long as I am faster than someone else with the same car, LOL.
  
 Cheers!


----------



## pctazhp

koolpep said:


> Thanks, interesting topic. My other hobby is driving my cars in circles during track days. I am not servicing my cars myself, I don't build my own car. The only thing I produce is lap times, I race, I buy the rest. As much as I would love to, I don't have enough time to e.g. change my oil myself. So like with headphones - you listen, you don't need to create your own headphone to have headphones (or let's say headphone collecting?) as a hobby. So in the end it's all "just buying stuff" IMHO. So my hobby would be: racing. I wouldn't call my hobby "car mechanics". So calling headphone electronics a hobby = then I agree with you, that would require you more than just "use" headphones.
> 
> I have a friend who ran through an incredible amount of gear in no time. After some meet ups and mini meets etc. I asked him how often he actually listens to music and he said "I don't have much time for that, maybe half an hour to one hour............a month (!!!)"
> 
> ...


 
 I thought I had seen every audio debate possible, but I guess we can now start arguing over whether listening to music through headphones is a "hobby". 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I admire your bravery on the track. I have trouble just dodging all the crazies on our local roads


----------



## pctazhp

krismusic said:


> Back to the original point of this thread.
> I have heard a lot of gear now and have come to the conclusion that as far as electronics are concerned, once you have a competently implemented DAC and amp. That's it. As good as it gets.
> One can then spend any amount of money chasing the illusion that more enjoyment is possible.
> I would go as far as to say that headphone electronics is not really a hobby, unless you are involved with DIY. Otherwise you are just buying stuff.


 
 Well price of gear was one part of the original theme of the thread. But the other was the unreliability of clams that are not supported by properly conducted double blind testing. That part seems to have gone by the wayside quite a few pages back.


----------



## krismusic

pctazhp said:


> Well price of gear was one part of the original theme of the thread. But the other was the unreliability of clams that are not supported by properly conducted double blind testing. That part seems to have gone by the wayside quite a few pages back.



You are, of course, correct on both points.


----------



## Ancipital

krismusic said:


> Back to the original point of this thread.
> I have heard a lot of gear now and have come to the conclusion that as far as electronics are concerned, once you have a competently implemented DAC and amp. That's it. As good as it gets.


 
  
 Yeah, to an extent. There's always the bling upgrades, like a cool-looking and pliable headphone cable and stuff like that, too- and other bits like NAS or a little server to hide in another room where you can't hear the fans. Quality of life stuff.


----------



## castleofargh

krismusic said:


> Back to the original point of this thread.
> I have heard a lot of gear now and have come to the conclusion that as far as electronics are concerned, once you have a competently implemented DAC and amp. That's it. As good as it gets.
> One can then spend any amount of money chasing the illusion that more enjoyment is possible.
> I would go as far as to say that headphone electronics is not really a hobby, unless you are involved with DIY. Otherwise you are just buying stuff.


 

  for a lot of people good means pleasing, they may hide behind quality, real sound, measurable performance, whatever. but all those are usually more justifications than motives. in the end we all want to be happy. enjoy listening to our system/albums, be satisfied of our purchases, feel like we're different, special, happy, a unicorn.  and joy is the most subjective and irrational of things, and is subject to the usual preconceptions and placebo effect.  if you start believing that the color green is great, then a green cable may just make you enjoy your system more. it will work only for you, but for you it will be real. it's really that simple and all the snake oil, and overly expensive craps are sold for that reason. if only because to most of us, something expensive must be good. and the more expensive it is, the more special it makes me when I buy it. it's all crap for everybody else, but if I believe it, it's real for me inside my brain(as long as I believe it).
  
 so it really comes down to personal beliefs IMO. if you have a certain level of understanding about sound and signal processing, you stop falling for some of the classic unicorns like "buy my stuff it will give you the sound like the artist made it".
 -if you do not have such knowledge, you buy 3 ponos, tonnes of DSD, a special power cable, rocks to put over the cables.... whatever product got a marketing slogan that hit right in the gullible part of the brain about "sound like the artist intended". and unless the product is really a huge pile of crap, you will most likely get what you think you're getting. the power of suggestion is that strong. so of course we can be happier buying more or less meaningless stuff. we just need to think it's not meaningless.
 -if you believe fidelity is a spec thing(which is pretty obvious), then you will want to buy stuff with good specs and it will make you happy. that's called objectivity in here, but unless we're pros with specific technical needs, we're still the same humans trying to get happiness using what we believe to be the best way.
 -if you believe fidelity = what you like most, then maybe you'll try to get the sound you grew up with and that might mean overly rolled off and distorted tube amp, vinyls...  the sound of my childhood certainly is full of emotions. maybe I'll enjoy a grado that has the bass of my old TV when I was watching MTV. who knows what in my mind is the reference for good sound? most likely to people, good sound is the sound they know.
  
 at an individual level, we're all subjectivists. thanks captain obvious! our own beliefs decide what we'll want, and our knowledge will decide what we'll believe.
  
  
  
  
 the reason I think objective knowledge is important, is that it's not something that is likely to change next month, so paying and making decisions based on objective data should have a durable value in one's mind. the amp that is clean with low level distortions will still be clean with low level distortions in 2 years. if that's why I bought it and I believe I get good music for that reason, then I may still be satisfied in 2years. maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I truly believe(/me looks at his odac/o2 still being his main system to this day). when somebody buys a product just because it's expensive, or new, how long until something else comes up that is newer and more expensive? so if that's why someone purchased the gear, won't he lose most of the reason why he enjoyed it when a new kids arrives in town? that's one complicated and expensive path toward happiness IMO.
  
 and that kids is how I met your mother blind testing and measurements. as a mean to my own egoistic subjective happiness.


----------



## Ancipital

So you _do _have some subjectivity in your dark, withered soul, castleofargh


----------



## JaeYoon

I came back from an audio store. The salesmen brainwashed this customer, salespeople didn't have to do anything else. That same customer started advertising this carbon fiber with oxygeen free silver cable saying it will bring everyone in store to Audio Nirvana. The ultimate heaven.
"everyone! I want to bring something up real quick. I want you all to stop shopping. Forgot those headphones, forget those amps you all are looking at. This cable for only $1498 will give you audio quality those headphones won't achieve. It's carbon fiber lining gives you noise dissapation. Expands the stage. Makes you feel like you are in heaven watching god perform. Just buy this and forget everything else."

I asked the guy if he ever did a blind hearing and volume matched comparison that to that cable to any other cable.

I asked Employees what's the specs of cable such as impedance and resistance. Neither of them knew a good reply besides thay silver metal conducts sound much better than cheap plastic copper cables we have.

I left store quiety right after. Not worth staying any longer...
:|


----------



## cel4145

krismusic said:


> I would go as far as to say that headphone electronics is not really a hobby, unless you are involved with DIY. Otherwise you are just buying stuff.




If one just goes on Amazon, and spends five minutes making a purchasing decision, I would tend to agree. 

For those of us who read copious amount of reviews and testimonials and discuss the equipment online, there's more going on than "just buying stuff."


----------



## Ancipital

cel4145 said:


> If one just goes on Amazon, and spends five minutes making a purchasing decision, I would tend to agree.
> 
> For those of us who read copious amount of reviews and testimonials and discuss the equipment online, there's more going on than "just buying stuff."


 
  
 Da, I tend to agree. Unless you're one of those wilfully ignorant Alpha Male "LOOK HOW MUCH I SPEND ON CABLES" types, the shopping part is really a tiny proportion of time spent, and only a means to an end. Yes, there's also care and feeding of the audio beast, shovelling music into its gaping maw, and occasionally swapping components, but it's still a form of leisure overall. The part where you get to sit down and listen to an album that you haven't heard for a while, give it your full attention, and it makes you go "god damn!", that's the good stuff right there.
  
 I might even be so bold to say that if you're not getting disproportionate amounts of joy out of your listening, then UR DOIN IT RONG. 
  
 OK, so maybe I'm a little too into my music, but it does feel like the other stuff pays off when I hit "play" on my A-rig. Today I listened to one of my all-time favourite albums with new ears, it was an experience. I'm not too proud to admit that a favourite track had tears running down my face, and others had cause to discover just how well the HE-400i can stay put- slightly embarrassingly, some very sedate moshing was going on. It was intense and beautiful. 
  
 That's what the majority of my time spent on this "hobby" is for- listening deliberately. If the payoff wasn't there when I hit "play", I'd be wasting my time.


----------



## krismusic

cel4145 said:


> If one just goes on Amazon, and spends five minutes making a purchasing decision, I would tend to agree.
> 
> For those of us who read copious amount of reviews and testimonials and discuss the equipment online, there's more going on than "just buying stuff."



My post was an expression of my exasperation with components that simply do not deliver the sound quality claimed.


----------



## U-3C

pctazhp said:


> I thought I had seen every audio debate possible, but I guess we can now start arguing over whether listening to music through headphones is a "hobby".
> 
> I admire your bravery on the track. I have trouble just dodging all the crazies on our local roads




I can barely keep the car straight with the terrible roads in the place I live.

Critics have observed that shopping and consumerism in our day of age has almost become a new form of religion. People don't buy things just because they need it. 

Although this barely touches the topic of this thread, I do encourage people to look it up. 

There's also a book called No Logo, which also looks at things like this, and the first chapter might be interesting for this discussion: it talks about how brands are now concepts. Brands don't necessarily try to sell good products. They sell concepts, ideas, an experience, and the products are just there to support the experience. People don't buy from brand names just because their products are necessarily better. Sometimes (like in the fashion industry and sports industry), the product all come from the same manufacturing warehouse, only one has the Nike logo and one doesn't. It's the concepts behind the little logo that make people want to buy it over generic no-brand clothing.

Same thing with headphones. In the past, Beats was known to take advantage of this in the audio world, selling an image, a lifestyle rather than quality products. Today, names like Beyerdynamic, Sennheiser represent audiophile grade products, supreme fidelity, even a sense of being an elitist compared to the Beats headphones. People automatically hate Beats due to the image it now represents, and not due to the products they sell (which have improved quite a lot!). Audio Technicals M50, in my opinion, tried so hard to be like the original Beats, and now they have their own cult following. I might end up being stoned, but can I say that they sound terrible and are overpriced, too?


----------



## sonitus mirus

u-3c said:


> I might end up being stoned, but can I say that they sound terrible and are overpriced, too?


 
  
 Off with your head!


----------



## krismusic

u-3c said:


> Critics have observed that shopping and consumerism in our day of age has almost become a new form of religion. People don't buy things just because they need it.



I have no problem with buying things that make my life more enjoyable. I'm stunned to find that even when I have the money to spend, carefully read all the reviews and advice on here. Get to hear the device and nope. I don't hear what others say they do.


----------



## Ancipital

krismusic said:


> I have no problem with buying things that make my life more enjoyable. I'm stunned to find that even when I have the money to spend, carefully read all the reviews and advice on here. Get to hear the device and nope. I don't hear what others say they do.


 
  
 I think I'm having all your luck, then, sorry. I pored over some planar magnetics to go with my Mojo for aaages, and finally gritted my teeth and pulled the trigger, and they're kicking my ass. I'm missing sleep due to listening too late into the night, "just one more track".
  
 I do over-research, I admit. This might be tedious for some folks- but maybe I'm making a virtue out of a personality flaw somewhere along the line.


----------



## krismusic

ancipital said:


> I think I'm having all your luck, then, sorry. I pored over some planar magnetics to go with my Mojo for aaages, and finally gritted my teeth and pulled the trigger, and they're kicking my ass. I'm missing sleep due to listening too late into the night, "just one more track".
> 
> I do over-research, I admit. This might be tedious for some folks- but maybe I'm making a virtue out of a personality flaw somewhere along the line.



It's good to hear that you are enjoying your listening. Long may it continue. 
Funnily enough the Mojo was one of the devices I was referring to! I just don't get it. Maybe it's me and my ears are deficient?!


----------



## ExtremeGamerBR

u-3c said:


> I can barely keep the car straight with the terrible roads in the place I live.
> 
> Critics have observed that shopping and consumerism in our day of age has almost become a new form of religion. People don't buy things just because they need it.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I don't know. I had a HD 598 and now I have M50x. I do prefer the M50x. And these two are much better than other cheap headphones I had in the past. I really don't think they are overpriced.


----------



## sonitus mirus

krismusic said:


> It's good to hear that you are enjoying your listening. Long may it continue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I often wonder why the Mojo has to have different colored LEDs to indicate what type of file is being played.  It should be obvious, no, why the need to show this with a colored light?


----------



## U-3C

extremegamerbr said:


> I don't know. I had a HD 598 and now I have M50x. I do prefer the M50x. And these two are much better than other cheap headphones I had in the past. I really don't think that they are overpriced.




One of my main gripes at against the m50 is the build quality. I know many people who prefer the sound signature of the headphones, but for the price, I think they could have done better with the construction. 

The main reason why I think they are overpriced, though, is because many people compare Beats to the M50, and see it as a better deal, so they buy it. It is so popular due to the constant comparison that general population is unaware of the countless other headphones out there, many of which can be cheaper, have better build quality, and offer a sound they subjectively prefer more. 

When I asked people I know who have the m50 went they got it, most people say it's because they heard it sounds better and is a better deal than Beats. The term "sounds better" is extremely subjective though.

I really think I used the wrong term. "Overhyped" would have been better. Sorry for my wording.


----------



## Ancipital

sonitus mirus said:


> I often wonder why the Mojo has to have different colored LEDs to indicate what type of file is being played.  It should be obvious, no, why the need to show this with a colored light?


 
  
 The light shows sample rate for PCM or that it's doing DSD (apparently, never bothered with that), which seems kinda handy when you're setting stuff up and trying to check that everything is being sensible. If the light isn't red for 44.1, then I generally get a bit suspicious. It saves time. Are you seriously suggesting that DACs should keep their sample rates secret?
  


krismusic said:


> It's good to hear that you are enjoying your listening. Long may it continue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I'm pretty sure that you'd be able to tell the difference between a Mojo and my ancient Fiio E7 with a knackered battery. If you already have an adequate DAC/amp, there's probably a lot less in it.
  
 That said, the Mojo's main job is to get out of the way as much as possible- if there was much to notice, other than a massive absence of bad (noise, distortion, rolloff), I'd be pretty disappointed. It's there to make the music come out through the headphones without sounding bad. The source, DAC and amp are things that I generally don't want to make too many changes, unless I am EQing. 
  
 I looked around at my options below the price of a medium-sized pony, and the Mojo appealed. It seemed to have fewer gotchas than many options, was smaller and cheaper than the iFi iMicro and similar, too. Coming from the Fiio, I also loved the lack of fiddly menus and "aluminium brick" industrial design. "Features without interface" and thoughtful design are also powerfully appealing factors, I admit 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 That said, I think the headphones deserve most of the credit, as long as they're properly driven. I'm really impressed so far.


----------



## NotARobot

jaeyoon said:


> I came back from an audio store. The salesmen brainwashed this customer, salespeople didn't have to do anything else. That same customer started advertising this carbon fiber with oxygeen free silver cable saying it will bring everyone in store to Audio Nirvana. The ultimate heaven.
> "everyone! I want to bring something up real quick. I want you all to stop shopping. Forgot those headphones, forget those amps you all are looking at. This cable for only $1498 will give you audio quality those headphones won't achieve. It's carbon fiber lining gives you noise dissapation. Expands the stage. Makes you feel like you are in heaven watching god perform. Just buy this and forget everything else."
> 
> I asked the guy if he ever did a blind hearing and volume matched comparison that to that cable to any other cable.
> ...


 
  
 Haha, I'm glad you did that but I'm also glad I wasn't in the store with you.
  
 Used to be really into headphones - in fact, I used to have a Head-Fi account but then my e-mail address was decommissioned. But I got nummular eczema on my face and couldn't wear headphones without getting pus on the earpads/cable. Really gross. So I bought some Audioengine speakers and didn't touch headphones for at least 5 years. The eczema subsided and as you can see, now I'm back.
  
 Audioengine 5+ are far from the best speakers on the market. But I don't care about speakers, so I didn't care about whether there were better speakers out there. I just enjoyed the music.
  
 Remember that the SE530s used to be Shure's top of the line earphone. Now there's the SE535 and SE846, and they probably sound better. But that doesn't make the SE530 less deserving of the 9/10 rating CNet gave them 9 years ago. So unless there's something that really bothers you about your current setup, I think it's fine to just enjoy it as is. We are picky people here, so chasing the perfect sound is part of the hobby. But when we upgrade, the improvement needs to be significant and tangible.
  
 Maybe the auto enthusiasts have it all figured out. They've stopped chasing more grip and more power and embrace the purity of the driving experience. I think that's the way to go.
  
 Sorry if I repeated stuff from earlier in the thread.


----------



## cel4145

Some of you guys into home audio speaker equipment might enjoy this thread over at AVS that I just found: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/173-2-channel-audio/2548601-2-channel-office.html. Gets into the notion of whether or not AVRs are a comparable or better value than stereo receivers and integrated amps. I think the stereo receiver and integrated amp market is over priced because audiophiles will pay it.


----------



## VNandor

notarobot said:


> Remember that the SE530s used to be Shure's top of the line earphone. Now there's the SE535 and SE846, and they probably sound better. But that doesn't make the SE530 less deserving of the 9/10 rating CNet gave them 9 years ago. So unless there's something that really bothers you about your current setup, I think it's fine to just enjoy it as is. We are picky people here, so chasing the perfect sound is part of the hobby. But when we upgrade, the improvement needs to be significant and tangible.


 

 While I haven't heard the Shures and it may very well deserve the rating it got but I think those ratings in general can become outdated over the years.
  
 For example a desktop pc with a dual core cpu and a videocard that had 1gb ram with a good motherboard and powersupply would have been an absolute beast ten years ago but only average at best by today's standards. Now I don't know if headphones got better over the years just like computers did but if they did improve then the ratings are going to get slowly outdated.


----------



## NotARobot

​You are right - if the SE846s are the new 9/10 then the SE530s would definitely have to be lower. What I meant to say is that what sounded good back then still sounds good today, even if they have since been superseded by new products.


----------



## Ancipital

> So unless there's something that really bothers you about your current setup, I think it's fine to just enjoy it as is. We are picky people here, so chasing the perfect sound is part of the hobby. But when we upgrade, the improvement needs to be significant and tangible.
> 
> Maybe the auto enthusiasts have it all figured out. They've stopped chasing more grip and more power and embrace the purity of the driving experience. I think that's the way to go.
> 
> Sorry if I repeated stuff from earlier in the thread.


 
  
 Nope, you're making reasonable sense. I think a lot of people in this thread and indeed subforum are either happy with what they have, or are looking for something that will address a need for a while without need for further irritation.
  
 I live in a small flat, in a country with crap building regs- if I want good music, it's headphones for me. That's what I am trying to address, and it's getting there. There are some optimisations to be made here and there, but constant upgrades to the latest flagship? Not in the plan.


----------



## cel4145

ancipital said:


> Nope, you're making reasonable sense. I think a lot of people in this thread and indeed subforum are either happy with what they have, or are looking for something that will address a need for a while without need for further irritation.
> 
> I live in a small flat, in a country with crap building regs- if I want good music, it's headphones for me. That's what I am trying to address, and it's getting there. There are some optimisations to be made here and there, but constant upgrades to the latest flagship? Not in the plan.




What country is that? You should update your profile to say, and maybe you'll find some other local head-fiers


----------



## Ancipital

cel4145 said:


> What country is that? You should update your profile to say, and maybe you'll find some other local head-fiers


 
  
 Pfft, I'd have thought you'd have worked it out from my spelling of "colour" and things already


----------



## pctazhp

ancipital said:


> Pfft, I'd have thought you'd have worked it out from my spelling of "colour" and things already


 
 Please forgive us Americans for having difficulty with that.
  
Why Can't the English Learn to Speak from My Fair Lady:
  
_*"There even are places where English completely disappears.
 Well, in America, they haven't used it for years!"*_


----------



## Ancipital

pctazhp said:


> Please forgive us Americans for having difficulty with that.
> 
> Why Can't the English Learn to Speak from My Fair Lady:
> 
> ...


 
  
 I'm inclined to partly forgive America's crimes against language, as it did produce the splendid Stephen Pinker. He's a gift to lovers of language everywhere, this recent work:
  
 https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00JW50680/
  
 ..really was thoroughly nutritious and delicious.


----------



## cel4145

ancipital said:


> Pfft, I'd have thought you'd have worked it out from my spelling of "colour" and things already




Ehh....I don't pay that much attention.


----------



## JaeYoon

notarobot said:


> Haha, I'm glad you did that but I'm also glad I wasn't in the store with you.
> 
> Used to be really into headphones - in fact, I used to have a Head-Fi account but then my e-mail address was decommissioned. But I got nummular eczema on my face and couldn't wear headphones without getting pus on the earpads/cable. Really gross. So I bought some Audioengine speakers and didn't touch headphones for at least 5 years. The eczema subsided and as you can see, now I'm back.
> 
> ...



I agree with your philosophy.
Lots of people on a headfi thread said all sorts of things. Sell your Oppos, and ath m50 and all sorts. Buy the Beyerdynamic 1770!!!! Its the best closed headphone ever!!!

Bought it and for three days could not justify it's 600 price. I had to apologize to seller and he accepted a refund with no stocking fee. I liked the headphones that I had. Even Meze99 that cost only $299 and Meze gave me a discount coupon lol.

I just tried to follow the belief that the price of Beyers 1770 was endgame of closed headphones. But to me it wasn't worth it.


----------



## cel4145

jaeyoon said:


> Sell your Oppos, and ath m50 and all sorts. Buy the Beyerdynamic 1770!!!! Its the best closed headphone ever!!!




Have three or four more people chime in with the same fervor and also state how it is better than much more expensive headphones that are generally considered great, and that is the formula for the new FOTM on Head-Fi


----------



## JaeYoon

cel4145 said:


> Have three or four more people chime in with the same fervor and also state how it is better than much more expensive headphones that are generally considered great, and that is the formula for the new FOTM on Head-Fi



Yeah I fell for it too 

Lol funny thing. I did some snooping and noticed some of same people who said it was the best closed headphone you can buy have Sold Beyerdynamic dt1770 on their profile XD


----------



## Argyris

cel4145 said:


> Have three or four more people chime in with the same fervor and also state how it is better than much more expensive headphones that are generally considered great, and that is the formula for the new FOTM on Head-Fi


 
  
 Ah, the ever-hallowed "giant killer." For some reason, a few years back a lot of the time it was the HD 650 that these targeted. It's as if the people hyping them initially knew saying it was as good as an HD 800 or an Audeze / Stax / HiFiMAN something wouldn't fly, so why not pit <FOTM> against a tired old former flagship?
  
 I bought the hype once. My first decent headphone was an M50. It went back after two weeks. I learned a lot from that experience. Like how if something has a massive mountain of bass on a chart, it's going to sound just like it looks, contrary to the assurances of all the people who claimed the M50 was "neutral" back then. Now, it would be difficult to accuse the M50 of neutrality with a straight face, even among its exponents. Which just goes to show that sometimes the record does finally get set straight, even if it takes a long time. Doesn't help the poor person who got caught up in the hype and bought something they ended up not liking. Or, even worse, managed to convince themselves they _do_ like it because the alternative is admitting they made a (likely costly) mistake.
  
 Speaking of the M50, anybody remember all the claims about how the ones in white boxes sounded different from the ones in blue boxes? That was one of the rare times I actually knew the source of a bit of Head-Fi lore. It was this Headfonia article, and while they never once say anything about the box, they do say there's a slight but noticeable difference between the two different M50s they tested, which they (correctly, I feel) attribute to simple product variation. Anyway, look at the picture (I had to post a Wayback Machine link because the current version lacks the picture, which is important). What do you see? A white box. Most likely somebody saw that article and that picture, probably somebody who had recently bought an M50 after the box got redesigned, they misinterpreted the article and concluded that the M50s in white boxes must sound different from the ones in blue boxes, and they posted it on Head-Fi. And thus, a myth is born.


----------



## LajostheHun

I always find the claim how the M50 is so bassy rather curious at best. It certainly don't measure with a "mountain" of bass, though it is a tad elevated indeed, but if we calculate the human auditory system's falling sensitivity as FR's going lower, than one should be thankful for that extra output. No I'm not claiming it's "neutral" as to me that would mean "accurate" and we know that no HP or speakers comes close to such true moniker, but I've never felt it was "bassy". Of course when I talk about bass it's below 80hz. Lots of people complaining about bass they talking about upper bass regions close to the lower midrange, and that is certainly not the M50's strong feature. Of course I can't think of a single headphone I owned that I don't EQ up at the low bass region, with a possible exception of the V-Moda Crossfade LP, which just a disaster of a HP and not worth owning IMO.Neither was the Oppo PM3 in my case which was just the opposite the V-moda, as it was rolled off at both end sharply, despite of its measurements posted at Innerfidelity[bass looked great] and the mountains of favorable reviews and user reports. Funny how that works.


----------



## U-3C

lajosthehun said:


> I always find the claim how the M50 is so bassy rather curious at best. It certainly don't measure with a "mountain" of bass, though it is a tad elevated indeed, but if we calculate the human auditory system's falling sensitivity as FR's going lower, than one should be thankful for that extra output. No I'm not claiming it's "neutral" as to me that would mean "accurate" and we know that no HP or speakers comes close to such true moniker, but I've never felt it was "bassy". Of course when I talk about bass it's below 80hz. Lots of people complaining about bass they talking about upper bass regions close to the lower midrange, and that is certainly not the M50's strong feature. Of course I can't think of a single headphone I owned that I don't EQ up at the low bass region, with a possible exception of the V-Moda Crossfade LP, which just a disaster of a HP and not worth owning IMO.Neither was the Oppo PM3 in my case which was just the opposite the V-moda, as it was rolled off at both end sharply, despite of its measurements posted at Innerfidelity[bass looked great] and the mountains of favorable reviews and user reports. Funny how that works.




I guess one contributing factor is how people also got the M40 headphones, which while still being bassier than a neutral headphone, isn't quite as bass heavy as the m50, contrary to the popular belief of the past that the m50 were a pair of neutral studio monitors, designed with the "latest and greatest technology and build quality to deliver the experience the artists intended you to hear." I have never compared the m40 with the m50, so I can't talk about whether or not the bass is indeed bloated compared to the m50 and bleed into the highs, I can see how a less pronounced bass can appear as if it is more clear and detailed. The fact that people believe they can hear more details (not accusing anyone's hearings. This could perfectly be true. I just never heard it myself to do a comparison) might have made them upset, as that might translate into better fidelity. Many people bought the m50 because they were told by popular tech/media figures that the m50's were the best bang for buck giant killers, offering the best sound at a low price, only to see the even cheaper headphone deliver better fidelity.

Beats headphones aren't really "bass monsters" either. You can find Tyll's measurements in the original Monster Beats by Dre (not the new Solo 2) and I kinda agree with him. When I auditioned the Beats headphones for the first time, I was almost worried about this infamous "skull rattling bass," but it wasn't there. A lot of slam, but that's it (Getting into subjective judgements by memory from long ago. Take my words with 10 trucks of salt). No sub bass, very muffled, just that...slam? But the general impression by people is that there is 20+ dB of bass boost and that massive quantity of boomy, overwhelming bass is all you hear.

...I need to get some sleep before I go into full audiophile mode in this subforum and get myself banned for starting flame wars...zzZzZzZzzZzZZZzz...


----------



## Argyris

lajosthehun said:


> I always find the claim how the M50 is so bassy rather curious at best. It certainly don't measure with a "mountain" of bass, though it is a tad elevated indeed, but if we calculate the human auditory system's falling sensitivity as FR's going lower, than one should be thankful for that extra output. No I'm not claiming it's "neutral" as to me that would mean "accurate" and we know that no HP or speakers comes close to such true moniker, but I've never felt it was "bassy". Of course when I talk about bass it's below 80hz. Lots of people complaining about bass they talking about upper bass regions close to the lower midrange, and that is certainly not the M50's strong feature. Of course I can't think of a single headphone I owned that I don't EQ up at the low bass region, with a possible exception of the V-Moda Crossfade LP, which just a disaster of a HP and not worth owning IMO.Neither was the Oppo PM3 in my case which was just the opposite the V-moda, as it was rolled off at both end sharply, despite of its measurements posted at Innerfidelity[bass looked great] and the mountains of favorable reviews and user reports. Funny how that works.


 
  
 Odd as it is to say in this thread, in this case it's all subjective. Some people like their bass. Nothing wrong with that. I'm not really one of them. I like deep, extended, tight, well integrated bass, mainly because it lets me listen to pretty much any genre in my somewhat eclectic library without it sounding off. Boosted bass can work wonders for EDM and certain kinds of rock and pop, for instance, but wreaks havoc on classical. Again, this is all IMO.
  
 As for the M50, I liked the extra kick in the sub bass for some material, but the upper bass was too much for me on pretty much everything I listened to. Coupled with the dip in the presence region (I'll admit, as a recent evangelist for the HD 600, I evidently like a bit of extra energy in the upper mids), as well as that little dip right in the bass-to-midrange transition, the M50 sounded laid back and slow to me, but with a bit of treble bite just to make it difficult to easily classify the sound.
  
 I'll never say it's a bad headphone or that anybody who likes it is wrong. But it's not a giant killer, I don't think (unless it exactly satisfies a given listener's preference, in which case the giants become irrelevant), and I would definitely not class it as neutral. It's a somewhat unusual take on the classic V-shape, with some features in the lower and upper mids that made it just sound _off_ to me on random occasions.


----------



## U-3C

Speaking of overpriced audio gear, there is still the constant debate on whether or not you need anything above the o2 in terms of perceivable fidelity, despite all the years, and many people just automatically tell newcomers to get the Schiit stack, an oDac/O2 combo, or something in that price range as both the best bang-for-buck and for the best endgame setup. Sometimes the prices drop to the 100ish dollar range but that's more prone to debate, and people are expected to upgrade sometime down the line if they are serious about audio.

However...do people really need to even spend that much? More and more, I see people being surprised or confused (including myself!) that their new expensive Schiit dac sounds no different from their laptop onboard, and more people are open to the fact that dacs in many devices these days are so transparent, even well received stand alone dacs won't make much of a difference. Many have said that their new system's onboard audio is better (objectively and subjectively) to their old dacs, so maybe people should just skip the dac phase and get an amp like the Magni/O2 (due to their cult following and the belief that they are of the best value that should give you the greatest improvement for the money).

But...if power isn't an issue...it's there any reason those should hold the position of being value Kings and Queens compared to something like the TOPPING NX1?

Measures almost as good as the odac, arguably just as transparent for most people, but at a fraction of the price. It's also portable like the odac but has a form factor that is better to put into your pockets. 

Honestly, rather than something like a Magni or an O2, products like that should be the ones being recommended to newcomers as a way to test the waters and see if they benefit from an amp.

Can someone bring it to a meet up, secretly slip it under the super expensive setup that people are listening to troll people with it? 0_0; People have mentioned using cheap dac/amps/daps that may or may not fool people, but this amp really seems promising from an objective standpoint!


----------



## LajostheHun

argyris said:


> Odd as it is to say in this thread, in this case it's all subjective. Some people like their bass. Nothing wrong with that. I'm not really one of them. I like deep, extended, tight, well integrated bass, mainly because it lets me listen to pretty much any genre in my somewhat eclectic library without it sounding off. Boosted bass can work wonders for EDM and certain kinds of rock and pop, for instance, but wreaks havoc on classical. Again, this is all IMO.


 I agree with that, I don't use the M50 for classical or Jazz recordings, I use my AKG Q701 for that, and not surprisingly I won't use that HP for my Heavy Rock recordings either.


> As for the M50, I liked the extra kick in the sub bass for some material, but the upper bass was too much for me on pretty much everything I listened to. Coupled with the dip in the presence region (I'll admit, as a recent evangelist for the HD 600, I evidently like a bit of extra energy in the upper mids), as well as that little dip right in the bass-to-midrange transition, the M50 sounded laid back and slow to me, but with a bit of treble bite just to make it difficult to easily classify the sound.


 Most of those issues can be fixed via EQ


> I'll never say it's a bad headphone or that anybody who likes it is wrong. But it's not a giant killer, I don't think (unless it exactly satisfies a given listener's preference, in which case the giants become irrelevant), and I would definitely not class it as neutral. It's a somewhat unusual take on the classic V-shape, with some features in the lower and upper mids that made it just sound _off_ to me on random occasions.



It's no "giant" killer, but for $100[my paid price] it's kind of hard to argue it's price performance ratio, something can't be said about a lot of so called "giants". YMMV.


----------



## Argyris

u-3c said:


> Speaking of overpriced audio gear, there is still the constant debate on whether or not you need anything above the o2 in terms of perceivable fidelity, despite all the years, and many people just automatically tell newcomers to get the Schiit stack, an oDac/O2 combo, or something in that price range as both the best bang-for-buck and for the best endgame setup. Sometimes the prices drop to the 100ish dollar range but that's more prone to debate, and people are expected to upgrade sometime down the line if they are serious about audio.
> 
> However...do people really need to even spend that much? More and more, I see people being surprised or confused (including myself!) that their new expensive Schiit dac sounds no different from their laptop onboard, and more people are open to the fact that dacs in many devices these days are so transparent, even well received stand alone dacs won't make much of a difference. Many have said that their new system's onboard audio is better (objectively and subjectively) to their old dacs, so maybe people should just skip the dac phase and get an amp like the Magni/O2 (due to their cult following and the belief that they are of the best value that should give you the greatest improvement for the money).
> 
> ...


 
  
 The only reason I bothered to get an amp was the pitifully anemic output on my phone. It can barely get efficient IEMs up to solid volume, let alone my less efficient headphones. My Q1 does everything I could ever ask it to do (well, almost everything...it doesn't really add much gain to the analog input). For a princely sum of around $70, by adding the Q1 I now have a transportable setup that gets as loud as I will ever need, has a low enough noise floor that even with sensitive IEMs I can't hear anything with the gain and volume maxed, and is versatile enough that I can plug it into anything that spits out audio. With my HD 600, this comes out to a combined total of about $350 once I factor in all the various cables and adapters I needed to get to let it connect to everything I own, and I have everything I'll ever need. At least until hell freezes over, freezes over again, and one of the big players releases a solid improvement over the HD 600 in the $500-$750 range.
  


lajosthehun said:


> It's no "giant" killer, but for $100[my paid price] it's kind of hard to argue it's price performance ratio, something can't be said about a lot of so called "giants". YMMV.


 
  
 Fair enough. My issues with the M50 are signature-based, not value-based. For what you get, I've never thought it's overpriced, even at the $169 it sometimes goes for if you're impatient and don't want to wait for it to come down in price again. At the $120 or so it often goes for, if you like the signature, it's a hell of a deal. But the hype around when it first came out made it sound like the greatest thing since sliced Sennheiser. It was recommended in every thread, often by people who had never heard any other headphones, and many times to people whose signature preferences clearly precluded it as a realistic recommendation. I read every different description of its sound, too. It was like the Ditto* of headphones, which could transform into anything anybody who owned it wanted. This is all where I had a bit of an issue for a while. It seems that hype has largely evaporated now and the M50's reputation is where it should be: solid value, arguably at the top of its price class, a good starting place but probably not the be-all, end-all.
  
 I honestly wish I had known about more sophisticated EQ methods when I had my pair. I might have been able to make something usable, though it would have been hard to add to the upper mids. Boosts are always more problematic than cuts anywhere outside the bass region, in my experience. I learned this a few years ago when trying to EQ some presence into a PortaPro. Even if what I tried looked right on paper, it just didn't seem to work. The mids either continued to sound laid back, or they sounded tweaked.
  
 I eventually ended up with an SRH440 as my closed circumaural. For what it is, it's a great headphone. Cheaper than the M50, even when the latter goes on sale, and with some mods it ends up being both more comfortable and better sounding than stock. Specifically, placing foam circles over the baffles makes the inside of the cups not cause ear pain after half an hour, and it also addresses driver ring, which, while not completely eliminated, is significantly reduced. I almost feel like the original design must have called for some felt here, and at the last second a bean counter realized they could save $0.03 per headphone by not including it.
  
*I've been playing too much Pokemon recently


----------



## Ancipital

argyris said:


> It was like the Ditto* of headphones, which could transform into anything anybody who owned it wanted. This is all where I had a bit of an issue for a while. It seems that hype has largely evaporated now and the M50's reputation is where it should be: solid value, arguably at the top of its price class, a good starting place but probably not the be-all, end-all.


 
 I'd argue that it's more the Pidgey of headphones at this point


----------



## VNandor

I don't really understand the m50 "hate", perhaps because I haven't experienced its hype? I would definitely tell people to check them out if they liked bassy headphones and wanted something for ~150$. It can really worth the money for some people and honestly, I would not have been disappointed if I ended up with the m50 instead of my AKG K545 or DT770.
  
 And come on, the old beats and its bass? It's not only blantantly obviously elevated (like the m50's) but so much out of the balance to be actually bothersome. Well, at least for me.


----------



## LajostheHun

Well talking about hype on HF, how about Cavalli Audio's Liquid Carbon? I confess I did fall for that, but mostly for the fact because I wanted an "entry level" balanced amp. Boy what a disappointment it was.However the partial blame should be placed at me, as I should have known better. The good news was is the easy way to sell it here even though I had not sold anything on this site yet. Within 2 hours of posting it was gone, and received several offers even after the sale. Mind blowing really.


----------



## castleofargh

jaeyoon said:


> cel4145 said:
> 
> 
> > Have three or four more people chime in with the same fervor and also state how it is better than much more expensive headphones that are generally considered great, and that is the formula for the new FOTM on Head-Fi
> ...


 

 if a lot of times has passed then in a hobby were some buy and sell non stop it's not that surprising. what I hate is when I see a guy going all "OMG rox! this thing > all" in reviews and threads like a mad man, and see him sell it less than a month after.  if I was king of the hill of headfi, I would ban anybody found to do something like this. there should be at least some level of accountability when somebody really becomes a marketing puppet and goes to sell the stuff right after. I've had a huge clash on a french forum some years back with a guy who got a device, made a ludicrously favorable review and had the device for sale a week later. so pretty much he made the review just to help his sale, I'm not a violent guy, but I really felt like high fiving him in the face with a shovel that day.
  
  
 Quote:


u-3c said:


> Speaking of overpriced audio gear, there is still the constant debate on whether or not you need anything above the o2 in terms of perceivable fidelity, despite all the years, and many people just automatically tell newcomers to get the Schiit stack, an oDac/O2 combo, or something in that price range as both the best bang-for-buck and for the best endgame setup. Sometimes the prices drop to the 100ish dollar range but that's more prone to debate, and people are expected to upgrade sometime down the line if they are serious about audio.
> 
> However...do people really need to even spend that much? More and more, I see people being surprised or confused (including myself!) that their new expensive Schiit dac sounds no different from their laptop onboard, and more people are open to the fact that dacs in many devices these days are so transparent, even well received stand alone dacs won't make much of a difference. Many have said that their new system's onboard audio is better (objectively and subjectively) to their old dacs, so maybe people should just skip the dac phase and get an amp like the Magni/O2 (due to their cult following and the belief that they are of the best value that should give you the greatest improvement for the money).
> 
> ...


 
 there is a difference to be made between stuff that are cheap and measure reasonably well(for a particular use), and stuff that are cheap and liked by users for subjective or practical reasons. the O2 has it's pros and cons, the magni too, but they measure overall like good products and drive average fullsize headphones. the NX1 is loved by a lot of people but has way more limitations and lower overall specs from what I know(the price is certainly nice though and the size too).
 it comes down to the usual questions, what do you need and what do you want. the best amp for an IEM isn't the best amp for high impedance low sensitivity headphones. the O2 at first was attractive because it could be used with an iphone or with a normal DAC(the gain setting was for that purpose, to match the DAC output). and is at first glance attractive for IEMs because of the extremely low noise floor(when the magni can have problematic hiss in some situations as far as I know from feedbacks, so not an IEM amp by default). but on the O2 the volume control even with 1X gain will most likely push you into areas where you'll have channel imbalance. so I don't see it as a great choice for IEMs. it will work, and there is always a way to play around with a multimeter to try and find a sweet spot where the imbalance won't be too high, or maybe you'll get lucky and get a volume pot that is well balanced at the loudness you usually use. but it's an unknown variable and as such we're taking a chance. it has enough juice to drive a hd650(electrically, I've had enough troubles in the hd650 topic with people mistaking driving ability and personal taste), now not all portable amps can do that, and even less at the time the O2 came out. so nothing is perfect.
 the problem is that people always look at one amp compared to another without regard to what is plugged in it and ask "which is best?". there is no general answer to such question unless one of the amps is absolute crap.
 with the price question comes the question about getting the right tool for your job. not everybody needs 15volt output, not everybody needs 0.2ohm output, or 120db SNR. but with some headphones/IEMs you might. that's the objective standpoint IMO, the difficulty comes from finding the necessary specs, the Odac/O2 had that from the start which is what made it compelling for me. it's not the best, but at least with that one I knew what I was buying. if other manufacturers had offered as many specs, I might have made a different choice. but of course trying isn't a bad option when it's one available to you.


----------



## JaeYoon

argyris said:


> Ah, the ever-hallowed "giant killer." For some reason, a few years back a lot of the time it was the HD 650 that these targeted. It's as if the people hyping them initially knew saying it was as good as an HD 800 or an Audeze / Stax / HiFiMAN something wouldn't fly, so why not pit  against a tired old former flagship?
> 
> I bought the hype once. My first decent headphone was an M50. It went back after two weeks. I learned a lot from that experience. Like how if something has a massive mountain of bass on a chart, it's going to sound just like it looks, contrary to the assurances of all the people who claimed the M50 was "neutral" back then. Now, it would be difficult to accuse the M50 of neutrality with a straight face, even among its exponents. Which just goes to show that sometimes the record does finally get set straight, even if it takes a long time. Doesn't help the poor person who got caught up in the hype and bought something they ended up not liking. Or, even worse, managed to convince themselves they _do_ like it because the alternative is admitting they made a (likely costly) mistake.
> 
> Speaking of the M50, anybody remember all the claims about how the ones in white boxes sounded different from the ones in blue boxes? That was one of the rare times I actually knew the source of a bit of Head-Fi lore. It was this Headfonia article, and while they never once say anything about the box, they do say there's a slight but noticeable difference between the two different M50s they tested, which they (correctly, I feel) attribute to simple product variation. Anyway, look at the picture (I had to post a Wayback Machine link because the current version lacks the picture, which is important). What do you see? A white box. Most likely somebody saw that article and that picture, probably somebody who had recently bought an M50 after the box got redesigned, they misinterpreted the article and concluded that the M50s in white boxes must sound different from the ones in blue boxes, and they posted it on Head-Fi. And thus, a myth is born.



Even today! Everyone still recommends ATH-M50 in white box as the best headphone to buy.
On various other JP fan sites and vocaloid sites.
People spread this. I honestly could not go back to ATH-M50 after trying out NAD HP50 and Blue Lolas and going to Meze99.

People recommend AtHm50 to people on here even in threads where person is looking for a $400 budget headphone
Ridiculous!!!!
Honestly even Hifiman Edition-S with the magnetic plates on is a huge upgrade to ATH-M50. Not even going to compare with the Edition S in open back mode cause thats just overkill


----------



## cel4145

argyris said:


> Speaking of the M50, anybody remember all the claims about how the ones in white boxes sounded different from the ones in blue boxes? That was one of the rare times I actually knew the source of a bit of Head-Fi lore. It was this Headfonia article, and while they never once say anything about the box, they do say there's a slight but noticeable difference between the two different M50s they tested, which they (correctly, I feel) attribute to simple product variation. Anyway, look at the picture (I had to post a Wayback Machine link because the current version lacks the picture, which is important). What do you see? A white box. Most likely somebody saw that article and that picture, probably somebody who had recently bought an M50 after the box got redesigned, they misinterpreted the article and concluded that the M50s in white boxes must sound different from the ones in blue boxes, and they posted it on Head-Fi. And thus, a myth is born.




If it wasn't product variation, the difference could have also been new pair vs. old pair with worn pads. That could make a slight difference as well. 

But yeah. That's a good example of another myth.


----------



## U-3C

castleofargh said:


> there is a difference to be made between stuff that are cheap and measure reasonably well(for a particular use), and stuff that are cheap and liked by users for subjective or practical reasons. the O2 has it's pros and cons, the magni too, but they measure overall like good products and drive average fullsize headphones. the NX1 is loved by a lot of people but has way more limitations and lower overall specs from what I know(the price is certainly nice though and the size too).
> 
> it comes down to the usual questions, what do you need and what do you want. the best amp for an IEM isn't the best amp for high impedance low sensitivity headphones. the O2 at first was attractive because it could be used with an iphone or with a normal DAC(the gain setting was for that purpose, to match the DAC output). and is at first glance attractive for IEMs because of the extremely low noise floor(when the magni can have problematic hiss in some situations as far as I know from feedbacks, so not an IEM amp by default). but on the O2 the volume control even with 1X gain will most likely push you into areas where you'll have channel imbalance. so I don't see it as a great choice for IEMs. it will work, and there is always a way to play around with a multimeter to try and find a sweet spot where the imbalance won't be too high, or maybe you'll get lucky and get a volume pot that is well balanced at the loudness you usually use. but it's an unknown variable and as such we're taking a chance. it has enough juice to drive a hd650(electrically, I've had enough troubles in the hd650 topic with people mistaking driving ability and personal taste), now not all portable amps can do that, and even less at the time the O2 came out. so nothing is perfect.
> the problem is that people always look at one amp compared to another without regard to what is plugged in it and ask "which is best?". there is no general answer to such question unless one of the amps is absolute crap.
> with the price question comes the question about getting the right tool for your job. not everybody needs 15volt output, not everybody needs 0.2ohm output, or 120db SNR. but with some headphones/IEMs you might. that's the objective standpoint IMO, the difficulty comes from finding the necessary specs, the Odac/O2 had that from the start which is what made it compelling for me. it's not the best, but at least with that one I knew what I was buying. if other manufacturers had offered as many specs, I might have made a different choice. but of course trying isn't a bad option when it's one available to you.




Thanks for your insight! I rarely see people talk about those issues in very general discussions.

I've been looking at something like the E5, which has a lot of bells and whistles, but might skimp on fidelity compared to products in the same price range that focus on fidelity first. I've been wondering if what the E5 offers is already transparent enough above human comprehension, so it will be a better idea to invest the money in the cool features that I can use compared something that may offer more power or greater fidelity, but won't make a difference to my ears.

It's interesting that you mentioned the flaws of the popular O2 and the Magni, which makes me wonder if the Creative E5, which focuses a bit less on pure fidelity, has any audible flaws that might make it a poor choice for certain situations.


----------



## NLNH

> Originally Posted by *castleofargh* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> the problem is that people always look at one amp compared to another without regard to what is plugged in it and ask "which is best?". there is no general answer to such question unless one of the amps is absolute crap.


 
  
 Also when manys hear a setup the particular impression will be in their mind forever 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
 neglectless of any other possibilities.
  
 Not to mention unnecessary pride defending original impressions even when a better setup that makes some gears shine is present.
Audiophile behavious could be a fun psychological study afterall 





 
  


> if a lot of times has passed then in a hobby were some buy and sell non stop it's not that surprising. what I hate is when I see a guy going all "OMG rox! this thing > all" in reviews and threads like a mad man, and see him sell it less than a month after.  if I was king of the hill of headfi, I would ban anybody found to do something like this. there should be at least some level of accountability when somebody really becomes a marketing puppet and goes to sell the stuff right after. I've had a huge clash on a french forum some years back with a guy who got a device, made a ludicrously favorable review and had the device for sale a week later. so pretty much he made the review just to help his sale, I'm not a violent guy, but I really felt like high fiving him in the face with a shovel that day.


 
  
 guess you need a truck filled with shovels even for now 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 





 
 take my imaginary shovel collection


----------



## icebear

castleofargh said:


> ...
> if a lot of times has passed then in a hobby were some buy and sell non stop it's not that surprising. what I hate is when I see a guy going all "OMG rox! this thing > all" in reviews and threads like a mad man, and see him sell it less than a month after.  if I was king of the hill of headfi, I would ban anybody found to do something like this. there should be at least some level of accountability when somebody really becomes a marketing puppet and goes to sell the stuff right after. I've had a huge clash on a french forum some years back with a guy who got a device, made a ludicrously favorable review and had the device for sale a week later. so pretty much he made the review just to help his sale, I'm not a violent guy, but I really felt like *high fiving him in the face with a shovel that day.....*


 
 LOL ... hilarious 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.
 He wasn't trying to sell some Focal stuff by any chance?


----------



## Dillan

Back in the day I was one of the people who followed the crowd's advice with the hype of the M50. It was one of my first headphone purchases after joining head-fi and I honestly felt like being part of everyone else and agreed that it was amazing for the money.. but deep down from the moment I heard them until the moment they fell apart - I was disappointed. Not because I thought they were bad, but because they were (and still are) the default entry level headphone that everyone screams at you to buy when you join the hobby and after years later and owning many many more headphones.. I just feel like there are so much better options out there. Audio-Technica has to completely love us by now.. or maybe they're the ones behind it all along *queue conspiracy music*.
  
 I don't mean to bash the headphone or anyone who owns/loves it. It is just my opinion anyway. I am sure that a lot of people really are happy with it. I just felt like it has a sound signature that many may not like and headphones like Grado can be had for much less. It really is just an example of how a hyped up headphone will be praised and bought a lot of times simply because everyone else likes it and buys it too.


----------



## JaeYoon

dillan said:


> Back in the day I was one of the people who followed the crowd's advice with the hype of the M50. It was one of my first headphone purchases after joining head-fi and I honestly felt like being part of everyone else and agreed that it was amazing for the money.. but deep down from the moment I heard them until the moment they fell apart - I was disappointed. Not because I thought they were bad, but because they were (and still are) the default entry level headphone that everyone screams at you to buy when you join the hobby and after years later and owning many many more headphones.. I just feel like there are so much better options out there. Audio-Technica has to completely love us by now.. or maybe they're the ones behind it all along *queue conspiracy music*.
> 
> I don't mean to bash the headphone or anyone who owns/loves it. It is just my opinion anyway. I am sure that a lot of people really are happy with it. I just felt like it has a sound signature that many may not like and headphones like Grado can be had for much less. It really is just an example of how a hyped up headphone will be praised and bought a lot of times simply because everyone else likes it and buys it too.



Thats what I have recommeneded but falls on deaf ears in other communities. Ath m50!!! Yeah!!!!

Meanwhile Grados headphones can be cheaper. What abouy AKG k553 for $120 or less??? Used pair of beyer 770 or 1350!? What about used HD-25???
I definitely agree with you about better options.

Yet people will keep screaming ATH-M50 best ever!!!


----------



## 93EXCivic

I also was very underwhelmed with the ATH-M50. Not really to my taste. Honestly I prefer my much cheaper Superlux HD668b...


----------



## Argyris

dillan said:


> I don't mean to bash the headphone or anyone who owns/loves it. It is just my opinion anyway. I am sure that a lot of people really are happy with it. I just felt like it has a sound signature that many may not like and headphones like Grado can be had for much less. It really is just an example of how a hyped up headphone will be praised and bought a lot of times simply because everyone else likes it and buys it too.


 
  
 Exactly. In a way, I'm kind of glad I tried the M50. It cost me restocking to return it, and I went through one more headphone (a Grado SR225i) before finally stumbling upon my DT880, but it taught me a valuable lesson early on: not only is the hype machine not infallible, but being honest with yourself and admitting that you don't like something, even if it means the search has to go on, is a necessary part of finally finding something you truly enjoy. It might have been a lot harder for me to learn that lesson if I had agreed with the hype the first time around.
  
 I remember the M50 recommendations vividly. Every. Single. Thread. It went something like this:
  


> "Hi, I'm looking for something that's great for rock."
> 
> _ATH-M50_
> 
> ...


 
  
 It's funny you should mention Grado. It seems like their popularity has waned considerably in the past five years or so. Even when I was first starting back in 2010 they were kind of confined to their own niche, but I still feel like they got mentioned and recommended a lot more often than now. My SR225i experience was a bit better overall than my M50 one, but ultimately the SR225i was far too colored to be a good all-arounder, which is what I was looking for at the time. I've often toyed with the idea of picking up an SR60i/e just to have that unique sound in my collection, since it did some things surprisingly well, but I can't bring myself to buy something I know will have limited utility.


----------



## LajostheHun

jaeyoon said:


> Thats what I have recommeneded but falls on deaf ears in other communities. Ath m50!!! Yeah!!!!
> 
> Meanwhile Grados headphones can be cheaper. What abouy AKG k553 for $120 or less??? Used pair of beyer 770 or 1350!? What about used HD-25???
> I definitely agree with you about better options.
> ...



It's not best ever it's a safe choice. None of those above I would recommend over an M50, sorry.


----------



## JaeYoon

I wouldnt even think ATH M50 is a safe choice for every genre.
Even Trinity Vyrus IEMs would blow away ATH M50.
^ that's hella cheap for what 70 USD?


----------



## ExtremeGamerBR

If you listen to eletronic music, rap, hip hop, some kinds of rock (RATM is fantastic with M50) it will blow your head away because it really is a GREAT headphone for who is starting...
  
 But you like more jazz, blues etc, I don't think this headhpone is the best option.
  
 We have to take care with how we put some views. The type of music you are looking for, if you want a closed or open back headphone, etc etc.


----------



## JaeYoon

extremegamerbr said:


> If you listen to eletronic music, rap, hip hop, some kinds of rock (RATM is fantastic with M50) it will blow your head away because it really is a GREAT headphone for who is starting...
> 
> But you like more jazz, blues etc, I don't think this headhpone is the best option.
> 
> We have to take care with how we put some views. The type of music you are looking for, if you want a closed or open back headphone, etc etc.


 
 I do give ATH M-50 the huge advantage in Bass region, compared to headphones that cost more than it.
 It does have ability to excel in genres with a good bass response and very enjoyable. There is some Post-Metal I've managed to try the ATH-M50 on and it seems to go well.
  
 It's very lack luster once I hit into genres that I have recently gone into because of FLAC threads here with a lot of specific Post-Rock etc.
 Even some Ballad and Ambient Vocal music.
  
 Once going further up portable closed headphone chain. Meze99 Classics excels in it's fun signature compared to ATH M-50 in those genres. Even the NAD HP50 is a upgrade with it's warm sig and more spacious soundstage.
  
 Tbh, I honestly don't think ATHm-50 is terrible anymore. It's more so because I'm used to headphones that can do what ATH M-50 can besides bass, much better.


----------



## painted klown

When I first joined Head-Fi the ATH-M50 was being recommended leaft, right, and center. Also Grado was pretty popular at the time as well. I went and auditioned both, and wound up taking the Grado SR80i home with me. Then the ATH-M50X came out and I blind bought it. Going from memory only, I thought the X version was a pretty good improvement on the original. Less fatiguing highs being its best improved area IMO.
  
 I still rock my M50X when I am in the mood for serious bass slam. I would put it on par with the Beats Solo 2 for pure bass slam, however the Solo 2 is a quite a bit smoother in the upper registers, seeming to give up some detail & transparency for the trade off. Both have their place in my collection, even though they both essentially fill the same usage gap.
  
 My senn HD-598 and HD-650 get the most head time of all my cans by FAR, though.


----------



## JaeYoon

painted klown said:


> When I first joined Head-Fi the ATH-M50 was being recommended leaft, right, and center. Also Grado was pretty popular at the time as well. I went and auditioned both, and wound up taking the Grado SR80i home with me. Then the ATH-M50X came out and I blind bought it. Going from memory only, I thought the X version was a pretty good improvement on the original. Less fatiguing highs being its best improved area IMO.
> 
> I still rock my M50X when I am in the mood for serious bass slam. I would put it on par with the Beats Solo 2 for pure bass slam, however the Solo 2 is a quite a bit smoother in the upper registers, seeming to give up some detail & transparency for the trade off. Both have their place in my collection, even though they both essentially fill the same usage gap.
> 
> My senn HD-598 and HD-650 get the most head time of all my cans by FAR, though.



I know this sounds really bad. But I never knew that M50X was improved upon original.

I just assumed the ATH-M50X box I bought was the M50 everyone recommended me to try. No one told me about the X.

Well now I know I have improved version

I do find ATH M-50X pads and headband to be more comfortable than NAD HP50. Ill keeep giving it a listen.


----------



## Argyris

There's some pretty solid measurements behind the notion that the M50x is different from the original. Of course it could just be lucky chance that Tyll got a sample with smoother treble, but since the trend in closed headphones in recent years seems to be toward an overall warm tilt (e.g. HP50, the various Focal Spirit incarnations, etc.) rather than a pronounced V, it's not unreasonable to think that A-T might have quietly dialed back the treble a bit and just not advertised or confirmed this. It's still going to be V-shaped on account of the laid back upper mids, but I've read enough accounts from people I trust (as opposed to the typical "everything I try is the best and is everything everybody says about it!" crowd) to the effect that the modern M50x is noticeably less prominent in the highs.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

castleofargh said:


> u-3c said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of overpriced audio gear, there is still the constant debate on whether or not you need anything above the o2 in terms of perceivable fidelity, despite all the years, and many people just automatically tell newcomers to get the Schiit stack, an oDac/O2 combo, or something in that price range as both the best bang-for-buck and for the best endgame setup. Sometimes the prices drop to the 100ish dollar range but that's more prone to debate, and people are expected to upgrade sometime down the line if they are serious about audio.
> ...




Years ago I got a FiiO E17 (before I started working for FiiO) to help me with my EQ work. I needed an amp that could gain rather high even with big headphones to push out those +30dB notes at 25Hz as dictated by the generic equal loudness curve 

It's turned out to be a really really versatile amp. Digital volume, so you never get channel imbalance. 12dB gain range from low to high, not the widest range you can get these days, but still good enough to get you a really quiet background with most IEMs and plenty loud enough with most big headphones. Has USB, line, optical and coaxial inputs :eek: AFAIK it is still the no.1 rated headphone DAC/amp, and I had nothing to do with its popularity (scratch that, it's been dethroned by the Mojo  )

The current E17K may be the last generation of such affordable super-amps from FiiO...


----------



## U-3C

joe bloggs said:


> Years ago I got a FiiO E17 (before I started working for FiiO) to help me with my EQ work. I needed an amp that could gain rather high even with big headphones to push out those +30dB notes at 25Hz as dictated by the generic equal loudness curve
> 
> It's turned out to be a really really versatile amp. Digital volume, so you never get channel imbalance. 12dB gain range from low to high, not the widest range you can get these days, but still good enough to get you a really quiet background with most IEMs and plenty loud enough with most big headphones. Has USB, line, optical and coaxial inputs :eek: AFAIK it is still the no.1 rated headphone DAC/amp, and I had nothing to do with its popularity (scratch that, it's been dethroned by the Mojo  )
> 
> The current E17K may be the last generation of such affordable super-amps from FiiO...






I came so close to getting an e17k.

If I can go back in time, I'll probably choose it as it has all that I need.

Actually, if I can go back in time, I'll probably take inspiration from castleofargh and high five the past me in the face with a shovel for every stupid thing I've done during my life, then care about audio stuff...


----------



## Argyris

u-3c said:


> Actually, if I can go back in time, I'll probably take inspiration from castleofargh and high five the past me in the face with a shovel for every stupid thing I've done during my life, then care about audio stuff...


 
  
 If I could go back in time, I'd use my knowledge of the future to make huge sums of money betting on events whose outcome I already know. I have a feeling I'm going to need it if I want to keep up with the ever-increasing prices of personal audio.


----------



## krismusic

argyris said:


> If I could go back in time, I'd use my knowledge of the future to make huge sums of money betting on events whose outcome I already know. I have a feeling I'm going to need it if I want to keep up with the ever-increasing prices of personal audio.



A lot of this thread seems to indicate that you don't need to spend vast sums of money to enjoy your music. In fact the gains in doing so are dubious. Unless you are into aesthetic and pride of ownership.


----------



## LajostheHun

jaeyoon said:


> I wouldnt even think ATH M50 is a safe choice for every genre.
> Even Trinity Vyrus IEMs would blow away ATH M50.
> ^ that's hella cheap for what 70 USD?


 I hate IEM's!!!
 it's a safe choice to many people, no it's not for everyone, and not for every genre. I'm not sure why are you so apprehensive about a product that you don't own or care to recommend. Why don't you just move on?


----------



## Koolpep

Unreasonable bashing of products is the same as overhyping.


----------



## oldmate

dillan said:


> Back in the day I was one of the people who followed the crowd's advice with the hype of the M50. It was one of my first headphone purchases after joining head-fi and I honestly felt like being part of everyone else and agreed that it was amazing for the money.. but deep down from the moment I heard them until the moment they fell apart - I was disappointed. Not because I thought they were bad, but because they were (and still are) the default entry level headphone that everyone screams at you to buy when you join the hobby and after years later and owning many many more headphones.. I just feel like there are so much better options out there. Audio-Technica has to completely love us by now.. or maybe they're the ones behind it all along *queue conspiracy music*.
> 
> I don't mean to bash the headphone or anyone who owns/loves it. It is just my opinion anyway. I am sure that a lot of people really are happy with it. I just felt like it has a sound signature that many may not like and headphones like Grado can be had for much less. It really is just an example of how a hyped up headphone will be praised and bought a lot of times simply because everyone else likes it and buys it too.


 
 I actually sold my HP50's due to lousy build quality to fund my M50X purchase. They are dedicated to PC use with Sound Blaster ZXR and I have to say I think they are a wonderful set of cans for my purposes. I would put them a little above entry level myself but that's just my opinion.
  
 Build quality craps all over the NAD's.


----------



## RRod

oldmate said:


> Build quality craps all over the NAD's.


 
  
hrasing.jpg:


----------



## Argyris

I tried the HP50. I bought it mainly on Tyll's strong recommendation. My impressions of it are...complicated. I ultimately didn't keep it, and it's the first time I was ever forced to return a headphone because I found it unbearably uncomfortable. The clamp was ridiculous, and the tiny spot where the poorly padded headband made contact with the top of my skull and bore much of the weight of the headphone became supremely uncomfortable after about an hour.
  
 Sound-wise, I actually feel like I didn't get an accurate impression of it because of the fit. I feel like the pads, despite the immense clamping pressure, weren't sealing properly because, despite the measurements I'd seen and pretty much all the impressions I'd read, I heard very little lower bass. It was all mid- and upper bass, and while initially in a listening session it didn't sound overblown, it kind of caught up with me over time. This, coupled with the lack of upper end extension, made it sound thick and a bit dull to me over time. There was also a bothersome peak somewhere in the mid-treble, despite the overall treble level not being elevated. Targeted parametric EQ left behind a sound that lacked extension on both ends and was, for lack of better words, dry, dull and unengaging. After a bit of experimentation, I concluded that I preferred the stock balance, despite its flaws.
  
 I wanted desperately to like this headphone. I'm one of the three and a half people in the known universe who actually liked the way it looked (in bright red, no less), though the squarish headband was a questionable style choice that also contributed to the uncomfortable fit. I was also impressed with the overall technical capability, despite the tonality issues I had. The imaging was impressive, as was the detail retrieval. It also had good genre coverage in that nothing sounded obviously wrong on it. The sound was mostly smooth (apart from that odd spike in the treble), and it seemed quite well damped. No obvious ringing, no overt cup coloration. The HP50 had a lot going for it, and I feel like I might have eventually gotten used to the sound, but the comfort didn't get any better after about a week with my set, so it got sent on.


----------



## Dillan

oldmate said:


> I actually sold my HP50's due to lousy build quality to fund my M50X purchase. They are dedicated to PC use with Sound Blaster ZXR and I have to say I think they are a wonderful set of cans for my purposes. I would put them a little above entry level myself but that's just my opinion.
> 
> Build quality craps all over the NAD's.




A lot of people love them, I would imagine the sound sig is probably pretty great for gaming


----------



## Argyris

dillan said:


> A lot of people love them, I would imagine the sound sig is probably pretty great for gaming


 
  
 That might depend on what you value in gaming. If you like the deep rumble of explosions and gunshots, maybe. If you feel that that low end rumble gets in the way of the finer details, particularly positional cues, it might be problematic.


----------



## Dillan

argyris said:


> That might depend on what you value in gaming. If you like the deep rumble of explosions and gunshots, maybe. If you feel that that low end rumble gets in the way of the finer details, particularly positional cues, it might be problematic.




Also very true.


----------



## castleofargh

trying to justify that something is overpriced for taste reasons is ok only at a personal level. we shouldn't try to force our taste onto others.


----------



## Ancipital

argyris said:


> That might depend on what you value in gaming. If you like the deep rumble of explosions and gunshots, maybe. If you feel that that low end rumble gets in the way of the finer details, particularly positional cues, it might be problematic.


 
  
 Hells yes. I'd wear my planars for gaming far more often if they weren't open-backed, and if I didn't need a mic so much. Combined with Dolby Atmos in Overwatch, it's eerie how clearly and quickly I can resolve directional sound cues. I have heard listening room scale 3D audio systems of a high-end and sometimes experimental/cutting-edge nature, so I don't impress easily, but I have to say that I loved the combo.
  
 However, I do compromise for a warm-sounding closed-backed headset with a decent noise-cancelling mic, as throwing it on your head and being ready to go is just so handy. I did toy with picking up a lavalier mic to go into my desktop DAC/ADC, but then there's the extra hassle and cable soup- which is just a distraction when the action hots up.


----------



## U-3C

castleofargh said:


> trying to justify that something is overpriced for taste reasons is ok only at a personal level. we shouldn't try to force our taste onto others.




If only I can stop doing that myself.


----------



## pctazhp

castleofargh said:


> trying to justify that something is overpriced for taste reasons is ok only at a personal level. we shouldn't try to force our taste onto others.


 
 But it is so much fun telling other people how to think and act.


----------



## castleofargh

pctazhp said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > trying to justify that something is overpriced for taste reasons is ok only at a personal level. we shouldn't try to force our taste onto others.
> ...


 
 tell me about it, I wished to be world general since I was a kid. even watched pinky and the brain for educational purpose, but no luck so far.


----------



## cel4145

koolpep said:


> Unreasonable bashing of products is the same as overhyping.




+1

And it often is the counterpart to over hyping. People that over hype a headphone will often go out of their way to bash a headphone comparable in price/performance.


----------



## Ancipital

castleofargh said:


> tell me about it, I wished to be world general since I was a kid. even watched pinky and the brain for educational purpose, but no luck so far.


 
  
 You can't be Pinky *and *The Brain at once, that's just greedy. You'd have to share..


----------



## oldmate

argyris said:


> That might depend on what you value in gaming. If you like the deep rumble of explosions and gunshots, maybe. If you feel that that low end rumble gets in the way of the finer details, particularly positional cues, it might be problematic.


 
 It's strange that everybody mentions the low end on these because I don't find the bass to be over blown at all. The highs are crisp and can get a little edgy but I have no issues with directional cues when playing Arma 3. Then again I'm using Scout Mode through my Sound Blaster ZxR. I mean these are after all studio monitors that the public got hold of and started buying in mass quantities hence the hype. Obviously open cans are better suited to some games.
  
 I also use them through my trusty old iBasso D6 with MusicBee and the asio4all driver for music and they sound pretty bloody good. I like them.
  
 Sorry for going off topic - again.


----------



## Argyris

oldmate said:


> It's strange that everybody mentions the low end on these because I don't find the bass to be over blown at all. The highs are crisp and can get a little edgy but I have no issues with directional cues when playing Arma 3. Then again I'm using Scout Mode through my Sound Blaster ZxR. I mean these are after all studio monitors that the public got hold of and started buying in mass quantities hence the hype. Obviously open cans are better suited to some games.
> 
> I also use them through my trusty old iBasso D6 with MusicBee and the asio4all driver for music and they sound pretty bloody good. I like them.
> 
> Sorry for going off topic - again.


 
  
 There was a topic here? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 If I ever come across an M50x, I'll give it another listen. It's one of those cases where I'm fairly sure my preferences are still such that I wouldn't like it, but I'm open to the possibility that it might surprise me. I certainly won't dismiss it purely on the fact that it's popular and inexpensive, which, as we've discussed, is more than enough cause for the snobbier in the hobby to pigeonhole something as unworthy.
  
 As to its studio purpose, I always saw it as a tracking can. It would be brilliant for that, I think, with deep bass that gives kick drums some nice punch and presence; clear highs for picking out the high frequency elements of the rhythm section (e.g. ride cymbal, high-hat); and less energy in the presence region so it doesn't sound shouty when turned up loud enough to hear over the instrument you're playing.


----------



## JaeYoon

lajosthehun said:


> I hate IEM's!!!
> it's a safe choice to many people, no it's not for everyone, and not for every genre. I'm not sure why are you so apprehensive about a product that you don't own or care to recommend. Why don't you just move on?




Yup those are definitely not ATH-M50x sitting next to my Hifiman edition S headphone and my trinity vyrus. Hmmm i wonder what Audio technica headphones I have then???

However I do like them to electronic music espeically those composed by Zynthetic for his KF soundtracks. Christmas and carnival compositions


----------



## mulder01

Hmm so I was wondering if any of you guys know of a reasonably priced dac/amp 1 box combo that would put out a fair bit of power - (probably about 1 watt or more into 50 ohms), that was more on the warmer-sounding side?  I have heard that the o2 is a bit clinical and I bought myself a ifi iDSD micro and found it to be the same.  I have a fairly good violectric amp that I like, but wonder if it's necessary - if I can sell $$$$'s worth of gear and replace it with $$$'s worth of gear and get the same outcome, I may as well do it and put the money back in my pocket.  Cheers.


----------



## krismusic

mulder01 said:


> Hmm so I was wondering if any of you guys know of a reasonably priced dac/amp 1 box combo that would put out a fair bit of power - (probably about 1 watt or more into 50 ohms), that was more on the warmer-sounding side?  I have heard that the o2 is a bit clinical and I bought myself a ifi iDSD micro and found it to be the same.  I have a fairly good violectric amp that I like, but wonder if it's necessary - if I can sell $$$$'s worth of gear and replace it with $$$'s worth of gear and get the same outcome, I may as well do it and put the money back in my pocket.  Cheers.



Maybe ask that in the Headphone Amps section. 
It's a shame that this thread has become a discussion thread for specific gear. 
Maybe it's work was done pages back and should be cleaned up and closed?


----------



## Ruben123

indeed, please use this thread : http://www.head-fi.org/t/769647/objectivists-board-room


----------



## mulder01

There are a few pages of m50 talk...

 Sorry I was just asking in here because if you ask in the headphone amp section and tell people that you're using it for an Abyss they will give the usual answers of "you need a liquid gold or you won't get the most out of them" etc etc and everyone will just repeat every subjective bit of ramble they've read in the past.  As we have been discussing.  
  
 I am just wondering because we keep saying that you can get equally as good performance out of electronics that are reasonably priced as megabuck gear, but hardly any specific products get mentioned apart from things like the o2 or an entry level schiit stack.  I'll take it to the board room.


----------



## Ruben123

Even my very easy to drive in ears NEED an amp when I don't like the sound. At least they tell me. When the sound goes loud enough and doesn't clip it's ok


----------



## Ancipital

ruben123 said:


> Even my very easy to drive in ears NEED an amp when I don't like the sound. At least they tell me. When the sound goes loud enough and doesn't clip it's ok


 
  
 Hah, my easy to drive IEMs actually do benefit, when I plug them into my portable DAC/amp- so it comes with my on trips to increase the enjoyment of introvert downtime. However, for day to day, Neutron and a chunk of EQ keeps me out of trouble.


----------



## Ruben123

ancipital said:


> Hah, my easy to drive IEMs actually do benefit, when I plug them into my portable DAC/amp- so it comes with my on trips to increase the enjoyment of introvert downtime. However, for day to day, Neutron and a chunk of EQ keeps me out of trouble.




I guess your source isn't that good then.


----------



## Ancipital

ruben123 said:


> I guess your source isn't that good then.


 
  
 Good grief, Holmes.


----------



## JaeYoon

ancipital said:


> Hah, my easy to drive IEMs actually do benefit, when I plug them into my portable DAC/amp- so it comes with my on trips to increase the enjoyment of introvert downtime. However, for day to day, Neutron and a chunk of EQ keeps me out of trouble.



Your phone and Neutron with custom eq can be good enough on day to day basis.

I did it too on my HTC10 before I got a new dedicated DAP. Running stuff with moderate volume from 16 ohms to 26 ohms.

I never felt I needed a dedicated amp. Even though many go by it that adds a lot more to the souund. Though I liked the DAP just to save battery on phone.


----------



## pctazhp

mulder01 said:


> There are a few pages of m50 talk...
> 
> Sorry I was just asking in here because if you ask in the headphone amp section and tell people that you're using it for an Abyss they will give the usual answers of "you need a liquid gold or you won't get the most out of them" etc etc *and everyone will just repeat every subjective bit of ramble they've read in the past.*  As we have been discussing.
> 
> I am just wondering because we keep saying that you can get equally as good performance out of electronics that are reasonably priced as megabuck gear, but hardly any specific products get mentioned apart from things like the o2 or an entry level schiit stack.  I'll take it to the board room.


 
 And this thread hasn't degenerated into exactly that????


----------



## JaeYoon

pctazhp said:


> And this thread hasn't degenerated into exactly that????



Yeah this thread is subjective as well


----------



## Ancipital

<salty comment removed, it's too feckin' hot>


----------



## Dillan

I think it's OK to venture off topic from time to time. It's hard to just drone on about pricing infrastructure and bias. It would be nice to keep the thread going in my opinion. A quick burst of discussion and information spreading is good, but ultimately doesn't change anything which is the whole goal I had in mind. When it comes down to it; this thread nor you or I will change anything.. but talking about it at least might benefit us consumers one way or another in the long run. I still wholeheartedly believe placebo, misinformation and bias all create a concoction of manipulated consumers and overpriced goods. This is actually our own fault and at the benefit of product makers.. but it is what it is.
  
 I just really want the best for everyone involved in this hobby and I feel like it's possible the overall quality of the industry and of being a headphone audiophile in general has declined and is declining still.


----------



## pctazhp

dillan said:


> I think it's OK to venture off topic from time to time. It's hard to just drone on about pricing infrastructure and bias. It would be nice to keep the thread going in my opinion. A quick burst of discussion and information spreading is good, but ultimately doesn't change anything which is the whole goal I had in mind. When it comes down to it; this thread nor you or I will change anything.. but talking about it at least might benefit us consumers one way or another in the long run. I still wholeheartedly believe placebo, misinformation and bias all create a concoction of manipulated consumers and overpriced goods. This is actually our own fault and at the benefit of product makers.. but it is what it is.
> 
> I just really want the best for everyone involved in this hobby and I feel like it's possible the overall quality of the industry and of being a headphone audiophile in general has declined and is declining still.


 
 I really have no problem with that. I personally am very active in several subjective threads. Just hope those who are now posting here about sound quality aren't deluding themselves into believing they are coming from an objective, scientific viewpoint which makes their posts somehow superior to the numerous subjective posts that populate most of HeadFi.
  
 I also wonder how many of those who take manufacturers to task regarding pricing have any business background or expertise. Always easy to sit on the sidelines and pontificate.


----------



## glassmonkey

dillan said:


> I still wholeheartedly believe placebo, misinformation and bias all create a concoction of manipulated consumers and overpriced goods. This is actually our own fault and at the benefit of product makers.. but it is what it is.
> 
> I just really want the best for everyone involved in this hobby and I feel like it's possible the overall quality of the industry and of being a headphone audiophile in general has declined and is declining still.


 
 I think there is a counter-trend of rapidly improving products at the lower end of the price spectrum and way more options in the middle. The audiophile hobby is getting better for people in that price bracket, whilst people in the top bracket have massively diminishing returns. I think the overall quality of the industry is improving because in spite of all the expensive items joining the summit-fi ranks you've got $5 earbuds that compete on sound with $200 IEMs, and good DAPs and amps for under $100.
  
 I don't think there has been a time with so much value for money.


----------



## Argyris

glassmonkey said:


> I think there is a counter-trend of rapidly improving products at the lower end of the price spectrum and way more options in the middle. The audiophile hobby is getting better for people in that price bracket, whilst people in the top bracket have massively diminishing returns. I think the overall quality of the industry is improving because in spite of all the expensive items joining the summit-fi ranks you've got $5 earbuds that compete on sound with $200 IEMs, and good DAPs and amps for under $100.
> 
> I don't think there has been a time with so much value for money.


 
  
 It's one of those weird paradoxes. On the one hand, what you're saying is absolutely right. There are all kinds of affordable options and new players entering the market. But in a way that's also the engine of the problem, because there's so much going on it's now confusing to newcomers just where to start. So they look for advice from people who are into the hobby...
  
 ...and that's where they run into the subjectivist bias. They might not be able to read a set of measurements at first, nor will they have experience with similar gear to what they're looking at to make comparative impressions useful (e.g. "It's like an HD 600 with more bass"), but they can understand "I bought this $$$$ amp and it made a night and day difference!" just fine. And once they start reading that kind of statement over and over, they'll most likely do one of two things: either they'll conclude they've wandered into the insane asylum by mistake and back out of the hobby entirely, or they'll assume that since everyone is saying it, it must be correct, so they'll start believing it, too. I wonder how many people who were attracted by the inexpensive gear ended up not buying any of it and just leaping right into the more expensive end of the pool just because they read so often that they need to spend more money?
  
 I'm not saying having more options is a bad thing. It's a _great_ thing. But it can be hard to separate the wheat from the chaff with so many choices, and with practically everything becoming a FOTM and the snobbish types looking down their noses at anybody who doesn't spend tens of thousands, I don't envy newcomers one bit trying to make sense of it all.
  
 This is where I wish people like Tyll would look at inexpensive gear more often. He tends to stick with mid-priced and flagship-level stuff, which is understandable given the audience for IF. But for somebody just starting out, "mid-priced" these days is still at least three or four hundred dollars, which is more than they're likely willing to pay upfront. The WoF is a good place to start looking, and of course once you've heard enough gear you can get a rough idea what to expect from the measurements section. But it's still dominated by stuff from the upper end of the price spectrum, and the lower end gear on there consists mostly of old standbys. The PortaPro is decent for what it is, for instance, but I have to believe that there's something better (or at least which strikes a different set of compromises) lurking out there somewhere these days.


----------



## pctazhp

argyris said:


> It's one of those weird paradoxes. On the one hand, what you're saying is absolutely right. There are all kinds of affordable options and new players entering the market. But in a way that's also the engine of the problem, because there's so much going on it's now confusing to newcomers just where to start. So they look for advice from people who are into the hobby...
> 
> ...and that's where they run into the subjectivist bias. They might not be able to read a set of measurements at first, nor will they have experience with similar gear to what they're looking at to make comparative impressions useful (e.g. "It's like an HD 600 with more bass"), but they can understand "I bought this $$$$ amp and it made a night and day difference!" just fine. And once they start reading that kind of statement over and over, they'll most likely do one of two things: either they'll conclude they've wandered into the insane asylum by mistake and back out of the hobby entirely, or they'll assume that since everyone is saying it, it must be correct, so they'll start believing it, too. I wonder how many people who were attracted by the inexpensive gear ended up not buying any of it and just leaping right into the more expensive end of the pool just because they read so often that they need to spend more money?
> 
> ...


 
 Snobbery is an equal opportunity offender. I have been involved with audio since the early 70s and have seen countless examples of self-proclaimed "objectivists" who have exceedingly long noses with which to look down. As to the big dollar crowd, for many of them money simply isn't something they need to worry about. Many of them just enjoy sharing their experiences with their toys with other similarly situated people without any hint of looking down on the financially less fortunate.
  
 Many here seem so concerned with newcomers but act as if all people joining HeadFi for the first time just fell of the turnip truck. Most newcomers arrive here with varying degrees of life experiences, education level, good judgment, good table manners pounded into them by their mothers at a young age, etc. Sometimes when I read this thread it seems as if financial ruin stemming from headphones is one of the great social problems of the age. While I'm sure that some become addicted to the latest-and-greatest syndrome, I suspect that is a minuscule number compared to those whose lives have been ruined by drugs and alcohol- even just among HeadFi members.
  
 At my age memory is not one of my long suits. But I recall sometime back in the late 70s or 80s, after The Absolute Sound and Stereophile Magazine were entrenched as the journals of high-dollar, high-end audio, someone started a journal aimed at the budget segment of the market. It did not last and I don't even remember its name. Yet TAS and Sterephile are still going strong. Not exactly sure what that means.


----------



## JaeYoon

Yeah I used to think thats crazy. Who the heck will pay thousands for headphones and valve amps and setups. Then buy another high end headphone.

But then when I used to work at a Casino. There tons of people who were crying to staff who bet their house property away. That they bet 10,000. They want the money back. Lots of drunk people betting things that is sacred.

Including a wife betting wedding ring plus 2,000 cash.

Makes people who spend thousands on Hifi very miniscule in comparison


----------



## richard51

pctazhp said:


> At my age memory is not one of my long suits. But I recall sometime back in the late 70s or 80s, after The Absolute Sound and Stereophile Magazine were entrenched as the journals of high-dollar, high-end audio, someone started a journal aimed at the budget segment of the market. It did not last and I don't even remember its name. Yet TAS and Sterephile are still going strong. Not exactly sure what that means.


 
 i know exactly what that means.... people dont want to "work" for a solution... they want to pay.... they want to know what is the best and the  amount to pay for.... they dont want to try hard, think, work for a cheap solution....


----------



## glassmonkey

argyris said:


> glassmonkey said:
> 
> 
> > I think there is a counter-trend of rapidly improving products at the lower end of the price spectrum and way more options in the middle. The audiophile hobby is getting better for people in that price bracket, whilst people in the top bracket have massively diminishing returns. I think the overall quality of the industry is improving because in spite of all the expensive items joining the summit-fi ranks you've got $5 earbuds that compete on sound with $200 IEMs, and good DAPs and amps for under $100.
> ...


 
 I do a bit of reviewing here on HeadFi, and I can tell you that you don't want to seek out reviews for stuff you may not like. I also think that once you get used to a certain level of performance, the small differences in resolution and soundstage between headphones become much more noticeable. I can certainly say that more expensive doesn't equal better. I personally thought the FiBASS was an IEM for vocal lovers who don't give a crap about having any depth to the sound, in other words a $999 worthless IEM to me, but I'd heartily recommend the MEE Pinnacle P1 ($200), Fidue A65 ($50), and VE Monk Plus ($5) for people at different price brackets. There are a ton of people reviewing and discussing headphones below $100, and there is just as much snake oil there. There are lots of people who will try to tell you that cheap Chinese headphone X is soooooo much better than expensive flagship Y. They are usually chock full of praerie oysters.


----------



## sonitus mirus

pctazhp said:


> Snobbery is an equal opportunity offender. I have been involved with audio since the early 70s and have seen countless examples of self-proclaimed "objectivists" who have exceedingly long noses with which to look down. As to the big dollar crowd, for many of them money simply isn't something they need to worry about. Many of them just enjoy sharing their experiences with their toys with other similarly situated people without any hint of looking down on the financially less fortunate.
> 
> Many here seem so concerned with newcomers but act as if all people joining HeadFi for the first time just fell of the turnip truck. Most newcomers arrive here with varying degrees of life experiences, education level, good judgment, good table manners pounded into them by their mothers at a young age, etc. Sometimes when I read this thread it seems as if financial ruin stemming from headphones is one of the great social problems of the age. While I'm sure that some become addicted to the latest-and-greatest syndrome, I suspect that is a minuscule number compared to those whose lives have been ruined by drugs and alcohol- even just among HeadFi members.
> 
> At my age memory is not one of my long suits. But I recall sometime back in the late 70s or 80s, after The Absolute Sound and Stereophile Magazine were entrenched as the journals of high-dollar, high-end audio, someone started a journal aimed at the budget segment of the market. It did not last and I don't even remember its name. Yet TAS and Sterephile are still going strong. Not exactly sure what that means.


 
  
 To me, it doesn't really matter if a participant in these forums is a genius pauper or an ignorant millionaire.  I want to know the truth about the quality of the products available from a technical perspective.


----------



## RRod

pctazhp said:


> Many here seem so concerned with newcomers but act as if all people joining HeadFi for the first time just fell of the turnip truck. Most newcomers arrive here with varying degrees of life experiences, education level, good judgment, good table manners pounded into them by their mothers at a young age, etc. Sometimes when I read this thread it seems as if financial ruin stemming from headphones is one of the great social problems of the age. While I'm sure that some become addicted to the latest-and-greatest syndrome, I suspect that is a minuscule number compared to those whose lives have been ruined by drugs and alcohol- even just among HeadFi members.


 
  
 Well luckily audio gear doesnt' seem to follow the "loses 1/2 the value once you drive it off the lot" rule.
  
 I am one of those people who, despite having lots of education in many mathy things that aren't electrical engineering, paid lots more on an initial setup than what I have now, because I simply wasn't on guard for just how subjective everything is on this site. After finding this sub-forum and putting those math skills to use, I've basically sold off everything fancy except my HD800 (which I keep around for the low distortion #s). It's not that it ruins lives, but it certainly wastes money that could be going towards more useful things.
  
 Just look at the new Realiser. For $1000 (at the kickstarter) you could have gotten a device that can turn any decent set of cans into an impressive facsimile of any multi-$1e6 speaker setup you can find. Yet you're more likely to have someone recommend spending the same amount of cash on an amp/DAC combo to "fix" the problems of a single set of cans. Perhaps if all the people who supported "synergy" instead supported real virtualization efforts, stuff like the Realiser wouldn't need to cost $1k.


----------



## pctazhp

sonitus mirus said:


> To me, it doesn't really matter if a participant in these forums is a genius pauper or an ignorant millionaire.  I want to know the* truth about the quality of the products available from a technical perspective.*


 
 Unfortunately it doesn't seem you will get much of that on this thread.


----------



## pctazhp

rrod said:


> Well luckily audio gear doesnt' seem to follow the "loses 1/2 the value once you drive it off the lot" rule.
> 
> I am one of those people who, despite having lots of education in many mathy things that aren't electrical engineering, *paid lots more on an initial setup than what I have now*, because I simply wasn't on guard for just how subjective everything is on this site. After finding this sub-forum and putting those math skills to use, I've basically sold off everything fancy except my HD800 (which I keep around for the low distortion #s). It's not that it ruins lives, but it certainly wastes money that could be going towards more useful things.
> 
> Just look at the new Realiser. For $1000 (at the kickstarter) you could have gotten a device that can turn any decent set of cans into an impressive facsimile of any multi-$1e6 speaker setup you can find. Yet you're more likely to have someone recommend spending the same amount of cash on an amp/DAC combo to "fix" the problems of a single set of cans. Perhaps if all the people who supported "synergy" instead supported real virtualization efforts, stuff like the Realiser wouldn't need to cost $1k.


 
 I went through that back in my audiophile days. But I don't see how a bunch of people making unsubstantiated claims that X product costs too much is really going to help. Hopefully, some newcomers will read some of this thread and at least take things slow at the start. But realistically, I don't think that is going to going to happen very often. There's a certain quixotic quality to this thread.


----------



## sonitus mirus

pctazhp said:


> Unfortunately it doesn't seem you will get much of that on this thread.


 
  
 Sometimes the lack of reliable information says as much to me as a peer reviewed scientific paper.


----------



## Argyris

glassmonkey said:


> There are a ton of people reviewing and discussing headphones below $100, and there is just as much snake oil there. There are lots of people who will try to tell you that cheap Chinese headphone X is soooooo much better than expensive flagship Y. They are usually chock full of praerie oysters.


 
  
 That's the Head-Fi I remember from around when I joined in 2010. Everything was a giant killer. It's sort of the inverse of the problem we're talking about in this thread, almost a counterculture movement against it. And like all countercultures, it exists as a reactionary entity, and therefore it tends to make the same mistakes as its antecedent, just in the opposite direction. When you're guided by philosophy and a burning desire for reality to validate your beliefs, it's difficult to be objective.
  
 I feel like over time the Summit-Fi front has taken more ground. Increasingly I'm seeing people begin a post with, "I know that I need to spend at least $$$ on amplification for <headphone x> in order to get the best out of it, so which $$$ amp should I buy...". I'm also unfortunately seeing people say, "I really want to buy <headphone x>, but I don't have enough to buy a $$$($...) amp, and I know that it's not worth it unless I have a good amp, so what other headphones would you recommend instead?" The HD 600 gets this quite frequently. It always breaks my heart when I see it because I know how good this thing is, and to see somebody just flat out give up on it (several times already the poster just walked away, presumably without getting anything at all) is tragic. It's the diametric opposite result from what this hobby should be about, which is finding gear that lets you enjoy your music to the fullest.


----------



## JaeYoon

richard51 said:


> i know exactly what that means.... people dont want to "work" for a solution... they want to pay.... they want to know what is the best and the  amount to pay for.... they dont want to try hard, think, work for a cheap solution....


 

 I was like that when I first started. I remember one of first questions I asked was "what's the best headphone I can buy for this price, etc"
 People will give me all sorts of answers, "this will give you best sound quality!"
 I ended up getting curious and trying out all sorts of gear. I began to get some serious beatdowns from people via PM. It was really good advice too.
 A lot of rewiring my brain too.
  
 It took till recently that I stopped going for that Perfect Sound quality. As quality doesn't mean too much to me. It took a lot of trying out equipment, 
 I do notice I like sonic signatures that are slightly neutral and slightly warm. Cayin N5 has a signature that adds organic warm which I really did enjoy. I love excellent produced timber as well.
 Meze 99 classics brought to me a Fun Sound signature that really got me to expand further. Shanling M2/M5 gave me that neutral synergy to mix with as well.
  
 I just started listening to people telling me to stop looking for perfect sound quality and looking for what I like in music.
 I disliked the term basshead at first in beginning, but I appreciate what headphones like ATH M50x and V-Moda M100 etc, can do for electronic music with bass response, etc.
 I keep my equipment now in Mid-Range and just try out stuff that have signatures that I might like.


----------



## SodaBoy

The earphone market is 10x more snake oil than the full-sized market.
  
 Look at this: http://www.jomoaudio.com/collections/jomo-iem
  
 Jomo1, Jomo2, Jomo,3 Jomo4, Jomo5, Jomo6, ROFL. What makes Jomo6 better than Jomo3? This is why, for me, the portable audio forum has become a dark pit of despair.


argyris said:


> I feel like over time the Summit-Fi front has taken more ground. Increasingly I'm seeing people begin a post with, "I know that I need to spend at least $$$ on amplification for <headphone x> in order to get the best out of it, so which $$$ amp should I buy...". I'm also unfortunately seeing people say, "I really want to buy <headphone x>, but I don't have enough to buy a $$$($...) amp, and I know that it's not worth it unless I have a good amp, so what other headphones would you recommend instead?" The HD 600 gets this quite frequently. It always breaks my heart when I see it because I know how good this thing is, and to see somebody just flat out give up on it (several times already the poster just walked away, presumably without getting anything at all) is tragic. It's the diametric opposite result from what this hobby should be about, which is finding gear that lets you enjoy your music to the fullest.


 

 That's amusingly true, I see this all the time. They have swallowed the blue pill completely, and they go to great lengths to preempt any potential attack by stating that they are already aware that XYZ amount of money needs to be spent on amps and DACs in order to pair up with XYZ kind of headphones in order for it to "live up to its full potential". This is followed usually by an apologetic admission that their limited budgets have forced them to commit audio heresy.


----------



## Koolpep

glassmonkey said:


> I think there is a counter-trend of rapidly improving products at the lower end of the price spectrum and way more options in the middle. The audiophile hobby is getting better for people in that price bracket, whilst people in the top bracket have massively diminishing returns. I think the overall quality of the industry is improving because in spite of all the expensive items joining the summit-fi ranks you've got $5 earbuds that compete on sound with $200 IEMs, and good DAPs and amps for under $100.
> 
> I don't think there has been a time with so much value for money.




+1 

Never been a better time. "Older" TOTL headphones dropping in price. New headphones coming out in lower price brackets that are stellar. Never been a better time to be an headphone audiophile. I made this point before, the costs are not rising, they are going down. While flagships might reach new pricing heights, the quality across the range gets better.

Maybe it's time for a recommendation thread:

Objectionists best headphone/DAC/amp setups under $100, $300, $500 dollars? I would be happy to replicate them and do some blind tests on our next meetup.

Cheers.


----------



## U-3C

jaeyoon said:


> Yeah I used to think thats crazy. Who the heck will pay thousands for headphones and valve amps and setups. Then buy another high end headphone.
> 
> But then when I used to work at a Casino. There tons of people who were crying to staff who bet their house property away. That they bet 10,000. They want the money back. Lots of drunk people betting things that is sacred.
> 
> ...


----------



## Koolpep

rrod said:


> Well luckily audio gear doesnt' seem to follow the "loses 1/2 the value once you drive it off the lot" rule.
> 
> I am one of those people who, despite having lots of education in many mathy things that aren't electrical engineering, paid lots more on an initial setup than what I have now, because I simply wasn't on guard for just how subjective everything is on this site. After finding this sub-forum and putting those math skills to use, I've basically sold off everything fancy except my HD800 (which I keep around for the low distortion #s). It's not that it ruins lives, but it certainly wastes money that could be going towards more useful things.
> 
> Just look at the new Realiser. For $1000 (at the kickstarter) you could have gotten a device that can turn any decent set of cans into an impressive facsimile of any multi-$1e6 speaker setup you can find. Yet you're more likely to have someone recommend spending the same amount of cash on an amp/DAC combo to "fix" the problems of a single set of cans. Perhaps if all the people who supported "synergy" instead supported real virtualization efforts, stuff like the Realiser wouldn't need to cost $1k.




I agree with you. Also bought too much in a too short time.

But I also am a very curious person, I love to try out new gear, explore a new amp or DAC, test it with my gear and find out what I perceive differently. And sometimes, well I experience the great hated "synergy". Oppo PM-3 for example, driven from the Liquid Carbon in balanced mode, really popped my eyeballs. A headphone I listened to for a year, suddenly sounded so much more engaging. Were the differences night and day? No, but very significant. And maybe it's only "better" for my taste in sound signature and music genres, who knows. I love finding these setups that I enjoy the most. It's fun. And since I have acquired too much gear in any case i can play the combination game for many years to come without buying much new things, haha. And start slowly selling off the stuff I don't need anymore.

Problems with EQ and realizes for me: I have two or three mobile setups I like to use, all of which don't have a good EQ setup. I have a setup at work and a home setup. I listen more hours at work then at home. 

Curious about the realizer but am a bit doubtful, so far none of these "out of your head" software was worth it for me.

Cheers.


----------



## mulder01

koolpep said:


> +1
> 
> Never been a better time. "Older" TOTL headphones dropping in price. New headphones coming out in lower price brackets that are stellar. Never been a better time to be an headphone audiophile. I made this point before, the costs are not rising, they are going down. While flagships might reach new pricing heights, the quality across the range gets better.
> 
> ...


 
  
 It would be good - plenty of people are happy to say that you don't need to spend much money on a dac/amp, it just has to be suitable for your situation, so I asked for a recommendation based on my situation and so far only SodaBoy has come forth with a suggestion.  It seems most objectivists are hesitant to recommend a product for some reason.  I'm pretty sure I asked the same question about a year or so ago in the sound science subforum (for people to name specific products) and it was like trying to get blood from a stone.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

I guess you people punting about the value of certain headphones might really not be full-up on your objective-fu and deserve to be smacked upside the head by pctazhp 

To me, about the only measurement I care about for a pair of headphones is the distortion response curve at a certain (high) measured volume level. This tells me whether said headphones can reproduce a full range of frequencies at volumes demanded by music playback, without noticeable distortion, especially at the frequency extremes.

I care naught for the default frequency response of the headphones because I will always totally reshape that via EQ, and by extension, reshape the entire sound of the headphones.

To some extent it is good if the frequency response has fewer narrow peaks and dips, which are harder to correct, and if the FR is more consistent between slightly different wearings, to make the EQ profile more totally applicable across sessions. But I seldom run into big problems in those senses, and it is a rare set of measurements that would show such detail anyway.

These days I "audition" headphones simply by putting them on to judge comfort; there's very little more I can glean for my purposes by making them actually play music, uncalibrated, especially in noisy show conditions.


----------



## Koolpep

@Joe Bloggs But you must admit that you are a very special case


----------



## U-3C

joe bloggs said:


> I guess you people punting about the value of certain headphones might really not be full-up on your objective-fu and deserve to be smacked upside the head by pctazhp
> 
> To me, about the only measurement I care about for a pair of headphones is the distortion response curve at a certain (high) measured volume level. This tells me whether said headphones can reproduce a full range of frequencies at volumes demanded by music playback, without noticeable distortion, especially at the frequency extremes.
> 
> ...




I aspire to be like you one day, Joe Bloggs sama!!!

XD


----------



## Ancipital

glassmonkey said:


> I think there is a counter-trend of rapidly improving products at the lower end of the price spectrum and way more options in the middle. The audiophile hobby is getting better for people in that price bracket, whilst people in the top bracket have massively diminishing returns. I think the overall quality of the industry is improving because in spite of all the expensive items joining the summit-fi ranks you've got $5 earbuds that compete on sound with $200 IEMs, and good DAPs and amps for under $100.
> 
> I don't think there has been a time with so much value for money.


 
  
 I'm so glad someone said this, I think you beat me to it, but also did a better job that I would.
  
 If we ignore the silly excesses of ego-fi, someone shopping for equipment to make their music sound good has an amazing choice. Things like the quality of DAC chips, the power of embedded systems, the quality/price ratio of mass-produced stuff is incredible, if you know what you're shopping for
  
 I am not stinking rich by any stretch of the imagination, but I have been able to afford a setup which sounds incredible, and which is reasonably portable. I keep wanting to send it back in time to teenage me, who was lugging dodgy tape walkmans around, my mind would have been blown- and not just by the tablet computer source.
  
 There will always be people spending silly money, often on things of dubious value, and others just throwing money at genuinely diminishing returns. However, for those of us with "normal" budgets and a certain grasp of how things work, it has become quite possible to get most of the way there for a fraction of the cost. There's a lot of choice, if you're a bit savvy; reliable, well-made, well-specced kit that even ticks most subjective boxes is in reach of many people, if they care to look.
  
 I love it.


----------



## NLNH

glassmonkey said:


> I think there is a counter-trend of rapidly improving products at the lower end of the price spectrum and way more options in the middle. The audiophile hobby is getting better for people in that price bracket, whilst people in the top bracket have massively diminishing returns. I think the overall quality of the industry is improving because in spite of all the expensive items joining the summit-fi ranks you've got $5 earbuds that compete on sound with $200 IEMs, and good DAPs and amps for under $100.
> 
> I don't think there has been a time with so much value for money.


 
  
 reminds me of a story, when foreigners see a crowded petrol station they build a small town around it and grow it into a small city,
 when Asians see a crowded petrol station they build another 10 petrol stations around it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
 '' And now there hasn't been a time with so much choice and value of monies! ''
  
Lower price for now yes. Better value? not when you buy 20 earphones and keep thinking of  ''upgrading'' all the time. 
 Not to mention labour cost in production countries rise plus the higher cost marketing more new models.
  
 while i do respect many brands that do marketing well and lift the industry/ hobby but there are just too many who take advantage of arbitrage opportunities to fool 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
  
 my 2 cents...


----------



## richard51

jaeyoon said:


> I was like that when I first started. I remember one of first questions I asked was "what's the best headphone I can buy for this price, etc"
> People will give me all sorts of answers, "this will give you best sound quality!"
> I ended up getting curious and trying out all sorts of gear. I began to get some serious beatdowns from people via PM. It was really good advice too.
> A lot of rewiring my brain too.
> ...


 
 this is wise....


----------



## castleofargh

koolpep said:


> Problems with EQ and realizes for me: I have two or three mobile setups I like to use, all of which don't have a good EQ setup. I have a setup at work and a home setup. I listen more hours at work then at home.
> 
> Curious about the realizer but am a bit doubtful, so far none of these "out of your head" software was worth it for me.
> 
> Cheers.


 
 it's been annoying me for years, then one day I decided to make a small mp3 library(usually 32giga as I still have lot of those µSD) that includes EQ for one of my IEMs, crossfeed, and sometimes a little compressor. didn't want to wait for the world to provide what I like.  and TBH I've tried hard to get some of the head sensors for games to work on my music player but I'm a total zero in computer and programming, so in this case I had to wait for an "affordable" realiser. the atmos stuff are supposed to be compatible with virtual gaming gears, so I also have hope that sound changing with the movement of the head will slowly become a common consumer product at a common consumer price. convolving systems are found for free or not very much money, head tracking can be found for less than 150$, so both together have no reason to cost a limb even if I'm sure it's not that easy to make quality audio following movements with close to zero latency, but maybe not 1000$ worth.
  
  
 anyway the realiser has 2 of the things usual surround crap don't have:
 1/ you must measure the sound in your own ears with different rooms/headphones, so even if it's not perfect, chances are it will be way closer to your own HRTF than using average body values.(the downside is that you have to go places to make the measurements in the rooms for best result).
 2/ it follows your head movement with minimum delay, so your brain now has 2 senses fooled, not just sound. that obviously can play a huge part. in the demos it's even better as the guy sees the speakers, I'm 100% sure this strongly reinforce the illusion of sound coming from those speakers. I know I'll try to put my speakers where the sound is just to help trick my brain like that.
  
 all in all the requirements are kind of heavy(I'm honestly afraid that many people jumped on it without understanding what they need to do to get proper results), but it has way more chances to fool us than the typical software once all the conditions are met. 
  
  
  
  
 Quote:


u-3c said:


> I aspire to be like you one day, Joe Bloggs sama!!!
> 
> XD


 
 hong kong ≠ japan


----------



## Joe Bloggs

castleofargh said:


> u-3c said:
> 
> 
> > I aspire to be like you one day, Joe Bloggs sama!!!
> ...




I'd be glad to be fooled into thinking I'm living in Japan 
Taking my first real trip there tomorrow actually!


----------



## krismusic

castleofargh said:


> hong kong ≠ japan



I think I might be one of those people Castleofargh. 
Who jumped before fully understanding what I was getting into. I'm up for it though. I haven't heard anything that exciting since being into this hobby.


----------



## glassmonkey

nlnh said:


> glassmonkey said:
> 
> 
> > I think there is a counter-trend of rapidly improving products at the lower end of the price spectrum and way more options in the middle. The audiophile hobby is getting better for people in that price bracket, whilst people in the top bracket have massively diminishing returns. I think the overall quality of the industry is improving because in spite of all the expensive items joining the summit-fi ranks you've got $5 earbuds that compete on sound with $200 IEMs, and good DAPs and amps for under $100.
> ...


 
 It isn't the headphone manufacturer's fault that people get addicted to things. Buyer beware and all that jazz.


----------



## pctazhp

glassmonkey said:


> It isn't the headphone manufacturer's fault that people get addicted to things. Buyer beware and all that jazz.


 
 Most people are too stupid to make good buying decisions for themselves. They need the select few in the know to protect them from themselves.


----------



## NLNH

glassmonkey said:


> It isn't the headphone manufacturer's fault that people get addicted to things. Buyer beware and all that jazz.


 
  
 In this sense Coca-cola or Mcdonald aren't wrong too.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

How about guys like Marlboro or Philip Morris


----------



## pctazhp

nlnh said:


> In this sense Coca-cola or Mcdonald aren't wrong too.


 
 Yeah. There really is so little information available about the addictive nature of sugar and processed carbs. The masses are so ignorant and pathetic. The USA really needs to stamp out Coke and McDonald's. After all, we are the "Home of the free...."


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Is anyone proposing to outlaw hi-end audio here?


----------



## U-3C

joe bloggs said:


> I'd be glad to be fooled into thinking I'm living in Japan
> Taking my first real trip there tomorrow actually!




I know you live in Hong Kong. I also know you followed the AAMML once. ^_^

...

...I think...?

;~;


----------



## Joe Bloggs

u-3c said:


> I know you live in Hong Kong. I also know you followed the AAMML once. ^_^




Still do


----------



## U-3C

joe bloggs said:


> Is anyone proposing to outlaw hi-end audio here?




Nobody said something like the HD800 is bad...I think we are still allowed to buy it...right?


----------



## cel4145

joe bloggs said:


> To me, about the only measurement I care about for a pair of headphones is the distortion response curve at a certain (high) measured volume level. This tells me whether said headphones can reproduce a full range of frequencies at volumes demanded by music playback, without noticeable distortion, especially at the frequency extremes.
> 
> I care naught for the default frequency response of the headphones because I will always totally reshape that via EQ, and by extension, reshape the entire sound of the headphones.




Makes sense to me. 

I know you said "about." I think impulse response could be good to look at, too. That's a different kind of distortion. Do you ever look at that as well?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

koolpep said:


> Problems with EQ and realizes for me: I have two or three mobile setups I like to use, all of which don't have a good EQ setup. I have a setup at work and a home setup. I listen more hours at work then at home.
> 
> Curious about the realizer but am a bit doubtful, so far none of these "out of your head" software was worth it for me.
> 
> Cheers.




It took some doing, but my main computer and my smartphone both have advanced EQ capabilities via VSTHost and Viper4Android respectively.

If you have some small microphones that you can sort of fit into your ears, or even regular calibration microphones with a relatively small tip, you can use them to measure HRTFs at home. After some futzing around with the resulting data, they can be applied to music via a regular foobar plugin. I might be writing a tutorial on this in the future.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

cel4145 said:


> joe bloggs said:
> 
> 
> > To me, about the only measurement I care about for a pair of headphones is the distortion response curve at a certain (high) measured volume level. This tells me whether said headphones can reproduce a full range of frequencies at volumes demanded by music playback, without noticeable distortion, especially at the frequency extremes.
> ...




It's never presented in a way that is relevant for EQed use. It's been pointed out elsewhere that headphones resemble minimum phase systems, so their phase distortions can be cancelled out via minimum phase filters. EQ the headphones to flat using minimum phase filters and the impulse response may resembles a Dirac (ideal pulse), and the CSD may resemble a cliff.

One head-fi thread featured simulating innerfidelity measured impulse responses using EQ alone (I can't find it)
Another thread featured turning the CSD into a cliff via minimum phase filtering: http://www.head-fi.org/t/566929/headphone-csd-waterfall-plots/720 (the discussion starts at p49 which I link to, the bombshell lands at p50)

I guess multi-driver headphones / earphones probably won't have a perfect equalized impulsed response, but apart from that all bets are off.

(note that for actual listening the target EQed FR is not a measured flat, so an ideal IR with a flat EQed FR doesn't translate to an ideal IR in normal listening. Which is another way of looking at the flaw of IR measurements as they are usually presented--given a hypothetical pair of perfect headphones, the IR as usually measured and presented would still not be a perfect pulse.)


----------



## U-3C

Welp, purchasing stuff can be an addiction, and I've found myself having this addiction quite a bit, mainly due to discussions about value. If it was high end audio equipment like the sr-009, I'll shy away as I know that is outside my league and that the improvement in audio fidelity isn't as big as I want.

However, with companies starting to market products as being the best bang for buck, as offering 95% of the performance of the big guns while only being sold at a fraction of the price, I have a hard time resisting. Small features/accessories that they throw in, the belief that I'm somehow spiritually supporting something greater by not going with expensive audiophile products from named brands, as well as the constant hype that almost says I owe it to myself if I don't buy xyz always gets me feeling for my wallet. Massdrop is a great example of this, especially with their blue boxes. 

Yes, they may be good value for money, but I can still see these things grabbing people into this purchasing addiction and justifying their purchases in a different way even if they don't need it at all. Just because something offers great value doesn't mean one needs it. Great marketing, I guess, as I clearly cannot resist.

Now...to buy one Brainwavz iem or two from Massdrop...

;~;


----------



## pctazhp

u-3c said:


> Welp, *purchasing stuff can be an addiction, and I've found myself having this addiction quite a bit, *mainly due to discussions about value. If it was high end audio equipment like the sr-009, I'll shy away as I know that is outside my league and that the improvement in audio fidelity isn't as big as I want.
> 
> However, with companies starting to market products as being the best bang for buck, as offering 95% of the performance of the big guns while only being sold at a fraction of the price, *I have a hard time resisting*. Small features/accessories that they throw in, the belief that I'm somehow spiritually supporting something greater by not going with expensive audiophile products from named brands, as well as the constant hype that almost says I owe it to myself if I don't buy xyz always gets me feeling for my wallet. Massdrop is a great example of this, especially with their blue boxes.
> 
> ...


 
 I understand what you are saying. I have been through it. But really what you are describing is a mental state that probably doesn't have a lot to do with actual sound quality. I have learned from hard experience that if I have a system that I enjoy listening to I will almost never derive more pleasure by buying something new. Often just the opposite. We just need to get those voices out of our head and enjoy the music. I know. Much easier said than done.


----------



## pctazhp

u-3c said:


> Nobody said something like the HD800 is bad...I think we are still allowed to buy it...right?


 
 Absolutely not. You will be permanently banned from this thread. I'm giving my HD800S away to charity !!!


----------



## U-3C

pctazhp said:


> Absolutely not. You will be permanently banned from this thread. I'm giving my HD800S away to charity !!!




I'm broke (Th...thanks Head-Fi...)!!! Please donate them to me!!! Oh and please donate some money too for food~!!! <3


----------



## pctazhp

u-3c said:


> I'm broke (Th...thanks Head-Fi...)!!! Please donate them to me!!! Oh and please donate some money too for food~!!! <3


 
 As the great American comedian Flip Wilson said: "The devil made me do it"


----------



## Argyris

u-3c said:


> I'm broke (Th...thanks Head-Fi...)!!! Please donate them to me!!! Oh and please donate some money too for food~!!! <3


 
  
 If somebody donated me an HD 800S, I'd sell it and then buy food. If they threw in the system they likely have built around it, a family of four could eat for several weeks off it! Or at least a month if they like ramen noodles with some green onions, mushrooms and canned water chestnut (the college student deluxe).
  
 EDIT: In retrospect, this was an exceedingly stupid, poorly written post that started a bit of a Schiitstorm. If you're following along and want to skip ahead to where the thread gets back on track, go here.


----------



## pctazhp

argyris said:


> If somebody donated me an HD 800S, I'd sell it and then buy food. If they threw in the system they likely have built around it, a family of four could eat for several weeks off it! Or at least a month if they like ramen noodles with some green onions, mushrooms and canned water chestnut (the college student deluxe).


 
 Your charitable attitude is certainly admirable. But let me ask you this. How many additional millions and millions of families would suddenly need feeding if the manufacturing, sale and purchasing of all goods above a budget or economy level suddenly ceased worldwide? How many governments would collapse from lack of tax revenue? How many retirement plans would become worthless? How many charitable organizations would suddenly become extinct?


----------



## U-3C

argyris said:


> If somebody donated me an HD 800S, I'd sell it and then buy food. If they threw in the system they likely have built around it, a family of four could eat for several weeks off it! Or at least a month if they like ramen noodles with some green onions, mushrooms and canned water chestnut (the college student deluxe).




I'm also a college student and I've tried the HD800 and I don't think I like it enough to keep it... ;~;

Thanks for the suggestions!


----------



## U-3C

pctazhp said:


> Your charitable attitude is certainly admirable. But let me ask you this. How many additional millions and millions of families would suddenly need feeding if the manufacturing, sale and purchasing of all goods above a budget or economy level suddenly ceased worldwide? How many governments would collapse from lack of tax revenue? How many retirement plans would become worthless? How many charitable organizations would suddenly become extinct?




But...but it's just the donation of one pair of headphones...

People will keep making and buying them. It's just this one headphone that will be changing owners, free of charge.

;-;


----------



## Argyris

pctazhp said:


> Your charitable attitude is certainly admirable. But let me ask you this. How many additional millions and millions of families would suddenly need feeding if the manufacturing, sale and purchasing of all goods above a budget or economy level suddenly ceased worldwide? How many governments would collapse from lack of tax revenue? How many retirement plans would become worthless? How many charitable organizations would suddenly become extinct?


 
  
 I highly doubt a single HD 800S will cause all of this. I'm also confused as to where you're reading any of what you just said into anything I or others in this thread have discussed. I recognize the argument, I should add. A certain high-velocity AM talk radio host likes to use it. But where does this enter into anything?
  
 I feel like there's some misunderstanding going on here. Somehow you're not getting your point across in a conducive manner, as evidenced by your frequently stated dissatisfaction with the tenor of this thread. Why don't you spell out your perspective for us, all in one post, as we're clearly not getting it from the nuggets you've scattered throughout the thread previously.
  
Or learn to recognize a joke. One of the two.
  
 EDIT: I just thought of something. I initially thought you were just being snarky, but I want to make sure you don't think I was joking _about you_ with that remark. It never occurred to me that, as an HD 800S owner, you might get that impression. Somebody (I think it was you) mentioned that headphone and I responded using it. It wasn't intended to be personal; it was just a lighthearted throwaway comment. Just want to put this out there to make sure.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

pctazhp said:


> argyris said:
> 
> 
> > If somebody donated me an HD 800S, I'd sell it and then buy food. If they threw in the system they likely have built around it, a family of four could eat for several weeks off it! Or at least a month if they like ramen noodles with some green onions, mushrooms and canned water chestnut (the college student deluxe).
> ...


----------



## Argyris

joe bloggs said:


>


 
  
 I considered using a straight "wat?" earlier, but I'm genuinely puzzled how that tangent was arrived at, and I perceived the tone wasn't exactly friendly, so...yeah. As I pointed out in my edit, maybe I unintentionally set something off with the quoted post? Dunno. It's amazing how the subtleties of communication get lost on the Internet. I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.


----------



## pctazhp

argyris said:


> I highly doubt a single HD 800S will cause all of this. I'm also confused as to where you're reading any of what you just said into anything I or others in this thread have discussed. I recognize the argument, I should add. A certain high-velocity AM talk radio host likes to use it. But where does this enter into anything?
> 
> I feel like there's some misunderstanding going on here. Somehow you're not getting your point across in a conducive manner, as evidenced by your frequently stated dissatisfaction with the tenor of this thread. Why don't you spell out your perspective for us, all in one post, as we're clearly not getting it from the nuggets you've scattered throughout the thread previously.
> 
> ...


 
 Your snarky comment about Rush Limbaugh is duly noted.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Nothing personal
  
 If there were any perspective left in this thread I would spell out my perspective on that perspective.
  
 But let's keep to your post I commented on. What exactly was your point. Have you heard the HD800S and just don't like it? Or are you too "enlightened" to even bother with a headphone that would cost that much?


----------



## Ancipital

I'm not too enlightened! If anyone suddenly no longer wants their HD800S, I'll gladly give them a listen, out of the goodness of my heart!


----------



## pctazhp

ancipital said:


> I'm not too enlightened! If anyone suddenly no longer wants their HD800S, I'll gladly give them a listen, out of the goodness of my heart!


 
 The world needs more saints like you


----------



## castleofargh

- rejecting something just because it's expensive isn't objective, because the notion of expensive is not the same for everyone.
 - I wish we could all be better informed about the objective qualities of products, even more so when they cost a limb. but I merely see that as a desire for more information and when I don't get it I don't buy, problem solved. let's not assume that objective quality or audibility limits are the only valid reasons to desire a product. that's not objectivism, that's being judgmental.
  
  
 I'm a philosopher now apparently.


----------



## Ancipital

Exactly, castleofargh.
  
 I'm not about to assume that expensive kit with a good spec, made by manufacturers with a good track record is automatically crap because it's arguably overpriced. I might not be able to afford some of it, but that doesn't mean that some of it doesn't appeal. I'd still happily give it a try to see if it worked for me, if someone else was paying 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 My budget tends to be slightly flexible depending on potential benefits, and occasionally "ooo shiny"; it varies just for me. Between different people, all bets are off.
  
 It is particularly annoying when the specs are light on the ground, though- almost no matter the price. When your criteria are very particular, you want to know if some equipment stands a chance of measuring up or not.


----------



## pctazhp

Ideally most manufactures would provide reliable data, professional reviewers would back up their claims with properly conducted double blind tests, and those of us who regularly post on the subjective threads would be a little more conscious of how our posts might be read by newcomers and possibly acted upon. But realistically most of that will not occur.
  
 There is one thing that I think is important in buying equipment (and which I don't recall seeing discussed on this thread) is the right of return. At least here in the US, there are many headphones available on Amazon at all price levels that offer return rights. And there are manufacturers like (the much disparaged on this thread) Schiit Audio who offer return rights. There may be shipping and restocking fees involved, but at least the risk is reduced.
  
 It offers a consumer the right to compare at home the new product with what they already have, and even seek help of others to conduct blind tests.


----------



## Ancipital

Yes, if you buy online in Europe, you have an automatic right of return, and they can't pull any "restocking fee" moves. It's handy. Be aware that if you return too much stuff to Amazon, they will actually suspend your account and prevent you making a new one, though- sadly the exact threshold is not known.
  
 (Also, I don't hate Schiit, I wanted a nice quiet SS amp with bags of grunt, low noise/THD, and a pre-out, so I picked up Magni 2 Uber, which ticks all those boxes. It seems well-made and does what they claimed it would, plus mutes itself at the right times etc., I have no real beefs with it so far. Nice little unit for the money.)


----------



## RRod

ancipital said:


> I'm not too enlightened! If anyone suddenly no longer wants their HD800S, I'll gladly give them a listen, out of the goodness of my heart!


 
  
 To me the 800s is a perfect example of what's wrong with this hobby. >$500 more for what? Linear differences that could be easily made by EQ and *more* distortion?


----------



## pctazhp

rrod said:


> To me the 800s is a perfect example of what's wrong with this hobby. >$500 more for what? Linear differences that could be easily made by EQ and *more* distortion?


 
 No one is forced to buy the S. I for one do not have the dexterity or nerve to try to mod the Classic. In addition, Senn did not discontinue the Classic, and it is now available at a much lower price than when it was first introduced.
  
 The "more distortion" argument has been been beaten to death. Senn uses a small amount of even-order harmonic distortion to accomplish what its engineers determined would provide a warmer sound.


----------



## RRod

pctazhp said:


> No one is forced to buy the S. I for one do not have the dexterity or nerve to try to mod the Classic. In addition, Senn did not discontinue the Classic, and it is now available at a much lower price than when it was first introduced.
> 
> The "more distortion" argument has been been beaten to death. Senn uses a small amount of even-order harmonic distortion to accomplish what its engineers determined would provide a warmer sound.


 
  
 No one is forced to breathe if they don't want to; that's a non-argument. And the hi-fi press is more than happy to recommend spending more money on these "fixes". And yes, the distortion argument is pointless: it has more distortion, period. Senn saw all the people putting Kleenex into their HD800 and saw $$ and are making it, but that's what they're supposed to do, of course.


----------



## pctazhp

rrod said:


> No one is forced to breathe if they don't want to; that's a non-argument. And the hi-fi press is more than happy to recommend spending more money on these "fixes". And yes, the distortion argument is pointless: it's a lower spec-ed headphone, period. Senn saw all the people putting Kleenex into their HD800 and saw $$ and are making it, but that's what they're supposed to do, of course.


 
 I know you are, but what am I?? Just trying to adjust to the "my father can beat up your father" schoolyard level of this discussion.
  
 Of course, Sennheiser has cheated and abused its customers for decades, which is what has catapulted it to the multi-national behemoth that it is.
  
 When you compared the HD800 with the HD800S, which one did you like better???


----------



## Argyris

Okay. A few points here, since I'm the one responsible for this derailment. My initial post was supposed to be a joke. An unimportant, offhand comment. It wasn't a very good one, mainly because it could be easily misinterpreted, which indeed it has been. I thought an inordinate amount of time about this, and I realized that the way it's written, it looks like I'm implying that people who buy expensive things are being uncharitable. That's on me, since I didn't make it clear that I was talking about buying _myself _the food, and then listing some silly, unrelated value comparisons on the order of "I could buy 1,000,000 widgets for the price of one whatsadoodle." And before somebody says "Well, that's really selfish and unethical, selling a gift and profiting from it," remember, _it's a_ _joke_. There's nothing more to read into it than that.
  
 So all right then. Cancel my Joke of the Millennium award, stick a fork in my future in comedy, and let's move on.
  
 Next, I think we need to get back on track here. We need to remember that four figure headphone prices are a _symptom_ of the problem we're discussing in this thread, not the cause. If we didn't have a market where enthusiasts gleefully buy four- and five figure amps, DACs and cables, it's likely no headphone maker would have made much headway with a four figure headphone. Instead, it's become the norm for new flagship releases, when ten years ago this was unheard of. My understanding of what this thread is arguing is that it's the lack of empirical testing, the enthusiast echo chamber, the tireless marketing department masquerading as major review publications, and the part of human nature that loves shiny things and derives status from expensive purchases that's fueling the inflating prices in personal audio. It's further arguing that all but the first of these could be short circuited if we tested spurious claims vigorously, if discussion of said testing were not so restricted in certain places, and if newcomers to the hobby were made aware that there is an alternate viewpoint to the subjectivism that is so prominent in audio enthusiast circles.
  
 Did I miss anything or wildly mischaracterize the topic of the thread?


----------



## Dillan

argyris said:


> Okay. A few points here, since I'm the one responsible for this derailment. My initial post was supposed to be a joke. An unimportant, offhand comment. It wasn't a very good one, mainly because it could be easily misinterpreted, which indeed it has been. I thought an inordinate amount of time about this, and I realized that the way it's written, it looks like I'm implying that people who buy expensive things are being uncharitable. That's on me, since I didn't make it clear that I was talking about buying _myself _the food, and then listing some silly, unrelated value comparisons on the order of "I could buy 1,000,000 widgets for the price of one whatsadoodle." And before somebody says "Well, that's really selfish and unethical, selling a gift and profiting from it," remember, _it's a_ _joke_. There's nothing more to read into it than that.
> 
> So all right then. Cancel my Joke of the Millennium award, stick a fork in my future in comedy, and let's move on.
> 
> ...


 
  
 You absolutely nailed it. I started this thread to stir discussion of the exact points you brought up.


----------



## RRod

pctazhp said:


> I know you are, but what am I?? Just trying to adjust to the "my father can beat up your father" schoolyard level of this discussion.
> 
> Of course, Sennheiser has cheated and abused its customers for decades, which is what has catapulted it to the multi-national behemoth that it is.
> 
> When you compared the HD800 with the HD800S, which one did you like better???


 
  
 Why would I compare them? I already EQ down the 6k region a bit, and I can add in distortion to my music files if I wanted to. That ain't worth the effort to audition, sell-off, and pay serious extra coin for headphones. The issue is that this is exactly the kind of thing that is encouraged on this site. But it's a horror to suggest EQ, and it's a horror to talk about the specs of a device you haven't tried, as though frequency response is some kind of magical concept.


----------



## oldmate

pctazhp said:


> Yeah. There really is so little information available about the addictive nature of sugar and processed carbs. The masses are so ignorant and pathetic. The USA really needs to stamp out Coke and McDonald's. After all, we are the "Home of the free...."


 
 And the home of the obese. 37.7%.


----------



## gikigill

Just use a decent valve amp with the HD800 and it mostly tames the treble and makes it a bit more on the warmer side of things. 

I have used my HD800 with a PPA V2. 

I pushed up the low frequency response with a......... (multiple audiophiles fainting simultaneously) 




Bass control knob.


----------



## mulder01

From the general vibe of what's being said here over and over again, it seems like this would be the only pair of headphones anyone and everyone would ever need (in terms of audio reproduction):
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/nura/nura-headphones-that-learn-and-adapt-to-your-uniqu/description
Thoughts?


----------



## mulder01

rrod said:


> Why would I compare them? I already EQ down the 6k region a bit, and I can add in distortion to my music files if I wanted to. That ain't worth the effort to audition, sell-off, and pay serious extra coin for headphones. The issue is that this is exactly the kind of thing that is encouraged on this site. But it's a horror to suggest EQ, and it's a horror to talk about the specs of a device you haven't tried, as though frequency response is some kind of magical concept.


 
  
 I hope though, if there was a pair available for you to try at no cost to you, you would try it.  I know some members would not.  Which annoys the heck out of me.
  
 To me, people refusing to try things because they have seen the measurements is just as bad as a subjectivist rejecting the science on things like audiophile cables because they 'know' they can hear something.
  
 Why so many people have a lack of balance between judging products by their measurements or just listening to something I will never know.  Everyone seems to lean heavily toward one side or the other as they bag the crap out of everyone on the other side.
  
 I have auditioned plenty of headphones in my time and have generally found that I disagree with the bulk of what I read.  I allow myself to take these 'reviews' with a grain of salt and just listen for myself, rather than fill my brain with expectation bias, so when I go to listen, I hear what I'm told.  I believe the same thing can happen if you only read objective measurements - you will still hear what you've been told because your brain won't allow you to hear anything that contradicts your 'research'.
  
 Anyway, sorry RRod if this isn't you, but your post just reminded me of this.  Just read it as more of a general comment I guess.


----------



## JaeYoon

Also I want to ask something. I remember reading a post by a Representative of a DAP company who made a post in another thread.

He told all of us to burn in the DAP so that the High-quality capacitors form inside the player at 100 hours.

Wth aren't capacitors those battery looking things on board? Aren't they formed already?


----------



## RRod

mulder01 said:


> I hope though, if there was a pair available for you to try at no cost to you, you would try it.  I know some members would not.  Which annoys the heck out of me.
> 
> To me, people refusing to try things because they have seen the measurements is just as bad as a subjectivist rejecting the science on things like audiophile cables because they 'know' they can hear something.
> 
> ...


 
  
 If a pair materialized in front of me, I'd be happy to try them on. I think it's important to separate "going by measurements" as it relates to headphone versus electronics. A given headphone can interact with my ears differently than yours or a dummy head; that doesn't happen with a DAC or amp. In the case of the 800s, the form factor is the same as the 800, so such effects are a non-issue, and thus measurements gain an extra bit of credence. And when I see an FR curve that basically matches what I do with EQ already, and higher distortion in the bass, I can be pretty sure what I'm going to get. Hopefully that doesn't sound unreasonable.


----------



## etc6849

Representative, not an engineer, see that's the problem...  I would move on to a company that knows what they are talking about (e.g. honesty helps too).
  
 They are probably told to say that so you keep an item longer and pass the return period.  Statistically, the longer you keep something the less likely you are to return it. 
   Quote:


jaeyoon said:


> Also I want to ask something. I remember reading a post by a Representative of a DAP company who made a post in another thread.
> 
> He told all of us to burn in the DAP so that the High-quality capacitors form inside the player at 100 hours.
> 
> Wth aren't capacitors those battery looking things on board? Aren't they formed already?


----------



## Argyris

oldmate said:


> And the home of the obese. 37.7%.




Actually, the island nation of Nauru is the fattest in the world. I only know that because it just came up in a trivia game.

Just a little nugget. Carry on, y'all.


----------



## oldmate

argyris said:


> Actually, the island nation of Nauru is the fattest in the world. I only know that because it just came up in a trivia game.
> 
> Just a little nugget. Carry on, y'all.


 
 A population of 10,032 vs 324 million and most of them are in detention for trying to illegally enter Australia.
  
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru_Regional_Processing_Centre
  
 Oops - sorry - off topic.


----------



## 329161

oldmate said:


> A population of 10,032 vs 324 million and most of them are in detention for trying to illegally enter Australia.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru_Regional_Processing_Centre
> 
> Oops - sorry - off topic.


the British did the same in 1788


----------



## Ancipital

dcfac73 said:


> the British did the same in 1788


 
  
 The British did many things, doesn't mean we're a good example (see also: Morris Dancing and concentration camps).


----------



## castleofargh

can we avoid those totally off topic stuff that are sure to offend a lot of people for no reason. unless somebody knows something that I don't about a relation with weight, the country we're born into and the price/quality ratio of gears?


----------



## 329161

ancipital said:


> The British did many things, doesn't mean we're a good example (see also: Morris Dancing and concentration camps).


Just seems a bit laughable that illegal immigrants are complaining about newer immigrants. Was a totally appropriate example as they illegally entered Australia at that time. Same goes for the US. If the people in these countries don't agree with immigration then all but the indigenous should pack up and leave. Sorry if the truth is offensive.


----------



## Ruben123

dillan said:


> You absolutely nailed it. I started this thread to stir discussion of the exact points you brought up.




You could even wonder if the same headphones sold for $$ now, could've not been much cheaper if this price war wouldn't have started. So a hd800 at $300 or something. They make lots of money nonetheless.


----------



## pctazhp

ruben123 said:


> You could even wonder if the same headphones sold for $$ now, could've not been much cheaper if this price war wouldn't have started. So a hd800 at $300 or something. They make lots of money nonetheless.


 
 The market for all goods is virtually always a "price war". Exactly how much money does Sennheiser make?


----------



## VNandor

pctazhp said:


> The market for all goods is virtually always a "price war". Exactly how much money does Sennheiser make?


 

 They made at least 682 million euros in 2015, probably even more. I guess companies try to make the amount they earn to look less because the more they admit, the more they get taxed. Last time I checked, it worked that way anyways.


----------



## ExtremeGamerBR

jaeyoon said:


> Also I want to ask something. I remember reading a post by a Representative of a DAP company who made a post in another thread.
> 
> He told all of us to burn in the DAP so that the High-quality capacitors form inside the player at 100 hours.
> 
> Wth aren't capacitors those battery looking things on board? Aren't they formed already?


 
  
 Man, to me burn in DACs, Amps, Daps, etc is just ridiculous.
  
 I don't see burn in processors, video cards, consoles, TVs etc etc...
  
 Why audio would be different? This is absurd.
  
 But I can be wrong.
  
 Headphone I can understand, because it has mechanical parts, I don't burn in my headphones, but it has at least a minimum of plausiblity...


----------



## JaeYoon

extremegamerbr said:


> Man, to me burn in DACs, Amps, Daps, etc is just ridiculous.
> 
> I don't see burn in processors, video cards, consoles, TVs etc etc...
> 
> ...



You have a very good point.

No video card CPU manufacturer. Even RAM companies don't tell us to burn it in to get best performance XD


----------



## pctazhp

vnandor said:


> They made at least 682 million euros in 2015, probably even more. I guess companies try to make the amount they earn to look less because the more they admit, the more they get taxed. Last time I checked, it worked that way anyways.


 
 In my next life I want to own Sennheiser


----------



## U-3C

extremegamerbr said:


> Man, to me burn in DACs, Amps, Daps, etc is just ridiculous.
> 
> I don't see burn in processors, video cards, consoles, TVs etc etc...
> 
> ...




Since you mentioned it:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=44JqNJq-PC0



My laptop is slowing down. My friend, who has an even older, weaker laptop, managed to get his running blazing fast by swapping the storage to an ssd. This makes sense. The original HDD has been spinning for years at high speed, so mechanical degradation (plus issues with simply how hdd works: storing data all over the disk, so over time, as data is scattered throughout the disk, it will take more time for the required data to be pieced together) naturally will slow down the disk and cause issues over time, even catastrophic ones. Changing it to a brand new ssd with no moving, plus with a fresh transfer fixed pretty much all the speed issues he was having (of course, ssd's are naturally faster than hdd).

It's the reason why people don't mind over clocking. The degradation does speed up in theory, but it is so minute, that people running it at full speed for years still won't see any loss in lifespan. The components, just like cables for audio, will probably fail/change performance due to reasons other than electrons moving through the cable faster, scattering small, small bits of magical pixie dust as they fly away to Audiophilia land~

Okay, never mind what I just said. I am in desperate need for sleep. ;~;


----------



## HotIce

Amps, DACs, HPs, etc... should be considered tools to listen music. Listen music, which should in theory be the real hobby.
 In a twisted turn of events, collecting and swapping gear became, for some, the hobby, with music relegated to simply be a testing harness.
 So you have people whose listening sessions last no longer than 20 minutes, which have the soundstage testing songs, the bass testing songs, the vocal testing songs, etc...
 If people would focus in what should really be the real topic, listening music, things will suddenly become easier.
 Equipment differences will slim down, because the brain would simply stop fabricating them to justify yet another toy purchase.
 But then the multi million $ industry behind the gear manufacturing would likely dissent.


----------



## pctazhp

hotice said:


> Amps, DACs, HPs, etc... should be considered tools to listen music. Listen music, which should in theory be the real hobby.
> In a twisted turn of events, collecting and swapping gear became, for some, the hobby, with music relegated to simply be a testing harness.
> So you have people whose listening sessions last no longer than 20 minutes, which have the soundstage testing songs, the bass testing songs, the vocal testing songs, etc...
> If people would focus in what should really be the real topic, listening music, things will suddenly become easier.
> ...


 
 It really has been that way since the early beginnings of high-end audio decades ago. I guess it is just a part of human nature, although I'm not really sure what part. What I'm pretty sure of is that no one in the industry is exactly shaking in their boots. 
  
 While I understand why this situation can be frustrating to some, I'm not really sure why so many seem to loose sleep fretting over how others choose to enjoy this "hobby".


----------



## Dillan

pctazhp said:


> It really has been that way since the early beginnings of high-end audio decades ago. I guess it is just a part of human nature, although I'm not really sure what part. What I'm pretty sure of is that no one in the industry is exactly shaking in their boots.
> 
> While I understand why this situation can be frustrating to some, I'm not really sure why so many seem to loose sleep fretting over how others choose to enjoy this "hobby".




I hope no one is losing sleep over it (at least I know I'm not). But the problem to me is, other enthusiasts in the "hobby" *are* in fact influencing the industry around us. Personally I don't feel comfortable just sitting back and letting the uninformed create an overpriced subjective-only environment around us. I'm all for letting people do what they want to do.. And I know my efforts of telling people they don't have to spend more and educating them about bias and measurements might be wasted breath, but at least I tried.

Technology in the audio world has only gotten a small percentage better than it was 5 years ago, but even in just that small frame of time we have flagships doubling and tripling in price and that isn't to mention the new Orpheus or MSB system. We are sort of at a plateau where the latest and greatest doesn't sound that much better, but prices and marketing is still on a huge incline.


----------



## Ruben123

dillan said:


> I hope no one is losing sleep over it (at least I know I'm not). But the problem to me is, other enthusiasts in the "hobby" *are* in fact influencing the industry around us. Personally I don't feel comfortable just sitting back and letting the uninformed create an overpriced subjective-only environment around us. I'm all for letting people do what they want to do.. And I know my efforts of telling people they don't have to spend more and educating them about bias and measurements might be wasted breath, but at least I tried.
> 
> Technology in the audio world has only gotten a small percentage better than it was 5 years ago, but even in just that small frame of time we have flagships doubling and tripling in price and that isn't to mention the new Orpheus or MSB system. We are sort of at a plateau where the latest and greatest doesn't sound that much better, but prices and marketing is still on a huge incline.




We all tried to inform people, at least most of us, but that's quite hard when you get modded down because you mention blind tests, don't own the device and "try to derail the thread". Not on this site. Also I'm not sure the audio devices have gotten better in 5 years, they've made fully transparent devices for ages ($30 sansaclip but my 70s amp sounds transparent too to me) and I don't know of any speaker or headphone that is much or indeed any better than one from years back. Maby the very top of the line headphones got somewhat better...


----------



## NLNH

extremegamerbr said:


> Man, to me burn in DACs, Amps, Daps, etc is just ridiculous.
> 
> I don't see burn in processors, video cards, consoles, TVs etc etc...
> 
> ...


 
  
 burn in effect is not equivalent to technical performance getting better though 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 
 while performance of some components will fall along time...


----------



## terry parr

hotice said:


> Amps, DACs, HPs, etc... should be considered tools to listen music. Listen music, which should in theory be the real hobby.
> In a twisted turn of events, collecting and swapping gear became, for some, the hobby, with music relegated to simply be a testing harness.
> So you have people whose listening sessions last no longer than 20 minutes, which have the soundstage testing songs, the bass testing songs, the vocal testing songs, etc...
> If people would focus in what should really be the real topic, listening music, things will suddenly become easier.
> ...


 
 just in the last few years, i have come to realize that with me, things got to the point where i was thinking about (and obsessing over) different equipment combinations and making a study of how much better (or, in reality, simply how "different", most times) various pieces being slotted in and out would change how the music was being presented. in the beginning, i was experimenting with various pieces of gear in an effort to improve, overall, my listening experience by finding gear that reproduced music well. somewhere along the line, it got to the point where i couldn't see the forest for the trees.  you can get to the point where the music is a test signal, and when you sit down to listen, you're listening to equipment.  
  
 my main headphone of choice right now is a pair of 702's (even though i own a pair of LCD-3's).   the 3's reproduce the bass region incredibly well.  (but, at the expense of the mids and highs).  i decided on a compromise when i decided on which headphone stays on my head for those long listening sessions.  and, it's the 702's which are on my head most of the time.  i enjoy the superior way the 3's handle bass, but i don't want to give up what the 3's lack in the mids and highs (and i want to enjoy my music where a headphone presents the sound signature as a more cohesive whole), rather than switching out headphones, where i'm then mainly hearing the prominent aspect of the sound signature which that particular headphone excels at, but where you find other aspects of the sound sig in that same phone lacking. 
  
 with a more balanced headphone, with a more even-handed presentation across the frequency range, then _i_ can focus on which aspect of the sound sig that i want to zero-in and concentrate on.  (if i'm in the mood for more critical listening).
  
 analyzing audio equipment can be fun in this hobby.  but you can take it too far.  an analogy that i remember from years ago gives an example of somebody watching a porn video, but pointing out that the drapes in the bedroom don't match the carpeting.   well, that's a valid criticism. from an interior design perspective.  (but, you're missing the point!) 
  
 enjoying the music more (and on a deeper and more involved level than most) is what gets most of us started in this hobby.  but if we're not careful, the equipment can become the ends rather than the means.  obsessing over the equipment became for me a worrisome, frustrating distraction.   i'm trying to relax and enjoy my music more these days, rather than constantly obsessing about what compromises i might be making.  worrying about that was beginning to actually get in the way of my music enjoyment and i found myself listening less! 
  
 most of us here probably have pretty darned good-sounding headphone rigs which would impress the average bear.  let's take  time to really enjoy what we've spent so much time putting together.   yes, there's a place for true upgrades, and for switching-out pieces in order to make genuine improvements.  but, i think most of us here have realized that this hobby _can _turn into a situation where you feel you're constantly chasing your tail.


----------



## Ancipital

> Technology in the audio world has only gotten a small percentage better than it was 5 years ago, but even in just that small frame of time we have flagships doubling and tripling in price and that isn't to mention the new Orpheus or MSB system. We are sort of at a plateau where the latest and greatest doesn't sound that much better, but prices and marketing is still on a huge incline.


 
  
 I know blood pressures seem rather high around here, but what does it actually _matter _how much something like the Orpheus setup costs? It doesn't wipe the floor with everything by a huge margin (apparently), it's a vanity item, for the inner Donald Trump, like gold toilet seats. You won't be vastly sonically impoverished if you don't have a pair- the performance is great, I'm sure, but not in a different universe from far cheaper and less blingy choices.
  
 It's a rig for people with more money than taste or sense- such people will always exist, and always spent a fortune on things which represent very poor bang for buck, to show how important and virile they are. Hell, if you have a functionally unlimited budget but very limited information or imagination, always buying the most expensive and shiny is the easy option.
  
 If you let it get to you, you'll never use a vehicle, timepiece, pen, pair of sunglasses, shoes or anything else ever again. They all have a "stupid-fi" end, and there aren't enough hours of the day to spare being angry about it.
  
  


terry parr said:


> analyzing audio equipment can be fun in this hobby.  but you can take it too far.  an analogy that i remember from years ago gives an example of somebody watching a porn video, but pointing out that the drapes in the bedroom don't match the carpeting.   well, that's a valid criticism, from an interior design perspective.  (but, you're missing the point!)


 
  
 Believe me, if you've been trained properly to shoot, light and record sound for broadcast, it can be hard to keep your "eye on the ball" and not get distracted, so to speak. The woeful production values!


----------



## cel4145

ancipital said:


> I know blood pressures seem rather high around here, but what does it actually _matter_ how much something like the Orpheus setup costs? It doesn't wipe the floor with everything by a huge margin (apparently), it's a vanity item, for the inner Donald Trump, like gold toilet seats. You won't be vastly sonically impoverished if you don't have a pair- the performance is great, I'm sure, but not in a different universe from far cheaper and less blingy choices.
> 
> It's a rig for people with more money than taste or sense- such people will always exist, and always spent a fortune on things which represent very poor bang for buck, to show how important and virile they are. Hell, if you have a functionally unlimited budget but very limited information or imagination, always buying the most expensive and shiny is the easy option.
> 
> If you let it get to you, you'll never use a vehicle, timepiece, pen, pair of sunglasses, shoes or anything else ever again. They all have a "stupid-fi" end, and there aren't enough hours of the day to spare being angry about it.




+1

I'm not sure why people care about the Orpheus. It's a very expensive headphone for people that like to buy expensive things. It's not marketed for me any more than an expensive http://www.jomashop.com/patekphilippe.html?dir=desc&order=bestsellersPatek Philippe is.


----------



## ExtremeGamerBR

nlnh said:


> burn in effect is not equivalent to technical performance getting better though
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 But I'm not talking about performance only. You know some kind of processor, which after a few hours, weeks, etc. has reduced or changed, ANYWAY, power consumption, processing, temperature, "jitter" or any other measure? Some TV that the image quality, or any other measure, for better or worse, has changed after several hours of use?

 I may be wrong, but I'm really interested to know if there is any. The MSB DAC says it has already been burned, and I was really wondering why? Why transistors, capacitors, etc. would change significantly the way its sound after a few hours of use?

 So I'm not just talking about performance, better or worse, I'm asking for what reason, after a few hours of use, something would change. Yes, I know that after years of use equipment may wears out, as the example of the HDD (which is COMPLETELY different from a DAC, btw), what interests me is if has such significant changes after hundreds of hours of use.


----------



## Whitigir

I think a lot of people is fed up with the cost of new audiophile products. When it comes to a time where an amp is more expensive than a flagship Gammer desktop ? It is messed up. I can totally make a gaming desktop with dual SLI GTX1080 and top tier everything else for below $3000.....

But even headphones nowadays, 3-4K is like chump changes , LOL


----------



## NLNH

extremegamerbr said:


> But I'm not talking about performance only. You know some kind of processor, which after a few hours, weeks, etc. has reduced or changed, ANYWAY, power consumption, processing, temperature, "jitter" or any other measure? Some TV that the image quality, or any other measure, for better or worse, has changed after several hours of use?
> 
> I may be wrong, but I'm really interested to know if there is any. The MSB DAC says it has already been burned, and I was really wondering why? Why transistors, capacitors, etc. would change significantly the way its sound after a few hours of use?
> 
> So I'm not just talking about performance, better or worse, I'm asking for what reason, after a few hours of use, something would change. Yes, I know that after years of use equipment may wears out, as the example of the HDD (which is COMPLETELY different from a DAC, btw), what interests me is if has such significant changes after hundreds of hours of use.


 
  
 for the first few hours the ''change'' make sense, probably it's like the suspension in a car everything needs a time to settle in...
 more obvious in tube systems (?)
  
 There are quite some readings regarding dielectric aging, may check and these definitely affects the circuit/ performance.
  
 http://www.atceramics.com/Userfiles/dielectric_aging.pdf


----------



## ExtremeGamerBR

nlnh said:


> for the first few hours the ''change'' make sense, probably it's like the suspension in a car everything needs a time to settle in...
> more obvious in tube systems (?)
> 
> There are quite some readings regarding dielectric aging, may check and these definitely affects the circuit/ performance.
> ...


 
 I understand the issue of car suspension, because it performs MECHANICS movements.

 I do not know anything about engineering to comment on the link you posted. Anyway, it would be interesting to have other examples of situations where there is a SIGNIFICANT difference in electronics (without moving parts) that these effects occur.


----------



## Whitigir

extremegamerbr said:


> I understand the issue of car suspension, because it performs MECHANICS movements.
> 
> 
> I do not know anything about engineering to comment on the link you posted. Anyway, it would be interesting to have other examples of situations where there is a SIGNIFICANT difference in electronics (without moving parts) that these effects occur.




Capacitance, leakages, operation temperature and tolerances, conductivity.....etc...etc. Especially Capacitors, they mature, and then get old, and then rendered useless as time goes by. Therefore, there is a "prime-age" for different capacitor materials, styles, tolerances.....etc...etc. other components has it as well, but not as significant, and even cables do too.

The example you can see is battery, it can charge, hold, discharge, and then ruined, or becomes useless. Now, take that to the extreme, and understand why electrical components are affected as usage times goes by (burn-in).

It may has nothing to do with the topic here. However, it does explain why high tolerances electrical components are so expensive.....still doesn't justify the cost of new audiophile gears 

Can not imagine anything require more tolerances than graphic card and CPU, and hell...they don't cost thousand of dollars


----------



## NLNH

extremegamerbr said:


> I understand the issue of car suspension, because it performs MECHANICS movements.
> 
> I do not know anything about engineering to comment on the link you posted. Anyway, it would be interesting to have other examples of situations where there is a SIGNIFICANT difference in electronics (without moving parts) that these effects occur.


 
  
 say when there are 10 components used, and they change differently along time, circuitries act as potential divider/ audio filters say low or high pass etc/ or to determine gain, when the ratio/ value changes then obviously sound will change 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 nothing to do with the outcome though... say less accuracy may lead to slower decay and that may please some ears 
 (may not be precise, not a tech guy here too)


----------



## ExtremeGamerBR

whitigir said:


> Capacitance, leakages, operation temperature and tolerances, conductivity.....etc...etc. Especially Capacitors, they mature, and then get old, and then rendered useless as time goes by. Therefore, there is a "prime-age" for different capacitor materials, styles, tolerances.....etc...etc. other components has it as well, but not as significant, and even cables do too.
> 
> The example you can see is battery, it can charge, hold, discharge, and then ruined, or becomes useless. Now, take that to the extreme, and understand why electrical components are affected as usage times goes by (burn-in).
> 
> ...


 
  
  


nlnh said:


> say when there are 10 components used, and they change differently along time, circuitries act as potential divider/ audio filters say low or high pass etc/ or to determine gain, when the ratio/ value changes then obviously sound will change
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
   Still, I have my doubts to what extent these changes are significant to the sound. I think much more plausible some time to adapt to the equipment.

 I still remember the first time I put my HD 598 and did not find anything interesting in it. After a few hours of use (not reached hundreds of hours) it sounded wonderfully in some situations, and much better than the ATH-M50x. But in this case it was obvious that had to do with me getting used to a DIFFERENT sound, more than any arising effect of continuous use.

 I was thinking these days the battery issue, they actually change their performance over time, but I believe that the operating mechanism of which is completely different from DACs, Amps, DAPs etc.

 I'm not denying that capacitors, normal temperature variations, etc. change their performance over time, what I'm trying to understand is whether these differences are what make a sound better or worse, or is simply the user getting used to it .


----------



## oldmate

whitigir said:


> I think a lot of people is fed up with the cost of new audiophile products. When it comes to a time where an amp is more expensive than a flagship Gammer desktop ? It is messed up. I can totally make a gaming desktop with dual SLI GTX1080 and top tier everything else for below $3000.....
> 
> But even headphones nowadays, 3-4K is like chump changes , LOL


 
 I would much rather the flagship gaming pc myself.


----------



## Argyris

cel4145 said:


> +1
> 
> I'm not sure why people care about the Orpheus. It's a very expensive headphone for people that like to buy expensive things. It's not marketed for me any more than an expensive http://www.jomashop.com/patekphilippe.html?dir=desc&order=bestsellersPatek Philippe is.


 
  
 I won't speak for the thread, but I'm not personally concerned about the Orpheus, or any other statement product. They're supposed to be exclusive and expensive, and they wouldn't be a very good statement product / status symbol if they weren't.
  
 I'm concerned about the price of mass market flagships. Statement products have always been pricey; otherwise TOTL headphones haven't. In ten years we've added a zero to the price of the average flagship. I wouldn't say this is the law of diminishing returns, since the performance hasn't really improved enough to warrant the creation of a new class. There's only so much you can do with technology that functions on the same fundamental principles as it did ten years ago. The price for similar levels of performance over that time period has simply shifted up by an order of magnitude.
  
 I guess a good way of explaining why this bothers me is that, while there are people out there who could quite easily shell out the additional money for this level of performance, I can't, a lot of long-time enthusiasts can't, and ten years ago we didn't have to. The performance didn't improve by nearly enough to justify the massive hike in average price, and now that that hike has happened, it's unlikely the best engineering is ever going to be aimed at the lower price brackets, like it was when $300-$500 was the most a (non statement) headphone would ever cost. Don't get me wrong, there are great options in this space. But there likely won't be any _better_ options here, at least not for a very long time, when the average threshold of performance finally reaches the high water mark of latter-day flagships.
  
 So we come back around to the issue in this thread, which is why enthusiasts are so willing to spend more now than they did a decade ago. My feeling is that it's because they think they're getting a whole lot more than they did back then, and that the subjective nature of audio is such that it's easy for them to convince themselves of this. This is especially true for gear where empirical testing shows little to no difference. I don't necessarily blame them; everything from the breathless marketing copy put out by audiophile review outlets, to the deafening echo chamber of enthusiast discourse, screams that this stuff is worth it. And once an individual has invested, philosophically, emotionally and financially; they're pot committed, so to speak, and are thus unwilling to consider that the differences they think they're hearing may well be the differences on the price tag, nothing more.
  
 So they pay more, which means that the rest of us will eventually have to do so as well.


----------



## oldmate

An oldie but a goodie;
  
 http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/high-end-pc-audio,3733-19.html


----------



## U-3C

oldmate said:


> An oldie but a goodie;
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/high-end-pc-audio,3733-19.html




If you follow the Reddit discussion, the author acknowledges the issues with the test and takes in feedback, hoping to do a future article that is much more scientific, as well as pointing out why dedicated audio solutions have a place in different situations. 

The main goal is that onboard audio, such as those that use the Realtek ALC1150 chip, which costs only a few cents if bought in bulk, can be extremely transparent if implemented correctly, and for many people who reads Tom's (such as those who build PC's which used to have either poor audio in the past or have a noisy environment for onboard solutions, who often question whether or not it is worth getting a cheap 20 dollar sound card over the one that's already in the mobo), onboard is far more than they need so spending that money is unnecessary. 

On pc tech sites, the need for a dac/amp is a lot more polarized, with more people believing that you really don't need one, and that even popular ones like the odac/o2 combo or the Schiit stack are useless for most people.

On one forum (that I never visit, so I don't know how things work there), this is the post pinned at the very top by the Audio Board:



In the past, I thought it was ridiculous and wayyyy over the top. Don't bother for a dac unless you are going over 1000 bucks or because your onboard has issues/lacks software features???!! Even the most generous recommendations I've read up to that point was that you owe it to yourself to get a dac if you have 300 to 500 dollar headphones as they will show all the audio flaws, so you either take in the dac/amp into consideration when allocating your budget or just get cheaper headphones and save your audio life. 

That is until I went to listen to a pair of HD800 with my iPhone, my really trashy Samsung S3, my DACport Slim, and out of a Chord Mojo.

...

Yeah, trying to hear the difference between the dac/amps, as well as comparing the HD800 with other popular 200 to 300 dollar headphones was the most underwhelming experience ever. Like, ever.

Even if someone have me the Chord Mojo for free, I won't use it over my smartphone.

In fact, I brought my friend into the shop just to show how underwhelming it is, and I think I might have ruined all his potential to become an audiophile as he can't justify the price difference either. He would have chosen the DT880 over all the headphones in the store, including the HD800, as he thought they were all in the same price range.


----------



## Koolpep

argyris said:


> I won't speak for the thread, but I'm not personally concerned about the Orpheus, or any other statement product. They're supposed to be exclusive and expensive, and they wouldn't be a very good statement product / status symbol if they weren't.
> 
> I'm concerned about the price of mass market flagships. Statement products have always been pricey; otherwise TOTL headphones haven't. In ten years we've added a zero to the price of the average flagship. I wouldn't say this is the law of diminishing returns, since the performance hasn't really improved enough to warrant the creation of a new class. There's only so much you can do with technology that functions on the same fundamental principles as it did ten years ago. The price for similar levels of performance over that time period has simply shifted up by an order of magnitude.
> 
> ...




http://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=500&year=2005

$500 in 2005 had the same purchasing power as $1,123 today. Go back further and the difference is more dramatic.

Am not saying this is the only reason but one of them.

Cheers.


----------



## cel4145

argyris said:


> I guess a good way of explaining why this bothers me is that, while there are people out there who could quite easily shell out the additional money for this level of performance, I can't, a lot of long-time enthusiasts can't, and ten years ago *we didn't have to*.




I'm into home audio. I don't feel I should spend $10,000 on a pair of speakers--it's a lot of money to me--even though there are plenty out there that would be good. Doesn't really bother me though. I like sporty sedans. Can't really afford a Tesla S. Don't feel like I "have to" have one. I have a collection of over a fifteen watches. Don't feel like I have to buy a $15,000 luxury watch. 



argyris said:


> The performance didn't improve by nearly enough to justify the massive hike in average price, and now that that hike has happened, it's unlikely the best engineering is ever going to be aimed at the lower price brackets, like it was when $300-$500 was the most a (non statement) headphone would ever cost. Don't get me wrong, there are great options in this space. But there likely won't be any _better_ options here, at least not for a very long time, when the average threshold of performance finally reaches the high water mark of latter-day flagships.




In many, many, many product markets, engineering that goes into luxury items trickles down into lower tier products. So I wouldn't worry that the $300-$500 headphone range is going to suffer, particularly since there are more good products available in that range now then there was 10 years ago. It's become much more competitive.


----------



## Argyris

cel4145 said:


> In many, many, many product markets, engineering that goes into luxury items trickles down into lower tier products. So I wouldn't worry that the $300-$500 headphone range is going to suffer, particularly since there are more good products available in that range now then there was 10 years ago. It's become much more competitive.


 
  
 You may be right. I hope so, at least. It's been a long time since I could actually get excited about a new headphone. The midrange segment, despite numerous entrants, has pretty much been dominated by former flagships and the lower end HiFiMAN gear for a while. The latter interests me, as they've released quite a few models in this segment in the past three or four years. The main reason I've never tried them is I've read too many reports about brightness. As a long-time DT880 owner, I really didn't need another headphone with that kind of tuning. The HE-400S was interesting because it's tuned more like an HD 6x0, though perhaps to too great a degree as it also has the bass rolloff, which negates the advantage of the excellent bass extension planar designs are known for.
  
 I guess we'll see what happens in the future. All I can say for sure is the days are long gone when personal audio was a quaint little diversion, pursued by about six and a half people worldwide and looked down upon by all those people with "real" audio systems. With DSP and wireless audio transmission increasingly common in the marketplace, maybe someday everything we're saying in this thread will be looked back upon as just as dated and obsolete a perspective as how those hi-fi enthusiasts back in the 80s and early 90s looked at headphones.


----------



## sonitus mirus

koolpep said:


> http://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=500&year=2005
> 
> $500 in 2005 had the same purchasing power as $1,123 today. Go back further and the difference is more dramatic.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I think you goofed a bit on the math.  That site is showing an annual inflation of 2% per year from 2005 to 2016, which would be an increase of $121.45 for a total of $621.45.  So I would apparently need about $621 dollars today to purchase the same items that cost $500 back in 2005.  Of course, this is all presumably US dollars.  If you live in Venezuela, you'd need to be a millionaire now to order a Big Mac.


----------



## Ancipital

cel4145 said:


> In many, many, many product markets, engineering that goes into luxury items trickles down into lower tier products. So I wouldn't worry that the $300-$500 headphone range is going to suffer, particularly since there are more good products available in that range now then there was 10 years ago. It's become much more competitive.


 
  
 Good grief yes, you just need to look the performance and comfort of things like the more recent Hifiman planars, it's a quite a hard-fought market segment; you can get a lot of sound for your money.


----------



## cel4145

ancipital said:


> Good grief yes, you just need to look the performance and comfort of things like the more recent Hifiman planars, it's a quite a hard-fought market segment; you can get a lot of sound for your money.




Yep. And there is something new for everyone. B&W, Focal, Meze, Oppo, Philips, V-Moda. PSB and NAD headphones by Paul Barton. Particularly interesting to me are all of the many good closed headphone offerings, when there used to be so few choices in this price/performance range. And let's not forget the IEM market. I'd think headphone enthusiasts would be excited about all of the many choices now, rather than lamenting that they can't afford $1000+ headphones.


----------



## castleofargh

cel4145 said:


> Yep. And there is something new for everyone. B&W, Focal, Meze, Oppo, Philips, V-Moda. PSB and NAD headphones by Paul Barton. Particularly interesting to me are all of the many good closed headphone offerings, when there used to be so few choices in this price/performance range. And let's not forget the IEM market. I'd think headphone enthusiasts would be excited about all of the many choices now, rather than lamenting that they can't afford $1000+ headphones.


 

 is it better to have a 1000$ IEM or 5 200$ IEMs?


----------



## Ancipital

castleofargh said:


> is it better to have a 1000$ IEM or 5 200$ IEMs?


 
  
 Would you rather fight 500 1 meter tall zombie horses, or one 500 meter tall one?
  
 ..but back on topic, yes, it's outrageous the quality and choice in those segments. I do like the look of the Oppo PM-3, for example..


----------



## cel4145

ancipital said:


> ..but back on topic, yes, it's outrageous the quality and choice in those segments. I do like the look of the Oppo PM-3, for example..




I would argue it's in many audio segments. Look at all of the good DAC and headphone amp options for under $400, many of which people in this thread would say either are transparent, or close to it. What about DAPs. Used to be Sony and Cowon. Now Sony has stepped up their game. There's Fiio and iBasso, and then some new contenders out of Asia. 

Speakers. I just picked up a pair of JBL LSR305's for my bedroom. For <$300, these are an amazing price/performance value of overall SQ, bass extension, and max SPL. If someone doesn't like those powered speakers, how about some Emotivas? Way better than what one could have gotten 10 year ago. Passive speakers? In the <$500 range, all kinds of great bookshelf speakers, many from Internet direct vendors that offer better values than what is in stores. Look what you get out of a $500 AVR these days? The potential for object oriented sound, streaming, room EQ. Subwoofers? Internet direct again. $500 gets you a sub with better than movie theater bass to fill a small to medium sized room. 

So personally, I think we live in the age of reasonably priced good audio myself. I don't know what anyone has to complain about


----------



## Ancipital

Yeah, I have been doing very nicely with reasonably-priced audio for some years, actually. People look at me oddly when I tell them how little it cost- amazing what you can get when you shop around 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 (Ok, so the little Adam Audio A5 nearfields were a bit more pricey, but that was a worthwhile extravagance, I feel, they're lovely for the money, and a damned sight cheaper than $work's weapons-grade Dynaudios.)


----------



## cel4145

ancipital said:


> Yeah, I have been doing very nicely with reasonably-priced audio for some years, actually. People look at me oddly when I tell them how little it cost- amazing what you can get when you shop around :basshead:
> 
> (Ok, so the little Adam Audio A5 nearfields were a bit more pricey, but that was a worthwhile extravagance, I feel, they're lovely for the money, and a damned sight cheaper than $work's weapons-grade Dynaudios.)




Yeah. A lot of consumers buy based on what mass marketing exposure they have had convinces them to and maybe little attention to Amazon reviews. It is quite amazing what one can get in SQ these days if one does their research. 

Adam A5s, eh? I'm sure those sound nice


----------



## HotIce

pctazhp said:


> It really has been that way since the early beginnings of high-end audio decades ago. I guess it is just a part of human nature, although I'm not really sure what part. What I'm pretty sure of is that no one in the industry is exactly shaking in their boots.
> 
> While I understand why this situation can be frustrating to some, I'm not really sure why so many seem to loose sleep fretting over how others choose to enjoy this "hobby".


 
  
 While for me the real hobby is listening music, I feel absolutely zero frustration (let alone sleep deprivation) about what anyone else choses to do with their own money.
 Since the thread topic mentions A/B/X tests, I always found it interesting how the few unbiased and professionally conducted ones, revealed a human ear discerning capability much lower than the one most reviewers claim to posses.


----------



## pctazhp

One big problem I see with the headphone and related gear market is that it is highly inefficient. Most people living in an industrial country who are looking for a car have the opportunity to see and actually drive a broad number of choices. It is usually pretty easy to see a number of TV choices. But not so with headphones. Often the best opportunity people have to compare different headphones (or related equipment) is at local meets under difficult conditions.
  
 So it may not be that surprising that people believe (rightly or wrongly) they can make good choices by reading subjective posts.


----------



## HotIce

Headphones (and so speakers) are the ones where their is actually a very audible difference.
 And hence these are IMHO where the focus should be.
 But buying an headphone/speaker by reading online reviews has the same sense of letting a perfect stranger order food for you at the restaurant.


----------



## pctazhp

hotice said:


> Headphones (and so speakers) are the ones where their is actually a very audible difference.
> And hence these are IMHO where the focus should be.
> But buying an headphone/speaker by reading online reviews has the same sense of letting a perfect stranger order food for you at the restaurant.


 
 I understand the perils of relying on subjective reviews. Just trying to describe a problem with the headphone market.


----------



## pctazhp

I do find it interesting that as soon as the word "subjective" is even mentioned on this thread someone feels compelled to immediately point out the problem with subjective reviews which has already been discussed here ad nauseum .


----------



## Koolpep

sonitus mirus said:


> I think you goofed a bit on the math.  That site is showing an annual inflation of 2% per year from 2005 to 2016, which would be an increase of $121.45 for a total of $621.45.  So I would apparently need about $621 dollars today to purchase the same items that cost $500 back in 2005.  Of course, this is all presumably US dollars.  If you live in Venezuela, you'd need to be a millionaire now to order a Big Mac.




Yes, you are totally right. I changed the year from 1985 to 2005 but missed clicking the calculate button, expecting auto refresh. Pathetic of me. Thanks for checking that and setting it right 

Cheers.


----------



## sonitus mirus

koolpep said:


> Yes, you are totally right. I changed the year from 1985 to 2005 but missed clicking the calculate button, expecting auto refresh. Pathetic of me. Thanks for checking that and setting it right
> 
> Cheers.


 
  
 Still a cool site.  Depressing when looking at my raises over the past years, but cool nonetheless. Back in 1979 I remember thinking that a stable job that paid $25K/yr would be comfortable and would allow me to live relatively free from a financial perspective.  A $25K annual salary is riot-inducing pay for fast food employees nowadays.


----------



## Argyris

pctazhp said:


> One big problem I see with the headphone and related gear market is that it is highly inefficient. Most people living in an industrial country who are looking for a car have the opportunity to see and actually drive a broad number of choices. It is usually pretty easy to see a number of TV choices. But not so with headphones. Often the best opportunity people have to compare different headphones (or related equipment) is at local meets under difficult conditions.
> 
> So it may not be that surprising that people believe (rightly or wrongly) they can make good choices by reading subjective posts.


 
  
 Right on. Where I live, my audition choices are essentially bupkis. And this is in the US and within an hour's drive of a major city, so I should theoretically have an advantage over people who live outside this country, where distribution of audio brands can be very lacking.
  
 The only two headphones I've ever bought having been able to hear them first are the M50 and, later, the SRH440, and that's only because both are actually supposed to be studio headphones and were therefore available at Guitar Center. Everything else has been sight unheard, and it was tough at first zeroing in on something I could live with.
  
 There isn't exactly a great solution to this other than organizing more local meets. It's not like we can entice local stores to stock high end headphones. If I asked the local big box electronics store, for instance, there might be one other person in a year who asks, and that's being generous. The nearest hi-fi shot is well over an hour's drive away, and apart from the Grado line, they don't do headphones.


----------



## cel4145

argyris said:


> Right on. Where I live, my audition choices are essentially bupkis. And this is in the US and within an hour's drive of a major city, so I should theoretically have an advantage over people who live outside this country, where distribution of audio brands can be very lacking.




Where are you in Michigan? There is Overture Audio in Ann Arbor.


----------



## pctazhp

argyris said:


> Right on. Where I live, my audition choices are essentially bupkis. And this is in the US and within an hour's drive of a major city, so I should theoretically have an advantage over people who live outside this country, where distribution of audio brands can be very lacking.
> 
> The only two headphones I've ever bought having been able to hear them first are the M50 and, later, the SRH440, and that's only because both are actually supposed to be studio headphones and were therefore available at Guitar Center. Everything else has been sight unheard, and it was tough at first zeroing in on something I could live with.
> 
> There isn't exactly a great solution to this other than organizing more local meets. It's not like we can entice local stores to stock high end headphones. If I asked the local big box electronics store, for instance, there might be one other person in a year who asks, and that's being generous. The nearest hi-fi shot is well over an hour's drive away, and apart from the Grado line, they don't do headphones.


 
 I live in the Phoenix metropolitan area and generally it is a vast headphone wasteland. No problem though finding backyard furniture stores )))
  
 Sometime I wonder about all the headphone companies that exist today and who buys all the offered headphones at any price point.


----------



## pctazhp

Another random thought about TOTL headphones. I agree the prices often seem totally insane. But assuming just for the sake of argument that at least some TOTL headphones are special, the "latest and greatest" frenzy does offer some benefit. Suddenly, the new Focal and Mr. Speaker headphones are quite the rage. I'm sure that the value of my HD800S will start falling significantly as many less-than-a-year old S's go on sale.
  
 I guess wealthy people (of which sadly I am not one) don't have to worry about selling last year's model. They can just invest in a very fancy headphone rack to hold their treasures. It is the people who have to sell last year's model to afford the latest and greatest who are probably taking unnecessary financial risk.


----------



## Argyris

pctazhp said:


> Another random thought about TOTL headphones. I agree the prices often seem totally insane. But assuming just for the sake of argument that at least some TOTL headphones are special, the "latest and greatest" frenzy does offer some benefit. Suddenly, the new Focal and Mr. Speaker headphones are quite the rage. I'm sure that the value of my HD800S will start falling significantly as many less-than-a-year old S's go on sale.
> 
> I guess wealthy people (of which sadly I am not one) don't have to worry about selling last year's model. They can just invest in a very fancy headphone rack to hold their treasures. It is the people who have to sell last year's model to afford the latest and greatest who are probably taking unnecessary financial risk.


 
  
 I think it depends on the headphone, but on Head-Fi I've noticed that gear holds its price remarkably well. That said, if there's an upswing in the number of new models released in a year, I could see that placing a downward pressure on resale value. Especially if makers start consistently using the age old trick of making very minor changes to an existing model annually or biennially, incrementing the model number, and then selling it as a fundamental improvement. _Got 2014's Headphone 9001? Well, this year's new Headphone 9002 is _so_ much better, it's a revolution!_


----------



## Argyris

cel4145 said:


> Where are you in Michigan? There is Overture Audio in Ann Arbor.


 
  
 About half an hour northeast of Detroit. I think I know the one you're talking about. Unless it's changed since 2012 or thereabouts when I was looking for shops to visit, it might be the one I looked up and saw had the Grado line. If you've been there or otherwise know what they have, you can fill me in.


----------



## cel4145

argyris said:


> About half an hour northeast of Detroit. I think I know the one you're talking about. Unless it's changed since 2012 or thereabouts when I was looking for shops to visit, it might be the one I looked up and saw had the Grado line. If you've been there or otherwise know what they have, you can fill me in.




I went for a Head-Fi meet. They had some HiFiMan, but I wasn't paying a lot of attention to their stock. 

But their might be a meet there this fall. Perhaps you could go and see what they have at the same time 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/816408/2016-southeastern-michigan-falll-head-fi-meet


----------



## pctazhp

For anyone who thinks audio insanity just sprang to life with the rise of HeadFi, check this out: http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/110/#vWZkWlXxwECxQ2p5.97


----------



## Argyris

pctazhp said:


> For anyone who thinks audio insanity just sprang to life with the rise of HeadFi, check this out: http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/110/#vWZkWlXxwECxQ2p5.97


 
  
 Fascinating. I know this stuff has been going on for a long time, but it's still illuminating to read a piece that could have been written today. I like how the author brings the psychological aspect up, as this is where I think the "magic" is happening.


----------



## HotIce

pctazhp said:


> For anyone who thinks audio insanity just sprang to life with the rise of HeadFi, check this out: http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/110/#vWZkWlXxwECxQ2p5.97


 
  
 Bear in mind that this is Stereophile, a magazine which bases its own business in making people believe that differences (or "magics") actually exists. Just look at the right end side of the page you are reading, as simple proof.
 For "professionals" I meant A/B tests run within universities or other settings where people has no agenda to push.
 WRT A/B tests, if I cannot tell in an A/B test that a $50/kg steak does not taste better than a $25/kg one, then there is little point to pour $ into the $50/kg one.
 Unless your hobby is collecting different kind of steaks.


----------



## pctazhp

hotice said:


> Bear in mind that this is Stereophile, a magazine which bases its own business in making people believe that differences (or "magics") actually exists. Just look at the right end side of the page you are reading, as simple proof.
> For "professionals" I meant A/B tests run within universities or other settings where people has no agenda to push.
> WRT A/B tests, if I cannot tell in an A/B test that a $50/kg steak does not taste better than a $25/kg one, then there is little point to pour $ into the $50/kg one.
> Unless your hobby is collecting different kind of steaks.


 
 Give me a break!!! I'm very aware of what Stereophile is. My God, this thread really does often seem like a waste of time because there is so much paranoia that any thread post that doesn't expressly extol the virtue of DBTs and pledge an undying promise to never talk about anything else must immediately be challenged.


----------



## Ancipital

cel4145 said:


> Adam A5s, eh? I'm sure those sound nice


 
  
 Like a lot of small nearfields, the sweet spot is tight, but they're wonderfully neutral and precise- it's almost surgical. Lovely things, aye.


----------



## RRod

Are we now complaining about people not being able to communicate effectively on the Internet? Time to tag 'er and bag 'er, CoA.


----------



## pctazhp

rrod said:


>


 
 I am probably going to get in trouble with the moderator for this post, but to me the @HotIce response is a classic example of the gut level need of many self-proclaimed "objectivists" to impose censorship on all rational discussion. He completely missed the point of my post which was to simply demonstrate crazy audio ideas had been around for a long time - NOT to praise Stereophile. But because I simply mentioned Stereophile I was told to "keep in mind..." 
  
 I am so sick of seeing "political correctness" ravage our great universities and threaten to destroy the basic tenants of a classic liberal education which is to promote the open exchange and challenge of ideas and beliefs. And now it even extends to a thread like this. The intellectual elites know what is best for everyone and exhibit a visceral need to protect us slobs from ourselves.


----------



## HotIce

Please note that my responses has all been calm and with smooth tones.
 This is a forum, where people express different opinions. Which might or might not differ.
 If this happens within civilized settings, and within the forum rules, the issue is more yours than mine.


----------



## pctazhp

hotice said:


> Please note that my responses has all been calm and with smooth tones.
> This is a forum, where people express different opinions. Which might or might not differ.
> If this happens within civilized settings, and within the forum rules, the issue is more yours than mine.


 
 Bully for you!!!


----------



## Argyris

pctazhp said:


> the point of my post which was to simply demonstrate crazy audio ideas had been around for a long time - NOT to praise Stereophile. But because I simply mentioned Stereophile I was told to "keep in mind..."


 
  
 I got the point of your post, as evidenced in my response. I thought it was pretty clear what you were saying. I've actually been reading back earlier in the post archive, to some of the stuff from the 60s, and it's amazing how lucid it was, and how all the familiar audiophile tropes were firmly in place even back then. Humans never change, it seems.


----------



## pctazhp

argyris said:


> I got the point of your post, as evidenced in my response. I thought it was pretty clear what you were saying. I've actually been reading back earlier in the post archive, to some of the stuff from the 60s, and it's amazing how lucid it was, and how all the familiar audiophile tropes were firmly in place even back then. Humans never change, it seems.


 
 Peace brother ))) The only advantage of reaching Old Geezerdom is occasionally a dim memory from the past may have some value 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 Edit: Sorry "or sister" )))


----------



## VNandor

hotice said:


> Please note that my responses has all been calm and with smooth tones.
> This is a forum, where people express different opinions. Which might or might not differ.
> If this happens within civilized settings, and within the forum rules, the issue is more yours than mine.


 

 Point is that you missed the point (probably).
  
  


pctazhp said:


> For anyone who thinks audio insanity just sprang to life with the rise of HeadFi, check this out: http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/110/#vWZkWlXxwECxQ2p5.97


 

 This is a post that points out snake-oil products in audio have been a thing for a long time
  
  


hotice said:


> Bear in mind that this is Stereophile, a magazine which bases its own business in making people believe that differences (or "magics") actually exists. Just look at the right end side of the page you are reading, as simple proof.
> For "professionals" I meant A/B tests run within universities or other settings where people has no agenda to push.
> WRT A/B tests, if I cannot tell in an A/B test that a $50/kg steak does not taste better than a $25/kg one, then there is little point to pour $ into the $50/kg one.
> Unless your hobby is collecting different kind of steaks.


 

 This post points out Stereophile is a magazine that promotes such products, plus it inderectly makes the assumption that there's someone who trusts Stereophile which is clearly not the case.


----------



## pctazhp

Thanks @Vandor. Your measured response is far superior to my rants. I need to stop watching TV news and pretend our Presidential election doesn't exist. It is turning me into a maniac about everything


----------



## RRod

Yes, people are talking past each other, which happens after 80+ pages with lots of new blood joining the fray. This kind of response:


pctazhp said:


> Give me a break!!! I'm very aware of what Stereophile is. My God, this thread really does often seem like a waste of time because there is so much paranoia that any thread post that doesn't expressly extol the virtue of DBTs and pledge an undying promise to never talk about anything else must immediately be challenged.


 
  
 doesn't help with any of it, especially from someone who is lately complaining about the quality of the dialectic.


----------



## pctazhp

rrod said:


> Yes, people are talking past each other, which happens after 80+ pages with lots of new blood joining the fray. This kind of response:
> 
> *doesn't help with any of it, especially from someone who is lately complaining about the quality of the dialectic.*


 
 I plead guilty.


----------



## sonitus mirus

pctazhp said:


> I plead guilty.


 
 Fire on the Mountain.


----------



## HotIce

vnandor said:


> Point is that you missed the point (probably).


 

 And the point was?
  


vnandor said:


> This post points out Stereophile is a magazine that promotes such products, plus it inderectly makes the assumption that there's someone who trusts Stereophile which is clearly not the case.


 
  
 I think you made the wrong assumptions, and if you parse carefully what I have written, and read the content of the Stereophile article, it should be clear.
 A/B tests were mentioned by me, first because they are topic of this thread, after second because they are mentioned by the Stereophile article, and dismissed because of "magic" happens, and people hear things even if they do not actually hear them in A/B tests.
 Hence, the "down to earth" steak analogy.
 The fact that many people read HeadFi and Stereophile, and buy gear based on the content of such forums/magazines, seem in distinct contrast with "which is clearly not the case".


----------



## VNandor

hotice said:


> And the point was?
> 
> 
> I think you made the wrong assumptions, and if you parse carefully what I have written, and read the content of the Stereophile article, it should be clear.
> ...


 
  
 Quote:


vnandor said:


> Point is that you missed the point (probably).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 There, that was the point. The words "audio insanity" clearly indicates the poster doesn't believe that Mr.Belt "inventions" change the sonic traits of a system.
  
  


hotice said:


> The fact that many people read HeadFi and Stereophile, and buy gear based on the content of such forums/magazines, seem in distinct contrast with "which is clearly not the case".


 
 Yes, I admit  I've made a sweeping generalization here to the point the statement is not true anymore, let me rephrase it. People involved in this particular thread are most likely informed about how credible Stereophile is.


----------



## pctazhp

hotice said:


> And the point was?
> 
> 
> I think you made the wrong assumptions, and if you parse carefully what I have written, and read the content of the Stereophile article, it should be clear.
> ...


 
 For the sake of reasonable discussion, this is what the author said about DBTs:
  
_"The perceptual psychologists' favorite research tool—the carefully controlled double-blind A/B test—just doesn't seem to work in audio, except when the perceived differences are so great that A/B comparisons aren't necessary anyway. No one seems sure why. The consistency of independent reactions to the sound of components is still the only "hard" evidence we can muster to counter accusations of mysticism or outright charlatanism in subjective audio, but no one has kept a record of such correlations, and they have certainly not been the result of "controlled" tests. ("Would we lie?" is not good enough.)"_
  
 I don't see where he dismissed DBTs because of "magic". Keep in mind that the date of this article was 1987 - almost 30 years ago. I personally don't question the value of properly conducted DBTs as a scientific research tool in many different areas. But even now in 2016 I'm not sure than anyone has compiled a good list of reported audio DBTs that would pass muster at the university level which have been conducted by qualified professionals according to proper protocol and subject to peer review. If you know of any, I am very open to learning about them.
  
 As I think has been discussed earlier in this thread, generally there is usually not sufficient money or motivation to support properly conducted audio related DBTs. I am not aware of a single manufacturer ever doing so. At most universities I suspect the idea of devoting resources to studying high-end or "hobby" audio would be laughed at. Moreover, the countless number of headphone and audio gear products is so vast, the thought of developing sufficient tests to approach some general consensus of the whether there really is a difference between or among products above a certain price point would certainly be daunting.
  
 This is not to say that properly conducted DBTs would not be valuable for those of us interested in audio. I just don't think many have been conducted, and speculating as to what they might demonstrate is not scientific.
  
 Again, if I am wrong about this, I have an open mind.


----------



## cel4145

pctazhp said:


> At most universities I suspect the idea of devoting resources to studying high-end or "hobby" audio would be laughed at.




Just to point out, it wouldn't even be academic research to do product testing, which is what people would like to see here in terms of DBT. Academic research could focus on analyzing DBT methodology, but that's a bit different.


----------



## RRod

A given review that has made pains to do things like volume matching and (if possible) blind testing is worth more than the same review without these things. Saying that the only purpose for such things is in rigorous academic tests is missing the point. Or perhaps people disagree with the first sentence.


----------



## pctazhp

I'd like to posit the following simple minded hypothetical. Let's assume I have two new headphone amps on my desktop and I am trying to decide which one to keep. I have chosen these two from numerous subjective posts I have read on HeadFi. One amp costs 3 times as much as the other. Certainly I'm going to be subject to external biases. Whether the cost difference favors one amp over the other may depend on whether I'm on a tight budget and am hoping the cheaper one is as good or almost as good as the more expensive one, or whether budget is not a consideration for me and I am inclined to believe the more expensive one is better.
  
 There are two ways I can chose. One is through sighted listening comparisons over hours or even days. The other is to enlist the help of a friend or family member who with my back turned will switch back and forth. This isn't a double-blind test but I assume most of us would conclude the blind method is more reliable than the sighted approach.
  
 But here is where this gets interesting, at least for me. Let's assume that the blind test showed statistically I could not distinguish between the two amps. Again I assume most of us would agree that the rational choice would be the cheaper amp (all other considerations being equal).
  
 But what if after my assistant leaves and I start listening sighted to both amps and I just can't get it out of my mind that the more expensive one is just much more enjoyable to me. If I chose the more expensive one would I be considered just stupid and gullible, or would my choice be understandable?
  
 Edit:  Assume volume matching was part of the blind test.
  
 More edit (sorry): When I say the more expensive one is "more enjoyable" I mean it "sounds" better to me.


----------



## Argyris

pctazhp said:


> Moreover, the countless number of headphone and audio gear products is so vast, the thought of developing sufficient tests to approach some general consensus of the whether there really is a difference between or among products above a certain price point would certainly be daunting.


 
  
 This is a very important point. Not only is the task herculean, but the fact that an exhaustive survey of every piece of equipment ever made is impractical (if not technically impossible) means there will always be somebody who claims that the science somehow doesn't apply to their pet piece of gear, since there aren't any tests for it specifically.
  
 I feel that an effective empirical basis needs to dig a bit deeper, down to the fundamental principles. There's a big difference between "haven't found evidence for" and "cannot happen for any reason." If it can be shown that what's happening at an electrical and mechanical level inside, say, a cable or a DAC; is so similar across any possible permutation of the product class that any differences, while perhaps measurable, cannot be heard by humans, this sidesteps the "what if product _x_ is different somehow" argument. Necessarily, we'll also need more research into how humans perceive sound, in both the auditory and psychological senses, so we can establish thresholds for what humans can and cannot hear, as well as build a better understanding of how humans categorize and process the sound they hear, and what factors can influence these processes.
  
 Blind testing still has a place in an objective approach, I think. It's not going to definitively settle the argument on its own, but as a tool for the genuinely curious and open minded, I think it can still be useful. Many of the subjectivist claims are of massive, easily audible differences between pieces of gear. While it's true that proper testing requires more preparation and equipment than the average listener has access to, something cobbled together with some splitting cables and a volume meter should nonetheless serve as a rough indication of where the ball is going to lie. It's very difficult for me to believe that any confounding factors would invariably skew toward masking what is otherwise an obvious difference; in other words, tests designed to isolate a difference can't all have the same flaw that hides this difference only during the test. If the point is just for the individual taking the test to see if they can spot an obvious difference, I think this is sufficient.
  
 But if we want to determine if _anyone_ can hear a difference, that in the very least is going to require properly administered tests. Maybe it's possible, with enough ear training, with exceptionally sensitive hearing, and with sufficiently different gear; to detect a difference in certain circumstances. But if we have to go this far just to find any difference at all, that speaks volumes about the magnitude of the differences we're talking about here.


----------



## Argyris

pctazhp said:


> But what if after my assistant leaves and I start listening sighted to both amps and I just can't get it out of my mind that the more expensive one is just much more enjoyable to me. If I chose the more expensive one would I be considered just stupid and gullible, or would my choice be understandable?


 
  
 Taking your hypothetical example, I think it depends on whether or not you're honest with yourself about why you picked it. Actually, in neither case would I say you're stupid or gullible. But it would be worse if you managed to convince yourself that there was an obvious difference and then posted a bunch of stuff on Head-Fi about it being a definite improvement, than if you kept it in mind that you aren't sure what it was you liked about the more expensive one, and you were open to the possibility that it might just be sight bias. You could still report your findings, it would just be better if you were honest and pointed out that you couldn't account for your preference, but that you chose the one you felt better about for whatever reason.
  
 I think what annoys a lot of objectivists is when people post subjective impressions as though they were hard, easily observable fact that only an idiot with a tin ear, or somebody willfully denying the "truth", couldn't detect. If people more often reported their findings in terms of "In my experience..." and acknowledged that their perception isn't infallible and might be subject to bias, I think there would be a lot less friction between the two camps. Instead, it's _night and day_, almost invariably in favor of the more hyped and more expensive product, and if anybody questions it, they're treated like they're part of some quaint cult that's trying to prove something everybody can clearly see isn't true, like the notion that the sky should actually be green or something.


----------



## icebear

pctazhp said:


> ...
> But here is where this gets interesting, at least for me. Let's assume that the blind test showed statistically I could not distinguish between the two amps. Again I assume most of us would agree that the rational choice would be the cheaper amp (all other considerations being equal).
> 
> But what if after my assistant leaves and I start listening sighted to both amps and I just can't get it out of my mind that the more expensive one is just much more enjoyable to me. If I chose the more expensive one would I be considered just stupid and gullible, or would my choice be understandable? ...


 
  
 I never double blind tested any audio equipment (other stuff, so I am familiar with the method) and I have arrived at a set-up I am very happy with and I don't plan to change anything. In about 30 years I have gone through 3 amps, 3 pairs of loudspeakers, 4 CD players and 1 DAC. And 3 headphones, 1 headphone amp. So I don't change my equipment on a daily bases.
 What is ultimately relevant is that the piece of equipment gives you more pleasure to listen for hours to your favorite music and not if that it has gotten more ears or stars or is on some wall of shame
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.
 If you can affort the higher priced amp, then go for it. If you do a DBT and find out there is no significant difference you can detect and then make a rational decision to go for the cheaper one ... will you be happy with it? Sometimes irrational decisions can be more fun.


----------



## wormcycle

Assuming obviously that a large number of people would buy and sell based solely on the InnerFidelity reviews. The history of HD800 does not confirm that, price started going down when HD800S were introduced. I certainly have no intention of selling mine.


----------



## Ancipital

pctazhp said:


> But what if after my assistant leaves and I start listening sighted to both amps and I just can't get it out of my mind that the more expensive one is just much more enjoyable to me. If I chose the more expensive one would I be considered just stupid and gullible, or would my choice be understandable?


 
  
 At that point, your choice is possibly more down to what's know as behavioral economics. There are various factors that could affect your choice, and the strength of those factors depend on your specific socio-economic context.
  
 You might choose the more expensive one if ostentatious displays of wealth were common in your peer group or society, for example. You might choose a recognisable high-status brand either because you believed it to be a safer purchase, or that it would confer status upon you.
  
 Conversely, you might rebel against that brand for being too "mainstream", their perceived business practises or all sorts of things. Heck, if one is above/below a certain psychological "break point" price threshold, that could be a factor, too.
  
 One of them might look cooler, or stack well with your other gear!
  
 There are many factors, both rational that will shape both the list of candidates to buy, and the eventual choice you make. Some are common across many people, some may be more peculiar to you, or a smaller peer group. It's really hard to be definitive.


----------



## pctazhp

ancipital said:


> At that point, your choice is possibly more down to what's know as behavioral economics. There are various factors that could affect your choice, and the strength of those factors depend on your specific socio-economic context.
> 
> You might choose the more expensive one if ostentatious displays of wealth were common in your peer group or society, for example. You might choose a recognisable high-status brand either because you believed it to be a safer purchase, or that it would confer status upon you.
> 
> ...


 
 My question merely said that in sighted listening the more expensive amp sounded much better to me. That could be for any number of reasons of which I would not be conscious. The question was really intended to explore people's values. Should I chose the cheaper amp in the interest of science or the more expensive one in the interest of personal pleasure?
  
 I had to laugh at your comment about ostentatious display of wealth. In my circles my headphone is the source of humor - not prestige. My wife refers to my tubes as "bulbs" and thinks the HD800S is ugly and looks ridiculous ))


----------



## RRod

pctazhp said:


> My question merely said that in sighted listening the more expensive amp sounded much better to me. That could be for any number of reasons of which I would not be conscious. The question was really intended to explore people's values. Should I chose the cheaper amp in the interest of science or the more expensive one in the interest of personal pleasure?


 
  
 If you are rich what does it matter? If the point is helping people get quality audio within their means, then it might be helpful to point out in threads/reviews that, when you couldn't see the bling, the amps sounded the same.


----------



## Ancipital

pctazhp said:


> My question merely said that in sighted listening the more expensive amp sounded much better to me. That could be for any number of reasons of which I would not be conscious. The question was really intended to explore people's values. Should I chose the cheaper amp in the interest of science or the more expensive one in the interest of personal pleasure?
> 
> I had to laugh at your comment about ostentatious display of wealth. In my circles my headphone is the source of humor - not prestige. My wife refers to my tubes as "bulbs" and thinks the HD800S is ugly and looks ridiculous ))


 
  
 Yeah, but I am guessing you don't cover yourself in gold jewelry, or drive an ostentatiously aggressive car, either.
  
 Moreover, there's peer groups and peer groups- there's a lot of people around here who will "casually" mention their Q1PR and/or Liquid Carbon at every possible opportunity, thinking it will get them cachet with the local audience- which it might, I suppose.. but less so with their slightly bemused families.
  
 However, that was not the point, it was just one aspect that you seized upon for humorous effect (nowt wrong with that, either). The point is more than once you know which amp is which, your decision is shaped by psychological, social, cognitive, and emotional factors beyond that you believe you can "hear". We all do that, which is why people in this neck of the woods like blind tests so much- it's not because people are necessarily dishonest, just the brain is not a measuring device.


----------



## castleofargh

I don't see the point of trying to judge other people's reasons to buy something or how they decide it's worth it. in France we have this old stuff coming straight from when it was FOTM to put royalties heads in a basket, and was created as a law. in English it translates into something like this: "liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not bring harm to others". when a guy is in his house with the expensive headphone with bad measurements he bought only because he liked the shape and color, how is he doing anything wrong to us all? he should be free to enjoy his headphone for whatever reason he wants.
 now what we can and should always question, are the reasons advanced by someone to have others buy a given gear. because making others waste money for the wrong reasons(marketing or pure lie/ignorance/placebo), that's not always without consequences for fellow forum readers.
  
  the topic at one point(when it was still burning in) was trying to find a link between price and audible qualities. but the thing is, the price of a product is not based on such qualities. if a guy spends 2 weeks making each pair of headphone by hand and the result is crap, he will still sell at a price that pays him for 2 weeks of work+pieces+ whatever to keep the activity afloat. it certainly is interesting to find a cheap product that will have the subjective qualities of the expensive product, but that will never make the expensive product an outlaw.


----------



## NLNH

castleofargh said:


> I don't see the point of trying to judge other people's reasons to buy something or how they decide it's worth it. in France we have this old stuff coming straight from when it was FOTM to put royalties heads in a basket, and was created as a law. in English it translates into something like this: "liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not bring harm to others". when a guy is in his house with the expensive headphone with bad measurements he bought only because he liked the shape and color, how is he doing anything wrong to us all? he should be free to enjoy his headphone for whatever reason he wants.
> now what we can and should always question, are the reasons advanced by someone to have others buy a given gear. because making others waste money for the wrong reasons(marketing or pure lie/ignorance/placebo), that's not always without consequences for fellow forum readers.
> 
> the topic at one point(when it was still burning in) was trying to find a link between price and audible qualities. but the thing is, the price of a product is not based on such qualities. if a guy spends 2 weeks making each pair of headphone by hand and the result is crap, he will still sell at a price that pays him for 2 weeks of work+pieces+ whatever to keep the activity afloat. it certainly is interesting to find a cheap product that will have the subjective qualities of the expensive product, but that will never make the expensive product an outlaw.


 
  
 how bout when people are hyping up the 2-weeks-made-crap because it is more expensive? and keep saying it is way better than the much more reliable cheapos while every pair of 2-weeks-made-crap differs?
  
 In the end, China make cheapos, somewhere rebrands, people believe in the effort, and margin is generated from the difference of labour (2weeks of work cost ? in China and ???? in somewhere else) . Like how starbucks works.


----------



## castleofargh

obviously that is wrong. and those helping the hype will go to audio hell where little fluffy rabbits eat your cables anytime you look away.


----------



## pctazhp

castleofargh said:


> obviously that is wrong. and those helping the hype will go to audio hell where little fluffy rabbits eat your cables anytime you look away.


 
 Already been there. My dear departed Bugsy thought all my cables were carrots


----------



## Ancipital

pctazhp said:


> Already been there. My dear departed Bugsy thought all my cables were carrots


 
  
 I knew one that ate the internet, who rejoiced in the name "Bunny".


----------



## NLNH

castleofargh said:


> obviously that is wrong. and those helping the hype will go to audio hell where little fluffy rabbits eat your cables anytime you look away.


----------



## Dillan

pctazhp said:


> My question merely said that in sighted listening the more expensive amp sounded much better to me. That could be for any number of reasons of which I would not be conscious. The question was really intended to explore people's values. Should I chose the cheaper amp in the interest of science or the more expensive one in the interest of personal pleasure?
> 
> I had to laugh at your comment about ostentatious display of wealth. In my circles my headphone is the source of humor - not prestige. My wife refers to my tubes as "bulbs" and thinks the HD800S is ugly and looks ridiculous ))


 
  
 I personally have no problems with people buying things purely for status or because they want to "show off".. Mostly because it is always going to happen in every aspect of consumerism and some companies are going to take advantage of that and make subpar products at astronomical prices. My biggest gripe is when people trick themselves (or are tricked by others) into buying something, because they legitimately think the price or maybe how shiny something is equates to performance/quality. You could argue that it is their ignorance which punishes their wallet, and as long as they're happy then it doesn't matter? However to me - product makers taking advantage of placebo and misinformation shapes the market for the knowledgeable who _do_ want bang for their buck. That's why I feel slightly better challenging people who state their subjective-driven experience as fact..
  
 And I can 100% relate to the "bulbs".. my girlfriend calls them the same thing and also think the HD800 are ugly.. I think she's the crazy one!


----------



## U-3C

dillan said:


> [...]And I can 100% relate to the "bulbs".. my girlfriend calls them the same thing and also think the HD800 are ugly.. I think she's the crazy one!




Awwww....I wanna get the HD800 not because I like their sound, but because of their looks. I literally just ordered a cheap, "fake" tube amp simply because I wanted those glowing bulbs...and I'm so sad now because I found one at around the same price but looks cooler...

;A;

Of course, I'm probably not going to listen to music out of them because they will probably make my headphones explode if I dare to approach them with a headphone jack. They are just for looks.


----------



## Argyris

I wonder if the HD 800 looks better in person than in pictures, as that was my impression of the HD 600. I'll bet it's smaller than it looks in pictures, which make most headphones look bigger than they actually are.


----------



## U-3C

argyris said:


> I wonder if the HD 800 looks better in person than in pictures, as that was my impression of the HD 600. I'll bet it's smaller than it looks in pictures, which make most headphones look bigger than they actually are.


 
  
 For me, they do look better. For you, they might go from somewhat lookable to OMG GET THIS UGLY PILE OF SCHIIT AWAY FROM ME!!! 
  
 Never saw the HD 800S, but judging from pictures, I might hate it. However, those are only pictures.


----------



## HiFiChris

@Argyris
  
 Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, however I've always liked the lean and modern looks of the HD 800, no matter if in pictures or real life. Though, I have the impression that it is fragile although I know it isn't. That (magnesium?) mesh just gives me this impression, so I am always super careful when putting my HD 800 on and off in order not to touch and dent it.
 But well, the HD 800_ is_ indeed a large headphone, so I would say that the pictures don't give you a wrong impression about its size but are pretty accurate. A large benefit of that is that your ears have a lot of room inside.

 I never knew why some people find/found the HD 600 to look ugly, as in my opinion it is one of the most beautiful, classic and timeless headphones when it comes to design. But then again, beauty is of course in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Ancipital

argyris said:


> I wonder if the HD 800 looks better in person than in pictures, as that was my impression of the HD 600. I'll bet it's smaller than it looks in pictures, which make most headphones look bigger than they actually are.


 
  
 The HD6x0 could be a lot worse- while they're big, the cups aren't too deep, and the way they cling to the side of the head means that they look a bit less stupid than they could, and they're surprisingly light and comfy (other than the nasty noise the velour pads make if you are moving them a bit to get them spot-on). I suspect that the HD800/s probably have enough expertise poured into the industrial design that they're making the best of a difficult task. For all that people rage about them, Sennheiser do seem to know what they're doing, in all sorts of ways.
  
 My HD400i, on the other hand, have big, ugly cups that stick out from the head (they look a lot more stupid when you're wearing them). The weight is far enough from the head that I wonder if there's not a slight angular momentum thing- rotational momentum being.. proportional to the square of the radius of the motion or something? You certainly feel more clunky wearing them. It's just as well that they provide such outrageous bang for buck and are overall surprisingly comfy- I'll forgive them.


----------



## U-3C

hifichris said:


> @Argyris
> 
> 
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, however I've always liked the lean and modern looks of the HD 800, no matter if in pictures or real life. Though, I have the impression that it is fragile although I know it isn't. That (magnesium?) mesh just gives me this impression, so I am always super careful when putting my HD 800 on and off in order not to touch and dent it.
> ...




First time I showed the HD800 to my friend, I was hitting it hard with my hand and knocking it on wood to show him the build quality, as they infused glass fibers or something into plastic to make it sturdy and light. He freaked out so badly. XD

However, the real reason I did that and boast other qualities of the HD800 was to show reasons why this headphone is expensive, and hopefully draw attention away from the around, because in terms of sound...it's hard to justify being 4~5x the price of all the other headphones he was trying out when the sound improvement for me is about 3 to 5%, and the sound improvement for my friend was about -3 to -5%.  Of course, those HD800 were not mine so I guess I really shouldn't have banged it. It was fun though! I even Rick Rolled him. Now he can say that once, his trolling friend dragged him into Audiophilia Land, just to Rick Roll him on a 2k+ setup so he can experience being Rick Rolled as the artist intended, with the highest fidelity one can provide in our city for free. XD

I know people who dream about and warship the HD800. I wonder how they will feel once they get a listen to it. Will they fully appreciate what people mean when they say "diminishing returns hit hard," or will they blame the source, the amp, the cables...

One person I'm thinking of let me listen to his HD600 at our school, which I liked, but it didn't "wow" me as I had equivalent headphones. This friend really really wants the HD800 to experience the night and day, 5x improvement in audio fidelity that is offered by the famous headphones. This friend was kinda surprised about my reaction as he didn't know I'm used to listening to high end headphones. When he saw that I was using my iphone, he told me it isn't a good idea to play music out of it as the phone's dac/amp isn't that great, and I'm better off using my laptop, that maybe that's why I'm not getting the best out of my headphones. That got me curious so I asked him what were the differences he insisted upon, as I can't hear a difference between my laptop's onboard, my dedicated dac/amp, and my iPhone. Perhaps his device actually distorts the sound, or maybe he can simply hear better than me? It would be great to ask him to volunteer in a small listening test!

So, I asked why he recommended me to not use my phone, what were the differences he heard between his phone and laptop...and he said he can't answer. It's not that he can't word his thoughts properly. It's that he doesn't know the difference. He simply believes that the larger laptop must have better audio than the smaller phone.

I found that super interesting so I asked him if he has a dedicated dac/amp. He doesn't, which surprised me. So I let him listen to my portable dac/amp. He listened to my laptop and plugged the headphone into my dac. The total listening session was at most 30 seconds.  Anyways, he claims that there is a difference, but the difference is so small, it surprised him, too. He did recommend me to get a hold plated USB cable to enhance the quality of my DAC's fidelity though. XD

This is the closest I've come to testing a pristine...um....inexperienced audiophile (I don't want to use the term placebofile as it sounds quite bad. I want to label him as a person who have read many subjective posts, but have little real life experience with products to form his own opinion. Can't say I'm any better. :/ ). I guess many people like him exist, who swear by high end audio systems exotic setups not because they have heard it, but because they are exposed to the hype generated around it.

But who am I to say? I've never heard my dac with gold plated USB cables plugged into them so judging him would make me hypocritical!


----------



## Ancipital

u-3c said:


> One person I'm thinking of let me listen to his HD600 at our school, which I liked, but it didn't "wow" me as I had equivalent headphones. This friend really really wants the HD800 to experience the night and day, 5x improvement in audio fidelity that is offered by the famous headphones. This friend was kinda surprised about my reaction as he didn't know I'm used to listening to high end headphones. When he saw that I was using my iphone, he told me it isn't a good idea to play music out of it as the phone's dac/amp isn't that great, and I'm better off using my laptop, that maybe that's why I'm not getting the best out of my headphones. That got me curious so I asked him what were the differences he insisted upon, as I can't hear a difference between my laptop's onboard, my dedicated dac/amp, and my iPhone. Perhaps his device actually distorts the sound, or maybe he can simply hear better than me? It would be great to ask him to volunteer in a small listening test!


 
  
 Good grief, given how much the HD6x0 need a beefy amp, and how they come alive when they have one, you might be able to kill him with his own headphones, let alone the HD800.


----------



## U-3C

Although reading the thread (it's from a while ago), I can understand where the person is coming from (telling the OP to save money and buy cheaper headphones that suits his/her needs instead of jumping directly to the HD 800 and an amp, as the OP is clearly sacrificing a lot of money that s/he is reluctant to spend), I can see how people just getting into this hobby (like the OP of the thread this image is from) can misinterpret it and have the unconscious association that eq is bad, or at least can't make improvements superior to buying headphones. So far, I have been convinced that the impact and improvements from dsp and eq>>>>>>>headphones, as proven by Joe Bloggs' amazing work, but when I first started out, I also had the impression that eq was a poor man's fix to an issue, that software tweaks can never match hardware changes. The ignorant are easily excited and manipulated, I guess. It's quite hard for people just coming into this hobby to get over that, which is probably why the OP of that thread wanted great audio fidelity, so s/he jumped straight to the HD 800 even though s/he is completely new to the world of audiophilia.


----------



## Argyris

The effectiveness of EQ in my experience is directly proportional to the base capabilities of the headphone. My DT880, which has low distortion, excellent time domain characteristics (i.e. no ringing, driver settles down quickly), and great extension on both ends (for an open dynamic), is a great candidate for EQ. Notching out two peaks, one at 6 kHz and another at 8.5 kHz, makes it sound stellar. Just today I discovered that my FiiO EX1 (DUNU Titan 1 rebadge) is another excellent candidate. Once again, it has low distortion, great extension in both directions, and great time domain performance. In this case a few notches at 5 kHz and 8.5 kHz, along with a shallow low shelf to ease off the boosted bass and lower midrange, produce superior results. Another surprising success story for me was my old Meelec M6. Similar (though higher amplitude) cuts to those I use on the EX1 leave behind a pleasant and warmish sound on the M6--it's not strictly neutral, but I enjoy it nonetheless. I don't have measurements available for this one, but I would suspect that it similarly has good distortion and time domain performance, though it's lacking in treble extension.
  
 In all these cases I started with equipment that offers high overall performance but has some tuning issues that can be effectively addressed with EQ. Other headphones I've tried EQ'ing but without much success are the Koss PortaPro and UR55, an RHA MA-350 (when mine was still functioning), and the Shure SRH440. In the case of the latter two, driving ringing creates a tizzy sound in the treble that EQ can't eliminate (this is what Tyll describes as sounding like cellophane crinkling). The former two have frequency contours that seem too far from neutral to improve them effectively; either that, or I'm just not getting the correct EQ curve. The PortaPro has the additional problem of lacking some treble extension.


----------



## U-3C

[Video]https://www.facebook.com/fytztv/videos/1039731762749133/[/video]


Don't know if you guys can see this.

I feel more and more pressured to not talk bad about products that are well received, even though deep down, I feel like they are bs/straight out useless for certain people who ask for advice. I have to word it so I don't sound like I am disrespecting the product as everybody else respects it. To be honest, many audio products never earned my respect, and after taking to people more, I can see that the products didn't earn those people's respect either. They just try to avoid any negative terms due to social pressure. If I was to give a true review, I'll talk about the good, the bad, and the things that one may hate while another may love. Then I'll try to offer advice based on different people's situation. This doesn't just go for audio products. However, with audio products, it just feels wrong to use terms with negative associations/impressions, so I have to take them out of reword what I'm saying. In fact, if I do speak negatively about an audio product in a direct, honest way (the same way I talk about its positive aspects), simply because it is screwing impossible to have an absolute perfect device and because I want people to who may be in the situation where they really want to avoid a product with this specific issues as it isn't worth the money in their specific case, people will attack me as if I'm a manifestation of Satan or something and keeping someone else away from audio salvation due to my own sadistic needs. :/


----------



## Ancipital

argyris said:


> The effectiveness of EQ in my experience is directly proportional to the base capabilities of the headphone.


 
  
 Aye, that's the thing that has been bugging me- not every headphone can sound like every other headphone, due to physical limitations. Admittedly, part of the problem in my case is probably imperfect EQ, but even when I get things reasonably dialled in, I'm not going to make my SE215 sound like my planars, try as I might.


----------



## Argyris

u-3c said:


> https://www.facebook.com/fytztv/videos/1039731762749133/
> 
> Don't know if you guys can see this.
> 
> I feel more and more pressured to not talk bad about products that are well received, even though deep down, I feel like they are bs/straight out useless for certain people who ask for advice. I have to word it so I don't sound like I am disrespecting the product as everybody else respects it. To be honest, many audio products never earned my respect, and after taking to people more, I can see that the products didn't earn those people's respect either. They just try to avoid any negative terms due to social pressure. If I was to give a true review, I'll talk about the good, the bad, and the things that one may hate while another may love. Then I'll try to offer advice based on different people's situation. This doesn't just go for audio products. However, with audio products, it just feels wrong to use terms with negative associations/impressions, so I have to take them out of reword what I'm saying. In fact, if I do speak negatively about an audio product in a direct, honest way (the same way I talk about its positive aspects), simply because it is screwing impossible to have an absolute perfect device and because I want people to who may be in the situation where they really want to avoid a product with this specific issues as it isn't worth the money in their specific case, people will attack me as if I'm a manifestation of Satan or something and keeping someone else away from audio salvation due to my own sadistic needs. :/


 
  
 It seems to depend on the people and the gear involved. I've mentioned my issues with the HD 600 numerous times in its thread, while otherwise communicating my overall satisfaction with it, and nobody has ever jumped down my throat. Same for the DT880 (I have quite a posting history in that thread) and others in my collection. Since I've never owned an uber flagship, I imagine it's different in those kinds of threads. People probably have more personally invested in such products being seen as great because it requires a greater financial investment in order to own such a product, and some of the people who bought one of these probably had to sacrifice a fair amount in order to afford it. Accordingly, they would be less tolerant of somebody who points out the flaws or otherwise rips into such a product.
  
 Something I've noticed (to my surprise) in the HD 600 thread is that folks seem to largely accept the limitations of the headphone, rather than make outlandish suggestions like "Use <amp x> and that'll cure the bass extension problem; _loads_ of extra sub bass with this pairing" or "_I_ don't hear any bass distortion at all, but that's probably because I use <component x>." This could just be because it's been around for so long that everybody has finally got to the point where they can't convince themselves that these kinds of suggestions work anymore, or it could perhaps be because people are more readily accepting of the idea that headphones like the HD 6x0 have flaws because it helps them justify the expense of current flagships. Either way, most of the thread interaction I've had in the impressions threads I frequent has been pretty laid back. I hear every day about impression thread implosions, so I don't deny they happen. I just seem to have found a curious island away from them.


----------



## Ancipital

argyris said:


> Something I've noticed (to my surprise) in the HD 600 thread is that folks seem to largely accept the limitations of the headphone, rather than make outlandish suggestions like "Use <amp x> and that'll cure the bass extension problem; _loads_ of extra sub bass with this pairing" or "_I_ don't hear any bass distortion at all, but that's probably because I use <component x>." This could just be because it's been around for so long that everybody has finally got to the point where they can't convince themselves that these kinds of suggestions work anymore, or it could perhaps be because people are more readily accepting of the idea that headphones like the HD 6x0 have flaws because it helps them justify the expense of current flagships. Either way, most of the thread interaction I've had in the impressions threads I frequent has been pretty laid back. I hear every day about impression thread implosions, so I don't deny they happen. I just seem to have found a curious island away from them.


 
  
 I suspect there's something in that. The HD6x0 are surprisingly good value for what you get- but have their limitations and quirks, and nearly everyone is comfortable with that. I don't think people invest as much of their ego in them, so they don't get as defensive as they do when someone questions the perfection of a piece of willy-size-fi that they secretly have doubts about.
  
 Also, it seems like the 6x0 are enough of a phenomenon that people are happy to have a pair by default, alongside whatever else it is that they _do_ argue about. The usual cycle of one-upmanship doesn't really seem to apply- if someone butted into a thread about HD6x0 and say "yeah well, my Focal Utopia are much better", they'd just look a bit insecure and daft.


----------



## U-3C

argyris said:


> It seems to depend on the people and the gear involved. I've mentioned my issues with the HD 600 numerous times in its thread, while otherwise communicating my overall satisfaction with it, and nobody has ever jumped down my throat. Same for the DT880 (I have quite a posting history in that thread) and others in my collection. Since I've never owned an uber flagship, I imagine it's different in those kinds of threads. People probably have more personally invested in such products being seen as great because it requires a greater financial investment in order to own such a product, and some of the people who bought one of these probably had to sacrifice a fair amount in order to afford it. Accordingly, they would be less tolerant of somebody who points out the flaws or otherwise rips into such a product.
> 
> Something I've noticed (to my surprise) in the HD 600 thread is that folks seem to largely accept the limitations of the headphone, rather than make outlandish suggestions like "Use  and that'll cure the bass extension problem; _loads_ of extra sub bass with this pairing" or "_I_ don't hear any bass distortion at all, but that's probably because I use ." This could just be because it's been around for so long that everybody has finally got to the point where they can't convince themselves that these kinds of suggestions work anymore, or it could perhaps be because people are more readily accepting of the idea that headphones like the HD 6x0 have flaws because it helps them justify the expense of current flagships. Either way, most of the thread interaction I've had in the impressions threads I frequent has been pretty laid back. I hear every day about impression thread implosions, so I don't deny they happen. I just seem to have found a curious island away from them.




Interesting insights. Thanks for sharing them!

o(^_^)o


----------



## VNandor

argyris said:


> It seems to depend on the people and the gear involved. I've mentioned my issues with the HD 600 numerous times in its thread, while otherwise communicating my overall satisfaction with it, and nobody has ever jumped down my throat. Same for the DT880 (I have quite a posting history in that thread) and others in my collection. Since I've never owned an uber flagship, I imagine it's different in those kinds of threads. People probably have more personally invested in such products being seen as great because it requires a greater financial investment in order to own such a product, and some of the people who bought one of these probably had to sacrifice a fair amount in order to afford it. Accordingly, they would be less tolerant of somebody who points out the flaws or otherwise rips into such a product.
> 
> Something I've noticed (to my surprise) in the HD 600 thread is that folks seem to largely accept the limitations of the headphone, rather than make outlandish suggestions like "Use <amp x> and that'll cure the bass extension problem; _loads_ of extra sub bass with this pairing" or "_I_ don't hear any bass distortion at all, but that's probably because I use <component x>." This could just be because it's been around for so long that everybody has finally got to the point where they can't convince themselves that these kinds of suggestions work anymore, or it could perhaps be because people are more readily accepting of the idea that headphones like the HD 6x0 have flaws because it helps them justify the expense of current flagships. Either way, most of the thread interaction I've had in the impressions threads I frequent has been pretty laid back. I hear every day about impression thread implosions, so I don't deny they happen. I just seem to have found a curious island away from them.


 

  As a HD600 owner I see this in an other way. People don't defend the HD600 because they don't have to. The HD600 is perfection so people just let the headphones to do the talking.


----------



## pctazhp

Sorry. Wrong thread ((


----------



## U-3C

Hmmm...

It's been awfully quiet recently...

Stole the HD600 from one of my friends for an hour. I don't listen to music that gets really quiet, so I really can't justify the need for an amp. People often say the HD600 is one of those headphones that "really scale with the quality of the source one uses," whatever that means. I still can't see much improvement over my iPhone. My amp...simply makes it louder, as it should.

Then again, people often say the AKG K7## series needs such specific amps that requires XYZ synergy. I how many decades it will take for people to finally admit like the HD600 that they...the headphones are what they are, and people just don't like the sound that the AKGs are intended to make by default?

Or maybe I'm just crazy (broke) so I choose not to buy a set of dac/amps that cost just as much or more than the headphones themselves just to get the most out of my headphones.


----------



## RRod

u-3c said:


> Stole the HD600 from one of my friends for an hour. I don't listen to music that gets really quite, so I really can't justify the need for an amp.


 
  
 It's interesting to regularly listen to stuff at both ends of the spectrum. Yesterday I compared where I put my pot for listening to my lowest-level classical stuff versus square-wave power metal, and the difference unloaded was about 42dB or about 7 bits. This jives with being able to truncate some of my loud stuff to 8-bits and not notice any difference, since my best classical stuff tends to be about 14-15 bits without dither/shaping.


----------



## Dillan

http://www.head-fi.org/t/817662/focal-utopia-loaner-program/15#post_12854436


----------



## Dillan

Figured I'd link a more objective focused quick impression I had of the Utopia here since its price tag is in relation to the subject of this thread.


----------



## sxr71

pctazhp said:


> I am probably going to get in trouble with the moderator for this post, but to me the @HotIce response is a classic example of the gut level need of many self-proclaimed "objectivists" to impose censorship on all rational discussion. He completely missed the point of my post which was to simply demonstrate crazy audio ideas had been around for a long time - NOT to praise Stereophile. But because I simply mentioned Stereophile I was told to "keep in mind..."
> 
> I am so sick of seeing "political correctness" ravage our great universities and threaten to destroy the basic tenants of a classic liberal education which is to promote the open exchange and challenge of ideas and beliefs. And now it even extends to a thread like this. The intellectual elites know what is best for everyone and exhibit a visceral need to protect us slobs from ourselves.


 
  
  
 Maybe you needed to post a "trigger warning" before typing the name of that magazine. It seems as a society our attention spans have become so short that we can only digest keywords and can't anymore be bothered to comprehend what is being said. One's brain shall short circuit upon the utterance of a word such that any other words around that word have no meaning.


----------



## Dickymint

Hello folks, I have only read part of the thread so far but I thought I would add my two pence worth! I can definitely tell the difference between different types of headphones, uhhh! Just about anyone can! Not what I mean, one day I can love the sound of a "setup" but the next day I find I don't really like what I hear, some of it must be dependent on what occurs during the day, maybe too much time driving, or maybe not enough, I don't know but the difference is there, or is it? What I find much harder to ascertain is the difference between "hardware", DAP's DAC's and such things, headphones seem to be easy but source gear I find different. As an example, I bought a "Little Bear" valve powered headphone amplifier, it pops and crackles through quiet passages but get the music going and it is a different kettle of fish, I also have an OPPO HA-2 which I thought was wonderful but then one evening I was using my Ibasso DX50 with the Fiio E17 as the DAC and amplifier into the same headphones, only to find the sound much more enjoyable. My opinion is that you need to listen properly and buy what you enjoy rather than buy by specs.


----------



## U-3C

dickymint said:


> Hello folks, I have only read part of the thread so far but I thought I would add my two pence worth! I can definitely tell the difference between different types of headphones, uhhh! Just about anyone can! Not what I mean, one day I can love the sound of a "setup" but the next day I find I don't really like what I hear, some of it must be dependent on what occurs during the day, maybe too much time driving, or maybe not enough, I don't know but the difference is there, or is it? What I find much harder to ascertain is the difference between "hardware", DAP's DAC's and such things, headphones seem to be easy but source gear I find different. As an example, I bought a "Little Bear" valve powered headphone amplifier, it pops and crackles through quiet passages but get the music going and it is a different kettle of fish, I also have an OPPO HA-2 which I thought was wonderful but then one evening I was using my Ibasso DX50 with the Fiio E17 as the DAC and amplifier into the same headphones, only to find the sound much more enjoyable. My opinion is that you need to listen properly and buy what you enjoy rather than buy by specs.




Of course! ^_^

Everyone's preferences are different. A large issue I'm frustrated with is that people impose their preferences onto others. That's when (proper) specs come in handy. They should tell you how something will work and let you be the judge, rather than listen to a random person on the internet, who could potentially be lying straight on your face.

Unfortunately, no such specs exist that works perfectly for all people, and companies try so hard to hide anything useful so the only way to know if a product sucks or not is to pay for it.


----------



## Dillan (May 9, 2017)

People seem to be waking up to the rapid increase in flagship pricing.. I got a little sick to my stomach reading about Hifimans $6,000 headphone release upcoming. (Not to mention their marketing ploy to 1-up the Orpheus in the Shangri-La.) I was very pleased however to read all the negative feedback a lot of the commenters were able to give to Fang himself through the comments. I think people are extra fed up with Hifiman with how they came out with their version 2s so quickly and it seems like they don't even have enough time to properly do their r&d before coming out with another high priced flagship. (Part of why a lot of their headphones measure all over the place)

I'm not a hifiman hater by the way, I LOVE the sound of the HEK but I am glad to see consumers being more vocal about their dislike of the industry pricing these days. $6k really? The HEKv2 feels like it just came out.


----------



## richard51

Buy vintage and used good gear of the past.... First eliminate all vibrations, treat your room, and *last but  not least* , eliminate EMI.... I have experiment wit that and gest what?  My mid level gear  sound almost TOTL... Diminushing return law, and natural limits of hearing...


----------



## Dillan

richard51 said:


> Buy vintage and used good gear of the past.... First eliminate all vibrations, treat your room, and *last but  not least* , eliminate EMI.... I have experiment wit that and gest what?  My mid level gear  sound almost TOTL... Diminushing return law, and natural limits of hearing...



Off topic- But always wondered what your avatar was. It looks like a nightmare inducing clown. LOL

I do think vintage gear is probably the most cost effective way to go. You can buy amazing gear, broken in and proved to withstand the tests of time for dirt cheap in some cases and older audio equipment just sounds... natural. All this new tech seems to have lost the magic. I am partial to old Mcintosh stuff.


----------



## bigshot

The avatar is Pierrot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierrot


----------



## Dillan

bigshot said:


> The avatar is Pierrot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierrot



Wow, whatsup Bigshot?? You probably don't remember me, but my name used to be "Remix" before I changed it to Dillan a few years ago. I remember posting for weeks on a thread about FLAC vs MP3 and I was the only one on your side backing you up haha

Edit: Also thanks for the wiki link. Now I understand! Still seems scary to me haha


----------



## castleofargh

Dillan said:


> Off topic- But always wondered what your avatar was. It looks like a nightmare inducing clown. LOL
> 
> I do think vintage gear is probably the most cost effective way to go. You can buy amazing gear, broken in and proved to withstand the tests of time for dirt cheap in some cases and older audio equipment just sounds... natural. All this new tech seems to have lost the magic. I am partial to old Mcintosh stuff.


 "copy image location" of the picture you want to know about. then go to https://images.google.com/ and click on the little camera. there you past the image location and voila! Alexander Vertinsky 

I'm


----------



## Whitigir

The ideal behind this scenario is that in order to beat something, you first need to beat it prices......Or it have to sound so good


----------



## Dillan

Haha I usually use TinEye. I was just tiny bit lazy when I asked. Also afraid of what may pop up.


----------



## bigshot

Dillan said:


> Wow, whatsup Bigshot?? You probably don't remember me, but my name used to be "Remix" before I changed it to Dillan a few years ago.




Just like a bad penny, I keep turning up! Nice to see ya again!


----------



## alota

i just saw this thread now. i don´t have much money and in the past i wasted some money reading various audio forum and always seeking the holy graal of the headphones. due to a problem in one ear, i sold all losing a lot of money.
my conclusion was that i had more satisfaction with mid-profile products. i restarted my adventure in headphones wit a very low profile and i´m quite happy.
of course the top products sound better but in what proportion?definitely unrelated to the cost. so why insane prices???only 4.000-5.000 dollars headphones?because people buy them.especially the new rich they have to show the status symbol.so if exists a market, the company sell to this market.
in the other side, we are full of products with espectacular Q/P relationship, so today we have a higher quality with less money to spend


----------



## richard51

Very good remarks...I myself discover that mid-fi product can touch TOTL product by some easy, not too costly modifications...if you have money, you buy the costlier and the better, without thinking....I have no money, and i am in an audio paradise now...



alota said:


> i just saw this thread now. i don´t have much money and in the past i wasted some money reading various audio forum and always seeking the holy graal of the headphones. due to a problem in one ear, i sold all losing a lot of money.
> my conclusion was that i had more satisfaction with mid-profile products. i restarted my adventure in headphones wit a very low profile and i´m quite happy.
> of course the top products sound better but in what proportion?definitely unrelated to the cost. so why insane prices???only 4.000-5.000 dollars headphones?because people buy them.especially the new rich they have to show the status symbol.so if exists a market, the company sell to this market.
> in the other side, we are full of products with espectacular Q/P relationship, so today we have a higher quality with less money to spend


----------



## castleofargh

there is nothing forcing a product to be the best because it's the most expensive. even down to earth economical reasons like limited quantity, or massive R&D don't say anything about the resulting quality. only that it must cost a lot to cover cost. 
but because you guys keep that nonsensical idea of expensive=best, more and more products come out with a ludicrous price tags simply as a marketing idea to make you think they are good products. and it works because amateur audio people almost never fact check anything, nor look too hard into objective fidelity.
even worst, in this hobby we've come to assume that a technology is better simply because it costs more. like tubes vs solid state, R2R kind of chips vs delta sigma, balanced vs single ended...  
Iriver as a DAP manufacturer had been almost completely forgotten after a few IMO cool DAPs back in the days. they came up with zero new technology and instead went for a rebranding. named the stuff A&K, put a ludicrous price on a really average device with massive defects, and sold it like it was the best stuff ever made for the elite of this world. all based on marketing and the decision to price some crap chips on PCB like they're a luxury item. later on they corrected a few of the defects and instead of saying sorry, went to sell that for double the price. and again it worked and they sold plenty. didn't take a genius to guess what they would do next. "let's see how far we can go before those suckers stop paying" is obviously what everybody thought.
sony also on the verge of being forgotten by elite audiophiles because of their consistently sub par amp section, saw that and jumped on board. started selling some good looking DAP for too much money when it didn't measure better than an iphone. became all the rage when it came out. so of course like a good student, sony also went for the new stuff at twice the price joke.
headphones are even worst IMO. prices are stupid, half of the expensive ones don't even comes with a certified fidelity or signature. the stuff measured on demos is often not what the consumer will buy, the same model will go though X silent revisions and if you liked the first one, well F you. in the end you basically we pay crazy prices for an EQ into something that isn't even always comfortable. but it's above 1k$ so it has to be the best am I right?

pricing is a complicated process but when you say stuff like "...if you have money, you buy the costlier and the better...", you're showing how they're right to keep rising prices purely as a marketing stunt no matter the quality of the product. because why bother with objective quality when you can ride on a great fallacy like the preconception that better and expensive are one and the same? 

if a product was clearly and objectively the best, I would find it alright to have an exaggerated price. excellence is truly special and anybody who's the best at something has IMO the right to make up his own value as long as nobody can challenge him. but that implies evidence of being the best in the first place, and accountability when it's proved to be untrue. something that doesn't exist in consumer audio. so until we get better accountability, high prices mean nothing aside from how many hours we worked to get that value.


----------



## alota

In the recently past a top headphone(excluding stax, sony king and qualia, grado hp-1000)was around 500 dollars, now we have iem for 2.000.
The case of A&K for me is a big mistery.
The top dap costs like a classic audiophile system


----------



## gregorio

richard51 said:


> ... if you have money, you buy the costlier and the better ...



I agree entirely with Castleofargh. In the audiophile world, costlier does not always equate with better. For some components in the chain, most commonly the transducers (headphones and speakers), as the price goes up you do often (but not always!) get better, at least up to a point. But for many of today's audiophile components, costlier = no better/the same. Worse still, in many cases what you actually get is costlier = worse! What's stunning is that this simply doesn't matter to many audiophiles, they're so suckered by marketing and testimonials that they're totally convinced the crap they've bought is wonderful. Here's a quote from a Schiit DAC appreciation thread here on head-fi:

"_Mine makes crackling noise sometimes, especially at the end of tracks, and occasionally there's distortion, but even less often. It's slightly defective, so Schiit is going to replace it for me. But I love it so much I don't want to be without it, so I'm gonna wait a bit longer before sending it in. ... I'm just blown away by how realistic a DAC at this relatively low price can sound._"

The DAC in question is not one of the ridiculously priced units but this suckered audiophile has still paid about 20 times the retail price of the DAC in an iPhone and about 100 times the price of a standard mass produced DAC chip, both of which would have demonstrably far superior performance. This audiophile can even hear very serious performance problems and STILL thinks it's wonderful???! Some appropriate advertising, a bit of pseudo-science, bending the truth, a lie or two and buying/acquiring favourable reviews and testimonials, is obviously far and away the most important factor, a factor which appears to completely trump actual performance. And, Schiit is far from the worst offender!

G


----------



## alota

one more example: i bought one mojo used and i was very happy because the sound is incredible for the price. after i found an hugo used and i bought. for me sounds good but for me is too expensive for the performance


----------



## gregorio

alota said:


> one more example: i bought one mojo used and i was very happy because the sound is incredible for the price. after i found an hugo used and i bought. for me sounds good but for me is too expensive for the performance



It is a good example, though maybe not for the reason you think. A Mojo is what $500? Does it provide measurably higher performance than a modern mass produced $2 DAC chip? Possibly but even if it does, any measured performance gain is pretty much guaranteed to be outside audibility. At a guess, you could get the same level of sound quality as the Mojo from what, about $30 or so of components? So, what about the other $470 they're charging? Why are you "very happy" about the incredible sound quality for the price? Essentially audiophile marketing (and all it's facets) has led you to believe/feel it's good value for the money. Of course, all this just makes the Hugo many times more ridiculous than even you think it is!

G


----------



## alota

gregorio said:


> It is a good example, though maybe not for the reason you think. A Mojo is what $500? Does it provide measurably higher performance than a modern mass produced $2 DAC chip? Possibly but even if it does, any measured performance gain is pretty much guaranteed to be outside audibility. At a guess, you could get the same level of sound quality as the Mojo from what, about $30 or so of components? So, what about the other $470 they're charging? Why are you "very happy" about the incredible sound quality for the price? Essentially audiophile marketing (and all it's facets) has led you to believe/feel it's good value for the money. Of course, all this just makes the Hugo many times more ridiculous than even you think it is!
> 
> G


you´re right but you understand that i can only talk about things listened in my house.
if you see in mouser or other equivalent, you see the price of xilinx(spartan or artic)processor. the hugo 2 has the same chip of the mojo and cost more than 2.000 dollars. i wrote that i was really happy with mojo after many years with sigma-delta dacs and in my opinion the sound in mojo is more natural and detailed
now i´m curious about r2r dacs. today we have more cheap productos with ladder dacs. interesting is the propsect and compairison with expensive ladder like msb
about 2 dollars dac chip i listened a lot of dacs with the akm 4490. more or less the same performance, the only exception the dac board of jotunheim: really bad in my opinion


----------



## krismusic

Regarding the Mojo. All I can report is that for years I have listened to iPhone's. Happy in the knowledge that they measure well. I could never settle with my music though. Bought the Mojo. Now I listen to music not just sound. My experience. YMMV


----------



## RCBinTN

castleofargh said:


> there is nothing forcing a product to be the best because it's the most expensive. even down to earth economical reasons like limited quantity, or massive R&D don't say anything about the resulting quality. only that it must cost a lot to cover cost.
> but because you guys keep that nonsensical idea of expensive=best, more and more products come out with a ludicrous price tags simply as a marketing idea to make you think they are good products. and it works because amateur audio people almost never fact check anything, nor look too hard into objective fidelity.
> even worst, in this hobby we've come to assume that a technology is better simply because it costs more. like tubes vs solid state, R2R kind of chips vs delta sigma, balanced vs single ended...
> Iriver as a DAP manufacturer had been almost completely forgotten after a few IMO cool DAPs back in the days. they came up with zero new technology and instead went for a rebranding. named the stuff A&K, put a ludicrous price on a really average device with massive defects, and sold it like it was the best stuff ever made for the elite of this world. all based on marketing and the decision to price some crap chips on PCB like they're a luxury item. later on they corrected a few of the defects and instead of saying sorry, went to sell that for double the price. and again it worked and they sold plenty. didn't take a genius to guess what they would do next. "let's see how far we can go before those suckers stop paying" is obviously what everybody thought.
> ...



Hello -
I would very much like to read and understand your posts, because I know you have much to contribute to this thread and to Head-Fi in general, but would it be asking too much to include capital letters to start sentences and the names of companies/products?  Without caps, it is very difficult for me to read a long and detailed post.

As an example, I read your above post three times.  I fully agree with the points stated, just looking for a bit of an easier read.

Thank you,
RCBinTN


----------



## Makiah S

castleofargh said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree, I'm a bit afraid that HifiMan is going down this route! My HE 4 is amazing, and after trying the Hifiman HE X I really don't see how they can justify quadrupling the price, not for such  a marginally small improvement. 

Though, I'm happy to say that not every one is taking that route! I think what Mass Drop is doing, getting excellent hardware out at a very competitive is smart. I also like the price on the new Denon D7200, a smart move by them I think!


----------



## richard51 (May 19, 2017)

It seems nobody seems to understand my point... The price is not linearly linked to an upgrade product, all of you  already know that for sure...  But some simple experiment with vibrations  cancelling, and EMI correction, can transform at low cost  a mid-fi product  in an almost TOTL product that is my point ....I dont dream to upgrade anymore... The war between different  companies that sells their products excluded that: minimum investment with maximum profit for the ears... They rather sell always costlier product for a  "better " so called  listening experience...


----------



## alota

somoetimes it is this way but not always. then if we say that the price does not reflects the improvement is another question


----------



## gregorio

alota said:


> you´re right but you understand that i can only talk about things listened in my house. ...  and in my opinion the sound in mojo is more natural and detailed ...



You don't appear to appreciate the massive contradiction here. As you've only listened in your house, you don't know what the recordings you're listening to are supposed to sound like. You don't know what the "natural" sound is supposed to be therefore you can't know if the mojo is more natural, all you've got for reference is what you think/believe "natural" should sound like. Also, you can compare one DAC with another and decide which is more "detailed" but that still doesn't tell you which DAC is actually better or more Hi-Fi because you don't know how detailed the recording is supposed to sound. Maybe you, like many other "audiophiles", have a personal preference for as much detail as you can get, regardless of fidelity! If so, of course you're entitled to your preference but that doesn't make a DAC which fulfils that preference a better DAC, it may actually be a worse DAC as far as accuracy and fidelity are concerned and only better in terms of your personal preferences! 



richard51 said:


> It seems nobody seems to understand my point... The price is not linearly linked to an upgrade product, all of you  already know that for sure...  But some simple experiment with vibrations  cancelling, and EMI correction, can transform at low cost  a mid-fi product  in an almost TOTL product that is my point ...



We do understand your point but you seem to be missing our point, which is: In reality, for many/most audiophile products, the cheap versions are already as Hi-Fi and TOTL as it's possible to get and therefore no "transform" at any cost is going to provide any audible improvement, that is our point! Of course, this inconvenient fact would put many/most makers/sellers of audiophile products out of business, so they change the facts. Typically, they come up with invented or inapplicable problems/issues with cheaper products, implying or stating that therefore those products are only standard or mid-fi, problems/issues which their products solve, which makes their products hi-fi/TOTL. In a surprisingly high number of cases those TOTL products don't even improve the so called "issues " any more than the cheap products and not uncommonly, they actually do a significantly worse job. That doesn't matter in today's audiophile market though, what matters is what you can convince audiophiles to believe, not what the products actually do. Entire segments of the audiophile industry now rely exclusively on this principle!

G


----------



## richard51 (May 22, 2017)

It seems to me that  you trash the baby with the bath waters... One thing is criticizing the gullabillity of the consumers, and the market practice, another thing to think that improvement , great one, are possible at low cost...Repeating the same denying argument, even   sometimes in some case a right one, would not solve all problems in one shot.... I only affirm that contrary to some  industry marketing practice it is possible to get _an almost_ TOTL at low cost with some easy experiments.... If i read you right you say to me that  when i upgrade my 3 first amp for a better one, i were only  naive, in a delusion mode, because they all sound the same, in your world all change is of no avail....It is impossible to discuss any affirmation, if it is a dogma... I think that your dogma is in fact  no more useful than  the marketing mantra....* experimenting is the key for me*....It is the substance of my message to some of my audio fellows that look for a direction, and low cost solutions, and some hope, not wanting to spend big money ...What experience told me is that any audio product are plague with vibration, negative resonance, and EMI, at some  variable degree,whatever the price; diminushing  or erasing that noises and negative interferences that is my endeavor, and that is a program of research not a dogma ...

By the way  little by little i  have constructed my own audio room environment, with homemade  cheap and efficient room treatment, and the same goes on with all my equipment piece, i treat them with solutions  at low cost to maximize their sounding potential; then even  if my listening conditions are different and like none other, and even if my judgement is subjective and only my own, my point is it is POSSIBLE by some gradual experimenting choice to *optimize* your room and equipment, and if no one perceive  exactly the same, at last some relative improvement is objectively evident for some open mind,  the hardest one  to suggest is my unforgiven non audiophile but undogmatic wife...


Gregorio said :
We do understand your point but you seem to be missing our point, which is: *In reality, for many/most audiophile products, the cheap versions are already as Hi-Fi and TOTL as it's possible to get and therefore no "transform" at any cost is going to provide any audible improvement, that is our point!* Of course, this inconvenient fact would put many/most makers/sellers of audiophile products out of business, so they change the facts. Typically, they come up with invented or inapplicable problems/issues with cheaper products, implying or stating that therefore those products are only standard or mid-fi, problems/issues which their products solve, which makes their products hi-fi/TOTL. In a surprisingly high number of cases those TOTL products don't even improve the so called "issues " any more than the cheap products and not uncommonly, they actually do a significantly worse job. That doesn't matter in today's audiophile market though, what matters is what you can convince audiophiles to believe, not what the products actually do. Entire segments of the audiophile industry now rely exclusively on this principle!

G[/QUOTE]


----------



## alota

gregorio said:


> You don't appear to appreciate the massive contradiction here. As you've only listened in your house, you don't know what the recordings you're listening to are supposed to sound like. You don't know what the "natural" sound is supposed to be therefore you can't know if the mojo is more natural, all you've got for reference is what you think/believe "natural" should sound like. Also, you can compare one DAC with another and decide which is more "detailed" but that still doesn't tell you which DAC is actually better or more Hi-Fi because you don't know how detailed the recording is supposed to sound. Maybe you, like many other "audiophiles", have a personal preference for as much detail as you can get, regardless of fidelity! If so, of course you're entitled to your preference but that doesn't make a DAC which fulfils that preference a better DAC, it may actually be a worse DAC as far as accuracy and fidelity are concerned and only better in terms of your personal preferences!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok. i´m going to put on a cross. Happy?


----------



## gregorio

richard51 said:


> If i read you right you say to me that  when i upgrade my 3 first amp for a better one, i were only  naive, in a delusion mode, because they all sound the same, in your world all change is of no avail....It is impossible to discuss any affirmation, if it is a dogma...



No, you didn't read (or understand) my post! I said that "entire segments of the audiophile world now exclusively rely" effectively on marketing, not ALL segments. Some segments only rely on it partially. In the case of amps, an amp's performance is ultimately dictated by it's load. The amp in an iPhone is great, providing it's driving an appropriate load. If using a set of headphones requiring more power, then a more expensive amp (with a higher power output) will be, and will sound, significantly better. The principle (or "dogma" as you call it), still commonly applies to audiophile amps though, as the performance of some/many audiophile amps can be matched for a tiny fraction of the cost, as famously demonstrated by Carver 3 decades or so ago. Other segments of the audiophile industry, such as segments of the interconnects market for example are entirely dependent on the principle though. There is no dependence on load (or any other factors) and there are no performance improvements, from virtually the cheapest products all the way to the most expensive costing 1,000 times more.

G


----------



## alota (May 24, 2017)

gregorio said:


> No, you didn't read (or understand) my post! I said that "entire segments of the audiophile world now exclusively rely" effectively on marketing, not ALL segments. Some segments only rely on it partially. In the case of amps, an amp's performance is ultimately dictated by it's load. The amp in an iPhone is great, providing it's driving an appropriate load. If using a set of headphones requiring more power, then a more expensive amp (with a higher power output) will be, and will sound, significantly better. The principle (or "dogma" as you call it), still commonly applies to audiophile amps though, as the performance of some/many audiophile amps can be matched for a tiny fraction of the cost, as famously demonstrated by Carver 3 decades or so ago. Other segments of the audiophile industry, such as segments of the interconnects market for example are entirely dependent on the principle though. There is no dependence on load (or any other factors) and there are no performance improvements, from virtually the cheapest products all the way to the most expensive costing 1,000 times more.
> 
> G


I agree with som your points.
you spoke about the great Bob Carver. i had in the past two power amplifiers from Bob Carver. really good in my opinion and in my house and please don´t restart with the same music.
the problem is that seems to me that you´re the teacher and we are the students. this is a forum not a school. your ways are a bit rough


----------



## pctazhp (May 24, 2017)

I get a chuckle ever time I come here, which isn't often because this thread isn't very active. Two sides talk past each other, and both sides have their own dogma. Been that way since I first got into home audio in the early 70s. Just a lot more of it now with the internet.

My desktop is an entertainment center, not a lab. i have neither the interest nor qualifications to conduct scientifically valid DBTs, and there are few reported ones. I know what I enjoy, and just laugh at those who try to tell me I'm stupid.


----------



## sonitus mirus

pctazhp said:


> I get a chuckle ever time I come here, which isn't often because this thread isn't very active. Two sides talk past each other, and both sides have their own dogma. Been that way since I first got into home audio in the early 70s. Just a lot more of it now with the internet.
> 
> My desktop is an entertainment center, not a lab. i have neither the interest nor qualifications to conduct scientifically valid DBTs, and there are few reported ones. I know what I enjoy, and just laugh at those who try to tell me I'm stupid.


It is often science clashing with marketing and something about a fool and his money.  I enjoy wonderfully sounding music and laugh all the way to the bank.


----------



## pctazhp

sonitus mirus said:


> It is often science clashing with marketing and something about a fool and his money.  I enjoy wonderfully sounding music and laugh all the way to the bank.



Unfortunately I have not been blessed with your superior knowledge and insight. Maybe that's why my banker often frowns whenever he sees me.


----------



## castleofargh

aside from putting too much faith in the price as a rating of practical value, another big difference in mentality IMO is about looking at gear as gear, or as something as artistic and subjective as picking a song. 
it's very rare for me to see a DAC as more than a bunch of cheap electronic components. I do not underestimate the work put into the design by the engineers, but that's their job. if they can't do that well they should do something else.  and I would never think in term of sounstage, realism...  it's a PCB with stuff on it in charge to turn my digital signal to analog signal, that's all it is to me and all I care about. I look at the output signal and it has good fidelity measured or it doesn't. that what makes me think it is worth more money than another DAC or not. I couldn't care less that it was made by the queen of England or had whatever FOTM dac chip in it. only the fidelity measured at the output has a financial value to me.
I have a few buddies who look at DACs the way they would look at their favorite artist. admiration, respect, envy... of course they are willing to pay more than I am for a DAC,  they have many extra criteria when they estimate the value of a DAC.  and then there are those who simply don't care about objective fidelity and will judge the value based on how they enjoy the sound(whatever the reason). those might be willing to spend the most money if they think they have found what they want.


----------



## pctazhp

castleofargh said:


> aside from putting too much faith in the price as a rating of practical value, another big difference in mentality IMO is about looking at gear as gear, or as something as artistic and subjective as picking a song.
> it's very rare for me to see a DAC as more than a bunch of cheap electronic components. I do not underestimate the work put into the design by the engineers, but that's their job. if they can't do that well they should do something else.  and I would never think in term of sounstage, realism...  it's a PCB with stuff on it in charge to turn my digital signal to analog signal, that's all it is to me and all I care about. I look at the output signal and it has good fidelity measured or it doesn't. that what makes me think it is worth more money than another DAC or not. I couldn't care less that it was made by the queen of England or had whatever FOTM dac chip in it. only the fidelity measured at the output has a financial value to me.
> I have a few buddies who look at DACs the way they would look at their favorite artist. admiration, respect, envy... of course they are willing to pay more than I am for a DAC,  they have many extra criteria when they estimate the value of a DAC.  and then there are those who simply don't care about objective fidelity and will judge the value based on how they enjoy the sound(whatever the reason). those might be willing to spend the most money if they think they have found what they want.



I believe there are many different reasons people buy audio gear. I may be a lawyer, but I studied advanced physics as an undergraduate at Princeton during the 60s and earned my expert Ham license (KY7A). I have a deep respect for the scientific method, which is probably why I don't respect a lot of self-proclaimed "objectivists" on threads such as this.

I don't assume any piece of audio gear is necessarily better because it is expensive. But I don't refuse to audition something because there are cheaper alternatives. Going all the way back to Julian Hirsch and Stereo Review in the 70s, I have often detected a distinct condescending attitude on behalf of strictly "measurement" people. This type of discussion has been going on forever, and nothing ever changes. Human nature is the one constant, and most of us like to feel we have all the answers.


----------



## sonitus mirus

pctazhp said:


> I don't know why I allow myself to get involved in stupid discussions like this. Evolution and creationism have nothing to do with this particular discussion other than to serve as a feeble attempt to promote "objeciveness" dogma in an audio discussion. There are thousands and thousands of audio products at all price range. No one can credibly make blanket statements about all these products. Some, like Schiit products, are built by engineers who I easily guess have far more technical knowledge and experience than you do.


What blanket statement would that be?   No one is suggesting that everything sounds the same.  There can be differences.   I haven't seen evidence to suggest there might be differences heard without seeing a reason why.   However, take the Schiit line of DACs.   None of the differences between their most inexpensive version and any costing significantly more have specifications that would indicate that anyone should be able to hear any differences between them.  The science behind this premise is difficult to refute, and I have seen almost no evidence to suggest otherwise.   When a similar logic is applied to Red Book and Hi Res, it is difficult to stand behind the marketing rhetoric and anecdotes that claim sonic superiority.

I'm left wondering if there really is any audible difference between multi-thousand dollar digital audio gear and equipment that costs far less.

There is a relatively small group attempting to educate consumers.  The information is available.   I greatly appreciate those that have gone out of their way to help promote a more honest outlook.  It is common sense to me, not rocket science.  Don't expect to see this from the industry insiders.   That is common sense to me, too.


----------



## pctazhp (May 24, 2017)

Your blanket statement was about laughing all the way to the bank, implying that people who buy more expensive gear are self-delusional.

Schiit is very careful about not making claims of SQ advantages of one product over the other. They describe the technology involved in each product and let it go at that. And both Mike and Jason make themselves readily available to answer all kinds of questions on several different threads here at HeadFi. There are plenty of HeadFi posts from people who have listened to different Schiit multibit DACs and don't think there is a lot of difference in SQ. There are likewise a lot of posts from people who believe their is a noticeable difference, but usually they are pretty careful about saying that is just their personal experience. One can also find places where people have conducted blind tests and surprised themselves at the difficulty they had in distinguishing between, for example, the Gumby and Yiggy.

One of the big differences as you go up the line of Schiit DACs are more input options to accommodate personal preferences. But that can get into another entire discussion of whether that really matters.

Schiit offers a 15-day return privilege with a 5% restocking fee. They sell returned units as B-stock and those are usually pretty hard to find.

I love my Bimby. But sooner or later I will try either a Gumby or Yiggy. I am accountable to no one but myself for whatever decision I make. If you are satisfied making your decisions based purely on measurements, then that is the best approach for you. But I would hope you don't try to shame anyone who would approach it differently. There is a favorite saying among 12-step recovery types: "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation."   — Herbert Spencer

Edit:  I personally don't believe there is a noticeable difference between Redbook or HiRes, but that is my contempt without instigating. My source of music is almost exclusively Tidal HD, and that works fine for me.


----------



## pctazhp

While not necessarily entirely on point, here is a chapter from Jason Stoddard's online book he just posted: https://www.head-fi.org/f/threads/s...bable-start-up.701900/page-1360#post-13508638

I think it is an interesting snapshot of some of the challenges faced by a company like Schiit. Wow, I guess I'm really coming across as a Schiit fanboy. Not really. I never use my Valhalla 2, far preferring my Polish made Elise and Euforia.


----------



## castleofargh

but people don't necessary pay for objective specs and it's fine. I understand the rational behind "if it makes no audible difference why pay more?". but again that's only because we start with the assumption that sound is the only thing that matters to people. to me it often is,  but I can bet that my mother could buy the more expensive DAC simply because she finds it pretty. she doesn't really care about fidelity, but if it doesn't go well with the rest of the room, now this is a problem. ^_^

at a personal level, who cares. we get what we want to get for the reason we want to get it. as for price, the expensive DAC to me is a cheap DAC to someone else. so let's do whatever we want with our money. 
but why are some manufacturers selling devices that are consistently more expensive while nothing really seem to justify the price increase on a technical or manufacturing angle? I try to view different options, but all I can think of is that they milk the cow and won't stop rising prices until we stop paying for it. why would they stay? I wouldn't.


----------



## pctazhp

One thing I've never gotten a good handle on is how many people (particularly the small and medium size businesses) are in high-end audio primarily to make money as opposed to passion for the hobby. I've always viewed high-end audio as a fairly niche business sector, and it seems to me there may be a lot more effective ways to make a lot of money.

And to those people who have taken it upon themselves to educate us stupid consumers, I always view with a certain amount of skepticism those who are on a mission. If nothing else, their mission gets in the way of mine.


----------



## sonitus mirus

I'm certainly glad that there are tons of consumer options available.  There are plenty of reasons other than pure audio quality for paying a lot of money for something.  Sure, there may be some self-delusional folks around, but not everyone, and probably not even most.    My laughter is more about having what feels like a secret about digital audio.  It is almost as if I'm getting away with something or that I stumbled upon a less traveled shortcut.


----------



## pctazhp

I definitely understand)) And BTW, I can be equally hard on "subjectivists" who make totally unsubstantiated and untested claims. Crap like "golden ears" and all that !!!!


----------



## bigshot

pctazhp said:


> One thing I've never gotten a good handle on is how many people (particularly the small and medium size businesses) are in high-end audio primarily to make money as opposed to passion for the hobby. I've always viewed high-end audio as a fairly niche business sector, and it seems to me there may be a lot more effective ways to make a lot of money.




Try going into a high end audio store and talk to the friendly commissioned salespeople. You'll find plenty of snake oil. Unless you don't look like you have money. Then they will just refuse to help you and give you "something stinks" faces.


----------



## Argyris

I don't think there's anything new about the upward pricing trend in the high end, or the dubious nature of the claims of superior fidelity that pervade the marketing. Earlier in this thread there was a link to some old _Stereophile_ articles that described a dynamic that was _eerily_ similar to what we have today with personal audio. I think where some people in this thread are expressing frustration is that, up until the last decade (and really the past three or four years), headphones as a category were often seen as an antidote to the typical hifi antics. A decade ago, I frequently saw it written that headphones were the best kept secret in hifi because you could get considerably better sound for a very modest investment (e.g. under $500) than you could from speakers. While this is still true--my recent quest to find a pair of competent monitors under $1,000 came up dry, yet my 
HD 600 cost me just $280--there are now numerous headphones which cost multiple thousands of dollars, and we can just expect new flagships to cost at least a thousand. What made headphones special, the fact that even the "best" headphone cost at most around $500, has all but eroded away.

The old guard flagships are all still in production, and if you know what you want and where to look, it's possible to put together a really nice system for not much money at all. In fact, we have far more choices in the overall market now than ever before. But it's nonetheless the case that the high end is shooting ever higher in price in comparison to the rest of the market. Tyll has often said that the midrange price sector, from $500 to $1,000, is underserved. He's absolutely right. New releases here are few and far in between and usually come with obvious flaws (e.g. poor bass extension, rough treble, response weirdness, etc.). It's been a long time since a consensus world beater has emerged, breathless exultations in impressions threads notwithstanding. Theoretically, a hypothetical improved HD 600 should occupy this segment given the ~$300 cost of the original headphone. I'd say a headphone with the same tonal balance but better bass extension would easily be worth $750. But when the HD 600 killer finally comes, it ain't gonna go for $750. If we're lucky, it'll be double that. More likely, it'll be at least $3,000. A headphone like that will never get dumped in the midrange segment because it's too good, and companies know they can get a bunch more money for it.

And that's where the frustration comes in. Whatever we want to attribute this upward pricing trend to, and whether or not it has precedent in the hifi world (see above: it does), is merely a digression. _The fact is it's happening_, and nobody has to like it. Change is inevitable, but it's a lot less aggravating if we can see a legitimate reason for the change. Here, there simply isn't one. Modern flagships are not, by any credible measure or even the most generous subjective assessment, an order of magnitude better than the old guard headphones. And yet, they all cost that much more.

The typical line that the market determines the price is unsatisfying, if grudgingly accurate. Yes, people are buying at the ever-increasing prices. Yes, there's money to be made, and companies are making it. _I don't want them to_, and I don't think it's unreasonable that I and others feel this way. It doesn't benefit me one bit if companies can get people to pay thousands for what ten years ago they could only get away with charging hundreds for. What people in this thread are searching for, I think, is some sort of counter to the ever-inflating prices. This counter may be in the form of an objective means of measuring the performance of a given piece of equipment to determine whether or not it's worth a premium over cheaper alternatives. It may be the hope that a mentality emerges which questions manufacturers' claims and places greater importance on value. It may be something else entirely. Whatever it is, the occasional griping I've seen (and have taken part in) in this thread is a perfectly understandable consequence of the frustration we all feel.


----------



## pctazhp

I can't think of a single piece of audio equipment I own that came from a company that made any claim that had anything to do with my purchase. If someone is ignorant enough to actually be influenced by typical advertising hype I just can't feel sorry for that person.

The headphone market is probably one of the least regulated market there is and I hope it stays that way. I neither begrudge people who can and do spend more money than I do nor do I resent successful companies that find legal ways to make as much money as they possibly can. But I've never much been in to envy or trying to tell other people how they should live their own lives. I just can't understand people who get all worked up about expensive gear. If you can't afford it or don't want to spend that much money, why worry about it. Unless you just can't stand the idea that there are people who can spend more money than you are able.


----------



## pctazhp

bigshot said:


> Try going into a high end audio store and talk to the friendly commissioned salespeople. You'll find plenty of snake oil. Unless you don't look like you have money. Then they will just refuse to help you and give you "something stinks" faces.



Do you know what percentage of audio gear is still sold through brick and mortar stores? I suspect it is quite low. I suspect most gear today is bought over the internet which normally is a fairly impersonal process, without pesky salespeople involved.I haven't been into a high end store for years.


----------



## gregorio

pctazhp said:


> [1] I am accountable to no one but myself for whatever decision I make. [2] If you are satisfied making your decisions based purely on measurements, then that is the best approach for you. [3] But I would hope you don't try to shame anyone who would approach it differently.



1. There's two problems with this: A. Here and on similar forums, advice is given by many based on the decisions they've made. They are therefore accountable to those they are advising, not just themselves and B. Regardless of what advice you're giving or even if you're not giving any advice, you are still not only accountable to yourself! You are part of a collective of consumers and that collective's decisions influences and changes the industry. You therefore bare some of the responsibility of those changes and ARE therefore accountable for your decisions! For example, you subscribe to Tidal which, along with other streaming services, is causing a paradigm shift in the industry due to the very low revenues it generates for the music creators, relative to the revenues of traditional media. To compensate, less time and money must be invested into creating music products, resulting in poorer quality than would have been the case and less opportunity for investment in new talent. Of course, consumers are never going to know what could have been achieved, what great songs/albums were not made and what new talent has not been supported. It's a sad fact that some/many of the great albums and artists of the past could not be made and would not have existed in today's market.

2. Neither I nor anyone else I know are satisfied making all my decisions based purely on measurements. Again, it depends what equipment we're talking about. Some equipment only needs a basic understanding of the science to realise there cannot be any difference and doesn't even need measurements upon which to base a decision. With other types of equipment basic science and measurements are enough and in still other cases, basic science, measurements and physical, listening tests are all needed to make an informed decision.

3. Sometimes yes, shaming people is entirely justified, due to the wider impact that "approach" may have on others and the entire industry, as explained above.

G


----------



## pctazhp

@gregorio  According to your logic, we should carefully consider the impact of every purchase of any kind we make. Sorry, but whatever social conscience, if any, I have doesn't extend that far. Just doesn't compute with me.

But my own personal moral conscience tells me not to shame people. I try, not always successfully, to listen to my conscience.

I don't advise on HeadFi. I often share my listening experience with the gear I use. I don't have such a low opinion of other people to worry that I may be leading them down the path to a worthless and empty life.


----------



## sonitus mirus

While headphones can provide a lot of bang for the buck, I don't have the same enjoyment I get with speakers.  I suppose it depends on the room.  For a small room where a person is typically sitting in one spot, surely there are competent speakers available for under $1000 that would be comparable to the details you would get from a pair of mid-priced Sennheisers?  With a modest amount of room treatment and a cheap EQ, you should be able to get a flat frequency response.  Even without any treatment in a horrible acoustic setting (corner with a large window), I was able to pass the old Phillips Golden Ear challenge with a cheap pair of KRK Rokit 8 monitors that I had previously passed with my Denon D5K headphones.


Argyris said:


> I don't think there's anything new about the upward pricing trend in the high end, or the dubious nature of the claims of superior fidelity that pervade the marketing. Earlier in this thread there was a link to some old _Stereophile_ articles that described a dynamic that was _eerily_ similar to what we have today with personal audio. I think where some people in this thread are expressing frustration is that, up until the last decade (and really the past three or four years), headphones as a category were often seen as an antidote to the typical hifi antics. A decade ago, I frequently saw it written that headphones were the best kept secret in hifi because you could get considerably better sound for a very modest investment (e.g. under $500) than you could from speakers. While this is still true--my recent quest to find a pair of competent monitors under $1,000 came up dry, yet my
> HD 600 cost me just $280--there are now numerous headphones which cost multiple thousands of dollars, and we can just expect new flagships to cost at least a thousand. What made headphones special, the fact that even the "best" headphone cost at most around $500, has all but eroded away.
> 
> The old guard flagships are all still in production, and if you know what you want and where to look, it's possible to put together a really nice system for not much money at all. In fact, we have far more choices in the overall market now than ever before. But it's nonetheless the case that the high end is shooting ever higher in price in comparison to the rest of the market. Tyll has often said that the midrange price sector, from $500 to $1,000, is underserved. He's absolutely right. New releases here are few and far in between and usually come with obvious flaws (e.g. poor bass extension, rough treble, response weirdness, etc.). It's been a long time since a consensus world beater has emerged, breathless exultations in impressions threads notwithstanding. Theoretically, a hypothetical improved HD 600 should occupy this segment given the ~$300 cost of the original headphone. I'd say a headphone with the same tonal balance but better bass extension would easily be worth $750. But when the HD 600 killer finally comes, it ain't gonna go for $750. If we're lucky, it'll be double that. More likely, it'll be at least $3,000. A headphone like that will never get dumped in the midrange segment because it's too good, and companies know they can get a bunch more money for it.
> ...


----------



## bigshot

pctazhp said:


> Do you know what percentage of audio gear is still sold through brick and mortar stores? I suspect it is quite low. I suspect most gear today is bought over the internet which normally is a fairly impersonal process, without pesky salespeople involved.I haven't been into a high end store for years.



The sales pitch is still there on websites, over the phone when ordering, and through high end audio "consultants" who do installation and broker sales of equipment.


----------



## pctazhp

bigshot said:


> The sales pitch is still there on websites, over the phone when ordering, and through high end audio "consultants" who do installation and broker sales of equipment.



Sales pitches exist for virtually every product made and sold. Has for centuries. Somehow mankind has survived. I haven't spoken to someone on the phone when ordering audio equipment in years. Haven't had anything "installed" in years, but in the past I had already bought everything when the installers arrived. But it sure is comforting to know there are people like you to protect all the rest of us.


----------



## bigshot

I think your definition of high end might be different than mine. Midrange equipment is usually bought online and is plug and play. High end is more custom- the difference between a $10,000 upper midrange stereo system and a $75,000 and up full bells and whistles one- room treatment, custom installed wiring, power supplies, cabinetry, video, programmed remotes, sound processors, the whole nine yards.


----------



## pctazhp (May 25, 2017)

I can't believe the bias that exists on threads like this against the productive sector of society and those who distribute and market products. I can't speak about the rest of the world, but here in the British colonies, virtually anything ordered from online sources such as Amazon can be returned within 30 days. Best Buy will almost always accept returns without questions. I haven't visited a brick and mortal audio store in years, but the ones I used to deal with were very generous about at-home auditions. They in particular have to depend on maintaining good relationships with their customers. We are starting to go our of our way to protect snowflakes on college campuses. Seems like maybe we will have to start protecting snowflakes of all ages from cradle to grave.


----------



## gregorio

pctazhp said:


> [1] According to your logic, we should carefully consider the impact of every purchase of any kind we make.
> [2] Sorry, but whatever social conscience, if any, I have doesn't extend that far. Just doesn't compute with me. But my own personal moral conscience tells me not to shame people.
> 
> [3] I don't advise on HeadFi. I often share my listening experience with the gear I use.



1. No, that's not my logic! Nice example of a stawman fallacy though!

2. So, you've got a moral conscience against negatively affecting an individual consumer but can't even "compute" a moral conscience against negatively affecting all consumers? Your logical position doesn't "compute", why would you be concerned with increasing the quality of your reproduction equipment while simultaneously be contributing to lowering the quality (and number) of recordings for your system to reproduce?

3. That's just semantics. Why would you share your experience of your gear if you didn't want anyone to read it, take note of it or find it useful?

G


----------



## pctazhp

Tough to keep up with whatever your logic or position is. Do you or do you not maintain that audio consumers have some kind of "civic" duty to spend their money in way that doesn't support your belief that audio companies mislead consumers and make too much money? You sure spent a lot of time seeming to claim that you do believe that. Whether or not it is your position, it is one I reject. There are people who boycott certain companies to advance causes they deem worthy. Most of those causes deal with pretty weighty issues. I hardly think the money audio companies make is on a level of most of those causes.

And my belief that it is wrong to shame people, as you claimed you are readily prepared to do, isn't limited to consumers, but to everyone with whom I deal.

virtually all my music is from Tidal HD, which costs me $20 a month, and I have access to millions of recordings. I hardly think whatever I have spent on my gear is somehow limiting my musical choices.

I don't expect anyone to necessarily ignore whatever experience I post (and by the way probably about half of my posts deal with music rather than gear). When I do describe my experiences with gear, I choose my words carefully enough and don't have such a low opinion of others to believe they are going to put their families out on the streets by spending recklessly in reliance on something I say. In fact I often state my belief that the pain one can suffer from spending money on audio that is other than purely discretionary funds is not ever worth whatever enjoyment they think they may derive from audio purchases.


----------



## gregorio

pctazhp said:


> [1] Tough to keep up with whatever your logic or position is.
> [2] Do you or do you not maintain that audio consumers have some kind of "civic" duty to spend their money in way that doesn't support your belief that audio companies mislead consumers and make too much money?
> [3] I hardly think whatever I have spent on my gear is somehow limiting my musical choices.
> [4] I don't expect anyone to necessarily ignore whatever experience I post ...
> [5] (and by the way probably about half of my posts deal with music rather than gear).



1. As my logical position has not changed, I'm not sure why you're having such difficulty keeping up with it.
2. No, I do not believe that. But what your question has to do with my response is unfathomable, just another good example of a strawman fallacy!
3. Great, but what has that got to do with anything I said? Another strawman.
4. Thanks for clearing that up.
5. Why would you be interested in posting about music?

G


----------



## pctazhp

@gregorio  You said: "You are part of a collective of consumers and that collective's decisions influences and changes the industry. You therefore bare some of the responsibility of those changes and ARE therefore accountable for your decisions!"

This is what I have been responding to.

I post about music because for me that is the whole purpose of the headphone system I own, and I enjoy sharing that interest with many HeadFi members with whom I regularly interact.


----------



## gregorio

pctazhp said:


> @gregorioYou said: "You are part of a collective of consumers and that collective's decisions influences and changes the industry. You therefore bare some of the responsibility of those changes and ARE therefore accountable for your decisions!" This is what I have been responding to.
> 
> [2] I post about music because for me that is the whole purpose of the headphone system I own, and I enjoy sharing that interest with many HeadFi members with whom I regularly interact.



1. Correct and my quote was in response to you saying you were accountable to no one but yourself for your purchase decisions.
2. Yes, that's what makes no logical sense. You enjoy sharing your interest in reducing the quality of music, which is the whole purpose of you owning a good quality headphone system?

G


----------



## pctazhp

And I continue to believe I have no responsibility to anyone other than me (and I will add my family) as to how I spend my money on audio. So what??? Sue me !!!!

What in the world are you talking about??? I enjoy sharing my "interest in reducing the quality of music"?????


----------



## bigshot (May 26, 2017)

pctazhp said:


> I enjoy sharing my "interest in reducing the quality of music"?????




Electronics can't improve or reduce the quality of music. That's up to the musicians involved. Stereo equipment can only present high fidelity or not. Thankfully, achieving that isn't terribly expensive nowadays.


----------



## castleofargh

pctazhp said:


> And I continue to believe I have no responsibility to anyone other than me (and I will add my family) as to how I spend my money on audio. So what??? Sue me !!!!
> 
> What in the world are you talking about??? I enjoy sharing my "interest in reducing the quality of music"?????



we're drifting dangerously. 

here is my very personal opinion on things:
-people should be able to buy whatever they like
-manufacturers should be able to sell at whatever price they want

that is the nice little utopia of freedom in a free market and I'm ok with that in general, and only in general. in reality we don't let kids do everything they want, because we believe they haven't been properly prepared to face some of the aspects of life on their own. just like we have laws to protect the elderly who started losing their mind from unscrupulous people lying their ways into a sell(well at least in France we have stuff like that). when we see members of society who lack the means for clear judgement on a matter, those of us who got lucky to be in a better viewing position, sometimes get the desire to protect them. we're a pack of wolves, but still a pack. it can be with a law, or it can be some simple advice. it can be trying to put a light on those who sell products that aren't objectively worth it. whatever the mean, the general idea is that we sometimes care for more than ourselves. it's not a duty, it's just something some people want to do. 
in the consumer audio world, inexperienced people are everywhere. some lucky fellows with a little, or a lot more knowledge try however they can, to help and inform members. knowledge is power blah blah blah, if people are warned and better informed they become better equipped to make whatever decision they will make. 
here the theme was blind testing to check the audible value of a product instead of looking at the price tag. blind test is treated as the dirty family secret in most audio forums, many forbid discussing it, headfi put those who care in the same little room to talk to each other without annoying the rest of the school. and the hobby in general will stay a joke as long as it stays that way. it's soccer without video for referees. I know nothing about soccer, but enjoy the actor skills developed specifically because the sport was refusing the one tool that would help make it better. audio is the same, because almost nobody recognizes tools to assess subjective impressions, manufacturers adapted their marketing toward that weakness, making loads of subjective claims because nobody will check properly and even better, you don't get sued for subjective BS. so right now we have random pricing going up for rather unspecified reasons, and marketing pointing toward things that people don't know how to verify even when they have the gear. IMO the average audiophile could do with a little help and any mention of blind testing and biases is a good thing. if after they decide to listen to some pedantic guy claiming he and his beer know better than blind tests, well it's his life, his money, and I wish him well.


----------



## pctazhp

castleofargh said:


> IMO the average audiophile could do with a little help and any mention of blind testing and biases is a good thing. if after they decide to listen to some pedantic guy claiming he and his beer know better than blind tests, well it's his life, his money, and I wish him well.



Blind tests certainly are more reliable than drunk tests. Not sure they are always as much fun


----------



## bigshot

Can I get a breathalyzer attachment for my high end DAC?


----------



## castleofargh

it would activate at a given value the same way tube amp warm up before closing the circuit? 
"you are not drunk enough for real high end". or maybe the opposite: "sorry sir but this is a respectable high end DAC, not a pub. we only serve music to sober clientele". I could do the French accent for the message to add the last touch of snobbish restaurant expected from TOTL DACs.


----------



## pctazhp

I'm all for breathalyzer as long as they are TOTL and cost a fortune.


----------



## gregorio

castleofargh said:


> here is my very personal opinion on things:
> -people should be able to buy whatever they like
> -manufacturers should be able to sell at whatever price they want



I agree. I'm just stating that there are however consequences. Audiophile manufacturers now pretty much exclusively focus on High Definition/Resolution instead of high fidelity and they do this because they are fulfilling a demand. This is circular though, because they have created that demand. The end result is that your first point cannot now be fulfilled! For example, I should be able to buy a new, reasonably priced 16bit 44.1/48k DAC which fulfils all practical fidelity requirements and, not just find one, there should be quite a bit of competition/choice. However, AFAIK I can't, I would have to buy into a "HRA" DAC and the extra cost (or lower fidelity) of resources being spent on supporting a wider array of formats (so called standard and high res formats) rather than concentrating on just 16/44.1/48. The choice of other audiophiles (to drink the koolaid and buy into HRA) has removed my choice! While this is annoying, the end result is typically fairly minimal as I can buy a reasonably priced "HD" DAC and the resources not concentrated on 16/44.1/48 should have minimal (or no) audible impact on fidelity. This isn't necessarily the case but regardless, there's a more serious problem, which is the consequences of consumer choice on the material that our audio equipment is reproducing. It's a more serious problem because it's both very audible and affects all consumers.

From the late 1950's to the 1990's the quality of recordings and the very evolution of all popular music genres was based on a combination of factors: 1. Advancing technology; audio hardware, acoustics, audio formats and audio software AND 2. Expertise; skill, experience and creativity of the producers and various engineers AND 3. Time; Time not only to allow the artists and engineers to fully exercise their expertise but time for the engineers, producers and artists to experiment with their expertise and the technology! We are facing two problems:

A. Recording technology isn't really advancing. Certain areas, such as transducers and acoustics are only advancing minimally. It's essentially old technology which has been developed over the decades to the point that new tweaks are relatively insignificant. The audio formats are not advancing at all, in terms of audible sound quality. Likewise with recording hardware (ADCs), which reached their peak about 15 years ago. The software (plugins, digital processors) have also by and large reached their peaks, 5 or so years ago. However, the options available to artists/producers are today almost limitless and therefore, far more importantly:

B. Consumer choice! Consumers such as @pctazhp are choosing to purchase "virtually all of their music" from streaming services. The massive reduction in revenue this represents has had and will continue to have a massive effect on all three of the points above. The top commercial studio always represented not only the best technology but the widest choice of technology, such as; the best recording acoustics, the best monitoring environments, the best and widest choice of mics and the best recording and mixing/processing hardware. They also represented the best audio engineering expertise. Over the last 20 years, around 70% of the best commercial music recording studios have closed their doors for good and the pool of competing experts who knew how to get the best out of them has likewise declined. Furthermore, due to the far lower revenue, the amount of available time has been drastically cut, albums used to take several/many months to make, today they have to be made in weeks. There's barely time to achieve competency, let alone any serious time to experiment. In fact, many commercial albums are now partially or even entirely made without any involvement of commercial studios and therefore lack engineering expertise, quality recording acoustics or monitoring environments and choice of mics, etc. All this has been occurring as a consequence of consumers choosing digital download as their preferred purchase option. During a time of maturing digital hardware and software, when sound quality and musical innovation should have been advancing, they've remained broadly static or declined. And, it's set to decline further still, as streaming provides significantly lower revenues to music creators (artists, studios, engineers and producers) than even the shock of digital download revenues. I'm not a Luddite, I'm not trying to turn the clock back to "the good ol' days", I'm just stating the inevitable consequences of the choice that consumers are making, which, whether or not they realise it or whether or not they choose to take any responsibility for it, is the choice/demand for lower cost + declining sound quality + slowing musical innovation/evolution. We've already reached a point where there are effectively virtually no major professional recording artists any more!

This brings me back to a few posts ago. What's the point of increasing the quality of your reproduction equipment while simultaneously demanding lower quality recordings for your system to reproduce? The only obvious logical conclusion is; pride of ownership of reproduction equipment AND, little/no interest or care for music/audio itself.

G


----------



## Whazzzup (May 27, 2017)

Well.
I notice dirrerences in recordings and actually gravitate to download those recordings over others. Sure the appeal comes first but quality close second.
I notice differences between 16 bit 48 fr and 32 bit 384 fr.
I notice differences between cans at various price points and cans at similar price points.
Notice I never said better.
I am a sucker like everyone, while I don't get the opportunity to try equipment like we should, I did pick up early on that every review is positive, fan boyism runs deep, I did enjoy reading end user thoughts, while still variable and biased I did get to drill down to some truths.
I criticize no one for any purchase at any price point, but do have self imposed limitations, although these may seem excessive or not to others I don't care. I am merely seeking enjoyment utility within a construct and have succeeded somewhat through the myriad of options available, that can seem quite daunting.
Yes I have some bias errors involving price but I don't blame anyone for it. I have to hold myself accountable and as long as I am enjoying the experience as well as the journey, mission accomplished.
I see nothing wrong in spending 2000 or 200000 on a system. Does not mean I'm at either end at all.


----------



## gregorio

pctazhp said:


> [1] Much of modern technology takes its toll on people, and the free market can be harsh.
> [2] For him to say I am "demanding lower quality recordings for your system to reproduce" because I get virtually all of my music from Tidal HD is absurd.



1. Yes it does take it's toll on people but that is NOT what I was referring to, I was referring to the simple economics. As consumers demand more convenience and pay substantially less for what they are consuming, revenues have crashed. As revenues have declined, so has the amount of money invested in creating recordings. There are still a lot of recordings being made but the amount of money spent on creating each of those recordings is a fraction of what it was a couple of decades or so ago. With such small budgets, they can't afford to hire a team of top experts for months or afford the high quality commercial studios. Yes, it's a shame so many of those studios have gone forever, it's also a shame that the pool of expertise is dwindling but that wasn't the point I was making. The point I was making is basic economics; as the amount of money (and therefore time and expertise) spent making recordings decreases, the quality of recordings decreases and additionally, risk aversion dramatically increases and therefore musical innovation and investment in new talent decreases. Surely you can't be disagreeing with any of this? If not, then:

2. By supporting/subscribing to a streaming service you are part of the consumer collective creating the *demand* for more convenient, lower cost music AND THEREFORE all the consequences explained in my previous post and #1 above! So, what's really absurd (!) is you continuing to deny that you are "demanding lower quality recordings ..." and denying that you have any responsibility for helping create that demand?!

G


----------



## castleofargh

guys, I removed a few posts. peace and love instead of personal attacks and sassy replies. if someone goes too far, report the post or come talk to me(I'm a crappy therapist though), don't make a bad situation escalate with your own reply.

when the industry focuses on silly containers and pointlessly big numbers instead of quality content. when brands and nonsense marketing have more financial value than objective fidelity.  even if the consumer isn't at the origin of those changes, when we agree to pay according to those criteria we validate the marketing decisions. it's not about what is right or wrong, or telling people what to do, that's just how it is.
like the song says:
"I have run, I have crawled, I have scaled, these city walls, these city walls...  but I still haven't found what I'm looking for". so I ended up getting it from amazon.


----------



## pctazhp

I don't consider a post that tries to tell me what my intention is because I use Tidal HD is appropriate. It is one thing to discuss the effect of legal streaming services. Quite another to make it personal. But I'm not the moderator.


----------



## gregorio

pctazhp said:


> I don't consider a post that tries to tell me what my intention is because I use Tidal HD is appropriate.



No one is trying to tell you what your intention is! I don't know what your intention is, although I suspect it's probably the opposite of "demanding lower quality recordings". What I'm saying and have tried to explain is that regardless of whether or not you realise it and regardless of your intentions, the unavoidable consequence of your (and others) choice is that you are "demanding lower quality recordings"!

G


----------



## pctazhp

Definition of "demand" from The Free Dictionary:

_1. To ask for urgently or peremptorily: demand an investigation into the murder; demanding that he leave immediately; demanded to speak to the manager.
2. To claim as just or due: demand repayment of a loan.
3. To ask to be informed of: demanded an explanation for the interruption.
4. *To require as useful, just, proper, or necessary;* call for: a gem that demands a fine setting.
5. Law
a. To lay legal claim to; claim formally.
b. To ask that (something) be done in accordance with a legal requirement._


----------



## Whazzzup

for what its worth i don't stream because of the quality, not that its bad but hdd is better for me.


----------



## pctazhp

Whazzzup said:


> for what its worth i don't stream because of the quality, not that its bad but hdd is better for me.



I'm just an old and lazy "Old Geezer".. I've paid my dues to the artists. I understand the economic impact of streaming services, but as I have tried to say technology is unstoppable and chooses its winners and losers without moral conscience. One can legitimately debate whether consumers who embrace new technology are in anyway morally accountable, but that debate would have to encompass all areas of technological development. The impact of rapid advances in technology, I believe, is at the heart of much political debate today, but of course this is not the place to discuss that.

I understand what you mean about concerns over streaming quality. That's why I use Tidal HD and have come up with my own way of eliminating reliance on USB. But that could get us into an entirely new, and probably unsatisfying, debate )))


----------



## bigshot

The woman who was the heir of the Winchester rifle fortune atoned by consulting psychics who told her that when she quit adding rooms onto her house she would die. I will consult my crystal ball and tell you that if you listen to streaming music, you will die unless you spend a great deal of money chasing specs beyond the range of human hearing.


----------



## gregorio

pctazhp said:


> Definition of "demand" from The Free Dictionary_: 4. *To require as useful, just, proper, or necessary;* call for: a gem that demands a fine setting._



You quoted *some* of the definitions of "demand" and highlighted an inapplicable one! The definition applicable to the context of my posts, which is listed just a few lines below where you conveniently chose to stop quoting from the Free Dictionary. is: "_n. ... *5. Economics The desire for goods or services in an economy, measured as the amount people are ready to buy at a given price: *_*Supply should rise to meet demand.*" - Talk about sophistry!



pctazhp said:


> I understand the economic impact of streaming services, but as I have tried to say technology is unstoppable and chooses its winners and losers without moral conscience.



Of course technology is stoppable! There are countless examples of technologies which have been stopped by consumers simply not creating enough of a demand for them. There are even famous cases of consumers choosing a different, inferior technology and effectively "stopping" the superior technology, VHS vs Betamax for example. You are contributing to the demand for lower quality recordings and you do therefore bare some of the responsibility, just as the consumers of the time bare the responsibility for choosing the lower quality of VHS technology and effectively stopping Betamax technology. Bringing up "moral conscience" is of course a red herring, as it's got nothing to do with morality, lower or higher quality has no baring on morality.

G


----------



## pctazhp

I give up. I'm not worthy! I'm not worthy!

For the record, I was a Betamax guy until the bitter end.


----------



## sonitus mirus

pctazhp said:


> I give up. I'm not worthy! I'm not worthy!
> 
> For the record, I was a Betamax guy until the bitter end.



Betamax provided our ship's crew with entertainment well into the early 90's. It's smaller form won over VHS and allowed us to carry several more movies with the limited space available on a guided missile frigate.


----------



## Contrails

The Law of diminishing returns has become an understatement these days.  

The problem is people fall for the hype.  Even if that last 1% is outside human hearing capabilities, people will still spend 5 figures to get that last 1%.   Then rave on about it on the forums.  I have been guilty of this as well.  A small change due to changing tubes in my amp and woah - amazing! The f*ck have I been smoking?


----------



## Whazzzup

Well it's end game, night and day, blown away, bliss


----------



## protoss

Why you delete my post too offense?


----------



## protoss (Jun 4, 2017)

I will write it again . Took out the so call offense parts jeez.

I agree 110% with you. But man. You have and you used to own every high end headphone out there and then made a rant like this. My goodness grace man. The irony.
The bizarre world it felt like reading your post and looking at your profile. It felt like these companies have cheated you in a deceiving way. By giving you a defective unit every single time or something. But thats not the case at all.

You just went out every month and drop $2000.00 here and there for a ground breaking unit and than complain that these companies like force you at gun-point to buy there next greatest headphone?

If i was in your position and was blessed to drop $2000.00 like candy on these headphones i will be like a little child happy that I have a brand new TOTL toy to play with this month. Not rant.

Your rant sadly shouldn't been you. It should've been me actually or anyone at a middle class level or lower.

Also why don't you you become a charity man?

I like to borrow your LCD-4. Test it out. I will give it back. Why don't you share your toys with others?

PM me. I like to try some of your toys in a respectful listener way.

Cheers


----------



## protoss

Also to the moderator. How was my original post offensive? Isnt this whole thread a stab in the neck to every audio company out there? How can you let a rant like this continue? Isnt this completely offensive to the Zeus almighty audio companies gods? Wont the mighty sennhesier PR team come and complain about this post. Won't Audeze squad team be knocking on your front door by now? The host took on every audio company out there and my little tiny 7 words was more damagable than this whole thread. 

Cheers


----------



## pctazhp

protoss said:


> Also to the moderator. How was my original post offensive? Isnt this whole thread a stab in the neck to every audio company out there? How can you let a rant like this continue? Isnt this completely offensive to the Zeus almighty audio companies gods? Wont the mighty sennhesier PR team come and complain about this post. Won't Audeze squad team be knocking on your front door by now? The host took on every audio company out there and my little tiny 7 words was more damagable than this whole thread.
> 
> Cheers



This thread is mainly a joke. Junk science and phony intellectualism. All kinds of unsubstantiated claims about motives of audio companies, obscene profits and why a lot of stupid people buy stuff that is too expensive. It's a classic place for people who believe they know more than everyone else so they can feel better than everyone else. They often phrase it in terms of how they are trying to save the world from evil audio companies. They don't have enough self-awareness to realize they are promoting their own dogmatic views. As with so many places on the web, critical thinking and analysis is completely lacking.


----------



## protoss

pctazhp said:


> This thread is mainly a joke. Junk science and phony intellectualism. All kinds of unsubstantiated claims about motives of audio companies, obscene profits and why a lot of stupid people buy stuff that is too expensive. It's a classic place for people who believe they know more than everyone else so they can feel better than everyone else. They often phrase it in terms of how they are trying to save the world from evil audio companies. They don't have enough self-awareness to realize they are promoting their own dogmatic views. As with so many places on the web, critical thinking and analysis is completely lacking.



Hahaha. Yes sir. You are right. I fear your post will mysteriously disappear soon.


----------



## gregorio

protoss said:


> [1] Isnt this whole thread a stab in the neck to every audio company out there? [2] How can you let a rant like this continue?



1. No, it's not. Only to the rip-off audiophile companies.
2. You do realise this is the science forum? It's perfectly OK here to rant on occasion about how the science is being perverted in order to rip-off audiophiles. 



pctazhp said:


> Junk science and phony intellectualism.



Agreed, so why don't you stop it then? 

G


----------



## gregorio

protoss said:


> I fear your post will mysteriously disappear soon.



Hopefully it will but it won't be mysteriously, it will be because it's offensive nonsense from someone who is guilty of exactly what he's accusing everyone else of and is butt-hurt that he's been called-out on it. Hopefully the last few posts, including these last two of mine, will be deleted and we'll get back to the actual facts. You do realise this is the science forum?

G


----------



## Whazzzup (Jun 4, 2017)

So there is no end game, night and day, total bliss, out can or system if I just drop a few more grand (s) maybe many more, or wait for the next upgrade? I hear if I just drop my drawers and buy Dave and utopia I will know what I'm missing, or susvara, or Orpheus 2... now I'm confused, sarcasm off


----------



## protoss

gregorio said:


> Hopefully it will but it won't be mysteriously, it will be because it's offensive nonsense from someone who is guilty of exactly what he's accusing everyone else of and is butt-hurt that he's been called-out on it. Hopefully the last few posts, including these last two of mine, will be deleted and we'll get back to the actual facts. You do realise this is the science forum?
> 
> G


Yes yes i understand. This thread triggered me it seems.

Cheers


----------



## protoss

Whazzzup said:


> So there is no end game, night and day, total bliss, out can or system if I just drop a few more grand (s) maybe many more, or wait for the next upgrade? I hear if I just drop my drawers and buy Dave and utopia I will know what I'm missing, or susvara, or Orpheus 2... now I'm confused, sarcasm off



I notice you have Hugo and the TT? Any difference in your opinion? Major or little?

Cheers


----------



## danadam

protoss said:


> I will write it again . Took out the so call offense parts jeez.


Why? it's all there in post 1347, only you put it in the quoted part. Click the "Click to expand..." link and you can read it, even "the so call offense parts".


----------



## protoss

danadam said:


> Why? it's all there in post 1347, only you put it in the quoted part. Click the "Click to expand..." link and you can read it, even "the so call offense parts".



No i rewrote it again. Kind of double post it without the quote and that was deleted.

It dosnt matter anymore. This is all silly anyway 

Cheers


----------



## ranfan (Jun 4, 2017)

Whazzzup said:


> So there is no end game, night and day, total bliss, out can or system if I just drop a few more grand (s) maybe many more, or wait for the next upgrade? I hear if I just drop my drawers and buy Dave and utopia I will know what I'm missing, or susvara, or Orpheus 2... now I'm confused, sarcasm off


What we should not forget however is for what purpose all this end-game pursuit consequently, if not for our relative/subjective happiness.  At the moment, just enjoy.


Only sharing my subjective experience. After A/B testing music sound quality from my new $200 portable DAP, and old laptop soundcard. I was quite surprised to find myself liking the sound of the laptop better. Although it has more hiss/background noise. I found that the sound is for me better, more-favourable. This taught me that even though something may be more expensive, has more technical features, etc. It will all eventually comes to our personal taste. Even though I was quite stubborn then, expecting the new toy (DAP) to perform better to my liking. But unfortunately several A/B testing prove otherwise. Fortunate for me, I could sell the player in the market with not much loss. But imagine being in a similar situation with $2000 desktop DAC, which doesn't sound much different than a $200 one. I think it would be more excruciating.


----------



## U-3C

ranfan said:


> What we should not forget however is for what purpose all this end-game pursuit consequently, if not for our relative/subjective happiness.  At the moment, just enjoy.
> 
> 
> Only sharing my subjective experience.. After A/B testing music sound quality from my new $200 portable DAP, and old laptop soundcard. I was quite surprised to find myself liking the sound of the laptop better. Although it has more hiss/background noise. I found that the sound is for me better, more-favourable. This taught me that even though something may be more expensive, has more technical features, etc. It will all eventually comes to our personal taste. Even though I was quite stubborn then, expecting the new toy (DAP) to perform better to my liking. But unfortunately several A/B testing prove otherwise. Fortunate for me, I could sell the player in the market with not much loss. But imagine being in a similar situation with $2000 desktop DAC, which doesn't sound much different than a $200 one. I think it would be more excruciating. Just my humble opinion.



It's all up to the implementation. My iPhone is amazing compared to my dac. My laptop is amazing compared to my dac. Both are cleaner than my dac/amp combo, more convenient to use and I can tweak the sound to however I like.

I've tried countless headphones and dac/amp combos but you know what? I can get the exact sound I want for free, with a pair of transparent headphones and a laptop or rooted android phone that has a clean output.


----------



## Argyris (Jun 4, 2017)

EDIT 2: Okay, somehow I thought that the quote I was responding to was removed, so I removed my response. Turns out I just missed it scrolling up. In retrospect, it wasn't worth the response anyway, so the record will show that I had to edit a post twice in the space of a minute.

Nice day everybody?


----------



## Whazzzup (Jun 4, 2017)

protoss said:


> I notice you have Hugo and the TT? Any difference in your opinion? Major or little?
> 
> Cheers



Significant difference from hugo, don't give % ever....plus balanced out xlr to my amp so double bonus. I like hugo too as a portable.


----------



## Whazzzup (Jun 4, 2017)

ranfan said:


> What we should not forget however is for what purpose all this end-game pursuit consequently, if not for our relative/subjective happiness.  At the moment, just enjoy.
> 
> 
> Only sharing my subjective experience. After A/B testing music sound quality from my new $200 portable DAP, and old laptop soundcard. I was quite surprised to find myself liking the sound of the laptop better. Although it has more hiss/background noise. I found that the sound is for me better, more-favourable. This taught me that even though something may be more expensive, has more technical features, etc. It will all eventually comes to our personal taste. Even though I was quite stubborn then, expecting the new toy (DAP) to perform better to my liking. But unfortunately several A/B testing prove otherwise. Fortunate for me, I could sell the player in the market with not much loss. But imagine being in a similar situation with $2000 desktop DAC, which doesn't sound much different than a $200 one. I think it would be more excruciating.


I ran my 846 from a phone and i pad for a while after i got my first totl iem, not bad. Hugo improved it for sure but once you become accustomed to correct timber, bass tightness, note depth, the iPhone and iPad become noticeably different. there are differences between my fostex hpa8 akm chip dac and my fga hugo, certainly differences again between hugo and my TT. granted this has generated preferences in use for me as well as the cans that i use with each..... notice i never stated better or % but to me there are advantages to dac amps....the budget is independent and i don't mock folks that have price points beyond mine and i know there are price points beyond even them....however there is an endless if i spend more shtick for what, that i think we all can be satisfied, at whatever price point you are comfortable with, in this hobby.


----------



## Argyris

gregorio said:


> ...it will be because it's offensive nonsense from someone who is guilty of exactly what he's accusing everyone else of and is butt-hurt that he's been called-out on it.
> G



I've considered responding a few times just for the lulz, but it's pointless arguing with a keyboard warrior. You can play with them and rile them up and make them waste their time, but continually engaging just gives them what they want.


----------



## castleofargh

there is a rule against arguing about moderation, and this is a good example of why it exists.
half a page of irrelevant noise serving no purpose whatsoever and making no sense. all because @protoss wants to pretend he doesn't know what he shouldn't have written in the post I deleted. and to make a point, he repost without the sentence he doesn't know he shouldn't have written. 
next time you want to play dumb do it in PM with me or another moderator instead of creating this off topic mess.

then @pctazhp jumps on the occasion to settle a score, again. and tells us how much better he is than those fools who think they are better than others. 

I'm learning a lot about logic today.
now how about we discuss the topic without trying to roast anybody who dared to have an opinion(that's my job)? I've asked nicely too many times on this topic already.


----------



## U-3C

Just checked back in SS after some off time.

Seems like I missed all the drama!


----------



## Argyris

U-3C said:


> Just checked back in SS in quite a while.
> 
> Seems like I missed all the drama!



Not much, really. This thread got dredged up again a few weeks ago, and we got another the reason you suck speech, even though nobody had actually posted here for ages. An army of industrial sized strawmen was subsequently erected, all the crows were frightened clear across the world, and everybody made the mistake of taking the bait again.

I miss the crows. I wonder what they're doing right now. Probably something involving counting, starring in a David Attenborough program, and murder.


----------



## pctazhp

castleofargh said:


> then @pctazhp jumps on the occasion to settle a score, again. and tells us how much better he is than those fools who think they are better than others.



I always say never allow a good crisis to pass without taking advantage of it


----------



## Whazzzup

crisis? what crisis


----------



## protoss

Crisis core? First released in 2007, the game is a prequel to the 1997 video game _Final Fantasy VII_ and is a part of the metaseries _Compilation of Final Fantasy VII_, which includes other products related to the original game.


----------



## pctazhp

Whazzzup said:


> crisis? what crisis



The "occasion" to which the moderator was referring. To those of us who have no life outside of HeadFi, it's a crisis


----------



## protoss

pctazhp said:


> The "occasion" to which the moderator was referring. To those of us who have no life outside of HeadFi, it's a crisis



wow correct again sir. I do notice Head-Fi is an obsession. Almost a facebook/twitter/instargram obsession.


----------



## protoss

Argyris said:


> Not much, really. This thread got dredged up again a few weeks ago, and we got another the reason you suck speech, even though nobody had actually posted here for ages. An army of industrial sized strawmen was subsequently erected, all the crows were frightened clear across the world, and everybody made the mistake of taking the bait again.
> 
> I miss the crows. I wonder what they're doing right now. Probably something involving counting, starring in a David Attenborough program, and murder.



Thats funny what you wrote. I just had to respond to the host thou. It was eating me alive lol. Someone saying audio companies are ripoffs and basically poisonous but yet still drop $2000.00 on their next item every month or so is mind-boggling. 

cheers


----------



## RCBinTN

castleofargh said:


> there is a rule against arguing about moderation, and this is a good example of why it exists.
> half a page of irrelevant noise serving no purpose whatsoever and making no sense. all because @protoss wants to pretend he doesn't know what he shouldn't have written in the post I deleted. and to make a point, he repost without the sentence he doesn't know he shouldn't have written.
> next time you want to play dumb do it in PM with me or another moderator instead of creating this off topic mess.
> 
> ...



I missed all the drama, but I want to say that's one of the best posts I've ever seen from any moderator.  Well done, @castleofargh 
We, or at least I, know you guys have a tough job and gratis to boot!


----------

